M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways

Environmental Assessment Report

HE549344-MMSJV-EGN-000-RP-LX-00010 07/11/18 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Environmental Assessment Report

Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Status Suitability No P01 20/02/2018 S3 For Review

P02 22/05/2018 S3 For Review

P03 19/07/2018 S4 For issue

P04 21/09/2018 S4 For issue

P05 07/11/2018 S4 For issue

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

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

Prepared for: Prepared by: Highways England Mott MacDonald Sweco JV Temple Quay House, Stoneham Place, Stoneham Lane 2 The Square, Bristol Southampton, Hampshire BS1 6HA SO50 9NW

Page 1 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Contents Page

0. Executive summary ...... 11 Introduction ...... 11 Air quality ...... 12 Ecology and nature conservation ...... 12 Landscape and cultural heritage ...... 13 Noise and vibration ...... 13 Road drainage and the water environment...... 14 Combined and cumulative effects ...... 15 Conclusion ...... 15

1. Introduction ...... 16 1.1 Overview of the proposed scheme ...... 16 1.2 Overview of the existing motorway ...... 18 1.3 Purpose of this Environmental Assessment Report ...... 20 1.4 Background to the Smart Motorways Programme ...... 20 1.5 The Road Investment Strategy and Highways England Licence ...... 22 1.6 Guidance followed for this report ...... 26

2. The proposed scheme ...... 27 2.1 Need for the proposed scheme ...... 27 2.2 Proposed scheme description ...... 27 2.3 Operating regime...... 28 2.4 Carriageways ...... 29 2.5 Pavement ...... 29 2.6 Central reserve works ...... 29 2.7 Verge and all lane running works ...... 30 2.8 Emergency refuge areas ...... 31 2.9 Signs and gantries ...... 31 2.10 Works to structures ...... 35 2.11 Lighting ...... 36 2.12 Turnarounds ...... 36 2.13 Police observation platforms ...... 36 2.14 Power supply ...... 37

Page 2 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

2.15 Maintenance access ...... 37 2.16 Non-motorised user movement at junctions ...... 37 2.17 Communication cabling and ducting...... 37 2.18 Environmental barriers ...... 37 2.19 Site clearance ...... 38 2.20 Drainage strategy ...... 38 2.21 Demolitions and removals ...... 39 2.22 Environmental design ...... 40 2.23 Operational considerations ...... 41 2.24 Construction works ...... 42 2.25 Temporary works ...... 42 2.26 Construction traffic management...... 44 2.27 Earth slopes and retaining structures ...... 46 2.28 Other considerations ...... 49 2.29 Land take ...... 50 2.30 Proposed operation and long-term management ...... 50

3. Alternatives considered ...... 51 3.1 Programme level alternatives ...... 51 3.2 Proposed scheme specific alternatives ...... 51

4. Environmental impact assessment methodology ...... 53 4.1 Regulatory framework ...... 53 4.2 Screening ...... 53 4.3 Scoping ...... 54 4.4 Stakeholder consultation ...... 56

5. Air Quality ...... 59 5.1 Introduction ...... 59 5.2 Assessment methodology ...... 60 5.3 Policy and legislation ...... 68 5.4 Baseline conditions ...... 72 5.5 Design mitigation and enhancement ...... 78 5.6 Assessment of effects ...... 80 5.7 Assessment of significance ...... 94

Page 3 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6. Biodiversity ...... 97 6.1 Introduction ...... 97 6.2 Study area ...... 98 6.3 Methodology ...... 99 6.4 Baseline conditions ...... 104 6.5 Sensitivity of resource ...... 122 6.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 126 6.7 Design and mitigation measures ...... 128 6.8 Potential construction effects ...... 132 6.9 Potential operation effects ...... 140 6.10 Residual effects ...... 143 6.11 Summary ...... 143

7. Landscape character and visual effects ...... 151 7.2 Study area ...... 152 7.3 Methodology ...... 152 7.4 Baseline conditions ...... 158 7.5 Sensitivity of resource ...... 166 7.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 167 7.7 Design and mitigation measures ...... 169 7.8 Potential construction effects ...... 170 7.9 Potential operational effects ...... 172 7.10 Residual effects ...... 174 7.11 Summary ...... 174

8. Noise and vibration ...... 175 8.1 Introduction ...... 175 8.2 Study Area ...... 176 8.3 Methodology ...... 177 8.4 Baseline conditions ...... 186 8.5 Sensitivity of resource ...... 186 8.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 190 8.7 Design and mitigation measures ...... 192 8.8 Potential construction effects ...... 198 8.9 Potential operational effects ...... 206

Page 4 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.10 Residual effects ...... 221 8.11 Summary ...... 221

9. Road Drainage and the Water Environment ...... 224 9.1 Introduction ...... 224 9.2 Study area ...... 225 9.3 Methodology ...... 225 9.4 Baseline conditions ...... 229 9.5 Sensitivity of resources ...... 234 9.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 235 9.7 Design and mitigation measures ...... 235 9.8 Potential construction effects ...... 236 9.9 Potential operational effects ...... 239 9.10 Opportunities for enhancement ...... 245 9.11 Residual effects ...... 256 9.12 Summary ...... 256

10. Assessment of combined and cumulative effects ...... 258 10.1 Introduction ...... 258 10.2 Planned development and overlapping schemes ...... 258 10.3 Assessment methodology ...... 259 10.4 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 265 10.5 Potential effects ...... 265

Tables

Table 1-1: Environmental objectives ...... 23

Table 2-1: Through junction running ...... 28

Table 2-2: Existing structures ...... 35

Table 2-3: Estimated vegetation clearance requirements for the proposed scheme ...... 38

Table 2-4: Diversion routes ...... 45

Table 2-5: Retaining walls ...... 47

Table 4-1: Scoping conclusions ...... 54

Page 5 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 5-1: Summary of human health air quality receptors used in the dispersion modelling...... 63

Table 5-2: Ambient air quality objectives relevant to the assessment of air quality impacts for the proposed scheme...... 66

Table 5-3: Critical load for nationally designated site in the study area...... 67

Table 5-4: Classification of the magnitude of change of pollutant concentration and guideline significance criteria ...... 67

Table 5-5: Southampton City Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2) ...... 73

Table 5-6: Test Valley Borough Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2) ...... 73

Table 5-7: EBC Diffusion Tube Monitoring Data (NO2) ...... 74

Table 5-8: Fareham and Gosport Borough Councils diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2) 74

Table 5-9: Winchester City Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2) ...... 75

Table 5-10: PCM roadside annual mean NO2 concentrations for the baseline and opening year (without the proposed scheme) ...... 76

Table 5-11: Annual mean background pollutant concentrations (µg/m3) used within the assesment. Taken from Defra mapped data for 2015, and 2021...... 77

Table 5-12: Baseline nitrogen deposition over designated sites in the study area...... 78

Table 5-13: Overview of traffic impacts with the scheme by receptor group region...... 81

Table 5-14: Annual mean NO2 results at receptors above the air quality objective and at receptors with the greatest annual mean NO2 concentrations coupled with the greatest increases or decreases for the proposed scheme...... 83

Table 5-15: Annual mean NO2 results at receptors above the air quality objective and at receptors with the greatest annual mean NO2 concentrations coupled with the greatest increases or decreases for the cumulative scenario...... 85

Table 5-16: Air quality impacts at grouped receptors with the proposed scheme for the opening year 2021...... 86

Table 5-17: Air quality impacts at grouped receptors in the cumulative scenario for the opening year 2021...... 87

Table 5-18: Ecological impact of the proposed scheme at designated sites for the opening year 2021...... 89

Table 5-19: Ecological impact of the cumulative sceanrio at designated sites for the opening year 2021...... 90

Page 6 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 5-20: Ecological impact of the proposed scheme at designated sites...... 91

Table 5-21: Ecological impact of the cumulative scenario at designated sites...... 91

Table 5-22: Regional air quality impacts for carbon dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide for the proposed scheme ...... 93

Table 5-23: Regional air quality impacts for carbon dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide for the cumulative scenario ...... 93

Table 5-24: Local air quality receptors informing proposed scheme significance for the M27 alone ...... 95

Table 5-25: Local air quality receptors informing proposed scheme significance for the cumulative scenario ...... 95

Table 5-26: IAN 175/14 key significance criteria and commentary for the M27 alone proposed scheme and the M27 and M3 cumulative scenario...... 95

Table 5-27: Summary of operational and construction effects ...... 96

Table 6-1 Study Area and Zone of Influence for each ecological receptor ...... 98

Table 6-2: Resource Valuation, adapted from IAN 130/10 ...... 102

Table 6-3: Significance of effects (IAN 130/10) ...... 104

Table 6-4 : European Designated Sites (for bats) within 30km (information sourced from BIM tables) ...... 105

Table 6-5: European Designated Sites within 2km of the proposed scheme or within 200m of the ARN (information sourced from BIM tables) ...... 105

Table 6-6: Sites of Special Scientific Interest within 2km or within 200m of the ARN (information sourced from BIM tables)...... 107

Table 6-7: Non-statutory designated sites (SINCs) within the ZoI / immediately adjacent to the proposed scheme ...... 108

Table 6-8: Results of great crested newt 2017 survey ...... 111

Table 6-9: Rationale and Valuation of Ecological Receptors within the Ecological ZoI ... 123

Table 6-10: Impacts on great crested newts and proposed mitigation ...... 135

Table 6-11: Nitrogen Deposition (kg/ha/yr) in Opening Year (2021) of for European Sites and SSSIs within 200m of the ARN...... 140

Table 6-12: Summary of impacts and residual effects ...... 144

Page 7 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 7-1: Landscape character and visual sensitivity criteria ...... 153

Table 7-2: Magnitude of impact landscape character criteria ...... 154

Table 7-3: Magnitude of impact landscape character criteria ...... 155

Table 7-4: Matrix for classification of landscape character and visual effects ...... 156

Table 7-5: Criteria for assessing the value of heritage assets ...... 157

Table 7-6: Assessing the magnitude of impacts ...... 158

Table 7-7: Matrix for classification of the effect on heritage assets ...... 158

Table 7-8: Summary of landscape character ...... 159

Table 7-9: Key representative viewpoints ...... 165

Table 7-10: Sensitivity of key landscape character and visual receptors ...... 166

Table 7-11: Summary of Construction and Operational Assumptions ...... 169

Table 8-1 : Assessment methodology for each noise and vibration topic ...... 178

Table 8-2: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for construction noise at dwellings in dB LAeq,T ...... 178

Table 8-3: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for construction vibration effects at dwellings, PPV ...... 179

Table 8-4: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for road traffic noise during day and night-time ...... 181

Table 8-5: Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the short-term ...... 183

Table 8-6: Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the long-term ...... 183

Table 8-7: Noise levels predicted for the NIR 1975 (as amended 1988) ...... 185

Table 8-8: Criteria to define whether a property qualifies for insulation under the NIR 1975 (as amended 1988) ...... 185

Table 8-9: nIAs within the Study Area ...... 187

Table 8-10: Uncertainty in relation to the construction noise assessment ...... 190

Table 8-11: Uncertainty in relation to the construction vibration assessment ...... 191

Table 8-12 : Uncertainty in relation to the operational road traffic noise assessment ...... 191

Table 8-13: Mitigation/enhancement measures during operation ...... 195

Page 8 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 8-14: Indicative construction noise levels at night – road works ...... 199

Table 8-15: Sensitive receptor distance bands for noise – retaining walls ...... 201

Table 8-16: Indicative construction noise levels – compound ...... 203

Table 8-17: Indicative construction vibration levels – percussive piling ...... 204

Table 8-18: Anticipated number of diversion routes per link ...... 205

Table 8-19: Long-term DM traffic noise changes ...... 207

Table 8-20: Short-term traffic noise changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.1) ...... 208

Table 8-21: Long-term traffic noise changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.2) ...... 209

Table 8-22: Traffic noise nuisance changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.3) ...... 210

Table 8-23: Traffic airborne vibration nuisance changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.4) ...... 211

Table 8-24: Short-term NPSE summary ...... 211

Table 8-25: Long-term NPSE summary...... 211

Table 8-26: Future year NPSE summary...... 212

Table 8-27: Long-term noise changes in nIAs (after mitigation and enhancement measures) ...... 214

Table 8-28: Short-term cumulative traffic noise changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.1) ...... 216

Table 8-29: Long-term cumulative traffic noise changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.2)217

Table 8-30: Cumulative traffic noise nuisance changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.3) 218

Table 8-31: Cumulative traffic airborne vibration nuisance changes (DMRB HD213/11 Table A1.4) ...... 218

Table 8-32: Cumulative short-term NPSE summary ...... 219

Table 8-33: Cumulative long-term NPSE summary ...... 219

Table 8-34: Cumulative future year NPSE summary ...... 219

Table 8-35: Summary table of temporary effects on noise and vibration during construction ...... 221

Table 8-36: Summary table of effects on noise during operation ...... 223

Page 9 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 9-1: Criteria for estimating the importance of water environment attributes ...... 227

Table 9-2: Criteria for assessing the potential magnitude of an impact ...... 228

Table 9-3: Criteria for assessing the significance of the effect ...... 229

Table 9-4: Summary of WFD monitoring results ...... 230

Table 9-5: Summary of European and internationally designated sites ...... 231

Table 9-6: Summary of receptor importance ...... 235

Table 9-7: Summary of flood risk associated with gantries...... 239

Table 9-8: Summary of flood risk associated with ERAs ...... 242

Table 9-9: Qualitative assessment of priority outfalls and not-determined outfalls ...... 245

Table 9-10: HAWRAT assessment of priority outfalls and not-determined outfalls ...... 247

Table 9-11: Assessment of historic flooding events ...... 251

Table 9-12: Assessment of priority and not-determined culverts ...... 254

Table 10-1: Certainty of outcome and development status ...... 261

Table 10-2: Criteria for selecting developments for inclusion in the uncertainty log ...... 263

Table 10-3: Significance of combined and cumulative effects ...... 264

Table 10-4: Combined residual construction phase effects ...... 267

Table 10-5: Combined Residual Operational Phase Effects...... 268

Table 10-6: Assessment of Cumulative Effects during construction ...... 269

Table 10-7: Assessment of cumulative effects during operation ...... 271

Figures

Figure 1-1 Proposed scheme location plan ...... 17

Figure 2-1: Typical views of a superspan gantry, MS3 / MS4 cantilevers, directional signs and AMI signage ...... 34

Page 10 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

0. Executive summary

Introduction Highways England has commissioned the Mott MacDonald Sweco Joint Venture to design and assess a proposed Smart Motorway All Lane Running (ALR) scheme on the M27 between junction 4 at the interchange with the M3, north of Southampton, and junction 11, connecting with the A27 north of Fareham, referred to in this report as the proposed scheme. The proposed scheme lies within the county of Hampshire (see Figure 1-1 for a location plan). Highways England expects to commence construction of the proposed scheme in 2018 and it is expected to take approximately 2 years to construct, including commissioning. The proposed scheme would provide 4 permanent running lanes by converting the hardshoulder into lane 1 between junctions 4 to 7 and 8 to 11. Junction 7 to 8 is already dual 4-lane with hardshoulder. ALR would be supported through the installation of technology to monitor conditions and inform drivers, including overhead gantries and Enhanced Messaging Signs (EMS). Cameras and loop detectors would also provide information to support the technology. Delivery of the proposed scheme includes the implementation of the following elements: • Conversion of the hardshoulder to a permanent traffic lane - making 4 lanes of 13.75m overall width. The operational width of the road would be 2.75m wider than existing • Provide a nearside hardstrip of approximately 0.5m width with enhanced edge drainage • Re-surfacing of lanes 1 and 4 of each carriageway • Re-configure junction layouts to accommodate the fourth lane • Provide 4 new superspan gantries across both carriageways and 19 super cantilever gantries across 4 lanes Where space within the highway boundary is limited and surrounding ground levels require, retaining walls will be constructed to accommodate Emergency Refuge Areas (ERAs), communications cabinet sites and gantries. ERAs would be provided at regular intervals along the motorway to provide drivers with a safe stopping area for emergency use. The exceptions to this are junctions 7 to 8, which already has 4-lane running and a hardshoulder which would be retained. Intra-junction 5 westbound and intra-junction 9 would remain as 3-lane motorway with hardshoulder. 7 ERAs would be installed eastbound and 6 westbound within the proposed scheme limits. The ERAs would be located as shown in Appendix A.1. In addition, it is proposed to build 3 safe refuge areas (as defined in IAN161/15) eastbound and 6 safe refuge areas westbound, as shown in Appendix A.1. Finally, the existing hardshoulders at junction 4 eastbound, both intra-junction and on the slip road from the M3 motorway, would also serve as ERAs. This Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) presents the findings of the non-statutory environmental assessment undertaken to identify and assess potential environmental effects that could arise from the proposed scheme and proposes mitigation measures to

Page 11 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report minimise these effects in order to inform the planning, design and construction process and satisfy legal obligations.

Air quality There are 5 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the air quality study area, which have been declared for exceedances of the annual mean NO2 UK AQS objective: 2 of these AQMAs are adjacent to the proposed scheme. There are also 13 internationally and nationally designated ecological sites within the air quality study area that have the potential to be affected by changes in air quality. The proposed scheme would result in both adverse and beneficial air quality impacts. This is a result of the redistribution of traffic from roads within urban areas, (where beneficial impacts are modelled) to the M27 and associated access roads (where adverse impacts occur). The air quality impacts of the increase in traffic on the M27 are, in places, partially offset by the effects of congestion relief. The maximum impacts of the proposed scheme are small in magnitude and the number of properties affected is low, hence no significant effects are predicted. The proposed scheme impacts are imperceptible (not significant) on EU limit values and no mitigation is required.

Ecology and nature conservation Eleven European Sites have been identified within the study area. There are 3 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated for bats within the 30km of the proposed scheme (Mottisfont Bats SAC, Briddlesford Copses SAC, and Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC). Two SACs are within 2km of and hydrologically connected to the proposed scheme (River Itchen SAC and Solent Maritime SAC). Two Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar sites within 2km of and hydrologically connected to the proposed scheme (Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Portsmouth Harbour SPA). One potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) within 2km of and hydrologically connected to the proposed scheme (Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA). There are 3 SSSIs within 2km of the proposed scheme that were scoped in for assessment (River Itchen SSSI, Moorgreen Meadows SSSI and Portsmouth Harbour SSSI). There are also 7 SSSIs located further than 2km from the proposed scheme but within 200m of the ARN that have been assessed as they may be affected by changes in air quality (Butter Wood SSSI, Hook Common and Barley Heath SSSI, Langstone Harbour SSSI, Mapledurwell Fen SSSI, Portsdown SSSI, River Test SSSI, and St. Catherine’s Hill SSSI).

These Habitats of Principal Importance and notable and legally protected species require avoidance, mitigation, compensation or enhancement measures which have been incorporated into the proposed scheme. With the implementation of mitigation, there would be no significant adverse residual effects as a result of the proposed scheme. There would

Page 12 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report be, temporary disturbance during construction and risk of pollution from dust resulting in loss of quality of retained habitat during the construction phase. Habitat lost during construction would be replaced, where appropriate. Overall, the proposed scheme would not result in any significant adverse effects on statutory or non-statutory designated sites, notable habitats or notable species.

Landscape and cultural heritage There are no statutory landscape designations within the study area. However, the landscape character of the study area extends through several distinctive landscapes which are potentially sensitive to change of the type being proposed. These extend from the River Itchen valley in the west, skirting around the north-eastern edge of Southampton, crossing the Rivers Hamble and Meon, before passing to the north-east of Fareham. The M27 frequently marks the transition between urban development and the open countryside forming the boundary between several defined character areas. Plant, machinery and traffic management are largely contained within the existing corridor, and would generally be screened from broader views by existing roadside vegetation, cutting slopes and surrounding vegetation structure. Isolated locations, where awareness of the activity within the corridor would be exposed to the wider landscape by vegetation removal or along open sections of the corridor, would have a sense of an increasingly urbanised corridor in the context of existing views of traffic movements and motorway infrastructure. The construction effects would represent the worst-case scenario for potential effects on the perception of landscape character. Construction activity within the existing corridor would not result in significant effects on the wider landscape character of the study area. Potential effects post-construction and in the Design Year are not anticipated to be of greater significance than the construction effects, due to the re-establishment of vegetation, and have not been assessed in further detail. There would be no significant effects on the landscape setting of cultural heritage assets during construction or operation.

Noise and vibration The study area comprises 2 main agglomerations at Southampton and Fareham. The other main settlements include Bassett, Bassett Green and North Stoneham between junction 4 to 5, Swaythling, Townhill Park, Hatch Bottom, West End and Moorgreen between junction 5 to 7, Hedge End and Thornhill between junction 7 to 8, Lowford, Bursledon, Swanwick, Lower Swanwick, Sarisbury and Park Gate between junctions 8 to 9 and Whitely, Titchfield Park, Hill Park, Wallington, Fareham and Funtley between junctions 9 to 11. Isolated semi-rural properties and open green areas occur all along the proposed scheme. There are 31 Noise Important Areas along the proposed scheme, within which there are 857 residential dwellings. There are 14,922 dwellings and 122 other sensitive receptors within the calculation area, including community facilities, places of worship, medical facilities, educational establishments, leisure facilities and public open spaces. Mitigation measures during construction will be set out in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), including restriction to working hours and shielding of noisy equipment and activities. Mitigation measures for operational effects would comprise noise

Page 13 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report barriers and a new low noise road surfacing for lanes 1 and 4 of the main carriageway of the M27. Measures within the CEMP would limit adverse effects during construction, although construction noise and vibration is likely to give rise to localised temporary significant adverse effects at noise sensitive receptors (residential properties, community facilities, places of worship, medical facilities, educational establishments, leisure facilities and public open spaces) located within 200m of proposed works during day-time and night- time works. These are mainly due to the length of time it would take to the construct the proposed ERAs. With the mitigation measures in place, substantial benefits are predicted for a large number of properties during operation. The proposed scheme is therefore considered to have an overall net beneficial effect, and although there would be significant adverse effects at St John’s Road these are due to growth within the area rather than the proposed scheme.

Road drainage and the water environment The proposed scheme is located within the East Hampshire, Test and Itchen catchment, within the South-east River Basin District. The proposed scheme would cross the Monks Brook immediately to the east of junction 5, the River Itchen and 3 tributaries of the River Itchen between junctions 5 to 7, the tidally influenced River Hamble between junctions 8 to 9, the River Meon between junctions 9 to 10, and the River Wallington between junctions 10 to 11. These watercourses are all Main Rivers. The proposed scheme would also cross and be in close proximity to several tributaries of Tanners Brook. This is an Ordinary Watercourse located approximately 2km to the west of junction 4. Surface water run-off during construction will be contained within the existing highways drainage system, which contains sufficient pollution control measures to prevent adverse effects on the receiving watercourses and downstream designated sites. The implementation of a CEMP will also provide protection measures as required under the 1991 Water Resources Act and assist in reducing the likely risks associated with increased sediment load and other pollutants contained in surface water run-off. Residual impacts are likely to be temporary and treated through natural processes such as settlement and dilution. Permanent impacts are considered to be negligible, with an overall significance of effect of Neutral. The assessment indicates that 5 gantries of the proposed scheme would be located within or adjacent to Flood Zone 2 where the annual probability of flooding from fluvial sources is between 1% (1-in-100) and 0.1% (1-in-1,000); or adjacent to Flood Zone 3 where the annual probability of flooding from fluvial sources is greater than 1% (1 in 100). These are not predicted to cause a loss of floodplain storage or impact to flood flow conveyance that would pose increased flood risk to the proposed scheme or people and property elsewhere. The significance of effect is therefore considered to be Neutral. The proposed scheme would introduce additional areas of hardstanding through the construction of ERAs and provision of a Rigid Concrete Barrier in the central reserve. The surface water drainage system would utilise spare storage capacity within the existing drainage system and incorporate additional storage within oversized pipes to accommodate flow from additional areas of hardstanding and allow for climate change effects. Surface water discharge will not exceed current discharge rates and new flow control measures will be installed where required. The proposed scheme will not result in any significant effects on the road drainage and water environment.

Page 14 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Combined and cumulative effects

Intra-project (combined effects) The assessment of combined effects for the proposed scheme did not identify any receptors that could be affected under multiple topics. There are therefore considered to be no likely significant adverse combined effects as a result of the proposed scheme.

Inter-project (cumulative effects) The assessment of combined effects for the proposed scheme did not identify any receptors that could be affected by multiple projects. There are therefore considered to be no likely significant adverse cumulative effects as a result of the proposed scheme.

Conclusion No likely significant adverse effects been identified as a result of the proposed scheme.

Page 15 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of the proposed scheme 1.1.1 Highways England is proposing to upgrade the M27 between junction 4, the interchange with the M3 north of Southampton, and junction 11, connecting with the A27 north of Fareham, to a smart motorway. Smart motorways are a technology-driven approach to improving the use of the existing motorway network. They use active traffic management (ATM) techniques to increase capacity by use of variable speed limits and hardshoulder running. The proposed scheme is an All Lane Running (ALR) scheme, which permanently converts the existing hardshoulder into an extra lane to provide additional capacity. This will: relieve congestion and smooth traffic flow; improve journey times and journey time reliability; maintain safety levels for all road users; support the economic development of the nation; and minimise adverse environmental effects. 1.1.2 Key design aspects of the proposed scheme include, but are not limited to: • Permanent removal of the hardshoulder facility on the mainline and conversion to a controlled running lane • Delivery of the proposed scheme wholly within the existing highway boundary, with no additional land-take • Creation of Emergency Refuge Areas (ERAs) to provide safe stopping areas in case of emergency • Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (VMSL) will be enabled using a combination of verge and gantry mounted variable message signs and lane specific signalling • Four new superspan gantries across both carriageways and 19 super cantilever gantries across 4 lanes • Vehicle detection systems will be provided to support incident detection, queue protection, VMSL and congestion management • Comprehensive Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) camera coverage will be provided • Emergency roadside telephones will be provided in ERAs and possibly adjacent to hardshoulders on-slip roads • Earthwork modifications will be required at some of the gantry, cabinet or chamber, and ERA locations to accommodate the new technology • Existing noise barriers to be retained with alterations made to them and additional new noise barriers to be provided only where justified by assessment • Environmental design to mitigate adverse effects and provide replacement ecological habitat and screening planting 1.1.3 The M27 motorway forms a key strategic route connecting Southampton and Portsmouth, and connections via the M3 to Winchester, Basingstoke and the M25, which both form part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). Southampton Airport is located adjacent to the M27 immediately off junction 5. The proposed

Page 16 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

scheme is approximately 23.5 km long and extends from the interchange with M3 at junction 4 (NGR SU 4017 5172) to junction 11 (NGR SU 5906 6496). The proposed scheme location plan can be viewed at 1.1.4 Figure 1-1 below. Figure 1-1 Proposed scheme location plan

Page 17 Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

1.2 Overview of the existing motorway 1.2.1 The M27 is a motorway in Hampshire. It is 25 miles (40km) long and runs west- east from Cadnam to Portsmouth. The M27 starts at the Portsbridge Roundabout in the south-east and meets the M3 at junction 4 (junction 14 on the M3) as shown in Figure 1.1. 1.2.2 The M27 junction 4 to 11 is a 3-lane motorway with hardshoulders, with the exception of junction 7 to 8 which is 4-lanes and a hardshoulder. It was built in the late 1970s and early 1980s and its key features include: • Junction 4 connection with the southern end of the M3 • Crossings of the River Itchen, River Hamble and Wallington River • Crossing of the Eastleigh to Fareham railway line • The West Coastway Railway Line runs parallel to the south of a section between junctions 8 to 9 • All 8 junctions are grade-separated Pavement 1.2.3 The majority of the existing M27 pavement between junction 4 to 5 and junctions 7 to 11 is “low noise thin surface course” except at a few locations on the underbridges and around junction 11, where it is hot rolled asphalt. The pavement surface between junctions 5 to 7 is rigid concrete jointed construction. Traffic characteristics • The 2015 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) westbound flows on the M27 are just over 58,000 vehicles, with junctions 7 and 5 having greater average flows of just over 65,000 AADT. Eastbound flows are similarly around 58,000 AADT, with junction 5 to junction 7 having the greatest flow at over 64,000 AADT. • The percentage of HGVs on the M27 between junctions 4 to 11 in 2014 was on average 6.3% in the eastbound direction and 5.9% in the westbound direction. • Eastbound congestion occurs during the morning peak frequently between junction 11 to 12, extending back to junction 9. Congestion at junction 9 can also extend to the merge at junction 7. When congestion occurs between junction 5 to junction 7, it can also extend to junction 4. In both these later situations the congestion is for a shorter duration than that around junction 11. • Westbound AM peak congestion occurs at the junction 7 merge, extending typically to at least junction 9 and sometimes to junction 11. Congestion can also form between the junction 4 diverge and junction 5 merge. Abnormal load bays 1.2.4 No abnormal load bay facilities are located within the proposed scheme extents.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Police observation platforms 1.2.5 There are 7 existing Police Observation Platforms (POP). Turnaround points 1.2.6 No turnaround points are located within the proposed scheme extents. Transmission stations 1.2.7 There is 1 Transmission Station located on the proposed scheme at Parkgate, which is located immediately after the junction 9 westbound merge. The proposed scheme will have a direct impact on the existing access and egress arrangement to this Transmission Station. An outline mitigation plan for the access was agreed within Design Fix 1 (DF1) with further development required to Design Fix 5 (DF5). Motorway drainage and pollution control 1.2.8 The existing drainage provision for the proposed scheme consists of a variety of carriageway collection systems, being predominantly: • Filter drains • Surface water channels • Kerbs and gullies 1.2.9 The proposed scheme has a number of drainage networks, located within the surrounding area. A number of networks convey flows through ditches and balancing ponds before discharging back to the hydrological environment. Where ditches are present they are generally located at the base of embankments that also collect earthworks run-off and intercept flows from adjacent land. Details of existing ditches and ponds are limited at this time. 1.2.10 There are a number of drainage networks that discharge to culverted watercourses, although in some instances the exact connection arrangement is unclear. However, where a network discharges to a culverted watercourse discharge rates are to remain as existing and this therefore does not add any uncertainty to the assessment. No hydraulic modelling of culverts has been undertaken. Pollution control devices are strategically located along a number of drainage networks. The underbridges do not currently include drainage provision due to existing hardshoulder or sufficient hardstrip being present. 1.2.11 The River Hamble Bridge is currently drained via several outlets all freely discharging to the river below. A review of HADDMS data indicates 2 Priority B outfalls at the River Hamble and west of junction 9. 1.2.12 Review of historic flooding events indicates that certain sections of the existing drainage network (including gullies, chambers and culverts – see Table 9-11) may have insufficient capacity to manage surface water run-off, and that flood waters could pose a risk to driver safety. Environmental barriers 1.2.13 Existing environmental (acoustic) barriers are located in both directions at junction 4 between the A27 and Hadrian Way, in an eastbound direction between junction 4 to 5, and just after junction 5 parallel to George Curl Way. In the

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

westbound direction, there are barriers just after junction 5 Swaythling, between junction 5 to 7 between Quob Lane and Moorgreen Road bridges, just after the Allington Lane bridge over the M27, and between junction 9 to 10 just after Fareham Tunnel.

1.3 Purpose of this Environmental Assessment Report 1.3.1 Highways England has commissioned the Mott MacDonald Sweco Joint Venture to design and assess the proposed scheme. 1.3.2 All of the permanent works would lie within the existing highways boundary and hence the proposed scheme would fall under the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (Part 9), where Highways England would not need to obtain planning permission for any works. 1.3.3 This Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) therefore presents the findings of the non-statutory environmental assessment undertaken to identify and assess potential environmental impacts that could arise from the proposed scheme. It recommends mitigation, rectification and enhancement measures, which aim to fulfil the environmental objectives noted within both the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS) and Highways England’s Licence, to minimise impacts in order to inform both the planning and design and to satisfy any environmental legal obligations. Where no significant adverse effects are predicted, the conclusions of the detailed environmental assessment process, as recorded in a final EAR, are summarised in an EIA Screening (Determination) (formerly referred to as the Record of Determination or RoD) and published in a Notice of Determination (NoD). 1.3.4 For the purposes of this EAR, the assessment of the proposed scheme has been undertaken on an interim stage between Design Fix 2 (DF2) and Design Fix 3 (DF3), taken as fixed at the end of August 2017. This design is shown in Appendix A.1. Design work has continued since this point, working towards DF3 (November 2017) and a register of design changes has been kept, as shown in Appendix A.1. Each topic chapter has considered the changes to the scheme from the end of August 2017 to DF3, and has concluded that there are no changes to the conclusions of the assessment set out within this EAR. A schedule of the changes to the scheme since the end of August 2017 up to DF3 is provided in Appendix A.2. 1.3.5 Subsequent design change through Design Fix 4 (DF4) and beyond will be managed to ensure that they do not lead to a change in the significance of the effects of the proposed scheme, but they may have an influence on the definition of measures to be reported within the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP). 1.3.6 This EAR is supported by a number of other related documents, including the screening report for the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA). An OEMP has been developed at this stage of the programme which will be developed further at future design stages.

1.4 Background to the Smart Motorways Programme 1.4.1 Highways England has commenced a programme to introduce smart motorways to actively manage traffic and improve journeys on the motorway network. Smart

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

motorways are managed by regional control centres, and use CCTV, allowing Highways England traffic officers to be deployed to incidents if they occur and to help keep traffic moving. The smart motorways schemes that have been introduced have been successful in providing additional capacity, where required, and improving journey times. 1.4.2 The smart motorways design: provides additional capacity without compromising safety; supports the economy by addressing congestion problems; and continues to deliver a technology-driven approach to managing traffic on some of the busiest parts of England’s motorway network. The new design involves making the hardshoulder available for use as a traffic lane at all times. This approach forms the basis of the proposed scheme between junction 4 to 11 of the M27. 1.4.3 The proposed scheme’s objectives relate to the wider objectives of the Smart Motorways Programme, as follows. The strategic case of the Smart Motorways Programme supports achievement of the following national objectives: • Support the Treasury’s Business Plan 2011-2015 (HM Treasury, 2010) to secure an economy that is growing sustainably, is more resilient, and is more balanced between public and private sectors and between regions through developing a more effective transport network that facilitates movement of people, goods and services between places. • The Government’s priority to invest in the strategic road network to promote growth and address the congestion that affects people and businesses, and continue to improve road safety as set out in the Department for Transport Business Plan 2012-15 (Department for Transport, 2012). • Delivering a Sustainable Transport System, implementing the recommendations of the Eddington Transport Study 2006 (HM Treasury, 2006), through enhancing national networks to tackle congestion, capacity constraints and unreliability in particular on key inter-urban corridors and international gateways. • Support continued enhancements to the Trans European Road Network (TERN) and secure the benefits it gives in terms of maintaining international connectivity for road users. 1.4.4 The programme also supports the Strategic Outcomes of Highways England, as defined in the Delivery Plan, directly contributing to the following outcomes: • Supporting economic growth – “In order to relieve congestion and minimise delay, we will deliver 112 individual schemes generating £4 in long-term economic benefit for every £1 invested. Between 2015/16 and 2019/20 (Road Period or RP1), we will start work on 15 Smart Motorways projects as identified in Spending Round 2013 (SR13), with 8 of these to be completed by the end of RP1”. • Achieving a more free flowing network – capacity will be added through smart motorways and “the capital investment of more than £7bn will contribute significantly to increase capacity and remove bottlenecks to facilitate our ambition for a free-flowing strategic road network. The investment will also allow us to address the environmental impact on people and improve access to and from the strategic and local road networks”.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

1.4.5 In addition to these direct contributions, the smart motorways programme will support the remaining Strategic Outcomes of ‘A Safe and Serviceable Network’, ‘Improved Environment’ and an ‘Accessible and Integrated Network’, through a sympathetic and collaborative approach to design, working with key stakeholders. Support of all of these outcomes should, in turn, support an improvement in user satisfaction. The delivery of the proposed scheme is to be in accordance with a suite of Governmental and Client policy documents, which have been included within the Highways England Licence and RIS objectives.

1.5 The Road Investment Strategy and Highways England Licence 1.5.1 The first Road Investment Strategy (RIS1) outlines a long-term programme for England’s motorways and major roads with the stable funding needed to plan ahead. The RIS1 comprises: • A long-term vision for England’s motorways and major roads, outlining how Highways England will create smooth, smart and sustainable roads • A multi-year investment plan that will be used to improve the network and create better roads for users • High-level objectives for the first roads’ period 2015 to 2020 1.5.2 The Highways England Operating Licence (2015) is a crucial part of the system for the management of roads in England by setting out the Secretary of State's statutory directions and guidance to Highways England. The document makes clear, to both Highways England and the wider community of road users and stakeholders, what Highways England is expected to achieve and how they must behave in discharging their duties and in delivering the Government’s vision and plans for the network, set out in the RIS. 1.5.3 The Licence emphasises that the role of Highways England is about more than just complying with the letter of the law. It is expected that the company will ‘go the extra mile’ in the way it engages with road users and collaborates with other organisations to develop shared solutions. Specifically, with regards to the environment, Parts 4.2g and h require Highways England to “Minimise the environmental impacts of operating, maintaining and improving its network and seek to protect and enhance the quality of the surrounding environment” and “Conform to the principles of sustainable development”. The Highways England Licence and the RIS set out a series of environmental objectives which the proposed scheme will seek to deliver. 1.5.4 The Environmental Policies and Objectives have been developed into Environmental Objectives included within the Smart Motorways Programme, Client Environmental Scheme Requirements. The way in which the proposed scheme achieves these requirements have been addressed within this report and are summarised in Table 1-1 below.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

2. The proposed scheme

2.1 Need for the proposed scheme 2.1.1 The M27 in this area is a strategic route that carries high volumes of heavy goods and other vehicles. Congestion and unreliable journey times are already experienced at busy periods and traffic is predicted to continue to grow with the development proposed within the Winchester City Council, Eastleigh Borough Council and Fareham Borough Council’s Local Plans. 2.1.2 The M27 meets 4 important high level needs, including: • Part of the national motorway network making a major contribution to the UK economy • Forms an integral part of the main transport corridor, with key junctions with the M3 and the M25; connecting Southampton and Portsmouth to Winchester, Basingstoke and Reading • A major transport link for the movement of freight and other strategic traffic • Facilitates the movement of holiday traffic and access to national events. 2.1.3 The proposal to introduce a smart motorway solution between junctions 4 to 11 on the M27 was confirmed in the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS) in December 2014. The scheme is currently at the Preliminary Design stage, which falls within Phase 2 (the Development Phase). The current anticipated opening of the M27 scheme is March 2020.

2.2 Proposed scheme description 2.2.1 This section provides a summary of the proposed scheme and is supported by the Design Fix 3 (DF3) drawings in Appendix A.1. 2.2.2 The proposed scheme would upgrade a 23.5km section of the existing M27 to a smart motorway between junction 4 at the interchange with the M3, north of Southampton and junction 11, connecting with the A27 north of Fareham. The proposed scheme would provide 4 permanent running lanes by converting the hardshoulder into lane 1 between junctions 4 to 7 and junctions 8 to 11. The M27 is already dual 4-lane with hardshoulder between junctions 7 to 8. 2.2.3 The All Lane Running (ALR) will be supported through the installation of technology to monitor conditions and inform drivers, including overhead gantries and Enhanced Messaging Signs (EMS). Cameras and loop detectors would also provide information to support the technology. Four new superspan gantries across both carriageways and 19 super cantilever gantries across 4 lanes and 42 MS4 would be provided, with ROTTMS would be deployed at intervals of 1 mile, 800 yards, 600 yards, 400 yards and 200 yards from the fixed taper point positions on each carriageway. These would be the principal visual elements of the proposed scheme. 2.2.4 The North Fareham Farm overbridge would be replaced as part of the proposed scheme, due to sub-standard headroom. 2.2.5 Controlled motorways have the following key features:

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

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

2.5 Pavement 2.5.1 The existing M27 pavement, except between junctions 5 to 7, is flexible or flexible composite with a thin surface, except for short sections of hot rolled asphalt on the underbridges and around junction 11. The pavement is concrete between junctions 5 to 7. 2.5.2 A hard surface and a rigid concrete barrier (RCB) would be installed for the full length of the central reserve. This would minimise the requirement for future maintenance work in the centre of the motorway, which has benefits for road worker safety. There would be provision of a nearside (i.e. adjacent to the hardshoulder) hardstrip of approximately 0.5m width with enhanced edge drainage. 2.5.3 The concrete section between junctions 5 to 7 and all areas of hot rolled asphalt on the M27 (as shown on the plans provided in Appendix A.3) will be replaced with 4 lanes of new low noise road surfacing (LNRS). Along the rest of the proposed scheme, lanes 1 and 4 will be resurfaced with new LNRS and the existing LNRS on lanes 2 and 3 will remain (other than where the residual life of the surface is less than 5 years). For other non-scheme motorway links, the existing road surface would be retained. 2.5.4 The junction layouts would be realigned to accommodate the fourth lane generally by re-configuration of slip roads. 2.5.5 The mainline horizontal and vertical alignment would not be changed as part of the proposed scheme and as such is not expected to have any operational impact. The exception to this would be the inclusion of the proposed overlay treatment to the existing concrete section of pavement between junctions 5 to 7. Currently this is proposed to raise the vertical profile of the existing carriageway by a minimum of 150mm to achieve the required overlay thickness of pavement treatment. This is subject to change at Design Fix 5 (DF5) following further investigatory works into the existing pavement condition.

2.6 Central reserve works 2.6.1 The proposed scheme would provide a hardened central reserve with a new concrete barrier to replace the steel barrier, which would allow the central reserve to be narrowed for the ALR cross-section. 2.6.2 The central reserve works comprises the following components:

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• RCB from chainage 124500 to chainage 36750; totalling approximately 22,250m of RCB • Central reserve pavement throughout, with narrowing to 2.6m minimum but typically 3.0m or wider • Localised widening and collars at overbridge locations • Central reserve drainage works

2.7 Verge and all lane running works 2.7.1 The ALR component of the proposed scheme would provide 4 permanent running lanes by converting the hardshoulder into lane 1, commencing at junction 4 and finishing at junction 11. 2.7.2 The exception to this are junctions 7 to 8 which already have 4-lane running and a hardshoulder which will be retained and intra-junction 5 (westbound) and junction 9 which would remain as 3-lane running with hardshoulder. 2.7.3 The ALR works comprises the following components: • Provide 4 permanent running lanes as per IAN 161/15 from junction 4 to junction 11 • Redefine junction layouts to accommodate the fourth lane and through junction running where applicable • Provide approximately 0.5m wide hardstrip with enhanced edge drainage adjacent to the hardshoulder • Resurface the hardshoulder where it becomes a running lane • The whole of the carriageway within the working footprint will be resurfaced using low noise material where it is not currently present • New carrier drains and attenuation as required for verge drainage • 6 existing single carriageway portal gantries to be demolished • Provision of 23 new gantries, constructed on piled foundations • Provision of 13 new ERAs along with re-use of existing hardshoulder area ERAs • New longitudinal communication ducting along the proposed scheme length and various local duct improvements (subject to surveys) • Upgraded national roads telecommunications services longitudinal infrastructure between marker post 15/2J to 39/9A, which represents a length of approximately 16km. For preliminary design, the intention is to replace all ducting. However, there may be potential opportunities for the contractor to re-use existing longitudinal ducting, cross-carriageway ducting and ducts through structures where possible • CCTV cameras to provide 100% coverage of the carriageway • 3 Highway Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System (HADECS) enforcement sites including 3 dummy sites

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• MIDAS radar at regular centres throughout the proposed scheme • New vehicle restraint system (VRS) and RCB to protect verge bridge piers • New retaining structures to accommodate ERAs, communication cabinet sites, gantries and other verge infrastructure • Remotely Operated Temporary Traffic Management Signs (ROTTMS) • 11 new noise barriers 2.7.4 Refer to the general arrangement drawings in Appendix A.1 for the location of these components.

2.8 Emergency refuge areas 2.8.1 In the ALR sections (where the hardshoulders have been converted into a running lane), dedicated ERAs with emergency telephones would be constructed in discrete locations. ERAs, which are similar to laybys, are required to provide a safe area for vehicles to stop in an emergency without interrupting the flow of traffic. ERAs resemble a traditional layby and are 4.6m wide and extend for a length of 100m. It is proposed that all ERAs would be surfaced in the colour orange to increase their visibility to drivers. 2.8.2 Seven ERAs would be installed eastbound and 6 westbound within the proposed scheme limits. The ERAs would be located as shown in Appendix A.1. In addition, it is proposed to build 3 safe refuge areas (as defined in IAN161/15) eastbound and 6 safe refuge areas westbound, as shown in Appendix A.1. Finally, the existing hardshoulders at junction 4 eastbound, both intra-junction and on the slip road from the M3 motorway, would also serve as ERAs. 2.8.3 Emergency roadside telephones (ERT) will be provided in all dedicated refuge areas. Existing ERT elsewhere along the extent of the proposed scheme will be removed, apart from those within a junction where the existing hardshoulder is retained. 2.8.4 Retaining walls would be installed to accommodate ERAs, remotely operable temporary traffic management (ROTTM) signs, communications cabinet sites and gantries as set out in Table 2-5.

2.9 Signs and gantries 2.9.1 Operation of the smart motorway would be controlled via Low Emitting Device (LED) signals, which would either be mounted on overhead gantries, or pole mounted in the verge. There are 3 main types of LED signals, which are described below: • Advanced Motorway Indicators (AMI) are used to display VMSL for each lane using programmable high resolution LEDs • MS4 are a type of variable message sign used to provide driver information in the form of text and pictograms • MS3 are deployed in advance of strategic junctions and provide information to the travelling public in the form of text messages

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

2.9.2 The proposed scheme would also be supported by the following traffic control and road safety measures: • VMSL with an associated automated enforcement or compliance system • Driver information, including lane availability, provided at intervals not exceeding 1,500m, via new MS4 VMS • Where possible CCTV locations would be retained, with additional CCTV operating in zero light with infra-red emitters. Where an existing CCTV camera is located on infrastructure that is not being retained by the proposed scheme, a new CCTV mast and associated infrastructure would be installed near to the original location • Where possible MIDAS detection would be undertaken with non-loop based technologies. Where the use of non-loop based systems is not possible due to cost, maintenance, or interference criteria; loop based systems would be considered. • Upgrade to the National Roads Telecommunications Services longitudinal transmission system 2.9.3 The base height to the underside of the gantries is approximately 6m with a depth of a further 1.5 to 2m. With the addition of MS4 signs which are 3.2m high, the highest point would be approximately 9m where the MS4s are placed on the face of the gantry rather than on top. These parameters have been used to inform the landscape and visual assessment of this EAR. The roadside devices to be included as part of the proposed scheme are shown in Appendix A.1.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

2.9.4 Figure 2-1 illustrates typical views of a superspan gantry, MS3 / MS4 cantilevers, advanced directional signs (ADS) and AMI signage.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

encapsulation works. These structures are as follows, as shown in Appendix A.1 (all other overbridges will remain unchanged): • Stoneham Golf Course • Hedge End I/C North and South • St. Johns Road • Rookery Farm • Whiteley Lane • Wallington West and East

2.11 Lighting 2.11.1 The M27 motorway is currently lit from the central reserve through intra-junction 4 and from junction 7 to 8 with verge lighting also in place at junction 4. Lantern renewal was undertaken at junction 4 during 2015-16, and involved replacement with LED lighting. 2.11.2 A lighting assessment was undertaken at DF2, which made the following recommendations that have been used as the basis for the assessment within this EAR: • The existing lighting at junction 4 shall be renewed as part of the works due to the proposed road re-alignment, associated barrier works and the age of the lighting assets (25 years +) • The existing lighting at junction 7 to 8 is removed / switched off based on the replacement of lighting not being economically justifiable, although it is still necessary to finalise the stakeholder engagement and decision for completing IAN167 prior to SGAR3 • All current unlit sections of the M27 main carriageway between junctions 4 to 11 remain unlit based on the provision of lighting not being economically justifiable • In accordance with the requirements of IAN 161/15, ERAs will not be lit • Where not currently equipped, LED luminaires would be installed on directional signs.

2.12 Turnarounds 2.12.1 No turnarounds are proposed for the proposed scheme.

2.13 Police observation platforms 2.13.1 For the purposes of this assessment, no new police observation platforms (POPs) are proposed as part of the scheme. Discussions are ongoing with Hampshire Constabulary regarding the removal of existing facilities, in accordance with IAN161/15, as the police have stated they require POP facilities. For the purposes of this EAR, POPs removal has not been assessed.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

2.14 Power supply 2.14.1 Additional Distribution Network Operator supplies will be required to power the roadside technology, the proposed scheme will re-use existing ducts through structures (DTS) and cross carriageway ducts (CCD) wherever feasible. The DF3 design is currently based on new CCDs being installed adjacent to existing CCDs wherever possible to provide the opportunity for the Contractor to re-use the existing CCDs if they are found to be suitable for re-use. 2.14.2 For the purposes of this EAR it has been assumed that new ducting would be required, with associated temporary vegetation loss for construction works.

2.15 Maintenance access 2.15.1 It is assumed for the purposes of this assessment and in order to achieve a safe working environment, that pedestrian access to the motorway assets would be sought from the local road network at underbridges and overbridges. This will involve the construction of new footways to these assets, as shown in appendix A.1. 2.15.2 In order to provide access alongside the proposed environmental barriers, approximately 0.13ha of permanent vegetation clearance would be required.

2.16 Non-motorised user movement at junctions 2.16.1 The proposed scheme would not include works to junctions where non-motorised users (NMUs) would be present. A Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Assessment and Review (HD42) Exemption File Note was prepared in November 2017, which confirms that the proposed scheme would not affect potential users of junctions and that the replacement of North Fareham Farm overbridge would not permanently affect the existing bridleway route (bridleway 101). As such, no severance would result from the proposed scheme.

2.17 Communication cabling and ducting 2.17.1 Longitudinal ducting would be required for the communication network of the proposed scheme, although existing CCD and DTS will be reused where possible. Typically, the longitudinal ducts would only be provided in 1 verge about 1.5m from the edge of the existing carriageway. 2.17.2 As described above in Section 2.14, the DF3 design is currently based on new CCDs being installed adjacent to existing CCDs wherever possible to provide the opportunity for the Contractor to re-use the existing CCDs if they are found to be suitable for re-use. 2.17.3 For the purposes of this EAR it has been assumed that new ducting would be required, with associated temporary vegetation loss for construction works.

2.18 Environmental barriers 2.18.1 Where existing environmental barriers are reaching the end of their operational life, these may need to be replaced. Appendix E-3 provides a summary of the condition of the existing barriers and a full inspection of the barriers will be required at the later design stages to verify this initial appraisal.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• New bridge deck drainage • New linear drainage system 2.20.2 The drainage system would accommodate predicted increases in flows due to greater impermeable surface areas and climate change, such that no increase in run-off rates would arise. 2.20.3 No works to existing outfalls are anticipated. Assessment of the high status hotspots recorded on HADDMS, and from recent discussions with the Maintenance Service Provider, suggests no persistent flooding events have been recorded. HADDMS indicates all flooding hotspots as being historic or having had the risk addressed. 2.20.4 Where modifications are required to the existing drainage system, spare capacity would be utilised where possible to attenuate increased flows, with a number of networks requiring flow control devices being installed. Oversized pipes would be installed to attenuate increased flows where required, with a number of networks requiring flow control devices being installed. 2.20.5 ERAs would be drained via kerb-drain units to the back, with required provision for pollution control and containment. 2.20.6 Where drainage is required in the central reserve, all existing central reserve filter material would be removed and replaced with new surface water channels or, at pinch points, with new linear drainage system. Existing filter drain pipework would be utilised where practically possible. 2.20.7 Existing cross carriageway drains would be retained and utilised where practically possible. 2.20.8 Where drainage is required in the verge, all existing retained filter drains are to be treated or modified where they fall within 1m of the trafficked edge of the edge line, mitigating against stone scatter and stranded errand vehicles.

2.21 Demolitions and removals 2.21.1 Currently it is proposed that the following demolitions and removals would be required: • Removal of 8 superspan or long span cantilever gantries or signals, 6 portal gantries and 12 MS3 gantries • Removal and replacement of 1 overbridge, the North Fareham Farm Footbridge • Resurfacing of hardshoulder and existing lane 3 • Replacement of existing luminaires with LED lighting • SMP schemes generally require the removal of gantries and signs typically involving the separation of electronic and steel components for recycling. Above-ground foundations would be removed to just below ground level with the soil re-seeded as appropriate. Over a 10 to 20 year period it is envisaged that a programme of gantry and sign removal would take place as in-car communications become established

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

2.21.2 The concrete section between junctions 5 to 7 and all areas of hot rolled asphalt on the M27 (as shown on the plans provided in Appendix A.3) will be replaced with 4 lanes of new LNRS. Along the rest of the proposed scheme, lanes 1 and 4 will be resurfaced in the Opening Year and all four lanes will be resurfaced by the Design Year. For other non-scheme motorway links, the existing road surface would be retained. Planings from the surface are regularly incorporated into new road pavement, although it is premature to judge whether the existing materials would be directly incorporated into the new scheme pavement. 2.21.3 Lighting columns have a 25 to 30-year design life with testing typically commencing after 15-years. A decision to replace existing columns will be taken according to their residual life and whether there is a need to reposition the lighting. In such instances the columns would be removed for recycling. 2.21.4 SON luminaire lamps require replacement every 3 years. It is anticipated that LED lighting would be introduced as part of the proposed scheme, thereby removing the need such frequent replacements since LED lights typically require replacing only every 25 years. This would reduce both energy consumption and the quantities of hazardous materials to be disposed of.

2.22 Environmental design 2.22.1 Vegetation would be removed only where essential to construct the proposed scheme and to allow for sight lines and safety requirements. Where the extent of proposed vegetation removal would result in newly exposed views or awareness of the corridor or infrastructure this would be mitigated by the proposed landscape design proposals, which will be confirmed at the detailed design stage. 2.22.2 The landscape design and mitigation measures are set out in Chapter 7 and the following design measures are required to ensure no significant effects on landscape and visual receptors: • Gantries located to reduce potentially significant landscape character and visual effects where feasible. • Vegetation to be removed (following advice from the landscape architect/arboriculturist/ecological clerk of works) only where essential to construct the proposed scheme and to allow for sight lines and safety requirements, and replacement planting implemented. • Where existing environmental barriers to be removed are replaced, this would be carried out within a short timeframe so as to avoid substantial lengths of time with open views from visual receptors adjacent to the highway. Where the barriers are to be removed for an extended period (greater than a week) a temporary screen fence is to be erected. • Individual trees within areas of essential vegetation clearance would be retained where feasible. • Where areas of ancient woodland or Tree Preservation Orders exist immediately outside the highway boundary and adjoining areas of vegetation clearance, an arboriculturist or other appropriately qualified professional

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

would be present on site to ensure construction does not encroach within the root protection areas • Tree protection measures (according to British Standard BS 587:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction) to prevent damage to tree roots and stems during works. This would include buffer zones for any works immediately adjacent to ancient woodland • Screen planting to replace the loss of existing screening vegetation and at gantry locations to ensure that the screening value would be reinstated when mitigation planting matures • Proposed planting would be native and of a similar species mix to that removed • Installation of the environmental barriers would be completed in a manner in which the amount of vegetation removal is minimised. Where practical this would be from outside the highway boundary to avoid unnecessary vegetation removal 2.22.3 The following ecological design measures have been incorporated into the proposed scheme:

• ERAs and gantries have been located as far away from designated sites and watercourses as possible. Only two ERAs are proposed within 8m streams. There are no gantry locations within 8m of identified watercourses.

•

• Drainage has been designed to maintain existing rates of flow and water quality, to avoid impacts on rivers forming designated sites which flow under the proposed scheme.

• Noise barriers have been positioned to maintain a 12-15m buffer between designated sites and the proposed barrier.

2.23 Operational considerations 2.23.1 ALR would operate 24 hours a day, with temporary traffic management introduced as appropriate for routine and emergency maintenance. The proposed scheme would convert the existing dual 3-lane carriageways of the M27 between junction 4 to 11 to dual 4-lane, ALR, with the mainline hardshoulder re-marked as a running lane. ERAs would be provided and drivers would also be able to stop on slip road hardshoulders. The average distance between each safe stopping place would be less than 3km. 2.23.2 During periods of heavy traffic flow, VMSL would automatically be set to regulate traffic flow, although this is not expected to be a daily occurrence. Mandatory speed limits would also be displayed to protect localised queuing. Speed limits and lane closures can also be set manually by the regional control centre (RCC) to control traffic during incidents. When none of the above conditions are present, the VMSL would not be active and the national speed limit would apply.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

2.24 Construction works 2.24.1 Highways England expects to commence construction of the proposed scheme in spring 2018 and is expected to take approximately 3 years to construct, including commissioning. The anticipated opening for the proposed scheme is spring 2021.

2.25 Temporary works 2.25.1 The delivery partner would determine the hours of construction for the proposed scheme although it is likely that 24-hour working may be required at some stage during the construction programme. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that work could be carried out during both day and night time. Refer to Appendix A.4 for the assumed working hours used in the noise and vibration assessment. 2.25.2 It is assumed that the construction of the proposed scheme is likely to involve the following general methodology and sequencing: • Site mobilisation and site clearance: Establishment of temporary fencing, utility relocations and establishment of construction compound site and access and vegetation clearing and stripping, stockpiling and management of topsoil and unsuitable material. • Paving Works: It is envisaged that works associated with the re-surfacing of carriageways and hardshoulders would be undertaken during night-time operations to minimise traffic disruption. Carriageway paving would typically progress between 22:00 and 05:00. The planer would tend to operate from 22:00 to 03:00 with the paver operating from 23:30 to 05:00. Paving of ERAs is likely to be undertaken during the day where this is necessary. • Main works: o Establishing the ground levels and undertaking ground works, including drainage systems and installing the gantries, and Rigid Concrete Barrier construction o Resurfacing of the existing surface and other pavement works o Convert the hardshoulder into a running lane o Install traffic signs and signals, some located in the verge and others on new gantries o Improve slip road arrangements, including provision of safe refuge areas and VRS o Install ERAs o Change earthworks to accommodate the amended slip roads and ERAs o Resurface or strengthen the existing hardshoulder o Install a surface water channel or linear drainage in the verge and associated drainage works o Install buried surface water attenuation systems o Install VRS in the verge to protect gantries and other apparatus

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

o Install power supplies at the highway boundary • Directional drilling: Directional drilling sites would be required to provide cabling ducts beneath the motorway between smart motorways technology installations. These sites can vary by up to 250m either side of the technology installation, hence there is scope to avoid such operations being located close to sensitive receptors. • Landscaping and decommissioning: Vegetation planting, installation of safety barriers, fencing, pavement marking and removal of site compound and site tidy up. 2.25.3 Construction of the proposed scheme would require temporary diversion routes for traffic, as described in Table 2.4. These have been considered under the construction stage assessment in this EAR with a focus on sensitive receptors along the diversion routes and these will also be identified in the Traffic Management Plan. 2.25.4 The preferred option for the Parkgate Transmission Station would be to provide an off-network access and parking facilities via the A3051. Elsewhere, locations have yet to be identified as potential locations for off-network access and these have therefore not been assessed within this EAR. The suitability of these will be reviewed during the detailed design stage. 2.25.5 It is envisaged that the construction works would be undertaken as a single section under traffic management, with the central reserve work being undertaken first. It is likely that some total closures would be required for the removal of existing gantries and the erection of the new superspan or cantilever gantries, although this will be determined by the Delivery Partner during the detailed design stage. 2.25.6 It is likely that overnight lane closures would be required for the removal of equipment, demolition of structures and any sign faces on the existing gantries and their subsequent replacement later in the construction sequence, although this will be determined by the Delivery Partner during the detailed design stage. 2.25.7 The assessment (and proposed mitigation through the OEMP) has assumed that both traffic management measures and overnight closures will be required, and use of traffic diversion routes have been considered (see Section 8.8). Assumptions on the construction works and activities used in the assessment are presented in Appendix E.4 The construction methods to be used (including overnight lane closures and use of diversion routes) will be reviewed during the detailed design stage to ensure the proposed mitigation as set out in the OEMP remains appropriate. 2.25.8 It is envisaged that all construction works would be undertaken within the existing highway boundary. Haul routes for materials and equipment would be routed along the existing motorway carriageways. The new gantries and ERAs would be installed from the hardshoulder. New cables would be installed within the highway road verge to connect the new signage and in a few locations new cables would be installed from the verge to the fence line to connect into the electricity grid. 2.25.9 There may be a requirement for some existing acoustic barriers to be removed temporarily during construction to allow works in the verge to be carried out

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

safely, which will be confirmed by the delivery partner. It is likely that at least 2 noise barriers near Hill Park and Swaythling will need to be temporarily removed as part of the verge clearance and existing gantry demolition. If existing barriers are removed temporarily, specific control measures are outlined in the OEMP for the Delivery Partner to minimise any significant adverse effects due to temporary noise barrier removal. Any temporary barrier removal would be undertaken in series and barriers would not be removed across the entire proposed scheme length prior to works commencing regardless of the phasing of follow-on work along each section. The mitigation measures outlined in the OEMP will be reviewed at the detailed design stage once the noise barriers to be removed are confirmed by the Delivery Partner. 2.25.10 The actual construction methods and equipment, locations of compounds and access routes will be developed by the delivery partner. This information was therefore not available for the purposes of the production of this EAR, which has been carried out using the assumptions set out in this chapter. 2.25.11 All works on-site and within the construction compound would be undertaken in compliance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which would be produced by delivery partner, based on the requirements of the OEMP.

2.26 Construction traffic management 2.26.1 It is currently anticipated that the proposed scheme would be constructed under a 50mph enforceable variable speed limit with traffic management between junction 4 to 11, extending beyond the junctions to the proposed scheme extent. The existing 6-lane motorway capacity would be maintained (with a reduced width) during the day-time; reducing outside of peak periods. 2.26.2 The removal and installation of new gantries, bridges and pavement works etc. may require the temporary night-time or possibly weekend closure of 1 or both carriageways over an individual link. The need for and the extent of night-time or weekend works will not be known until after DF5 and the assessment has therefore been carried out using a precautionary approach, using the assumptions set out in Appendix E.4. However, the OEMP will provide management measures to reduce the risk of significant adverse effects as a result of closures and traffic management. 2.26.3 Should closures be required, then traffic would be diverted onto planned diversion routes as shown in Table 2-4 below and Figure 2-2. Once the diversion routes have been confirmed by the Delivery Partner, the measures set out in the OEMP will be reviewed to ensure the associated mitigation measures remain appropriate. There would be a risk of traffic being routed through residential areas, due to the constraints of the road network surrounding the proposed scheme, but these would be avoided where possible by the delivery partner and where necessary, agree with the Local Highways Authority. The OEMP sets out a hierarchy of measures to be adopted where the use of diversion routes is required, summarised as follows: • Limit the use of a night-time diversion route to 10 days in any 15 consecutive days, or 40 days in any 6 consecutive months.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

2.29 Land take 2.29.1 The proposed scheme size would be approximately 156ha in area, including slip roads and the mainline M27 between junctions 4 and 11. The proposed scheme would require land take for compound areas, material storage, temporary breakdown vehicles etc. The locations of these proposed scheme elements would be determined at a later date by the delivery partner and they will therefore be consented separately under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.30 Proposed operation and long-term management 2.30.1 The existing motorway maintenance regime and procedures would continue, albeit with the control of lane closures to improve the safety of Highways England operational staff. 2.30.2 A maintenance programme will be developed for the proposed landscape design, to ensure the success of the proposed landscape and ecology mitigation measures.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

3. Alternatives considered

3.1 Programme level alternatives 3.1.1 Highways England and the Department for Transport (DfT) have assessed the options for providing extra capacity on the strategic road network at programme level. This has included consideration of traditional widening options as well as options incorporating use of the hardshoulder. 3.1.2 Evaluation of the M42 Active Traffic Management (ATM) pilot demonstrated that managed motorways (smart motorways) are able to deliver clear benefits in terms of improved journey time reliability through reduced congestion. Managed motorways can also be delivered at a lower cost and with less environmental impact than conventional widening programmes; without detriment to road safety performance. 3.1.3 Highways England is, therefore, delivering network capacity improvements with ALR as the preferred option and is being delivered as part of the Smart Motorways Programme. The M27 junction 4 to 11 ALR Scheme is 1 of these schemes. At project level, these are being delivered as single option schemes under the Major Projects Project Control Framework (PCF), and as such, design options undergo minimal further consideration.

3.2 Proposed scheme specific alternatives 3.2.1 As the Smart Motorways Programme schemes are single option schemes entirely within the existing Highways England road estate, there are minimal scheme specific design alternatives available for consideration. Such alternatives relate primarily to the locations of gantries, ERAs, communications equipment and noise barriers. A number of the gantry locations and other scheme elements proposed in (Design Fix 1) DF1 and DF2 have been amended as part of the DF3 design. These changes have been proposed for various reasons, primarily operational, safety and environmental. 3.2.2 The key design amendments that have been made to avoid potential significant environmental effects and also to enhance the existing environment are as follows: • ERAs and gantries have been located away from designated ecological sites and watercourses, with the nearest gantry at least 10m from the River Hamble and at least 40m from other watercourses. •

• Drainage has been designed to maintain existing rates of flow and water quality, to avoid impacts on rivers forming designated sites which flow under the proposed scheme. • Noise barriers have been positioned to maintain a 12-15m buffer between designated sites and the proposed barrier. • Gantry GY 24 has been located to reduce potentially significant landscape character and visual effects.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Soft landscape earthwork solutions in place of retaining wall options have been prioritised and existing areas of hard standing used for the ERAs where available to minimise disturbance within the soft estate • The proposed scheme will incorporate 4 lanes of LNRS in the opening year for all areas of hot rolled asphalt (as shown on the plans provided in Appendix A.3) and for the concrete section between junctions 5 and 7. A new LNRS will also be laid on all four lanes by the Design Year) • Provision of 11 new noise barriers. • New surface water drainage system that will collect, attenuate and convey surface water run-off from all new areas of hard standing. • Replacement of existing filter drains in the central reserve with new surface water channels or, at pinch points, with a new linear drainage system. • A containment system will be incorporated into the drainage system to capture oils in the event of a spillage within the ERA. • Where necessary, oversized pipes will be installed to attenuate flow from additional areas of hardstanding and limit run-off to existing discharge rates. 3.2.3 Alternative construction practices have been considered where there is a risk of such works giving rise to a significant adverse effect, with the aim of providing sufficient mitigation within alternative design or construction practices to eliminate likely significant adverse effects. For example, the temporary removal of noise barriers to facilitate construction of an ERA has been examined to arrive at an appropriate level of management that considers buildability and effects on receptors. Details of these alternative practices are provided by measures set out within the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP),

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

4. Environmental impact assessment methodology 4.1 Regulatory framework 4.1.1 The European Union (EU) Directive 2014/52/EU and the 1980 Highways Act, as amended by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017. require that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be undertaken by the promoters of certain types of development to identify and assess the environmental effects of certain public and private projects before implementation. 4.1.2 Directive 2014/52/EU (the ‘EIA Directive’) and the 1980 Highways Act, as amended by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017, specify the qualification requirements and the process by which statutory EIA should be undertaken. All developments listed under Annex 1 of the EIA Directive must be subject to statutory EIA in every case. Developments listed under Annex 2 may need to be subject to statutory EIA depending on whether the proposed scheme qualifies as a relevant project (that is if it meets certain criteria and thresholds defined in Annex 2) and gives rise to significant effects. The potential to generate significant environmental effects is described within Annex 3 of the EIA Directive.

4.2 Screening 4.2.1 In England and Wales, the requirements of the EIA Directive with regards to road projects has been transposed into UK statute by section 105 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017. Under this Act, Highways England, as the competent authority, has powers to carry out EIA screening. These procedures, which accord with the requirements of the EIA Regulations, exist within Highways England to determine whether trunk road and motorway developments require statutory EIA, leading to the preparation of an environmental statement (ES). This process is known as determination, and this EAR informs this process. 4.2.2 The proposed scheme has been classified as a relevant Annex 2 project (i.e. statutory EIA is not mandatory), as whilst it is not of a type listed in Annex 1, the anticipated area subject to construction or reconstruction is over the trigger threshold of 1 hectare (ha). Under Highways England’s procedures, Annex 2 relevant projects, such as the application of Smart Motorway All Lane Running (SMALR) on the M27 would require an appropriate level of environmental review in accordance with the regulations. The proposed scheme has, therefore, been subject to an environmental review and assessment in line with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 and associated updates, Interim Advice Notes (IAN) and guidance to establish whether significant environmental effects are likely to arise during its construction and operational phases.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

increase in rainfall during the operational lifetime of the development. Refer to Section 3.1.23 of the Scoping Report for details. 4.3.8 Materials, geology and soils 4.3.9 The assessment of effects on materials has been scoped out of the assessment as all materials would be sourced from existing quarries, batching plants or factories for which separate planning consent would be in place. The assessment of geology and soils has also been scoped out, due to the controls available via the design, Works Instructions and CEMP. Refer to Section 3.1.61 of the Scoping Report for details. Major accidents and disasters 4.3.10 Major accidents and disasters have been scoped out of the assessment due to the low probability of a significant impact arising from a low probability major event. Refer to Section 3.1.52 of the Scoping Report for details. Heat and radiation 4.3.11 The widening of the motorway and the introduction of signs and gantries etc. do not involve the use of radiation. Only under controlled conditions is heat used while the road pavement is laid. Consequently, these aspects are scoped out of consideration in the assessment.

Demolition 4.3.12 It is not envisaged that demolition or removal operations would give rise to significant impacts that would be not controlled via the OEMP/CEMP, hence demolition has been scoped out of the assessment.

4.4 Stakeholder consultation 4.4.1 The following activities relevant to this EAR have been undertaken during preliminary design stage: • Local authorities – specific discipline representatives covering transport, planning, environment and communications have been engaged with through the introductory proposed scheme letter, collaborative workshops and on-going specific transport planning engagement meetings • Landowners – those within the vicinity of the proposed scheme were directly contacted to seek permission to access their land for non-intrusive site visits, such as great crested newt (GCN) surveys • Route businesses – identified businesses located adjacent to the proposed scheme were engaged with through the introductory proposed scheme letter • Statutory undertakers and environment bodies – directly engaged with to inform them of the proposed scheme and engage on design specific requirements 4.4.2 Consultation has also been undertaken with Southampton Airport on whether the proposed scheme would have any effect on the flight envelope and the airport’s operations. The consultation response received on 10th November 2017 concluded that the proposed scheme’s technology would not have any effect on the airport’s operations, but gantry at 17390 would intersect with the flight

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

envelope and direction sign gantry at 17778 would be very close to the surface. The Design Team has therefore considered alternative options for removing the above interactions, such as gantry repositioning (if possible) and re-location of the signage in the verge, although as these changes do not form part of the DF3 design, they have not been assessed for the purposes if this EAR. 4.4.3 This EAR will be made available to the statutory environmental organisations (Local Authorities, Natural England, Historic England and Environment Agency). Highways England will also host public information events later in the proposed scheme to allow interested organisations and members of the general public to learn more about and comment on the proposals. Methodology 4.4.4 Assessment methods follow DMRB Volume 11 and other relevant best practice guidance. Specific methodologies for each topic are defined in sections 5 to 9. The structure of each specialist topic section broadly follows the structure for non-statutory environmental impact assessment in DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 6 (HD 48/08), although requirements for additional mitigation measures and as an assessment of residual effects has also been included, as follows: • Introduction • Study area • Methodology • Baseline conditions • Sensitivity of resource • Assumptions and limitations • Design and mitigation measures • Potential construction effects • Potential operational effects • Further mitigation and enhancement • Residual effects • Summary 4.4.5 The baseline and modelled or predicted future scenario years vary between topics depending on methodology. These are set out in each topic section as relevant. 4.4.6 Impacts and their subsequent effects may be adverse or beneficial, direct, indirect, secondary or cumulative, temporary or permanent, short, medium or long-term. Impacts are defined as a physical or measurable change to the environment that is attributable to the proposed scheme. Effects are defined as the result of an impact on a particular receptor or resource. Study area 4.4.7 Each environmental topic has set a study area for the assessment of the potential effects of the proposed scheme according to the requirements of the

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

applied methodology. The study area for each topic assessment is defined and described in the relevant topic section. Baseline conditions 4.4.8 Potential significant environmental effects are described in relation to the extent of changes to the existing baseline environment. The baseline comprises the environmental characteristics and conditions of the area likely to be affected that are present at the time of assessment, or which are predicted to be the case at certain times during a scheme’s development. Baseline information obtained in order to inform the environmental assessment, as well as topic-specific receptors, is identified within each technical topic section. Significance criteria 4.4.9 Effects, whether beneficial or adverse, are expressed in terms of their significance. Significance of effect is derived through consideration of the sensitivity of a receptor (sometimes referred to as its value or importance) and the magnitude of the impact, as defined by the amount of change from the baseline. Therefore, the significance of an effect is influenced by both of these variables. 4.4.10 Certain disciplines use a matrix approach to assess the significance of any particular effect, with the sensitivity of the receptor on 1 axis and the magnitude of impact on the other. Matrices for individual topics may be slightly different, and may appear in the individual topic guidance in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3. Moderate and major effects are considered ‘significant’ for the purposes of the EIA regulations. In all cases, the topic-specific guidance is referenced and followed if there is any discrepancy. 4.4.11 Some disciplines do not use a matrix-based approach, because they use calculations to assess effects in numerical terms; for example, noise and air quality. In all cases, professional judgement based on experience of similar schemes is applied to the assessment to underpin the outcomes identified through the matrix or calculation assessments and in each case, the summary concludes whether the effects are assessed as either significant or insignificant.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Exhaust emissions from traffic on the local road network, taking into account the effects of the reassignment of traffic between routes and changes in traffic speed 5.1.3 The impacts of the proposed scheme have been assessed in relation to national and EU air quality standards and guideline criteria for human health and impacts on ecology. 5.1.4 Impacts are considered for the proposed scheme and cumulatively with the proposed M3 Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) scheme (herein referred to as the cumulative scenario).

5.2 Assessment methodology 5.2.1 In accordance with the Scoping Report, M27 junction 4 to 11 (Highways England, July 2017), the methodology used to assess the operational phase air quality impacts for the proposed scheme follows that set out in detail in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1: HA207/071 for detailed level assessments for local and regional air quality, hereafter referred to as the DMRB HA207/07. The methodology takes into account the following Interim Advice Notes (IANs):

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

5.2.2 IAN 170/12 includes projection factors for annual mean NO2 and NOX concentrations between 2008 and 2030. Updated projection factors were provided by Highways England in May 2015 and used for this assessment. These updated factors reflect the latest predicted long-term trends from the introduction of Euro 6/VI vehicles (termed LTTE6). 5.2.3 IAN 175/13 has been withdrawn pending issue of updated advice. However, in the absence of published updated advice, IAN 175/13 has been used to assess the impact of the proposed scheme on compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality.

5.2.4 IAN 185/15 includes vehicle emission rates for defined traffic conditions for NOX, PM10 and CO2, for use in air quality assessments. Updated vehicle emission

1 DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1: HA207/07

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

factors, for use with IAN 185/15, were provided by Highways England in November 2016. 5.2.5 Traffic data for the air quality assessment was provided with a base year of 2015, taking into account MPI-28-082014: Highways England Major Projects’ Instructions – Determining the correct base year traffic model to support air quality assessments (August 2014). 5.2.6 The assessment has also taken into account Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, (LAQM TG)162 in relation to the processing of monitoring data and the verification of dispersion models. 5.2.7 The assessment of baseline air quality for the proposed scheme has revealed a risk of on-going exceedances of the air quality objective for annual mean NO2 along the M27 and M3 corridors within the assessment study area and within urban areas. 5.2.8 On some major routes markedly different, and even opposing, traffic impacts occur during different periods of the day. As such, the assessment has been undertaken at the detailed level, with dispersion modelling based traffic flows specified by period of the day (morning and afternoon peaks plus inter-peak and off-peak periods). This has ensured that the impacts of the proposed scheme on traffic flows are appropriately represented in the dispersion modelling. 5.2.9 The air quality assessment considers impacts on both local air quality, through changes in roadside pollutant concentrations at receptors, and regional air quality, through impacts on total emissions of pollutants from road transport. Construction phase 5.2.10 The assessment of construction impacts was undertaken qualitatively, taking into account the guidance in HA207/07 paragraph 3.45, and DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 3: Disruption due to construction, and the number and proximity of potentially sensitive receptors within 200m of the proposed scheme. Study area 5.2.11 The study area for the assessment of operational impacts on local air quality has been set with regard to the criteria set out in the DMRB HA207/073 for determining affected links (i.e. roads), namely, a 200m corridor either side of those links on which: • Road alignment will change by 5m or more • Daily traffic flows will change by 1,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow or more • Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows will change by 200 AADT or more • Daily average speed will change by 10 km/h or more

2 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, April 2016 3 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, HA 207/07, Highways Agency and Transport Scotland, 2007

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Peak hour speed will change by 20 km/h or more 5.2.12 As defined by the DMRB, the study area does not extend beyond 200m from each affected link as pollutant concentrations reduce to background levels beyond this distance. This is predominantly due to horizontal and vertical atmospheric mixing of emissions over this distance. 5.2.13 These criteria have been applied to road links within the Traffic Reliability Area (TRA)4 and to considered changes with the proposed scheme alone and in the cumulative scenario. A road triggering the DMRB criteria in either or both of the proposed schemes alone or the cumulative scenario is considered to be within the study area for the assessment. 5.2.14 The locally affected links and the extent of the study area are shown in Figure 5.1 and include: • M27 from junction 2 to 12 (including adjoining roads) • M3 from junction 5 to the M27 interchange (and adjoining roads) • A33 (Bassett Avenue) from M3 to the junction with Burgess Road • A27 from M27 junction 9 to Park Gate Retail Park • A32 junction (Gosport Road) • A27 junction with A32 • Bitterne Road West (A3024), Bullar Road (A3035) and St Denys Road (A3035) • Minor Roads between Segensworth Roundabout and Gosport 5.2.15 The Study Area is largely determined by total traffic flow changes rather than changes in vehicle speeds or changes in the numbers of Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs) i.e. there are no links triggering the criteria for speed or HDV changes that do not already trigger the overall daily traffic flow criterion. 5.2.16 The affected route network (ARN) for the proposed scheme alone is considerably smaller than the cumulative ARN and is largely limited to the proposed scheme extent along the M27 corridor. The proposed scheme has little impact on the M3 itself. 5.2.17 For the regional air quality assessment, the ARN is defined by DMRB as those roads which in the proposed scheme opening year or design year (15 years after opening) meet any of the criteria below: • Daily traffic flows (2-way) will change by 10% AADT or more • HDV flows (2-way) will change by 10% AADT or more • Daily average speed (2-way) will change by 20km/hr or more 5.2.18 A pragmatic approach was adopted in setting the ARN for the regional assessment, i.e. all roads within the TRA were included within the assessment.

4 The TRA defines the subset of traffic data from the traffic model that has been identified as suitable for informing the environmental assessment.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

rates or background pollution levels between 2030 and 2036. This provides a conservative estimate of changes in regional emissions. 5.2.26 DMRB guidance sets out the need for “the worst year in the first 15 years from opening” to be assessed. In general, the worst year from opening is the opening year itself, as it is anticipated that improvements in vehicle emission rates will offset the impacts of growth in vehicle numbers over time. As such, for the operational assessment of local air quality, only those results which relate to the proposed scheme opening year (2021) are presented in this report. Both the opening and design years are presented for the assessment of regional air quality. Modelling methodology 5.2.27 The modelling methodology seeks to compare future air quality concentrations and emissions, with and without the traffic changes associated with the operation of the proposed scheme. 5.2.28 Detailed dispersion modelling, using ADMS-Roads v4.1, was used to assess concentrations of nitrogen oxides (including nitrogen dioxide) at the selected receptors. All changes in particulate matter concentrations associated with the proposed scheme were imperceptible in magnitude; as such impacts are not reported in this EAR. They are, however, included within the WebTAG appraisal. Modelling uncertainties 5.2.29 The modelling of future air quality has associated uncertainties. 5.2.30 In the baseline year, systematic uncertainties in the model inputs are accounted for by verifying the modelled roadside concentrations against measured NO2 concentrations. This process produces an adjustment factor which can then be applied to future scenario model results to account for the continued presence of systematic uncertainties. Details of the model verification process are provided in appendix B.3. Where necessary, e.g. where local conditions affect dispersion, this factor varies regionally (appendix B.4). 5.2.31 In future years, a further uncertainty relates to the projection of vehicle emissions and, in particular, the rate at which emissions per vehicle will improve over time. This has been taken into account in this assessment through the application of the guidance set out in IAN 170/12. This IAN provides advice on the adjustment of modelled concentrations of NO2 (and NOX) to take account of recent trends on roadside pollutant concentrations and evidence on future vehicle emissions. The latest annual projection factors (LTTE6) were used for this assessment. Of the available datasets, LTTE6 best reflects the most recent evidence on the impacts of Euro 6/VI vehicles entering the fleet, whilst retaining an appropriate level of conservatism. 5.2.32 All modelled concentrations presented in this report are verified results. Results are presented within appendix B.6, both with and without the application of the gap analysis adjustment set out in IAN 170/12. 5.2.33 To ensure that this assessment presents a conservative assessment of the impacts of the proposed scheme, and that any air quality risks are captured, the overall assessment is based on verified results, adjusted to represent the long term trend set out in the LTTE6 annual projection factors. The assessment is

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

exceed the air quality threshold, the significance of the effect of the proposed scheme is informed by the numbers of affected receptors and the balance between receptors experiencing beneficial or adverse impacts. IAN 174/13 provides guideline criteria for the numbers of properties that would constitute a significant effect (Table 5-4).

5.2.43 When NOX concentrations are assessed for ecological receptors, if the total concentration is below their objective of 30µg/m3 then significant effects are not anticipated. Furthermore, where the objective is exceeded, but the change in 3 NOX with the proposed scheme is ≤0.4µg/m , then effects are also likely to be not significant. Where the objective is exceeded and the impact of the proposed scheme is >0.4µg/m3, the significance of any effects must be assessed by the proposed scheme ecologist taking into account changes to nitrogen deposition. 5.2.44 The overall significance of the effects from the proposed scheme is assessed using professional judgement taking into consideration (but not limited to) the magnitude of changes with the proposed scheme and the guideline property criteria, whether pollutants other than NO2 need be taken into account, the level of compliance risk (EU limit values), potential effects on designated sites and the effectiveness of any specified mitigation measures.

5.3 Policy and legislation Relevant legislation 5.3.1 The EU Ambient Air Quality Directive6 sets limit values for the concentration of pollutants in air for the protection of health and ecosystems. The EU Directive is transposed into legislation in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 20107 and Air Quality Standards (Amendment) Regulations 201611. Whilst numerically the same in terms of concentration statistics as the air quality objectives within the Air Quality (England) Regulations 20008, compliance with the EU limit values for pollutants is mandatory and this is ultimately the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Failure to comply will result in infraction proceedings by the EU with potentially a substantial financial penalty. The Air Quality (England) Regulations are therefore important when considering improvements to the strategic road network, including the proposed scheme. 5.3.2 Under the requirements of the Environment Act 1995, the UK government published an Air Quality Strategy (1997, revised in 2000 and 2007)9. The Air Quality Strategy sets out the UK's national standards and objectives for ambient air quality, and measures to help achieve the objectives. The overall aim of the Air Quality Strategy is to achieve steady improvement in air quality into the long- term. The objectives are transcribed into regulations in the Air Quality (England) Regulations 200010 and Air Quality (Amendment) (England) Regulations 200210.

6 European Union Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC 7 The Air Quality Standards Regulations, Statutory Instrument 2010/1001, Environmental Protection 8 The Air Quality (England) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 2000/928, Environmental Protection, England 9 Defra (2007) Air Quality Strategy for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland 10 The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations, 2002, Statutory Instrument No 3043

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

5.3.3 The Environment Act also sets out the principles for Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) under which Local Authorities are required to review current and future air quality within their area against the air quality objectives. Where it is anticipated that an air quality objective will not be met, the Local Authority is required to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and to produce an Action Plan in pursuit of the achievement of the air quality objectives. 5.3.4 The air quality standards set out in the Air Quality Strategy are purely health- based and reflect the levels of pollution thought to ensure the avoidance or minimisation of risks to health. The associated air quality objectives are policy targets, expressed as maximum permissible ambient (outdoor) concentrations which take into account economic efficiency, practicability, technical feasibility and timescales. 5.3.5 Air pollution can constitute a 'statutory nuisance', as set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA)11, and places a duty on Local Authorities to detect any such nuisances within their area. Dust arising from construction works could lead to statuary nuisance if it "interferes materially with the wellbeing of the residents, i.e. affects their wellbeing, even though it may not be prejudicial to health". Dust generated by construction and demolition work, i.e. resulting from activities such as earthworks, the cutting of materials and in particular, vehicles using haul roads which results in re-suspension of deposited dust can constitute a statutory nuisance. Local Authorities have the power to serve an abatement notice, requiring the abatement of a nuisance or requiring works to be executed to prevent their occurrence. Relevant policy National policy 5.3.6 At national level, relevant policy concerning air quality and the proposed scheme is given in the Government’s National Policy Statement for National Networks (NN NPS, December 2014)12. 5.3.7 The NN NPS states: “The Secretary of State must give air quality considerations substantial weight where, after taking into account mitigation, a project would lead to a significant air quality impact in relation to EIA and / or where they lead to a deterioration in air quality in a zone/agglomeration." (Paragraph 5.12). 5.3.8 The NN NPS further indicates that the Secretary of State should refuse consent for schemes where: "after taking into account mitigation, the air quality impacts of the scheme will: result in a zone / agglomeration which is currently reported as being compliant with the Air Quality Directive becoming non-compliant; or affect the ability of a non-compliant area to achieve compliance within the most recent timescales reported to the European Commission at the time of the decision” (Paragraph 5.12 – 5.13).

11 Section 79, Chapter 43, Part III - Statutory Nuisances and Inspections 12 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-policy-statement-for-national-networks

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

5.3.9 Defra, DfT, and the devolved administrations have jointly published the UK plan for bringing NO2 air pollution levels within statutory limits within the shortest possible time13. Under the Plan, Highways England have a responsibility to improve air quality on the strategic road network. This includes exploration and testing of innovative technologies and ideas for improving air quality. Local policy 5.3.10 A review of all affected local authorities was undertaken, the following policies were identified as those which may affect the proposed scheme. Policies cover air quality impacts on both human and ecological receptors. Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2031 5.3.11 Part A of the Hampshire Local Transport Plan14 sets out a long-term vision for the development of the transport network for the next 20 years and includes a policy to deliver improvements in air quality. 5.3.12 Policy E states: “The Transport for South Hampshire authorities will work with key partners, environmental health professionals and transport operators to mitigate the impacts of traffic on air quality. The principal causes of poor air quality will be addressed by implementing a strategic area-wide approach within each urban centre to minimise the cumulative effect of road transport emissions ... Tackling congestion at hotspots can also improve air quality.” Southampton 5.3.13 Southampton has been named as 1 of the 5 Clean Air Zones (CAZ) in the UK under the national Air Quality Plan for Nitrogen Dioxide in UK (2015)15, brought in to improve air quality across the UK and to ensure compliance with the Air Quality Directive. Southampton City Council (SCC) is under the obligation to develop a package of measures as part of their Air Quality Action Plan and CAZ implementation plan to encourage behaviours that support improvements in Air Quality. 5.3.14 SCC has therefore established the CAZ on a voluntary basis in 2017 with an aim to achieve compliance by 2020. The voluntary CAZ consists of a “programme of measures to promote and incentivise actions that will reduce emissions”. The mandatory CAZ, consisting of “access restrictions and penalty charging” 16 will be introduced in 2019, in line with SCCs duties as set out in the Air Quality Plan13. 5.3.15 At a regional level, SCC’s Local Plan Policy Sustainability Development Principles (SDP) 15 is relevant, where it states:

13 UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations, July 2017: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/633270/air-quality-plan- detail.pdf 14 http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hampshire-ltp-2011-part-a.pdf 15 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/air-quality-plan-for-nitrogen-dioxide-no2-in-uk-2015 16 https://www.southampton.gov.uk/news/article.aspx?id=tcm:63-389484

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

“Planning permission will be refused where the effect of the proposal would contribute significantly to exceeding the National Air Quality Strategy Standards or where the proposal would be materially affected by existing and continuous poor air quality. Large potentially polluting developments will be required to assess their air quality impact by detailed air dispersion modelling and appropriate monitoring.” Eastleigh 5.3.16 Eastleigh Borough Council’s emerging local plan17 states (policy DM8) that: “On the Borough’s coast, the Borough Council will protect the Natura 2000 and Ramsar designations” “Development will not be permitted if it is likely to cause loss of amenity or other unacceptable environmental impacts through i. Air pollution (including odours or particulate emissions).” 5.3.17 In relation to compliance with UK air quality objectives, the emerging plan is aligned with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It states that air quality will be material consideration where development is proposed within and adjacent to AQMA, where the development could give rise to new AQMA and where the development would prevent an air quality action plan being implemented. Test Valley 5.3.18 Test Valley has no declared AQMAs, although there are 3 PCM links which exceed the limit value for annual mean NO2 in the Scheme opening year. Test Valley Borough Council’s Local Plan18 states: “Applications for development which are either likely to generate or are sensitive to pollution will require the submission of the relevant assessment based on current guidance and/or best practice.” “Where mitigation measures are proposed the Council will need to be convinced that the proposed measures will be effective with respect to human health, water sources and the wider environment. The provision of these measures should be in place at an early stage of the development.” Fareham Borough Council 5.3.19 Fareham Borough Council’s Core Strategy19 recognises the importance of preserving sites designated for nature conservations and states it will develop and implement a strategic approach to protecting European sites from development including: “mitigation for impacts on air quality due to road traffic, supported by developer contributions where appropriate. Development likely to have an individual or

17 https://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy-and-implementation/local-plan 18 http://www.testvalley.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planningpolicy/local-development-framework/dpd 19 http://www.fareham.gov.uk/pdf/planning/CoreStrategyAdopted.pdf

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

cumulative adverse impact will not be permitted unless the necessary mitigation measures have been secured” (Policy CS4). 5.3.20 Policies CS7, CS12 and CS13 preclude development where it will have an adverse impact on air quality, although do not provide specific definition of adverse impacts.

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

• Project-specific NO2 diffusion tube monitoring undertaken by Highways England between August 2013 and August 2014 • National modelling undertaken by Defra using the Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model • Nitrogen deposition and nitrogen oxides modelling provide by the online Air Pollution Information System (APIS) for ecological sites 5.4.2 The ARN and air quality constraints including Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2. Local air quality management 5.4.3 The M27 is not located within an AQMA; however, section of the ARN lie within an AQMA. Five AQMAs throughout the study area lie on the ARN (Figure 5-2). They are as follows: • Southampton – AQMA No.2 (Bitterne Road West) • Eastleigh – AQMA No. 1 (A335) • Eastleigh – AQMA No. 2 (M3) • Fareham – Portland Street AQMA • Fareham – Gosport Road

5.4.4 All designations are due to exceedances of the objective for annual mean NO2, resulting from road transport. 5.4.5 Automatic (continuous) and diffusion tube monitoring takes place throughout the local authority. The majority of monitoring sites are located within, or within the vicinity of, an AQMA and over 40 monitoring sites are within 100m of the ARN (Figure 5-3). Southampton City Council 5.4.6 Southampton City Council (SCC) undertakes a combination of automatic and passive monitoring of NO2 and PM10 within the city. 5.4.7 During 2015, SCC undertook diffusion tube monitoring at 6 sites within 200m of the local air quality ARN and at 5 sites in 2016 (Table 5-5). Monitored annual

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Visual inspections of off-site dust deposition (daily). This may need to be supplemented by automatic monitoring of PM10 if the risk of impacts increases e.g. during prolonged dry weather Site planning • Consideration of weather conditions, dust generating potential of material to be excavated prior to commencement of works • Plan site layout to maximise distance from plant / stockpiles etc. to sensitive receptors • Dusty materials should be removed from site as soon as possible Construction traffic • Loads entering and leaving the site with dust generating potential should be covered and wheel washing facilities made available • No idling of vehicles • Vehicles to comply with site speed limits (15mph on hard surfaces, 10mph on unconsolidated surfaces) • Water assisted sweeping of local roads to be undertaken if material tracked out of site • Install hard surfacing as soon as practicable on site and ensure that they are maintained in good condition Site activities • Exposed soils should be protected from winds until sealed or re-vegetated • Minimise dust generating activities, particularly near residential receptors / sensitive ecosystems during prolonged dry, dusty weather unless damping / other suppressants are used • Ensure an adequate water supply to site and use water as dust suppressant where applicable • Ensure any site machinery is well maintained and in full working order • Sand and aggregates should be stored away from sensitive receptors and screened / shielded. Similarly, concrete batching should take place away from receptors 5.5.3 Traffic management measures will be required during the construction phase. These have not yet been formally designed and are not considered further in this assessment. Operation 5.5.4 There is no requirement for proposed scheme specific mitigation. As will be set out in the following section, the proposed scheme does not give rise to significant effects, and so mitigation is not required.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

5.6 Assessment of effects Construction 5.6.1 Air Quality impacts due to construction will be temporary, and typically include an increase in emissions of dust from earthworks and general construction activity and the presence of heavy construction-related traffic. 5.6.2 In addition, traffic management measures may result in changes to emissions from vehicle exhausts and roadside pollution concentrations. Currently information relating to construction vehicle movement is unavailable, so this cannot be assessed at this stage. It is not expected that HDV flows will change by more than 200 AADT, and consequently will not trigger the qualifying criteria set out in HA207/07. 5.6.3 Whilst the potential for impacts from construction works exists, the application of the best practice measures, highlighted in the previous section, will ensure any effects are not significant. Operation - local air quality Human receptors 5.6.4 The complete set of modelled results is provided in Appendix B.6. The results are also set out in Figures 5.5 – 5.10. The details below relate to modelled annual mean NO2 results following model verification and gap analysis. This is a conservative approach.

5.6.5 Impacts on concentrations of PM10 are negligible, and concentrations are below the objectives at all receptors in all scenarios and are not considered further. Modelled baseline and future baseline (Do Minimum 2021) 5.6.6 The baseline model (2015) results are generally consistent with the monitoring data set out in Section 5.4, and in particular no areas of exceedance were modelled outside of the locations of monitored exceedances. Modelled concentrations along the proposed scheme are below the air quality objective for annual mean NO2 concentrations at 68 out of the 74 receptors. Exceedances of the objective are modelled within and adjacent to the Bitterne Road AQMA (R21 – R25) and on the A3035 and A3024, at the northern end of Bassett Avenue (R11). The maximum modelled concentration is 55.2µg/m3 at R24 (Bitterne Road AQMA), well above the threshold of 40µg/m3. 5.6.7 An overview of the proposed scheme traffic impacts and corresponding changes in pollution concentrations are presented in Table 5-13, below. Further detailed analysis of pollutant concentration breakdown is provided in Table 5-16 and Table 5-17.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

5.6.12 R21 is located approximately 1.5m from the edge of Deny Road (A3035) and approximately 5m from its centre. This close proximity, in addition to a Do- Minimum two-way traffic flow of approximately 46,800AADT, of which 1,200 are HDVs, is the likely cause of the modelled annual mean NO2 exceedance. The decrease in two-way traffic flows of approximately 2,350AADT, of which 3 are HDVs, coupled with the close proximity to the road is the likely cause of the small reduction in annual mean NO2 concentrations. The predicted annual mean NO2 concentration remains above the objective in both the Do-Minimum and Do- Something scenarios. 5.6.13 R24 is located approximately 4.5m from the edge of Bitterne Road West (A3024) and approximately 8m from its centre. This close proximity, in addition to a Do- Minimum two-way traffic flow of approximately 53,300AADT, of which 960 are HDVs, is the likely cause of the modelled annual mean NO2 exceedance. The decrease in two-way traffic flows of approximately 1,200AADT, of which 20 are HDVs, coupled with the close proximity to the road is the likely cause of the small reduction in annual mean NO2 concentrations. The predicted annual mean NO2 concentration remains above the objective in both the Do-Minimum and Do- Something scenarios. 5.6.14 The impacts are summarised in Table 5-14 and Table 5-16, and are visualised in Figures 5.5 – 5.10.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

AQMA) experiences a decrease in NO2 where concentrations exceed the air quality objective. 5.6.18 As discussed in the proposed scheme scenario, R21 is located close to Deny Road (A3035), which experiences a decrease in two-way traffic flows of approximately 1500AADT, of which 10 are HDVs, in the cumulative scenario - this is the likely cause of the small reduction in annual mean NO2 concentrations. The predicted annual mean NO2 concentration remains above the objective in both the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios. 5.6.19 The impacts are summarised in Table 5-15 Table 5-17.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Ecological receptors 5.6.20 The complete set of modelled results for ecological receptors is provided in appendix B.7. The details below relate to modelled annual mean NOX and nitrogen deposition results following model verification and gap analysis. This is a conservative approach. 5.6.21 WSP ecologists concluded that no significant adverse effects were likely, either with the proposed scheme or in the cumulative scenario – see paragraphs 6.9.1, 6.9.2, and Table 6-6 within the Biodiversity chapter of this report. Modelled baseline and future baseline (Do Minimum 2021) 5.6.22 At the closest point to the road, baseline and future baseline concentrations of 3 NOX exceed the air quality objective for the protection of vegetation (30µg/m ) at all sites with the exception of Mapledurwell SSSI (which lies approximately 200m from the M3). Concentrations decrease between 2015 and the opening year. 5.6.23 Nitrogen deposition levels exceed the minimum critical load for all sites in the baseline year. By 2021, deposition levels have decreased but continue to exceed the critical load for all sites with the exception of Portsdown SSSI. Proposed scheme

5.6.24 The impact of the proposed scheme alone is to increase NOX concentrations on the section of the River Itchen SAC and SSSI crossing the M27 (transect RIW1), but is negligible for all other designated sites. A potentially perceptible impact (>0.4µg/m3) where total pollutant concentrations exceed the objective occurs 50m from the side of the M27 (inside lane). 5.6.25 The proposed scheme results in an increase in deposition levels amounting to less than 1% of the minimum critical load at all locations on the ecology assessment transects.

5.6.26 A summary of NOX impacts is shown in Table 5-18; Nitrogen deposition impacts are shown in Table 5-20.

Cumulative scenario 5.6.27 In the cumulative scenario, perceptible impacts occur on sections of the River Itchen SAC and SSSI crossing the M27 and M3, and on St Catherine’s Hill SSSI on the M3. Potentially perceptible impacts (>0.4µg/m3) where total pollutant concentrations exceed the objective occur to a maximum distance of 75m from the roadside over the River Itchen SAC and SSSI, and up to 15m from the road over St Catherine’s Hill. 5.6.28 The cumulative scenario results in an increase in deposition levels amounting to less than 1% of the minimum critical load at all locations, including over the sites experiencing a non-negligible increase in NOX concentrations (River Itchen SSSI and SAC, and St Catherine’s Hill SSSI). For Portsdown SSSI, nitrogen deposition levels in the future remain within the critical load, whether or not the cumulative scenario proceeds.

5.6.29 A summary of NOX impacts is shown in Table 5-19; Nitrogen deposition impacts are shown in Table 5-21.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

5.6.33 The impacts of both the proposed scheme and the cumulative scenario at the closest receptors to the links in exceedance of the limit value (excluding locations within 25m of major road junctions, as per the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive) are imperceptible in all cases. 5.6.34 On the A32, whilst the impact of the proposed scheme(s) is small, the estimated PCM concentration in the opening year is below the limit value both with and without the proposed scheme, and in the cumulative scenario. 5.6.35 As such, the proposed scheme (alone and cumulatively) is a low risk in relation to EU limit value compliance.

5.7 Assessment of significance 5.7.1 IAN 174/13 sets out key criteria for the assessment of the significance of effects of proposed schemes. The criteria draw together the results of the assessment of local air quality impacts on population exposure, compliance with EU limit values and the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive and impacts on ecological receptors. The criteria and their application to the proposed scheme and the cumulative scenario is shown in Table 5-26. 5.7.2 In relation to population exposure to pollution, IAN 174/13 requires the significance of effects to be assessed at properties where exceedances of the air quality objectives are modelled in any future year scenario. 5.7.3 The only pollutant at risk of exceeding an air quality objective is annual mean NO2 and the only area at risk of exceedance of air quality objectives, both with and without the proposed scheme (and the cumulative scenario) is: • Bitterne Road West AQMA (Receptors 21 and 24) 5.7.4 Additional modelling was undertaken, in line with IAN 174/13 section 2.2, to assess the numbers of residential properties represented by R21 & R24 where more than negligible beneficial impacts were modelled. The numbers of potentially affected properties are shown in Table 5-24 and Table 5-25 for the proposed Scheme and cumulative scenario respectively. 5.7.5 The proposed scheme impacts are small beneficial impacts in this AQMA. Small beneficial impacts occur at up to 43 properties in the Bitterne Road West AQMA (19 in the cumulative scenario). In addition, it is noted that the magnitude of the predicted change in pollutant concentrations with the Scheme falls at the lower end of the “Small” band (i.e. the impacts are of the order of 0.4µg/m3) for a majority of receptors. The decrease in concentrations is due to re-routing of traffic from primary and minor roads onto the M27. 5.7.6 This region of the traffic model was included within the TRA, however, the level of traffic decrease on individual roads is uncertain due to the resolution of the traffic model within the urban area of Southampton. 5.7.7 Taking into account the number and magnitude of changes in receptor concentrations within this region, and the resolution of the traffic model within this region, the overall assessment of significance is that both the proposed scheme and the cumulative scenario are unlikely to result in significant effects.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.3 Methodology 6.3.1 The scope of this assessment is in accordance with the Scoping Report25, but has been refined as the proposed scheme design has developed and more ecological data has been gathered. In accordance with the Highways England Interim Advice Note (IAN) 125/1526 and the findings of the Scoping Report, a detailed assessment has been carried out for this Environmental Assessment Report to:

• Provide baseline information to fully assess the impacts of the proposed scheme

• To identify specific mitigation requirements to ensure the proposed scheme complies with relevant statute and policy 6.3.2 The approach to the detailed assessment has been proportional and appropriate to the risk of significant effects and of legal offences. Accordingly, the detailed assessment has comprised the following key elements:

• A desk study, comprising a data request to local biological records centres and a review of other available data sources, such as EnvIS and relevant data collected for other Highways England schemes within the local area

• An Extend Phase 1 Habitat Survey to map habitats and scope for protected and notable species, undertaken at locations where infrastructure including ERAs, gantries, and signage is proposed

• A Habitats Suitability Assessment (HSI) and subsequent presence and absence survey for great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) to waterbodies within 250m of the proposed scheme

• Presence and absence survey for dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) within suitable habitat likely to be affected by the proposed scheme 6.3.3 The approach to the desk study and detailed field surveys is presented below. Desk study 6.3.4 A desk study was undertaken to obtain ecological information about statutory and non-statutory designated sites, notable habitats, and notable and legally protected species present within the study area. Data was obtained from the following organisations:

• Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) (supplied April 2017)

• Highways England Environmental Information System (EnvIS) database (supplied June 2017)

• Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website www.magic.defra.gov.uk

• Great crested newt survey data associated with junction 9 works collected by Hampshire County Council in 2017

25 Highways England (2017) Smart Motorways Programme: M27 Junction 4 to 11 Environmental Scoping Report. July 2017 26 Highways England. (2015). DMRB Interim Advice Note 125/15: Environmental Assessment Update, UK.

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Dormouse monitoring data associated with junction 5 and junction 9 works supplied by Mouchel on behalf of Kier and Highways England Field survey Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 6.3.5 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken in spring and summer 2017 in 47 survey areas where ERAs, gantries, and signage were proposed, as per the information provided in the early stages of the Preliminary Design stage. Surveyors recorded and mapped habitat types in accordance with Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) guidance for Phase 1 Survey27. The distribution and extent of the survey areas and habitats recorded is presented on Figure 6.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Plan. Great Crested Newt 6.3.6 The Scoping Report28 identified a total of 219 waterbodies which required further assessment to inform the proposed scheme’s EAR. This included:

• 215 waterbodies located within 250m of the proposed scheme

• Four waterbodies located between 250m and 500m from the proposed scheme which were included for further assessment following a review using the Natural England rapid risk assessment tool for great crested newt 6.3.7 A desk study review, using aerial photography and Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping, was undertaken to determine the likelihood of the proposed scheme affecting great crested newts potentially breeding within these 219 waterbodies. This review determined that 13 of the 219 waterbodies were isolated from the proposed scheme, due to barriers to dispersal such as rivers and roads. These 13 waterbodies were therefore scoped out of further survey or assessment with respect to great crested newts. 6.3.8 206 waterbodies were therefore subject to a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)29 assessment in the spring and early summer of 2017 to determine their suitability to support breeding great crested newts. During the HSI field visits, 3 additional waterbodies which had not been identified within the Scoping Report were identified in the field. These waterbodies were subject to HSI and subsequently included within the assessment, bringing the total number of waterbodies scoped in to 209. 6.3.9 Of the 209 waterbodies subject to HSI, 146 waterbodies were found to be not present, dry, or not suitable for supporting great crested newts. 26 waterbodies had access restrictions at the time of the HSI survey and were not accessible for survey. 6.3.10 37 waterbodies were therefore subject to further presence and absence survey for great crested newts. An environmental DNA (eDNA30) survey31 was carried

27 JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A technique for environmental audit. ISBN 0 86139 636 7 28 Highways England (2017) Smart Motorways Programme: M27 Junction 4 to 11 Environmental Scoping Report. July 2017. 29 Oldman, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. J. S., and Jeffcote, M. (2000) Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155. 30 eDNA survey is a method which uses DNA analysis to identify the presence of great crested newts within a waterbody. 31 Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson J, Arnett A, Williams P and Dunn F (2014). Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Defra Project WC1067. Freshwater Habitats Trust: Oxford

100

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

out in late June 2017, where access was possible, of waterbodies found to be suitable following the HSI assessment, to determine great crested newt presence and absence. Hazel dormouse 6.3.11 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey identified 35 of the 47 survey areas as suitable for supporting dormouse. Presence and likely absence surveys for dormouse were undertaken within these survey areas, including HDHA 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 5). The location of these survey areas is presented on Figure 6.4. 6.3.12 Dormouse tubes were set out during July 2017 and were checked once a month by surveyors during the months of September, October, and November. Surveys were carried out in reasonable accordance with standard survey methodology outlined within the Dormouse Conservation Handbook32. 6.3.13 Within survey areas where dormouse were not recorded during the 2017 dormouse tube survey, nut searches were undertaken in January 2018. The aim of the nut searches was to provide additional evidence to support a finding of likely absence within a given survey area. Surveyors undertook these surveys in accordance with methods described in the Dormouse Conservation Handbook. 6.3.14 Detailed field survey methods, together with any specific limitations to the methodology, are provided in the Habitats and Protected Species Survey Report, appendix C.1. Otter 6.3.15 A survey for otter holts was undertaken within the vicinity of an ERA located approximately 48m from the River Itchen. The survey area included habitat within the footprint of the ERA and up to approximately 100m away (see Figure 6.4). Surveyors inspected the survey area for signs of otter and for potential for otter resting sites / holts. The survey was undertaken in October 2017. Assessment methodology 6.3.16 The ecological assessment was undertaken in accordance with the DMRB 33; IAN 130/1034; and the CIEEM guidelines. 6.3.17 This chapter describes the method of ecological assessment to determine residual effects on ecological receptors and whether an effect would be significant. The method of assessment comprises the following key stages:

• Establishing the baseline conditions through desk study and field survey data

• Assessment of nature conservation value and importance of each ecological receptor

• Identification of embedded and general mitigation measures to be employed

32 Bright PW, Morris PA and Mitchell-Jones A, 2006. Dormouse Conservation Handbook, 2nd Edition. English Nature 33 Highways England. (1993) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Ecology & Nature Conservation Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 4, UK. 34 Highways England (2010) DMRB Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment

101

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Between junction 5 to 6 in the vicinity of the Hedge End Interchange

• Between junction 6 to 7 associated with Blundell Lane, north of the M27 crossing of the River Hamble

• Between junction 8 to 9 associated with Swanwick Nature Reserve SINC

• Between junction 9 to 19 associated with River Meon SINC, Hookhouse Coppice SINC, and Great Beamond Coppice SINC 6.4.13 Other HPIs located within the Highways England soft estate include coastal floodplain grazing marsh, lowland meadow, associated with the River Itchen and River Meon, and coastal saltmarsh and intertidal mudflats, associated with the River Hamble. 6.4.14 The majority of the woodland recorded within the Highways England soft estate during the Phase 1 Survey was relatively recently created, associated with the construction of the M27, and consisted primarily of immature or semi-mature trees. This woodland is unlikely to qualify as lowland deciduous woodland HPI due to an absence of a diverse age and height structure, or lack of large standing or fallen dead wood. The exception to this is those locations where lowland mixed deciduous woodland, identified through the desk study, is located within the soft estate (see Paragraph 6.4.12). 6.4.15 No other HPIs were identified within the proposed scheme, with the exception of rivers (River Hamble, River Itchen, River Meon and Wallington River) which pass beneath the proposed scheme. Other habitats 6.4.16 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey identified 16 habitat types within the survey area. The majority of habitat within the proposed scheme consists of strips of semi-natural mixed and broad-leaved woodland all along the soft estate embankments, often with a narrow strip of semi-improved grassland or dense scrub on the verge adjacent to the carriageway. Several areas of introduced shrubs were also recorded during the survey. The 16 habitat types recorded during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey are listed below and their distribution within the survey area presented on Figure 6.1:

• Semi-natural broadleaved woodland

• Semi-natural mixed woodland

• Semi-natural coniferous woodland

• Scattered coniferous trees

• Scattered broadleaved trees

• Amenity grassland

• Continuous dense and scattered scrub

• Introduced shrubs

• Bracken

• Mixed plantation woodland

• Species rich intact hedgerow

• Tall ruderal vegetation

110

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

M27 soft estate was also received. In particular, there are recent records of hazel dormice at junction 5 and junction 9 associated with other licenced works in the Highways England M27 soft estate. 6.4.22 Dormouse presence and absence surveys for the proposed scheme have recorded the species as present within 16 of the 35 survey areas (HDHA 10, 11, 13, 14, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, and 58). 6.4.23 The nut search revealed evidence of dormouse (a gnawed hazel nut) at survey area HDHA 32. No other evidence of dormouse were recorded at any of the other survey areas where presence had not been confirmed previously during the nest tube surveys. 6.4.24 Based on the field survey results, the species is likely to be present within suitable habitat at the following locations:

• Between junction 11 and the crossing of the River Hamble and the M27 east and westbound

• Within the vicinity of the junction 7 and the Hedge End Interchange east and westbound

• Between junction 4 and habitat within the vicinity of the River Itchen, east and westbound 6.4.25 Full details of hazel dormouse surveys are provided in appendix C.1 with survey results presented on Figure 6.4. Badger 6.4.26

6.4.27

6.4.28

Otter and water vole 6.4.29 The desk study returned records of otter and water vole within the Study Area. Suitable habitat for these species in close proximity to the Highways England soft estate, is present where the M27 crosses the River Itchen, River Hamble, River Wallington, and River Meon. 6.4.30 No signs of otter or otter resting sites were recorded during the targeted otter survey at the River Itchen. Two locations were identified as offering potentially suitable habitat for resting otter, although no signs there were no signs to indicate that they are likely being used by otter as resting sites. This includes an area beneath a willow tree, located approximately 45m from the proposed works, and a fallen willow tree, and located approximately 60m from proposed works.

120

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.4.31 Woodland and scrub habitat within the Highways England soft estate may be used by otter for foraging and shelter. No signs of otter were recorded during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. 6.4.32 No suitable habitat for water vole was recorded within the survey area and no signs of water vole were recorded during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Breeding birds 6.4.33 The desk study returned records of breeding and foraging bird species notable for their conservation concern status and listed under Section 41 of the NERC act including a range of raptors and passerine birds including: Cetti’s warbler (Cettia cetti); cuckoo (Cuculus canorus); firecrest (Regulus ignicapilla); house sparrow (Passer domesticus); reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus); spotted flycatcher (Muscicapa striata); song thrush (Turdus philomelos); starling (Sturnus vulgaris); tree pipit (Anthus trivialis); and yellow and grey wagtail (Motacilla flava and M. cinerea). 6.4.34 The Highways England soft estate within the survey area is likely to support an assemblage of breeding birds which is relatively typical of farmland, and hedge and scrub habitats. Reptiles 6.4.35 The desk study returned records of common reptile species, including grass snake (Natrix natrix), viviparous lizard (Zootoca vivipara), adder (Vipera berus) and slow worm (Anguis fragilis). No records of smooth snake or sand lizard were returned for the Study Area. 6.4.36 The Highways England soft estate between junction 4 to 11 is predominantly woodland, with scattered areas of suitable reptile habitat, such as scrub and grassland. These habitats are sub-optimal for reptiles and it is considered that, if present, reptiles are likely to comprise relatively common species (adder, slow worm, lizard, and grass snake) present in low numbers. Rare reptiles, smooth snake and sand lizard, are unlikely to be supported between junction 4 and 11 due to the type and quality of the habitats present, and the restricted range of these species. Other notable species 6.4.37 The following notable species38 were recorded (from desk study or field survey) or are considered potentially present, given the suitability of the habitats and frequency of distribution of the species within the county. Figure 6-3 Notable and Protected Species Plan illustrates the locations of the main records of interest and field survey findings.

• Invertebrate species listed under Section 41 of the NERC act such as: stag beetle (Lucanus cervus); long-horned bee (Eucera longicornis); brown- banded carder-bee (Bombus humilis); red-shanked carder-bee (Bombus ruderarius); black-headed mason wasp (Odynerus melanocephalus); sallow

38Notable invertebrates are taken as principal species for the conservation of biodiversity listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; species included in local biodiversity action plans, species considered notable for their conservation concern (for example, IUCN Red Data Books, bird species are taken as those listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); any bird species listed as Red, Amber of Green status in the Birds of Conservation Concern 3 (RSPB, 2009); and species considered rare in the UK or in local counties.

121

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

guest weevil (Melanapion minimum); apple lace-bug (Physatocheila smreczynskii); small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus); white letter hairstreak butterfly (Satyrium w-album); white admiral (Limenitis camilla); a number of moth species; and white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes)

• Amphibians, including common toad (Bufo bufo)

• Harvest mouse (Micromys minutus)

• Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)

• Notable plants including species on the NERC Act such as: pale dog-violet (Viola lactea); annual knawel (Scleranthus annuus); Deptford pink (Dianthis armeria); and spreading hedge parsley (Torilis arvensis) 6.4.38 The habitats within the proposed scheme are not of a quality or diversity likely to promote an invertebrate community of special interest. It is possible that low numbers of hedgehog, common toad and harvest mouse may be present within and adjacent to the proposed scheme. Invasive plant species 6.4.39 Four species of invasive plant species on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended have been recorded within or adjacent to the proposed scheme: Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica); cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.); rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum); and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) (see Figure 6.1).

6.5 Sensitivity of resource 6.5.1 The nature conservation value of the ecological receptors is presented in Table 6-10. The table also details which ecological receptors will be subject to further assessment or standard mitigation measures. Features of less than Local importance or with no statutory protection or control have been scoped out of requiring further consideration in the impact assessment.

122

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.6 Assumptions and limitations 6.6.1 The following assumptions and limitations are taken into account during this assessment. Limitations to baseline data 6.6.2 Due to health and safety restrictions, land-owner access refusal, or the presence of dense vegetation which restricted access, access was not possible to all survey locations for the Extended Phase 1, dormouse, and great crested newt surveys. This included:

• 3 survey areas, HDHA 22, 47, and 48 which were not accessible for the Phase 1 and dormouse surveys (see Figure 6.4)

• 15 survey areas had partial access, HDHA 2, 8, 10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 32, 34, 35, 38, 41, 43, 49, and 54 (Figure 6.4)

• Access was not possible to 26 waterbodies for HSI surveys. These waterbodies were not subject to HSI or eDNA survey and their suitability for supporting great crested newt is not known (Figure 6.4) 6.6.3 In addition to access restrictions, 10 waterbodies subject to HSI and identified as suitable for supporting great crested newt were not surveyed due to seasonal constraints associated with eDNA surveying i.e. they could not be accessed within the required survey window for eDNA survey (see Figure 6.3). Furthermore, due to seasonal constraints, it was not possible to carry out population size class surveys of ponds with great crested newt presence in 2017. 6.6.4 With respect to the Extended Phase 1, the absence of access or partial access at the above locations is not a significant limitation to the assessment. This limitation has been mitigated for through a review of aerial imagery and Street View imagery, which has provided confidence in predicting the type and character of habitats within these areas. Furthermore, field surveys at nearby locations have confirmed that habitats within the Highways England soft estate within the study area, are relatively homogenous and of a similar type and character across the proposed scheme, increasing the confidence in the assumptions used in the assessment at these locations. 6.6.5 Uncertainty with respect to the presence of protected species at these locations, for example, great crested newt, badger, common reptiles, or dormouse, has been mitigated for through the following:

• Firstly, a precautionary approach has been adopted where there is reasonable uncertainty as to a species’ presence. In this instance, the species’ presence has been assumed and the impact assessment has reflected this.

• Secondly, where presence is assumed and impacts can be avoided through the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures, and these mitigation measures are relatively standard, for example, a Precautionary Methods of Working, then these measures have been proposed through the OEMP.

• Thirdly, where reasonable uncertainty and risk is evident, and a species may require more complex mitigation or a development licence to avoid an

126

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

offence, then further survey has been recommended prior to construction. These recommendations are delivered in a location specific OEMP.

Uncertainty due to an evolving proposed scheme design 6.6.6 The Extended Phase 1 and dormouse survey areas were targeted at locations where permanent habitat loss from ERA and gantry installation will occur. These survey areas were an accurate reflection of the proposed scheme design at the time of survey, relatively early in the Preliminary Design stage. However, the proposed scheme design has subsequently evolved and there are now 35 gantry locations (either MS4 or ADS gantries) and 3 ERA locations which fall outside of the Extended Phase 1 and dormouse survey areas. As discussed above, this is not considered to be a significant limitation to the assessment, as sufficient information has been gathered through desk study and field survey to predict the likelihood of significant effects to important ecological receptors. 6.6.7 Further surveys and strategies will inform mitigation and licence requirements, as presented in the OEMP. This includes preconstruction surveys and appropriate mitigation including:

• Great crested newt - HSI and presence / absence surveys to 2 waterbodies, an EPS licence may be required if great crested newts are recorded as present)

•

• Bat emergence surveys to the North Fareham Farm Bridge and a preliminary roost suitability appraisal in areas where trees will be removed

• Otter survey to identify potential otter resting sites will be undertaken at works locations within 100m of the River Itchen and River Hamble

• Pre-construction checks for breeding birds (if vegetation clearance is undertaken during the bird breeding season, which is March - August)

• Pre-construction reptile habitat suitability surveys to be undertaken to determine where a Precautionary Method of Working is required. 6.6.8 With respect to dormouse, no further survey is recommended. The survey areas that were targeted are distributed located throughout the proposed scheme extent. Furthermore, dormouse have been recorded at the majority of the survey areas and are known to be relatively widespread within the local area. Habitats within the Highways England soft estate within the proposed scheme are well connected and it is therefore likely that dormouse are present within a large proportion of suitable habitat within the soft estate. A proposed scheme-wide EPS licence for dormouse will therefore be applied for and works will be undertaken in accordance with the terms of this licence and method statement. The fact that a gantries and ERAs are not within the specific survey area is therefore not a significant limitation to the assessment.

127

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Limitations inherent to ecological assessment 6.6.9 Ecological surveys are limited by factors which affect the presence of plants and animals, such as the time of year, migration patterns and behaviour. The ecological survey has not, therefore, produced a complete list of plants and animals. The absence of evidence of any particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the species is not present or that it will not be present in the future. 6.6.10 The data that has been gathered, and understanding of the local ecology and distribution of the species included as part of this assessment, is considered sufficient to make an informed judgement as to the value of ecological features within the ZoI and the potential impacts, likely mitigation requirements and significance of effects.

6.7 Design and mitigation measures Primary mitigation – design 6.7.1 Throughout the design process, consideration has been given to avoiding impacts on important ecological receptors, such as notable habitats, species and designated sites. In particular, the following design updates have been implemented to minimise impacts:

•

• Drainage has been designed to maintain existing rates of flow and water quality, to avoid impacts on rivers forming designated sites which flow under the proposed scheme.

• Noise barriers have been positioned to maintain a 12-15m buffer between designated sites and the proposed barrier. Tertiary mitigation 6.7.2 Standard good practices, such as the CIRIA Environmental Good Practice on Site Guidelines39, will be implemented during the construction phase to minimise harm to ecological receptors and avoid impacts on the favourable conservation status of species and habitats. These measures would be detailed in the location specific Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), which will be produced to provide guidance to the Principal Contractor in preparing their environmental management processes. 6.7.3 Detail with regards to mitigation measures is presented within the OEMP, but measures will include:

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

128

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Standard measures to prevent potential pollution risks (water, dust, noise). The requirements relating to air and noise are expanded on in the relevant chapters of this assessment

• Precautionary methods of working would be used for works adjacent to the SINCs and ancient woodland, including use of temporary fences and silt barriers where necessary to prevent soil run off and damage of these habitats

• Vegetation clearance would be minimised whilst still allowing construction, and provide adequate and safe movement of people and equipment during works. Where vegetation clearance is required, connective canopy and scrub habitat would be retained where possible.

• Protection of notable species (site clearance) - all site clearance would be carried out at appropriate time of year to minimise risks to notable and protected species (bats, hazel dormouse, nesting birds, great crested newts, common reptiles, common toad, harvest mouse, hedgehog, and badger) by avoiding the most sensitive times of year (such as breeding and hibernation). This is of particular relevance to dormouse and great crested newt, where the following seasonal restrictions to clearance apply: ° Dormouse – Within areas where dormouse have been recorded, vegetation clearance shall take place as a two-stage operation, with above ground surface clearance of trees and scrub taking place over winter, between November and March (inclusive) when hazel dormice are in hibernation, and ground disturbance and stump extraction carried only between May and September when hazel dormice are active. ° Great crested newts – Within areas where a PMW for great crested newts apply, no excavations are to take place during hibernation period (November to February inclusive). Phased vegetation clearance to be carried out in the active period (March to October inclusive) following a fingertip search by an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW). Vegetation clearance will not be undertaken during the hibernation period (between October to February, inclusive).

• This clearance would be carried out under a written method statement such as a Precautionary Method of Working (PMW) or protected species licence method statement (as required). Detailed measures for each species would be included in the OEMP and supporting method statements.

• Protection of notable species (habitat availability) – where necessary, retained habitats outside of the construction footprint would be protected and enhanced prior to construction to ensure that this habitat can support the notable species displaced by construction (such as log piles for sheltering and hibernating reptiles and newts, and nest boxes for dormouse). Where necessary, areas of temporary habitat loss would be replanted to ensure development of suitable habitats following construction.

• Protection of foraging animals (lighting) – if night-time work is required, any site illumination would be fully directional to minimise light-spill into adjacent habitat and minimise impacts to disturbance of foraging bats or other

129

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

animals such as great crested newts, otter (near to watercourses) and badgers

• Fox, rabbit and deer - to prevent unnecessary suffering, such as crushing and suffocation during site clearance, humane methods would be employed where it is necessary to remove fox earths and rabbit burrows from within the working area if these are found to be present

• All excavations left open overnight would include measures to prevent mammals becoming trapped (ramped sides or wooden planks). All excavations would be checked for animals prior to in filling

•

• Appropriate storage of materials, equipment and machinery, ensuring vehicles are kept off retained habitats in the soft estate

• Any tree protection measures considered necessary (according to British Standard BS587:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction) would be detailed in the EMP to prevent damage to tree roots and stems during works. This would include appropriate buffer zones for any works immediately adjacent to ancient woodland (in accordance with British Standard BS 587:2012)

• Any non-native invasive plant species would be subject to controlled avoidance or treatment under a written method statement to avoid spread Protected species implications 6.7.4 The CEMP will include specific measures to be carried out to ensure that works do not result in an offence with regard to legally protected species. As described above, all habitat clearance would be carried out under a clear method statement, such as a PMW or under a proposed scheme-wide license for great crested newts (if required) and hazel dormouse. 6.7.5 The CEMP would include Tool Box Talks for site contractors, ecological watching briefs where required and hand searches for species by an ecologist prior to clearance. As described above, the EMP will include appropriate timing of habitat clearance to avoid the most sensitive times of year for protected species. 6.7.6 In addition to the measures described under the EMP above, in habitats suitable for great crested newts, reptiles, or hazel dormice, habitat manipulation by phased habitat clearance would be undertaken, followed by destructive searches. 6.7.7 Further survey will be undertaken to determine whether great crested newts are present within two waterbodies that are within 50m of works locations. If great

130

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

crested newts are found to be present, works are likely to require a Natural England development licence, and measures including exclusion fencing and capture by pitfall trapping. 6.7.8 Pre-construction reptile habitat suitability surveys will be undertaken to identify suitable reptile habitat within works locations. Where suitable habitat is identified, a PMW will be adhered to, to avoid impacts to reptiles. 6.7.9 Update survey work for bats being carried out as part of the CEMP will include assessment of trees being removed during construction and a detailed inspection of North Fareham footbridge using endoscopes prior to removal. Should roosting bats be recorded, appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that no disturbance to bats takes place, or if impacts cannot be avoided, works would take place under a European Protected Species licence. 6.7.10 A check would be carried out for badger setts within 30m of works areas prior to the start of works and may require advanced clearance of vegetation to enable access for inspection. If disturbance of a badger sett cannot be avoided, a licence will be required from Natural England before start of works. 6.7.11 Similarly, a check for otter holts would be carried out prior to construction of the proposed ERA to the east of the River Itchen and west of the River Hamble, and the gantry to the east of the Hamble, and works adjusted where possible to avoid affecting otter, if present. 6.7.12 Where vegetation clearance is required during the breeding bird season, preconstruction checks for breeding birds will be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to works. Where an active bird nest is recorded, an appropriate exclusion buffer will be set up around the nest to avoid adversely affecting the nest. No net loss commitment 6.7.13 The Road Investment Strategy (RIS) for the 2015/16 to 2019/20 Road Period includes an objective to work towards a reduction in ‘net loss’ of biodiversity across the RIS Schemes. It also includes a note on page 22 of the RIS that ‘in the long-term, the Company [Highways England] should deliver a net gain across its broader range of works’. The proposed scheme will include mitigation and compensation measures to work towards a reduction in net loss of biodiversity. 6.7.14 Approximately 2.3ha of habitat would be permanently lost through construction of new ERAs, gantries and signs, and concrete drainage channels, consisting primarily of the semi-improved grassland verge and adjacent woodland and scrub. Temporary loss of habitat would be replaced through re-planting or promotion of natural re-colonisation where appropriate. This is also required as part of compensation measures under the proposed scheme-wide licence to be obtained for hazel dormouse, and potentially also for great crested newt and bats. 6.7.15 Where minor permanent loss is required (beneath footprint of new infrastructure), retained habitats would be enhanced to increase their carrying capacity for protected and notable species. This would include the creation of log and debris piles, and enhancement of woodland and understorey structure, to provide sheltering, hibernating and foraging opportunities for species, and installation of nest boxes. These measures would benefit other notable species such as stag

131

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

beetle, common reptiles and toads. By carrying out this work, greater floristic and structural diversity in the soft estate habitats is anticipated and there would be no net loss of biodiversity as part of the proposed scheme (N.B. this is a qualitative assessment, and no calculations using the Defra metric for assessing biodiversity loss have been undertaken).

6.8 Potential construction effects 6.8.1 The potential impacts on important ecological receptors are characterised here with the mitigation described in chapter 6.7 above. 6.8.2 Diversion routes for the proposed scheme construction are known, but the nature of the construction of the proposed scheme is that these would only be used periodically. Total closure of the carriageway would only take place at night. When diversion routes are used they are likely to increase disturbance from noise and lights along the diversion route itself due to increase volume of traffic. However, the frequency of use of diversion routes is small and significant impacts are not anticipated. Therefore, they not considered further in this assessment. Designated sites 6.8.3 Construction of the proposed scheme will not have any significant effect on Mottisfont Bats SAC, Briddlesford Copses SAC, Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC. All 3 sites are designated for Bechstein’s bat or Barbastelle bat. Studies show that Bechstein’s typically forage close to the roost site (within 1km to 2km), although individual bats have been recorded foraging further afield at distances up to 3.8km from the roost site. Radio-tracking studies investigating the foraging behaviour of Barbastelle bats have recorded individuals foraging up to 7km from their roost site. Considering the intervening distance between the proposed scheme and the SACs (12.3km at their closest point), it is unlikely that the qualifying features of the SACs would be affected during the construction of the proposed scheme. 6.8.4 Construction of the proposed scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the following international and national designated sites located within 2km of or hydrologically connected to the proposed scheme:

• River Itchen SAC and SSSI - The proposed scheme crosses directly over the SAC at 2 locations and an ERA and gantry are proposed on the southbound carriageway, approximately 48m and 70m from the SAC, respectively

• Solent Maritime SAC - The proposed scheme crosses directly over the SAC at the River Hamble and 2 gantries are proposed approximately 100m and 160m from the SAC, respectively. No works are proposed to the 2 priority outfalls to the River Hamble as part of the proposed scheme.

• Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA - The proposed scheme crosses directly over the pSPA, where the River Hamble crosses beneath the M27. Two gantries are proposed within the vicinity of the pSPA at this location, approximately 30m and 130m at their closest point to the site. The proposed scheme is also hydrologically connected to the pSPA where the M27 crosses the River Itchen and the River Wallington. At these points, the

132

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

proposed scheme is located approximately 960m and 740m from the pSPA, respectively

• Portsmouth Harbour SPA, Ramsar site, and SSSI - The proposed scheme ends approximately 980m to the north of these sites, at junction 11

• Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site - At its closest point, the proposed scheme is approximately 230m from the SPA and Ramsar where a proposed gantry is to be constructed. The next closest works locations are a gantry and ERA which are located approximately 420m and 500m from the SPA and Ramsar, respectively

• Moorgreen Meadows SSSI - The proposed scheme lies adjacent to this SSSI where an ERA is proposed on the eastbound carriageway between junction 7 and the River Itchen 6.8.5 There is no potential for effects to qualifying features for which the above sites are designated, as there would not be increased noise or light, or reduced air quality and there would be no land take from the sites. Construction of the proposed scheme is therefore would not have any significant effects on the conservation objectives of the statutory designated sites, through direct or indirect effects. 6.8.6 The only SSSI outside of internationally designated sites that lies adjacent to the proposed scheme is Moorgreen Meadows SSSI. The SSSI unit adjacent to the motorway is described as ‘destroyed’ in the condition assessment due to stream diversion and therefore is not likely to be sensitive to indirect effects during construction. There will be no land take from this designated site. 6.8.7 Construction of the proposed scheme will not have any significant effect on the structure and function of the SINCs which lie adjacent to the proposed scheme. There would be no loss of habitat within the SINCs, and as none of the SINCs extend into the Highways England soft estate, there will generally be a buffer of at least around 5m between SINC boundaries and proposed permanent infrastructure. A buffer of c. 15m has been maintained between proposed noise barriers and SINCs to avoid damage to tree roots and habitats, except for adjacent to Dummers Copse South SINC where a 12m buffer was necessary to maintain the value of the barrier. Notable habitats Ancient Woodland 6.8.8 Construction of the proposed scheme is unlikely to have any significant effects on the structure and function of ancient woodland which lies adjacent to the proposed scheme. There would be no loss of habitat within areas of ancient woodland. A buffer of c.15m has been maintained between proposed noise barriers and ancient woodland to avoid damage to the habitat, except for adjacent to Dummers Copse where a slightly reduced 12m buffer was necessary to maintain the value of the barrier. The only other infrastructure proposed within 15m of ancient woodland is a gantry and ERA proposed c.7-10m from ancient woodland within Iron Mill Coppice (North and South) SINC. Major earthworks adjacent to ancient woodland would be avoided. Where works are proposed close to ancient woodland, a buffer zone would be put in place supported by tree protection requirements and standard pollution prevention measures.

133

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.8.9 No rivers or ponds would be modified during the works with pollution prevention measures implemented, and no construction works to culverts or outfalls are proposed. Indirect effects from construction on designated rivers are described under the ‘Designated Sites’ chapter. 6.8.10 There will be no permanent loss of lowland deciduous woodland listed as an HPI on the inventory. There will be a small area of temporary loss (<0.01ha) of lowland deciduous woodland due to vegetation clearance within the vicinity of Hedge End Interchange. No other loss of HPI due to the proposed scheme is anticipated. Enhancements are proposed to the structure of retained and reinstated woodland. Therefore, it is unlikely any significant impact on the conservation status of notable habitats would result. Other habitats 6.8.11 The proposed scheme would not have any significant effect on the structure and function of habitats in the long-term. There would be temporary clearance of habitats within the soft estate to facilitate construction of the proposed scheme. The loss of this habitat is temporary and reversible. Habitat would be re-planted or left to recolonise naturally. This will be determined by protected species requirements (hazel dormice, great crested newts, bats, nesting birds and reptiles). 6.8.12 There would be small scale permanent loss of habitats beneath the footprint of the new infrastructure (ERAs, gantries etc.), and loss of concrete drainage channels which cannot be compensated for or reinstated within the boundary of the proposed scheme. However, planting plans in areas where temporary clearance is required would be designed to enhance the floristic and structural diversity of the habitats lost during construction, which on maturity would provide a greater area of valuable habitat than that lost. 6.8.13 Habitat clearance will create temporary gaps in the continuity of habitats within the boundary of the Highways England land along the soft estate. However, habitat connectivity is retained through habitats at the back of the soft estate along the majority of the proposed scheme, and adjacent to the proposed scheme and in the wider landscape. 6.8.14 Standard pollution prevention measures will be put in place to protect retained habitats during construction. This will include silt barriers where necessary. 6.8.15 Taking into account the largely temporary nature of the habitat loss, it is considered that there are no likely significant effects on the conservation status of habitats within the soft estate in the long-term. Invasive plant species 6.8.16 The closest invasive plant species to proposed areas of permanent works were Japanese knotweed, recorded in survey area HS32 approximately 50m from a proposed gantry, and Himalayan balsam, recorded along the Wallington River approximately 40-50m from gantries in HS57 and 58. However, much of the soft estate subject to temporary works and drainage has not been surveyed. Therefore, it is likely that invasive species may also be recorded in other areas. PMW or treatment programmes would be implemented to avoid spreading these invasive species during works.

134

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

immediate area. However, disturbance effects will be localised and temporary, and are not expected to have a significant effect on the local nesting bird population on account of already high noise levels along the motorway. 6.8.25 There would be only very small scale permanent loss of habitat beneath the footprint of the new infrastructure. However, this small scale loss would largely be adjacent to the carriageway where it is less likely that birds will nest due to disturbance from traffic. 6.8.26 Vegetation temporarily lost to facilitate construction will be replanted or left to naturally recolonise and there will be no long-term effect in relation to habitat loss. Bats 6.8.27 Construction of the proposed scheme is unlikely to have any significant effect on the favourable conservation status of the local population of bats. No known bat roosts will be affected by the Proposed Works. Updated survey work would be carried out to inform the EMP, which would include surveys of trees and of North Fareham bridge, which would be removed during construction. This would ensure appropriate measures are taken if any roosting bats are found, such as obtaining a licence from Natural England and installing alternative roosting sites with bat boxes in retained habitats. 6.8.28 Vegetation clearance may reduce the overall availability of habitat where roosting bats can forage. However, it is likely that the majority of foraging activity is at the highway boundary along the edge of the soft estate. Throughout the proposed scheme, vegetation along the highways boundary fenceline or in adjacent land would be retained. Therefore, a corridor of habitat for foraging and commuting bats would remain. In addition to this, there is a large amount of suitable alternative foraging habitat around hedgerows, woodlands, fields and waterbodies in the wider landscape surrounding the proposed scheme. Habitat temporarily lost during construction would not form a large proportion of the suitable foraging habitat of bats within the local area, particularly due to its proximity to the motorway carriageway and bright lights from cars reducing suitability. 6.8.29 Appropriate, directed lighting used during any night-time construction works would minimise light spill into surrounding habitats, and reduce and temporary impacts on bat foraging and commuting routes within and adjacent to the proposed scheme. Where possible, a buffer strip of vegetation would be retained at the highways boundary fence to prevent light spill, and minimise potential short-term, temporary interruption of bat foraging and commuting routes within and adjacent to the proposed scheme due to night-time construction lighting. Disturbance effects from noise during construction would be localised and temporary, as described for nesting birds above, and are therefore not expected to have a significant effect on the local bat population, Hazel dormouse 6.8.30 Construction of the proposed scheme is unlikely to have any significant effects on the favourable conservation status of local population of hazel dormice with implementation of mitigation.

138

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.8.31 Site clearance for construction involves the loss of woodland and scrub habitats where hazel dormice are known or predicted to be present. It would result in an overall reduction in the availability of this habitat throughout the construction period, and until re-colonisation of temporarily affected habitats or maturity of replanted habitat and enhanced retained habitat. Approximately 8ha of habitat would be temporarily cleared and 3ha would be permanently lost. This habitat varies in structure and suitability for this species. 6.8.32 To minimise the risk of killing and injury to individual hazel dormouse, habitat clearance as proposed within the EMP would be carried out under a proposed scheme-wide licence. The retained habitats within the proposed scheme are generally well connected to other suitable habitats (woodland, scrub and hedgerows) within the wider landscape. There are some existing breaks in continuity of habitat due to the presence of tracks and roads. However, although largely arboreal animals, hazel dormice are known to cross open landscape, including roads, not only during dispersal, but nightly between different foraging and nesting sites40,41,42. Therefore, the hazel dormice present in the soft estate are highly likely to be part of a wider population present on each side of the motorway corridor. Whilst construction would temporarily reduce the continuity of habitat within the soft estate itself adjacent to the carriageway, the network of habitat in the wider landscape either side of the motorway, and at the back of the soft estate along the majority of the proposed scheme, would not be affected or fragmented. 6.8.33 The majority of habitat loss will be temporary and reversible. Habitats would be replanted or left to naturally recolonise and careful design would ensure that dispersal routes are maintained throughout construction. Retained habitats would be enhanced to improve habitat structure, and to install nest boxes and log and brash piles to provide additional hibernation and sheltering opportunities for hazel dormice displaced by the construction works. Whilst these works would help to minimise the impacts displacing hazel dormouse from the working area, it is possible that the reduction in habitat would stress individuals by causing greater territorial conflict with reduced foraging and nesting opportunities, potentially leading to reduced breeding success. Scheme-wide, this may have a temporary effect on the conservation status of the population within the proposed scheme, particularly if other variable such as weather, disease or predation are also having a detrimental effect. However, this is unlikely to have a significant effect on the conservation status of the local populations of hazel dormice. Otter 6.8.34 Construction of the proposed scheme will not have any significant effect on the favourable conservation status of otters within the local area. Construction of the proposed scheme does not involve works which affect the structure of any watercourses. A check would be carried out of the area of works adjacent to the River Hamble and River Itchen prior to construction to check that no otter holts

40 Chanin, P & Gubert, L. (2012). Common dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) movements in a landscape fragmented by roads. Lutra. 55 (1), 3-15. 41 Juskaitis, R. (2008). The Common Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius: Ecology, Population Structure and Dynamics. Institute of Ecology of Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. 42 Goedele, V. (2015). Finding Dormice in Flanders. The Dormouse Monitor, People's Trust for Endangered Species, pp.12-15.

139

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Lee-on-the- 443912, 113166 Solent to Itchen (150m from the 8 25.66 13.97 13.97 <0.00 Estuary SSSI A3024) Mapledurwell 467829, 152241 15 14.16 16.72 16.72 <0.00 Fen SSSI (180m from M3) St. Catherine’s 448892, 127595 15 13.93 18.10 18.10 <0.00 Hill SSSI (adjacent to M3) Butler Wood 471671, 152591 15 13.21 27.38 27.38 <0.00 SSSI (adjacent to M3) Hook Common 472209, 152831 and Bartley (adjacent to M3) 15 13.21 17.39 17.39 <0.00 Heath SSSI 435484, 116401 River Test SSSI (25m from M27) 10 22.05 23.31 23.32 0.01

462282, 106584 Portsdown SSSI 15 15.84 15.33 15.30 <0.00 (adjacent to M27) 6.9.3 During operation, there will be an increase in impermeable surface area due to the scheme and there will be an increase in the volume of run-off entering the SAC. Upgrades to the drainage system will accommodate predicted increases and there will be no increase in the rate of discharge into designated sites. Furthermore, traffic volumes are predicted to increase by 13% due to the proposed scheme and other projects. This is below the 20% threshold at which, in accordance with DMRB guidance45, increased traffic volumes may have a significant adverse effect on the quality of water run-off. Based on the magnitude of the anticipated increase in traffic volume, the Road Drainage and the Water Environment assessment for the proposed scheme (chapter 9 of the EAR) assesses the effect of the proposed scheme on water quality within the River Itchen as being of Negligible significance. 6.9.4 No significant changes to lighting are expected, and due to the existing volume of traffic using the motorway and expected improvements to traffic flow, it is unlikely that the proposed scheme would result in any significant impact on designated sites from visual disturbance or lighting during operation. Similarly, operational noise would either remain the same or be reduced along the majority of the proposed scheme. Therefore, no significant ecological effects as a result of noise are expected. 6.9.5 No significant effects on the structure and function of SINCs are anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed scheme. The air quality assessment (as detailed in chapter 5) does not specifically look at non-statutory designated ecological sites. However, as the assessment does not predict any significant effects for nationally and internationally designated sites adjacent to the M27, it can be assumed that no significant effects would result on SINCs either. Live traffic would be marginally closer to adjacent SINCs. However, species present within the SINCs adjacent to the proposed scheme are already likely to be habituated to the noise and visual disturbance of live traffic currently present on

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

141

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

the carriageway. Therefore, whist traffic would be marginally closer to the boundary of these sites, this is unlikely to have any additional effect above that which already exists. Installation of noise barriers adjacent to Dummers Copse South SINC and Great Beamond Coppice SINC will reduce disturbance to species in these sites. Notable and other habitats 6.9.6 No significant effects on notable or other habitat are anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed scheme. Potential pollution risks are managed through the existing and new drainage network, and the rate of flow and quality of water discharged to watercourses is to remain the same. Whist traffic is expected to increase, the air quality assessment concludes there will be no significant effect on local air quality as a result of the proposed scheme. Notable species Great crested newts 6.9.7 No significant effect on the conservation status of great crested newts is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed scheme. Operation of the proposed scheme may have minor impacts on terrestrial habitat immediately adjacent to the carriageway through surface water run-off (for example, through salt deposition during winter). However, this would be small scale and does not affect the wide availability of terrestrial habitat available for this species within and outside of the soft estate. Reptiles 6.9.8 No significant effect on the conservation status of reptiles is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed scheme. A short to medium-term benefit from a more open habitat may enable reptiles to colonise the soft estate in greater numbers until scrub becomes established such that no long-term operational benefit is anticipated. Nesting birds 6.9.9 No significant effect on the conservation status of nesting birds is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed scheme. It is possible that there would be minor loss of nesting habitat for passerine birds immediately adjacent to the carriageway, as live traffic would be closer to nesting habitat during operation of the proposed scheme. Operational noise would either remain unchanged or will be reduced across the majority of the proposed scheme. Furthermore, birds are likely to have habituated to the noise and visual disturbance associated with the existing M27 traffic. These impacts are therefore not considered to be significant to the favourable conservation status of the bird community in the local context. Bats 6.9.10 No significant effect on the conservation status of bats is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed scheme, as no significant operational lighting changes are anticipated. Hazel dormouse 6.9.11 No significant effect on the conservation status of hazel dormice is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed scheme. Maintenance of the strip of

142

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

land immediately adjacent to the carriageway would continue as it has prior to construction of the proposed scheme at an appropriate time of year to avoid any impact to breeding hazel dormice. The confirmed presence of this species would be passed on to the area management team. This maintenance would not cover a wider area than it does at present and no new impact is anticipated. Hazel dormice are known to utilise areas of habitat right up to live carriageways and the proximity of the traffic to the soft estate is highly unlikely to displace this species from suitable habitat. Otter 6.9.12 No significant effect on the conservation status of otter is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed scheme. The operation of the proposed scheme would not result in any additional barrier to the dispersal of otters through the local landscape or any additional disturbance to watercourses. Habitats 6.9.13 Where appropriate and compatible with road safety requirements, areas of habitat that are cleared temporarily, and other areas of retained habitat, would be re-planted with higher quality habitat e.g. locally native species-rich grassland and scrub and woodland habitats which comprise native species of supporting value to a range of plant and animal species. This would provide greater structural diversity and more foraging opportunities. Scalloped edging would encourage the development of a more diverse herbaceous layer providing habitat for pollinating insects contributing to the National Pollinator Strategy46. Notable species 6.9.14 Enhancement measures proposed for notable species such as hazel dormouse, great crested newts and reptiles, include creation of habitats which will offer increased sheltering, hibernating and breeding opportunities for these species. These enhancements would be provided within retained habitats throughout the proposed scheme, and would include log and brash piles (to benefit great crested newts, reptiles, and invertebrates), and nesting / roosting boxes (to benefit dormouse, breeding birds, and bats).

6.10 Residual effects 6.10.1 No significant effects on designated sites, notable habitats or notable species are anticipated as a result of the proposed scheme (see Table 6-12 below).

6.11 Summary 6.11.1 A summary of the potential impacts of the proposed scheme on ecology and nature conservation is set out below in Table 6-12.

46 Defra (2014) The National Pollinator Strategy: for bees and other pollinators in England. Available from: www.gov.uk/government/publications.

143

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

assessment points based on professional judgement applied in the field based on experience of similar schemes. 7.1.5 The assessment of the proposed scheme presented herein has been undertaken on an interim stage between Design Fix 2 (DF2) and Design Fix (DF3), in accordance with the design assumptions set out in Chapter 2, taken as fixed at the end of August 2017. This design is shown in the plans included in appendix A.1. Design work has continued since this point, working towards DF3 (November 2017) and a register of design changes has been kept, as shown in appendix A.2. A review of the DF3 plans has been undertaken and it is considered in the professional opinion of the authors that the findings and conclusions presented herein remain valid, and that the proposed scheme will not result in any significant effects.

7.2 Study area 7.2.1 The study area for this chapter is based on a 1km buffer from the proposed scheme. Landscape character effects would largely be limited to the immediate setting within the highway boundary, whilst visual effects beyond this 1km distance are predicted to be no greater than negligible adverse, reducing the risk of a significant effect arising as a result of modifications to an existing motorway corridor, without significantly increasing its existing footprint or extending beyond the extents of existing highway land boundaries. 7.2.2 The assessment of effects on the landscape setting of designated cultural heritage features is restricted to the Conservation Areas, and Grade II and II* Listed Buildings listed within the Scoping Report (presented in Appendix D.2 of this EAR). There are no Registered Parks and Gardens within the study area.

7.3 Methodology

Landscape character and visual 7.3.1 This assessment has been carried out broadly in accordance with a Simple Assessment, as set out within Interim Advice Note (IAN) 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment (Highways England, November 2010). The assessment also takes account of Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) 3rd Edition (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2013). 7.3.2 Data sources used in this assessment include: • Ordnance Survey – 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 scale maps • Google Earth and Street View • Natural England South Coast Plain and the South Hampshire Lowlands NCA profiles (NCA 126 and 128 respectively) • Hampshire County Council (2015) Integrated Landscape Character Assessment • Eastleigh Borough Council (2011) Landscape Character Assessment • Test Valley Borough Council (2003) Community Landscape Project

152

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Designated cultural heritage features 7.4.9 The following designated cultural heritage assets are identified within Appendix D.2. Effects on the landscape setting of these will be considered within this chapter. Conservation Areas • The Itchen Valley Conservation Area (Medium Value) • The Romill Close Conservation Area (Medium Value) Grade II* Listed Buildings • The Brick Kiln, Chimney, Drying Sheds, Boiler and Engine House at Bursledon Brickworks South Section (High Value) Grade II Listed Buildings • The Church of St Francis is a Grade II Listed church in Funtley (Medium Value)

Existing vegetation 7.4.10 The existing highway vegetation comprises largely even-aged densely planted broadleaved trees and shrubs that are likely to have been planted following the construction of this section of the network in the late 1970s. The depth of associated planting varies within the corridor depending upon the width of the associated verges. At some locations where the verge is particularly narrow there is little or no planting. However, this tends to occur in areas of open countryside and in the absence of nearby sensitive receptors. To the south of Southampton Airport runway there is a brief but noticeable break in the vegetation. 7.4.11 At the western end of the corridor, associated with junction 4 there are extended areas of woodland tying into a largely wooded landscape and the southern end of the M3, some of which is Ancient Woodland. Isolated areas of Ancient Woodland also occur immediately adjacent to the highway boundary north-west of junction 9 and north-west of Hill Park. 7.4.12 Further areas of woodland occur around Hightown, north of junction 8 and in the approaches to the crossing of the River Hamble. East of junction 10, the open arable farmland to the north of the M27 is reflected in thinner belts of shrubs and trees, and an increase in the use of hedgerows as boundary treatments. 7.4.13 While the existing vegetation is comprised of standard highway vegetation, it forms an integral part of the wider pattern of vegetation, and plays an important role in screening and filtering views of the M27 from surrounding visual receptors.

Key representative viewpoints 7.4.14 Key representative viewpoints have been selected to identify visual effects on the important visual receptors identified within the Scoping Report, and subsequently verified and supplemented through site work. These were reviewed and refined on site, to account for accessibility and to incorporate assessment of a range of visual effects. The majority of the key representative viewpoints are

164

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

7.6.7 A tree survey has not been undertaken. Therefore, the locations of trees will need to be determined through a topographical survey in order to identify those that could potentially be saved on the edge of vegetation clearance areas. These would be more accurately identified once the works areas are marked out or through consultation with an engineer to identify the line of the works extents. This way an arboriculturist, or other appropriately qualified professional, can determine whether trees outside of the works footprint can be retained or require felling due to the threat of wind throw or because of tree root severance. 7.6.8 Assumptions considered in Table 7-11 below show indicative site clearance areas which have been considered as a worst-case scenario and in sensitive locations working methods could potentially be achieved to reduce the extent of clearance.

168

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

7.7.2 The following mitigation principles will be applied to the detailed design and construction at this stage, and carried forward to the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP): • Vegetation would be removed only where essential to construct the proposed scheme and to allow for sight lines and safety requirements. Where the extent of proposed vegetation removal would result in newly exposed views or awareness of the corridor or infrastructure this would be mitigated by the proposed landscape design proposals at the detailed design stage • Where existing environmental barriers are to be temporarily removed, and in accordance with the requirements of the noise mitigation measures set out in Section 8.7, the Delivery Partner must use temporary barriers in those locations until the permanent barrier is replaced. • Individual trees within areas of essential vegetation clearance would be retained where feasible • Where areas of ancient woodland or Tree Preservation Orders exist immediately outside the highway boundary and adjoining areas of vegetation clearance, an arboriculturalist or other appropriately qualified professional would be present on site to ensure construction does not encroach within the root protection areas • Any tree protection measures considered necessary (according to British Standard BS 587:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction) would be detailed in the CEMP to prevent damage to tree roots and stems during works. This would include buffer zones for any works immediately adjacent to ancient woodland • Screen planting would be located to replace the loss of existing screening vegetation and at gantry locations to ensure that the screening value would be reinstated when mitigation planting matures • Proposed planting would be native and of a similar species mix to that removed • Installation of the environmental barrier would be completed in a manner in which the amount of vegetation removal is minimised. Where practical this would be from outside the highway boundary to avoid unnecessary vegetation removal

7.8 Potential construction effects 7.8.1 This chapter considers landscape character and visual effects during the construction phase that is expected to last approximately 2 years. Construction activity within the highway boundary would include the presence of construction machinery, vegetation removal and installation / removal and replacement of environmental barriers.

Landscape character effects 7.8.2 There are no statutory landscape designations within the study area. Therefore, construction effects on highly sensitive designated landscapes would not arise.

170

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

7.8.3 Plant, machinery and traffic management largely contained within the existing corridor, and would generally be screened from broader views by existing roadside vegetation, cutting slopes and surrounding vegetation structure. Isolated locations, where awareness of the activity within the corridor would be exposed to the wider landscape by vegetation removal or along open sections of the corridor, would have a sense of an increasingly urbanised corridor in the context of existing views of traffic movements and motorway infrastructure. 7.8.4 The magnitude of change in these areas would be in the order of negligible to minor and the overall effect on the identified landscape character areas would be no greater than slight adverse effects to landscape character. 7.8.5 The construction effects would represent the worst case scenario for potential effects on the perception of landscape character. Construction activity within the existing corridor would not result in significant effects on the wider landscape character of the study area. Potential effects post-construction and in the Design Year, will reduce from those identified during construction and as replacement vegetation matures the predicted impacts are anticipated to reduce and along with this the risk of significant effects, therefore potential effects have not been assessed in further detail.

Existing vegetation effects 7.8.6 The proposed scheme will be constructed within the limits of the existing highway boundary, therefore vegetation removal will occur beyond the limits of ancient woodland and in the absence of trees covered by a TPO. 7.8.7 Where construction activity occurs within the root protection area of any trees covered by either designation, measures outlined in 7.7.2 would be employed to determine the extent of the likely root protection area and construction methods so as to avoid damage to any main roots. The measures required to avoid impacts on designated vegetation will be determined at the detailed design stage and following surveys by a qualified arboriculturalist. 7.8.8 The construction effects on existing vegetation would not be significant, undesignated vegetation would be cleared where required for a working area and replanted as appropriate to replace screening and provide integration. Identified measures to avoid impacts on designated vegetation would be developed during the detailed design stage, avoiding significant effects on vegetation within the immediate vicinity of the corridor. No further assessment has been undertaken as any impacts would arise during the construction phase.

Visual effects 7.8.9 Appendix D.1 provides a schedule of visual effects from key representative viewpoints (illustrated on Figure 7.3) at different timescales including during construction. 7.8.10 From 24 of the 25 representative viewpoints assessed, the significance of visual effect during construction would be no greater than slight adverse. This is either because of: • The distant nature of the existing view

171

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Only glimpsed views of construction activity would be available due to intervening screening elements • Existing views of the M27 and other detracting visual features are open, and construction activity would be viewed in this context 7.8.11 There would be temporary visual effects of moderate adverse significance during the construction period, which is expected to be approximately 2 years, from representative viewpoint 11 which would be in close proximity to the construction activities with open and direct views, and where as a result of vegetation removal to accommodate elements of the proposed scheme, new and previously screened or filtered views of the corridor would be revealed. 7.8.12 As only one representative viewpoint out of the 25 assessed is considered to have worse than slight adverse impacts, it is considered that, on balance the resulting visual effects during the construction phase would not be significant.

Cultural heritage effects 7.8.13 Appendix D.2 details the effects on cultural heritage features. The proposed scheme would not cause any significant adverse effects on the setting of two of the cultural heritage features assessed either during construction or operation. This is largely due to the landscape setting of cultural heritage features identified being restricted to the immediate surroundings which for some includes an awareness of the existing M27. However, there would be a slight adverse effect to the setting of the Grade II* listed Bursledon Brickworks south section. The proposed additions of a primary variable message sign on the eastbound carriageway, and an advanced directional sign and primary variable message sign on the westbound carriageway next to the asset would add to the urbanising effect of the existing road and appropriate replacement planting should be implemented at this location where removed for the construction works. 7.8.14 There is likely to be an effect on the Itchen Valley Conservation Area of Slight Adverse significance. There are proposed additions of a gateway gantry and an emergency refuge area on the eastbound carriageway, and an advanced directional sign, a variable message sign and a proposed forced taper point on the westbound carriageway next to the Conservation Area. Any changes in gantries and signage may alter the view of the skyline from various locations within the Conservation Area. This would also be dependent on any removal or addition of vegetation screening and appropriate replacement planting should be implemented at this location where removed for the construction works. 7.8.15 Whilst awareness of changes i.e. vegetation removed, awareness of infrastructure within the context of the setting, would result for some of the assets, these changes are not likely to be significant. Operational and residual effects on cultural heritage features are not repeated below because it is defined here that they would not be significant.

7.9 Potential operational effects

Landscape character effects – Year 1 7.9.1 This section considers operational landscape character effects in winter year 1 following completion of the proposed scheme, and with permanent infrastructure

172

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

in place along the corridor. During this period existing vegetation would not be in leaf, and mitigation planting would be immature and ineffective in contributing to the landscape fabric and performing as visual screening. This provides an assessment of the ‘reasonable worst case’ scenario. 7.9.2 The operational effects in Year 1 would be comparable to those during the construction period, with the exception that disruption due to construction activity would no longer be present and impacts would occur as a result of permanent infrastructure. Exposure of the M27 corridor and associated infrastructure would be unlikely to give rise to significant effects, refer to section 7.8 for a description of the likely effects.

Visual effects – Year 1 7.9.3 Appendix D.1 provides a schedule of visual effects from key representative viewpoints (illustrated on Figure 7.3) at different timescales including during operation in winter year 1. 7.9.4 From the 25 representative viewpoints assessed, including those associated with the Itchen and Manor Farm Country Parks, the significance of visual effect during operation would be no greater than slight adverse. This is either because of: • The nature of the existing view • No or only glimpsed views of the proposed scheme would be available due to intervening screening elements • Existing views of the M27 and other detracting visual features are available and the proposed scheme would be viewed in this context 7.9.5 Overall there would be no potentially significant (moderate adverse (or greater)) visual effects arising from the proposed scheme within the key representative viewpoints.

Landscape character effects – Year 15 7.9.6 In summer of Year 15, mitigation planting would be maturing and, despite there being less tree and shrub vegetation overall, the general landscape character and function of the highway verges would be reinstated. This would be effective in contributing to the wider landscape fabric and provide visual screening. 7.9.7 The operational effects in Year 15 would be considered to have reduced from those during the construction period and Year 1 effects and there would be no significant effects.

Visual effects – Year 15 7.9.8 Appendix D.1 provides a schedule of visual effects from key representative viewpoints (illustrated on Figure 7.3) at different timescales including during operation in summer year 15. 7.9.9 From 23 of the 25 representative viewpoints assessed, the significance of visual effect during operation would be neutral or slight adverse. This is either because of: • The nature of the existing view

173

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• No or only glimpsed views of the proposed scheme would be available due to intervening screening elements • Existing views of the M27 and other detracting visual features are open and the proposed scheme would be viewed in this context • A combination of noise barrier with replacement planting would provide a more effective screen to the existing views experienced 7.9.10 Two of the assessed viewpoints would be subject to a slight beneficial effect where noise barriers would provide improved year-round visual screening of the corridor in conjunction with retained vegetation. 7.9.11 Overall, there would be no potential for significant (moderate adverse (or greater)) visual effects arising from the proposed scheme within the key representative viewpoints.

7.10 Residual effects 7.10.1 Locally, the addition of gantries and signs would increase the perception of the corridor within the landscape. However, this would not materially affect the perception of the wider landscape character associated with this part of south Hampshire. 7.10.2 The proposed scheme would not have any significant adverse effects on the landscape setting of any of the surrounding cultural heritage features assessed. 7.10.3 Mitigation planting would replace the vegetation removed by the construction of the proposed scheme, to result in no net loss, and impacts on designated trees and woodland would be avoided. The general landscape character and function of the highway verges would be reinstated in the long-term, therefore, the residual effects on vegetation would not be significant. 7.10.4 Views towards the proposed scheme would be restricted by a combination of intervening vegetation within the highway corridor and in the adjacent landscape, and built development along with the location of existing or replaced environmental barrier. In addition, the M27 is set within cutting in some sections, effectively screening broader awareness of the corridor and changes arising as a result of the proposed scheme. 7.10.5 Where views of proposed changes would arise, the resulting visual effects would be limited to slight adverse because the proposed scheme would be set within the context of the existing highway corridor, its associated infrastructure and traffic. Overall, there would be no significant visual effects as a result of the proposed scheme.

7.11 Summary 7.11.1 The assessment of potential effects on landscape character, visual amenity and heritage resources within the context of the M27 corridor between junctions 4 to 11 has concluded that, the risk of significant effects is low. The restoration of the roadside vegetation, removed to facilitate construction, will reduce the potential for new or expanded views of the corridor and of newly constructed infrastructure, further reducing the potential for significant effects to arise.

174

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• LOAEL – lowest observed adverse effect level. This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected • SOAEL – significant observed adverse effect level. This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur 8.1.6 Government policy and guidance does not state values for the NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL, rather, it considers that they are different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times and should be defined on a strategic or project basis taking into account the specific features of that area, source or project. The derived values for the effect levels that have been adopted for the assessment of the proposed scheme are set out in section 8.3. 8.1.7 Further detail of regulatory and policy framework can be found in Appendix E.1. 8.1.8 A list of all figures associated with the noise and vibration section can be found in Appendix E.2. 8.1.9 This section details the potential noise and vibration effects of the proposed scheme, in terms of: • Noise effects during construction • Vibration effects during construction • Noise effects during operation • Airborne vibration effects during operation 8.1.10 The following noise and vibration effects are scoped out of the assessment, as presented in the Scoping Report: • Noise and vibration effects as a result of construction related traffic as the additional vehicles associated with construction works would likely be small in comparison with the current volumes of traffic on the motorway network • Ground-borne vibration effects during operation as these effects are anticipated not to be significant, particularly due to the beneficial effects associated with the resurfaced carriageway 8.1.11 The assessment of the proposed scheme presented herein has been undertaken on an interim stage between Design Fix 2 (DF2) and Design Fix (DF3), in accordance with the design assumptions set out in Chapter 2, taken as fixed at the end of August 2017. This design is shown in the plans included in appendix A.1. Design work has continued since this point, working towards DF3 (November 2017) and a register of design changes has been kept, as shown in appendix A.2. A review of the DF3 plans has been undertaken and it is considered in the professional opinion of the authors that the findings and conclusions presented herein remain valid, and that the proposed scheme will not result in any significant adverse effects.

8.2 Study Area Construction noise and vibration 8.2.1 The approach to defining the study areas for the construction noise and vibration assessments is presented in the Scoping Report. Figure 8-1 shows the extent of the study area for construction noise and vibration.

176

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operational noise 8.2.2 The operational road traffic noise study area and calculation area have been defined in accordance with the DMRB HD 213/11. The study area and calculation area have been defined by the following process: i. Identify the start and end points of the physical works associated with the road project ii. Define a boundary 1km from the carriageway edge of the routes identified in (i) above iii. Define a boundary 600m from the carriageway edge around the route identified in (i) above and also 600m from any other affected routes within the boundary defined in (ii) above. The total area within these 600m boundaries is termed the calculation area. An affected route is where there is the possibility of a change of 1 dB LA10,18h or more in the short- 52 term or 3 dB LA10,18h or more in the long-term iv. Identify any affected routes beyond the boundary defined in (iii) above v. Define a boundary 50m from the carriageway edge of the routes identified in (iv) above 8.2.3 For the proposed scheme, the calculation area generally covers an area 600m from the M27 main carriageway and from 1 affected road link; St John’s Road (between Pretoria Road and Bursledon Road) in Hedge End, which lies between junctions 7 and 8 of the M27. The start and end points of the proposed scheme are defined by the first and last signs associated with the smart motorway scheme. 8.2.4 The study area has also been defined by the extent of the Traffic Reliability Area (TRA) such that any sensitive receptors53 that lie outside of the TRA have been excluded from the assessment as the noise levels and associated changes at these receptors would be considered unreliable. 8.2.5 Figure 8-2 shows the extent of the calculation area for operational noise. Operational airborne vibration 8.2.6 The approach to defining the study area for the operational airborne vibration assessment is presented in section 5.4 of the Scoping Report.

8.3 Methodology

General 8.3.1 Each topic within the scope of this section has its own methodology as shown in Table 8-1.

52 Where a change above 1 dB LA10,18h in the short-term and 3 dB LA10,18h in the long-term is due to physical changes to the infrastructure surrounding the road (e.g. re-surfacing) or changes to the way in which the existing road is used, then this should not be included as an ‘affected road link’ nor inform the calculation area. 53 There is only one residential dwelling that lies within the calculation area but outside the TRA and this dwelling has been excluded from the noise and vibration assessment as the results at this receptor would be considered unreliable.

177

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

scenarios are required to be assessed for the proposed opening and design year (in this case the 15th year after opening). 8.3.15 The proprietary software CadnaA has been used to predict noise levels at residential properties and other potentially sensitive receptor locations within the Calculation Area. The following scenarios have been modelled: • Opening year (202154), DM scenario (i.e. year of opening without the proposed scheme) • Opening year (2021), DS scenario (i.e. year of opening with the proposed scheme) • Opening year (2021), DS cumulative scenario (i.e. year of opening with the proposed scheme and M3 smart motorway) • Design year (2036), DM scenario (i.e. future design year without the proposed scheme) • Design year (2036), DS scenario (i.e. future design year with the proposed scheme) • Design year (2036), DS cumulative scenario (i.e. future design year with the proposed scheme and M3 smart motorway) 8.3.16 The assessment of noise impacts has involved a comparison of the predicted noise levels resulting from the proposed scheme for the following scenarios, in line with the guidance presented in the DMRB HD 213/11: • DS short-term (difference in noise levels between DS 2021 and DM 2021) • DS cumulative short-term (difference in noise levels between cumulative DS 2021 and DM 2021) • DM long-term (difference in noise levels between DM 2036 and DM 2021) • DS long-term (difference in noise levels between DS 2036 and DM 2021) • DS cumulative long-term DS (difference in noise levels between cumulative DS 2036 and DM 2021) 8.3.17 Calculation points representative of all sensitive receptors were defined 1m from external facades of dwellings and other non-dwelling sensitive receptors within the Calculation Area. Non-dwelling sensitive receptors include schools, health facilities, community facilities and care homes amongst others (refer to Appendix E.4 for further details on the noise model assumptions). In accordance with the DMRB HD 213/11, noise level predictions were undertaken at 4m above ground for all sensitive receptors, with the exception of playgrounds where predictions were undertaken at a height of 1.5m above ground level.

54 The opening year of the proposed scheme is 2020. However, traffic data have been provided for an opening year of 2021 and a design year 2036, and therefore these scenarios have been used throughout this assessment. Any change in traffic data between 2020 and 2021 (or indeed, 2035 and 2036) is considered to be negligible, given the difference of only one year such that any natural increase in traffic due to committed developments would be minimal, and therefore would not affect the conclusions of this assessment.

180

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.3.18 In order to predict the surface correction that should be applied to each of the above assessment scenarios on the motorway links, the following equation has been used to calculate the road surface influence (RSI)55:

∑ 10 10 / ∑ 10 where nl is the number of lanes, RSIi is the RSI in the ith lane (the nearside running lane of the carriageway being i = 1) and Ni = -2i. 8.3.19 The calculation of the RSI assumes a traffic speed of greater than 75 km/h. For situations below this, a -1 dB surface correction has been applied based on the advice in the CRTN and the DMRB HD 213/11. For the concrete section between junctions 5 and 7, a +3.5 dB correction has been applied. For all non- motorway roads, where hot rolled asphalt is present (as shown on the plans provided in Appendix A.3), a -0.5 dB correction has been applied for roads where the traffic speed is greater than 75 km/h and a -1dB correction has been applied otherwise. Operational road traffic noise – compliance with policy 8.3.20 Table 8-4 shows the values adopted for the day-time and night-time SOAEL and LOAEL in order to demonstrate compliance with the NPSE. 56 8.3.21 The SOAEL and LOAEL are presented in terms of both the LA10,18h façade 57 noise level and LAeq,16h free-field noise level. Conversion from LA10,18h to LAeq,16h uses the relationship as set out in Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) unit A3 (LAeq,16h = LA10,18h – 2 dB) with a further subtraction of 2.5 dB from façade to free- field. Values of 67.5 dB LA10,18h would be rounded up to 68 dB LA10,18h for the purposes of the Noise Insulation Regulations (NIR) and hence an additional 0.5 dB has been allowed for in the conversion for both the LOAEL and the SOAEL. Table 8-4: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for road traffic noise during day and night-time

55 This equation is referenced in the Road surface correction for use with CRTN paper by M Muirhead and presented at the Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, Vol. 40 Pt. 1. 2018. This is the most recent methodology to predict the surface correction that should be applied in the 3D noise model and has been accepted as robust and accurate by the acoustics community. It is therefore considered a suitable and justifiable methodology. 56 A façade noise level is measured or predicted at a distance of 1m in front of a sound reflecting object (such as a building façade). 57 A free-field noise level is measured or predicted at least 3.5m away from a vertical sound reflecting object.

181

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operational road traffic noise - night-time assessment 8.3.29 In accordance with the DMRB HD 213/11 detailed assessment methodology, this chapter also presents a night-time noise assessment through comparison of the DS scenario in the design year (2036) against the DM scenario in the year of opening (2021). Method 3 of the TRL report “Converting the UK traffic noise 61 index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping ” provides a formula for estimating night-time noise levels based on the 18-hour day-time predicted noise levels and the type of road. Different corrections are provided for motorway and non-motorway type roads. For this assessment, the M27 and the M3 are considered to be motorways and all other roads in the Calculation Area are considered to be non-motorway. 8.3.30 The assessment has been undertaken for receptors where traffic noise levels are predicted to exceed 55 dB Lnight, outside in any scenario (DM or DS) as required by the DMRB HD 213/11. Operational road traffic noise - noise nuisance assessment 8.3.31 The DMRB HD 213/11 notes that the nuisance caused by noise mainly affects people in their homes. Nuisance is measured in terms of the percentage of the population as a whole that is bothered “very much” or “quite a lot” by virtue of a specific traffic related noise level. The correlation between specific levels and the percentage population bothered for the purposes of the assessment has been developed from studies that focused on reported nuisance where traffic related noise has changed over a relatively long period of time. 8.3.32 In line with the DMRB HD 213/11, noise nuisance takes into account both the long-term and short-term impacts. The results are presented for the DM and DS comparisons. The noise nuisance level changes have been directly calculated from the predicted noise level changes. Mitigation, rectification and enhancement 8.3.33 In this section, mitigation refers to measures aimed at avoiding or minimising the adverse effects arising from the proposed scheme. They include the provision of insulation under the NIR 1975, as amended 1988. 8.3.34 Rectification applies to locations where an existing noise barrier may have degraded and there is a need to reinstate the barrier to its original design performance or to the new required performance after the implementation of the proposed scheme. The proposed scheme seeks to provide 5-years’ free of major maintenance, including noise barriers. 8.3.35 Enhancement is the provision of beneficial effects as a result of the proposed scheme. Within the smart motorway programme, enhancement is focused primarily on nIAs and areas currently experiencing high noise levels.

61 Abbott P. G. and Nelson P. M., TRL Limited (2002), Project Report PR/SE/451/02 Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping

184

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.3.39 The analysis has used the façade with the greatest noise level change due to the inclusion of the acoustic barrier as representative of a particular sensitive receptor and based on the cumulative traffic data (i.e. traffic data when the M27 and M3 smart motorway schemes are both in operation). 8.3.40 Further detail on the value for money methodology, including limitations, can be found in Appendix E-5.

8.4 Baseline conditions 8.4.1 Baseline road traffic noise levels have been predicted for all receptors within the Calculation Area. The areas which are predicted to be exposed to noise levels above the SOAEL of 68 dB LA10,18hr (façade) day-time or 55 dB Lnight,outside in the DM 2021 scenario are shown within the dashed red lines on Figures 8-2 to 8-7. 8.4.2 Of 14,922 residential properties within the Calculation Area, 2,117 are estimated to experience noise levels in excess of the day-time SOAEL of 68 dB LA10,18hr (façade). 4,998 properties are estimated to experience noise levels in excess of the night-time SOAEL of 55 dB Lnight (free-field). 8.4.3 Information relating to the condition of existing barriers is provided in appendix E.3.

8.5 Sensitivity of resource Noise sensitive receptors 8.5.1 The study area comprises 2 main built-up areas at Southampton and Fareham. The other main settlements include Bassett, Bassett Green and North Stoneham between junction 4 to 5, Swaythling, Townhill Park, Hatch Bottom, West End and Moorgreen between junctions 5 and 7, Hedge End and Thornhill between junctions 7 and 8, Lowford, Bursledon, Swanwick, Lower Swanwick, Sarisbury and Park Gate between junctions 8 and 9 and Whitely, Titchfield Park, Hill Park, Wallington, Fareham and Funtley between junctions 9 and 11. Isolated semi- rural properties and open green areas occur all along the proposed scheme. 8.5.2 There are 14,922 dwellings and 122 other sensitive receptors within the Calculation Area, including community facilities, places of worship, medical facilities, educational establishments, leisure facilities and public open spaces. Noise important areas 8.5.3 Table 8-9 below shows the number of dwellings contained within each nIA within the study area, running from north to south. These nIAs, which relate only to road traffic noise, are shown on Figures 8-2 to 8-7. 8.5.4 Table 8-9 highlights where the nIA is situated along the proposed scheme. The table also shows whether the dwellings within the nIA are within the Calculation Area.

186

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• Establish noise and vibration thresholds with the local planning authority in line with any detailed noise modelling and/or assessments. The thresholds would dictate when the Delivery Partner would either take additional mitigation measures or stop works for when undertaking noise or vibration- generating operations near to sensitive locations • Programme works such that the requirement for working outside of normal working hours is minimised • Ensure that all staff and operatives are briefed on the requirement to minimise nuisance from site activities • Use temporary noise screens or partial enclosures around particularly noisy activities used in proximity to dwellings • Use silenced compressors, generators and fans at site locations • Maintain plant regularly 8.7.3 The existing environmental barriers will be retained unless it is identified that they are damaged or need to be removed to carry out the works, in which case they will be replaced. Currently, 2 barriers have been identified that will need to be removed as part of the verge clearance and existing gantry demolition. The first barrier is located between junctions 5 to 7 near Swaythling, and the second between junctions 9 and 10 near Hill Park. 8.7.4 The temporary removal of these noise barriers near Swaythling and Hill Park would likely result in a temporary increase in noise levels at those receptors behind the noise barriers until the barrier is replaced. Although this increase would likely be offset somewhat by the traffic management set up (traffic moving at 50mph rather than 70mph should result in a lower noise level, all else remaining equal), the Delivery Partner must ensure that the following measures, as specified in the OEMP, are implemented to avoid significant adverse effects due to temporary noise barrier removal: • Only remove the minimum length of noise barrier required for the construction activity and replace immediately once the construction activity is finished • Where land constraints allow, the Delivery Partner must use temporary noise barriers in the area where an existing noise barrier is removed for the duration of the construction activity. The temporary noise barrier should run parallel to the existing noise barrier, be at least 10kg/m2, and overlap in a staggered fashion such that there is no direct line of sight created between the noise sensitive receptor and the noise sources (both motorway and construction plant) • Ensure that any residents likely to be affected by the temporary removal of noise barriers are notified of the construction activity and temporary noise barrier removal prior to the works being undertaken Operation Design and mitigation or enhancement measures to minimise adverse effects 8.7.5 The proposed scheme will incorporate 4 lanes of new LNRS in the opening year for all areas of hot rolled asphalt (as shown on the plans provided in Appendix A.3) and for the concrete section between junctions 5 and 7. A new LNRS will

193

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

also be laid on lanes 1 and 4 for the rest of the proposed scheme. Furthermore, it is assumed that the motorway would have been resurfaced with a LNRS by the design year whether or not the proposed scheme is constructed. Any LNRS laid as part of the proposed scheme would be maintained appropriately62 to ensure that the surface corrections applied in this assessment remain valid. 8.7.6 Table 8-13 sets out the measures incorporated into the design to provide mitigation or enhancements to the noise environment at noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed scheme. Whether the measure is for mitigation to offset a significant adverse effect or for enhancement of the noise environment has been identified in Table 8-13. 8.7.7 The decision on whether to provide a noise barrier has taken account of the value for money that would be provided by the barrier using the value for money analysis procedure described in section 8.3.36 and Appendix E-5. Further justification for each noise barrier proposed is provided in Appendix E-5.

62 The DMRB HD 231/11 states that “the effectiveness of low-noise surfaces is dependent upon wear to the surface and clogging of the surface, with the noise reducing properties of the surface becoming less due to clogging. A possible measure to manage the low-noise surface is to clean the surface to avoid clogging”. It is therefore recommended that road surface inspections are undertaken to facilitate any maintenance requirements.

194

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.8 Potential construction effects 8.8.1 The following activities have been considered as part of the construction phase assessment to ensure that appropriate design and management activities are in place and specified in the OEMP to avoid unnecessary adverse impacts: • Central reserve phase, including the replacement of existing structures and the construction of the central reserve barrier (CRB) • Bridge replacement at North Fareham Farm • Verge phase, including vegetation clearance, stripping out of noise barriers, gantry foundation and ERA construction • Retaining wall construction • Resurfacing works, including removal of existing surface and laying of new surface • Drainage works • Road marking works • Signage works • Construction of works compound 8.8.2 The context of construction noise as well as the duration of the impact needs to be taken into account in determining the significance of effect with regard to the EIA Regulations. Construction noise is different in character and more variable in level from road traffic noise. However, the key aspects in terms of determining significance are the predicted noise level and whether this is above the LOAEL or SOAEL, which is based on the operating construction plant and the distance to the sensitive receptor, as well as the times and duration of the construction works. These aspects are explored further below. 8.8.3 Indicative noise levels at various distance bands ranging from 10 to 300m have been predicted for each of the key construction activities defined above in accordance with the guidance in BS 5228-1. The predicted noise levels are shown in Table 8-14. A list of the equipment assumed to be used for the purposes of this assessment is provided in Appendix E.4. 8.8.4 The calculations do not take into account existing noise barriers or other screening whether natural (an embankment) or man-made (a building). Where properties are completely screened from the works it would be expected that noise levels could be up to 10 dB lower. Noise levels have been predicted over acoustically absorbent ground, given the predominantly rural nature of the proposed scheme. 8.8.5 It is understood that all elements construction works have the potential to be undertaken at night for safety reasons (for example to avoid site operatives working too close to the live motorway). Therefore, the construction noise assessment has been based on night-time working. The noise levels expected to be in excess of the SOAEL threshold construction noise level (55 dB LAeq,8h), and therefore non-compliant with the NPSE, are highlighted in Table 8-14. However, it should be noted that some receptors near to the M27 are already subject to ambient noise levels in excess of the SOAEL (the areas which are predicted to

198

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

central reserve phase, verge phase (excluding ERA construction), resurfacing, drainage, road marking and signage works have not been considered further in this assessment. The adverse impacts of high, albeit temporary, noise levels would be managed and reduced to the lowest levels and durations possible as set out in the OEMP. Construction noise effects – removal of existing barriers 8.8.9 During the construction phase it may be necessary for the Delivery Partner to remove sections of existing noise barriers temporarily in order to create working room for construction activities. It is likely that at least 2 noise barriers near Hill Park and Swaythling will need to be removed as part of the verge clearance and existing gantry demolition. 8.8.10 Whilst the Delivery Partner is working within the verge (where existing noise barriers are located) it would be expected that the existing hardshoulder would be closed to traffic and the motorway would be under traffic management conditions. As such, it is likely that the motorway would be subject to a reduced speed limit (normally 50mph) and road traffic would potentially be located slightly further from noise sensitive receptors adjacent to the motorway. The traffic management set up should therefore result in a reduction in road traffic noise levels for the nearest noise sensitive receptors. However, the temporary removal of noise barriers would likely result in an increase in noise levels at those receptors behind the noise barriers. Although this increase would likely be off-set somewhat by the traffic management set up, specific control measures are outlined in the OEMP for the Delivery Partner to minimise any significant adverse effects due to temporary noise barrier removal. Construction noise effects - bridge demolition 8.8.11 The footbridge at North Fareham Farm is to be demolished and replaced as part of the proposed scheme. The demolition of the bridge at North Fareham Farm is expected to be carried out during a single night-time closure of the motorway, when the central span will be lifted out by a crane and taken off-site to be broken up. Deck cantilevers, back spans and piers will be broken up in-situ with hydraulic breakers and removed from site. There are 97 residential receptors within 255m of the activity where noise levels are predicted to exceed the night- time construction noise SOAEL of 55 dB LAeq, 8h. However, no significant effects are anticipated due to the limited duration of this activity and therefore no specific mitigation measures are required. Construction noise effects - retaining walls 8.8.12 ERA construction, including construction of retaining walls, can take between 12- 15 weeks, with 2-3 weeks of piling activity. Given the duration of construction for ERAs, significant effects at nearby receptors could arise. 8.8.13 There are 13 proposed new ERAs and 81 gantries for the proposed scheme; at the time of writing all 13 ERAs and 53 of the gantries have the potential to require piled retaining walls. 8.8.14 Each of the potential retaining wall locations is listed in Table 8-15 together with the number of properties within relevant distance bands.

200

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

use of best practice measures during the operation of diversion routes, no significant effects in the context of the EIA Regulations are predicted. 8.8.33 To minimise the adverse impact on sensitive receptors as a result of the use of diversion routes during motorway closures due to construction works, the Delivery Partner must ensure that the frequency of occurrence does not exceed the duration criteria noted in paragraph 8.3.6. Regardless of whether the duration criteria are exceeded, consideration should be given to the following measures: • Implementation of both the eastern and western diversion routes simultaneously or in a rotational fashion, which will serve to split traffic volumes into different geographical areas, lessening the number of occurrences in any given geographical area • Use of any alternative diversion routes, with the agreement of the local authority, so the number of occurrences is spread more widely across different geographic areas • Undertaking multiple gantry removals and installations on the same night to minimise the number of closures • Use of rolling road blocks or similar instead of motorway closures, to avoid diverting traffic off the motorway at all

8.9 Potential operational effects Operational road traffic noise – DMRB HD 213/11 assessment 8.9.1 Detailed predictions have been carried out for a total of 14,922 residential receptors within the Calculation Area; together with 122 non-residential noise sensitive receptors, including schools, health, community and leisure facilities. 8.9.2 All noise levels and noise changes are presented for both the short-term and the long-term. For the long-term noise impacts, a comparison has been made between the noise levels with the proposed scheme in the design year (DS 2036) and the noise levels without the proposed scheme in the opening year (DM 2021). This comparison includes the change in noise level as a result of the proposed scheme as well as general traffic growth. 8.9.3 A parallel comparison is also made for the DM scenario assuming that the proposed scheme did not go ahead (i.e. noise change between DM 2021 and DM 2036 including general traffic growth). This comparison is presented in Table 8-19. For night-time noise changes, the DMRB HD 213/11 only requires an assessment of properties that are predicted to experience noise levels above 55 dB LAeq,8h, while for day-time all properties are considered irrespective of their noise level. 8.9.4 As required by the DMRB HD 213/11, figures showing the change in noise for the following scenarios are presented in Figures 8.2 to 8.7: • DM 2021 vs DS 2021 to show the short-term change in noise levels as a result of the proposed scheme (Figures 8.2 and 8.3) • DM 2021 vs DS 2036 to show the long-term change in noise levels as a result of the proposed scheme (Figures 8.4 and 8.5) • DM 2021 vs DM 2036 to show the long-term change in noise levels should the proposed scheme not go ahead (Figures 8.6 and 8.7)

206

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

the noise making authority for a nIA (as identified in Table 8-9), it is not responsible for reducing noise levels in those nIAs. 8.9.33 An analysis of the long-term noise changes in nIAs has only been undertaken where that nIA falls within the Calculation Area (as identified in Table 8-9). This analysis has been based on the highest noise level predicted on any façade being considered representative for each specific sensitive receptor. 8.9.34 A nIA is deemed to be addressed when a new noise barrier is erected to protect residents within the nIA and/or where a new LNRS is laid on all 4 lanes within the nIA and 200m either side. Based on this approach, all nIAs that have been addressed have been highlighted in green in Table 8-27.

213

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

have not been addressed as 4 lanes of LNRS will not be laid (the carriageways are only 2 lanes wide) and no barriers are proposed in these areas as the outside of the redline boundary. However, properties in these nIAs do experience a negligible decrease in noise levels. Cumulative operational road traffic noise – DMRB HD 213/11 assessment 8.9.36 All noise levels and noise changes are presented in both the short-term and the long-term. For the long-term noise impacts, a comparison has been made between the noise levels with the proposed scheme and the M3 smart motorway in the design year (DS 2036) and the noise levels without either proposed scheme in the opening year (DM 2021). This comparison includes the change in noise level as a result of the proposed scheme and the M3 smart motorway, as well as general traffic growth. 8.9.37 A parallel comparison is also made for the DM scenario assuming that neither proposed scheme went ahead (i.e. noise change between DM 2021 and DM 2036 including general traffic growth). This comparison is presented in Table 8- 19 with and section 8.9. 8.9.38 As required by the DMRB HD 213/11, figures showing the change in noise for the following scenarios are presented in Figures 8.8 to 8.11: • DM 2021 vs DS cumulative 2021 to show the short-term change in noise levels as a result of the proposed scheme and the M3 smart motorway (Figures 8.8 and 8.9) • DM 2021 vs DS cumulative 2036 to show the long-term change in noise levels as a result of the proposed scheme and the M3 smart motorway (Figures 8.10 and 8.11) • DM 2021 vs DM 2036 to show the long-term change in noise levels should the proposed scheme nor the M3 smart motorway not go ahead (Figures 8.6 and 8.7) Proposed scheme and M3 SMP noise changes 8.9.39 Table 8-28 shows the predicted cumulative short-term change in noise level for all modelled receptors within the Calculation Area with the proposed scheme and M3 smart motorway in operation. This assumes the proposed noise mitigation and enhancement measures will be in place. The changes are sorted into the noise change bands following the DMRB HD 213/11 magnitude impact categories as provided in Table 8-5 and Table 8-6. Negligible noise changes are referred to in the tables and discussion, and it should be noted that these changes would most likely be imperceptible to residents.

215

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

that the proposed gantry located at approximate chainage CH21620 is located in close proximity to Woodhouse Gully that is culverted beneath the M27 at this location (culvert reference SU4814_1810). However, due to sight lines to the gantry required for safety purposes, it is not possible to relocate the gantry. Measures will therefore be taken during detailed design and construction to ensure no damage to the integrity of the culvert. The works are therefore not expected to require amendments to this existing culvert or pose a risk to the quality of this watercourse and, as such, a WFD Assessment will not be required. 9.1.5 The proposed gantry is also indicated to be located in an area at high risk of surface water flooding. Review of the Environment Agency’s indicative flood mapping indicates that this will not pose increased flood risk to the proposed scheme or elsewhere. As such, it is considered in the professional opinion of the authors that the findings and conclusions presented herein remain valid, and that the proposed scheme will not result in any significant effects.

9.2 Study area 9.2.1 The study area for the road drainage and water environment assessment comprises the following: • Areas identified to be at risk of fluvial and surface water flooding within or adjacent to the proposed scheme, and land elsewhere that could be affected by works in these areas. The study area is defined by the extent of measurable potential effect and is therefore not a specified distance • Ecologically sensitive surface water receptors located up to 1km downstream of the proposed works • Principal aquifers, designated Source Protection Zones and groundwater abstractions located within 0.5km of the proposed scheme 9.2.2 The study area has been selected based on the findings of the Scoping Report and through informed judgement of an appropriate professional.

9.3 Methodology 9.3.1 The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD 45/09). The methodology and scope of the assessment has been informed by the Scoping Report. Potential impacts that are considered within this chapter include: • Flood risk impacts associated with permanent works comprising ERAs, gantry locations and other construction outside of the existing road alignment of the M27 • Increase in surface water run-off that could lead to increased flood risk to the motorway and elsewhere • Risks to water quality associated with a potential increase in traffic flow • Risks to designated sites associated with construction works, namely those that are hydraulically linked to watercourses crossed by the M27

225

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

9.3.2 The Scoping Report identifies opportunities to provide enhancement through the delivery of the proposed scheme. The following opportunities will also therefore be considered (refer to section 9.4.14 for details of outfalls assessed): • Assessment of Priority A and Priority B outfalls and consideration of opportunities to provide enhancement if required • Assessment of Not Determined outfalls to understand risk to the water environment and consideration of opportunities to provide enhancement if required • Risks to groundwater quality and the Source Protection Zone associated with selected outfalls and consideration of opportunities to provide enhancement if required • Review of recorded flood events to the motorway and associated with highway assets to identify opportunities for remedial works • Assessment of Priority A culverts and Not Determined culverts, and consider opportunities for remedial works 9.3.3 The assessment also identifies the need to undertake a Water Framework Directive (WFD) compliance assessment to support any consent or approvals from the Environment Agency or Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). 9.3.4 Potential impacts and opportunities associated with traffic flow, and changes to surface water and groundwater quality, are assessed using the methods promoted within HD 45/09, namely Method A (Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool (HAWRAT)) and Method C (Groundwater Assessment) where this is considered appropriate. All other impacts and opportunities are assessed using a qualitative approach. 9.3.5 The DMRB promotes the following approach when considering beneficial and adverse impacts to flood risk and the water environment: i. Estimation of the importance of the receptor ii. Estimation of the magnitude of the impact iii. Assessment of the significance of the impact based on the importance of the receptor and the magnitude of the impact 9.3.6 The importance of potential receptors has been developed following the general guidance of HD 45/09 as set out in Table 9-1.

226

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Discussion with the Area 3 team confirmed recent works to junction 5 in 2016 are likely to have improved treatment at these outfalls. The nature of the amendments to the drainage system is currently unknown but will be clarified in consultation with the Area 3 team. For the purpose of the assessment of the proposed scheme, it is assumed that the works will have provided additional treatment to address the Priority A status • Two Priority B outfalls (references SU4910_5715 and SU4910_7907) that discharge to the River Hamble at Marker 28/9 • One Priority B outfall to the west of junction 9 (reference SU5208_2965) at Marker 32/0. The receiving watercourse is a relatively small watercourse (known as Whiteley Stream) that flows through Whiteley and Botley Wood (including the Botley Wood and Everett's and Mushes Copses SSSI) approximately 1.3km downstream of the proposed scheme, to eventually discharge to the tidal River Hamble some 4.5km downstream of the proposed scheme 9.4.15 Six undetermined outfalls have been selected for assessment. These outfalls have no testing results and outfall to watercourses targeted for water quality improvement or connected to a SSSI. The reference numbers for these outfalls are listed below, along with the feature that has warranted their inclusion within this assessment: • SU4515_9138 (River Itchen SSSI) • SU4814_1811 (Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI) • SU4813_2055 (Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI) • SU5407_6193 (River Meon) • SU5407_6791 (River Meon) • SU5807_8225 (Portsmouth Harbour) 9.4.16 The location of these outfalls is illustrated on the fluvial and surface water flood maps provided in appendix F.1. Groundwater resources 9.4.17 Superficial deposits along much of the proposed scheme are sparse and comprise river terrace deposits, head deposits and alluvium. 9.4.18 The majority of the proposed scheme is underlain by London Clay Formation that is classified as unproductive strata with low permeability that has negligible significance for water supply or river base flow. The alignment between junction 5 to 7 is partly underlain by Wittering Formation and Earnley Sand Formation (comprising sand, silt and clay). The alignment immediately west of junction 10 is underlain by Lambeth Group (comprising clay, silt and sand). These areas are classified as Secondary A aquifer, described as permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. 9.4.19 Bedrock geology beneath and to the east of junction 10 comprises Portsdown Chalk Formation that is classified as a Principal Aquifer, and is designated as a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) between junctions 10 and 11.

232

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

9.4.20 Groundwater is abstracted at this location by Portsmouth Water for potable water supply. 9.4.21 Review of the Environment Agency’s water abstraction licenses map also indicates a groundwater abstraction approximately 150m to the west of the proposed scheme, to the north of junction 7. Review of the Environment Agency’s Water Abstraction Licenses map indicates that the purpose of this abstraction is for spray irrigation at the adjacent golf course. 9.4.22 Review of HADDMS indicates a detention pond (reference SU5807_0958) located within Zone 2 of the SPZ at Marker 38/0 (Chainage 35450). It is understood through discussion with the Area 3 team that the detention pond is formed of a disused quarry and that water within the pond discharges to ground, therefore acting as a soakaway. Consultation with the drainage design team indicates that run-off from an area of c.1ha of the proposed scheme discharges to the pond (soakaway). This feature will be considered in this assessment given its location within a sensitive groundwater environment. The location of this features is illustrated on the fluvial and surface water flood maps provided in appendix F.1. Flood risk 9.4.23 Review of the Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning indicates that the most significant sources of fluvial flood risk are associated with the main rivers of the Monks Brook, River Itchen, tributaries of the River Itchen, tributaries of Woodhouse Gully, River Meon and River Wallington that are crossed by the proposed scheme. 9.4.24 Review of the Environment Agency’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map indicates that much of the proposed scheme is at risk of surface water flooding, either attributable to: fluvial flow in smaller un-modelled watercourses; overland flow that is indicated to pond against the proposed scheme that forms a barrier to this flow; or surface water that is indicated to flow or pond within natural depressions in topography including within the carriageway of the proposed scheme. The methods by which surface water flood maps are generated do not accurately consider flood management measures such as the carriageway drainage system or culverts that convey flow beneath the carriageway. The mapping should therefore only be used for information and to inform the need for more detailed study, where required. 9.4.25 The mapped extent of fluvial and surface water flooding (as informed by Environment Agency mapping) is provided in appendix F.1. 9.4.26 Two culverts (reference SU4715_3514b and SU4715_3514d) are recorded to be at Very High risk within HADDMS. These culverts convey a tributary of the Lower Itchen beneath the M27 at Marker 22/8. The Very High-risk status indicates that the culverts may have contributed to a historic flooding incident to the carriageway or to adjacent property. Closer review of HADDMS indicates that these are a single culvert that was extended to accommodate a noise bund installed to protect an adjacent residential development. 9.4.27 A further 5 culverts that are of undetermined status but that are associated with watercourses within a mapped Flood Zone 2 or 3 have been identified. These culverts have therefore been considered in this assessment. The reference numbers for these culverts are listed below:

233

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

• SU4515_2875 • SU4615_5929 • SU4615_5926 • SU4715_3514 • SU4715_4118 9.4.28 A further 22 culverts that are of undetermined status but that are associated with watercourses with a mapped surface water flood extent have been identified. These culverts have also therefore been considered in this assessment. The reference numbers for these culverts are listed below:

• SU4017_8990 • SU4910_4325 • SU4117_7335 • SU5009_9517 • SU4216_9170 • SU5108_3095 • SU4515_9138 • SU5208_3065 • SU4715_3514 • SU5208_5057 • SU4814_1810 • SU5208_5057 • SU4813_1715 • SU5208_5057 • SU4810_7656 • SU5707_4281 • SU4810_7961 9.4.29 The location of these culverts is illustrated on the fluvial and surface water flood maps provided in Appendix F.1. 9.4.30 14 recoded flood events stated to have been given a severity class of 9-10, and 10 recoded flood events stated to have been given a severity class of 7-8 (with 10 being the highest score allocated and 0 being the lowest score allocated) have been identified. No events classified as ‘high impact floods’ that are the most severe of events have been recorded. 9.4.31 A review of the information on HADDMS, and from the discussions with the Area 3 team, suggests no recorded flooding events are on-going. HADDMS indicates all flooding hotspots as being historic or having had the risk addressed.

9.5 Sensitivity of resources 9.5.1 The importance of the resources discussed in Section 9.4 that have the potential to be affected by the proposed scheme have been assessed against the criteria presented in Table 9-1 ‘Criteria for estimating the importance of water environment attributes’. This is summarised in Table 9-6.

234

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

proposed scheme would be carried out offline and connected to the outfalls when work is complete. 9.7.2 Additional protection will be provided through the implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) as required by the 1991 Water Resources Act. The CEMP details the procedures and methods that must be followed to manage the risk of pollutants entering the drainage system or discharging directly to surface water features. The CEMP also describes the procedures in the event of an environmental emergency such as a fuel or chemical spillage as required by the 1991 Water Resources Act. Specific measures included within the CEMP comprise: • Consideration to be given during detailed design of appropriate construction methods of ERA WB2 to safeguard the integrity of the existing culvert alignment of Tower Hill Stream. • Consideration to be given during detailed design of appropriate construction methods of ERA EB3 to safeguard the integrity of the existing culvert alignment of Moorgreen Stream. • Management of surface water runoff and control of site boundary at ERA EB3 required to avoid migration of polluted runoff towards Moorgreen Stream • Care to be taken during construction of proposed gantries at chainages 22200 and 29560 to not damage existing culvert alignments of Woodhouse Gully and tributary of Whiteley Stream Operation 9.7.3 Impacts that may occur during the operational phase will be managed through measures that are intrinsic to the design of the proposed scheme. This will include a robust surface water drainage system that will collect, attenuate and convey surface water run-off from all new areas of hard standing. 9.7.4 The proposed scheme will include the construction of a Rigid Concrete Barrier in the central reserve which will require the replacement of existing filter drains with new surface water channels or, at pinch points, with a new linear drainage system. These will connect to the existing motorway drainage system as per the current situation. 9.7.5 The proposed scheme will also require new drainage to serve the proposed ERAs. This will comprise kerb drains that will discharge to the existing motorway drainage system. A containment system will be incorporated into the drainage system to capture oils in the event of a spillage within the ERA. 9.7.6 Where necessary, oversized pipes will be installed to attenuate flow from additional areas of hardstanding and limit run-off to existing discharge rates. No amendments to existing outfalls are proposed.

9.8 Potential construction effects Risks to surface water features and designated sites 9.8.1 Risks to the water environment during construction are typically associated with: increased sediment loads caused by site run-off containing elevated suspended sediment levels; release of hydrocarbons and oils from construction plant and

236

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

accidental spillages; and accidental leaks of hazardous materials, particularly concrete and cement products, which can be contained in uncontrolled washdown water and surface water run-off. The risk and impact magnitude is likely to be most significant when working in areas adjacent to surface water features and in periods of heavy rainfall. 9.8.2 The proposed works comprise the construction of a Rigid Concrete Barrier in the central reserve which will require the replacement of existing filter drains with a new drainage system. Other amendments to the existing drainage system will also be made at proposed ERA locations and in the outside land of the motorway to support the conversion of the hardshoulder to a running lane. As these works comprise linear features they will be located within close proximity of the watercourses crossed by the proposed scheme, and will be affecting drainage systems that outfall to watercourses crossed or located in close proximity to the proposed scheme. 9.8.3 Throughout the proposed scheme, construction work will be contained within the highways boundary, with no physical work outside of the highways boundary or within the hydraulically linked designated sites. All surface water run-off during the construction work will be contained and managed within the existing highways drainage system and will therefore benefit from existing pollution control measures in place for silts and hydrocarbons. Any works required to the drainage system as part of the proposed scheme would be carried out offline and connected to the outfalls when work is complete. 9.8.4 The implementation of an EMP will also assist in reducing the likely risks associated with increased sediment load and other pollutants contained in surface water run-off as required by the 1991 Water Resources Act. Residual impacts are likely to be temporary and treated through natural processes such as settlement and dilution and would be minor adverse with an overall significant of effect of Neutral, given the low importance of these features. Permanent impacts are considered to be negligible, with an overall significance effect of Neutral. 9.8.5 The larger watercourses within the study area and those that have a statutory designation (i.e. Monks Brook, River Itchen, River Hamble, River Meon and River Wallington) support significant flow and would not experience impacts to water quality during construction of the amended drainage system, as this would be constructed offline and connected to the outfalls when work is complete. Residual effects are considered to be negligible with an overall significance effect of Neutral. The greatest impact to designated watercourses will be associated with works immediately adjacent to the watercourse, for example if works to existing outfalls are required. However, at this stage it is understood that no works to existing outfalls will be undertaken, and as such the effect is considered to be Neutral. 9.8.6 The proposed works will also comprise the construction of ERAs and gantries. 9.8.7 Review of the proposed scheme indicates that ERA EB2 (Chainage 18200 to 18300) is located approximately 50m from River Itchen SAC and SSSI. However, as described above, all works would be within the highways boundary and all surface water run-off during the construction work will be contained and managed within the existing highways drainage system. The existing pollution control measures will avoid migration of polluted runoff towards the River Itchen

237

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

and manage the pollution risk to this site. The residual risk is therefore considered to be negligible and with an overall significance effect of Neutral. 9.8.8 Review of the proposed scheme indicates that ERA WB2 (Chainage 18750 to 18850) is located immediately adjacent to Tower Hill Stream that discharges to the River Itchen. The watercourse is culverted at this location and, as such, the potential impact of pollution to this watercourse (and downstream features) is considered to be negligible, with an overall significance effect of Neutral. 9.8.9 Review of the proposed scheme indicates that ERA EB3 (Chainage 20750 to 20850) is located immediately adjacent to Moorgreen Meadows SSSI and crosses the alignment of Moorgreen Stream. It is understood that the watercourse is culverted beneath the location of the proposed ERA and that no amendments to this existing culvert will be required. As described above, all works would be within the highways boundary and all surface water run-off during the construction work will be contained and managed within the existing highways drainage system. The existing pollution control measures in place for silts and hydrocarbons would manage the pollution risk to this watercourse. The residual impact to water quality within Moorgreen Stream and any subsequent effect to the SSSI associated with water quality is considered to be negligible, with an overall significance effect of Neutral. 9.8.10 There are no known gantry locations within 8m of identified watercourses. As such, the containment of all surface water runoff during construction to the existing highway drainage is considered sufficient to manage potential pollution risks. Requirement for WFD assessment 9.8.11 Physical works within c.8m of a fluvial watercourse or c.16m of a tidal watercourse may require consent from the relevant authority (Environment Agency for main rivers or Hampshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for ordinary watercourses). The application may need to be supported by a WFD Assessment to demonstrate that the works will not deteriorate the quality of the feature or prevent the features from achieving good status. 9.8.12 The construction of ERA EB3 will be within 8m of Moorgreen Stream and the construction of ERA WB2 will be within 8m of the culverted Town Hill Stream. These watercourses form tributaries of the River Itchen WFD waterbody (GB107042022580). However, a WFD Assessment is unlikely to be required as no physical works are proposed to the watercourse channels or the existing culverts and surface water runoff during construction would be contained within the existing highways drainage system, which would ensure no effects on the water quality elements of the receiving waterbodies. This will be confirmed during the detailed design of the works. 9.8.13 Proposed gantries located at approximate chainage CH22200 and CH29560 are located in close proximity to Woodhouse Gully and a tributary of Whiteley Stream, respectively. The watercourses are culverted beneath the M27 at these locations. A WFD Assessment will therefore not be required as no physical works are proposed to the watercourse channels or the existing culverts, although care must be taken during the construction of these features to ensure compliance with the 1991 Water Resources Act, as discussed in Section 9.7

238

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

therefore considered that the findings of this assessment are robust in the absence of this information. 9.9.14 A detailed description of the proposed drainage system is provided in the Drainage Strategy Report. 9.9.15 The proposed scheme is not predicted to increase the rate of surface water run- off over the lifetime of the proposed scheme, and is therefore not predicted to pose a notable increase in flood risk to the proposed scheme or to people and property elsewhere. The impact magnitude is considered to be negligible. The significance of effect to potential flood risk receptors is considered to be Neutral. Risks to water quality 9.9.16 Surface water run-off from vehicular areas can contain high levels of substances harmful to the water environment. These can typically include elevated levels of suspended sediment and toxic substances such as heavy metals that can either be attached to the sediment or dissolved within the surface water run-off. 9.9.17 A review of traffic flow data indicates that the volume of traffic flow attributable to the M27 and the wider road network will not change by more than 20% as a result of the proposed scheme and the associated pollutant loading is therefore also not predicted to increase by more than 20%. A review of predicted traffic flow for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios for the M27 between junction 4 to 11 for the year 2036 indicates a maximum increase in traffic volume of c. 13%. Impacts to the receiving water environment are therefore considered to be negligible, with an overall significance of effect of Neutral. 9.9.18 The construction of the Rigid Concrete Barrier in the central reserve will require existing filter drains to be replaced with new surface water channels or, at pinch points, with a new linear drainage system. Surface water run-off managed by the new system will be passed through gullies with silt traps and catchpits to assist with sediment removal. Existing oil interceptors, ditches and ponds that receive run-off from the current drainage systems located in the central reserve will be maintained. Review of HADDMS indicates that all existing filter drains (with the exception of the outfall at Junction 5 discussed below) pass through an oil interceptor prior to discharge, and that the majority also pass through a retention pond. Review of HADDMS currently indicates that the filter drains adjacent to Junction 5 drain via an open ditch prior to discharge to Monks Brook, but as discussed in Section 9.4 it is understood that the treatment provision at Junction 5 has been improved as part of recent works and address the current Priority A outfall status. The impact of this change to the existing drainage system to the quality of the receiving water environment associated with routine run-off is therefore likely to be negligible, with an overall significance of effect of Neutral. 9.9.19 The DMRB68 provides guidance on the use of risk reduction factors for reducing the risk of spillage causing a pollution incident for different drainage features, and indicates that the use of sediment traps would have a similar risk reduction factor to filter drains. The impact of this change to the existing drainage system

68 Table 8.1 Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 HD 45/09

244

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

9.10.9 The HAWRAT assessment has also encompassed the bridge deck across the River Hamble, from where it is understood that surface water run-off currently drains directly through the bridge deck to the river below. 9.10.10 It is important to note that the River Hamble is tidal at this location and, as such, the HAWRAT assessment is not strictly applicable as the tidal nature of the watercourse will provide greater dilution than has been assumed in the HAWRAT assessment (noting that the HAWRAT assessment has used fluvial flows at the tidal limit upstream of the proposed scheme near Botley). However, it is also important to note that a large impermeable surface (c. 10ha) drains to the River Hamble via these outfalls and that treatment is currently limited to gullies, catchpits and filter strips; and with no prior treatment for run-off from the bridge deck. 9.10.11 It is understood through consultation with the Area 3 team that a spill kit has been provided on each corner of the bridge deck to address concerns regarding a large volume of pollutant entering the water environment through the bridge deck outfalls (that offer no prior treatment) should an incident occur. 9.10.12 It is also understood through consultation with the Area 3 team that a scheme was proposed to collect run-off from the bridge deck and convey this to the main drainage outfalls (reference SU4910_5715 and SU4910_7907), incorporating additional pollution control devices at these 2 locations (in the form of petrol interceptors and penstocks) to improve water quality and provide better protection in the event of spillage. No further works are proposed as part of the proposed scheme, although Highways England (in consultation with the Area 3 team) will give consideration to improvements at these outfalls to the River Hamble independently of the proposed scheme. As discussed in Section 9.9 (Risk to water quality) there are no predicted adverse effects to the River Hamble associated with the proposed scheme. Outfall SU5208_2965 9.10.13 Outfall SU5208_2965 is located immediately west of junction 9. When assessed in isolation the HAWRAT assessment concluded that outfall SU5208_2965 would remain within required water quality limits for both acute and chronic impacts, principally because the area draining to the outfall is very small (c.1ha). However, when assessed cumulatively alongside outfalls within 1km draining to Whiteley Stream, the outfalls were assessed to fail the HAWRAT assessment for both acute (dissolved copper) and chronic impacts. 9.10.14 Consultation with Highways England, Hampshire County Council and the Area 3 team has identified an existing dissolved copper issue in the watercourses close to junction 9, believed to be associated with surface water run-off from the M27. Review of Catchments UK and previous HAWRAT assessments indicate that the receiving watercourse, Whiteley Stream, has a very small natural catchment area and Q95 low flow69. Comparatively, the impermeable road surface that is indicated to drain to this watercourse from all identified outfalls is large, with an estimated area of c.10ha.

69 The Q95 flow is the standard measure of low flow in watercourses, and is the flow in cubic metres per second which is equaled or exceeded for 95% of the flow record.

248

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

9.10.15 It is understood through discussion with the Area 3 team and Hampshire County Council that options to improve the quality of run-off within this catchment are being explored outside of the scope of the proposed scheme. This may include amendments to existing treatment and attenuation features located within the vicinity. No further works are therefore proposed as part of the proposed scheme. As discussed in Section 9.9 (Risk to water quality) there are no predicted adverse effects to Whiteley Stream associated with the proposed scheme. SU4813_2055 9.10.16 Outfall SU4813_2055 drains to a tributary of Woodhouse Gully that eventually drains to the tidal River Hamble. When assessed in isolation, the HAWRAT assessment concluded that outfall SU4813_2055 would remain within required water quality limits for both acute and chronic impacts, principally because the area draining to the outfall is very small (<1ha). However, when assessed cumulatively alongside outfalls within 1km draining to the same catchment, the outfalls were assessed to fail the HAWRAT assessment for both dissolved copper and chronic impacts. 9.10.17 Review of Catchments UK indicates that the receiving watercourse has a very small natural catchment area and Q95 low flow. Comparatively, the impermeable road surface that is indicated to drain to this watercourse from all identified outfalls is large, with an estimated area of c.6ha. 9.10.18 Surface water run-off that is drained from the eastbound off slip road and the westbound on slip road is indicated to drain via gullies, a ditch and petrol interceptor prior to outfalling to the receiving watercourse. Additional treatment for these areas is therefore not proposed. 9.10.19 Surface water run-off from the main carriageway is indicated to drain via a mixture of filter drains, a piped network, gullies and catchpits. Whilst additional treatment in the form of vegetated ditches or a petrol interceptor would provide additional treatment, the inclusion of additional features within the current drainage alignment would be difficult. Incorporating these features within the HAWRAT assessment also indicates that the assessment would still fail for both dissolved copper and chronic impacts. Given the space limitations and difficulties with installing additional treatment as part of the proposed scheme (for example vegetated ditches or a petrol interceptor), no further works are proposed. 9.10.20 As discussed in Section 9.9 (Risk to water quality) there are no predicted adverse effects to the tributary of Woodhouse Gully associated with the proposed scheme. SU5807_8225 9.10.21 Outfall SU5807_8225 that drains to the River Wallington was assessed to pass the assessment of acute impacts associated with soluble copper and zinc. However, as the outfall is located within 1km of several statutory designated sites, the HAWRAT assessment has highlighted the need for further consideration to be given to chronic impacts and the inclusion of pollution control measures. 9.10.22 Review of HADDMS data indicates that much of the surface water run-off from the road surface to the west of the River Wallington passes through vegetated

249

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

ditches prior to discharge to the watercourse. Additional treatment for this area is therefore not proposed. Much of the surface water run-off from the road surface to the east of the River Wallington is conveyed via channel drains and piped systems that may not provide the same level of treatment. However, there are no known issues with water quality associated with the drainage outfalls into the River Wallington therefore additional treatment for this area is not proposed. 9.10.23 As discussed in Section 9.9 (Risk to water quality) there are no predicted adverse effects to the River Wallington associated with the proposed scheme. Risks to groundwater resources 9.10.24 Review of HADDMS indicates a detention pond (reference SU5807_0958) that acts as a soakaway located within Zone 2 of the SPZ at Marker 38/0 (CH35450). It is understood that the pond (soakaway) is formed of a disused quarry and that run-off from the proposed scheme discharges to the pond (soakaway) via gullies and a ditch. Method C of the DMRB (Groundwater Assessment) has been applied to assess the potential impacts of routine run-off on the quality of groundwater resources at this location. 9.10.25 The Method C assessment was informed by a range of data as summarised below: • Location of the pond (soakaway) and existing drainage regime: Obtained from HADDMS data • Geological information and depth to groundwater: Informed through information provided by the proposed scheme geotechnical engineers and review of BGS borehole logs • Traffic flow: AADT data obtained from traffic flow analysis provided by the appointed transport engineers 9.10.26 The assessment generated a score of 250. In accordance with DMRB, this score is considered to pose a high risk to groundwater quality, principally due to the high permeability of the underlying chalk bedrock geology. However, the assessment does not take into account any existing treatment systems such as the gullies or ditch which are indicated to form part of the upstream drainage system. However, the assessment does also not take into account the sensitivity of the groundwater resources which form part of a designated SPZ. 9.10.27 As discussed in Section 9.9 (Risk to water quality) there are no predicted adverse effects to water quality associated with the proposed scheme. However, given the potential for existing risk it is therefore recommended that Highways England undertake consultation with the Environment Agency to agree the need for any site-specific treatment, including the potential need for improved spill containment should an accident occur. As the proposed scheme will not increase the existing risk to water quality, no further works are proposed at this time. Assessment of recorded flood events 9.10.28 An assessment has been undertaken of historic flooding events that are recorded within HADDMS. Consideration has been given to those areas of the proposed scheme that are classified as having a Very High or High hotspot overall status, and recorded flooding events with severity of 9+. These areas have been compared with the Environment Agency’s indicative fluvial and surface water flood mapping to identify any correlations between the recorded

250

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

DMRB. In low spots where ponding is predicted to occur, the capacity of the drainage system will be increased to cater for the 1-in-10-year rainfall event. Further consideration will also be given to recorded flooding incidents associated with the River Meon Bridge and, if required, mitigation will be incorporated in to the proposed scheme. 9.12.6 Traffic flow on the M27 and the associated road network is not predicted to change by more than 20% as a result of the proposed scheme. Impacts to the receiving water environment associated with polluted run-off are therefore considered to be negligible, with an overall significance of effect of Neutral. 9.12.7 A HAWRAT assessment was undertaken for 2 Priority B outfalls identified to discharge to the River Hamble between junction 8 to 9, and 1 Priority B outfall identified to discharge Whiteley Stream immediately to the west of junction 9. This indicated potential opportunities to improve the quality of surface water run- off within the catchment or reduce the risk of impact should a spillage occur, although these works are not proposed to be taken forward as part of the proposed scheme. 9.12.8 A HAWRAT assessment was undertaken at 4 Not Determined outfalls that discharge to ecological sensitive catchments. Of these, 1 was indicated to fail that discharges run-off to a tributary of Woodhouse Gully. The key issue at this location is likely to be associated with the catchment of the receiving watercourse which is very small compared to the area drained. Space limitations will limit opportunities to include additional treatment therefore no further works are proposed at this time. 9.12.9 A DMRB Method C assessment was undertaken for the detention pond located within Zone 2 of the groundwater SPZ to the west of junction 11 as it is understood that this pond infiltrates surface water to ground. The assessment indicated a high risk to groundwater resources, but it is noted that this does not take into consideration any upstream treatment. It is recommended that the need for additional treatment or spill containment is discussed with the Environment Agency. The proposed scheme will not increase risk to groundwater quality therefore no further works are proposed at this time. 9.12.10 An assessment of Priority A and Not Determined culverts indicated that flooding incidents linked to these culverts are attributable to blocked trash screens and not associated with the capacity or condition of the culvert. It is recommended that remedial action remains under the scope of the Area 3 maintenance team.

257

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

slip road and on the Whiteley Way approach. The existing short left-turn lane on Whiteley Way would also be lengthened and additional lanes would be provided on the northern and southern sections of the roundabout. At Parkway South roundabout, a new larger fully signal-controlled roundabout would be provided, with additional lanes on all approaches, on the Parkway exit road and on the roundabout itself. 10.2.3 The M27 junction 9 proposed scheme was included within the traffic model produced for the proposed scheme and the cumulative effects for air quality and noise have therefore been assessed within Chapter 5 Air Quality and Chapter 8 Noise and Vibration. 10.2.4 Relevant planned development and other overlapping schemes are outlined in Section 10.3.

10.3 Assessment methodology 10.3.1 The requirement for combined and cumulative effects assessment is set out in Article 4(3) and Article 5(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 2014. However, there are no legislative or policy requirements that set out how the assessment for combined and cumulative effects should be undertaken. 10.3.2 Therefore, the assessment of the combined and cumulative effects is undertaken by using professional judgement based on the assessment of similar schemes and in accordance with, but not limited to, the following: • DMRB Volume II, Section 2, Part 572, ‘Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects’ • Interim Advice Note 125/15, ‘Environmental Assessment Update’ • Interim Advice Note 174/1373, ‘Evaluation of Significant Local Air Quality Effects’ • Interim Advice Note 175/1374, ‘Risk assessment of compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality and production of Scheme Air Quality Action Plans’ • Interim Advice Note 175/13, Compliance Risk Analysis Tool • Interim Advice Note 185/1575, ‘Updated traffic, air quality and noise advice’

72 Highways England (2008) DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5 HA 205/08 Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects. 73 Highways Agency (2013) Interim Advice Note 174/13 Updated advice for evaluating significant local air quality effects for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality (HA207/07)’ 74 Highways Agency (2013) Interim Advice Note 175/13 Updated air quality advice on risk assessment related to compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality and on the production of Scheme Air Quality Action Plans for user of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality’ 75 Highways Agency (2015) Updated traffic, air quality and noise advice on the assessment of link speeds and generation of vehicle data into ‘speed-bands’ for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality and Volume 11, Section 3. Part 7 Noise’

259

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Combined effects (intra-project effects) 10.3.3 The proposed assessment methodology for combined effects is primarily based on Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5 and IAN 125/15. The assessment methodology for combined effects identifies interactions associated with the proposed scheme upon separate environmental receptors, to better understand the overall environmental effects. 10.3.4 The cumulative effects of different aspects of the proposed scheme is determined by identifying any individual receptors, or categories of receptors, affected by multiple effects under more than 1 specialist topic. 10.3.5 In order to consider effects on people and communities, particular attention is given to whether there are particular sensitivities within local communities. For example, there may be proportionally higher numbers of elderly people, young people, or people with health problems such as respiratory problems. 10.3.6 The significance of construction and operational phase environmental effects is then brought forward from the preceding chapters of the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) into matrices, providing an overview of the potential effects on individual receptors. The assessment considers adverse residual effects, after mitigation measures have been taken into account. The significance of combined effects upon each environmental receptor group is then identified based upon the balance of scores and using professional judgement derived from experience of similar schemes. Justification for the conclusions reached is given in this chapter. 10.3.7 There is also the potential for an individual receptor, or groups of receptors, to be affected by adverse effects under 1 topic and beneficial effects under another, sometimes as a result of the same feature of the proposed scheme. In such cases, it is necessary to determine the balance between the 2. The combined effects assessment focuses on key sensitive receptors, including properties and communities. 10.3.8 The biodiversity assessment presented in chapter 6 considers effects on ecological resources and receptors in terms of changes to the local hydrology, water quality, air quality, noise, light or disturbance, among others. It is therefore considered that the biodiversity assessment inherently considers combined effects from these different sources. Therefore, there are no additional effects which require consideration in this combined effects assessment. 10.3.9 In addition, potential health effects reflect the health status of the neighbouring community; air quality and traffic / construction noise impacts, as well as access to employment. Therefore, these have been scoped into the combined impact assessment. The public health baseline supporting the combined public health assessment is presented in appendix G.2. 10.3.10 The study area for the assessment of combined effects, for both construction and operation, is defined by the study areas identified within the relevant environment topic chapters contained within the EAR for the proposed scheme. Cumulative effects (inter-project effects) 10.3.11 The proposed assessment methodology for cumulative effects is primarily based on DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5 and IAN 125/15. The assessment

260

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

10.5.2 Table 10-6 and Table 10-7 respectively. A qualitative description of the impacts on human health is provided below in Tables 10-4 to 10-7 as there is no representative chapter above. Topics that have been scoped out of the EAR have also been scoped out of the combined and cumulative effects assessment in Tables 10-4 to 10-7, namely Climate, Geology and Soils, Material Resources, Communities and Vehicle Travellers. 10.5.3 Where there is no potential for combined effects due to a lack of interaction between topics, these have been noted in Tables 10-4 and 10-5, as ‘No interrelationship’. For example, residual adverse effects identified on biodiversity, such as the temporary loss of habitat due to vegetation clearance to enable construction, could not affect noise and therefore this has been marked as ‘No interrelationship’. Similarly, residual adverse effects on air quality could not affect landscape and this has also been marked as ‘No interrelationship’. 10.5.4 The following interrelationships and therefore potential for combined effects, have been identified and are assessed in Tables Table 10-4 and Table 10-5 below: • Air quality could affect biodiversity (nitrogen deposition on sensitive habitats), road drainage and the water environment nitrogen deposition on sensitive aquatic habitats) and human health (respiratory conditions) • Cultural heritage could affect landscape (loss of heritage features could have visual effects) • Landscape could affect cultural heritage (loss of trees could affect the setting of assets) and biodiversity (loss of trees would be a loss of habitat) • Ecology and Nature Conservation could affect landscape (loss of trees or vegetation would have visual effects) • Noise and vibration could affect landscape (tranquillity and setting), biodiversity (disturbance to species) and human health (disturbance to sleep and stress) • Road Drainage and the Water Environment could affect biodiversity (aquatic or water dependent habitats) and human health (abstractions for drinking water or recreation)

266

Collaborative Delivery Framework M27 Junction 4 to 11 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

273