5 Consideration of Alternatives

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This Chapter outlines the description of the main alternatives to the Proposed Scheme which have been considered by the Applicant and the principal reasons for proceeding with the current Proposed Scheme.

5.2 Requirement for the Consideration of Alternatives 5.2.1 Schedule 4, Part 1 of the EIA Regulations 2011 (Ref. 5.1) states that an ES should include; “an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects”. 5.2.2 To accord with the EIA Regulations 2011, the following alternatives have been considered: Ŷ Alternative Schemes; Ŷ Alternative Routes (Sites) for the Proposed Scheme Ŷ Proposed Scheme Design Iterations; and Ŷ The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario.

5.3 Alternative Schemes 5.3.1 The primary objective for the Proposed Scheme is to provide a long term solution to traffic problems associated with the A45. Considerations of alternative schemes interventions would be required to offer similar traffic easing measures, or achieve this same primary objective. 5.3.2 A WebTAG Environmental Options Appraisal report (Appendix. 5.1), commissioned by NCC and completed by MGWSP in March 2010 considered 22 potential interventions to determine which option best achieved the primary objective. The 22 alternative interventions are summarised in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1 Alternative Interventions

Intervention Description Number

Develop a short bypass road from Dodford to just past the A45/A5 crossroads to ease traffic congestion at these 1 crossroads

2 Include bypass option using the A5 and B4036 as part of the bypass to reduce cost (includes upgrading existing roads)

Develop a bypass parallel to the B4036 and joining the M1 at Wharf (this is nearer to and will also 3 serve Long Buckby) to stop HGVs using the A45 through Dodford/Flore

4 Northern bypass scheme (the stakeholder’s preferred bypass scheme)

5 Central bypass scheme

6 Southern bypass scheme

7 Utilise the old railway line above Dodford to provide a bypass option that links from the A45/B4038/A425 roundabout at

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures County Council 5-1 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

Intervention Description Number

Daventry up to a proposed new M1 Junction 16A North of Flore

Develop a longer bypass option that passes round Dodford (i.e. a 8 Dodford/Weedon/Flore/Upper Heyford bypass)

9 Develop a toll bypass road (design is the same as the bypass options but the road will be paid for by public contributions

10 Widen the to 4 lanes

11 Develop a bypass option ending with a junction on the motorway north of Flore

12 Convert the services to a new M1 junction

13 Upgrade the current B4036/A5 junction to accommodate future growth traffic from the new developments

14 Upgrade Road so it can cope with traffic and be a viable alternative road to the A45

15 Downgrade Nobottle Road to force traffic back onto the A45 and increase the justification of a bypass

16 Traffic calming in Dodford/Weedon/Flore/Upper Heyford to discourage traffic from using the A45

17 Street lighting from Weedon to Daventry for walking to encourage use by pedestrians

Off road cycle track (extending the current cycle track so that there is a cycle track for the whole route between 18 and Daventry)

19 Implement a high quality bus service to Long Buckby railway station coordinating with the train timetable

20 Revive Weedon railway station

21 Impose a weight/height restriction on the A45 through the villages of Weedon and Flore

Include a lorry park near the proposed industrial developments at M1 Junction 16 and place a restriction on current lay-bys 22 on the A45 (with the aim of solving the concerns regarding HGVs turning into the A45 from lay-bys in the morning peak time)

5.3.3 As detailed within the WebTAG Environmental Options Appraisal report (Appendix. 5.1) the 22 interventions were assessed against preliminary criteria derived from stakeholder meetings. It was concluded that of the 22 alternatives a bypass between Daventry and the M1 Junction 16 was deemed to both alleviate traffic sufficiently on the A45 and provided benefits to the greatest number of residents and road users. 5.3.4 In order to determine the most appropriate route, several options were considered as detailed below.

5.4 Alternative Routes for the Proposed Scheme 5.4.1 Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) considered in total four potential routes. The route options considered included a Northern Route (Option A), which is the basis of the current Proposed Scheme, a second Northern Route (Option B), a Central Route and a Southern Route. The alternative routes are provided in Appendix 5.1 and on Figure 5.1. 5.4.2 The WebTAG Environmental Options Appraisal report (Appendix 5.1), assessed three of the four routes and appraised each scheme against a number of environmental components. The second Northern Route (Option B) was not considered until after the report had been completed, thus unassessed in the appraisal report. However, the second Northern Route (Option B) follows a similar pathway to the Northern Route (Option A) and thus would not differ substantially from the assessed Northern Route.

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-2 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

5.4.3 The three schemes considered within the Environmental Options Appraisal are outlined below. Ŷ Northern Bypass Scheme - starting from the M1 Junction 16, running parallel to the M1, and passes to the north of Upper Heyford and Flore to join the A5 to the north of Weedon. It then continues to the north of Weedon to join the A45; Ŷ Central Bypass Scheme – starts from the A45 just to the east of Upper Heyford and passes alongside the M1 to the North of Upper Heyford. From this point it passes south of Flore then extends north to join the A5 to the north of Weedon. The route then continues to the north of Weedon to join the A45 northwest of Weedon. Ŷ Southern Bypass Scheme – starts from the M1 junction 16 and crosses to the south of Upper Heyford and Flore to join the A5 to the south of Weedon. It then continues to the south of Weedon and extends north to join the A45 to the northwest of Weedon. 5.4.4 Using WebTAG guidance (TAG Unit 3.3.1) (Ref 5.1) each alternative route was appraised, via desk based assessment. Several assessment criteria are used within this process and are as follows: Ŷ Noise; Ŷ Local Air Quality; Ŷ Regional Air Quality; Ŷ Greenhouse Gases; Ŷ Landscape; Ŷ Heritage of Historic Resources; Ŷ Biodiversity; and Ŷ Water Environment. 5.4.5 In addition to the environmental components considered above a Preliminary Sources Study report and an Agricultural Route Options Appraisal (see Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of Appendix 5.1) were also completed. These additional reports relate to potential geotechnical issues and the quality of agricultural land that is encountered by each proposed route. 5.4.6 Table 5.2 outlines the environmental criteria and the summary of each assessment used to determine the preferential order of the three proposed schemes. Furthermore the Preliminary Sources Study and Agricultural Route Options Appraisal are covered within the table below.

Table 5.2: Assessment Summary of listed Environmental Criteria for Alternative Routes

Environmental Baseline Summary Preference Order Criteria

Each scheme was tested for predicted noise levels during The current noise environment, the opening year and the following fifteen years of the for all proposed routes, is likely schemes. The resulting calculations indicate that the to be dominated by traffic noise, Northern and Central scheme had a net positive impact on with increased levels closer to noise annoyance (less annoyance with the project than major roads such as the M1, A5 without), whilst the southern scheme will result in an and A45. increased noise annoyance. The Northern Route falls within Northern: - 60 the current corridor of the M1 Northern > Central Noise for much of its length, whilst the Estimated Population (pop). Annoyed (without Scheme): 259 > Southern other two routes extended into Estimated Pop. Annoyed (with Scheme): 199 the more rural areas between the villages of Weedon Bec, Central: -46 Flore, Upper Heyford and . The noise Estimated Pop. Annoyed (without Scheme): 258 levels at these locations may be Estimated Pop. Annoyed (with Scheme): 212 lower as the grade of road is Southern:+41 lower. Estimated Pop. Annoyed (without Scheme): 306

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-3 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

Environmental Baseline Summary Preference Order Criteria

Estimated Pop. Annoyed (with Scheme): 347 All routes currently pass through rural areas around the PM10 main villages of Weedon Bec, Flore. Upper Heyford and All three proposed schemes resulted in improved NO2 and Central > Northern Nether Heyford. PM10 concentrations, with no single scheme being the > Southern obvious choice, as some schemes offered greater reductions The air quality is mainly in PM , whilst others in NO concentrations. NO2 Local Air 10 2 influenced by emissions from Northern > Quality Northern: Net PM10 -289; Net NO2 -1628 road transport, due to the Southern > Central presence of the A45, A5 and Central: Net PM10 -276; Net NO2 -2101 M1. Overall Southern: Net PM10 -330; Net NO2 -1817 None of the proposed routes fall Northern > Central within an Air Quality > Southern Management Area.

Only NOx concentrations were considered, due to its greater The air quality is mainly affinity to road transport. The resulting assessments influenced by emissions from indicated the Northern route had a decrease in overall NOx road transport, due to the concentration, whilst the other schemes had net increases in presence of the A45, A5 and Regional Air NOx concentrations. Northern > Central Quality M1. > Southern Northern: -1574 tonnes, 0.9% decrease None of the proposed routes fall within an Air Quality Central: 2099 tonnes, 1.2% increase Management Area. Southern: 3444 tonnes, 2.0% increase

Calculations of net changes in carbon emissions (MtCO2e over 60 year appraisal period) indicated a net positive The largest source of GHG benefit from the northern route, thus a reduction in carbon emissions in the area are as a emissions, in comparison to net negative benefits as a result Greenhouse result of transport emissions. of the other two schemes. Northern > Central Gas Emissions UK currently has targets of > Southern (GHG) reducing emissions to at least Northern: -54,252 MtCO2e (£601,701) 80% below 1990 levels. Central: 67,863 MtCO2e (£752,577)

Southern: 111,954 MtCO2e (£1,241,353)

All three proposed routes fall within two National Character Areas (NCA) – NCA 95: Each scheme was assessed against specific criteria to Northamptonshire Uplands and provide an overall ‘likely’ impact change, negating any NCA 89: Northamptonshire mitigation measures being implemented for each scheme. Vales. The northern scheme was found to have a Slight Adverse Effect, the central route a Moderate to Large Adverse effect In terms of Landscape Nothern > Landscape and the southern route a Moderate Adverse Effect Receptors the Northern route Southern > Central has less potential visual Northern: Slight Adverse Effect receptors than the Southern or Central routes. Both the central Central: Moderate to Large Adverse Effect and southern routes pass within a shorter distance to residential Southern: Moderate Adverse Effect areas, listed buildings and the Macmillan Way.

The dominant habitat encountered by all routes is arable and pastoral fields. A desk based assessment of the indicative routes of each There are a number of scheme was performed and a resulting summary ecologically sensitive sites in assessment score applied to each. The score is a the immediate area, namely Central = Northern Biodiversity combination of habitats and key species impacts, where Dovecote Meadows (LWS) and = Southern applicable. All schemes where found to have a Moderate Bugbrooke Meadows (SSSIs). Adverse effect and neither proposal stands out as ideal The , Hedgerows scheme. and Ponds all fall within the UK BAP and are encountered by all the proposed routes.

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-4 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

Environmental Baseline Summary Preference Order Criteria

All three routes pass close to areas of known Prehistoric, Roman, Saxon, Medieval/Post Based on available evidence and desk based assessment, Medieval activity, with the resulting impacts have been determined for each scheme, settlements of Dodford, Stowe, considering a number of factors. Each scheme has very Weedon and Flore all having similar historical features which appear in each scheme, yet Heritage and documented origins within the the Northern route was found to have the lowest impact. Northern > Historic Medieval period. Southern > Central Resources Northern: Slight Adverse Effect Given that all three routes lie relatively close to one another, Central: Moderate to Large Adverse the underlying historic landscape characteristics of the Southern: Moderate Adverse area are relevant to all three routes

The study area falls within the catchment of the River Nene and contains the River Nene and several of its tributaries. The northern route is considered to be the option with the The is lowest impact for the water environment since it will result in present within the study area. less development in the floodplain, less restriction of drainage options and less impact on flood flows and Water Northern > The northern route encounters ecological habitats from infrastructure (i.e. fewer bridges) Environment Southern = Central two areas of Flood Zone 3. The compared with the central and southern route options. The Central navigates much of the other proposed routes cross increased intermediate/high Flood Zone 2 and 3 areas permeability aquifer and there is likely significant effect on around the River Nene. Whilst groundwater due to leaching of pollutants. the Southern route encounters areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3, east of Nether Heyford.

The geology of the area comprises alluvium and sand Assessment of each proposed route, inclusive of a Preliminary and gravel deposits within the geotechnical risk assessment, concluded that the Northern Northern > Sources Study river valleys, with Boulder Clay Route scheme has the least geotechnical risk associated Southern = Central Report and Upper and Middle Lias with its design and construction. deposits at surface on higher ground.

The proposed routes pass This assessment provides information regarding the extent through predominantly Grade 3 and quality of agricultural land that would be at risk by each Agricultural agricultural land. There are appropriate scheme. The findings of the option appraisal are Northern > Central Options some patches of Grade 2 that the Northern Route would be likely to involve the loss of > Southern Appraisal agricultural land, which may be the least amount of best and most versatile land but would encountered by the southern involve slightly more agricultural land overall than the Central and northern routes. Route.

5.4.7 Further to the WebTAG report public consultation was carried out by NCC in 2012 (Appendix 5.2). The public consultation included the three route options assessed within the WebTAG report and also included the secondary Northern Route (Option B) into the scheme route options. The Northern Route (Option B) made more use of the current road infrastructure and thus would incur a cheaper cost. 5.4.8 The result of the consultation clearly identified the Northern scheme as the most preferable, with 84% support. Of the two northern options Option A was found to be the more favourable, with 69% favouring this option over Option B. The preference was chiefly due to the increased distance from the village of Flore and an increased association with the current M1 transport corridor. 5.4.9 Considering the results of the WebTAG assessment report, in conjunction with the public consultation, the most favourable scheme is the Northern Route (Option A), more so than the central or southern schemes.

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-5 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

5.4.10 The Northern Route (Option A), which forms the basis of the Proposed Scheme, was therefore taken forward as the preferred route. Further details regarding the Proposed Scheme design iterations are detailed below.

5.5 Proposed Scheme Design Iterations 5.5.1 The Proposed Scheme has developed significantly since initial considerations in 2010. Environmental constraints have been addressed and design options heavily oriented around such constraints. 5.5.2 The key design iterations that have been considered are described in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Environmental Considerations in the Evolution of the Proposed Scheme

Technical Topic Constraints and Opportunities Addressed within the Scheme Design

Noise and vibration have been a key consideration throughout the design and development stages. The project has incorporated mitigation measures to appease noise impacts in and around the Site. Incorporated into the design of the Proposed Scheme is a low noise surfacing material. The road surface Noise and Vibration on the Proposed Scheme will consist of high stone content asphalt which is considered to be significantly quieter than traditional hot rolled asphalt surfacing. The use of such surfacing material helps alleviate noise effects, especially around the north of Weedon Bec. Furthermore the route is positioned a good distance from the main residential areas.

Although the Proposed Scheme will lead to the introduction of a new linear and hard-surfaced element within the current landscape, visual amenity and local landscape character have been considered within the design of Proposed Scheme, and in particular, soft landscape works are proposed as part of the design and have been factored into the Proposed Scheme. The strategic soft landscape plans are outlined in Figures 4.40.1 – 4.40.9 and will help alleviate adverse visual intrusion of the Proposed Scheme and retain an element of more rural character within the Site. Key landscape design features have included: Ŷ Tree and shrub planting; Landscape and Visual Ŷ Wildflower grasses mix to provide varied habitats within attenuation ponds, shaded areas and open Character ground; Ŷ Scattered trees and Specimen trees to help add some instant maturity and further variety to the scheme; Ŷ Design of the Green Bridge to incorporate a living hedge over the bridge and connection with surrounding vegetation lines; and Ŷ Design of the Dodmoor Canal and Rail bridge to include brick facing and to be of similar character to other bridges in the vicinity to limit adverse effects on local landscape character, the Canal and local visual amenity.

Archaeology and cultural heritage has been a key consideration throughout the design and development of the Proposed Scheme. An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (Appendix 11.1) report and archaeological geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation (Appendix 11.2) has been undertaken to inform the Proposed Scheme design. The Proposed Design has included a number of iterations including: realignment of the route, landscape design and choice of materials as follows: Ŷ The Proposed Scheme road corridor was re-aligned to bypass an area of archaeological interest. The archaeological features included two Neolithic Long Barrows which were along the original alignment of the Proposed Scheme. The route corridor was revised to safeguard the site of the Neolithic Long Archaeology and Cultural Barrows which now lie to the north of the northern most extent of the Proposed Scheme to the north of Heritage Green Bridge. Ŷ The Proposed Scheme passes over the Grand Union Canal, which is a designated Conservation Area. The setting and character of the Canal is central to its conservation status and as such the Proposed Scheme has incorporated vernacular design measures. The bridge parapets and abutments are to be brick faced with the colour specification to be red to match the adjacent canal structures (which has been agreed with the Canal and River Trust). Ŷ The landscape design and planting specification has also taken into account the archaeological and cultural heritage features to minimise effects on setting, specifically in relation to screening of the Combined Canal and Rail Bridge over the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area.

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-6 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

Technical Topic Constraints and Opportunities Addressed within the Scheme Design

Biodiversity mitigation has been developed during the design process to incorporate a number of measure that will alleviate impact: Ŷ Landscape design plans developed to replace habitat (see above); Biodiversity Ŷ Development of the ’green bridge’ to maintain connectivity between existing areas of ecological value; and Ŷ Inclusion of five mammal runs under the carraigeway, again to maintain connectivity.

To minimise effects of lighting on sensitive receptors the Proposed Scheme will be unlit along the main carriageway, with the exception of the three proposed roundabout junctions associated with the Proposed Scheme, one at each end of the link road connecting the Proposed Scheme into the existing A45 to the east of Upper Heyford and to the west of Weedon Bec, and a further roundabout at the crossing of the Proposed Scheme with the A5 trunk road north of Weedon Bec. Lighting These roundabouts will be illuminated by highways lighting installations consisting of 10m steel columns incorporating Post top mounted Phillips Iridium incorporating 150W SON-TPP lamp lanterns which will be specified in accordance with British Standards. The rest of the Proposed Scheme is not proposed to be lit throughout the hours of darkness to minimise effects of lighting on human, archaeological and ecological receptors.

The presence of the River Nene and its extensive tributaries are a dominant feature within the wider area and as such the area is prone to periodic flooding (1 in 100 year). At present the flood plain extends from the northeast of Weedon Bec down towards the A45. The Proposed Scheme will bisect this flood plain with Flooding, Hydrology and the construction of a bridge, which has incorporated flood arches within the design. Water Resources The construction of the bridge will result in an alteration to the extent of the flood plain, ultimately reducing the flooding to the south and the surrounding area of Weedon Bec. Conversely there will be an increase in flooding to the north of the proposed bridge, with a larger impact upon agricultural land, rather than the residential areas to the south.

A geotechnical ground investigation (Appendix 16.3) has been undertaken on the Site and considered within the Interpretative Geotechnical Report (Appendix 16.4). These reports have considered the following potential effects: 1. Potential presence of unstable and/or compressible ground (e.g. Alluvium and/or Made Ground) affecting foundation installation and slope stability, and subsequent associated risks to site preparation, earthworks and construction workers. 2. Potential for presence of high sulphate levels affecting foundations. 3. Potential presence of shallow groundwater and subsequent associated risks to site preparation, earthworks and construction workers. 4. Potential for swelling and shrinking of cohesive soils following the removal of trees, subsequent instability and associated risk to the Proposed Scheme and, Presence of unstable and compressible ground (e.g. Alluvium and Made Ground) affecting foundations and slope stability and subsequent associated risks to future Site users. Ground Conditions, Hydrogeology and The Interpretative Geotechnical Report has considered each of the above effects as detailed within Contamination Appendix 16.4 and summarised below: 1. Each earthwork and structural feature within the Proposed Scheme has been considered in terms of foundations requirements and ground stability. As such, potential risks with unstable and/or compressible ground have been designed out of the Proposed Scheme. 2. The potential risks associated with high sulphate levels have been considered and upgraded concrete specifications have been recommended where required. As such, potential risks with high sulphate levels have been designed out of the Proposed Scheme. 3. Each earthwork and structure along the Proposed Scheme has been assessed for potential groundwater intrusion risks using available / on-going groundwater monitoring. The temporary drainage strategy (as outlined in Chapter 4 ‘The Description of Proposed Scheme’) will be designed to mitigate risks from groundwater intrusion during construction. 4. Each earthwork and structural feature in terms of foundation requirements and ground stability has been assessed and the potential risks associated with swelling and shrinking of cohesive soils, and unstable and/or compressible ground designed out of the Proposed Scheme.

Included within the design of the Proposed Scheme is a bridge that originates from Hillside Road and will Socio-Economic pass over the Proposed Scheme towards Broamenthill Spinney. The bridge incorporates the EU14 public bridleway, maintaining connection between the EU2 footpath and the wider public rights of way network.

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-7 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

Technical Topic Constraints and Opportunities Addressed within the Scheme Design

Footpaths EU1 and EU7 are truncated by the Proposed Scheme. As part of the Proposed Scheme both footpaths will be realigned allowing both to remain open and allow for continued amenity value of the PRoW network. The inclusion of a single span structure over both the Grand Union Canal and the railway will negate the requirement to divert the canal and towpath during the construction stage, allowing the towpath to remain open for use and enjoyment.

5.6 Scheme update August 2014 5.6.1 In August 2014 the Proposed Scheme underwent an update in final layout, specifically at the western most section of the scheme, between the proposed junction with the A5 and the A45 ‘tie-in’ northwest of Weedon Bec. The realignment was as a result of consultations with land owners and the potential for two to object to the proposal, taking the project to Public Inquiry and delaying the progression of the Proposed Scheme and increasing costs of the Scheme. The scheme update removes one objector by bypassing the landowner’s estate and appeases the second. The update to the Scheme also includes an alteration to the structure design for the road passing over the Grand Union Canal and the West Coast Main Line railway, resulting in a single span structure over both features. This arrangement does remove the requirement to divert the canal during the site preparation, earthworks and construction phase of the Proposed Scheme.

5.7 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario 5.7.1 The ‘do nothing’ scenario would mean that the existing uses on Site would continue and the Site will remain as agricultural fields. 5.7.2 A number of important effects would derive from this ‘do nothing’ scenario and largely relate to lost opportunities for improvement/enhancement. These opportunities include: Ŷ The loss of opportunity to ease traffic congestion on the A45 and A5 trunk roads, as well as within the villages of Weedon Bec and Flore; Ŷ The health and amenity benefits arising from the relocation of road users away from the surrounding residential areas, such as the improvements in noise and local air quality; Ŷ The improvement of road safety as a result of the Proposed Scheme diverting traffic away from primary residential areas; Ŷ The potential flood alleviation resulting from the Proposed Scheme, helping to protect residential and other properties to the south; Ŷ The loss of opportunity to support growth of development within ; and Ŷ The loss of provisions of employment opportunities and training during the site preparation, earthworks and construction phase of the Proposed Scheme. 5.7.3 There are, however, a number of positive effects resulting from the ‘do nothing’ scenario, including the following: Ŷ Retention of existing agricultural land, practices and produce; Ŷ Existing habitats and wildlife that may currently utilise these habitats remain undisturbed; Ŷ Maintenance of the current Grand Union Canal setting and character; Ŷ PRoW unaffected and unaltered with no required diversions or realignments; Ŷ Preservation of the current landscape character and landscape setting in around the Proposed Scheme; and

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-8 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

Ŷ Preservation of known or unknown historic and cultural assets above and below the surface.

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-9 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives

5.8 Reference Ref 5.1 Department of Transport (DfT). (2013). Transport Analysis Guidance: WebTAG - TAG Unit A3, Environmental Impact Appraisal: Department of Transport

Volume 1: Environmental Statement – Main Text and Figures Northamptonshire County Council 5-10 Chapter 5 – Consideration of Alternatives