A120 Braintree to A12 Essex County Council
Environmental Assessment Report Volume 1 B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 | P00.1 24/11/16
ENVIR ONMEN TAL ASSESSM ENT R EPORT Essex C ounty Council ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Contents Executive Summary ...... 6 Introduction ...... 9 1. Purpose and structure of this report ...... 10 2. The scheme ...... 12 2.1 Need for the scheme ...... 12 2.2 Location ...... 12 2.3 History...... 12 2.4 Planning policies and context ...... 12 2.5 Aims and objectives ...... 14 2.6 Chapter References ...... 15 3. Options ...... 16 3.1 Options generation and sifting process ...... 16 3.2 Descriptions of options currently under evaluation ...... 17 3.3 Chapter References ...... 21 4. Overall assessment methodology and approach to options evaluation ...... 22 4.1 Study area ...... 22 4.2 Assessment scope and key guidance ...... 22 4.3 Scale of significant effects ...... 23 4.4 Chapter References ...... 23 5. Stakeholder engagement ...... 24 Options Evaluation and Scoping Assessment ...... 32 6. Air Quality and Carbon Emissions ...... 33 6.1 Scope of assessment ...... 33 6.2 Policy and guidance ...... 33 6.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 34 6.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 36 6.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 36 6.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 37 6.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 37 6.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 39 6.9 Mitigation and opportunities ...... 42 6.10 Scoping Assessment ...... 42 6.11 Chapter references ...... 43 7. Cultural heritage ...... 44 7.1 Scope of assessment ...... 44 7.2 Policy and guidance ...... 44 7.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 47 7.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 50 7.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 50 7.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 51 7.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 51
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 52 7.11 Chapter references ...... 58 8. Landscape ...... 59 8.1 Scope of assessment ...... 59 8.2 Policy and guidance ...... 59 8.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 60 8.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 63 8.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 63 8.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 63 8.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 64 8.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 73 8.9 Mitigation and opportunities ...... 82 8.10 Scoping Assessment ...... 82 8.11 Chapter References ...... 83 9. Nature conservation ...... 84 9.1 Scope of assessment ...... 84 9.2 Policy and guidance ...... 85 9.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 90 9.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 95 9.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 96 9.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 97 9.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 98 9.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 107 9.9 Mitigation and opportunities ...... 115 9.10 Scoping Assessment ...... 116 9.11 References ...... 119 10. Geology and soils ...... 120 10.1 Scope of assessment ...... 120 10.2 Policy and guidance ...... 120 10.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 122 10.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 127 10.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 129 10.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 129 10.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 129 10.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 137 10.9 Mitigation and opportunities ...... 146 10.10 Scoping Assessment ...... 148 10.11 Chapter References ...... 149 11. Materials ...... 150 11.1 Scope of assessment ...... 150 11.2 Policy and guidance ...... 150 11.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 152
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
11.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 154 11.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 154 11.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 154 11.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 154 11.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 157 11.9 Mitigation and opportunities ...... 160 11.10 Scoping Assessment ...... 162 12. Noise and vibration ...... 163 12.1 Scope of assessment ...... 163 12.2 Policy and guidance ...... 163 12.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 165 12.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 168 12.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 169 12.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 169 12.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 169 12.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 170 12.9 Mitigation and opportunities ...... 189 12.10 Scoping Assessment ...... 190 12.11 Chapter References ...... 190 13. People and communities ...... 191 13.1 Scope of assessment ...... 191 13.2 Policy and guidance ...... 192 13.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 194 13.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 198 13.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 199 13.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 199 13.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 199 13.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 205 13.9 Mitigation and opportunities ...... 212 13.10 Scoping Assessment ...... 212 13.11 Chapter References ...... 213 14. Road drainage and the water environment...... 215 14.1 Scope of assessment ...... 215 14.2 Policy and guidance ...... 215 14.3 Definition of significant effects ...... 216 14.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement ...... 218 14.5 Field surveys and modelling ...... 219 14.6 Assumptions and uncertainties ...... 219 14.7 Environmental baseline description ...... 220 14.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified ...... 223 14.9 Mitigation and opportunities ...... 235 14.10 Scoping Assessment ...... 238
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.11 Chapter References ...... 239 End Section ...... 240 15. Cumulative effects ...... 241 16. Summary of findings ...... 242 17. Next steps ...... 249 17.1 Statutory EIA ...... 249 17.2 Appropriate assessment ...... 249 17.3 Potential consents and approvals ...... 249 17.4 Future Surveys ...... 250 17.5 Future Stages ...... 250 17.6 Chapter References ...... 251
Appendix A. Air Quality...... 252 Appendix B. Archaeology: Cultural Heritage Asset Inventory ...... 254 Appendix C. Ecology ...... 261 Appendix D. Geology and Soils ...... 271 Appendix E. Abbreviations ...... 280
VOLUME 2
Environmental Assessment Report: Volume 2 – Figures. Report No. B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN- 0011 | P00.1
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Executive Summary The A120 currently faces severe congestion at both ends of the section between Braintree and Marks Tey. To address this, Essex County Council is undertaking a feasibility study for a scheme to upgrade the A120 between Braintree and the A12 (hereafter referred to as the A120 Scheme). It has been agreed by Essex County Council, the Department for Transport (DfT) and Highways England Company Ltd (Highways England) that Essex County Council will lead on the review of options to identify a preferred route for the A120 Scheme.
This report is the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) for the A120 Scheme. It has been produced to support the Technical Appraisal Report (TAR) in the scheme assessment process. The EAR identifies the key environmental opportunities and constraints that would need to be considered in taking forward the A120 Scheme. It summarises the baseline data gathered from a desk top review and surveys and identifies the potential environmental risks that could be result from the A120 Scheme. It also assesses the proposed options in terms of whether they are likely to be significant environmental effects.
The primary aim of the A120 Scheme is to alleviate congestion and improve safety on the A120 between Braintree and the A12. The following objectives for the A120 Scheme were agreed by Essex County Council and Highways England:
Provide and maintain physical infrastructure that facilitates housing and economic growth and enables businesses to flourish. Reduce congestion related delay, improve journey time reliability and increase the overall transport capacity of the A120 corridor. Increase the resilience of the transport network by improving the ability of the A120 corridor to cope with incidents such as collisions, breakdowns, maintenance and flooding. Improve safety for all road users and road workers within the A120 corridor. Improve the environmental impact of transport on communities along the existing A120 corridor and reduce the impact of new infrastructure on the natural and built environment by design. Improve connectivity within communities and to the wider transport network by reducing severance and increasing accessibility for local residents. Improve the quality and connectivity of transport provision within the A120 corridor for people using non- motorised forms of transport, such as pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. Encourage alternatives to car travel through improvements to the attractiveness of public transport along the A120 corridor. Options Sifting Process
An options generation process was undertaken in 2015 with the purpose of developing a set of conceptual options. These options were amalgamated into 27 options to take forward into a sifting process. The DfT Early Assessment Sifting Tool and transport appraisal process was used to inform the sifting process. This resulted in nine options being taken forward. These nine options were then compared against a series of criteria, relating to environmental risk, engineering considerations and value for money. Some further route alignment adjustments to take account of evolving information resulted in five route options identified for further assessment.
Route Options Currently under Consideration
The five route options currently under consideration are as follows:
Option 1B – The large majority of this route is offline and it is approximately 15km long. The route will cross the River Brain, the River Blackwater, under the Braintree Branch railway line and over the Great Eastern Mainline Railway. The route also crosses Bradwell Quarry. Option 3 - This route option is proposed to be approximately 14km long, of which approximately 5km is on- line. It crosses the River Blackwater and Great Eastern Mainline Railway. Option 4B – This route option is offline and approximately 13 km long. It crosses the River Blackwater and runs through Bradwell Quarry.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Option 8 – This route option is offline and approximately 11km long. It crosses Bradwell Quarry, Braintree Branch Line Railway, the Great Eastern Mainline Railway and the River Brain. Option 9A – This route option is offline and approximately 9.5km long. It runs through the south west of Bradwell Quarry, crosses the River Brain and crosses the Great Eastern Mainline Railway. Baseline Environment
A geographic area of impact has been determined for the A120 Scheme. The geographic area of impact defines the areas within which each of the route options were generated. A further study area of 3km around the GAI has been defined for assessing environmental effects. However, each of the technical assessments has a specific study area based on individual guidance and methodology. Key environmental designations and features in the study area are summarised in Table A1.
Table A1 – Key Environmental Designations and Features
Environmental Topic Key Designations and Features
Air Quality • There are no are quality management areas (AQMAs) within 200m of the proposed routes. • There are a number of residential areas along the existing A120 and route options. • Background annual mean pollutant concentrations are generally below objective thresholds in the area. • The dominant sources of carbon emissions in area is road traffic Cultural Heritage • Range of archaeological and built heritage features in the area, including grade II and grade II* listed buildings. • A number of unidentified archaeological remains have been noted along the route options. • A number of scheduled monuments. Landscape • Most of the routes fall within an ancient landscape of wooded arable countryside. • There are a number of conservation areas, including areas in Braintree, Cressing, White Notley, Silver End, Stisted, Kelvdeon and Feering. • Numerous listed buildings. • Areas of ancient woodland. • A number of scheduled monuments. • Three areas of common land. (Lanham Green Common Land -The application for Common Land status has not been confirmed). • Views from public rights of way. Ecology and Nature • A number of non-designated sites, including local nature reserves, local Conservation wildlife sites and veteran trees. • A number of habitats which are considered to be priority habitats • A number of habitats which may support protected and notable species. Geology and Soils • One licenced abstraction well located on the route. • Seven domestic abstraction wells within 250m. • A number of areas of secondary aquifers. • Crosses a number of watercourses, within two major watercourses, River Blackwater and River Brain. • A number of surface water abstractions within 250m of the routes. • Several of the routes cross Bradwell Quarry. • A number of land contamination sources including numerous farms, railway lines, substations, vehicle scrap yards and Bradwell Quarry. Noise and Vibration • A number of Noise Important Areas including areas around Braintree, Bradwell, Marks Tey, Coggeshall and Kelvdeon. • There are a number of residential receptors in the area. • Existing noise sources are from road traffic, aircraft and farm activity.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Environmental Topic Key Designations and Features
People and communities • A number of public rights of way. • Bus stops. • Community facilities (schools, sports clubs). • Local businesses. • Registered common land on Braintree Road and Lanham Green. Road drainage and the • There are four watercourses that are designated as Main Rivers in the water environment study area: the River Brain, the Rivenhall Brook, the River Blackwater and the Domsey Brook. • Within the study area there are also a number of Ordinary Watercourses (non-statutory Main-River). • There are a number of flood risk areas associated with the watercourses. • The majority of the study area, for all options, as being within zones with less than 25% of the area susceptible to groundwater flooding. Options Evaluation
All of the options result in broadly similar levels of effects, generally with an overall potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. Overall slight adverse effects are expected for air quality effects and overall significant beneficial effects are expected for noise. Significant adverse effects which can’t be mitigated may occur on two properties for noise for options 3 and 8 and for one property for option 1B.
Key areas for consideration are:
Effects on habitats for protected species and on protected species themselves; Heritage setting and views effects on listed buildings and conservation areas; and Effects on views where the routes cross rivers (such as the River Brain and Blackwater) and views where the routes cross railways. However, it is considered that these effects may be possible to mitigate.
Benefits include improvements in air quality and noise along the existing A120 and economic benefits from reduction in travel times and economic uplift. Further to this, some beneficial effects are predicted on residential receptors along the route options for effects from noise.
It should be noted that at this stage of the assessment process, given the design stage and mostly desktop baseline data gatherings, effects should be considered as potential effects. Further investigation through data collection, desk studies and site surveys are required to fully ascertain the effects and mitigation, if required.
Next Steps
A number of ecology surveys (such as bat surveys and priority species surveys) will be required in Stage 2. These surveys are required to further ascertain potential impacts to priority and European protected species. Avoidance or mitigation measures can then be developed to mitigate potential impacts. Noise and air quality modelling should be undertaken when traffic modelling data is available as part of stage 2. The current noise and air quality assessment is qualitative and a quantitative assessment is required to confirm findings. Further to this, it is anticipated that this EAR will be updated once a preferred route has been indicated. It is expected that the Stage 2 EAR will mostly rely on desk-based assessment, with the exception of ecology surveys, but will be focused on the effects of a preferred route option. This will then be used to inform a scoping opinion in PCF Stage 3.
Long term, the A120 Scheme is likely to require a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a scoping opinion should be obtained in PCF Stage 3.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Introduction
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
1. Purpose and structure of this report
Essex County Council is undertaking a feasibility study for a project to upgrade the A120 between Braintree and the A12. It has been agreed by Essex County Council, the Department for Transport (DfT) and Highways England Company Ltd (Highways England) that the county council will lead on the review of options to identify a preferred route.
This Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) presents the findings of an environmental evaluation of options for the A120 Braintree to A12 scheme (the A120 scheme). This reflects work undertaken as part of Stage 1 of the Highways England (formerly Highways Agency) Project Control Framework (PCF Stage 1).
This report includes an introductory section setting the scene for the assessment, an options evaluation and scoping assessment section and an end section summarising the findings of the assessment. The following provides an overview of the content and structure of this report.
Introduction Chapter 1 – Purpose and Structure of this Report; this Chapter, is a brief overview of the purpose and structure of the EAR. Chapter 2 – The Scheme; The need for the A120 scheme, including spatial context and history, planning policy and the aims and objectives of the A120 scheme. Chapter 3 – Options; An overview of the options currently under evaluation, including how the ‘sifting’ process was undertaken and a description of the options currently under evaluation. Chapter 4 – Overall Assessment Methodology and Approach for Options Evaluation; A discussion on the assessment methodology and the approach for the environmental options evaluation. Chapter 5 – Stakeholder Engagement; A summary of the stakeholder engagement with regards to the environmental assessment. Options Evaluation and Scoping Assessment Chapters 6 to 14 - Technical assessments providing the following; - A description of the planning policy context relevant to the technical assessment. - A definition of what constitutes a significant effect. - The data sources used for the technical assessment and any stakeholder engagement specific to that technical assessment. - Details of field surveys and any modelling work undertaken. - Details of any assumptions used as part of the assessment work or any uncertainties in the assessment work. - A description of the environmental baseline. - An assessment of the potential effects on the environment of each of the A120 Scheme options described in Chapter 3. - Any identified mitigation or opportunities for enhanced mitigation from the assessment of potential effects. - A scoping assessment identifying potential issues, scope and approach for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the preferred option, once identified. - Chapter References – a list of the documents referred to in the chapter.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
End Section Chapter 15 – Cumulative Effects; A discussion on the potential future assessment of cumulative schemes. Cumulative effects are the combined effects from different schemes or from the interaction of different effects acting together on a receptor. Chapter 16 – Concluding Comments; A conclusion summarising the broad outcomes of the environmental evaluation of options. Chapter 17 – Next Steps; Details of any further work which is required and the next steps in the environmental assessment of the A120 Scheme.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
2. The scheme
2.1 Need for the scheme
The A120 currently faces severe congestion at both ends of the section between Braintree and Marks Tey. This section is the one of the few remaining single carriageway sections in an otherwise dual carriageway route.
The Galleys Corner and Marks Farm roundabouts in the west and the junction with the A12 at Marks Tey in the east, in particular, suffer from congestion, which is not only limited to peak periods. There is also congestion at the junction with the B1024 Colne Road, Coggeshall. Journey time delays, low travel speed and capacity issues are at least partially attributable to the unusually high number of side road junctions and private and commercial premises with direct access to the A120, which are not typical of a UK trunk road. The congestion is currently acting as a barrier to economic growth in the area and creating road safety issues; therefore there is an overwhelming need to resolve these issues.
2.2 Location
The A120 is a major route through southern East Anglia. Within the area considered in this report, the A120 connects the major towns of Colchester and Braintree and smaller towns and villages including Marks Tey and Coggeshall. The study area showing the existing A120 under consideration is shown on Figure 2.1.1 in Volume 2.
2.3 History
During the early 2000’s, the Highways Agency (now Highways England) carried out a study of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. This work identified link and junction capacity, road safety and environmental problems along the existing route. It was determined that an improvement scheme was required to resolve these issues. A number of options were put forward in 2003 and 2005, including a new spur of the A120 connecting to the A12. Public engagement was undertaken during February 2005 on these options. However, the scheme did not proceed because of insufficient funding.
It has subsequently been recognised that the socio-economic and travel context of the area is generating longer commuter journeys. This is acting as a constraint on future growth at a local and regional level. Therefore, the Essex County Council is now currently further reviewing options to reduce congestion and improve safety on the A120. The Essex County Council are establishing a business case for an improvement scheme to accommodate future increases in traffic flows and facilitate economic growth.
2.4 Planning policies and context
The following Chapter provides a description of the planning policies and context for obtaining approval for the A120 Scheme. It should be noted that the project is still at an early stage of engagement on selecting a possible appropriate route. However, it is important to consider the appropriate policies and legislation early in the planning process. This EAR represents an early stage of the options decision process and will guide further work and future assessments to meet planning policies and legislation.
2.4.1 National policies
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.
EIA is the process of gathering information, undertaking consultation and performing an impact assessment which will ultimately conclude with preparation of an Environmental Statement.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
General principles for EIA on highway schemes are set out in the 'Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, volume 11' (DMRB) (Highways Agency, 2003), together with specific guidance on individual environmental topics.
2.4.1.1 The Planning Act 2008
The Planning Act 2008, and related secondary legislation, sets out the planning regime in relation to applications for orders granting development consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). NSIPs are large scale developments which require a type of consent known as ‘development consent’ under procedures governed by the Planning Act 2008 (‘the Planning Act’) (and amended by the Localism Act 2011). The A120 Scheme can be considered a NSIP scheme and will therefore require a development consent order (DCO). The EIA will be used as supporting information for the DCO, which will be required at a later stage.
2.4.1.2 National Networks National Planning Policy Statement
The National Networks National Policy Statement (Depart for Transport 2014) (NN NPS) sets out the need for and the Government’s policies to deliver, the development of NSIPs on the national road and rail networks in England. It provides planning guidance for promoters of NSIPs on the road and rail networks and the basis for the examination by the Examining Authority and decisions by the Secretary of State. The thresholds for nationally significant road, rail and strategic rail freight infrastructure projects are defined in the Planning Act as amended (for highway and railway projects) by The Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013 ("the Threshold Order"). For the purposes of this NPS, these developments are referred to as national road, rail and strategic rail freight interchange developments.
The Secretary of State will use this NPS as the primary basis for making decisions on development consent applications for national networks NSIPs in England.
2.4.1.3 Development Consent Order
A Development Consent Order (DCO) is the means of obtaining permission for developments categorised as NSIP. An application must be drafted by the applicant seeking development consent and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, together with other prescribed documents such as an Environmental Statement, with the NSIP application. The Planning Inspectorate will consider the application and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who will decide whether development consent should be granted for the proposed scheme.
2.4.2 Regional and local policies
Essex County Council is responsible for planning issues relating to planning, mineral and waste planning and land and buildings owned by the council. All other planning and development issues are the responsibility of the relevant district and borough councils.
Essex County Council’s Spatial Planning team works closely with district and borough councils (including Colchester Borough Council and Braintree Borough Council) to ensure that their local development plans are in line with Essex County Council priorities and the delivery of services. Table 2.1 details current local planning policy documents relevant to the A120 Scheme that have been considered in this review. The local plans can comprise of a series of documents, including Core Strategy, Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD), Development Policies DPD and Proposals Maps. To meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, Colchester Borough Council and Braintree District Council are in the process of producing new Local Plans, which will replace the policies set out in current adopted documents.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 2.1 : Regional and Local planning policy documents relevant to the A120 Scheme
Local Planning Authority Planning policy document
Essex County Council Essex County Council: Essex Transport Strategy, June 2011 (Essex County Council, 2011).
Essex County Council: Vision for Essex 2013 – 2017, June 2013 (Essex County Council, 2013).
Essex County Council: Essex Economic Growth Strategy, September 2012 (Essex County Council, 2012).
Essex County Council: Sustainable Economic Growth for Essex Communities and Businesses - Commissioning Strategy 2014 – 2021 (Essex County Council, 2014).
Essex County Council: Integrated County Strategy, December 2010 (Essex County Council, 2010).
Colchester Borough Council Colchester Borough Council, Adopted Local Plan 2001 – 2021, adopted 2008, amended 2014 (Colchester County Council, 2008).
Colchester Borough Council, Emerging (Preferred Options) Local Plan 2017 – 2032, July 2014 (Colchester County Council, 2014).
Braintree District Council Braintree District Council, Local Plan 2011 – 2026, September 2011 (Braintree District Council, 2011).
Braintree District Council, Emerging Local Plan 2017 – 2033, 2015 (Braintree District Council, 2015).
2.4.3 Highways England commitments
While the A120 Scheme is currently being sponsored by Essex County Council, it may be the case that in the future it will be sponsored by Highways England. Therefore it is important to consider Highways England commitments, against which their performance is measured. These are detailed in their Strategic Business Plan, and are listed below. Making the network safer. Improving user satisfaction. Supporting the smooth flow of traffic. Encouraging economic growth. Delivering better environmental outcomes. Helping cyclist, walkers and other vulnerable users. Achieving real efficiency. Keeping the network in good shape.
2.5 Aims and objectives
The primary aim of the A120 Scheme is to alleviate congestion and improve safety on the A120 between Braintree and the A12 near Marks Tey. The following objectives for the A120 Scheme were agreed by Essex County Council and Highways England in a project board meeting in January 2016: Provide and maintain physical infrastructure that facilitates housing and economic growth and enables businesses to flourish. Reduce congestion related delay, improve journey time reliability and increase the overall transport capacity of the A120 corridor. Increase the resilience of the transport network by improving the ability of the A120 corridor to cope with incidents such as collisions, breakdowns, maintenance and flooding. Improve safety for all road users and road workers within the A120 corridor.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 14 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Improve the environmental impact of transport on communities along the existing A120 corridor and reduce the impact of new infrastructure on the natural and built environment by design. Improve connectivity within communities and to the wider transport network by reducing severance and increasing accessibility for local residents. Improve the quality and connectivity of transport provision within the A120 corridor for people using non- motorised forms of transport, such as pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. Encourage alternatives to car travel through improvements to the attractiveness of public transport along the A120 corridor.
2.6 Chapter References Braintree District Council (2015) Emerging Local Plan [online] Available at: http://www.braintree.gov.uk/info/200230/planning_policy/701/new_local_plan Braintree District Council (2011) Local Plan 2011-2026 [online] Available at: http://www.braintree.gov.uk/info/200230/ldf_and_planning_policy/251/site_allocations_and_development_ management_plan Colchester Borough Council (2008) Current Local Plan 2001-2021. Amended 2014. [online] Available at: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/article/13289/Current-Local-Plan-2001-2021. Colchester Borough Council (2014) Emerging Local Plan 2017-2032 [online] Available at: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/localplan Department for Transport (2014) National Policy Statement for National Networks [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-policy-statement-for-national-networks Essex County Council (2014) Sustainable Economic Growth for Essex Communities and Businesses – Commissioning Strategy 2014-2021 [online] Available at: https://www.essex.gov.uk/Your- Council/Strategies-Policies/Documents/Sustainable_Economic_Growth.pdf Essex County Council (2013) Vision for Essex 2013-2017 [online] Available at: http://www.essex.gov.uk/News/Documents/Vision_for_Essex.pdf Essex County Council (2012). Essex Economic Growth Strategy [online] Available at: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Strategies-Policies/Documents/Economic-Growth-Strategy.pdf Essex County Council (2011) Essex Transport Strategy: the Local Transport Plan for Essex [online] Available at: https://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Planning/Transport- planning/Documents/Essex_Transport_Strategy.pdf Essex County Council (2010) Integrated County Strategy [online] Available at: https://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Strategies-Policies/Integrated-County- Strategy/Documents/Integrated%20County%20Strategy%20-%20Final.pdf Highways England (2015) Strategic Business Plan. 2015 – 202. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396487/141209_Strategic_B usiness_Plan_Final.pdf Highways Agency (2009) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. HA200/08. Volume 11. Available at: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/index.htm
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 15 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
3. Options
3.1 Options generation and sifting process
3.1.1 Options Generation
The following provides a summary of the options generation process, more detailed information and description on the methodology is provided in the Options Assessment Report.
An options generation workshop was held in November 2015 with the purpose of developing a set of conceptual options to provide the basis of a formalised long list of options. Attendees of the workshop included officers from Highways England, Essex County Council, Braintree District Council, Colchester Borough Council and Essex Police as well as the multi-disciplinary Jacobs UK Limited (Jacobs) consultancy team. The result of this process was a list of 47 options including 44 highways alignments and three rail options.
Additional options were added to the list based on research into historic options put forward when a similar scheme was being considered in 2003 and 2005, with the aim of capturing all known previous options. At the end of this step a total of 68 options had been identified. These included a variety of possible on-line and off-line highway improvement solutions.
Many of the highways options shared common, albeit loosely defined, spatial corridors. Options were therefore aggregated into common groups where similar options started and finished at substantially the same location and shared a broadly similar alignment. A total of 27 aggregated options were identified to be taken forward into the sifting process.
3.1.2 Sifting Process
The following provides an overview of the sifting process from an environmental perspective. More detailed information and description on the methodology is provided in the Options Appraisal Report (Jacobs, 2016).
The starting point for the environmental evaluation of these options was to identify the various environmental features and constraints within the study area. The purpose was to avoid constraints where possible and identify corridors where the options being considered could be routed so as to minimise environmental effects. A desk study was undertaken and the environmental features and constraints identified were mapped onto GIS and overlain against the route options.
The DfT Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) (DfT, undated) and transport appraisal process (DfT, 2014) was used to inform ‘sifting’ of and refinements to the remaining route options having regard for highways design standards and environmental constraints, with the aim of improving the alignments carried forward. A total of nine highway improvement options were identified as part of the sifting process.
Further development and appraisal of the potential options was then undertaken to identify the better performing options to take forward to Stage 1 of the PCF process. This involved developing potential options to a sufficient level of design/specification and collecting sufficient desk-based evidence. This was undertaken to better distinguish the relative costs, benefits and impacts of the options under consideration. In accordance with DfT guidance, the nine potential options were assessed against the Transport Business Case Fives Cases criteria using the Option Assessment Framework. The outcome of the assessment was that each of the routes had an equal standing, but further assessment would be required to identify the better performing option.
A further optioneering exercise was undertaken to assess if it was possible to reduce the nine route options being carried forward for future evaluation. A series of criteria were developed, relating to potential risk items along the proposed routes. Risks were related to environmental issues, engineering issues and value for money. In terms of environment, a key consideration was significant effects which would not be mitigated by design.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
At this stage, prior to further data collection and assessment (such as desktops and site surveys), no route options at this stage were expected to result in significant effects which could not be mitigated during the design process. The impacts of each route were found to differ depending on the route location. However, the overall level and type of effects associated with each route option were generally considered to be comparable and not a differentiating consideration at this stage. Therefore engineering criteria were applied to further reduce the route options.
Following this process resulted in three route corridors; a northern corridor, central corridor and southern corridor. Within these route corridors, five route options have been identified, as follows; Northern part on-line route – Route Option 3; Central routes – Route Options 1B and 4B; and Southern routes – Route Options 8 and 9A.
Some further minor adjustments to the route options have been made to avoid environmental constraints where possible.
3.2 Descriptions of options currently under evaluation
3.2.1 Overview
As described in Chapter 3.1, five potential route options have been taken forward into Stage 1 of the PCF process for further consideration. The five potential route options are illustrated together on Figure 3.1.1 in Volume 2 and further described in the following Chapter.
3.2.2 Design Assumptions
Many aspects of the design will not be developed until later on in the design process. Therefore, for the purposes of this environmental assessment some design assumptions have been made which are summarised below.
3.2.2.1 Expressway
It is proposed for the A120 to be designed as an expressway. Standards and guidance for expressways are still under development by Highways England but details available to date indicate that the following will be requirements of an expressway: Emergency Refuge Areas (ERAs) spaced at 2.5km in each direction with Variable Message Signs (VMS) on cantilever gantries co-located at the ERAs; Banning of Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) from the road; Proposed Central Reserve Concrete Barrier; CCTV cameras to provide comprehensive coverage; Incident detection system; and Boundary fencing required to be maintained by the Highway Authority.
At this design stage most of these features have not been designed; the design that has been undertaken makes allowance for their future inclusion.
3.2.2.2 Highway Design
The mainline horizontal and vertical radii are all desirable minimum or within allowable relaxations. In later design stages verge and central reserve widening will be added to provide the requisite sight distance, thus locally increasing the cross section of the road from that currently shown. In space critical locations, for instance Galleys Corner, the design has allowed for this widening.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 17 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The horizontal alignment of the A120 mainline (within the general corridor of the route option) may vary at a later date as the result of consultation comments or further assessments. The vertical alignment of the mainline is likely to be varied as the design develops to optimise the earthworks balance or suit other requirements like drainage as information becomes available.
Due to the provision of the ERAs in accordance with the draft expressway standards it is not expected for any other laybys or rest areas to be provided but the need will be assessed during later design stages. The need for maintenance hard / standings will be developed as the A120 Scheme develops.
3.2.2.3 Junctions
The junction arrangements shown have been developed without the full traffic model and therefore are subject to change, so at this stage must be considered as indicative. The junctions show a potential solution which will be further developed as the scheme progresses and further traffic data becomes available. In particular, the size/detail of roundabouts, approaches/exits, slip road lane provision and merge/diverge layouts may change as information becomes available.
3.2.2.4 Side Roads, Non-Motorised Users and Accommodation Bridges
The side road and NMU diversion layouts shown at this stage are indicative. They have been designed to show what a workable solution could look like. Whilst there have been informal discussions with Essex County Council, they are subject to change as the design detail is developed and the NMU context report is completed at PCF stage 2. All NMU bridges have been designed to double as accommodation bridges, a strategy which will be further reviewed as the design develops and during discussions with both the Essex County Council and affected landowners.
3.2.2.5 Drainage Design
The attenuation pond design developed at this stage is indicative. The designed solution shows the likely extent of attenuation but the position of the ponds is subject to change as the design develops. No access routes for maintenance to / from the ponds are currently shown, the preference will be for off-network access to the ponds.
Culvert locations have been shown based on the current desk based study, as further investigation is carried out as the design develops further culvert locations may be required.
3.2.2.6 Lighting Design
At this stage on the A120 Scheme no lighting assessment has been carried out. The lighting design will not be developed until the preliminary design stage (PCF stage 3). The assumption at this stage is that the junctions and the mainline alignment in the vicinity of the junction will be lit, but all other sections of the A120 scheme will not be lit.
3.2.2.7 Road Pavement Design
The design of the road pavement has not been developed at this stage but assumptions at this stage are that the pavement will be fully flexible or flexible-composite with a Thin Surface Course System as the surface course meaning the noise produced from the road will be lower than a concrete pavement or Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA) with stone chippings.
3.2.2.8 Proposed Structures
At this stage of the A120 Scheme there has been limited structures design. Where side road and accommodation bridges cross the proposed mainline A120 it has been assumed that where possible these will be provided without a pier in the central reserve to reduce maintenance requirements, in addition the preference will be for integral bridges to reduce the maintenance liabilities created by expansion joints.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 18 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Where structures are required over the River Blackwater, the extents of earthworks will be kept out of the flood plain to avoid the requirement for flood compensation and minimise effect on flows. It is assumed at this stage that culverts (River Brain, Robin’s Brook) and underpasses will be retained and extended as required.
3.2.2.9 Geotechnical Design
At this stage limited geotechnical design has been developed and all side slopes have been designed with a 1 in 3 side slope. This is to promote long term stability of the geotechnical structures and to facilitate maintenance activities such as grass cutting.
3.2.3 Route Option Descriptions
3.2.3.1 Route Option 1B
This route option is proposed to be approximately 15km long. The large majority of the route is off-line construction with the exception of some tie-in works at the junctions at either end. Along the route, there are proposed bridges for local road and public rights of way crossings as well as a viaduct to cross the River Blackwater, the crossing under the Braintree Branch Line and over the Great Eastern Mainline Railway (GEML).
Option 1B would commence on the Braintree Southern Bypass, leaving the existing A120 alignment to the east of Notley Road bridge, passing over the River Brain and under the Braintree to Witham railway line. Access to and from Galleys Corner Roundabout would be maintained from the route option via a limited movement grade separated junction with west facing off / on slips. The route then would head east to a new grade separated junction to the north of Tye Green; which connects to the existing A120, B1018 and Fowlers Farm roundabout. The connection to the existing A120 would be through a new link road that bypasses Galley’s corner allowing traffic to head north to Marks Farm roundabout and onto the A131.
Separate to the A120 Braintree-A12 scheme, west facing slip roads off/onto the A120 are being proposed at Millennium Way to provide short-term congestion relief to Galleys Corner. The new A120 proposals in Option 1B and the other options have been developed to be compatible with these additional slip roads.
The route is then proposed to pass to the north of Cressing and Silver End and head eastward, travelling through Bradwell Quarry, to the south of the existing processing plant and over the Bradwell Quarry access road. The route then would travel through the area of future quarry extraction (referred to as area A7 in the Essex County Minerals Plan (Essex County Council, 2014)) and crosses the River Blackwater, north of Coggeshall Hall. Following the River Blackwater, the route continues eastward to the north of Langley Green after which the route would bear southward to join the A12.
3.2.3.2 Route Option 3
This route option is proposed to be approximately 14km long, of which approximately 5km is on-line (or adjacent to the existing A120). Along the route there are proposed bridges for local road and public rights of way crossings as well as a viaduct to cross the River Blackwater.
Option 3 would commence west of the existing Galleys Corner Roundabout. Option 3 would remove the existing roundabout and provide a new grade separated junction to the north east of the existing roundabout, giving access to Marks Farm roundabout, the A131 north, Fowlers Farm roundabout and the B1018. Local roads would be realigned to suit with a separate bridge providing a direct link into Braintree from Ashes Road via Cressing Road. The existing pedestrian underpass west of the existing roundabout would be retained.
After the new Galleys Corner Junction, the route option would continue north-eastward, passing under the existing A120. The route then would loop around, bypassing Bradwell to the north, passing to the north of Miles Farm and crossing the River Blackwater to re-join the existing A120 alignment near Doghouse Road. A grade separated junction is proposed where the new route re-joins the existing A120 in order to facilitate access to and from Bradwell and Bradwell Quarry, from the west of Coggeshall. The proposed A120 crosses over the existing A120 to the east of Whites Hill Farm.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 19 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
It then would follow the existing A120 on a similar alignment but further south, enabling the existing A120 to act as an access road for properties to the north of the road such as Stock Street Farm. A separate new local access road is proposed to the south of the route option to link West Street in Coggeshall to Bradwell for local traffic and non-motorised users.
The proposed route option then joins the existing Coggeshall bypass with the existing A120 used as the westbound carriageway, with a new carriageway provided for the eastbound traffic. The existing at-grade junction at B1024 Colne Road would be replaced with a new compact grade separated junction. It is proposed to close the existing junction with Tey Road, with Tey Road diverted to Colne Road. Following that, the proposed route option alignment moves off-line to the east of the existing A120 and heads south-east, crossing the existing A120 at the beginning of the Coggeshall bypass. A grade separated junction is proposed to give access to Colchester Road and Coggeshall.
Following the Colchester Road junction, the route option would continue south-eastward to join the A12 between the existing J24 (Kelvedon) and J25 (Marks Tey).
3.2.3.3 Route Option 4B
The proposed option is approximately 13km long. The large majority of the route option would be off-line construction with the exception of some tie-in works at the junctions at either end of the route. Along the route there are proposed bridges for local road and public rights of way crossings as well as a viaduct to cross the River Blackwater.
Option 4B would commence west of the existing Galleys Corner Roundabout with a new grade separated junction and local roads similar to Route Option 3. Following the new Galleys Corner junction the proposed route option heads south-eastward, passing between Lanham Wood and Glazenwood Park and to the north of Links Wood and through Bradwell Quarry. The route passes through the existing pit and areas for future excavation. The route option would then join Option 1B to join the A12 between the existing J24 (Kelvedon) and J25 (Marks Tey).
3.2.3.4 Route Option 8
This route option would be approximately 11km long. The large majority of the route would be off-line construction with the exception of some tie-in works at the junctions at either end of the route option. Along the route bridges are proposed for local road and public rights of way crossings as well as the crossing under the Braintree Branch Line and over the GEML.
Route Option 8 commences on the A120 Braintree Southern Bypass as per Option 1B, with the route and junctions following the same alignments until the north of Silver End.
The route option then would turn south-eastward, running through the south-western extents of Bradwell quarry and then through open countryside toward the A12. The route will run through an area of the quarry which is expected to be completed and rehabilitated by the time of construction. The route also passes over a potential mineral site at Parkgate Farm, south of Bradwell Quarry.
The route option would join the A12 at a remodelled Kelvedon South Junction (J23).
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 20 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
3.2.3.5 Route Option 9A
This route option is proposed to be approximately 9.5km long. The large majority of the route is proposed to be off-line construction with the exception of some tie-in works at the junctions at either end. Along the route there are proposed bridges for local road and public rights of way crossings as well as the crossing over the GEML.
Route Option 9A would commence west of the existing Galleys Corner Roundabout as per Route Option 4B, with the route and junctions following the same alignment until after passing Links Wood, west of Bradwell Quarry. The route would then continue south-eastward to join the route of Route Option 8, through the south- west of Bradwell Quarry and onto a remodelled Kelvedon Junction (J23).
3.3 Chapter References
Department for Transport (undated) Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) Guidance (online). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-business-case
Department for Transport (2014) The Transport Appraisal Process. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431185/webtag-tag- transport-appraisal-process.pdf Essex County Council. (2014). Essex Minerals Local Plan. Adopted 2014. Available at: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Planning/Minerals-Waste-Planning-Team/Planning- Policy/minerals-development-document/Documents/Essex%20Minerals%20Plan%20- %20Adopted%20July%202014.pdf Jacobs (2016) A120 Braintree to A12. Options Appraisal Report. Document No. B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00- RP-C-002|P00.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 21 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
4. Overall assessment methodology and approach to options evaluation
4.1 Study area
In terms of the study area, a Geographic Area of Impact (GAI) has been determined, based on guidance from the DoT 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 A120 scheme. The Geographic Area of Impact effectively defines the area within which route options will be generated. The GAI is based on consideration of:
1. “An understanding of the geographical scope of the travel market and key origins and destinations; and
2. An analysis of the geographical extent of current and future transport problems and underlying drivers.”
A further study area has been defined for assessing the environmental effects. The study area defines the limits of the geographical scope for identification of environmental features and constraints relevant to the development of route options. Environmental constraints are shown on Figure 4.1.1 in Volume 2. This is defined by a 3km buffer around the GAI. This study area extends to the north and south of the existing A120 from its junction with the B1018 at Galleys Corner, Braintree through to its junction with the A12 at Marks Tey (A12 Junction 25). However, each of the technical assessments will have a specific study area within this, based on the guidance and methodology for that technical assessment. This is described in the technical assessments in Chapters 6 to 14.
The study area and the GAI is shown on Figure 4.2.1 in Volume 2.
4.2 Assessment scope and key guidance
This EAR has been prepared with reference to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11 (Highways Agency, 2009), which sets out guidance for environmental assessment in relation to all trunk road projects.
While an overall methodology for ranking the scale of significant effects has been developed, each technical assessment will define what is considered a significant effect based on specific policy and guidance. A description of the methodology for each of the technical assessments is given in Chapters 6 to 14.
The assessment uses a six point assessment scale set out in Table 4.1, as described in the A120 Braintree to Marks Tey Options Assessment Report (PCF Stage 0) (Jacobs, 2016). Various potential significant adverse environmental effects have been identified for each option. The significant effects are detailed in each of the technical assessments in Chapters 6 to 14.
4.2.1 Cumulative Effects
While the route option decision process is still at an early stage, it is not considered appropriate to provide a full assessment of cumulative effects. However, a list will be provided of the potential schemes in the area with which the A120 scheme may generate cumulative effects.
This list is considered preliminary and schemes may be removed or added for assessments later in the route option decision process.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 22 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
4.3 Scale of significant effects
The assessment scale used for early optioneering has been utilised for this EAR, but is informed by further information review, consultation and preliminary field investigations as described in subsequent chapters of this report. The results of this evaluation will help identify the preferred option and to inform the scope of a subsequent detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (undertaken in PCF Stage 3). A six point effect scale will be used, and is shown in Table 4.1.
A description of what constitutes a significant effect for the purposes of this EAR is presented in Chapters 6 to 14 of this report. In most cases, the approach for assessment as detailed in the DMRB has been used, with the outcome of the DMRB assessment aligned with the 6 point effect scale. The definition of what is considered a significance effect varies topic by topic in accordance with relevant guidance.
Table 4.1 : Six point Options Evaluation Scale
Score 6 point effect scale
1 Significant adverse effect - not possible to mitigate
2 Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible
3 Slight adverse effect - Effect not significant with typical mitigation.
4 Slight beneficial - Effect not significant
5 Significant beneficial effect
0 No effect
4.4 Chapter References Department for Transport (2014) Transport Analysis Guidance: The Transport Appraisal Process [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431185/webtag- tag-transport-appraisal-process.pdf Highways Agency (2009) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. HA200/08. Volume 11. Jacobs (2016) A120 Braintree to A12. Options Appraisal Report. Document No. B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00- RP-C-002|P00.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 23 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
5. Stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement has formed a key part of the options generation process. A number of forums and workshops have taken place covering a range of issues. Only the engagement with relevance to the environmental assessment has been summarised in this Chapter. The stakeholder engagement undertaken to date with regards to the environmental assessment is summarised in Table 5.1. This shows historical engagement undertaken as part of the optioneering process in 2005 and engagement for the current A120 Scheme route options.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 5.1 – Summary of Stakeholder Engagement
Date Type of Attendees Topics Discussed Engagement
Historical Consultation
February to Various public Local councillors Four route options were presented, with a preferred route between the Braintree Bypass and June 2005 consultation the A12 near Feering. papers on four General public route options. N.B. 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 alternate options plus an additional option proposed by Braintree Council.
Engagement with regards to Environmental Considerations for the current A120 Scheme Options
November Options Highways England Discussion on conceptual route options. Resulted in a number of potential highways 2015 Generation alignments and rail options. Workshop Essex County Council
Braintree District Council
Colchester Borough Council
Essex Police
Multi-disciplinary Jacobs consultancy team
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 25 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Date Type of Attendees Topics Discussed Engagement
November A120 Members Members of Parliament Discussion on engagement strategy. 2015 Forum Essex County Council Discussion on ‘joined up’ approach with A12 scheme.
Highways England
Jacobs
February A120 Colchester Borough Discussion on building a working relationship with local community or specialist environmental 2016 Environment Council organisations. Forum was primarily about communications and engagement. Forum Meeting 1 Essex County Council Presentation to the group on the challenges and opportunities of the A120. Including discussion on do-nothing option, connection with A12 and potential Road Investment Strategy. Jacobs
February A120 Braintree Braintree District Discussion on the communication and engagement process. 2016 Community Council Engagement Presentation on the challenges and opportunities presented by the scheme. Forum 1 Representatives from local Parish’s
Local Interest Groups
Essex County Council
Jacobs
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 26 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Date Type of Attendees Topics Discussed Engagement
February A120 Colchester Colchester Borough Discussion on the communication and engagement process. 2016 Borough Forum 1 Council Discussion on the do-nothing option. Options would be compared against a do-nothing Representatives from scenario. local Parish’s Presentation on the challenges and opportunities. Local Interest Groups
Essex County Council
Jacobs
March 2016 Meeting with Jacobs Initial route option sifting meeting, content of stage 1 scoping report and PERA. Highways England Highways England (Environment)
April 2016 A120 Members Members of parliament Overview on progress to date. Forum 2 Essex County Council Discussed sifting process.
Colchester Council Highlighted that ECC need to go through Highways England process. Ultimately will be a development consent order scheme. Braintree Council Discussion on the importance of environmental constraints. Suffolk County Council
Jacobs
Local interest group
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 27 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Date Type of Attendees Topics Discussed Engagement
May 2016 A120 Non- Local Interest Groups Discussion on the process followed to identify (route) options with regards to non-motorised motorised Users users. Stakeholder Jacobs Workshop Essex County Council
May 2016 A120 Braintree Representatives from Discussion on how best to engage with community. District local Parish’s Community Discussion on how air quality and carbon will be assessed. Stated that the assessment will be Engagement Braintree District guided by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Forum – second Council meeting Jacobs
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 28 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Date Type of Attendees Topics Discussed Engagement
May 2016 A120 Colchester District Introduction to the feasibility study. Current main focus of environmental work is focused on Environment Council identifying environmental constraints and opportunities. Discussion on methodology and topics Workshop covered for the environmental work. A number of points were raised by the forum group: Environment Agency Team should have regard for the Kelvedon Neighbourhood Plan. Braintree District Council Air quality issues are an increasing issue in Essex.
Colchester District Development of scheme should present an opportunity to improve connectivity of Council ecology.
Natural England Feasibility study should consider new land developments in the area.
Essex County Council Standard Department of Transport evaluation will be followed.
Jacobs Study will include Habitats Regulation Assessment.
Include study of protected lanes.
Potential impacts on protected hedgerows will be considered.
Mineral safeguarding should be considered. Jacobs will liaise with Essex minerals planners and Bradwell Quarry.
Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Waste Local Plan will be considered.
Consideration should be given as to the land take required for potential surface water and flooding mitigation measures.
Discharge to surface water is anticipated due to underlying geology. This will be considered within the environmental assessment.
Braintree Surface Water Management Plan and Kelvedon and Coggeshall Flood B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 Alleviation schemes should be considered29 at an options appraisal stage.
Consideration will be given for opportunities for the A120 to contribute to the mitigation ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Date Type of Attendees Topics Discussed Engagement
June 2016 A120 Essex County Council Discussion on shortlist of options and environmental surveys being carried out. Need to get to Environment 4 to 5 options for public consultation. Forum Meeting 2 Local Interest Groups Point raised on coordination with A12 project. It was stated that information was being shared Essex County Council where possible and appropriate as Jacobs are working on both projects.
Jacobs Details requested on timeframe for the A12 project and how it fits in with the A120 scheme. It was stated that the A12 may be finished by 2025. Whether the ‘old A120’ could be made friendlier to non – motorised users following the A120 Project. It was stated that this was within the scope of the A120 Scheme.
A presentation was given on how options are developed for highway projects. A discussion was made on connectivity between towns for non- motorised users. It was stated that non- motorised users would be considered at a later design stage, but this would be easier further into the option decision process. It was requested that horse riders be considered when considering non-motorised users.
Points raised on how air quality/pollution, flooding and water run-off will affect the present area and environment. Question on whether local traffic will be separated from through traffic. It was stated that air quality/pollutions and water run-off would be main points of priority, and that the road would separate local from through traffic. The proposed Rivenhall incinerator plant has been considered.
Discussion on how environmental issues are taken into account, and how the feasibility study would look to limit environmental effects. Process firstly discards options which would have major impacts. Working to find the options with the least amount of disruption that still fulfils other criteria.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 30 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Date Type of Attendees Topics Discussed Engagement
June 2016 A120 Braintree to Colchester Borough The purpose of these forums is to inform the public of the processes involved in developing a A12 Feasibility Council scheme, ensure that information is readily accessible and allow the public to input into the Study – second process. meeting Local Parish Councils Explanation of preliminary environmental surveys and desktops studies. Presentation of map Essex County Council showing current environmental and community constraints.
Jacobs
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 31 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Options Evaluation and Scoping Assessment
32
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
6. Air Quality and Carbon Emissions
6.1 Scope of assessment
6.1.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the air quality assessment for the proposed route options. The air quality assessment describes the concentrations of specific pollutants in ambient air, taking account of the effects of pollution on human and ecosystem health. New road schemes which change traffic characteristics would be expected to have impacts on air quality and emissions and this could be at either a local or regional scale.
The main pollutants of concern which may be generated from the Scheme are pollutant emissions from vehicle traffic and are primarily oxides of nitrogen (NOx), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10).
The assessment has been carried out using professional judgement drawing on guidance detailed in the Design Manual For Road and Bridges (DMRB) (Highways Agency, 2013a) and associated Interim Advice Notes (IANs), and Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Technical Guidance (TG(16)), where appropriate. The key elements of the assessment are listed below: Consideration of relevant LAQM Review and Assessment documents; Assessment of existing local air quality conditions through a review of air quality monitoring data in the study area; A qualitative assessment of human exposure within 200m of route options; and A qualitative assessment of distances travelled of vehicles for regional emissions.
6.1.2 Study Area
The local air quality study area for each route option has been defined in accordance with guidance provided in HA 207/07. Sensitive receptors including human exposure (primarily residential properties) and designated sites that lie within 200m of each route option were considered in the assessment.
The extent of the study area is presented in Figure 6.1.1.
6.2 Policy and guidance
6.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy
This assessment considers relevant air quality legislation and policy. The key air quality legislation and policy is summarised in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 : Key Air Quality Legislation and Policy Legislation Description EU ambient air quality directive 2008/50/EC. Established the requirements of Member States in terms of improvements required to air quality. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. Transposes formalised EU Limit Values set out in directive 2008/50/EC to UK law. The Air Quality Strategy (AQS) for England, Updates the 2000 National Air Quality Strategy, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2007. and sets out how local air quality is managed, through the application of Air Quality Objectives (AQO). Environment Act 1995, Part IV. Defines the requirements for LAQM. Environment Protection Act 1990, amended by Part III provides statutory nuisance provisions the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. for nuisance dust. 33
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Directive 2008/50/EC was published to consolidate previous European Directives on ambient air quality. The UK Government leads on the UK’s input to International and European legislation relating to air quality. Linking to the requirements of the EU Directives, the latest AQS published in July 2007 established the framework for air quality improvements across the UK. Although published in 2007, the AQS remains consistent with Directive 2008/50/EC
The AQS establishes Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for a number of specific pollutants. The main air pollutants relating to road traffic are NOx, NO2 and PM10. Other pollutants in the AQS are screened out of this assessment as unlikely to be of concern based on DMRB guidance (The Highways Agency, 2007). The AQOs for the screened out pollutants are unlikely to be at risk of being breached as a consequence of a road development.
Table 6.2 lists the key traffic related annual mean air quality thresholds. These have the same concentrations and measurement period for relevant national air quality regulations and the EU Directive on ambient air quality. These threshold values are set with reference to human exposure and ecosystems / designated sites, as appropriate.
Table 6.2 : Objectives of Key Traffic Related Pollutants
Pollutant Air Quality Threshold Air Quality Limit Value entered Concentrations Objective/Threshold into force / Date to Value be achieved by and maintained thereafter (µg/m3)
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) (for ecosystems / designated Annual Mean 30 31/12/2000 sites) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO ) 2 Annual Mean 40 01/01/2010 (for human exposure) Particulate Matter (PM ) 10 Annual Mean 40 01/01/2005 (for human exposure)
6.2.2 Overview of relevant guidance
Other relevant guidelines considered in the assessment are as follows: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1 HA 207/07 (Highways Agency, 2013) and associated Interim Advice Notes (IANs) – the HA207/07 gives guidance on the assessment of the impact that road projects may have on local and regional emissions. IAN170/12 v3, IAN174/13, IAN175/13 and IAN185/15 provide supplementary advice to HA207/07. Local Air Quality Management Guidance (LAQM.TG16) issued under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 is designed to help local authorities with their local air quality management duties. The guidance sets out the general approach to use and detailed technical guidance to guide local authorities through the Review and Assessment process. EPUK/IAQM Land-Use Planning & Development Control (IAQM et al, 2015) – this guidance has been produced to ensure that air quality is adequately considered in the land-use planning and development control processes by relevant officers within local authorities, developers and consultants involved in the preparation of development proposals and planning applications. This document is best practice guidance and has no formal or legal status.
6.3 Definition of significant effects
Due to the absence of available traffic data, it was not possible to undertake a quantitative assessment. Therefore, the significance of effects of each option was assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement with considerations of local air quality information such as: Monitoring data showing background concentrations of pollutants of concern;
34
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The potential changes of carriageway alignment; The locations of the sensitive receptors.
The 6-point scale, as described in Chapter 4, has been used for the qualitative assessment of the effects.
The options evaluation describes the number of human exposure receptors within each distance band of the route options. Assuming a similar traffic characteristic with each option, the average distance from the road to the receptors is used to indicate the likely magnitude of effect of the option on air quality. The closer a receptor is to the road, the higher significance of effect is likely to that receptor.
6.3.1 Local Air Quality Effects
Highway England IAN 174/13 (Highway England et al, 2013) provided guidance on the evaluation of significant local air quality effects. The key criteria for air quality are considered to be: Is there a risk that environmental standards will be reached? Is there a high probability of the effect occurring? Will there be a large change in environmental conditions? Will the effect continue for a long time? Will many people be affected? Is there a risk that protected sites will be affected? Will it be difficult to avoid, or reduce or repair or compensate for the effect?
IAN 174/13 (Highways England, 2013) stated that the change should focus on only those receptors exceeding the air quality thresholds in either the ‘without scheme’ scenario and / or ‘with scheme’ scenario. The scheme would be considered to not be significant for local air quality where; The outcome of the assessment indicates that either all modelled concentrations are less than the air quality thresholds; or Any changes above the air quality thresholds but where the change is imperceptible.
However most of these criteria could not be assessed quantitatively at this stage. Therefore the impact of each proposed route option was assessed qualitatively using available air quality data and knowledge of the location of human exposure receptors.
Potential effects of the proposed route were assessed on the basis of the separation distance between sensitive receptors and the new emission source (i.e. the proposed route options).
6.3.2 Human Exposure Receptors
Human exposure receptors are a key consideration for air quality effects. The proposed route options passes close to receptors around Braintree and Coggeshall, as well as a number of villages and individual properties. For the consideration of impacts on sensitive receptors for the protection of human health, locations were identified where people might experience a change in pollutant concentrations within each route option’s study area. Relevant locations for effects from the options include residential properties and receptors used by the young, the elderly and other susceptible populations, such as schools and hospitals.
The effects of air quality are likely to be within 200m of the route (DMRB, 2007); therefore a 200m study area has been used. The locations of human exposure receptors within 200 metres of each route option are shown in Figure 6.4.1 to 6.8.4.
35
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
6.3.3 Designated Sites
A consideration is required of designated sites. Sites considered were those for which the primary designated feature(s) are sensitive to nitrogen (N), either directly or indirectly, and which could be affected by air pollution. These include Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and RAMSAR sites.
There are no sensitive designated sites within the five study areas.
6.3.4 Regional Emissions
An assessment has been made on the potential regional emissions which may be generated from the options. This is a function of the change in distance travelled by vehicles, in that if vehicle-kilometres are increased by the option, then it is considered that there will be an adverse impact to regional emissions. The change in vehicle-kilometres travelled with the scheme was qualitative assessed based on professional judgement with consideration of the possible change in traffic and the carriageway alignment in each option at this stage.
6.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement
6.4.1 Data Sources
The data sources used during the assessment are given in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3 : Data sources
Information Source Reference Department for the Interactive Monitoring Networks Map (Defra, accessed October 2016) Environment Food and Local Air Quality Management 1km x 1km grid background pollutant Rural Affairs (Defra) maps (Defra, 2016) Braintree District 2014 LAQM Progress Report (PR) Council (BDC) 2015 LAQM Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) Colchester Borough 2014 LAQM PR Council (CBC) 2015 LAQM USA Air Pollution Information Critical loads for designated sites (web accessed October 2016) System www.apis.ac.uk
6.4.2 Stakeholder engagement
Both Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council were consulted on the siting of project specific monitoring locations. Information was also requested on ‘any existing air quality monitoring locations’, in addition to those referenced in the LAQM PRs and USAs.
6.5 Field surveys and modelling
6.5.1 Air Quality Monitoring Survey
In order to verify background air quality concentration mapping from desktop sources, a five month period programme of NO2 concentration monitoring was undertaken using diffusion tubes between May and September 2016. A total of 11 locations around the five route options between Braintree and Marks Tey were chosen for monitoring; this included roadside and background locations.
A summary of the monitoring sites used are presented in Table 6.4 and shown on Figure 6.1.1. Details of the monitoring sites are presented in Appendix A.2.
36
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 6.4 : Jacobs NO2 Diffusion Tube Monitoring Locations Site ID / Site Description Coordinates Height Type (cm) Site X Y Name Site 1 Braintree Road, Cressing 578426 220675 200 Roadside Site 2 Lanham Green Road, Cressing 579315 221171 150 Roadside Site 3 Boars Tye Road, Silver End 580944 220153 220 Roadside Site 4 Water Lane, Stisted 579998 224645 260 Background Site 5 Colne Road, Coggeshall 585404 223457 230 Roadside Site 6 Old Road, Coggeshall 586929 222820 230 Roadside Site 7 Skye Green Cottage, Skye Green 587180 222067 220 Background Elm Lane / Little Tey Road, Site 8 588250 221631 160 Background Colchester Site 9 Kelvedon Road, Coggeshall 585175 221476 220 Roadside Site 10 Coggeshall Road, Feering 587044 220439 220 Roadside Site 11 Colocation at Brook Street 600572 225141 150 Roadside
6.6 Assumptions and uncertainties
Due to the early stage of assessment, no traffic data was available to allow for a quantitative assessment of air quality to be undertaken. The conclusions of the assessment undertaken were therefore made using professional judgement by a qualified air quality professional utilising available monitoring data.
6.7 Environmental baseline description
6.7.1 Background Pollutant Concentrations
The background annual mean concentrations of NOx, NO2 and PM10 for each assessment year (2015 and 2026) were obtained from Defra’s Background Maps, which are based on monitoring and meteorological data for a 2013 reference year. In order to set baseline concentrations of pollutants for comparison with potential changes from the options, the annual mean pollutant background concentrations within the study area of each of the proposed options were averaged. This is then compared to objective thresholds (set by the EU), which gives an indication of the baseline air quality in the area. Average background annual mean pollution concentration estimates for the baseline year and opening year are presented in Table 6.5 for each route option. These represent an average of the background annual mean pollution concentrations along each of the routes.
Annual mean background air quality maps for NO2 and PM10 in the vicinity of the study areas are presented in Figures 6.2.1 and 6.3.1.
Table 6.5 : Background Annual Mean Pollutant Concentrations (µg/m3)
2015 2026 Pollutant NOx NO2 PM10 NOx NO2 PM10 Objective 30 40 40 30 40 40 Threshold Option 1B 14.4 10.6 17.1 9.7 7.3 16.2 Option 3 14.7 10.8 17.4 9.8 7.4 16.4 Option 4B 14.6 10.7 17.2 9.7 7.3 16.3 Option 8 15.3 11.2 17.0 10.2 7.7 16.1 Option 9A 15.2 11.1 17.0 10.2 7.7 16.1
37
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 6.5 shows background annual mean pollutant concentrations for the baseline and opening years to be well below respective objective thresholds.
6.7.2 Scheme Specific Air Quality Monitoring
Table 6.7 shows the results of Jacobs’ annual mean NO2 monitoring around the existing A120. The monitoring was undertaken in 2016 but is derived in accordance with LAQM.TG(16) (Defra, 2016) for the assessment baseline year of 2015. Monitoring locations are shown on Figure 6.1.1. Detailed monitoring data is provided in Appendix A.2.
Table 6.6 : Jacobs’ Annual Mean NO2 Monitoring results
3 Name Site Description 2015 Estimated Annual Mean Equivalent NO2 (µg/m )
Site 1 Braintree Road, Cressing 28.3 Site 2 Lanham Green Road, Cressing 29.2 Site 3 Boars Tye Road, Silver End 25.0 Site 4 Water Lane, Stisted 15.2 Site 5 Colne Road, Coggeshall 26.7 Site 6 Old Road, Coggeshall 15.3 Skye Green Cottage, Skye Site 7 13.8 Green Elm Lane / Little Tey Road, Site 8 21.2 Colchester Site 9 Kelvedon Road, Coggeshall 19.6 Site Coggeshall Road, Feering 18.6 10 Site Colocation at Brook Street 37.3 11
Table 6.7 shows that estimated annual mean equivalent NO2 concentrations at all monitored sites are below objective thresholds.
6.7.3 LAQM Review and Assessment Documents
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 exceedences of annual mean NO2 concentrations and is managed by Colchester Borough Council.
Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council operate a network of diffusion tubes across their respective authority areas. There are seven diffusion tubes within Bradwell, Coggeshall and Mark Tey areas, these are summarised in Table 6.6 and detailed in Appendix A 2.
Table 6.7 : Local Authority Diffusion Tube Monitoring
3 Sit Annual Mean NO2 Concentration (µg/m ) e Location ID 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3 Annual mean NO2 objective threshold 40 µg/m
1 Kelvedon, High Street 29.1 32.5 32.8 - -
2 Bradwell, The Street 41.8 38.6 38.1 - -
38
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
3 Sit Annual Mean NO2 Concentration (µg/m ) e Location ID 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Braintree Stilemans 3 37.1 33.2 28.1 - - Wood Braintree, Beckers 4 21.2 21.0 22.8 - - Green Rd Marks Tey, London 5 37.0 29.0 28.4 - - Road Marks Tey, London Rd 6 31.9 30.3 30.4 31.0 30.0 220 Marks Tey, London Rd 7 31.2 28.2 27.4 32.0 29.0 170 Values in Bold and underline are sites which exceeded the air quality threshold.
Table 6.6 shows monitored NO2 concentrations at locations close to the major road networks to be below objective thresholds. One site shows exceedance in 2011 and this is along the existing A120 carriageway.
6.7.4 Carbon Dioxide Regional Emissions
National Atmospheric Emission Inventory (NAEI) CO2 interactive maps provide emission data from different sectors by local authority. The 2014 data shows there are 958 and 849 kilotonnes of CO2 emissions produced annually in Chelmsford and Braintree, respectively. The dominate sources are road traffic, ranged 39% - 40% of total CO2 emissions.
6.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
The options evaluation considered the potential changes at receptors along the existing route and the new route. These receptors are likely experience a deterioration effect in air quality due to a new exposure of traffic emission with new route. The receptors on the existing A120 are likely to experience a beneficial effect in air quality due to a reduction in traffic emission associated with the scheme.
The options evaluation describes the number of human exposure receptors within each distance band of the route options. However, as the assessment is qualitative, it is not possible to quantify the effect on human exposure receptors within each distance of the existing A120. Therefore, assuming a similar traffic characteristic with each option, the average distance from the road to the receptors is used to indicate the likely magnitude of effect of the scheme on air quality which receptor is likely to receive higher exposure in a closer distance.
6.8.1 Option 1B
Table 6.8 shows the number of human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 1B.
Table 6.8 : Human Exposure Receptors at Option 1B
Distance from the kerb (m) Number of Human exposure Receptors 0-50 154 50-100 374 100-150 328 150-200 347 Total 1,203
There are 1,203 human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 1B. The average distance from the kerbside of the route option to a human exposure receptor is 112 metres, while the closest receptor is 1.9 metres away. An average distance of 112 metres is considered to represent a slight adverse effect.
39
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
6.8.2 Option 3
Table 6.9 shows the human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 3.
Table 6.9 : Human Exposure Receptors at Option 3
Distance (m) Number of Human exposure Receptors 0-50 138 50-100 312 100-150 354 150-200 330 Total 1,134
There are 1,134 human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 3. The average distance from the kerbside of the route option to a human exposure receptor is 115 metres, while the closest receptor is 2.3 metres away. An average distance of 115 metres is considered to represent a slight adverse effect.
6.8.3 Option 4B
Table 6.10 shows the human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 4B.
Table 6.10 : Human Exposure Receptors at Option 4B
Distance (m) Number of Human exposure Receptors 0-50 124 50-100 246 100-150 239 150-200 262 Total 871
There are 871 human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 4B. The average distance from the kerbside of the route option to a human exposure receptor is 114 metres, while the closest receptor is 1.9 metres away. An average distance of 114 metres is considered to represent a slight adverse effect.
6.8.4 Option 8
Table 6.11 shows the human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 8.
Table 6.11 : Human Exposure Receptors at Option 8
Distance (m) Number of Human exposure Receptors 0-50 150 50-100 372 100-150 319 150-200 322 Total 1,163
There are 1,163 human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 8. The average distance from the kerbside of the route option to a human exposure receptor is 111 metres, while the closest receptor is 4.7 metres. An average distance of 111 metres is considered to represent a slight adverse effect.
6.8.5 Option 9A
Table 6.12 shows the human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 9A.
40
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 6.12 : Human Exposure Receptors at Option 9A
Distance (m) Number of Human exposure Receptors 0-50 112 50-100 248 100-150 231 150-200 243 Total 834
There are 834 human exposure receptors within 200 metres of route option 9A. The average distance from the kerbside of the route option to a human exposure receptor is 113 metres, while closest receptor is 2.7 metres. An average distance of 113 metres is considered to represent a slight adverse effect.
6.8.6 Summary of Effects for all Routes
The baseline information shows that all route options have low annual mean background concentrations of NOx, NO2 and PM10.
Options 4B and 9A have the lowest number of human exposure receptors within 200 metres compared to other options.
It is anticipated that there will be beneficial effects at the receptors along the existing A120. This is due to traffic most likely being reduced on the A120 via rerouting onto the new route option. However adverse effects are anticipated on receptors close to the new route options. This is due to the new route being closer to human exposure receptors and a subsequent increase in emissions associated with the scheme. The scheme is likely to generate more traffic on the route option and in the local network than is currently generated.
The A120 scheme is likely to have a marginal deterioration in regional emissions based on the increases in vehicle-kilometres travelled with the scheme. The scheme is likely to generate more vehicles-kilometres travelled in the local network.
The qualitative assessment has identified that all proposed route options impact on local air quality and regional emission are anticipated to be similar and none are predicted to have a significant adverse effect. Overall the effects of the scheme are not anticipated to be significant adverse. However taking a conservative approach, all route options would have a score of 3 which predicts a slight adverse effect as the effect could not be assessed quantitatively. Table 6.13 shows the summary of effects for each route option.
41
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 6.13 : Summary of Effects
Route Options
Receptors 1B 3 4B 8 9A
Receptors Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight along the beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial existing A120
‘New’ Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight receptors adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse along the route options
Regional Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Emissions adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse
Overall Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Significance adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse
6.9 Mitigation and opportunities
As it has been concluded that the local air quality effects are considered to be not significant at this stage, therefore it is not envisaged that mitigation measures are currently required to be included at this stage. This will be reviewed following further assessments.
Construction mitigation will be reviewed and assessed in later stages.
6.10 Scoping Assessment
6.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration in EIA for preferred option
Although local air quality effects are considered to not be significant for all options, it is recommended to undertake a quantitative assessment to determine the impact on air quality of the preferred option. In addition the impact on regional emissions should also be quantitative assessed in the EIA for the preferred option.
The impact of the construction phase should be assessed in the EIA and where necessary mitigation measures should be determined.
6.10.2 Recommended scope and approach to EIA
The PCF Stage 2 will include a quantitative assessment of operational impacts on local air quality using dispersion modelling. Regional emissions including NOx, PM10 and carbon dioxide will also be assessed quantitative with available traffic data.
The Stage 2 assessment for air quality will follow the guidance: DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Air Quality (The Highways Agency et al., 2007) and associated IANs (170/12, 174/13, 175/13 and 185/15).
42
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
6.11 Chapter references BDC (2014) Air Quality Progress Report BDC (2015) Updating and Screening Assessments CBC (2014) Air Quality Progress Report CBC (2015) Updating and Screening Assessments Defra (2016). Technical Guidance on Local Air Quality Management (LAQM.TG(16)). Defra (2016). Local Air Quality Management 1km x 1km grid background pollutant maps. Defra (accessed 2015). Interactive Monitoring Networks Map. https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/interactive-map Defra (2008). Diffusion Tubes for Ambient NO2 Monitoring: Practical Guidance. Environment Protection Act 1990 Part II Environment Act 1995, Part IV EU Directive on ambient air quality and clean air for Europe, 2008/50/EC IAQM (2014). Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction. IAQM and Environmental Protection UK (2015). Guidance on land-use planning and development control: Planning for air quality. National Air Quality Strategy (AQS) for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2007 National Atmospheric Emission Inventory (NAEI) http://naei.defra.gov.uk/ The Highways Agency et al (2013a). IAN 174/13 Updated advice for evaluating significant local air quality effects for DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality The Highways Agency et al (2013a). IAN 175/13 Updated advice on risk assessment related to compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality and on the production of Scheme Air Quality Action Plans for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality (HA207/07) The Highways Agency et al (2015). IAN 185/15 Updated traffic, air quality and noise advice on the assessment of link speeds and generation of traffic data into speed-bands for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality (HA207/07) and Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 Noise (HD213/11) The Highways Agency et al (2013a). IAN170/12 Updated air quality advice on the assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 'Air Quality
43
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
7. Cultural heritage
7.1 Scope of assessment
This chapter assesses the potential impact of the proposed route options on cultural heritage assets.
Based on the guidance contained in Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 ‘Cultural Heritage’ (HA 208/07) of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (Highways Agency et al., 2007), cultural heritage was considered under the three following sub-topics: Archaeological Remains – the material remains of human activity from the earliest periods of human evolution to the present. These may be buried traces of human activities, sites visible above ground, or moveable artefacts; Historic Buildings – ‘architectural or designed or other structures with a significant historical value’. These may include structures that have no aesthetic appeal or structures not usually thought of as ‘buildings’, such as milestones or bridges; and The wider surroundings of any cultural heritage asset (its setting) can significantly contribute to its heritage value. The nature and extent of the feature’s setting is not fixed and can change over time as the asset and its setting evolve (Historic England, 2015b).
Collectively, the individual sites, buildings, landscapes or other remains that make up the three sub-topics are known as cultural heritage assets.
7.2 Policy and guidance
7.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy
The relevant National, Regional and Local Policies with regards to heritage assets are presented below.
7.2.1.1 National Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (amended by the National Heritage Act 1983 and 2002)
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (AMAAA) provides a legislative framework to designate and protect Scheduled Monuments.
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012) sets out core planning principles. Chapter 12,-Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment (of the NPPF), sets out the principles of describing the significance of any cultural heritage asset affected, including its setting. But the NPPF also explains that the level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their setting.
National Policy Statement for National Networks
The National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN) (Department for Transport, 2014) sets out the Government’s policies to deliver development of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the national road and rail networks in England.
The Historic Environment section of NPSNN explains that any applicant should define the significance of any cultural heritage asset affected, including the contribution made to its setting. Finally, while acknowledging that a documentary record of our past is not as valuable as the assets themselves; the NPSNN confirms that an asset should be recorded in order to understand its significance before it is lost, either in whole or in part.
44
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out a framework to designate, protect Grade I, II* and II Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. In addition to the protection of the asset its setting is also considered. This legislation provides the framework around the Local Planning Authority’s consenting regime.
7.2.1.2 Regional
Essex Transport Strategy: the Local Transport Plan for Essex
The Essex Transport Strategy produced by Essex County Council in 2011 sets out the vision for transport, policies for transport and approach to implementation. Policy 9 states that “the County Council will protect the natural, historic and built environment from the harmful effects of transport”.
7.2.1.3 Local
Braintree District Local Plan (draft due later in 2016)
The Braintree District Local Plan was approved for consultation by the Council in June 2016. The Local Plan includes strategic policies for the wider area of North Essex as part of the Shared Strategic Plan and a specific vision and objectives for the Braintree District. The Local plan has a range of policies relating to the built and historic environment, of particular significance are: LPP47: Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, and Demolition within Conservation Areas. This policy sets out the Borough Council’s aim to preserve and encourage the enhancement of the character and appearance of designated conservation areas and their settings; LPP50: Alterations, Extensions and Changes of Use to Heritage Assets and their Settings. As well as protecting listed buildings this policy states the Borough Council’s intention to preserve and enhance the settings of cultural heritage assets by appropriate control over the development, design and use of adjoining land; LPP51: Demolition of Listed Buildings. This states that demolition will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances; and LPP53: Archaeological Evaluation, Excavation and Recording. This sets out the Borough Council’s requirement for developers to provide an assessment of the character, importance and extent of archaeological remains.
Colchester Borough Council Adopted Local Plan 2001 – 2021
The Colchester Borough Council Adopted Local Plan (Colchester Borough Council, 2008) includes various documents which are intended to plan for the future of the borough up to 2021. This comprises the Core Strategy (adopted in 2008) which includes: Policy DP14: Historic Environment Assets. This sets out the principles that development will not be permitted that adversely affects a listed building, a conservation area or other asset. The policy also states that sufficient information needs to be provided to assess the impacts of development proposals on historic environment assets.
45
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Colchester Emerging (Preferred Options) Local Plan 2017 – 2032 (draft due later in 2016)
Colchester Borough Council has published its draft Local Plan (Preferred Options) for consultation over Summer 2016. The Emerging Local Plan includes strategic policies for the wider area of North Essex as part of the Shared Strategic Plan and a vision, strategy, objectives and policies for planning and delivery across the borough. The plan will include policies on Heritage and Design
7.2.2 Overview of relevant guidance
In addition to the guidance provided by HA 208/07, the following best practice guidance was also taken into account: Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014a), Code of Conduct; Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014b), Standard and guidance for Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment; and Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014c), Standard and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment English Heritage (2008), Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance; Historic England (2015a), Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning; Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking; and Historic England (2015b), Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning; Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets.
Regional Research Framework Regional Research Frameworks were developed by English Heritage (now Historic England) in collaboration with local authorities, in order to provide an effective yet flexible structure for decision making regarding archaeological research. The contribution a cultural heritage asset makes to our understanding of the historic environment through its contribution to such research topics is an important consideration in assessing the value of a cultural heritage asset.
The East of England Regional Research Framework (East Anglian Archaeology, 2011) which includes Essex, was reviewed in 2011. The review considers evidence from archaeological excavation, other fieldwork and research on a period-by-period basis, subdivided within each period into an assessment of key projects undertaken since 2000. The review provides an assessment of progress on research topics and a consideration of future research topics.
46
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.3 Definition of significant effects An assessment of the value of identified cultural heritage assets was undertaken on a six-point scale of Very High, High, Medium, Low, Negligible and Unknown. Assessment was based on professional judgement guided by criteria provided in HA208/07. Criteria to assess the value of cultural heritage assets are presented in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 : Criteria to assess the value of cultural heritage assets
Value Criteria Archaeological remains Very High World Heritage Sites (including nominated sites) Assets of acknowledged international importance Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives High Scheduled Monuments (including proposed sites) Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives Medium Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objectives Low Designated and undesignated assets of local importance Assets compromised by poor preservation and / or poor survival of contextual associations Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives Negligible Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest Unknown The importance of the site has not been ascertained Historic Buildings
Structures inscribed as of universal importance as World Heritage Sites. Very High Other buildings of recognised international importance.
Scheduled Monuments with standing remains. Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings.
High Other listed buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations not adequately reflected in the listing grade. Conservation Areas containing very important buildings. Undesignated structures of clear national importance
Grade II Listed Buildings. Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations. Medium Conservation Areas, containing buildings that contribute significantly to its historic character. Historic Townscape or built-up areas with important historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures).
‘Locally Listed’ buildings.
Low Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association. Historic Townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures). Negligible Buildings of no architectural or historical note; buildings of an intrusive character. Unknown Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance.
47
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Value Criteria
Historic Landscape
World Heritage Sites inscribed for their historic landscape qualities. Historic landscapes of international value, whether designated or not. Very High Extremely well preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time-depth, or other critical factor(s). Designated historic landscapes of outstanding interest Undesignated landscapes of outstanding interest. High Undesignated landscapes of high quality and importance, and of demonstrable national value. Well preserved historic landscapes exhibiting considerable coherence, time-depth, or other critical factor(s). Designated special historic landscapes Undesignated historic landscapes that would justify special historic landscape designation, Medium landscapes of regional value. Averagely well-preserved historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, time-depth, or other critical factor(s). Robust undesignated historic landscapes. Historic landscapes with importance to local interest groups. Low Historic landscapes whose value is limited by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Negligible Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest.
Magnitude of impact is the degree of change that would be experienced by a cultural heritage asset and its setting if any of the options were completed, as compared with a 'do nothing' situation. Magnitude of impact is assessed without reference to the value of the cultural heritage asset and may include physical impacts upon the asset, or impacts on its setting or amenity value.
The scale of magnitude of impact is, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible and No Change. Factors in the assessment of the magnitude of impact for all cultural heritage assets are presented in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 : Factors in the assessment of the magnitude of impact for cultural heritage assets
Magnitude Criteria Major Change to most or all key archaeological materials, such that the resource is totally altered Change to key historic building elements, such that the resource is totally altered Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; extreme visual effects; gross change of noise or change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit Comprehensive changes to setting Moderate Changes to many key archaeological materials, such that the resource is clearly modified Change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified Changes to some key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, visual change to many key aspects of the historic landscape, noticeable differences in noise or sound quality, considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to historic landscape character Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the asset Minor Changes to key archaeological materials, such that the asset is slightly altered
48
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Magnitude Criteria Change to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different Changes to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, slight visual changes to few key aspects of historic landscape, limited changes to noise levels or sound quality, slight changes to use or access; resulting in limited changes to historic landscape character Slight changes to setting Negligible Very minor changes to archaeological materials or setting Slight changes to historic buildings elements or setting that hardly affect it Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, virtually unchanged visual effects, very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality, very slight changes to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character No Change No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible changes; no changes arising from amenity or community factors
The significance of effect was determined as a combination of the value of the asset and the magnitude of impact. This is achieved using professional judgement informed by the matrix illustrated below in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 : Significance of effects matrix
Value Very high High Medium Low Negligible Magnitude Large / Very Slight Major Very Large Moderate / Large Slight / Moderate Large Large / Very Neutral / Slight Moderate Moderate / Large Moderate Slight Large
Minor Moderate / Large Moderate / Slight Slight Neutral / Slight Neutral / Slight
Negligible Slight Slight Neutral / Slight Neutral / Slight Neutral
No change Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral
The assessment scale used for early optioneering has been utilised for this EAR to describe the significance of effect using a 6 point effect scale. The six point effect scale was aligned to the significance of effects matrix in Table 7.4 to provide an assessment of the effects of the options on cultural heritage assets in line with HA208/07 Vol 11, Section 3, Part 2(Highways Agency et al., (2007) and the requirements of this EAR.
49
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 7.4 : The six point effect scale
Score 6 point effect scale DMRB Equivalent
Significant adverse effect - not possible to Very Large 1 mitigate Large / Moderate 2 Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible
Slight 3 Slight adverse effect Effect not significant with typical mitigation Large / Moderate 4 Slight beneficial Effect not significant Significant beneficial effect Very Large 5
No effect Neutral/no effect 0
7.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement The following sources of data were used to establish the environmental baseline: The National Heritage List for information on statutorily designated cultural heritage assets (World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Battlefields and Registered Parks and Gardens was reviewed using open access designation datasets; The English Heritage Archive for information on undesignated cultural heritage assets was searched on- line; Cultural heritage assets recorded on the Essex Historic Environment Record (EHER) were provided by Essex County Council on the 14/06/2016; and Information on Conservation Areas from the Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council websites.
A stakeholder workshop was held in May 2016 with representatives Essex County Council (including from the Historic Environment Team), Colchester Borough Council, Braintree District Council, the Environment Agency and Natural England. Essex County Council Historic Environment Team gave a brief outline of previous archaeological evaluation at Bradwell Quarry and the A120 improvements to the west of Braintree. This previous work has highlighted the density of archaeological sites within the area and a full report on the archaeology between Stanstead Airport and Braintree has been published (Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph, 2007).
7.5 Field surveys and modelling
No field surveys, site visits or modelling have been undertaken for this assessment.
50
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.6 Assumptions and uncertainties At this stage there is uncertainty over some details including: The extent and nature of the construction activity; Detailed scheme proposals, including the horizontal and vertical alignment, the location of any roundabouts or junctions along the alignment and the layout and extent of any proposed junction improvements; and There is an underlying assumption that publicly held archaeological data is reliable. The data itself may have limitations; for example, data held in the Historic Environment Record (HER) may be limited by an absence of fieldwork in the locality, or lack of certainty about the reporting of the data (inaccurate grid references) and of the date of sites (especially records of 18th, 19th and early 20th century discoveries).
At this stage of the assessment detailed historic landscape character data was not available to define Historic Landscape Types.
7.7 Environmental baseline description
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 route option has been used. The topic study area, route options and cultural heritage assets are shown in Figure 7.1.1 to 7.5.4. Each cultural heritage asset has been given an individual number, from (1) to (193) numbered from West to East across the options. This includes non-designated and designated heritage assets. The following provides a summary of the identified heritage assets.
Within the topic study area 193 cultural heritage assets have been identified, of which 43 are designated. The NPPF defines designated sites as World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas designated under the relevant legislation. These are as follows: There are two Scheduled Monuments, the Rivenhall Long Mortuary Enclosure (Asset 121) and the Rivenhall Roman Villa site (Asset 85), both assessed to be of High Value; There are three Grade II* Listed Buildings, Black Notley Lodge (Asset 1), Baytree Farmhouse (Asset 21) and Hole Farmhouse (Asset 126) which have also been assessed to be of High value; Three Conservation Areas, Stisted (Asset 39), Coggeshall (Asset 159) and Kelvedon (Asset 168) have been assessed as Medium value; and A further 38 Grade II Listed Buildings are also assessed as Medium value.
There are a further four areas of archaeological remains which have been assessed to be of Medium value. The significance of understanding complex cropmarks (cropmarks are a means by which sub-surface remains, such as ditches or walls, may be visible from the air) is identified as an overarching research topic in the Research Framework (East Anglian Archaeology, 2011, p.84) Therefore the complex cropmarks with a wide range of features present at Bradwell (Asset 24) and near Hole Farm (Asset 125) have been assessed as Medium value.
The East of England Regional Research Framework identifies the significance of the Roman to Anglo Saxon transition in the East of England and states that “characterising the actual nature of settlement forms and patterns, material culture and so on for the 4th and 5th centuries AD in this region is of major national and international importance with regard to assessing the impact or otherwise of Germanic settlers.” (East Anglian Archaeology, 2011, p.48). This indicates that the unscheduled area surrounding Rivenhall Roman Villa (Asset 84), which has features covering these dates, can contribute to the Research Framework topics and is therefore assessed as Medium value.
An area of prehistoric occupation within Braintree at Mill Hill (Asset 3) was partially excavated in 1999, with Bronze Age and Iron Age features present. The opportunity to examine sites relating to the transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age and the opportunity to carry out targeted environmental analysis of Bronze Age sediments is identified as an area of research in the Research Framework (East Anglian Archaeology, 2011, pp.20 - 21); therefore Mill Hill (Asset 3) is assessed as Medium value. 51
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The values of all cultural heritage assets are presented in summary in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5 : Summary of cultural heritage asset values
Sub-topic Negligi Low Medium High Very All ble High Values Total Archaeological 101 39 4 2 Scheduled 0 - Remains Monuments Historic - 3 41 (Grade II 3 Grade II* 0 - Buildings Listed Listed Buildings and Buildings 3 Conservation Areas) TOTAL 101 42 45 5 0 193
Within the topic study area are a large number of cropmarks and chance casual archaeological finds, indicating a rich and complex archaeological landscape. However as, not all archaeological features can be seen as cropmarks, this means that the potential for unknown archaeological remains within the topic study area is has been assessed to be high.
7.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
The following section provides an assessment of the potential significant effects identified (i.e. those assets which will have a moderate effect or above). This has been undertaken using the methodology as described in Chapter 7.3. An overall rating is then given for the route using the 6-point scale shown in Table 7.4, based on the worst case significance for the route.
7.8.1 Option 1B
Potentially significant effects – mitigation may be possible are predicted on seven cultural heritage assets for option 1B. Information on the effects along with a provisional assessment of the magnitude and significance of effect is presented below: A potential adverse effect on the setting of Ashes Farmhouse (Asset 16) and two barns (Asset 18 and 19) Gosling’s Farmhouse (Asset 59) Coggeshall Hall Farmhouse (Asset 167), and barn (Asset 166) and on Hornigalls Farmhouse (Asset 184). These are all Grade II Listed Buildings assessed as Medium value, are impacts are predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and moderate significance. A potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible could result from the removal of any unknown archaeological remains that may be present within the footprint of this option.
Overall 6-point effect rating of 2, there is a potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible
7.8.2 Option 3
Potentially significant effects – mitigation may be possible are predicted on twelve cultural heritage assets. Information on the effects along with a provisional assessment of the magnitude and significance of effect is presented below: A potential adverse effect on the setting of Fowlers Farmhouse (Asset 10), a Grade II Listed Building assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and large significance.
52
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
A potential adverse effect on the setting of Baytree Cottage (Asset 21), a Grade II* Listed Building assessed as High value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and large significance. A potential adverse effect on the setting of Whiteshill Farm and barn (Asset 66 and 67) Stock Street Farmhouse and barn (Asset 80 and 78), No. 73 and 74 Stock Street (Asset 81) and No. 75 and 76 Stock Street (Asset 86) all Grade II Listed Buildings assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and large significance. A potential adverse effect on the setting of Lee’s Farmhouse (Asset 171), a Grade II Listed Buildings assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on the site of Bay Tree Farm Brickworks (Asset 25), cropmarks of enclosures and ditches near Captains Wood (Asset 62) and a Roman Cremation Cemetery (Asset 98) all assessed as Low value, is predicted to result from their disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and moderate significance. A potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible could result from the removal of any unknown archaeological remains that may be present within the footprint of this option.
Overall 6-point rating effect rating of 2, there is a potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
7.8.3 Option 4B
Potentially significant effects – mitigation may be possible are predicted on ten cultural heritage assets. Information on the effects along with a provisional assessment of the magnitude and significance of effect is presented below: A potential adverse effect on the setting of Fowler’s Farmhouse (Asset 10), Fell’s Farmhouse (Asset 31), Silver Birches (Asset 50), Gosling’s Farmhouse (Asset 59), Gosling’s cartlodge (Asset 58), Coggeshall Hall Farmhouse (Asset 167), and barn (Asset 166) and on Hornigalls Farmhouse (Asset 184), all Grade II Listed Buildings assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on the setting of Glazenwood House and Garden (Asset 40) assessed as Low value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of High magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on the Bradwell cropmark complex (Asset 24) assessed as Low value, is predicted to result from disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and moderate significance. A potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible could result from the removal of any unknown archaeological remains that may be present within the footprint of this option.
Overall rating 6-point effect rating of 2, there is a potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
53
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.8.4 Option 8
Potentially significant effects – mitigation may be possible, are predicted on seven on cultural heritage assets. Information on the effects along with a provisional assessment of the magnitude and significance of effect is presented below: A potential adverse effect on the setting of Hole Farmhouse (Asset 126), a Grade II* Listed Building assessed as High value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and large significance. A potential adverse effect on a cropmark complex of enclosures and ditches (Asset 125) assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and large significance. A potential adverse effect on the setting of Ashes Farmhouse (Asset 16) and two barns (Assets 18 and 19) Gosling’s Farmhouse (Asset 59), Clark’s Farmhouse (Asset 122) and its Granary (Asset 119) all Grade II Listed Buildings assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on the setting of Rivenhall Roman Villa (Asset 85) and Rivenhall Long Mortuary Enclosure (Asset 121), both Scheduled Monument assessed as High value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of minor magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on an irregular enclosure with a broad double ditched trackway (Asset 83) and Roman enclosure (Asset 156) assessed as Low value, is predicted to result from disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on a Roman building (Asset 84) assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and moderate significance. A potential significant adverse effect could result from the removal of any unknown archaeological remains that may be present within the footprint of this option.
Overall rating 6-point effect rating of 2, there is a potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
7.8.5 Option 9A
Potentially significant effects are predicted on seven cultural heritage assets. Information on the effects along with a provisional assessment of the magnitude and significance of effect is presented below: A potential adverse effect on the setting of Hole Farmhouse (Asset 126), a Grade II* Listed Building assessed as High value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and large significance. A potential adverse effect on a cropmark complex of enclosures and ditches (Asset 125) assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and large significance. A potential adverse effect on the setting of Fowler’s Farmhouse (Asset 10), Fell’s Farmhouse (Asset 31), Silver Birches (Asset 50), Gosling’s Farmhouse (Asset 59), Gosling’s cartlodge (Asset 58), Coggeshall Hall Farmhouse (Asset 167), and barn (Asset 166) and on Hornigalls Farmhouse (Asset 184), all Grade II Listed Buildings assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and moderate significance.
54
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
A potential adverse effect on the setting of Glazenwood House and Garden (Asset 40) assessed as Low value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of High magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on the Bradwell cropmark complex (Asset 24) assessed as Low value, is predicted to result from disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on the setting of Rivenhall Roman Villa (Asset 85) and Rivenhall Long Mortuary Enclosure (Asset 121), both Scheduled Monument assessed as High value, is predicted to result from noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of minor magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on an irregular enclosure with a broad double ditched trackway (Asset 83) and Roman enclosure (Asset 156) assessed as Low value, is predicted to result from disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of major magnitude and moderate significance. A potential adverse effect on a Roman building (Asset 84) assessed as Medium value, is predicted to result from disturbance during construction. The magnitude of this effect has been assessed to be of moderate magnitude and moderate significance. A potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible could result from the removal of any unknown archaeological remains that may be present within the footprint of this option.
Overall 6-point effect rating of 2, there is a potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
7.9 Mitigation and opportunities
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; 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.
55
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.10 Scoping Assessment
7.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration in EIA for preferred option
It is recommended that an assessment of the potential effects on archaeological remains, historic buildings and the historic landscape is included in the next phases of assessment.
7.10.2 Recommended scope and approach to EIA
Further assessment will be undertaken based on the guidance provided by HA208/07. For archaeological remains it is recommended that a Detailed Assessment (as defined in HA208/07) is undertaken while Simple Assessment will be undertaken for Historic Buildings and the Historic Landscape. A simple assessment comprises further data collection a wider range of sources including historic landscape characterisation, historic mapping, aerial photographs, books and journals and local records, a walkover survey and photographic recording of relevant buildings. A detailed assessment includes data gathering in more depth from the sources consulted in the simple assessment. Where the desk based studies suggest that the available information is inadequate field survey, including geophysical survey and trial trenching will be required to adequately evaluate the resource.
Consultation will be required with Historic England, the Local Planning Authority heritage advisors and Essex County Council’s heritage team.
56
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 7.6: Summary of Effects
RECEPTOR OPTION VALUE Type 1B 3 4B 8 9A Noise and visual intrusion during construction and operation – moderate magnitude of effect
Grade II* Listed Significant adverse effect – mitigation may Significant adverse effect – mitigation may be Significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible No high value receptors No high value receptors building be possible possible Hole Farmhouse High Baytree Cottage (Asset 21) Hole Farmhouse Scheduled Significant adverse effect – mitigation may be Significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible Monuments No scheduled monuments identified. No scheduled monuments identified. No scheduled monuments identified. possible Rivenhall Roman Villa (Asset 85) Rivenhall Roman Villa (Asset 85) Rivenhall Long Mortuary Enclosure (Asset 121) Rivenhall Long Mortuary Enclosure (Asset 121) Grade II Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible be possible Ashes Farmhouse (Asset 16) Fowlers Farmhouse (Asset 10) Fowler’s Farmhouse (Asset 10) Ashes Farmhouse (Asset 16) and two barns Fowler’s Farmhouse (Asset 10) Two barns (Assets 18 and 19) Whiteshill Farm and barn (Asset 66 and Fell’s Farmhouse (Asset 31) (Assets 18 and 19) Fell’s Farmhouse (Asset 31) Goslings Farmhouse (Asset 184) 67) Silver Birches (Asset 50) Gosling’s Farmhouse (Asset 59) Silver Birches (Asset 50) Coggeshall Hall Farmhouse (Asset 167) and Stock Street Farmhouse and barn (Asset Gosling’s Farmhouse (Asset 59) Clark’s Farmhouse (Asset 122) and its Granary Gosling’s Farmhouse (Asset 59) barn (Asset 166) 80 and 78) Gosling’s cartlodge (Asset 58) Coggeshall Hall (Asset 119) Gosling’s cartlodge (Asset 58) Coggeshall Hall Hornigalls Farmhouse (Asset 184) No. 73 and 74 Stock Street (Asset 81) Farmhouse (Asset 167) and barn (Asset 166 Farmhouse (Asset 167) and barn (Asset 166 No. 75 and 76 Stock Street (Asset 86) Hornigalls Farmhouse (Asset 184), Hornigalls Farmhouse (Asset 184),
Lee’s Farmhouse (Asset 171)
Medium
Undesignated Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may Buildings and mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible be possible Buried No low value receptors Bay Tree Farm Brickworks (Asset 25) Glazenwood (Asset 40) No low value receptors Glazenwood (Asset 40) Archaeological
Cropmarks of enclosures and ditches near Remains Captains Wood (Asset 62) Low Roman Cremation Cemetery (Asset 98) Removal/disturbance during Construction Unknown Buried Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may Archaeological
mitigation may be possible be possible Remains No medium value receptors No medium value receptors No medium value receptors Roman building (Asset 84)
Roman building (Asset 84) Medium
Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible be possible No low value receptors No low value receptors Bradwell cropmark complex (Asset 24)
Irregular enclosure with a broad double ditched Irregular enclosure with a broad double ditched trackway (Asset 83) and Roman enclosure trackway (Asset 83) and Roman enclosure (Asset 156) Low (Asset 156) Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may
mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible be possible Removal of unknown remains
Removal of unknown remains Removal of unknown remains Removal of unknown remains Removal of unknown remains Unknown
6 point Scale Significant Adverse – mitigation may be Significant Adverse – mitigation may be Significant Adverse – mitigation may be Significant Adverse – mitigation may be Significant Adverse – mitigation may be possible possible possible possible possible
57
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
7.11 Chapter references Braintree Borough Council www.braintree.gov.uk/info/200581/conservation_areas_and_listed_buildings accessed 04/06/2016; Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014a), Code of Conduct; Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014b), Standard and guidance for Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment; Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014c), Standard and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment; Colchester Borough Council www.colchester.gov.uk/article/17872/Listed-Buildingsaccessed 04/06/2016 East Anglian Archaeology, Occasional Paper 24 (2011), Research and Archaeology Revisited: A revised framework for the East of England; English Heritage (2008), Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance; Highways Agency et al., (2007), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 ‘Cultural Heritage’ (HA 208/07) of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; Historic England (2015a), Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning; Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking; and Historic England (2015b), Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning; Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph, (2007), A Slice of Rural Essex: Recent Archaeological Discoveries from the A120 between Stansted Airport and Braintree.
58
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8. Landscape
8.1 Scope of assessment
This chapter considers the potential landscape and visual effects that would occur as a result of the route options.
The assessment will consider landscape and visual effects separately, as follows: Landscape: changes in the fabric and character of the landscape resulting from the options; and Visual: changes in view from visual receptors such as residential properties, places of work and public areas resulting from the options.
As the study area (approximately 1.5 km from the centre line, as discussed in Chapter 8.5) is predominantly rural in character, the requirement for a separate townscape assessment has been scoped out. Where urban areas are potentially affected by the route options these would be covered as part of the landscape assessment.
8.2 Policy and guidance
8.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy
The following overarching policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are broadly relevant to landscape: Policy 7 Requiring good design. This policy is relevant to this topic through the intention of addressing the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. Policy 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Various sections of this policy are relevant to this topic, the nature of the A120 Scheme and the study area. The policy emphasises the need to contribute, protect and enhance valued landscapes and seeks to limit the effect of light pollution on local amenity.
The Adopted Braintree District Development Plan Local Plan Review 2005 and Core Strategy 2011, (Braintree District Council) and the Colchester Borough Adopted Local Plan 2001-2021, (Colchester Borough Council); provide the local planning framework.
8.2.1.1 Braintree District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Braintree District Council, adopted September 2011)
The following policies are relevant to the A120 Scheme and landscape and visual effects: Policy CS5 The Countryside. This policy promotes uses appropriate to the countryside in order to protect landscape character and the amenity of the countryside. Policy CS8 Natural Environment and Biodiversity. This policy states that development must have regard to the locally distinctive landscape character and its sensitivity to change. Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessments (Chris Blandford Associates 2006), provides the evidence base to the LDF. Policy CS9 Built and Historic Environment. This policy promotes high quality design which protects and enhances the historic environment, with particular regard to respecting the setting of historic features such as Conservation Areas as well as areas of landscape sensitivity.
59
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.2.1.2 Colchester Borough Council Local Development Core Strategy (Colchester Borough Council, adopted December 2008) Policy ENV1 Environment is relevant to the A120 Scheme and landscape and visual effects. This policy seeks to conserve and enhance Colchester’s natural and historic environment and the countryside, and to protect green infrastructure across the borough. The policy refers to greenfield land as identified in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, and states that this should be protected in accordance with Colchester Borough Landscape Character Assessment (Colchester Borough Council and Chris Blandford Associates 2005). Overall the policy aims to conserve open stretches of countryside within the borough and to protect the existing landscape character.
8.2.1.3 Colchester Local Development Framework, Development Policies (Colchester Borough Council, adopted October 2010)
The following policies are relevant to the A120 Scheme and landscape and visual effects: Policy DP1: Design and Amenity. This policy promotes high standards of design, and states that development proposals should respect the landscape setting. Policy DP14: Historic Environment Assets. This policy offers protection to historic assets and their settings, including Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Historic Parks and Gardens.
8.2.1.4 Maldon District Adopted Replacement Local Plan and Saved Policies (Maldon District, November 2005) Maldon District Council has identified a Special Landscape Area (SLA) in their Local Plan (Policy CC7). This is a local landscape designation and covers a section of the River Blackwater and part of the existing A12. The SLA designation is not included within Maldon District’s emerging Local Development Plan. Policy CC7: This policy states that permission will not be given for development unless its location, siting, design, materials and landscaping conserve or restore the character of the area in which the development is proposed.
8.2.2 Overview of relevant guidance
The methodology used for the assessment of options follows Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment (IAN 135/10) (Highways Agency, 2010).
A list of further sources of baseline information is provided in Chapter 8.11.
8.3 Definition of significant effects
Significance of effects will be determined with consideration of the sensitivity of potential receptors and the likely magnitude of impact. The assessment of significance of effect relies upon common sense, experience and professional judgement, supported by substantiated reasoning.
The value or sensitivity of a landscape reflects its vulnerability to change. It also reflects the importance of the landscape in relation to national and local designations, its perceived value to users and any intrinsic aesthetic characteristics such as its contribution to local landscape quality or sense of place.
In some instances, a landscape with important elements may be of lower sensitivity as a result of its potential tolerance to change, for example, a variable landform or high levels of tree cover would reduce the extent to which a proposal may be visible. Conversely, a landscape with few features of interest may be of a higher sensitivity because it is vulnerable to the introduction of a development, for example, a flat landscape with an open character where screen planting would be inappropriate.
The sensitivity of a visual receptor depends on the viewer’s activity or occupation that brings them into contact with the view and the nature of the view, whether full or glimpsed, near or distant. It is also determined by the importance of the receptor, the importance of the view, the perceived quality of the view and its ability to accommodate change. 60
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The magnitude of landscape and visual impact relates to the degree of change the A120 Scheme would cause. Magnitude is determined by the perceived contrast or integration with the existing scenic features and aesthetic character in terms of its form, line, colour, texture and scale. It also considers the geographical extent and duration of the impacts.
For the purposes of this evaluation, typical descriptors used to indicate the potential significance of landscape and visual effects are provided in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2 below. The typical descriptor of effects is a function, based on professional judgement, of the sensitivity and magnitude of effects.
Table 8.1 Descriptors of significance of landscape effects
Significance category Typical descriptors of effect Very large beneficial The scheme would: (positive) effect greatly enhance the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; create an iconic high quality feature and/or series of elements; and enable a sense of place to be created or greatly enhanced. Large beneficial The scheme would: (positive) effect enhance the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; enable the restoration of characteristic features and elements lost as a result of changes from inappropriate management or development; and enable a sense of place to be enhanced. Moderate beneficial The scheme would: (positive) effect improve the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; enable the restoration of characteristic features and elements partially lost or diminished as a result of changes from inappropriate management or development; and enable a sense of place to be restored. Slight beneficial The scheme would: (positive) effect complement the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; maintain or enhance characteristic features and elements; and enable some sense of place to be restored. Neutral effect The scheme would: maintain the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; blend in with characteristic features and elements; and enable a sense of place to be retained. Slight adverse The scheme would: (negative) effect not quite fit the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; be at variance with characteristic features and elements; and detract from a sense of place. Moderate adverse The scheme would: (negative) effect conflict with the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; have an adverse impact on characteristic features or elements; and diminish a sense of place. Large adverse The scheme would: (negative) effect be at considerable variance with the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; degrade or diminish the integrity of a range of characteristic features and elements; and
61
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
damage a sense of place. Very large adverse The scheme would: (negative) effect be at complete variance with the character (including quality and value) of the landscape; cause the integrity of characteristic features and elements to be lost; and cause a sense of place to be lost.
Table 8.2 Descriptors of significance of visual effects
Significance Typical descriptors of effect Very large beneficial The scheme would create an iconic new feature that would greatly enhance the view. Large beneficial The scheme would lead to a major improvement in a view from a highly sensitive receptor. Moderate beneficial The scheme would cause obvious improvement to a view from a moderately sensitive receptor, or perceptible improvement to a view from a more sensitive receptor. Slight beneficial The scheme would cause limited improvement to a view from a receptor of medium sensitivity, or would cause greater improvement to a view from a receptor of low sensitivity. Neutral No perceptible change in the view. Slight adverse The scheme would cause limited deterioration to a view from a receptor of medium sensitivity, or cause greater deterioration to a view from a receptor of low sensitivity. Moderate adverse The scheme would cause obvious deterioration to a view from a moderately sensitive receptor, or perceptible damage to a view from a more sensitive receptor. Large adverse The scheme would cause major deterioration to a view from a highly sensitive receptor, and would constitute a major discordant element in the view. Very large adverse The scheme would cause the loss of views from a highly sensitive receptor, and would constitute a dominant discordant feature in the view.
For the purposes of the options evaluation an effect judged to be moderate or greater will be regarded as significant. Table 8.3 summarises the significance of landscape and visual effects and the six point options evaluation scale.
Table 8.3 Significance of effect and options evaluation scale
Score 6 point effect scale Landscape Effect Category
1 Significant adverse effect – not possible to Large/Very large adverse effect mitigate which can’t be mitigated
2 Potential significant adverse effect – Very large/large/Moderate adverse mitigation may be possible effect
3 Slight adverse effect - Effect not Slight adverse effect significant with typical mitigation.
4 Slight beneficial - Effect not significant Slight beneficial effect
62
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Score 6 point effect scale Landscape Effect Category
5 Significant beneficial effect Very large/Large/Moderate beneficial effect
0 No effect Neutral effect/effects neutralised through inherent mitigation
8.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement
Engagement was undertaken with Tier 1 Stakeholders through the Environment Forum including the following key stakeholders relevant to landscape and visual issues: Essex County Council. Braintree District Council. Colchester Borough Council.
8.5 Field surveys and modelling
A site familiarisation survey was undertaken on the 29th June 2016 to assess baseline conditions and verify the findings of the desk study, including potential landscape and visual receptors. It should be noted that the site familiarisation survey was undertaken with regards to the route options available at the time, Revision F, and with regards to the assumptions detailed below. However, as the route alignment has remained broadly the same, this is considered sufficient for this assessment.
The field study has identified that significant visual effects are unlikely beyond 1km from the centre line as, even if views are possible from this distance, visual effects would not be significant.
8.6 Assumptions and uncertainties
At this options assessment stage of the project, there is uncertainty over some aspects of design as detailed below. The extent and nature of construction activity including the location of temporary works such as site compounds, soil storage areas and haul routes. Design features, including the horizontal and vertical alignment, the location of any roundabouts or junctions along the alignment, the layout of proposed junction improvements and details of structures, signage, gantries and lighting. The extent of vegetation removal.
The extent and type of primary and secondary mitigation required, including acoustic barriers, attenuation ponds, habitat creation areas etc.
63
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.7 Environmental baseline description
8.7.1 Landscape Designations
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 River Blackwater Special Landscape Area (SLA) lies within Maldon District to the east of the A12 near Kelvedon. There are a number of designated heritage features of landscape interest e.g. registered parks and gardens, conservation areas, listed buildings and scheduled monuments. Relevant designations are listed in Table 8.4 below and shown on Figures 8.1.1 - 8.5.1, in Volume 2.
Table 8.4 Relevant designations
Local Landscape River Blackwater Special Landscape Area Designations
Registered Parks and Braxted Park – east of A12 between J22 and J23; and Gardens Faulkebourne Hall – 3km north west of Witham. Faulkbourne Hall has late- 19th-century gardens of about 4 hectares (10 acres) on the site of older gardens, set within a larger parkland of about 55 hectares originating in the medieval period. Non-designated historic Marks Hall Gardens and Arboretum – former site of Jacobean House gardens open to the (demolished 1950) 3km north of Coggeshall; public Glazenwood, Bradwell - A late-20th-century garden and woodland of approximately 21 hectares on the site of Samuel Curtis' early-19th-century fruit and shrub garden. Not registered from 2003; Rivenhall Place (listed) – medieval deer park with later Humphrey Repton landscape; Holfield Grange, Coggeshall – Listed ha-ha along SW boundary; and Prested Hall. Conservation Areas Braintree; Cressing; White Notley; Silver End; Stisted; Coggeshall; Kelveden; and Feering. Listed Buildings There are numerous listed buildings throughout the study area. Notable examples include: Grange Barn and Paycocks House (both Grade I listed) and Garden, Coggeshall – National Trust south of Coggeshall within conservation area. Includes circular walks published by National Trust which include Abbey grounds; and Rivenhall Place – Grade II listed in 70 acres of parkland. Scheduled Monuments Coggeshall Abbey (also Grade 1 listed building) – immediately south of Coggeshall; Land adjacent to St Peter & Paul Black Notley; Land adjacent to and including St Mary’s and All Saints, Rivenhall; and Cressing Temple Barns- approximately 1km south west of Silver End.
64
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Ancient Woodland Templeborder Wood (east of Braintree); Lanham Wood (west of Lanham Farm Road, south east of Braintree); Links Wood (south of Links Road near Clapdog Green); Storey Wood and nearby tree belt (south west of the Polish Camp, Woodhouse Lane); Bungate Wood (north east of Coggeshall); and Great Monks Wood. Common Land Lanham Green; (Lanham Green Common Land – The application for Common Land status has not been confirmed);
Land by Dean’s Farm; and Pantlings Lane.
8.7.2 Landscape Character
The landscape of the study area is described within the national, regional and local landscape character assessments summarised below.
Overall the study area is generally consistent in character and is largely made up of medium sized fields enclosed by numerous hedgerows. The land use is predominantly arable with some pasture. The Rivers Brain, Blackwater and Robins Brook run approximately north west to south east across the study area. These are associated riparian vegetation and pasture within the valleys where typically the land is steeper and/or wetter.
There are numerous villages, farmsteads and rural houses, including many substantial historic houses, which are scattered throughout the area. The A120, A12 roads and railway lines are locally dominant, although away from these corridors the area is reasonably tranquil.
8.7.2.1 National Character Area Profile 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.’
Part of the study area lies within NCA 111 Northern Thames Basin located around Colchester and generally to the east of the A12. However the part of NCA 111 within the study area is relatively small and the descriptions of the wider character area are generally considered unrepresentative. It is considered that the descriptions within the county and district landscape character assessments provide better coverage for this area.
8.7.2.2 County and District Landscape Character Assessments Landscape character at the regional level is described in the Essex Landscape Character Assessment (Figure 8.6.1 and Table 8.5) and at the local level by the Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessments (Figure 8.7.1 and Table 8.6) and Colchester Borough Landscape Character Assessment (Figure 8.81 and Table 8.7).
65
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Relevant extracts from the published county and district landscape character assessments are provided in the following section.
Figure 8.6.1 Essex Landscape Character Assessment – Landscape Character Areas
Table 8.5 Essex Landscape Character Assessment – Final Report 2003
Landscape character area Key characteristics Irregular field pattern of mainly medium size arable fields, marked by B1 Central Essex Farmlands sinuous hedgerows and ditches. Many small woods and copses provide structure and edges in the landscape. Scattered settlement pattern, with frequent small hamlets, typically with greens and ponds. A concentration of isolated moated farmsteads. Network of narrow, winding lanes. Mostly tranquil character away from major roads and Stansted Airport. Flat to gently undulating landform. B4 Gosfield Wooded Strong pattern of large and small woods, including distinctive ancient lime Farmlands woods. Irregular medium size arable fields, bounded by thick hedgerows with mature hedgerow trees. Enclosed character. Many small farmsteads, occasional hamlets and villages. Shallow valleys. C6 Blackwater and Brain Predominantly arable farmland with well hedged medium to large fields.
66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Landscape character area Key characteristics Valley The Brain and the Upper Blackwater Valleys are narrow with undulating valley sides. The Lower Chelmer, and the Blackwater near Maldon, have wide flat valley floors, and gentle valley sides. Extensive linear poplar and willow plantations are a distinctive feature. Shallow valley of variable width with numerous small tributary valleys. C7 Colne Valley Gently to moderately undulating valley sides. Narrow valley bottom, mainly pasture. Arable valley side farmland with frequent small woodlands. A series of small towns and villages at bridging points. Historic mill buildings are distinctive features. Elevated, broad ridge. D4 Tiptree Ridge Strongly wooded western ridgeside. Small - medium scale field pattern. Enclosed character provided by many tall, thick hedgerows and woodland. Framed views over the Blackwater Valley and the Blackwater coastal farmlands. Mix of small regular pasture and large arable fields. Dense woodland in E2 South Colchester the Roman River valley. Farmlands Enclosed, intimate character in the north, more open in the south. Complex settlement pattern of nucleated and linear villages/hamlets, and farmsteads along dispersed lanes. Distinctive elongated large waterbody of Abberton Reservoir within a shallow valley.
67
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Figure 8.7.1 Braintree Landscape Character Areas
Table 8.6 Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessments September 2006
Landscape character area Key characteristics Shallow valley. A9 • Blackwater River Valley The valley sides slope gently up from the valley floor. Predominantly arable farmland on the valley slopes. The Lower Blackwater near the confluence with the River Chelmer has gently valley slopes. Overall strong sense of place and tranquillity away from the settlements of Braintree, Witham and Maldon and the A120, A12 and the railway line. (Sub•Unit A9a) Mixture of arable and pastoral on the valley floor. The River Blackwater Valley floor north of the A120 is narrow. The River Blackwater near the confluence with the River Chelmer has a wide flat valley floor. Shallow valley. A10 Brain River Valley The River Brain valley is narrow with undulating valley sides. Settlements tend to be on the valley sides near the highest points marking them very visible. Pastoral irregular shaped fields slope down the valley sides to the river. Rolling arable farmland. B17 Terling Farmland Plateau Irregular pattern of medium to large scale fields. Scattered settlement pattern, with frequent small villages, typically with
68
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Landscape character area Key characteristics greens and ponds. Network of narrow winding lanes. Mostly tranquil away from the A12 and A131. Gently undulating farmland. B18 Silver End Farmland Irregular predominantly large arable fields marked by sinuous Plateau hedgerows. Many small woods and copses provide structure and edges in the landscape. Scattered settlement pattern, with frequent small villages. Network of narrow winding lanes. Mostly tranquil character away from the major roads. Flat to gently sloping landform. Dominated by large arable fields. B19 Langley Green Farmland Generally gappy and fragmented field boundaries especially adjacent to Plateau roads. Settlement pattern consists of small villages with scattered farmsteads amongst predominantly arable land. The houses are predominantly modern constructed from brick. Overall strong sense of place and tranquillity away from the A120, A12 and the railway line. Irregular field pattern of mainly medium size arable and pastoral fields, B21 • Boreham Farmland marked by hedgerows, banks and ditches. Plateau Small woods and copses provide structure and edges in the landscape. Scattered settlement pattern, with frequent small villages. A concentration of isolated farmsteads. Network of narrow winding lanes. Flat to gently undulating landform. F2 • High Garrett/Markshall Strong pattern of large and small woods, including distinctive ancient lime Wooded Farmland woods. Regular medium to large arable fields, bounded by low well trimmed thick hedgerows and some mature hedgerow trees. Open to enclosed character depending on density of woodlands. Many small farmsteads and occasional villages. Several Halls and estates. Wooded ridge and hillsides to the east of the River Blackwater. F3 • Totham Wooded Predominantly agricultural fields enclosed by woodland patches or Farmland hedgerows with mature trees. Field boundaries vary; some thickly enclosed, as at Beacon Hill; some more open with gappy hedges. Interest created by colour•washed buildings both in villages and scattered in the landscape.
69
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Figure 8.8.1 Colchester Borough Landscape Character Areas
70
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 8.7 Colchester Borough Landscape Character Assessment November 2005
Landscape character area Key characteristics Raised farmland plateau, dissected by the wooded Roman River valley in B2 Easthorpe Farmland the east; Plateau A mixture of small, medium and large irregular, predominantly arable fields; Small patches of deciduous woodland and several ponds/ reservoirs; Area crossed by a network of narrow, sometimes winding lanes; Airfield, surrounded by large open fields has a dominant influence on the landscape character in the south of the area; Settlement pattern consists of small villages and hamlets with scattered farmsteads amongst predominantly arable agricultural land. Sub Area B2a - Key Characteristics Linear settlement corridor extending from the western edge of Colchester Urban Area, including the western edges of Stanway, Copford village and Marks Tey in the west; Northern boundary delineated by main A12 and railway corridor which is a dominant visual feature within the character area; Visually dominant major road junctions/ roundabouts within the character area; Landscape character is disturbed by the visual, movement and noise intrusion of cars on the A12 and also by frequent trains on the main railway line. Gently sloping farmland plateau consisting of a mixture of medium B4 Great Tey Farmland to large-scale enclosed, predominantly arable fields; Plateau Linear belts and small patches of predominantly deciduous woodland; Small nucleated settlements and scattered farmsteads; Comprehensive network of footpaths and winding lanes; Peaceful and tranquil atmosphere. Sparse settlement pattern consisting of the small village of Messing, and F1 Messing Wooded Farmland a number of small isolated farmsteads; Elevated plateau landform which is situated on a broad ridge and dissected by small streams, providing undulations in topography; Large areas of mixed woodland (for example Layer Wood and Pods Wood); Number of small ponds and lakes; Single mature trees at field boundaries or standing within fields.
71
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.7.3 Sensitive Visual Receptors
Visual receptors of high sensitivity include residents in settlements, scattered properties and farmsteads, users of public rights of way and users of public open space, registered parks and gardens, and other parks and garden with public access. The key visual receptors are shown in Table 8.8.
Table 8.8 Key visual receptors Key visual receptors Residents in scattered houses and farmsteads and in key settlements of: Braintree Cressing Black Notley White Notley Tye Green Bradwell Pattiswick Silver End Stisted Coggeshall Kelveden Feering Witham Marks Tey Residents in new developments allocated in the Local Plan at: Marks Tey South east of Braintree Public Rights of Way Users of the public rights of way network throughout the study area, notably the Essex Way long distance footpath (130km from Epping to Harwich) Users of common land at: Lanham Green (Lanham Green Common Land – The application for Common Land status has not been confirmed.) Pantlings Lane Land at Deans Farm, Cressing Visitors to designated and non-designated parks and gardens and National Trust properties: Braxted Park Prested Hall
72
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
The following sections describe potential significant effects identified for the route options. All the identified effects are likely to be of moderate adverse significance or greater, as per Table 8.1 and 8.2, and therefore are considered potentially significant, as per Table 8.3.
All options would have potentially significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible on landscape and/or visual receptors. All options could also be improved through primary and secondary mitigation (see Chapter 8.9), although the magnitude of impact and the degree of significance cannot be determined at this stage. Details concerning the ultimate extent of land take and major construction effects including extent of necessary vegetation loss, earthworks and borrow pits were unknown and these details would require a reassessment of the conclusions.
8.8.1 Option 1B
8.8.1.1 Effects on landscape designations/heritage
The following significant adverse effects on relevant landscape and heritage designations are predicted for option 1B: Effects on the setting of and views from listed buildings, and the conservation areas of Cressing and Silver End. The option may be visible from parts of Coggeshall conservation area although the proposed route is in excess of 1km away so effects are not likely to be significant. Effects on views from common land along Pantling’s Lane. Common land at Lanham Green and Land by Dean’s Farm would be severed by the option. (Lanham Green Common Land – The application for Common Land status has not been confirmed.)
8.8.1.2 Landscape effects
The following significant adverse effects– mitigation may be possible are predicted for option 1B: Loss of highway vegetation on the existing A120 south of Braintree where it is widened to accommodate the tie in of the route option opening up views of the road. Effects from structures and earthworks associated with crossing River Brain valley and railway, including loss of vegetation and severance of public rights on way. The dumbbell roundabouts, slip roads and local access roads on embankment south east of Galley’s Corner would sever field parcels and introduce additional dominant intrusive elements into the landscape along with traffic, lighting and signs. Landscape effects from realigned local roads and overbridges, notably the loss of rural lane character (e.g. narrow verges, lack of kerbs and roadside hedgerows). The route passes through and severs mainly medium sized arable fields including numerous hedgerows (assumed medieval field pattern). The field size is generally larger to east and is predominantly arable with some pasture. Possible landscape effects as the route passes through the existing degraded landscape of Bradwell Quarry. Landscape effect associated with crossing River Blackwater valley, including the loss of mature riparian vegetation. It is assumed that the crossing would be a viaduct with supporting embankments. Landscape effects where the route rises on embankment to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. The dumbbell roundabouts and slip roads on embankment would have a direct significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible on Domsey Brook and introduce additional dominant intrusive elements into the landscape including traffic, lighting and signs.
73
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.8.1.3 Visual effects Potential sensitive visual receptors include residents in numerous rural dwellings and farmsteads and key settlements including the southern edge of Braintree, Black Notley, the northern edge of Tye Green, Cressing, Silver End and south of Coggeshall Hamlet. Potential significant adverse visual effects – mitigation may be possible are as follows: Visual effects on residents in Long Green and Ashes Road and at Lanham Green, including views of the main line in cutting and roundabouts, side roads and realigned local roads on embankment and overbridges, traffic, lighting and signs. Similar but more distant views across open arable fields for residents along B1018 Braintree Road at Tye Green and from Cressing including adverse visual effects on users of public rights of way in the area. Medium to long distance views for residents along Boar Tye Road, Links Road and Sheepcote Lane of the mainline of the route option at grade or embankment through a largely open arable landscape. There will be potential greater visual effects in winter when vegetation is not in leaf. Visual effects on users of numerous public rights of way, notably the Essex Way north of Silver End and common land at Pantling’s Lane, Lanham Green and Land by Dean’s Farm are likely. Visual effects on Hornigal’s in Elm Street and Great Domsey Farm where the route rises on embankment to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. Residents in the Badcock’s Farm area of Easthorpe Road and Easthorpe Green Farm arising from the proposed A12 junction including views of lighting, signs and traffic.
Overall: Potential significant adverse – mitigation may be possible, landscape and visual effects. Effects may be reduced through mitigation although it may not be possible to fully mitigate all adverse effects.
8.8.2 Option 3
8.8.2.1 Effects on landscape designations/heritage
The following significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible, on relevant landscape and heritage designations are predicted for option 3: Effects on the setting of and views from the southern edge of Stisted conservation area as the route passes within 100m of its southern extent Effects on the setting of listed buildings throughout the route.
8.8.2.2 Landscape effects
The following significant adverse landscape effects – mitigation may be possible, are predicted for option 3: Potential loss of existing vegetation on the existing A120 south of Braintree where it is widened to accommodate the tie in of the new road. The complex double dumbbell roundabouts, slip roads and local access roads on embankment north east of Galley’s Corner would result in the loss of Cressing Farm, sever field parcels and introduce additional dominant intrusive elements into the landscape along with traffic, lighting and signs. Effects are likely where the route crosses the Blackwater valley immediately south of Stisted, obstructing views along the valley floor. Effects on the landscape pattern and agricultural land use where the route passes through and severs mainly medium sized field pattern including numerous hedgerows, and vegetation associated with river corridors (assumed medieval field pattern). Field size is generally larger to east and predominantly arable with some pasture particularly in the River Blackwater and Robin’s Brook valleys. The route would be at odds with the landform south of Stisted, including potentially significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible, from earthworks and structures required to cross the existing A120 and River Blackwater and tributaries.
74
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Effects are likely from junction arrangement at the tie in to the existing A120 near Doghouse Road west of Coggeshall and at near Surrex east of Coggeshall. Adverse effects would be from the introduction of multiple roundabouts with associated lighting, signs and traffic. Where the route runs parallel to or on the line of existing A120 it is likely that established existing highway vegetation would be lost particularly around Coggeshall. Effects where the route rises on embankment to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. The proposed dumbbell roundabouts and slip roads on embankment would have a direct effect on the Domsey Brook and introduce additional dominant intrusive elements into the landscape including traffic, lighting and signs
8.8.2.3 Visual effects Residents in numerous rural dwellings and farmsteads and key settlements would experience adverse views of the proposals. Potential significant adverse – mitigation may be possible, visual effects are as follows: Loss of existing highway vegetation could open up some views for residents in the south and east of Braintree, although much of the land use in this area is commercial and houses are set well back from the existing A120. Lighting and signs are potentially visible. Residents in Long Green would experience views of complex roundabouts and local access roads on embankment, along with associated lighting, signs and traffic. Effects are likely on residents in the Withies Farm and Bay Tree Farm areas as the route crosses a tributary to the River Blackwater on embankment. There are also likely significant effects mitigation may be possible on resents along the existing A120 Coggeshall Road where the existing route crosses the proposed route. Visual effects are likely on residents of listed buildings in Water Lane, Stisted from the road on embankment crossing the Blackwater valley and crossing open arable land to the east. Potential visual effects on residents around the A120/Doghouse Lane junction, including effects from lighting. Potential visual effect on residents along the existing A120 notably near Whiteshill Farm and Stockstreet from loss of existing highway vegetation and road widening, and potential views across open arable fields from scattered properties further afield including Holfield Grange, Gate House, Bouchier’s Grange and Monks Down Farm. However for all these locations the new alignment would be assessed in the context of the existing A120, therefore significant effects are likely to be limited to those closest to the route or where new elements such as lighting or signage are introduced. Visual effects are likely for residents in the Raynecroft Fram, Lee’s Farm and Surrex area from the new junction with the existing A120 including effects from lighting, signs and traffic. Visual effects on residents in Skye Green, notably Weavers and Shoulder Hall in Mill Lane that is severed by the route. Visual effects on Hornigal’s in Elm Street and Great Domsey Farm where the route rises on embankment to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. Effects are likely on residents in the Badcock’s Farm area of Easthorpe Road and Easthorpe Green Farm arising from the proposed A12 junction including views of lighting, signs and traffic. Effects on users of numerous public rights of way, notably the Essex Way east of Coggeshall.
Overall: Potential significant adverse - mitigation may be possible, landscape and visual effects. Effects may be reduced through mitigation although it may not be possible to fully mitigate all adverse effects.
75
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.8.3 Option 4B
8.8.3.1 Effects on landscape designations/heritage:
The following significant adverse effects - mitigation may be possible, on relevant landscape and heritage designations are predicted for option 4B: The option may be visible from parts of Coggeshall conservation area although the proposed route is in excess of 1km away so effects are not likely to be significant. The route would run close to the non-designated historic park and garden at Glazenwood, potentially affecting the setting of the park. Dense mature tree planting forms a strong boundary, although overbridges to accommodate realigned roads and Public rights of way may be visible, particularly in winter. There are potential adverse effects on the setting of listed buildings throughout the route. Potential adverse effects on views from common land along Pantling’s Lane.
8.8.3.2 Landscape effects:
The following significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible, are predicted for option 4B: There would be potential adverse effects from the loss of existing vegetation on the existing A120 south of Braintree where it is widened to accommodate the tie in of the new road. The complex double dumbbell roundabouts, slip roads and local access roads on embankment north east of Galley’s Corner would result in the loss of Cressing Farm, sever field parcels and introduce additional dominant intrusive elements into the landscape along with traffic, lighting and signs. There are potential adverse landscape effects from realigned local roads and overbridges, notably the loss of rural lane character (e.g. narrow verges, lack of kerbs and roadside hedgerows). There are potential adverse effects on the landscape pattern and agricultural land use where the route passes through and severs mainly medium sized field pattern including numerous hedgerows, and vegetation associated with river corridors (assumed medieval field pattern). Field size is generally larger to east and predominantly arable with some pasture particularly in the River Blackwater and Robin’s Brook valleys. The route passes through existing degraded landscape of Bradwell Quarry. There would be a potential adverse landscape effect associated with crossing River Blackwater valley, including the loss of mature riparian vegetation. It is assumed that the crossing would be a viaduct with supporting embankments. There would be landscape effects where the route rises on embankment to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. The dumbbell roundabouts and slip roads on embankment would have a direct effect on the Domsey Brook and introduce additional dominant intrusive elements into the landscape including traffic, lighting and signs.
76
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.8.3.3 Visual effects: Residents in numerous rural dwellings, farmsteads and key settlements would experience adverse views of the proposals. Potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible are as follows: Loss of existing highway vegetation could open up views for residents in the south and east of Braintree, although much of the land use in this area is commercial and houses are set well back from the existing A120. Residents in Long Green would experience views of complex roundabouts and local access roads on embankment, along with associated lighting signs and traffic. Residents in Withies Farm, Fells Farm and Clapdog Green area are likely to experience adverse views of the route including effects from the realigned crossings for Lanham Green Road, Links Road and Sheepcoates. Potential significant adverse visual effects – mitigation may be possible on Hornigal’s in Elm Street and Great Domsey Farm where the route rises on embankment to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. Further significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible are likely on residents in the Badcock’s Farm area of Easthorpe Road and Easthorpe Green Farm arising from the proposed A12 junction including views of lighting, signs and traffic. There would be visual effects on users of numerous public rights of way, notably the Essex Way near Clapdog Green and common land at Pantling’s Lane.
Overall: Potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible. Effects may be reduced through mitigation although it may not be possible to fully mitigate all adverse effects.
8.8.4 Option 8
8.8.4.1 Effects on landscape designations/heritage
The following significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible on relevant landscape and heritage designations are predicted for option 8: Potential effects on the setting of and views from listed buildings and from the conservation areas of Cressing, Silver End and Kelvedon. Common land at Lanham Green and Land by Dean’s Farm would be severed. (Lanham Green Common Land – The application for Common Land status has not been confirmed.) Direct effect on the River Blackwater SLA from the east facing slips onto the A12 and potential impact on the setting of and views from the SLA of the A120/A12 junction.
8.8.4.2 Landscape effects
The following significant adverse effects - mitigation may be possible are predicted for option 8: Effects from the loss of existing highway vegetation on the existing A120 south of Braintree where it is widened to accommodate the tie in of the new road. Effects from structures and earthworks associated with crossing River Brain valley and railway, including loss of vegetation and severance of public rights of way. The potential dumbbell roundabouts, slip roads and local access roads on embankment south east of Galley’s Corner would sever field parcels and introduce additional dominant intrusive elements into the landscape along with traffic, lighting and signs. Effects from realigned local roads and overbridges, notably the loss of rural lane character (e.g. narrow verges, lack of kerbs and roadside hedgerows).
77
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The route passes through and severs mainly medium sized arable fields including numerous hedgerows (assumed medieval field pattern). The field size is generally larger to east and is predominantly arable with some pasture. Effects where the route rises on embankment to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. The dumbbell roundabouts and slip roads that link onto the A12 would have a direct effect on the River Blackwater and valley floor, and locally distinctive willow plantation. It would introduce significant dominant intrusive elements into the landscape including traffic, lighting and signs with limited opportunity to mitigate. Retention of the existing A12 infrastructure in this area would exacerbate adverse effects.
8.8.4.3 Visual effects Potential sensitive visual receptors include residents in numerous rural dwellings and farmsteads and key settlements including the southern edge of Braintree , Black Notley, the northern edge of Tye Green, Cressing, Silver End, Rivenhall Place (Grade II listed) and south of Kelvedon. Potential significant visual effects are predicted as follows: Visual effects on residents in Long Green and Ashes Road and at Lanham Green, including views of the main line in cutting and roundabouts, side roads and realigned local roads on embankment and overbridges, traffic, lighting and signs. Similar but more distant views across open arable fields for residents along B1018 Braintree Road at Tye Green and from Cressing including visual effects on users of public rights of way in the area. Medium to long distant views for residents along the eastern edge of Silver End and along Boar Tye Road, Links Road and Sheepcotes Lane of the mainline at grade or on low embankment through a largely open arable landscape. Potential greater visual effects in winter. Significant effects – mitigation may be possible for residents in the Clarks Farm and Crabbs Farm area of route rising on an embankment to cross the railway. Similar but more distant views from Hoo Hall and Hare Lodge. Significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible on residents Hole Farm (Grade II* listed building) from surrounding infrastructure on embankment, including views of traffic, lighting and signs. There would be significant visual effects on users of numerous public rights of way, notably the Essex Way north of Silver End. Visual effects on users of common land at Lanham Green and Land by Dean’s Farm.
Overall: Potential significant adverse landscape and visual effects. Effects may be reduced through mitigation although it may not be possible to fully mitigate all adverse effects.
8.8.5 Option 9A
8.8.5.1 Effects on landscape designations/heritage
The following significant adverse effects on relevant landscape and heritage designations are predicted for option 9A: The route would run close to the non-designated historic park and garden at Glazenwood, potentially affecting the setting of the park. Dense mature tree planting forms a strong boundary, although overbridges to accommodate realigned roads and public rights of way may be visible, particularly in winter. Potential effects on the setting of and views from listed buildings and from conservation areas of Cressing, Silver End and Kelvedon. Direct effect on the River Blackwater SLA from the east facing slips onto the A12 and potential impact on the setting of and views from the SLA of the A120/A12 junction.
78
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.8.5.2 Landscape effects
The following significant adverse effects - mitigation may be possible, are predicted for option 9A: There would be potential effects from the loss of existing vegetation on the existing A120 south of Braintree where it is widened to accommodate the tie in of the new road. The complex double dumbbell roundabouts, slip roads and local access roads on embankment north east of Galley’s Corner would result in the loss of Cressing Farm, sever field parcels and introduce additional dominant intrusive elements into the landscape along with traffic, lighting and signs. There are potential landscape effects from realigned local roads and overbridges, notably the loss of rural lane character (e.g. narrow verges, lack of kerbs and roadside hedgerows). The route passes through and severs mainly medium sized arable fields including numerous hedgerows (assumed medieval field pattern). The field size is generally larger to east and is predominantly arable with some pasture. There would be significant landscape effects where the route rises on embankment to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. The dumbbell roundabouts and slip roads that link onto the A12 would have a direct effect on the River Blackwater and valley floor, and locally distinctive willow plantation. It would introduce significant dominant intrusive elements into the landscape including traffic, lighting and signs with limited opportunity to mitigate. Retention of the existing A12 infrastructure in this area would exacerbate adverse effects.
8.8.5.3 Visual effects Residents in numerous rural dwellings, farmsteads and key settlements would experience adverse views of the proposals. Potential significant effects - mitigation may be possible are as follows: Loss of existing highway vegetation could open up views for residents in the south and east of Braintree, although much of the land use in this area is commercial and houses are set well back from the existing A120. Residents in Long Green would experience views of complex roundabouts and local access roads on embankment, along with associated lighting signs and traffic. Residents in Withies Farm, Fells Farm and Clapdog Green area are likely to experience adverse views of the route including effects from the realigned crossings for Lanham Green Road, Links Road and Sheepcoates Lane. Similar but more distant views across open arable fields for residents along B1018 Braintree Road at Tye Green, and from Cressing including visual effects on users of public rights of way in the area. Medium to long distant views for residents along the eastern edge of Silver End and along Boar Tye Road, Links Road and Sheepcotes Lane of the mainline at grade or on low embankment through a largely open arable landscape. Potential greater visual effects in winter. Potential significant visual effects – mitigation may be possible for residents in Rivenhall area including Riverhall Place and, most notably Parkgate Road, Parkgate Farm and Porters Farm, including views of realigned overbridge. Significant visual effects for residents in the Clarks Farm and Crabbs Farm area of route rising on embankment to cross the railway. Similar but more distant views from Hoo Hall and Hare Lodge. Significant adverse effect on residents Hole Farm (Grade II* listed building) from surrounding infrastructure on embankment, including views of traffic, lighting and signs. There would be significant visual effects on users of numerous public rights of way, notably the Essex Way north of Silver End.
Overall: Potential significant adverse landscape and visual effects – mitigation may be possible. Effects may be reduced through mitigation although it may not be possible to fully mitigate all adverse effects.
79
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 8-9: Summary of Effects
RECEPTOR OPTION Type 1B 3 4B 8 9A Potential landscape and visual effects (without mitigation)
Landscape Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation designations mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible may be possible and relevant Severed/lost common land at Lanham Effects on the setting of and views from the The route would run close to the non- Severed/lost common land at Lanham Green and land The route would run close to the non-designated heritage assets Green and land by Dean’s Farm. southern edge of Stisted conservation area designated historic park and garden at by Dean’s Farm. historic park and garden at Glazenwood Glazenwood Direct effect on the River Blackwater SLA from the east Potential effects on the setting of and views from Effects on the setting of listed buildings facing slips onto the A12 and potential impact on the listed buildings and from conservation areas of throughout the route. setting of and views from the SLA of the A120/A12 Cressing, Silver End and Kelvedon. Potential adverse effects on views from junction. Direct effect on the River Blackwater SLA from the common land along Pantling’s Lane. Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation east facing slips onto the A12 and potential impact may be possible on the setting of and views from the SLA of the Potential significant adverse effect – Potential effects on the setting of and views from listed A120/A12 junction. mitigation may be possible buildings and from the conservation areas of Cressing, Potential significant adverse effect – Effects on the setting of listed buildings Silver End and Kelvedon. mitigation may be possible throughout the route. Effects on the setting of and views from listed buildings, and the conservation areas of Cressing and Slight adverse effect Silver End. Views from parts of Coggeshall conservation The option may be visible from parts area. of Coggeshall conservation.
Views from common land along Pantling’s Lane. Slight adverse effect Views from parts of Coggeshall conservation area. Landscape Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation character mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible may be possible Effects from structures and The complex double dumbbell roundabouts, The complex double dumbbell roundabouts, Crossing River Brain valley and railway. The complex double dumbbell roundabouts, slip earthworks associated with crossing slip roads and local access roads on slip roads and local access roads on The potential dumbbell roundabouts, slip roads and local roads and local access roads on embankment River Brain valley and railway. embankment north east of Galley’s Corner. embankment north east of Galley’s Corner access roads on embankment south east of Galley’s north east of Galley’s Corner would result in the The dumbbell roundabouts, slip roads Effects are likely where the route crosses the Realigned local roads and overbridges. Corner loss of Cressing Farm, and local access roads on Blackwater valley. Landscape pattern and agricultural land use Where the route rises on embankment to cross the Effects where the route rises on embankment to embankment south east of Galley’s The route would be at odds with the landform where the route passes through and severs railway to join the proposed A12 improvement. cross the railway to join the proposed A12 Corner. improvement. south of Stisted,. mainly medium sized field pattern particularly The dumbbell roundabouts and slip roads that link onto Landscape effect associated with Junction arrangement at the tie in to the in the River Blackwater and Robin’s Brook the A12 would have a direct effect on the River The dumbbell roundabouts and slip roads that link crossing River Blackwater valley. existing A120 near Doghouse Road west of valleys. Blackwater and valley floor, and locally distinctive willow onto the A12 would have a direct effect on the Effects where the route rises on Coggeshall and at near Surrex east of Crossing River Blackwater valley, including the plantation. River Blackwater and valley floor, and locally embankment to cross the railway to Coggeshall. loss of mature riparian vegetation. Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation distinctive willow plantation. join the proposed A12 improvement. Effects where the route rises on embankment Effects where the route rises on embankment may be possible The proposed dumbbell roundabouts to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 to cross the railway to join the proposed A12 Effects from realigned local roads and overbridges, Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation and slip roads on embankment would improvement. improvement. notably the loss of rural lane character (e.g. narrow may be possible have a direct effect on the Domsey The proposed dumbbell roundabouts The proposed dumbbell roundabouts and slip verges, lack of kerbs and roadside hedgerows). Effects from realigned local roads and overbridges, Brook. and slip roads on embankment would have a roads on embankment would have a direct The route passes through and severs mainly medium notably the loss of rural lane character (e.g. narrow direct effect on the Domsey Brook. effect on the Domsey Brook. sized arable fields including numerous hedgerows. verges, lack of kerbs and roadside hedgerows). The route passes through and severs mainly medium sized arable fields including numerous hedgerows (assumed medieval field pattern).
80
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
RECEPTOR OPTION Type 1B 3 4B 8 9A Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Potential loss of existing vegetation Potential loss of existing vegetation on the Potential loss of existing vegetation on the on the existing A120 south of existing A120 south of Braintree. existing A120 south of Braintree Braintree. Where the route runs parallel to or on the line Possible landscape effects as the route Possible landscape effects as the of existing A120 it is likely that established passes through the existing degraded route passes through the existing existing highway vegetation would be lost landscape of Bradwell Quarry. particularly around Coggeshall. Visual Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation receptors mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible may be possible Residents in Long Green and Ashes Residents in Long Green. Residents in Long Green Residents in Long Green and Ashes Road and at Residents in Long Green would experience Road and at Lanham Green Residents in the Withies Farm and Bay Tree Residents at Hornigal’s in Elm Street and Lanham Green. adverse views. Residents at Hornigal’s in Elm Street Farm areas as the route crosses a tributary to Great Domsey Farm where the route crosses Residents in the Clarks Farm and Crabbs Farm area, Visual effects for residents in Rivenhall area and Great Domsey Farm where the the River Blackwater on embankment. the railway. distant views from Hoo Hall and Hare Lodge. including Riverhall Place and, most notably route crosses the railway. Residents along the existing A120 Residents in the Badcock’s Farm area of Residents of Hole Farm (Grade II* listed building) . Parkgate Road, Parkgate Farm and Porters Farm. Residents in the Badcock’s Farm area Coggeshall Road Easthorpe Road and Easthorpe Green Farm Users of numerous public rights of way, notably the Residents in the Clarks Farm and Crabbs Farm of Easthorpe Road and Easthorpe Residents of listed buildings in Water Lane, arising from the proposed A12 junction. Essex Way north of Silver End. area of route rising on an embankment to cross the Green Farm Stisted Users of numerous public rights of way, Users of common land at Lanham Green and Land by railway. Similar but more distant views from Hoo Users of numerous public rights of Residents around the A120/Doghouse Lane notably the Essex Way near Clapdog Green Dean’s Farm. (Lanham Green Common Land – The Hall and Hare Lodge. way, notably the Essex Way north of junction. and common land at Pantling’s Lane. application for Common Land status has not been Residents of Hole Farm (Grade II* listed building) Silver End. Residents along the existing A120 notably confirmed.) Users of common land at Lanham near Whiteshill Farm and Stockstreet Slight to potential significant adverse effect – Users of numerous public rights of way, notably the Green and Land by Dean’s Farm. Residents in the Raynecroft Fram, Lee’s Farm mitigation may be possible Essex Way north of Silver End. (Lanham Green Common Land – The and Surrex area from the new junction with the Views across open arable fields for residents along application for Common Land status existing A120. Slight to potential significant adverse effect B1018 Braintree Road at Tye Green and from Cressing has not been confirmed.) Residents in Skye Green, notably Weavers – mitigation may be possible including visual effects on users of public rights of way in and Shoulder Hall in Mill Lane. Loss of existing highway vegetation could the area. Slight to potential significant Residents at Hornigal’s in Elm Street and open up views for residents in the south and Medium to long distant views for residents along the adverse effect – mitigation may be Great Domsey Farm. east of Braintree, eastern edge of Silver End and along Boar Tye Road, Residents in the Badcock’s Farm area of possible Residents in Withies Farm, Fells Farm and Links Road and Sheepcotes Lane Slight to potential significant adverse effect – Easthorpe Road and Easthorpe Green Farm. Medium to long distance views for Clapdog Green area. mitigation may be possible Effects on users of numerous public rights of residents along Boar Tye Road, Links Loss of existing highway vegetation could open up way, notably the Essex Way east of Road and Sheepcote Lane views for residents in the south and east of Coggeshall. Similar but more distant views across Braintree. open arable fields for residents along Residents in Withies Farm, Fells Farm and Clapdog
B1018 Braintree Road at Tye Green Green area and from Cressing Similar but more distant views across open arable fields for residents along B1018 Braintree Road at Tye Green, and from Cressing. Medium to long distant views for residents along the eastern edge of Silver End and along Boar Tye Slight to potential significant adverse effect Road, Links Road and Sheepcotes Lane. – mitigation may be possible Loss of existing highway vegetation Potential views across open arable fields from Holfield Grange, Gate House, Bouchier’s Grange and Monks Down Farm.
6 point Scale Potential Significant Adverse – Potential Significant Adverse – mitigation Potential Significant Adverse – mitigation Potential Significant Adverse – mitigation may be Potential Significant Adverse – mitigation may mitigation may be possible may be possible may be possible possible be possible
81
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.9 Mitigation and opportunities
The highway and environmental design should be developed in accordance with DMRB Volume 10 and IAN135/10 in an iterative manner throughout its development. The design should include embedded mitigation principles as follows: Keep vertical alignment as low as possible in the landscape to reduce 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. 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 siting 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.
8.10 Scoping Assessment
8.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration in EIA for preferred option
It is recommended that at the EIA stage the following issues are considered for the preferred option: Landscape and visual effects on designated features notably listed buildings and registered parks and gardens. Effects on landscape character including landform, vegetation, land use, enclosure pattern and settlement pattern. Visual effects on sensitive visual receptors including residents and users of public rights of way. The development of landscape and visual mitigation through the engineering and environmental design.
8.10.2 Recommended scope and approach to EIA
The landscape and visual effects approach to the EIA would follow the guidance contained in DMRB, Volumes 10 and 11, and IAN135/10 for landscape and visual impact assessment. Mitigation measures as outlined above should be considered to reduce any significant effects.
It is recommended that landscape and visual effects are scoped in for the EIA assessment of the preferred option.
82
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
8.11 Chapter References Braintree District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Braintree District Council, adopted September 2011) Colchester Borough Council Local Development Core Strategy (Colchester Borough Council, adopted December 2008) Colchester Local Development Framework, Development Policies (Colchester Borough Council, adopted October 2010) Maldon District Adopted Replacement Local Plan and Saved Policies (Maldon District Council, adopted November 2005) National Character Area 86: South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland (Natural England 2014) National Character Area 111: Northern Thames Basin, (Natural England 2013) Essex Landscape Character Assessment (Essex County Council 2002) Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessments (Braintree DC, Brentwood BC, Chelmsford BC, Maldon DC and Uttlesford DC September 2006) Colchester Borough Landscape Character assessment (Colchester Borough Council September 2004) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (GLVIA3), (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013) Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, (Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002) An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (Natural England 2014) Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment, (Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11, 2011) Campaign for Rural England Tranquillity Map: Essex (CPRE 2007)
83
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
9. Nature conservation
This chapter considers how the A120 Scheme would potentially affect ecology and nature conservation. The chapter has been prepared with reference to the latest best practice guidance for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and in accordance with specific guidance for highway schemes.
9.1 Scope of assessment
The study area comprises the Zone of Influence (ZoI) within which any ecological features that occur and have the potential to be affected by the development are considered. The potential ZoI is considered to be: Areas directly within the land take for the A120 scheme; Areas likely to be impacted by hydrological disruption; and Areas where there is a risk of pollution and noise disturbance during construction and/or operation.
The ZoI for each ecological receptor is variable, as the geographic area depends on the ecological attributes of the different ecological receptors. Areas that would be temporarily affected during construction have not been considered as part of this assessment as potential locations have not been considered at this stage.
For the purpose of this Chapter, the study area will comprise the Zone of Impact and will be referred to as the Geographic Area of Impact (GAI) to be consistent with other topics/ chapters in this report. The study area for ecological receptors is shown in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 : Study area
Ecological Receptor Study area Desk Study European designated sites for bats 30km European designated sites hydrologically connected, or 20km considered for wintering/ migratory birds European designated sites within or adjacent to the proposed 2km route Other statutory designated sites 2km Non-statutory designated sites; principal habitats of importance 1km Protected species records, European Protected Species 1km Mitigation (EPSM) licences Phase 1 habitat survey using aerial imagery to identify habitats 600m Field Survey Phase 1 habitat survey 250m
84
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
9.2 Policy and guidance
9.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy
9.2.1.1 Legislation International agreements and European Directives that have formed basis for UK legislation include the following:
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992; The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat (‘Ramsar Convention’) 1971; Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979) as amended; Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979) as amended; Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals - Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (1999) as amended; EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive 1979) as amended (79/409/EEC); and, EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (Habitats Directive 1982) as amended (92/43/EEC). The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (Habitat Regulations) transposes the Habitats Directive 1982 into national law. The Habitat Regulations place a duty upon the Secretary of State to identify sites that are important for either habitats or species listed in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive. This is considered in the Assessment of Implications to European Sites (AIES) report, also known as the ‘Habitat Regulations Assessment’. The Habitat Regulations also make it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill, disturb or trade certain animals (identified in Schedule 2), or to pick, collect, uproot, destroy or trade in plants listed in Schedule 5 (see Appendix C.1- Wildlife Legislation, National Policy and Abbreviations).
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
The main piece of UK legislation on nature conservation is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA). This implements the Bern Convention, transposes the Birds Directive into UK law, and complements the Habitat Regulations by offering protection to wild birds and animals listed on Schedule 5 and prohibits interference with places of rest, or intentionally disturbing some species whilst occupying their resting places. The Act prohibits some methods of killing or taking certain birds and animals, but also makes it an offence to release some animals if captured. The Act makes provision for the selection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in order to provide statutory protection for the best examples of the UK’s flora and fauna. The WCA 1981 is supplemented with the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000. This Act strengthens wildlife enforcement by making the reckless disturbance of some species an offence. The Act also makes it an offence to cause the spread of non-native species and places a duty on Government Departments to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity.
85
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 requires public bodies, including local authorities, ‘to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England’ when carrying out their normal functions and to make biodiversity an integral part of policy and decision-making process under Section 40. This is applied via local policies, and is integral to planning decision making. Under Section 41 of the same Act, a list of habitats and species of ‘principal importance to biodiversity within England’ was drawn up as guidance for public bodies in implementing their duty.
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
Areas can be protected via statutory designations under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. This includes the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) designation, which allows for a range of features, such as wildlife, landscape and physiographic features, as valuable reasons for designation. The Act also allows for statutory bodies, i.e. Natural England, to designate the most important areas as National Nature Reserves (NNR); and Local Authorities may declare areas as Local Nature Reserves (LNR) following consultation with the statutory bodies.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is a framework Act that has been amended by various other Parliament Acts and Regulations. The Act sets out a regime for limiting emissions, regulates disposal of controlled waste. The Act originally created the Nature Conservancy Council for England (English Nature), which was superseded by the NERC Act 2006 to join English Nature with other bodies to form Natural England (NE).
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
Badgers Meles meles and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Act is based on the need to protect badgers from cruelty, not for conservation reasons. However, the Act makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly interfere, damage, destroy or obstruct a sett; or to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly treat a badger or attempt to do so.
Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 makes it an offence to use a variety of methods to intentionally cause suffering to a wild mammal, unless for the purpose of euthanasia.
Animal Welfare Act 2006
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 includes the provision to protect animals from harm, making it an offence if an act or the failure to act causes an animal to suffer, and gives consideration as to whether the suffering could have reasonably have been avoided.
Hedgerow Regulations (1997)
The Hedgerow Regulations (1997) make provision for the identification of important hedgerows which may not be damaged, or removed without permission from the Local Planning Authority, unless the removal meets one of the exemptions criteria. This Scheme would meet one of the exemption criteria.
86
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Pest Act 1954
Under the Pest Act 1954, the whole of England (except the city of London) has been declared a rabbit Orytolagus cuniculus clearance area. Land occupiers are obligated to prevent rabbits from causing damage elsewhere.
9.2.2 Review of national and local policy
Policies that set out the direction and delivery of nature conservation objectives include Policies that embed nature conservation principles as part of other frameworks, and specific policies for nature conservation. As part of the assessment process, an EIA must consider the delivery of these policies, as the competent authority would determine whether the mitigated project meets the national and local policy goals and objectives. Conditions and legal obligations may be attached to consent. This Scheme is located within Essex, England, therefore policies relevant to England and the County of Essex are considered. As the A120 scheme crosses two local authority boundaries, both the planning policies of Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council relevant to nature conservation are outlined.
9.2.2.1 National Policy National Policy Statement
The National Policy Statements (NPS) outline Government policy on major infrastructure and are the primary consideration in decision making. There are twelve NPS and these influence Local Plans and Development Frameworks. The National Policy Statement for National Networks (Department for Transport, 2014) is pertinent to this Scheme and sets out the need for and Governments policies to deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) on the national road and rail networks in England. The NPS provides guidance on environmental impacts. It includes the expectation that impacts to habitats and species would be avoided or mitigated as an integral part of their proposed development in order to protect them from harm. Opportunities should be sought to deliver environmental benefits.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 sets out the government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Chapter 11, ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’, sets out the Government’s policies on biodiversity. In summary, with regards to ecology and biodiversity, the NPPF requires that the planning system and planning policies should:
Minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible; Recognise the wider benefits of ecosystem services; Explore and encourage opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments; Refuse planning permission if significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for; Not normally lead to a consent where the proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) would be likely to have an adverse effect on the SSSI (either individually or in combination with other developments); and Lead to a refusal of planning permission if development will result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.
The key principles of the NPFF have been considered in the preparation of this ecological assessment.
87
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework
Following the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in 1992, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) was published. The UK BAP described the biological resources of the UK and provided action plans for the most threatened species and habitats to aid recovery. Local BAPs were also produced to identify local priorities, which often reflected regional and national priorities, and prescribed actions to be undertaken in order to maintain, restore and create habitats and conserve species.
The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework covers the period 2011 - 2020 and replaces the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 1994 – 2010. It forms a strategy with the aim to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and improve and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services. The Biodiversity Strategy for Englandprovides an overall picture of how England is implementing its international and EU commitments, and outlines the strategic direction for biodiversity policy for the next decade.
The National Pollinator Strategy: for bees and other pollinators in England
The Strategy identifies the pressures faced by pollinators, including habitat loss, competition from invasive species, and climate change. Identified outcomes include more high quality flower rich habitats. Priority actions have been identified for large scale land managers to commit to specific actions to support pollinators on their land.
Highways England Biodiversity Action Plan
Highways England have recognised that roads can have detrimental impacts on the environment and wildlife, particularly in combination with other factors such as land use and climate change. The Highways England BAP identifies the current factors that are now reducing available land due to, for example, construction of new roads use of verges for Smart Motorways, and the conversion of central reservations to concrete. The BAP also outlines the benefits and opportunities that road verges can provide; the role of Highways England; and the importance of stakeholder engagement. The BAP details the Highways England approach, which includes addressing biodiversity challenges within any future development and management of the network; ensuring the best possible biodiversity performance; and contribution to wider ecosystem services. A programme to ensure delivery incudes the identification of opportunities to achieve net biodiversity gain (where possible), as part of projects and the EIA process. A clear statement is required to explain the reason why no such opportunities exist must be provided, if none can be found.
9.2.2.2 Overview of local policy Essex County Council
The Essex BAP (Essex Biodiversity Project (2011) is focused on 19 Priority Habitat Types and relate to the Biodiversity 2020 Strategy, and Section 41 Habitats and Species of Principle Importance listed in Schedule 41 of the NERC Act (2006). Targets include maintaining and increasing the extent of the habitats, species diversity, and favourable condition. The establishment and protection of Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) underpin the BAP (Essex Wildlife Trust, 2010) and forms a key mechanism for local authorities in delivering duties set out in the NERC Act (2006). The selection criteria for the LWS are based on key qualities of the habitats or species assemblages.
Braintree District Council
The Local Plan Core Strategy Braintree District Council (DC) (2011), covering the period of 2011 until 2026, and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) (Braintree DC 2009 a) identify the following policies in regards to the environment and nature conservation:
88
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
CS8: Natural Environment and Biodiversity. This policy requires all development proposals to take account of impacts to climate change; protection from air, noise, light and other types of pollution; excessive use of water and other resources; protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land; protection of designated sites of national and local importance; and the enhancement of the natural environment, habitats and biodiversity. RLP 140: protection of linear features, such as river walks and linear paths where development is permitted adjacent to them.
In addition, the ‘External Artificial Lighting’ SPD (Braintree DC 2009b)would be relevant for nature conservation, although the SPD does not include any guidance that specifically addresses biodiversity considerations. Colchester Borough Council
The Local Plan Core Strategy (Colchester Borough Council (BC) 2008) and SPDs include the following policies and principles relating to nature conservation: ENV1: Environment. Development will be strictly controlled to conserve environmental assets and should demonstrate undertaking would be in accord with national, regional and local policy; would protect, conserve or enhance natural assets; protect habitats and species, and conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the Borough; and provide for any necessary mitigating or compensatory measures. Targets include no net loss of Local Nature Reserves; Local Wildlife Sites; priority habitats, species or ancient woodland. Local Principle 7 (Essex County Council, 2014): Enhance Biodiversity. Sustainable Drainge (SuDS) should be designed to improve biodiversity where possible, as underpinned by the duty for public bodies under the NERC Act (2006). Design should seek to locate SuDs close to existing wetland to encourage natural colonisation.
9.2.3 Overview of relevant guidance
The following guidelines would be used for the purposes of field surveys and to determine any mitigation measures appropriate for ecological receptors that could be impacted: Bright, P., Morris, P. and Mitchell-Jones, T. (2006) The Dormouse Conservation Handbook (2nd Edition). English Nature, Peterborough. BTO/JNCC/RSPB (no date) Breeding Bird Survey Instructions. Chanin P (2003). Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10, English Nature, Peterborough. CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Dean, M., Strachan, R., Gow, D. and Andrews, R. (2016) The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series) Eds Fiona Mathews and Paul Chanin. The Mammal Society London. Drake, C.M, Lott D.A., Webb A.J. (2007). Surveying terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates for conservation Evaluation. Natural England Research Reports NERR005. Defra (2007) Hedgerow Survey Handbook: A standard procedure for local surveys in the UK. Defra, London. English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough Froglife (1999) Froglife Advice Sheet 10 Reptile Survey. Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. (1989) Surveying Badgers. The Mammal Society, London.
89
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The Highways Agency DMRB (2008) Environmental Impact Assessment: Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects. Part 5, Vol 11 Sect 2 HA 205/08; The Highways Agency IAN 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland, 1998. Evaluating local mitigation/ translocation programmes: maintain Best practice and lawful standards. HGBI advisory notes for Amphibian and Reptile Groups (ARGs). HGBI, c/o Froglife, Halesworth. Unpubl. JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A technique for environmental audit. ISBN 0 86139 636 7 Natural England Licencing Department. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wildlife-licences Oldman, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. J. S., and Jeffcote, M. (2000) Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155.
9.3 Definition of significant effects
Five possible routes are under consideration, therefore the environmental assessment is proportionate to the early stage in scheme design and the Project Control Framework (PCF) process. Phase 1 habitat surveys have been undertaken for the five routes by undertaking a desk study of the designated ecological sites, habitats and species recorded within appropriate geographic scales, use of aerial photographic imagery and field work. The results of the Phase 1 assessments have been reported separately, but are summarised within this Chapter. Phase 2 surveys (including detailed descriptions of habitats and surveys to identify presence or likely absence of protected species and estimate population sizes) would be undertaken at PCF Stages 2 and 3.
Therefore professional judgement informed by the targeted Phase 1 habitat surveys and biological records has been applied to determine the ecological receptors that are material considerations as part of the planning process. A review of national law and policy and local policy has been outlined in this Chapter, in order to provide context for the relative importance of the ecological features identified. Professional judgement has been applied to assign valuations for potential impacts and their magnitude and corresponding effects to identify whether any of the options have the potential to cause significant effects. Valuations may change following engagement with stakeholders at a later PCF Stage.
The magnitudes of impacts were considered without consideration of any measures to reduce the severity of each impact on the ecological features. Possible measures to reduce impacts would include implementation of the Mitigation Hierarchy whereby Avoidance, Mitigation, Enhancement and Compensation principles are applied. This includes actions that would be necessary to ensure works would be undertaken by licenced derogation of an otherwise illegal activity. A significant effect would constitute impacts on the ecological structure and functions of sites, habitats or ecosystems and the conservation status of habitats and species at an appropriate geographic scale. These would be scored as ‘2’ amber, or ‘1’ red. These scorings would broadly correspond with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) guidelines (CIEEM, 2016) or The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (2008) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) categories of moderate, large or very large effects.
The surveys and assessment have been undertaken using a 6 point effect scale (refer to Table 4.1 Chapter 4.3) to describe the residual effects. For the purpose of this chapter, the scale system has been aligned with the matrix system outlined in the DMRB (2008), and with reference to the approach advocated by CIEEM guidelines (CIEEM, 2016). Therefore significant effects are considered to be those that would be scored as ‘2’ (amber), or ‘1’ (red) on the 6 point scale. These scores would broadly correspond to ‘moderate’ or ‘large’ effects. A significant effect would constitute impacts on structure and functions of sites; habitats or ecosystems; or the conservation status of habitats and species at an appropriate geographic scale.
90
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
To arrive at the residual effect score, the environmental sensitivity or value of the receptor or resource and the magnitude of impact must be determined. The standard method for the valuation of each ecological receptor is the application of professional judgment based on advice from experts who know the local area (see stakeholders Chapter 9.4.2), and information available on the distribution and status of the features. For the purpose of this assessment, the valuation has been solely based on available information from internet sources, records from the Local Biological Records Centres (LBRC) and the habitat suitability assessments undertaken during field work as no stakeholder engagement was undertaken at this stage. The DMRB (IAN130/10) guidelines provide a framework to guide the valuation assessment (see Table 9.2 below).
Table 9.2 Typical descriptors of environmental value or sensitivity International or European - Very high Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very limited potential for substitution. Includes: Ramsar and European designated sites, or sites that meet the published selection criteria but not designated as such; Sites with resident or regularly occurring population/s of species at International or European level where loss would affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale, or where the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale.
National (UK)- High High importance and rarity, national scale, and limited potential for substitution. Includes: Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves and sites that meet published criteria for selection; Key/ priority habitats; Sites with resident or regularly occurring population of species at International, European, UK or National level where loss would affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale, or Where the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale.
Regional (England) - High/Medium High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution. Includes: Key/ priority habitats identified in the Natural Area Profile or Highways Biodiversity Action Plan; Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at an International, European, UK, National levels, or key / priority species where loss of these species would affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale, or the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale.
County (Essex) and District (Braintree District and Colchester Borough) - Medium High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution. Includes: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs); County Wildlife Sites (CWSs); and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) designated in the county or unitary authority area context; Key habitats identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan or Natural Area profile Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at an International, European, UK or National level where loss would affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale, or the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale.
Local (Site only) - Low
91
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Low or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution. Includes Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) designated in the local context. Includes: Trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). Areas of habitat; or populations/ communities of species considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the local context (such as veteran trees), including features of value for migration, dispersal or genetic exchange.
Local (Site only) – Negligible Sites of low or very low importance, rarity and local scale.
Ecological features to be subject to detailed assessment should be of sufficient value that impacts upon them could be significant (in terms of legislation or policy) and potentially render them vulnerable to significant impacts arising from the scheme. Therefore only receptors of Low / Local value and above (ie Medium to Very High) would be subject to assessment. No receptors of Negligible value would be assessed.
Where a nature conservation resource has value at more than one level, its overriding value is that of the highest level. Effects on conservation status were only assessed in detail for features of sufficient value (local or above) that impacts upon them may be material in decision-making in terms of legislation or policy. Effects on features below local value would be categorised as of neutral significance.
Following the valuation, the magnitude of impact on each receptor must be considered. This is the degree or severity of change on an ecological receptor. The descriptions for assigning the magnitude of impact to the receptors is based on the DMRB criteria (DMRB, 2008) (Table 9.3). The impacts may be adverse or beneficial to the receptor. In order to describe changes or activities and impacts on the features, the following parameters are used:
Magnitude – if an impact is deemed to be significant then its magnitude, in quantitative terms, should be assessed; Extent – the area over which an impact occurs; Duration – the time for which an impact is expected to last; Reversibility – a permanent impact is one that is irreversible within a reasonable timescale or for which there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it; a temporary impact is one from which a spontaneous recovery is possible; and, Timing and frequency – whether impacts occur during critical life stages or seasons. Direct and Indirect Ecological Impacts In this assessment, a direct impact is attributable to a defined action such as the physical loss of a habitat or the immediate mortality of an individual of a particular species.
Indirect impacts are attributable to an action which causes a change to an ecological resource through effects on an intermediary ecosystem, process or receptor. An example of an indirect impact would be the change in a plant community following changes to local hydrological conditions due to a development.
92
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 9.3: Criteria for Determining the Magnitude of Impacts
Magnitude Criteria Major adverse/ Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe damage to key beneficial characteristics, features or elements (Adverse). Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive restoration or enhancement; major improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial). Moderate Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss of/damage adverse/ to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse). beneficial Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements; improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial). Minor adverse/ Some measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor loss of, or beneficial alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse). Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring (Beneficial). Negligible Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements (Adverse). Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features or elements (Beneficial).
No impact No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact (neutral) in either direction.
Once the valuation and magnitudes of impact for each receptor have been determined, the residual effect on each receptor can then be assigned. No measures to avoid, mitigate, or compensate have been included in the assessment. The matrix shown in Table 9.4 below illustrates the process of assigning effect. However, it is acknowledged that this includes measures that would enable works to be undertaken legally, under the terms of applicable derogation licences, such as badger mitigation licences, low impact Class licence, or European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence. The application of best practice measures, such as pollution prevention measures, have also not been assumed.
Table 9.4: Determining the significance of effect categories
Magnitude of effect (degree of change) Environmental value (sensitivity) No Change Negligible Minor Moderate Major Very High Neutral Slight Moderate or Large or Very Very large Large Large High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate or Large or Very Moderate Large Large Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight Moderate Moderate or Slight Large Low Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight or Slight Slight Moderate Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight Slight
93
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Significance of potential effects will be determined by considering the sensitivity of potential receptors and the likely magnitude of impact in accordance with guidance from Highways England in IAN 130.10 and also CIEEM guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK. For the purposes of this evaluation, potential significant effects will include: Direct loss of wildlife habitats through land-take; Severance or creation of barriers dividing existing habitats or wildlife corridors (e.g. hedgerows); Road-kill from creatures crossing or trying to cross roads into traditional territorial areas, hunting or foraging routes (e.g. badgers) or en-route to breeding areas (e.g. ponds); Disruption to the local hydrology of a site (e.g. wetland sites including marshes, streams and rivers, semi- damp natural grassland); Road pollution run-off(e.g. oil, salt, particulates etc.) into local watercourses including storm water run-off; Structural installations of roads, bridges, flyovers which reduce habitat for waders and flocks of wildlife which prefer open expanses for feeding and roosting; Road lighting effects on invertebrates, disorientating birds and their feeding patterns (simulating daylight); Air pollutants from road traffic on local habitats and species including sensitive indicator species such as lichens, ferns; Road spray from traffic loaded with high salt content increasing concentrations in nearby soils and water bodies; Disruption and disturbance during temporary construction works.
At this options evaluation stage, this DMRB matrix has been applied to the six point scale (outlined in Table 9.5) to illustrate the potential residual effect for each option without measures to minimise impacts, but in consideration of the potential for measures to be applied. For example, any effects that are identified as significant (i.e. Moderate to Very Large) would correspond to a score of 2 (amber) provided there is potential for the effects of the impacts to be minimised or offset. Irrespective of the severity, only effects that could not be minimised or offset would score 1 (red). Some actions would be necessary to ensure works could be undertaken legally, such as by the licenced derogation of an otherwise illegal activity, or to avoid prosecution by causing a pollution event. No derogations have been considered prior to assessment.
Table 9.5 Six point options evaluation scale
Score 6 point effect scale (as per Table 4.4) Significance category (as per Table 9.3)
1 Significant adverse effect - not possible to No mitigation or compensation possible mitigate
2 Potential significant adverse effect – Moderate to Very Large adverse mitigation may be possible Avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures could be implemented.
3 Slight adverse effect Slight adverse
Effect not significant with typical mitigation.
4 Slight beneficial Slight beneficial
94
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Score 6 point effect scale (as per Table 4.4) Significance category (as per Table 9.3)
Effect not significant
5 Significant beneficial effect Moderate, Large or Very Large beneficial
0 No effect Neutral
In order to describe confidence in predictions of the likelihood that a change would occur, CIEEM guidelines have broadly been applied as a qualitative methodology. The DMRB does not provide any guidance on differentiating between levels of certainty. However, for the purpose of this assessment, the CIEEM descriptions have been adapted to provide a greater range and clarification for this early stage in the PCF: Certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher Highly probable: probability estimated between 70% and 95% Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 70% Low probability: probability above 5% but less than 50% Very low probability: probability estimated at less than 5%.
This assessment has considered impacts and corresponding effects during the construction and operational phases. A precautionary approach has been taken for each and is reflected in the degree of confidence in prediction. Where a potential impact has been predicted to be of low or very low probability, it demonstrates that the assessment acknowledges there is the possibility of occurrence and cannot be excluded, but that there is doubt stage that the impact would occur.
Decommissioning has not been considered as the new road would be part of the permanent highway network and therefore would not be removed within a 25year period.
9.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement
9.4.1 Designated sites and biological records
A desk study was undertaken and included a data search for non-statutory designated sites (LNR and LWS), and historic records of protected and notable species recorded within 1km of an area that encapsulated all the route options under consideration. Both Essex Field Club and Essex Wildlife Trust provided biological records of Essex.
A variety of web-based resources were consulted to identify statutory designated sites, protected species records and potentially important habitats: Essex Wildlife Trust (data received August 2016); Essex Field Club (data received August 2016); Multi-agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) http://www.magic.gov.uk/; Essex Biodiversity Project http://www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk/biodiversity-action-plan; National Biodiversity Network (NBN Gateway) https://data.nbn.org.uk/; Natural England Licensing Department http://www.gov.uk/guidance/wildlife-licences
95
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
9.4.2 Stakeholder engagement
Consultation was undertaken in May 2016; attendees included the statutory environmental bodies, Natural England and the Environment Agency (see Chapter5. Stakeholder Engagement: Table 5.1). Topics discussed during the meeting included potential impacts on air quality, ecological connectivity, hedgerows, and flooding.
Further consultation with Natural England, the Environment Agency, Essex County Council and Local Authorities would be undertaken during the EIA and further stages of work. However, additional non-statutory stakeholders that may include: Chelmer & Blackwater Catchment Partnership Dedham Vale & Stour Valley Project Essex Amphibian and Reptile Group Essex Bat Group Essex Birdwatching Society Essex Badger Protection Group Essex Biodiversity Project Essex Field Club Essex Rivers Hub Essex & Suffolk Dormouse Project Essex & Suffolk Water Essex Wildlife Trust Farming And Wildlife Group Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) The Rivers Trust University of Essex Writtle College
9.5 Field surveys and modelling
Aerial Photographic Survey
Aerial photographic imagery was procured for the study area and used to identify key areas of ecological importance e.g. habitat corridors, or foraging, areas for field survey. The imagery provided will be used primarily to inform the Phase 1 habitat survey through assessment of habitats (habitat mapping) and will help determine which areas are to be targeted for future protected species surveys in later stages of assessment.
Field Surveys - Extended Phase 1 habitat survey
An Extended Phase 1 habitat survey was conducted in accordance with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Phase 1 habitat survey methodology (JNCC, 2010). An assessment of the aerial imagery was used to design survey transect routes of land (where access was permitted) within 250m of the Options and which targeted habitats of ecological interest. Experienced Jacobs ecologists, led by a senior ecologist, conducted the walkover surveys where land access was permitted. The survey was conducted between 7 July and 25 August 2016. Habitats and ecological features of interest were recorded onto maps, using an Apple iPad with GPS facilities to accurately pinpoint features (to within 10 metres); locations were also verified with aerial imagery.
96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Ponds were subject to Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for potential to support great crested newt (GCN) Triturus cristatus and habitats or features with the potential for supporting protected species were recorded as target notes. This included potential for water voles Arvicola amphibius and otters Lutra lutra in watercourses; and habitats that would be suitable for reptiles, bats, badger and dormouse. No detailed ‘Phase 2’ protected habitats or species surveys were undertaken at this stage of the assessment (PCF Stage 1).
9.6 Assumptions and uncertainties
The Phase 1 habitat survey recorded the potential for flora and fauna evident on the day of the site visit. It may not have identified flora or fauna that would appear at other times of the year. Whilst every effort will be made to provide a comprehensive description of the site, no investigation can ensure the complete characterisation and prediction of the natural environment.
Field surveys were confined to locations where landowner permission had been obtained. It should be noted however that the absence of protected or rare species does not preclude their presence on a site. There is always the risk of protected or rare species being overlooked, owing to the timing of the survey, scarcity of the species at the site, or changes over time or in habitat management.
Nevertheless, it is considered that this work will be able to identify the potential of the site to support protected and notable species and habitats to the level required for the purposes of this options evaluation exercise.
It is assumed that further surveys and stakeholder engagement would provide additional information for the assessment to be reviewed in order that the valuations of the ecological receptors at PCF Stages 2 and 3 would be based on more informed judgement giving a higher degree of certainty.
It is assumed that access would be enabled across the site extent in good time for Phase 2 surveys to be undertaken during the most optimal times of year.
Habitats are dynamic, subject to succession and changes in management practices, land use and development. Ponds assessed for suitability to provide breeding habitat for GCN by using the HSI assessment method, are not a substitute for surveys to detect presence likely absence and ponds are particularly subject to change due vegetation encroachment, nutrient enrichment and hydrological change.
Furthermore, the scheme design and construction requirements and location of any possible receptor sites would require further site visits to assess habitats, their condition, and the habitat suitability for protected species and communities.
It should also be acknowledged that in the absence of survey information, there is potential that presence of a rare species or a species that rarely occurs in this part of the country has not been considered. Therefore there is the possibility that the ability to mitigate for any such species cannot be foreseen.
Understanding of the ecology of species, especially bats, is always expanding and being updated. Effective mitigation in particular is an area that requires more research. Therefore it is acknowledged that the potential measures that could be applied as part of an effective strategy may be improved with in time with further research and previously applied techniques may be discounted.
97
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
9.7 Environmental baseline description
9.7.1 Statutory Designated sites
There are no Ramsar sites, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) within the GAI or wider Study Area. However, there are sites subject to these designations, often overlapping similar geographical areas and designated for similar or associated qualifying features, which are connected to the Options. The closest designated site is Abberton Reservoir located approximately 6km to the south east of the nearest route option under consideration (see Table 9.6). 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 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, these sites are valued as Very High/ National for the purpose of assessment.
Table 9.6 : Statutory designated sites Natura 2000 Site and Site Code Approx. Distance Site Description
Abberton Reservoir Ramsar 6km The largest freshwater body in Essex. UK11001 and SPA UK9009141 Less than 8km from the coast, primary role is as a roost site for the estuarine wildfowl population. Blackwater Estuary Ramsar 9km A large estuary, with mudflats and UK11007; SPA UK9009245 and saltmarshes supporting overwintering Essex Estuaries SAC UK0013690 waterfowl. Rich mosaic of surrounding terrestrial habitat support nationally scarce plants and rare invertebrates. There are 16 British Red Data Book species and 94 notable and local species. Colne Estuary Ramsar UK11015 and 13km A short branching estuary of international SPA UK9009243 importance to wintering waterfowl and nationally important breeding waders and wildfowl.
98
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Natura 2000 Site and Site Code Approx. Distance Site Description
Dengie Ramsar UK11018 and SPA 16 km Large and remote area of tidal mudflats UK9009242 and saltmarshes. Outstanding assemblage of rare coastal flora. Important for overwintering wildfowl and waders and breeding coastal birds. Stour and Orwell Estuaries Ramsar 22km Important estuary for wintering and UK11067 and SPA UK9009121 passage wildfowl and waders. Crouch and Roach Estuaries 24km Estuaries with tidal mud used by Ramsar UK11016 and SPA significant numbers of birds. Site is UK9009244 important for wintering waterfowl. Foulness Ramsar UK11026 and 28km Foulness is part of an open coast SPA UK9009246 estuarine system comprising grazing marsh, saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats which support nationally rare and nationally scarce plants, and nationally and internationally important populations of breeding, migratory and wintering waterfowl. Hamford Water Ramsar UK11028 29km Hamford Water is a large, shallow and SPA UK9009131 estuarine basin comprising tidal creeks and islands, intertidal mud and sand flats, and saltmarsh supporting rare plants and internationally important species/populations of migratory waterfowl.
There is one SSSI that is located within 2km of the Route Options; Marks Tey Brickpit. However, this site is designated for its geological characteristics, not ecology, and therefore is not considered to be an ecological receptor.
9.7.2 Non-statutory designated sites
The proposed Options lie within 1km of Local Nature Reserves, Local Wildlife Sites, and Veteran trees, as described in Table 9.7. The proximity of the sites to the Options are illustrated in Volume 2: Figure 9.1.1- 9.5.1 Map of Designated Sites. 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.
Table 9.7: Non-statutory designated sites
Protected Site Protected site within 1km of Route Option/s
Local Nature Reserve
Hoppit Mead Option 1B, Option 8
Brockwell Meadows Option 8, Option 9A Cuckoo Wood Option 4B, Option 8, Option 9A
99
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Protected Site Protected site within 1km of Route Option/s
Local Wildlife Site
BRA/W24 Hoppit Mead Option 1B, Option 8
BRA/W41 Templeborder Wood Option 1B, Option 3, Option 4B, Option 8, Option 9A
BRA/G16 Lanham Wood Option 1B, Option 3, Option 4B, Option 8, Option 9A*
BRA/W144 Link’s Wood Option 1B*, Option 4B*, Option 8*, Option 9A*
BRA/W125 Maxey’s Spring Option 1B*, Option 4B*, Option 8, Option 9A
BRA/W88 Storey’s Wood Option 4B, Option 8, Option 9A
COL/M1 Upney Wood Option 4B, Option 8, Option 9A
BRA/W139 Barrowfield Wood Option 8, Option 9A
BRA/W133 Hoo Hall Meadow Option 8, Option 9A
MAL/W40 Brockwell Meadow Option 8, Option 9A
MAL/W49 Kelvedon Hall Meadows Option 8, Option 9A
MAL/W50 Braxted Park Option 8, Option 9A
BRA/W142 Tikey Road Coggeshall Option 3*
BRA/W145 Blackwater Planation West Option 3*
BRA/W137 Blackwater Plantation Option 3*, Option 4B
BRA/W161 Park house Meadow Option 3, Option 4B, Option 9A
COL/W2 The Squire’s Plantation Option 3
COL/G1 Feering Marsh Option 4B
Ancient Woodland BRA/G16 Lanham Wood Option 1B, Option 3, Option 4B, Option 8, Option 9A*
BRA/W41 Templeborder Wood Option 1B, Option 3, Option 4B, Option 8, Option 9A
BRA/W114 Links Wood Option 1B*, Option 4B*, Option 8*, Option 9A*
BRA/W88 Storey’s Wood Option 4B, Option 8, Option 9A
BRA/W139 Barrowfield Wood Option 8, Option 9A
MAL/W49 Kelvedon Hall Meadows Option 8, Option 9A
Veteran Trees
ID no. 9183 Option 8, Option 9A
ID no. 9202 Option 1B, Option 3, Option 4B
100
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Protected Site Protected site within 1km of Route Option/s
ID no. 8452 Option 8, Option 9A
ID no. 8439 Option 8, Option 9A
ID no. 25555 Option 1B, Option 3*, Option 4B
ID no. 11390 Option 1B, Option 4B*
ID no. 28382 Option 3
ID no. 9250 Option 9A
ID no. 8456 Option 8, Option 9A
* Situated within 100m of the route Option.
9.7.3 Habitats
9.7.3.1 Landscape habitat descriptions for each Option
The route Options traverse through an arable landscape, as illustrated in Volume 2 Figure 9.6.1- 9.10.3 Routes showing aerial backdrop. The routes and the habitats they pass through are briefly described below: Option 1B is proposed 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 above sea level, patches of which lie within the floodplain of the River Brain, River Blackwater and Domsey Brook.
Option 3 is proposed 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 3 than is typical for the arable fields within the wider landscape. The topography ranges between approximately 30-65m above sea level. The proposed route lies within the floodplain of the River Blackwater and crosses the River Blackwater, Robins Brook and Domsey Brook. There are several ditches and small water courses that form tributaries to the River Blackwater and the Pond Pierce.
Option 4B 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 above sea level, and only a small extent lies within the floodplain of the River Blackwater and the Domsey Brook.
Option 8 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 and passes over the floodplains of the River Brain and the River Blackwater at the western and eastern ends of the route alignment respectively.
Option 9A 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 above sea level, and is within the floodplain of the River Blackwater at the eastern extent of the route.
101
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
9.7.3.2 Habitats identified
The desk study identified Habitats of Principal Importance within 1km of the Options. Habitat Within 1km of Option Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh Option 1B*, Option 3*, Option 4B*. Traditional orchards Option 1B*, Option 3*, Option 4B, Option 8, Deciduous woodland Option 1B*, Option 3*, Option 4B*, Option 8*, Option 9A*
*Occurs within 100m of Option.
The Phase 1 survey and aerial imagery identified the following habitats that are considered to be priority habitats, or habitats of principle importance under the NERC Act (2006) Schedule 41. A condition assessment has not been included at this stage in the process; however, further and more detailed information from Phase 2 surveys and stakeholder engagement may give rise to an increase or reduction in valuation as appropriate. Table 9.8 describes the valuations of the habitats identified during the Phase 1 habitat survey.
Table 9.8 : Habitats and valuations
Habitat Applicable Importance Valuation for Options assessment
Ancient woodland / All Options Listed as Habitat of Principal Importance (Section 41 High/ National semi –natural NERC Act 1006). broadleaved woodland Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh Traditional orchards Deciduous woodland Option 1B Species-Rich or All hedgerows are considered Habitats of Principal High/ National ‘Important’ Hedgerows Importance (Section 41 NERC Act 2006), and are Option 4B (according to the included on the Essex BAP. Additionally, qualifying Hedgerow Regulations hedgerows are protected under the Hedgerow Option 8 1997) Regulations 1997. Option 9A Loss of qualifying hedgerows would reduce the availability of this habitat type and affect the achievement of national targets. All Options Species-Poor All hedgerows are listed as Habitats of Principal Low / Local Hedgerows (including Importance and are included in the Essex BAP. defunct hedgerows, Hedgerows provide ecosystem functions, such as and hedgerows with wind breaks and connective habitat. However, they trees) are of low ecological interest, supporting limited species assemblages and are set within or around arable fields of low ecological interest. Option 3 Scattered trees There are numerous Veteran Trees within the GAI, Low/ Local and many examples of mature trees that a have the Option 4B potential to support diverse biota and species of conservation interest. Option 8
Option 9A
102
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Habitat Applicable Importance Valuation for Options assessment Option 1B Semi – improved Lowland calcareous grassland is a Habitat of Principal Medium/ County calcareous grassland Importance (Section 41 NERC Act 2006). All species Option 4B rich grasslands are an Essex BAP habitat. Calcareous grasslands are scarce occurrence, mainly situated along the edges of roads. Where calcareous grassland occurs within the GAI of the Options, the areas have been subject to improvement and are not in favourable condition. The reduced ecological value due to condition is offset by the scarcity and confined extents of calcareous grassland within the County. All Options Running water Rivers and streams are listed as Habitats of Principal High / National Importance (Section 41 NERC Act 2006) and Rivers are included in the Essex BAP. Threats to the habitat include pollution and physical modification. Improvements include naturalising the rivers to restore function. Main Rivers are designated under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). The habitats corridors have the potential to support communities and species of conservation interest. All Options Ponds Ponds are a Habitat of Principal Importance (Section Medium/ County 41 NERC Act 2006). Ponds are not specifically listed in the Essex BAP. However, great crested newts, which depend on the ponds, are listed and the GCN listing advises that there is a lack of data on the number of ponds available for GCN. All Options Arable fields, crops and Arable field margins are listed as a Habitat of Low / Site cultivated ground Principal Importance (Section 41 NERC Act 2006). The habitat is well represented within the wider landscape, is of low quality within the GAIs of all the Options, and would be relatively easily to replace or replicate. All Options Mixed woodland These habitats may support assemblages of species Negligible/ Site plantation of ecological interest, including species of conservation concern, either alone or in combination Dense scrub with other habitats. However, they are not subject to Scattered scrub prioritisation and are relatively easy to replicate and replace, and well represented within Essex and the Neural; poor semi- UK. improved and improved grassland Tall ruderals
Option 1B Ephemeral/ short perennial Option 8
Option 9A
103
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Habitat Applicable Importance Valuation for Options assessment Option 1B Coniferous woodland Option 4B
Option 4B Quarry Option 1B
Amenity grassland All Options These habitats are of low ecological interest as these Negligible / Site features are well represented within the UK and have Buildings limited functionality at a generic level. Hardstanding Although specific buildings may be used to provide features for some species (i.e. roosting sites for bats, barn owls), that may be critical to support a population, any such buildings would need to be considered separately and following further survey and assessment.
Protected species
The Phase 1 survey identified habitats in all five Options that would support the same protected and notable species or groups of species. Additionally, biological records provided by the Local Biological Records Centres provided evidence that many of these species have previously been recorded within the GAI. Therefore the species valuations are applicable to all Options. Table 9.9 identifies the species/ groups of species that should be considered for all of the Options, their valuations, and the rationale. Valuations may change following Phase 2 surveys and stakeholder engagement.
Table 9.9: Protected and notable species recorded or potentially present (due to suitable habitat availability)
Species or species group Rationale Value Plants No protected plants were identified during the Phase Low / Site 1 surveys. However, absence of protected or notable species cannot be assumed without further and comprehensive survey effort. Given the relatively low overall value of habitats within the GAI, a valuation of Low/ Site importance is probable.
Invertebrates White clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes, a Low / Local species of principal importance (NERC Act, 2006 Sch 41) and an Essex BAP species. White clawed crayfish are not considered to have a viable future along the rivers in Essex due to competition and predation by the non-native American signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus. Given the forecast of extinction, loss of the species on site would not affect the conservation status of the species at County level of higher.
104
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Species or species group Rationale Value Other notable aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates Low/ Site may be present, but given the low prevalence of quality habitats within the GAI, losses are unlikely to affect the conservation status of any such species at County or national scales. However, given the absence of information to support this, a precautionary value is considered appropriate at this Stage.
Great crested newts GCN are categorised as a species of Least Concern Medium / County (IUCN) but are a species of principal importance (NERC Act, 2006 Sch 41) and Essex BAP priority species. GCN are commonly distributed in the county and wider region. Farm ponds, a key habitat for GCN, however have declined greatly with the reduction of agricultural animal and have been highlighted in the natural area profile as an area for conservation objectives, which may threaten the prevalence and status of the species without the provision of other replacement habitats. Therefore they are considered vulnerable for the purpose of this assessment. Loss of populations on site is unlikely to be critical to the conservation status of these species at regional or UK scale, but is likely to be significant at county level as a targeted BAP species.
Reptiles (widespread species: The three reptile species confirmed on site are Low / Local slow worm Angius fragilis, adder categorised as being of Least Concern (IUCN) but Vipera berus, grass snake Natrix are UK priority species (NERC Act, 2006 Sch 41). natrix, and viviparous lizard Reptiles are widespread and abundant within wider Zootoca vivipara) surrounds, including the motorway verge, and likely to be present within other connected habitat within wider landscape. Loss of populations on site is unlikely to be critical to the conservation status of this species at county, regional or UK scales. Therefore it is probable that the resident population would be of Low / Local importance only.
Birds (breeding and wintering) There is insufficient information available to High / National determine the importance of the site for species, given the highly mobile and dynamic nature of this group. There are habitats within and adjacent to the Options that would be suitable to support bird species subject to legal protection and of high conservation value. Given those habitats are widely available, use of those habitats on either an occasional or year round basis by, any such species cannot be assumed or discounted at this stage. Therefore, on the basis of the precautionary principle, and until further surveys and stakeholder engagement can inform this assessment, a High / National valuation would be appropriate.
105
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Species or species group Rationale Value Bats Bat species are categorized as ‘Least Concern’ on High / National the IUCN Red List. Common and soprano pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus, are Essex BAP species and species of principal importance (NERC Act 2006, Sch 41). The East Anglian Plain has some of the largest bat hibernacula in Britain. Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, Bechstein`s Myotis bechsteinii; noctule Nyctalus noctula; brown long-eared Plecotus auritus; greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros bats are also protected under the NERC Act (Sch 41, 2006). Loss of most of the bat species on site is unlikely to be critical to the conservation status of those species at regional or UK scales, but is likely to be significant at county level as a targeted BAP species. However, given the limited range of distribution and rarity of Barbastelle in the UK, any impacts that could cause the loss or reduction in numbers of this species would probably affect the conservation status of the species at UK level. However, although also rare at European level, Barbastelle are widely distributed across Europe so loss at site level would not affect status at European scale. Therefore a High/ National valuation would be appropriate.
Badger Badgers are categorised as a species of Least Low/ Local Conservation concern (IUCN) and are widespread in the UK and the county. Loss of populations on site would not alter the conservation status of badger at County or higher levels.
Dormice Muscardinus avellanarius Dormice are of Least Concern (IUCN) are a UKand Medium / County Essex BAP priority species. Hedgerow and ancient woodland habitats that support the species are also subject to conservation objectives. Dormice are rare in Essex and loss of populations on site would affect the conservation status at county level. As it is not a stronghold, the status would not be affected at regional or national scales.
106
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Species or species group Rationale Value Water vole Water vole are categorised as being of least Medium / County conservation concern (IUCN). It is a species of principal importance (NERC Sch 41, 2006) and an Essex BAP species due to declining populations. They are widespread in Essex, often occurring along water ways. Threats include flood defense methods reducing bankside habitats in recent years, and mink predation. Programs of reintroduction, habitat enhancement and mink culls have been undertaken but current information is not available as to whether these measures have stabilized the conservation status of the species, or whether it is still considered to be in decline. Therefore a precautionary Medium/ County valuation has been considered appropriate.
Otter Otters are a species of principal importance (NERC Low / Local Sch 41, 2006) and an Essex BAP species. They are common in Essex, with most rivers being fully occupied following reintroduction, the cessation of hunting in 1960s and improvements in water quality. Therefore loss of individuals on site would not affect the conservation status of the species at County level or higher.
Other notable species There is potential for species of Principal Low / Site Importance, including brown hare Lepus europaeus, pole cats Mustela putorius, harvest mice Micromys minutus and hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus and common toads Bufo bufo. Loss of populations on site is unlikely to be critical to the conservation status of this species at regional or UK scale.
Invasive species The spread of invasive species would be Medium / County ecologically damaging to species and assemblages of conservation concern, and is subject to legal penalties. Therefore the prevention in the spread would avoid loss of integrity or status of important receptors. Therefore a negative value of Medium/ County importance is considered appropriate.
9.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
In the absence of specific measures to provide compensation, all of the impacts would be adverse; there would be no beneficial impacts for nature conservation. The impacts on ecological receptors would be applicable to all five options under consideration, although the severity of those impacts may differ. At this stage, professional judgement has been applied to determine the magnitude of impacts by using Phase 1 habitat survey drawings, aerial and ordinance survey maps, and mapped records of protected species provided by Local Biological Record Centres to identify key habitats and features. Therefore, the following list outlines the potential impacts and associated effects relevant to all of the Options. The specific sections provide an assessment of the severity and extent that would be applicable to that Option. For the purpose of this assessment, construction and operational impacts have not been separated, as although the source would change, many of the impacts would be applicable to both phases. Decommissioning has not been considered as the new road would not be removed within a 25 year period as it would be part of the permanent highway network.
107
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
For each of the options, the potential significant effects have been identified for each ecological receptor. This is based on a description of the potential magnitude of effect to the receptor is provided (e.g. loss of a resource), followed by the predicted significance category (or range of categories) in italicised text. An overall evaluation 6-point significance score has been given for each of the routes. This has been determined as the worst case effect for that route and based on professional judgement (e.g. if a very large effect has been determined for that route, then the route as a whole would be considered potentially significant adverse). The methodology for determining the potential effects of each of the options is given in Chapter 9.3. The following provides a summary of impacts, a full description of the potential risks and impacts to receptors is provided in Appendix C.2.
9.8.1 Option 1B
Statutory designated sites (European Sites) Impact 1 (refer to Appendix C.2 Impact Table): Pollution via hydrological connectivity. A minor magnitude of impact is probable, with a Moderate adverse effect. Impact 2 (Appendix C.2): Disturbance to migratory birds, based on low – moderate risk of qualifying species being present. A minor magnitude of impact is of low probability, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Non-statutory designated sites Impact 3 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to Links Wood and Maxeys Spring LWS, which are located immediately adjacent and within 100m of the route respectively. A major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect. Impact 4 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to Hoppit Mead LNR and six LWS located between 100m and 1km of the route. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable with a Slight adverse effect.
Habitats
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of High / National importance (i.e. three parcels of designated ancient woodland, species rich hedgerows, coastal and flood plain grazing marsh, the River Brain, River Blackwater and Domsey Brook). Connectivity between important habitats on either side of the route alignment would be broken, and the integrity of habitats such as the River Blackwater and Domsey Brook would be degraded. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Medium / County importance. Twenty-one ponds were identified within 250m of the route option, both to the north and south. Connectivity would be broken between ponds on either side. One pond would be destroyed and four ponds would be isolated by the route. These five ponds are all located to the south east of Braintree, at the western end of the proposed route. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Low / Local importance (i.e. scattered trees, species poor hedgerows, and arable field margins). The route would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats north and south. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Slight adverse effect. Habitats of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Species
Impacts 2 – 17 (Appendix C.2): Species of High/ National importance (i.e. birds and bats). 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. However, there are few high quality habitat blocks within the immediate vicinity on either side. Additionally, there are existing linear habitats that run roughly parallel with the route alignment that are likely to be used as dispersal corridors. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
108
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Medium / County Importance (i.e. great crested newts, dormouse, and water vole). Isolation and destruction of some ponds (as described above) and impacts to the River Blackwater would reduce the favourability of the habitats for associated species and affect populations. Division of habitats between the north and south and reduction in resource availability would lead to genetic regression and greater vulnerability to disease, predation and environmental change. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Low / Local importance (i.e. white clawed crayfish; reptiles; badger and otter). Impacts to habitats, particularly fragmentation and loss of resources, would lead to reduced populations; stress; traffic mortalities; and territorial conflict. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect. Species of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. This is due to the Moderate to Large effects. Avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures could be implemented.
9.8.2 Option 3
Statutory designated sites (European Sites) Impact 1 (Appendix C.2): Pollution via hydrological connectivity. A minor magnitude of impact is probable, with a Moderate adverse effect. Impact 2 (Appendix C.2): Disturbance to migratory birds, based on low – moderate risk of qualifying species being present. A minor magnitude of impact is of low probability, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Non-statutory designated sites Impact 3 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to Tilkey Road and Blackwater Plantation West LWS (located immediately adjacent and within 100m of the route respectively). A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect. Impact 4: Potential impacts to five LWS located between 100m and 1km of the route. A Moderate magnitude of impact is highly probable with a Slight adverse effect.
Habitats
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of High / National importance (i.e. the River Blackwater, Domsey Brook, coastal and flood plain grazing marsh, traditional orchard, and species rich hedgerows). Approximately one third of the alignment would overlap the existing hedge lined A120 route, which would require complete destruction to enable a wider carriageway and slip roads. Although the existing route presents an obstruction to dispersal, the widened carriageway would isolate habitats to the north and south in that section. Where connective habitat is present, there would be severance between important blocks. At the western end, the route would fragment habitats within the landscape, reduce habitat extents, and degrade habitat integrity. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (AppendixC.2): Habitats of Medium / County importance. Sixteen ponds were identified within 250m of the route option, both to the north and south. Connectivity would be broken between ponds on either side. One pond would be would be destroyed to enable the route. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Low / Local importance (i.e. scattered trees, species poor hedgerows, and arable field margins). The route would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats north and south. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Slight adverse effect.
109
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Habitats of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Species
Impacts 2 – 17 (Appendix C.2): Species of High / National importance (i.e. birds and bats). 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. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Very Large adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Medium / County Importance (i.e. great crested newts, dormouse, and water vole). The route alignment would cause habitat fragmentation by the intersection of habitats to the north and south, reduce resource availability, and increase pressure on remnant populations of species. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Low / Local importance (i.e. white clawed crayfish; reptiles; badger and otter). The topography is particularly favourable to support viable populations as many of the slopes are south and westerly facing. Impacts to habitats, particularly fragmentation and loss of resources, would lead to reduced populations, stress, traffic mortalities and territorial conflict. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect. Species of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. This is due to the Moderate to Very large effects. Avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures could be implemented.
9.8.3 Option 4B
Statutory designated sites (European Sites)
Impact 1 (Appendix C.2): Pollution via hydrological connectivity. A minor magnitude of impact is probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impact 2 (Appendix C.2): Disturbance to migratory birds, based on low – moderate risk of qualifying species being present. A minor magnitude of impact is of low probability, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Non-statutory designated sites Impact 3 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to Links Wood and Maxeys Spring LWS located immediately adjacent and within 100m of the route. A major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impact 4 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to Cuckoo Wood LNR and seven LWS located between 100m and 1km of the route. A Moderate magnitude of impact is highly probable with a Slight adverse effect
Habitats
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of High / National importance (i.e. four parcels of designated ancient woodland, species rich hedgerows, coastal and floodplain marsh, River Blackwater and Domsey Brook). Connectivity between important habitats on either side of the route alignment would be broken, and the integrity of habitats such as the River Blackwater and Domsey Brook would be degraded. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
110
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Medium / County importance. Thirteen ponds were identified within 250m of the route option, both to the north and south. Connectivity would be broken between ponds on either side. At least two ponds would be destroyed and six ponds isolated by the route. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Low / Local importance (i.e. scattered trees, species poor hedgerows, and arable field margins). The route would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats north and south. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Slight adverse effect. Habitats of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Species
Impacts 2 – 17 (Appendix C.2): Species of High/ National importance (i.e. birds and bats). 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. However, there are few high quality habitat blocks within the immediate vicinity on either side. Additionally, there are existing linear habitats that run roughly parallel with the route alignment that are likely to be used as dispersal corridors. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Medium / County Importance (i.e great crested newts, dormouse, and water vole). Isolation and destruction of some ponds (as described above) and impacts to the River Blackwater and Domsey Brook would reduce the favourability of the habitats for associated species and affect populations. Division of habitats between the north and south and reduction in resource availability would lead to genetic regression and greater vulnerability to disease, predation and environmental change. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Low / Local importance (i.e. white clawed crayfish; reptiles; badger and otter). Impacts to habitats, particularly fragmentation and loss of resources, would lead to reduced populations; stress; traffic mortalities; and territorial conflict. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect. Species of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. This is due to the Moderate to Very large effects. Avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures could be implemented.
9.8.4 Option 8
Statutory designated sites (European Sites)
Impact 1 (Appendix C.2): Pollution via hydrological connectivity. A minor magnitude of impact is probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impact 2 (Appendix C.2): Disturbance to migratory birds, based on low – moderate risk of qualifying species being present. A minor magnitude of impact is of low probability, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Non-statutory designated sites Impact 3 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to Links Wood LWS located within 100m of the route, but not immediately adjacent. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Slight adverse effect.
Impact 4 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to three LNRs (two of which are also designated LWS), and ten other LWS located between 100m and 1km of the route. A Moderate magnitude of impact is highly probable with a Slight adverse effect. 111
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Habitats
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of High / National importance (i.e. the River Brain, River Blackwater, six parcels of ancient woodland, and species rich hedgerows). The route would fragment, degrade and partially destroy and damage important habitats, such as the River Brain corridor. Resource availability would also be restricted and severely reduced. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Very Large adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Medium / County importance. Seventeen ponds were identified within 250m of the route option, both to the north and south. Connectivity would be broken between ponds on either side. Three ponds would be would be isolated and one pond destroyed to enable the route. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Low / Local importance (ie scattered trees, species poor hedgerows, and arable field margins). The route would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats north and south. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Slight adverse effect. Habitats of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Species
Impacts 2 – 17 (Appendix C.2) Species of High/ National importance (i.e. birds and bats). 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. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Very Large adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Medium / County Importance (i.e great crested newts, dormouse, and water vole). The route alignment would cause habitat fragmentation by the intersection of habitats to the north and south, reduce resource availability, and increase pressure on remnant populations of species. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Low / Local importance (i.e. white clawed crayfish; reptiles; badger and otter). Impacts to habitats, particularly fragmentation and loss of resources, would lead to reduced populations, stress, traffic mortalities and territorial conflict. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Slight adverse effect. Species of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. This is due to the Moderate to Very large adverse effects. Avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures could be implemented.
9.8.5 Option 9A
Statutory designated sites (European Sites)
Impact 1 (Appendix C.2): Pollution via hydrological connectivity. A minor magnitude of impact is probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impact 2 (Appendix C.2): Disturbance to migratory birds, based on low – moderate risk of qualifying species being present. A minor magnitude of impact is of low probability, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Non-statutory designated sites Impact 3 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to Lanham Wood and Links Wood LWS located within 100m of the route, but not immediately adjacent. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Slight adverse effect. 112
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Impact 4 (Appendix C.2): Potential impacts to Brockwell Meadow LNR and LWS; Cuckoo Wood LNR; and nine other LWS located between 100m and 1km of the route. A Moderate magnitude of impact is highly probable with a Slight adverse effect.
Habitats
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of High / National importance (i.e. six parcels of designated ancient woodland, species rich hedgerows, the River Blackwater). The route Option would intersect or pass close to numerous parcels of important habitats, dividing habitats north and south. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is certain, with a Very Large adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Medium / County importance. Eighteen ponds were identified within 250m along the route option, both to the north and south. Connectivity would be broken between ponds on either side. One pond would be destroyed and two ponds would be isolated by the route. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect.
Impacts 5 – 11 (Appendix C.2): Habitats of Low / Local importance (i.e. scattered trees, species poor hedgerows, and arable field margins). The route would cut through numerous field boundaries, dividing habitats north and south. A Moderate adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Slight adverse effect. Habitats of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Species
Impacts 2 – 17 (Appendix C.2): Species of High/ National importance (i.e. birds and bats). The route alignment would lead to loss of habitat and quality, and cut through numerous high quality linear habitats that are likely to be used by as routes of connectivity between blocks of high quality habitats to the north and south of the alignment. This would reduce the carrying capacity of the local landscape to support bat and bird species overall. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Very Large adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 – 17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Medium / County Importance (i.e. great crested newts, dormouse, and water vole). The division of habitats between the north and south sides of the route alignment (as described above) would lead to genetic regression and greater vulnerability to disease or environmental change. A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Large adverse effect.
Impacts 3 – 11 and 14 -17 (Appendix C.2): Species of Low / Local importance (i.e. white clawed crayfish; reptiles; badger and otter). A Major adverse magnitude of impact is highly probable, with a Moderate adverse effect. Species of Negligible Site/ Local value do not require assessment as the severity of any impacts would not give rise to significant effects.
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. This is due to the moderate to very large adverse effects. Avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures could be implemented.
113
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 9-10: Summary of Effects
RECEPTOR OPTION Importance Receptor 1B 3 4B 8 9A Very High / European Potentially Significant adverse effect Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – International Designated Sites – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Hydrological connectivity on European Hydrological connectivity on European Hydrological connectivity on European Sites Hydrological connectivity on European Sites Hydrological connectivity on European Sites Sites Sites Temporary disturbance to migratory birds Temporary disturbance to migratory birds Temporary disturbance to migratory birds that Temporary disturbance to migratory Temporary disturbance to migratory birds that are qualifying features of European that are qualifying features of European are qualifying features of European Sites birds that are qualifying features of that are qualifying features of European Sites Sites European Sites Sites Medium/ County Non-statutory Potentially Significant adverse effect Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Slight adverse Slight adverse effect Sites adjacent to – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Links Wood LWS adjacent to option Lanham Wood and Links Wood LWS within route Links Wood and Maxeys Spring LWS Tilkey Road and Blackwater Plantation Links Wood and Maxeys Spring LWS 100m adjacent to option West LWS adjacent to option adjacent to option
Non-statutory Slight adverse Slight adverse Slight adverse effect Slight adverse Slight adverse Sites between Loss of integrity and connectivity to Potential impacts to five LWS located Potential impacts to Cuckoo Wood LNR and Potential impacts to three LNRs (which are Potential impacts to Cuckoo Wood LNR, 100m and 1km Hoppit Mead LNR and six LWS located between 100m and 1km of the route. seven LWS located between 100m and also designated LWS), and ten other LWS Brockwell Meadow LNR and LWS and nine of route between 100m and 1km of the route. 1km of the route. located between 100m and 1km of the route. other LWS located between 100m and 1km of the route High / National Habitats of Potentially Significant adverse effect Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Principal – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Importance Three parcels of designated ancient Species rich hedgerows Four parcels of designated ancient Six parcels of ancient woodland Six parcels of designated ancient woodland woodland River Blackwater woodland Species rich hedgerows Species rich hedgerows Species rich hedgerows Domsey Brook Species rich hedgerows The River Brain The River Brain The River Brain River Blackwater River Blackwater River Blackwater River Blackwater Domsey Brook Domsey Brook Medium / County Potentially Significant adverse effect Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Twenty-one ponds were identified Sixteen ponds were identified within 250m Thirteen ponds were identified within 250m Seventeen were identified within 250m of the Eighteen ponds were identified within 250m of within 250m of the route option, both to of the route option, both to the north and of the route option, both to the north and route option, both to the north and south the route option, both to the north and south the north and south south south Low/ Local Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effects Slight adverse effects The route would cut through numerous The route would cut through numerous The route would cut through numerous The route would cut through numerous fields The route would cut through numerous fields fields and their boundaries, dividing fields and their boundaries, dividing fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats and their boundaries, dividing habitats north and their boundaries, dividing habitats north and habitats north and south habitats north and south north and south and south south High/ National Protected Potentially Significant adverse effect Potentially Significant adverse effect - Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Species – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Loss of habitat and quality Loss of habitat and quality Loss of habitat and quality Loss of habitat and quality Loss of habitat and quality Cut through linear habitats likely to be Cut through linear habitats likely to be used Cut through linear habitats likely to be used Cut through linear habitats likely to be used Cut through linear habitats likely to be used as used as dispersal corridors as dispersal corridors as dispersal corridors as dispersal corridors dispersal corridors Medium/ County Potentially Significant adverse effect Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect - Potentially Significant adverse effect Potentially Significant adverse effect – – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Isolation and destruction of some Isolation and destruction of some ponds Isolation and destruction of some ponds Isolation and destruction of some ponds Isolation and destruction of some ponds ponds River Blackwater River Blackwater and Domsey Brook River Blackwater River Blackwater River Blackwater Division of habitats Division of habitats Division of habitats Division of habitats Division of habitats Low/ Local Potentially Significant adverse effect Potentially Significant adverse effect – Potentially Significant adverse effect – Slight Adverse effect Significant Adverse effect mitigation may be – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Fragmentation and loss of resources possible Fragmentation and loss of resources Fragmentation and loss of resources Fragmentation and loss of resources Traffic mortalities Fragmentation and loss of resources Traffic mortalities Traffic mortalities Traffic mortalities Territorial conflict Traffic mortalities Territorial conflict Territorial conflict Territorial conflict Territorial conflict Overall 6 point Scale Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible
114
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
9.9 Mitigation and opportunities
Without confirmation of presence, the following generic measures are recommended: Minimise the loss, damage and modification of key habitats by design and a well- considered construction strategy, so that any temporary roads, haul routes, site compounds and welfare facilities are carefully sited and any mitigation necessary for their provision considered early in the process. It is expected that best practice would be applied to prevent pollution, and good housekeeping maintained throughout the construction phase. Enhance retained habitats by ensuring buffer areas are provided around new and retained habitats; the provision of bat, bird and dormouse boxes to increase carrying capacity as displaced/ relocated animals would be squeezed into smaller areas. Bat boxes should be varied to accommodate different roost requirements preferred by different species. Artificial badger setts, otter holts and hibernacula (for invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and dormice) would also help achieve net biodiversity gains. Hedgerows could be widened and woodlands extended and made more diverse with glades, coppicing, and planting to increase botanical species assemblages. Species rich grasslands should be provided to increase invertebrate assemblages and populations; provide habitat for reptiles; and support ecosystem functions such as pollination and flood attenuation. Undertake compensation planting at least three years in advance of construction to ensure viable, alternative habitats are available. Planting should include standard trees where it is viable to do so to encourage the development of a canopy layer as quickly as possible. A ratio of at least 2:1 habitat replacement should be aimed for, so that greater extents of additional resource would balance the quality of the resource whilst the habitats mature. Replacement habitats should aim to be of a higher quality than the existing habitats in the long term. This may include greater species diversity; deeper blocks of woodland with glades; topographical variation and mosaics. Mitigation during works to be undertaken under appropriate European Protected Species Mitigation Licences, Class Impact Licences, Method Statements, and other appropriate consents to avoid committing an offence, such as killing or injuring a protected species. This may include the identification and enhancement of receptor sites; displacement; the capture and relocation of individuals, or offsetting the impacts. 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. This could include the planting translocated coppiced root balls and top soil to help with early habitat development and wildlife corridors, turf translocation and dead hedging. Design to include the provision of connective routes beneath and over the route. These would include badger tunnels; reptile/ amphibian tunnels; mammal ledges, appropriately designed culverts; and underpasses. Culverts and underpasses should be designed to limit shading and allow visibility through to the opposite sides. Furthermore, bridges that would span over water courses would need to be set back to maintain riparian connectivity. This is to prevent species such as otter, which dislike dark passageways, from seeking alternatives means of crossing roads to access habitats within their territory. Additionally, ecoducts, or wildlife overpasses are likely to be the most effective means of replacing connectivity. Previous examples include the Groene Wood and Wanbuch Ecoducts built in the Netherlands. Where appropriate, the bridges should be green bridges, such as the bridge built over the A21 at Scotney Castle, Lamberhurst. Alternatively, the designs should include earth embankments leading to earth abutments, with green ledges along either side of the bridge decks. These designs would provide natural features that animals may use for dispersal routes, but they must be strategically placed to be effective, such as along existing bat commuter routes. Provision of earth embankments and screening vegetation. This would assist with noise attenuation within the wider landscape context; provide opportunities for habitat replacement in terms of extent and connectivity ensuring foraging, breeding and dispersal opportunities. Planting should encourage bats and birds to fly along the edge to alternative foraging areas, or to fly over the road, reducing incidents of vehicle collisions. Effective hop overs would be achieved by planting species such as holly and hawthorn between standard trees along the outside edge of the tree planting, to deter low flying species from flying in between
115
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
the trees. Alternatively, fencing may be necessary to encourage sufficiently high flight to avoid tall vehicles and loads. The design of attenuation ponds and other sustainable drainage systems should be designed to consider long term maintenance operations and the avoidance of killing or injuring amphibians, and damaging or destroying terrestrial and aquatic habitats. The provision of additional ponds and wetlands should also be considered, particularly when required to replace ponds destroyed or as enhancement for any ponds that would otherwise become isolated. Attenuation ponds alone should not be considered suitable replacement habitat given the variability of flow and volume. Highways drainage infrastructure should incorporate measures to deter amphibians and reptiles from falling in to features, for example by situating gully pots away from the kerb. Escape measures, such as Enkamat or amphibian ladders, should also be provided as a last resort. Measures to reduce operational impacts should include the suitability of installing badger proof fencing; adverse weather operations, such as snow ploughing and salt sprays; and access to maintain highways infrastructure. Innovative design to provide habitat enhancement should be considered. For example, below and above ground built structures specifically designed to provide bat hibernation roosts. The design should incorporate minimal and directed lighting, applying best practice and infrastructure design available at the time of design and construction. Understanding on the effects of lighting on biodiversity, and in particular on bats, is rapidly expanding. Current best practice includes the use of low level, back lit lighting columns with LED lamps; and avoiding spectrums that attract invertebrates. This avoids encouraging less sensitive bat species to forage by the lighting columns and putting them at greater risk of vehicle strike. Low noise road surfacing should also be implemented to prevent traffic noise from inhibiting bat foraging activity within the wider area. Other species would become accustomed to road noise over time. A habitat management plan and species monitoring strategy should be produced to ensure conservation objectives are realised in the long term. Additionally, it is important that the effectiveness of the measures undertaken to minimise adverse impacts and produce net biodiversity gains are fully understood so that successes can be replicated in other, future scheme developments.
Mitigation may be constrained by seasonal factors relating to the ecology of the different species. Refer to Appendix C.4 Ecological Mitigation Calendar.
9.10 Scoping Assessment
9.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration in EIA for preferred option
At this stage, professional judgement has been applied to consider potential impacts to receptors that may or may not be present. The severity of impacts on species in particular would vary according to the population size, distribution, rarity of occurrence and use of features that would be destroyed modified or undermined as a result of the scheme. For example, a hedgerow used by Barbastelle bats for commuting purposes would require specific measures to ensure connectivity and prevent traffic mortalities, whereas the loss of a hedgerow used by dormouse may be more easily substituted. Therefore surveys are necessary to establish presence and determine measures that would best minimise adverse impacts and provide residual beneficial effects. These surveys are subject to seasonal constraints, as outlined in Appendix C.3 Ecological Survey Calendar.
Based on the findings of this Stage 1 EAR, it is recommended that the following issues are further considered for the preferred option during the next stage of the EIA process: Statutory designated sites. Non- statutory designated sites. Habitats, including habitats of principal importance and habitats that support protected and notable species. Protected and notable species.
116
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Invasive species.
In addition, ecosystem services should be considered, in accordance with the latest EIA guidance (CIEEM, 2016).
9.10.2 Recommended scope and approach to EIA
The EIA process would be undertaken in accordance with DMRB Volume 11, IAN 130/10 and CIEEM guidance. This would include Phase 2 surveys to establish baseline information. The study area for each ecological receptor would be based on the ecological characteristics and the connective habitat available. The Study area would encompass the GAI for each of the receptors, along with a buffer zone to consider territorial interactions, and to facilitate the identification of any sites that would be required as compensation for permanent habitat loss, or as receptor sites for the translocation of species. The approximate extents are summarised in Table 9.11 below. The outcomes of ongoing consultation with statutory and key stakeholders would also be considered throughout the EIA process.
Table 9.11: Extents of the study areas for surveys of the ecological receptors
Potential Ecological Receptor Study Area Qualifying features of European sites; i.e. wintering Refer to breeding and wintering bird surveys - GAI and migratory birds plus a buffer zone of up to 250m. LNR and LWS survey and assessment See Phase 1 habitat survey Phase 1 habitat survey; National Vegetation GAI plus a zone of approximately 250m. However, this Classification (NVC); and protected botanical may be extended to include any areas that would species. need to be considered as receptor sites for any ecological receptors, and routes of connectivity with other suitable habitats. Hedgerow Regulations Assessment GAI plus a zone of approximately 100m River habitat/ corridor survey River corridor within GAI plus buffer zone of 250m Terrestrial invertebrates GAI Aquatic invertebrate surveys (including white clawed Sections of the river corridor within the GAI plus 50m; crayfish and notable species) ponds within the GAI and 250m buffer. Great crested newt and common toad GAI plus a buffer zone of approximately 250m (subject to terrestrial/ aquatic habitat connectivity and access) and up to 500m, as considered necessary. Reptiles (widespread species) GAI plus potential receptor areas. Breeding and wintering birds (including specific GAI plus a buffer zone of up to 250m. surveys for kingfisher and barn owl) Potential bat roosts, including ground assessments, internal or aerial inspections, and emergence and re-entry surveys: Potential roosts within the GAI plus a buffer zone of Buildings with roost potential 100m. Trees with roost potential
Bat activity surveys: Transect and static automated surveys comprising key Foraging areas habitats within the GAI plus a zone of approximately 250m. Commuter routes
Suitable habitats within the GAI; or that provide routes Advanced techniques of connectivity (that would be broken); and any
117
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Potential Ecological Receptor Study Area Harp trapping connected habitats. Dormouse Suitable representative and optimal habitats within the GAI, and potential receptor sites Badger Sett identification GAI plus a zone of 100m. Clan territories and interactions GAI plus a buffer zone of 500m. Otter and water vole River corridor within the GAI plus buffer zone of 250m Other notable species (brown hare, harvest mouse, No specific surveys, but should be noted during other hedgehog) survey work Invasive species No specific surveys, but should be noted during other survey work Ecosystem services No specific surveys
A range of potential receptors have been scoped out of baseline surveys as presence can be assumed. Fish; Any working methods in the construction and operational phases would need to consider aquatic fauna and flora, and comply with current regulations to prevent pollution of the Stream. Other species not specifically protected under conservation legislation and of negligible value would need to be considered in the Construction Environment Management Plan for animal welfare reasons.
CIEEM guidance requires ecosystem services to be assessed as ecological receptors during EIA. The following services would require consideration in subsequent assessments, although no specific surveys would be necessary:
Table 9.12: Ecosystem services
Ecosystem service Potential impacts and opportunities
Pollination Availability of species and habitats to support this function Nutrient recycling Biotic functionality
Habitat functionality Provision of shelter from inclemental weather; habitat connectivity; favourable insolation; extent of resource availability and quality. Agriculture and food production Availability of arable land Soil erosion Aquatic environment Pollution Hydrology Carbon sequestration and climate change Availability of grasslands and farmlands to maintain functionality Nitrification and pollution Maintenance of roads and effects on road verges
118
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
9.11 References Braintree District Council (2009a) Open Space Supplementary Planning Document SPD. Braintree District Council (2009b) Local Development Framework SPD: External Artificial Lighting. Braintree District Council (2011) Local Development Framework Core Strategy. CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. Colchester Borough Council (2008) Local Development Framework: Core Strategy. Available from: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1693&p=0 Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2013) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services Defra (2014) The National Pollinator Strategy: for bees and other pollinators in England. Available from: www.gov.uk/government/publications. Department for Transport (DFT) (December 2014) National Policy Statement for National Networks: Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 9(8) and Section 5(4) of the Planning Act 2008. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387222/npsnn-print.pdf English Nature (1997) Natural Area Profile: East Anglian Plain. Available from: http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/science/natural/profiles/naProfile50.pdf Essex Biodiversity Project (2011) Essex Biodiversity Action Plan 2010 - 2020. Available from: http://www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk/biodiversity-action-plan Essex County Council (2014) Sustainable Drainage Systems: Design Guide. Available from: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=17586&p=0 Essex Wildlife Trust (2010) Local Wildlife Selection Criteria. Available from: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Environment/local-environment/Wildlife-and- Biodiversity/Documents/Essex_LoWS_Criteria_Jan_2010.pdf The Highways Agency DMRB (2008) Environmental Impact Assessment: Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects. Part 5, Vol 11 Sect 2 HA 205/08; The Highways Agency IAN 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment IUCN (various) Red Data List. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ JNCC (no date) UK Priority List of Habitats and Species. Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/Docs/UKBAP_UKListPriorityHabitatsSpecies-V1.4-20102505.xls JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for environmental audit. ISBN 0 86139 636 7
119
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10. Geology and soils
10.1 Scope of assessment
This chapter describes the assessment of the likely impacts of each of the proposed five route options on geology and soils.
This assessment provides an indication of the baseline conditions and impacts on the proposed route options and within 250m in relation to geology and soils.
The scope of this assessment is to: Assess the presence, likely extent and nature of the geology, soils and land contamination constraints to the proposed route options development. This includes designated geological sites, soils including agricultural land quality and controlled waters (groundwater and surface water); Identify significant potential constraints to the proposed route options development and recommend possible mitigation measures; and Provide recommendations for next stage of work e.g. intrusive ground investigation / remediation.
In terms of surface waters, only the potential impacts on surface waters with regards to the mobilisation of land contamination present beneath the route options have been covered in this assessment. An assessment of hydrology is given in Chapter 14.
10.2 Policy and guidance
10.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy and guidance
This section focuses on the legislation and policy specific to geology and soils (including Land Quality).
10.2.1.1 Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (HMSO, 1990) The Legislative Framework for dealing with historical land contamination is set out within Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (HMSO, 1990) and is applied for new developments through the Planning system. The legislation embraces the “suitable for use” approach, which comprises three principal elements: Ensuring that land is suitable for its current use, such that contamination is not causing unacceptable risks to human health and the environment; Ensuring that land is made suitable for the new use intended, as planning permission is given for that new use; and Limiting requirements for remediation to the work necessary to prevent unacceptable risks to human health or the environment in relation to the current use or future use of the land for which planning permission is being sought.
Contaminated land is defined in Part 2A (Section 78A (2) as ‘any land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land that – (a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or (b) significant pollution of controlled waters is being caused, or there is a significant possibility of such pollution being caused’.
10.2.1.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The planning and development control regime, as set out in Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework, aims to ensure that there are no unacceptable risks to users of a site and any other relevant receptors, taking into account the proposed new land use.
120
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Annex 2 of the NPPF provides a definition of agricultural lands. Grades 1, 2 and 3a are described as the best and most versatile lands. The national planning policy states that ‘valued’ soils should be protected and enhanced. It further states that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poor quality land in preference to that of higher quality. While this chapter assess land in terms of loss of soil quality, Chapter 13: People and Communities assess in terms of loss of agricultural land.
10.2.1.3 Contaminated Land Report (CLR) 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Environment Agency, 2004).
The Contaminated Land Report (CLR) 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Environment Agency, 2004). CLR 11 has been developed to provide the technical framework for applying a risk management process when dealing with land affected by contamination. An important thread throughout the overall process of risk assessment is the need to formulate and develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the site, which supports the identification and assessment of pollutant linkages.
Development of the CSM forms the main part of preliminary risk assessment, and the model is subsequently refined or revised as more information and understanding is obtained through the risk assessment process. The CSM covers risks to human health, controlled waters and other receptors such as buildings, structures and services.
10.2.1.4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11
The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 11, provides guidance for assessing impacts to geology, soils and land contamination from road development.
10.2.1.5 Essex County Council – Essex Minerals Plan (adopted July 2014)
The plan identifies active and preserved mineral plans in the study area and wider Essex area. The plan sets out areas for safeguarding of mineral and potential mineral extraction areas for future use. Key mineral protection issues to be addressed by the plan include ensuring that prior extraction is considered when other necessary development might sterilise viable mineral resources.
10.2.1.6 Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land (MAFF, 1988)
The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) provides a method for assessing the quality of farmland to enable informed decisions to be made within the planning system for proposed developments. The ALC system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into Subgrades 3a and 3b. ALC Grades 1, 2 and 3a is defined as the best and most versatile lands by the policy guidance - Annex 2 of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
This chapter assess agricultural land in terms of loss of soil quality while Chapter 9: People and Communities assess in terms of loss of agricultural land.
10.2.1.7 Groundwater Protection Guidance: Principles and Practice (GP3), Environment Agency (EA), August 2013.
The Environment Agency (EA) principles for management and protection of groundwater are set out in the Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice. This incorporates principles of relevant legislation covering the general protection of groundwater resources (principally the Water Resources Act 1991 and Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC).
121
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.2.1.8 European Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the primary legislation for surface waters. The WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC) is a substantial piece of EU water legislation that came into force in 2000, with the overarching objective to get all water bodies in Europe to attain Good or High Ecological Status by 2015. The WFD is implemented in England and Wales by “The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003” (SI 3242/2003). The EA is the competent authority in England responsible for delivering objectives of the WFD.
10.2.1.9 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Planning Practice Guidance: Land Stability (March 2014)
The guidance provides advice to local authorities and developers to ensure that development is appropriately suited to its location, and that there are no unacceptable risks caused by unstable land or subsidence. A limited land stability search has been undertaken through the review of available databases including the Coal Authority Interactive Map and the National Landslides Database available at British Geological Survey (BGS) Onshore GeoIndex.
10.2.2 Overview of relevant guidance
The summary of all the relevant guidance applied in the production of this chapter (as described above) are: Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (HMSO, 1990); Environment Agency, 2004, Contaminated Land Report (CLR) 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination; Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012), National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Planning Practice Guidance: Land Stability (March 2014); Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 11; European Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC; Groundwater protection: Principles and Practice (GP3), Environment Agency (EA), August 2013. Essex County Council – Essex Minerals Plan (adopted July 2014); and Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land (MAFF, 1988).
10.3 Definition of significant effects
The assessment of the potential effects on the geology and soil characteristics including land and groundwater quality of the A120 Scheme has been undertaken taking account of European and national legislation and planning policies as detailed above and professional judgement.
For this project, an options evaluation scale based on significance, has been derived which is presented in Chapter 4. The following section describes what is considered a significant effect with regards to geology and soils. It should be noted that for geology and soils beneficial effects are deemed unlikely. For this reason risk criteria, sensitivity criteria and magnitude of impact criteria relating only to the adverse effects above are shown in Tables 10.2 – 10.4 below.
122
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.3.1 Definition of ‘Significant Effects’
Significant adverse impacts are defined as those impacts from the scheme that is not possible to mitigate or that would have effects so large that the route is likely to be altered as a result. In terms of geology and soils, there are a number of impacts that may be defined as “significant effects” overall, for example, significant harm as defined by Part 2A, routing of the scheme through an active landfill or loss of a licenced groundwater abstraction borehole.
10.3.2 Definition of “Potentially Significant Adverse Effects”
In addition to the above, there are a number of effects that can be defined as potentially significant. This classification is applied where either the effects are less severe or the magnitude lower than those defined for significant effects above.
10.3.3 Risk criteria, Sensitivity Criteria and Magnitude of Impact Criteria
The risk criteria, sensitivity criteria and magnitude of impact criteria relating only to the adverse effects above are presented in Tables 10.2 to 10.4 below. A source-pathway-receptor model has been used to determine the potential for an impact to occur. Potential sources of land contamination are identified for the route options based on the review of the current and historical site uses. The nature and the likely extent of land contamination are considered, e.g. whether such contamination is likely to be localised or widespread. Table 10.2 summarises potential land contamination sources from which impacts may occur and the potential risk posed from the sources, in terms in land contamination. Table 10.2 Potential Land Contamination Risk Sources Features Risk Sources Potential Risk Landfills Operational hazardous waste landfill. Higher Risk Former hazardous waste landfill. Lower Risk Former or current industrial waste landfill. Former or current domestic waste landfill. Former or current inert landfill. Area of made-up or re-worked ground. Natural ground. Other potentially Industrial site – current or former airfield or an High Risk contaminated sites active quarry site. Medium sized industrial site - e.g. manufacturing facility, fuel storage depot. Large commercial or public institution – e.g. hospital and large R&D facility. Industrial estate – number of mixed industrial Lower risk units.
Medium sized commercial or public institution – e.g. large warehouse, Local authority depot. Individual industrial unit – small warehouse, dry cleaners. Farms - working farm buildings, farms used as depot and other industrial activities e.g. haulage. Railway land and depot. Large substations. Sewage works.
123
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Features Risk Sources Potential Risk Roads – accidental fuel spillages. Railway lines – spillages from trains and carriages Substations
Table 10.3 below describes the sensitivity of the receptors identified along the route options. Table 10.3: Sensitivity Criteria
Features Receptors Sensitivity Controlled Licenced Large water supply borehole High Waters Principal Aquifer Major watercourse/water body e. g main rivers Licenced small scale or private water abstraction Medium Minor watercourse/water body e.g ponds, reservoirs Secondary A Aquifer Secondary (Undifferentiated) aquifer Unproductive Strata Low Human Construction or ground workers High Health Schools, Hospitals, nursing homes or residential homes for the elderly Residential site users (gardens) Maintenance workers Medium Residential site users (no gardens) Commercial industrial users Low Parks & public space Adjacent land users Soil Quality Soils within Grade 1, 2 and 3a Agricultural Land High Soils within Grade 3b Agricultural Land Medium Soils within Grade 4 and 5 Agricultural Land Low Geology World Heritage Sites High Geological Earth Heritage Sites Designated Geo-Parks Geological SPA’s Geological Special Areas of Conservation Geological SSSI’s National Nature Reserves National Parks Local Nature Conservation Sites – not assessed Medium Local Nature Reserves – not assessed Local Geological Sites No important geology Low
124
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Features Receptors Sensitivity Mineral Proven Mineral Resource High Resources Measured Mineral Resource Probable Mineral Resource Indicated Mineral Resource Medium Feasibility Mineral resource Pre-feasibility mineral resource – not assessed at this stage Inferred Mineral resource – not assessed at this stage Low Reconnaissance Mineral Resource – not assessed at this stage No Mineral resources present
The significance of the effects on a potential receptor is determined through the sensitivity / value of the receptor (Table 10.3 above) and the magnitude of impacts to the receptors (Table 10.4) as a result of proposed development. For example, a licenced large water supply borehole is considered of high value / sensitivity; therefore the permanent loss of that borehole would be considered as potentially significant which could not be mitigated. The significance of the effects is based on the guidance detailed in Chapter 10.2.2.
In assessing this information, a measure is made of whether the source of land contamination can reach a receptor through exposure pathways created during construction activities. The assessment has been made against the present site conditions. Table 10.4: Magnitude of Change and Significance of Effect Features Risk of Change to Receptors Significance Controlled Loss of a licenced large scale water supply borehole Significant adverse effect Waters Loss of part of a Principal Aquifer – not possible to mitigate Loss of a Secondary A Aquifer Permanent degradation of water quality for a major watercourse Loss of licenced small scale water abstraction Potential significant Loss of small or private water abstraction adverse effect – mitigation may be Loss of a Secondary (Undifferentiated) Aquifer possible Temporary degradation of water quality for a major watercourse Temporary degradation of Principal Aquifer Degradation of water quality for a minor watercourse Temporary degradation of Secondary A Aquifer Slight adverse effect – Temporary degradation of Secondary (Undifferentiated) effect not significant with Aquifer typical mitigation No obvious effect on controlled waters No effect Human Health Significant Harm as defined by Part 2A Significant adverse effect Health Effects occur – not possible to mitigate Significant probability of Significant Harm Potentially significant Significant probability of Health effects adverse effect – can be mitigated No known health effects No effect
125
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Features Risk of Change to Receptors Significance Soil Quality Loss of good quality soils as result of direct and indirect loss Significant adverse effect of Grades 1, 2 and 3a agricultural lands defined as the best – not possible to mitigate and most versatile lands. Reduction of good quality soils to low quality (soils within Potentially significant Grades 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land). adverse effect – Rendering good quality re-usable soils unusable mitigation may be possible Rendering good quality soils unsuitable for re-use without treatment/remediation Rendering poorer quality soils unusable Slight adverse effect – Rendering poor quality soils unusable without effect not significant with treatment/remediation typical mitigation No effects on soils No effect Geology Loss of internationally graded geological site - World Heritage Significant adverse effect Sites, Earth Heritage Sites, Geological Sites for Special – not possible to mitigate Scientific Interest (SSSI) Loss of national designated geological site - Designated Geo- Parks, Geological SPA’s, Special Areas of Conservation, National Nature Reserves, National Parks etc.
Loss of locally designated site - Local Nature Conservation Potentially significant Sites – not assessed, Local Nature Reserves, Locally adverse effect – important geology mitigation may be possible No important geology No effect Mineral Permanent loss of proven mineral or measured mineral Significant adverse effect Resources resource – not possible to mitigate Permanent loss of probable mineral resource Permanent loss of indicated Mineral Resource Potentially significant Permanent loss of feasibility Mineral resource adverse effect – mitigation may be possible Temporary loss of proven mineral or measured mineral Slight adverse effect – resource effect not significant with Temporary loss of probable mineral resource typical mitigation Pre-feasibility mineral resource – not assessed at this stage
126
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement
10.4.1 Data sources
The following sources of information have been reviewed (all sources were accessed between July and September 2016): Environment Agency (EA) What’s In Your Backyard Online Mapping (www.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby); accessed in July 2016; Google Maps aerial photography (http://maps.google.co.uk);accessed in July 2016; British Geological Survey Open Geoscience website (www.bgs.ac.uk/GeoIndex); accessed in July 2016; Old Maps www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html#/);accessed in July 2016; Magic Maps (www.magic.gov.uk/home.htm), accessed in July 2016; Natural England’s Agricultural Land Classification Maps (2010); accessed on 9th September 2016; Zetica (2016) Regional Unexploded Bomb Risk Map - Essex; accessed in July 2016; A120 Project Web GIS (Geographical Information System) Revision H (updated 6th September 2016); and Essex County Council (2014) Essex Minerals Plan (adopted July 2014), accessed on 31st August 2016. The Coal Authority Interactive Map Viewer (http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/coalauthority/home.html); accessed in October 2016; and National Landslides Database (http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?theme=hazards), accessed in October 2016.
10.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Regulatory Authorities Consultation
Consultation with regards to geology, soils and land contamination has been undertaken as part of this EAR. The Local Authorities Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council, Environment Agency and GeoEssex were consulted to enquire whether they hold relevant information relating to geology, geological sites, groundwater, soils and land contamination issues for the proposed route options.
Where a response has not been received from stakeholders, existing database information has been utilised. For this level of assessment, it is considered that the database will provide sufficient information. The consultee information will be additional and be considered for further assessment stages or later iterations of this report.
Specific enquiries undertaken for each consultee are described below:
10.4.2.1 Consultation with Braintree District Council
The Braintree District Council Environmental Health Officer, Pam Sharp, was consulted on 14th August 2016 to obtain information relating to: Land contamination related information held for Bradwell Quarry; Exact boundary of the disused Rivenhall Airfield; Contaminated land issues / designations; Historical land uses / general knowledge of the area; Pollution incidents; Abstraction licenses; Ground gas and aggressive ground issues; Historical and recorded landfills and other waste management facilities; Environmentally sensitive sites; and
127
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Any other relevant land contamination issues.
Information provided by Braintree District Council on 26th August 2016 indicated that there was indiscriminate disposal of waste including household waste on the site of the newer retail park at Braintree (to the north of all the route options) prior to its development. However the presence of hardstanding creating a barrier to the underlying soil and the installation of gas venting at the site reduces the potential risk from this waste disposal.
Regarding the Bradwell quarry site, Braintree District Council noted that there are small areas of unknown infills dotted within the quarry but they do not know what (if any) contaminants are present.
They recommended that the Essex County Council Mineral and Waste Planning team be contacted for further information as they may have some documentation gathered through the planning process. Further consultation with the Mineral and Waste Planning team will be undertaken for further assessment stages.
10.4.2.2 Consultation with Colchester Borough Council The Contaminated Land officer at Colchester Borough Council, Mary Rickard, was consulted on 14th August 2016 to obtain information relating to: Contaminated land issues / designations; Historical land uses / general knowledge of the area; Pollution incidents; Ground gas and aggressive ground issues; Historical and recorded landfills and other waste management facilities; Environmentally sensitive sites; and Any other relevant land contamination issues. Colchester Borough Council provided a spreadsheet containing contaminated land records they hold for the study area on 22nd August 2016. Based on the review of the information provided, no land contamination issues have been identified on or within 250 m of the proposed route options.
10.4.2.3 Consultation with the Environment Agency (EA) The Customers and Consultation team of the Environment Agency were consulted on 17th August 2016 to obtain the following information in relation to the five proposed route options: Water abstraction licences; Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs) in the area; Pollution incidents; Historical and recorded landfills and other waste management facilities; Known scrap yards in the area; and Any other relevant groundwater and land contamination related issues.
It should be noted that most of the information above is available on the EA database - ‘what’s in your backyard’ (WIYBY) portal which has been reviewed as part of this assessment. This consultation has been undertaken to find out if they have other information that have not been published on their portal.
The Customers and Consultation team of the Environment Agency responded on 20th September 2016 and provided additional information on registered domestic water abstractions within the study area. A total of seven domestic abstractions are located within 250 m of the route options. These are presented in Chapter 10.7.3.4 and discussed within this report (where relevant).
128
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.4.2.4 Consultation with GeoEssex The GeoEssex group was consulted in August 2016 to obtain information on Sites of Special Scientific Interests (SSSI) and Local Geological sites (LoGS) in the study area.
No response has been received from GeoEssex at the time of writing this report. However, it is considered that the information within existing database is sufficient for this assessment. The assessment will be reviewed on receipt of further information from GeoEssex.
10.5 Field surveys and modelling
A route walkover assessment of the proposed five route options corridors was undertaken on 10th and 11th May 2016 by two Land Quality team members. Potential constraints to the route options with respect to geology and soils (including potential land contamination sources) were identified for each of the route options through desk studies (involving the review of information sources including previous site reports, Google maps, historical maps, the Environment Agency website and Magic Maps). This was then confirmed through the route walkover assessment. The area considered included the proposed route footprints (as correct at the time) and extended to 250 m (recommended best practice for land contamination assessment) from the centre of the route alignment. Other high risk sites such as waste management sites, landfills and others located within 1km of the centre of the route were also considered.
The walkover was undertaken to visually assess the nature of the potential constraints identified and to check the proximity of the proposed route options to any potential receptors e.g. controlled waters. The visual assessment was undertaken by driving along the route corridors and stopping at or near to those locations where it was practical. Access to the identified sites was limited to public right of ways only.
The findings of the walkover assessment are detailed in Jacobs report (A120 Braintree to A12, Technical Report – Geology and Soils Survey Findings, B3553T41/GS-RW/01, August 2016) and discussed where relevant within this report.
10.6 Assumptions and uncertainties
This assessment is based on information gained from a variety of sources which are considered to be reliable. Nevertheless authenticity and reliability of information cannot be guaranteed. There may be features currently present on the proposed route options that are not covered by the available mapping used in this assessment. Any updates that may be made on the sources of information used (for example the EA website) after the issue of this report will not have been assessed.
This assessment is based on outline design information available at the time of reporting (Revision H). Additional assessment may be required if the alignment is altered after the issue of this report. No comprehensive environmental database searches such as Envirocheck or Groundsure reports have been undertaken at this stage.
10.7 Environmental baseline description
10.7.1 Geological Setting
The geological setting of the proposed route options has been determined from the British Geological Survey (BGS) geological maps available on BGS website (Geology of Britain Viewer).
The geological cross sections showing the western, central and eastern sections of all the route options are include in Volume II as Figures 10.6.1 to 10.11.1.
10.7.1.1 Made Ground
The Geology of Britain Viewer (BGS, 2016) did not indicate the presence of made ground beneath the route options. However, it is indicated within 250 m of some of the route options. In Option 4B, made ground is
129
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
indicated to be present approximately 130 m to the north of the route within Bradwell Quarry. This is likely to be replaced overburden following aggregate extraction from the quarry. In Options 8 and 9A, three areas of made ground are indicated approximately 250 m to the south-east of the route options associated mainly with the existing A12 Road.
Made ground is anticipated to be present at, or in close proximity to the areas where the route options cross railway lines, Bradwell Quarry, the disused Rivenhall Airfield and existing roads.
10.7.1.2 Superficial Deposits
The Geology of Britain Viewer (BGS, 2016) indicates that Lowestoft Formation comprising Diamicton is present at the surface across the majority of the route. This is described as deposits of fill with sands and gravels in variable distribution. Other superficial deposits present on the route options are: Option 1B – the route crosses small sections of several superficial deposits including the Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup (sand and gravel) and Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel) which are present in the western and eastern section of the route and appear to be coincident with the courses and floodplains of the River Brain (west) and River Blackwater (east) crossings. A small area of Head Deposits (clay, silt and gravel) is also present along the course of River Blackwater crossing. Head (clay, silt, sand and gravel) Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel) and Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup (sand and gravel) present at the western end of the route. This was indicated along the course of River Brain, and along a watercourse connected to the River Blackwater, south of Park Gate Road. River Terrace Deposits (sand and gravel) were present at the eastern end of the route at the A12 road near Junction 23. These deposits are also indicated to be present along the course of the River Brain located to the westernmost part of the route. Option 3 - majority of the route is indicated to cross a combination of Head (clay, silt, sand and gravel), Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup (sand and gravel), Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel) and River Terrace Deposits (sand and gravel). The presence of the superficial deposits appears to be coincident with the courses and floodplains of the River Brain (westernmost section of the route) and the River Blackwater and its tributaries (generally along the current A120 between Braintree and Coggeshall). Option 4B – the route crosses a section of Head (clay, silt, sand and gravel) immediately north of Lanham Wood. The Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup (sand and gravel), Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel) and Head Deposits are present in a section in the eastern part of the route, and appear to be coincident with the course and floodplain of the River Blackwater. These deposits are also indicated to be present along the course of the River Brain located to the westernmost part of the route. Option 8 - the route is indicated to cross small sections of several superficial deposits including Head (clay, silt, sand and gravel) which is present to the south of Park Gate Road and the A12 near Junction 23. Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel) and Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup (sand and gravel) are present at the western end of the route – along the course of River Brain, and along a watercourse connected to the River Blackwater, south of Park Gate Road; River Terrace Deposits (sand and gravel) is present at the eastern end of the route at the A12 near Junction 23. Option 9A - the route is indicated to cross small sections of different types of superficial deposits including Head (clay, silt, sand and gravel) which is present to the south of Park Gate Road and the A12 near Junction 23. Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and gravel) and Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup (sand and gravel) are present along a watercourse connected to the River Blackwater and at south of Park Gate Road; River Terrace Deposits (sand and gravel) are present at the south-eastern end of the route at A12.
10.7.1.3 Bedrock
The entire five route options and wider areas are underlain by the London Clay Formation at depth comprising predominantly of clay, with some silt and sand.
130
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.7.1.4 Geological Sites
Based on the GeoEssex website, there are no designated Geological Sites for Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) on the route options or within 250 m of the options. Also, there are no Local Geological sites (LoGS) on the proposed route options or within 250 m of the route options.
Consultation with GeoEssex has been undertaken; however no response has been received at the time of writing this report. It is considered that the information within their existing databases is sufficient for this assessment and this assessment will be updated on receipt of further information from GeoEssex.
10.7.1.5 Geological Faults
No geological faults are indicated on and within 250 m of the route options.
10.7.1.6 Buried Channels Based on the BGS Geoindex Onshore Map, two buried channels (identified as linear features) are indicated across the south eastern end of Options 8 and 9A. The first channel runs from south-west to north-east between and parallel to the southern railway line and the A12. Another parallel channel is indicated approximately 500 m further south of the route.
10.7.2 Hydrogeology
10.7.2.1 Superficial Deposits
Lowestoft Formation (underlying the majority of the route and wider area) is classified as a Secondary Undifferentiated Aquifer (variable characteristics between Secondary A and B Aquifers). The Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup, Alluvium and Head (along the course and floodplain of the rivers Brain and Blackwater) are classified as Secondary A Aquifers (permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers).
10.7.2.2 Bedrock
London Clay Formation beneath the route and wider area is classified as Unproductive Strata.
10.7.2.3 Groundwater Abstraction Licences
There is one licenced groundwater abstraction well located directly on the eastern section of the proposed route options 1B, 3 and 4B at NGR TL 89170 21932. The abstraction well is located to the north of the eastern railway line and is a small sized abstraction used for irrigation purposes at Great Domsey farm.
10.7.2.4 Registered Domestic Abstractions
Consultation undertaken with the EA indicates that seven registered domestic abstraction are located within 250 m of the route associated mainly with residential properties located near the route options. These are listed in Table 10.5 below. It is assumed that these are small scale water abstraction due to the size of the associated properties. Table 10.5: Domestic abstractions within 250 m of the Route Options Domestic Abstractions Approximate Distance to National Grid Water Well Depth Route Options (m) Reference source depth to water
Squirrels Hall – Ambridge 10 m north of Ambridge TL 84025 23325 Well - - Road, Colchester. road side road – Option 3 Pond Cottage – Withies 10 m north of side road at TL 79550 22452 Well - - Green, Braintree Fell’s farm – Options 4B
131
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Domestic Abstractions Approximate Distance to National Grid Water Well Depth Route Options (m) Reference source depth to water and 8 Applied Environmental 250 m south of options 1B TL 88750 21760 Bore - - Research Centre, Great and 4B (eastern section) Domsey 250 m south of options 1B TL 88800 21750 Well - - Great Domsey Farmhouse and 4B (eastern section) Threadkells – Old Mill Lane, 60 m north of Options 1B Spring - - Colchester and 4B 250 m south of Option 8 TL 85600 17300 Well 1.5 1.0 Durham Fruit Farm Ltd - and 9A (south-eastern end Maldon. of the route) 200 m south of Option 8 TL 85500 17200 Bore - - Brickhouse - Kelvedon and 9A (south-eastern end Road of the route) Note: - means not provided. Information on depth of well and depth to water has been provided for one abstraction only.
10.7.2.5 Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZ)
Based on the EA aquifer maps, there are no SPZ on the proposed route options or within 250 m of the route options.
10.7.3 Hydrology
Based on the EA maps and Google maps, the proposed route options cross a number of watercourses. Two main rivers; River Blackwater and River Brain are located within the proposed route options.
All the route options cross River Blackwater at different points and some of the route options (1B and 8) cross the River Brain at the western end of the route. The route options also cross other named and unnamed watercourses and there are three reservoirs within 250 m of some of the route options. The proposed watercourses can act as pathways for transport of contaminants exposed during proposed road construction or as receptors of land contamination.
The surface water bodies and water courses identified on the proposed route options and within 250 m of the options are presented in Appendix D.1 and shown on the geology and soils constraints plans in Volume 2 Figures 10.1.1 – 10.5.4.
10.7.4 Surface Water Quality
The River Brain (west) and River Blackwater (east) where present on the route options are both classified by the Environment Agency as having Moderate ecological and Good chemical quality, but high levels of nitrates and phosphates.
Migration of any land contamination (mobilised during road construction) to surface waters is anticipated and this is likely to degrade the current water quality. It is a statutory requirement to protect surface watercourses during any development.
132
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.7.4.1 Surface Water Abstraction Licences
Based on the EA maps, there are no surface water abstraction licences recorded directly on any of the proposed route options. However, a number are recorded within 250 m of route options as summarised below: There is one medium sized licenced surface water abstraction along River Blackwater, near the sewage works outside Coggeshall Hamlet; approximately 65 m downstream to the south of route option 1B and 4B; There is one surface water abstraction located approximately 140 m north of a side road on Option 3, south of Braintree Golf Club; There is one surface water abstraction located approximately 250 m south of Option 3 at A120 Coggeshall Road, along River Blackwater; There is one surface water abstraction at approximately 30 m south of Option 4B near River Blackwater; and There is one surface water abstraction located approximately 150 m east of the eastern end of routes 8 and 9A.
Hydrology is considered further in Chapter 14, ‘Road Drainage and Water Environment’.
10.7.5 Soil Resources
The agricultural land classification (ALC) for the proposed route options have been undertaken through the review of the Natural England (2010) provisional Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) map eastern region - ALC008 and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) post - 1988 Agricultural Land Classification map (available in Magic Maps). These maps classified agricultural lands into five grades (grade one is best quality and grade five is poorest quality). The MAFF map subdivides Grade 3 into Grade 3a and 3b. NPPF (Annex 2) defined Grades 1- 3a ALC as the best and most versatile land (BMV). It should be noted that the assessment is based on the quality of soils, rather than the loss of agricultural land, which is discussed in Chapter 13: People and Community.
The Natural England ALC map has no subdivision between Subgrade 3a and 3b and has been used for general indication of the ALC grades for the proposed route options as it provided classification for the entire route options, however, it is unlikely to be sufficient for site-specific assessment. The MAFF Post-1988 ALC map does not provide ALC classification for the entire route corridor but differentiates Grades 3a and 3b and will only be available where a detailed site survey has been undertaken.
Based on the Natural England’s ALC map, much of the land along the proposed route options comprises Grade 2 (very good) agricultural land, defined as being among the ‘best and most versatile’. The key exceptions are the sections of the route near the floodplain of the River Blackwater and River Brain which are Grade 3 (good to moderate). The MAFF map indicate the presence of Grade 3a lands in the areas where Options 1B, 4B, 8 and 9A cross Rivenhall airfield and Bradwell quarry and where Option 3 cross the A120 near Baytree farm.
Based on the ALC described above, soils located within the route options are of high quality and are required to be preserved during the proposed route construction to avoid degradation of the quality. A soil management plan is therefore required prior to the proposed route construction.
10.7.6 Mineral Resources (Mineral extraction and Quarries)
Based on the Essex County Council – Essex Minerals plan (adopted in July 2014), four of the five routes being currently proposed are aligned through either current or future extraction areas of Bradwell Quarry (the exception being Option 3). Options 8 and 9A are located over a potential mineral site at Parkgate Farm - a site submitted by Hanson for inclusion in the ECC minerals plan, but not as yet included in the plan.
As a viable mineral resource is present on most of the route options, the A120 project will be required to prepare a minerals resource assessment plan. Pre-excavation of mineral resource is likely to be required by the ECC minerals team prior to the A120 Scheme construction to avoid the sterilisation of any mineral. 133
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
It is understood from the scheme Design Engineers that the mineral resources will be extracted prior to the road construction.
10.7.7 Landfills and Waste Management sites
According to the EA website, there are no known current or historical landfill sites, waste transfer stations or waste management facilities on or within 250 m of the proposed route options.
The closest landfills (both of which are historical and not active landfill sites) are Chapel Hill Landfill located to the north of Braintree (near the western section of the route options) and Temple Lane landfills located in Silver end near the central section of Options 1B, 8 and 9A. These landfills have been discounted given their current uses as retail or commercial sites and distances to the route (located more than 1 km from the route options).
Information received from the Contaminated Land Officer at Braintree District Council (as part of Regulatory Authorities’ consultation – Section 10.4) indicates that there are small areas of unknown infill dotted within the Bradwell quarry but they do not know what (if any) contaminants are present.
10.7.8 Land Contamination (Historical and Current Land Uses)
Potential land contamination sources associated with the current and historical land uses intersecting with or within 250 m of the proposed route options which are considered to represent potential constraints with respect to geology and soils are summarised for each route option in Table 10.6 overleaf including the potential risks (defined as higher and lower) associated with the each of the identified sources. The land uses and features have been discerned from current aerial photography and desk study review of publicly available information for the route options. These have been considered in sequence from west to east. The list may not be exhaustive.
It should be noted that a number of other potentially contaminative land uses were identified from maps and aerial photography but after the route walkover undertaken in May 2016, some of the features were discounted as posing negligible risk based on their current uses. These were mainly farms which now appear to be private residences rather than working farms with no visible evidence of farm machinery or practices.
The land contamination constraints identified are shown on the Geology and Soils Constraints plans attached to this report as Volume 2 Figures 10.1.1 – 10.5.4
A historical review was undertaken which targeted only the contemporary land uses likely to be potential sources of contamination pertinent to the route options and is based on the limited historical maps available at old-maps.co.uk. Detailed historical review of the entire route options have not been undertaken as most of the sections of the proposed route options cross mainly undeveloped agricultural land.
A full description of the historical and current land uses for all the route options is given in Appendix D.2. Table 10.6: Summary of Land Contamination Sources (Historical and Current Land uses) for the proposed route options Land Contamination sources and Risk Land Contamination sources and Risk Assessment Assessment
On route Within 250 m
Option 1B
Higher risk Higher Risk Disused Rivenhall Airfield – potential for buried fuel No high risk historical or current land uses were tanks, small unbunded chemical storage tanks noted. present at the time of visit. Lower Risk Bradwell Quarry – current and future exploitation Braintree Substation – the land boundary is areas and a number of small infilled land areas. approximately 30 m north of the route Lower Risk Lanham Farm Depot – one of the side roads is Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch located along the southern edge of the depot.
134
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Land Contamination sources and Risk Land Contamination sources and Risk Assessment Assessment
On route Within 250 m (west). Langley Farm (large livestock farm) - one of the Great Eastern Main Line (east). proposed side roads is located on the edge of A12 crossing this farm. Sewage works – approximately 140 m north- west of the route at Braintree. Infilled sand and gravel pit – approximately 250 m north-east of the route. Vehicle scrap yard (Brand & Howes Environmental Ltd, Goodriches Dusty Lane) – approximately 240m west from the end of the spur road connecting the route to Braintree Road. Cressing Lodge Farm – approximately 100 m south-east of Galleys Corner bypass Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m north of Galleys Corner bypass. Fly tipping and Vehicle scrap yard at Alshots Farm – approximately 250 m south of the route, on the south-eastern edge of airfield.
Option 3
Higher Risk Higher Risk No high risk historical or current land uses were No high risk historical or current land uses were noted. noted. Lower Risk Lower Risk Cressing Lodge Farm – working farm, likely to be Braintree Substation – the land boundary is demolished during road construction approximately 20 m to the south of the route. Baytree Farm / Cherry Lane Garden Centre – Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, presence of historical, brick pits, clay pits and Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m gravel pits. north of Galleys Corner bypass. Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch Prior’s Way industrial area – approximately 20 (west). m south of the route. Great Eastern Main Line (east). Sewage Works (Braintree) – approximately 140 A12 crossing m north-west of the route, inside By-pass. Sewage works at Stisted – approximately 300 m north-west of the route, bounded to the south by a watercourse. Millie’s Farm – approximately 180 m south. Langley Farm – large livestock farm, approximately 200m south-east of the route.
Option 4B
Higher Risk High Risk Disused Rivenhall Airfield – potential for buried fuel No high risk historical or current land uses were tanks, small unbunded chemical storage tanks noted. present at the time of visit. Lower Risk Bradwell Quarry – current and future exploitation areas and a number of small infilled land areas. Braintree Substation – the land boundary is approximately 20 m to the south of the route. Lower Risk Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, Cressing Lodge Farm – working farm, likely to be
135
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Land Contamination sources and Risk Land Contamination sources and Risk Assessment Assessment
On route Within 250 m demolished during the road construction. Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch north of Galleys Corner bypass. (west). Fells Farm – one of the side roads is located on Great Eastern Main Line (east). the edge of this farm. Presence of derelict farm A12 crossing. building with potential asbestos roof. Sewage Works (Braintree) – approximately 140 m north-west of the route. Infilled (unknown fill) sand and gravel pit – approximately 250 m north-east of the route. Fly tipping and Vehicle scrap yard at Alshots Farm. Langley Farm (livestock farm) - one of the proposed side roads is located on the edge of this farm.
Option 8
Higher Risk Higher Risk Disused Rivenhall Airfield – potential for buried fuel No high risk historical or current land uses were tanks, small unbunded chemical storage tanks noted. present at the time of visit. Lower Risk Bradwell Quarry – current and future exploitation areas and a number of small infilled land areas. Braintree Substation – the land boundary is approximately 30 m north of the route; Lower Risk Disused sewage works - south of Park Gate Road Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m (west). north of Galleys Corner bypass. Great Eastern Main Line - railway line near A12 Lanham Farm Depot – one of the side roads is Junction 23 located along the southern edge of the depot. Hole Farm (piggery farm) - located 30 m north- Essex County Fire Service Headquarters west of A12 Bypass. (identified as Durwards Hall) Clark’s Farm (industrial farm) – located immediately north-east of the Great Eastern Main Line railway line and approximately 10 m to the south east of one of the side roads. Businesses to north of A12 Kelvedon bypass – located 170 m north.
Option 9A
Higher Risk Higher Risk Disused Rivenhall Airfield – potential for buried fuel No high risk historical or current land uses were tanks, small unbunded chemical storage tanks noted. present at the time of visit. Lower Risk Bradwell Quarry – current and future exploitation areas and a number of small infilled land areas. Braintree Substation – the land boundary is approximately 20 m to the south of the route Lower Risk Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, Cressing Lodge Farm - working farm, likely to be Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m demolished during the road construction. north of Galleys Corner bypass. Disused sewage works, south of Park Gate Road Cressing Lodge Farm – approximately 100 m 136
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Land Contamination sources and Risk Land Contamination sources and Risk Assessment Assessment
On route Within 250 m Essex County Fire Service Headquarters (identified south-east of Galleys Corner bypass. as Durwards Hall). Fells Farm – one of the side roads is located on Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch the edge of this farm. Presence of derelict farm (west). building with potential asbestos roof. Great Eastern Main Line - railway line near A12 Hole Farm (piggery farm) - located 30 m north- Junction 23 west of A12 Bypass. Clark’s Farm (industrial farm) – located immediately north-east of the Great Eastern Main Line railway line and approximately 10 m to the south east of one of the side roads. Sewage Works (Braintree) – approximately 140 m north-west of the route, inside By-pass. Vehicle scrap yard (Brand & Howes Environmental Ltd, Goodriches Dusty Lane) – approximately 240m west from the end of the spur road connecting the route to Braintree Road Businesses to north of A12 Kelvedon bypass – located 170 m north.
10.7.9 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
Based on the review of Zetica’s Unexploded Bomb (UXB) Risk Map for Essex area (viewed online), some parts of each of the five route options (particularly the western areas) may be in a moderate bomb risk area. Due to the large scale of the map and the limited geographical references, it is not possible to accurately locate the route in relation to the risk areas.
It is possible the risk of UXO may be higher in route options 1B, 4B, 8 and 9A which cross or are in proximity to the former Rivenhall Airfield site. A specialist UXO survey may be required for these options during the next stage of the project.
10.7.10 Land Stability Land instability occurs from natural hazards (including landslides, ground subsidence and ground compression) or previous land use activities including mining. Limited information on land stability has been obtained from the review of the National Landslide Database (available on BGS GeoIndex Onshore Map) and the Coal Authority Interactive Map.
Both databases indicate that there are no landslides and high risk coal mining areas on and within 1 km of the route options. It is possible that the areas where the route options cross Bradwell Quarry may be at risk of ground instability due to the extraction of minerals and replacement with fill materials.
10.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
An assessment of the potential impacts of the route option to geology and soils with respect to controlled waters, soils, mineral resources and geological sites have been undertaken. Preliminary source-pathway- receptor assessment has been used to determine the potential for significant impacts to occur.
Construction and maintenance workers are the key human health receptors likely to be impacted directly by land contamination (as noted in Table 10.6) exposed during the route development. Other potential human health receptors include residential properties and businesses in close proximity to the proposed route options.
137
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Controlled waters receptors identified for all the route options include Secondary A and Secondary (Undifferentiated) aquifers, licenced groundwater abstraction, private domestic abstractions, main rivers and other surface watercourses. These have been assessed in terms of mobilisation of land contamination to water quality.
Other valuable receptors identified on the route options are proven mineral resources at Bradwell quarry and good quality soils within grade 2 and 3 agricultural land.
Exposure pathways for the migration of identified land contamination to potential receptors are mainly associated with the proposed route construction activities and are not expected to continue during operation.
Typical pathways for exposure of human receptors to land contamination exposed during construction include direct human contact with soil and groundwater (dermal contact, inhalation of dust particles) and inhalation of built-up ground gases in enclosed places.
Typical pathways for controlled waters pollution include surface water runoffs, accidental spillages, downward migration of contaminants to aquifer through pathways created by underground structures e.g. piles.
10.8.1 Option 1B
The following effects have been noted for Option 1B.
10.8.1 Designated Geological Sites (including SSSI and LoGs)
No designated geological sites have been noted on and within 250m of the route (no effect).
10.8.1.1 Controlled Waters
During construction, Option 1B has the potential to impact on groundwater flows and levels in the superficial deposits (Secondary A and Secondary Undifferentiated aquifers) present within the areas of cutting proposed in most sections of all the five route options.
There is potential impact to groundwater flows and levels in the superficial deposits (Secondary A and Secondary Undifferentiated aquifers) present within the areas of cuttings proposed in some sections of the route option. Proposed cuttings are likely to intercept groundwater and may require dewatering. The significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
There is a licensed small groundwater abstraction located directly on the eastern section of the route at NGR TL 89170 21932 (same as Option 3 and 4b). This well may be affected by dewatering and also likely to be destroyed by the proposed road development works. The significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. There are three domestic abstractions within 250 m of this option; closest at approximately 60m north of the option (NGR TL 86550 21175); same as Option 4b. These wells may be affected by dewatering and are at risk of contamination during the proposed road development works (slight adverse effect).There is potential for the proposed road works to destroy the abstraction well located directly on the route.
Potential impact to aquifers and licenced abstraction wells directly on the route has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. Potential impact on the small domestic abstraction has been assessed as slight adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
A number of rivers (River Bain and River Blackwell) of high importance and other surface watercourses have been noted along the route and within 250 m of the route. There is the potential for land contamination mobilised during road construction to impact on surface watercourses. The significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
138
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.8.1.2 Mineral Resources
Proven mineral resources from Bradwell Quarry will be extracted (where present on the route) prior to the proposed road development. Therefore, loss of proven, measured or probable mineral resources is not anticipated and the significance of effect has been assessed as no effect. No mitigation measure is therefore required.
10.8.1.3 Soil Quality
There is potential for permanent direct loss of good grades of agricultural lands (grade 2 and 3) present along the route and indirect loss through sealing off lands adjacent to the road that may not be safe to access during operation. However, it is possible to strip the soils within the development areas prior to road construction and re-use it elsewhere but the quality of the soil may be damaged during stripping, handling and storage. This has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
Impacts to good quality soils within grades 2 and 3 agricultural lands as a result of compaction and erosion is also anticipated during the construction phase, the significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
10.8.1.4 Land Contamination
The route crosses Bradwell Quarry and Rivenhall airfield which are both considered as high risk land contamination sources, the significance of effect of potentially mobilisation these contaminants has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
There are a number of other low / medium risk land contamination sources noted along the route and within 250m including Braintree substation, railway lines, vehicle scarp yard and farms (depot, livestock). The significance of effect has been assessed as slight adverse effect.
10.8.2 Option 3
The following effects have been noted for Option 3.
10.8.2.1 Designated Geological Sites (including SSSI and LoGs)
No designated geological sites have been noted within 250m of the route (no effect).
10.8.2.2 Controlled Waters
There is a potential to impact on groundwater flows and levels in the superficial deposits (Secondary A and Secondary Undifferentiated aquifers) present within the areas of cutting (potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
There is a licensed small groundwater abstraction located directly on the eastern section of the route at NGR TL 89170 21932 (same as route 1B and 4B). This well may be affected by dewatering and also likely to be destroyed by the proposed road development works. The significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. There is another domestic groundwater abstraction well approximately 10m north of Ambridge road side road (NGR TL 84025 23325). This well may be affected by dewatering and also at risk of contamination during the proposed road development works (slight adverse effect).
A number of rivers (River Bain and River Blackwell) of high importance and other surface watercourses have been noted along the route and within 250 m of the route. There is the potential for land contamination mobilised during road construction to impact on surface watercourses. The significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
139
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.8.2.3 Mineral Resources
The route does not cross Bradwell Quarry or any proven mineral and there are no proven mineral resources within 250 m of the route (no effect).
10.8.2.4 Soil Quality
There is potential for permanent direct loss of good grades of agricultural lands (grade 2 and 3) present along the route and indirect loss through sealing off lands adjacent to the road that may not be safe to access during operation. However, it is possible to strip the soils within the development areas prior to road construction and re-use it elsewhere but the quality of the soil may be damaged during stripping, handling and storage. This has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
Impacts to good quality soils within grades 2 and 3 agricultural lands as a result of compaction and erosion is also anticipated during the construction phase, the significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
10.8.2.5 Land Contamination
No high risk land contamination sources have been noted along the route. However, a number of low and medium risk land contamination sources have been identified. Therefore, it is considered that the effects would be slight adverse.
10.8.3 Option 4B
The following effects have been noted for Option 4B.
10.8.3.1 Designated Geological Sites (including SSSI and LoGs)
No designated geological sites have been noted on and within 250m of the route (no effect).
10.8.3.2 Controlled Waters
There is potential impact on groundwater flows and levels in the superficial deposits (Secondary A and Secondary Undifferentiated aquifers) present within the areas of cutting (potentially significant adverse effect – can be mitigated).
There is a licensed small groundwater abstraction located directly on the eastern section of the route at NGR TL 89170 21932 (same as 1B and 3 above). This may be affected by dewatering and also likely to be destroyed by the proposed road development works (potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible). There are four domestic abstractions within 250 m of this option; closest two are located approximately 10m north of the side road at Fell’s farm (NGR TL 79550 22452, same as Option 8) and 60 m north of the option (same as Option 1b). These wells and others within 250m of the option, may be affected by dewatering and also at risk of contamination during the proposed road development works (slight adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
A number of rivers (River Bain and River Blackwell) of high importance and other surface watercourses have been noted along the route and within 250 m of the route. There is the potential for land contamination mobilised during road construction to impact on surface watercourses. The significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
10.8.3.3 Mineral Resources
Proven mineral resources from Bradwell Quarry will be extracted (where present on the route) prior to the proposed road development. Therefore, loss of proven, measured or probable mineral resources is not anticipated and the significance of effect has been assessed as no effect. No mitigation measure is therefore required.
140
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.8.3.4 Soil Quality
There is potential for permanent direct loss of good grades of agricultural lands (grades 2 and 3) present along the route and indirect loss through sealing off lands adjacent to the road that may not be safe to access during operation. However, it is possible to strip the soils within the development areas prior to road construction and re-use it elsewhere but the quality of the soil may be damaged during stripping, handling and storage. This has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
Impacts to good quality soils within Grades 2 and 3 agricultural lands as a result of compaction and erosion is also anticipated during the construction phase, the significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
10.8.3.5 Land Contamination
The route crosses Bradwell Quarry and Rivenhall airfield which are both considered as high risk land contamination sources, the significance of effect has been assessed as potentially adverse significant effect - mitigation may be possible.
There are a number of other low / medium risk land contamination sources noted along the route and within 250 m including Braintree substation, railway lines, vehicle scarp yard and farms (livestock). The significance of effects has been assessed as slight adverse effects.
10.8.4 Option 8
The following effects have been noted for Option 8.
10.8.4.1 Designated Geological Sites (including SSSI and LoGs)
No designated geological sites have been noted on and within 250m of the route (no effect).
10.8.4.2 Controlled Waters
There is potential impact on groundwater flows and levels in the superficial deposits (Secondary A and Secondary Undifferentiated aquifers) present within the areas of cutting (potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
There are three domestic abstractions within 250 m of this option; closest is located approximately 10m north of side road at Fell’s farm (NGR TL 79550 22452, same as Option 4B). This well and two other domestic abstractions within 250 m of the option may be affected by dewatering and also at risk of contamination during the proposed road development works (slight adverse effect).
A number of rivers (River Bain and River Blackwell) of high importance and other surface watercourses have been noted along the route and within 250 m of the route. There is the potential for land contamination mobilised during road construction to impact on surface watercourses. The significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
10.8.4.3 Mineral Resources
Proven mineral resources from Bradwell Quarry will be extracted (where present on the route) prior to the proposed road development. Therefore, loss of proven, measured or probable mineral resources is not anticipated and the significance of effect has been assessed as no effect. No mitigation measure is therefore required.
141
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.8.4.4 Soil Quality
There is potential for permanent direct loss of good grades of agricultural lands (grades 2 and 3) present along the route and indirect loss through sealing off lands adjacent to the road that may not be safe to access during operation. However, it is possible to strip the soils within the development areas prior to road construction and re-use it elsewhere but the quality of the soil may be damaged during stripping, handling and storage. This has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
Impacts to good quality soils within grades 2 and 3 agricultural lands as a result of compaction and erosion is also anticipated during the construction phase, the significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
10.8.4.5 Land Contamination
The route crosses Bradwell Quarry and Rivenhall airfield which are both considered as high risk land contamination sources, the significance of effect has been assessed as potentially adverse significant effect - mitigation may be possible.
There are a number of other low / medium risk land contamination sources noted along the route and within 250 m including Braintree substation, railway lines, vehicle scarp yard and farms (used as depot, piggery and industrial). The significance of effects has been assessed as slight adverse effects.
10.8.5 Option 9A
The following effects have been noted for Option 9A.
10.8.5.1 Designated Geological Sites (including SSSI and LoGs)
No designated geological sites have been noted on and within 250m of the route (no effect).
10.8.5.2 Controlled Waters
There is potential impact on groundwater flows and levels in the superficial deposits (Secondary A and Secondary Undifferentiated aquifers) present within the areas of cutting (potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
There are two domestic groundwater abstraction wells approximately 200 m (NGR TL 85500 17200) and 250 m (TL 85600 17300) south of the option respectively (same as Option 8). These wells may be affected by dewatering and also at risk of contamination during the proposed road development works (slight adverse effect).
A number of rivers (River Bain and River Blackwell) of high importance and other surface watercourses have been noted along the route and within 250 m of the route. There is the potential for land contamination mobilised during road construction to impact on surface watercourses. The significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
10.8.5.3 Mineral Resources
Proven mineral resources from Bradwell Quarry will be extracted (where present on the route) prior to the proposed road development. Therefore, loss of proven, measured or probable mineral resources is not anticipated and the significance of effect has been assessed as no effect. No mitigation measure is therefore required.
142
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.8.5.4 Soil Quality
There is potential for permanent direct loss of good grades of agricultural lands (grades 2 and 3) present along the route and indirect loss through sealing off lands adjacent to the road that may not be safe to access during operation. However, it is possible to strip the soils within the development areas prior to road construction and re-use it elsewhere but the quality of the soil may be damaged during stripping, handling and storage. This has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
Impacts to good quality soils within grades 2 and 3 agricultural lands as a result of compaction and erosion is also anticipated during the construction phase, the significance of effect has been assessed as potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.
10.8.5.5 Land Contamination
The route crosses Bradwell Quarry and Rivenhall airfield which are both considered as high risk land contamination sources, the significance of effect has been assessed as potentially adverse significant effect - mitigation may be possible.
There are a number of other low / medium risk land contamination sources noted along the route and within 250 m including Braintree substation, railway lines, vehicle scarp yard and farms (used as depot, piggery and industrial haulage). The significance of effects has been assessed as slight adverse effects.
10.8.6 Summary of Effects
A summary of potential effects for each of the options is shown in Table 10-7. This shows the value of each receptor identified, and whether each of the routes will potentially affect that receptor.
143
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 10-7: Summary of Effects
RECEPTORS OPTIONS SENSITIVITY TYPE 1B 3 4B 8 9A
Effects on Designated Geological sites
High Designated No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect geological sites No SSSI and LoGS within 250 m No SSSI and LoGS within 250 m No SSSI and LoGS within 250 m No SSSI and LoGS within 250 m No SSSI and LoGS within 250 m
Effects on Controlled waters from construction activities (e.g. dewatering from cuttings , exposure of land contamination) High Main Rivers Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation crossing effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible Degradation of River Blackwater Degradation of River Blackwater Degradation of River Blackwater Degradation of River Brain Degradation of River Blackwater Degradation of River Brain Degradation of River Brain
Medium Aquifers Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible Loss of / impacts on Secondary A Loss of / impacts on Secondary A and Loss of / impacts on Secondary A Loss of / impacts on Secondary A and Loss of / impacts on Secondary A and Secondary and Secondary (undifferentiated) Secondary (undifferentiated) Aquifers and Secondary (undifferentiated) Secondary (undifferentiated) Aquifers (undifferentiated) Aquifers Aquifers Aquifers
Licenced small Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse No effect No effect scale abstraction effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible effect – mitigation may be possible None directly on the route Destruction of licenced Destruction of licenced abstraction well Destruction of licenced abstraction None directly on the route abstraction well located directly on located directly on the route well located directly on the route. the route
Low Small scale Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Domestic Degradation of water quality Degradation of water quality through Degradation of water quality Degradation of water quality through Degradation of water quality through migration of through migration of land migration of land contamination exposed through migration of land migration of land contamination land contamination exposed during construction abstractions within contamination exposed during during construction contamination exposed during exposed during construction Dewatering of two domestic abstractions 250 m construction Dewatering of domestic abstractions (10 m construction Three domestic abstractions with 250m. Dewatering of domestic away) Four domestic abstraction within abstractions (three within 250m). 250m. Minor Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect watercourses Degradation of numerous Degradation of numerous watercourses Degradation of numerous Degradation of numerous watercourses Degradation of numerous watercourses quality watercourses quality through quality through migration of land watercourses quality through quality through migration of land through migration of land contamination exposed migration of land contamination contamination exposed during construction migration of land contamination contamination exposed during during construction exposed during construction exposed during construction construction
Effects on Proven Mineral Resources High Proven mineral No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect resources at Bradwell Quarry Extraction of minerals prior to road Route does not cross Bradwell Quarry Extraction of minerals prior to road Extraction of minerals prior to road Extraction of minerals prior to road construction construction construction construction
Effects on Soil Quality High Soils within Grades Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation 2 and 3 agricultural effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible – mitigation may be possible may be possible Degradation of soil quality through Degradation of soil quality through Degradation of soil quality through Degradation of soil quality through Degradation of soil quality through stripping, land (best and most stripping, compaction and erosion. stripping, compaction and erosion. stripping, compaction and erosion. stripping, compaction and erosion. compaction and erosion. versatile)
Potential Land Contamination Sources High Higher risk land Potentially significant adverse No effect Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation contamination effect – mitigation may be possible Route does not cross higher risk areas mitigation may be possible – mitigation may be possible may be possible Bradwell Quarry Bradwell Quarry Bradwell Quarry Bradwell Quarry sources Rivenhall Airfield Rivenhall Airfield Rivenhall Airfield Rivenhall Airfield
144
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Low Lower risk land Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect contamination Braintree substation Braintree substation Braintree substation Braintree substation Braintree substation Railway line crossing Railway line crossing Railway line crossing Railway line crossing Railway line crossing sources Vehicle scrap yards Vehicle scrap yards Vehicle scrap yards Vehicle scrap yards Vehicle scrap yards Working farms Working farms Working farms Working farms Working farms Existing roads crossing Industrial site Existing roads crossing Existing roads crossing Existing roads crossing Existing roads crossing
Land Stability Issues
High Land instability Potentially significant adverse Slight adverse effect Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation risks effect – mitigation may be possible Route does not cross Bradwell Quarry mitigation may be possible – mitigation may be possible may be possible Potential for ground instability at Potential for ground instability at Potential for ground instability at Potential for ground instability at Bradwell Quarry Bradwell Quarry Bradwell Quarry Bradwell Quarry Overall 6 point Scale Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – mitigation may mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible be possible
145
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.9 Mitigation and opportunities
Proposed mitigation measures to minimise the effect of the potential impacts of each of the proposed route options on geology and soils are detailed below.
10.9.1 Designated Geological Sites (including SSSI and LoGs)
No impact on designated geological sites including SSSI and LoGS from all the route options is anticipated as none were identified on or within 250 m of the routes. No mitigation measures are therefore required or proposed. It should be noted that GeoEssex has been consulted on designated sites; however no response has been received at the time of writing this report. This will be updated in further PCF Stages.
10.9.2 Soil Resources There is potential for the loss of grades 2 and 3 agricultural lands as a result of the routes development which cannot be mitigated. However, potential loss of soil resources as a result of loss of agricultural land can be mitigated by stripping out topsoil and subsoil from the entirety of the new road layout, haul roads, construction compounds and other areas which will be sealed off (indirect loss) due to safety reason. The soil can then be beneficially reused elsewhere once a suitable receptor site is identified in such a way that the ALC grade of the soil is not downgraded. There is potential for degradation of soil quality to occur from handling operations; however this can be mitigated by ensuring a soil management plan is developed as part of the contractor’s construction environmental management plan (CEMP).
There is an opportunity for shorter routes (Options 8 and 9A) or Option 3, which aligns mainly with existing roads, to have less land take than the other routes. The amount of soils potential good grades agricultural land loss for each route options has not been quantified at this stage.
Quantification of soils that will be affected is required and this should be undertaken when a detailed agricultural land classification assessment (required to derive a more accurate assessment of the ALC grades present for each route option) has been undertaken.
Surplus soil arising may be generated from the construction of cuttings and may be reused, if suitable, on the A120 scheme.
It is anticipated that materials may be imported from offsite for the construction of the proposed embankments on all the route options. Imported materials would need to comply with suitability for use 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. This can be mitigated by reinstating the affected area to the original grade on completion – this is likely to reduce the impact to no effect.
Materials management is further discussed in Chapter 11: ‘Materials’.
There may be potential opportunity to source construction materials from the quarry (subject to geotechnical suitability and contamination status assessment) for the proposed scheme construction. This may be a sustainable reuse of some of the outputs from the quarry.
10.9.3 Controlled Waters
One licenced groundwater abstraction located directly on the proposed carriageway footprint of Options 1B, 3 and 4B, may be destroyed by the road development works. If required, this can be relocated subject to land owner and EA consultations and decommissioning.
To mitigate against the risk of controlled waters contamination, detailed risk assessment and application of surface water pollution prevention measures as recommended by the EA should be adopted during the construction phase. Soils exposure (particularly in areas where potentially significant land contamination is present) and uncontrolled runoffs should be limited as far as possible.
146
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
If necessary, temporary drainage systems should be incorporated in the construction process to alleviate any localised risk of impacting watercourses.
Consultation with the EA may be required, particularly if discharges to watercourses will be undertaken during construction.
Other generic mitigation measures to reduce controlled waters contamination (applicable to all options) include: 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; and An emergency spill plan should be generated and spill kits should be available at appropriate locations.
Application of the mitigation measures listed above may likely reduce negative impacts to controlled waters to slight adverse effects.
10.9.4 Mineral Extraction
Route Options 1B, 4B, 8 and 9A cross the active Bradwell quarry and preserved mineral sites. It is understood from the scheme Design Engineers that the road will be constructed after the mineral resources have been extracted. If this opportunity is explored, then no effect is anticipated for affected options.
No impact (no effect) is anticipated for Option 3 as it does not cross any proven mineral site.
10.9.5 Land Contamination With typical mitigation, including ground investigations, to assess the extent of land contamination present and appropriate risk assessment, slight adverse effects are anticipated.
A targeted intrusive land quality investigation is therefore required to assess potential land contamination in the key areas.
10.9.6 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) It is possible that the risk of UXO may be higher in route options 1B, 4B, 8 and 9A which cross or are in proximity to the former Rivenhall Airfield site. This risk can be further quantified by undertaking a specialist UXO survey in this area.
10.9.7 Land Stability Detailed land stability risk assessment has not been undertaken at this stage. A search of the Coal Authority and National Landslides Databases indicate that there are no known landslides or high risk coal mining areas on and within 1 km of the route options.
It is possible that the areas where the route options cross Bradwell Quarry (Options 1B, 4B, 8 and 9A) may be at risk of ground instability due to mineral extraction. A land stability risk assessment may be required as part of the geotechnical assessment for the scheme prior to the proposed road construction. If land stability issues are identified, typical mitigation measures involve ground improvement with stable materials.
147
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.10 Scoping Assessment
10.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration in EIA for preferred option
In determining the preferred route option, consideration should be given to the following factors: The presence of a licenced groundwater abstraction well located directly on the proposed carriageway footprint of Options 1B, 3 and 4B, which may be destroyed by the road development works, requiring relocation (if possible); The presence of private domestic abstraction wells close to some of the route options (one at 10 m north of Options 4B and 8 and another at 10m north of Option 3), which are at risk of contamination; The potential impact on soils within grades 2 and 3 agricultural land and good quality reusable soils; The potential impact on controlled waters (surface waters and water abstractions) including the number, size, significance and water quality of waterbodies intersected by the route options; The potential impact on the underlying aquifers; The potential risk from unexploded ordnance in all the route options except Option 3; The proportion of the route option crossing either the quarry or former airfield; The number and scale of potentially contaminative sites e.g. former airfield, quarry site, electricity substation, sewage works, working farms, industrial units and scrap yards along the route and the potential contaminants associated with the current or historical activities; and The potential for land stability issues particularly where the route options cross Bradwell Quarry.
10.10.2 Recommended scope and approach to EIA
The recommended scope of work for the preferred option is as follows: All the proposed route options cross a large number of surface water courses including two main rivers, several named and unnamed watercourses. These are highly sensitive receptors and it is anticipated that the proposed route options development would have potential significant adverse impact mitigation may be possible, on surface water if un-mitigated. Surface water quality assessment including monitoring and chemical testing should be undertaken to obtain baseline water quality and enable appropriate risk assessment to be undertaken. A similarly groundwater risk assessment should be undertaken. Based on the above controlled waters assessment, consultation with the Environment Agency will be required when the proposed engineering works for watercourses crossings have been decided. Detailed desk study – a Preliminary Sources Study Report (PSSR) would be required for the preferred option including commissioning Envirocheck reports, detailed route walkover assessment, conceptual site model and risk assessment. A ground investigation should be undertaken in key high and medium risks areas (as identified in Table 10.6 Section 1.8) including the former Rivenhall Airfield and Bradwell quarry. Ground water quality assessment should be undertaken as part of the ground investigation by way of borehole installations at targeted areas and subsequent monitoring and laboratory testing for contamination assessment. A detailed agricultural land classification assessment is required to derive a more accurate assessment of the ALC grades present on the preferred route option. A UXO risk survey should be undertaken for all the route options. Route options which cross the former Rivenhall Airfield would require a detailed UXO survey. Land stability risk assessment should be undertaken for the route options as part of the geotechnical assessment for the scheme. Route options which cross Bradwell Quarry may require detailed land stability risk assessment.
148
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
10.11 Chapter References A120 Project Web GIS (Geographical Information System) Revision H. A120 Braintree to A12, Technical Report – Geology and Soils Survey Findings, B3553T41/GS-RW/01, August 2016. Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land (MAFF, 1988). British Geological Survey Open Geoscience website (www.bgs.ac.uk/GeoIndex). British Geological Society (BGS) Onshore GeoIndex (http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html). British Geological Society (BGS) Geology of Britain Map Viewer http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html. Coal Authority Interactive Map Viewer (available at BGS maps); http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/coalauthority/home.html Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012), National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Guidance: Land Stability (March 2014), http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/land-stability/land-stability-guidance/ Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 11; Environment Agency, 2004, Contaminated Land Report (CLR) 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination; Environment Agency (EA) What’s In Your Backyard Online Mapping (www.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby). Essex County Council (2014) Essex Minerals Plan (adopted July 2014). European Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. GeoEssex – Geological sites in Braintree (http://www.geoessex.org.uk/braintree.htmlsex Geology). Google Maps aerial photography (http://maps.google.co.uk). Groundwater protection: Principles and Practice (GP3), Environment Agency (EA), August 2013. Magic Maps (www.magic.gov.uk/home.htm), accessed in July 2016. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) post - 1988 ALC map (available at Magic maps). National Landslides Database (available at BGS Onshore GeoIndex); http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?theme=hazards Natural England (2010) provisional Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) map eastern region - ALC008. Old Maps (www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html#/). Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (HMSO, 1990). Zetica (2016) Regional Unexploded Bomb Risk Map - Essex
149
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
11. Materials
11.1 Scope of assessment The construction of the A120 Scheme will be associated with increases in consumption of material resources and in the generation of waste. These activities create environmental impacts that need to be effectively managed and mitigated. For the purposes of this assessment, the scope of the ‘Materials’ topic is defined as comprising the: Use of material resources; and Generation and management of waste. The environment assessment focuses on environmental impacts that have the potential to be significant. This materials assessment will concentrate on the construction phase rather than the operational phase as the operational phase is unlikely to generate significant impact. This is due to the following: Material resource use and generation of waste is likely to be greatest during the construction phase due to any excavation and grading work of the vertical alignment of the scheme, potentially leading to significant environmental impacts; and Operational material use and waste generation will be considered during the PCF Stage 3 of the project when the design has been further progressed. For this stage of the Project material resource use and waste generated during maintenance activities is considered to be similar for all options. The management of any environmental impacts associated with material resource use and waste during any future maintenance, renewal or improvement works, would be the responsibility of Highways England (HE).
11.2 Policy and guidance
11.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy Current legislation and policies which are relevant to this assessment and to the sustainable design and construction of the A120 are listed below: Waste Framework Directive, 2008; Government Review of Waste Policy in England, 2011; National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPS), 2015; Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011; Waste Strategy for England, 2007; Highways Agency (now Highways England) Strategic Plan, 2010 – 2015 Highways Agency Environment Strategy, 2010 – 2015; Highways Agency Sustainable Development Plan, 2012 – 2015; and Highways Agency Procurement Strategy, 2009. The review of legislation and policy has identified the following statutory and policy requirements (Table 11.1) influencing materials resource use and waste management, applicable to the A120 Scheme.
150
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 11.1 - Applicable statutory and policy requirements
Legal/Policy Requirements Reference Requires that by 2020 the recovery of non-hazardous Council Directive (2008/98/EC) of the European construction and demolition waste shall be increased to Parliament and of the Council on Waste (European a minimum of 70% by weight. Union, 2008). Waste Management Plan for England (2013) Highways Agency Procurement Strategy 2009 (Highways Agency, 2009). The Regulations requires that reasonable steps are Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 taken to apply the waste hierarchy including: (a) prevention; (b) preparing for reuse; (c) recycling; (d) other recovery; and (e) disposal. This Policy requires that the re-use, recovery or National Planning Policy for Waste 2014 (Department disposal of waste should be undertaken without for Communities and Local Government, October 2014) endangering human health and without harming the environment. It also requires that projects should maximise reuse and recovery opportunities and minimise offsite disposal. This Policy requires the implementation of the waste National Policy Statement for National Networks hierarchy. This is through minimising the amount of (Department for Transport, December 2014). waste produced and the volume of waste sent for disposal. Waste generated by the project would be managed properly both on and off site and would be dealt with appropriately by the waste management facility infrastructure available.
The National Policy Statement for National Networks (Department for Transport, December 2014) requires the implementation of sustainable waste management through the application of the waste hierarchy. Although not a legal requirement since October 2013, the use of Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) to implement this requirement is considered to be best practise to ensure that demolition and construction wastes are dealt with in an appropriate manner. A SWMP will, therefore, be developed and implemented for the A120 Scheme.
11.2.2 Overview of relevant guidance
The following guidance has been referenced in the production of this chapter: Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites; Strategy for Sustainable Construction; Strategy for Sustainable Construction, Progress Report; The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (Contaminated Land; Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE)1, March 2011); and Waste Resource Action Programme (WRAP) ‘Designing out Waste: a design team guide for Civil Engineering.
1 The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (Contaminated Land; Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), March 2011 151
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
11.3 Definition of significant effects
11.3.1 Introduction
This chapter follows the requirements set out in the interim guidance on the scope of the ‘Materials’ topic and the approaches / methodologies to be applied as set out in draft DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 6, Materials guidance (HD 212/11) [March 2012] and DMRB Interim Advice Note (IAN) 153/11 Guidance on the Environmental Assessment of Material Resources (Highways Agency, 2011).
The assessment identifies whether impacts occur during construction and are described as positive or negative, permanent or temporary and direct or indirect as required by IAN 153 and HD 212/11.
11.3.2 Materials
The assessment of materials use has been undertaken using the quantification of the carbon footprint of the materials used during construction. The magnitude of effects associated with material use has been derived from a calculation of embodied carbon associated with those materials known to be required for the construction of the A120 scheme using Highways England’s Carbon Tool (August 2015 as amended February 2016).
The methodology in the draft guidance (HD 212/11) does not include sensitivity criteria which would need to be accounted for in order to derive the significance of any effect. Only magnitude is used to describe the effect. Levels of magnitude are defined as follows from HD 212/11 in Table 11.2.
IAN153 and HD 212/11 do not require significance to be assessed, however, significance is required to help distinguish between options and to clarify whether or not significant impacts are likely to occur. This will help to determine whether further study should be undertaken at later PCF stages. On this basis professional judgement has been applied to determine the significance of effects on a graduated scale as per the DMRB HA 205/08 (Highways Agency et al., 2008). This has been undertaken by comparing the sensitivity / capacity of the resource and the magnitude of impact (i.e. the requirement for materials / waste management capacity created by the A120 Scheme).
The sensitivity of materials use has been determined based on the availability of the resource in question and whether its use could result in its depletion. For example, high sensitivity might pertain to a rare resource that is not available locally or available locally in very limited amounts, such that the resource could be significantly depleted by its proposed use. Conversely, a low sensitivity resource may be considered as one that is very common locally or that primarily comprises recovered / recycled materials such that its use would contribute to waste reduction targets and avoidance of primary materials. Moderate sensitivity would apply to materials somewhere between these two extremes. Table 11.2: Materials (carbon) assessment magnitude criteria
Scale of Impact Total CO2 equivalent (CO2e) of materials Magnitude (tonnes) No change <1,000 Negligible 1,000 – 5,000 Minor 5,000 – 20,000 Moderate 20,000 – 40,000 Major >40,000
152
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The matrix set out in Chapter 4 Table 4.1 has been used to determine the significance of effects and has been based on the matrix provided in the DMRB HA 205/08 (Highways Agency et al., 2008) and Chapter Table 4.5 of HD 212/11. Indicative quantity estimates of materials have been prepared by the project design team, based on the PCF Stage 1 design.
In order to determine the six point scale (as shown in Chapter 4, Table 4.1), an impact has been considered to be significant (2 or above) if it is of moderate significance or greater.
11.3.3 Waste
Determination of the sensitivity of waste management facilities is based on the available local waste management capacity.
Sensitivity, Magnitude and Significance criteria have been derived from guidance in draft DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 6, Materials guidance (HD 212/11) [March 2011] as set out below:
Sensitivity is determined on the basis of capacity as follows: Very High - There is no available waste management capacity for any waste arising from the project. High - There is limited waste management capacity in relation to the forecast waste arisings from the project. Medium - There is adequate waste management capacity for the majority of wastes arising from the project. Low - There is adequate available waste management capacity for all wastes arising from the project.
Magnitude is defined as follows: Major - Waste is predominantly disposed of to landfill or to incineration without energy recovery, with little or no prior segregation. Moderate - Wastes are predominantly disposed of by incineration with energy recovery. Minor - Wastes are predominantly segregated and sent for composting, recycling or for further segregation and sorting at a materials recovery facility. Negligible - Wastes are predominantly re-used on-site or at an appropriately licensed or registered exempt site elsewhere.
Significance is derived by combining sensitivity and magnitude as set out in Table 11.3 below. Table 11.3: Determination of impact significance
Sensitivity / Value of Receptor Very High High Medium Low Major Very Large Large / Very Moderate / Slight / Large Large Moderate Moderate Large / Very Moderate / Moderate Slight Magnitude Large Large Minor Moderate / Slight / Slight Neutral / Large Moderate Slight Negligible Slight Slight Neutral / Neutral Slight
In addition a six point scale (as outlined in Chapter 4, Table 4.1) has been used to identify the overall likelihood of significant effect for each option, prior to mitigation. For the purposes of this evaluation, any effects that are
153
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
identified as large or very large are considered likely to have potentially significant adverse effects (i.e. Score 2 in the six point evaluation scale).
11.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement
11.4.1 Baseline sources
Baseline information on primary aggregate and mineral sources and waste management throughput and capacity has been obtained from a number of sources including the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Essex County Council (ECC), Southend on Sea Borough Council (SSBC) and the Environment Agency (EA).
11.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder engagement has formed a key part of the options generation process. The stakeholder engagement undertaken to date with regards to the environmental assessment is summarised in Chapter 5, Table 5.1. The key consultation bodies include: Essex County Council Colchester Borough Council Braintree District Council Suffolk County Council
11.5 Field surveys and modelling
No field surveys have been undertaken as part of this assessment, as desk based sources of information are sufficient to guide the PCF Stage 1 assessment. All assessments are qualitative with the exception of the carbon assessment which requires a level of quantification to be undertaken.
11.6 Assumptions and uncertainties
This materials assessment has been undertaken using preliminary estimates of the use of materials. Professional judgement has been used, as appropriate, based on the scale of the A120 Scheme and current waste management practices to estimate likely quantities of waste. It should be recognised that these will change in subsequent PCF phases as the design progresses and more information becomes available. Some environmental impacts associated with the extraction and transport of primary raw materials and manufactured products would occur off-site. The source and processing / manufacture of materials cannot be determined at this stage and the production of these materials is likely to have been the subject of separate consent procedures (such as applications for planning permission and environmental permits) which may have included environmental assessment. Therefore, it is outside the scope of this assessment to consider the environmental impacts associated with the extraction of raw materials and the manufacture of products. Information on the permitted capacity of quarries and waste facilities is provided in Chapter 11.7.2 below. However, it should be noted that changes to this permitted capacity during the construction of the A120 Scheme cannot be identified at this stage.
11.7 Environmental baseline description
11.7.1 Material Resources
The materials anticipated to be used include primary raw materials; secondary/ recycled raw materials and manufactured/ processed materials. The primary raw materials are likely to be aggregates. Most construction aggregates are produced from hard, strong rock formations by crushing to produce crushed rock aggregate or from naturally occurring particulate deposits such as sand and gravel. The most important sources of crushed rock in Britain are limestone (including dolomite), igneous rock and sandstone. Sand and gravel can be either land-won or marine dredged. Information on secondary/ recycled raw materials and manufactured/ processed
154
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
materials is limited thus at this stage only primary aggregates have been considered.
The East of England Aggregates Working Party: Annual Monitoring Report (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2014) identifies primary aggregate and mineral sources in the East of England which includes Essex. The report identifies that aggregates sales in Essex, Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in 2013 amounted to 3.2 million tonnes and the aggregate reserves were 32.9 million tonnes. As of August 2012, there were 23 sand and gravel sites with a further four sand and gravel quarries which have permission to extract but were dormant in 2012. There are six quarries located within the Geographic Area of Impact (GAI)2. There is one existing quarry within the GAI; Bradwell Quarry, which is located south of the village of Bradwell between Braintree and Coggeshall. There are a further two quarries in the wider study area. These include: Colchester Quarry (also known as Stanway Quarry) which is located approximately 3km to the south west of the Prince of Wales Roundabout, Marks Tey; and Birch Quarry, Maldon Road which lies to the south east of Marks Tey at the boundary of the wider study area. In addition to these existing quarries, there are several areas designated as mineral consultation areas (MCAs) in the Essex Minerals Local Plan, close to Straits Mill Gravel Pit and around Marks Tey, Colchester and Birch quarries.
Based on current data and the information detailed in Table 11.3 there is unlikely to be primary aggregates available locally during the lifetime of the construction of the A120 Scheme. Construction of the A120 Scheme is estimated to commence in 2023 and may take approximately three years to complete. However, as shown in Table 11.3, there is landbank regionally until 2023 (10 years land bank from 2013). Table 11.3 Land-won aggregates: reserves and landbanks 2013
Reserves (as at Annual call on Landbank (years) (as 31/12/13) reserves (2005-20) Sand & Gravel at 31/12/13) (thousand tonnes) (years)
Essex, Thurrock & Southend- 32,885 4,450 7.4 years on-Sea
East of England 146,878 14,750 10 years
Other materials needed for the A120 Scheme would have to be transported from areas further afield; for example, steel, plastic and pre-cast concrete elements.
11.7.2 Waste
ECC and SSBC identified 33 construction and demolition waste recycling sites within 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.
Table 11.4 provides a summary of the construction, demolition and excavation (CD&E) recycling capacity that is available within Essex. Additional capacity can be provided through the use of mobile plant. These are generally only in-use intermittently and may be at various locations. In 2014, it was estimated that there were approximately 20 mobile recycling plants registered in Essex. This has not been captured in Table 11.4, it is difficult to assess accurately and capture information on the processing of mobile plants, nevertheless, it is likely that there would be additional capacity such facilities.
2 The GAI is defined in Chapter 4 155
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 11.4 CD&E recycling facility capacity summary (Essex County Council, 2015) Static CD&E Recycling Facilities Number of Estimated Total Facilities Capacity (tpa) in 2012/13 (2012/13) Operational and Facilities under Construction 33 1,636,237 All facilities with planning permission 38 1,704,362
Table 11.5 provides a summary of inert landfill capacity within Essex. There are no authorised landfills currently operating within the GAI. The wider study area includes four authorised landfills – Old House Farm, Dyers Mead Landfill Site, Bellhouse Landfill Site and Bellhouse Quarry (EA, 2015). Table 11.5 Inert landfill capacity summary
Capacity of those facilities solely Inert Landfills accepting inert waste (m3)
Current Operational Facilities 754,958 Current Operational Facilities and those commencing prior to 2,554,958 development All facilities with planning permission 2,554,958
In 2012 there were 48 hazardous waste facilities operating in the ECC and SSBC Plan Area. Table 11.6 provides a summary of these facilities and primarily includes information on facilities that deal with Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), asbestos or other metal recycling sites involved with vehicle dismantling. 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, all hazardous waste requiring disposal to landfill will need to be exported out of Essex potentially to adjacent counties. Table 11.6 Hazardous waste facilities
Broad Facility Total number of facilities Waste Accepted (2012) Type (tonnes)
Transfer 13 5,407
Recovery 35 (31 metal recycling facilities & 4 treatment facilities) 32,128 Total 48 37,535
In 2012 there were 15 organic treatment and organic treatment with energy recovery facilities operating in ECC and SSBC Plan Area. Table 11.7 provides a summary of the planning permission throughput of the organic treatment sites within ECC. Table 11.7 Organic treatment and organic treatment with energy recovery facilities summary
Organic treatment facilities Annual average based on quantities over 4 years (tonnes) In Vessel Composting 36,782
Open Windrow Composting 154,079 Anaerobic Digestion 180,000 156
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
11.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
11.8.1 Materials Resource
The types of materials likely to be required for construction are common to all five scheme options. At this stage of the project there is limited information on the quantities of materials to be used on the A120 Scheme for all options. However indicative estimated quantities for pavement material and earthworks for each option are provided in Table 11.8 below.
Option 4B is likely to require the most earthworks for scheme construction, with options 1b and 8 likely to require considerably less. The design for all options is unlikely to achieve a ‘cut and fill balance’ given the volume of material required and the low expected level of cut. Nevertheless, as far as reasonably practicable, any useable cut material will be utilised in the construction. Some earthwork materials cannot be re-used, for structural reasons however this could be used for other landscaping or be used on other construction sites, as appropriate, or disposed of to landfill.
Imported aggregates are likely to be required for earthworks, structures, drainage and road pavement construction, for all options. These can be either primary aggregates, such as sand, natural gravels and rock, or secondary aggregates, such as recycled concrete, recycled road planings, Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA), reclaimed railway ballast and materials from building demolition. The choice of whether to use primary or secondary aggregates (or a combination of both) would be made considering a combination of factors such as materials source, specification, production and transport. Secondary (recycled) aggregates may not always have the lowest impact on the environment, and materials would be selected based on a consideration of all relevant impacts. Table 11.8: Summary of Estimated Main Material Volumes
Material Units Option 1b - Option 3- Option 4b- Option 8 - Option 9a - Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity 3 Bulk Earthworks m 399,500 908,000 1,071,750 504,750 1,426,500 Pavement m3 (surfacing, 270,400 302,000 230,000 220,600 192,300 binder and base)
157
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
For each option’s estimated materials requirement, the total embodied carbon has been calculated using the Highways England Carbon Tool (2015). Table 11.9 provides estimates of the embodied carbon contained within the earthworks and pavement material. Accordingly, using the assessment methodology set out in Table 11.2 above, the magnitude of the impact was assessed to be >40,000 t CO2 pa for all options. As such, all options represent a ‘Major’ impact on materials use, with option 3 predicted to produce the most CO2 from construction materials out of all the five options.
Table 11.9: Estimated Embodied carbon content of materials3
Material Option 1b Option 3 Option 4b Option 8 Option 9a
Embodied 148,800 185,000 156,200 128,700 152,500 Material tCO2e
11.8.2 Waste
Most of the waste generated from the A120 Scheme would be construction and demolition (C&D) waste. This would be similar for all options. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) defines C&D wastes as waste materials arising from UK commercial C&D sites. This includes, but is not limited to, off-cuts and waste timber, plastics (such as un-plasticised poly vinyl chloride (uPVC) & high-density polyethylene (HDPE), glass (such as windows), packaging (for example card, wood and plastic film) and inert materials such as soils and rubble. The definition also includes aggregate materials (such as masonry, brick and block, paving, tiles and ceramics) and plasterboard in mixed waste.
For wastes and surplus or defective materials, potential impacts are primarily associated with the production, movement, transport and processing (including recycling / recovery) of the wastes on and off-site and, if required, their disposal at permitted off-site facilities. A waste management issue of high importance would be using waste management / disposal facilities and filling a facility up to capacity. This would force locally- produced wastes to be transported greater distances for disposal elsewhere.
All options will generate organic materials from the clearance of vegetation shrubs and trees. Where suitable, such waste would be re-used or recycled, such as through on-site landscaping or ecological improvement works. Any surplus organic materials, including vegetation from shrub and tree clearance as required for all options, could generate waste material for removal offsite.
Hazardous wastes may comprise any contaminated soils or waste that cannot be treated to make them suitable for use, such as any material contaminated with asbestos or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), oils, metals etc. The potential for waste materials or land uses to generate contaminated soils or groundwater is discussed in Chapter 10 Geology and Soils.
Table 11.10 provides the overall likelihood of significant effect for each option prior to mitigation based on the six point scale detailed in Chapter 4 Table 4.1. As shown in Table 11.10 the significance for materials for all options has been assessed as Major based on carbon emissions due to the volumes of earthworks and pavement material. It shows that all options with regards to materials have been assessed as ‘potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible’. Option 3 has been assessed as having a higher impact based on the amount of CO2 that is predicted to be produced during construction of the scheme.
There is adequate waste management capacity in the area thus the significance for waste for all options has been assessed as Neutral-Slight. Table 11.10 shows that all options with regards to waste have been assessed as ‘slight adverse effect - effect not significant with typical mitigation.’
3 This is based on the assumption that 100% of the earthworks material will be imported. It also excludes transport to the site.
158
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 11.10: Assessment Reporting Matrix (adapted from IAN 153/11 and HD212/11)
RECEPTOR OPTION Risk Type 1B 3 4B 8 9A Site remediation/preparation On-site use of Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect – but less Slight adverse effect – but less clearance Slight adverse effect – but less clearance Slight adverse effect – but less clearance demolition wastes, Relatively limited volumes of materials can clearance require than 1B require than 1B require than 1B require than 1B be used for construction works but some soils and green Relatively limited volumes of materials can be Relatively limited volumes of materials can be Relatively limited volumes of materials can be used for soils and green wastes could be used for waste used for construction works but some soils and used for construction works but some soils and construction works but some soils and green wastes landscaping or composted. Relatively limited volumes of materials can be used for construction works but some green wastes could be used for landscaping or green wastes could be used for landscaping or could be used for landscaping or composted. soils and green wastes could be used for composted. composted. landscaping or composted. Production of Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect hazardous waste Low volumes expected and facilities for Low volumes expected and facilities for Low volumes expected and facilities for Low volumes expected and facilities for Low volumes expected and facilities for hazardous waste hazardous waste are present in the area. hazardous waste are present in the area. hazardous waste are present in the area. hazardous waste are present in the area. are present in the area.
Material use and Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation depletion (e.g. virgin mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible aggregates) Materials predominantly available Materials predominantly available Materials predominantly available Materials predominantly available Materials predominantly available locally/regionally and, locally/regionally and, as the scheme is locally/regionally and, as the scheme is locally/regionally and, as the scheme is 13km in locally/regionally and, as the scheme is 12km in as the scheme is 9.5km in length, material demand is 15km in length, material demand is 14km in length, material demand is length, material demand is moderate. length, material demand is moderate. moderate. moderate. moderate. Carbon footprint of Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation materials use mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible Carbon footprint of construction materials is Carbon footprint of construction materials Carbon footprint of construction materials is Carbon footprint of construction materials is Carbon footprint of construction materials is considered considered to be major due to the import of is considered to be major due to the import considered to be major due to the import of considered to be major due to the import of to be major due to the import of earthworks material and earthworks material and the volume of of earthworks material and the volume of earthworks material and the volume of pavement earthworks material and the volume of the volume of pavement material that is needed for the pavement material that is needed for the pavement material that is needed for the material that is needed for the A120 scheme. pavement material that is needed for the A120 A120 scheme. A120 scheme. A120 scheme. scheme. Higher impact than the other options
Wastes from Neutral - slight adverse effect Neutral - slight adverse effect Neutral - slight adverse effect Neutral - slight adverse effect Neutral - slight adverse effect materials use and It is anticipated that ~90% of wastes would It is anticipated that ~90% of wastes would It is anticipated that ~90% of wastes would be It is anticipated that ~90% of wastes would be It is anticipated that ~90% of wastes would be recycled municipal solid be recycled (excluding soils). Local be recycled (excluding soils). Local recycled (excluding soils). Local recycling capacity recycled (excluding soils). Local recycling (excluding soils). Local recycling capacity of low waste production recycling capacity of low sensitivity with recycling capacity of low sensitivity with of low sensitivity with likelihood that waste would capacity of low sensitivity with likelihood that sensitivity with likelihood that waste would be segregated likelihood that waste would be segregated likelihood that waste would be segregated be segregated and sent off-site for recycling or waste would be segregated and sent off-site for and sent off-site for recycling or back to the and sent off-site for recycling or back to the and sent off-site for recycling or back to back to the manufacturer so magnitude minor. recycling or back to the manufacturer so manufacturer so magnitude minor. manufacturer so magnitude minor. the manufacturer so magnitude minor. Municipal solid waste production is expected to be magnitude minor. Municipal solid waste production is expected to be Municipal solid waste production is Municipal solid waste production is minimal Municipal solid waste production is expected to minimal expected to be minimal expected to be minimal If waste requires landfill disposal/treatment off be minimal If waste requires landfill disposal/treatment off site, If waste requires landfill disposal/treatment If waste requires landfill disposal/treatment site, landfill capacity is available. If waste requires landfill disposal/treatment off landfill capacity is available. off site, landfill capacity is available. off site, landfill capacity is available. site, landfill capacity is available.
Overall 6 point Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Scale may be possible may be possible possible
159
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
11.9 Mitigation and opportunities
With further design refinement and the implementation of mitigation measures during construction it is considered likely that some of the potential effects identified in Chapter 11.8 could be reduced. Potential mitigation measures are outlined in Table 11.11 below and are applicable to all five options. At this stage of the assessment, prior to the selection of the preferred option, only high-level information on potential mitigation measures are provided in Table 11.11. Table 11.11 Summary of potential mitigation measures for all options
Project Potential Description of the Mitigation How the Measures May be Activity Impacts Measures Implemented, Measured, and Associated Monitored With Material Resource Use / Waste Management
Site Utilisation of Maximise reuse of excavated Implemented throughout the design remediation/ waste materials through various solutions process and appropriate use of preparation management including demonstrating suitability procurement documentation to ensure facilities. for use ether on-site or off-site, management, designs, and initiatives sending contaminated soils to are used to deliver waste suitable treatment sites to facilitate minimisation. reuse and storage of topsoil on-site for reuse. Measured and monitored through implementation of the Construction Appropriate utilisation of waste Environmental Management Plan management facilities to achieve (CEMP), MMP and SWMP. recycling, reuse or recovery of all inert and non-hazardous waste on Use of procurement policies and Key or offsite. Performance Indicators (KPIs) to maximise local sourcing of materials Waste will be managed in and the inclusion of as much recycled accordance with the waste content / site won material as hierarchy, maximising reuse and practicable, in accordance with the recycling and minimising disposal to required specifications of the landfill. construction material.
Maximisation of the use of on-site material, wherever practicable
Any hazardous waste identified will be disposed of in an appropriate licensed facility.
Production and adherence to a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) and Materials Management Plan (MMP) incorporating good practice.
160
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Project Potential Description of the Mitigation How the Measures May be Activity Impacts Measures Implemented, Measured, and Associated Monitored With Material Resource Use / Waste Management
Construction Utilisation of Where practicable, specification and As above. waste procurement of material resources management will utilise those that are: local use Carbon monitoring and management facilities. local skilled labour to install; are low would enable low carbon design and in embodied carbon emissions, minimise material use and waste Depletion of environmental and user health arisings. finite natural impact; durable; include recycled resources e.g. materials; and are responsibly aggregate for sourced. construction. Where practicable and to reduce embodied carbon emissions the use of recycled aggregates and pulverised fuel ash (PFA) would be used to replace traditional fill materials and the use of low carbon recycled steel sheet piles would be considered.
Adoption of ‘just in time delivery’ to alleviate space constraints for storage.
Adoption of the waste hierarchy.
Careful quality control during the construction phase.
Cover excavated material to ensure run off of any contaminated water or siltation does not occur.
Where practicable, employ technical solutions such as the use of precast concrete rather than cast in-situ and assemble structures onsite and move into place.
Sensitive traffic management to minimise effects on amenity.
161
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
11.10 Scoping Assessment
11.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration and scope and approach to the EIA for preferred option
Based on the findings of this preliminary options assessment, it is recommended that the following issues are further considered for the preferred option during the EIA process for further stages: Consider materials used and waste generated during the operational phase of the preferred option; Identify further waste management facilities outside the area to ensure there is sufficient capacity; Assess more material types and quantity information as it becomes available; and Further consideration of mitigation measures as the design of the preferred option develops.
11.11 Chapter References Council Directive (2008/98/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste (European Union, 2008). Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) National Planning Policy for Waste Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) The East of England Aggregates Working Party: Annual Monitoring Report Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2008) Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2008) Strategy for Sustainable Construction Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2009) Strategy for Sustainable Construction, Progress Report Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2013) Waste Management Plan for England Department for Transport (2014) National Policy Statement for National Networks Essex County Council and Southend on Sea Borough Council (2015) Replacement Waste Local Plan: Capacity Gap Report – Non Technical Capacity Summary Highways Agency (2009) Highways Agency Procurement Strategy 2009 Highways Agency et al., (2008). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5, HD205/08. The Highways Agency, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government and The Department of Regional Development Northern Ireland. Highways England (2012) Draft DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 6, Materials guidance (HD 212/11) The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (Contaminated Land; Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), March 2011 Waste Resource Action Programme (WRAP) ‘Designing out Waste: a design team guide for Civil Engineering’
Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.
162
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
12. Noise and vibration
12.1 Scope of assessment
The introduction of a new road has the potential to result in both adverse and beneficial effects on receptors in the area.
At the Scoping stage it was anticipated that the assessment would be based on those elements of the ‘Simple’ assessment methodology within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3 part 7 (HD 213/11 – Revision 1) (Highways Agency, 2011) that are considered relevant and proportionate at this stage of the assessment. This was reliant on the availability of a suitable traffic forecast model. However, the transport model has not been available. Therefore a qualitative assessment approach, following the principles of the ‘Scoping’ assessment approach contained with HD 213/11, has been undertaken with the following elements considered: Define and display the study area and the main sources of noise and vibration in the area. Which receptors have the potential to experience perceptible operational noise changes (adverse and beneficial) with each scheme option. Which receptors may have a perceptible change in groundborne vibration from the operation of the scheme options. Whether significant effects are likely from the construction works.
A view, based on professional judgement, on the likely impact and if the assessment should proceed to either Simple or Detailed and the reasoning for this.
12.2 Policy and guidance
12.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy
Policy and legislation, relevant to this noise and vibration assessment of the A120 scheme is summarised below.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, DEFRA, 2010) was published on 27 March 2012. The document sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF replaces a number of topic-specific Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) notes including PPG 24 ‘Planning and Noise’.
Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)
Published in 2010 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the NPSE (DEFRA, 2010a) lists three noise policy aims:
”Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development:
Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life;
Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; and,
Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.”
The ‘Explanatory Note’ within the NPSE provides further guidance on defining ‘significant adverse effects’ and ‘adverse effects’ using the concepts:
163
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) - the level below which no effect can be detected. Below this level no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to noise can be established; Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) - the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected; and, Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) - the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
PPG sets out how planning can manage potential noise impacts in new development. It advises that planning authorities’ should take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider: Whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur Whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and Whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved.
PPG states that these potential effects should be evaluated by comparison with the significant observed adverse effect level (SOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for the given situation.
Noise Action Planning
Defra's "Noise Action Plan - Roads (Including Major Roads)" (January 2014) (Defra 2014) addresses the effects of noise from major roads in England. The Noise Action Plan aims to promote good health and good quality of life. It identifies "Important Areas" within England where the competent Authority should look, where feasible, to reduce noise levels.
Noise Insulation Regulations
Under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended) (HMSO 1988), the relevant highways authority has a duty to offer to insulate specific rooms in dwellings affected by new roads and roads that have their line or level altered, if the dwellings satisfy the following criteria: The residential premises would be within 300 m of the new or altered highway; The noise level 15 years after opening would be not less than 68 dB; The predicted noise level 15 years after opening is calculated to be at least 1 dB above the level before work commences; and The improved highway would contribute at least 1 dB to the final noise level.
Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA)
Under CoPA (HMSO 1975), Local Authorities have powers to impose requirements or restrictions on construction methods, including the type of plant to be used and permitted noise levels during specified hours. Restrictions can be imposed even if the noise levels would be below those causing a 'nuisance'.
12.2.2 Overview of relevant guidance
The assessment follows the principles of the relevant methodologies contained within HD 213/11 – Revision 1 and describes the works, their construction and the associated noise and vibration impacts.
12.2.2.1 Assessment of Potential Operational Impacts
Due to the absence of suitable traffic model, it is not possible to undertake a quantitative assessment. Therefore, this assessment is based on professional judgement in determining the potential impacts and subsequent effects that may arise from the operation of the scheme options. In arriving at a judgement the following variables have been considered:
164
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Proximity of receptors to the scheme options or other roads. Likely existing noise and vibration levels that the receptors are exposed to. Potential level of traffic flow on the proposed scheme. Potential change in traffic flow on roads on the wider road network due to the scheme. The vertical alignment of the scheme for example whether sections are in cutting or elevated relative to existing ground levels.
Study Area - Noise
The Study Area for the noise assessment is defined in accordance with HD 213/11 – Revision 1 for each road scheme option. Firstly, the Study Area is defined as a 1 km boundary around the start and end points of the physical works of the scheme option and any improved or bypassed routes as part of the scheme (i.e. existing A120).
If a suitable traffic model is available, a ‘Calculation Area’ is then defined on the basis of likely roads within the above identified 1 km boundary that have the potential to give rise to perceptible changes in noise. In addition, a traffic model would allow for ‘affected routes’ to be identified outside the immediate 1 km boundary, which in turn form part of the Study Area; however, again this is not possible at this time.
The study areas for each route option can be viewed in Figures 12.1.1 to 12.5.6
Study Area - Vibration
The Study Area for the vibration assessment is defined as within 40m of all roads where noise level predictions were undertaken.
12.2.2.2 Assessment of Potential Construction Impacts
The assessment of the potential construction noise and vibration impacts is also undertaken on a qualitative basis. In doing so, potential noise and vibration affects from each option will be identified. This will be undertaken through consideration of the likely construction techniques that will be employed and the likely proximity to sensitive receptors.
12.3 Definition of significant effects
12.3.1 Operational Noise
Section 3 of HD213/11 – Revision 1 of DMRB provides guidance on the magnitude of traffic noise impacts. Magnitudes of impact are considered for both the short-term and long-term. A change in road traffic noise of 1 dB (A) in the short-term, for example when a project is opened, is the smallest that is considered perceptible. In the long-term, a 3 dB(A) change is considered perceptible. The classification of noise impact, provided by HD213/11 – Revision 1, is detailed in Tables 12.1 and 12.2, below.
Table: 12.1 : Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the short term
Noise Change LA10,18h (dB) Magnitude of Impact 0 No change 0.1 – 0.9 Negligible 1 – 2.9 Minor 3 – 4.9 Moderate 5+ Major
165
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table: 12.2 : Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the long term
Noise Change LA10,18h (dB) Magnitude of Impact 0 No change 0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 3 – 4.9 Minor 5 – 9.9 Moderate 10+ Major The Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) provides further guidance on the effects of noise: No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) - the level below which no effect can be detected. Below this level no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to noise can be established; Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) - the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected; and, Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) - the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur. The LOAEL and SOAEL levels are shown in Table 12.3, which are aligned with recognised standards and guidance (WHO Guidelines, Noise Insulation Regulations).
Table 12.3: LOAEL and SOAEL noise levels
Observed Effect Level Period Noise Level (free-field)
LOAEL Daytime 50 dB LAeq,16h
Night-time 40 dB LAeq,8h
SOAEL Daytime 63 dB LAeq,16h
Night-time 55 dB LAeq,8h
The significance of the change in noise level depends both on the magnitude of change and the actual predicted noise level. Taking into account the above, and in accordance with the approach recommended by Highways England, it is considered that a potential significant effect would occur where: a 1 dB increase/decrease in either the short-term or long-term, when the resulting or existing noise level exceeds the SOAEL; or
a 3 dB increase/decrease in the short term or 5 dB increase in the long term, when the resulting or existing noise level is between the LOAEL and SOAEL.
12.3.2 Operational Vibration
HD213/11-R1 advises that adverse impacts from traffic-induced vibration (at receptors) can be identified as: Any predicted increase in the level of vibration to 0.3 mm/s (ppv) or more; or Any further increase in vibration where the existing level is already above 0.3 mm/s (ppv).
HD213/11-R1 advises that, while irregularities in a road surface can cause significant ground-borne vibrations, this is unlikely to be important in considering disturbance from new roads. This is supported by measurements summarised in the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) Report No RR53 - Ground Vibration Caused by Civil Engineering Works, which show that the vibration level expected at 8 m from the road with a heavy lorry running on a poor surface would be around 0.1 mm/s.
The shortest horizontal distance between a sensitive receptor and the running surface of any of the proposed scheme options is approximately 30 m. Therefore, given the distances between the nearest sensitive receptors and the proposed road running surface, adverse ground-borne vibration is not considered to be a significant
166
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
issue in this assessment. Nevertheless, properties located in close proximity to main roads, e.g. A120 and A12 may currently be exposed to perceptible levels of groundborne vibration. Any change in traffic on such routes or any physical realignment resulting from a scheme option could affect the level of groundborne vibration for nearby properties. Such potential effects will be identified in this assessment.
12.3.3 Construction Noise BS 5228: 2009+A1:2014, Part 1 provides two methodologies for the prediction of significance during typical construction works, based upon noise change and existing measured ambient noise levels. Method 1 applies only for residential properties, so for this assessment consideration has been given to Method 2, which takes account of both residential properties and other sensitive receptors. Method 2 - The '5 dB(A) Change Method' states that noise levels generated by construction activities are deemed to be significant if the total noise (pre-construction ambient noise plus construction noise) exceeds the pre-construction ambient noise by 5 dB or more, subject to lower cut-off values of 65 dB for the daytime period, 55 dB for the evening period and 45 dB for the night-time period (LAeq,period) from construction noise alone. This applies to durations of one month or more, unless works for a shorter duration are likely to result in a significant effect. The evaluation criteria are generally applicable for residential housing, hotels and hostels, buildings in religious use, schools and health or community facilities. The assessment of the potential construction noise and vibration impacts in this assessment is undertaken on a qualitative basis. In doing so, potential significant noise and vibration affects from the proposed works are identified. This is undertaken through consideration of the likely construction techniques that will be employed and the likely proximity to sensitive receptors. Consideration will be given to the likelihood that noise will give rise to significant impacts when considered against the criteria within Method 2 of BS 5228: 2009+A1:2014, as identified above.
12.3.4 Construction Vibration BS 5228: 2009+A1:2014, Part 2 provides guidance on the human response to vibration. The Standard provides guidance for predicting human response to vibration in buildings. For construction works, the Standard advises at a vibration level of 1.0 mm/s peak particle velocity (ppv) "It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint, but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation has been given to residents." This is considered to be the threshold when construction vibration is significant.
12.3.5 Six point Scheme Evaluation
In determining the effect at each receptor location in terms of the six point scheme evaluation scale used for this assessment (see Chapter 4), the approach shown in Table 12.4 is used. This scale is used to consider potential noise and vibration effects during both the construction of operation of each route option. The following shall be noted when considering the six point scale: Where “Significant” is identified within the table, this aligns to the operational and construction definitions of significance highlighted above. Where “Slight” is identified within the table, this relates to the following:
o Operational Noise – This aligns with a ‘Minor’ impact contained within Table 12.1 and 12.2 (unless receptor is either already exposed to a SOAEL or would be with the scheme option).
o Operation Vibration – This does not apply to operational vibration.
o Construction Noise – This relates to noise which is likely to be perceptible to occupants but does not exceed the criteria identified for significance.
o Construction Vibration - This relates to vibration which is likely to be perceptible to occupants but does not exceed the criteria identified for significance.
167
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 12.4: Options Evaluation Scale Score Six point effect scale 1 Significant adverse effect which would not be possible to mitigate Potential significant adverse effect where mitigation may result in a 2 non-significant effect Slight adverse effect where the effect is not significant without 3 typical mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. 4 Slight beneficial but is not significant 5 Significant beneficial effect 0 No effect
12.3.6 Overall scheme significance
In determining the overall noise and vibration effects of each scheme option, the six point options evaluation scale as presented in Table 12.5 is used. The following variables are considered when arriving at this conclusion: Number of receptors experiencing beneficial effects from the operation of the scheme option. Number of receptors experiencing significantly beneficial effects from the operation of the scheme option. Number of receptors experiencing adverse effects from either the construction or operation of the scheme option. The requirement for mitigation measures to reduce or remove adverse impacts. Number of receptors experiencing significant adverse effects from either the construction or operation of the scheme option following likely mitigation provisions. The effect of the operation of the scheme options on NIA’s.
Table 12.5: Scheme Wide – Options Evaluation Scale Score 6 point effect scale Overall a significant adverse effect where it is not possible to 1 mitigate. Overall an adverse effect where it may be possible to mitigate to 2 reduce the effect but which remains potentially significant Overall a slight adverse effect which is not significant with typical 3 mitigation. 4 Overall a slight beneficial which is not significant 5 Overall a significant beneficial effect 0 No effect
12.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement
A stakeholder workshop was held in May 2016 with representatives Essex County Council (including from the Historic Environment Team), Colchester Borough Council, Braintree District Council, the Environment Agency and Natural England. This is further detailed in Chapter 5.
168
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
During the assessment engagement will be carried out with the following key stakeholders to obtain local datasets and agree the proposed methodology: Essex County Council. Braintree District Council. Colchester Borough Council.
12.5 Field surveys and modelling
At this stage no baseline noise surveys have been undertaken. In addition, as discussed above, a suitable traffic model is not available at this time to enable road traffic noise predictions to be undertaken.
12.6 Assumptions and uncertainties
12.6.1 Operational Assessment
Due to the absence of suitable traffic model, it is not possible to undertake a quantitative assessment. Therefore, this assessment is based on professional judgement in determining the potential impacts and subsequent effects that may arise from the operation of the scheme options. In arriving at a judgement, the following variables have been considered: Proximity of receptor to the A120 scheme options. Potential level of traffic flow on the A120 scheme options. Likely existing noise levels for receptors. Potential change in traffic flow on roads on the wider road network due to the A120 scheme, e.g. for most options traffic flow on large sections of the existing A120 will considerably reduce. Whether sections of the scheme option sit within or will affect NIA’s.
12.6.2 Construction Assessment
The assessment of the potential construction noise and vibration impacts is also undertaken on a qualitative basis. In doing so, potential noise and vibration affects from each option will be identified. This is undertaken through consideration of the anticipated construction techniques that will be employed and the likely proximity to sensitive receptors.
12.7 Environmental baseline description
With the exception of route option 3, the proposed scheme options transverse an area of countryside away from main roads. The existing noise environment in these areas are defined by local roads, aircraft from Stansted airport (the area falls under the Stansted airport flightpath, in particular departing aircraft), and due to the number of farmsteads in the area, it is likely that sources associated with farming will also contribute to the noise environment. Noise levels in these areas would generally be considered to be relatively low; however, would vary for each receptor depending, in particular, on proximity to minor roads, e.g. Kelvedon Road (B1024), Long Green, Braintree Road (B1018), and Boars Tye Road.
The route options will connect the A12 to the east and A120 at Braintree, both major sources of noise in the area. In addition, the existing A120 runs between the A12 and Braintree. The contribution of these sources of road traffic noise to a receptor’s noise environment would depend on a receptor’s proximity to either source. Receptors that are located adjacent to such roads will be exposed to high levels of road traffic noise. A number of these which are residential have been classified as Noise Important Areas (NIA) under the Defra Noise Action Planning Process. The following NIAs within the study area are shown on Volume 2- Figures 12.1.1 - 12.5.6 and can be summarised as follows:
169
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Properties adjacent to the A120 to the east and south of Braintree, Bradwell, Marks Tey and Coggeshall. In total approximately 220 properties are within NIAs adjacent to the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. Properties adjacent to the A12 between Kelvedon and Marks Tey (junction 25 of A12). In total approximately 80 properties are within NIAs on this section of the A12. Properties adjacent to the A12 north of junction 25 of A12. Properties adjacent to the A131 to the east of Braintree, immediately north of the A120/A131 junction. In total approximately 30 properties are within NIAs on this section of the A131.
Receptors located in close proximity to main roads, such as A120 and A12 have the potential to currently be exposed to perceptible levels of ground-borne vibration. These would largely emanate from heavy vehicles.
12.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
For each of the options, the potential impacts and subsequent potential significant effects have been identified either by a group of receptors (e.g. Residential properties on the A120 between Coggeshall and Marks Tey) or for individual receptors, which largely applies to those receptors located in the rural areas where scheme options are proposed nearby. A description of the potential effect to a receptor or group of receptors is provided, followed by the predicted significance category utilising the six point scale approach shown in Table 12.4 and Chapter 12.3. Where potential adverse effects are identified, either significant or not, commentary is provided in the potential for mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Potential effects are presented for both the operational and construction phases for each of the route options.
The following were considered in forming a professional judgement on the potential effects of each scheme options: Potential absolute noise level with the scheme option in place. For those receptors effected by new carriageway associated with the proposed scheme options, this was undertaken using indicative calculations based on the methodology of the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CTRN) and using considered approximate traffic flows. Likely existing noise levels that a receptor currently experiences. For example, for those receptors located in the more rural areas between Braintree and the A12, such existing noise levels would likely be ‘low’. Whereas, for receptors located adjacent to main roads such as A120 and the A12, the existing noise levels would be ‘high’. Either through considering the above (i.e. for those receptors in close proximity to new carriageway associated with the scheme options), or through a judgement on likely changes in traffic flow (i.e. for roads on the existing road network, e.g. A120) the potential change in noise level at a given receptor is estimated. The potential absolute noise level and noise change are then considered against the significance of effect criteria presented in Section 12.3.1. This is then considered in context with the six point scale as identified in Section 12.3.5.
An overall evaluation, in accordance with the 6-point significance score presented in Table 12.5, Chapter 12.3 has been given for each of the routes, as viewed in Table 12.12. This has been determined through considering the combined effect on individual receptors and based on professional judgement. The methodology for determining the potential effects of each of the options is given in Chapter 12.3.
Any reference to potential changes in traffic flows have been obtained through very early and indicative work by the Transportation Team. More precise forecasts and conclusions on traffic will only be available at later assessment stages.
All receptors discussed in the following sections can be observed in Volume 2 Figures 12.1.1 to 12.5.6. The maps are colour coded in accordance with the six point scale evaluation, as shown in Table 12.4, for each
170
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
receptor or receptor group discussed. It should be noted that the locations and design of junctions and cross overs are indicative.
12.8.1 Construction Effects
Table 12.5 presents the potential noise and vibration effects which may arise from the construction of the scheme. In summary, it is noted that adverse impacts are likely to occur at receptors situated nearby to the construction works. However, given the works are largely transient in nature, the impacts will typically be non- significant. Potential significant effects may arise for residents located close to less transient works, e.g. structures, balancing pond construction, etc.
Table 12.5: Receptor Specific Construction Effects Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Slight adverse effect Temporary adverse impacts likely from where the effect is not Sensitive receptors located adjacent construction works. However, significant without typical to the A120 where route option joins construction works will be transient in mitigation or have no with A120 (at River Brain). nature, e.g. road resurfacing; therefore, adverse effect with effects are unlikely to be significant. mitigation. Temporary adverse impacts likely from construction works. However, the Slight adverse effect majority of the construction works will be where the effect is not Sensitive receptors located adjacent transient in nature, e.g. earthworks, significant without typical to the A120 where the route option carriageway construction, etc. and the mitigation or have no joins the A120 (east of Braintree) works would largely be at a distance adverse effect with greater than the existing A120 mitigation. carriageway. Therefore, the effects are unlikely to be significant. Temporary adverse impacts likely from construction works. However, the Slight adverse effect Sensitive receptors located in close majority of the construction works will be where the effect is not proximity to the new route, in largely transient in nature (see exceptions significant without typical rural areas – Transient works (e.g. below), e.g. earthworks, carriageway mitigation or have no earthworks, drainage works, carriageway construction, etc) construction, drainage works, etc. adverse effect with Therefore, the effects are unlikely to be mitigation. significant. Slight adverse effect Temporary adverse impacts likely from Sensitive receptors located adjacent where the effect is not construction works. However, to the A120 between Braintree and significant without typical construction works will be transient in Coggeshall – relevant only for ’on- mitigation or have no nature, e.g. road resurfacing; therefore, line’ sections of scheme option 3. adverse effect with effects are unlikely to be significant. mitigation. Potential significant noise and vibration impacts may occur for nearby properties Sensitive receptors located in close due to the duration required for such Potential significant proximity to the new route, in largely works. The effect will be determined by adverse effect where rural areas – Less transient works nature of the works, duration of works, mitigation may result in a (e.g. balancing pond construction, structures, etc) proximity of receptor to the works and non-significant effect existing ambient noise levels at the receptor.
171
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Potential significant effects could arise should construction vehicles use smaller Potential significant Sensitive receptors located adjacent rural roads; although it would be adverse effect where to roads on the local network that will envisaged that such routing would be mitigation may result in a be used by construction vehicles. avoided. Once such vehicles reach the non-significant effect main roads, the impact would be negligible.
Operational Effects
12.8.2 Option 1B
Table 12.6 presents the potential noise and vibration effects associated with the operation Option 1B.
In summary, it is observed that potential significant adverse effects may arise for those receptors located in the more rural areas where the option would transverse. It is possible that, with the use of typical mitigation measures, residual significant effects could be avoided. However, two receptors (Newlands Cottage and Links Cottage), which would exist in close proximity to the option (less than 50m), are likely to be subject to significant effects even with substantial mitigation measures employed, e.g. noise barriers and/or bunds.
Conversely, many sensitive receptors located adjacent to the existing A120 will 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 A120.
Table 12.6: Receptor Specific Operational Effects
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Sensitive receptors located adjacent Potential increase in traffic flows on the to the A120 west of the new route A120 induced by the route option is No effect option, south of Braintree, e.g. Great Notley High School. unlikely to be perceptible. Sensitive receptors located adjacent NIA properties: Significant to the A120 where route option joins The use of Low Noise Road Surfacing beneficial effect with A120 (at River Brain). Includes will likely result in a perceptible reduction approximately 100 properties within Non-NIA properties: in road traffic noise. an NIA, e.g. Goldingham Drive and Beneficial but not Shakespeare Close. significant Sensitive receptors located adjacent Likely reductions in traffic flows will result to the A120 between where route in perceptible reductions in noise and NIA properties: Significant option joins with A120 (at River vibration levels for receptors in the area. beneficial effect Brain) through Galley’s Corner to where route option rejoins with the A120 (east of Braintree). Includes Non-NIA properties: approximately 20 properties within an Beneficial but not NIA, e.g. Stilemans Wood and Lower significant King. Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Potential slight reduction in traffic flow to the A120 between where the route plus sections of the A120 would be Significant beneficial option joins the A120 (east of resurfaced with low noise road surface is effect Braintree) and the A120/A131 likely to result in significant benefits. roundabout.
172
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Large reduction in traffic flows will result to the A120 between the A120/A131 in significant noise benefits for those Significant beneficial roundabout through to Marks Tey. sensitive properties located adjacent or effects Includes approximately 100 nearby to the A120. Perceptible residential properties within an NIA reductions in vibration are also likely. Sensitive Receptors set back from Large reduction in traffic flows on the the A120 between the A120/A131 A120 will likely result in benefits for such roundabout through to Marks Tey, properties. Although given the increased Slight beneficial which is e.g. properties to the north, east and in distance (relative to those immediately not significant west of Coggeshall, Little Tey, adjacent to the A120), the benefits are Stisted, etc unlikely to be significant. Those properties located nearest to the proposed route, e.g. The Laurels and Deans Farmhouse, have the potential to Potential significant be exposed to elevated noise levels. Properties to the north of Tye Green adverse effect where However, the existing road traffic noise situated on Braintree Road. mitigation may result in a from Braintree Road will likely ensure the non-significant effect effects are not significant; although mitigation may be necessary to ensure this. Properties to the north of Tye Green Potential for minor adverse noise Slight adverse effect situated in Braintree Road (not those increase due to new carriageway nearby. where the effect is not closest to scheme option – see significant without typical above row) mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant Mobile Home site to the east of route due to new carriageway nearby. adverse effect where junction with A120 mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase Residential property on Long Green adverse effect where due to new carriageway nearby - junction directly facing Half Acre Park mitigation may result in a of the scheme. non-significant effect Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant St Edmunds and Burley (two due to new carriageway nearby, adverse effect where residential properties), Long Green. including new roundabout, mainline and mitigation may result in a junction carriageway non-significant effect Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant A row of residential properties due to new carriageway nearby, adverse effect where (including The Poplars and including new roundabout, mainline and mitigation may result in a Bloomsberry) on Ashes Road junction carriageway non-significant effect Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant Maple Field, Lambourne and due to new carriageway nearby. The adverse effect where unidentified property, Ashes Road effect would depend on the noise mitigation may result in a contribution from Ashes Road. non-significant effect Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Lanham Farm, Lanham Green due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Potential significant Properties at 2 Lanham Farm Road Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where (2 No.), Lanham Green Road due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect 173
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Likely significant effect due to close proximity of the scheme. It is unlikely Significant adverse effect Newlands Cottage, Boars Tye Road, that typical mitigation measure (e.g. which would not be Lanham Green noise barriers or bunds) will reduce noise possible to mitigate levels such that a non-significant effect would prevail Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant Imola and Maplecroft, Boars Tye due to new carriageway nearby. The adverse effect where Road, Lanham Green effect would depend on the noise mitigation may result in a contribution from Boars Tye Road. non-significant effect Likely significant effect due to close proximity of the scheme. It is unlikely Significant adverse effect that typical mitigation measure (e.g. Links Cottage, Links Road which would not be noise barriers or bunds) will reduce noise possible to mitigate levels such that a non-significant effect would prevail Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Egypts Farm and Wrights Farm increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Green Pastures Bungalow, Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Sheepcotes Lane due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Properties on Sheepcotes Lane, e.g. Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Gosling Farm and Gosling Cottage increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Heron’s Farm increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Scrip’s House, Coggeshall Hamlet increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Monk’s Farm Cottages, Pantlings Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Lane increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation.
174
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Slight adverse effect Potential for minor adverse noise Residential properties on Coggeshall where the effect is not increase due to new carriageway nearby. Road, north and south of the significant without typical The effect would depend on the noise proposed scheme option, e.g. Apple mitigation or have no contribution from road traffic on Tree Cottage and Pound Farm adverse effect with Coggeshall Road mitigation. Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Coggeshall Hall due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Threadkells, Old Mill Lane due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Residential Properties in Skye Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Green, e.g. Littlehurst, The Old increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no Cottage and Home Farm adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Residential properties on Langley Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Farm, Old Road, e.g. 3 & 4 Langley due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a Green and Langley Cottage. non-significant effect Potential significant 1 & 2 Langley Farm Cottages, Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Langley Green due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Hornigals,Little Tey Road increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect Potential for minor adverse noise where the effect is not increase due to new carriageway nearby. significant without typical 1 to 6 Domsey Cottages The effect would depend on the noise mitigation or have no contribution from road traffic on the A12 adverse effect with mitigation. The new junction alignment will result in a large increase in distance from the 1 & 2 Little Domsey Cottage, London Significant beneficial properties to the A12 carriageway Road. These are designated NIA. effects resulting in likely significant noise and vibration benefits
175
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
12.8.3 Option 3 Table 12.7 presents the potential noise and vibration effects associated with the operation Option 3. In summary, it is observed that potential significant effects may arise for those receptors located in the more rural areas between Coggeshall and the A12 where the proposed scheme option would transverse. It is possible that, with the use of typical mitigation measures, residual significant effects could be avoided. However, one receptor (Shoulder Hall), which would exist in close proximity to the proposed scheme (less than 50m), is likely to be subject to significant effects even with substantial mitigation measures employed, e.g. noise barriers and/or bunds. Conversely, many sensitive receptors located adjacent to the A120 will 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 A120.
Table 12.7: Receptor Specific Operational Effects
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Sensitive receptors located adjacent to the A120 west of the new route Potential increase in traffic flows on the option, south of Braintree. Includes A120 induced by the scheme options is No effect those within an NIA, e.g. Goldingham unlikely to be perceptible. Drive and Shakespeare Close. Sensitive receptors located adjacent NIA properties: Significant to the A120 between Millennium Way The use of Low Noise Road Surfacing beneficial effect Galley’s Corner. Includes and likely slight reduction in traffic will approximately 10 properties within an likely result in a perceptible reduction in Non-NIA properties: NIA on Stilemans Wood and Mundon road traffic noise. Beneficial but not Road. significant Likely reductions in traffic flows will result Sensitive receptors located adjacent NIA properties: Significant to the A120 between Galley’s Corner in perceptible reductions in noise and beneficial effect and where the route option connects vibration levels for receptors in the area. into the A120. Includes Non-NIA properties: approximately 10 properties within an Beneficial but not NIA at Lower King. significant Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Potential slight reduction in traffic flow; to the A120 between where the route however, this unlikely to result in option joins the A120 (east of perceptible reductions of noise and No effect Braintree) and the A120/A131 vibration to receptors. roundabout. Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Large reduction in traffic flows will result to the A120 which will be bypasses in significant noise benefits for those by the route option between the sensitive properties located adjacent or Significant beneficial A120/A131 roundabout and Marks nearby to the A120. Perceptible effects Tey. Includes approximately 100 reductions in vibration are also likely. residential properties within an NIA. Where the ‘on-line’ alignment remains Sensitive Receptors located adjacent similar to the current A120 slight noise NIA properties: Significant to the A120 where the route option and vibration benefits are likely due to beneficial effect remain ‘on-line’ between Bradwell to the use of low noise road surfacing. Coggeshall and the Coggeshall For those properties contained within the Bypass. Includes three properties NIA significant benefits are likely due to Non-NIA properties: within an NIA – 73 & 74 Stock Street the use of low noise road surfacing plus Beneficial but not Cottages and Stock Street Farm the movement of carriageway significant approximately 15m further away.
176
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Sensitive receptors located on Long Reduction of traffic due to new alignment Green, immediately east of Galley’s at Galley’s Corner is likely to result in a Slight beneficial which is Roundabout, e.g. those on Marcel slight noise benefit not significant Drive and The Cordons Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Withies Green Farm, Withies Green increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Currently exposed to high levels of noise from the existing A120, which will experience substantial reductions in Baytree Cottage, A120 traffic. However, the proposed route No effect scheme option will pass within approximately 35m of this property. On balance a neutral impact is anticipated. This receptor is likely to experience noise benefits to the south due to reductions in traffic on the existing A120. Conversely, Milles Farm, Stisted slight increases in noise are possible to No effect the north due to the new scheme option. On balance a neutral impact is anticipated. Potential significant Properties on Water Lane, e.g. Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Thatched Cottages and 109 Water due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a Lane non-significant effect Large reduction in traffic flow on the immediately adjacent existing A120. 63 to 71 Colchester Road (A120) – Tempered by the introduction of the new Significant beneficial contained with an NIA route alignment, but at a greater effect distance. On balance a significant noise benefit is likely. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Cockerells Farm, Skye Green increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Home Farm, Mill Lane due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Likely significant effect due to close proximity of the scheme. It is unlikely Significant adverse effect that typical mitigation measure (e.g. Shoulder Hall, Mill Lane which would not be noise barriers or bunds) will reduce noise possible to mitigate levels such that a non-significant effect would prevail Potential significant Residential property on Mill Lane, Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where north of Shoulder Hall due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect
177
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Hornigals,Little Tey Road increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect Potential for minor adverse noise where the effect is not increase due to new carriageway nearby. significant without typical 1 to 6 Domsey Cottages The effect would depend on the noise mitigation or have no contribution from road traffic on the A12 adverse effect with mitigation. The new junction alignment will result in a large increase in distance from the 1 & 2 Little Domsey Cottage, London Significant beneficial properties to the A12 carriageway Road. These are designated NIA. effects resulting in likely significant noise and vibration benefits
12.8.4 Option 4B
Table 12.8 presents the potential noise and vibration effects associated with the operation Option 4b.
In summary, it is observed that potential significant effects may arise for those receptors located in the more rural areas where the proposed scheme option would transverse. However, it is possible that, with the use of typical mitigation measures, residual significant effects could be avoided.
Conversely, many sensitive receptors located adjacent to the A120 will 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 A120.
Table 12.8: Receptor Specific Operational Effects
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Sensitive receptors located adjacent to the A120 west of the new route Potential increase in traffic flows on the option, south of Braintree. Includes A120 induced by the scheme options is No effect those within an NIA, e.g. Goldingham unlikely to be perceptible. Drive and Shakespeare Close. Sensitive receptors located adjacent NIA properties: Significant to the A120 between Millennium Way The use of Low Noise Road Surfacing beneficial effect Galley’s Corner. Includes and likely slight reduction in traffic will approximately 10 properties within an likely result in a perceptible reduction in Non-NIA properties: NIA on Stilemans Wood and Mundon road traffic noise. Beneficial but not Road. significant Likely reductions in traffic flows will result Sensitive receptors located adjacent NIA properties: Significant to the A120 between Galley’s Corner in perceptible reductions in noise and beneficial effect and where the route option connects vibration levels for receptors in the area. into the A120. Includes Non-NIA properties: approximately 10 properties within an Beneficial but not NIA at Lower King. significant
178
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Potential slight reduction in traffic flow; to the A120 between where the route however, unlikely to result in perceptible option joins the A120 (east of reductions of noise and vibration to No effect Braintree) and the A120/A131 receptors. roundabout. Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Large reduction in traffic flows will result to the A120 between the A120/A131 in significant noise benefits for those Significant beneficial roundabout through to Marks Tey. sensitive properties located adjacent or effects Includes approximately 100 nearby to the A120. Perceptible residential properties within an NIA reductions in vibration are also likely. Large reduction in traffic flows on the A120 will likely result in benefits for such Sensitive Receptors set back from properties. Although given the increased the A120 between the A120/A131 in distance (relative to those immediately roundabout through to Marks Tey, Slight beneficial which is adjacent to the A120), the benefits are e.g. properties to the north, east and not significant unlikely to be significant. west of Coggeshall, Little Tey, Stisted, etc
Sensitive receptors located on Long Reduction of traffic due to new alignment Green, immediately east of Galley’s at Galley’s Corner is likely to result in a Slight beneficial which is Roundabout, e.g. those on Marcel slight noise benefit not significant Drive and The Cordons Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Pond Cottage and Fells Farm, Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Withies Green increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Glazenwood House – Botanical Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical gardens open to the public increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Receptors in Langham Green, e.g. Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Langham Farm, Newlands Cottage increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Paigles & Pineside Cottages, Perry Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Green due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Other properties in Perry Green, e.g. Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Silver Birches increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Green Pastures Bungalow, Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Sheepcotes Lane due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a
179
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation non-significant effect Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Properties on Sheepcotes Lane, e.g. Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Gosling Farm and Gosling Cottage increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Heron’s Farm increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Scrip’s House, Coggeshall Hamlet increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Monk’s Farm Cottages, Pantlings Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Lane increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect Potential for minor adverse noise Residential properties on Coggeshall where the effect is not increase due to new carriageway nearby. Road, north and south of the significant without typical The effect would depend on the noise proposed scheme option, e.g. Apple mitigation or have no contribution from road traffic on Tree Cottage and Pound Farm adverse effect with Coggeshall Road mitigation. Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Coggeshall Hall due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Threadkells, Old Mill Lane due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Residential Properties in Skye Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Green, e.g. Littlehurst, The Old increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no Cottage and Home Farm adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Residential properties on Langley Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Farm, Old Road, e.g. 3 & 4 Langley due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a Green and Langley Cottage. non-significant effect Potential significant 1 & 2 Langley Farm Cottages, Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Langley Green due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect
180
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Hornigals,Little Tey Road increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect Potential for minor adverse noise where the effect is not increase due to new carriageway nearby. significant without typical 1 to 6 Domsey Cottages The effect would depend on the noise mitigation or have no contribution from road traffic on the A12 adverse effect with mitigation. The new junction alignment will result in a large increase in distance from the 1 & 2 Little Domsey Cottage, London Significant beneficial properties to the A12 carriageway Road. These are designated NIA. effects resulting in likely significant noise and vibration benefits
12.8.5 Option 8
Table 12.9 presents the potential noise and vibration effects associated with the operation Option 8.
In summary, it is observed that potential significant adverse effects may arise for those receptors located in the more rural areas where the proposed scheme option would transverse. It is possible that, with the use of typical mitigation measures, residual significant effects could be avoided. However, two receptors (Newlands Cottage and Newlands Cottage), which would exist in close proximity to the option (less than 50m), are likely to be subject to significant effects even with substantial mitigation measures employed, e.g. noise barriers and/or bunds.
Conversely, many sensitive receptors located adjacent to the A120 will 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 A120.
Table 12.9: Receptor Specific Operational Effects Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Sensitive receptors located adjacent Potential increase in traffic flows on the to the A120 west of the new route A120 induced by the scheme options is No effect option, south of Braintree, e.g. Great Notley High School. unlikely to be perceptible. Sensitive receptors located adjacent NIA properties: Significant to the A120 where route option joins The use of Low Noise Road Surfacing beneficial effect with A120 (at River Brain). Includes will likely result in a perceptible reduction approximately 100 properties within Non-NIA properties: in road traffic noise. an NIA, e.g. Goldingham Drive and Beneficial but not Shakespeare Close. significant Sensitive receptors located adjacent Likely reductions in traffic flows will result NIA properties: Significant to the A120 between where route in perceptible reductions in noise and beneficial effect option joins with A120 (at River vibration levels for receptors in the area.
181
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Brain) through Galley’s Corner to where route option rejoins with the Non-NIA properties: A120 (east of Braintree). Includes Beneficial but not approximately 20 properties within an NIA, e.g. Stilemans Wood and Lower significant King. Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Potential slight reduction in traffic flow; to the A120 between where the route however, this unlikely to result in option joins the A120 (east of perceptible reductions of noise and No effect Braintree) and the A120/A131 vibration to receptors. roundabout. Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Large reduction in traffic flows will result to the A120 between the A120/A131 in significant noise benefits for those Significant beneficial roundabout through to Marks Tey. sensitive properties located adjacent or effects Includes approximately 100 nearby to the A120. Perceptible residential properties within an NIA reductions in vibration are also likely. Sensitive Receptors set back from Large reduction in traffic flows on the the A120 between the A120/A131 A120 will likely result in benefits for such roundabout through to Marks Tey, properties. Although given the increased Sight beneficial which is e.g. properties to the north, east and in distance (relative to those immediately not significant west of Coggeshall, Little Tey, adjacent to the A120), the benefits are Stisted, etc unlikely to be significant. Those properties located nearest to the proposed route, e.g. The Laurels and Deans Farmhouse, have the potential to Potential significant be exposed to elevated noise levels. Properties to the north of Tye Green adverse effect where However, the existing road traffic noise situated on Braintree Road. mitigation may result in a from Braintree Road will likely ensure the non-significant effect effects are not significant; although mitigation may be necessary to ensure this. Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant Mobile Home site to the east of route due to new carriageway nearby. adverse effect where junction with A120 mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase Residential property on Long Green adverse effect where due to new carriageway nearby - junction directly facing Half Acre Park mitigation may result in a of the scheme. non-significant effect Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant St Edmunds and Burley (two due to new carriageway nearby, adverse effect where residential properties), Long Green. including new roundabout, mainline and mitigation may result in a junction carriageway non-significant effect Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant A row of residential properties due to new carriageway nearby, adverse effect where (including The Poplars and including new roundabout, mainline and mitigation may result in a Bloomsberry) on Ashes Road junction carriageway non-significant effect Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant Maple Field, Lambourne and due to new carriageway nearby. The adverse effect where unidentified property, Ashes Road effect would depend on the noise mitigation may result in a contribution from Ashes Road. non-significant effect
182
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Potential significant Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Lanham Farm, Lanham Green due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Potential significant Properties at 2 Lanham Farm Road Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where (2 No.), Lanham Green Road due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Likely significant effect due to close proximity of the scheme. It is unlikely Significant adverse effect Newlands Cottage, Boars Tye Road, that typical mitigation measure (e.g. which would not be Lanham Green noise barriers or bunds) will reduce noise possible to mitigate levels such that a non-significant effect would prevail. Potential for significant noise increase Potential significant Imola and Maplecroft, Boars Tye due to new carriageway nearby. The adverse effect where Road, Lanham Green effect would depend on the noise mitigation may result in a contribution from Boars Tye Road. non-significant effect Likely significant effect due to close proximity of the scheme. It is unlikely Significant adverse effect that typical mitigation measure (e.g. Links Cottage, Links Road which would not be noise barriers or bunds) will reduce noise possible to mitigate levels such that a non-significant effect would prevail Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Egypts Farm and Wrights Farm increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Green Pastures Bungalow, Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Sheepcotes Lane due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Sheepcotes Farm increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential for minor adverse noise Slight adverse effect Sensitive receptors to the east of increases due to introduction of a new where the effect is not Silver End. The nearest comprising a road scheme. However, the distances significant without typical residential care home (c. 750m from are such that it is likely that the impacts mitigation or have no route). would not be perceptible and there adverse effect with negligible. mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Residential properties on Parkgate Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Road, including Parkgate Farmhouse increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation.
183
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Potters Farm, Hollow Road increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect Potential for minor adverse noise where the effect is not increase due to new carriageway nearby. significant without typical Ford Farm House, Church Road However, the distance are such that it is mitigation or have no likely that the impacts would not be adverse effect with perceptible and there negligible. mitigation. The new junction alignment will result in Stanwich House, London Road a large increase in distance from the to Significant beneficial (B1024) the A12 carriageway resulting in likely effects significant noise benefits The new junction alignment will result in an increase in distance to the A12 Significant beneficial Hole Farm, A12 carriageway; albeit on the opposite effects façade. This will likely result in a likely significant noise benefit.
12.8.6 Option 9A
Table 12.10 presents the potential noise and vibration effects associated with the operation Option 9A.
In summary, it is observed that potential significant effects may arise for those receptors located in the more rural areas where the proposed scheme option would transverse. However, it is possible that, with the use of typical mitigation measures, residual significant effects could be avoided.
Conversely, many sensitive receptors located adjacent to the A120 will experience significant noise and vibration benefits due a likely substantial reduction in traffic flow. This includes approximately 100 residential properties that currently exist with 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 A120.
Table 12.10: Receptor Specific Operational Effects Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Sensitive receptors located adjacent to the A120 west of the new route Potential increase in traffic flows on the option, south of Braintree. Includes A120 induced by the scheme options is No effect those within an NIA, e.g. Goldingham unlikely to be perceptible. Drive and Shakespeare Close. Sensitive receptors located adjacent NIA properties: Significant to the A120 between Millennium Way The use of Low Noise Road Surfacing beneficial effect Galley’s Corner. Includes and likely slight reduction in traffic will approximately 10 properties within an likely result in a perceptible reduction in Non-NIA properties: NIA on Stilemans Wood and Mundon road traffic noise. Beneficial but not Road. significant
184
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Likely reductions in traffic flows will result Sensitive receptors located adjacent NIA properties: Significant to the A120 between Galley’s Corner in perceptible reductions in noise and beneficial effect and where the route option connects vibration levels for receptors in the area. into the A120. Includes Non-NIA properties: approximately 10 properties within an Beneficial but not NIA at Lower King. significant Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Potential slight reduction in traffic flow; to the A120 between where the route however, this unlikely to result in option joins the A120 (east of perceptible reductions of noise and No effect Braintree) and the A120/A131 vibration to receptors. roundabout. Sensitive Receptors located adjacent Large reduction in traffic flows will result to the A120 between the A120/A131 in significant noise benefits for those Significant beneficial roundabout through to Marks Tey. sensitive properties located adjacent or effects Includes approximately 100 nearby to the A120. Perceptible residential properties within an NIA reductions in vibration are also likely. Large reduction in traffic flows on the A120 will likely result in benefits for such Sensitive Receptors set back from properties. Although given the increased the A120 between the A120/A131 in distance (relative to those immediately roundabout through to Marks Tey, Slight beneficial which is adjacent to the A120), the benefits are e.g. properties to the north, east and not significant unlikely to be significant. west of Coggeshall, Little Tey, Stisted, etc
Sensitive receptors located on Long Reduction of traffic due to new alignment Green, immediately east of Galley’s at Galley’s Corner is likely to result in a Slight beneficial which is Roundabout, e.g. those on Marcel slight noise benefit not significant Drive and The Cordons Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Pond Cottage and Fells Farm, Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Withies Green increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Glazenwood House – Botanical Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical gardens open to the public increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Receptors in Langham Green, e.g. Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Langham Farm, Newlands Cottage increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Paigles & Pineside Cottages, Perry Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Green due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect
185
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Group or Individual Six Point Scale Potential Scheme Effect Receptor Evaluation Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Other properties in Perry Green, e.g. Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Silver Birches increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Potential significant Green Pastures Bungalow, Potential for significant noise increase adverse effect where Sheepcotes Lane due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation may result in a non-significant effect Potential for minor adverse noise Slight adverse effect Sensitive receptors to the east of increases due to introduction of a new where the effect is not Silver End. The nearest comprising a road scheme. However, the distances significant without typical residential care home (c. 750m from are such that it is likely that the impacts mitigation or have no route). would not be perceptible and there adverse effect with negligible. mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Residential properties on Parkgate Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Road, including Parkgate Farmhouse increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect where the effect is not Potential for minor adverse noise significant without typical Potters Farm, Hollow Road increase due to new carriageway nearby. mitigation or have no adverse effect with mitigation. Slight adverse effect Potential for minor adverse noise where the effect is not increase due to new carriageway nearby. significant without typical Ford Farm House, Church Road However, the distance are such that it is mitigation or have no likely that the impacts would not be adverse effect with perceptible and there negligible. mitigation. The new junction alignment will result in Stanwich House, London Road a large increase in distance from the to Significant beneficial (B1024) the A12 carriageway resulting in likely effects significant noise benefits The new junction alignment will result in an increase in distance to the A12 Significant beneficial Hole Farm, A12 carriageway; albeit on the opposite effects façade. This will likely result in a likely significant noise benefit.
12.8.7 Overall Scheme Effects
Table 12.12 presents the considered overall effect of each scheme option. Section 1.3 identifies the variables considered when arriving at an overall scheme option evaluation.
It is noted that each Scheme option is considered to be overall significantly beneficial. The reasoning is as follows: Many sensitive receptors located adjacent to the A120 will experience significant noise and vibration benefits due a likely substantial reduction in traffic flow. This includes approximately 100 residential properties that currently exist with NIAs along the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. 186
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
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 A120. Non-significant noise benefits are also likely for properties in this area which are not within NIA’s. Relatively small number of sensitive receptors with the potential for adverse impacts; albeit a number of these could be significant and mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts. These receptors are currently located in the rural areas between Braintree and the A12, where the scheme route options are proposed. Only one or two properties, depending on the scheme option, will likely be subject to significant adverse effects which it may not be possible to mitigate. However, given the significant benefits that the scheme is likely to deliver with regards to noise and vibration, the overall effect of the scheme is still considered beneficial. 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 typically be non-significant.
187
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 12-7: Summary of Effects
RECEPTOR OPTION Type 1B 3 4B 8 9A Operational Effects – Potential for noise increase due to proximity of carriageway Properties located Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects adjacent to the NIA receptors: NIA receptors: NIA receptors: NIA receptors: NIA receptors: existing A120 Approximately 100 properties in South Approximately 20 properties Southeast Approximately 20 properties Southeast Approximately 100 properties in South Approximately 20 properties Braintree including Goldingham Drive, Braintree including Stilemans Wood, Braintree including Stilemans Wood, Braintree including Goldingham Drive, Southeast Braintree including Shakespeare Close, Greene View and Lower King and Mundon Road Lower King and Mundon Road Shakespeare Close, Greene View and Stilemans Wood, Lower King and Forsyth Drive Approximately 100 properties adjacent to Approximately 100 properties adjacent Forsyth Drive Mundon Road Approximately 20 properties Southeast the existing A120 including those in to the existing A120 including those in Approximately 20 properties Approximately 100 properties Braintree including Stilemans Wood, Bradwell and Marks Tey Bradwell and Marks Tey Southeast Braintree including adjacent to the existing A120 Lower King and Mundon Road Stilemans Wood, Lower King and including those in Bradwell and Numerous other receptors located Numerous other receptors located Mundon Road Marks Tey Approximately 100 properties adjacent to adjacent to the A120 between Braintree adjacent to the A120 between the existing A120 including those in and Marks Tey Braintree and Marks Tey Approximately 100 properties adjacent Numerous other receptors located Bradwell and Marks Tey to the existing A120 including those in adjacent to the A120 between Numerous other receptors located Bradwell and Marks Tey Braintree and Marks Tey adjacent to the A120 between Braintree Numerous other receptors located and Marks Tey adjacent to the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey Slight beneficial Slight beneficial Slight beneficial Slight beneficial Slight beneficial Numerous properties set back from Numerous properties set back from Numerous properties set back from Numerous properties set back from the Numerous properties set back from the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey the A120 between Braintree and the A120 between Braintree and the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey Marks Tey Marks Tey Properties in Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects close proximity to Designated NIA – 1 & 2 Little Domsey Designated NIA – 1 & 2 Little Domsey Designated NIA – 1 & 2 Little Domsey Stanwich House, London Road Stanwich House, London Road Cottages the A12 junction Cottages Cottages Hole Farm Hole Farm Properties located Significant adverse effect which would not Significant adverse effect which would not Significant adverse effect which would Significant adverse effect which would Significant adverse effect which would adjacent to the be possible to mitigate be possible to mitigate not be possible to mitigate not be possible to mitigate not be possible to mitigate route option Newlands Cottage, Lanham Green Shoulder Hall, Mill Lane None Newlands Cottage, Lanham Green None Links Cottage, Links Road Links Cottage, Links Road Potential significant adverse – mitigation Potential significant adverse – mitigation Potential significant adverse – mitigation Potential significant adverse – mitigation Potential significant adverse – may be possible may be possible may be possible may be possible mitigation may be possible 14 groups of residential properties 4 groups of residential properties 6 groups of residential properties 10 groups of residential properties 2 groups of residential properties Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect 9 groups of properties 9 groups of properties 12 groups of properties 6 groups of residential properties 8 groups of residential properties Overall 6 point Overall a significant beneficial effect Overall a significant beneficial effect Scale Overall a significant beneficial effect Overall a significant beneficial effect Overall a significant beneficial effect
188
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
12.9 Mitigation and opportunities
12.9.1 Construction
At this stage the specific construction approach is unknown. However, it would be expected that all work would be undertaken to the guidance detailed in BS 5228: 2009+A1:2014. As such, it would be anticipated that the following mitigation measures be employed on site to ensure that noise and vibration levels are attenuated as far as possible: the use of ‘best practicable means’ during all construction activities; switching off plant and equipment when it is not in use for longer periods of time; establish agreement with the local authority on appropriate controls for undertaking significantly noisy works or vibration-causing operations close to receptors; programming works so that the requirement for working outside normal working hours is minimised (taking into account the highway authority’s statutory duties under the Traffic Management Act 2004); use of low noise emission plant where possible; piling will be bored, where viable, to protect sensitive sites: the use of temporary noise screens around particularly noisy activities; and, regular plant maintenance.
It is anticipated that discussions would be held with Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department to agree any requirements for noise and vibration monitoring during construction. In addition, they would be consulted in relation to any prescribed noise and vibration limits, which would in turn be contained within any Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) agreed.
12.9.2 Operation
This assessment demonstrates that adverse impacts may arise for a number of sensitive receptors located in the relatively rural area between Braintree and the A12 where the scheme options would transverse. Furthermore, a number of these receptors have the potential to be subject to significant adverse effects. As such, it will be necessary for mitigation measures to be considered through the project design process to reduce or remove such adverse effects. A description of the typical mitigation measures that would be considered are as follows: Thin Surfacing (Low Noise Road Surfacing) – It is understood that such surfacing would be employed on all new carriageway associated with the scheme options. In accordance with HD 213/11, low noise surfacing provides a benefit, relative to traditional Hot Rolled Asphalt of 3.5 dB(A). Such a measure can be considered a holistic mitigation measure, as it reduces noise at source for the entire scheme. Noise Bunds and Noise Barriers – An earth bund or noise barrier of sufficient length and height can provide attenuation above 10 dB(A). From an attenuation perspective, noise barriers are often preferred as they can be located closer to carriageway, when compared to the crest of an earth bund; thus maximising the ‘path difference’ for sound to travel, which dictates the noise reduction. However, other disciplines, in particular Landscape and Ecology, often prefer earth bunds from an aesthetic and habitat potential perspective. There are also cost implications to consider, which is determined by the quantity of earth available for earth bunding. Whereas, noise barrier costs are governed largely by required height and length.
189
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
12.10 Scoping Assessment
12.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration in EIA for preferred option and Recommended scope and approach to EIA
Subsequent assessment stages shall be undertaken in accordance with the methodology contained within HD213/11. This shall include the following: Undertaking baseline noise surveys, including in areas where sensitive receptors likely to be subject to adverse effects. Development of a noise model to quantify the impact of the route options and/or preferred route using a suitable traffic model. Quantify the potential construction impacts using anticipated construction programme and approach. Identify and assess the need and benefit from mitigation measures, in particular noise barriers and/or bunds Consideration of properties which may be eligible for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations.
12.11 Chapter References BSI. (2014). BS 5228: 2009+A1:2014. ‘Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites, Part 1: Noise’. BSI. (2014). BS 5228: 2009+A1:2014. ‘Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites, Part 2: Noise’. Control of Pollution Act. (1974). Section 60. CoPA. Defra. (2010). Noise Policy Statement for England. Defra. (2014). Noise Action Plan: Roads (Including Major Roads). Environmental Noise (England) regulations 2006 as amended. Highways Agency (now Highways England) (2011). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7, “Noise and Vibration”, (HD 213/11 Revision 1). HMSO. (1988). Statutory Instrument, The Noise Insulation (Amendment) Regulations. HMSO. (1975). Statutory instrument, Noise Insulation Regulations (as amended 1988). Communities and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) Report No RR53 – Ground Vibration Cause by Civil Engineering Works. World Health Organisation. (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise.
190
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
13. People and communities
13.1 Scope of assessment
This chapter identifies the likelihood of significant effects (both adverse and beneficial) of the five options (1B, 3, 4B, 8, 9A). The option evaluation considers the potential effects on All Travellers and Community and Private Assets separately, as detailed in Chapter 13.1.1 and 13.1.2.
13.1.1 All Travellers
For the purposes of this chapter, potential effects on All Travellers includes consideration of non-motorised users (NMUs) and vehicle travellers, as detailed below.
Non-motorised users NMUs include pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and the provision of public rights of way (PRoW) for NMU use. The scope of the assessment on NMUs includes consideration of:
Duration and distance of NMU journeys and any changes in local travel patterns and existing routes. Changes in amenity, defined as the pleasantness of the journey. This includes changes in the degree and duration of people’s exposure to traffic, fear, safety, noise, dust, air quality and visual intrusions. Community severance, where NMUs are physically separated from residential properties and/or facilities and services.
Vehicle travellers
Vehicle travellers include drivers/passengers of private vehicles and public transport users. The scope of the assessment on vehicle travellers includes consideration of: The changes in the quality of views experienced by travellers (both drivers and passengers), including consideration of the types of scenery or landscape character, the extent to which travellers may be able to view the scene (no view, restricted view, intermittent view and open view), the quality of the landscape and any features of particular interest. This assessment uses the landscape baseline as defined in Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual. The availability and accessibility of public transport options.
At this options evaluation stage, driver stress is difficult to determine due to the level of design information. In general, driver stress identifies the effects on the levels of stress experienced by drivers in any type of private vehicle due to road layout, geometry surface riding characteristics, junction frequency and speed and flow per lane. The three main components of driver stress include frustration, fear of potential accidents and uncertainty relating to the route being followed. Frustration is caused by a driver’s inability to drive at a speed consistent with his or her wishes and may be affected by congestion, intersections, roadworks and difficulty overtaking slower moving traffic. Fear is caused due to the presence of other vehicles, inadequate sight distances, poor lighting, poorly maintained road surfaces and the likelihood of a pedestrian stepping onto the road. Route uncertainty is primarily caused by inadequate signage for the driver’s needs. At this options evaluation stage, it is considered that all five options would improve driving conditions compared to the current conditions on the existing A120, thus reducing driver stress. Each option would reduce congestion and journey times, improve driver and NMU safety and would be designed in accordance with current best practice design standards.
An assessment of the effects of the preferred option on driver stress will be progressed during the environmental impact assessment (EIA) in PCF Stage 3.
191
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
13.1.2 Community and Private Assets
This chapter considers the potential effects on Community and Private Assets, including local people and communities, economy and employment opportunities, as further detailed below. Effects on demolition of private or publicly owned property, loss of land used by the community (e.g. public parks and recreational land) and loss of privately owned land, including any access arrangements. Effects on the ability of individuals to access and use community assets and services (community severance), quality of life and amenity and use of community assets such as churches, parish halls, medical facilities and schools. Effects on the economy and employment, including development land (including any planned future land- use changes or existing planning proposals currently lodged with the planning authorities), agricultural land and farms, registered common land and job creation.
The potential effects on amenity for each option are also considered further in Chapter 6 – Air Quality, Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual and Chapter 12 – Noise and Vibration.
13.2 Policy and guidance
13.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy
The following local policies are relevant to All Travellers and Community and Private Assets for each option and have been used to inform the options evaluation presented in this chapter.
National
National Policy Statement for National Networks
The National Policy Statement for National Networks (Department for Transport, 2014) sets out the Government’s policies to deliver development of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the national road and rail networks in England. The relevant policies include delivering sustainable national road networks, improving road safety, promoting a shift towards greener technologies and fuels, providing people with sustainable modes of travel and creating an accessible and inclusive transport network.
This also states that the development of the scheme will require assessment of economic and other impacts on the best and most versatile agricultural land and the A120 Scheme will need to demonstrate that, where possible, areas of poorer quality land (or brownfield land) has been selected in preference to that of a higher quality.
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012) sets out core planning principles. The relevant policies include making the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and taking account of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all.
National Planning Practice Guidance ‘Open space, sports and recreational facilities, public rights of way and local green space
This National Planning Practice Guidance (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2014) provides key advice on open space, sports and recreation facilities and PRoWs. In particular, the guidance states that PRoWs form an important part of sustainable transport and should be protected or enhanced.
192
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Call to Action on Obesity in England
The Government White Paper Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Call to Action on Obesity in England (Department of Health, 2011) identifies that it is the role of Government, local and key partners to take actions to change the environment to support individuals in changing their behaviour and help people to maintain healthier lifestyles. The promotion of ‘active travel’ (walking and cycling) is referred to as an important way of encouraging more physical activity which can bring important health benefits.
Regional
Essex Transport Strategy: the Local Transport Plan for Essex
The Essex Transport Strategy (Essex County Council, 2011) sets out the vision for transport, policies for transport and approach to implementation. Outcomes of the plan are centred on providing connectivity, reducing carbon dioxide emissions, improving safety on the transport network, maintaining all transport assets and providing sustainable access and travel choices.
Local
Braintree District Council Local Plan 2011 – 2016
The Braintree District Council Local Plan (Braintree District Council, 2011) provides a vision of how the Braintree District will change up to 2026. This includes a number of documents such as the Core Strategy, which includes a number of policies relating to employment, accessibility, provision of open space, sport and recreation.
Braintree Core Strategy 2011
The Core Strategy (Braintree District Council, 2011) is the principal document of the Local Development Framework and sets out the overall spatial vision and objectives, spatial strategy and core policies. Policies that are relevant to this people and communities assessment include provision of employment, the countryside, accessibility, provision for open space, sport and recreation.
Braintree District Local Plan (draft due later in 2016)
The Braintree District Local Plan was approved for consultation by the Council in June 2016. The Local Plan includes strategic policies for the wider area of North Essex as part of the Shared Strategic Plan and a specific vision and objectives for the Braintree District. This includes a number of policies that are relevant to this people and communities assessment relating to employment, tourism, retailing, parking, transport, health and wellbeing, provision of open space, sport, recreation, education and local community services.
Colchester Borough Council Adopted Local Plan 2001 – 2021
The Colchester Borough Council Adopted Local Plan (Colchester Borough Council, 2008) includes various documents which are intended to plan for the future of the borough up to 2021. This comprises the Core Strategy (adopted in 2008) which includes a range of policies that are relevant to this people and communities assessment regarding community facilities, open space, recreation facilities, accessibility, walking, cycling and public transport.
Colchester Emerging (Preferred Options) Local Plan 2017 – 2032 (draft due later in 2016)
Colchester Borough Council has published its draft Local Plan (Preferred Options) for consultation over Summer 2016. The Emerging Local Plan includes strategic policies for the wider area of North Essex as part of the Shared Strategic Plan and a vision, strategy, objectives and policies for planning and delivery across the borough. This includes a number of policies that are relevant to this people and communities assessment relating to health and wellbeing, education, sports, tourism, leisure, culture and heritage, economic, agricultural development, provision of public open space and sustainable transport.
193
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Colchester’s Strategic Plan 2015–18
The Colchester Strategic Plan (Colchester Borough Council, 2015) sets out goals to be achieved at a borough level. Those related to people and communities are centred around creating the right environment for people to develop and flourish in all aspects of their lives, attracting additional businesses, increasing the number of affordable homes, ensuring transport infrastructure keeps pace with housing growth and ensuring that Colchester is a welcoming and safe place for residents, visitors and businesses.
Transport for Colchester 2001
Transport for Colchester (Colchester Borough Council, 2001) sets out aims, objectives and specific measures to develop an efficient, effective and sustainable integrated multi-modal transport network with identified measures to accommodate the transport needs of Colchester. Specific objectives of the plan include developing a new hierarchy for all roads and road users, taking active measures to reduce and minimise existing congestion, providing choice of transport mode for both long and short journeys and developing high quality key transport interchanges.
Safeguarding Our Soils: A Strategy for England
Safeguarding Our Soils: A Strategy for England (DEFRA 2009) sets the current policy context on soils and states that where possible, schemes should be designed to limit the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (in grades 2 and 3 of the Agricultural Land Classification), minimise the impact on agricultural businesses and assist in the maintenance of viable agricultural holdings
13.2.2 Overview of relevant guidance
This chapter draws upon guidance set out in the Interim Advice Note 125/15 Environmental Assessment (Highways England 2015) and the following Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) chapters: Volume 11, Section 3, Part 6 Land Use (The Highways Agency, 2001); Volume 11, Section 3, Part 8, Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects (The Highways Agency, 1993a); and Volume 11, Section 3, Part 9, Vehicle Travellers (The Highways Agency, 1993b).
13.3 Definition of significant effects
The likely significant effects will be further refined for a preferred option during the ongoing EIA process for further stages of work. This will be determined based on guidance outlined in DMRB (Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5) whereby the sensitivity of the receptor and the predicted magnitude of effect will determine the likelihood of significant effects arising. As there is no standard guidance on criteria for sensitivity of receptors and magnitude of change for people and communities, preliminary criteria has been developed based on the DMRB guidance and the professional judgement (reference to Table 13.1 and Table 13.2). These criteria will be developed further and presented in the Environmental Statement for the preferred option during PCF Stage 3.
The matrix shown in Table 13.3 identifies how the significance of effects is determined, by factoring in both sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of effect. Shaded areas of the table show where an effect may be considered to be significant. Where two possible scores could be applied to an effect (e.g. Slight or Moderate), professional judgement is exercised to determine the significance of the effect.
194
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 13.1 Preliminary sensitivity criteria for people and communities receptors
Sensitivity Description Very high Key route used by pedestrians, cyclists and other NMU for journeys including commuting. These routes record very high numbers of NMU journeys and connect users with employment and other community facilities. Any interruption of these routes would inconvenience people and could cause travellers to switch from active modes to private car use. Routes regularly used by vulnerable travellers such as the elderly, school children and people with disabilities. Land used by the community that attracts visitors on a national scale (e.g. national parks, national/well known tourist attractions). Religious sites and cemeteries. Agricultural land classification of Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3a (best and most versatile agricultural land). High National or regional trails or routes likely to be used for recreation and recording high use. These routes are judged as high sensitivity due to the potential number of people affected and effects on recreational and regional use. Private, residential or commercial buildings that are currently in use. Buildings used by the community e.g. schools, community halls. Agricultural land classification of Grade 3b. Registered common land currently used regularly. Medium Public rights of way close to communities which are mainly used for recreational purposes (e.g. dog walking) but for which alternative routes are available. Users may be more tolerant to disruptions and diversions, but are likely to be sensitive to changes to amenity and character. Private, residential or commercial land (excluding buildings) e.g. gardens. Land used by the community that attracts visitors on a regional scale (e.g. country parks, regional tourist attractions). Undeveloped land that is subject to a planning approval. Agricultural land classification of Grade 4. Registered common land currently used intermittently. Low Routes which have fallen into disuse or are scarcely used as do not offer any access for either utility or recreational purposes. Unoccupied buildings or derelict land that are the subject of a current planning permission. Locally used community land (e.g. local parks, playing fields, allotment gardens). Local tourist attractions. Undeveloped land that is subject to a current (but yet to be approved) planning application. Agricultural land classification of Grade 5. Registered common land not currently in use. Negligible Routes which have fallen into disuse with no evidence of use. Unoccupied buildings or derelict land that is not the subject of a current planning permission.
195
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 13.2 Preliminary magnitude of effect criteria for people and communities
Magnitude of Description effect Major Demolition of buildings or significant loss of land (i.e. greater than 50% of land). Loss of 20 ha or more of best and most versatile agricultural land. Complete severance of access to PRoWs, private land or community assets. Significant reduction in amenity to residents, businesses or NMUs. Increase or decrease of PRoW length of more than 500m. Moderate Moderate loss of land (i.e. between 15% to 50% of land). Loss of 10 – 19ha of best and most versatile agricultural land. Major severance of access. A moderate change in employment numbers (both beneficial and adverse) Moderate reduction in amenity for residents, businesses or NMUs. Increase or decrease of PRoW length of more between 250m – 500m. Minor Minor loss of land (i.e. less than 15% of land). Loss of 5 – 9ha of best and most versatile agricultural land. Some partial or temporary severance of access. A minor change in employment numbers (both beneficial and adverse). Minor reduction in amenity for residents, businesses or NMUs. Increase or decrease of PRoW length of more between 150m – 250m. Negligible Little discernible change from the baseline conditions. Loss of less than 5ha of best and most versatile agricultural land. Increase or decrease of PRoW length of less than 150m. No change No change from baseline conditions.
Table 13.3: Significance of effect matrix
Magnitude
No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Very high Neutral Slight Moderate or Large or Very Very Large Large Large
High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate or Large or Moderate Large Very Large
Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight Moderate Moderate Slight or Large
Low Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight or Sensitivityof receptor Slight Slight Moderate
Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Minor Slight Slight
196
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
For this options evaluation stage, typical descriptors of both adverse and beneficial effects on people and communities have been provided in Table 13.4. This table has been used to inform the high level options evaluation in Section 13.8.
Table 13.4: Typical descriptors of significance of effects on people and communities
Significance Typical descriptors of effect on people and communities category Very Large Adverse effects may include: Permanent land take of large areas of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3a); stopping up of key PRoW commuter routes; total removal of local public transport facilities; and regional severance. Beneficial effects may include: Large economic benefits associated with job creation and improved widespread connectivity. Large Adverse effects may include: Permanent/temporary land take of best and most versatile land; permanent land take of registered common land currently in use; stopping up of national or regional PRoWs; permanent reduction of public transport accessibility; community severance; and moderate/major impacts to buildings currently in use (private, commercial, community), community facilities (such as schools and places of worship), national parks, national tourist attractions and religious sites or cemeteries. Beneficial effects may include: Economic benefits associated with job creation and improved regional connectivity; vehicle travellers are exposed to high quality landscape/townscape or an area of unique townscape/landscape character. Moderate Adverse effects may include: Permanent land take of Grade 3b agricultural land; temporary land take of best and most versatile land; stopping up or diversion of recreational PRoWs; vehicle travellers are exposed to low quality landscape/townscape including detractors or features which are inconsistent with an area of higher quality or character; temporary reduction of public transport accessibility; and impacts to private, commercial land (excluding buildings), regional tourist attractions, country parks and undeveloped land subject to a planning approval. Beneficial effects may include: Economic benefits associated with job creation and improved community connectivity and access; vehicle travellers are exposed to moderate quality landscape/townscape or an area of unique townscape/landscape character. Slight Adverse effects may include: Permanent land take of Grade 4 agricultural land; diversion of recreational PRoWs; permanent land take of registered common land not in use; temporary disruption/delays to public transport facilities; and impacts to unoccupied buildings, locally used community land, local tourist attractions and undeveloped land subject to (yet to be approved) planning applications. Beneficial effects may include: Local and temporary job creation and improved local access Neutral Negligible impacts or no change to features/receptors of low sensitivity e.g. PRoW routes that have fallen into disuse; unoccupied buildings; and Grade 5 agricultural land.
At this options evaluation stage, a six point scale (as outlined in Table 13.5) has been used to identify the overall likelihood of significant effect for each option. For the purposes of this people and communities evaluation, any effects that are identified Very Large adverse are considered to have a significant adverse effect that is not possible to mitigate (i.e. Score 1 in the six point evaluation scale). Large or Very Large adverse are considered likely to have potentially significant adverse effects (i.e. Score 2 in the evaluation scale). Any effects that are identified as Moderate or Slight adverse are considered likely to have a slight adverse effect (i.e. Score 3 in the evaluation scale).
Any effects considered Moderate or Slight beneficial are considered likely to have slight beneficial effects (i.e. Score 4 in the evaluation scale).
197
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Any effects considered Large or Very Large beneficial would be considered to have significant beneficial effects (i.e. Score 5 in the evaluation scale).Where a significance category (e.g. Very Large adverse) can be applied to two effect scale scores (i.e. score 1 or 2), professional judgement has been exercised to determine which score is most appropriate. At this stage of option design development, it is likely that further design optimisation is likely and that adverse effects can be further mitigated during ongoing design development.
Table 13.5 Six point options evaluation scale
Score 6 point effect scale Significance category (as per Table 13.4)
1 Significant adverse effect - not possible to Very Large adverse mitigate
2 Potential significant adverse effect – Very Large adverse / Large adverse mitigation may be possible
3 Slight adverse effect Moderate adverse / Slight adverse
Effect not significant with typical mitigation.
4 Slight beneficial Moderate beneficial / Slight beneficial
Effect not significant
5 Significant beneficial effect Very Large beneficial / Large beneficial
0 No effect Neutral
13.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement
13.4.1 Baseline sources Baseline data have been obtained through desk-based studies, a site visit undertaken on 27 April 2016 and NMU surveys of pedestrian, equestrian and cyclist traffic undertaken in July and September 2016 (refer to Section 13.5). NMU surveys have been undertaken by the design team to be incorporated into ongoing design development.
Key sources of information for the desk-based study included the following:
Essex County Council definitive map (http://www.essexhighways.org/Getting-Around/Public-Rights-of- Way/PRoW-Map.aspx). Braintree District Council planning application register. Borough of Colchester planning application register. Braintree Cycling Map (http://www.essexhighways.org/Uploads/Files/Braintree-Witham.pdf). Sustrans interactive cycling map (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map). Natural England Agricultural Land Classification Maps (http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/5954148537204736).
198
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Key designations and features within the 200m buffer zone (i.e. 200m from the edge of the road) and the associated sensitivity for each of the five options are outlined in Chapter 13.7 and shown on Volume 2 Figures 13.1.1 to 13.5.4.
13.4.2 Stakeholder engagement
An NMU Stakeholder Workshop was held on 19 May 2016 with attendees from interested organisations including the British Driving Society, Local Access Forum, Ramblers Association (Essex), Cycling UK and Essex Bridleways Association. Attendees provided information about equestrian, cycle and pedestrian issues in an interactive workshop session. This information will continue to be considered in ongoing option development.
Engagement is ongoing with Essex County Council regarding the PRoW definitive map and regular updates to this database.
13.5 Field surveys and modelling
No field surveys or modelling have been undertaken for this assessment.
13.6 Assumptions and uncertainties
The baseline environment has been established using publicly available third party information. This options evaluation is high level only and will be further refined during the ongoing EIA process when more detailed information on design, construction methodology and traffic numbers becomes available.
13.7 Environmental baseline description
For each of the five options, all sensitive receptors within a 200m buffer of the route have been identified, with the exception of PRoWs. Only PRoWs directly intersected by the proposed alignments have been identified in the following tables. Further work will be undertaken for at a later stage to identify PRoWs indirectly affected by the proposed scheme (i.e. reduction in amenity).
This baseline information is summarised for each option in Tables 13.6 – 13.10 and shown on Figures 13.1.1 – 13.5.4.
13.7.1 Option 1B
Table 13.6 Sensitive receptors within the 200m buffer of Option 1B (Figures 13.1.1 to 13.1.4)
Receptor Description All Travellers Public rights of way 19 PRoWs affected including: Footpath 67/35, Bradwell crossings Footpath 74/21, Cressing Footpath 67/55, Bradwell Footpath 74/34, Cressing Footpath 67/68, Bradwell Footpath 74/35, Cressing Bridleway 72/81, Kelvedon Footpath 74/4, Cressing Footpath 92/7, Kelvedon Footpath 74/3, Cressing Footpath 92/2, Kelvedon Footpath 74/5, Cressing Footpath 92/29, Kelvedon Footpath 74/36, Cressing Footpath 92/4, Kelvedon Footpath 74/17, Cressing Footway/cycleway on north west Footpath 108/51, Silver End (Essex side of A12 Way) Footpath 67/56, Bradwell
199
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Description Vehicle travellers From west to east, the route crosses the River Brain Valley and railway extending (views from the south of Braintree, medium sized arable fields and hedgerows, existing degraded road only) landscape associated with Bradwell Quarry, the River Blackwater valley and the railway parallel to the existing A12. More detail on the landscape character and scenery is provided in Chapter 8 - Landscape and Visual. Public transport Bus stops at Boars Tye Road near the intersection with Lanham Green Road (routes 38, 38A and 803), Lanham Green Road near the intersection with Ashes Road (routes 38, 38A and 803), Goldingham Drive (route 21), Beckers Green Road (route 30), Mill Lane (routes 38 and 38A), Millennium Way and Galleys Corner (route 38 and 38A), Long Green (route 803), London Road (routes 71, 71A, 71C, 71X, 506, 801, 802). Community and Private Assets Private property Residential properties to the north of the existing A120 at Braintree (Goldingham Drive, Shakespeare Close, Galsworthy Close, Swift Close, Marlow Close, Hardy Close, Notley Road). Residential properties to the west of the existing A120 at Braintree (Beckers Green Road, Plain’s Field, Lower King, Middle King, Tanners Meadow, Brick Kiln Way, Dapifer Drive, De-Marci Court, Martens Meadow, Moors Croft, Clarks Wood Drive, Kitchen Field, Coggeshall Hall and Bushey Lane). Residential properties at Tye Green ( Mill Lane and Braintree Road). Residential properties at Cressing (Ashes Road and Lanham Green Road). Residential properties to the north west of the existing A12 (Elm Lane). Community Beckers Green Primary School. facilities Braintree Rugby Club on Beckers Green Road. Marks Tey Point-to-Point course. Potential motor cross track between the A12 and Easthorpe Road (usage to be confirmed). Development land / A12 scheme, Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield. planning applications Local business The George & Dragon on Coggeshall Road (public house). Bradwell Quarry (owned by Hanson UK). Businesses at Galleys Corner including various fast food outlets, Enterprise car rental, car dealerships, petrol station, Premier Inn Braintree and Fowlers Farm (public house). Tesco Superstore on Coggeshall Road. Tourist attractions N/A Agricultural land Cressing Lodge Farmhouse, Lanhams Farmhouse, Langley Farmhouse, Wrights and farms Farmhouse, Sheepcotes Farmhouse, Egypts Farmhouse and Gosling’s Farmhouse. The majority of the buffer is located in agricultural land rated Grade 2 – Very Good, interspersed with areas of Grade 3 – Good to Moderate and urban. Registered Registered common land parcels on Braintree Road (known as Deans Farm) and the common land corner of Lanham Green Road and Boars Tye Road (known as Lanham Green) are within the proposed alignment. Registered common land along Pantlings Lane is located to the south of the alignment, within the 200m buffer zone.
200
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
13.7.2 Option 3
Table 13.7 Sensitive receptors within 200m buffer of Option 3 (Figures 13.2.1 to 13.2.4)
Receptor Description All Travellers Public rights of way 29 PRoWs affected, including: Bridleway 72/84, Coggeshall crossings Footpath 74/21 Cressing on east Footpath 72/18, Coggeshall side of River Brain Footpath 72/13, Coggeshall Footway/cycleway linking Cressing Footpath 72/21, Coggeshall Road with B1018 Footpath 72/53, Coggeshall Footpath 74/3 Cressing Bridleway 72/85, Coggeshall Byway 74/1 Cressing Bridleway 72/86, Coggeshall Footpath 74/25, Cressing Bridleway 72/82, Coggeshall Footpath 111/25, Cressing Footpath 72/29, Coggeshall (Essex Footpath 111/23, Stisted Way) Footpath 67/45 Bradwell Bridleway 72/87, Coggeshall Footpath 67/46 Bradwell Footpath 72/41, Coggeshall Footpath 67/19 Bradwell Footpath 72/66, Coggeshall Footpath 67/20 Bradwell Bridleway 78/2, Feering Footpath 67/47 Bradwell Bridleway 72/42, Feering Bridleway 72/83, Coggeshall Footway/cycleway on north west Footpath 72/17, Coggeshall side of A12 Vehicle travellers From west to east, the route crosses the existing A120, the Blackwater valley, (views from the medium sized arable fields, hedgerows and vegetation associated with river corridors road only) and the railway parallel to the existing A12. More detail on the landscape character and scenery is provided in Chapter 8 - Landscape and Visual. Public transport Bus stops at Millennium Way, Galleys Corner (route 38 and 38A), Chelmer Road (route 38A), Long Green (route 803), A120/Colchester Road (route 70, 803 and route 133), Colne Road (route 70), Cressing Road (routes 621 and 803), Beckers Green Road (route 30), London Road (routes 71, 71A, 71C, 71X, 506, 801, 802). Community and Private Assets Private property Residential properties to the north of A120 at Braintree (Greene View, Mill Park Drive, The Spinney, Mundon Road, Chelmer Road, Lea Close, Thames Close, Stilemans Wood). Residential properties to the west of A120 at Braintree (Beckers Green Road, Plain’s Field, Lower King, Middle King, Tanners Meadow, Brick Kiln Way). Residential properties at Coggeshall (Monkdowns Road, Wisdoms Green, Tey Road, St. Peter’s Road, St. Anne’s Close, Mount Road and Hill Road). Residential properties north of Coggeshall (Colne Road). Community Honywood Community Science School, Coggeshall. facilities St Peters Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School, Coggeshall. Beckers Green Primary School. Marks Tey Point-to-Point course. Potential motor cross track between the A12 and Easthorpe Road (usage to be confirmed). Development land / A12 scheme planning applications
201
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Description Local business Businesses on Priors Way, Coggeshall, including Primo Coffee and Tea Company, Robin Gretorex Wines, Coggeshall Auto Repairs and Servicing and German Sports Car Spares. Businesses at the Chapel Hill Business and Retail Park, including Cineworld Cinema, Nando’s, T.G.I Fridays, Halfords, Pets at Home, American Gold and B&Q. Cherry Lane Garden Centre. Businesses at Galleys Corner including various fast food outlets, Enterprise car rental, car dealerships, petrol station, Premier Inn Braintree and Fowlers Farm (public house). The Dolphin, Coggeshall Road (public house). Coggeshall Town Football Club. Blackwater Aggregates, Church Road. Tourist attractions N/A Agricultural land Cressing Lodge Farmhouse, Whites Hill Farmhouse, Miles Farmhouse, Stockstreet and farms Farmhouse, Grigg’s Farmhouse. The majority of the buffer is located in agricultural land rated Grade 2 – Very Good, interspersed with areas of Grade 3 – Good to Moderate.
13.7.3 Option 4B
Table 13.8 Sensitive receptors within 200m buffer of Option 4B (Figures 13.3.1 to 13.3.4)
Receptor Description All Travellers Public rights of way 16 PRoWs affected, including: Footpath 67/55, Bradwell crossings Footpath 74/21, Cressing on east Footpath 67/68, Bradwell side of River Brain Footpath 92/29, Kelvedon Footway/cycleway linking Cressing Footpath 92/2, Kelvedon Road with B1018 Footpath 92/4, Kelvedon Footpath 74/3, Cressing Footway/cycleway on north west Byway 74/1, Cressing side of A12 Footpath 67/34, Bradwell Footpath 67/16, Bradwell Footpath 67/28, Bradwell Footpath 67/63, Bradwell (Essex Way) Footpath 67/56, Bradwell Footpath 67/35, Bradwell Vehicle travellers From west to east, the route crosses agricultural field parcels, hedgerows, mature (views from the vegetation, existing degraded landscape associated with Bradwell Quarry, medium road only) sized arable parcels and hedgerows, the River Blackwater valley and the railway parallel to the existing A12. More detail on the landscape character and scenery is provided in Chapter 8 - Landscape and Visual. Public transport Bus stops at Millennium Way, Galleys Corner (route 38 and 38A), Chelmer Road (route 38A), Cressing Road (routes 621 and 803), Beckers Green Road (route 30), and Long Green (route 803), London Road (routes 71, 71A, 71C, 71X, 506, 801, 802). Community and Private Assets
202
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Description Private property Residential properties to the north of A120 at Braintree (The Spinney, Mundon Road, Chelmer Road, Lea Close, Thames Close, Stilemans Wood). Residential properties to the west of A120 at Braintree (Beckers Green Road, Plain’s Field, Lower King, Middle King, Tanners Meadow, Brick Kiln Way). Residential properties at Langley Green (Old Road). Residential properties to the north west of the existing A12 (Elm Lane). Residential properties to the north of Feering (Coggeshall Road including Coggeshall Hall). Community Beckers Green Primary School. facilities Marks Tey Point-to-Point course. Potential motor cross track between the A12 and Easthorpe Road (usage to be confirmed). Development land / A12 scheme, Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield. planning applications Local business Bradwell Quarry (owned by Hanson UK). Businesses at Galleys Corner including various fast food outlets, Enterprise car rental, car dealerships, petrol station, Premier Inn Braintree and Fowlers Farm (public house). Businesses at the Chapel Hill Business and Retail Park, including Cineworld Cinema, Nando’s, T.G.I Fridays, Halfords, Pets at Home, American Gold and B&Q. The George & Dragon on Coggeshall Road (public house). Tourist attractions Outskirts of Glazenwood (Non designated Park and Garden) Agricultural land Cressing Lodge Farmhouse, Gosling’s Farmhouse, Scrip’s Farmhouse and Langley and farms Farmhouse The majority of the buffer is located in agricultural land rated Grade 2 – Very Good, interspersed with areas of Grade 3 – Good to Moderate. Registered Registered common land along Pantlings Lane is located to the south of the potential common land alignment, within the 200m buffer zone.
13.7.4 Option 8
Table 13.9 Sensitive receptors within 200m buffer of Option 8 (Figure 13.4.1 to Figure 13.4.4)
Receptor Description All Travellers Public rights of way 17 PRoWS affected, including: Footpath 108/54, Silver End crossings Footpath 74/21, Cressing at tie in of Footpath 108/56, Silver End River Brain junction Footpath 92/31, Kelvedon Footpath 74/34, Cressing Footpath 108/49, Rivenhall Footpath 74/35, Cressing Footpath 92/33, Kelvedon Footpath 74/4, Cressing Footpath 92/17, Kelvedon Footpath 74/5, Cressing Bridleway 92/34, Kelvedon Footpath 74/36, Cressing Footway/cycleway on north east Footpath 74/17, Cressing side of A12 Footpath 67/63 along Essex Way Footpath 108/51, Silver End (Essex Way) Vehicle travellers From west to east, the route crosses the River Brain valley and railway extending (views from the south of Braintree, medium sized arable fields and hedgerows and the railway road only) parallel to the existing A12. More detail on the landscape character and scenery is provided in Chapter 8 - Landscape and Visual. Public transport Bus stops at Goldingham Drive (route 21), Beckers Green Road (route 30), Mill Lane
203
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
(routes 38 and 38A), Millennium Way, Galleys Corner (route 38 and 38A), Long Green (route 803), Lanham Green Road near the intersection with Ashes Road (routes 38, 38A and 803), and Boars Tye Road near the intersection with Lanham Green Road (routes 38, 38A and 803). Community and Private Assets Private property Residential properties to the north of the A120 at Braintree (Goldingham Drive, Shakespeare Close, Galsworthy Close, Swift Close, Marlow Close, Hardy Close, Notley Road). Residential properties to the west of A120 at Braintree (Beckers Green Road, Plain’s Field, Lower King, Middle King, Tanners Meadow, Brick Kiln Way, Dapifer Drive, De-Marci Court, Martens Meadow, Moors Croft, Clarks Wood Drive, Kitchen Field and Bushey Lane). Residential areas at Tye Green (Mill Lane and Braintree Road). Residential properties at Cressing (Ashes Road and Lanham Green Road). Community Beckers Green Primary School. facilities Braintree Rugby Club on Beckers Green Road. Development land / A12 scheme, Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield. planning applications Local business Businesses at Galleys Corner including various fast food outlets, Enterprise car rental, car dealerships, petrol station, Premier Inn Braintree and Fowlers Farm (public house). Essex Auto Salvage, Braintree. Tesco Superstore on Coggeshall Road. Tourist attractions N/A Agricultural land Cressing Lodge Farmhouse, Wrights Farmhouse, Lanhams Farmhouse, Sheepcotes and farms Farmhouse, Parkgate Farmhouse, Hole Farmhouse and Ashman’s Farm house. The majority of the buffer is located in agricultural land rated Grade 2 – Very Good, interspersed with areas of Grade 3 – Good to Moderate. Registered Registered common land parcels on Braintree Road (Deans Farm) and the corner of common land Lanham Green Road and Boars Tye Road (known as Lanham Green) are within the potential alignment.(Lanham Green Common Land – The application for Common Land status has not been confirmed)
13.7.5 Option 9A
Table 13.10 Sensitive receptors within 200m buffer of Option 9A (Figures 13.5.1 to 13.5.4)
Receptor Description All Travellers Public rights of way 16 PRoWs affected, including: Footpath 108/56, Silver End crossings Footpath 74/21, Cressing on east Footpath 108/49, Rivenhall side of River Brain Footpath 92/31, Kelvedon Footway/cycleway linking Cressing Footpath 92/33, Kelvedon Road with B1018 Footpath 92/17, Kelvedon Footpath 74/3, Cressing Bridleway 92/34, Kelvedon Byway 74/1, Cressing Footway/cycleway on north east Footpath 67/34, Bradwell side of A12 Footpath 67/16, Bradwell Footpath 67/28, Bradwell Footpath 67/63, Bradwell (Essex Way) Footpath 108/54, Silver End Vehicle travellers From west to east, the route crosses field parcels, mature vegetation , medium sized (views from the arable fields, hedgerows, the River Blackwater valley and the railway parallel to the road only) existing A12. More detail on the landscape character and scenery is provided in
204
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Chapter 8 - Landscape and Visual. Public transport Bus stops at Millennium Way, Galleys Corner (route 38 and 38A), Cressing Road (routes 621 and 803), Beckers Green Road (route 30), Chelmer Road (route 38A), Long Green (route 803). Community and Private Assets Private property Residential properties to the north of A120 at Braintree (The Spinney, Mundon Road, Chelmer Road, Lea Close, Thames Close, Stilemans Wood). Residential properties to the west of A120 at Braintree (Beckers Green Road, Plain’s Field, Lower King, Middle King, Tanners Meadow, Brick Kiln Way). Residential properties to the north east of Cressing (Links Road). Community Beckers Green Primary School. facilities Braintree Rugby Club. Development land / A12 scheme, Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield planning applications Local business Businesses at Galleys Corner including various fast food outlets, Enterprise car rental, car dealerships, petrol station, Premier Inn Braintree and Fowlers Farm (public house). Businesses at the Chapel Hill Business and Retail Park, including Cineworld Cinema, Nando’s, T.G.I Fridays, Halfords, Pets at Home, American Gold and B&Q. Tourist attractions Outskirts of Glazenwood (Non designated Park and Garden). Agricultural land Cressing Lodge Farmhouse, Gosling’s Farmhouse, Sheepcotes Farmhouse, and farms Parkgate Farmhouse, Hole Farmhouse and Ashman’s Farmhouse. The majority of the buffer is located in agricultural land rated Grade 2 – Very Good, interspersed with areas of Grade 3 – Good to Moderate.
13.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
For each of the options, the potential significant effects have been identified by receptor group (e.g. All Travellers). A description of the potential magnitude of effect to a receptor is provided (e.g. temporary disruption to NMUs), followed by the predicted significance category (or range of categories) in italicised text. An overall evaluation 6-point significance score has been given for each of the routes. This has been determined as the worst case effect for that route and based on professional judgement (e.g. if a very large effect has been determined for that route, then the route as a whole would be considered potentially significant adverse). The methodology for determining the potential effects of each of the options is given in Chapter 13.3.
There would be major beneficial effects associated with each of the options, primarily due to improved connectivity and travelling conditions for vehicles and reduced congestion. The provision of high quality highway infrastructure would provide consistent traffic conditions and reduced fear of accidents, contributing to a beneficial effect for drivers and vehicle travellers.
The construction of each option would also result in beneficial effects, due to the creation of construction jobs in the region for the duration of construction activities. Additional economic benefits may arise due to the use of local services and suppliers. During operation, each of the options would improve access and relieve existing congestion, leading to benefits to the economy due to reduced journey times and improved driver and NMU safety. Improved access and driving conditions may have indirect beneficial effects on businesses in the wider area due to increases in passing trade. These are benefits from the scheme as a whole and not considered route specific benefits. Therefore for the purposes of comparing routes, only route specific effects have been discussed in Chapter 13.8.1 below.
All five options have been identified as potentially having some Large and Very Large adverse effects, primarily associated with temporary disruption to NMUs during construction, permanent loss of best and most versatile
205
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
agricultural land, disruption to local businesses and cumulative effects with other planned schemes such as the A12 improvement works.
In terms of loss of agricultural land, the effects are likely to be very large due to the amount of good quality agricultural land lost. This will be the same for all the routes and would be the same for any route through the area (i.e. is considered an intrinsic effect of constructing the scheme in the area). While it is not possible to mitigate the effects of land take (i.e. reduce the effects), an aspiration will be made to reduce land loss where possible through efficient road design to limit the effects.
13.8.1 Option 1B
All Travellers There would be temporary disruption and diversions to NMUs, including the Essex Way, during construction (Moderate – Large adverse). Bus routes 38, 38A and 803 serving bus stops at Millennium Way, Galleys Corner, Mill Lane, Boars Tye Road and bus routes 71, 71A, 71C, 71X, 506, 801 and 802 serving the bus stop at London Road may experience temporary disruptions and delays as a result of the construction works and associated traffic (Slight – Moderate adverse).
Community and Private Assets
Construction may cause a temporary reduction in amenity for residential properties located to the north of the existing A120 and reduction in amenity and temporary traffic disturbance to those to the north of Tye Green (Braintree Road) and Cressing (Ashes Road and Lanham Green Road) which are located in close proximity to this option (Moderate adverse). The Beckers Green Primary School is located within 200m of the proposed option and may be adversely affected during the construction and operation of this option. Access to the school may also be affected as a result of the works and associated traffic delays (Large adverse). The alignment would result in permanent land take of the western edge of the Marks Tey Point-to-Point course and the majority of a potential motor cross track (Moderate – Large). There is potential for disturbance to the Bradwell Quarry during construction and operation (Moderate adverse). Access to the George & Dragon restaurant on Coggeshall Road, located within 200m of the proposed route, may also be disrupted as a result of the works and associated traffic delays. (Moderate adverse). The Braintree Rugby Club is located within 200m of the proposed route and may be temporarily affected by a reduction in amenity during construction. (Slight). The alignment is located within best and most versatile agricultural land rated Grade 2 (Very Good), interspersed with areas of Grade 3 (Good to Moderate) and therefore both permanent and temporary land take would be required. A number of farmhouses such as Cressing Lodge Farm, Wrights Farm, Lanham’s Farm, Langley Farm and Gosling’s Farm are also located within 200m of the proposed scheme while only a small part of Sheepcotes and Egypts Farms are located within the 200m buffer zone. Local farms and access to them may be disturbed during construction works. (Very Large adverse). The alignment is likely to result in permanent land take of parcels of registered common land on Braintree Road (Deans Farm) and the corner of Lanham Green Road/Boars Tye Road (Lanham Green). At this stage, it is not known whether these parcels are currently used for grazing (Slight – Large adverse). Cumulative effects to people and communities may arise from the construction of the A12 scheme on London Road near Marks Tey and the Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield (Moderate – Large adverse).
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect – due to the large to very large effects - mitigation may be possible.
206
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
13.8.2 Option 3
All Travellers There would be improved connectivity across the existing A120 for NMUs using grade separated crossings, including the intersection with Essex Way (Moderate beneficial). There would be temporary disruption and diversions to NMUs, including the Essex Way during construction (Moderate – Large adverse). Bus routes 38, 38A and 803 serving bus stops at Millennium Way, Galleys Corner, Long Green, bus route 70, 803 and 133 serving the bus stop A120/Colchester Road, bus route 70 serving Colne Road and bus routes 71, 71A, 71C, 71X, 506, 801 and 802 serving the bus stop at London Road may experience temporary disruptions and delays as a result of the construction works and associated traffic (Slight – Moderate adverse).
Community and Private Assets
Construction may cause a reduction in amenity for residential properties located to the north of the existing A120 and at Coggeshall which are located in close proximity to this option (Moderate adverse). The Honywood Community Science School, St Peters Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School and Beckers Green Primary School are located within 200m of the proposed option and may be adversely affected during the construction and operation of this option. Access to the school may also be affected as a result of the works and associated traffic delays (Large adverse). The alignment would result in permanent land take of the western edge of the Marks Tey Point-to-Point course and the majority of a potential motor cross track (Moderate – Large). Local businesses and access provided to them may be disrupted during construction works including those located at Galleys corner, Priors Way, the Chapel Hill Business and Retail Park, the Premier Inn at Braintree, the Cherry Lane Garden centre and the Dolphin at Coggeshall Road and Blackwater Aggregates on Church Road (Moderate – Large adverse). The alignment is located within best and most versatile agricultural land rated Grade 2 (Very Good), interspersed with areas of Grade 3 (Good to Moderate) and therefore both permanent and temporary land take would be required. Cressing Lodge farmhouse is located on the alignment and would require demolition. A number of farmhouses such as Stockstreet, White Hill and Griggs Farms are also located within 200m of the proposed scheme while only a small part of Miles Farm is located within the 200m buffer zone. Local farms and access to them may be disturbed during construction works (Very Large adverse). Cumulative effects to people and communities may arise from the construction of the A12 scheme on London Road near Marks Tey (Moderate – Large adverse).
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect - mitigation may be possible - due to the large to very large effects.
13.8.3 Option 4B
All Travellers There would be temporary disruption and diversions to NMUs, including the Essex Way, during construction (Moderate – Large adverse). Bus routes 38, 38A and 803 serving bus stops at Millennium Way, Galleys Corner and Long Green, bus routes 621 and 803 on Cressing Road and bus routes 71, 71A, 71C, 71X, 506, 801 and 802 serving the bus stop at London Road may experience temporary disruptions and delays as a result of the construction works and associated traffic (Slight – Moderate adverse).
207
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Community and Private Assets
Construction may cause a reduction in amenity for residential properties located to the north of the existing A120 at Braintree and reduction in amenity and temporary traffic disturbance to those at Langley Green (Old Road), Feering (Coggeshall Road) and north of the existing A12 ( Elm Lane)(Moderate adverse). The Beckers Green Primary School is located within 200m of the proposed option and may be adversely affected during the construction and operation of this option. Access to the school may also be affected as a result of the works and associated traffic delays (Large adverse). The alignment would result in permanent land take of the western edge of the Marks Tey Point-to-Point course and the majority of a potential motor cross track (Moderate – Large). There is potential for construction and operation disturbance caused to the Bradwell Quarry (Moderate adverse). Local businesses and access provided to them may be disrupted during construction works including those located at Galleys corner, the Chapel Hill Business and Retail Park, the Premier Inn at Braintree and the George & Dragon restaurant on Coggeshall Road. (Moderate – Large adverse). The alignment is located within best and most versatile agricultural land rated Grade 2 (Very Good), interspersed with areas of Grade 3 (Good to Moderate) and therefore both permanent and temporary land take would be required. Cressing Lodge farmhouse is located on the alignment and would require demolition. Langley and Gosling’s Farmhouses are located entirely within 200m of the proposed scheme while only a small part of Scrip’s Farmhouse is located within the 200m buffer zone. Local farms and access to them may be disturbed during construction works (Very Large adverse). Cumulative effects to people and communities may arise from the construction of the A12 scheme on London Road near Marks Tey and the Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield (Moderate – Large adverse).
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect - mitigation may be possible - due to the large to very large effects.
13.8.4 Option 8
All Travellers There would be temporary disruption and diversions to NMUs, including the Essex Way during construction (Moderate – Large adverse). Bus routes 38, 38A and 803 serving bus stops at Millennium Way, Galleys Corner, Mill Lane, Boars Tye Road may experience temporary disruptions and delays as a result of the construction works and associated traffic (Slight – Moderate adverse).
Community and Private Assets
Construction may cause a reduction in amenity for residential properties located to the north of the existing A120 at Braintree and both a reduction in amenity and temporary traffic disturbance to those at Tye Green (Mill Lane and Braintree Road) and Cressing (Ashes Road and Lanham Green Road) (Moderate adverse). The Beckers Green Primary School is located within 200m of the proposed option and may be adversely affected during the construction and operation of this option. Access to the school may also be affected as a result of the works and associated traffic delays (Large adverse). Local businesses and access provided to them may be disrupted during construction works including those located at Galleys corner, the Premier Inn and the Essex Auto Salvage at Braintree (Moderate – Large adverse). The Braintree Rugby Club is located within 200m of the proposed route and may be temporarily affected by a reduction in amenity during construction. (Slight). The alignment is located within best and most versatile agricultural land rated Grade 2 (Very Good), interspersed with areas of Grade 3 (Good to Moderate) and therefore both permanent and temporary land
208
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
take would be required. Cressing Lodge, Lanhams, Wrights, Parkgate and Hole Farmhouses are located entirely within 200m of the proposed scheme while only a small part of Sheepcotes and Ashman’s Farmhouses are located within the 200m buffer zone. Local farms and access to them may be disturbed during construction works (Very Large adverse). The alignment is likely to result in permanent land take of parcels of registered common land on Braintree Road (Deans Farm) and the corner of Lanham Green Road/Boars Tye Road (Lanham Green). At this stage, it is not known whether these parcels are currently used for grazing (Slight – Large adverse). Cumulative effects to people and communities may arise from the construction of the A12 scheme on London Road near Kelvedon and the Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield (Moderate – Large adverse).
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect - mitigation may be possible - due to the large to very large effects.
13.8.5 Option 9A
All Travellers There would be temporary disruption and diversions to NMUs, including the Essex Way, during construction (Moderate – Large adverse). Bus routes 38, 38A and 803 serving bus stops at Millennium Way, Galleys Corner and Long Green and bus routes 621 and 803 on Cressing Road may experience temporary disruptions and delays as a result of the construction works and associated traffic (Slight – Moderate adverse).
Community and Private Assets
Construction may cause a reduction in amenity for residential properties located to the north of the existing A120 and a reduction in amenity and temporary traffic disturbance to those located to the north east of Cressing (Links Road and Boars Tye Road) (Moderate). The Beckers Green Primary School is located within 200m of the proposed option and may be adversely affected during the construction and operation of this option. Access to the school may also be affected as a result of the works and associated traffic delays (Large adverse). Local businesses and access provided to them may be disrupted during construction works including those located at Galleys corner, the Chapel Hill Business and Retail Park and the Premier Inn (Moderate – Large adverse). The Braintree Rugby Club is located within 200m of the proposed route and may be temporarily affected by a reduction in amenity during construction. (Slight). The alignment is located within best and most versatile agricultural land rated Grade 2 (Very Good), interspersed with areas of Grade 3 (Good to Moderate) and therefore both permanent and temporary land take would be required. Cressing Lodge farmhouse is located on the alignment and would require demolition. Hole, Gosling’s and Parkgate farmhouses are located entirely within 200m of the proposed scheme while only a small part of Sheepcotes and Ashman’s Farms are located within the 200m buffer zone. Local farms and access to them may be disturbed during construction works (Very Large adverse). Cumulative effects to people and communities may arise from the construction of the A12 scheme on London Road near Kelvedon and the Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield (Moderate – Large adverse).
Overall Score: Potential significant adverse effect - mitigation may be possible - due to the large to very large effects/
13.8.6 Summary of Effects
A summary of the identified receptors, the value of those receptors and the potential effects to the receptors is given per route in Table 13.11. 209
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 13-11: Summary of Effects
RECEPTOR OPTION Type Value 1B 3 4B 8 9A
All Travellers Very high - Potentially significant effect – Potentially significant effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – NMUs mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Temporary disruption and diversion to Temporary disruption and diversions to NMUs – Temporary disruption and diversions Temporary disruption and diversions to NUMs – Temporary disruption and diversions to NUMs NMUs, including the Essex Way during Essex Way to NMUs – Essex Way Essex Way – Essex Way construction.
Slight beneficial effect Improved connectivity across existing A120 for NMUs using grade separated crossings, including the intersection with Essex Way
Very high – Slight adverse Slight adverse Slight adverse Slight adverse Slight adverse Bus routes Bus routes (38, 38A, 803, 71, 71A, Bus routes (38, 38A, 803, 70, 133, 71 Bus routes (38, 38A, 803, 621, 71, 71A, 71C, Bus routes (38, 38A, 803) may experience Bus routes (38, 38A, 803 and 621) may 71C, 71X, 506, 801 and 802) may 71A, 71C, 71X, 506, 801 and 802) may Y1X, 506, 801 and 802) may experience temporary disruptions and delays during experience temporary disruptions and delays experience temporary disruptions and experience temporary disruptions and temporary disruptions and delays during construction. during construction. delays during construction. delays during construction. construction.
Community Very high – Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – mitigation Potentially significant adverse – mitigation Potentially significant adverse – and private Agricultural mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible may be possible mitigation may be possible assets land of good Permanent and temporary land take Permanent and temporary land take of Permanent and temporary land take of Grade 2 Permanent and temporary land take of Grade 2 Permanent and temporary land take of Grade to excellent of Grade 2 (very good) and Grade 3 Grade 2 (very good) and Grade 3 (good to (very good) and Grade 3 (good to moderate) (very good) and Grade 3 (good to moderate) 2 (very good) and Grade 3 (good to quality (good to moderate) agricultural land. moderate) agricultural land. Local farms agricultural land. Local farms and access to them agricultural land. Local farms and access to them moderate) agricultural land. Local farms and Local farms and access to them may and access to them may be disturbed may be disturbed during construction works. may be disturbed during construction works. access to them may be disturbed during be disturbed during construction during construction works. Cressing Lodge farmhouse is located on the Within 200m of proposed route: Cressing Lodge, construction works. works. Cressing Lodge farmhouse is located on alignment and would require demolition. Wrights, Parkgate and Hole Farmhouses. Cressing Lodge farmhouse is located on the Within 200m of proposed route: the alignment and would require Within 200m of proposed route: Langley and Within 200m of buffer zone: small part of alignment and would require demolition. Cressing Lodge Farm, Wrights Farm, demolition. Gosling’s Farmhouses. Sheepcotes and Ashman’s Farmhouses. Within 200m of proposed route: Hole, Lanham’s Farm, Langley Farm and Within 200m of proposed route: Within 200m of buffer zone: small part of Scrip’s Gosling’s and Parkgate Farmhouses. Gosling’s Farm. Stockstreet, White Hill and Griggs Farm. Farmhouse. Within 200m of buffer zone: small part of Within 200m of buffer zone: small part Within 200m of buffer zone: small part of Sheepcotes and Ashman’s Farm. of Sheepcotes and Eygpts Farms Miles Farm. Very high – Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – access to effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible schools Access to Beckers Green Primary Disturbance during construction and Access to Beckers Green Primary School may be Access to Beckers Green Primary School may be Access to Beckers Green Primary School may School may be affected from works operation to the Honywood Community affected from works and associated traffic delays. affected from works and associated traffic delays. be affected from works and associated traffic and associated traffic delays. Science School, St Peters Church of delays. England Voluntary Controlled Primary School and Beckers Green Primary School. Access to school’s as well as traffic delays may also be experienced during construction. High – Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effects – Potentially significant adverse effects – Potentially significant adverse effects – Potentially significant adverse effects – reduction in effects – mitigation may be mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible amenity to possible Cumulative effects to people and Cumulative effects to people and communities Cumulative effects to people and communities Cumulative effects to people and communities residential Cumulative effects to people and communities may arise from the from construction to London Road near Marks from construction to London Road near Kelvedon from construction to London Road near properties communities from construction to construction of the A12 scheme on Tey and the Integrated Waste Management and the Integrated Waste Management Facility Kelvedon and the Integrated Waste London Road near Marks Tey and the London Road near Marks Tey Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield. (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield. Management Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Integrated Waste Management Airfield. Facility (IWMF) at Rivenhall Airfield Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Slight adverse effect Temporary reduction in amenity and Possible reduction in amenity for Possible reduction in amenity for residential Possible reduction in amenity for residential Possible reduction in amenity for residential traffic disturbance to residential north residential properties located to the north properties located to the north of the existing properties located to the north of the existing properties located to the north of the existing of Tye Green and Cressing. of the existing A120 and at Coggesfall A120 and reduction in amenity and temporary A120 and reduction in amenity and temporary A120 and reduction in amenity and temporary (located in close proximity to this option). traffic disturbance to those at Langley Green (Old traffic disturbance to those at Tye Green (Mill traffic disturbance to those north east of Road), Feering (Coggeshall Road) and north of Lane and Braintree Road) and Cressing (Ashes Cressing (Links Road and Boards Tye Road). the existing A12. Road and Lanham Green Road).
210
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
RECEPTOR OPTION Type Value 1B 3 4B 8 9A High – Potentially significant adverse No effect No effect Potentially significant adverse effects - No effect registered effects -mitigation may be possible No common land No common land mitigation may be possible No common land common land Permanent land take of parcels of Permanent land take of parcels of registered used regularly registered common land on Braintree common land on Braintree Road (Deans Farm) Road (Deans Farm) and the corner of and the corner of Lanham Green Lanham Green Road/Boards Tye Road (Lanham Green). Medium – Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – No effect No effect landtake of effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible No land take of business No land take of business businesses Permanent landtake of the western Permanent land take of the western edge Permanent land take of the western edge of the edge of the Marks Tey Point-to-Point of the Marks Tey Point-to-Point course Marks Tey Point-to-Point course and the majority course and the majority of a potential and the majority of a potential motor cross of a potential motor cross track. motor cross track. track. Medium – Slight adverse effect Potentially significant adverse effect – Slight adverse effect to significant adverse- Slight adverse effect to significant adverse- Slight adverse effect - Potentially access for Potential for disturbance at Bradwell mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible significant adverse effect – mitigation may businesses Quarry during construction and Local businesses and access provided to Potential for disturbance at Bradwell Quarry Local businesses and access provided to them be possible operation. them may be disrupted during during construction and operation. may be disrupted during construction (those at: Local businesses and access provided to Access to the George and Dragon construction (those at: Galleys Corner, Local businesses and access provided to them Galleys Corner, the Premier Inn and the Essex them may be disrupted during construction restaurant on Coggeshall Road may Priors Way, the Chapel Hill Business and may be disrupted during construction (those at: Auto Salvage at Braintree (those at: Galleys Corner, the Chapel Hill be affected as well as possible traffic Retail Park, the Premier Inn at Braintree, Galleys Corner, the Chapel Hill Business and Temporary reduction in amenity during Business and Retail Park and the Premier Inn delays. the Cherry Lane Garden Centre and the Retail Park, the Premier Inn at Braintree and the construction at the Braintree Rugby Club. at Braintree). Temporary reduction in amenity Dolphin at Coggeshall Road and George and Dragon restaurant on Coggeshall Temporary reduction in amenity during during construction at the Braintree Blackwater Aggregates on Church Road). Road). construction at the Braintree Rugby Club. Rugby Club. 6 point Scale Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation Potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible may be possible may be possible may be possible
211
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
13.9 Mitigation and opportunities
With further design refinement and the implementation of mitigation measures both during construction and operation, it is considered likely that some of the potential effects identified in Chapter 13.8 could be avoided or reduced. Potential mitigation measures, both embedded in the design (i.e. NMU crossings, landscaping, noise bunds) and additional, are outlined in Chapter 13.8.1 and 13.8.2.
13.9.1 Construction
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.
13.9.2 Operation
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.
The design of a preferred option will be developed in accordance with DMRB and incorporate embedded mitigation to minimise adverse amenity effects associated with air quality, visual and noise effects (refer to Chapter 6 – Air Quality, Chapter 8 – Landscape and Visual and Chapter 12 – Noise and Vibration). Embedded mitigation may include (but not be limited to) the following:
Keeping the vertical alignment low in the landscape to reduce landscape and visual effects.
Incorporate mounding and blend earthworks into natural flowing contours, including the consideration of the appropriateness to return land to agricultural use.
Low noise road surfacing and bunding /noise walls to reduce the traffic noise.
Potential effects to PRoWs and NMUs would be minimised as far as possible via the development of NMU 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 NMU groups and would guide the final design of PRoW interfaces with the proposed scheme. The final design would seek to avoid stopping up PRoWs, limit the length of NMU diversions and ensure all works are disability compliant.
13.10 Scoping Assessment
13.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration in EIA for preferred option
Based on the findings of this Stage 1 EAR, it is recommended that the following issues are further considered for the preferred option during the next stage of the EIA process:
All Travellers
o Temporary and permanent changes to NMUs and PRoWs (including amenity) and the potential effects on NMUs.
212
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
o Severance (both vehicle travellers and NMUs).
o Temporary and permanent changes to accessibility and availability of public transport.
o Effects on driver stress and views from the road associated with the preferred route.
Community and Private Assets
o Temporary and permanent changes to amenity for local residents, businesses and community facilities.
o Temporary and permanent effects to private, public and commercial property, including changed access arrangements.
o Identification of temporary and permanent land take of agricultural land, particularly best and most versatile agricultural land and registered common land (permanent land take only).
Temporary and permanent effects on the economy and employment.
13.10.2 Recommended scope and approach to EIA
The scope of the EIA for a preferred option would be similar to the scope presented in Chapter 13.1 of this chapter. The EIA process would be undertaken in accordance with DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 6 (Land Use), Part 8 (Pedestrian, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects) and Part 9 (Vehicle Travellers) as well as the relevant legislation and policy (as outlined in Section 13.2). The outcomes of ongoing consultation with the community and key stakeholders (such as the relevant councils, community groups and NMU groups) will be considered throughout the EIA process.
It is recommended that surveys and site visits are undertaken to gain more baseline information on the following: Soil surveys to identify the extent of best and most versatile agricultural land within the study area for the preferred option. Site walkover to identify whether any areas of registered common land or other public land directly affected by the preferred option are currently in use (e.g. potential motor cross track between the A12 and Easthorpe Road). Further planning advice would be sought regarding potential effects on registered common land.
NMU count surveys by a third party contractor are ongoing. These are being undertaken at 51 sites along the A120. Counts will be categorised by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians and the outputs of the surveys will be analysed and the findings will be incorporated into ongoing design development and environmental impact assessment work.
13.11 Chapter References Braintree District Council (2011), Local Plan 2011-2026. Available online at: http://www.braintree.gov.uk/info/200230/ldf_and_planning_policy/251/site_allocations_and_development_ management_plan. Accessed September 2016. Colchester Borough Council, (2015). Colchester Strategic Plan. Available online at: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=16988&p=0 Accessed July 2016. Colchester Borough Council (2008), Current Local Plan 2001-2021. Amended 2014. Available online at: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/article/13289/Current-Local-Plan-2001-2021 Accessed September 2016. Colchester Borough Council (2001). Transport for Colchester. Available online at: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=840&p=0 Accessed July 2016 Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). National Planning Practice Guidance ‘ Open space, sports and recreational facilities, public rights of way and local green space. Available online at:
213
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities- public-rights-of-way-and-local-green-space/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities/ Accessed July 2016 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf Accessed July 2016 Department of Health (2011). Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Call to Action on Obesity in England. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213720/dh_130487.pdf Accessed July 2016 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2009). Safeguarding our soils: A strategy for England. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69261/pb13297-soil- strategy-090910.pdf. Accessed September 2016. Department for Transport (2014). National Policy Statement for National Networks Essex County Council (2016), Map of Public Rights of Way. Available online at: http://www.essexhighways.org/Getting-Around/Public-Rights-of-Way/PRoW-Map.aspx. Accessed August 2016. Essex County Council (2011). Essex Transport Strategy Highways England (2015). Interim Advice Note 125/15 Environmental Assessment. Available online at: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ians/pdfs/ian125r2.pdf Accessed July 2016. Accessed July 2016. The Highways Agency (2001). DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 6, Land Use. Available online at: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/section3/11s3p06.pdf Accessed July 2016. The Highways Agency (1993a). DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 8, Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects. Available online at: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/section3/11s3p08.pdf Accessed July 2016. The Highways Agency (1993b). DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 9, Vehicle Travellers. Available online at: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/section3/11s3p09.pdf Accessed July 2016.
214
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14. Road drainage and the water environment
14.1 Scope of assessment
The road drainage and the water environment assessment covers the potential effects of the construction and operation of the options on flood risk, hydromorphology (including the Water Framework Directive) and surface water quality. At this stage this is a high level assessment. The chapter identifies specific features of the water environment (such as individual water bodies, watercourses and floodplains) and the potential impacts on these attributes (including flow conveyance and the potential for flood storage, hydromorphology and surface water quality). The assessment study area encompasses a 200m buffer around each option.
14.2 Policy and guidance
14.2.1 Review of relevant legislation and policy
14.2.1.1 European Union and UK Legislation
The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is responsible for all aspects of water policy in England. Management and enforcement of this water policy is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. Some of the key current legislation relating to the water environment is given below: European Union Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC); Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 (SI 3242/2003); Flood Risk (England and Wales) Regulations 2009; Flood and Water Management Act 2010; Sustainable Drainage (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2012; Sustainable Drainage (Approval and Adoption) (England) Order 2012; Sustainable Drainage (Enforcement) (England) Order 2012; Sustainable Drainage (Appeals) (England) Regulations 2012; Water Resources Act 1991; Environment Act 1995; Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations 2009; Control of Pollution (Applications, Appeals and Registers) Regulations 1996 (SI1996/2971); Environmental Protection Act 1990; Land Drainage Act 1991 and 1994; Water Act 2003; and Control of Pollution (Consents for Discharge) (Secretary of State Functions) Regulations 1989.
14.2.1.2 National policy drivers
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG, 2012) and accompanying National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was published in March 2012 and supersedes the former topic based Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS). The NPPF (DCLG, 2012) provides guidance and direction to local planning authorities and outlines the process by which they must take into account flood risk as an integral part of the planning process.
215
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.2.2 Overview of relevant guidance
Other relevant guidance includes the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines, the Memorandum of Understanding between the Environment Agency and the Highways Agency on Highways Issues (dated November 2009) and the Draft National Networks National Policy Statement. The National Networks Policy Statement sets out the need for development (including roads and rail projects) and provides the policy against which decisions on major projects is made. Guidance is also provided by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) covering design and operation guidance of structures such as culverts and outfalls.
14.3 Definition of significant effects
This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the legislation and guidance identified in Section 14.2 and using the guidance contained in DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10, HD45/09 Road Drainage and the Water Environment (thereafter referred to as HD45/09) (Highways Agency, 2003). Where appropriate, informed professional judgement is also used to inform the assessment methodology, primarily in geomorphology, where there is a lack of guidance to date. Flood risk has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, 2012) and the accompanying online flood risk guidance.
14.3.1 Importance (sensitivity)
An initial importance/sensitivity for each attribute of the surface water environment has been assigned to each receptor in accordance with the criteria provided in Table 14-1. A feature is defined as a physical entity such as a watercourse, pond or floodplain. Rather than assigning a level of importance to a feature as a whole, the importance of each attribute of that feature has been identified. Table 14-1 below has been used as a guide, alongside professional judgement where appropriate.
Table 14-1 : Criteria to assess the importance/sensitivity of receptors
Sensitivity of Typical descriptors receptor
Very High Flood risk and drainage: Floodplain or defence protecting more than 100 residential properties from flooding. Geomorphology and water quality: Water Framework Directive overall status of ‘High’. A watercourse that appears to be in complete natural equilibrium and exhibits a range of natural morphological features (such as pools and riffles). There is a diverse range of fluvial processes present, free from any modification or anthropogenic influence. European Commission (EC) Designated Salmonid/Cyprinid fishery. Site protected/designated under EC or UK habitat legislation (Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Water Protection Zone, Ramsar site, salmonid water) and or species protected by EC legislation. Watercourse widely used for recreation, directly related to watercourse quality (e.g. swimming).
High Flood risk and drainage: Floodplain or defence protecting between 1 and 100 residential properties or industrial premises from flooding. Geomorphology and water quality: Water Framework Directive overall status of ‘Good’. A watercourse that appears to be in natural equilibrium and exhibits a range of natural morphological features (such as pools and riffles). There is a diverse range of fluvial processes present, with very limited signs of modification or other anthropogenic influences. Major Cyprinid fishery. Species protected under EC or UK legislation. Watercourse used regionally for recreation.
Medium Flood risk and drainage: Floodplain or defence protecting 10 or fewer industrial properties from flooding. Geomorphology and water quality: Water Framework Directive overall status of ‘Moderate’. A watercourse showing signs of modification, recovering to a natural equilibrium, and exhibiting a limited range of natural morphological features (such as pools and riffles). The watercourse is one with a limited range of fluvial processes and is affected by modification or other anthropogenic influences. Watercourse not widely used for recreation or limited local use, or recreation use not directly related to watercourse quality.
216
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Sensitivity of Typical descriptors receptor
Low Flood risk and drainage: Floodplain with limited constraints and a low probability of flooding of residential and industrial properties. Geomorphology and water quality: Water Framework Directive overall status of ‘Poor’ or ‘Bad’. A highly modified watercourse that has been changed by channel modification or other anthropogenic pressures. The watercourse exhibits no morphological diversity and has a uniform channel, showing no evidence of active fluvial processes and highly likely to be affected by modification. Heavily engineered or artificially modified and could dry up during summer months. Fish sporadically present or restricted; no species of conservation concern. Not used for recreation purposes.
14.3.2 Potential significant effects
Each crossing or location of impact has been assigned a magnitude of impact based on a high level assessment. This has been undertaken having regard for the number and location of crossings as indicated in Table 14-2, below.
Table 14-2 : Assessment criteria for estimating the magnitude of impacts
Magnitude of Typical Criteria Descriptors Impact
Major Adverse Flood risk and drainage: Results in an increase of peak flood level (1% annual probability) >100 mm. Geomorphology and water quality: Causes deterioration in the overall water body status and prevents the water body from achieving an overall status of ‘Good’. Failure of hydromorphological elements (morphology, quantity and dynamics of flow) as a result of the works. Loss or extensive damage to habitat due to extensive modification. Replacement of a large extent of the natural bed and/or banks with artificial material. Extensive change to channel planform. Failure of both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants in HAWRAT (Method A, Annex I) and compliance failure with EQS values (Method B). Calculated risk of pollution from a spillage >2% annually (Spillage Risk Assessment, Method D, Annex I). Loss or extensive change to a fishery. Loss or extensive change to a designated Nature Conservation Site.
Moderate Adverse Flood Risk and Drainage: Results in an increase of peak flood level (1% annual probability) >50 mm. Geomorphology and water quality: Prevents a water body from achieving an overall status of ‘Good’. Failure of one or more hydromorphological elements (morphology, quantity and dynamics of flow) as a result of the works. Partial loss or damage to habitat due to modifications. Replacement of the natural bed and/or banks with artificial material (total length is more than 3% of water body length). Failure of both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants in HAWRAT (Method A, Annex I) but compliance with EQS values (Method B). Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >1% annually and <2% annually. Partial loss in productivity of a fishery.
Minor Adverse Flood Risk and Drainage: Results in increase of peak flood level (1% annual probability) >10mm. Geomorphology and water quality: Potential for failure of one of the hydromorphological elements (morphology, quantity and dynamics of flow) as a result of the works. Slight change/deviation from baseline conditions or partial loss or damage to habitat due to modifications. Failure of either soluble or sediment-bound pollutants in HAWRAT. Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >0.5% annually and <1% annually.
Negligible Flood risk and drainage: Negligible change in peak flood level (1% annual probability) <+/- 10 mm. Geomorphology and water quality: No alteration to hydromorphological elements. Very slight change from surface water baseline conditions, approximating to a ‘no change’ situation. No risk identified by HAWRAT (Pass both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants). Risk of pollution from spillages <0.5%.
Minor Beneficial Flood risk and drainage: Results in a reduction of peak flood level (1% annual probability) >10 mm. Geomorphology and water quality: Potential for improvements in one of the hydromorphological elements (morphology, quantity and dynamics of flow) as a result of the works. Slight change/deviation from baseline conditions or partial improvement or gain in riparian or in-channel habitat.
217
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Magnitude of Typical Criteria Descriptors Impact HAWRAT assessment of either soluble or sediment-bound pollutants becomes ‘Pass’ from an existing site where the baseline was a ‘Fail’ condition. Calculated reduction in existing spillage risk by 50% or more (when existing spillage risk is <1% annually).
Moderate Beneficial Flood risk and drainage: Results in a reduction of peak flood level (1% annual probability) >50 mm. Geomorphology and water quality: Provides improvements to the water body that could lead to it achieving an overall status of ‘Good’. Improvement in one or more hydromorphological elements (morphology, quantity and dynamics of flow) as a result of the works. Partial creation of both in-channel and riparian habitat. Removal of an existing superfluous structure or artificial channel bed/bank. HAWRAT assessment of both soluble and sediment bound. Pollutants Becomes ‘Pass’ from an existing site where the baseline was a ‘Fail’ condition. Calculated reduction in existing spillage by 50% or more (when existing spillage risk >1% annually).
Major Beneficial Flood risk and drainage: Results in a reduction of peak flood level (1% annual probability) >100 mm. Geomorphology and water quality: The water body improves in status from the current overall water body status and the improvements could lead to achieving ‘Good Status’. Extensive creation of both in-channel and riparian habitat, vastly improving the water body from baseline conditions. Removal of an existing superfluous structure or artificial channel bed/bank. Removal of existing polluting discharge, or removing the likelihood of polluting discharges occurring to a watercourse.
From this an overall indicative significance rating will be determined which will then be used to compare the potential effect of each option as indicated in Table 14-3.
Table 14-3 : Matrix for determination of impact significance
Magnitude Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Importance Very High Neutral Moderate / Large Large / Very Large Very Large High Neutral Slight / Moderate Moderate/ Large Large / Very Large Medium Neutral Slight Moderate Large Low Neutral Neutral Slight Slight / Moderate
For the purposes of the Environmental Appraisal Report, the potential effects have been assessed on a numbered scoring system as outlined in Chapter 4. The scores range from 1 (significant adverse effect – not possible to mitigate) to 5 (significant beneficial effect) with a score of 0 showing no effect. For the purposes of this assessment, a potentially significant adverse effect can be taken as an effect moderate and above.
14.4 Data sources and stakeholder engagement
A desk based assessment has been undertaken to inform the initial phase of the A120 scheme; this has included a review of the following: Contemporary OS maps; Essex County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (Capita Symonds 2013); Detailed River Network and National Receptor Dataset (geospatial data available from the Environment Agency Data Share); Environment Agency ‘Flood Map for Planning’ (available from Environment Agency Open Data and online); Updated Flood Map for Surface Water (available from Environment Agency Open Data and online); Environment Agency ‘Risk of Flooding from Reservoirs’ (available online); 218
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Groundwater Flood Risk (available from Environment Agency Data Share); Essex County Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (URS, 2015); Catchment Data Explorer (Environment Agency source); Geology and soil maps; Current aerial photography; Historic maps; Designated areas; Hydrological information; Environment Agency (2016) “What’s in your backyard”; and Existing Water Framework Directive status and objectives for the 2015 River Basin Management Plans (Defra 2015).
No specific stakeholder engagement has been undertaken to date with respect to hydromorphology (and Water Framework Directive) or surface water quality. It is proposed that meetings are held with both the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority at a later date to discuss the A120 scheme as the options are developed.
14.5 Field surveys and modelling
An initial assessment of the water environment including flood risk, hydromorphology (including the Water Framework Directive) and water quality has been made through a targeted site walkover. The site walkover was undertaken on 20th April 2016 by a geomorphologist and a hydrologist. The survey covered key watercourses crossed by the proposed scheme at points accessible by public rights of way. This has provided an understanding of the baseline conditions of some of the key watercourses to inform this phase of the A120 scheme. A more detailed site walkover is proposed following selection of a preferred option.
No hydraulic modelling has been undertaken of any of the watercourses at this stage.
14.6 Assumptions and uncertainties
The provisional assessment provided within this chapter is based on information available to date, with no detailed modelling of flood risk or water quality having been undertaken. The assessment has been drawn from informed professional judgement.
The assessment of fluvial flood risk impacts is based on information on flood extents readily available from the Environment Agency at the time of this assessment (Environment Agency website, accessed 2016). The Environment Agency undertakes a continual programme of model updates; consequently flood extents are subject to change. Liaison with the Environment Agency as part of this study has not identified any imminent updates to the hydraulic models available that are transected by the A120 scheme.
The assessment is based on high-level information and will be predominantly desk based. The potential impacts and mitigation are based on professional judgement; these may change during later phases when additional or updated information and data is available. Only initial contact has been made with key stakeholders and further consultation would be sought during the later phases of the development of the scheme.
The key consultees for flood risk, geomorphology and Water Framework Directive and water quality are: Environment Agency; and, Essex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority.
219
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.7 Environmental baseline description
14.7.1 Flood risk
Please refer to Figure 14.1.1 for fluvial flood risk, Figure 14.2.1 for surface water flood risk and Figure 14.3.1 for waterbodies and abstraction sites for all options.
14.7.1.1 Fluvial flood risk
There are four watercourses that are designated as Main Rivers in the study area: the River Brain, the Rivenhall Brook, the River Blackwater and the Domsey Brook. The River Brain runs in a south-easterly direction from the north-west of Braintree and is fed by several tributaries along its length. The River Blackwater also flows in a south-easterly direction before flowing south to south-west after passing Coggeshall.
Within the study area there are also a number of Ordinary Watercourses (non-statutory Main-River). An overview of all of the watercourses crossed by the A120 scheme is summarised in Chapter 14.7.2.
14.7.1.2 Groundwater flood risk
According to British Geological Survey mapping (BGS website, accessed September 2016), the majority of the study area is underlain by superficial deposits of Till and Glacial Sand and Gravel with a small band of Alluvial deposits south of Braintree. These are underlain by the Thanet Sand Formation and Lambeth Group (undifferentiated). The Mid-Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (Scott-Wilson, 2007) indicates there are no records of groundwater flooding available. There are no records of groundwater flooding along the proposed option routes and therefore the groundwater flood risk is classified as ‘Low’.
The Environment Agency’s ‘Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding’ dataset identifies the majority of the study area, for all options, as being within zones with less than 25% of the area susceptible to groundwater flooding. However, the areas adjacent to the River Blackwater are typically classified as having a greater percentage of the area susceptible to groundwater flooding.
14.7.1.3 Sewer flood risk
Supporting figures to the Mid-Essex SFRA (Scott-Wilson, 2007) contain no records of sewer flooding within the study area.
14.7.1.4 Flood risk receptors
Table 14-4 provides an overview and classification of the value of each flood risk receptors identified within the study area and a description of the potential risk of flooding. A sensitivity/importance has been applied to the receptor, as described in Table 14.1.
Table 14-4 : 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
220
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Receptor Description Sensitivity/importance 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
14.7.2 Geomorphology and Water Quality
There are a total of 28 watercourses (4 of which are designated as ‘Main River’ by the Environment Agency; the remaining 24 are a combination of local field drains and small watercourses) potentially crossed or discharged to by the A120 scheme as well as two ponds and two lakes lying within the proposed options footprints. Typically the watercourses can be classified as a series of drains and small tributaries that feed the River Blackwater, River Brain and Domsey Brook, the three key watercourses within the study area (as described in Section 2). Table 14-5 provides an overview of the watercourses and their indicative importance (sensitivity) following completion of a desk study and initial site walkover. These will be updated accordingly following site verification for assessment at later stages of the PCF process.
The study area is predominantly rural with a number of small farm dwellings and small villages. Braintree is the main urban area within the study area, with urban runoff likely to feed into the River Brain and River Blackwater. The study area falls within a surface water safeguard zone (ID: SWSGZ434) for pesticides, and is within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) for both surface waters and groundwater, which also includes the majority of northern Essex and Suffolk.
The study area lies within three Water Framework Directive water body catchments which are defined by the Environment Agency and given classifications based on the legislation. The water body status/potential is given a classification of Bad, Poor, Moderate or Good depending on the state of a number of quality elements, including biology, physico-chemical and hydromorphology. The statuses for the three water bodies are detailed below: River Brain (GB105037041140) – Moderate Potential; River Blackwater (Combined Essex) (GBB105037033870) – Moderate Potential; and Domsey Brook (GB105037033870) – Good Potential
Table 14-5 : Baseline overview of watercourses, ponds and lakes
Impacted Receptor Description Importance route options
River Brain Tributary of the River Blackwater. Noted on site to have a sinuous planform Medium 1B, 8 with a uniform, trapezoidal cross-section. Embanked in reaches
River Blackwater Sinuous planform with a pool-riffle sequence. Noted to become impacted by Medium 1B, 3, 4B, 8, 9A man-made activities in locale. Minimal areas of erosion and deposition observed
Domsey Brook Not observed on site. Catchment achieving Good Potential under the Water High 1B, 3, 4B Framework Directive
Robin’s Brook Observed to be a modified, straightened channel at the location surveyed with Low 3 a uniform cross-section.
Braintree Road Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 1B, 8 watercourse and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
Ashes Road Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 1B, 8 watercourse (east) and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
221
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Impacted Receptor Description Importance route options
Ashes Road Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 1B, 8 watercourse (west) and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
Ashes Farm Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 1B, 8 watercourse and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
Rolphs Cottages Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 1B, 8, 9A watercourse and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
Allshot’s Farm Watercourse not surveyed. Aerial imagery suggests a sinuous planform with Low 1B watercourse some riparian vegetated corridor. Importance score is indicative and to be confirmed on site
Felixhall Park Watercourse not surveyed. Aerial imagery suggests a sinuous planform with Low 1B, 4B watercourse some riparian vegetated corridor. Importance score is indicative and to be confirmed on site
Cogges Hall Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 1B, 4B watercourse and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
Threadkells Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 1B, 4B watercourse and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
Domsey Chase Watercourse not surveyed. Aerial imagery suggests a sinuous planform with Low 1B, 3, 4B watercourse some riparian vegetated corridor. Importance score is indicative and to be confirmed on site
Unnamed Watercourse not surveyed. Aerial imagery suggests a sinuous planform with Low 3, 4B watercourse some riparian vegetated corridor. Importance score is indicative and to be confirmed on site
Hanwick Farm Observed to be an incised and overgrown channel. Substantially shaded by Low 3 watercourse brambles, nettles and trees
Coggeshall Road Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 4B watercourse and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
Prior’s Wood Modified watercourse with a trapezoidal cross-section. Typically embanked Low 3 watercourse and minimal vegetated riparian buffer
Doghouse Road Straightened road drain with grass lining. Dry in places at the time of survey Low 3 watercourse (east)
Woodland Straightened, over-deep field drain forming the boundary between agricultural Low 3 watercourse fields. Watercourse found to be dry at the time of survey
Tey Road Straightened watercourse with steep high banks. Substrate observed to Low 3 watercourse consist of silt, with some gravels in faster flowing reaches.
Old Road Watercourse not surveyed. Aerial imagery suggests a sinuous planform with Low 3 watercourse some riparian vegetated corridor. Importance score is indicative and to be confirmed on site
Lanham Wood Small artificially straightened channel with an over-deep cross-section. Silt Low 3, 4B, 9A watercourse bed substrate
Park Road Small field drain with a straightened planform. Dry at the time of survey Low 8, 9A watercourse
Tributary 1 River Watercourse not surveyed. Aerial imagery suggests a sinuous planform with Low 8, 9A Blackwater some riparian vegetated corridor. Importance score is indicative and to be confirmed on site
Tributary 2 River Watercourse not surveyed. Aerial imagery suggests a sinuous planform with Low 8, 9A Blackwater some riparian vegetated corridor. Importance score is indicative and to be
222
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Impacted Receptor Description Importance route options confirmed on site
Tributary 3 River Watercourse not surveyed. Aerial imagery suggests a sinuous planform with Low 9A Blackwater some riparian vegetated corridor. Importance score is indicative and to be confirmed on site
Links Road ponds Not surveyed to date. Appear to be small ponds located near the road Low 4B, 9A
Ambridge Road Not surveyed to date. Appear to be small ponds located near the road Low 3 pond
Braintree Road Not surveyed to date. Appear to be small ponds located near the road Low 1B, 8 pond
Unnamed pond Not surveyed to date. Appear to be small artificial ponds Low 3, 4B, 9A
Bradwell Quarry Not surveyed to date. A lake likely to be a former gravel pit located within Low 1B, 4B lake Bradwell Quarry
Long Green Road Not surveyed to date. Appears to be a medium size lake located near the road Low 3, 4B, 9A lake
14.8 Options evaluation – potential significant effects identified
14.8.1 Option 1B
14.8.1.1 Flood risk
Fluvial flood risk
The Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning (Environment Agency website, accessed September 2016) indicates that the River Brain is associated with a relatively narrow floodplain (predominantly Flood Zone 3), both upstream and downstream of where the route option crosses the watercourse. The route option could increase water levels and consequently flood risk upstream towards Braintree if it encroaches into the floodplain.
The route crosses the River Blackwater where Flood Zone 3 is shown to be approximately 160m wide. Encroachment into the floodplain could potentially increase flood risk upstream. There are no properties within 1km, upstream or downstream, on either the River Brain or River Blackwater.
Where the A120 scheme ties into the new A12, it is close to the Domsey Brook. At present the A120 does not encroach into the Flood Zones associated with this watercourse but there is potential for the junction layout to alter this, which could remove floodplain and increase flood risk.
The remainder of the A120 scheme footprint is located within an area of Flood Zone 1.
Surface water flood risk
Surface water flood risk is present along the route option at locations where the option crosses minor (non-‘Main River’) watercourses. The risk is classified as ‘High’ immediately adjacent to all of the watercourses, with varying extents of ‘Medium’ and ‘Low’ risk, depending on the size of the watercourse.
As well as the flow paths along the watercourses, several additional flow paths have been identified along the length of the proposed option. The first flow path identified is south of Link’s Wood flowing east along the south of the woods before flowing south past Silver End. Another flow path is crossed by the potential alignment to the south west of Scrip’s Farm. The final flow path is located to the east of the proposed River Blackwater
223
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
crossing. The surface water flow paths are shown to have a range of flood risks (from ‘Low’ to ‘High’) by the Environment Agency Risk of Flooding from Surface Water mapping.
Two locations of surface water ponding are also identified to the west of Bradwell Quarry with another area indicated against the existing A12 embankment. All three areas of ponding are designated with flood risk ranging from ‘Low’ to ‘High’.
Reservoir failure flood risk
The alignment for this option crosses one area designated by Environment Agency mapping as being at risk of flooding in the event of reservoir failure. The location is immediately east of the proposed crossing of the River Blackwater and extends east to just past the reservoir itself. Therefore the risk of flooding from reservoir defence failure is classified as ‘Low’.
Groundwater and sewer flooding
Environment Agency mapping indicates the flood risk from groundwater flooding is typically low along the Option 1B chainage. The risk of flooding from sewer flooding is assessed as low risk for Option 1B due to the Mid-Essex SFRA and supporting historic flooding figure.
Water supply infrastructure failure
Areas of the option within cutting could be at risk of flooding should a water main fail and the topography of the land causes flows to reach the cutting. Given that the majority of the route of this option is through rural areas, with likely few services, the risk is considered to be low.
Flood Defence Failure
A review of the Environment Agency’s mapping of Areas Benefitting from Defences (Environment Agency website, accessed September 2016) has not identified any formal flood defences in the vicinity of the Option 1B. Therefore the risk of flood defence failure placing the option at risk is considered low. It should be noted that there may be informal defences along the route that provide a form of flood protection not identified on the mapping.
14.8.1.2 Geomorphology and Water Quality
Option 1B would require the culverting of eight watercourses, new bridges/bridge extensions on three watercourses, outfall drainage to six watercourses and the partial infill of one lake. These activities would require construction within the watercourses and the adjacent floodplain leading to potential for fine sediment input as well as changes to drainage (i.e. runoff). This could potentially lead to changes in the flow and sediment processes within the watercourses and alter the wider catchment processes. Works would also require the removal of vegetation in the riparian zone.
During operation of the A120 scheme, each of the above structures would become a permanent feature within the watercourses, altering the channel bed and banks as well as lateral and longitudinal connectivity. There would also potentially be water quality implications from drainage discharges to the watercourses. Table 14-6 provides an overview of the potential impacts associated on geomorphology and water quality for Option 1B.
Table 14-6 : Overview of potential impacts for Geomorphology and Water Quality Option 1B
Potential works Receptors Potential Impacts Construction All watercourses Potential for fine sediment input from areas of bare earth around and surfaces. Potential for spillages from construction traffic and within the in-channel working, leading to pollution incidences in the watercourses watercourses.
224
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Potential works Receptors Potential Impacts New River Brain; Removal of lateral connectivity between the watercourse and bridge/bridge River Blackwater; the floodplain due to bridge abutments. This is likely to alter extension Domsey Brook. flow and sediment processes altering geomorphology and water quality. This is also likely to alter the interaction between the watercourse and the riparian corridor.
Culvert Braintree Road Removal of natural bed and banks, lateral connectivity and watercourse; riparian vegetation. Potential for implications to flow and Ashes Road watercourse sediment processes, altering geomorphology and water (west); quality. Ashes Road watercourse (east); Ashes Farm watercourse; Rolphs Cottages watercourse; Coggeshall watercourse; Threadkells watercourse Domsey Chase watercourse. Outfall River Brain; Localised removal of bed and banks for outfall structure. Rolphs Cottages Potential water quality implications from discharges. Potential watercourse; for changes to flow and sediment processes Allshot’s Farm watercourse; Felixhall Park watercourse; River Blackwater; Domsey Brook. Infill of lake or Bradwell Quarry lake Complete removal of feature, altering bed substrate, flow pond processes and destroying habitat biotopes
14.8.1.3 Overall significance of effect
Following the assessment of the potential flood risk, geomorphology (and Water Framework Directive) and surface water quality effects, Option 1B is considered to have a score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible). The scoring is based on the high level assessment of the potential effects detailed in Chapter 14.8.1.1 to 14.8.1.3. The receptors range from Low to High importance/sensitivity and the magnitude of effects, based on the high level assessment, are considered to range from Minor Adverse to Moderate Adverse. This means that without the consideration of mitigation there is the potential for Neutral to Large significance of effects.
Overall score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
225
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.8.2 Option 3
14.8.2.1 Flood risk
Fluvial flood risk
This option does not interact with the floodplain of the River Brain. The Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning indicates that the proposed crossing location over the River Blackwater, south of Stisted, is designated as Flood Zone 2 and 3. The river meanders just north of the potential crossing location, with the Flood Zones being approximately 180m wide at this point. Encroachment into the floodplain at this crossing could increase flood risk upstream by reducing conveyance and flood water storage capacity. There a few (less than five) properties approximately 200m upstream of the crossing. Downstream of the crossing location the Flood Zones return to being relatively narrow.
The route crosses Robin’s Brook north of Coggeshall via the existing A12 crossing. There are no receptors upstream or downstream on the watercourse within 1km. Where the option ties into the new A12, it is close to the Domsey Brook. At present the A120 does not encroach into the Flood Zones associated with this watercourse but there is potential for the junction layout to remove floodplain and increase flood risk.
The remainder of the option footprint is located within an area of Flood Zone 1.
Surface water flood risk
Surface water flood risk is apparent along the proposed option at locations where the A120 scheme would require watercourse crossings. The risk is classified as ‘High’ immediately adjacent to all of the watercourses with varying extents of ‘Medium’ and ‘Low’ risk, depending on the size of the watercourse.
In addition to flow paths within named watercourses, Environment Agency mapping indicates one surface water flow path is crossed to the north of Langley Green. The flow path is designated as having a flood risk of ‘Low’ at this proposed crossing.
Reservoir failure flood risk
The alignment of option 3 does not cross any areas designated by Environment Agency mapping as being at risk of flooding in the event of a defence failure at a reservoir. Therefore the risk of flooding from reservoir defence failure is classified as ‘Very Low’.
Surface water abstraction
There is one surface water abstraction within 200m of the route, located just north of the railway line at the end of the proposed alignment.
Groundwater and sewer flooding
Environment Agency mapping indicates the flood risk from groundwater flooding is typically low along Option 3. The risk of sewer flooding is assessed as low risk for option 3 due to the predominantly rural nature of the route and the lack of historical reports of flooding based on the Mid-Essex SFRA.
Water supply infrastructure failure
Areas of the scheme option within cutting could be at risk of flooding should a water main fail and the topography of the land causes flows to reach the cutting. Given that the majority of the route of this option is through rural areas the risk is considered to be low.
226
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Flood defence failure
A review of the Environment Agency’s mapping of Areas Benefitting from Defences has not identified any formal flood defences in the vicinity of the scheme. Therefore the risk of flood defence failure placing the A120 Scheme at risk is considered low. It should be noted that there may be informal defences along the route that provide a form of flood protection not identified on the mapping.
14.8.2.2 Geomorphology and water quality
Option 3 would require the culverting of eight watercourses, new bridges/bridge extensions on three watercourses, outfall drainage to six watercourses and the partial infill of one lake and two ponds. These activities would require construction within the watercourses and the adjacent floodplain leading to potential for fine sediment input as well as changes to drainage (i.e. runoff). This could potentially lead to changes in the flow and sediment processes within the watercourses and alter the wider catchment processes. Works would also require the removal of vegetation in the riparian zone.
During operation of the A120 Scheme, each of the above structures would become a permanent feature within the watercourses, altering the channel bed and banks as well as lateral and longitudinal connectivity. There would also potentially be water quality implications from drainage discharges to the watercourses.
Table 14-7 provides an overview of the potential impacts associated on geomorphology and water quality for Option 3.
Table 14-7 : Overview of potential impacts for Geomorphology and Water Quality Option 3
Potential works Receptors Potential impacts Construction All watercourses Potential for fine sediment input from areas of bare earth around and surfaces. Potential for spillages from construction traffic and in- within the channel working, leading to pollution incidences in the watercourses watercourses. New River Blackwater; Removal of lateral connectivity between the watercourse and the bridge/bridge Robin’s Brook; floodplain due to bridge abutments. This is likely to alter flow and extension Domsey Brook sediment processes altering geomorphology and water quality. This is also likely to alter the interaction between the watercourse and the riparian corridor.
Culvert Unnamed watercourse; Removal of natural bed and banks, lateral connectivity and Hanwick Farm riparian vegetation. Potential for implications to flow and watercourse; sediment processes, altering geomorphology and water quality. Prior’s Wood watercourse; Doghouse Road watercourse (east); Woodland watercourse; Tey Road watercourse; Old Road watercourse; Domsey Chase watercourse Outfall Hanwick Farm Localised removal of bed and banks for outfall structure. watercourses; Potential water quality implications from discharges. Potential River Blackwater; for changes to flow and sediment processes Woodland watercourse; Robin’s Brook; Tey Road watercourse; 227
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Domsey Brook Infill of lake or Long Green Road lake; Complete removal of feature, altering bed substrate, flow pond Unnamed pond; processes and destroying habitat biotopes Ambridge Road pond
14.8.2.3 Overall significance of effect
Following the assessment of the potential flood risk, geomorphology (and Water Framework Directive) and surface water quality effects, Option 3 is considered to have a score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible). The scoring is based on the high level assessment of the potential effects detailed in Chapter 14.8.2.1 to 14.8.2.3. The receptors range from Low to High importance/sensitivity and the magnitude of effects, based on the high level assessment, are considered to range from Minor Adverse to Moderate Adverse. This means that, without considering mitigation, there is the potential for Neutral to Large significance of effects.
Overall score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
14.8.3 Option 4B
14.8.3.1 Flood risk
Fluvial flood risk
This option does not interact with the floodplain of the River Brain. The Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning indicates that the proposed crossing location over the River Blackwater, south of Stisted, is designated as Flood Zone 3 and 2. The river meanders just north of the potential crossing location, with the Flood Zones being approximately 180m wide at this point. Encroachment into the floodplain at this crossing could increase flood risk upstream by reducing conveyance and flood water storage capacity.
There a few (less than five) properties approximately 200m upstream of the crossing. Downstream of the crossing location the Flood Zones return to being relatively narrow.
Where the option ties into the new A12 it lies close to the Domsey Brook. At present the A120 does not encroach into the Flood Zones associated with this watercourse, but there is potential for the junction layout to alter this which could remove floodplain and increase flood risk.
The remainder of the route footprint is located within an area of Flood Zone 1.
Surface water flood risk
Surface water flood risk is apparent along the proposed option at locations where the scheme would require watercourse crossings. The risk is classified as ‘High’ immediately adjacent to all of the watercourses with varying extents of ‘Medium’ and ‘Low’ risk, depending on the size of the watercourse.
In addition to flow paths within named watercourses, the Environment Agency mapping indicates one surface water flow path is crossed by the proposed option and associated junctions to the south of Glazenwood. The flow path is designated as having a flood risk of ‘Low’ to ‘Medium’ at this proposed crossing. The remainder of the proposed option follows the same path as Option 1B; see Section 14.8.1 for more detail on the surface water flood risk assessment.
Reservoir failure flood risk
The alignment for this option only crosses one area designated by the Environment Agency mapping as being at risk of flooding in the event of a defence failure at a reservoir. This location of flood risk is immediately east of the proposed crossing of the River Blackwater and extends east to just past the reservoir itself. Therefore the risk of flooding from reservoir defence failure is classified as low.
228
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Groundwater and sewer flooding
Environment Agency mapping indicates the flood risk from groundwater flooding is typically low along the Option 4B chainage. The risk of sewer flooding is assessed as low risk for Option 4B due to the predominantly rural nature of the route and the lack of historical reports of flooding based on the Mid-Essex SFRA.
Water supply infrastructure failure
Areas of the scheme option within cutting could be at risk of flooding should a water main fail and the topography of the land causes flows to reach the cutting. Given that the majority of the route of this option is through rural areas the risk is considered to be low.
Flood defence failure
A review of the Environment Agency’s mapping of Areas Benefitting from Defences has not identified any formal flood defences in the vicinity of the scheme. Therefore the risk of flood defence failure placing the route at risk is considered low. It should be noted that there may be informal defences along the route that provide a form of flood protection not identified on the mapping.
14.8.3.2 Geomorphology and water quality
Option 4B would require the culverting of six watercourses, new bridges/bridge extensions on two watercourses, outfall drainage to six watercourses and the partial infill of two lakes and two ponds. These activities would require construction within the watercourses and the adjacent floodplain leading to potential for fine sediment input as well as changes to drainage (i.e. runoff). This could potentially lead to changes in the flow and sediment processes within the watercourses and alter the wider catchment processes. Works would also require the removal of vegetation in the riparian zone.
During operation of the scheme, each of the above structures would become a permanent feature within the watercourses, altering the channel bed and banks as well as lateral and longitudinal connectivity. There would also potentially be water quality implications from drainage discharges to the watercourses. Table 14-8 provides an overview of the potential impacts associated on geomorphology and water quality for Option 4B.
Table 14-8 : Overview of potential impacts for Geomorphology and Water Quality Option 4B
Potential works Receptors Potential impacts Construction All watercourses Potential for fine sediment input from areas of bare earth around and surfaces. Potential for spillages from construction traffic and in- within the channel working, leading to pollution incidences in the watercourses watercourses. New River Blackwater; Removal of lateral connectivity between the watercourse and the bridge/bridge Domsey Brook floodplain due to bridge abutments. This is likely to alter flow extension and sediment processes altering geomorphology and water quality. This is also likely to alter the interaction between the watercourse and the riparian corridor. Culvert Unnamed watercourse; Removal of natural bed and banks, lateral connectivity and Lanham Wood riparian vegetation. Potential for implications to flow and watercourse; sediment processes, altering geomorphology and water quality. Coggeshall watercourse Threadkells watercourse; Coggeshall Road watercourse; Domsey Chase watercourse
229
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Outfall River Blackwater; Localised removal of bed and banks for outfall structure. Domsey Brook; Potential water quality implications from discharges. Potential Lanham Wood for changes to flow and sediment processes watercourse; Rolphs Cottages watercourse; Park Road watercourse; Felixhall watercourse Infill of lake or Long Green Road lake; Complete removal of feature, altering bed substrate, flow pond Unnamed pond; processes and destroying habitat biotopes Links Road ponds; Bardon Quarry lake
14.8.3.3 Overall significance of effect
Following the assessment of the potential flood risk, geomorphology (and Water Framework Directive) and surface water quality effects, Option 4B is considered to have a score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible). The scoring is based on the high level assessment of the potential effects detailed in Chapter 14.8.3.1 to 14.8.3.3. The receptors range from Low to High importance/sensitivity and the magnitude of effects, based on the high level assessment, are considered to range from Minor Adverse to Moderate Adverse. This means that, without considering mitigation, there is the potential for Neutral to Large significance of effects.
Overall score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
14.8.4 Option 8
14.8.4.1 Flood risk
Fluvial flood risk
The Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning indicates that the River Brain is associated with a relatively narrow floodplain (predominantly Flood Zone 3), both upstream and downstream of where the proposed scheme crosses the watercourse. The route could increase water levels and consequently flood risk upstream towards Braintree if it encroaches into the floodplain.
Where the option ties into the new A12 it lies close to the River Blackwater. At present the A120 does not encroach into the Flood Zones associated with this watercourse; however, there is the potential for the new junction layout to remove floodplain and increase flood risk.
The remainder of the route footprint is located within an area of Flood Zone 1.
Surface water flood risk
Surface water flood risk is present along the proposed scheme at locations where the option traverses minor (Non-Main River) watercourses. The risk is classified as ‘High’ immediately adjacent to all of the watercourses with varying extents of ‘Medium’ and ‘Low’ risk, depending on the size of the watercourse.
The first section of Option 8 consists of the same alignment as Option 1B up to Bradwell Quarry; the potential impacts are therefore covered in Chapter 1.8.1. From here the alignment of Option 8 then runs south to join the existing A12 at Junction 23. Between the Quarry and the connection with the A12, the Environment Agency mapping indicates three surface water flow paths are present and crossed by the option. The first is located to the west of Story’s Wood. The second flow path runs from Porter’s Farm south east to the Rivenhall Brook. The third flow path is crossed just west of Crane’s Lane.
230
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
These proposed crossings are located where the flow paths are designated as having a range of flood risk from ‘Low’ to ‘High’, with the exception of the third flow path which is identified as having a risk ranging from ‘Low’ to ‘Medium’.
In addition to those areas identified as being subjected to ponding from the surface water assessment for Option 1B, one area of ponding against the railway line west of Crane’s Lane is crossed also crossed by Option 8. Environment Agency mapping indicates the flood risk of this ponding location is predominantly ‘High’.
Reservoir failure flood risk
The alignment for this scheme does not cross any areas designated by the Environment Agency mapping as being at risk of flooding in the event of a defence failure at a reservoir. However, at the proposed junction where the A12 crosses the River Blackwater, a narrow area of land immediately adjacent to the river is designated as being at risk of flooding should defences at a reservoir fail. Therefore the risk of flooding from reservoir defence failure is classified as low.
Surface water abstraction
There is one surface water abstraction within 200m of the scheme, located adjacent to the River Blackwater at the end of the proposed alignment.
Groundwater and sewer flooding
Environment Agency mapping indicates the flood risk from groundwater flooding is typically low along the Option 8 chainage. The risk of sewer flooding is assessed as low risk for Option 3 due to the predominantly rural nature of the route and the lack of historical reports of flooding based on the Mid-Essex SFRA.
Water supply infrastructure failure
Areas of the option within cutting could be at risk of flooding should a water main fail and the topography of the land causes flows to reach the cutting. Given that the majority of the route of this option is through rural areas the risk is considered to be low.
Flood defence failure
A review of the Environment Agency’s mapping of Areas Benefitting from Defences has not identified any formal flood defences in the vicinity of the scheme. Therefore the risk of flood defence failure placing the option at risk is considered low. It should be noted that there may be informal defences along the route that provide a form of flood protection not identified on the mapping.
14.8.4.2 Geomorphology and water quality
Option 8 would require the culverting of seven watercourses, new bridges/bridge extensions on two watercourses, outfall drainage to seven watercourses and the partial infill of one pond. These activities would require construction within the watercourses and the adjacent floodplain leading to potential for fine sediment input as well as changes to drainage (i.e. runoff). This could potentially lead to changes in the flow and sediment processes within the watercourses and alter the wider catchment processes. Works would also require the removal of vegetation in the riparian zone.
During operation of the scheme, each of the above structures would become a permanent feature within the watercourses, altering the channel bed and banks as well as lateral and longitudinal connectivity. There would also potentially be water quality implications from drainage discharges to the watercourses. Table.14-9 provides an overview of the potential impacts associated on geomorphology and water quality for Option 8.
231
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table.14-9 : Overview of potential impacts for Geomorphology and Water Quality for Option 8
Potential works Receptors Potential impacts Construction All watercourses Potential for fine sediment input from areas of bare earth around and surfaces. Potential for spillages from construction traffic and within the in-channel working, leading to pollution incidences in the watercourses watercourses. New River Brain; Removal of lateral connectivity between the watercourse and bridge/bridge River Blackwater the floodplain due to bridge abutments. This is likely to alter extension flow and sediment processes altering geomorphology and water quality. This is also likely to alter the interaction between the watercourse and the riparian corridor.
Culvert Braintree Road Removal of natural bed and banks, lateral connectivity and watercourse; riparian vegetation. Potential for implications to flow and Ashes Road watercourse sediment processes, altering geomorphology and water (west); quality. Ashes Road watercourse (east); Ashes Farm watercourse; Rolphs Cottages watercourse; Park Road watercourse; Tributary 2 River Blackwater Outfall River Brain; Localised removal of bed and banks for outfall structure. River Blackwater; Potential water quality implications from discharges. Potential Ashes Road watercourse for changes to flow and sediment processes (east); Rolphs Cottages watercourse; Park Road watercourse; Tributary 1 River Blackwater; Tributary 2 River Blackwater Infill of lake or Braintree Road ponds Complete removal of feature, altering bed substrate, flow pond processes and destroying habitat biotopes
14.8.4.3 Overall significance of effect
Following the assessment of the potential flood risk, geomorphology (and Water Framework Directive) and surface water quality effects, Option 8 is considered to have a score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible). The scoring is based on the high level assessment of the potential effects detailed in Chapter 14.8.4.1 to 14.8.4.3. The receptors range from Low to High importance/sensitivity and the magnitude of effects, based on the high level assessment, are considered to range from Minor Adverse to Moderate Adverse. This means that, without considering mitigation, there is the potential for Neutral to Large significance of effects.
Overall score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
232
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.8.5 Option 9A
14.8.5.1 Flood risk
Fluvial flood risk
This option does not interact with the floodplain of the River Brain. Where the option ties into the new A12 it would be close to the River Blackwater. At present the A120 does not encroach into the Flood Zones associated with this watercourse; however, there would be the potential for the new junction layout to remove floodplain and increase flood risk.
Surface water flood risk
Option 9A comprises a combination of the alignments from Option 4B up to Bradwell Quarry and Option 8 from the quarry onwards. The flood risk from surface water has been assessed in Section 14.8.3.
Reservoir failure flood risk
The alignment for this option does not cross any areas designated by the Environment Agency mapping as being at risk of flooding in the event of a defence failure at a reservoir. At the proposed junction where the A12 crosses the River Blackwater there is a narrow area of land immediately adjacent to the river designated as at risk of flooding should defences at a reservoir fail. Therefore the risk of flooding from reservoir defence failure is considered to be low.
Surface water abstractions
There is one surface water abstraction within 200m of the scheme, located adjacent to the River Blackwater at the end of the proposed alignment.
Groundwater and sewer flooding
Environment Agency mapping indicates the flood risk from groundwater flooding is typically low along the Option 9A chainage. The risk of sewer flooding is assessed as low risk for Option 9A due to the predominantly rural nature of the route and the lack of historical reports of flooding based on the Mid-Essex SFRA.
Water supply infrastructure failure
Areas of the scheme option within cutting could be at risk of flooding should a water main fail and the topography of the land causes flows to reach the cutting. Given that the majority of the route of this option is through rural areas the risk is considered to be low.
Flood defence failure
A review of the Environment Agency’s mapping of Areas Benefitting from Defences has not identified any formal flood defences in the vicinity of the option. Therefore the risk of flood defence failure placing the option at risk is considered low. It should be noted that there may be informal defences along the route that provide a form of flood protection not identified on the mapping.
14.8.5.2 Geomorphology and water quality
Option 9A would require the culverting of six watercourses, new bridges/bridge extensions on one watercourse, outfall drainage to six watercourses and the partial infill of one lake and removal of one pond. These activities would require construction within the watercourses and adjacent floodplain leading to potential for fine sediment input as well as changes to drainage (i.e. runoff). This could potentially lead to changes in the flow and sediment processes within the watercourses and alter the wider catchment processes. Works would also require the removal of vegetation in the riparian zone.
233
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
During operation of the scheme, each of the above structures would become a permanent feature within the watercourses, altering the channel bed and banks as well as lateral and longitudinal connectivity. There would also potentially be water quality implications from drainage discharges to the watercourses. Table 14-10 provides an overview of the potential impacts associated on geomorphology and water quality for Option 9A.
Table 14-10 : Overview of potential impacts for Geomorphology and Water Quality Option 9A
Potential works Receptors Potential impacts Construction All watercourses Potential for fine sediment input from areas of bare earth around and surfaces. Potential for spillages from construction traffic and in- within the channel working, leading to pollution incidences in the watercourses watercourses. New River Blackwater Removal of lateral connectivity between the watercourse and the bridge/bridge floodplain due to bridge abutments. This is likely to alter flow and extension sediment processes altering geomorphology and water quality. This is also likely to alter the interaction between the watercourse and the riparian corridor.
Culvert Unnamed watercourse; Removal of natural bed and banks, lateral connectivity and Lanham Wood riparian vegetation. Potential for implications to flow and watercourse; sediment processes, altering geomorphology and water quality. Rolphs Cottages watercourse Park Road watercourse Tributary 2 River Blackwater; Tributary 3 River Blackwater Outfall River Blackwater; Localised removal of bed and banks for outfall structure. Lanham Wood Potential water quality implications from discharges. Potential watercourse; for changes to flow and sediment processes Rolphs Cottages watercourse Park Road watercourse; Tributary 1 River Blackwater; Tributary 2 River Blackwater; Infill of lake or Long Green Road lake; Complete removal of feature, altering bed substrate, flow pond Unnamed pond processes and destroying habitat biotopes
234
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.8.5.3 Overall significance of effect
Following the assessment of the potential flood risk, geomorphology (and Water Framework Directive) and surface water quality effects, Option 9a is considered to have a score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible). The scoring is based on the high level assessment of the potential effects detailed in Chapter 14.8.5.1 to 14.8.5.3. The receptors range from Low to High importance/sensitivity and the magnitude of effects, based on the high level assessment, are considered to range from Minor Adverse to Moderate Adverse. The means that, without considering mitigation, there is the potential for Neutral to Large significance of effects.
Overall score of 2 (potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible).
14.8.6 Summary of Effects for all Routes
A summary of potential effects for all of the routes is given in Table 15.12.
14.9 Mitigation and opportunities
The following provides an overview of potential mitigation measures that could be applied for impacts for flood risk, geomorphology and water quality. It should be noted this is a preliminary assessment of the requirements of the A120 scheme based on the options provided and that additional mitigation could be required upon further assessment.
14.9.1 Construction mitigation
14.9.1.1 Flood Risk
Flood risk during construction would be reduced by adoption of good working practices and adherence to Environment Agency guidelines and CIRIA reports and guidance. 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 Zone 3. Where temporary storage is required within Flood Zone 2 it should be orientated so as not to introduce a barrier to flow paths.
Long term attenuation has been indicatively identified in locations outside of Flood Zone 2 where floodplain compensation may be required (watercourse crossings, junctions within floodplain and increase in hardstanding due to new highway). The locations and designs are subject to further design at a later design stage.
235
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 14.12 Summary of Effects
RECEPTOR OPTION VALUE Type of risk 1B 3 4B 8 9A
Construction in flood risk areas causing increase in flood risk Low – no or Fluvial Flood Risk of increasing flooding Risk of increasing flooding upstream Risk of increasing flooding upstream Risk of increasing flooding upstream of Risk of increasing flooding upstream of crossings – few Risk – upstream of crossings – of crossings –potentially significant of crossings - significant adverse – crossings – potential significant Potential Significant adverse – mitigation may be residential engrossing Potentially significant adverse adverse – mitigation may be mitigation may be possible adverse – mitigation may be possible possible properties in on flood zone – mitigation may be possible possible River Blackwater River Brain River Blackwater the floodplain 3 River Brain River Blackwater River Blackwater River Blackwater
Surface Low to high risk of flooding– Low to high risk of flooding– slight Low to high risk of flooding– slight to Low to high risk of flooding– slight to Low to high risk of flooding– slight to potentially water flood slight to potentially significant to potentially significant adverse potentially significant adverse potentially significant adverse significant adverse risk adverse – mitigation may be Route adjacent to a number of minor Route adjacent to a number of Route adjacent to a number of minor Route adjacent to a number of minor watercourse possible watercourse minor watercourse watercourse Several surface water flow paths crossed Route adjacent to a One surface water flow path One surface water flow path Several surface water flow paths number of minor crossed crossed crossed watercourse Two locations of surface water ponding Reservoir Risk of flooding is low – slight Risk of flooding is very low –slight Risk of flooding is low – slight adverse Risk of flooding is low – slight adverse Risk of flooding is low – slight adverse Failure Flood adverse adverse Reservoir immediately east of River Reservoir immediately east of River Reservoir immediately east of River Blackwater risk Reservoir immediately Option 3 does not cross any areas Blackwater Blackwater east of River Blackwater designated by Environment Agency mapping as being at risk of flooding from reservoir defence failure Groundwater Low risk of g/w and sewer Low risk of g/w and sewer flooding Low risk of g/w and sewer flooding Low risk of g/w and sewer flooding Low risk of g/w and sewer flooding and sewer flooding flooding Water Supply Low risk of water supply Low risk of water supply failure Low risk of water supply failure Low risk of water supply failure Low risk of water supply failure infrastructure failure Majority of route through rural areas Majority of route through rural areas Majority of route through rural areas Majority of route through rural areas failure Majority of route through rural areas Flood Low risk of failure Low risk of failure Low risk of failure Low risk of failure Low risk of failure Defence No formal defences in No formal defences in vicinity of route No formal defences in vicinity of route No formal defences in vicinity of route No formal defences in vicinity of route Failure vicinity of route
Geomorphology and Water Quality – construction within watercourses leading to find sediment input and/or changes to drainage High Construction Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse – Moderate adverse effects No effects to high value receptors No effects to high value receptors around – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Domsey Brook watercourses Domsey Brook Domsey Brook New bridge Robin’s Brook Medium Outfall Potentially significant adverse Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – Potentially significant adverse – mitigation may be structures – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible possible River Brain River Blackwater River Blackwater River Brain River Blackwater River Blackwater River Blackwater Low Construction Slight to potentially Slight to potentially significant Slight to significant adverse effects Slight to potentially significant adverse Slight to potentially significant adverse – mitigation may around significant adverse – adverse – mitigation may be A number of minor watercourses – mitigation may be possible be possible watercourses possible Long Green Road Lake mitigation may be possible A number of minor watercourses A number of minor watercourses New bridge A number of minor A number of minor watercourses Links Road Ponds Braintree Road Ponds Long Green Road Lake Outfall Long Green Road Lake Bradwell Quarry Lake watercourses structures Bradwell Quarry Lake Ambridge Road Pond Overall 6 point Scale Potential significant adverse Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be effect – mitigation may be mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible possible possible
236
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.9.1.2 Geomorphology and Water Quality
To mitigate construction impacts, a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) would be implemented. All necessary consents and licences would be in place prior to the commencement of any works. The risk of pollution during construction would be reduced by adoption of good working practices and adherence to the EA’s Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) and CIRIA reports and guidance. Mitigation measures and best practices would be applied prior to and during construction. This includes but is not limited to: 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; Using of drip trays under mobile plants; Constructing adequate temporary storage lagoons to contain surface runoff and silt during the construction period; Separating construction activities (including stock piling and vehicle washing) from the watercourse in accordance with the EA’s PPG; Providing oil spill clean-up equipment (including absorbent material and inflatable booms) for use in the event of an oil spill or leak; Using site construction materials free from contamination, avoiding any potential contamination of watercourses; Ensuring that wet cement never comes into contact with watercourse or groundwater; Testing of made and reworked soils to identify any contamination; and, Preparing an incident response plan prior to construction which would be present on site throughout construction, informing all site workers of required actions in the event of a pollution incident.
14.9.2 Operational Mitigation
14.9.2.1 Flood Risk
Mitigation for flood risk impacts of the A120 Scheme (irrespective of the option) would likely include the following key measures: Runoff from the new road would be attenuated before discharge to a watercourse. The outflow from such facilities would need to be limited up to the 1 in 100 year event plus an allowance for climate change. 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 risk area 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 possible 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. 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.
237
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.9.2.2 Geomorphology and Water Quality The location of the outfalls along the watercourses would be refined as part of the detailed design. Outfalls would be recommended to be installed at locations that would not excessively alter channel flow and sedimentation patterns. The proposed drainage design would incorporate measures to attenuate and treat carriageway runoff. The drainage scheme would look to reduce (or eliminate) potential impacts to an acceptable level for surface water quality.
The design of any new and extended culverts along the watercourses would be refined as part of the detailed design. Culverts would be recommended to be installed at locations not excessively altering the channel planform and tying in with the existing channel bed and banks. It would be recommended that culvert lengths are kept to a minimum and channel gradient maintained to similar degree as per the existing watercourse.
The design of bridge extensions and new bridges would consider the placement of piers and abutments out with the active channel corridor and the floodplain where possible. This would minimise potential impacts on lateral connectivity. The removal of riparian vegetation would be minimised as far as practicable.
Where ponds and/or lakes are partially or completely infilled, there could be a requirement for like-for-like replacement of the receptor. This would be likely to be assessed individually for each receptor depending on the quality of the habitat lost. Otherwise, minimising the extent of removal for each of the receptors would be recommended.
14.9.3 Opportunities
There would be potential opportunities to reduce existing levels of flood risk in the vicinity of the A120 scheme. Liaison with the Environment Agency has identified a risk of fluvial flooding to Coggeshall from the Robin’s Brook. The crossing of this watercourse by option 3 could provide an opportunity to introduce a constriction on the watercourse to reduce flows that continue downstream to Coggeshall. A suitable location upstream of the A230 Scheme would need to be identified to attenuate such flows. Coggeshall is one location identified by the Environment Agency; however, there may be others. Where an option crosses a watercourse there could be benefits in considering a similar approach: introducing a constriction to reduce downstream flows if there are receptors currently at risk and there is a suitable location to store flows upstream. Such locations would need to be reviewed with the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority (Essex County Council).
14.10 Scoping Assessment
14.10.1 Issues recommended for consideration in EIA for preferred option
14.10.1.1 Flood risk
It is recommended that at the EIA stage the following issued are considered for the preferred option: Confirmation of the extent of flood zones (to be confirmed via hydraulic modelling where not currently available); The interaction of the scheme with flood zones including proposed design of watercourse crossings; Confirmation of junctions with the A12 and their interaction with flood zones; and, Confirmation of location of cuttings to ascertain risk of groundwater seepage,
In the event of the proposed options encroaching within Flood Zones 2 and 3 or an area indicated as being at risk to surface water flooding, measures to prevent exacerbation of flood risk would be developed and incorporated throughout later design stages.
238
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
14.10.1.2 Geomorphology and Water Quality
It is recommended that at the EIA stage the following issues are considered for the preferred option concerning geomorphology and water quality: Water quality implications from permanent outfalls to watercourses; Location, size and alignment of outfall structures into watercourses; Potential for spillage and sediment input during construction; Sizing and extent of culverting of watercourses; Requirement for mitigation for partial or complete removal of ponds and lakes; and, Design of bridge crossings, including placement of abutments and piers within the watercourse corridor.
The implications of the A120 Scheme for each of the three Water Framework Directive water bodies would also need to be considered, with the individual impacts on each of the watercourses considered and then the cumulative effect on the overall water body. The assessment would consider each of the Water Framework Directive water bodies against the three quality elements: biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological.
14.10.2 Recommended scope and approach to EIA
The road drainage and water environment approach to the EIA would follow the guidance contained in DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10, HD45/09 Road Drainage and the Water Environment (thereafter referred to as HD45/09). Section 14.3.1 highlights the parameters outlined for assigning an importance (sensitivity) to each of the receptors and criteria for the magnitude of impact. The section then also details how these would be combined to provide an overall significance of effect (Table 14-3). Mitigation measures are then considered to reduce any significant effects.
It is recommended that all three attributes of the road drainage and water environment chapter are scoped in for the EIA assessment of the preferred option. This includes flood risk, geomorphology (and the Water Framework Directive) and water quality. A Flood Risk Assessment would be provided as an appendix to the assessment as well as a Water Framework Directive compliance assessment.
14.11 Chapter References BGS Mapping available accessed online. Accessed August 2016 from: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html Capita Symonds. (2013). Essex County Council. Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2015). Anglian river basin district RBMP. Accessed September: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-management-plans-2015#anglian-river- basin-district-rbmp-2015 Environment Agency website. Accessed September 2016: http://maps.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?topic=floodmap&layerGroups=default&lang=_e&ep=map&scale=7&x =531500&y=181500 Highways Agency. (2003). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 11. Environmental Assessment. Scott-Wilson. (2007). Mid-Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Accessible from: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8332&p=0 URS. (2015). Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the Essex and Southend-on-Sea replacement Waste Local Plan – Revised Preferred Approach. Final Report.
239
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
End Section
240
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
15. Cumulative effects It is considered that the current design has not been advanced enough for a full consideration of cumulative effects.
Stage 3 (Environmental Statement) will need to consider whether developments within the defined A120 Study Area are individually and collectively likely have cumulative effects with the A120 Scheme. The assessment will include developments with a ‘committed consent’, including developments with a full or outline planning permission, and schemes that are yet to be implemented or under construction. It will also include developments where land is allocated in an adopted or Local Plan or in a finalised draft Local Plan.
The adjacent developments will be identified through a review of planning documents, submitted and approved planning applications and discussions with the local planning authorities.
The cumulative assessment will also have to consider planning policy aspirations for development that are emerging through the Local Plan making process, comprising major site allocations that are not yet formally adopted through Local Plans.
An initial review of the relevant local plans indicates a number of large scale schemes that are likely to be included within the assessment (Braintree Local Plan):
Greater Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford (planning permissions 09/01314/EIA) - mixed use development comprising residential development of up to 3,600 dwellings. North East Chelmsford - general location - aspiration for around 100s of new homes, new roads, railway station, schools, shops, sports facilities, and green spaces. West of Braintree New Garden Community - 2,500 homes within the Local Plan period. Potential to rise after 2033. Marks Tey New Garden Community - 500 homes within the Local Plan period. Potential to rise after 2033. East of Great Notley in Black Notley parish – 2,000 homes. Land east of Broad Road, Braintree – 1,000 homes. Former Towerlands Park site, Braintree – 600 homes. Land at Feering – 1,000 homes. Wood End Farm, Witham – 450 homes. Emerging Local Plan allocations are likely to be included in the baseline traffic model and therefore be reflected in assessment of effects relating to traffic and transport, noise and air quality within the future cumulative assessment.
241
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
16. Summary of findings
This Stage 1 Environmental Assessment Report has shown potential significant effects – mitigation may be possible associated with each of the five options, with significant beneficial effects for noise.
A summary of the key points arising from the evaluations is provided below for each topic. This includes a commentary on any likely notable difference in the effects of the different options that could aid option selection at this stage.
16.1.1 Air Quality and Carbon Emissions
For carbon emissions, the A120 scheme is likely to lead to a marginal deterioration in emissions (i.e. greater amount of emissions) based on the increases in distance travelled with the A120 scheme. In addition, the A120 scheme is likely to generate more vehicles travelled on the network and/or vehicles rerouted onto the new route alignment. The options will also lead to greater NOx/NO2 levels to receptors along the options. Therefore, all of the options were considered to overall have a slight adverse effect on air quality; however, these effects are not considered significant.
The scheme will also lead to a slight beneficial effect on receptors along the A120 and in the south east of Braintree by relieving congestion and reducing the amount of traffic which would use this road.
In terms of differences between the options, options 4B and 9A were found to have the lowest number of human exposure receptors within 200 metres compared to other options.
16.1.2 Cultural Heritage
All of the route 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 3, 8 and 9a may have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible on the setting of Grade II* listed buildings. Options 4B and 9a may have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible on the setting of Glazenwood House and Garden (non-designated historic garden). Options 8 and 9a may have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible on the setting of scheduled monuments. Options 4B, 8 and 9a may disturb known archaeological remains considered to be of moderate significance. This is considered a significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible, depending on the exact location and nature of the buried remains.
16.1.3 Landscape
All of the route options are considered to have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible. Realigned side roads, overbridges and NMU 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 will have the following potential effects: Effects on the setting and views of listed buildings. Views from where the route rises on embankments to cross the A12 and railway line. Views from residential receptors. Are likely to sever medium sized arable fields and hedgerows.
The following are differences between the routes:
242
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Option 1B crosses both the River Brain and River Blackwater valleys on embankment and both railways lines. It also severs Common Land but avoids substantial areas of woodlands. Option 3 crosses the River Blackwater south of Sisted and Robins Brook north of Chelmsford, which are considered particularly sensitive. The option would affect the setting of the Sisted Conservation Area. This option would lead to the loss of existing established highway vegetation, potentially opening up views for local residents. Option 4B may have effects on the setting of Glazenwood Park and Garden (non-designated historic garden). Option 9A follows the shortest route and is considered least at odds with field pattern, landform, existing woodland and settlements.
16.1.4 Nature Conservation
All of the routes are likely to have the following potential significant effects – mitigation may be possible: All of the options may have effects on European sites the hydrological connectivity of rivers and channels and through potential effects on migratory birds. All of the routes may lead to the loss and degradation of habitat and fragmentation of species of high/national importance, medium/county importance. These effects are considered to be potential significant adverse effects - mitigation may be possible. The routes will lead to the fragmentation of some linear habitats. Notable species include Barbastelle bats and birds of national importance. A number of medium importance species may have a potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. These include great crested newts, dormouse and water vole. All routes may have potential significantly adverse effect – mitigation may be possible effects on riparian environments, rivers and ponds.
The following differences have been noted between the routes: Options 1B, 3 and 4B will have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible, on non- statutory sites, such as local wildlife sites, adjacent to the route. Option 8 and 9A will only have slight adverse effects on non-statutory sites, such as local wildlife sites, adjacent to the route. Route 3 will affect the least amount of habitats of high/national importance. Route 4b will affect the least amount of pond habitats (medium importance). Route 8 will have slight adverse effects on habitats of low/local value, while the other options will have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible.
It should be noted that the current impact assessment is based on an ecological phase 1 survey. Presence surveys would be required to establish the presence of species and determine measures that would best minimise adverse impacts and provide residual beneficial effects
243
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
16.1.5 Geology and Soils
All of the route options are considered to have a potential significant effect – mitigation may be possible. All of the options could 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 could lead to dewatering activities for cuttings, which may have effects on domestic abstractions with varying distances from 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).
The following differences have been noted between the routes: Route option 1b and 8 crosses both the River Brain and the River Blackwater. The main lines of options 3, 8 and 9A only cross the major watercourse of River Blackwater (considered of high sensitivity for geology and soils). However, the junctions associated with these routes may also cross the River Brain. The options also cross numerous smaller watercourses of varying sensitivity. This may potentially increase the risk of degradation of water quality. The main lines of options 1B and 4B cross the major watercourses of River Blackwater and River Brain (considered of high sensitivity for geology and soils). The options also cross numerous smaller watercourses of varying sensitivity. This may potentially increase the risk of degradation of water quality. Options 1B, 3 and 4B will lead to the removal of a licenced abstraction well. Options 1B, 4b, 8 and 9A will cross areas of potential high risk of contamination. There is a high risk of instability where options 1B, 4B, 8 and 9A cross Bradwell Quarry.
16.1.6 Materials
The scheme will lead to overall potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible for all of the route options. 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 A120 Scheme 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.
16.1.7 Noise and Vibration
The A120 scheme will lead to an overall significant beneficial effect with regards to noise for all routes. This is due to a reduction on traffic flow along the A120 and includes approximately 100 residential properties in NIA’s. Significant noise benefits are also likely on properties in NIA’s along the Braintree bypass. Significant beneficial noise effects are also expected for properties in the areas not within NIA’s along the existing A120. A relatively small number of sensitive receptors have the potential to experience significant adverse noise effects. However, the significance of these effects may be reduced through mitigation. These receptors are located in the rural areas between Braintree and the A12. Significant vibration effects are not expected from the operation of the proposed routes.
The key differences between the options are: For two of the options, Option 1B and 8, potential significant noise effects were noted which may not be possible to mitigate for two properties. For Option 3, potential significant noise effects which may not be possible to mitigate are expected for one property. Further assessment will be required on the potential effect on these properties when traffic modelling data is available. Routes 1B and 3 will provide significant beneficial noise effects to a great number of properties within NIA’s adjacent to the existing A120. Option 1B will have potential significant adverse noise effects – mitigation may be possible on a greater number of groups of properties.
244
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
It should be noted that the noise and vibration assessments were undertaken on a qualitative basis and a quantitative assessment utilising traffic modelling should be undertaken to confirm the outcomes.
16.1.8 People and Communities
All of the route options are considered to have an overall potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. However, there would be some major beneficial effects associated with the A120 scheme including the creation of construction jobs, use of local services and suppliers, improvements in access and relieving congestion and economic benefits from reduced journey times.
All of the route options are considered to have an potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible from temporary disruption during construction to NMUs, permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, disruption to local business and cumulative effects with other planned schemes.
The following differences have been noted between the routes: Route 3 may lead to slight beneficial effects from improvements in connectivity for NMU’s across the existing A120. Route 3 will create temporary disturbance for access for the highest amount of schools out of the options. Routes 1b, 3 and 4b 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. Option 3 and 9a would require the demolition of Cressing Lodge Farmhouse. Option 1b and 8 will lead to permanent land take of two areas of registered Common Land (it should be noted that the Common Land status for Lanham Green has not been confirmed).
16.1.9 Road Drainage and Water Environment
All of the route options are considered to have an overall potential significant adverse effects where mitigation may be possible. These were noted for where the routes passed over significant watercourse, such as the Rivers Brain and Blackwater, Domsey Brook and Robins Brook, with regards to increasing flood risk and on geomorphology and degradation of water quality. In addition, a number of minor water courses, lakes and ponds are located along the routes which may have potential significant adverse effects which may be possible to mitigate.
The following differences have been noted between the options: Options 1B and 8 cross both the River Brain and River Blackwater which would engross on flood zone 3 and have potential impacts associated with sediment input and/or changes to drainage. The other options only cross the River Blackwater. Options 1B, 3 and 4B affect Domsey Brook. Options 3 effects both Domsey Brook and Robins Brook with regards to potential degradation of geomorphology and water quality from sediment input. These are considered high value receptors. Routes 1B and 4B will affect Bradwell Quarry Lake, with regards to degradation to geomorphology and water quality.
245
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
16.1.10 Overall Conclusions
For noise, significant adverse effects – not possible to mitigate, have been noted for two properties on options 3 and 8 and for one property on option 1B. However, this is based on qualitative results which will be refined once traffic modelling is available. Further opportunities for mitigation for these properties will be explored when considering further route design. Given that the A120 scheme will remove traffic from the existing A120, there is likely to be an overall benefit from the scheme for noise and vibration. Air quality along the A120 will benefit from the same effects of reduced traffic. However, some slight adverse effects are expected for air quality along the options.
For cultural heritage all of the route options are considered to have potential significant adverse effect, however, 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 again 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 the options cross the A12 and railway. It should be noted that all of the route options cross at least one river, and all cross the A12 and railway to tie into the A12. In addition, routes 1b and 8 cross areas of Common Land.
A number of effects ranging from slight adverse to potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible have been noted for junctions and road accommodation bridges. Further opportunities will be sought during the design process, such as moving junctions and accommodation bridges and different design options to reduce these effects.
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. Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence or absence of species. There may be effects on European Sites from pollution via hydrological connectivity and disturbance to migratory birds. However, all of these effects have the potential to be mitigated.
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 can’t be mitigated. Benefits include improvement in air quality and noise along the existing A120 and likely economic benefits from economic uplift.
However, further investigation through data collection, desk studies, inclusion of traffic data and site surveys (particularly with regards to ecology) is required to fully ascertain the effects and mitigation, if required.
Table 16.1 shows the 6 point score summary table of the outcome of stage 1, for of each of the five route options and per discipline.
246
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Table 16.1: Summary of the Overall Outcomes, for Stage 1
Topic 1B 3 4B 8 9A
Air Quality Slight adverse effects – effect not Slight adverse effects – effect not Slight adverse effects – effect not Slight adverse effects – effect not Slight adverse effects – effect not significant with typical mitigation significant with typical mitigation significant with typical mitigation significant with typical mitigation significant with typical mitigation
Cultural Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Heritage mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible
Potential significant adverse effect – Landscape mitigation may be possible Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible
Nature Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Conservation mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible
Geology and Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Soils mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible
Materials Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible
Noise and Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Significant beneficial effects Vibration
People and Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Communities mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible
247
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Topic 1B 3 4B 8 9A
Road Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Potential significant adverse effect – Drainage and mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible mitigation may be possible Water
248
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
17. Next steps
17.1 Statutory EIA
The A120 scheme will involve the construction and alteration of a highway where the speed limit for any class of vehicle is expected to be 50 miles per hour, or greater, and the site area will be greater than 12.5ha.
All the route options that have been assessed for the A120 Scheme are considered to have the potential for “significant” environmental effects. As the A120 Scheme would have “significant” effects on the environment, due to its nature and size, a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required for whichever route is finally selected. Any scheme that has to be the subject of an EIA automatically requires planning permission, and cannot therefore be dealt with under Permitted Development rights.
As the A120 Scheme will require a statutory EIA, a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 13 of the 2011 EIA Regulations should be obtained. This is to clarify what are considered to be the main effects of the development and, therefore, the aspects on which the EIA should focus. This should be obtained at Stage 3 (Environmental Assessment).
A Record of Determination will be produced for the A120 Scheme in accordance with Highways England guidelines. This will be followed by the Secretary of State publishing a Notice of Determination to confirm whether the A120 scheme requires a formal EIA.
Given the requirement for planning permission and the significance of the likely environmental impacts the A120 Scheme is considered likely to be classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the Planning Act (2008), triggering the need for a Development Consent Order (DCO).
17.2 Appropriate assessment
There are no SPA, Ramsar sites or SAC located within the criteria set for effects on European sites. However, all of the routes would cross water course upstream of European sites and there is potential habitats within or adjacent to the proposed routes for migratory birds. However, the risk of any impacts from the Project effecting species survival and fecundity, thereby reducing populations of species using the European sites, is considered to be minimal. Therefore the risk of the Project significantly effecting the integrity of the European sites is likely to be small. However, surveys would be necessary to determine this possibility,
This has been documented in the Assessment of the Impact on European Sites (AIES) (Jacobs, 2016). The AIES should be issued to Natural England for comment at Stage 2.
17.3 Potential consents and approvals
The A120 Scheme may require other consents including Listed Building consents, Flood Defence consents and Rights of Way closures and diversions. It is also likely that protected species licences will be required.
249
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
17.4 Future Surveys
Following the environmental assessment, a number of further surveys have been recommended for future PCF Stages. These are summarised in Table 17.1. It should be noted that this list is not considered comprehensive and further work timing and stages may change.
Table 17.1: Proposed further environmental surveys
Topic Potential further study / survey Timing / stage
Air quality Analysis of the traffic modelling results Stage 2/3
Air quality modelling Stage 2/3
Cultural heritage Further desk based assessment Stage 2/3
Intrusive surveys Stage 3
Landscape Winter survey Stage 3
Summer survey Stage 3
Tree survey (alongside topographical survey) Stage 3
Ecology and nature conservation Further survey including hedgerow surveys, ponds and a Stage 2/3 phase 2 habitat survey of high quality habitats
Aquatic surveys including river habitat survey, fish survey (including European eel) and white clawed crayfish
Terrestrial species surveys including for badgers, bats, breeding birds, dormice, great crested newts, reptiles, water vole and otter
Geology and soils Soil testing as part of ground investigations Stage 3
Noise and vibration Analysis of the traffic modelling results Stage 2
Noise modelling Stage 2/3
Noise monitoring Stage 2/3
People and communities Review of right of way surveys Stage 3
Analysis of the traffic modelling results Stage 3
Road drainage and the water Flood risk assessment Stage 3 environment River crossing topographical survey Stage 2
Water Framework Directive Screening Stage 3
17.5 Future Stages
The environmental assessment will continue to feed into the design process as part of identifying opportunities for further primary (built in) mitigation and to minimise the scope of the future EIA. Further consultation will also be undertaken with environmental stakeholders to scope out the potential significant effects and mitigation. A Scoping Report will be produced during Stage 3 of the PCF Process for the option selected under the PRA. The Scoping Report will summarise the baseline assessments and identify whether the scheme is likely to have a significant effect on each receptor. The Scoping Report will include a summary of the assessment methodology that will be employed to assess potential significant effects. The Scoping Report can be used to provide background information to the Secretary of State as part of obtaining a screening and scoping opinion.
A mitigation and commitments tracker will be developed at Stage 2 will be used to document both the mitigation in relation to likely significant effects and commitments to manage any other residual environmental risks. This will be developed into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) during the later stages of the scheme development to manage general actions for mitigating environmental impacts.
250
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
17.6 Chapter References
Jacobs. (2016). A120 Braintree to A12. Assessment of Implications to European Sites (AIES) Report.
251
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix A. Air Quality
A.1 Key Air Quality Legislation and Policy
Directive 2008/50/EC was published to consolidate previous European Directives on ambient air quality. Although published in 2007, the AQS remains consistent with Directive 2008/50/EC. The UK Government leads on the UK’s input to International and European legislation relating to air quality. Linking to the requirements of the EU Directives, the latest AQS published in July 2007 established the framework for air quality improvements across the UK.
The AQS establishes Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for a number of specific pollutants. The main air pollutants relating to road traffic are NOx, NO2 and PM10. The other pollutants in the AQS are screened out of this assessment as unlikely to be of concern based on DMRB guidance (The Highways Agency et al., 2007); these AQOs are unlikely to be at risk of being breached as a consequence of a road development.
The relevant objective values and limit values are listed in Table A.1.
Table A.1: Relevant Air Quality Limit Values and National Air Quality Objectives
Pollutant Averaging Period Air Quality Objective/Limit Limit Value entered into Value (µg/m3) force / Date to be achieved by and maintained thereafter
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) annual mean 30 31/12/2000 (for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) annual mean 40 01/01/2010 (for the protection of human health)
Particulate Matter (PM10) annual mean 40 01/01/2005 (for the protection of human health)
A.2 Jacobs Monitoring Data
A five month period monitoring programme using diffusion tubes was undertaken (April 2016 to September 2016) at 11 locations around the existing A120. The details of monitoring sites are presented in Table B.1.
Seasonal adjustment is applied to the monitoring data collected less than a calendar year to take into account of the seasonal variation of air pollutant. The approach of seasonal adjustment is undertaken as described in Box 7.7 of the Defra guidance LAQM.TG(16).
The three background monitoring stations from the Defra’s Automatic Urban and Rural Network (ARUN) were selected to derive the seasonal adjustment ratio. All three sites have good data capture (greater 85%). Monitoring data from these sites were available through the Defra’s Data Archive.
Table A. 17 : Jacobs Monitoring Data
Site 3 Monthly NO2 Concentration (µg/m ) 5 month Average Seasonal Bias Adjusted average Adjustment Ratio Annual Average Mean Month Month Month Month Month (µg/m3) 1 2 3 4 5 A120_1 24 10 18 29 41 24.2 1.374 28.3 A120_2 31 - 31 17 24 25.9 1.327 30.3 A120_3 22 20 20 20 26 21.4 1.374 25.0 A120_4 12 12 12 11 18 13.0 1.374 15.2 A120_5 24 24 23 11 31 22.8 1.374 26.7
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 252 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Site 3 Monthly NO2 Concentration (µg/m ) 5 month Average Seasonal Bias Adjusted average Adjustment Ratio Annual Average Mean Month Month Month Month Month (µg/m3) 1 2 3 4 5 A120_6 14 12 12 11 16 13.1 1.374 15.3 A120_7 13 10 - 9 15 11.7 1.395 13.6 A120_8 - 29 12 12 19 18.0 1.383 21.1 A120_9 17 16 16 14 21 16.8 1.374 19.6 A120_10 15 14 16 14 21 15.9 1.374 18.6 Co-location 24 31 40 30 35 32.0 1.374 37.3
A.3 Local Authority Monitoring Data
Table A.3 : Local Authority Monitoring Data
3 Site ID Name Coordinates Type Annual Mean NO2 Concentration (µg/m ) X Y 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1 Kelvedon 578426 220675 Roadside 30 29.1 32.5 32.8 - - High Street 2 Bradwell 579315 221171 Roadside 43.5 41.8 38.6 38.1 - - The Street 3 Braintree 580944 220153 Roadside 32.6 37.1 33.2 28.1 - - Stilemans Wood 4 Braintree 579998 224645 Roadside 22.1 21.2 21 22.8 - - Beckers Green Rd 5 Marks Tey 585404 223457 Roadside 32.9 37.0 29.0 28.4 - - London Road 6 Marks Tey 586929 222820 Roadside 33.7 31.9 30.3 30.4 31 30 London Rd 220 7 Marks Tey 587180 222067 Roadside - 31.2 28.2 27.4 32 29 London Rd 170
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 253 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix B. Archaeology: Cultural Heritage Asset Inventory
Asset Asset Name Designation Value No. 1 Black Notley Lodge Grade II* Listed Building Grade II* Listed High Building 2 20, Witham Road Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 3 Prehistoric occupation site, Mill Hill, Braintree None Medium 4 Cropmarks of field boundaries and elongated pond near None Negligible Cressing 5 Course of Stane Street Roman Road None Low 6 Cropmarks of field boundaries behind Stubbs Lane Piggeries None Negligible 7 Cropmarks of field boundaries and a pond near Cressing None Negligible 8 Clay Pit off Cressing Road, Braintree. None Negligible 9 Cropmarks of field boundaries north of Sloughhouse Farm None Negligible 10 Fowler's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 11 Frogs Cottage Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 12 Cropmarks of field boundaries south east of Fowler's Farm None Negligible 13 Cropmarks of field boundaries north of Stacey's None Negligible 14 Cropmarks of field boundaries near Lanham Green, Cressing None Negligible 15 Cropmarks of field boundaries and a quarried area south of None Negligible Jenkin's Farm 16 Ashes Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 17 Cropmarks of field boundaries and a trapezoidal enclosure None Negligible eest of Jenkin's Farm 18 Grade II Listed Barn 10m south east of Ashes Farmhouse Grade II Listed Medium Building 19 Grade II Listed Barn 40m south east of Ashes Farmhouse Grade II Listed Medium Building 20 Baytree Cottage, 127 Coggeshall Road None Low 21 Baytree Farmhouse Grade II* Listed Building Grade II* Listed High Building 22 Red Lion Cottages Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 23 Grade II Listed Barn 25m south eest of Schill's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Medium Building 24 Bradwell cropmark complex a series of prehistoric ring- None Medium ditches, enclosures and field systems 25 Site of the Bay Tree Farm Brickworks None Low 26 A Post Medieval silver coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 27 Grade II Listed Barn 20m North West of Schill's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Medium Building 28 Schill's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 254 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Asset Asset Name Designation Value No. 29 Single Roman Greyware Urn with a missing rim found west of None Negligible Hunters Roost 30 Cropmarks of field boundaries wast of Baytree Farm None Negligible 31 Fell's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 32 Conjectured Iron Age Occupation Site, Former Manor Street None Negligible Works, Manor Street, Braintree 33 Site of Sach's mill None Negligible 34 The Dolphin Public House Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 35 Cropmarks of field boundaries east of Schill's Farm None Negligible 36 Cropmarks of field boundaries, enclosures and trackways west None Low of Milles Farm 37 Stisted Hall Designed Landscape None Low 38 Hunter's Roost Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 39 Stisted Conservation Area Conservation Medium Area 40 Glazenwood House and Gardens None Low 41 Egypt Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 42 109, Water Lane Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 43 Cropmarks of ring ditch north of Sandy Hill None Low 44 Cropmarks of field boundaries and trackways north of None Negligible Shelborn Bridge 45 Shelborn Road Bridge None Low 46 Cropmarks of field boundaries west of Clapdog Green None Negligible 47 Middle Bronze Age Cemetry Site at Perry Green Farm None Low 48 Cropmark North of Bradwell None Negligible 49 A broken Medieval gold finger ring None Negligible 50 Silver Birches Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 51 Cropmarks of double ditched recinlinear enclosure near None Low Rolph's Farmhouse 52 Cropmarks of double ditches, field boundaries and pits south None Negligible west of Pattiswick 53 Cropmarks of a potential round barrow and enclosure north None Low east of Bradwell 54 Cropmarks of enclosures, ditches and trackways south of None Low Pattiswick 55 Course of Stane Street Roman Road None Low 56 A Late Iron Age coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 57 Middle Iron Age Settlement, Bradwell Quarry/Rivenhall None Low Airfield 58 Grade II Listed Cartlodge and Granary 25m south west of Grade II Listed Medium Gosling's Farmhouse Building
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 255 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Asset Asset Name Designation Value No. 59 Gosling's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 60 Cropmarks of cultivation marks west of Captain's Wood None Negligible 61 Cropmarks of field boundaries and trackways north east of None Negligible Bradwell Hall 62 Cropmarks of an enclosures, ditches and cultivation marks at None Low Captains Wood 63 Bronze Age occupation site, Bradwell Quarry/Rivenhall Airfield None Low 64 Medieval Pits, Bradwell Quarry/Rivenhall Airfield None Negligible 65 Cropmarks of a linear feature south of Whiteshill Farm None Negligible 66 Whiteshill Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 67 Grade II Listed Barn 20m north east of Whiteshill Farmhouse Grade II Listed Medium Building 68 Cropmarks of field boundaries at Rivenhall Airfield None Negligible 69 Rivenhall WWII Airfield None Low 70 Roman Occupation, Bradwell Quarry/Rivenhall Airfield None Low 71 Cropmarks of a small rectilinear enclosure and field None Low boundaries north east of Whiteshill Farm 72 Site of a Milestone on the A120 None Negligible 73 Middle Iron Age Pit, Bradwell Quarry/Rivenhall Airfield None Low 74 Cropmarks of field boundaries and trackways within Rivenhall None Negligible Park East of Parkgate Farm 75 Rivenhall Park None Low 76 Cropmarks of a ring ditch and field boundaries off Stock Street None Low 77 Cropmarks of field boundaries and parish boundary north of None Negligible Parkgate Farm 78 Grade II Listed Barn 20m NW of Stock Street Farmhouse Grade II Listed Medium Building 79 Sewage Works, part of Rivenhall WWII Airfield None Low 80 Stock Street Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 81 73 and 74 Stock Street Grade II Listed Buildings Grade II Listed Medium Building 82 Cropmarks of small rectilinear enclosure north of Ford Farm None Low 83 Cropmarks of double ditch and trackway leading to a large None Low irregular enclosure north of Rivenhall Hall 84 Further Roman Settlement on land outside of the Scheduled None Medium area to the East of Church Road, Rivenhall 85 Rivenhall Roman Villa, a Scheduled Ancient Monument Anglo- Scheduled High Saxon Hall, Cemetery & Church Site Monument 86 75 and 76 Stock Street, Grade II Listed Buildings Grade II Listed Medium Building 87 Dispersed Site Sleeping Site 6, Rivenhall WWII Airfield None Low 88 Cropmark of trackway off Stock Street None Negligible 89 Dispersed Site Sleeping Site 4, Rivenhall WWII Airfield None Low
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 256 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Asset Asset Name Designation Value No. 90 Late Iron Age or Roman Settlement, north of Herrings Farm None Low 91 Cropmarks of field boundaries at Haywards None Negligible 92 A Late Iron Age to Roman brooch found through metal None Negligible detecting 93 Cropmarks N of Grigg's Farm None Negligible 94 Cropmark N of Porter's Farm None Negligible 95 Site of a Bronze Age Barrow, Rivenhall None Negligible 96 Grigg's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 97 Cropmarks of field boundaries south of Grigg's Farm None Negligible 98 Roman Cremation Cemetery disturbed during gravel None Low extraction at Crow Barn and Garden Fields 99 Cropmarks of field boundaries north east of Upney Wood None Negligible 100 Cropmarks of field boundaries and a sinuous, double-ditched None Negligible linear feature South East of Hoo Hall 101 Neolithic polished greenstone axe found in the nineteenth None Negligible century, Coggeshall 102 Cropmarks of field boundaries west of Clark's Farm None Negligible 103 Roman coins, brooches and a votive statue found through None Negligible metal detecting at Land at Highfield Farm 104 Grade II Listed Milepost 17m North East of 125 West Street Grade II Listed Medium Building 105 Cropmarks of nineteenth century house south of Leapingwells None Negligible 106 Roman bone implement found in a gravel pit at Gate House None Negligible Farm 107 Cropmarks of a ring ditch and a rectangular enclosure near None Low Game House Spinney 108 Cropmarks of the potential site of the windmill at Highfields None Negligible 109 Shreds of Roman pottery scattered through ploughed field to None Negligible the south of Clarks Farm 110 Unfinished Neolithic axe found during excavation in Coggeshall None Negligible 111 A selection of Medieval and Post Medieval metal objects None Negligible found through metal detecting 112 Worked flints and a re-touched blade found during None Negligible excavations in Coggeshall 113 A Portable Antiquities Scheme findspot of Roman date. None Negligible 114 A Portable Antiquities Scheme findspot of Post Medieval date. None Negligible 115 A Portable Antiquities Scheme findspot of Roman date. None Negligible 116 A Portable Antiquities Scheme findspot of Roman date. None Negligible 117 A Portable Antiquities Scheme findspot of Late Iron Age to None Negligible Early Medieval date. 118 Findspot, Kelvedon None Negligible 119 Grade II Listed Granary 23m south west of Clark's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Medium Building 120 Cropmarks south of Scrip's Farm None Negligible 121 Rivenhall Long Mortuary Enclosure Scheduled Monument Scheduled High
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 257 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Asset Asset Name Designation Value No. Monument 122 Clark's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 123 Cartlodge east of Clarks Farmhouse None Low 124 Site of Barn 20m east of Clarks Farmhouse None Negligible 125 Cropmarks of ring ditches, ladder style enclosures and None Medium trackways near Hole Farm 126 Hole Farmhouse Grade II* Listed Building Grade II* Listed High Building 127 Pest House, Coggeshall None Negligible 128 A Medieval dress accessory found through metal detecting None Negligible 129 A Medieval hooked tag (dress hook) found through metal None Negligible detecting 130 A Medieval hooked tag found through metal detecting None Negligible 131 Cropmarks of field boundaries at Bullocks Cross None Negligible 132 Suggested Roman road between Coggeshall and Kelvedon None Negligible 133 Cropmarks of field boundaries near Coggeshall None Negligible 134 A Roman pin found through metal detecting None Negligible 135 A Roman coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 136 Cropmark of a ring ditch West of Ashmans Farm None Low 137 Cropmarks of field boundaries along Crane's Lane None Negligible 138 A Post Medieval coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 139 A silver coin, possibly Roman, found through metal detecting None Negligible 140 A Medieval silver coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 141 A pair of silver cuff-links found through metal detecting None Negligible 142 A Bronze Age penannular ring in gold and silver found through None Negligible metal detecting 143 Possible Roman Settlement None Negligible 144 A Medieval seal matrix found through metal detecting None Negligible 145 A Late Iron Age coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 146 A Medieval buckle found through metal detecting None Negligible 147 A Roman coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 148 A Roman coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 149 A Late Iron Age coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 150 A Post Medieval coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 151 71, Colne Road Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 152 A Post Medieval coin found through metal detecting None Negligible 153 Site of the first Colne Road Brick Works, Coggeshall None Low 154 Site of the second Colne Road Brick Works, Coggeshall None Low 155 Occupation site from Bronze Age to Roman at St Peter's None Low School, Coggeshall 156 Cropmarks of rectilinear enclosures and a ring ditch at None Low Ashmans Farm 157 Site of a windmill at Coggeshall None Negligible
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 258 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Asset Asset Name Designation Value No. 158 Pound Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 159 Coggeshall Conservation Area Conservation Medium Area 160 A Medieval or Post Medieval sword found in the garden of 24 None Negligible Hill Road, Coggeshall 161 Brae Cottage Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 162 Cropmarks of a post mill 200m east of Davey House None Negligible 163 A Roman brooch found through metal detecting None Negligible 164 Site of a windmill at Upper Mill Field, Coggeshall None Negligible 165 Cropmarks of rectangular enclosure and ring ditch west of None Low Coggeshall Hall 166 Grade II Listed Barn 20m north west of Coggeshall Hall Grade II Listed Medium Farmhouse Building 167 Coggeshall Hall Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 168 Kelvedon Conservation Area Conservation Medium Area 169 Grade II Listed Barn 40m north of Monks Downs Farmhouse Grade II Listed Medium Building 170 Cropmarks of small rectangular enclosure and several large None Low pits south of Feeringbury 171 Lee's Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 172 Site of a fulling mill at Feering None Negligible 173 A Post Medieval token found through metal detecting None Negligible 174 Cropmarks of field boundaries west of Hoachin's Farm None Negligible 175 Cropmarks of field boundaries north of Surrex None Negligible 176 Cropmarks of field boundaries at Kane Farm None Negligible 177 Site of Boundary Post, Coggeshall Road, Feering None Negligible 178 Cropmark of a circular enclosure at Frame Farm None Low 179 A Medieval seal matrix found through metal detecting None Negligible 180 Cockerell's Farmhouse and Bakehouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 181 Course of Roman Road, east side of Hill House Farm None Low 182 Cropmarks at Langley Green None Negligible 183 Cropmark of two ring ditches east of Hill House Farm None Negligible 184 Hornigalls Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 185 Roman road route seen at Eastthorpe None Low 186 Cropmarks of field boundaries, parish boundary and a ring None Negligible ditch east of Prested Hall 187 Cropmarks of field boundaries and trackways at Little Domsey None Negligible 188 Cropmarks of field boundaries at Honeylands Farm None Negligible 189 Site of Boundary Post on the A12 at Feering None Negligible
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 259 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Asset Asset Name Designation Value No. 190 Cropmarks of field boundaries west of Domsey Brook None Negligible 191 WWI landing ground (airfield) at Easthorpe None Negligible 192 Easthorpe Green Farmhouse Grade II Listed Building Grade II Listed Medium Building 193 Course of Roman Stane Street None Low
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 260 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix C. Ecology
C.1 Wildlife legislation
The following is a summary of relevant wildlife legislation and planning policy which affords protection to plants and animals and seeks to conserve, enhance and restore biodiversity.
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (SI No. 2010/490) update and supersede The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). The 2010 Regulations are the principal means by which the European Habitats Directive is transposed in England and Wales.
The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of a network of 'European Sites' termed Natura 2000, the protection of 'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) apply in the terrestrial environment and in territorial waters out to 12 nautical miles. The EU Habitats and Wild Birds Directives are transposed in UK offshore waters by separate regulations – The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended).
Regulation 41 relates to the protection of European protected species listed under Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Taken together it is an offence to undertake the following acts with regard to European Protected Species: deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal of a European Protected Species; deliberately disturb animals of any such species in such a way as to be likely to: - impair their ability to survive, breed, rear or nurture their young, hibernate or migrate, or - affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong; deliberately take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; or damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.
The disturbance offence is generally taken to refer to a discernible effect at population level and biogeographic level, rather than simply to an individual animal. However, in certain circumstances the disturbance of one individual animal may have population level effects.
The Regulations also make it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately pick, collect, cut, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule 5.
However, the actions listed above can be made lawful through the granting of licences (European Protected Species Mitigation Licence) by the appropriate authorities (Natural England in England). Licences may be granted for a number of purposes (such as science and education, conservation, preserving public health and safety), but only after the appropriate authority has determined that the following regulations are satisfied: the works under the licence are being carried out for the purposes of ‘preserving public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’. there is ‘no satisfactory alternative’. the action 'will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at favourable conservation status in their natural range'.
To apply for a licence, the following information is required:
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 261 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
The species concerned. The size of the population at the site (note this may require a survey to be carried out at a particular time of the year). The impact(s) (if any) that the development is likely to have upon the populations. What measures can be conducted to mitigate for the impact(s).
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is the principal piece of UK legislation relating to the protection of wildlife. It consolidates and amends existing national legislation to implement the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive) in Great Britain.
The Act makes it an offence (with exception to species listed in Schedule 2) to intentionally kill, injure, or take any wild bird or their eggs or nests. Special penalties are available for offences related to birds listed on Schedule 1, for which there are additional offences of disturbing these birds at their nests, or their dependent young. The Secretary of State may also designate Special Protection Areas (subject to exceptions) to provide further protection to birds. The Act also prohibits certain methods of killing, injuring, or taking birds, restricts the sale and possession of captive bred birds, and sets standards for keeping birds in captivity.
The Act makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to intentionally kill, injure, or take, possess, or trade in any wild animal listed in Schedule 5, and prohibits interference with places used for shelter or protection, or intentionally disturbing animals occupying such places. The Act also prohibits certain methods of killing, injuring, or taking wild animals listed in Schedule 6.
The Act makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to pick, uproot, trade in, or possess (for the purposes of trade) any wild plant listed in Schedule 8, and prohibits the unauthorised intentional uprooting of such plants.
The Act contains measures for preventing the establishment of non-native species which may be detrimental to native wildlife, prohibiting the release of animals and planting of plants listed in Schedule 9. It also provides a mechanism making any of the above offences legal through the granting of licences by the appropriate authorities.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) was passed to provide additional levels of protection for wildlife whilst also strengthening the protection afforded to Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Schedule 12 of the Act amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, strengthening the legal protection for threatened species. The provisions make certain offences 'arrestable', create a new offence of ‘reckless’ disturbance, confer greater powers to police and wildlife inspectors for entering premises and obtaining wildlife tissue samples for DNA analysis, and enable heavier penalties on conviction of wildlife offences.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) is designed to help achieve a rich and diverse natural environment and thriving rural communities through modernised and simplified arrangements for delivering Government policy.
It was created to make provision in connection with wildlife, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Parks and the Broads; to amend the law relating to rights of way; to make provision as to the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council; to provide for flexible administrative arrangements in connection with functions relating to the environment and rural affairs and certain other functions; and for connected purposes.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 262 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Section 40 of NERC carries an extension of the earlier CRoW Act biodiversity duty to public bodies and statutory undertakers to ensure due regard to the conservation of biodiversity. Section 41 requires the Secretary of State, as respects England, to publish a list of the living organisms and types of habitat which in the Secretary of State’s opinion are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. The updated list was published in May 2008.
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992
In the UK badgers are primarily afforded protection under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This makes it illegal to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or to attempt to do so and to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference includes disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it.
Badgers also receive limited protection under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This outlaws certain methods of taking or killing animals.
Under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, a licence may be granted by Natural England to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of development, as defined by Section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Section 3 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 defines interference as: Damaging a badger sett; Destroying a badger sett; Obstructing access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett; Causing a dog to enter a sett; or Disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett.
Natural England guidance has suggested that the following operations may disturb badgers in their setts, and therefore unless these can be avoided a licence may be required: Excavation, ground disturbance or use of heavy machinery within the vicinity of an active sett. Fire or chemicals within the vicinity of an active sett. Tree felling in the area of an active sett – trees should be felled away from setts and cleared away from badger paths. Other disturbances such as loud noises or vibrations; some activities such as pile driving and the use of explosives that may result in a disturbance over a much greater distance will require individual consideration.
The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 makes it an offence for any person to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.
The Animal Welfare Act 2006
Prior to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, people only had a duty to ensure that an animal didn’t suffer unnecessarily. The new Act keeps this duty but also imposes a broader duty of care on anyone responsible for an animal to take reasonable steps to ensure that the animal’s needs are met. This means that a person has to look after the animal’s welfare as well as ensure that it does not suffer. The Act says that an animal’s welfare needs include: a suitable environment (how it is housed);
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 263 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
a suitable diet (what it eats and drinks); the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
With regards to development, this may have implications when translocations of animals are proposed. As such, care must be taken to ensure that any receptor sites are suitable for the species in terms of habitat and carrying capacity.
The Hedgerows Regulations 1997
The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 were introduced to protect hedgerows of importance from destruction. However the legislation does not apply to any hedgerow (even if it is within the list above) which is within or marking the boundary of the curtilage of a dwelling house.
For the Regulations to be applicable, the hedgerow must be at least 20 metres in length or, if less than 20 metres, it must meet another hedgerow at each end. A hedgerow is deemed to be important if it is more than thirty years old and meets at least one of the criteria listed in Part II of Schedule 1 of the Regulations.
If a hedgerow which qualifies under the Regulations is to be removed, the landowner / developer must contact the Local Planning Authority (LPA) in writing by submitting a hedgerow removal notice. The LPA then has a period of 42 days to decide whether or not the hedgerow meets the importance criteria of the regulations.
National planning policy
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) replaces Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS 9) (ODPM 2005b) and sets out the view of central Government on how planners should balance nature conservation with development and helps ensure that Government meets its biodiversity commitments with regard to the operation of the planning system. One of the key principles of the NPPF is:
‘LPAs should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles, including the encouragement of opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments’.
The NPPF states that development plan policies and planning decisions should be based upon up-to-date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas, including biodiversity. It also states that the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity conservation interests and to ‘promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the recovery of priority species’.
To minimise impacts on biodiversity (in particular reference to undesignated nature conservation sites) and geodiversity, planning policies should ‘identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation’.
Where determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principals: ‘if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused’; and, ‘planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss’.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 264 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
This means that full ecological surveys should be carried out and suitable mitigation measures proposed prior to any planning application being submitted. It is common practice for planning officers to consult Natural England or other conservation bodies for advice regarding the suitability of proposals in relation to biodiversity conservation.
Red Data Books
British Red Data Books (RDB) are an additional method for classifying the rarity of species, and are often seen as a natural progression from Biodiversity Action Plans.
RDB species have no automatic legal protection (unless they are protected under any of the legislation previously mentioned). Instead they provide a means of assessing rarity and highlight areas where resources may be targeted. Various categories of RDB species are recorded based on the IUCN criteria and the UK national criteria based on presence within certain numbers of 10x10km grid-squares (see http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3425). As with Biodiversity Action Plans, where possible, steps should be taken to conserve RDB species which are to be affected by development.
RSPB
The RSPB have categorised the UK’s birds according to their conservation priority. Red is the highest priority, with species needing urgent action. Amber is the next critical group, followed by green.
C.2 List of Typical Potential Impacts Reference Context Description of Impacts Effects European sites There would be risks of This would be Impact 1 pollution to water courses applicable during the that could undermine the construction and
integrity of the European operational phases, Sites by the hydrological and would be connectivity. temporary impacts, as the scale of any pollution events would not lead to a permanent loss of integrity.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 265 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Impact 2 European sites Abundance and This would be a assemblages of qualifying temporary impact as features (i.e. migratory in the long term the and wintering birds) of the birds would adapt European sites that may and would find utilise habitats may be alternatives in due subject to: disturbance course. during the construction phase; injury or mortality due to collisions and restriction of foraging habitats; and prevented from stopping over en route to the European sites during the construction and operational phases. Impact 3 Local Nature Reserves/ May be at risk from partial Loss of resource and Local Wildlife Sites within and loss on a permanent loss of integrity 100m of the route basis; temporary damage during the alignments during works; and loss of construction and integrity due to operational phase disturbance from respectively. construction activities and passing traffic Impact 4 Local Nature Reserves/ may be at risk of loss of Loss of integrity Local Wildlife Sites integrity during located between 100m construction and and 1km operational phases due to loss of vegetation that currently provides connectivity and buffer zones against farming activities and from disturbance caused by construction related activities and live traffic. Impact 5 Designated sites within Construction activities and This could lead to 200m of the Routes vehicle movements nitrification of the
leading to an increase in habitat that could airborne pollutants in. change the species assemblages. Impact 6: Habitats of principal Partial loss or damage Reduction in the importance extent of the resource available Impact 7 Habitats of principal Loss or damage of More vulnerable to importance habitats that form buffers degradation due to
around priority habitats, construction and the loss of habitat that activities; live traffic; provides connectivity maintenance between priority habitats operations and and wider surroundings. environmental change.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 266 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Impact 8 Habitats of principal Noise, vibrations, lighting, Loss of site integrity importance the spread of invasive and decline in the non-native species, and condition road maintenance operations. Impact 9 Rivers and watercourses Pollution of water ways Loss of integrity due to soil wash off, spills
or maintenance operations.
Impact 10 Habitats and species Disturbance of habitats This could alter the due to presence of plant species assemblages and personnel, and within the habitats as proximity of operations those sensitive to such as vegetation disturbance may clearance, earth works withdraw, affecting and construction. the relationships within the habitat and the habitat functionality. Impact 11 Habitats and species Partial or total Effects include damage/loss of habitats or fragmentation of features that support habitat, leading to species of conservation isolation of interest. populations; loss of foraging habitat; loss of breeding habitat; loss of shelter; loss of hibernation habitat; stress and reduced fitness of individuals, making them more susceptible to disease; and greater susceptibility to predation. Impact 12 Protected or notable Death or injury of These actions could species individuals during works, also affect the including eggs or larvae; conservation status disturbance of a species of a species as by whilst resting, breeding, or reducing the hibernating; destroying numbers, the their place of shelter or population of a breeding site. This would species would be be illegal for many species more vulnerable to due to specific legal stress. protection, or in contravention of the
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 267 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Animal Welfare Act 2006. Impact 13 Bat species Noise and vibrations Effects on individuals during works, specifically and the conservation regarding disturbance of status of populations. bats whilst roosting, particularly regarding breeding and hibernation roosts. Impact of noise during operational phase, (due to live traffic) and illumination of habitats on bat foraging activity, discouraging their use of habitats adjacent to the new road and pushing them into alternative areas that may be less rewarding than the existing habitats, or further from roosting sites requiring greater energy expenditure and loss of fitness. The topography within which the route Options lie may change the magnitude of impact of traffic noise on bat behaviour, but this is not possible to consider here. Impact 14 Protected and notable Vehicle strike and greater Effects on individuals species risks to individuals of and the conservation injury and mortality, and status of populations. potential risks to the conservation status of the populations if loss of individuals reduces the genetic resource or numbers required to absorb stress, such as changes in predation, habitat or disease. Impact 15 Protected and notable Hydrological change due Effects on individuals species; otter and water to the increase in hard and the conservation vole in particular. standing and culverts that status of populations. could bring about greater likelihood of flooding, increasing risk of drowning to water vole, otter, and any hibernating species in the vicinity of the flood risk zones, and risk of predation during evacuation from flooded areas.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 268 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Impact 16: Protected and notable Loss of aquatic Effects on individuals species connectivity (during works) and the conservation and provision of culverts status of populations. and bridges (during operation), obstructing dispersal routes and foraging along riparian corridors. This would restrict genetic exchange, and could cause isolation and genetic regression; restriction in territorial range; and the loss of fitness and capability to adapt to change for some species / groups. Impact 17 Protected and notable Restriction and Effects on individuals species; badger in fragmentation of and the conservation particular territories, pushing status of populations. inhabitants into other territories potentially leading to conflict with other groups of the same species, such as rival clans of badger.
C.3 Ecological Survey Calendar
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 269 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
C.4 Ecological Mitigation Calendar
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 270 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix D. Geology and Soils
D.1 Surface Water Courses Surface water courses and water bodies on and within 250 m of the proposed route options. Surface water courses/ water bodies on the Surface water courses/ water bodies within 250 m proposed route options and Significance of the route options and Significance Option 1B
Major Watercourses (high significance) Major Watercourses/features (high significance) River Brain crossing at various points. River Blackwater - surface water abstraction River Blackwater crossing. approximately 30 m south of the route. Reservoir 1 – approximately 230 m north of route. Minor Watercourse (medium significance) Reservoir 2 – approximately 70 m north of the Unnamed watercourse parallel to current route. Braintree bypass– intersected by side road. Reservoir 3 - approximately 75 m south-west of Coggeshall watercourse the route. Domsey Brook Ashes Road watercourses Gravel Pits (medium significance) Water filled gravel pits at Bradwell Quarry. Option 3 Major Watercourse (high significance) Major Watercourse/features (high significance) River Blackwater crossing– west of Water Lane. River Brain – approximately 120 m west. Existing Minor Watercourse (medium significance) A120 crossing at this point. Unnamed watercourse parallel to current Reservoir 3 (part of Great Domsey Farm) – Braintree bypass – intersected by side road. approximately 75 m south-east. Unnamed watercourse (field drain) Minor Watercourse/features (medium significance) Hanwick Farm watercourse Lanham Wood Watercourse - approximately Prior's Wood watercourse 140 m from the side road. Unnamed water course Reservoir / pond at Milles Farm – approximately Doghouse Road Watercourse 75 m south-west of the route. Woodland Watercourse Unnamed watercourse - approximately 10 m north Pond of route, around Fen Plantation, east of Robin’s Robin’s Brook crossing– north of Coggeshall. Brook. Tey Road Watercourse Old Road Watercourse Domsey Brook - both the on and off ramps to the north of the new interchange cross the watercourse to the south of the current A12. Option 4B Major Watercourse (high significance) Major Watercourse (high significance) River Blackwater crossing. River Brain is located approximately 120 m west. Minor Watercourses/features (medium Minor Watercourse/features (medium significance) significance) Pond at Glazenwood - approximately 130 m north of route and drain at Glazenwood - approximately Unnamed watercourse parallel to current 140 m north of route. Braintree bypass
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 271 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Surface water courses/ water bodies on the Surface water courses/ water bodies within 250 m proposed route options and Significance of the route options and Significance Pond, Fowlers Farm – south of Long Green. Lanham Wood Watercourse - approximately Unnamed water body - parallel to Long Green 140 m from side road. (intersected by proposed off-ramp). Reservoir 1 (south-east of Coggeshall,) – Unnamed watercourse (field drain). approximately 250 m north of route. Ponds– next to field boundary.Water filled gravel Reservoir 2 – approximately 70 m north of the pits at Bradwell Quarry route. Threadkells watercourse Reservoir 3 (part of Great Domsey Farm) – Coggeshall watercourse approximately 75 m south-west of the route. Domsey Brook
Option 8 Major Watercourses (high significance) Major Watercourses (high significance) River Brain crossing at various points. River Brain Minor Watercourse/features (medium Minor Watercourse/features (medium significance) significance) Unnamed water body - parallel to Long Green Unnamed watercourse parallel to current 70 m west of route. Braintree bypass– intersected by side road. Pond, Fowlers Farm– south of Long Green 210 m Ponds– next to field boundary. south of end of proposed route (on existing Ashes Road watercourses. bypass). Unnamed water course north of Ashes Road. Unnamed watercourse (field drain) Rolphs Cottages Watercourse intersects with Landerfield Spring– 150 m south of the route. proposed side road on western edge of Ponds along field boundaries to west of eastern Rivenhall Airfield site. railway line Park Road watercourse.
River Blackwater crossing – new spur road connecting the south-eastern end of the route with the Kelvedon Bypass. Other unnamed watercourses crossing to the south-east. Option 9A Major Watercourses (high significance) Major Watercourses/features (high significance) River Blackwater crossing (NGR TL 85419 River Brain located approximately 120 m west of 17476) – new spur road connecting the south- the route, near the western end. eastern end of the route with the Kelvedon River Blackwater Bypass. Minor Watercourse/features (medium significance) Minor Watercourse/features (medium Unnamed watercourse approximately 15 m south significance) of route. Unnamed watercourse parallel to current Pond at Glazenwood - approximately 130 m north Braintree bypass– intersected by side road. of route and drain at Glazenwood - approximately 140 m north of route. Unnamed water body - parallel to Long Green Landerfield Spring– 150 m south of the route. (intersected by proposed off-ramp). Unnamed watercourse (field drain). Ponds at Clark’s Farm. Ponds – next to field boundary. Lanham Wood Watercourse Rolphs Cottages Watercourse intersects with proposed side road on western edge of
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 272 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Surface water courses/ water bodies on the Surface water courses/ water bodies within 250 m proposed route options and Significance of the route options and Significance Rivenhall Airfield site. Park Road watercourse. Other unnamed watercourses crossing to the south-east.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 273 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
D.2 Historical Review
Historical Land Uses (On route) from west to east. Historical Land Uses (within 250 m) from west to east Option 1B
Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch Sewage works – approximately 140 m north-west (west) - shown on the earliest available map of the route at Braintree. First shown on the 1922 dated 1875/76. There are no significant changes plan with a series of filter beds and tanks. over time. Expansion of the works towards the south is Disused Rivenhall Airfield – little detail on evident on the 1961 and 1970/71 maps as historical maps. ‘Airfield’ shown on 1953 map but additional filter beds and tanks. no layout shown. 1968/69 map shows the Braintree Substation – the land boundary is triangular layout of the airfield and it is listed as approximately 30 m north of the route; current disused. An internet search revealed it was installations are approximately 130 m north from opened in 1942, closed in 1946 and kept in the route. First shown on the 1961 map with reserve until 1956. Current aerial images show electrical pylons and some unidentified structures. some of the perimeter tracks are still present. Changes to the layout of the installation evident on During the site walkover graded soil/aggregate 1982, including addition of a gas valve compound, heaps and two small sized chemical storage and 1992 maps, including expansion of the gas tanks were noted at the former airfield/quarry. valve compound. Bradwell Quarry – small gravel pit first shown Vehicle scrap yard (Brand & Howes on 1897 map in the northern part of the current Environmental Ltd, Goodriches Dusty Lane) – quarry. Area of gravel pits has extended north approximately 240m west from the end of the spur and south on 1953 map and again on the 1968 road connecting the route to Braintree Road. This map. The latest available map dated 1990/92 is first shown as a single small building on the shows the maximum southern extent of the 1978/92 map. Prior to this, the site was gravel pit in line with four current linear water undeveloped. filled gravel pits. During the site walkover, soil Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, heaps and two small sized chemical storage Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m north tanks were noted at the former airfield/quarry. of Galleys Corner bypass. First shown on the Great Eastern Main Line (east) – shown on the 1952/53 map as a small number of unidentified earliest available map dated 1875/76. A12 crossing – first shown on the earliest buildings and land divisions (possibly small available map dated 1875. Road has been holdings). The 1982 map identifies small structures widened on the 1954/64 map. No further as depots. changes shown on the 1975 map. Cressing Lodge Farm – approximately 100 m south-east of Galleys Corner bypass. Shown on earliest available map dated 1875 with unidentified structures (likely farm buildings), a small pond immediately north-west of the farm buildings and a north-west south-east trend land drain which runs immediately to the south of the farm buildings. Some alteration to farm buildings on later maps, including on the 1952/53 map. Lanham Farm Depot – one of the side roads is located along the southern edge of the depot. First shown on the 1953 map with a water tower and a small number of unidentified structures, which are present on current aerial images. Infilled sand and gravel pit – approximately 250 m north-east of the route. It was shown on first available map dated 1875 as undeveloped to 1990 (last available map).
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 274 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Historical Land Uses (On route) from west to east. Historical Land Uses (within 250 m) from west to east Fly tipping and Vehicle scrap yard at Alshots Farm – approximately 250 m south of the route, on the south-eastern edge of airfield. Shown on first available map dated 1875 with a number of small buildings. Several new buildings and an electrical substation are shown to the west of the original buildings on 1953 map. Substation is not present on subsequent maps. Langley Farm (livestock farm) - one of the proposed side roads is located on the edge of this farm. Shown on the earliest available map dated 1875 comprising a number of buildings and a pond straddling the east-west road. On the 1897 map a few small unidentified structures are shown in the area of the currently existing cottages 200 m to the west of the farm. Reservoir 3 (part of Great Domsey Farm) – shown on the most recent available map (1986). Option 3 Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch Sewage Works (Braintree) – approximately 140 (west) – shown on the earliest available map m north-west of the route, inside By-pass. First dated 1875/76. shown on the 1922 map with tanks and filter beds Cressing Lodge Farm – shown on earliest and some other unidentified structures. available map dated 1875 with unidentified Braintree Substation – the land boundary is structures (likely farm buildings), a small pond approximately 20 m to the south of the route; immediately north-west of the farm buildings and current installations are approximately 130 m from a north-west south-east trend land drain which the route. First shown on the 1961 map with runs immediately to the south of the farm buildings. Some alterations to farm buildings on electrical pylons and some unidentified structures. later maps, including the 1952/53 map, but none Changes to the layout of the installation evident on significant. 1982, including addition of a gas valve compound, Baytree Farm / Cherry Lane Garden Centre – and 1992 maps, including expansion of the gas the farm is shown on the earliest available map valve compound. dated 1875 with a brick field and several small Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, clay pits and gravel pits located immediately east Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m north of the farm. The pits and the brick field are not of Galleys Corner bypass. First shown on the shown on the 1897 map. Slight change to the 1952/53 map as a small number of unidentified farm buildings layout on the 1973/81 map. On buildings and land divisions (possibly small the latest available map dated 1990/92, the garden centre is not shown. holdings). The 1982 map identifies small structures Great Eastern Main Line (east) – shown on the as depots. earliest available map dated 1875/76. Millie’s Farm – approximately 180 m south. S A12 crossing – first shown on the earliest Shown on the earliest available map dated 1875 available map dated 1875. Road has been comprising a number of unidentified structures / widened on the 1954/64 map. No further buildings. Expansion of the farm was shown on changes shown on the 1975 map. the 1953/54 map comprising the addition of tennis courts and a small pond to the south of the farm. The current large pond / reservoir (shown on recent Google maps) located to the north-east of the farm was not shown on the last available historical map dated 1982. Sewage works at Stisted – approximately 300 m north-west of the route, bounded to the south by a watercourse. First shown on the 1973/81 map as
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 275 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Historical Land Uses (On route) from west to east. Historical Land Uses (within 250 m) from west to east sewage works with unidentified structures. Prior’s Way industrial area – approximately 20 m south of the route, site is open fields (agricultural) until the 1991 map (latest available map) when the industrial estate is first shown. Langley Farm – large livestock farm, approximately 200m south-east of the route. Shown on the earliest available map dated 1875 comprising a number of buildings and a pond straddling the east-west road. On the 1897 map a few small unidentified structures are shown in the area of the currently existing cottages 200 m to the west of the farm. Reservoir 3 (part of Great Domsey Farm) – approximately 75 m south-east, this is shown on the most recent available map dated 1986. Option 4B Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch Sewage Works (Braintree) – approximately 140 (west) – shown on the earliest available map m north-west of the route, inside By-pass. First dated 1875/76. shown on the 1922 map with tanks and filter beds Cressing Lodge Farm – shown on earliest and some other unidentified structures. available map dated 1875 with unidentified Braintree Substation – the land boundary is structures (likely farm buildings), a small pond approximately 20 m to the south of the route; immediately north-west of the farm buildings and current installations are approximately 130 m from a north-west south-east trend land drain which the route. First shown on the 1961 map with runs immediately to the south of the farm buildings. Some alterations to farm buildings on electrical pylons and some unidentified structures. later maps, including the 1952/53 map, but none Changes to the layout of the installation evident on significant. 1982, including addition of a gas valve compound, Disused Rivenhall Airfield – little detail on and 1992 maps, including expansion of the gas historical maps. ‘Airfield’ shown on 1953 map but valve compound. no layout shown. 1968/69 map shows the Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, triangular layout of the airfield and it is listed as Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m north disused. An internet search revealed it was of Galleys Corner bypass. First shown on the opened in 1942, closed in 1946 and kept in 1952/53 map as a small number of unidentified reserve until 1956. Current aerial images show buildings and land divisions (possibly small some of the perimeter tracks are still present. During the site walkover graded soil/aggregate holdings). The 1982 map identifies small structures heaps and two small sized chemical storage as depots. tanks were noted at the former airfield/quarry. Fells Farm – one of the side roads is located on Bradwell Quarry – small gravel pit first shown the edge of this farm. Small buildings (likely to be a on 1897 map in the northern part of the current cottage) first shown on 1897 map. Buildings quarry. Area of gravel pits has extended north labelled as Mill Cottage on 1953 map and then and south on 1953 map and again on the 1968 Pond Cottage on the 1973/81 map and map. The latest available map dated 1990/92 subsequent maps to 1990/92. shows the maximum southern extent of the Infilled sand and gravel pit – approximately 250 gravel pit in line with four current linear water m north-east of the route. It was shown on first filled gravel pits. During the site walkover, soil available map dated 1875 as undeveloped to 1990 heaps and two small sized chemical storage (last available map). tanks were noted at the former airfield/quarry. Fly tipping and Vehicle scrap yard at Alshots Great Eastern Main Line (east) – shown on the Farm – approximately 250 m south of the route, on earliest available map dated 1875/76. the south-eastern edge of airfield. Shown on first A12 crossing – first shown on the earliest available map dated 1875 with a number of small available map dated 1875. Road has been buildings. Several new buildings and an electrical
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 276 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Historical Land Uses (On route) from west to east. Historical Land Uses (within 250 m) from west to east widened on the 1954/64 map. No further substation are shown to the west of the original changes shown on the 1975 map. buildings on 1953 map. Substation is not present on subsequent maps. Langley Farm (livestock farm) - one of the proposed side roads is located on the edge of this farm. Shown on the earliest available map dated 1875 comprising a number of buildings and a pond straddling the east-west road. On the 1897 map a few small unidentified structures are shown in the area of the currently existing cottages 200 m to the west of the farm. Reservoir 3 (part of Great Domsey Farm) – shown on the most recent available map (1986). Option 8 Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch Sewage Works (Braintree) – approximately 140 (west) – shown on the earliest available map m north-west of the route, inside By-pass. First dated 1875/76. There are no significant changes shown on the 1922 map with tanks and filter beds over time. and some other unidentified structures. Disused Rivenhall Airfield – little detail on historical maps. ‘Airfield’ shown on 1953 map but Braintree Substation – the land boundary is no layout shown. 1968/69 map shows the approximately 30 m north of the route; current triangular layout of the airfield and it is listed as installations are approximately 130 m north from disused. An internet search revealed it was the route. First shown on the 1961 map with opened in 1942, closed in 1946 and kept in electrical pylons and some unidentified structures. reserve until 1956. Current aerial images show Changes to the layout of the installation evident on some of the perimeter tracks are still present. 1982, including addition of a gas valve compound, During the site walkover graded soil/ aggregate and 1992 maps, including expansion of the gas heaps and two small sized chemical storage valve compound. tanks were noted at the former airfield/quarry. Bradwell Quarry – small gravel pit first shown Vehicle scrap yard (Brand & Howes on 1897 map in the northern part of the current Environmental Ltd, Goodriches Dusty Lane) – quarry. Area of gravel pits has extended north approximately 240m west from the end of the spur and south on 1953 map and again on the 1968 road connecting the route to Braintree Road. This map. The latest available map dated 1990/92 is first shown as a single small building on the shows the maximum southern extent of the 1978/92 map. Prior to this, the site was gravel pit in line with four current linear water undeveloped. filled gravel pits. During the site walkover soil Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, heaps and two small sized chemical storage Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m north tanks were noted at the former airfield/quarry. of Galleys Corner bypass. First shown on the Disused sewage works, south of Park Gate 1952/53 map as a small number of unidentified Road - first shown with structures including tanks buildings and land divisions (possibly small and sewage beds in 1953 but became disused in holdings). The 1982 map identifies small structures 1980 with no significant changes to the site as depots. layout over time. Great Eastern Main Line - first shown on the Cressing Lodge Farm – approximately 100 m earliest available map (1875/76). There are no south-east of Galleys Corner bypass. Shown on significant changes over time. earliest available map dated 1875 with unidentified structures (likely farm buildings), a small pond Essex County Fire Service Headquarters – immediately north-west of the farm buildings and a the site (identified as Durwards Hall) was shown north-west south-east trend land drain which runs on the earliest available map dated 1875 with a immediately to the south of the farm buildings. number of buildings and a pond to the south- Some alteration to farm buildings on later maps, east in 1897. There is little change until the including on the 1952/53 map. 1953/53 map shows new buildings to the east. Lanham Farm Depot – one of the side roads is Further development including an additional
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 277 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Historical Land Uses (On route) from west to east. Historical Land Uses (within 250 m) from west to east large building to the east of the original buildings located along the southern edge of the depot. First in 1967/69 then no further change in the most shown on the 1953 map with a water tower and a recent historical map dated 1980. small number of unidentified structures, which are present on current aerial images. Hole Farm - located 30 m north-west of A12 Bypass. First shown on the earliest map examined (1875) as a group of buildings with a pond to the north. No changes shown on any later maps. Clark’s Farm (NGR TL 84708 18086) – located immediately north-east of the eastern railway line and approximately 10 m to the south east of one of the side roads. Shown on the earliest available map dated 1875 as a cluster of several buildings and at least two ponds. An area in the north of the site is labelled as a pond in a 1961/69 map. No significant changes to layout shown. Businesses to north of A12 Kelvedon bypass – located 170 m north. The earliest examined map dated 1875 shows this as undeveloped agricultural land. The 1953/54 map shows an oval track coming off the road (Crane’s Hill) from the north and a number of small structures. No changes to the site are shown when the bypass is built to the south of it between 1995 and 1968 or on later maps to 1974. Option 9A Great Eastern railway line - Braintree Branch Sewage Works (Braintree) – approximately 140 (west) – shown on the earliest available map m north-west of the route, inside By-pass. First (1875/76). There are no significant changes over shown on the 1922 map with tanks and filter beds time. and some other unidentified structures. Cressing Lodge Farm – shown on earliest Braintree Substation – the land boundary is available map (1875) with unidentified structures approximately 20 m to the south of the route; (likely farm buildings), a small pond immediately current installations are approximately 130 m from north-west of the farm buildings and a north-west the route. First shown on the 1961 map with south-east trend land drain which runs immediately to the south of the farm buildings. electrical pylons and some unidentified structures. Some alteration to farm buildings on later maps, Changes to the layout of the installation evident on including on the 1952/53 map, but none 1982, including addition of a gas valve compound, significant. and 1992 maps, including expansion of the gas Disused Rivenhall Airfield – little detail on valve compound. historical maps. ‘Airfield’ shown on 1953 map but Vehicle scrap yard (Essex Auto Salvage, no layout shown. 1968/69 map shows the Cordons Farm Depot) – approximately 40 m north triangular layout of the airfield and it is listed as of Galleys Corner bypass. First shown on the disused. An internet search revealed it was 1952/53 map as a small number of unidentified opened in 1942, closed in 1946 and kept in buildings and land divisions (possibly small reserve until 1956. Current aerial images show some of the perimeter tracks are still present. holdings). The 1982 map identifies small structures During the site walkover graded soil/ aggregate as depots. heaps and two small sized chemical storage Fells Farm – one of the side roads is located on tanks were noted at the former airfield/quarry. the edge of this farm. Small buildings (likely to be a Bradwell Quarry – small gravel pit first shown cottage) first shown on 1897 map. Buildings on 1897 map in the northern part of the current labelled as Mill Cottage on 1953 map and then quarry. Area of gravel pits has extended north Pond Cottage on the 1973/81 map and and south on 1953 map and again on the 1968 subsequent maps to 1990/92.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 278 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Historical Land Uses (On route) from west to east. Historical Land Uses (within 250 m) from west to east map. The latest available map (1990/92) shows Hole Farm - located 30 m north-west of A12 the maximum southern extent of the gravel pit in Bypass. First shown on the earliest map examined line with four current linear water filled gravel (1875) as a group of buildings with a pond to the pits. During the site walkover, soil heaps and two north. No changes shown on any later maps. small sized chemical storage tanks were noted Clark’s Farm (NGR TL 84708 18086) – located at the former airfield/quarry. immediately north-east of the eastern railway line Disused sewage works, south of Park Gate and approximately 10 m to the south east of one of Road - first shown with structures including tanks the side roads. Shown on the earliest available and sewage beds in 1953 but became disused in map dated 1875 as a cluster of several buildings 1980 with no significant changes to the site and at least two ponds. An area in the north of the layout over time. site is labelled as a pond in a 1961/69 map. No Great Eastern Main Line - first shown on the significant changes to layout shown. earliest available map dated 1875/76. Businesses to north of A12 Kelvedon bypass – Essex County Fire Service Headquarters – located 170 m north. The earliest examined map the site (identified as Durwards Hall) was shown dated 1875 shows this as undeveloped agricultural on the earliest available map dated 1875 with a land. The 1953/54 map shows an oval track number of buildings and a pond to the south- coming off the road (Crane’s Hill) from the north east in 1897. There is little change until the and a number of small structures. No changes to 1953/53 map shows new buildings to the east. the site are shown when the bypass is built to the Further development including an additional south of it between 1995 and 1968 or on later large building to the east of the original buildings maps to 1974. in 1967/69 then no further change in the most recent historical map dated 1980.
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 279 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Appendix E. Abbreviations
Abbreviation Term AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ADMS Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System AEP flood event Annual Exceedance Probability flood event ALC Agricultural Land Classification AOD Above Ordnance Datum APZ Archaeological Priority Zone AQAP Air Quality Action Plan AQMA Air Quality Management Area AQO Air Quality Objectives AQS Air Quality Strategy ARC Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust BGS British Geological Survey BNS Biological Notification Site BPM Best Practicable Means BS British Standard CAMS Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association CL:AIRE Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments CLEA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment CLR Contaminated Land Report CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide CoP Code of Practice CRN Calculation of Rail Noise CRoW Countryside and Rights of Way (Act) CRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise CSM Conceptual Site Model dB Decibel DCLG Department of Community and Local Government DCO Development Consent Order DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DfT Department for Transport DLTR Department for Local Government, Transport and the Regions DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DsPH Directors of Public Health DWS Drinking Water Standard
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 280 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
EA Environment Agency EC European Community EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMS Environmental Management System EMU Electric Multiple Unit EPA Environmental Protection Act EQS Environmental Quality Standard ES ES EU European Union FRA Flood Risk Assessment GAC Generic Assessment Criteria GCN Great Crested Newt GiGL Greenspace information for Greater London GLHER Greater London Historic Environment Record GLVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment GRIP Guide to Rail Investment Process GVA Gross Value Added GWDTE Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems GWML Great Western Main Line HA Highways Agency HER Historic Environment Record HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HIA Health Impact Assessment HLC Historic Landscape Character HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment HUDU Healthy Urban Development Unit IAN Interim Advice Note IAQM Institute of Air Quality Management IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment IMD Indices of Multiple Deprivation IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest LAQM Local Air Quality Management LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority LU London Underground LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LWS Local Wildlife Site NAQS National Air Quality Strategy NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities (Act) NNG Night Noise Guidelines NNR National Nature Reserve NOx Mono-nitrogen Oxides
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 281 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance NPS National Policy Statement NPSE Noise Policy Statement for England NSIP Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project OLE Overhead Line Equipment PCT Primary Care Trust PEI Preliminary Environmental Information PINS Planning Inspectorate PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate Matter with a diameter of 10 micrometres or less.
PM2. 5 Particulate Matter with a diameter of 2. 5 micrometres or less. PPS Planning Policy Statements PRoW Public Right of Way RBMP River Basin Management Plan SAC Special Area of Conservation SCL Sprayed Concrete Lining SEB Statutory Environmental Body SHA Strategic Health Authority SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation SNCI Site of Nature Conservation Importance SO2 Sulphur Dioxide SPA Special Protection Area SPZ Source Protection Zone SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SWMP Site Waste Management Plan TPO Tree Preservation Order UK United Kingdom VDV Vibration Dose Value WFD Water Framework Directive WHO World Health Organisation WPZ Water Protection Zone ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility
B3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001 282 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
283