M2 Junction 5 Improvements Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report 25/09/20 Status: A1 APPROVED - PUBLISHED Document Ref: HE551521-ATK-GEN-XX-RP-CH-000001.docx

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Table of contents

Chapter Pages 1. Introduction 4 1.1 Introduction 4 2. SPC Alternative ALT-1 5 2.1 Overview of Alternative Design – Overbridge at Church Hill 5 3. High level engineering review 6 3.1 Engineering 6 3.2 Safety Risk Assessment 9 4. Impact on the Orders 10 4.1 Caveat regarding potential Order changes 10 4.2 Amendments to the Side Roads Order (SRO) 10 4.3 Amendments to the Line Order (MLO) 10 4.4 Amendments to the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) 11 4.5 How the amendments should be incorporated 12 4.6 Summary 13 5. Impact on Traffic and Transport 14 5.1 Strategic Model Assessment 14 5.2 Operational Assessment 15 5.3 Cost Estimate 15 5.4 Economic Assessment 15 6. High level environmental assessment of alternative 16 6.1 Overview 16 6.2 Air quality 17 6.3 Noise and vibration 17 6.4 Biodiversity 18 6.5 Road drainage and the water environment 18 6.6 Landscape and visual 19 6.7 Geology and soils 21 6.8 Cultural heritage 21 6.9 Materials and waste 22 6.10 Population and human health 22 6.11 Climate change 23 6.12 Assessment of cumulative effects 23 7. Conclusions 25 7.1 Engineering 25 7.2 Environment 26 7.3 Overall Conclusions 26 Appendix A. Plan and Profile Drawings 30

Revision C03 Page 2 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Appendix B. Safety Risk Assessment of the Alternative 31 Appendix C. Proposed environmental design 35 Appendix D. High level environmental assessment of the alternative 36 Appendix E. Air Quality 61

Tables Table 4.1: CPO Plot alterations (based on Land Holding) ...... 12 Table 5.1: Church Hill Turning Flows in 2037 (Vehicles) ...... 14 Table 5.2: Alternative Scheme Benefits ...... 16 Table D.1: High level topic assessments ...... 36 Table E.1: Additional human health receptors near the alternative design ...... 61 Table E.2: Estimated annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations (µg/m3) at additional human health receptors near the alternative design using traffic data from the traffic model used for the alternative design, Highways England IAN 170/12v3 LTTE6 method ...... 61 Table E.3: Estimated annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations (µg/m3) at additional human health receptors near the alternative design using traffic data from the traffic model used for the published Scheme, Highways England IAN 170/12v3 LTTE6 method ...... 62

Figures Figure 3.1: Typical structural elevation ...... 7 Figure 4.1: Approximate additional land required to Sheet 1 of the CPO ...... 11

Revision C03 Page 3 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Stockbury Parish Council (SPC) objected to the Orders published in June 2019 on the basis that Highways England will increase the safety risk of accessing Stockbury from the A249 and requested that further measures are included in the design to mitigate this. 1.1.2 Highways England has identified and developed four alternative arrangements at the Church Hill junction which they consider are consistent with SPC’s aspirations. 1.1.3 This report is an assessment of one of these alternatives, a bridge over the A249 linking Church Hill with the proposed two-way local road (currently the existing south bound carriageway) and South Green Lane. This alternative is being reported separately because the original objection from SPC made reference to a bridge or underpass being required. During the development of these two alternatives, it became apparent that a bridge would be more feasible than an underpass due to the existing topography. A bridge has therefore been assessed to a greater level of detail in this stand-alone report. 1.1.4 Highways England has attempted to engage with SPC to clarify whether the alternative design reflects its desired outcomes, but SPC has declined to respond. In preparing this report Highways England has endeavoured to develop and assess an objectively realistic alternative based on the representations from SPC, rather than an alternative which is purposefully deficient, whether on technical, environmental or other grounds. 1.1.5 References to the promoted Scheme in this report are to the published Scheme in June 2019 as well as the detailed modifications being promoted by Highways England. 1.1.6 The assessment of three other alternatives – an underpass, roundabout, and signalised junction is contained in a different report, Additional Alternative Options at Church Hill Junction (Core Document H.25).

Revision C03 Page 4 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

2. SPC Alternative ALT-1

2.1 Overview of Alternative Design – Overbridge at Church Hill The plan and profile drawings of the alternative overbridge arrangement are included in Appendix A of this report. This alternative differs to the promoted Scheme in the following aspects: • The existing Church Hill junction with the A249 and existing right turn from the southbound carriageway would be closed • A new overbridge would span over the existing A249. • The roadway carried by the bridge would link Church Hill on the western side of the A249 with the proposed two-way link road between Oad Street and South Green Lane on the eastern side of the A249 providing access to Stockbury village on local roads connecting to the proposed Stockbury roundabout. • A five-metre-wide shared Non-Motorised User (NMU) path would provide for pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian users along the full length of the road between Church Lane and South Green Lane.

Revision C03 Page 5 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

3. High level engineering review

3.1 Engineering A 50kph design speed was considered appropriate for a road of this nature, given the standard of local roads that it would be connecting. A high-level assessment of the alignment has been carried out to identify any aspects of the design that would not meet the criteria as specified in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and where departures from standards would be required. No departures from standards were identified. The extension of the two-way local road over the A249 would result in additional earthworks, requiring an embankment rising up to approximately 8 metres high on the eastern side of the A249 and a mix of cutting of up to approximately 8m deep and embankment up to approximately 6m high on the sidelong slopes on the western side. The overbridge has been sited so that the earthworks avoid the need to demolish the existing dwellings and outbuildings at Hillside Farm on the eastern side of the A249. The existing Church Hill junction to the west of the A249 would be closed. All traffic travelling to Stockbury on the A249 in a northerly direction would continue to the proposed Stockbury roundabout via the proposed northbound exit slip road, and follow the proposed single carriageway local roads in a southerly direction. Access to Stockbury would then be gained by crossing the A249 on the bridge linking to the existing Church Hill, which is an approximate additional 3km. The closure of the existing Church Hill junction could encourage northbound drivers wishing to access Stockbury to leave the A249 at the Chalky Road junction (approximately 1.5 km south of Church Hill rather that travel north to the Stockbury Roundabout and then south on the proposed two-way local road between South Green Lane and Oad Street (approximately 3km). Chalky Road and South Street Road are single track country lanes with limited passing places. Similarly, traffic travelling to Stockbury south bound on the A249 or from the M2 motorway would do so via the Stockbury roundabout and the proposed local road network, which would be the same distance as under the Promoted Scheme. Structural Design An indicative design approach has been considered for a proposed overbridge carrying Church Hill over the existing A249 trunk road alignment. A three-span steel-concrete composite overbridge arrangement with bank seat abutments in the approach embankments and side spans spanning over sloped revetments has been chosen to promote an open appearance. This layout avoids substantial concrete or reinforced earth abutments and wing walls. A typical structural elevation is shown in Figure 3.1 below. The structure would be approximately 68m in length and 16m wide. The 68m length comprises a 40m central span and 14m side spans.

Revision C03 Page 6 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Figure 3.1: Typical structural elevation

There is currently no available Ground Investigation (GI) information in this area. Therefore, piled foundations are assumed to be preferable at this stage. However, spread foundation could be considered at a later design stage once further GI information is available. Bridge supports are located in the verge at 6.5m offsets from the edge of the A249’s overall paved width to allow for any future remodelling of the A249 alignment and to avoid the need to design the supports for collision loading. This could be reconsidered during later design stages, but it is considered an appropriate assumption at this stage. No bridge supports would be located in the central reserve of the A249 in order to avoid hazardous construction and maintenance works in the central reserve. This necessitated the overbridge to have a large central span over the A249 mainline carriageway. For the three-span overbridge arrangement, the proposed central span is significantly longer than the side spans. At this very early stage it was decided to keep the side spans as equal lengths to provide a symmetrical arrangement and ensure uniform load distribution over the bridge where possible. The side span lengths were determined considering a minimum headroom provision of 5.43m in conjunction with an assumed 1 in 3 embankment slope from ground level up to the bridge bank seat abutment level. This length is dictated by the east span as the proposed alignment is significantly elevated from the existing ground level. This requires a longer span and more extensive earthworks to tie back into the existing ground profile compared to the west span, where the proposed alignment ties back into the existing ground level over a shorter distance, significantly reducing the earthwork requirement. The proposed construction depth was determined considering minimum headroom requirements, and proposed road over and dual carriageway levels. The span arrangement was then reviewed to check the span to depth ratios were within acceptable limits (typically < 25) based on past experience.

Revision C03 Page 7 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

A steel-concrete composite construction type with a construction depth of 2m was considered most appropriate for the proposed overbridge arrangement due to the length of the central span. Main beam sizes were approximated based on a Corus- Atkins steel composite spreadsheet. A 5m wide shared Non-Motorised User route has been incorporated on the southern side of the bridge. To accommodate potential equestrian users, the height of the standard vehicle restraint System (VRS) parapets units will need to be 1.8m in compliance with TD 19/06. Solid infill panels at least 0.6m high will need to be incorporated at the bottom of the parapet to obstruct the horse’s view of the road below. These details will need to be considered further at later design stages. Road over levels, deck depths and construction types would be considered in more detail at later design stages. In common with the promoted Scheme, the construction of the bridge could be undertaken without the need to close a complete carriageway and therefore there would be no need for a single-lane contraflow. Geotechnical Design In the absence of ground investigation information for this area, a full ground investigation survey would be required to carry out an in-depth design for the earthwork, drainage and pavement design. For the purposes of this assessment, the geotechnical parameters used in the design of the promoted Scheme have been used for this alternative, including the use of 1 in 3 earthworks slopes. There is the presence of a groundwater abstraction point in the vicinity of the site. Drainage Design As part of the overbridge and two-way connecting road design, a new drainage network is required. A positive drainage network consisting of gullies and carrier drains is required throughout the length of the proposed two-way local road. Unlined drainage ditches will be located at the base of the embankments to allow infiltration. Infiltration basins will be required throughout the length of the local road. The basins will be located to collect and store surface water runoff from the embankments and verges. Pavement Design As part of the pavement design, a review of the design and operation impact for the overbridge has been carried out. The findings of the review are as follows: • Coring would be required of the tie-in at Church Hill, this will ensure that tar is not present; • To minimise the construction and maintenance costs, further design work will be required for the new construction of the carriageway and tie-in sections. The proposed construction depth will be based on the traffic loading calculations for the opening year, including sufficient growth factors throughout the life of the pavement.

Revision C03 Page 8 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Street Lighting Design As the existing junction is currently not lit and not within the proposed lighting extent, there is no specific requirement to provide street lighting as part of the overbridge design. No street lighting is therefore proposed. Utility Design In order to fully determine the extent to which Statutory Undertakers’ apparatus are present within the area, preliminary (C2) enquiries were issued to the Statutory Undertakers in the region in accordance with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA 1991). The potentially affected utilities are:- • South East Water mains • UK Power Networks HV and LV overhead cables • NRTS – National Roads Telecommunications Services cables • BT underground and overhead cables • Southern Water – Land take from Water Treatment Works (but this might be able to be designed out in later stages)

3.2 Safety Risk Assessment A qualitative Safety Risk Assessment (SRA) has been carried out to assess risks associated with the provision of an overbridge across the span of the A249 to allow for the removal of the at grade junction at Church Hill. This is included in Appendix B. Provision of an overbridge introduces some new hazards both for pedestrians and non-motorised users of the bridge as well as for road users. The key risk for users of the bridge is falling from height, whether intentional or non-intentional. For road users there is a risk of objects (or people) falling or being dropped/thrown from the bridge onto the carriageway below. There is also the distraction effect of anything happening on the bridge. The presence of the structure itself is likely to affect sight lines and will also need protecting from errant vehicles, with suitable road restraint systems provided to ensure that vehicles leaving the carriageway are protected from the structure. Construction and maintenance of an overbridge will inevitably expose road workers to risk, including working at height. Temporary traffic management will also be required.

Revision C03 Page 9 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

4. Impact on the Orders

4.1 Caveat regarding potential Order changes The required changes to the Orders identified below are approximate and based solely upon the high-level composite engineering plan of the alternative design. These changes may differ upon a full preliminary design being undertaken on the alternative.

4.2 Amendments to the Side Roads Order (SRO) Site Plan 1 The alternative design would require significant alterations to the Side Roads Order for the location between South Green Lane and Church Hill (included in Site Plan 1). Without limitations, alterations would be required to Site Plan 1 and the Schedule for: • Amendments to the areas identified as Highway to be Improved (HTBI): • Significant modification and addition to the HTBI on Church Hill and at the southern limit of the A249. Amendments to the locations, numbers and lengths of existing private means of accesses to be stopped up (PMATBSU): • Inclusion of additional PMATBSU to agricultural land. Amendments to the locations, number and lengths of new private means of accesses required (NPMA): • Inclusion of additional NPMA to the east of the A249 to connect with the existing PMA serving Hillside Farm which would replace a section of PMATBSU from South Green Lane. Amendments to the routes of new highways proposed (NHWS): • Inclusion of NHWS to connect from the limit of HTBI adjacent to South Green Lane to the eastern boundary of the A249 adjacent to the proposed overbridge. Site Plan 2 The alternative design would not require any changes to Site Plan 2.

4.3 Amendments to the Line Order (MLO) The alternative design would require an alteration to the Line Order Site Plan 1 to show the additional lengths of routes of amended other highways around the Church Hill junction.

Revision C03 Page 10 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

4.4 Amendments to the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) The alternative design would require significant alterations to the Compulsory Purchase Order for the location surrounding Church Hill junction. Alterations would be required to ensure the relevant land is acquired. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 below identify the approximate additional land requirements compared to that identified in the CPO published for the Scheme and the land required for Modification 6, which HE are promoting. Sheet 1 Without limitation, alterations would be required to Site Plan 1 and the Schedule for inclusion of additional plots for the construction of the local road and associated features either side of the overbridge. Additional plots would also be required for construction of the overbridge and amendments at the existing A249/Church Hill junction. There would also be additional plots associated with the necessary environmental mitigation. Sheet 2 The alternative design would not require any changes to Sheet 2. Figure 4.1: Approximate additional land required - Sheet 1 of the CPO

Table identifying approximate land requirements The area changes in Table 4.1 relate to all additional land (Areas shaded blue and yellow in Figure 4.1) required for this alternative. The additional land required for Mod 6 has been excluded from this as HE are already seeking this modification to the promoted Scheme.

Revision C03 Page 11 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Two additional private land holdings (shown in the below table as “P”) and one utility company (shown in the below table as “UC”) would potentially lose land for the alternative design compared to the promoted Scheme. Significant changes to the land requirements for Hillside Farm would be required compared to the promoted Scheme which would only require acquisition of their presumed sub-soil ownership for a single unregistered highway plot. The areas identified are approximate. Table 4.1: CPO Plot alterations (based on Land Holding)

Sheet Land holding Area change (m2)

1 E.J. Mackelden & Sons (Bobbing) +34908 Limited The Kent County Council +6203 Hillside Farm +35615 Southern Water - UC +287 Squirrels Farm - P +208 Three Chimneys - P +380

Total area change +77601

4.5 How the amendments should be incorporated As the alternative requires extensive changes to the published MLO, SRO and CPO, it is considered that new orders would be required to incorporate the additional requirements associated with this alternative design. Whilst it would be possible to deal with the additional land requirements by publishing a supplementary CPO, the same would not be true for the SRO. The published SRO would either have to be heavily modified or an entirely new SRO published. Whilst it is possible for the published SRO to be modified, the changes would be so extensive that it is doubtful whether they could reasonably be dealt with as modifications. The Transport Orders Guidance (Core Document F.10) confirms at paragraph 2.42 that the re-routing of the whole or a substantial part of a scheme would go beyond what could reasonably be considered as a modification for the purposes of paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 1 to the Highways Act 1980. The Guidance notes that this is ultimately a matter for the Secretary of State to decide, but could result in the need for the publication of entirely new orders by the promoter where substantial modifications are involved. Highways England’s view is that it would be appropriate for new orders to be made and published in this case due to the extensive changes to the Scheme. It is expected that due to the above, full consultation would be required with interested parties. There would also be a need for further preliminary design work to be undertaken and for the statutory processes to be undertaken for the new orders. Should the Inspector (and Secretary of State) agree that the alternative design is of sufficient merit to justify the refusal of the promoted Orders, the necessary work referred to above would potentially take approximately 1 to 2 years

Revision C03 Page 12 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

as public consultation, preliminary design and planning processes would need to be undertaken.

4.6 Summary The alternative design would include additional requirements to the promoted Scheme alignment. It would involve additional land take requirements to facilitate its construction. The alternative design has an impact on two additional private land holdings and one additional utility company compared to the land required for the promoted Scheme including Modification 6. In addition to this, one private land holding party that are only included in the published CPO for acquisition of a half road width plot would have significant additional land take requirements. The additional parties have not been formally consulted in line with the requirements of the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The alternative design would require the publication of new orders associated with the alternative. Alternatively, a supplementary CPO would be required in addition to extensive modifications to the published SRO and MLO.

Revision C03 Page 13 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

5. Impact on Traffic and Transport

5.1 Strategic Model Assessment The alternative design has been assessed within the SATURN strategic model to understand the impacts in traffic terms. Assignments have been undertaken for each of the modelled years, namely 2022, 2026, 2031, 2037 and 2051 for the core growth scenario. The alternative scheme has been coded into the model in line with the layout presented in Appendix A. In considering the introduction of the overbridge the following impact on traffic is noted: • Traffic which would currently turn right into Church Hill or Honeycrock Hill from the southbound A249 would now travel from the Stockbury roundabout via the new access road and over the overbridge into Church Hill; • Traffic currently travelling northbound on the A249 turning left into Church Hill or Honeycrock Hill would travel to M2 Junction 5 and access the overbridge from the new access road. The alternative would be via Chalky Road and South Street, both of which are single track country lanes with limited passing places; • In the promoted scheme, traffic turning left out of Church Hill or Honeycrock Hill would either travel via the A249 to Stockbury roundabout or use the new free flow overpass over M2 Junction 5 towards Sittingbourne. With the overbridge alternative at Church Hill, trips would now travel via the overbridge and use the new 30mph access road towards M2 Junction 5. • The forecast weekday turning movements at Church Hill at the 2037 design year, for both the Promoted Scheme and Overbridge Alternative are presented in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Church Hill Turning Flows in 2037 (Vehicles)

Movement AM IP PM

Promoted Alt Promoted Alt Promoted Alt A249 (SBnd) to - - Church Hill 20 - 30 28 Church Hill to - - A249 (NBnd) 134 - 49 69 A249 (NBnd) to - - Church Hill 21 - 32 45 Overbridge to - - Church Hill 41 - 62 73 Church Hill to - - Overbridge 134 - 49 69

Revision C03 Page 14 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

5.2 Operational Assessment An operational assessment of the proposed overbridge has been undertaken using the VISSIM software for the 2037 forecast year. This highlights that the new overbridge to Church Hill operates within capacity in the AM and PM peaks as would be expected. It is noted that travel times for those trips travelling on the A249 northbound, turning into Church Hill, will increase by around 3 minutes in each time period compared to the Promoted Scheme. This is due to these trips having to travel around 3kms further, via M2 J5 and the new 30mph access road due to the introduction of the overbridge which requires the closure of the left turn from the A249. As noted above, the alternative would be via Chalky Road and South Street, both of which are single track country lanes with limited passing places; For those trips travelling southbound from the Stockbury Roundabout to Church Hill, the provision of the overbridge is predicted to result in similar journey times to that of the Promoted scheme. This is because, whilst the delay associated with the right turn is removed, trips in the Promoted scheme travel via the 70mph A249 compared to the new dedicated 30mph access road in the overbridge alternative.

5.3 Cost Estimate A cost estimate was prepared for the overbridge alternative design by the contractor (Sweco), on behalf of Kent County Council, as part of an assessment of the scheme. This cost includes estimates for construction costs and non- construction costs. Allowance has also been made for risk and construction related inflation as well as optimism bias at 44%. Based on this the overall cost of the Overbridge Alternative for the economic assessment of the scheme is £8.8m. Costs are expressed in 2010 prices and discounted to 2010 in line with the TAG guidance to enable all schemes to be compared on a like for like basis.

5.4 Economic Assessment In order to understand the economic position a Transport User Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) assessment has been undertaken. This has focussed on the user benefits of the overbridge Scheme compared to the Promoted Scheme and hence reflects the following: • Do Minimum – Promoted Scheme • Do Something – Promoted Scheme with the Overbridge alternative at Church Hill In addition, the accident benefits associated with the removal of the Church Hill Junction have also been calculated using the industry standard COBALT software. This has used the observed accident rate for the existing Church Hill Junction to ensure consistency. It is noted that, in order to understand the overall Present Value of Benefits (PVB) the other, non-TUBA or accident, benefits are also required. As the majority of the scheme has been retained consistent with the Promoted Scheme these have been assumed to be the same for both scenarios and hence would have a net zero change in benefit.

Revision C03 Page 15 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Overall the benefits of the alternative design are presented in Figure 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Alternative Scheme Benefits

Alternative Option User Benefits (TUBA) (£m) -£2.9m Accident Benefits (£m) £1.8m Other Benefits (£m) £0.0m Present Value Benefits (PVB) (£m) -£1.1m Present Value Costs (PVC) (£m) £8.8m Net Present Value (NPV) (£m) -£9.9m Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) -0.12

This table highlights a disbenefit in terms of TUBA time and vehicle operating costs compared to the Promoted Scheme. This is a result of the changes in journey times as a result of the overbridge which, as mentioned above, includes an additional 3 minutes delay and around 3km further distance for the northbound traffic turning into Church Hill which would now have to travel via the Stockbury Roundabout. The alternative would be via Chalky Road and South Street, both of which are single track country lanes with limited passing places. There are, however, accident benefits of £1.8m associated with the removal of the Church Hill junction. Based on this the PVB for the overbridge scheme compared to the Promoted Scheme is forecast to be -£1.1m with an associated BCR of -0.12. 6. High level environmental assessment of alternative

6.1 Overview The alternative design has been reviewed against the assessment findings for each environmental topic presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) Volumes 1-4 (Core Documents B.1-B.3) the ES Addendum (Core Documents B.5) and the ES Addendum Annex (Core Document B.6), from here on in collectively termed the published ES. References to the promoted Scheme are to the published Scheme in June 2019 as well as the detailed modifications being promoted by Highways England. The air quality and noise qualitative assessments have been undertaken using traffic data from the traffic model used for the alternative design. In addition to considering the assessment results presented in the published ES, the qualitative assessment for noise and vibration has also considered the extent of the change and the distance from the nearest property to the alternative design. For road drainage and water environment, the review is based on WEBTAG (Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) Unit A3 (DfT, December 2015) as this provides more of a qualitative assessment based on professional judgement, in the absence of specific quantitative data.

Revision C03 Page 16 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

The alternative design extends the promoted Scheme boundary and for some environmental assessments this extends the study area. Where this is the case it is identified in the assessments below and the assumptions and requirements for further surveys/data stated. In order to undertake an environmental assessment comparable to that provided in the published ES the same version DMRB guidance has been followed. In addition, environmental mitigation has been designed comparable to that in the published ES. This is presented in Figure 1 in Appendix C. Sections 6.2 - 6.12 below provide a high level summary of the change in effects between the assessments presented in the published ES and those predicted for the alternative design, further detail and justification is provided in Appendix C.

6.2 Air quality The air quality assessment for the alternative design was undertaken using the same methodology as documented in the published ES Chapter 5. However, as the changes in traffic are only expected to affect the area near to the new overbridge and link road, this area was the main focus of the assessment. Additional receptors in this area were included in the assessment which is described in more detail in Appendix D. The estimated annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations for these additional receptors for the base year and opening year are provided in Appendix E. Although the alternative design will lead to small increases in nitrogen dioxide annual mean concentrations at some of the existing properties near the alternative design east of the A249, due to traffic changes, this would not materially affect the air quality assessment as reported in the published ES. There would not be any receptors with an exceedance of the nitrogen dioxide annual mean air quality objective, and the changes in concentrations with the alternative design compared to the do-minimum situation would be similar in magnitude to the changes in concentrations with the promoted Scheme.

6.3 Noise and vibration An assessment has been undertaken to compare the likely noise impacts from the overbridge with the impacts reported in the published ES. The noise model used for the published ES assessment was modified to include the alternative design. Honeycrock Hill and Church Hill were added to the without scheme noise model, and the traffic data was updated with the forecasts for this situation. The with scheme noise model was then further modified to include the overbridge and link road to Stockbury roundabout, and the traffic data was similarly updated. Calculations were undertaken using the approach described in the published ES. Changes in noise on scheme opening show the greatest impacts, and this comparison has been examined to assess the likely impacts of the alternative design. The inclusion of Honeycrock Hill and Church Hill in the without scheme mode resulted in small changes to noise levels at the nearest receptors from those in the without scheme scenario in the published ES. The results (described in more detail within Appendix D) show that noise impacts of the overbridge alternative would give rise to perceptible noise impacts at the

Revision C03 Page 17 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

same locations and in the same impact bands as those reported in the published ES, specifically in Table 2.4 of Annex 1 to the ES and Table 6.15 of the published ES. Therefore, the significant noise benefits reported would remain. During construction there is a potential for significant noise effects on Hillside Farm due to the proximity of the earthworks for the alternative. These impacts would be in addition to the potentially significant impacts from the construction of the A249 described in the published ES.

6.4 Biodiversity An assessment of effects on biodiversity has been undertaken and concluded that, for most ecological receptors, the alternative design would not result in any significant changes to the residual effects identified in the published ES. However, it also concluded that there is potential for significant adverse residual effects on bats to occur if Hillside Farm supports roosting bats. These effects would not arise with the promoted Scheme. Further bat surveys are required to determine if any bat roosts are present at Hillside Farm. The assessment identifies that there may be a need for further HRA screening, should Queendown Warren SAC be within 2 km of the alternative once the design (including environmental design) is complete. It anticipates that there would not be any additional likely significant effects, given the localised extent of the construction works and limited changes to traffic associated with the alternative design.

6.5 Road drainage and the water environment The baseline for the alternative design is consistent with that reported in Chapter 8 of the published ES Volume 1 and therefore will not be repeated here. In the absence of surface watercourses within the study area, it is assumed that drainage will be discharged to ground via infiltration basins and soakaways as reported in the published ES. These are located adjacent to Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1 and SPZ2. This has potential to result in adverse impacts to groundwater in this location. This alternative design will not increase flood risk on the assumption the drainage system will be designed as per that reported in the published ES. Likely impacts during the construction phase are reported in the published ES. The overall residual effect on the water environment has been assessed as neutral which is not considered significant. There would be no anticipated residual effects on the water environment on the assumption the drainage system will be designed as per that reported in the published ES. This assumes the drainage strategy will be based on the principles which have been discussed with the Environment Agency: Subject to the correct implementation of all mitigation measures listed in the published ES, a departure from these is not anticipated with this alternative design. All mitigation design, construction and operation measures would be carried out in accordance with those outlined in the published ES and would prevent damage, or loss to the water environment and prevent harm to human health.

Revision C03 Page 18 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

6.6 Landscape and visual The landscape and visual baseline is outlined in Chapter 9 of the published ES Volume 1 and Appendix F Volume 2. The alternative design would lead to the loss of mature vegetation along Church Hill and South Green Lane, it would also lead to the loss of agricultural land in proximity of Church Hill and Hillside Farm. The assessment of the alternative design has been undertaken assuming the environmental design mitigation presented in Figure 1, Appendix C is included. The alternative design would negatively impact upon the Regional Landscape Character Area (LCA) – LAK: Bicknor – Mid Kent Downs and the Local LCA – Hucking Dry Valley. The proposed bridge is in excess of 7.4m at its highest point, and it would increase the sense of urbanisation beyond the existing transport corridor of the A249 and further erode the sense of rural landscape leading to a Moderate Adverse significance of effect during operation. This is a change from the published ES where the significance of effect at operational year 15 was categorised as Slight Adverse and not significant. The alternative design is located within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and is within a section of the AONB more typical of the characteristics and qualities of the AONB. By contrast the AONB along the A249 corridor around the existing roundabout, that forms Junction 5, and northwards towards the M2 does not have these characteristics to such an extent. This is largely because of the high-level bridge crossing of the M2 and the dominant highway infrastructure elements e.g. carriageways and signage that bring about a strong urbanisation in this area. In the location of the alternative overbridge, the presence of an additional vertical structure in the form of the alternative bridge design would further extend the negative characteristics of the existing transport corridor into the AONB, creating an increased sense of urbanisation and degradation. In the published ES it was noted that the Scheme would lead to a localised degradation of the AONB. However, the alternative design would lead to a worsening of this situation because the alternative design is situated within an even more sensitive part of the AONB. During construction, the LCAs would experience a Large Adverse significant effect compared to the Moderate Adverse effect reported in the published ES, due to the alternative design being at considerable variance with the existing landscape character. Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Core Document D.8) stipulates that ‘the relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty’. Taking into account that the overbridge is not part of the Scheme, and the worsening of impacts it would cause and the Section 85 duty, it is doubtful whether the overbridge would be justified. In terms of visual amenity, significant effects are associated with Hillside Farm during both construction and operation due to the nature of the alternative design which encloses this residential receptor on all sides by highways infrastructure and severs the agricultural land surrounding the property. This would lead to a Very Large Adverse significance of effect during operation. In the published ES the construction effects for Hillside Farm were Moderate Adverse and significant, reducing to Slight Adverse and not significant during operational year 15. The

Revision C03 Page 19 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

alternative design would lead to a Very Large Adverse significant effect during both construction and operation. The significance of effects would be increased for residential receptors along South Green Lane during construction, due to the new junction formed with the alternative design and the resulting loss of mature highway vegetation. Furthermore, there is potential for visibility of the alternative design from upper storey windows and through tree belts although once the proposed mitigation planting (Figure 1, Appendix C) has established, there are unlikely to be any significant effects resulting from the alternative design. The visual amenity afforded to the residential receptors at Squirrel House and Three Chimneys located along Hayes Lane and adjacent to the A249 are likely to be adversely impacted by the alternative design. There is potential for visibility from upper storey windows and through vegetation within their back gardens. The significance of effect during both construction and operation would be Moderate Adverse and significant. Squirrel House and Three Chimneys were not identified as receptors in the published ES, and these are new receptors which would be impacted by the alternative design. Residential receptors along South Green Lane (Hinecorn and Sandina) are likely to be impacted by the alternative design during construction. Once the proposed mitigation planting has established by operation year 15 the magnitude of visual impact would be Minor and the significance of effect for these visual receptors would reduce to Slight Adverse and not significant. The residual effect for these residential receptors would remain as per the published ES, with no change in effect between the Scheme and the alternative design. Recreational receptors at Norton Green Public Right of Way (PRoW), KH80 would experience direct views from locations along the PRoW, and this would be most pronounced during construction, when proposed mitigation planting is in its most juvenile state and has not yet established. Once the proposed planting has established, the alternative design would be better integrated into the landscape but would still appear as a noticeable feature within the view, resulting in a Moderate Adverse and significant effect during operation. In the published ES, the significance of effect at operational year 15 was determined to be Slight Adverse and not significant, the alternative design would lead to an increased significance of effect and a worsening of the visual amenity for this receptor. Outdoor employment receptors would be impacted by the alternative design, particularly during construction, when proposed screening vegetation has not yet established. At operation year 15, the outdoor employment receptors in the vicinity of Hillside Farm would experience a Moderate Adverse and significant effect due to the alternative bridge design forming a noticeable feature or element of the view. In the published ES, the significance of effect for outdoor employment receptors at Hillside Farm during operational year 15 was determined to be Slight Adverse and not significant. The alternative design would lead to a worsening of the visual amenity for this visual receptor. In the long-term, proposed mitigation measures would serve to enhance both the existing A249 soft estate and the envelope of land taken to accommodate the alternative design due to the diversification of landscape elements within the soft estate, including provisions for native broadleaved woodland planting, chalk meadow grassland and pockets of scrub. However, significant adverse effects will remain in the long-term for the regional LCA LAK: Bicknor – Mid Kent Downs and

Revision C03 Page 20 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

the Local LCA – Hucking Dry Valley and for a number of visual receptors. These include residential receptors of Hillside Farm, Squirrel House and Three Chimneys and recreational receptors at Norton Green – PRoW KH80 and outdoor employment receptors at Hillside Farm. The alternative design would lead to degradation of the Kent Downs AONB in an area that is more sensitive than the main part of the Scheme adjoining the M2 Junction 5.

6.7 Geology and soils The geology and soils baseline is outlined in Chapter 10 of the published ES Volume 1. The baseline of the area specific to the alternative design is summarised in the geology and soils section of Appendix D of this report. There is no change from the geology and geomorphology assessment and contaminated land assessment presented in the published ES, however, groundworks for the alternative design are required within the area of one of the identified sources of potential contamination (unclassified waste storage/burning on private properties immediately south of the A249). Further ground investigation which targets this potential source of contamination and areas of proposed piling will be required, to confirm/optimise the design and mitigation measures presented in the published ES. The design and mitigation measures detailed in the published ES will be implemented, including ground investigation prior to construction. Land contamination risk assessments and, where appropriate, remediation and validation will be completed post-ground investigation. With regards to the agricultural land assessment, Hillside Farm is a 5.0 ha smallholding under grass, on Grade 2 land (i.e. Best and Most Versatile (BMV) quality). This holding is unaffected by the promoted Scheme. The alternative design would both sever the holding and result in the permanent loss of over half of the holding. This is a very large adverse and significant effect that is not in the promoted Scheme. Although the alternative design would increase the loss of BMV land this would not change the assessment within the published ES.

6.8 Cultural heritage Two heritage assets have been identified within a 200 m study area around the alternative design. A Roman cremation (MKE90925) was discovered during construction of a pipeline and has been excavated, removing any associated archaeological remains. The World War 1 Defences constructed as part of the Chatham Land Front run c.85 m to the northwest of the alternative design. No impact is predicted on either of these assets from the alternative design. High potential for unknown archaeological remains to be present within the study area has been identified. Any unknown archaeological remains present within the footprint of the alternative design and associated proposed landscaping would be removed by construction. Further archaeological evaluation would be necessary to verify the assessment of archaeological potential and in order to identify appropriate mitigation measures. The proposed bridge will not alter any aspects of setting that contribute to the value of designated heritage assets located to the west of Church Hill.

Revision C03 Page 21 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Construction of the alternative design would result in a Slight Adverse impact on two non-designated Historic Landscape Types of Low value. When compared with the assessment in the published ES, the alternative design would result in additional land take in an area of high archaeological potential, increasing the risk that unknown archaeological remains would be encountered and removed by construction works. Dependant upon the significance of any such remains, it is likely that these impacts could be mitigated by a programme of archaeological investigation and recording. No change from the assessment presented in the published ES would result for designated assets or the Historic Landscape.

6.9 Materials and waste The alternative design will result in an increase in the materials and waste being generated through site clearance, excavation and construction process. The bill of quantities associated with the alternative design is not currently fully known. In order to determine the significance of effects from the alternative design, professional judgement has been used for the material and waste quantities. Previously the promoted Scheme was estimated to generate 490,409 tonnes of waste and require 515,323 tonnes of materials. The alternative design is estimated to generate an additional 20,988 tonnes of waste from excavation and require an additional 42,767 tonnes of material. The findings indicate that the waste and materials assessment for the construction phase, as presented in Chapter 12 of the published ES Volume 1, is still valid. Furthermore, the recommendations for waste reduction and materials re-use should be adopted and included at all stages, from planning, to construction, if the alternative design is implemented.

6.10 Population and human health The alternative design extends the published ES Scheme boundary westwards and brings the proposed works closer to several land uses and sensitive receptors that could be affected, compared to the published ES. A review of any changes to the assessment presented in Chapter 13 of the published ES is presented in Appendix D. In summary, the overall significant effects reported in Chapter 13 of the published ES remain. However, the alternative design will introduce a new localised potential significant beneficial effect for the wider health determinant: Risk of injury and death, for people in Stockbury village and/or those travelling into Stockbury village during operation of the alternative design. This is attributed to the removal of the potential for conflict with other vehicles on the A249, particularly if smoother traffic flow increases vehicle speeds on the A249 carriageways. This localised effect is not directly comparable with the findings of the published ES but does represent an additional localised benefit affecting a relatively small number of motorised users and some vulnerable groups. However, when considered against the large resident population in the core study area, the very large population in the wider study area and the very high number of motorised users on the highway network, particularly the A249, it does not constitute an overall significant change to Risk of injury and death for the alternative design,

Revision C03 Page 22 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

where the reporting of non-significant beneficial effects for the scheme area as a whole is in line with the overall findings of the published ES. The number of residential properties significantly affected by land take effects during construction compared to the promoted Scheme increases from two to four, which is a significant change. However, the assessment for private dwellings in the published ES resulted in Large Adverse effects (significant), therefore there would be no change in overall significance from what is reported in the published ES.

6.11 Climate change Effects on climate The changes to the material quantities and construction processes required for the alternative design compared with those presented in Chapter 14 of the published ES Volume 1 is likely to be minimal and would not result in a large impact on overall greenhouse gas emissions from the promoted Scheme. As the effect of the promoted Scheme on climate has been assessed to not be significant due to the small magnitude of emissions compared with overall national budgets, the alternative design is unlikely to have a significant effect on climate. Vulnerability to climate change The alternative design is within the existing climate vulnerability study area as presented in Chapter 14 of the published ES Volume 1. Assessment of the alternative design does not necessitate changes to the existing climate vulnerability baseline (historic and projected climate). The effects of climate change do not vary considerably at a local scale. The alternative design would not generate significant changes to the existing assessment of the potential climate vulnerabilities for the promoted Scheme.

6.12 Assessment of cumulative effects Cumulative effects Cumulative effects are the cumulation of effects on a receptor from the Scheme in tandem with effects from other developments planned or under construction within the Scheme’s study area. The published ES identified that no significant cumulative effects were identified during the construction or operational phases of the Scheme. It is considered that the alternative design will not change this assessment of significance. In-combination effects In-combination effects are the combined environmental effects identified within the different environmental assessments, on the same receptor, caused by the Scheme. The in-combination assessment presented in the published ES did not identify any significant in-combination effects. The addition of the alternative design results in two new significant in-combination effects related to Hillside Farm and landscape character.

Revision C03 Page 23 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

No new receptor groups to those that were presented in the published ES have been identified for the in-combination assessment for the alternative design. However, potential significant long term in-combination residual effects on residents at Hillside Farm (through land take and visual amenity) have been identified compared to the assessment within the published ES. In addition, the presence of a new bridge within a sensitive landscape at the southern end of the Scheme presents new significant effects on landscape character and would lead to degradation of the Kent Downs AONB, which, coupled with the further loss of agricultural land produces a new potential in-combination significant effect.

Revision C03 Page 24 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

7. Conclusions

7.1 Engineering The provision of an overbridge at Church Hill is considered to be feasible in terms of engineering and would provide a grade separated Non-Motorised User facility across the existing A249, at a 2010 cost base, for £8.8 million. The existing Church Hill junction with the A249 would be closed, with all traffic accessing Stockbury over the bridge, which would be accessible via local roads from the Stockbury Roundabout. This would remove the low risks associated with traffic using the Church Hill junction in the promoted Scheme. However, provision of an overbridge would introduce some new hazards for pedestrians and non-motorised users of the bridge as well as for road users, such as users of the bridge or objects falling from height, whether intentionally or non-intentionally The alternative design would require the publication of new orders associated with the alternative (MLO, SRO & CPO). Alternatively, a supplementary CPO would be required along with extensive modifications to the published SRO and MLO. In either case it is considered that full re-consultation would be required. A significant proportion of the land belonging to Hillside Farm would be required for the western approach road.

7.2 Traffic and Economics The introduction of an alternative bridge option at Church Hill has been shown to operate within capacity and would enable southbound traffic turning right into Church Hill in the Promoted Scheme to travel from the Stockbury Roundabout via the new access road and over the overbridge. This is predicted to result in similar journey times to that of the Promoted Scheme as whilst the delay associated with the right turn is removed, trips in the Promoted Scheme travel via the 70mph A249 compared to the new dedicated 30mph access road in the overbridge alternative. Traffic traveling northbound on the A249 turning left into Church Hill, however, would, in the overbridge option, have to travel to the M2 Junction 5 and access the overbridge from the new access road, increasing their journey time and distance by around 3 minutes and 3 kms respectively compared to the Promoted Scheme. The alternative would be via Chalky Road and South Street, both of which are single track country lanes with limited passing places; Consideration of the economic costs and benefits, when compared to the Promoted Scheme, highlights disbenefits in terms of travel time and operating costs. Accident benefits are, however, predicted due to the removal of the Church Hill junction. Based on this the overall PVB for the overbridge scheme compared to the Promoted Scheme is forecast to be -£1.1m, with an associated BCR of -0.12. Whilst it is recognised that the economic assessment presented above does not consider those other costs and benefits which cannot be monetised and hence does not provide a full measure of value for money (VfM), consideration of the DfT VfM Framework (Core Document F.13) states that a BCR less than or equal to 0 represents very poor value for money.

Revision C03 Page 25 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

7.3 Environment The environmental disciplines have compared the alternative design with the Scheme assessed in the published ES (Core Documents B.1 – B.3 and B.5 – B.6). The alternative design is unlikely to have any change on the significant effects reported in the published ES during either the construction or operational phases on the findings of the air quality, biodiversity, road drainage and water environment, cultural heritage, materials and waste, and climate effects and vulnerability assessments although further work would be required to ascertain the effectiveness of mitigation measures identified. As a result of the alternative design new potential adverse significant effects are considered likely at the following receptors: • Hillside Farm - resulting from construction noise, permanent land take and severance and visual amenity during both construction and operation; • Other residential receptors - Squirrel House and Three Chimneys, from long term visual effects; • Recreational receptors at Norton Green - PRoW KH80, from long term visual effects; • Outdoor employment receptors at Hillside Farm from long term visual effects; and • The Regional Landscape Character Area (LCA) – LAK: Bicknor – Mid Kent Downs and the Local LCA – Hucking Dry Valley - from long term landscape effects. In addition, as the Regional and Local LCAs are within the Kent Downs AONB, the long term significant effects on the character areas will be replicated on the Kent Downs AONB in an area that is considered more sensitive than the areas adjoining the M2 Junction 5. It would be preferable if this additional structure and associated infrastructure could be avoided altogether in order to comply with Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (Core Document D.8). A new localised potential significant beneficial effect of the alternative design has been identified in the population and human health assessment from the reduced risk of injury and death for road users from Stockbury village and/or those travelling into Stockbury village. This is attributed to a safer route that removes the potential for conflict with other vehicles on the A249, particularly at the crossing point. This does not change the effects for Risk of injury and death across the wider scheme area for the alternative design, which would remain not significant overall, in line with the findings of the published ES. No other new significant beneficial effects were identified. Two new potential long term adverse significant in-combination effects have been identified. These include the in-combination effects on landscape and the in- combination effects on residents of Hillside Farm.

7.4 Overall Conclusions To conclude, the promoted Scheme has been compared to the overbridge alternative in terms of the Scheme objectives in table 7.1 below

Revision C03 Page 26 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Table 7.1: Alternative Scheme Benefits

Scheme Promoted Scheme Overbridge Alternative Objective The economic assessment of the Promoted Scheme has There is a decrease in journey Support forecast business user time and vehicle operating economic benefits, in terms of journey benefits compared to the growth time and vehicle operating promoted scheme of around costs savings, over the 60-year £2.9 million over the 60-year appraisal period appraisal period. Accident saving from the The overbridge will remove Scheme relates to a saving of the need for the at grade 531 personal injury accidents, crossing at Church Hill and 8 fatal casualties, 65 serious hence will reduce accidents casualties and 649 slight compare to the promoted A safe network casualties over the 60-year scheme, equating to an appraisal period. This in turn additional 60 year saving of represents £24.12 million of around an additional £1.8 monetised benefits million Safety Risk south of Stockbury Safety Risk south of Stockbury Roundabout assessed as Low Roundabout assessed as Low There is a reduction in journey time economic benefits compared to the promoted scheme due in part to the The Scheme is shown, in increase in travel time for trips general, to reduce journey accessing Stockbury via times through the junction Church Hill which would now A more free compared to the ‘without travel via the Stockbury flowing network scheme’ scenario. This is also roundabout and the new demonstrated by the journey 30mph access road to the time economic benefits across overbridge. The alternative the region calculated as a would be via Chalky Road and result of reduced journey times South Street, both of which are over the 60-year appraisal single track country lanes with period. limited passing places; An improved In the vicinity of Church Hill the The alternative increases the environment promoted Scheme sought to footprint of the Scheme in this minimise the footprint and more sensitive southern area scale of the Scheme in this as well as introducing a area of the AONB which is prominent elevated feature more sensitive than the resulting in new adverse northern area of the Scheme significant effects on several due to the distance from the landscape character areas M2 viaduct. This minimised the within the AONB and visual impacts on the landscape receptors and increases the character areas within the land take on the RNR. In AONB in this area and addition, there will be

Revision C03 Page 27 of 63

M2 Junction 5 Improvement Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Scheme Promoted Scheme Overbridge Alternative Objective minimised the land take from significant adverse effects on the Road Side Nature Reserve Hillside Farm through (RNR) and private properties disruption during construction, permanent land take as well as visual amenity. There is predicted to be a localised significant beneficial effect to residents of Stockbury as the bridge will remove the potential for conflict and collisions with other vehicles on the A249 when turning in and out of the junction.

In summary the overbridge alternative would increase the economic assessment construction costs of the Scheme by £8.8m and decrease the benefits in terms of journey times and vehicle operating costs. Whilst the bridge will remove any chance of accidents at Church Hill junction it will introduce other safety risks inherent with a bridge. It might also induce rat running along Chalky Road. The overbridge would increase the footprint of the Scheme in a more sensitive area of the AONB at the southern end of the scheme, as well as introducing a prominent elevated feature resulting in new adverse significant effects on several landscape character areas within the AONB. Taking into account that the overbridge is not a part of the Scheme, that the promoted Scheme is considered safe and has been assessed as being safer than the status quo, the worsening of impacts it would cause on the AONB and the Section 85 duty, it is doubtful whether the overbridge could be justified.

Revision C03 Page 28 of 63

Appendices

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Appendix A. Plan and Profile Drawings

Revision C03 Page 30 of 63

100

TIE INTO EXISTING ROAD

DIL DIL DIL DIL 884.871

Millimetres DIL DIL DIL DIL DIL DIL DIL

CHURCH HILL

EXISTING ROAD

DIL 800 DIL 10

DIL DIL 700 DIU

0 DIU

DIU DIL DIU DIU

DIU DIL DIU DIU

DIL GAP IN THE HEDGE CREATED FOR FIELD ACCESS

DIL C DO NOT SCALE C AMELS HILL (TRACK)

500 0

DIL H CHURCH HILL JUNCTION MAIDSTONE TO 600 100 TO BE CLOSED SITTINGBOURNE (A249 NB) PROPOSED GRASSCRETE

400

PW MAINTENANCE LAY - BY

PW 200

300

BDK

PW

PW

BDK

DIU

PW

PW

0

DIU DIU

DIU RIGHT TURN TO BE 200 CLOSED SITTINGBOURNE TO 0

MAIDSTONE (A249 SB) DIU

DIU

C PROPOSED GRASSCRETE PLOT ACCESS

500 DIU

DIU MAINTENANCE LAY - BY 100

DIU DIU DIU H PLOT ACCESS DIU SANDINA WHITE HOUSE DIU DIU DIU REALIGNED

PLOT ACCESS DIU

DIU 200

DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU VALLEY VIEW FARM

DIU DIU 300 DIU DIU

DIU 400DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU SOUTH GREEN LANE

This map is based on Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Scale 1:1000 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Highways England 100018928, 2019. 10m 0m 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m 60m 70m

NOTES : SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL Description Drawing Suitability Status Project Title DRAINAGE KEY FOR INFORMATION APPROVED - PUBLISHED A1 M2 Junction 5 Improvement INFORMATION Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. DIL DIL PROPOSED LINED DITCH PROPOSED S3 P04 DD MG CCR --- 14/10/19 2. INFILTRATION BASIN SIZE AND LOCATION ARE INDICATIVE ONLY. INFILTRATION BASIN In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title Description Epsom Gateway 3. FOR THE DRAINAGE DRAWING DETAILS REFER detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks FOR REVIEW DRAWING NUMBER: HE551521-ATK-HDG-XX_ML-SK-CD-000001 DIU DIU PROPOSED UNLINED DITCH (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). Ashley Avenue Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date Epsom PLAN OF ALTERNATIVE OPTION Construction A1 C01 AH MG CCR HC 18/10/19 Surrey PROPOSED HEADWALL None identified at this stage KT18 5AL FOR BRIDGE AT CHURCH HILL H Description KEYS FOR INFORMATION Tel: +44 (0)1372 726140 Fax: C PROPOSED CATCH PIT Maintenance / Cleaning Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date +44 (0)1372 740055 EXISTING HIGHWAY BOUNDARY None identified at this stage A1 C02 AH RS CCR RB 03/12/19 Copyright C Atkins Limited (2018) www.atkinsglobal.com FLOW DIRECTION Description Client Drawing Number FOR INFORMATION CURRENT SCHEME BOUNDARY Project Originator Volume PW PROPOSED PARAPET WALL Use Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date HE551521 - ATK - HGN - None identified at this stage A1 C03 PM RS CCR HC 30/01/20 PROPOSED HIGHWAY FENCE LINE CD è PROPOSED CARRIER Description XX_ML - SK - CH - 001006 DRAIN Decommissioning / Demolition FOR INFORMATION Location Type Role Number PROPOSED BARRIER None identified at this stage PROPOSED BRIDGE DECK Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date Original Project BDK BDK A1 C04 RS CJ CCR HC 13/05/20 Scale: 1:1000 5158158 Sheet: 1 of 1 Rev: DRAINAGE UNIT Size: A1 Ref. No: C04 This Drawing is saved on ProjectWise. Plotted: 15/05/2020 18:51:03 By: WADE3886 100 92 92

90 90

88 88 PROPOSED BRIDGE 86 14 40 14 86

84 1.5 84

82 82 Millimetres 80 80 EXISTING GROUND 78 CLEARANCE 78 PROPOSED ROAD 6.2m HEADROOM 76 76 EXISTING EXISTING 10 74 VERGE VERGE 74 TIE INTO PROPOSED J5 - L1

0 ACCESS ROAD EXISTING CARRIAGEWAY 72 72 EXISTING CENTRAL RESERVE 70 70 EXISTING CARRIAGEWAY DATUM R.L: 68.00m

G =2.053% G =2.486% G =5.986% G =0.500% G =5.980% L =61.529 L =63.985 L =87.870 L =77.303 R =2000.000 R =1700.000 L =161.353 R =1500.000 R =1700.000 R =900.000 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT L =51.247 L =50.912 L =52.510 L =93.266 L =49.323 DO NOT SCALE R: 420.000 R: 90.000 R: 90.000 L: 50.000 L: 50.000 L: 50.000 HORIZONTAL CURVES L: 152.603 L =138.756 L: 166.907 L =40.146 L: 40.949 L: 50.000

DESIGN LEVELS 80.911 88.451 72.641 74.381 77.921 69.396 69.602 69.807 70.012 70.217 70.423 70.628 70.833 71.037 71.204 71.320 71.387 71.404 71.372 71.359 71.510 71.673 72.144 72.392 72.889 73.138 73.387 73.884 74.132 74.629 74.878 75.126 75.624 75.872 76.149 76.492 76.902 77.378 78.516 79.713 80.312 81.509 82.100 82.639 83.119 83.540 83.903 84.207 84.452 84.638 84.765 84.834 84.884 84.934 84.984 85.034 85.084 85.134 85.219 85.412 85.716 86.132 86.658 87.255 87.853 89.049 71.405 71.895 73.635 75.375 79.115

EXISTING LEVELS 69.551 72.451 72.761 73.101 73.441 74.261 76.651 77.231 85.321 89.591 69.882 87.682 69.396 69.699 70.046 70.230 70.444 70.656 70.834 71.197 71.396 71.253 71.566 71.440 71.369 71.455 71.510 71.649 71.772 72.205 73.237 73.590 73.909 74.064 74.507 74.937 74.973 75.016 75.168 75.343 75.577 75.886 76.360 76.839 77.313 77.793 78.353 78.802 79.127 79.547 79.698 79.020 78.106 77.412 77.002 76.714 76.578 76.616 76.638 76.735 76.930 77.010 76.928 77.392 79.495 84.180 86.169 87.116 88.190 88.899 90.198 20 40 00 30 50 60 70 80 90 CHAINAGE 10 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

LONGITUDINAL SECTION 98 98 TIE INTO EXISTING PROPOSED ROAD SCALE = H - 1:1000 CHURCH HILL ROAD 96 96 V - 1:200 EXISTING GROUND 94 94

92 92

90 90

88 88

86 86 DATUM R.L: 84.00m

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT R =1000.000 G =1.857% R =900.000 G =5.980% L =41.229 L =25.166 L =44.986 L =3.833

L =87.870 G =4.821% L =20.353 R =1000.000

R: 360.000 L: 50.000 HORIZONTAL CURVES L =122.113 L: 23.396

DESIGN LEVELS 91.441 93.021 94.171 93.362 95.372 89.647 90.245 90.843 92.039 92.580 93.603 93.789 93.975 94.460 94.860 95.994 96.636 97.179 97.414

EXISTING LEVELS 94.291 95.091 94.311 90.882 91.514 92.654 93.783 94.012 94.829 95.180 94.557 95.283 96.014 96.657 97.414 92.115 93.385 94.555 97.185

CHAINAGE 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 884.871

LONGITUDINAL SECTION Scale 1:1000 Scale 1:200 SCALE = H - 1:1000 10m 0m 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m 60m 70m 5m 0m 5m 10m V - 1:200 SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL Description Drawing Suitability Status Project Title APPROVED - PUBLISHED A1 M2 Junction 5 Improvement NOTES : KEY: INFORMATION Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. PROPOSED ROAD detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks Description Epsom Gateway (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). Ashley Avenue EXISTING GROUND Construction Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date Epsom LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF None identified at this stage. Surrey START OR END OF VERTICAL CURVE ALTERNATIVE OPTION FOR Description KT18 5AL FOR INFORMATION BRIDGE AT CHURCH HILL Maintenance / Cleaning Tel: +44 (0)1372 726140 Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date Fax: +44 (0)1372 740055 None identified at this stage. S3 P01 AH SM CCR --- 25/09/19 Copyright C Atkins Limited (2018) www.atkinsglobal.com Description Client Drawing Number Use FOR INFORMATION Project Originator Volume None identified at this stage. Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date HE551521 - ATK - HGN - S3 P02 AH SM CCR --- 25/09/19

Description XX_ML - SK - CH - 001007 Decommissioning / Demolition FOR INFORMATION Location Type Role Number None identified at this stage. Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date Original Project Scale: Sheet: Rev: A1 C01 PM RS CCR HC 30/01/20 Size: A1 AS SHOWN Ref. No: 5158158 1 of 1 C01 This Drawing is saved on ProjectWise. Plotted: 30/01/2020 16:42:26 By: MPAR2993 Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Appendix B. Safety Risk Assessment of the Alternative

Revision C03 Page 31 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Project: M2 J5 Improvements Document Reference HE551521-ATK-GEN-A249-RA-CS-000001 Alternative Options Report Over Bridge at Church P01.1 Produced to support: Hill junction Revision No:

What are the safety risks associated with the Populations with no discernible impact resulting from the activity. provision of an overbridge across the A249 to Scope: replace the existing at-grade access to Church Hill Workers - Direct Workers - Suppliers Users Other parties off the A249 and what mitigation measures could be introduced to reduce risk? ✓ Prepared Rebecca Thomas Checked by: David Osborne Reviewed by: Authorised by: by: Contact [email protected] Contact [email protected] Contact Details Contact Details Details Details Date: 11th December 2019 Date: 12th December 2019 Date: Date:

Hazard Identification Risk Assessment & Control Measures Evaluation and next steps

Ref Hazard Population Sub-group Location (s) Injury Causes (s) Risk – priority junction Control Measure (s) Risk - Overbridge Comments Key Review & outcome (s) Assumptions Monitoring

L S R Class. L S R Class.

1 Driver Road All A249 NB Nose-to- Lane drift. 1 3 3 Low A high parapet will 2 3 6 Low N/A N/A distraction Users and SB at tail/Side Loss of be required to protect Church Hill swipe control. cyclists using the collision Distraction NMU route which will with on bridge act as a screen to another diverts reduce likelihood of vehicle drivers’ driver distraction. attention from the road ahead 2 Falls from Road Peds, Overbridge Pedestrian Deliberate 1 4 4 Low A high parapet will 2 4 8 Low N/A N/A bridge Users vehicle struck by act. be required to protect occupants vehicle Pedestrian cyclists using the misadventure NMU route which will act as a deterrent to pedestrians attempting to climb the barrier.

3 Object Road All Overbridge Moving Deliberate 1 5 5 Low A high parapet will 2 5 10 Medium N/A N/A thrown from Users vehicle malicious act be required to protect bridge struck by cyclists using the

Revision C03 Page 32 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Hazard Identification Risk Assessment & Control Measures Evaluation and next steps object NMU route which will thrown act as a deterrent to from pedestrians height considering throwing objects off the bridge. 4 Vehicle Road All A249 NB Collision Loss of 1 3 3 Low VRS will be installed 2 3 6 Low N/A N/A leaves Users and SB at with control to protect the bridge carriageway Church Hill bridge pile piles from errant vehicles. 4a Road Bridge Maintainer 1 4 4 Low VRS will be installed 1 4 4 Low N/A N/A Workers maintainers stuck by to protect vehicle maintenance workers. 5 Unlit NMU Road Pedestrians Overbridge Pedestrian Pedestrian 1 2 2 Low N/A 1 2 2 Low N/A N/A route Users slips and trips on kerb falls. or object on Collision bridge. with a Pedestrian is cyclist. struck by a cyclist during periods of poor visibility. 6 High sided Road All A249 NB Vehicle High vehicle / 1 3 3 Low Bridge will be 1 3 3 Low N/A N/A vehicle Users and SB at collision low bridge constructed at a passes Church Hill with deck height to under low bridge accommodate high bridge sided vehicles. 7 Higher Road All A249 NB Speed- Loss of 2 3 6 Low N/A 3 3 9 Low N/A The speeds Users and SB at related control. removal of along A249 Church Hill collisions Excessive the at- speed. grade junction will lead to an increase in vehicle speed as drivers will no longer be reducing speed to turn into

Revision C03 Page 33 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Hazard Identification Risk Assessment & Control Measures Evaluation and next steps the side road. 8 New road Road All Overbridge Nose-to- Excessive 1 3 3 Low Introduce a reduced 2 3 6 Low space Users and link tail/ side speed. Loss speed limit on the where road impact of control. new link. collisions collisions Failure to could occur at look properly accesses/ at junction. South Green Lane junction. 8a Road Maintenance Road Road worker 1 4 4 Low 2 4 8 Low Workers service worker in road. provider struck by vehicle.

Revision C03 Page 34 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Appendix C. Proposed environmental design

Revision C03 Page 35 of 63

100

Millimetres TIE INTO EXISTING ROAD

DIL DIL DIL DIL 884.871 DIL DIL DIL DIL DIL DIL DIL 10 CHURCH HILL

ç EXISTING ROAD

DIL 800 FD DIL 0

G DIL G C 700 ç FD G DIU DIL G ç DIU INFILTRATION BASIN 07 CD DIU G DIL G DIU C G DIU

DIU DIL ç GAP IN THE HEDGE CREATED G CD ç DIU FOR FIELD ACCESS FD DIU

DO NOT SCALE TIE PLANTING SCHEME INTO EXISTING LANDSCAPE DIL G

C DIL C G

CD CC AMELS HILL (TRACK) è 600

è 500 0 SCRUB POCKETS DIL G H

CHURCH HILL JUNCTION MAIDSTONE TO CD CD

600 100 TO BE CLOSED SITTINGBOURNE (A249 NB) ç

400

PW G PW

C 200 è

Stockbury Valley 300 BDK

PW

PW

BDK è PROPOSED GRASSCRETE

MAINTENANCE LAY - BY

PW PW

DIU G C

0 DIU C

G DIU RIGHT TURN TO BE 200

CLOSED G 0

CD CD SITTINGBOURNE TO 300 DIU ç G

MAIDSTONE (A249 SB) CD è DIU G G C G DIU C PROPOSED GRASSCRETE

500 DIU

MAINTENANCE LAY - BY G PLOT ACCESS 100

DIU G ç G CD

DIU G DIU PLOT ACCESS DIU DIU G SANDINA WHITE HOUSE G

DIU REALIGNED DIU PLOT ACCESS è G

DIU PLOT ACCESS C CD DIU200 C G G DIU DIU C DIU DIU DIU G DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU G è G CD DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU G VALLEY VIEW FARM DIU G CD DIU è C G G DIU

DIU G G 300 DIU DIU 400 DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU DIU SOUTH GREEN LANE

This map is based on Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Scale 1:1000 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Highways England 100018928, 2018. 10m 0m 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m 60m 70m

Description Drawing Suitability Status Project Title SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVED - PUBLISHED A1 M2 Junction 5 Improvement LE 1.1 Amenity Grassland LE 4.2 Native-species Hedgerow INFORMATION Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date

In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title Description LE 1.3.1 Species-rich Grassland - Chalk Mixture detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks Epsom Gateway LE 6.2 Banks and Ditches (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). Ashley Avenue Bare Ground Construction Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date Epsom OUTLINE LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR NONE Surrey KT18 5AL BRIDGE OVER 249 AT CHRUCH HILL LE 2.1 Woodland and or LE 2.4.1 Linear Belt of Trees Existing RNR Turves for translocation to receptor site Description Tel: +44 (0)1372 726140 Maintenance / Cleaning Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date Fax: +44 (0)1372 740055 NONE LE 2.6 Shrubs and LE 1.3.4 Species-rich Grassland - Marginals RNR Turves receptor site Copyright C Atkins Limited (2018) www.atkinsglobal.com Description Client Drawing Number Use Project Originator Volume NONE Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date LE 2.8 Scrub and LE 1.3.5 Chalk Meadow Grass Mix Preferred extent of woodland planting for mitigation HE551521 - ATK - ELS -

Description XX - SK - LL - 000002 Decommissioning / Demolition FOR CHECK Location Type Role Number NONE Status Revision Drawn Checked Reviewed Authorised Issue Date Original Project Scale: Sheet: Rev: A1 C01 AN AR LS HC 12/02/20 Size: A1 1:2500 Ref. No: 5158158 1 of 1 C01 This Drawing is saved on ProjectWise. Plotted: 18/02/2020 17:55:21 By: NAIR1949 Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Appendix D. High level environmental assessment of the alternative

Table D.1: High level topic assessments

Topic High level assessment Air quality Baseline: The baseline air quality is reported in Chapter 5 of the ES Volume 1. In the area in proximity to the alternative design there are no Air Quality Management Areas, the nearest one in the study area being approximately 8 km to the south in Maidstone Borough. Monitoring data shows that the national annual mean NO2 objective was exceeded at one site adjacent to the A249 south of Junction 5, not representative of exposure, but was met at other sites within the study area. There are an additional five new receptors which have been included in this assessment Assessment: The estimated annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations for the additional receptors for the base year and opening year are provided in Appendix E. With the alternative design, there is expected to be a small increase in nitrogen dioxide concentrations of 0.7 µg/m3 compared to the Do- Minimum scenario, at receptor R60, located at Hillside Farm, as a result of the traffic using the new overbridge. This is a change of only +0.1 µg/m3 from the results with the promoted Scheme which showed an expected small increase in concentrations of 0.6 µg/m3. There is expected to be a large decrease in concentrations of 6.3 µg/m3 compared to the Do-Minimum scenario at receptor R62, White House, as a result of the realignment of the A249 away from the receptor at this location (in the promoted Scheme design). This is a change of +0.4 µg/m3 from the results with the promoted Scheme which showed an expected large decrease in concentrations of 6.7 µg/m3. There is expected to be an imperceptible change in concentrations of -0.3 µg/m3 compared to the Do-Minimum scenario at receptor R64, Sandina, South Green Lane, as a result of the traffic using the new overbridge. This is a change of +0.2 µg/m3 from the results with the promoted Scheme which showed an expected small decrease in concentrations of 0.5 µg/m3. At the other receptors assessed in proximity to this alternative design (R61 and R63), there would be an imperceptible change with the alternative design compared to the Do-Minimum scenario. It can be considered that the changes at the closest receptors to the alternative would not be materially different from those with the promoted Scheme and would not affect the conclusions of the air quality assessment as published in the ES. There is furthermore not expected to be any material change to the results at the other receptors in the wider area as reported in the ES.

Revision C03 Page 36 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Assumptions and limitations: The assumptions and limitations for the assessment of the alternative design are the same as those for the promoted Scheme as reported in the air quality chapter of the ES (chapter 5). Noise and Baseline: vibration The noise and vibration baseline for the promoted Scheme is reported in Chapter 6 of the ES Volume 1 and the ES Addendum. There are two Noise Important Areas (NIA: 4574, and NIA: 12242) in the area in proximity to the alternative design. Baseline noise monitoring was undertaken 11 m from the A249 to the south of the M2 at location ML3 close to NIA: 4575. Assessment: The noise model used for the published ES assessment was modified to include the alternative design. Honeycrock Hill and Church Hill were added to the without scheme noise model, and the traffic data was updated with the forecasts for this situation described above. The with scheme noise model was then further modified to include the overbridge and link road to Stockbury roundabout, and the traffic data was similarly updated. At Hillside Farm traffic noise from the A249 dominates the noise levels, and the overbridge has negligible effect on the noise impact at this property, either from screening of noise of the A249 from the overbridge earthworks or from traffic on the overbridge or earthworks. The impact remains a negligible increase in noise. Noise from traffic on the link road to Stockbury roundabout results in slightly smaller decreases in noise than the ES situation, but changes are not sufficient for any receptor to change bands, so the reported 7 moderate and 2 minor decreases in noise on opening in this area remain. Noise from traffic on Honeycrock Hill and Church Hill is not sufficient to affect the negligible decreases in noise shown at St Mary Magdalene Church and nearby properties. In respect of construction impacts, the overbridge earthworks may be closer than 25 m to Hillside Farm, with potential for significant noise impacts from the construction of the overbridge. Assumptions and limitations: Limitations associated with noise and vibration for the promoted Scheme are applicable to the alternative design. These are reported in Section 6.6 of Chapter 6 in the ES Volume 1. Biodiversity Baseline: The biodiversity baseline for the promoted Scheme is reported in Chapter 7 of the ES Volume 1. Much of the land within the alternative design is beyond the extent of the promoted Scheme and has therefore not been subject to survey. Some areas within the promoted Scheme could not be surveyed due to access and safety restrictions. Therefore,

Revision C03 Page 37 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment this assessment is based upon the reasonable assumption that the habitats within the footprint of the proposed alternative are similar to the adjacent habitats that have been surveyed and assessed for the promoted Scheme (as detailed in Section 7.7 of Chapter 7 (Baseline Conditions) in the ES). This baseline is also informed from a review of aerial imagery. The assumptions are set out in the relevant section below. In consideration of European designated sites, the proposed alternative has the potential to extend the Scheme to within 2 km of Queendown Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (dependent on the final land take required for environmental mitigation). In consideration of non-statutory designated sites, the alternative design will result in further loss of the RNR Church Hill Stockbury (MA11), which extends either side of the junction of Church Hill with the A249 (see Figure 7.1 in Volume 3 of the promoted Scheme). No other statutory or non-statutory designated sites are considered further as part of the assessment of the alternative design, as they are situated at a sufficient distance from the alternative design to negate likely direct or indirect impacts to them, or the alternative design does not significantly change the results and conclusions within the promoted Scheme. The habitats likely to be directly affected by the alternative design include the loss of arable land, hedgerows and trees to the east and west of the A249, semi-improved grassland along the edges of the A249 and adjacent to the east of the A249, calcareous grassland, and scrub associated with the RNR. The calcareous grassland includes man orchid (a notable plant species), pyramidal orchid, and bee orchid colonies. In addition, habitats likely to be directly affected by the alternative design along the east side of Church Hill include a species poor hedge. If any bats are using the buildings associated with Hillside Farm to the east of A249, they are likely to be affected by the proposed alternative, as the design isolates the buildings from the wider landscape. The habitats present within the alternative design are known and/or have potential to support hazel dormouse, foraging/commuting bats, roosting bats, nesting birds, common species of reptiles and badger, as well as notable plant species. Based on the habitats that would be affected by the alternative design, the results of the protected species surveys undertaken for the promoted Scheme to date, and given the scale of the habitats to be affected, no other protected or notable species that could significantly change the significance of the impact assessment are considered likely to be present within or directly adjacent to the alternative design. Further ecological surveys and associated assessments are considered necessary to inform the baseline for the alternative design. These comprise: • A hedgerow assessment of all hedges to be impacted by the alternative design that were not assessed as part of the promoted

Revision C03 Page 38 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Scheme. The assessment will identify whether the hedgerows are considered important using wildlife and landscape criteria under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. • An external and internal inspection of the buildings/structures associated with Hillside Farm to determine whether bats are present. Should bats be found to be present, or the property has potential to support bats, further surveys will be required to identify how bats are using the property. In addition, further surveys would be required prior to site clearance due to the potential for badger setts and stands of invasive non-native plant species to be found. The requirements for these surveys are to provide legal compliance rather than to satisfy the planning application regulatory process. Assessment: The alternative design would result in a localised extent of works and therefore direct impacts and effects are unlikely to occur to Queendown Warren SAC. There would not be any changes to the effects on ecologically designated sites from those reported in the published ES. The alternative design will result in further loss of the RNR Church Hill Stockbury (MA11) and would therefore be worse than the promoted Scheme due to the greater extent of habitat loss and subsequent effects on protected and notable species within the non-statutory designated site. The area of habitats to be lost and subsequent effects on protected species would be worse as a result of the alternative design compared to the promoted Scheme, due to the loss of areas of hedgerow, calcareous grassland, and scrub. This includes the loss of man orchid (a notable plant species), pyramidal orchid, and bee orchid colonies associated with the RNR. Those habitats of local value or above to be lost as a result of the alternative design (hedgerows and calcareous grassland) would require replacing/ reinstating/ translocating with those that are equivalent or of greater biodiversity value. Reinstatement or translocation of habitats such as the orchid colonies to suitable areas of grassland and replacement planting of hedgerows and the planting of woodland to support bat, bird and dormouse populations will all be required. Should a bat roost be found within Hillside Farm, the design of the alternative is such that it would be unlikely to create a complete barrier to bat dispersal but would result in some fragmentation of foraging and commuting habitat. The proposed preliminary environmental design includes provision of woodland and hedgerow planting which would support foraging and commuting bats. Figure 1 sets out the propose preliminary environmental design for the alternative bridge design. Mitigation and compensation measures as set out in Section 7.9 of Chapter 7 of the ES would apply to the alternative design due to the presence of habitats such as hedgerows, trees, and calcareous

Revision C03 Page 39 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment grassland and the presence / potential presence of protected and notable species. These include works to be carried out under an EPS mitigation licence for hazel dormice; the provision of translocated hedgerows if they are found to qualify as important using wildlife and landscape criteria under the Hedgerow Regulations. Proposed mitigation measures may also need to include works carried out under an EPS mitigation licence for bats, should they be found to be roosting within Hillside Farm. Mitigation measures commensurate with the level of impact to any identified roosts would be determined, following completion of the bat surveys at Hillside Farm. The proposed preliminary environmental design (Figure 1) for the alternative bridge design. The design incorporates areas of mitigation/ compensation for planting woodland, hedgerows, scrub and chalk meadow, species rich grassland and indicative areas to enable the translocation of orchid colonies from the RNR. Should translocation of hedgerows be required, the design enables proposed new planting to be replaced with translocated hedgerows. The general principles of the design are to provide contiguous habitat linkages with the existing surrounding habitat types to alleviate impacts to protected and notable species as a result of the promoted Scheme and the alternative design. The baseline conditions, potential for protected species and the additional assessments required to inform the baseline have been identified. The level of habitat loss can be effectively mitigated, as shown in the preliminary environmental design. It remains uncertain whether the significance of residual effects is likely to increase as a result of the proposed alternative, due to the uncertainties associated with the potential for bats to be present within Hillside Farm. Therefore, should the alternative design proceed to detailed assessment, the results of bat surveys at Hillside Farm will determine the significance of residual effects from the bridge. Assumptions and limitations: Limitations associated with the ecological surveys and biodiversity assessment for the promoted Scheme are applicable to the alternative design. These are reported in Section 7.6 of Chapter 7 in the ES Volume 1 and Appendices D1 to D9 in Volume 2. None of the limitations outlined previously or below are considered significant in terms of the assessment of effects. Based on the baseline conditions for the promoted Scheme and analysis of aerial imagery, the following habitats are assumed to be present within the area that would be affected by the alternative design: semi improved grassland, calcareous grassland, hedgerows and scrub. These assumptions are based on the reasonable assumption that, because the habitats within the alternative design are contiguous with the promoted Scheme, they will be similar to the habitats assessed as part of the promoted Scheme. The following species are assumed to be potentially present within the area that would be affected by the alternative design: roosting bats, foraging/commuting bats, hazel dormouse, adder (and other common

Revision C03 Page 40 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment reptile species), badger, and notable plant species. These assumptions are based on the likely similarity and the observed connectivity between habitats associated with the promoted Scheme and the alternative design. Road Baseline: drainage and With the study area consistent with that presented in Chapter 8 of the water ES Volume 1, the baseline remains unchanged for the Scheme environment alternative design. Assessment: As reported in the ES, the alternative design would take place within a SPZ as well as being underlain by a Principal Aquifer. In the absence of surface watercourses within the study area, it is assumed that drainage will be discharged to ground via infiltration basins and soakaways as reported in the ES. These are located adjacent to SPZ1 and SPZ2. This has potential to result in adverse impacts to groundwater in this location as reported in the ES. The alternative design will not increase flood risk on the assumption the drainage system will be designed as per that reported in the ES. Likely impacts during the construction phase for this alternative design are reported in the ES. Subject to the correct implementation of all mitigation measures, the overall residual effect on the water environment has been assessed as neutral which is not considered significant. Likely impacts from the operation of the road are reported in the ES. There would be no anticipated residual effects on the water environment on the assumption the drainage system will be designed as per that reported in the ES. This assumes the drainage strategy will be based on the following principles which have been discussed with the Environment Agency: • The proposed infiltration basins and soakaways features will be located outside of SPZ1. No highway run-off is being discharged to ground within SPZ1. • All infiltration basins and soakaways proposed will have pollution control valves to enable them to be shut off in the event of a spillage. Subject to the correct implementation of all mitigation measures listed in ES, a departure from these is not anticipated with this alternative design. All design, construction and operation mitigation measures would be carried out in accordance with those outlined in the ES and would prevent damage, or loss to the water environment and prevent harm to human health. Assumptions and limitations: A qualitative assessment has been undertaken in the absence of specific quantitative data. None of the limitations outlined above are considered significant in terms of the assessment of effects for the water environment.

Revision C03 Page 41 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Assumes baseline data within the ES is the most accurate and up to date. Landscape Baseline: and Visual The landscape and visual baseline are outlined in Chapter 9 of the ES Volume 1 and Appendix F Volume 2 and the study area remains as per the published ES. The alternative design is located within the Kent Downs AONB, within the Regional LCAs: LAK – Bicknor: Mid Kent Downs (Moderate sensitivity) and LAK – Chatham Outskirts: Mid Kent Downs (Moderate sensitivity), and within the Hucking Dry Valleys Local LCA which is a character area considered to be of High sensitivity. This section of the LCA exhibits a number of the positive characteristics that contribute to its High sensitivity, such as: the presence of woodland blocks, shelterbelts and grasslands (RNRs) creating a strong ecological network. Away from the A249 there is a strong rural and tranquil landscape feel to the character area with traditional buildings, winding lanes and expansive open fields, with small farmsteads forming unifying features. The noisy A249 and sporadic built development along the A249 corridor are detracting features and although situated well within the base of the dry valley and surrounded by woodland/tree belts along much of their extent, there are some open views within agricultural fields directly adjacent to the A249. Visual receptors that were not considered as part of the published ES and have been considered as part of the assessment for the alternative design include: local road users travelling along South Green Lane and Hayes Lane; recreational receptors using PRoW KH80 and PRoW KH79. Residential receptors include Squirrel House and Three Chimneys located along Hayes Lane and adjacent to the A249 and business/employment receptors situated along South Green Lane. Assessment: The alternative design would lead to the loss of mature vegetation along Church Hill and South Green Lane, the loss of RNR located adjacent to the A249, as well as the loss of a fairly significant tract of agricultural land in proximity of Hillside Farm. The alternative bridge design would lead to the introduction of a new substantial vertical structure (in excess of 7.4 m) within the landscape, increasing the sense of urbanisation beyond the existing transport corridor of the A249. The proposed Stockbury Flyover as assessed within Chapter 9 of the ES is located within the footprint of the existing A249 and in proximity to the existing M2 viaduct, a significant vertical structure within the landscape. This section of the A249, albeit situated within the AONB is marred by the existing presence of features associated with the A249 and the M2, and the landscape is not wholly characteristic of the qualities that make the AONB so special. Moving further southwest of this location towards the site of the alternative design, the landscape takes on a more rural feel more typical of the Kent Downs AONB and the presence of an additional significant vertical structure in the form of the alternative bridge design in this location would further extend the negative characteristics of the

Revision C03 Page 42 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment existing transport corridor out into the AONB, creating an increased sense of urbanisation and degradation of the adjoining rural landscape. In the published ES it was noted that the Scheme would lead to a localised degradation of the AONB, the alternative design would lead to a worsening of this situation due to the alternative design being situated and expanding into an even more sensitive part of the AONB. The alternative design would further impact upon the Regional LCA LAK – Bicknor: Mid Kent Downs (Moderate sensitivity) and the Local LCA: Hucking Dry Valley through further erosion of the rural landscape and widening the extent of the transport corridor into the adjoining landscape. At construction, the alternative design would lead to a change in the assessment of the Scheme on both the LAK: Bicknor – Mid Kent Downs Regional LCA and the Local Hucking Dry Valley LCA to Large Adverse as the alternative bridge design would degrade and diminish the integrity of a range of characteristic features and elements, it would also serve to damage the sense of place in this localised section of the LCAs. The Regional LCA – LAK: Chatham Outskirts – Mid Kent Downs would remain as Moderate Adverse during construction. At operation, once the proposed mitigation planting (Figure 1) has sufficiently matured, the alternative design would be better integrated into the adjoining landscape however, there would be visibility of the bridge and vehicles travelling along it from various vantage points within the Regional and Local LCAs and these features would cause noticeable damage to the existing baseline landscape character and would appear as noticeable features and built elements within the landscape leading to a Moderate Adverse magnitude of impact and a Moderate Adverse significance of effect, owing to the High sensitivity value of the Hucking Dry Valley and the Moderate sensitivity of LAK: Bicknor – Mid Kent Downs LCA. LAK: Chatham Outskirts – Mid Kent Downs would remain as Slight Adverse and not significant during operation due to the extent of mitigation planting effectively screening the alternative design from the wider LCA. The proposed environmental design mitigation measures would in the long-term serve to enhance the soft estate, with appropriate provisions made for screening vegetation, chalk meadow grassland and woodland belts. These measures would provide an increased diversification to the soft estate, however, agricultural land would be lost in the vicinity of Hillside Farm and it would not be possible to fully screen the proposed bridge structure in its entirety with earthworks associated with the design also featuring as new vertical engineered landforms in the valley landscape. There would be views from elevated locations along a section of the PRoW at Norton Green (PRoW KH80) that would directly overlook the alternative design, this would be most pronounced during construction when the mitigation planting is in its juvenile form, but would remain as a significant impact during operation due to the changes to the views as a result of the alternative design being apparent from the elevated position along the PRoW. The magnitude of visual impact would be Major at construction as the alternative design would become the dominant

Revision C03 Page 43 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment feature or focal point of the view and during operation, once the proposed mitigation planting has successfully established, the alternative design would be better integrated into the landscape, however the visual impact would remain as one of significance, with a Moderate magnitude of visual impact i.e. the project would form a noticeable feature or element of the view, which is readily apparent to the receptor, resulting in a Moderate Adverse significance of effect. There is also potential visibility of the Scheme from PRoW KH79. The residential receptor at Hillside Farm would experience Significant Adverse effects during both construction and operation as a result of the alternative design, with the property effectively surrounded on all sides by highways infrastructure, completely severing the land around the property. The magnitude of visual impact during both construction and operation would be Major, with the alternative design becoming the dominant feature in the view, resulting in a Very Large Adverse significance of effect, with the alternative design causing the loss of views from a highly sensitive receptor and the alternative design constituting a dominant discordant feature in the view. Residential receptors at Squirrel House and Three Chimneys located along Hayes Lane and adjacent to the A249 are likely to be impacted by the alternative design due to their proximity to the bridge. Both properties have fairly well vegetated gardens with mature trees to their boundaries however, there is potential for direct and glimpsed views from upper storey windows or from their gardens of both the earthworks and vehicles travelling along the new bridge. It is probable that the alternative design would form a noticeable feature in their view, which may be readily apparent to the receptors. The significance of effect during construction and operational stages would likely remain as Moderate Adverse due to the project being in conflict with the character of the dry valley landscape and diminishing a sense of place despite the establishment of the proposed woodland belt planting to the embankment slopes and intervening land, due to the significant change to the nature of the view, with the earthwork features associated with the Scheme and the potential for visibility of high-sided traffic through tree canopies. The significance of effects for residential receptors at Hinecorn and Sandina (located along South Green Lane and adjacent to the A249) would be increased as a result of the loss of roadside vegetation along South Green Lane in order to accommodate the alternative design. There is also potential for visibility of the alternative design from upper storey windows through breaks in intervening vegetation. During construction the magnitude of visual impact would be Moderate and the project could potentially be a noticeable feature or element of the view however, once the proposed mitigation planting has established and has formed a denser screening belt, it is likely that by year 15 of operation the magnitude of visual impact would be Minor Adverse resulting in the bridge structure being perceptible and therefore the significance of effect for these visual receptors would be Slight Adverse and not significant.

Revision C03 Page 44 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Outdoor employment receptors at their places of work in adjoining agricultural fields or businesses / places of work along South Green Lane may be impacted by the alternative design, particularly during construction, when screening vegetation has not yet established and there may be direct views from agricultural fields across to the proposed bridge. Once the mitigation planting has established these measures would largely be mitigated, aside from those outdoor employment receptors in the vicinity of, or with direct views of Hillside Farm, where by operation year 15 the magnitude of visual impact would still likely be Moderate i.e. the bridge would form a noticeable feature or element of the view, which is readily apparent to the receptor, leading to a Moderate Adverse significance of effect. Transport users travelling along the A249 and local road users along Church Hill, South Green Lane and Hayes Lane, would be impacted by the alternative design. It is unlikely that there would be a significant effect during either construction or operation however, there may be glimpsed views through breaks in vegetation of the bridge for road users travelling along Hayes Lane and South Green Lane. The increase in construction activity around Church Hill and the adjoining A249 road network would be visually disruptive and would be of a Moderate magnitude of visual impact, due to the Low sensitivity of this receptor type this would not lead to a significant effect during construction or operation. Assumptions and limitations: It has been assumed that there is a potential for unknown archaeological remains and statutory utilities to be present in the area of the alternative design and therefore until further investigation is undertaken the proposed mitigation planting may be adjusted / altered in character to accommodate any buffer areas required to protect both sensitive archaeological assets and below ground services which may have an impact upon the success of the screening and integration of the bridge design into the landscape. It has not been possible to validate nor incorporate potential views from PRoWs within the surrounding landscape, including KH79 situated further along the valley immediately south of KH80, on the valley slopes between South Green Lane and Hayes Lane, nor users of PRoW KH82 situated on the east facing side of Stockbury Valley between South Street Road near Stockbury and the A249 (as shown on Figure 9.1 in the published ES). It is likely that due to intervening vegetation and/or topography that views of the alternative bridge are unlikely. Geology and Baseline: soils Contaminated land, geology and geomorphology: The area of the alternative design is expected to be underlain by Head Deposits (Secondary undifferentiated aquifer), and both the Seaford Chalk Formation (Principal aquifer) and the Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation (Principal aquifer). The area of the alternative design is not within a groundwater SPZ, however a SPZ1 is present 50 m to the south and a SPZ3 is present 10 m to the north-west. A historical well is present at

Revision C03 Page 45 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Hillside Farm approximately 20 m south of the existing A249. Historically, the area of the alternative design has been occupied by open fields and has undergone earthworks associated with the A296 and Church Hill road. Aerial photographs (1990 and 1999) show an area of possible container storage and waste burning on private properties immediately south of the A249 in the northern corner of the field between the A249 and South Green Lane. This is considered to be a potential source of contamination. Agricultural soils: Hillside Farm is a 5.0 ha smallholding under grass, on Grade 2 land (i.e. BMV quality). North of the A249 the affected land forms part of a 1012 ha arable farm and the ALC grade is Grade 2 on the lowest ground and 3b (non-BMV) on the chalk hillside. Assessment: Contaminated land, geology and geomorphology: There is no change from the assessment presented in the ES, however, groundworks for the alternative design are required within the area of one of the identified sources of potential contamination (unclassified waste storage/burning on private properties immediately south of the A249). Further ground investigation which targets this potential source of contamination and areas of proposed piling are required, to confirm / optimise the design and mitigation measures presented in the ES. The design and mitigation measures detailed in the published ES will be implemented, including ground investigation prior to construction. Land contamination risk assessments and, where appropriate, remediation and validation will be completed post-ground investigation. With regards to the agricultural land assessment land take figures presented below are without the environmental design and mitigation measures. The additional land take with the environmental design is given in brackets. Agricultural land: Hillside Farm would permanently lose 2.3 ha (3.3 ha) and be left with only 2 0 ha (1.0 ha) of grassland. A further 0.6 ha would be permanently severed unless a new access is provided off South Green Lane. This is a very large adverse new significant effect. The large arable farm north of the A249 would permanently lose 0.2 ha (1.7 ha) and the effect is considered to be neutral. The promoted Scheme would result in a permanent loss of 10.3 ha of BMV land. The alternative option would increase that loss to 12.8 ha (14.6 ha) which is a moderate adverse effect but not significant, as this is well below Natural England’s 20 ha threshold of significance for loss of BMV soils. There is no mitigation for permanent land take. Access should be provided to the severed section of Hillside Farm. Assumptions and limitations: Contaminated land, geology and geomorphology: The design and mitigation measures detailed in the ES will be implemented, including ground investigation prior to construction. Land contamination risk assessments and, where appropriate, remediation and validation will be completed post-ground investigation. It is assumed that during

Revision C03 Page 46 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment construction the site will be controlled by standard health and safety and environmental policies and where appropriate, land will be restored to its original state where it has been temporarily used during construction (compounds, storage etc). Agricultural soils: No contact has been made with the occupiers of Hillside Farm and the current use of the grassland is unknown. Cultural Baseline: heritage Within a 200 m study area around the alternative design there are two non-designated heritage assets: a Roman cremation (MKE90925) and part of the World War I Defences constructed as part of the Chatham Land Front (ATK4). MKE90925 was discovered during construction of a pipeline and has been fully excavated. ATK4 is located approximately 85 m northwest of the alternative design. Outside the study area, seven heritage assets which may be sensitive to impacts upon setting from the alternative design have been identified. These comprise one Scheduled Monument “Ringwork and Baileys at Church Farm” (1009949) located c.250 m northeast of the alternative design, the Grade I Listed Building of the Church of Mary Magdalene (1086193) located c.260 m to the north; five Grade II Listed Buildings comprising Church Farmhouse and Church Farm Cottage (1299288) located c.220 m north, and the Table Tomb (1336256), Headstone to Reginald Bonton (1186232), Headstone to Thomas Gover (1086194), and the Headstone to Hannah Redman (1186237), all of which are located approximately 265 m to the north. Assessment: There is high potential for unknown archaeological remains to be present within the study area. Any unknown archaeological remains within the footprint of the Scheme would be removed during the construction phase. Further archaeological evaluation would be necessary to establish baseline conditions and in order to identify appropriate mitigation measures. No impact is predicted on the known heritage assets within the study area. Construction of the alternative design would result in impacts on two Historic Landscape Types of low value: Medium regular fields with straight boundaries (parliamentary type enclosure) (HLT 1.10) and Scattered settlement with paddocks (post 1800 extent) (HLT9.2). This would result in some limited removal of field boundaries and localised loss of historic landscape character. The magnitude of these impacts has been assessed to be minor adverse, resulting in a slight adverse effect which is not significant. The proposed bridge will not alter any aspects of the setting that contribute to the value of the designated heritage assets identified above. Assumptions and limitations: This high-level assessment has been compiled using heritage asset data obtained from third party sources. Whilst the data from these sources is generally valid, there can be instances where asset data is

Revision C03 Page 47 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment mislabelled, placed in the wrong geographical location or omitted altogether. Materials and Baseline: waste With the study area consistent with that presented in Chapter 12 of the ES Volume 1, the baseline remains unchanged for this alternative design. Assessment: The alternative design will result in an increase in the materials and waste being generated through site clearance, excavation and construction process. The findings indicate that the waste and materials assessment for the construction phase, as presented in the ES, is still valid. Furthermore, the recommendations for waste reduction and materials re-use should be adopted and included at all stages, from planning, to construction, if the alternative design is implemented. It is recommended that the waste and material assessment is refined based on a scheme specific bill of quantities, to confirm that the assumptions made herein are valid, and any future waste classification and mitigation measures are appropriate for the alternative design. Assumptions and limitations: The bill of quantities associated with the alternative design is not currently fully known. In order to determine the significance of effects from the proposed change, professional judgement has been used to assessment the impact of the materials and waste quantities currently known. Population Baseline: and human The alternative design would slightly extend the promoted Scheme health boundary and the population and human health core study area further to the west compared to the published ES, bringing the alternative design closer to several sensitive receptors and land uses. The overarching population and human health baseline for the promoted Scheme is presented in Chapter 13 of the published ES Volume 1. The baseline is scheme-wide and therefore largely unaffected and still largely representative for the alternative design. Population baseline: • Private dwellings The baseline for private dwellings remains largely unchanged compared to the published ES; however, the alternative design includes the sensitive residential receptor at Hillside Farm (which is close to the new bridge and link road within the alternative design) which could be directly affected through land take and changes in access/ severance. A review of Swale’s online planning application database and Council Tax records1 indicates the presence of a ‘mobile home’ on the land at

1 http://cti.voa.gov.uk/cti/BandDetail.asp?lcn=0

Revision C03 Page 48 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Hillside Farm (believed to be linked to the main residence at Hillside Farm). Hinecorn on South Green Lane and Sandina in Stockbury Valley are both close to the proposed westbound access and tie in works being proposed as part of the alternative design and could be affected by the works. Sandina is a private property that also encompasses a police dog training centre. The alternative design would bring Squirrel Farm/Farmhouse, Three Chimneys and Heath Cottage to the west approximately 35 m closer to the proposed works compared to the promoted Scheme. Foley House, Three Squirrels, Greenways and Keepers Cottage would all fall within the population and human health core study area for the alternative design, having previously been on the periphery or just outside the core study area in the published ES. • Community land and facilities The baseline remains largely unchanged compared to the published ES, however, the alternative design brings St Mary Magdalene Church slightly closer to the proposed works. Stockbury Village Hall and Sittingbourne Town Football Club lie just outside the core study area for the alternative design, however they remain in the wider study area as was the case in the published ES. • Rural enterprises The baseline remains largely unchanged compared to the published ES. However, the alternative design is expected to directly affect Hillside Farm through agricultural land take and result in potential changes to access and severance, which wasn’t the case in the published ES. The E.J. Mackelden & Sons (Bobbing) Limited holding, to the north of the A249, could also be affected. Squirrel Farm would be brought slightly closer to the proposed works (within approximately 150 m) compared to the promoted Scheme. MB Farms (farm shop and butchers) which operates from Parsonage Farm in the wider study area in Stockbury may also be affected. • Local businesses The baseline remains largely unchanged compared to the published ES. However, the alternative design is closer to Riley’s Removals which is registered at Unit 1, Hillside Farm, Stockbury Valley, Stockbury, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QH. On the evidence available and taking a precautionary approach, it is believed that Riley’s Removals operates from the land at Hillside Farm and relies on good access to the highways network. Stockbury Pumping Station (operated by South Eastern Water Ltd), local businesses operating from industrial units at Church Farm Industrial Estate, Stockbury (e.g. Burden Bros Agri Ltd), and local businesses in the wider study area would be slightly closer to the proposed works, compared to the promoted Scheme. • Non-motorised users The baseline remains largely unchanged compared to the published ES. However, the alternative design would bring PRoW KH 80 to the north

Revision C03 Page 49 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment of Stockbury Pumping Station (running eastwards from Hayes Lane to South Green Lane) closer to the proposed works (within 60 m). Human health baseline: The human health baseline in the published ES is scheme-wide. The alternative design is likely to introduce new sensitive receptors (e.g. at or near Hillside Farm) that could be affected by air pollution, noise and vibration, and soil and water pollution. The baseline conditions for vehicle travellers (views from the road and driver stress) reported in the published ES would also apply to the alternative design. Assessment: Private dwellings – Land take: No private dwellings would need to be demolished to build the alternative design. However, permanent land take (26,292.805 m²) would be required south of the A249. This would result in the loss of almost half of the grassland at Hillside Farm, including land to the rear and side of Hillside Farm and within the setting of the mobile home at Hillside Farm. Potentially, more land would be lost if the 0.6 ha of land to the east of the new proposed link road becomes permanently severed by the alternative design. The magnitude of impact for the permanent loss of the land and severe damage to key characteristics/ features within the curtilage of Hillside Farm and the mobile home at Hillside Farm would be Major Adverse, resulting in Large Adverse effects, which is significant. These construction effects are permanent, so would continue to be observed during the operational phase. This significant effect would change the number of residential properties significantly affected by land take effects compared to the published ES from two to four, which is a significant change. However, the assessment for private dwellings in the published ES resulted in Large Adverse effects (significant), therefore there would be no change in overall significance from what is reported for the published ES. Private dwellings – Changes in access: During construction of the alternative design, the magnitude of impact for the temporary and permanent change in access and hindrance of movement to the secondary access to Hillside Farm and the mobile home at Hillside Farm would be Minor Adverse, resulting in additional Slight Adverse effects which is not significant. During construction, the magnitude of impact for the temporary and permanent change in access to Valley View Farm and temporary and permanent change in access to Sandina and Hinecorn from tie-in works and construction activities near South Green Lane and the new link road in the published ES would be Minor Adverse, resulting in additional Slight Adverse effects which is not significant. These predicted effects would slightly worsen the situation compared to the published ES (e.g. from Negligible to Minor Adverse) and directly affect new residential receptors (Hillside Farm, mobile home linked to

Revision C03 Page 50 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Hillside farm), however these changes in access effects would not be significant. During operation, the loss of the existing secondary access to Hillside Farm and the mobile home linked to Hillside Farm will be offset by a new secondary access created further to the west through the alternative design. The magnitude of impact of the new access when considered against a general increase in traffic using the alternative design would be Minor Adverse, resulting in Slight Adverse effects which is not significant. The magnitude of impact on Valley View Farm, Sandina and Hinecorn through an increase in traffic using the alternative design and slight hindrance of movement compared to the published ES would be Minor Adverse, resulting in Slight Adverse effects which is not significant. These changes are localised and would directly affect two new residential receptors (Hillside Farm, mobile home at Hillside farm) which is additional to the published ES. However, the changes would not be significant. Community land and facilities: During construction, no community land or facilities would need to be demolished or require land take to construct the alternative design or accommodate the alternative design during operation. This is the same as the published ES. There is no community land or community facilities within the promoted Scheme boundary or in proximity to the alternative design. However, some hindrance of movement around South Green Lane, the A249 and Church Hill would lead to Slight Adverse effects on access to St Mary Magdalene Church. This is the same as reported in the published ES. During operation, the proposed new link road and bridge is not expected to introduce a new, physical barrier to movement. If anything, the provision of new facilities for pedestrians and others would improve overall access to community land and facilities nearby such as St Mary Magdalene Church and facilities in the wider study area (e.g. Stockbury village) compared to the published ES. The magnitude of impact for making crossing the A249 safer and more attractive through a dedicated bridge and link road, particularly for vulnerable groups such as the frail elderly and younger people, balanced against a longer and less direct route (i.e. an increase in journey length of over 500 m) and the fact that there are no designated footpaths on Church Hill for onward travel, would result in Minor Beneficial magnitude of impact, resulting in Slight Beneficial effects which is not significant. This change would bring localised benefits compared to the published ES. However, it would not result in a significant change to the overall findings reported in the published ES. Rural enterprises: Hillside Farm would be most affected by the alternative design, losing 3.3 ha of grassland. This would leave 1 ha of grassland, of which 0.6 ha would become permanently severed unless a new access is provided off South Green Lane. For the purposes of the geology and soils

Revision C03 Page 51 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment assessment, this represents an additional significant impact compared to the published ES. However, for the purposes of population and human health assessment, whilst there is historic evidence of the diversification of Hillside Farm into non-agricultural business activities in the 1980s, there is no evidence to suggest that such uses continue to operate from Hillside Farm. As a result, there would be no impacts on Hillside Farm as a rural enterprise. E J Mackleden & Sons Ltd holding to the north of the A249 would lose an additional 1.7 ha of arable land from the alternative design, of which 1.0 ha is BMV, compared to the published ES. Although several businesses operate from Church Lane Industrial Estate which forms part of the wider E J Mackleden & Sons Ltd holding near Church Farm, these operations are believed to be local businesses and not forming part of a diversification into rural enterprise. As such, they are reported under the local businesses section below. During operation, the magnitude of impact on Parsonage Farm in Stockbury (located in the wider study area and including MB Farms farm shop and butchers) would be Minor Beneficial due to overall improvements in access from the alternative design, resulting in Slight Beneficial effects compared to the published ES. Local businesses: During construction, there would be an additional Minor Adverse impact on Riley’s Removals which operates from Hillside Farm from a temporary worsening of conditions and hindrance of movement due to construction activities nearby, resulting in Slight Adverse effects which is not significant compared to the published ES. The magnitude of impact on Stockbury Pumping Station through tie-in works of the alternative design to South Green Lane and the promoted Scheme link road would be Minor Adverse, resulting in additional Slight Adverse effects, which is not significant. Additional Minor Adverse effects are predicted for other local businesses in the area, such as those operating from Church Lane Industrial estate. Whilst these are additional effects as a result of the alternative design, the significance of the effects’ remains the same as the published ES (Slight Adverse) and they remain not significant, as reported in the published ES. During operation, the magnitude of impact on a limited number of businesses and workers at Church Lane Industrial Estate in the core study area and in Stockbury village just outside the core study area through improved and more direct access would be Minor Beneficial, resulting in Slight Beneficial effects, which is not significant. There would generally be no change to the other local businesses in the core and wider study area, resulting in neutral effects on these businesses. These changes are localised and would not result in a significant change compared to the published ES during operation where no significant impacts on local businesses were predicted, and the topic was scoped out.

Revision C03 Page 52 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Non-motorised users: Negligible magnitude of impacts is predicted for users of PRoW KH 80 during construction and operation through a general worsening of existing conditions, resulting in Slight Adverse effects which is not significant. This PRoW was not affected by the promoted Scheme, so this is a new Slight Adverse effect reported compared to the published ES. During operation, the proposed new 5 m wide NMU route would provide a new, direct and safer NMU connection between the south of the A249 (South Green Lane and the new link road) and the north of the A249 (Church Hill), reducing potential pedestrian conflict with traffic on the A249, particularly for vulnerable groups compared to the published ES. Overall, the new NMU route would improve the existing NMU network by providing new amenities and reduce severance which would be offset by a net increase in overall journey length of over 500 m compared to the promoted Scheme. On balance, this impact would be Minor Beneficial, resulting in Slight Beneficial effects, which is not significant. On balance, these changes would bring localised benefits compared to the promoted Scheme, however it would not change the significance of effects reported in the published ES. Human Health Air pollution: The air quality section of this assessment reports that the alternative design could lead to an increase in pollutant concentrations at existing properties near the proposed new link road east of the A249 due to new traffic using the alternative design option instead of the A249 onto Church Hill. However, this is unlikely to affect air quality, resulting in no or non-perceptible impact on the human health of the wider public or sensitive groups. There would be no change to the significance of effects compared to the published ES. Risk of injuries and death: By adapting the health receptor sensitivity to health determinants criteria set out in Table 13.12 of the Population and Human Health chapter for the published ES, the sensitivity of young/inexperienced and older drivers to risk of injury and death specifically from vehicle collisions is High. The sensitivity of the wider group and other vulnerable groups to risk of injury and death from vehicle collisions is Medium. During construction, the overall risk of injuries and death from vehicle collisions from the alternative design would be Minor Adverse near the construction works, including on/near South Green Lane, the link road in the promoted Scheme, and tie-in works at Church Hill, resulting in Slight Adverse effects. With appropriate mitigation measures in place including reduced speed limits, this would not be significant. These localised non- significant effects are in accordance with the scheme-wide findings in the published ES which reported Slight Adverse effects across the

Revision C03 Page 53 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Scheme area for the local population and all sensitive groups during construction. During operation, permanent beneficial impacts are predicted from the alternative design for road users that currently use Church Hill to travel to/from Stockbury Village from a safer, more direct road that reduces potential collisions with other vehicles on the A249, particularly if a smoother traffic flow increases vehicle speeds on the A249 carriageways. This permanent impact would potentially result in Large Beneficial effects for young/inexperienced and older drivers and Moderate Beneficial effects for wider groups and the other sensitive groups which is significant. This localised effect is not directly comparable but represents an additional significant effect to the findings of the published ES. Risk of injury and death across the wider scheme area (excluding the localised significant effects mentioned above) would not be significant, in line with the findings of the published ES. The impact of the provision of a five-metre wide shared Non-Motorised User (NMU) path in the alternative design for pedestrians and others along the approach road and bridge would be Minor Beneficial, resulting in Slight Beneficial effects. This localised effect will improve the situation compared to the published ES, however it is not significant. Soil and water pollution The road drainage and water environment section of this assessment finds that with appropriate mitigation in place, there will be no change to the published ES findings for drainage or flood risk. The geology and soils section of this assessment identifies previous off- site sources of potential contamination south of the A249 that will become on-site sources in the alternative design. There would be no additional geological or geomorphic features at risk from those considered in the published ES. Overall, there would be no change to the overall findings of the published ES. Access to housing, education, health care services and other social infrastructure: During construction, there is expected to be Minor Adverse or Negligible impacts on access to housing, education and other services for people travelling to/from Stockbury village from short-term, temporary impacts affecting a low number of people, including a few sensitive groups. This would result in Slight Adverse effects, which is not significant. During operation, there would be Minor Beneficial impacts on access to housing, education and other services for a low number of people travelling to/from Stockbury village, including a few sensitive groups, resulting in Slight Beneficial effects, which is not significant. During operation, this change would bring localised benefits compared to the published ES. However, it would not result in a significant change to the overall findings reported in the published ES.

Revision C03 Page 54 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Access to work and training: During construction, there is expected to be Minor Adverse impacts on access to work and training for people travelling to/from Stockbury village from short-term, temporary impacts affecting a low number of people, including a few sensitive groups. This would result in Slight Adverse effects, which is not significant. There may be opportunities for people in Stockbury village to work on the promoted Scheme and the alternative design. During operation, there would be Minor Beneficial impacts on access to work and training for a low number of people travelling to/from Stockbury village, including a few sensitive groups. This would result in Slight Beneficial effects, which is not significant. During operation, this change would bring localised benefits compared to the published ES. However, it would not result in a significant change to the overall findings reported in the published ES. Noise pollution and vibration There is the potential for significant noise effects at Hillside Farm from the construction of the overbridge should the earthworks be closer than 25 m. During operation although there will be slight changes to the noise environment on several receptors this will not change the residual effects reported in the published ES. There would be no overall change to the findings of the published ES. Vehicle Travellers – Views from the road: Using the DMRB guidance for the assessment of vehicle travellers, vehicle travellers on the A249 and local road users along Church Hill, South Green Lane and Hayes Lane would be impacted by the alternative design. An increase in construction activity around Church Hill and the adjoining A249 highways network would be visually disruptive to the intermittent view. Due to the low sensitivity of the receptors, this change would result in non-significant adverse effects on views from the road during construction and operation. For vehicle travellers along South Green Lane and Hayes Lane there may be sporadic glimpsed views through breaks in vegetation, however, on balance this would have Negligible impact on views from the road. As there would be no significant effects, there would be no change to the overall non-significant findings in the published ES. Vehicle Travellers – Driver stress Using the DMRB guidance for assessing driver stress, during construction of the alternative design driver stress is predicted to increase temporarily near South Green Lane, the link road in the promoted Scheme and Church Hill because of construction activities, disruption to traffic and road flows, and increased construction traffic. However, the effect is predicted to be Low. During operation, driver stress for drivers using the alternative design instead of turning right on the A249 would decrease due to quicker and more reliable journeys and improved safety.

Revision C03 Page 55 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Whilst there would be a localised reduction in driver stress compared to the published ES, there would be no change to the overall assessment where driver stress across the scheme-wide area is reported to be Low. Assumptions and limitations: The assessment of effects on population and human health is based on guidance and professional judgement and considers both the adverse and beneficial impacts and effects that the alternative option may have on identified receptors. It provides an assessment of likely effects on population and human health based on a proportionate assessment. Whilst it will be possible to identify changes to some of the determinants of health likely to arise, health outcomes are dependent on multiple factors, some of which rest with individuals and/or outside the powers or influence of physical infrastructure and/or planning decisions. Identifying health effects of the alternative design and their significance is therefore a mainly qualitative exercise. The findings have been based upon a desk-based study of the area, along with consultants’ professional judgement. Information, where relevant, has been used from other specialist topic assessments to help assess the significance of effects of the alternative design on receptors. Two receptors have been identified on land at Hillside Farm (i.e. a mobile home associated with Hillside Farm and Riley’s Removals whose registered address is Unit 1 at Hillside Farm). On the evidence available and taking a precautionary approach it has been assumed that the mobile home is habitable and constitutes a private residential dwelling associated with Hillside Farm and Riley’s Removals operations from Unit 1 at Hillside Farm involve storage facilities and vehicle movements. Potential effects on these receptors have been assessed in the private dwellings and local business sections of the assessment respectively. The health assessment section of this chapter is by nature a cumulative assessment, which considers the population and human health impacts of all environmental effects of the alternative design. Therefore, there is a degree of overlap between population and human health and the findings from the other technical assessments, notably air quality, noise and vibration, road drainage and the water environment, geology and soils, and landscape and visual. Effects on Baseline climate and Effects on climate Vulnerability There is not expected to be any change to the effects on climate to climate baseline conditions to that reported in Chapter 14, Climate of the ES change Volume 1. Vulnerability to climate change The alternative design is within the existing climate vulnerability study area and no changes to the climate vulnerability baseline (historic and projected climate) are required as reported in Chapter 14, Climate of the ES Volume 1.

Revision C03 Page 56 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment Assessment Effects on climate The changes to the material quantities and construction processes required compared with those presented in the ES is likely to be minimal and would not result in a large impact on overall greenhouse gas emissions from the promoted Scheme. As the effect of the promoted Scheme on climate has been assessed to not be significant due to the small magnitude of emissions compared with overall national budgets, this alternative design is unlikely to have a significant effect on climate. Vulnerability to climate change The effects of climate change do not vary considerably at a local scale. No changes to the existing assessment of the promoted Schemes potential climate vulnerabilities are required. It is noted that similar to the promoted Scheme the alternative design still includes: • A similar construction programme (with regard to the expected rate of climate change). • Construction and operation of new structures (e.g. embankments, bridges, gantries) that could be impacted by storms or long-term changes in ground water levels. • Construction and operation of new drainage infrastructure that needs to be resilient to the promoted Schemes projected future climate. • Construction and operation of assets vulnerable to impacts of flooding. • Operation of assets made from materials vulnerable to long term deterioration due to weather exposure – for example freeze thaw erosion and/or rutting in hot weather. • Landscaping vulnerable to drought. Assumptions and limitations: Effects on climate A quantitative assessment of the carbon emissions from the alternative design has not been carried out; the assessment of environmental impact is based on the position of the National Policy Statement for National Networks that any single road scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the UK meeting its carbon reduction targets. Vulnerability to climate change It is assumed that the scale of the alternative is design not significantly different to the preferred option and that the main changes relate to the location of the assets and alignment of the road. Baseline: Assessment No new ‘other developments’ have been identified for the alternative of cumulative design assessment so there is no change from what was presented in effects cumulative effects assessment in the published ES. No new receptors have been identified for the alternative design however, larger in-combination effects on some receptors have been

Revision C03 Page 57 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment identified including Hillside Farm Squirrel House, Three Chimneys, Hinecorn and Sardina. Assessment: There is no change to the cumulative effects assessment presented in the published ES. For the in-combination effects assessment there are some new effects identified compared to the published ES which include: • Human residents, including community and private assets, sensitive receptors and vulnerable groups: − Landscape and visual – Very Large adverse and significant effects on Hillside Farm during construction and operation. Moderate Adverse and significant effects on Squirrel House and Three Chimneys during construction and operation. Moderate and significant effects on Hinecorn and Sardina during construction which will reduce to Minor Adverse during operation. Moderate adverse and significant effects on outdoor employment receptors along South Green Lane during operation due to views of the new bridge. − Geology and soils – 2.3 ha (3.3 ha) of land will be lost permanently to Hillside Farm, this is a Large Adverse and significant effect but is below Natural England’s 20 ha threshold of significance. − Population and human health – Large adverse and significant effects on Hillside Farm due to permanent land take. The alternative design would increase the number of properties effected by demolition or land take from two to four as compared to the published ES however, there would be no change in significance from what was reported in the published ES. Slight adverse and not significant effects on Hillside Farm, Valley View Farm, Sandina and Hinecorn from temporary and permanent changes in access during construction and operation. There will be Slight beneficial and not significant effects on access to St Mary Magdalene Church due to the alterative design new safer and more attractive crossing over the A249. There will be Minor Beneficial and not significant effects on Parsonage Farm in Stockbury during operation due to improved access. There will be Slight adverse and not significant effects on Riley’s Removals who operate out of Hillside Farm and Stockbury Pumping Station during construction from disruption to access. Slight beneficial and not significant effects on businesses in Church Lane Industrial Estate during operation will occur do to improved and more direct access. • Human – all travellers, i.e. vehicle travellers, cyclists, and pedestrians: − Landscape and Visual – Moderate adverse and significant effects on PRoW KH80 at Norton Green during the operational stage due to views of the alternative design. No significant effects are identified for transport receptors travelling along A249 and local road users along Church Hill, South Green Lane and Hayes Lane during construction or operation.

Revision C03 Page 58 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment − Population and Human Health – Slight adverse and not significant effects for NMUs using PRoW KH80 during construction however there will be Slight beneficial and not significant effects to NMUs during operation due to the alternative design providing new, direct and safer NMU connection between the south of the A249 (South Green Lane and the new link road) and the north of the A249 (Church Hill), reducing potential pedestrian conflict with traffic on the A249, particularly for vulnerable groups. • Ecological receptors – protected species and existing habitats – no new effects. • The water environment – no new effects. • Heritage assets: − Cultural Heritage – Slight adverse and not significant effects on two Historic Landscape Types: Medium regular fields with straight boundaries (parliamentary type enclosure) (HLT 1.10) and Scattered settlement with paddocks (post 1800 extent) (HLT9.2) due to the alterative design during construction will occur. • Geology and Soils – no new effects. • Landscape and Townscape: − Landscape and Visual – Effects on the Regional LCA LAK – Bicknor: Mid Kent Downs and the Local LCA: Hucking Dry Valley. Large adverse and significant effects during construction on the LAK: Bicknor – Mid Kent Downs Regional LCA and the Local Hucking Dry Valley LCA which will reduce to Moderate adverse and significant during operation. The Regional LCA – LAK: Chatham Outskirts – Mid Kent Downs would remain as Moderate adverse and significant during construction and reduce to Slight adverse and not significant during operation. − Geology and Soils – 2.3 ha (3.3 ha) of land will be lost permanently to Hillside Farm, this is a Large Adverse and significant effect. In addition a further 2.5 ha (4.3 ha) of BMV will be lost. For the in-combination effects assessment there are some new residual overall effects identified compared to the published ES which include: • Human – residents, including community and private assets, sensitive receptors and vulnerable groups: − Large adverse and significant effects on residents at Hillside Farm due to land take, noise and visual effects during construction and operation of the alternative design. • Landscape ad townscape: Moderate adverse and significant effects during operation on the Regional LCA LAK – Bicknor: Mid Kent Downs, the Local LCA: Hucking Dry Valley. LAK and further loss of agricultural land. Assumptions and limitations:

Revision C03 Page 59 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Topic High level assessment This assessment has been undertaken using professional judgement and is based on information that is currently available.

Revision C03 Page 60 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Appendix E. Air Quality

E.1 Air quality receptors Table E.1: Additional human health receptors near the alternative design

Name X Y Local Receptor ID Authority R60 Hillside Farm 584616 161149 Maidstone R61 Hinecorn, South Green 584832 161266 Maidstone Lane R62 White House 584913 161475 Maidstone R63 Squirrel House 584487 161019 Maidstone R64 Sandina, South Green 584841 161301 Maidstone Lane

E.2 Modelled results Table E.2: Estimated annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations (µg/m3) at additional human health receptors near the alternative design using traffic data from the traffic model used for the alternative design, Highways England IAN 170/12v3 LTTE6 method

Back- 2016 Back- 2022 2022 2022 2022 NO Receptor 2 ground Base ground DM DS NO Change ID 2 2016 NO2 NO2 2022 NO2 NO2 NO2 Change Criteria R60 11.7 34.9 9.5 28.6 29.3 +0.7 Small increase R61 11.7 19.6 9.5 16.4 16.4 <0.1 Imperceptibl e R62 11.7 37.0 9.5 30.3 24.0 -6.3 Large decrease R63 11.7 23.6 9.5 19.2 19.4 +0.2 Imperceptibl e R64 11.7 21.3 9.5 17.5 17.2 -0.3 Imperceptibl e

Revision C03 Page 61 of 63

Church Hill Overbridge Alternative Assessment Report

Table E.3: Estimated annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations (µg/m3) at additional human health receptors near the alternative design using traffic data from the traffic model used for the promoted Scheme, Highways England IAN 170/12v3 LTTE6 method

Back- Back- 2022 2016 2022 Recepto ground ground 2022 DM 2022 DS NO Base NO2 2 r ID 2016 2022 NO2 NO2 Change NO2 Change NO2 NO2 Criteria Small R60 11.7 34.9 9.5 28.2 28.8 +0.6 increas e Imperc R61 11.7 19.6 9.5 15.8 15.5 -0.3 eptible Large R62 11.7 37.0 9.5 29.8 23.2 -6.6 decreas e Imperc R63 11.7 23.6 9.5 19.0 19.3 +0.3 eptible Small R64 11.7 21.3 9.5 17.1 16.6 -0.5 decreas e

Revision C03 Page 62 of 63

© Crown copyright (2019). You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence: visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

Printed on paper from well-managed forests and other controlled sources.

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363