Appendix 3 Character of the Relief Road Character of the Relief Road

INTRODUCTION This section provides an overview of the alternative route options for the proposed Whitehill & Bordon relief road. It includes a discussion of the policy framework within which the options sit, an overview of the options and consideration of the character of the relief road along the different options. It includes a series of street typologies and cross sections to illustrate the potential character of the relief road and its relationship with the proposed development.

POLICY CONTEXT Overview

This section provides an overview of the planning policy relevant to the area. The planning policy context comprises two levels of adopted and emerging policy, national and local, which create the framework for the consideration of proposed developments within the area, including the route of the proposed relief road and the character of this. National planning policy is set out in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was adopted in 2012. The NPPF sets out the overarching principles of the planning system, and establishes a “presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking”. In 2009 the Government published Planning Policy Statement (PPS): Eco-towns, A Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. While PPS 1 was superseded by the NPPF the Eco-towns Supplement (hereafter referred to as PPS: Eco-towns) has not been revoked and remains relevant to the consideration of proposals related to designated eco-towns. Whitehill & Bordon was designated as an eco-town. The Masterplan and aspirations within this accord with the eco-town principles. Although full achievement of eco-town standards, in terms of zero carbon-buildings and code for sustainable homes level 6 for example might be difficult to achieve in the current economic climate, the principles established in terms of the scale and mix of uses, streets, spaces and the wider movement network remain as good placemaking principles that should be followed where possible. Local planning guidance is established in the East Hampshire District Council Second Review Local Plan policies that comply with the NPPF, as approved in February 2013. The Local Plan will eventually be superseded by the Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (LPJCS), which the District Council has prepared in conjunction with the South Downs National Park Authority. This document was subject to an Examination in Public that commenced on 29 October 2013. The outcome of examination is not yet known, though it is hoped that the LPJCS will be adopted in early 2014. The emerging Joint Core Strategy has been prepared in consideration of the revised Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (2012). The LPJCS confirms this document has been adopted by East Hampshire District Council and it was used to inform the policies relating to the strategic allocation of the Eco-town. A summary of the relevant policies and guidance to be considered in the preparation of a preferred option for the relief road are set out below. The Masterplan

The Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Masterplan establishes a vision for the project and sets out a framework for how this could be delivered over a 25 year period. The final revised Masterplan was adopted in 2012 and seeks to deliver: ■ 4,000 new homes (a reduction from 5,300 in the earlier draft); ■ 5,500 new jobs; ■ A new town centre; ■ Improved pedestrian, cycling and public transport routes; ■ An inner relief road; ■ The restoration of a rail link for the town; ■ A public sports hub; ■ A learning campus/ secondary school; ■ Two primary schools; ■ Children’s centre; ■ Primary care centre; ■ A network of connected, multi-functional greenspaces; and ■ Relevant waste and energy infrastructure to achieve carbon and water neutrality. The proposed number of new homes and jobs will significantly increase overall movement within the town and so it is critical that the transport strategy meets existing and future challenges. The Masterplan recognises that “the movement of people to, through and within towns provides a lifeblood for successful and vibrant places” (p. 108). The Masterplan aims to “achieve the highest levels of “sustainable” travel” (p. 107), and it proposes to realise this by “reducing the need to travel outside the town; enable sustainable transport choices for all trips; and manage car demand within and outside the town” (p.110). In order to achieve this, a Transport Strategy is currently being finalised to support the Masterplan and aims to achieve no more than 50% of all trips to be undertaken by car. An emerging Transport Strategy was also adopted by Hampshire County Council in September 2011. The transport vision contained in that for Whitehill & Bordon is: “Achieve sustainable growth in the long term by delivering an integrated low carbon transport system that will beat the forefront of innovative thinking, providing high-quality, affordable and deliverable alternatives to the private car, managing transport demand and maximising the use of existing assets to become an example for modern day sustainable living.” (p. 6)

Whitehill-Bordon Options Review Report Prepared for November 2013 Hampshire County Council 2 Despite the significant improvement to sustainable transport choices proposed in the town, it is recognised within the Masterplan that “there will remain a demand for car trips both within and outside the town, and it is acknowledged that the car will play an important role in future town travel” (p.118). The Masterplan recognises that the nature of the surrounding regional highways network has resulted in a significant proportion of traffic on the A325 that have no relationship to the town, and so the car movement strategy addresses both ‘local’ and ‘through’ traffic. The Masterplan’s principal solution to the traffic movement strategy is the provision of a relief road. This is intended to provide an alternative route for through traffic away from the town centre as well as providing good access to the proposed new communities and facilities. The relief road will be designed to ensure it is well integrated in the new developments and to allow for permeability. This is in contrast to the A325, which is identified as a barrier to walking and cycling connectivity. It is believed the relief road will deliver a smooth traffic flow and reduce congestion issues on the route including at the junctions on the A325 in Whitehill & Bordon as well as reducing the likelihood of traffic using inappropriate local roads to avoid congestion and bottlenecks. The objectives for the relief road are to: ■ Relieve congestion on the A325: providing a free-flow alternative to the existing A325 and removing non-local traffic from the core of the town. ■ Enable to new town centre: reducing the levels of traffic on the existing A325 to help deliver the conditions necessary to provide a successful town centre for Whitehill & Bordon. ■ Provide access to the development: delivering critical road based access to new development areas. ■ Reduce severance: reducing heavy traffic flows and dominance of traffic on the A325 and thus community severance, helping to create a permeable town that links the new development with the town centre and existing communities. The preferred alignment of the relief road has not been finalised, however the Masterplan includes two options – the first routes through Viking Park and the second uses the southern part of the safeguarded rail corridor. The Masterplan has been subject to a Transport Assessment in order to consider the potential impact of the proposals on the local transport network. This document identified a number of areas on the road network that require improvement, which will inform the final Transport Strategy. Draft Character Area Design Code

A (Draft) Character Area Design Code has been prepared in support of the Masterplan to provide further design guidance to ensure new development meets the aspirations of the District Council and local stakeholders. The design code is still subject to discussion with the stakeholders. It has been considered when looking at the route options (see Options section below), though it is acknowledged that this may be subject to change. The draft Design Code includes detailed guidance for the relief road and envisions this route as an avenue running through the eco-town with a shared cycle/ footway running alongside it. In appropriate locations, the document promotes higher density developments along the relief road, including mixed use developments and apartment blocks and the majority of the proposed employment floorspace is located along the route. The draft Design Code also indicates a potential alternative alignment for the route of the relief road which wrap around the edge of the development area. In common with the ‘inner’ relief road options, the ‘outer’ options also utilise the former railway corridor. However, it is still well connected and integrated with the proposed street pattern with frequent points of access with the development. Development Brief A Development Brief has been prepared for Louisburg Barracks (2013) to provide further guidance for planning proposals relating to the site. It is envisioned that this site will the location of a new ‘Eco Business Park’ as well as accommodating extended and new residential areas. The Louisburg Barracks development is planned to be the first phase of the masterplan implementation providing an interim access junction to the A325. The remainder of the road and the development would follow in phase 2. A Masterplan is being developed for the Louisburg site. This will provide more detail on the proposed form of development. In the meantime, the development brief establishes the principles for the layout of the site. This shows the relief road acting as the primary route running through the development. The employment uses will be focussed around the relief road, connecting into this and creating excellent links for the employment sites and the surrounding residential developments to the A325. Wider Policy Context

As noted previously, the statutory planning policy framework for the site is established in a number of national and local documents. The relevant policies are summarised below. NPPF The NPPF establishes the Government’s strategic planning policies to be applied across England. As noted previously, it establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development which is defined as having an economic, social and environmental role. It requires the planning system to achieve the following: ■ “an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; ■ a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and ■ an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy” (Para 7). The NPPF states that “transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives” (Para. 29). In terms of transport developments, the NPPF notes that “encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion” (Para 30). It goes on to state: “Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to

■ accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; ■ give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities; ■ create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; ■ incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and ■ consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport” (Para 35)

Whitehill-Bordon Options Review Report Prepared for November 2013 Hampshire County Council 4 Furthermore, the NPPF promotes the identification and protection of “sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice” (Para 38). PPS: Eco-towns, A Supplement to PPS 1

PPS: Eco-Towns sets out the Government’s objectives for eco-towns. It requires eco-towns to “be exemplar projects that encourage and enable residents to live within managed environmental limits and in communities that are resilient to climate change” (Para 1). The guidance establishes a number of standards eco-towns should meet, including: ■ Achieving zero carbon; ■ Design for climate change adaptation; ■ Deliver high quality homes that meet relevant sustainability standards, meet the needs of everyone and include a mix of tenures; ■ Provide a minimum of one employment opportunity per dwelling; ■ Promote sustainable transport choices; ■ Provide required transport infrastructure; ■ Promote healthy lifestyles; ■ Include a range of social and community facilities; ■ Designate 40% of the eco-town area as green space; ■ Demonstrate positive impacts on the landscape and historic environment; ■ Provide for a net gain in local biodiversity; ■ Ensure efficient use of water; ■ Mitigate flood risk; and ■ Provide sustainable waste and resources plan. With regard to transport, the key objective of the PPS is to reduce travel by car, and states that access to eco-towns should be designed to prioritise walking, cycling and other sustainable options. It requires eco-town proposals to demonstrate how the design will enable at least 50% of trips originating from the eco-town to be made by non-car means with the potential to increase to at least 60% in the long-term. The PPS states that proposed transport infrastructure should be designed in compliance with best practice guides such as Manual for Streets, Building for Life and other community travel guidance. It also notes that the proposals should not result in existing key connections around the eco-town becoming congested. PPS: Eco-towns requires all eco-towns to be subject to a Masterplan to demonstrate how the standards will be achieved. It notes that there will be a presumption in favour of the original Masterplan, and states that “any subsequent planning applications that would materially alter and negatively impact on the integrity of the original master-plan should be refused consent.” Local Plan

The Second Review Local Plan promotes sustainable development within the District and seeks to ensure proposals meet the economic and social needs of people living and working in East Hampshire. The main extant Second Review Local Plan policies relevant to the consideration of the appropriate option for the relief road are as follows: Policy number Policy T1 Planning permission will be granted for development that promotes the integration of the means of transport, choice of mode and an efficient public transport system. T4 Development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect the amenity of users of footpaths, bridleways, or cycleways or where the rights of way network or cycle network is disrupted and no equally attractive, safe and convenient satisfactory remedial measures, such as re-routing, can be undertaken. T7 Planning permission will be granted for a road proposal only where it would mitigate or overcome environmental problems, improve safety and/or convenience on the public highway or provide access to a new development. T10 Development will only be permitted if: a. the internal road layout is appropriate to the locality; and b. measures are incorporated to achieve safe traffic speeds which are in keeping with the surrounding area and, where appropriate, provide for public transport.

As noted previously the Local Plan is currently being updated, and the extant policies of the Second Review Local Plan will eventually be superseded by the LPJCS. In line with guidance established in the NPPF, and in light of the advanced stage of this document, it is appropriate to give weight to the planning policies established within the document in considering proposals. The delivery of the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town forms part of the strategic vision for the draft LPJCS. Policy CSWB1 establishes the strategic allocation of the land in order to meet the objectives of the Masterplan. With regard to transport and infrastructure, this policy states that proposals must: “d) Be carried out in a comprehensive manner in line with the Infrastructure and Delivery Plan that sets out how the rate of development will be linked to the respective phases of the development; and ensure that the necessary infrastructure, proportionate to development has been secured and delivered in parallel with the new developments; e) Improve transport links from the surrounding settlements to the town, and within the town, providing opportunities to reduce reliance on the private car and encourage other modes;

Include any necessary mitigation measures, to be funded by the developer, to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of the strategic and local road networks”.

Policy CSWB11 states that the proposal should deliver the relief road in order to allow for the necessary redesign of the A325. Paragraph 9.80 goes on to state: “The Inner Relief Road will be designed as a ‘Street’ and will incorporate ‘Manual for Streets’ design principles to ensure that whilst allowing for vehicular movement, the street positively provides for other highway users, providing a safe and attractive street environment. The routing of the inner relief road shown in Proposals Map 5 remains indicative at this time and will be subject to further ongoing work.”

The land for the potential future rail connection to the town has not been safeguarded in the final draft of the LPJCS, despite being included in earlier drafts. Paragraph 9.89 states: “The GRIP 3 study concluded a rail link does not currently provide sufficient value for money and is unlikely to be delivered but its potential viability will be kept under review.”

Best Practice Guidance

Whitehill-Bordon Options Review Report Prepared for November 2013 Hampshire County Council 6 A number of policy documents refer to the need to comply with best practice guidance. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) establishes the principle guidance and standards for highway design. This is reflected in the options. However, and particularly in respect of the inner route options, parts of the alignment are integrated within the proposed development area and thus the nature of the street and its function may change. In these instances, guidance presented Manual for Streets (2007) and Manual for Streets 2 (2010) should be considered, along with Hampshire County Council’s companion document to manual for Streets (2010). A summary of these documents is presented below: Manual for Streets

Manual for Streets was published by Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport in 2007. The purpose of the document is to inform the design and construction of new residential streets to ensure that they: ■ “help to build and strengthen the communities they serve; ■ meet the needs of all users, by embodying the principles of inclusive design (see box); ■ form part of a well-connected network; ■ are attractive and have their own distinctive identity; ■ are cost-effective to construct and maintain; and ■ are safe” (Para. 1.1.5). The document defines a ‘street’ as routes as “typically lined with buildings and public spaces, and while movement is still a key function, there are several others, of which the place function is the most important” (Para 2.2.1). This is in contrast to a road “whose main function is accommodating the movement of motor traffic” (Para 2.2.1). The document sets out guidance for designing streets, and seeks to ensure new road developments are appropriate for the movement framework of the place and allow for internal permeability and external connectivity. Manual for Streets 2

Manual for Streets 2: Wider Application of the Principles, was published by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation in 2010. It demonstrates that the guidance established in Manual for Streets can be applied to most highways regardless of the speed limit. The Guidance looks at a number of common street types and analyses the key issues associated with them and provides detailed design guidance for how streets could be designed better or improved. The guidance notes that relief roads are “typically multi-lane dual carriageways... with very little frontage development” (Para. 2.4.13). The main function of a relief road is typically to carry traffic around an urban area, and they generally segregate different user groups and often act as a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists. Hampshire County Council: Companion Document to Manual for Streets

This presents the County Council’s response to Manual for Streets and is intended to sit alongside this, providing technical advice for developers, designers and planners. It is recognised as being “one tool among many that contribute to the creation of quality places” (page 3). It is intended that through use of the document, design will reflect or help create a strong sense of place. The companion guide focuses primarily on new streets with a design speed of 30mph, “which characteristically get more pedestrian use and can contribute more to character or quality of place” (page 7).

THE OPTIONS: OVERVIEW Whitehill & Bordon was identified as a and location for new growth and development. The Masterplan (see policy section above) envisages substantial growth to the west of the existing urban area, providing new homes, employment opportunities, supporting social and community infrastructure. Central to this is the creation of a new town centre, providing a new heart for the new and existing communities. This will, in the main, be located to the west of what is currently the A325 Petersfield Road, although there will also be some town centre activity along this too. The A325 provides a north south link through the development area, connecting with Farnham and the A31 to the north, and to the A3 to the south. In order to minimise the impact of through traffic on the quality of the new town centre, the Masterplan envisages the creation of a new relief road. The possible routes for the road were reviewed by HCC in 2012 and 2013, and six options were considered. These options (plus a seventh option through Viking Park which has been subsequently raised by the Delivery Board) are being considered in more detail in this report (see Figure 4/1). The purpose of this report is to review the options against the objectives set out by HCC. The options essentially fall into one of two categories: ■ Five of the options follow an ‘inner’ alignment, running through the centre of the proposed development area. ■ Two of the options follow an ‘outer’ alignment, ringing around the periphery of the development area. The two options imply different types of road. The ‘inner’ route forms a key structuring element to the new development area. The nature of the route will be closely linked to the type of development along it. It will have frequent junctions and crossing points, providing for ease of access by all (not just vehicular movements). The ‘outer’ route would fewer junctions and connections into the development area and allow for faster flowing traffic. Both routes partially follow the alignment of the former railway line to Longmoor. The proposed alignment of all inner and outer options come together at the northern and southern ends of the development area. However, the nature of the road (whether ‘inner’ or ‘outer’) will determine the character of the end sections. One further potential option is that the route could run through Viking Park at its southern end. We have not looked at this in detail as it would share characteristics with cross sections and street types shown for the broader outer and inner route options.

THE ‘OUTER’ ROUTE OPTIONS The ‘outer’ route can be broken down into four different sections or street types (see Figure 4/2). These are described and illustrated below in cross section. In all instances it has been assumed that the outer route would take the form of a 40mph road, with bus stops provided in lay-bys off the main carriageway. A standard carriageway width of 7.3 metres has been assumed, opening out as necessary at junctions which are generally traffic signalled junctions. Pedestrian crossing points would be provided at all junctions and to link into the Green Loop. Landscape buffer strips would be provided alongside the majority of the street, with footpaths and cycle ways provided as appropriate alongside but set back from the street edge. Where cycle paths and footpaths can only be accommodated on one side of the street it has been assumed that they would be provided within the areas of Open space and or SANG to the west of the development area. Crossing points would need to be provided to enable access to these, linking into the wider development area and network of pedestrian and cycle routes. All options run along the former rail corridor. They may thus preclude the longer term potential for reinstatement of the former railway and a new station in the location identified in the Masterplan. The road is designed for a relatively fast flow of unimpeded vehicular traffic along it.

THE ‘INNER’ ROUTE OPTIONS As with the ‘outer’ route option, this option can equally be split into four different sections or street types. It has been assumed that the ‘inner’ route would take the form of a 30mph street

Whitehill-Bordon Options Review Report Prepared for November 2013 Hampshire County Council 8 though, in places, such as where it runs through the development area, the actual running speed may be lower depending on the nature of the street and the design to encourage slower speeds. It would incorporate regular crossings, combined pedestrian/cycle paths along both sides of the carriageway. A standard carriageway width between 6 and 7.3 metres has been assumed, depending on the location and relationship to the function of the development along the route. The route would include tree planting and landscaping, which would be integral to the character of the street. Bus stops would be provided on carriageway, with cycle lanes running around these to avoid pedestrian and cycle movement conflicts. The street would be fronted with new development, on both sides, with on-street parking provided as appropriate along this, often in the form of a shared surface area incorporating walking and cycling provision. All junctions would provide for safe and easy pedestrian and cycle crossing movements. Side roads would benefit from entry treatments that facilitate easy cycle and pedestrian crossings, with vehicles giving way to pedestrians and cyclists. The ‘inner’ route would be integrated within the development area, providing internal permeability, balanced with the need to provide for through traffic. SUMMARY Two broad route options have been looked at in this section: (1) an ’outer’ route designed to a 40mph speed limit and (2) an ‘inner’ route designed to a 30mph speed limit. Both options are designed to be integral to the development opportunity. The primary difference between the two is that the ‘outer’ route facilitates relatively quick movement for through traffic around the development area. The ‘inner’ route, however, forms a central street and spine through the development area, carrying both through traffic as well as other more localised movements. The challenge is to consider how these competing objectives might be balanced without undermining the Masterplan. The report has used a traffic light system to assess the options against the objectives for the relief road. This is presented in the table below: Assessment of options against objectives for the relief road

Objective for Relief ‘Outer’ ‘Inner’ Notes Road Route Route

Relieve congestion on Both would relieve congestion from the A325, the A325 though the outer route would allow for more of a free-flowing alternative given higher traffic design speeds and fewer junctions with the development area. This is also shown in the Traffic Assessment summarised in Section 3 of the main report.

Enable the new town Both would help reduce traffic levels on the centre existing A325, though the outer route would potentially remove more through traffic given design speeds and junction numbers as noted above. This is also shown in the Traffic Assessment summarised in Section 3 of the main report.

Provide access to the Both would provide access to the development development area, though the inner route would provide more opportunity for direct and regular access given its role as a central spine through the development. This would also allow direct penetration through the centre of the development area by bus, maximising pedestrian catchment areas.

Reduce severance Both would help reduce severance on the current A325 though the outer route results in removing more through traffic from the existing A325. In particular, the removal of significant traffic volumes and non-local traffic, including Heavy Goods Vehicles, away from planned residential areas will help contribute to an enhanced residential amenity and sense of place within the development area. This can help facilitate active ground floor uses fronting onto the street, reduced noise and visual disturbance from traffic, and a more attractive pedestrian environment.

In terms of meeting these objectives the ‘outer’ route performs better than an ‘inner’ route. In addition to the core objectives for the relief road as set out and assessed in the table above it is also important to consider the wider policy framework and associated design principles for Whitehill & Bordon. These anticipated an inner relief road running through the development area, designed as a ‘street’ and balancing the needs of all modes. Development of an ‘outer’ route also provides access to the development and caters for all modes of travel. It also doesn’t preclude a central spine from also being delivered although it would have different role to that envisaged within the Masterplan and wider policy framework. An ‘outer route’ will help remove significant volumes of through traffic from the development area and thus help create the conditions for a high quality sense of place attractive to new and existing residents and businesses alike. Provision of an ‘outer’ route will help reduce the barrier effect that could be otherwise created by the road and level of traffic on this running through the development area, allowing better movement by all and an enhanced residential amenity.

Whitehill-Bordon Options Review Report Prepared for November 2013 Hampshire County Council 10 Revision: 285358AB-HHG 285358AB-HHG Drawing Number: Drawing

Figure 1: Whitehill Bordon: Relief road Route options ProjectNumber: 285358AB-HHG

C:\Documents and Settings\Michael.Linfield\Local Settings\Temp\wzf50f\WhitehillBordon\Options- SchematicforGeotech.dwg Drawing Route ‘End’: Viking Park option: Inner options: Outer options: Route ‘End’: Same alignment but diffferent Not considered in detail but would All three have similar Both have similar design Same alignment

File Name: design responses for Inner and have similar design response to design response to each response to each other but diffferent design Outer options components of the Inner and Outer other responses for Inner options in this section and Outer options

Rev Date Description By Chk App Notes: Client: Title: Drawn: ML Checked: SR HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF Designed: ML Approved: HC OPTIONS Date: 14/10/2013 Scale: NOT TO SCALE Sheet: 1 OF 1 Hampshire Project Number: Drawing Number: Revision: Project: 10th Floor 10/17/2013 3:09:35 PM Marlowe House WHITEHILL - BORDON 285358AB-HHG 285358AB-HHG A

Linfield, Michael 109 Station Road Sidcup Tel: 44-(0)20-8269-6787 RELIEF ROAD DA15 7BH © Copyright Parsons Brinckerhoff Login: Plot Date: Figure 2: Whitehill Bordon: Relief road ‘Outer’ route: street types

Revision: 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 7 7 1

6 1 6

1 5

5 7

5 5 1 4

4 0 2 3

7 3 5

3 7

1 5 5

2 0 7 7

0 0 5 7

5 5 0

0 1

2 5 3 0 0 5 7

0 5

0 . . 5

. 0 1 . .

. 8

5 . 0 .

. 0 0 5 .

0 . 0 .

0 .

. 0

0 .

0 2 . 0 0

0 0

0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0

0 0 0 1

0 0

0 0 7 0 0

0 0 0

. 0 0 0 0

0 0 8 1 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 5 0 0

0 . 0

0 2 2

0 0

. 0 0

5 0 5 1

0 0

0 . 0 8

1 0

. 0

2 0 5

0 0

2 0

0 0

Drawing Number: Drawing 1

5 .

0 0

1 . 8 0 0 7

2 0

0 0 5

0 .

0 0 1

. 0

0 9

1 0 0

7 .

5 0

. 1

0 0 9 0 2

Project Number: Project 1

1 0 5

5 0

0 0 1

. 0

0 9

0 5

0 0

1 .

1 0

2 1

5 9

.0 7

0 5

0 . 0

1 2 0

1 0

00 0

.0 0 .

00 0 0 2

1 0

0 2

7 5

5 .

.0 0

0 2

0 0 0

10 0 .

50 0 0

. 2

0 0

0 7

1 .

0 0

0 2 2

5. 1

00 0

0 0

0 1 2

0 0

0 1

0 2

.0 5

0 .

0 0

0 2

9 1

7 5

5. 0

0 .

0 0

0 0 2

9 7

5 5

0 .

.0 0 0

0 2

9 .

2 0

5 0

. 2 0

00 2

0 2 5

9 0 0

0 2 0

0 2

.0 5

00 0

0 2

8 0

7 2

5 7

.0 5

0 .

0 0

0 2

0 3

8 0

50 0

.0 0

0 2

0 0 3

8 5

2 .

5 0

.0 2 0

0 3

0 5

8 0

0 0 2

0 0

.0 3

0 7

0 5

. 0

7 2

7 4

5. 0

00 0 .

0 0

0 2

7 4

5 2

0 5

.0 .

0 0

0 2

0 4

72 0 .

5. 0 0 0 2

0 0

0 4 7

7 .

0 0

0 0 2

. 0

00 5

0 0

67 0 0

5 2

.0 5

0 2

0 5

6 0

5 2

0 5

.0 5

0 0

0 . 0

6 0

2 2

5 5

.0 7

0 5

. 0 0

6 0

0 2

0 6

. 0

0 0

0 .

0 0

5 0

7 2

5 6

. 2

0 5

0 .

0 0 0

. 0

5 7

5 5

0 .

. 0

0 0

00 0

5 7

2 0

5 0 .

. 0

0 0

00 0

5 2

0 7 2

0 5

. .

0 0

4 0 0

7 2

5 7

. 5 0 0

5 5 0

5 6 .

2 0 . 0

5 7

0 0 0 4

5 2 0 5 0 5

0 5 0 5

5 0

0 7 0 .

. . 0

4 0

0 . 0 1 2 5 . 0 .

0 7

7 0 0

0 0 0 1 . . 7

0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0

4 5 0

0 0 1 0 2

0 2 0 .

0 0 0 0

5 . 0

. 5 5

0 5 0

0 0

0 0 0

4 0 . .

. 0 0

2 0 0 . 4

0 2

0 0

5 0 0 8 0 0

0 0 0

4 . 0

0 0

3 . . 0 0 0

0 7 0 0 0 0 0 . 5 0

3 0 3 .

0 5 0 2 7 8

0 0 2 5 3 0

0 5 . . .

0 2 0 0

3 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 5 2

0 1 . 0

2 0 0 2 0

2 7 7 2

. 0 8

0 .

2 5

0 5

0 0 5

0 0

5 .

3 0 .

0 0

0 0 . .

. 2 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 5 0

0 0

.0 0

0 0

0 0 2

3 8 0 7

0 5

0 . 0

. 0 0 0

2 0

7 2

5 9 0

. 0

0 . 0

2 0 0 5 0 0 0 .

0 3 3

3 0 3

3 2 3 3 0 3 3 3 2 2 8 7

2 5 2 0 7

2 5

0 . 3 5 5 0 0 5 . .

2 . .

0 . 0 0 0 .

2 0

0 2 2 0 0

. 0 0 3 0 0

9 5 0 0 0

5 0

0 2 2 0 0

0 5 . 0

. 0 0

0 . 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

0 0 . 0

7 0 5 2

.0 9 5 0

1 0 0

0 .

5 0

0 0 2

. 0

0 9

1 0 7

2 0 5

3 5 0

0 . 0

0 1

1 0 0 7 0

0 3

0 3 5

. 0 0 0 .

1 0 2

. 3

0 0 3 5 0

0 0 3 3 1 0 0

7 .

0 0 1 2 0 .

5 0

0 7 0 . 0 5

0 0

. 5 0

0 . 0 0 0 0

0 . . 0

5 0 0 0

0 0 0 . 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 0 5 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0

Rev Date Description By Chk App

10th Floor Marlowe House 109 Station Road Sidcup DA15 7BH Client: HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Site/Project: WHITEHILL-BORDON IRR

Title: WORKSHOP DRAWING - PREFERRED OPTION 2 F:\WhitehillBordon\Workshop Markup Drawings - Standard\WhitehillBordon\Preferred Option Design - Workshop Markup.dwg F:\WhitehillBordon\Workshop - Workshop Design Markup Drawings Option - Standard\WhitehillBordon\Preferred File Name:

Drawn: ML Checked: D Designed: ML Approved: LE Date: SEPT 2013 Scale: 1:2000 A0LSheet: Project Number: Drawing NumbeRr: O Revision: NT 9/10/2013 10:12:21 AM 9/10/2013 10:12:21 O Linfield,Michael NC © Copyright Parsons Brinckerhoff Login: PlotDate: ‘Outer’ street U type 1 2 3 2 3 4 3

Street type Basic description 1. Landscape buffer either side of street, with properties on either side backing onto this. 2. Landscape buffer on both sides of street. One side opens up into wider open space. Other side becomes rear of adjacent properties or, in places, residential street fronted with properties on one side only. 3. Landscape buffer and open space on both sides of street. 4. Street runs through development area and potentially fronted by properties on both sides. Appendix 4 Environmental Options Report

Whitehill and Bordon Relief Road Environmental Route Options Appraisal Report

12/02/2014 Revised: Confidentiality: Public

Quality Management

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Draft Revised Draft Date September 2013 February 2014 Prepared by Project Team Project Team Signature Checked by Alan Heatley Alan Heatley Signature Authorised by Alan Heatley Alan Heatley Signature Project number 00040393 00040393 Report number 01 01 File reference Route Options.doc Route Options_rev1.doc

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 2 Revised:.

Whitehill and Bordon Relief Road

Environmental Route Options Appraisal Report

12/02/2014

Client Hampshire County Council The Castle Winchester Hampshire SO23 8UJ

Consultant WSP Environmental Mountbatten House Basing View Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 4HJ UK

Tel: +44 (0)12 5631 8800 Fax: +44 (0)12 5631 8700 www.wspenvironmental.com

Registered Address WSP Environmental Limited 1152332 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Overview ...... 6 1.2 Project Background ...... 6 1.3 The Proposed Relief Road ...... 6 2 Route Options Appraisal ...... 10 2.1 Overview ...... 10 2.2 Air Quality ...... 10 2.3 Cultural Heritage ...... 25 2.4 Landscape ...... 32 2.5 Nature Conservation ...... 46 2.6 Geology and Soils ...... 54 2.7 Noise and Vibration ...... 59 2.8 Pedestrians & Cyclists ...... 63 2.9 Effects on Vehicle Travellers ...... 68 2.10 Road Drainage and the Water Environment ...... 73 3 Policies and Plans ...... 86 3.1 Introduction ...... 86 3.2 Appraisal Methodology ...... 86 4 Recommendations ...... 96 4.1 Introduction ...... 96 4.2 Air Quality ...... 96 4.3 Cultural Heritage ...... 96 4.4 Landscape ...... 96 4.5 Nature Conservation ...... 97 4.6 Geology and Soils ...... 97 4.7 Noise and Vibration ...... 97 4.8 Pedestrians and Cyclists ...... 97 4.9 Effect on Vehicular Travellers ...... 98 4.10 Road Drainage and the Water Environment ...... 98 4.11 Conclusion ...... 98 5 References ...... 99 Appendices ...... 101 Appendix A – Figure 1 - Route Options ...... 101 Appendix B – Traffic Data and Emission Factors used in Model ... 102 Appendix C – IAQM Guidance – Examples of Factors Defining Sensitivity of an Area ...... 103 Appendix D – Location of Cultural Heritage – Figure 2 and Supporting Table ...... 104

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 4 Revised:.

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview 1.1.1WSP-PB have been commissioned by Hampshire County Council (HCC) to undertake a Route Options appraisal of the potential routes for the Whitehill Bordon Relief Road. This report provides a comparison of the environmental issues associated with each route option.

1.2 Project Background 1.2.1MoD facilities at Bordon, Hampshire, are to be decommissioned from 2015 with all military activity ceasing by that time. It is the intention to redevelop the MoD site from 2015 – 2035, comprising 4,000 homes, 30,000 sq m of retail and 122,000 sq m of commercial floor space. 1.2.2Whitehill & Bordon was awarded Eco-town status in July 2009 and The Delivery Board, which includes East Hampshire District Council (EHDC), HCC, Whitehill Town Council, Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) have developed a Framework Masterplan to ensure the future growth and regeneration of the town. The Framework Masterplan was approved in June 2010 and updated and adopted in May 2012 (Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Framework Masterplan, Revised May 2012). This redevelopment is referred to hereafter as the Whitehill & Bordon Masterplan or the Masterplan development. 1.2.3HCC adopted the Emerging Transport Strategy in September 2011 which stated the need for delivery of the relief road as part of the Masterplan. 1.2.4Development Briefs are being prepared currently for the new town centre (at Prince Philip Barracks) and an Eco-business park at Louisburg Barracks. 1.2.5It is the intention to construct a Relief Road to serve the development of the Masterplan and ease existing pressure on the A325 as well as to serve the Masterplan development. The existing section of the A325 which runs through the centre of Whitehill & Bordon would be downgraded to facilitate creation of a new town centre by reducing severance and encouraging pedestrian movement with active shop frontages along the road. 1.2.6The HCA are seeking to redevelop Louisburg Barracks as part of the Masterplan as an early phase (starting on-site in March 2015, this is contingent on work on the Relief Road being started by this date). 1.2.7This Route Options Appraisal report relates to the Relief Road, separate studies are being undertaken on behalf of the HCA and the Landowners in relation to future planning applications for the Masterplan development, including Louisburg Barracks.

1.3 The Proposed Relief Road 1.3.1The Relief Road will be approximately 5 kilometres (km) in length and a standard carriageway width. Feasibility studies have been undertaken by HCC to consider the alignment options for the Relief Road. The findings of these studies are presented in two reports: ■ HCC (unsigned/no date). Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Inner Relief Road Alignment Options – Northern Section Feasibility Report., Report no. R.J507017; and ■ HCC (unsigned/no date). Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Inner Relief Road Alignment Options – Southern Section Feasibility Report., Report no. R.J502790.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 6 Revised:.

1.3.2This work has culminated in the determination by HCC of seven alignment options (including a sub-option route through Viking Park). The Alignment Options Drawing and the sub-option route through Viking Park are provided in Appendix A. 1.3.3Once a preferred route has been identified an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be undertaken of the preferred route (which will consider it against the alternative options) in accordance with legal requirements (including the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012) and an Environmental Statement will be prepared to support the future planning application. The assessment methodology will be in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11 Environmental Assessment.

Summary of the Alignment Options 1.3.4There are 6 route options for a relief road to serve Whitehill and Bordon which are under consideration in this report. All 6 options have common initial alignments commencing from and to their start and finish points, with the exception of the route 3A through Viking Park. 1.3.5The 6 route options diverge onto different paths between the above mentioned limits and the paragraphs below will deal with the respective differences in the routes taken by the options. Figure 1 (Appendix A) provides an outline of the route options.

Route Descriptions

Common Alignments 1.3.6At the southern end of the relief road, and going north from the junction of the A325 Petersfield Road, Hogsmoor Inclosure and Liphook Road the alignments take a common route through the cutting of the former Longmoor Military Railway, an abandoned railway line for a distance of 500 m, where there is existing residential development on both sides. These residential roads are Morse Close and Sutton Field to the east and Champeney Close to the west. In order for the alignments to reach the level of a junction at A325 Petersfield Road/Liphook Road, significant amounts of infilling of the cutting will be required to raise levels from the old trackbed levels. 1.3.7At the northern end of the relief road from a point just to the west of Louisburg Barracks, the alignments run through the centre of the Barracks in a north easterly direction for 420 m before turning northwards and then curving for 580 m to align with the existing A325 Farnham Road. A new junction with the A325 is to be formed to join the relief road to it. The limit of the common alignments at the south will be called Points A and for the northern end (by Louisburg Barracks) Points B. (Refer to Figure 1).

Option 1 – between points A and B 1.3.8Option 1 is 4025 m in overall length and from the junction with the A325 at Whitehill to the junction with the A325 at Bordon and will have a carriageway width of 7.3 m. Its speed limit will be 40 mph. From Point A it will run for 2000 m mostly on embankment with future development to the east of the road separated by a green barrier and open space (currently Hogsmoor Inclosure MOD Training Ground but due to be redeveloped as a SANG to service the development),to the west. From this point the road will then run for 750 m to Point B on embankment, curving to the east and then north east and skirting the south west boundary of the existing officer’s mess and running past the existing Waste Recycling Centre and Electricity Sub Station before running up to the start of the common alignment - point B.Option 2 between points A and B

Option 2 – between points A and B 1.3.9Option 2 is 3985 m in overall length and will have a carriageway width of 7 3 m. Its speed limit will be 40 mph. From Point A it will run for 2000 m mostly on embankment, with future development to the east of the road and open space (currently Hogsmoor Inclosure MOD Training Ground but due to be redeveloped as a SANG to service the development) to the west. The road will then run for 750 m on embankment along the route of the abandoned railway line, then turn right to pass to the north side of the existing officer’s mess up to Point B. There are no development frontages on this section. 1.3.10Option 2 is considered to be an outer relief road and has been looked at in more detail as a typical “outer” relief road option.

Option 3 between Points A and B 1.3.11Option 3 is 3675 m in overall length and will have a carriageway width of 7.3 m. Its speed limit will be 30 mph. From Point A it will run on a more southerly route from options 1 and 2 for 390 m mostly on embankment with open space on both sides. To the west will be the newly created SANG (currently Hogmoor Enclosure Training Ground). The road will then run in a north westerly direction for 1050 m on embankment, passing development on both sides of the road, before skirting the southern boundary of the site of the existing officers' mess with open space on both sides, for a distance of 325 m. The road then runs in a north easterly direction for 400 m to join Point B. 1.3.12Option 3 is considered to be an inner relief road option as it runs through the proposed development. 1.3.13There is one structure required, a culvert required to be built over the Oxney Moss watercourse.

Option 3A - Viking Park 1.3.14Option 3A provides a new junction with the A325 some 35 m north of the existing A325/New Road junction, is 3265 m in length and will have a carriageway width of 7.3 m. Its speed limit will be 30 mph. From the new junction the road this alignment runs in alternate curves round the rear of Whitehill Village Hall then through proposed industrial development and along an existing short length of industrial estate road going in a north-west/south east direction for 125 m also running close to established businesses. It then joins and runs along the same alignment as Option 3 from chainage up to point A.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 8 Revised:.

Option 3B - Viking Park 1.3.15Option 3B provides a new junction with the A325 Petersfield Road at the site of the existing A325/ Woodlark Public House junction. This option is 3047m in length and will have a carriageway width of 7.3 m. Its speed limit will be 30 mph. From the new junction the road this alignment runs straight in a north-westerly direction for 235m through proposed industrial development and then joins and runs along the same alignment as Option 3A from chainage 450m up to point A.

Option 4 1.3.16Option 4 is 3750 m in overall length and will have a carriageway width of 7.3 m. Its speed limit will be 30 mph. From Point A, for the first 450 m it will follow the same route as Option 2, but then run for 1250 m mostly in a slight cutting with proposed future residential development sited on both sides of the road, up to a proposed junction with B3002 Budds Lane/Station Road /Oakhanger Road, sited just to the south of the existing officers' mess. The road then follows the alignment for Option 3 for 600m to arrive at Point B and there is open space each side of the alignment along this section. 1.3.17Option 4 is considered to be an inner relief road option and has been looked at in more detail as a typical “inner” relief road option.

Option 5 1.3.18Option 5 is 3.75 km in length and will have a carriageway width of 7.3 m. Its speed limit will be 30 mph. This option follows the eastern boundary of the training facilities. From Point A, for the first 450 m it will follow the same route as Options 1,2,3 and 4 but then runs to the north of route 3 for 350 m before crossing over and running to the south of route 3 with proposed future residential development sited on both sides of the road, for a distance of 810 m up to a proposed junction with Budds Lane, some 110m to the south east of the existing BuddsLane /Station Road junction. The road then curves to the north east for a length of 610 m to join Point B by Louisburg Barracks. 1.3.19Option 5 is considered to be an inner relief road option as it runs through the proposed development.

2 Route Options Appraisal

2.1 Overview 2.1.1This section sets out the results of the route options appraisal in relation to various technical topics which will be considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment of the preferred route. Each section sets out the key environmental issues and then provides an indication of which option

2.2 Air Quality

Introduction 2.2.1This section presents the findings of an appraisal of potential environmental constraints associated with air quality in relation to six route options for a proposed relief road in the area of Whitehill and Bordon.

Description of Study Area 2.2.2A local study area within 350m along all relief road options has been considered within this appraisal.

Methodology 2.2.3This appraisal chapter has been based upon: ■ A review of East Hampshire District Council’s (EHDC) air quality review and assessment report (Ref :1);

■ A review of background concentrations of nitrogen oxides (NOX), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and

particulate matter (PM10) obtained from DEFRA’s website (Ref:2); ■ Identification of the likely sensitive receptors in relation to the proposed works; ■ Review of traffic data provided by WSP Ltd.; and ■ Modelling results from the air pollutant dispersion model ADMS Roads at relevant worst case receptors to allow a comparison between the route options..

Construction Phase Methods

Vehicle Emissions Impact During Construction 2.2.4A qualitative review of the potential constraints during the construction phase of the proposed works with

regards to dust and particulate matter (PM10) in the overall study area has been undertaken with reference to information contained in the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance. (Ref: 3)

2.2.5A qualitative assessment of exhaust emissions (nitrogen oxides (NOx) and PM10) from construction vehicles on local air quality has also been undertaken to identify potential constraints. This has been undertaken giving consideration to the likely level of construction traffic, the number and distance of receptors and the duration of the construction phase.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 10 Revised:.

Dust and PM10 Impact During Construction 2.2.6During the site preparation and construction phase, activities undertaken on the Site may cause dust and particulate matter to be emitted to the atmosphere. If transported beyond the Site boundary, dust and particulate matter can have an adverse impact on local air quality at nearby sensitive receptors unless suitable mitigation and control measures are applied at source. 2.2.7Due to its relatively large particle size (typically 1-75µm), dust is only resident in the atmosphere for short periods of time after its initial release and falls out of suspension relatively quickly and in proximity to the source of emission. Dust is therefore unlikely to cause long-term or widespread changes to local air quality; however, if it is transported beyond the Site boundary, dust deposition on property and cars can cause 'soiling' and discolouration. This may result in complaints of nuisance through amenity loss or perceived damage caused.

2.2.8As PM10 is much smaller (typically less than 10µm in aerodynamic diameter) in size than dust, it remains suspended in the atmosphere for a longer period and can be transported by wind over a wider area. It is small enough to be drawn into the lungs during breathing, which can cause an adverse reaction particularly in sensitive members of the public.

2.2.9Dust and PM10 emissions can also have an adverse effect on sensitive ecological habitats. For example dust deposition may reduce a plant’s efficiency in photosynthesising and there could be indirect impacts on fauna (e.g. foraging habitats). 2.2.10A qualitative assessment of the likely significant effects of the generation and dispersion of dust and

PM10 during the construction phase has been undertaken using guidance produced by the Air Quality Management (IAQM). 2.2.11The guidance provided by IAQM regarding the impacts of construction dust and particulate matter, states that an assessment will only be required where sensitive receptors are within 350m of the proposed work. 2.2.12Examples of locations that are sensitive to dust and particulate matter generated by construction activities include residential dwellings, hospitals, schools, hi-tech and food processing industries and commercially sensitive horticultural land.

Operation Phase Methods

2.2.13The key pollutants of concern for road traffic are typically considered to be NO2, PM10, carbon monoxide (CO) and benzene (C6H6). Of these pollutants, emissions of NO2 and PM10 are most likely to result in exceedences of the statutory air quality limit values and objectives. There is the potential for adverse effects on local air quality to occur at sensitive receptors located close to the alignment of the proposed route options. 2.2.14For the operational phase, a comparison of the route options has been undertaken to determine the preferred option with regards to air quality by predicting pollutant road emissions (NOx and PM10) generated by each option and the associated ambient air quality concentrations of NO2 and PM10 at relevant sensitive receptors. 2.2.15At the time of this assessment, traffic data was available for the year 2026 for the Options 2, 3A and 4. As advised and recommended by the WSP Transport Team, traffic characteristics for Option 4 were used to assess Options 1, 3 and 5 as all represent typical vehicle movements of the inner relief road. Therefore, traffic data for Options 1, 3 and 5 were assumed to be the same as Option 4. A summary of the traffic data and pollutant emission factors used in the assessment can be found in Appendix B. This includes details of Annual Average Daily Traffic flows (AADTs), average vehicle speeds and the percentage of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). The latest version of DEFRA’s emission factor toolkit (EFT - version 5.2) published January 2013 has been used to calculate the vehicle emission rates.

2.2.16ADMS Roads has been used to model traffic emissions of NOx and PM10 for each of the route options. 2016 emission factors available by DEFRA were employed for a conservative assessment as the traffic data used in this assessment are for the year 2026. The following scenarios have been modelled: ■ Option 1; ■ Option 2; ■ Option 3; ■ Option 3 and 3A; ■ Option 4; and, ■ Option 5 2.2.17A number of existing worst case receptors (properties) were selected to represent relevant public exposure, at which road traffic pollution concentrations were predicted. Receptors were selected at locations likely to be worst affected by the proposed routes as detailed in the ‘Sensitive Locations’ section below. 2.2.18The purpose of the modelling was to allow a comparison between the six route options in relation to air

quality once operational. The assessment results represent the road contribution for NOx and PM10 within the vicinity of the receptors for each of the route options. No verification of the model results was carried out for this appraisal exercise as no baseline data were available at the time of writing. It is therefore not relevant to compare the results to the objectives set out in the UK Air Quality Strategy (AQS). 2.2.19NOx emitted to the atmosphere will consist largely of nitric oxide (NO) which is a relatively innocuous

substance. Once released into the atmosphere, NO is oxidised to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which is of concern with respect to human health and other impacts. The proportion of NO converted to NO2 depends on a number of factors including wind speed, distance from source, solar irradiation and availability of other oxidants, such as ozone (O3). 2.2.20As this assessment is concerned with the comparison between the six route options, rather than overall

concentrations, the modelled NOx concentrations have not been converted to NO2 concentrations in this instance. Whereas close to exceeding NO2 values the relationship between NOx and NO2 is not linear, given the low ambient levels of this pollutant it was assumed that NO2 concentrations that would be experienced at sensitive receptor locations as a result of the route options will be proportional to the NOx concentrations that

would be experienced. As such it is considered appropriate to use NOx concentrations as a proxy for NO2 concentrations in this instance.

2.2.21The road contribution NOx and PM10 concentrations have been presented for each route option and the highest predicted concentrations for each receptor have been identified.

Sensitive Locations 2.2.22Sensitive locations are those where members of the public or sensitive ecological habitats may be exposed to pollutants generated by the construction or operation of the proposed works. These will include locations sensitive to an increase in dust deposition as a result of on-site construction activities, or exposure to gaseous pollutants from exhaust emissions from construction traffic, and traffic using the local road network following the completion of the proposed works. It should be noted that the sensitivity of each type of receptor (i.e. human or ecological receptor) to the different pollutants (i.e. gaseous pollutants or dust) will vary depending on the nature of the receptor and the period of time over which it is exposed. 2.2.23Sensitive receptors during the operational phase would be locations adjacent to roads that are likely to experience the greatest change in traffic flows once the proposed works is operational.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 12 Revised:.

2.2.24DMRB guidance (Ref. 4) states that the following designated ecological sites should be included in an assessment: Special Areas of Conservation (SACs (Sites of Community Importance or candidate SACs)), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), potential SPAs, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Ramsar sites. 2.2.25DMRB guidance also suggests that human receptors within 200m of affected roads should be considered and could include residential properties and locations where sensitive members of the public (e.g. young and elderly) are likely to be present and therefore receptors such as schools, hospitals and care homes should be considered. 2.2.26To allow a comparison between the route options, sensitive receptors were identified in the vicinity of the proposed route options, with consideration given to the density of receptors within these areas to ensure the results of the assessment are representative of the receptors likely to be affected by the proposed scheme.

Consultation 2.2.27No consultation with the local authority was carried out at the time of writing of the option appraisal report.

Baseline Conditions 2.2.28East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) had declared a small area of Bordon at the junction of the A325 and Chalet Hill as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) due to exceedences of the annual mean NO2 objective. This AQMA was subsequently revoked in 2013 following a further assessment. It is understood that the main effect causing the reduction of pollutant concentrations in this area was due to the decrease of vehicle movements along the A325 High Street mainly attributed to the opening of the Hindhead Tunnel.

2.2.29EHDC currently monitors NO2 in their administrative area using a network of automatic and passive air quality monitors. Monitoring is currently undertaken along some sections of the A325 Camp Road, High Street and Petersfield Road in Bordon. No monitoring of other pollutants is undertaken. 2.2.30In 2013, EHDC reported that air pollutants included in current UK regulations are likely to meet the air quality objectives in the District. The highest concentrations for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (38µg/m3) was reported in Bordon (A325-Challet Hill junction) which is the area of the former AQMA. 2.2.31

2.2.32Table 1 below summarises the 2012 annual mean NO2 monitoring results of the network.

3 Table 1: EHDC 2012 NO2 Monitoring Results (µg/m )

2012 Annual Mean Site Data ID Site X Y concentration Type Capture % (µg/m3)

- Bordon UB 479646 135341 99.8 22

Alton, Orchard AB1 UB 472109 139487 100 14.1 House

Bordon, Corals BR4 RS 479666 135345 100 38 Chalet Hill

Bordon, Corals BR7 RS 479666 135345 100 36.6 Chalet Hill

BR1 Bordon, Ashmead RS 479707 135438 100 20.5

Bordon, Chalet BR2 RS 479695 135356 100 22.8 Court

Bordon, 10 Chalet BR3 RS 479711 135321 100 27.6 Hill

BR5 Bordon, High Street RS 479654 135312 91.7 35

BR8 Bordon, High Street RS 479654 135312 91.7 32.9

Bordon, air Quality BR6 RS 479646 135341 91.7 21.1* Cabin

Bordon, 11 High BR9 RS 479642 135278 83.3 26.8 Street

Bordon, 11 High BR10 RS 479642 135278 91.7 27.5 Street

Bordon, BU1 Bassenthwaite UB 479795 136267 91.7 10.9 Gardens

Whitehill, WR1 RS 479314 134307 91.7 31 Petersfield Road

Bramshott A3 BramR1 RS 487134 133881 91.7 15.3 South, chase Villas

Petersfield, Town PB1 UB 474989 123241 91.7 13.7 Hall

Homdean, London HR1 RS 470554 113582 91.7 32.4 Road

Homdean, HR2 RS 470676 113174 75.0 28.8 Roundabout

Homdean, 24 HR4 RS 470637 113331 91.7 27.9 London Road

Air Quality Objective (Ref: 5) 40 Note: RS (Roadside); UB: (Urban Background).* average of triplicate diffusion tubes.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 14 Revised:.

2.2.33Estimated background concentrations of NOX, NO2 and PM10 for 2012 have been obtained from DEFRA’s website (Ref: 2) where estimated background concentrations of the pollutants included in the AQS have been mapped at a grid resolution of 1x1km grid squares for the whole of the UK for 2010 to 2030. Table 2 shows the location of the grid squares for which background concentrations have been obtained. Table 2: 2012 Estimated Background Concentrations (µg/m3)

2012 Estimated Background Concentrations (µg/m3) Grid square Grid Reference Coordinates number NOx NO2 PM10

1 479500, 133500 13.9 10.4 13.9

2 478500, 134500 14.2 10.6 14.4

3 479500, 134500 17.5 12.8 14.9

4 478500, 135500 14.2 10.6 14.5

5 479500, 135500 26.1 18.0 16.9

6 478500, 136500 14.3 10.7 14.2

7 479500, 136500 17.4 12.7 14.7

8 479500, 137500 14.2 10.6 14.1

9 480500, 137500 18.9 13.5 15.5

2.2.34Analysis of background concentrations for NOx, NO2 and PM10 within the study area for 2012 indicate that values are well below the annual mean air quality objectives for each pollutant (30g/m3 for NOx, and

NO2. 2.2.35Statutory designated ecological sites were identified close to the northern and southern end points of route Options 1 to 5. These sites are summarised in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 1. No ecological sites within 350m of route Option 3A were identified. 2.2.36According to IAQM criteria the surrounding area for route Options 1 to 5 would be considered to be of high sensitivity and low sensitivity for route Option 3A for ecological receptors during the construction phase. Table 3: Designated Ecological Sites Close to the Route Options

Approximately Site Name Site Type Nearest Route Option Distance, m

Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA All (Northern end point) <1m

Broxhead & Kingsley SSSI All (Northern end point) <1m Commons

Approximately Site Name Site Type Nearest Route Option Distance, m

Woolmer Forest SSSI All (Southern end point) 350m

Woolmer Forest SAC All (Southern end point) 370m

2.2.37Potential human receptors located within 350m of the proposed route options include residential properties and schools. The greatest number of residential properties likely be affected by the proposed scheme during the construction phase are located on the east side along A325 and at the southern end of route Options 1 to 5.

2.2.38The receptors closest to proposed routes are likely to be affected mainly by dust and PM10 during construction. A review of the route options in relation to IAQM criteria for the sensitivity of the surrounding area

for human receptors was undertaken and is summarised in Table 4. PM10 background concentrations in the area of the proposed route Options are considered to be well below the AQS objective (less than 75% of the objective). 2.2.39Based upon the IAQM criteria for the number of dwellings within 20m of the routes, the area surrounding Options 1 to 5 would be expected to be of high sensitivity for human receptors during the construction phase. The area surrounding Option 3A would be expected to be of medium sensitivity for human receptors during the construction phase. Table 4: IAQM Sensitivity of Surrounding Area for Human Receptors – Route Options

Sensitivity of Surrounding Area for Human Route Option IAQM criteria Receptors

1 10 to 100 dwellings within 20m High

2 10 to 100 dwellings within 20m High

3 10 to 100 dwellings within 20m High

3A Less than 10 dwellings within 20m Medium

4 10 to 100 dwellings within 20m High

5 10 to 100 dwellings within 20m High

2.2.40Human and ecological receptors included as part of this assessment are presented in Table 5 and shown on Figure 1. Following DMRB guidance, the ecological sites listed in Table 3 are considered in this assessment at the closest point to the routes. Table 5: Human/Ecological Receptors Close to the Route Options

Receptor Number Receptor Name X Y

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 16 Revised:.

Receptor Number Receptor Name X Y

1 Peel Close 479194.3 134078.9

2 Firgrove Road 479162.5 134038.4

3 20 Morse Close 479146.2 134198.5

4 21 Champney Close 479126.6 134128.6

5 74 Sutton Field 479084.9 134362.8

6 1 Petersfield Road 479344.6 134382.4

7 59 Dudley Close, 479394.6 134502.1

8 50 Wellington Avenue 479475.5 134737.2

9 Budds Lane 479292.5 135597.9

10 Budds Lane 479289.3 135712.2

11 Hogmoor Road 478573.4 135778.1

12 Hogmoor Road 478642.2 136010.9

13 Oakhanger Road 478995.9 136181.5

14 Oakhanger Road 478948.3 136198.5

15 Station Road 478988.5 136268.3

16 2 Bolley Avenue 478710.2 136205.9

17 Stable Road 479426.7 136529.5

18 Stable Road 479505 136552.8

19 Stable Road 479672.2 136605.7

20 Eastern Road 479803.4 136687.2

21 Farnham Road 479901.3 136702.6

SSSI: Broxhead & Kingsley Commons 22 480008.4 137137.3 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

SSSI & SAC: Woolmer Forest 23 479402.7 133663.2 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

SSSI: Woolmer Forest 24 479065.9 133675.4 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

Air Quality Constraints

Construction Phase Results 2.2.41The potential construction impacts identified below could apply to all the proposed works for all route options and could affect receptors identified earlier in the ‘Sensitive Locations’ section.

Increase in Dust and PM10 Generated by Site Activities 2.2.42The surrounding ecological receptors for Options 1 to 5 would be considered to be of high sensitivity at most. The ecological sites are located mainly at the northern and southern end points and route Options 1 to 5 with common initial alignments commencing from and to their start and finish points. Therefore, it is likely that route Options 1 to 5 would have the same potential impact on ecological receptors due to construction dust and

PM10. As there is no ecological site within 350m of route Option 3A, the construction dust and PM10 impact of the route is considered to be negligible. 2.2.43In terms of human receptors during construction phase, route Option 4 is likely to have the least number

of receptors to be affected from construction dust and PM10 effects among the route Options 1 to 5. However, route Options 3 and 4 will pass through existing Bordon Camp which more demolition works are likely to be required among of the other options. Therefore, route Option 1 is likely to have the least impact of construction

dust and PM10. The area surrounding route Option 3A is expected to be less sensitive in terms of human receptors during the construction phase compared to Options 1 to 5. 2.2.44As Option 3A joins Option 3, Option 1 is therefore considered to be the preferred option in terms of

potential increases in construction dust and PM10. 2.2.45The construction phase effects will be of a temporary nature (i.e. for the duration of the construction phases). Providing appropriate mitigation measures in place, effects associated with the construction phase for all options are likely to result in a negligible effect on ecological or human receptors and therefore unlikely to be a constraint to any of the proposed works.

Increase in Pollutant Concentrations (namely NOx, NO2 and PM10 ) as a Result of Exhaust Emissions Arising from Construction Traffic and Plant 2.2.46Traffic associated with site preparation and construction activities of the proposed works will contribute to traffic levels on the surrounding road network. Exhaust emissions from construction vehicles are likely to have an impact on local air quality both on-site and adjacent to the routes used by these vehicles. 2.2.47In addition, exhaust emissions from on-site plant operating during the construction phase could contribute to local pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the equipment/plant. The numbers of construction vehicles involved are unknown at this stage; however, the increase in pollutant concentrations is considered to be insignificant. 2.2.48With appropriate mitigation measures, the effects associate with emissions from construction traffic and plant is not considered to pose a constraint to the proposals given that any effects will be temporary and will only last for the duration of the works.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 18 Revised:.

Operation Phase Results 2.2.49Local monitoring data and the DEFRA background concentration estimates suggest that the AQS objectives are not currently being exceeded in the area of the proposed route Options. However, the air quality at the junction A325 and Chalet Hill has been close to the annual NO2 AQS objective in recent years and therefore any increase in traffic flows in this area could lead to exceedences of this AQS objective. The relief route scheme is redistribute traffic that would use London Road (A325) and therefore has the potential to reduce overall traffic flows on A325.

2.2.50Table 6 and Table 7 summarise road NOx and PM10 concentration respectively for each route Option. The highest NOx and PM10 concentrations predicted for each receptor are presented in bold. Option 3A is proposed to join Option 3, the combination effects are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6: Summary of Road NOx Modelling Results

2026 Road NOx Concentration (µg/m3)

ID Receptor

Option Option Option Option Option Option Range 1 2 3 3/3A 4 5

1 Peel Close 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 0.0

2 Firgrove Road 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.0

3 20 Morse Close 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.0

4 21 Champney Close 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.0

5 74 Sutton Field 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8 0.1

6 1 Petersfield Road 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5

7 59 Dudley Close, 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3

8 50 Wellington Avenue 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2

9 Budds Lane 0.3 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.4 2.9 2.6

10 Budds Lane 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.0 1.7

11 Hogmoor Road 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

12 Hogmoor Road 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

13 Oakhanger Road 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.1

14 Oakhanger Road 1.1 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.3

2026 Road NOx Concentration (µg/m3)

ID Receptor

Option Option Option Option Option Option Range 1 2 3 3/3A 4 5

15 Station Road 0.7 2.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 2.3

16 2 Bolley Avenue 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

17 Stable Road 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 0.4

18 Stable Road 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.2

19 Stable Road 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0

20 Eastern Road 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.0

21 Farnham Road 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0

SSSI: Broxhead & Kingsley Commons 22 7.1 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.6 0.7 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

SSSI & SAC: Woolmer Forest 23 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

SSSI: Woolmer Forest 24 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 20 Revised:.

Table 7: Summary of Road PM10 Modelling Results

3 2026 Road PM10 Concentration (µg/m )

ID Receptor

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3/3A Option 4 Option 5 Range

1 Peel Close 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0

2 Firgrove Road 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0

3 20 Morse Close 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1

4 21 Champney Close 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0

5 74 Sutton Field 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1

6 1 Petersfield Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

7 59 Dudley Close, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

8 50 Wellington Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

9 Budds Lane 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3

10 Budds Lane 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2

11 Hogmoor Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

12 Hogmoor Road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

13 Oakhanger Road 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

14 Oakhanger Road 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

15 Station Road 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

16 2 Bolley Avenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 Stable Road 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

18 Stable Road 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

19 Stable Road 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

20 Eastern Road 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0

3 2026 Road PM10 Concentration (µg/m )

ID Receptor

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3/3A Option 4 Option 5 Range

21 Farnham Road 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

SSSI: Broxhead & Kingsley Commons 22 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

SSSI & SAC: Woolmer Forest 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

SSSI: Woolmer Forest 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SPA: Wealden Heaths Phase II

2.2.51Option 2 has the greatest number of receptors with the highest concentrations for both NOx and PM10

and 4 have the least number of receptors with the highest concentrations for both NOx and PM10. 2.2.52The range of difference in concentrations for the route options at receptors is generally insignificance but there are greater differences in the concentrations for the route options at receptors located closest to the proposed route options themselves. For example, the highest range in NOx concentrations is predicted at Receptor 9 (Budds Lane). Receptor 9 is located close to Option 5 and therefore will experience higher concentrations of NOx with Option 5 in place rather than the other Options. 2.2.53The results suggest that out of the six modelled scenarios Option 4 would have the least impact on air quality at existing receptors once operational.

Route Option Comparison 2.2.54A summary table comparing the air quality effects of the route Options for both construction and operation phases are presented in Table 8. As mentioned in sections above, Options 1 and 4 would have the least impacts during construction and operation phases respectively. Options 5 and 2 would have most impacts during construction and operation phases respectively. However when taking the masterplan development into account Option 2 would be most favourable as it is towards the edge of the development area and so would be closer to fewer residential properties.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 22 Revised:.

Recommendations 2.2.55The potential impact of the different route options in relation to air quality have been considered as part of this route options appraisal. As part of this the potential impact of the route options upon sensitive receptors have been considered. This appraisal has concluded that Option 4 would be the preferred route in terms of air quality impact. The impact during construction phase is only temporary but the operation phase would have a permanent impact primarily from increased vehicle movements in areas where there are currently few vehicles. Therefore, in terms of change to the existing environmental baseline the overall air quality impact for Option 4.

Table 8: Summary Table – Air Quality

Viking Park and Environmental Option 2 (HCC Option 1 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Constraint / Feature Preferred option) Park (Option 3A)

Construction

Increase in Dust and 5 (in conjunction with PM Generated by 1 2 4 3 6 10 Option 3) Site Activities

Increase in Pollutant Concentrations as a Result of Exhaust 5 (in conjunction with 1 2 4 3 6 Emissions Arising Option 3) from Construction Traffic and Plant

Operation

5 (in conjunction with Traffic Emissions 1 1 2 2 2 Option 3)

Project number: 00040393 Dated: 02/09/2013 24 Revised:.

2.3 Cultural Heritage

Introduction 2.3.1This section presents the findings of a review of potential historic environment constraints associated with three aspects of the proposed Whitehill and Bordon Relief Road scheme which comprise six proposed route options between Whitehill and Bordon.

Description of Study Area 2.3.2The study area for the purposes of this assessment has been generally defined as a 1 km radius from the centre of the Site for statutory designated site searches, and 500 m radius search area for listed buildings (due to their more contained setting). A site location plan is provided in Figure 1.

Methodology 2.3.3This section has been prepared based on: ■ A desk based review of existing information relating to the Historic Environment, available in the public domain; ■ A review of available background historic environment research pertinent to providing a basis of appreciating the importance of the Historic Environment Record (HER) data; and ■ A review of the current legislative and planning policy regime pertinent in determining the protections and interest in particular asset types. 2.3.4The desk based review of existing information including aerial photographs and ordnance survey maps was undertaken in order to determine existing historic landscape features, historic landscape character, and potentially sensitive archaeological or built heritage receptors within or surrounding the Site. 2.3.5The report is broadly based on the methodology for site assessment found in the following best practice guidance documents: ■ Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) Standards and Guidance for Desk Based Assessment 2012; ■ IfA Standards and guidance for Archaeological Advice 2012; ■ English Heritage The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011); and ■ English Heritage Seeing the History in the View: A method for assessing heritage significance within views (2011)

Desk Study

Potential Change to Historic Environment Assets 2.3.6Consideration of historic environment assets encompasses both direct effects (in terms of loss or truncation of assets) as well as indirect effects (in terms of change to the setting of assets). The definition of the significance of effect is largely down to professional judgement given that a small disturbance of a highly important historic asset (such as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) or Grade I Listed Building) may result in a significant impact, and conversely a large impact upon a historic asset of low importance could be considered an impact of low order.

2.3.7The below table (Table 9: Risk Matrix) illustrates the decision making process which would be applied upon detailed consideration of a particular historic environment asset. Under prevailing planning policy at a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the ‘red’ and ‘amber’ sectors would require some level of technical support in the form of appropriate cultural heritage mitigation. Table 10 defines the criteria used to determine the magnitude of change assets are potentially subjected to. 2.3.8Developments which would significantly impact upon an asset of national importance would be highly unlikely to receive planning approval even with support. As the scale moves down the grading criteria, planning permission will become increasingly likely with reduced levels of historic environment technical support. Table 9: Risk Matrix for the Historic Environment

Asset Major Medium Minor Negligible Importance Magnitude of change

High (National): Development highly Development Development could Minimal/no unlikely to be unlikely to be proceed with sufficient mitigation required Includes Scheduled Ancient achieved achieved without mitigation Monuments, Grade I Listed substantial Buildings, Grade II* Listed mitigation Buildings Grade II Listed Buildings

Medium (Regional): Development Development could Development could Minimal/no unlikely to be proceed with proceed with low level mitigation required Includes Areas of achieved without sufficient mitigation mitigation Archaeological Importance, substantial Conservation Areas, mitigation Registered Parks and Gardens, non - designated sites of moderate importance

Low (Local): Development could Development could Development could Minimal/no proceed with proceed with low proceed with low level mitigation required Includes Locally Listed sufficient mitigation level mitigation mitigation structures, non - designated sites of low importance

Negligible Minimal/no Minimal/no Minimal/no mitigation Minimal/no mitigation required mitigation required required mitigation required

Table 10: Criteria Used to Determine Magnitude of Change

Scale Magnitude of Change High Highly significant loss of archaeological material (>60% by area) or loss of specific areas of material which contribute directly to the understanding of the asset concerned; or Circumstance within which it is not possible to determine the precise level of change in this way. Significant change to or loss of character of a built heritage asset (or change/loss of any scale which severely affects the character). This can be both direct and indirect. Medium Moderate loss of archaeological material (>40% by area) or loss of small specific areas of material which contribute to the understanding of the asset concerned. Change to or loss of character of a built heritage asset (or change/loss of any scale which affects the character to the extent to which the contribution of the area is reduced). This can be both direct and indirect. Low Loss of archaeological material (>10% by area). Change to or loss of character of a built heritage asset from an indirect source.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 26 Revised:.

Scale Magnitude of Change Negligible No change.

Consultation 2.3.9The Hampshire Historic Environment Record and National Monuments Record, were consulted to form the archaeological baseline of the area.

Description of Environmental Baseline and Key Environmental Constraints /Feature 2.3.10Historically, the town was an important army base with a railway station, as is nearby Aldershot. The camp was first laid out in 1899 by the Highland Light Infantry, directed by Royal Engineers, and following interruption by the Second Boer War, was occupied by the army from 1903. The first occupants of Quebec barracks were the Somersetshire Light Infantry, returning from South Africa in April, and the 2nd Battalion Devonshire Regiment arrived at St. Lucia Barracks from South Africa in June. Bordon Camp was home to the Canadian Army during both of the world wars and the town is dotted with concrete slabs on which tanks and armoured cars were parked. Bordon is now home to the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, providing trade training; both basic and supplementary, to its soldiers. The Longmoor Army Ranges, a large forest with tracks and firing ranges, is south of the town. Bordon railway station was linked to both the main railway network, and by light railway to the Longmoor Military Railway. The old track bed at Longmoor, especially between Greatham and Whitehill, is open to be used permissively by walkers and cyclists.

Route Option Comparison

Nationally Important Assets 2.3.11Nationally important assets are those considered to be of high value/sensitivity and include designated heritage assets of the highest significance (as defined in NPPF Paragraph 132), including: Scheduled Monuments; Grade I Listed buildings; protected wreck sites; battlefields; Grade I and Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens. Non-designated heritage assets which would meet the criteria for these designations, but are not currently designated, are also included where possible. 2.3.12These heritage assets have little ability to absorb change without fundamentally altering their present character. Table 11 below presents a summary of nationally important assets in relation to the Overall Study Area.

Table 11: Summary of Nationally Important Assets

Junction SAM Grade I Listed Buildings Archaeologically Important Areas Asset

Option 1 Round Barrow cemeteries to N/A – None listed N/A – None listed east of Bordon (<50m)

Option 2 Round Barrow cemeteries to N/A – None listed N/A – None listed east of Bordon (<50m)

Junction SAM Grade I Listed Buildings Archaeologically Important Areas Asset

Option 3 Round Barrow cemeteries to N/A – None listed N/A – None listed east of Bordon (<250m)

Option 4 Round Barrow cemeteries to N/A – None listed N/A – None listed east of Bordon (<150m)

Option 5 Round Barrow cemeteries to N/A – None listed N/A – None listed east of Bordon (<250m)

Option 3 A Round Barrow cemeteries to N/A – None listed N/A – None listed east of Bordon (<250m)

Regionally Important Assets 2.3.13Regionally Important assets are those considered to be of medium value include those which, while not of the highest significance, score well against the criteria for measuring heritage importance, including the Secretary of State’s criteria for Scheduled Monuments. These heritage assets would often be described as of regional importance. Heritage assets of medium value include those designated as Grade II* Listed buildings and Grade II Registered Parks. Table 12 below presents a summary of regionally important assets in relation to the Overall Study Area. Table 12: Summary of Regionally Important Assets

Junction Grade II* Listed Buildings Archaeologically Important Areas

Asset

Option 1 N/A – None listed Located near the marked junctions the following is noted: Option 2 N/A – None listed • Multi phase activity is known within the wider study area. Around Option 3 N/A – None listed the area to the north of the study area a number of archaeological Option 4 N/A – None listed assets have been identified. These include crop marks identified Option 5 N/A – None listed on aerial photography presumably of later prehistoric date Option 3A N/A – None listed

2.3.14Locally important heritage assets comprise non-designated assets, which would normally be described as of local importance and Grade II Listed buildings. 2.3.15These heritage assets are tolerant of change without detriment to their character. Table 13 below presents a summary of locally important assets in relation to the Overall Study Area.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 28 Revised:.

Locally Important Assets Table 13: Summary of Locally Important Assets

Junction Findspot/Site of archaeological Grade II Listed Buildings Buildings of local interest Asset interest

Option 1 Bins Cottage (750m to N/A – None listed Multi-phase activity is known within the east) wider study area. Around the area to the north of the study area a number of Option 2 Bins Cottage (750m to N/A – None listed archaeological assets have been east) identified. These included crop marks Option 3 Bins Cottage (750m to N/A – None listed identified on aerial photography east) presumably later prehistoric in date.

Option 4 Bins Cottage (750m to east) N/A – None listed Option 5 Bins Cottage (750m to east) N/A – None listed Option 3A Bins Cottage (750m to east) N/A – None listed

General Constraints relating to All Route Options 2.3.16The following constraints are applicable to all route Options (Options 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4 and 5): ■ All three common route Options pass close to, or within the setting of 1 listed buildings, including the grade II* Lock’s House on Waterloo Road. The Site currently provides a partially agricultural and rural setting for the listed building which is also likely to provide some inter-visibility due to proximity (within 750m). The Options therefore have low potential to adversely affect the setting of the listed building; ■ All routes pass through Louisburg Barracks on a common route alignment and so will have the same level of impact upon the built heritage of the barracks ■ All options are in close proximity to the Bordon Round Barrow cemetery, in some cases as close as 50m to the scheduled area. The options for the scheme may have the potential to effect unknown sub-surface remains relating to this bronze age cemetery. ■ Potential for adverse effects to presently unknown buried archaeological assets. ■ The common southern section of the route utilises the alignment of the military railway cutting where disturbance to potential archaeological remains are less likely.

Route Specific Constraints 2.3.17 Figure 2 shows the location of known heritage assets in relation to the route options.

Option 1 Potential change in the setting of an additional 1 grade II listed buildings; Potential change in setting of 5 SMs that make up the Bordon barrow cemetery; Potential change in historic landscape character and loss of historic open space. Potential adverse effects to unknown buried archaeological features

Option 2 Potential change in the setting of an additional 1 grade II listed buildings;

Potential change in setting of 5 SMs that make up the Bordon barrow cemetery; Potential change in historic landscape character and loss of historic open space. Potential adverse effects to unknown buried archaeological features

Option 3 Potential change in the setting of an additional 1 grade II listed buildings; Potential change in setting of 5 SMs that make up the Bordon barrow cemetery; Potential change in historic landscape character and loss of historic open space. Potential adverse effects to unknown buried archaeological features

Option 4 Potential change in the setting of an additional 1 grade II listed buildings; Potential change in setting of 5 SMs that make up the Bordon barrow cemetery; Potential change in historic landscape character and loss of historic open space. Potential adverse effects to unknown buried archaeological features

Option 5 Potential change in the setting of an additional 1 grade II listed buildings; Potential change in setting of 5 SMs that make up the Bordon barrow cemetery; Potential change in historic landscape character and loss of historic open space. Potential adverse effects to unknown buried archaeological features

Option 3A Potential change in the setting of an additional 1 grade II listed buildings; Potential change in setting of 5 SMs that make up the Bordon barrow cemetery; Potential change in historic landscape character and loss of historic open space. Potential adverse effects to unknown buried archaeological features

Construction Phase 2.3.18The construction activities involved as part of the proposed route options have the potential to disturb buried soil horizons within which archaeological assets might survive. Based on the results of the review of baseline evidence, the typical sources of effects (in the absence of mitigation) upon the main classes of archaeological assets can be characterised as follows in Table 14. Table 14: Archaeological Effects Summary

Main Impacting Construction Asset Type Location/Scale Main Period Process

Surface/Near surface undetermined/ Potential for Prehistoric onwards, focus on All construction activities. remains localised Medieval and Post Medieval.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 30 Revised:.

Buried remains. undetermined/ Potential for Prehistoric onwards, focus on All construction activities. localised Medieval and Post Medieval.

Artefacts/ecofacts. undetermined/ Potential for Prehistoric onwards, focus on All construction activities. localised Medieval and Post Medieval.

2.3.19During construction, potential effects on above ground heritage assets are likely to comprise negative temporary impacts on the settings of assets. The impacts on the setting of heritage assets are likely to be partly ameliorated by the shielding effect of the current street trees, vegetation and parks within the immediate environs. 2.3.20The period and scale of these effects are outlined in Table 15 below. Table 15: Built Heritage: Period and Scale of Effect

Potential Receptor Option Key Sensitivity Variation of contribution Outcome

Bins Cottage All options Change of setting Introduction of changes to Reduction of setting horizon junction layout from current

2.3.21With respect to buried archaeological deposits, it is considered that the proposed route options have limited potential to result in the impact and loss of archaeological assets due to the extent of development of infrastructure within the near vicinity of the proposed routes 2.3.22These are not considered, at present, to be of over-riding importance to result in the need to substantially alter the principle of constructing the changes to the proposed routes. 2.3.23A suitable programme of investigation and mitigation (as defined by the NPPF) is considered sufficient to allow the works to proceed. 2.3.24The built heritage assets are not considered to be in locations whereby the existing setting would be permanently harmed by construction processes. Typically, construction can proceed through measured and proportionate controls on traffic routes.

Operational Phase 2.3.25It is anticipated that the proposed new routes will improve the traffic management system in the wider Whitehill area and this will subsequently have beneficial effects on the built heritage assets within the area. However, in future the roads within Whitehill are likely to see an increase in traffic generated by future proposed developments in the area.

Operational effects: 2.3.26Sections of road widening may resulting in change to the setting of nearby assets; and 2.3.27Existing road sections may experience an increase in traffic in the future. 2.3.28It is considered that the settings of Listed Buildings which would be subject to change in relation to the works could be mitigated against through the replanting of lost vegetation or trees and therefore would not be influenced by the predicted increase in future traffic within the Whitehill area.

Recommendations 2.3.29Based on the available data for the historic environment, the preferred route would be the most eastern, (Option 5). This option is the furthest from the barrow cemetery and the route which runs through the most built up area, reducing the potential effects on the setting of the listed building within the study area.

2.4 Landscape

Introduction 2.4.1This report outlines the findings of a landscape and visual appraisal of six route road Options for the Whitehill & Bordon Inner Relief Road. 2.4.2Given the close proximity of all six route options and their shared start and finish sections, they share much of the same existing baseline. Where the baseline is the same for all routes, they are herein collectively termed ‘the Site’. Where there are differences, they will be referred to as Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 etc.

Description of Study Area

2.4.3The study area is located though the current MoD facility at Bordon, Hampshire. It is the intention to redevelop the MoD site for an Eco Town from 2015 – 2035 which will in part be served by a new relief road to access the new development as well as ease pressure on the existing A325. This report considers 6 different route alignment Options for the relief road, to identify which might be the preferred route Option in terms of limiting potential effects on local landscape character and visual amenity. 2.4.4The study area for the purposes of this assessment has been generally defined as a 1km radius from the centre of the Site for statutory designated site searches, and a 500m radius search area for locally designated sites. The extent of the study area is detailed in Figure 1.

Methodology

2.4.5This study appraises the likely significant landscape and visual effects in relation to 6 options for the proposed Whitehill Bordon Relief Road scheme. All 6 options have common initial alignments commencing from and to their start and finish points, with the exception of the route 3A through Viking Park. The 6 route options diverge onto different paths between the above mentioned limits. This chapter therefore seeks to describe the existing landscape and visual resource (the baseline) associated with each route option in order to identify which is the preferred route in LVIA terms. 2.4.6The DMRB guidance regarding landscape and visual assessment is outlined in IAN 135/10 (Ref 1.1) and states that, ‘this guidance does not differentiate between ‘landscape’ and ‘townscape’, and the approach taken applies to any landscape whether the context is urban, rural or a combination of both’. Consideration of ‘landscape’ therefore includes ‘townscape’ within this Chapter. 2.4.7The assessment of landscape and visual effects are separate but linked procedures. In terms of landscape effects, IAN 135/10 notes that, ‘the landscape is considered as an environmental resource’ and references the GLVIA (Ref 1.2) paragraph 2.14 which states that, landscape effects are derived ‘from changes in the physical landscape, which may give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced. This may in turn affect the perceived value ascribed to the landscape’.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 32 Revised:.

2.4.8In contrast, visual effects ‘relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity’ (GLVIA para 2.15). The visual assessment section therefore describes key potential visual locations which may result from the proposed development once in operation. The assessment also describes the extent to which the scheme would affect the visual amenity afforded residents, visitors and users of the landscape within the study area. 2.4.9In order to identify potentially sensitive landscape and visual receptors, a desk based review of existing information in the public domain was undertaken, including a review of aerial photographs, ordnance survey maps and relevant websites. In addition, a site visit was undertaken on 22nd October 2013 to review potential route option locations. 2.4.10The report is broadly based on the methodology for site assessment found in the following best practice guidance document: Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment. The Highways Agency (2010). 2.4.11The following industry standard best practice guidance is also referred to where appropriate: Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition. The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013).

Consultation

2.4.12No consultations in relation to LVIA have been undertaken to date.

Description of Environmental Baseline and Key Environmental Constraints/Features

Topography and Hydrology

2.4.13The landscape across the area of the town gently undulates, dropping slightly to the east into the shallow valley of the River Wey which forms a boundary between Bordon and Lindford. More locally, the area of the Site very gently falls from east to west but there are numerous distinctive landforms which interrupt this general pattern. The former railway line is located in a steep cutting, running in a north-south direction through Hogmoor Inclosure, and along which the commencement of all route Options bar 3A, are located. There is also a very distinct plateau to Hogmoor Inclosure with the landform steadily rising from the barracks area. Land to the north of Hogmoor Inclosure adjacent to the cemetery and across Louisburg barracks is largely flat at a level of around 75m AOD before starting to rise again at the A325.

2.4.14There are numerous ditches, water bodies and streams in the area and across which the Site Options fall. The largest is perhaps the Oxney Moss, a tributary of the Oxney Stream (located to the north), running in a south to north direction. All the route Options cross this stream at various points along their routes, but notably Options 3 and 5. A review of implications of these crossings and alignments on the Oxney Moss from an ecological perspective are outlined in the Ecology Technical Note, with the hydrological implications outlined in the Water Environment Technical Note.

Land Use of the Site and Surrounding Areas

2.4.15All of the Site Options are located on a mixture of existing roads, residential areas (barracks) and green space, including the Hogmoor Inclosure (used for army training). Each Option passes through numerous blocks of trees and woodland, built form, existing hard-surfaced roads, un-surfaced tracks, areas of mown grass and scrub, as outlined in the table below. Table 16: Route Options Land Uses

Option Land Use Description 1 (pink) The abandoned railway and Hogmoor Inclosure contain planted woodland, informal paths and tracks and scrub, including bracken. Oakhanger Road, the B3002 Station Road and the A325 are single carriageway tarmacked roads, edged with pavements, street lighting and trees. Louisburg Barracks contains blocks of red brick buildings set within mown grass, formal shrub beds and planted trees and woodland. This route also crosses footpath 9a. 2 (green) The abandoned railway, Hogmoor Inclosure and land around Louisburg Barracks contain planted woodland, informal paths and tracks and scrub, including bracken. The A325 is a single carriageway tarmacked road, edged with pavements, street lighting and trees. Louisburg Barracks contains blocks of red brick buildings set within mown grass, formal shrub beds and planted trees and woodland. This route takes a slightly more direct line through Hognmoor Inclosure along the abandoned railway line where there are slightly fewer trees. This route also crosses footpath 9a. 3 (blue) The abandoned railway and Hogmoor Inclosure contain planted woodland, informal paths and tracks and scrub, including bracken. Budds Lane, Station Road and the A325 are single carriageway tarmacked roads, edged with pavements, street lighting and trees. Bordon Camp and Louisburg Barracks contain blocks of red brick buildings set within mown grass, formal shrub beds and planted trees and woodland, as well large areas of hardstanding used for parades and car parking. This route also crosses footpath 9a. 3A (orange) This route crosses an area of woodland adjacent to the A325 Petersfield Road and a large area of mown grass (Viking Park) after which it crosses through Bordon Camp. Bordon Camp and Louisburg Barracks contain blocks of red brick buildings set within mown grass, formal shrub beds and planted trees and woodland, as well large areas of hardstanding used for parades and car parking. Budds Lane, Station Road and the A325 are single carriageway tarmacked roads, edged with pavements, street lighting and trees. This route also crosses footpath 9b. 4 (red) The abandoned railway and Hogmoor Inclosure contain planted woodland, informal paths and tracks and scrub, including bracken. Bordon Camp and Louisburg Barracks contain blocks of red brick buildings set within mown grass, formal shrub beds and planted trees and woodland, as well large areas of hardstanding used for parades and car parking. Oakhanger Road and the A325 are single carriageway tarmacked roads, edged with pavements, street lighting and trees. This route also crosses footpath 9a. 5 (yellow) The abandoned railway and Hogmoor Inclosure contain planted woodland, informal paths and tracks and scrub, including bracken. Bordon Camp and Louisburg Barracks contain blocks of red brick buildings set within mown grass, formal shrub beds and planted trees and woodland, as well large areas of hardstanding used for parades and car parking. Budds Lane, Station Road and the A325 are single carriageway tarmacked roads, edged with pavements, street lighting and trees. This route also crosses footpath 9a. The alignment cuts through slightly more of the woodland blocks within the Bordon Camp than Option 3. This route also crosses footpath 9a.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 34 Revised:.

2.4.16The north, south and west of all the route Options is primarily wooded MoD land or agricultural land whist the built form of Bordon and Whitehill is located to the east.

Vegetation within the Site 2.4.17A large variety of vegetation is present within the Site, including the following: ■ Acid grassland; ■ Bracken; ■ Amenity and semi-improved grassland; ■ Marshy grassland, and swamp; ■ Shrub and Scrub; ■ Broadleaved woodland (plantations and semi-natural) typically dominated by oak, lime, horse chestnut, rowan, and silver birch along with some Sweet chestnut, sycamore and pine. Damp areas also include alder and willow; ■ Coniferous woodland plantation (dominated by pine with occasional western hemlock, Douglas fir and cypresses, birch and rowan); ■ Mixed Woodland plantation (pine, oak, birch and sweet chestnut); and ■ Scattered Trees (oak, cherry, maple, lime, red oak, whitebeam, rowan, hornbeam, sweet chestnut, and London plane). 2.4.18A detailed review of the vegetation within the site is outlined in the Phase 1 habitat survey and Ecological Route Options Appraisal but the majority of the vegetation over which the route Options fall is woodland.

Ancient Woodland and Tree Preservation Orders

2.4.19There are no blocks of ancient woodland located within the Site of within 1km of the Site. There are no Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) or Tree Preservation Area designations within or immediately adjacent to any of the proposed route Options.

Public Rights of Way

2.4.20There are a number of paths which are located within the Site or within 500m, as outlined below. Table 17: Public Rights of Way within 500m of the nearest Site/ Option boundary

Path number Type Distance and direction from site/ Option Whitehill 9a Footpath Crosses all Site Options except Option 3A; 265m south-west of Option 3A Whitehill 9b Footpath Crosses Option 3A; 120m east of all other Options Whitehill 15 Footpath 220m south-west of all Site Options except Option 3A; 490m south-west of Option 3A Whitehill 501 Footpath 470m south-east of all Site Options except Option 3A; 350m south-east of Option 3A Whitehill 17 Footpath 475m east of Option 5 Whitehill 13 Byway Open to all 95m west of Option 1; 135m west of Option 2; Traffic 310m west of Option 4; 390m west of Options 3, 3A and 5 Whitehill 4 Footpath Adjacent to the east of the northern end point of all Site Options

Path number Type Distance and direction from site/ Option Whitehill 5 Footpath Adjacent to the north-west of the northern end point of all Site Options Headley 46 Bridlepath 465m north-east of all Site Options

Cultural Context 2.4.21There are no listed buildings within 500m of the Site and no Grade I or Grade II* listed buildings within 1km of any of the Route Options. There are also no conservation areas located within 1 km of the Site. There are however, a number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) located within 500m of the Site, as outlined in the table below. Table 18: SAMs within 500 m of the Site

Option affected Name

1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5 Round barrow cemetery 780m south west of Amherst House, Bordon Camp (section

1) 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5 Round barrow cemetery 780m south west of Amherst House, Bordon Camp (section 2) 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5 Round barrow cemetery 780m south west of Amherst House, Bordon Camp (section 3) 1, 2, 4 Round barrow cemetery 780m south west of Amherst House, Bordon Camp (section

1, 2, 4 Two bowl barrows 270m south of Oakhanger Road 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5 Bowl barrow 100m south-east of Hogmoor Lodge 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5 Bowl barrow 50m south of Hogmoor Lodge 3A Walldown enclosures Designated Nature Conservation Sites

2.4.22Broxhead & Kingsley Common Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located approximately 415m to the east of the northern extent of all 6 Site options. It lies on an area of generally free-draining, thin, infertile soils over acid sands but locally with fine sandy silts and some gravels. The site has been designated of European and national importance primarily for its heathland habitats and associated species. 2.4.23The 38 hectare Deadwater Valley LNR is located around 500m east of the southern extent of all route Options except Option 3A, which is approximately 440m west of the LNR. 2.4.24Woolmer Forest SSSI located approximately 380m to the south of route Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. It contains the largest and most diverse area of lowland heathland habitats in Hampshire (outside the New Forest) and is considered the most important area of heathland in the Weald of southern England. It is the only site in Britain known to support all twelve native species of reptiles and amphibians and supports a nationally important heathland flora, with associated birds and invertebrate fauna.

Statutory Landscape Designations 2.4.25There is one statutory designated feature within 1km of the route options, namely the South Downs National Park and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 36 Revised:.

2.4.26The South Downs National Park, ‘uniquely combines a biodiverse landscape with bustling towns and villages, the South Downs National Park covers an area of over 1,600 km2 and is home to more than 110,400 people. Recognised as an area of outstanding beauty, the South Downs is also home to a multitude of vibrant working communities steeped in history and traditional English culture, from the ancient cathedral city of Winchester in the west to the bustling market town of Lewes in the east’. (South Downs National Park Authority, found at http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/index) 2.4.27The National Park is located c15m to the south of all route options at its nearest point with the exception of Route Option 3A from which it is located c435m south at its nearest point.

Landscape Character 2.4.28The study of Landscape Character is undertaken at different scales, with each larger scale adding greater detail onto the previous layer. As part of Natural England’s responsibilities as set out in the Natural Environment White Paper (Ref 1.3) Biodiversity 2020 (Ref 1.4) and the European Landscape Convention (Ref 1.5), they are revising profiles for England’s 159 National Character Areas (NCAs). These are areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment. 2.4.29There are a total of 159 NCAs and the Site falls into Countryside Character Volume 7: South East (Ref 1.6) and London and within National Character Area 120: Wealden Greensand. The Wealden Greensand Character Area is a long, curved belt running across parts of Kent, Surrey and West Sussex. Around a quarter of the NCA is made up of extensive belts of woodland – both ancient mixed woods and more recent conifer plantations. In contrast, the area also features more open areas of heath on acidic soils, river valleys and mixed farming, including areas of fruit growing. The area has outstanding landscape, geological, historical and biodiversity interest. Some 51 per cent of the NCA is covered by the South Downs National Park, Kent Downs AONB and Surrey Hills AONB – a testament to the area’s natural beauty. 2.4.30Some of the key characteristics of the Wealden Greensand Character Area include the following: A long, narrow belt of Greensand which forms escarpments separated by a clay vale: the overall undulating and organic landform – particularly in the west – gives a sense of intimacy to the landscape; There are extensive areas of ancient mixed woodland reflecting the diverse geology, including the chalk grassland, wooded commons (‘charts’) and conifer plantations; Semi-natural habitats including remnant lowland heathland and unimproved acid grasslands; Fields are predominantly small or medium, in irregular patterns and bounded by hedgerows and shaws; and There are a range of historic landscape features, including field monuments, old military defences, prehistoric tumuli, iron-age hill forts, Roman forts, the Royal Military Canal, small quarries and relics of the iron industry (including hammer ponds). Sunken lanes cut into the sandstone are a historic and characteristic feature, as are older deer parks and more recent 18th-century parklands. Surface water is an important feature across the Greensand, with many streams and rivers passing through the NCA. 2.4.31Hampshire County Council (HCC) has undertaken their own character assessment, completed in 2012 which considers the character assessments of different districts within the County but provides a strategic overview of all them in the one document. The Hampshire County Integrated Character Assessment 2012 (Ref 1.7) characterises the landscape into a series of landscape types, landscape character areas and townscape character areas.

Integrated Character Assessment: Landscape Character

2.4.32All of the route options are located within Landscape Character Area 12a: Western Weald Forest and Farmland Heath, the key characteristics of which include the follows:

Very varied landform from the plateau landscape on outcrops of sandstone associated with the Folkestone formation to the prominent steeply undulating hills formed from sandstones and cherts of the Lower Greensand group with steep slopes on the inner, western edge; Small streams drain the greensand hills in deep ravine-like valleys. Small acid ponds and meres are typical on the Forest and Heath LCT; Hammer ponds, set in wooded stream valleys, in the eastern half; Diverse land use from conifer plantations with occasional areas of open heath on the most acid soils, through to rough grazed pasture and numerous horse paddocks; Large extensive commons, traditionally used for rough grazing or heath cutting often covered by 19th and 20th century conifer plantations, but some remnant unenclosed commons providing open access land; The fieldscapes of the small river valleys consist of small-medium size fields in regular patterns. Thick, tree filled hedges often on banks with ditches; Rich mixture of traditional building materials and styles including: a hard malmstone typical of the Surrey North Downs , ironstone, local red brick and clay tiles, to a lesser extent the softer and paler malmstone; Very varied levels of tranquillity, changing quickly from high to very low; Well enclosed by dense woodland cover giving a strong sense of remoteness, intimacy and secrecy; and Varied short views due to high proportion of woodland and undulating landform but occasionally long distant views over the adjoining clay and hangers from the greensand hills.

Integrated Character Assessment: Landscape Types 2.4.33All of the route options pass through a number of different landscape types, including the following: Woodland and Plantation on Heath (route option 2); Lowland Mosaic Heath Associated (route options 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4 and 5); and Settlement (route options 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4 and 5). Integrated Character Assessment: Townscape Character Types 2.4.34Where the character areas are defined as ‘settlement’, a townscape appraisal has been undertaken. All of the route options pass through townscape character type 5a, with the exception of Option 3A which passes through townscape character type 2b. 2.4.35Townscape Character Type 02: Rural Settlement. Within both the urban areas which developed from a medieval urban core and those settlements which are largely 20th century conurbations there are likely to be small, once rural, settlements that have been subsumed within the suburbs of the town. The rural character of these settlements may have survived this process and will stand in contrast to the housing estates that surround them. 2.4.36Townscape Character Type 05: Residential 1850 – 1914 (Terraces, Semi-detached, Small Detached Houses). From 1850 there was an increase in suburban housing for both middle class and working class families which included features such as minimum widths for new streets, access to a small private yard/garden, pavements and sewers.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 38 Revised:.

East Hampshire District: Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 1.8) 2.4.37This character assessment identifies all of the route options as falling within character area 8: Wealden Farmland and Heath Mosaic, and within subcategory C: Woolmer to Liphook, the key characteristics of which include the following: Undulating ‘plateau’ formed from sandstones of the Folkestone formation, reaching 155m at Weaver’s Down; The area forms the watershed of two catchments with small streams flowing southwards into the River Rother and northwards into the River Wey; Well-drained sandy soils which support extensive tracts of conifer plantations, oak-birch woodland and within this areas of relic, lowland heath and bog; Internationally important ecological resource represented by extensive area of lowland heathland habitats (e.g. Woolmer Forest SAC and Wealden Heaths SPA); Settlement is relatively late in origin, comprising isolated farmsteads of 18th-19th century origin set within areas of recent enclosure, and localised groupings of modern military buildings; Recent and modern enclosures around the edge woodlands are evidence that landuse history remained one of common grazing until relatively late in the post-medieval period; Numerous Bronze Age barrow cemeteries are indicative of a prehistoric ritual landscape; Remnant of Royal Hunting Forest with unenclosed commons, formerly used for common grazing, are now used by the military as firing ranges; Extensive areas of post-1800 woodland plantations cover areas of former commonland and provide a strong sense of enclosure and containment; and Strong sense of remoteness and tranquillity locally, but this is impinged on by the presence of the A3 (T), army camps and settlement.

Visual Context 2.4.38There are a number of visual receptors within or adjacent to the Site, the primary ones include but are not limited to: Users of the A325/ Liphook Road / Firgrove Road roundabout (Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5); Users of and residents along/ off the A325; Liphook Road; Firgrove Road; Peel Close; Champney Close; Morse Close; and Sutton Field (Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5); Users of and residents along/ off the A325; New Road; Sutton Field; and Stubbington Avenue (Option 3A); Users of and residents along/ off Hogmoor Road; Budds Lane; Oakhanger Road; Station Road; and the A325 Farnham Road (All Options); Users of/ residents along/ off/ visitors to Louisburg Barracks (Stable Road; North Parade; Souterhn Road; Central Road; Louisburg Road; Lion Court; Kingsley Common Road) (All Options); Users of and residents along/ off Hogmoor Road; Bolley Avenue and Gibbs Lane (Option 2); Residents; workers and visitors to Bordon Camp; Louisburg barracks and cemetery; Workers and visitors to Bordon Household Waste Recycling Centre (Station Road); Lion Court (Farnham Road) and Woolmer Trading Estate (Woolmer Road); and Users of adjacent public rights of way network, informal paths and Public Open Space,

Route Option Comparison

2.4.39All 6 route Options have a similar potential effect on local landscape and visual receptors, given their relative proximity and similarity of route alignment. 2.4.40All route options will have greater effects on local character and visual amenity during construction than operation due to the removal of trees and vegetation, the presence of construction traffic and machinery, stockpiles, plant, compounds, workers and traffic management requirements on surrounding roads. Traffic on surrounding roads is likely to slightly increase due to the addition of construction traffic, resulting in increased noise and adverse visual intrusion. 2.4.41Although effects at Operation are anticipated to be of lower magnitude than during construction, the highway will result in new sections of hard-standing, with traffic headlights and/ or artificial lighting (lighting columns) in areas which are currently vegetated or with limited vehicular activity. 2.4.42All of the identified route Options are anticipated to have adverse effects on landscape and visual receptors and therefore those routes which potentially affect the fewest landscape or visual receptors or are located furthest from them, would therefore be the preferred Options. A summary comparison of the receptors and Options is provided below. 2.4.43All 6 route Options will result in the loss of mature trees along the route, although no TPOs or areas of Ancient Woodland will be affected. Trees in the Hogmoor Inclosure (Area K) form part of the local non-statutory wildlife designation for the site of a SINC although tree canopies within the adjacent Bordon camp are as visually important. Considerable earthworks may be required to infill the abandoned railway line, resulting in potentially more trees being lost due to changes in topography and drainage. From a brief review of aerial photographs in relation to the route Options, it is anticipated that Options 2, 3, 4 and 3A may result in slightly fewer mature trees being lost overall than Options 1 or 5. 2.4.44All 6 route Options cross or are located adjacent to a PRoW. Option 3A directly severs a PRoW (9B) whilst all other route Options impinge on one end of PRoW 9A only. However, the surrounding PRoW network is located slightly further from Option 3A than the other Options. 2.4.45There are fewer SAMS located within 500m of Options 3 and 5 although Option 3A is located further from the nearest SSSI and National park than the other 5 Options. 2.4.46Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 all commence at the same point and construction works will be clearly visible from the edge of the South Downs National Park. The operational section of this route is also likely to be clearly visible from the National Park boundary although it will be seen in the context of surrounding highways and built form around the existing roundabout. Option 3A (Viking Park) therefore provides the least visual effect on the National Park due to its greater distance and separation by built form. In addition, considerable earthworks would be required to infill the abandoned railway line, resulting in potentially greater effects on local character and views from adjacent residences. 2.4.47Option 2 passes though the greatest number of local landscape types (outlined in the Hampshire County Council Integrated Character Assessment) than the other Options, potentially making it less easy to accommodate the changes in character the highway would result in. 2.4.48All 6 route Options would be visible from nearby visual receptors. Although there are potentially slightly fewer residential receptors and PRoW users affected by/ adjacent to Option 3A than the other route Options.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 40 Revised:.

Recommendations 2.4.49Although all the route Options are likely to cause adverse landscape and visual effects, it is anticipated that option 3A may have slightly fewer adverse effects than the other route Options, due to its slightly shorter length, use of grassland or existing hard-standing, MoD buildings and highways (resulting in fewer mature trees being lost and being more in keeping with the existing character of the site) as well as being a slightly greater distance from nearby sensitive receptors such as the National Park.

Table 19: Summary Table – Landscape and Visual

Environmental Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 3A Constraint / Preferred Viking Park and Feature option) Alternative Viking Park Construction Change in Potentially more Trees and Trees and Trees and Potentially more Trees and quantum/ type of trees would vegetation vegetation vegetation trees would vegetation would Site vegetation require removal would be lost would be lost would be lost require removal be lost than for other than for other options options Change to the Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW route or quantum 9A; adjacent to 9A; adjacent to 9A; adjacent to 9A; adjacent to 9A; adjacent to 9B; adjacent to of PRoW PRoW 5 & 46 so PRoW 5 & 46 so PRoW 5 & 46 so PRoW 5 & 46 so PRoW 5 & 46 so PRoW 5 & 46 so diversions/ diversions/ diversions/ diversions/ diversions/ diversions/ alterations alterations alterations alterations alterations alterations needed. Within needed. Within needed. Within needed. Within needed. Within needed. Within 95m – 470m of 120m – 470m of 120m – 470m of 120m – 470m of 120m – 470m of 265m – 490m of additional 5 additional 5 additional 5 additional 5 additional 6 additional 5 PRoW which PRoW which PRoW which PRoW which PRoW which PRoW unlikely may be affected may be affected may be affected may be affected may be affected to be affected by any traffic re- by any traffic re- by any traffic re- by any traffic re- by any traffic re- re-routing routing routing routing routing routing Change in the Within 500m of Within 500m of Within 500m of Within 500m of Within 500m of Within 500m of 6 setting of SAMs 7 SAMs 7 SAMs 5 SAMs 7 SAMs 5 SAMs SAMs Change in the 415 - 500m 415 - 500m 415 - 500m 415 - 500m 415 - 500m 415 - 440m setting of LNRs Change in the 380 - 415m 380 - 415m 380 - 415m 380 - 415m 380 - 415m 415m setting of SSSIs Change in the 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m 435m setting of the South Downs National Park Change in Local Passes through Passes through Passes through Passes through Passes through Passes through character – HCC/ 1 landscape 2 landscape 1 landscape 1 landscape 1 landscape 1 landscape ICA Landscape type & 1 types & 1 type & 1 type & 1 type & 1 type & 1 Types townscape type townscape type townscape type townscape type townscape type townscape type (residential) (residential) (residential) (residential) (residential) (rural settlement) Visual Receptors - A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; New Residential Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Sutton Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Field; Close; Close; Close; Close; Close; Stubbington Champney Champney Champney Champney Champney Avenue; Budds Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Lane; Station Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Road; Farnham Field; Field; Field; Field; Field; Budds Road Hogmoor Road; Hogmoor Road; Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Lane; Station Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Station Road; Oakhanger Road; Farnham Oakhanger Oakhanger Farnham Road Road; Station Road

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 42 Revised:.

Environmental Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 3A Constraint / Preferred Viking Park and Feature option) Alternative Viking Park Road; Station Road; Station Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road Road; Bolley Road; Bolley Avenue; Gibbs Avenue; Gibbs Lane Lane Visual Receptors – A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; New Vehicular/ highway Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Sutton users Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Field; Close; Close; Close; Close; Close; Stubbington Champney Champney Champney Champney Champney Avenue; Budds Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Lane; Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Oakhanger Field; Field; Field; Field; Field; Road; Station Hogmoor Road; Hogmoor Road; Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Road; Farnham Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Oakhanger Oakhanger Oakhanger Road Oakhanger Oakhanger Road; Station Road; Station Road; Station Road; Station Road; Station Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road Road Road Road; Bolley Road; Bolley Avenue; Gibbs Avenue; Gibbs Lane Lane Visual Receptors – Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Visitors/ workers Barracks and Barracks and Barracks and Barracks and Barracks and Barracks and cemetery cemetery cemetery cemetery cemetery cemetery (Stable Road; (Stable Road; (Stable Road; (Stable Road; (Stable Road; (Stable Road; North Parade; North Parade; North Parade; North Parade; North Parade; North Parade; Southern Road; Southern Road; Southern Road; Southern Road; Southern Road; Southern Road; Central Road; Central Road; Central Road; Central Road; Central Road; Central Road; Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Road); Lion Road); Lion Road); Lion Road); Lion Road); Lion Road); Lion Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Household Household Household Household Household Household Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Centre; Centre; Centre; Centre; Centre; Centre; Woolmer Woolmer Woolmer Woolmer Woolmer Woolmer Trading Estate Trading Estate Trading Estate Trading Estate Trading Estate Trading Estate Direct changes for Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW Crosses PRoW users of PRoW 9A; adjacent to 9A; adjacent to 9A; adjacent to 9A; adjacent to 9A; adjacent to 9B; adjacent to PRoW 5 & 46 PRoW 5 & 46 PRoW 5 & 46 PRoW 5 & 46 PRoW 5 & 46 PRoW 5 & 46 Indirect changes Within 95m – Within 120m – Within 120m – Within 120m – Within 120m – Within 265m – for users of PRoW 470m of 470m of 470m of 470m of 475m of 490m of additional 5 additional 5 additional 5 additional 5 additional 6 additional 5 PRoW PRoW PRoW PRoW PRoW PRoW Operation Change in Potential for tree Potential for tree Potential for tree Potential for tree Potential for tree Potential for tree

Environmental Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 3A Constraint / Preferred Viking Park and Feature option) Alternative Viking Park quantum/ type of planting planting planting planting planting planting Site vegetation Change to the Change to Change to Change to Change to Change to Change to route or quantum PRoW 9A; PRoW 9A; PRoW 9A; PRoW 9A; PRoW 9A; PRoW 9B; of PRoW potential change potential change potential change potential change potential change potential change to adjacent to to adjacent to to adjacent to to adjacent to to adjacent to to adjacent to PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; additional additional additional additional additional additional pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian access along access along access along access along access along access along route route route route route route Change in the Within 500m of Within 500m of Within 500m of Within 500m of Within 500m of Within 500m of 6 setting of SAMs 7 SAMs 7 SAMs 5 SAMs 7 SAMs 5 SAMs SAMs Change in the 415 - 500m 415 - 500m 415 - 500m 415 - 500m 415 - 500m 415 - 440m setting of LNRs Change in the 380 - 415m 380 - 415m 380 - 415m 380 - 415m 380 - 415m 415m setting of SSSIs Change in the 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m 435m setting of the South Downs National Park Change in Local Passes through Passes through Passes through Passes through Passes through Passes through character – HCC/ 1 landscape 2 landscape 1 landscape 1 landscape 1 landscape 1 landscape ICA Landscape type & 1 types & 1 type & 1 type & 1 type & 1 type & 1 Types townscape type townscape type townscape type townscape type townscape type townscape type (residential) (residential) (residential) (residential) (residential) (rural settlement) Visual Receptors - A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; New Residential Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Sutton Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Field; Close; Close; Close; Close; Close; Stubbington Champney Champney Champney Champney Champney Avenue; Budds Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Lane; Station Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Road; Farnham Field; Field; Field; Field; Field; Budds Road Hogmoor Road; Hogmoor Road; Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Lane; Station Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Station Road; Oakhanger Road; Farnham Oakhanger Oakhanger Farnham Road Road; Station Road Road; Station Road; Station Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road Road; Bolley Road; Bolley Avenue; Gibbs Avenue; Gibbs Lane Lane Visual Receptors – A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; Liphook A325; New Vehicular/ highway Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Firgrove Road; Sutton users Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Road; Peel Field;

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 44 Revised:.

Environmental Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 3A Constraint / Preferred Viking Park and Feature option) Alternative Viking Park Close; Close; Close; Close; Close; Stubbington Champney Champney Champney Champney Champney Avenue; Budds Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Close; Morse Lane; Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Close; Sutton Oakhanger Field; Field; Field; Field; Field; Road; Station Hogmoor Road; Hogmoor Road; Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Road; Farnham Budds Lane; Budds Lane; Oakhanger Oakhanger Oakhanger Road Oakhanger Oakhanger Road; Station Road; Station Road; Station Road; Station Road; Station Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road; Farnham Road Road Road Road; Bolley Road; Bolley Avenue; Gibbs Avenue; Gibbs Lane Lane Visual Receptors – Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Visitors/ workers Barracks and Barracks and Barracks and Barracks and Barracks and Barracks and cemetery cemetery cemetery cemetery cemetery cemetery (Stable Road; (Stable Road; (Stable Road; (Stable Road; (Stable Road; (Stable Road; North Parade; North Parade; North Parade; North Parade; North Parade; North Parade; Southern Road; Southern Road; Southern Road; Southern Road; Southern Road; Southern Road; Central Road; Central Road; Central Road; Central Road; Central Road; Central Road; Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Louisburg Road); Lion Road); Lion Road); Lion Road); Lion Road); Lion Road); Lion Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Court; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Camp; Bordon Household Household Household Household Household Household Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Waste Recycling Centre; Centre; Centre; Centre; Centre; Centre; Woolmer Woolmer Woolmer Woolmer Woolmer Woolmer Trading Estate Trading Estate Trading Estate Trading Estate Trading Estate Trading Estate Direct changes for Change to Change to Change to Change to Change to Change to users of PRoW PRoW 9A; PRoW 9A; PRoW 9A; PRoW 9A; PRoW 9A; PRoW 9B; potential change potential change potential change potential change potential change potential change to adjacent to adjacent to adjacent to adjacent to adjacent to adjacent PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; PRoW 5 & 46; additional additional additional additional additional additional pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian pedestrian access along access along access along access along access along access along route route route route route route Indirect changes Change in views Change in views Change in views Change in views Change in views Change in views for users of PRoW for users of 5 for users of 5 for users of 5 for users of 5 for users of 6 for users of 5 surrounding surrounding surrounding surrounding surrounding surrounding PRoW within PRoW within PRoW within PRoW within PRoW within PRoW within 95m – 470m of 120m – 470m of 120m – 470m of 120m – 470m of 120m – 475m of 265m – 490m of route route route route route route

2.5 Nature Conservation

Relevant Legislation 2.5.1The route option appraisal has been completed with regard to relevant legislation which directly affords protection to flora and fauna, and which requires public bodies (including planning authorities) to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity. 2.5.2Relevant legislation referenced within the options appraisal includes: ■ The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) ■ The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) ■ The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 ■ The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 ■ The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 2.5.3The legislative framework is particular importance with respect to the route option appraisal in relation to potential effects of the IRR upon habitat and species designated in line with the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora 1992 (the ‘Habitats Directive’) and the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds 1979 (the ‘Birds Directive’) transposed into UK statute under the Habitats Regulations 2010 and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 above. This is because, for activities to occur which are likely to have a significant effect upon European designated sites or European protected species, in the first instance alternative solutions should be sought to avoid effects. It is only in the event that effects cannot be avoided, and there are overriding reasons requiring the activities leading to the effects, that derogation from the legislation protecting be permitted.

Methodology

Definition of Study Area 2.5.4For the purpose of this route option appraisal, the Study Area is defined as land located within a 250m radius of the proposed route options. It is understood that junction improvements will be required irrespective of the route option selected therefore consideration of these proposals do not form part of this assessment. Consideration is also made to record of protected species and species of conservation concern, and statutory designated sites lying within and in proximity to the Study Area; including European designated sites lying with a 10km radius of the proposed route options.

Baseline Data Collation 2.5.5Primary data supporting the route options appraisal includes: ■ WSPE (2013) Whitehill-Bordon IRR: Phase 1 Habitat Survey; and the ■ WSPE (2013) Whitehill-Bordon IRR: Ecological Desk Study. 2.5.6In addition, survey data either collected previously (pre-2013) and to inform the wider Whitehill-Bordon Masterplan is referenced in Table 20 against the relevant potential ecological receptor.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 46 Revised:.

Consideration of Likely Effect Pathways 2.5.7To inform the route option appraisal, the likely effects of the IRR upon each potential ecological receptor identified through the baseline data collation exercise has been considered. Where potential effects were identified, the extent of these was considered with respect to the six alignment options being assessed. The exercise has been completed with reference to the DMRB, Volume II, Section 3, Part 4: Ecology and Nature Conservation (Chapter 5), and guidelines for ecological impact assessment produced by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (IEEM, 2006). 2.5.8The option comparison focuses on elements of the route options which do not share common alignment; at an overview level it also takes into account parameters for future development set out within the Whitehill- Bordon Masterplan (May, 2012) where route options lie within land put forward for built development in the Masterplan (notably with respect to Route 3a, which passes through Viking Park which is put forward for employment and commercial leisure).

Notes and Limitations 2.5.9Whilst a substantial amount of ecological survey data are available to inform baseline conditions against which potential effects of the proposed relief road may be assessed (see WSPE, 2013a), targeted survey for certain species groups remains underway. Elements of the route options appraisal may require updating once sufficient baseline data becomes available to consider in more detail potential effects with respect to: ■ the presence / likely absence of bat roosts within buildings and trees in proximity or directly affected by the route option selected; ■ the comparative levels of bat activity across the Study Area and identification of key commuting / foraging areas further to identification of roosts (see above); ■ the conservation value of different areas for invertebrates further to baseline survey completed in 2008 and early 2013; ■ the presence / likely absence of riparian mammals within suitable wetland habitat located in the Study Area. 2.5.10In the interim, the appraisal is based on effects upon suitable habitat for the above species; and avoiding effects should the species be present, and to ensure long term security of the habitat resource to ensure that even if not currently present species may colonise the habitat in the future and habitat connectivity is maintained.

Ecological Baseline and Key Constraints/Features 2.5.11Potential ecological receptors are listed in Table 20 below; the tables summarises the ecological baseline (as currently understood), and potential effects which could occur as a result of the IRR enabling consideration as to whether the route option selected will contribute towards whether effects are likely to be significant.

Table 20: Summary of Ecological Baseline and Potential Effects/Constraints to the IRR

Are the effects likely to be Summary of Ecological Baseline / Potential Receptor Data Sources Key Potential Effects / Constraints substantially affected by the route Key Features option selected? Habitat Statutory designated WSPE (2013a) Four special protection areas (SPA) and ■ Degradation of habitat through The nearest statutory designated sites sites two special areas for conservation changes in air quality (nitrogen lie in proximity to sections of common (SAC) are designated within a 10km deposition) alignment (Broxhead and Kingsley radius of the route options; and twelve ■ Degradation of habitat through Commons SSSI, and Woolmer Forest sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) changes to hydrology (and SSSI, which form part of Wealden located within a 5km radius along with increased risk of pollution events) Heaths Phase II SPA, and in the case of four local nature reserves (LNR). Woolmer Forest is also partially an Descriptions for each of the designated SAC). For this reason, there is sites are included in the Ecological currently no reason to believe that Desk Study report. route option will affect the degree to which statutory sites are affected1. Non-statutory WSPE (2013a) Thirty-one non-statutory designated ■ Direct habitat loss and degradation Three of the sites within the Study Area designated sites sites lie within a 2km radius of the route through land take lie in proximity to areas of common options, six of which lie within the Study ■ Isolation and fragmentation of alignment; with respect to the others Area and therefore are likely to be most habitat Hogmoor Enclosure (EH0465) will be susceptible to negative effects ■ Degradation of habitat through affected by the IRR irrespective of the associated with the IRR scheme. changes in air quality (nitrogen route option selected although the deposition) extent will vary; selection of Route 2 ■ Degradation of habitat through would have direct effects upon changes to hydrology (and Oxney Farm Woodland (EH0476) and increased risk of pollution events) Routes 3 and 3a would lead to effects upon U231 Conde Way, Bordon (EH0480). Habitat of WSPE (2013b) Outwith the designated sites habitat of ■ Direct habitat loss and degradation Habitat of conservation located on conservation value conservation value occurs within the through land take Roundhill is in proximity to an area of (outwith designated Study Area, of particular interest and ■ Isolation and fragmentation of common alignment. Routes 1 and 2 sites) likely to be of at least Local habitat will directly affect dry dwarf shrub conservation value: dry dwarf shrub ■ Degradation of habitat through heath located in The Croft woodland heath located in The Croft to the north changes in air quality (nitrogen to the north of TTA Bordon Barracks; of TTA Bordon Barracks (also deposition) Route 2 will require the greatest loss associated with elevated invertebrate ■ Degradation of habitat through of woodland cover near to Oxney

1 Please also note consideration with respect to potential effects upon bird species which are reasons for designation of SPA in the vicinity of the Study Area.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 48

Revised:

Are the effects likely to be Summary of Ecological Baseline / Potential Receptor Data Sources Key Potential Effects / Constraints substantially affected by the route Key Features option selected? interest), the corridor of habitat along changes to hydrology (and Moss; and overall greatest removal Oxney Moss providing running water increased risk of pollution events) of semi-natural habitat. through mixed woodland, and wet dwarf shrub heath with acid flush located on Roundhill in proximity to parts of Woolmer Forest.

Species Birds Amec (2013c in Specialist, heathland bird species are ■ Mortality /injury Habitat loss and therefore the potential preparation) known to occur in proximity to the Study ■ Direct loss and degradation of for negative effects upon birds will be Area including Dartford warbler Sylvia habitat greatest for routes which cross areas of undata, nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus ■ Isolation / fragmentation of habitat semi-natural habitat, particularly and woodlark Lullula arborea for which heathland habitat; Routes 1 and 2 nearby statutory sites are designated. would directly affect The Croft and a Full bird survey data is not yet available greater length of the Hogmore to inform the route option appraisal, Enclosure perimeter than other however survey results relating to options (which cross TTA Bordon nightjar (none were recorded on Barracks), and Route 3a; would Hogmoor Enclosure despite targeted increase negative effects upon survey in 2013) and woodlark (one invertebrates located in Viking Park territory was recorded on Viking Park above effects through selection of during summer 2013) are available. other routes. It is anticipated that the assemblage of birds with the greatest conservation value within the Study Area will be associated with heathland, recovering heathland (Viking Park) and woodland habitats.

Are the effects likely to be Summary of Ecological Baseline / Potential Receptor Data Sources Key Potential Effects / Constraints substantially affected by the route Key Features option selected? Badger Amec (2013b in Badger activity is prevalent in multiple ■ Mortality /injury Badgers will most likely be affected by preparation) locations around the Study Area; 29 ■ Direct loss and degradation of the IRR and mitigation will be required setts have been identified, and habitat accordingly both along areas of preliminary review suggests 2 or 3 ■ Isolation / fragmentation of habitat common alignment and where the social groups however this is to be selected route option crosses suitable confirmed through further survey habitat to avoid negative effects Autumn/Winter 2013. The nearest main associated with habitat fragmentation. sett to the route options lies within Routes 1 and 2 directly affect a Hogmoor Enclosure, and this may be greater number of setts as a result of associated with outlier setts located crossing woodland behind Havannah along the southern perimeter of the Barracks and the Croft, Routes 3,4 SINC and the subsidiary identified in and 5 would also affect individual Viking Park. setts located around the periphery of TTA Bordon Barracks.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 50

Revised:

Are the effects likely to be Summary of Ecological Baseline / Potential Receptor Data Sources Key Potential Effects / Constraints substantially affected by the route Key Features option selected? Bats Atkins (2013b) Records held by HBIC confirm at least ■ Mortality / injury Bat activity will be affected by the IRR WSPE (2013c in seven species occur within 2km of the ■ Direct loss and degradation of where the selected route option crosses preparation) route options including Daubenton’s bat habitat suitable commuting / foraging habitat Myotis daubonii, which has not yet been ■ Isolation / fragmentation and when it requires the removal of recorded during targeted surveys to potential roost sites, this is likely to have inform the Masterplan which have greatest consequence in terms of confirmed the presence of: conservation for; Routes 1 and 2

■ Common pipistrelle P. pipistrellus; which directly affect The Croft and a ■ Soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus; greater length of the Hogmore ■ Myotis bat Myotis sp.; Enclosure perimeter than other ■ Natterer’s bat M. nattereri; options thereby requiring a greater ■ Brown long-eared Plecotus auritus extent of tree removal, in addition ■ Serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus; Route 2 would require removal of ■ Leisler’s Nyctalus leisleri; and tree cover along the old railway line ■ Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula. through woodland behind Havannah Barracks and in proximity to Oxney Preliminary analysis of activity data Moss. collected during 2013 indicates that activity is associated with woodland edge, shrub, wetland and heathland habitat although two common pipistrelle roost have been identified in built structures within TTA Bordon Barracks.

Amphibian Amec (2013a) Great crested newts have been found to ■ Mortality / injury The greatest concentration of be likely absent from the Study Area, ■ Direct loss and degradation of amphibians is associated with Viking however common and widespread habitat Park and parts of Hogmoor Enclosure. amphibians including common toad ■ Isolation / fragmentation of habitat In this section of the Study Area all Bufo bufo, common frog Rana tempora, routes have common alignment with the smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris and exception of Route 3a; selection of palmate newt Lisson helveticus are this route could increase negative known to be present. A substantial effects upon amphibians (common presence of common toad is known to toad). occur in proximity to Viking Park.

Are the effects likely to be Summary of Ecological Baseline / Potential Receptor Data Sources Key Potential Effects / Constraints substantially affected by the route Key Features option selected? Dormouse WSPE (2008) No dormouse have been recorded None anticipated, in the longer term At this stage potential effects upon Atkins (2013c in within suitable habitat located within the habitat connectivity should be dormouse do not influence the route preparation) Study Area, and no records of maintained to enable future option selection process. dormouse are held by HBIC for land colonisation. within a 2km radius of the route options. Invertebrates WSPE (2008) Woodland and heathland habitat ■ Direct loss and degradation of Invertebrates will be affected by the IRR located within the Croft and Hogmoor habitat where the selected route option crosses Enclosure is known to support a high ■ Isolation / fragmentation of habitat suitable habitat, and lies in close invertebrate diversity of elevated proximity to suitable habitat; Routes 1 conservation value (at least County), and 2 would directly affect The Croft further survey is underway to provide and a greater length of the Hogmore information regarding Viking Park and Enclosure perimeter than other woodland located near to Louiberg options and therefore affect Barracks (affected by Route 2) however invertebrates more so than other it is likely that these areas will also options which cross TTA Bordon support an invertebrate community of Barracks, and Route 3a; would elevated interest. A walkover survey increase negative effects upon completed by Colin Plant Associates invertebrates located in Viking Park September 2013 confirmed that habitat above effects through selection of located within Louisburg Barracks and other routes. TTA Bordon Barracks was of lower conservation value.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 52

Revised:

Are the effects likely to be Summary of Ecological Baseline / Potential Receptor Data Sources Key Potential Effects / Constraints substantially affected by the route Key Features option selected? Reptile WSPE (2008) All four common, native species of ■ Mortality / injury Reptiles will be affected by the IRR and Atkins (2013a) reptile occur in the Study Area: common ■ Direct loss and degradation of mitigation will be required accordingly lizard Zootoca vivipara, slow-worm habitat both along areas of common alignment Anguis fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix ■ Isolation / fragmentation of habitat and where the selected route option and adder Vipera berula. Survey during crosses other occupied habitat. With 2013 recorded all but adder in respect to selecting the route option association with habitat directly affected Routes 1 and 2 would directly affect by the proposed route options; The Croft and therefore affect exceptional/good populations of slow reptiles more so than other options worm were found throughout suitable which cross TTA Bordon Barracks, habitat, and low/good populations of and Route 3a; would increase common lizard and low population of negative effects upon reptiles which grass snake were found in the majority occur at high density in Viking Park of areas although none were recorded above effects through selection of within Louisburg Barracks. other routes.

Riparian Mammals WSPE(2013a) No records of riparian mammals; otter None anticipated at present (subject to At this stage effects upon riparian and water vole, were returned by HBIC receipt of targeted survey data), in the mammals are not anticipated therefore for habitat within a 2km radius of the longer term habitat connectivity should this does not specifically influence the route options. Targeted survey will be be maintain habitat resource. route option selection process; however completed in Autumn 2013 to confirm it is noted that Route 2 is likely to have the likely absence of these species from greater effects upon Oxney Moss which suitable habitat, or confirm presence should be mitigated through appropriate and if so the distribution. design if this options is selected.

Route Option Comparison 2.5.12The option comparison focuses on elements of the route options which do not share common alignment; broadly for the purposes of considering ecology and nature conservation Routes 3, 4 and 5 are grouped as all three routes largely span land already developed (TTA Bordon Barracks and Louisburg Barracks) and that proposed for future development in the Whitehill-Bordon Masterplan. 2.5.13With respect to effects upon semi-natural habitat of elevated conservation value; both inherent value and value due to associated fauna, it is concluded that Routes 3, 4, and 5 would likely lead to less negative effects than Routes 1 and 2. This is because Routes 1 and 2 affect habitats located within the Croft to the north of TTA Bordon Barracks known to include heathland and be of elevated value for invertebrates, reptiles and containing badger setts, and affect a greater length of the Hogmore Enclosure perimeter. Between Routes 1 and 2; Route 2 is likely to lead to greater negative effects because it also affects a greater extent of semi- natural woodland habitat located to the west of Louisburg Barracks (behind Havannah Barracks) fragmenting habitat which otherwise be unaffected by development associated with the Whitehill-Bordon Masterplan. 2.5.14Route 3a, is best grouped with Routes 3, 4 and 5, as although this option would affect habitat of conservation value located within Viking Park this area is already put forward for development, therefore effects associated with placing the IRR in this area are anticipated to be no greater than other forms of development proposed.

Recommendations 2.5.15With consideration to ecology and nature conservation alone, it is recommended that Routes 3, 4 or 5 should be selected in preference over Routes 1 and 2. Whilst Route 3a would have significant effects upon habitats and species known to occur on Viking Park; this land is already put forward for employment and commercial leisure development, and effects associated with placing the IRR in this area are anticipated to be no greater than other forms of future development.

2.6 Geology and Soils

Introduction 2.6.1Road schemes can have an impact on both the geology and soils of an area. The potential impacts of the development of the Whitehill and Bordon relief road scheme on the soil, made ground, drift and solid geology are considered in this section of the report. Where known existing geological conditions impose constraints these are also identified, for example contamination. The relief road is likely to offer minimal surcharging to the ground.

Description of Study Area 2.6.2The project study area is generally at grade, with the exception of a disused military railway cutting to the north of the Whitehill roundabout on the A325. The Oxney Moss tributary is located to the north- west of the Bordon camp.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 54 Revised:.

Methodology 2.6.3A walkover of the Option 2 route alignment, review of available mapping, a review of online aerial photography anda Preliminary Sources Study Report has informed the study of the geology and soils of the study area.

Consultation 2.6.4The study area includes the South Downs National Park. Natural England (NE) have responsibility for the geological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The SSSIs identified have been noted in the Envirocheck Report, Whitehill to Bordon Option 2 route alignment; ■ Where all route option alignments are common and join the A325 to the north it abuts the Broxhead & Kingsley Commons SSSI; ■ Where all route option alignments are common at the Whitehill roundabout to the south it abuts the Woolmer Forest SSSI; and ■ National Park – South Downs. This to the north-west and the south-west of the project study area. 2.6.5In England, section 105A of the Highways Act 1980 stipulate that, for any scheme passing through or within 100m of an SSSI, the statutory bodies must be given the opportunity to express an opinion. The possible alignments do not traverse a SSSI. 2.6.6It is not believed at the time of writing this report that the SSSIs are designated geological and/or geomorphological features of national importance.

Description of Environmental Baseline and Key Environmental Constraints /Feature 2.6.7There is currently no ground investigation data for the study area. The baseline geology for the study area and all route option alignments has been set out in the following table (and is subject to confirmation by ground investigation); Table 21:

Geology Depth MADE GROUND 0.0m to 1.2m Drift - Occasional Terrace Gravels, head and alluvium - 1.2m to 2.2m/3.2m CLAY, SILT, SAND and GRAVEL

Solid - FOLKESTONE FORMATION – Sandstone (Lower 2.2m + Greensands)

2.6.8The Folkestone Beds formation consists mostly of poorly lithified sands which classify onto the sand/sandstone borderline. 2.6.9There are no agricultural soils in the study area which will be affected by any route alignment.

Route Option Comparison 2.6.10Based on the geology and soils of the study area any potential impacts and geotechnical risk of the road scheme are common to all route alignments. This is further supported by the commonality of some route option alignments.

2.6.11Subject to confirmation by the Overseeing Organisation’s Geotechnical Advisor (OOGA) the preliminary geotechnical classification of the scheme is Category 2. This is primarily assessed based on the likelihood that any excavations may be below the water table. 2.6.12Table 22 sets out the Geology and Soils Constraint and Feature analysis of the route option alignment appraisals. 2.6.13Contamination is known to exist at Louisburg Barracks, including, but limited to Asbestos. The extent of contamination has not been quantified at the time of writing this report. It is therefore likely, based on the nature of adjacent land usage that other contamination and/or hazardous materials may exist on the route option alignments. This should be further quantified by ground investigations. 2.6.14Estimating the quantities of contamination, and the extent to which leachates may have travelled into the surrounding soils and rock is notoriously difficult. In such circumstances the main emphasis will need to be placed on methods of isolating or treating the waste prior to development and future pollution control. 2.6.15This should be further considered throughout the design stages. 2.6.16It is not considered that any palaeo-environmental remains or burial of mining resources will be lost by either route option alignment. The study area has historically had sand and gravel extracted; the resource may have been fully exhausted. Any remaining resource is unlikely to be commercially viable. Deposition and erosion should not be affected; insofar it should be further controlled by the drainage associated with the proposed relief road construction. 2.6.17The Oxney Moss tributary will require crossing for all route option alignments. Localised soft made ground of drift geology may exist on any of the option route alignments. At the time of writing this report the area is considered a high risk for encountering unexploded ordnance (UXO).

Recommendations 2.6.18It is unlikely that either route option will have significant geotechnical risks, or an adverse impact on the geology and soils of the study area and any mitigation measures are considered unlikely. This will be further considered throughout the design stages. 2.6.19Small scale appropriate engineering solutions will likely solve any low impact geology and soils issues the route option alignments pose. Based on Geology and Soils alone there is no significant difference between alignment options.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 56 Revised:.

Table 22: Summary Table

Geology and Soils Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Preferred Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Viking Park and Constraint / Feature option) Alternative Viking Park Construction Sites designated SSSIs Broxhead & Kingsley Broxhead & Kingsley Broxhead & Kingsley Broxhead & Kingsley Broxhead & Kingsley Broxhead & Kingsley but not for geological Commons and Commons and Woolmer Commons and Woolmer Commons and Woolmer Commons and Commons and Woolmer and/or geomorphological Woolmer Forest Forest (common Forest (common Forest (common Woolmer Forest Forest (common purposes. (common alignment). alignment). alignment). alignment). (common alignment). alignment). Sites designated None None None None None None designated as RIGS. Statutory bodies No No No No No No approached Planning Authority No No No No No No approached Geology - Made Ground -Terrace Made Ground -Terrace Made Ground -Terrace Made Ground -Terrace Made Ground -Terrace Made Ground -Terrace BGS Information Gravels, head and Gravels, head and Gravels, head and Gravels, head and Gravels, head and Gravels, head and alluvium- Folkestone alluvium- Folkestone Beds alluvium- Folkestone alluvium- Folkestone alluvium- Folkestone alluvium- Folkestone Beds Sandstone Sandstone Beds Sandstone Beds Sandstone Beds Sandstone Beds Sandstone Agricultural Soils None None None None None None Impact on Geological and/or geomorphological None None None None None None features Impact of geology and Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal soils Oxney Moss tributary on alignment Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Impact on known Yes – Louisburg Yes – Louisburg Barracks Yes – Louisburg Barracks Yes – Louisburg Barracks Yes – Louisburg Yes – Louisburg contaminated land Barracks – common – common alignment. – common alignment. – common alignment. Barracks – common Barracks – common alignment. Potential on all alignment. Potential on all alignment. Potential on all alignment. alignment. alignment.

Geology and Soils Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Preferred Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Viking Park and Constraint / Feature option) Alternative Viking Park Potential on all Potential on all Potential on all alignment. alignment. alignment. Preliminary Unexploded High risk High risk High risk High risk High risk High risk Ordnance risk

Project number: 00040393 Dated: 02/09/2013 58 Revised:

2.7 Noise and Vibration

Introduction 2.7.1The operation of the Scheme has the potential to cause increases and decreases in road traffic noise and vibration, which could affect occupants of buildings in the area, as well as those enjoying any outdoor areas that could also be classed as sensitive. 2.7.2The changes could occur both from the sections of roads directly affected/ altered by the works and those roads indirectly affected by changes in traffic flows as a result of the Scheme. 2.7.3The effect at any location should be considered in terms of the “absolute” noise and vibration levels as well as the “change” in those levels, which both potentially have a bearing on the degree of effect of the Scheme. Account must also be taken of whether the changes would occur abruptly or gradually over time. 2.7.4Apart from changes within an area due to the operation of a new road or the alteration of alignment of an existing road, changes in noise and/or vibration levels could occur due to changes in vehicle speeds and the number and type of vehicles. Generally speaking, noise levels increase with increasing speeds, whilst, all things remaining equal, a 20-25% change in flow is required for a 1 dB change in noise levels. Such a change would generally be considered insignificant. 2.7.5The construction of the Scheme could also result in elevated noise and vibration levels temporarily at nearby receptors, especially where works occur at night. Effects are assessed in terms of a combination of the predicted change in noise and vibration levels, thus taking into account the existing noise levels, which will be different for different receptors, and the absolute noise and vibration levels.

Description of Study Area

2.7.6Without sufficient traffic data at this stage, the study area for the purpose of this Options Appraisal is limited to approximately 600m from the carriageway edge of the A325, between the start and end of the Relief Road options and the route options themselves. However, this is where any significant effects would occur within in any case, with any effects beyond this area being most likely to be minor and common to all options.

Methodology 2.7.7There is currently no standard guidance available for options appraisals. At this stage, i.e. before a full set of detailed traffic data is available, and before it has been possible to construct a 3D noise model, the assessment is based on first principles and WSP’s experience of dealing with similar schemes. Accordingly, the options have been judged primarily in terms of proximity to dwellings. 2.7.8A route option is judged less favourably where it passes in proximity to dwellings. It will be judged less favourably again where the dwellings are remote from other sources of noise. The most favourable option with respect to noise and vibration will avoid being close to dwellings. However, also of interest is whether the options will provide any benefit (i.e. a reduction in noise level) to existing dwellings, especially those currently experiencing high levels of road traffic noise.

Consultation 2.7.9WSP has held a brief telephone conversation with a Senior Environmental Health Officer (EHO) of East Hampshire District Council’s Environmental Services Department. The main reason for the call was to establish whether there are any existing noise issues in the area that may have a bearing on the assessment. It was confirmed by the EHO, John Green, that there are no such issues; that, in particular, there is no history of complaints about traffic noise.

Description of Environmental Baseline and Key Environmental Constraints /Features 2.7.10The dominant source of noise in the majority of instances in the vicinity of Scheme is the road traffic on the existing road network. For those dwellings away from the roads, other sources are generally limited to birdsong, the movement of trees/leaves and sources associated with the operation of the various barracks, including tank movements and gunfire, but which are few and far between. 2.7.11A baseline noise survey has recently been completed. This comprised noise measurements over a number of days at five locations, and short-term measurements at a further two locations. At the dwellings closest to the A325, levels in the region of 70 dB (LAF10,18h, free-field) were measured, which are considered high. Conversely, at dwellings away from the A325, but close to the proposed route options, levels were found to be in the region on 45 dB (LAF10,18h, free-field), which are considered very low. 2.7.12The assessment will ultimately be based on a 3D noise model to be constructed in due course, and the survey data will be used to validate the baseline version of the model. Notwithstanding this, the survey data indicates that there is good cause to reduce noise levels at the closest dwellings to the A325, whilst it wouldn’t take much for there to be an increase in noise at dwellings away from existing sources of road traffic noise. 2.7.13A plan showing the baseline noise survey locations is presented as Figure 1. 2.7.14The key constraint to the Scheme with respect to noise and vibration will be the presence of existing dwellings, especially, as indicated above, those where baseline noise levels are low. 2.7.15In addition to the dwellings, other sensitive locations within approximately 600m of the A325 and Scheme options include the following: ■ Bordon Infants and Junior Schools (Budds Lane) ■ Cygnets Day Nursery (High Street) ■ Bordon Garrison Pre-School and Creche (Kildare Road) ■ Bordon Community Learning Centre (Chalet Hill) ■ Chase Community Hospital (Conde Way) ■ Phoenix Theatre & Arts Centre (Station Road) ■ Woodlea Primary School (Alpine Road) ■ St Matthew’s Church of England Aided Primary School (Drift Road) ■ Alexandra Park ■ Trenchard Park

Route Option Comparison

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 60 Revised:

2.7.16To a large extent the options are very similar. Indeed, with the exception of Option 3A (Viking Park), the options have a common alignment for the first 500m (at the southern end); whilst, including Option 3A, the options also have a common alignment for the last 1000m (at the northern end). Furthermore, whilst there is some variation between the alignments in the central section of the Scheme, the associated area is largely away from sensitive receptors, whereby there will be little difference between the options in this regard. 2.7.17The option that standards out, therefore, is Option 3A, and given that this option is further from existing dwellings than the alternative options, which all pass along the former Longmoor Military Railway, and thus behind the dwellings in Morse Close, Sutton Field and Champney Close, it would appear to be the most favourable with respect to noise and vibration. 2.7.18However, given that Option 3A starts someway further north along the A325 than the other options, which start at the Petersfield Road and Liphook Road roundabout, fewer dwellings would benefit from a reduction in noise levels due to any relief provided to the A325. There is a trade-off, therefore, between the number of “winners” and “losers.” However, without being able to say at this stage how many dwellings would be effected (positively and negatively), and to what extent, it is not possible to comment further in this regard. 2.7.19Other than alignment, a further difference between the options is the applicable speed limit. For Option 2, the limit would be 40mph, whilst for all other options the limit would be 30mph. It is also understood that the 30mph limit options will include access points to future development, whilst Option 2 will not. Together this is likely to mean Option 2 would function more effectively as a relief road, with through traffic choosing to take the new road rather than the existing section of the A325. This is less likely with the other options as they wouldn’t necessarily present much of difference in journey experience to the existing conditions. 2.7.20In terms of the negative effect on existing dwellings, therefore, Option 2 comes out as the least favourable. Not only is it one of the closest to existing dwellings - in fact, due to its north-easternmost extent, it has the highest property count, albeit only just – but due to its greater speed limit and likely higher traffic flow, it would generate the highest levels of traffic noise. 2.7.21This would be followed by Option 1 (as the second least favourable), with nothing in it between Options 3, 4 and 5. The most favourable in terms of the negative effect on existing dwellings is Option 3A, with whichever of Options 3 or 5 it would link into. 2.7.22In terms of the positive effect of existing dwellings (i.e. those close to the existing section of A325), however, Option 3A would be the least favourable option. The most favourable would be Option 2. 2.7.23As to which is the most (or least) favourable overall depends, in part, on the weight applied to the positive and negative effects, but which cannot be quantified at this time. Typically, greater weight is applied to negative effects – and, indeed, the negative effects could be significantly greater than any positive effects; however, where more people will be positively affected than negatively affected, there can be an argument for disadvantaging the few for the benefit of the many. 2.7.24Ultimately, the effect of the options will also depend on what (noise) mitigation can be incorporated, into either the design of the Scheme or, as a last resort, the existing dwellings themselves (in the form of improved sound insulation and alternative means of ventilation). It is anticipated, however, that it will not be possible to eliminate all impacts on the nearest dwellings in Morse Close, Sutton Field and Champney Close, particularly in terms of their rear gardens. 2.7.25In terms of effects during the construction of the various options, the favourability of the options is purely based on proximity to dwellings. In this way, the options are ranked in the same order as described above in terms of the negative operational effects. Therefore, in the same way that there is little difference between the majority of the options in this regard (i.e. with the exception of Option 3A), in terms of construction effects, there is very little difference between the options. 2.7.26The option rankings are summarised in the table below.

Table 23: Option Rankings

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3A Option 4 Option 5 Viking Park Construction Rank 5 Rank 6* Rank =2 Rank 1 Rank =2 Rank =2 Operation (based on negative effects) Rank 5 Rank 6* Rank =2 Rank 1 Rank =2 Rank =2 Operation (based on positive effects) Rank =2 Rank 1 Rank =2 Rank 6 Rank =2 Rank =2 1 = most favourable; 6 = least favourable * There is very little in it between Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, but with Option 2 coming out least favourable given that it is closer to slightly more dwellings

Recommendations

2.7.27Where a primary aim of the Scheme is to reduce noise levels at existing dwellings – and the baseline noise survey does indicate that existing noise levels are high in places – then Option 1 represents the Preferred Route. It would come at a cost, however. A number of dwellings could experience a significant increase in noise levels, and whilst mitigation could be incorporated to limit any such increases, the required works are likely to be extensive, whilst residual effects my still remain. 2.7.28The option that would result in the least negative effects on existing dwellings (with minimal need for mitigation, therefore) is Option 3A. However, like Options 1, 3, 4 and 5, it is questionable as to how well this will function as a relief road, given a lower speed limit than Option 2 and its/their use for access to future development. In which case, whilst negative effects would be limited, positive effects could be limited also. 2.7.29Subject to the level of mitigation that could be incorporated to account for the negative effects of Option 2, an alternative option may be to increase the speed limit on Option 3A and/or limit the access to future development. In this way, it would be more likely to function as a relief road with the corresponding benefits for the dwellings nearest to the A325, whilst still being away from dwellings currently experiencing low levels of noise. 2.7.30If preferable for other reasons, Option 3A could be rerouted to connect with the remaining section of Option 4, for example, but which wouldn’t necessarily have any noise (or vibration) benefits.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 62 Revised:

2.8 Pedestrians & Cyclists

Introduction 2.8.1This chapter provides an assessment of non-motorised users, focusing on journey length, amenity and severance experienced by pedestrians and cyclists. This follows guidance set-out in DMRB Vol. 11 Sec. 3 Part 8.

Description of Study Area 2.8.2The study area for this is defined at the extent and alignment of the relief road options and broadly incorporates the area between the where the relief road joins the existing A325 at the northern and southern points. As such the study area includes the A325 between Louisburg Road at the northern point and the Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout at the southern point. It also includes other routes likely to impacted by the relief road, notably Budds Lane, Station Road and Hogmoor Inclosure, which currently has a number of formal and informal pedestrian routes. This study area is shown in Figure 1.

Methodology 2.8.3Baseline conditions have been established primarily though the review of studies completed by WSP in 2013 and the extensive number of site visits and walkovers completed for these. The full list of documents reviewed is as follows: ■ Whitehill & Bordon Walking and Cycling Strategy (WSP, 2013); ■ Whitehill & Bordon Traffic Management Study (WSP, 2013); and ■ Transport Assessment: Whitehill Bordon Eco-Town (Amey Consulting, 2012). 2.8.4A review of these documents and the site visits conducted has provided an assessment of existing conditions for walking and cycling in Whitehill & Bordon which includes existing infrastructure (on and off-road), Public Rights of Way (PROW) and other informal routes. 2.8.5To assess the potential impacts of each Relief Road option the following key factors have been considered, along with providing a general overview of the facilities provided with each option: ■ Journey length and local travel patterns (including pedestrian delay); ■ Changes in amenity (including fear and intimidation) ■ Severance (New and relief from existing) 2.8.6At this stage these factors have been assessed qualitatively rather than quantitatively taking account of the level of information currently available for each option.

Consultation 2.8.7No consultation has been undertaken at this stage.

Description of Environmental Baseline and Key Environmental Constraints/Feature 2.8.8This section provides a summary of existing conditions in regards to walking and cycling facilities in the study area.

A325 2.8.9The A325 runs north to south through Whitehill & Bordon, providing access to Farnham to the north and A3 to the south. Given that the A325 is the main link through the urban area there is a significant number of walking and cycling journeys made along this route to and from the town-centre and other key services. Between the Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout and Station Road / Lindford Road traffic signal junction the A325 is subject to a 30mph speed limit and has street lighting along its entire length. For pedestrians there is a good standard of footway provision along the majority of the A325 and numerous controlled and uncontrolled crossing points. Although crossing at these locations is relatively straightforward the high traffic flows along the A325 make it difficult to cross in other places, especially between Quebec Barracks and One- Stop / Post Office where only a subway is available. 2.8.10For cyclists there are no on-road facilities but there is a shared-use path between the Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout and Highview Surgery (just south of the Chalet Hill traffic signals). The only dedicated crossing facility for cyclists between these points is a Toucan crossing between Princess Close and Lemon Grove. Cycling on-road between Chalet Hill and the Station Road / Lindford Road traffic signal junction is intimidating due to the high volumes of traffic and relatively narrow carriageway. 2.8.11In regards to the overall quality of environment the high traffic flows make the A325 noisy and intimidating for some users and there are parts of the route which are not overlooked, either due to the A325 passing woodland areas or MoD barracks.

Budds Lane 2.8.12Budds Lane forms priority junction with the A325 and extends north westerly to join Station Road and Oakhanger Lane. It is subject to a 30mph speed limit between the A325 and just south of the entrance to the School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (SEME) at which point the speed limit rises to 40mph. Budds Lane also provides access to Prince Phillips Barracks, Bordon Junior and Infants School and Chase Children’s Centre (from Hampshire Road. 2.8.13For pedestrians Budds Lane has footways on each side of the road between the A325 and SEME entrance at which point a narrow footway continues only on the northern side of the carriageway. The general quality of the footways is poor with uneven surfacing in places and overgrown vegetation. There are no formal pedestrian crossing points on Budds Lane, at the junction with the A325 or Hampshire Road and there is no street lighting present. 2.8.14There is no provision for cyclists either on-road or off-road along Budds Lane despite it providing a link to a number of schools and other trip attractors. It is also the only route between Prince Phillips Barracks and Bordon town centre. 2.8.15The general quality of environment along Budds Lane is poor and the lack of street lighting and secluded nature may lead to a feeling of intimidation. This is somewhat worsened by the barracks that adjoin Budds Lane being segregated by high fences topped with barbed wire. In addition, the straight nature of Budds Lane may increase the speed of traffic therefore making it difficult to cross and increasing intimidation for cyclists.

Station Road / Oakhanger Road 2.8.16Station Road joins the A325 at the traffic signal junction with Lindford Road and extends south westerly to Budds Lane (where it becomes Oakhanger Road) and Hogmoor Road. Station Road is subject to a 40mph speed limit and has street lighting until just west of the Household Waste Recycling Centre. Station Road provides a route to The Phoenix Theatre, The Garrison Church of St George and Louisburg Barracks.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 64 Revised:

2.8.17There is a good standard of provision for pedestrians along the eastern half of Station Road with good quality footways present on each side of the carriageway up to the entrance of the Household Waste Recycling Centre. From this point westwards the footway continues only on the southern / western side of the carriageway to Hogmoor Road. Along this section the footway does become narrow in places due to encouraging or overgrown vegetation. There are no formal crossings available on Station Road but side road junctions have a mix of tactile paving and dropped kerbs or dropped kerbs only. 2.8.18There is no provision for cyclists either on-road or off-road along Station Road. 2.8.19The general quality of environment along Station Road is fair due to the presence of street lighting and good quality footway. In places, however, the lack of overlooking properties or buildings and lack of street lighting may make the route intimidating for certain users.

Hogmoor Inclosure 2.8.20Hogmoor Inclosure is an area of woodland bounded by the A325, Woolmer Industrial Estate, Prince Phillips Barracks, Hogmoor Road, Oakhanger Road and Firgrove Road. It is currently designated and a SINC and is used by the MoD for training exercises on a regular basis. 2.8.21There are a number of formal and informal routes through Hogmoor Inclosure and the main north to south route follows the alignment of the old railway line between Firgrove Road and Oakhanger Road. This path differs significantly in quality and provision, ranging from an overgrown and relatively inaccessible cutting to a 10m wide gravel path. There also a number of east to west routes through the Inclosure but these become hilly in nature towards the western edge and were heavily rutted and impassable in places due to MoD use and flooding. 2.8.22At present Hogmoor Inclosure is mainly used for leisure use purposes due to its woodland nature. The existing paths vary in quality and legibility and there are areas which are obviously secluded in nature. Gradients may be an issue for certain users as would the surface quality in some areas, especially after wet weather. The general quality of environment is generally good but there were significant amounts of litter / fly- tipping observed around the Woolmer Way and Sutton Field areas.

Route Option Comparison 2.8.23This section provides a comparison of route options in regards to the provision for pedestrians and cyclists. All options are primarily based upon the provision of 3m shared-use paths on each side of the relief road and the only significant difference being how each route uses the proposed Hogmoor Inclosure SANG when passing its eastern boundary. At this location it is proposed that a 3m shared-use path will be provided through the SANG, with differing path lengths depending upon each individual option alignment. 2.8.24With the exception of Option 3a the southern and northern section of each option follows the same alignment and therefore has the same provision for pedestrians and cyclists as described below:

■ At the southern end of the Relief Road a 3m shared-used path will follow the western side of the carriageway between the Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout and the proposed Toucan crossing for the Green Loop. ■ At the northern end a 3m shared-use path will run along both sides of the carriageway between Oakhanger Road and the A325 except through Louisburg Barracks where a 5m service road will be provided for pedestrian / cycle use. 2.8.25For completeness a summary of the remainder of each route option has been provided below.

Option 1 2.8.26For Option 1 it is proposed to construct a 3m shared-use path on both sides of the carriageway except on the western side in the vicinity of the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG. At this point a shared-use path will be provided within the SANG up to Oakhanger Road where it will re-join the Relief Road alignment.

Option 2 2.8.27Option 2 matches the proposals for Option 1 but with a slightly different alignment of the path through the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG.

Option 3 2.8.28Option 3 proposes a shared used path on both sides of the carriageway except for a 450m section in the vicinity of the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG. At this location a shared-use path will be provided within the SANG until it reaches the proposed residential area. At this point the path will re-join the alignment of the Relief Road.

Option 3a 2.8.29For Option 3a the southern alignment leaves the A325 approximately 35m north of junction with New Road rather than at the Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout. For pedestrians and cyclists it is proposed that a 3m shared-use path will be constructed along both sides of the carriageway except through the existing industrial area, where a 5m service road will be provide into which pedestrian and cycle paths will be integrated.

Option 4 2.8.30Option 4 provides 3m shared-use path on both sides of the carriageway with the exception of 800m on the western side of the Relief Road in the vicinity of the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG. Here it will run through the SANG until it reaches the proposed residential development where it will re-join the relief road. In addition a 3m shared-path will also run between the southernmost part of the residential development and run northwards for 400m to link into footpaths adjacent to the Relief Road.

Option 5 2.8.31Option 5 follows an alignment very similar to Option 4 with the main differences being a 700m path through Hogmoor Inclosure SANG and a 125m path from the residential development to footpaths adjacent to the Relief Road. 2.8.32Each of these route options will provide high quality and direct routes for pedestrians and cyclists through the proposed development area and will include links to residential areas, employment schools and the proposed town centre. The Relief Road, along with primary routes linking into it, will provide a permeable and accessible area which reduces journey length and improves route options compared with the existing situation where the A325 offers the only north to south axis through the town centre. 2.8.33In addition the provision of pedestrian / cyclist crossing facilities at proposed junctions and other significant locations such as where the Green Loop crosses the Relief Road will reduce severance and delay to journeys. There will be some issues experienced during construction, whereby existing links between Hogmoor Road and the A325 / town centre will be cut, but these will be temporary in nature and management of the construction process should help manage these impacts.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 66 Revised:

2.8.34The general level of amenity should also be improved overall based upon the majority of Relief Road options passing through the centre of a new development area. This will allow streets to be designed so they are attractive, lit, overlooked and are high quality places that promote walking and cycling. Where routes pass through the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG users may feel intimidated to the its secluded nature, especially during hours or darkness, but the provision of a shared-use path on the eastern side of the each Relief Road option will provide an alternative route in such situations. 2.8.35The table below provides a summary of the environmental impacts of each route option during construction and operation.

Recommendations 2.8.36Based upon the assessment completed in this chapter it is recommended that option 2 is pursued as the final route alignment. This provides the most direct route through the centre of the proposed development area therefore providing high quality links to residential and employment areas and the town centre. This will improve amenity compared with the existing situation, reduce journey lengths and delays experienced by pedestrians and cyclists. Table 24: Summary Table - Pedestrians and Cyclists

Environmental Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Viking Park and Constraint / Preferred Alternative Feature option) Viking Park Construction Journey length All options will increase journey length and travel patterns for pedestrians and cyclists that travel between Hogmoor and travel patterns Road and the A325 and existing town centre if Hogmoor Inclosure is used. Users may also avoid Budds Lane and Station Road to avoid construction site and construction traffic. Impact: Moderate Negative Pedestrian / All options will increase pedestrian / cycle delay where traffic management measures are required during Cyclist Delay construction. This is particularly relevant to the A325 / Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout, Budds Lane, Station Road and where the northern end of the Relief Road joins the A325. Option 3a may also results in delays along the A325 around the vicinity of Viking Park. Impact: Minor Negative Pedestrian / Construction traffic using the surrounding highway network may increase levels of fear and intimidation for Cyclist Amenity pedestrians and cyclists using the footway or cycling or road. Construction in areas of existing woodland will also (incl. fear & significantly impact existing amenity levels. intimidation) Impact: Moderate Negative Severance Construction is likely to increase severance between areas east and west of the proposed Relief Road alignments. (new & relief from This includes Hogmoor Road and existing town centre. existing) Impact: Moderate Negative Operation Journey length The Relief Road, along with primary routes linking into it, will provide a permeable and accessible area which reduces and travel patterns journey length and improves route options compared with the existing situation where the A325 offers the only north to south axis through the town centre. Impact: Major Positive Pedestrian / Pedestrian and cyclist delay will be kept to a minimum through the provision of formal crossing facilities at key Cyclist Delay junctions and other locations. Impact: Moderate Positive Pedestrian / Provision of shared-use paths will improve amenity for users in comparison with the existing A325. However each Cyclist Amenity option does include provision of a shared-use path through the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG which is unlikely to be (incl. fear & used in hours of darkness. Options 1 and 2 also pass along the edge of the development area rather than through intimidation) the centre of the development area which is likely to be more secluded.

Environmental Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Viking Park and Constraint / Preferred Alternative Feature option) Viking Park Impact: Minor / Moderate Positive Severance The provision of pedestrian / cyclist crossing facilities at proposed junctions and other significant locations such as (new & relief from where the Green Loop crosses the Relief Road will reduce severance and delay to journeys. Any potential existing) severance issues created by the Relief Road alignment will be mitigated through the provision of numerous pedestrian crossing facilities. Impact: Major Positive

2.9 Effects on Vehicle Travellers

Introduction 2.9.1This chapter provides an assessment of vehicle travellers, focusing on driver stress and the view from the Relief Road. This follows guidance set-out in DMRB Vol.11 Section 3 Part 8.

Description of Study Area

2.9.2The study area for this is defined at the extent and alignment of the relief road options and broadly incorporates the area between the where the relief road joins the existing A325 at the northern and southern points. As such the study area includes the A325 between Louisburg Road at the northern point and the Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout at the southern point. It also includes other routes likely to impacted by the relief road, notably Budds Lane and Station Road. This study area is shown in Figure X below.

Methodology

2.9.3Baseline conditions have been established primarily though the review of studies completed by WSP in 2013 and the extensive number of site visits and walkovers completed for these. The full list of documents reviewed is as follows: ■ Whitehill & Bordon Walking and Cycling Strategy (WSP, 2013); ■ Whitehill & Bordon Traffic Management Study (WSP, 2013); and ■ Transport Assessment: Whitehill Bordon Eco-Town (Amey Consulting, 2012).

2.9.4A review of these documents and the site visits conducted has provided an assessment of existing conditions for vehicle travellers in Whitehill & Bordon. To assess the potential impacts of each Relief Road option the following key factors have been considered, along with providing a general overview of the facilities provided with each option: ■ Driver stress (frustration, fear of potential accidents and uncertainty of the route being followed); and ■ View from the road. 2.9.5At this stage these factors have been assessed qualitatively rather than quantitatively taking account of the level of information currently available for each option.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 68 Revised:

Consultation

2.9.6No consultation has been undertaken at this stage.

Description of Environmental Baseline and Key Environmental Constraints/Feature

2.9.7This section provides a summary of existing conditions for vehicle travellers within the study area.

A325 2.9.8The A325 runs north to south through Whitehill & Bordon, providing access to Farnham to the north and A3 to the south. Within the study area the A325 is subject to a 30mph speed limit and has street lighting. Travelling south to north drivers pass through the following major junctions in the study area: ■ A325 / Liphook Road / Firgrove Road roundabout; ■ A325 / Conde / Way Woolmer Way roundabout; ■ A325 / Tesco / Woolmer Way traffic signal junction; ■ A325 / Chalet Hill traffic signal junction; ■ A325 / Budds Lane priority junction; and ■ A325 / Lindford Road / Station Road traffic signal junction. 2.9.9Each of these junctions experiences congestion and delay during the AM and PM peak hours, especially the traffic signal junctions at Tesco, Chalet Hill and Lindford Road / Station Road. This reduces traffic speeds, increases journey times and encourages drivers to seek alternative and unsuitable routes through Whitehill & Bordon, such as along Hogmoor Road, Forest Road and Hollywater Road. Given that the A325 is also a major route, it carries high volumes of HGV traffic. 2.9.10According to the Amey Consulting Transport Assessment there were a total of 57 collisions on the A325 during the five year period between the 1st November 2005 and the 31st August 2011, with one fatal, eight serious and 48 slight in nature. These accidents were primarily located around the following three cluster points: ■ A325 / Lindford Road / Station Road traffic signal junction. ■ A325 / Chalet Hill traffic signal junction; and ■ A325 / Ennerdale Road.

2.9.11Out of the 58 collisions 45% were rear shunt accidents and 34% involved vehicles turning right and striking a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. The one fatal collision occurred as a result of a vehicle losing control near to Hogmoor Road. Five of the eight serious collision occurred as a result of vehicles turning right into the path of an oncoming vehicle. 2.9.12Each of these factors increases driver stress through frustration and fear of accidents, which is not helped by the stop / start nature of passing traveling through a number of junctions in a short distance. As drivers travel along the A325 the view consist of dense woodland, commercial areas and MoD barracks. These are not particularly distinctive or high quality scenes and are therefore unlikely to alleviate driver stress.

Budds Lane 2.9.13Budds Lane forms a priority junction with the A325 and extends north westerly to join Station Road and Oakhanger Lane. It is subject to a 30mph speed limit between the A325 and just south of the entrance to the School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (SEME) at which point the speed limit rises to 40mph. Budds Lane also provides access to Prince Phillips Barracks, Bordon Junior and Infants School and Chase Children’s Centre (from Hampshire Road). 2.9.14For drivers traveling along Budds Lane there are no junctions where Budds Lane does not have priority and the straight nature of the road means that it is easy to negotiate. However, for eastbound traffic the A325 / Budds Lane junction does become congested at peak hours and this may lead to some driver frustration. In addition, the presence of Prince Phillips Barracks means that a number of MoD vehicles use Budds Lane to access the site, some of which are slow moving and difficult to overtake. 2.9.15There have been three accidents recorded on Budds Lane between 1st November 2005 and 31st August 2011 all of which were slight in severity and were a result of vehicles turning right out of Prince Phillips Barracks, Hampshire Road and onto the A325. 2.9.16In regards to driver views Budds Lane is mainly surrounded by Prince Philips Barracks and associated sports pitches, although some views are blocked by trees and hedgerow. This is generally uninteresting and the high fences topped with barbed wire which run along the edge of the barracks also make the views from Budds Lane unappealing.

Station Road / Oakhanger Road 2.9.17Station Road joins the A325 at the traffic signal junction with Lindford Road and extends south westerly to Budds Lane (where it becomes Oakhanger Road) and Hogmoor Road. Station Road is subject to a 40mph speed limit and has street lighting until just west of the Household Waste Recycling Centre. Station Road provides a route to The Phoenix Theatre, The Garrison Church of St George and Louisburg Barracks. 2.9.18There are no junctions on Station Road or Oakhanger Road where this route does not have priority, with the exception of the A325 / Station Road / Lindford Road traffic signal junction. This junction can become congested at peak hours and lead to driver frustration for those travelling in an eastbound direction. Otherwise there should be few reasons for driver stress along this route, which also does not have any controlled pedestrian crossings to interrupt the flow of traffic. The route is also clear and legible for users. 2.9.19Between 1st November 2005 and 31st August 2011 there were two serious accidents and one fatal accident. The serious accident occurred when a pedestrian ran into the road near to Louisburg Barracks and was hit by a car. The two fatal accidents were a result of vehicles losing control near to the junction with Budds Lane. 2.9.20The views from Station Road are generally quite uninteresting, with it being surrounded by barracks, residential areas or woodland.

Route Option Comparison 2.9.21This section provides a comparison of route options in regards to vehicle travellers. All options are based on a very similar standard of design with a 6.5m to 7.3m carriageway and a limited number of junctions which restrict traffic flow on the Relief Road. As such the only significant differences between each option will be the proposed alignment and changes driver views.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 70 Revised:

2.9.22Each option with the exception of 3a will start at the A325 / Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout which will be enlarged to accommodate an additional entry. At the northern end of the route a 3 arm roundabout will be provided to re-join the existing A325 alignment. Each route alignment will have individual junction options as they pass through the development. However, the number of junctions that restrict the flow of traffic on the relief road will be kept to a minimum, and likely to be only at one location in the centre of the development area and where each route joins or passes Oakhanger Road, Budds Lane or Station Road.

Option 1 2.9.23Option 1 is just over 4km long and will have a 30mph speed limit. The southern half of the route will run on an embankment between open space and the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG before reaching Oakhanger Road. North of the Oakhanger Road this option will ran past the existing Waste Recycling Centre and electricity sub- station, where there will be no development frontages before passing through Louisburg Barracks.

Option 2 2.9.24Option 2 is just under 4km in length and will have a 40mph speed limit which reflects the straighter alignment compared with Option 1. The southern half of the route will run on an embankment between open space and the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG before following the abandoned railway line and around the northern side of the officer’s mess to Louisburg Barracks, where there will be no development frontages.

Option 3 2.9.25Option 3 is 3.6km long and will have a 30mph speed limit. It is proposed that it will run on embankment surrounded by open space and Hogmoor Inclosure SANG and through the centre of the proposed development area. On reaching Station Road it will follow its existing alignment for approximately 325m before running through Louisburg Barracks.

Option 3a 2.9.26This is the only route alignment option which does not start at the Firgrove Road / Liphook Road roundabout and instead leaves the A325 approximately 35m north of the A325 / New Road junction. From here it passes the rear of Whitehill Village Hall and proposed industrial development area before following the alignment of Option 3.

Option 4 2.9.27Option 4 is 3.75km long and will have a 30mph speed limit. For the first 450m the route will follow Option 2 before running for approximately 1.25km in a slight cutting through the proposed residential development area to the Station Road / Budds Lane junction. From this point the alignment follows Station Road for a short length and that of Option 3 for the remainder of the route.

Option 5 2.9.28Option 5 is also 3.75km in length and follows a very similar alignment to Option 4, only slightly further east. Upon joining Station Road the alignment also follows that of Option 3. 2.9.29The table below provides a summary of the environmental impacts of each route option during construction and operation.

Recommendations 2.9.30Based upon the assessment completed in this chapter it is recommended that option 2 is pursued as the final route alignment. Option 2 provides a route that will improve driver stress by shortening journey times on- route and improve views by running alongside the edge of the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG. In comparison with other options this alignment follows the edge of the proposed development area and therefore will also not be subjected to as many conflicting movements in comparison with option 3, 4 and 5.

Table 25: Sumary Table - Vehicle Travellers

Environmental Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Viking Park and Constraint / Preferred Alternative Feature option) Viking Park Construction Driver Stress Driver stress is Driver stress is Driver stress is Driver stress is Driver stress is Driver stress is (frustration, fear of likely to be likely to be likely to be likely to be likely to be likely to be potential increased during increased during increased during increased during increased during increased during accidents and construction, construction, construction, construction, construction, construction, uncertainty) especially at especially at especially at especially at especially at especially at locations where locations where locations where locations where locations where locations where the route joins or the route joins or the route joins or the route joins or the route joins or the route joins or passes the passes the A325 passes the passes the passes the passes the A325, and Oakhanger A325, Budds A325, Budds A325, Budds A325, Budds Oakhanger Road. Lane and Lane and Lane and Lane and Road and Impact: Station Road. Station Road. Station Road. Station Road. Station Road Moderate Impact: Impact: Impact: Impact: Impact: Negative Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative All options may increase driver stress through the increased construction traffic, especially HGVs using the surrounding highway network. Impact: Minor Negative View from the Existing routes unlikely to be affected, other than there being minimal views of the construction site. road Impact: Negligible Operation Driver Stress All Relief Road options should result in a significant improvement in driver stress compared with the existing baseline (frustration, fear of by reducing the number of junctions that restrict through traffic and providing junction designs that cater for forecast potential traffic flows. Each Relief Road option will also be designed to a standard that should improve safety and reduce accidents and accidents in comparison with existing baseline. uncertainty) Impact: Major Positive View from the Improved views Improved views Views of Views of Views of Views of road of Hogmoor of Hogmoor Hogmoor Hogmoor Hogmoor Hogmoor Inclosure SANG Inclosure SANG Inclosure SANG Inclosure SANG Inclosure SANG Inclosure SANG and green space and green space and and and and for southern half for southern half development development development development of route but little of route but little area for area for area for area for development development southern half of southern half of southern half of southern half of frontage north of frontage north of route but little route but little route but little route but little Oakhanger Oakhanger development development development development Road. Road. frontage north of frontage north of frontage north of frontage north of Impact: Impact: Budds Lane. Budds Lane. Budds Lane. Budds Lane.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 72 Revised:

Environmental Option 1 Option 2 (HCC Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Viking Park and Constraint / Preferred Alternative Feature option) Viking Park Moderate Moderate Impact: Minor Impact: Minor Impact: Minor Impact: Minor Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

2.10 Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Introduction 2.10.1Road schemes have the potential to impact on the quality of water bodies and the existing hydrology of the catchments through which roads pass. In accordance with DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10, Road Drainage and the Water Environment, this report assesses the potential effects that the proposed Whitehill Bordon Inner Relief Road (IRR) could have with regard to the following principal risk areas: ■ Effects of Routine Runoff on Surface Waters; ■ Effects of Routine Runoff on Groundwater; ■ Pollution Impacts from Accidental Spillages; and, ■ Flood Impacts. 2.10.2In the following text each of the Route Options is shown compared one against the other, and a preferred route has been selected on that basis specifically in relation to the water environment.

Description of Study Area

2.10.3The study area for Road Drainage and the Water Environment encompasses sensitive water receptors within the influence of the Proposed Development. These include Oxney Stream, Oxney Moss and their catchment area; the underlying Principal Aquifer; groundwater abstractions; and, the area of floodplain within the zone of influence of the Route Options.

Methodology

Desk Study

2.10.4In order to consider potential constraints for each of the Options with respect to drainage and flood risk, the route of the Options was initially reviewed using OS mapping and aerial photography. A walkover survey of the study area was also undertaken. 2.10.5A desk study review of available information has been completed, including previous reports for the study area, geological mapping, Environment Agency information, Hampshire County Council information and an Envirocheck report. In particular, the following reports were reviewed relevant to the study area: ■ Peter Brett Associates, July 2011. Whitehill Bordon Eco Town, Detailed Water Cycle Study; ■ SKM, January 2012. Louisburg Barracks, Bordon Garrison: Combined Phase 1& 2 Report. Land Quality Assessment Report;

■ WSP PB, 11/10/2013. Whitehill and Bordon Relief Road, Statement of Intent and Preliminary Source Study Report (PSSR) (Draft V1); and, ■ Landmark Envirocheck Report (20/09/13) order number 49380441_1_1. 2.10.6Environment Agency mapping was reviewed for the study area (including the Route Options and potential impacts in the vicinity) to provide information on the existing drainage and the existing flood risk; its extent and source. At the time of writing the Environment Agency was not able to provide data on groundwater flooding. A list of the datasets, as provided by the Environment Agency, used in the production of this options appraisal is as follows: ■ Flood Map showing Flood Zones; and, ■ Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW). 2.10.7As well as these datasets the following documents were reviewed to provide an overview of drainage and flood risk information within the study area: ■ Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) April 2008 – East Hampshire District Council; and, ■ Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) June 2011 – Hampshire County Council. 2.10.8The available information has been evaluated in accordance with DMRB guidance for assessing risks to the water environment from the identified principal risk areas. 2.10.9The importance of the water receptors has been determined in accordance with the guidance. The importance of the water features, the potential magnitude of the effect and the risk associated with each principal effect has been taken into account during the qualitative comparison of the Route Options. 2.10.10A more quantitative assessment will be undertaken, including consideration of mitigation measures, on the final Route Option selected at a later stage (via the EIA process).

Relevant Legislation and Planning Policy

2.10.11The following legislation was also used as the basis for the Options comparison exercise: ■ Flood and Water Management Act (2010); ■ EU Flood Directive & Flood Risk Regulations (2009); ■ The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations (2003) (WFD) (2000/60/EC); ■ The Environment Act (1995); ■ Water Resources Act (1991); and, ■ Land Drainage Act (1991). ■ Planning Policy: x National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 – Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG); and, x East Hampshire District Council and South Downs National Park Authority Joint Core Strategy (not yet adopted).

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 74 Revised:

Consultation 2.10.12Initial consultations with the Environment Agency were undertaken to discuss the broad options, specific issues and what further work with regard to flooding and drainage would be required for each of the Route Options if they were to progress to the next stage. This information has been included under the specific Options where appropriate. 2.10.13East Hampshire District Council were also approached to inform them of the proposed scheme and to obtain information. No response has been received to date.

Description of Environmental Baseline and Key Environmental Constraints /Feature

Baseline Geology 2.10.14Published geology mapping indicates that all of the Route Options are underlain by the Folkestone Formation (sandstone) with no superficial deposits present. There are likely to be localised areas of Made Ground along all Route Options, in areas of current development (e.g. Louisburg Barracks). 2.10.15Below the Folkestone Formation, the deepening strata succession includes the Sandgate Formation (sandstone, siltstone and mudstone layers), the Bargate Sandstone Member (sandstone) and the Hythe Formation (sandstone). All strata belong to the Lower Greensand Group and outcrop in succession towards the east.

Baseline Hydrogeology 2.10.16The Folkestone Formation, located immediately below all the Route Options, is classified as a Principal Aquifer. The other strata within the Lower Greensand Group are classified as Principal Aquifers except the Sandgate Formation which is classified as a Secondary (A) Aquifer. Principal Aquifers are layers of rock or drift deposits that have high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability. This means they usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. 2.10.17The proposed development is not located within an Environment Agency designated groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ). Under the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plan, the Environment Agency classify the underlying groundwater quantity as ‘poor’ and quality as ‘poor and deteriorating’ within the Lower Greensand Group. 2.10.18The Lower Greensand Group is located within an Environment Agency designated ‘at risk’ groundwater Drinking Water Protected Area (DrWPA), where ‘raw’ water is abstracted for human consumption at a rate of at least 10m3/day or over 50 people are served. Wherever there is a risk of extra drinking water treatment being required, a DrWPA is designated ‘at risk’. 2.10.19The Water Cycle Study indicates that two groundwater abstraction wells are located on MoD land to the southeast of the northern section of the Route Options. One of these is located on Quebec Barracks (the principal borehole, located approximately 1km from the Route Options, 76.2m deep) and the other is the St Lucia Barracks borehole (a back-up supply at a distance of approximately 600m). They have been in use since the 1920s and water is pumped to a water tower to the northeast of Louisburg Barracks. The MoD boreholes are not designated with a SPZ currently. This is anticipated to be because they were formerly covered by Crown Immunity.

2.10.20The Water Cycle Study reports that the MoD boreholes abstract from the Sandgate and Hythe Formations and that they are artesian, suggesting that lower permeability layers within the Sandgate Formation could act as a partially confining aquitard. The water is treated at a water treatment plant to the northeast of Louisburg Barracks for high iron concentrations, and is then used by the MoD for potable supply, fire-fighting water, washing and cooling. There is potential for these boreholes to continue to be utilised as part of the proposed Eco Town. 2.10.21The Envirocheck report obtained for the Route Options indicates that there are no groundwater abstractions within 500m of the routes. Other than the two MoD boreholes, it identifies one further groundwater abstraction within 1km. It is located approximately 975m west of the central area of the proposed development on Oakhanger Farm, abstracts from the ‘Hythe and Bargate Beds’ and is utilised for spray irrigation. 2.10.22Other notable groundwater abstractions within the study area for potable use include abstractions operated by South East Water located at Oakhanger approximately 2.1km west and Headley Park approximately 2.2km northeast. The Water Cycle Study reports that these abstract from the ‘deep sandstone’. 2.10.23The Water Cycle Study reports that the Environment Agency has suggested groundwater is relatively shallow across the study area and flows predominantly towards the River Wey to the northwest. The Water Cycle Study states that ground investigations have encountered groundwater at approximately 4m below ground level within the study area. British Geological Survey borehole records obtained for the site area (PSSR, October 2013) indicate groundwater levels between 1m and 11m below ground level in the Folkestone Formation. 2.10.24Groundwater within the Folkestone Formation in the study area has the potential to be in continuity with the Oxney Moss, and further down gradient with the River Slea and River Wey. Although the Route Options are not within a groundwater SPZ, groundwater below the Route Options is potentially connected with groundwater abstracted from the MoD boreholes. However, these abstractions are anticipated to be from a deeper aquifer and therefore the presence of mudstone/siltstone layers within the Sandgate Formation may limit connectivity with the shallow Folkestone Formation aquifer. 2.10.25Discharges to groundwater (via land) within 1km include sewage discharges 160m north, 200m south, 780m southeast, 800m east and 900m north of the Route Options.

Baseline Hydrology 2.10.26Table 26 summarises surface water features within proximity of the proposed development. The surface watercourses flow in a predominantly north-easterly direction.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 76 Revised:

Table 26: Surface Water Courses

Surface Water Feature Distance from Closest Route Direct-ion Current RBMP Current RBMP Ecological Quality Option Chemical Quality Oxney Moss 0m N/A NC NC Oxney Stream 870m West NC NC Unnamed Pond 10m West NC NC Unnamed Pond 60m (Options 1-5) East NC NC 5m (Option 6) West River Wey 670m East, Good Poor (before Dead Water) Northeast confluence) Moderate (after Dead Water confluence) Poor (after confluence with River Slea) Dead Water 1.1km East NC Moderate Oakhanger Stream 1.1km East NC Moderate River Slea 1.2km North Good Moderate RBMP – as classified by the EA under the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plan; N/A – Not applicable; NC – Not classified

2.10.27The Route Options are predominantly topographically located within the catchment of the Oxney Moss surface water course, which is located within the wider River Wey river basin district. Although the Oxney Moss does not have a WFD classification, it discharges to the River Slea which flows into the River Wey, both of which are classified (see Table 26 above). 2.10.28An unnamed pond is located approximately adjacent to the west of all Route Options, except Option 3A (Viking Park), towards the south of the proposed development. This is anticipated to be a natural pond potentially connected to groundwater, and understood to be of ecological importance (see Section 2.5/4.5 Nature Conservation). 2.10.29A tributary of the Oxney Moss known as Bordon Camp Stream flows northwards to the south of the Louisburg Barracks. It is understood that it receives licensed discharges from activities at the barracks (including from the water treatment works) (SKM report, 2012). The Envirocheck Report indicates that the stream also takes sewage and trade discharges from the Woolmer Industrial Estate (located approximately adjacent to the east of Option 3A. 2.10.30A number of sewage discharge consents are also held for a tributary of the River Wey from at least 100m southeast of the northern section of the Route Options. 2.10.31The Route Options are located within a Surface Water Safeguard Zone, the shape of which aligns with the Oxney Moss, Oxney Stream and River Slea catchments. Surface Water Safeguard Zones are designated for catchment areas upstream of an ‘at risk’ DrWPAs, where action to address water contamination will be targeted, so that extra treatment by water companies can be avoided. 2.10.32No surface water abstractions were identified in the Envirocheck report within 1km of the Route Options.

Statutory Ecological Designations 2.10.33No statutory ecological designations have been provided to the surface water courses in proximity to the Route Options.

2.10.34Woolmer Forest (SSSI, SPA and SAC) is located approximately 350m south of the Route Options. It is considered unlikely that this could be influenced by the IRR due to its up hydraulic gradient location. Broxhead & Kingsley Commons (SSSI, SPA and SAC) are located adjacent to the northern extent of the Route Options. The Route Options overlap at their closest point to this ecological site and therefore it is considered unlikely there will be a difference in potential effect on this site between Route Options.

Baseline Flood Risk and Drainage 2.10.35The area through which the various routes run has a number of existing drainage features and flood risk constraints. 2.10.36The Oxney Moss (ordinary watercourse) flows from south to north through the study area, with a number of the Route Options crossing the watercourse. There are two ponds located to the south, in the Hogmoor Inclosure and Viking Park. 2.10.37The railway cutting located in the southern area of the proposed Options has been noted to contain standing stagnant water at its base. It is currently unclear whether this derives from surface water or groundwater. 2.10.38The Environment Agency Flood Maps for Surface Water (1 in 30 and 1 in 200 year event) indicate a number of areas susceptible to both shallow and deep flood risk located along the length of the Oxney Moss for both events and around the two ponds. 2.10.39The Flood Map shows the study area to be wholly within Flood Zone 1. Flood Zone 1 applies to all areas where the chance of flooding in one year is less than 0.1%. 2.10.40The 2012 Land Quality Assessment Report for Louisburg Barracks (2012) states that surface water from the Louisburg Barracks is understood to currently drain to an open ditch to the west and then into the Oxney Moss. It is discharged via two interceptors that are reported not to function well. 2.10.41During discussions with the Environment Agency, they highlighted their concerns over the sensitivity of the groundwater in the area. The site is situated on a sandstone and would be generally permeable meaning infiltration SuDS should be practicable on the site. However, the designation of the underling groundwater as a Principal Aquifer and its use for potable water supply in the area means that it is vulnerable to contaminants suspended within infiltrated road drainage. The Environment Agency has also highlighted the fact that a number of the routes pass through potentially contaminated land. 2.10.42In order to protect groundwater quality from the more harmful effects of road run-off, it is proposed at this stage that infiltration drainage is not included within the strategy for surface water disposal, and that all drainage infrastructure is lined to prevent contaminants from road runoff entering the ground.

Route Option Comparison

Surface Water Receptors 2.10.43All Route Options cross the Oxney Moss water-course (and its tributaries, including Bordon Camp Stream) at least once. The Oxney Moss is not a WFD classified water course. However, it flows into water courses that are classified (River Slea and River Wey); see Table 26. The chemical quality classification of the rivers is ‘good’ and the ecological quality classification is ‘poor to moderate’. Therefore, with reference to the DMRB guidance, it is considered that the surface water features are of Low to Medium importance due to the WFD classifications being located downstream, the lack of ecological statutory designations, the consents for sewage discharge, and the lack of identified use for water supply.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 78 Revised:

2.10.44During the construction phase it will be necessary to store construction materials, oils, fuels, and chemicals on-site. There is a potential risk to surface water and groundwater from accidental leaks or spills of such materials. 2.10.45There is the potential for contamination of surface water bodies to occur during the construction phase through surface water runoff. Likely contaminants within runoff may arise from accidental fuel spillages, and sediments entrained from soil erosion during earthworks. These have the potential to impact the Oxney Moss and downstream water courses. Construction of water-course crossings and work next to water bodies is likely to generate the highest risk. The higher the number of crossings, the greater the risk of impact during construction. The following presents the approximate number of surface water crossings for each Route Option: ■ Route Option 1 – 3 crossings ■ Route Option 2 – 1 crossing ■ Route Option 3 – 6 crossings ■ Route Option 4 – 2 crossings ■ Route Option 5 – 5 crossings ■ Route Option 3A (Viking Park) – 1 crossing 2.10.46Route Options 3 and 5 are located closer to Oxney Moss along their length than the other Options, and they cross this water course (and its tributaries) on more occasions. Therefore the construction of these Route Options represents a slightly higher risk from accidental spills and sedimentation when compared to the other routes. 2.10.47In addition, it is likely that due to the width of the highway corridor, the Oxney Moss would require culverting or divertion for Route Options 3 and 5. This would constitute an increased pollution risk and would require greater Environment Agency involvement. 2.10.48A broad range of potential pollutants is associated with routine runoff from operational roads. Contamination entering the surface water drainage system (either routine runoff or accidental spillage) has the potential to enter the Oxney Moss, either as dissolved or suspended load, which may affect water quality. It is considered that during the operational phase, the detailed drainage design would be similar for each Route Option. This would predominantly comprise surface water discharge to the Oxney Moss, with some potential discharge to the Dead Water for southern sections of the proposed alignments. 2.10.49Therefore, during the operational phase there is no discernible difference in risk to surface water features between Route Options. It is anticipated that standard mitigation measures will be included within the surface water drainage design to ensure that contaminant migration to receiving watercourses is not exacerbated.

Groundwater Receptors 2.10.50All Route Options are located on the same geology (Lower Greensand Group, specifically the Folkestone Formation) and the same sandstone Principal Aquifer. None are located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone; however, they all have the potential to be within the groundwater capture zone for the two MoD boreholes which may continue to be used for public water supply following development. There is also potential for the shallow sandstone aquifer to be utilised in the future for potable water supply. 2.10.51The pond located to the west of the southern route sections has the potential to be connected to groundwater. Infilling of the railway cutting is proposed for Route Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in proximity to the pond. This has the potential to influence groundwater elevations locally, and therefore potentially influence water levels in the pond if they are dependent on groundwater.

2.10.52In accordance with DMRB guidance on determining the importance of water receptors (Table A4.3, DMRB), it is considered that the underlying groundwater would be of High importance (on a scale of low- moderate-high-very high) due it being a Principal Aquifer providing locally important resource (but not within a groundwater SPZ) and supporting surface water ecosystems. 2.10.53During the construction phase there is a potential risk to groundwater from accidental leaks or spills of materials such as fuels and oils. With reference to the DMRB guidance, attributes that increase the vulnerability of the Folkestone Formation aquifer to accidental spills during construction include the shallow depth to groundwater and the lack of protective superficial deposits. The dominance of intergranular groundwater flow (rather than fracture flow) within the Lower Greensand and the lithology (predominantly fine to medium sand as opposed to coarse sand) will help to decrease the vulnerability of the aquifer. 2.10.54It is assumed at this stage that road drainage during the operational phase will not be discharged to ground and drainage pathways will be lined to prevent infiltration. Therefore, accidental spillages on the road and routine runoff during operation will not have the potential to be mobilised to groundwater and therefore will not represent a risk to groundwater. 2.10.55It is considered that discharges to the water-courses will have no material linkage to local groundwater abstractions because surface water flow and dilution would override any potential for impact; the discharge effect will be limited to the upper portions of the saturated zone; current abstractions are in aquifers at significant depth and location from the proposed discharge point; and, natural hydraulic gradients (i.e. flows to the Oxney Moss) preclude any material linkage between the discharge point and the groundwater abstractions.

Flood Risk 2.10.56Table 27 highlights the flood risk issues relating to the proposed highway alignments. 2.10.57All route options, due to the increased impermeable area, will create greater flood risk to the receiving watercourses and the surrounding areas without adequate mitigation measures. It is therefore assessed that the longer proposed alignments (Options 1 and 2) would normally create a marginally higher flood risk. However, the proposed drainage strategy will negate the risk and there will be no discernible benefit for adopting a specific alignment in terms of drainage volumes. 2.10.58Flood risk, due to the construction of potential barriers to flow within watercourses, will increase where there are more crossings over existing watercourses. Therefore, Options 3 and 5 present the greatest risk and are the least preferable.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 80 Revised:

Table 27: Flood Risk

Route Options Potential issue 1 2 3 4 5 3A (Viking Park) Fluvial Flood Risk For all routes there is no identified risk from fluvial (main river) sources of flooding and the locations are considered to be in Flood Zone 1 (less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any one year). Surface Water 1 in 30 Route 1 passes alongside a Route 2 is located Route 3 is located Route 4 is located Route 5 runs alongside Route 6 is located Flood Risk number of small areas at alongside a number of alongside a number of alongside a number of a number of small areas alongside a number of risk of shallow and deep small areas at risk of small areas at risk of small areas at risk of at risk of both shallow small areas at risk of surface water flooding. shallow surface water shallow and deep surface shallow and deep and deep surface water shallow and deep Route 1 runs through areas flooding. At the southern water flooding. The route surface water flooding. flooding. The route runs surface water flooding. at risk of both shallow and end of the route, in the runs through areas at risk The route runs through through an area at risk The route runs through deep surface water flooding cutting of the former of both shallow and deep areas at risk of both from shallow and deep areas at risk of both in Bordon Camp, to the Longmoor Military Railway, surface water flooding in shallow and deep surface water flooding at shallow and deep west of the Prince Phillip the route passes through Bordon Camp, the Prince surface water flooding in both Bordon Camp and surface water flooding in Barracks and in the cutting an area at risk from both Phillip Barracks and in the Bordon Camp, the in the cutting of the Bordon Camp, the of the former Longmoor shallow and deep surface cutting of the former Prince Phillip Barracks former Longmoor Prince Phillip Barracks Military Railway. water flooding. Longmoor Military and in the cutting of the Military Railway. and south-west of Railway. former Longmoor Woolmer Way. Military Railway. 1 in 200 This route is located Route 2 is located adjacent Route 3 passes alongside Route 4 runs alongside Along the length of the Route 6 is located adjacent to a number of to a number of small areas areas of shallow and deep small areas at risk of route, Option 5 is adjacent to a number of areas of shallow and deep at risk of shallow surface surface water flooding. It shallow surface water situated adjacent to a small areas at risk of surface water flooding. It water flooding along the also runs through areas at flooding along the length number of small areas at shallow and deep also runs through areas at full length of the route. The risk of shallow and deep of the route. It also risk of shallow surface surface water flooding risk of shallow surface water route passes through surface water flooding in passes through areas at water flooding. The along the length of the flooding and areas at risk of areas at risk of shallow Bordon Camp, the Prince risk of shallow and deep route passes through route. The route passes both shallow and deep surface water flooding in Philip Barracks, to the surface water flooding in areas at risk of shallow through areas at risk of surface water flooding in Bordon Camp and to the north-west of Woolmer Bordon Camp, the and deep surface water both shallow and deep Bordon Camp and in the west of the Prince Philip Trading Estate and in the Prince Philip Barracks, flooding in Bordon surface water flooding in cutting of the former Barracks. The route cutting of the former to the north-west of Camp, to the north-west Bordon Camp, to the

Route Options Potential issue 1 2 3 4 5 3A (Viking Park) Longmoor Military Railway. passes through an area at Longmoor Military Woolmer Trading Estate of Woolmer Trading west of Woolmer risk of both shallow and Railway. and in the cutting of the Estate and in the cutting Trading Estate and in deep surface water in the former Longmoor of the former Longmoor the cutting of the former cutting of the former Military Railway. Military Railway. Longmoor Military Longmoor Military Railway. Railway. Aquifer and Groundwater The site is situated on bedrock of the Folkstone Formation which is a Principal Aquifer with a soil class of H Leaching Potential. Therefore, the GW Vulnerability (GWV) Vulnerability classification is Major H. GWV zones highlight the potential for surface contaminants to reach groundwater. They are split into Major or Minor to denote the aquifer type and H or L to denote a high or low leaching potential through the soils. There are no extra controls placed on the use of SUDS in areas with a high GWV but the EA encourage pre-application enquiries as advice is provided on a site by site basis.

Groundwater from the deeper sandstone in the area is utilised as a potable water resource.

Groundwater elevations are reported to be relatively shallow. Infilling of the railway cutting may increase the potential for localised groundwater flooding in this area. Historic groundwater flooding The Environment Agency has received 2 reports of groundwater flooding within 1 km of the site since their records began in November 2000. This is not a comprehensive list, nor will all events be related to 'true groundwater flooding' where groundwater emerges at ground surface:

1. March 2001 at 479349 133999. Water in cellar. 2. July 2001 at 478687 134427. Standing water in garden which was normally well draining, which then worsened with more heavy rain. Impacts on Ordinary Watercourse/ This route crosses an This route crosses an This route crosses an This route crosses an This route crosses an The additional extent of Drainage ditches (approximate ordinary watercourse twice. ordinary watercourse once. ordinary watercourse six ordinary watercourse ordinary watercourse this route crosses an number of crossings) times. twice. five. ordinary watercourse once, meaning the total extent of the route crosses an ordinary watercourse seven times. Road Length ( directly 4,025m 3,985m 3,675m 3,715m 3,665m 3,280m proportional to surface water

Project number: 00040393 Dated: 02/09/2013 82 Revised:

Route Options Potential issue 1 2 3 4 5 3A (Viking Park) runoff volume) Drainage constraints Land falls towards the proposed alignments along most of the route Discharge rates Greenfield or ‘as existing’

Recommendations

2.10.59With regards to Road Drainage and the Water Environment, the route comparison indicates that there is not a notable difference in potential risks to groundwater quality during construction; to surface water or groundwater quality during operation; or, to flooding during construction. 2.10.60Notable differences to surface water quality during construction are related to the proximity of the Route Options to and the number of times they are required to cross the surface water course Oxney Moss and its tributaries. Route Options 1, 2 and 4 are marginally preferable with respect to potential contamination of surface water as routes 3 and 5 are closer to and cross the water courses more frequently. 2.10.61Route Options 1 and 2 are preferable in terms of flood risk as they are located furthest from the Oxney Moss and associated flood risk, and amendments to the watercourses would not be required. 2.10.62It should be noted that this assessment has been completed based on available information, on both the water environment and the proposed IRR design, at the time of writing. If further information is made available the findings of this report should be reviewed and amended if required. 2.10.63Further detailed risk assessment of the selected Route Option will be undertaken in accordance with DMRB guidance to develop mitigation measures to protect the water environment. This will include consideration of the receptor sensitivities and characteristics, drainage proposals, traffic quantities and further assessment of flood risk. Further assessment will also be supported by ground investigation, including monitoring of land quality and groundwater conditions.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 84 Revised:

Table 28: Summary Table – Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Environmental Are the effects likely to be substantially affected by the Route Option selected? Constraint / Feature Construction Potential for Erosion Option 2 is considered to represent the least risk due to its distance from the surface water course and the During Construction (and single water crossing proposed. It is considered that Options 3 and 5 are likely to represent a greater risk for Sedimentation of Surface erosion of soil and sedimentation of surface water bodies during construction due to the greater number of Water Bodies) surface water crossings required, and the proximity of the routes to the Oxney Moss. Options 1 and 4 present an intermediate risk due to the number of crossings and proximity to surface water. Pollution Impacts to It is considered that Options 3 and 5 are likely to represent a greater risk to surface water bodies from Water Bodies from accidental spillages due to the increased proximity to the Oxney Moss and its tributaries, and the greater Accidental Spillages number of water crossings required. Option 2 is considered to represent the least risk to surface water due to its distance from the surface water course and the single water crossing proposed. Options 1 and 4 present an intermediate risk due to the number of crossings and proximity to surface water.

Groundwater vulnerability does not vary along the routes; therefore, the risk to groundwater does not vary between Route Options. Flood Impacts At this stage, it is not considered that there will be a variation in temporary changes in flood risk between Route Options during the construction phase. Operation Effects of Routine It is proposed that road drainage is discharged to the Oxney Moss for each Route Option. It is considered that Runoff on Surface Waters there is not a substantial difference in risk to the quality of surface water features between Route Options from routine runoff. Standard mitigation measures will be included within the surface water drainage design for the selected Route Option. Effects of Routine Runoff No road drainage via infiltration methods is proposed and drainage pathways will be lined to prevent on infiltration for all Route Options. Pathways between surface water discharge and the groundwater Groundwater abstractions are considered to be negligible. Therefore, the risk to groundwater from routine runoff is anticipated to be minimal and will not vary between Route Options. Pollution Impacts to It is proposed that road drainage is discharged to the Oxney Moss for each Route Option. It is considered that Water Bodies from there is not a substantial difference in risk to the quality of surface water features between Route Options from Accidental Spillages accidental spillages on the road during operation. It is proposed that there will be no infiltration drainage for any Route Option; therefore, the risk to groundwater from accidental spillages via road drainage is anticipated to be minimal and will not vary between Route Options Standard mitigation measures will be included within the surface water drainage design for the selected Route Option. Flood Impacts The preferred route is Option 2. Option 1 is identified as the second preferred route. The only difference between the routes is the extent of the Options located in or adjacent to areas at risk of surface water flooding for both the 1 in 30 and 1 in 200 year events. The primary concern with routes 1, 3, 4 and 5 is the extent between Bordon Camp and Selborne End, which utilises the existing Station Road, underneath which Oxney Moss flows. In addition, a ditch runs adjacent to Station Road, south of the crossing. Both the 1 in 30 and 1 in 200 year events show a risk of both shallow and deep surface water flooding at this location as a result of these watercourses. Option 2 runs to the north of Station Road, in an area with a lesser surface water flood risk. Routes 1 and 2 are situated furthest from Oxney Moss and the associated flood risk in the Prince Philip Barracks area. Both of these routes will therefore not require amendments to this watercourse. Contrastingly, Options 3 and 5 will result in extents of the Oxney Moss through the barracks being culverted. The area to the west of Woolmer Trading Estate, through which routes 3, 5 and 6 run, is shown to be at risk of both shallow and deep surface water flooding for the 1 in 200 event. This is one of the points at which the Oxney Moss would require culverting. However, it must be noted that due to the greater length of routes 1 and 2, these routes are likely to provide a

Environmental Are the effects likely to be substantially affected by the Route Option selected? Constraint / Feature slightly greater volume of surface water to discharge. Groundwater flooding is considered to represent a similar risk for most Route Options. The Viking Park Route Option may present a slightly lower risk as there is no requirement to infill the railway cutting for this Option.

3 Policies and Plans

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1This assessment follows DMRB Volume 11 Section 3, Part 12 Stage 1. The appraisal considers whether the proposed route options accord with current land use and transport plans and policy guidance at national, county and local levels, and whether policy objectives may be hindered or facilitated by an option.

3.2 Appraisal Methodology 3.2.1A number of plans and policy guidance documents have been identified and will form the basis of the appraisal. A qualitative prediction of effects on land use plans and policies will be undertaken utilising a three point significance scale as recommended under DMRB: ■ Beneficial: if the proposed route options are likely to contribute to any land use and transport policies; ■ Neutral: if the proposed route options are not likely to have any effect on any land use and transport policies; and ■ Adverse: if the proposed route options are likely to contradict any land use and transport policies.

Consultation 3.2.2No consultation has been undertaken at this stage of the appraisal.

Desk Study 3.2.3The policies and plans consulted on as part of the appraisal are outlined below and reflect the current direction of the government objectives for integrated transport and land use issues:

National Policies

Strategies ■ Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World (October 2007); and ■ Securing the Future – UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy (March 2005) ■ Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s Wildlife and ecosystem services

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 86 Revised:

White Papers ■ The Future of Transport White Paper (2004) ■ Planning White Paper: Planning for a Sustainable Future (May 2007) ■ Local Transport White Paper, Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen (January 2011); ■ Natural Environment White Paper., The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature (June 2011).

Policy ■ National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

County ■ Hampshire County Council. Local Transport Plan 2011 – 2031 (April 2013) ■ Hampshire County Council. Minerals and Waste Plan (Draft October 2013)

Local ■ East Hampshire District Council working in partnership with South Downs National Park Authority. Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (Pre-Submission Draft) ■ Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Masterplan (May 2012)

Potential effects on Policies and Plans

3.2.4The following Table provides a brief review of the potential effects arising from the proposed route options on key objectives and policies within the above national, county and local planning policies and guidance. At this stage, the route options have been assessed against the main vision and aims of the documents. A policy by policy breakdown of key documents will be provided when a preferred route has been chosen.

Summary 3.2.5In summary, it is clear from the table above that there is not a definitive preferred route option in relation to compliance with national, county and local planning policy. All of the route options are generally in line with planning policy and have the potential to lead to mostly neutral to beneficial effects in the achievements of policy aims. Most of these plans, statutory and non-statutory, recognise and promote the need and aims for such a relief road. 3.2.6Adverse effects arising from the route options in relation to policy are generally related to the loss of habitat, potential sterilisation of mineral resources and potential effects on heritage assets. Mitigation is considered to be possible for these effects and will be identified following the decision of the preferred route. All of the route options are anticipated to have neutral to beneficial effects related to reducing congestion and journey time, linking communities and providing access to recreational and green areas.

Table 29: Route Options Appraisal in relation to Policies and Plans

Route Options Viking Park and Policy Authority Purpose Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Park Towards a Department This strategy sets five goals for transport to achieve: ■ All of the route options aim to relieve congestion, reduce emissions through the reduction in Sustainable for Transport 1. To maximise competitiveness and productivity of the congestion, allow the development of the new town centre, provide access and limit Transport System economy; severance. It is concluded that all of the route options above would have a neutral to (2007) 2. Address climate change by cutting emissions of carbon beneficial effect. dioxide and other greenhouse gases; 3. To protect people’s safety, security and health; 4. To improve quality of life including through a healthy natural environment; 5. To promote a greater equality of opportunity. Securing the Future HM The strategy outlines Government policy on the Environment ■ The route options promote social inclusion through the improvement of travel times between Government and aims to deliver and promote sustainable development. In the proposed town centre, new communities, and other surrounding areas and are likely to the UK at the national, regional and local level the goal of contribute to higher levels of employment within the area; sustainable development is: ■ In terms of nature conservation, all of the route options would result in the loss of vegetation, ‘pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative trees, existing hardstanding and sterilisation of mineral resources. None of the route options and productive economy that delivers high levels of would directly affect a statutory ecological designated site. employment; and a just society that promotes social inclusion, ■ All of the route options would have a neutral to adverse effects. sustainable communities and personal wellbeing. This will be done in ways that protect and enhance the physical and natural environment, and use resources and energy as efficiently as possible.’ Biodiversity 2020 Defra The mission of the strategy is to: ■ All route options will result in varying degrees of loss of woodland habitat and may lead to ‘halt overall biodiversity loss, support healthy well-functioning fragmentation of communities prior to the implementation of any mitigation measures. ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks, with ■ All route options would promote the use of sustainable green areas created by the proposed more and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and development at Whitehill Bordon. people.’ ■ All of the route options have the potential to have an adverse effect on biodiversity prior to the The documents vision is as follows: By 2050 our land and seas implementation of any mitigation measures. will be rich in wildlife, our biodiversity will be valued, conserved, restored, managed sustainably and be more resilient and able to adapt to change, providing essential services and delivering benefits for everyone.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 88

Revised:

Route Options Viking Park and Policy Authority Purpose Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Park The Future of Department Aims to deliver ‘coherent transport networks’ with: ■ All of the route options are anticipated to reduce congestion on the existing network and will in Transport – a for Transport ■ The road network providing a more reliable and freer- turn help to reduce journey times, improving reliability. network for 2030 flowing service for both personal travel and freight, with ■ The route options will all provide cycle and pedestrian access along part of the alignments, people able to make informed choices about how and when this will enable communities to travel between residential areas and the proposed SANG. they travel; ■ All route options will result in the loss of habitat; however they are anticipated to provide a ■ The rail network providing a fast, reliable and efficient more sustainable road network in comparison to the existing routes. Therefore, all of the route service, particularly for interurban journeys and commuting options are thought to have the potential for neutral to beneficial effects on the achievement of into large urban areas; this white paper. ■ Bus services that are reliable, flexible, convenient and tailored to local needs; ■ Making walking and cycling a real alternative for local trips; and ■ Ports and airports providing improved international and domestic links.

Route Options Viking Park and Policy Authority Purpose Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Park Planning White HM The vision of the white paper is: ■ Both congestion and journey times are anticipated to be reduced through all of the route Paper: Planning for Government ‘a planning system which supports vibrant, healthy sustainable options and thus enabling more sustainable journeys and travelling between communities. All a Sustainable communities, promotes the UK’s international competitiveness, of the route options will provide better transport infrastructure to the existing network and will Future and enables the infrastructure which is vital to our quality of life help to promote development within the area, encouraging employment opportunities and to be provided, in a way that is integrated with the delivery of improving quality of life. other sustainable development objectives, and ensures that ■ In terms of natural and historic environment, all route options will result in the loss of habitat. local communities and members of the public can make their The Viking Park route option is thought to have a larger effect on the historic environment as views heard’ its southern most point is in close proximity to two Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The vision aims to deliver the following benefits to communities: ■ There is the potential for all route options to offer neutral to beneficial effects in the ■ More and better jobs as a result of sustainable economic achievement of this white paper. development; ■ Better infrastructure so people have access to reliable transport, clean and secure energy, clean water supplies and better local amenities; ■ Continued protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment; ■ Places shaped by their communities where people are proud to live; ■ More efficient and timely systems in which controls are proportionate to impact and unnecessary costs are eliminated; and ■ A more transparent and accountable planning system in which national and local government work together to ensure decisions at every level deliver the best outcomes for all.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 90

Revised:

Route Options Viking Park and Policy Authority Purpose Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Park Local Transport Department Aims to deliver a transport system which is an engine for ■ All of the route options will improve the management of traffic throughout the proposed new White Paper for Transport economic growth; whilst being green, safe and improves the community and surrounding areas. They all aim to reduce congestion and improve journey quality of life within communities. times and will aim to support and enhance the existing local economy by drawing in The priority for local transport is: employment opportunities. Through the reduction in congestion, it is also anticipated that all ■ ‘Encourage sustainable local travel and economic growth route options will result in an improvement in the local air quality. However, it is acknowledged by making public transport and cycling and walking more that the route options may not lead to a lower carbon economy. attractive and effective, promoting lower carbon transport ■ All of the route options are anticipated to have a neutral to beneficial effect. and tackling local road congestion.’ Natural HM This White Paper aims to improve the quality of the natural ■ All route options will result in varying degrees of loss of woodland habitat and may lead to Environment White Government environment across England, halt the decline in habitats and fragmentation of communities prior to the implementation of any mitigation measures. Paper species, and strengthen the connection between people and ■ All route options would promote the use of sustainable green areas created by the proposed nature. The actions contained within the paper aim to development at Whitehill Bordon. They will also promote the development for a new incorporate the natural environment into economic planning and sustainable community whilst drawing in employment opportunities. ensuring there are opportunities for businesses that are good for ■ All of the route options have the potential to have an adverse effect on biodiversity prior to the nature and a green economy. implementation of any mitigation measures.

Route Options Viking Park and Policy Authority Purpose Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Park National Planning DCLG The NPPF set outs 13 principles that should be delivered ■ All of the route options are anticipated to enable bringing forward areas for economic Policy Framework through the planning system: regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement. They also aim to link 1. Building a strong, competitive economy; residential areas with commercial uses. It is anticipated that the either one of the routes will 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres; help to build a strong competitive economy; 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy; ■ All of the route options are anticipated to promote sustainable transport through the reduction 4. Promoting sustainable transport; in congestion, improvement in journey times and opportunity for the use cycle and pedestrian 5. Supporting high quality communications ways. infrastructure; ■ All route options promote a safe and accessible environment where crime, disorder and the 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; fear of crime are reduced and community cohesion is enhanced through the connection to 7. Requiring good design; recreational facilities and green spaces. 8. Promoting healthy communities; ■ None of the route options cut through designated Green Belt areas. 9. Protecting Green Belt Land; ■ Prior to mitigation measures, all route options will result in the loss of habitat. The route 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding options will also provide a link between new and existing communities to the proposed SANG. and coastal change; ■ The Viking Park route option is thought to have a larger effect on the historic environment as 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; its southern most point is in close proximity to two Scheduled Ancient Monuments. 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment; ■ All of the routes fall within a minerals safeguarded area for Silica Sand and therefore and adversely affect the achievement of the policy in relation to minerals. 13. Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. ■ All of the route options are anticipated to lead to a neutral to beneficial effect in the achievement of the NPPF’s aims and objectives.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 92

Revised:

Route Options Viking Park and Policy Authority Purpose Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Park Local Transport Hampshire The plan comprises three main priority areas which are the ■ All of the route options are anticipated to enable bringing forward areas for economic Plan 2011 - 2031 County following: regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement. They also aim to link Council ■ To support economic growth by ensuring the safety, residential areas with commercial uses. It is anticipated that either one of the routes will help soundness and efficiency of the transport network in to build a strong competitive economy; Hampshire; ■ All of the route options are anticipated to promote sustainable transport through the reduction ■ Provide safe, well-maintained, and more resilient road in congestion, improvement in journey times and opportunity for the use cycle and pedestrian network in Hampshire as the basic transport infrastructure ways. of the county on which all forms of transport directly or ■ All route options provide links between communities to recreational facilities and green indirectly depend, and the key to continued casualty spaces. reduction; and ■ Prior to the implementation of any mitigation measures, it is anticipated that all of the route ■ Manage traffic to maximise the efficiency of existing options would offer a neutral to beneficial effect in the achievement of the Hampshire County network capacity, improving journey time reliability and Council Local Transport Plan. reducing emissions, thereby supporting the efficient and sustainable movement of people and goods. The Plan also specifically refers to Whitehill-Bordon: ■ Delivery of appropriate transport solutions to support sustainable development in Whitehill Bordon eco-town, which is expected to accommodate 4,000 new dwellings and significant employment development. There is a need to improve self-containment and reduce car dependency for both existing and new residents. ■ Careful planning, locating jobs, shops and leisure, recreation, educational and health facilities within easy reach of the existing and future population; ■ Development high-frequency town, local and inter-urban bus services; ■ Providing a ‘Green-Grid’ – a safe, secure, direct and attractive network of walking and cycling routes linking residential areas with the towns services; ■ Cycle hire schemes, car clubs and car share initiatives.

Route Options Viking Park and Policy Authority Purpose Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Park Hampshire Minerals Hampshire The vision for the plan is: ■ All of the route options fall within a minerals safeguarded area under policy 15. The plan and Waste Plan Authorities ‘Protecting the environment, maintaining communities and identifies the fact that there are known viable resources which have not been previously (Draft supporting the economy’ extracted within the site and that the resource is known to be under development pressure. It submission) The aim of the document is planning the use of minerals within states that the resources will be protected from permanent sterilisation unless any non- the county and planning for waste. minerals development proposal can satisfy the criteria within policy 15. The plan also states ‘Policy 15: safeguarding – mineral resources’ – the route options that prior extraction could proceed as long as the development of the new town is not all fall within this designated area, the policy states: hindered. Hampshire’s sand and gravel (sharp sand and gravel and soft ■ All of the routes would have a neutral to adverse effect on the achievement of policy 15 and sand), silica sand and brick-making clay resources are the plan as a whole. safeguarded against needless sterilisation by non-materials development, unless ‘prior extraction’ takes place…. …Development without the prior extraction of mineral resources in the Mineral Safeguarding Areas may be permitted if: ■ It can be demonstrated that the sterilisation of mineral resources will not occur; or ■ It would be inappropriate to extract mineral resources at that location, with regards to the other policies in the plan; or ■ The development would not pose a serious hindrance to mineral development in the vicinity; or ■ The merits of the development outweigh the safeguarding of the mineral.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 94

Revised:

Route Options Viking Park and Policy Authority Purpose Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Alternative Viking Park East Hampshire East The plan’s aim is to ensure ‘By 2026, East Hampshire is a better ■ All of the route options are anticipated to enable bringing forward areas for economic District Local Plan: Hampshire place where people live, work and build businesses in safe, regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement. They also aim to link Joint Core Strategy District attractive and prosperous towns and villages. They will have residential areas with commercial uses. It is anticipated that either one of the routes will help Council and good access to a range of housing, jobs, leisure and community to build a strong competitive economy; South Downs facilities, and enjoy a high quality built, historic and natural ■ All route options provide links between communities to recreational facilities and green National Park environment. They will live and work in a way that respects spaces. Authority resources and protects and enhances the District’s natural ■ All route options are anticipated to promote a safe and accessible environment where crime, environment.’ disorder and the fear of crime are reduced and community cohesion is enhanced through the connection to recreational facilities and green spaces. ■ Prior to mitigation measures, all route options will result in the loss of habitat. ■ It is anticipated that none of the route options will outweigh each other in the achievement of the Local Plan and that they all would provide a neutral to beneficial effect. Whitehill Bordon Whitehill & The Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town targets are: ■ It is anticipated that all of the route options would provide beneficial effects to the Masterplan Bordon Eco- ■ We aim to achieve a net increase in wildlife biodiversity and achievement of the masterplan through increased transport opportunities, linking surrounding town Delivery to safeguard protected sites. We will provide natural areas with the proposed new community and encouraging employment opportunities to the Board “green” spaces and routes throughout the town for people area. and wildlife; ■ We will create a low carbon community. …; ■ We will increase local jobs and encourage new and existing businesses and industries…; ■ We will seek to improve the facilities available in the town …; ■ We will encourage a range of good quality, well-designed, low carbon homes built to the highest standards in well- planned neighbourhoods where people want to live. …; and ■ We aim to improve public transport and provide better opportunities for walking and cycling, both within the town and the surrounding area. We aim to reduce the use of the car within the town…’

4 Recommendations

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1WSP-PB has undertaken a route options appraisal of the six options for the Whitehill Bordon Relief Road. Given the close proximity of the route options this appraisal has followed the broad principles of the DMRB and addressed the key subject areas. It was not considered necessary to strictly follow WebTag in this instance as it was considered that a broader approach that addresses the key issues and can feed directly into the Environmental Impact Assessment would be appropriate.

4.2 Air Quality 4.2.1The potential impact of the different route options in relation to air quality have been considered as part of this route options appraisal. As part of this the potential impact of the route options upon sensitive receptors have been considered. This appraisal has concluded that Option 4 would be the preferred route in terms of air quality impact. The impact during construction phase is only temporary but the operation phase would have a permanent impact primarily from increased vehicle movements in areas where there are currently few vehicles. Therefore, in terms of change to the existing environmental baseline the overall air quality impact for Option 4 is least.

4.3 Cultural Heritage 4.3.1The route options have been appraised with regard to the cultural heritage baseline within the study area. Overall, there are not considered to be significant differences between the route options in terms of impact upon cultural heritage assets. However, based on the available data for the historic environment, the preferred route would be the most eastern, (Option 5). This option is the furthest from the barrow cemetery and the route which runs through the most built up area, reducing the potential effects on the setting of the listed building within the study area.

4.4 Landscape 4.4.1All six route options have a similar potential effect on local landscape and visual receptors, given their relative proximity and similarity of route alignment. Although all the route Options are likely to cause adverse landscape and visual effects, it is anticipated that option 3A may have slightly fewer adverse effects than the other route Options, due to its slightly shorter length and use of grassland or existing hard-standing. Furthermore the route will pass through existing MoD buildings and highways (resulting in fewer mature trees being lost and being more in keeping with the existing character of the site) as well as being a slightly greater distance from nearby sensitive receptors such as the National Park.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 Revised:

4.5 Nature Conservation 4.5.1With consideration to ecology and nature conservation alone, it is recommended that Routes 3, 4 or 5 should be selected in preference over Routes 1 and 2. This is primarily as all three of routes 3, 4 and 5 largely span land already developed or likely to be developed in the future. Routes 1 and 2 affect habitats located within the Croft to the north of TTA Bordon which are known to include heathland and likely to affect greater areas of Hogmoor Inclosure. Whilst Route 3a would have significant effects upon habitats and species known to occur on Viking Park; this land is already put forward for employment and commercial leisure development, and effects associated with placing the IRR in this area are anticipated to be no greater than other forms of future development.

4.6 Geology and Soils 4.6.1It is unlikely that eitherany route option will have significant geotechnical risks, or an adverse impact on the geology and soils of the study area and any mitigation measures are considered unlikely. This will be further considered throughout the design stages. 4.6.2Small scale appropriate engineering solutions will likely solve any low impact geology and soils issues the route option alignments pose. Based on Geology and Soils alone there is no significant difference between alignment options. Selection should be based on other route option appraisal criteria.

4.7 Noise and Vibration 4.7.1Where a primary aim of the Scheme is to reduce noise levels at existing dwellings – and the baseline noise survey does indicate that existing noise levels are high in places – then Option 1 represents the Preferred Route. It would come at a cost, however. A number of dwellings could experience a significant increase in noise levels primarily at the southern end of the route, and whilst mitigation could be incorporated to limit any such increases, the required works are likely to be extensive, whilst residual effects may still remain. 4.7.2The option that would result in the least negative effects on existing dwellings (with minimal need for mitigation, therefore) is Option 3A. However, like Options 1, 3, 4 and 5, it is questionable as to how well this will function as a relief road, given a lower speed limit than Option 2 and its/their use for access to future development. In which case, whilst negative effects would be limited, positive effects could be limited also. 4.7.3Subject to the level of mitigation that could be incorporated to account for the negative effects of Option 2, an alternative option may be to increase the speed limit on Option 3A and/or limit the access to future development. In this way, it would be more likely to function as a relief road with the corresponding benefits for the dwellings nearest to the A325, whilst still being away from dwellings currently experiencing low levels of noise.

4.8 Pedestrians and Cyclists 4.8.1The potential impact of the various route options upon pedestrians and cyclists have been assessed as part of the route options appraisal. Based upon this assessment it is concluded that option 2 should be pursued as the final route alignment. This provides the most direct route through the centre of the proposed development area therefore providing high quality links to residential and employment areas and the town centre. This will improve amenity compared with the existing situation, reduce journey lengths and delays experienced by pedestrians and cyclists.

4.9 Effect on Vehicular Travellers 4.9.1Based upon the assessment completed in the route options appraisal it is recommended that option 2 is pursued as the final route alignment. Option 2 provides a route that will improve driver stress by shortening journey times and will also improve views by running alongside the edge of the Hogmoor Inclosure SANG. In comparison with other options this alignment follows the edge of the proposed development area and therefore will also not be subjected to as many conflicting movements in comparison with option 3, 4 and 5.

4.10 Road Drainage and the Water Environment 4.10.1With regards to Road Drainage and the Water Environment, the route comparison indicates that there is not a notable difference in potential risks to groundwater quality during construction; to surface water or groundwater quality during operation; or, to flooding during construction. 4.10.2Notable differences to surface water quality during construction are related to the proximity of the Route Options to and the number of times they are required to cross the surface water course Oxney Moss and its tributaries. Route Options 1, 2 and 4 are marginally preferable with respect to potential contamination of surface water as routes 3 and 5 are closer to and cross the water courses more frequently. 4.10.3Route Options 1 and 2 are preferable in terms of flood risk as they are located furthest from the Oxney Moss and associated flood risk, and amendments to the watercourses would not be required.

4.11 Conclusion 4.11.1Overall the potential impacts of the route options appraised do not vary greatly with no single route option standing out over the others. Whilst there are advantages/disadvantages for certain options in terms of specific environmental issues none of these are sufficiently significant as to favour one route over others purely on environmental issues. 4.11.2In terms of the summary criteria adopted for the overall route options appraisal there are no ‘red’ issues that would jeopardise the selection of a specific route.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 Revised:

5 References

Air Quality 1. East Hampshire District Council: 2013 Air Quality Progress Report for East Hampshire 2 DEFRA Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Support Pages. Available at: http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/ 3 Institute of Air Quality Management: Guidance on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the Determination of their Significance (January 2012) 4 DMRB (2007). Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 – Air Quality 5 The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Volumes 1 and 2) July 2007

Cultural Heritage Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) Standards and Guidance for Desk Based Assessment 2012; IfA Standards and guidance for Archaeological Advice 2012; English Heritage The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011); English Heritage Seeing the History in the View: A method for assessing heritage significance within views (2011)

Landscape Ref 1.1 The Highways Agency (2010). Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment. The Highways Agency.

Ref 1.2 The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition.

Ref 1.3 Defra (2011) The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature (URL: www.official- documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf)

Ref 1.4 Defra (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services (URL: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020-111111.pdf)

Ref 1.5 Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention (URL: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm)

Ref 1.6 Countryside Commission and English Nature (1996), Joint Character Area Map of England.

Ref 1.7 Hampshire County Council (2012) Hampshire County Integrated Character Assessment. Hampshire County Council

Ref 1.8 East Hampshire District Council (2006). East Hampshire District Landscape Character Assessment. East Hampshire District Council.

Ecology 5.1.1WSPE (2013a). Whitehill-Bordon IRR: Ecological Desk Study. 5.1.2WSPE (2013b). Whitehill-Bordon IRR: Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

5.1.3WSPE (2013c in preparation). Whitehill-Bordon IRR: Bat Activity Survey. 5.1.4Amec (2013a). Great crested newt report (draft). 5.1.5Amec (2013b in preparation). Badger survey report (draft figures) 5.1.6Amec (2013c in preparation). Bird survey report (draft interim update) 5.1.7Atkins (2013a). Whitehill-Bordon Inner Relief Road Alignment Options: Reptile Survey Report. 5.1.8Atkins (2013b). Whitehill-Bordon Inner Relief Road Alignment Options: Bat Survey Report. 5.1.9Atkins (2013c in preparation). Whitehill-Bordon Inner Relief Road Alignment Options: Dormouse Report

Geology and Soils Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11; Section 3; Part 2; Geology and Soils. 1993. An Envirocheck report - Whitehill to Bordon Option 2 route alignment (Sharepoint). The Louisburg Barracks, Bordon Garrison Combined Phase 1 and 2 Report Land Quality Assessment 2012 (Sharepoint). A preliminary UXO report - Whitehill to Bordon Option 2 route alignment (Sharepoint).

Water and Drainage Flood Map showing Flood Zones Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) April 2008 – East Hampshire District Council Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) June 2011 – Hampshire County Council Peter Brett Associates, July 2011. Whitehill Bordon Eco Town, Detailed Water Cycle Study SKM, January 2012. Louisburg Barracks, Bordon Garrison: Combined Phase 1& 2 Report. Land Quality Assessment Report WSP PB, 11/10/2013. Whitehill and Bordon Relief Road, Statement of Intent and Preliminary Source Study Report (Draft V1) DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10, Road Drainage and the Water Environment Landmark Envirocheck Report (20/09/13) order number 49380441_1_1.

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 Revised:

Appendices

Appendix A – Figure 1 - Route Options

101

Site Location Plan and County Boundaries Scale @ A2 : 31,266 Figure 1

Key Route Option 1 Route Option 2 Route Option 3 ± Route Option 4 Route Option 5 Viking Park County Boundaries 2km Search Area 5km Search Area

SURREY

HAMPSHIRE

WEST SUSSEX

PROJECT: Drawn: RB Whitehill Bordon Link Road Checked: HS PROJECT No: 40393 Approved: JF Client: Revision: A Hampshire County Council Date: October 2013

Appendix B – Traffic Data and Emission Factors used in Model

The table below presents the traffic data and emission factors used in the air quality modelling assessment. Data for Option 4 was assumed to be the same for Options 1, 3 and 5.

Average Daily Speed NOx Emission PM Emission Route Option AADT %HGV 10 (kph) Factors (g/km/s) Factors (g/km/s)

2 15059 14.0 84.6 0.076 0.009

4 13488 14.4 61.8 0.075 0.008

3A 4955 9.9 43.9 0.029 0.003

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 Revised:

Appendix C – IAQM Guidance – Examples of Factors Defining Sensitivity of an Area

Examples Sensitivity of Surrounding Area Human Receptors Ecological Receptors(1)

Very densely populated area

More than 100 dwellings within 20m

Very High Local PM10 concentrations exceed the objective European Designated site

Very sensitive receptors nearby (e.g. hospitals)

Construction works continuing in one area of the site for more than 1 year

Densely populated area

10-100 dwellings with 20m of the site

High Schools, Hi Tech & Food Processing industries nearby Nationally Designated site

Local PM10 concentrations are within 10% of the objective

Commercially sensitive horticultural land within 20m

Suburban of edge of town area

Medium Less than 10 dwellings within 20m Locally Designated site

Local PM10 concentrations between 10-25% below the objective

Rural area/industrial area

No dwellings within 20m Low No Designations

Local PM10 concentrations are below 75% of the objective

Wooded area between site and receptors

(1) Only if there are ecological habitats present that may be sensitive to an increase in dust and particulate deposition.

103

Appendix D – Location of Cultural Heritage – Figure 2 and Supporting Table

Project number: 00040393

Dated: 02/09/2013 Revised: Key

Route Option 1 Route Option 2 ± Route Option 3

Option 3A Viking Park

Option 3B Viking Park

Route Option 4

Route Option 5

Heritage Assets

HA41 HA7 HA9 HA58 HA1

HA8 HA57 HA2

HA56 HA3 HA10 HA5 HA43 HA49 HA42 HA45 HA44 HA12 HA29 HA48 HA13 HA40 HA14 HA46 HA47 HA38 HA15 HA35 HA36 HA39 HA16 HA11 HA34 HA37

HA6

HA17

HA33 HA18

HA32 HA19 HA31 HA30

HA28 HA27

HA26 HA21 HA25 HA20 HA24 HA22

HA23

HA54 HA55

HA53

HA50

HA51

HA4

HA52

The map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of HMSO. © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Wokingham Borough Council Licence Number 100019592

PROJECT: SCALE @ A3: CHECKED: APPROVED:

1:12,500 VN JF Whitehill & Bordon Relief Road FILE: DES-DRN: DATE: CLIENT: FIGURE 2 GH FEB 2014

Hampshire County Council PROJECT No: DRAWING No: REV: Mountbatten House, Basing View Westbrook Mills, Godalming REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION CHK APD Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 4HJ Surrey GU7 2AZ TITLE: 40393 FIGURE 2 A www.wspgroup.co.uk www.pbworld.com DRAWING STATUS: Location of Heritage Assets Revision A © WSP Group plc Table 10: Table of Heritage Assets within 500m of the Scheme Area.

HA Number HCC AHBR No NGR No Period Description HA1 65761 SU 79728 36703 Modern Building, Parade Ground HA2 65546 SU 79560 36607 Modern Stores (Stables) HA3 65547 SU 79408 36602 Modern Building, Parade Ground HA4 --- (UID243616) Modern Railway Line HA5 65433 SU 79256 36510 Modern Riding School HA6 58382 SU 79740 35920 Modern WWII slit trench HA7 58388 SU 79649 36819 Modern WWII slit trench HA8 64082 SU 79374 36754 Modern Commanding officer’s house, Louisburg Barracks HA9 65548 SU 79577 36745 Modern Gun and wagon sheds, Louisburg Barracks HA10 64088 SU 78697 36509 Modern Bordon and Oakhanger Sports Club HA11 64085 SU 78776 36221 Modern Military cemetery HA12 17207 SU 78824 36375 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1020315) HA13 17208 SU 78808 36338 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1020315) HA14 17209 SU 78746 36274 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1020315) HA15 17210 SU 78701 36246 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1020315) HA16 17213 SU 78567 36158 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1020315) HA17 17214 SU 78508 35825 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1012641) HA18 17215 SU 78503 35805 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1012641) HA19 58371 SU 78446 35602 Bronze Age ? Possible round barrow HA20 58370 SU 78440 35275 Post- Site of quarry medieval/Modern HA21 58373 SU 78768 35320 Modern Possible WWII bomb craters HA22 58374 SU 78773 35201 Modern WWI/WWII crenellated slit trench HA23 58372 SU 78903 35044 Modern WWI/WWII crenellated slit trench HA24 65436 SU 79557 35232 Modern Military cemetery HA25 58379 SU 79374 35348 Modern Military training target HA26 37840 SU 79100 35400 Modern Anti-aircraft battery HA27 58377 SU 79075 35496 Modern WWII gun emplacement HA28 58378 SU 79230 35503 Modern Military dug features HA29 58386 SU 79455 36424 Modern WWII slit trench HA30 59777 SU 79099 35584 Modern Probable WWII slit trenches HA31 62995 SU 78900 35600 Modern Prisoner of war camp HA32 58375 SU 78916 35609 Modern WWII military depot HA33 58376 SU 79096 35735 Modern WWII bomb craters HA34 58389 SU 79100 36118 Modern Temporary WWII military camp HA35 58390 SU 78982 36218 Modern Temporary WWII military camp HA36 59778 SU 79633 36222 Modern Seven rectilinear mounds HA37 58385 SU 79641 36204 Modern WWII slit trench HA38 65427 SU 79719 36248 Modern Site of Martinique Barracks HA39 65431 SU 80038 36287 Modern Military gymnasium HA40 58476 SU 80144 36349 Modern Military walled enclosures HA41 54637 SU 80150 36840 Modern Military redoubts, Broxhead Common HA42 64078 SU 79910 36483 Modern Fire station HA43 65544 SU 79565 36526 Modern Accommodation blocks, Louisburg Barracks HA44 65545 SU 79612 36545 Modern Dining room and kitchen, Louisburg Barracks HA45 65543 SU 79497 36451 Modern Office/stores, Louisburg Barracks HA46 65760 SU 79477 36471 Modern Amenity building, Louisburg Barracks HA47 64081 SU 79521 36419 Modern Sergeants Mess, Louisburg Barracks HA48 64083 SU 79606 36443 Modern Garrison church, Louisburg Barracks HA49 44616 Modern Barbados House, Louisburg Barracks HA50 17318 SU 79214 34356 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1013048) HA51 17319 SU 79278 34334 Bronze Age Bowl barrow scheduled monument (1013049) HA52 41749 SU 79400 33900 Modern Royal Observer Corp site HA53 64090 SU 78608 34686 Modern Inter-war pre-fabricated tin houses HA54 58466 SU 78808 34934 Modern Quarry HA55 58369 SU 78918 34940 Modern Military training area HA56 65432 SU 79604 36621 Modern Louisburg Barracks (complex) HA57 64080 SU 79805 36660 Industrial Broxhead House, Louisburg Barracks HA58 ------SU 79577 36745 Modern Garage, Louisburg Barracks

WSP Environmental Limited Mountbatten House Basing View Basingstoke RG21 4HJ UK Tel: +44 (0) 1256 318800 Fax: +44 (0) 1256 318700 www.wspgroup.co.uk