PW Integrated Template

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Appendix G. Noise

G.1 Baseline Survey Locations

Figure G-1: Site Locations C1-1 to C1-3

Figure G-1: Site Locations C2-1 to C5-1

Revision C06 Page 278 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Figure G-2: Site Locations C5-1 to C5-3

Figure G-1: Site Locations C6-1 to C6-3

Revision C06 Page 279 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

G.2 Construction Activities Vs. Assessment Locations

Table G-1: Day LAeq,12hr (0700 – 1900)

Gantry Earthworks Gantry Excavate, Surfacing - Removal of Install Gantry Installation - Sheet Earthworks Site Installation Lay and Surfacing, Removing Address Existing Ducts and Installation - Install Earthworks Piling for - Casting Surfacing Clearance - Casting Backfill Sub-Layers Existing Structures Cabling - Piling Signals Retaining Pile Caps Pile Caps Ducts Surface and Signs Walls

77 Cottingley Drive, 0.6 -9.2 -0.2 -13.8 -18.5 -7.7 2.4 -2.9 -13.7 -18.3 -25.3 -23.9 -31.1 LS11 0JR 76 Cottingley Drive, 7.8 8.4 6.7 -2.0 -6.7 -4.4 9.3 3.7 -0.9 -5.5 -14.0 -12.5 -19.8 LS11 0JP 2 Cottingley Drive, -23.8 -19.3 -24.6 -29.9 -34.5 -32.6 -22.0 -27.7 -29.9 -34.5 -33.7 -32.2 -39.5 LS11 0JG 255 Elland Road, -19.3 -16.1 -20.3 -24.8 -29.4 -27.9 -17.7 -22.8 -26.5 -31.2 -22.8 -21.4 -28.6 LS11 8TU 277 Elland Road, -18.9 -17.8 -19.7 -24.4 -29.1 -27.7 -17.1 -22.4 -27.9 -32.6 -24.6 -23.2 -30.4 LS11 8TU 35 Noster Terrace, 12.8 -15.0 11.8 -4.0 -8.7 -4.5 14.4 2.0 -10.1 -24.8 5.6 7.0 -0.2 LS11 8QF 6 Baron Close, -21.2 -13.3 -12.0 -15.1 -19.8 -19.1 -9.4 -24.3 -34.1 -28.8 -4.0 -2.5 -9.8 LS11 8SB

Revision C06 Page 280 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

89 Normanto n Place, 3.7 -1.9 2.8 -5.4 -10.0 -7.3 5.4 0.7 -18.6 -33.2 0.3 1.8 -5.5 LS11 8LE 9 Tilbury Road, -12.6 -23.0 -13.5 -26.1 -30.7 -23.0 -10.9 -17.1 -25.9 -30.5 -39.9 -38.5 -45.7 S11 0BW 2 Recreatio n Place, -2.2 5.4 -2.2 -20.0 -24.6 -18.3 0.4 -12.1 -34.2 -28.8 -8.1 -6.7 -13.9 LS11 0AN 2 Recreatio n Mount, 0.0 0.0 0.8 -9.9 -14.5 -5.2 3.4 -6.5 -24.2 -28.9 -7.3 -5.9 -13.1 LS11 0AS 80 Holbeck Moor -9.1 -8.6 -10.7 -15.2 -19.9 -18.3 -8.1 -12.5 -15.7 -20.3 -11.9 -10.5 -17.7 Road, LS11 9QL 94 Northcote Drive, -5.1 -10.8 -5.9 -16.4 -21.1 -13.5 -3.3 -8.4 -13.9 -23.6 -8.1 -6.7 -13.9 LS11 6NH 83 Moor Crescent Chase, -11.4 -8.1 -12.2 -20.4 -25.1 -22.0 -9.6 -16.6 -24.4 -29.0 -15.5 -14.1 -21.3 LS11 5UL

Revision C06 Page 281 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

71 Longroyd View, -4.2 -2.9 -5.3 -18.8 -23.4 -12.5 -2.7 -7.8 -16.6 -16.3 -24.8 -23.4 -30.6 LS11 5ET 20 Royal Place, -7.0 -14.8 -7.7 -15.5 -20.1 -15.7 -5.1 -10.4 -12.3 -27.0 -25.5 -24.1 -31.3 LS10 2RS 1 Ebor Terrace, -5.7 -8.7 -7.1 -43.0 -47.6 -27.7 -4.5 -17.9 -22.9 -17.5 -47.9 -46.5 -53.7 LS10 2EQ 12 Nursery Mount -5.2 -0.9 -4.0 -31.4 -36.0 -13.0 -1.4 -9.0 -10.8 -15.5 -37.8 -36.4 -43.6 Road, LS10 3EU 1 Parnaby Street, -6.6 -5.9 -7.4 -36.7 -41.3 -18.3 -4.8 -11.0 -12.9 -17.5 -39.5 -38.1 -45.3 LS10 3BX 26 East Grange Drive, -10.3 -9.7 -10.8 -29.2 -33.9 -18.8 -8.3 -13.6 -15.5 -20.2 -34.0 -32.5 -39.8 S10 3EH 48 Westbury Place 8.1 0.2 5.5 -37.1 -41.7 -9.0 8.1 -0.3 -2.7 -7.4 -39.5 -38.1 -45.3 North, LS10 3DE

Revision C06 Page 282 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

16 Tilbury View, 8.2 -8.3 3.7 -23.3 -27.9 -14.7 6.3 4.4 -11.3 -16.0 3.8 15.3 8.0 LS11 0BH

Table G-2: LAeq,4hr (1900 – 2300)

Gantry Earthworks Gantry Excavate Surfacing, Removal of Install Gantry Installation - Sheet Earthworks Surfacing, Site Installation Lay and Removing Address Existing Ducts and Installation - Install Earthworks Piling for , Casting Sub- Surfacing Clearance - Casting Backfill Existing Structures Cabling - Piling Signals Retaining Pile Caps Layers Pile Caps Ducts Surface and Signs Walls

77 Cottingley 0.2 -9.7 -0.7 -14.3 -18.9 -8.1 1.9 -3.4 -14.1 -18.8 -25.8 -24.3 -31.6 Drive, LS11 0JR 76 Cottingley 7.3 7.9 6.3 -2.5 -7.1 -4.8 8.9 3.2 -1.3 -6.0 -14.4 -13.0 -20.2 Drive, LS11 0JP 2 Cottingley -20.2 -15.7 -21.0 -26.2 -30.9 -28.9 -18.4 -24.0 -26.2 -30.9 -30.0 -28.6 -35.8 Drive, LS11 0JG 255 Elland Road, -14.8 -11.7 -15.8 -20.3 -25.0 -23.5 -13.2 -18.3 -22.1 -26.7 -18.4 -17.0 -24.2 LS11 8TU

Revision C06 Page 283 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

277 Elland Road, -14.5 -13.4 -15.3 -20.0 -24.6 -23.3 -12.7 -17.9 -23.5 -28.1 -20.2 -18.8 -26.0 LS11 8TU

35 Noster Terrace, 12.3 -15.4 11.4 -4.5 -9.2 -4.9 14.0 1.6 -10.6 -25.2 5.1 6.5 -0.7 LS11 8QF

6 Baron Close, -21.8 -13.8 -12.6 -15.7 -20.4 -19.7 -10.0 -24.9 -34.7 -29.3 -4.6 -3.1 -10.4 LS11 8SB

89 Normanto 3.2 -2.4 2.3 -5.8 -10.5 -7.8 4.9 0.3 -19.0 -33.7 -0.1 1.3 -5.9 n Place, LS11 8LE

9 Tilbury Road, -8.0 -18.5 -8.9 -21.5 -26.2 -18.4 -6.3 -12.5 -21.3 -26.0 -35.3 -33.9 -41.1 S11 0BW 2 Recreatio 2.4 10.0 2.4 -15.4 -20.1 -13.8 5.0 -7.5 -29.7 -24.3 -3.6 -2.2 -9.4 n Place, LS11 0AN 2 Recreatio 4.5 4.6 5.3 -5.3 -10.0 -0.7 7.9 -1.9 -19.7 -24.4 -2.8 -1.3 -8.6 n Mount, LS11 0AS 80 Holbeck Moor -9.5 -9.1 -11.2 -15.7 -20.3 -18.8 -8.6 -13.0 -16.1 -20.8 -12.4 -10.9 -18.2 Road, LS11 9QL

Revision C06 Page 284 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

94 Northcote -0.6 -6.2 -1.3 -11.9 -16.5 -9.0 1.3 -3.9 -9.4 -19.0 -3.6 -2.2 -9.4 Drive, LS11 6NH 83 Moor Crescent -10.3 -7.1 -11.1 -19.4 -24.0 -20.9 -8.5 -15.5 -23.3 -27.9 -14.4 -13.0 -20.2 Chase, LS11 5UL 71 Longroyd -4.7 -3.4 -5.8 -19.2 -23.9 -13.0 -3.2 -8.3 -17.1 -16.7 -25.3 -23.9 -31.1 View, LS11 5ET

20 Royal Place, -7.5 -15.3 -8.2 -15.9 -20.6 -16.2 -5.6 -10.8 -12.8 -27.4 -26.0 -24.6 -31.8 LS10 2RS

1 Ebor Terrace, -1.7 -4.7 -3.1 -38.9 -43.6 -23.6 -0.5 -13.9 -18.8 -13.5 -43.9 -42.5 -49.7 LS10 2EQ

12 Nursery Mount -4.0 0.2 -2.8 -30.2 -34.9 -11.9 -0.2 -7.8 -9.6 -14.3 -36.6 -35.2 -42.4 Road, LS10 3EU

1 Parnaby Street, -2.4 -1.7 -3.2 -32.5 -37.1 -14.1 -0.6 -6.8 -8.7 -13.3 -35.3 -33.9 -41.1 LS10 3BX

26 East Grange -5.7 -5.2 -6.3 -24.7 -29.3 -14.3 -3.7 -9.1 -11.0 -15.6 -29.4 -28.0 -35.2 Drive, S10 3EH

Revision C06 Page 285 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

48 Westbury Place 9.8 1.9 7.3 -35.3 -40.0 -7.3 9.9 1.4 -1.0 -5.6 -37.7 -36.3 -43.5 North, LS10 3DE 16 Tilbury View, 12.7 -3.8 8.2 -18.7 -23.4 -10.2 10.8 8.9 -6.8 -11.4 8.4 19.8 12.6 LS11 0BH

Revision C06 Page 286 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Table G-3: Night - LAeq,8hr (2300 – 0700)

Gantry Earthworks Gantry Excavate, Surfacing - Removal of Install Gantry Installation - Sheet Earthworks Surfacing, Site Installation Lay and Removing Address Existing Ducts and Installation - Install Earthworks Piling for - Casting - Sub- Surfacing Clearance - Casting Backfill Existing Structures Cabling - Piling Signals Retaining Pile Caps Layers Pile Caps Ducts Surface and Signs Walls

77 Cottingle y Drive, 3.9 -5.9 3.0 -10.5 -15.2 -4.4 5.6 0.3 -10.4 -15.0 -22.0 -20.6 -27.8 LS11 0JR 76 Cottingle y Drive, 11.1 11.6 10.0 1.2 -3.4 -1.1 12.6 6.9 2.4 -2.3 -10.7 -9.3 -16.5 LS11 0JP 2 Cottingle y Drive, -17.9 -13.4 -18.7 -24.0 -28.6 -26.7 -16.1 -21.8 -24.0 -28.6 -27.8 -26.3 -33.6 LS11 0JG 255 Elland Road, -12.6 -9.4 -13.6 -18.1 -22.8 -21.3 -11.0 -16.1 -19.9 -24.5 -16.2 -14.8 -22.0 LS11 8TU 277 Elland Road, -12.3 -11.2 -13.0 -17.8 -22.4 -21.0 -10.4 -15.7 -21.3 -25.9 -18.0 -16.6 -23.8 LS11 8TU 35 Noster 17.8 -10.0 16.9 1.0 -3.7 0.6 19.5 7.0 -5.1 -19.7 10.6 12.0 4.8 Terrace,

Revision C06 Page 287 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

LS11 8QF

6 Baron Close, -19.5 -11.5 -10.2 -13.4 -18.0 -17.3 -7.6 -22.5 -32.3 -27.0 -2.2 -0.8 -8.0 LS11 8SB 89 Normant on Place, 8.8 3.2 7.9 -0.3 -4.9 -2.2 10.5 5.8 -13.5 -28.1 5.4 6.9 -0.4 LS11 8LE 9 Tilbury Road, -8.1 -18.6 -9.0 -21.6 -26.3 -18.5 -6.4 -12.6 -21.4 -26.1 -35.4 -34.0 -41.2 S11 0BW 2 Recreatio n Place, 4.6 12.2 4.6 -13.2 -17.9 -11.6 7.2 -5.3 -27.5 -22.1 -1.4 0.0 -7.2 LS11 0AN 2 Recreatio n Mount, 6.7 6.8 7.5 -3.1 -7.8 1.5 10.1 0.3 -17.5 -22.2 -0.6 0.8 -6.4 LS11 0AS 80 Holbeck -5.7 -5.2 -7.3 -11.8 -16.4 -14.9 -4.7 -9.1 -12.3 -16.9 -8.5 -7.1 -14.3 Moor Road,

Revision C06 Page 288 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

LS11 9QL

94 Northcot e Drive, -0.5 -6.1 -1.2 -11.8 -16.4 -8.9 1.4 -3.7 -9.3 -18.9 -3.5 -2.1 -9.3 LS11 6NH 83 Moor Crescent Chase, -8.1 -4.9 -8.9 -17.2 -21.8 -18.8 -6.3 -13.3 -21.1 -25.8 -12.2 -10.8 -18.0 LS11 5UL 71 Longroyd View, 1.1 2.4 0.0 -13.4 -18.1 -7.2 2.6 -2.5 -11.3 -10.9 -19.5 -18.1 -25.3 LS11 5ET 20 Royal Place, -3.1 -10.9 -3.8 -11.5 -16.2 -11.8 -1.2 -6.4 -8.4 -23.0 -21.6 -20.2 -27.4 LS10 2RS 1 Ebor Terrace, 0.6 -2.5 -0.8 -36.7 -41.3 -21.4 1.8 -11.6 -16.6 -11.2 -41.7 -40.3 -47.5 LS10 2EQ 12 Nursery -1.7 2.6 -0.5 -27.9 -32.5 -9.5 2.1 -5.5 -7.3 -12.0 -34.3 -32.8 -40.1 Mount

Revision C06 Page 289 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Road, LS10 3EU 1 Parnaby Street, -0.2 0.5 -1.0 -30.2 -34.9 -11.9 1.6 -4.5 -6.4 -11.1 -33.0 -31.6 -38.8 LS10 3BX 26 East Grange -4.9 -4.3 -5.5 -23.9 -28.5 -13.4 -2.9 -8.3 -10.1 -14.8 -28.6 -27.2 -34.4 Drive, S10 3EH 48 Westbury Place 12.1 4.2 9.6 -33.0 -37.7 -5.0 12.2 3.7 1.3 -3.3 -35.4 -34.0 -41.2 North, LS10 3DE 16 Tilbury View, 12.6 -3.9 8.2 -18.8 -23.5 -10.3 10.7 8.8 -6.9 -11.5 8.3 19.7 12.5 LS11 0BH

Revision C06 Page 290 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

G.3 Construction Assessment Locations

Revision C06 Page 291 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Revision C06 Page 292 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Revision C06 Page 293 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Revision C06 Page 294 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Revision C06 Page 295 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

G.4 Noise Contours Opening Year

Revision C06 Page 296 of 386

¯ TM dB LA10, 18Hr

> 71.0

68.0 to 70.9

65.0 to 67.9

62.0 to 64.9

59.0 to 61.9

56.0 to 58.9

53.0 to 55.9

50.0 to 52.9

< 49.9

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

CLIENT NAME: Highways England

LICENCE NUMBER: 100018928

Atkins Limited © Consulting Engineers The Hub, 500 Park Ave, Bristol, South Gloucestershire, England, Tel: +44(0)1454 662 000 BS32 4RZ www.atkinsglobal.com

Client

Highways England

Project

M621 Junctions 1 to 7

Title Figure 8.1 Opening Year Do Minimum Daytime Noise Contour - dB LA10,18hour

Sheet Size Designed / Drawn Checked Authorised Original Scale RB KS DT 1:20,000 A3 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19

Drawing Number Rev HE551464-ATK-ENV-XX-GS-LN-000001 C01 Path: P:\ADST\Deliver Work\IUTO\Geospatial\5155828_M621Jct1to7\002_WIP\5155828_M621_NSE_OpenYearDoMin.mxd ¯ TM dB LA10, 18Hr

> 70.9

68.0 to 70.9

65.0 to 67.9

62.0 to 64.9

59.0 to 61.9

56.0 to 58.9

53.0 to 55.9

50.0 to 52.9

< 50.0

T his m ap is reproduced from Ordnance S urvey m aterial with the perm ission of Ordnance S urvey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty 's S tationery Office Crown Copy right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copy right and m ay lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

CLIENT NAME: Highway s England

LICENCE NUMBER : 100018928

Atkins Limited © Consulting Engineers T he Hub, 500 Park Ave, Bristol, S outh Gloucestershire, England, T el: +44(0)1454 662 000 BS 32 4R Z www.atkinsglobal.com

Client

Highway s England

Project

M621 J unctions 1 to 7

T itle Figure 8.2 Opening Y ear Do S om ething Day tim e Noise Contour – dB LA10,18hour

S heet S ize Designed / Drawn Checked Authorised Original S cale R B KS DT 1:20,000 A3 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19

Drawing Num ber R ev HE551464-AT K-ENV-X X -GS -LN-000002 C01 Path: P:\ADS T \Deliver W ork\IUT O\Geospatial\5155828_M621J ct1to7\002_W IP\5155828_M621_NS E_OpenY earDoS om ething.m xd ¯ TM dB LA10, 18Hr

1.0 to 2.9

-0.9 to 0.9

-1.0 to -2.9

T his map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright. U nauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

CL IENT NAME: Highways England

L ICENCE NU MBER: 100018928

Atkins Limited © Consulting Engineers T he Hub, 500 Park Ave, Bristol, South Gloucestershire, England, T el: +44(0)1454 662 000 BS32 4RZ www.atk insglobal.com

Client

Highways England

Project

M621 Junctions 1 to 7

T itle Figure 8.3 Opening Y ear Daytime Change Noise Contour – dB L A10,18hour

Sheet Size Designed / Drawn Check ed Authorised Original Scale RB KS DT 1:20,000 A3 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19

Drawing Number Rev HE551464-AT K-ENV -XX-GS-L N-000003 C01 Path: P:\ADST \Deliver Work \IU T O\Geospatial\5155828_ M621Jct1to7\002_ WIP\5155828_ M621_ NSE_ OpenY earDaytime.mxd Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Design Year

Revision C06 Page 300 of 386

¯ TM dB LA10, 18Hr

> 70.9

68.0 to 70.9

65.0 to 67.9

62.0 to 64.9

59.0 to 61.9

56.0 to 58.9

53.0 to 55.9

50.0 to 52.9

< 50.0

T his m ap is reproduced from Ordnance S urvey m aterial with the perm ission of Ordnance S urvey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty 's S tationery Office Crown Copy right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copy right and m ay lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

CLIENT NAME: Highway s England

LICENCE NUMBER : 100018928

Atkins Limited © Consulting Engineers T he Hub, 500 Park Ave, Bristol, S outh Gloucestershire, England, T el: +44(0)1454 662 000 BS 32 4R Z www.atkinsglobal.com

Client

Highway s England

Project

M621 J unctions 1 to 7

T itle Figure 8.4 Design Y ear Do Minim um Day tim e Noise Contour – dB LA10,18hour

S heet S ize Designed / Drawn Checked Authorised Original S cale R B KS DT 1:20,000 A3 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19

Drawing Num ber R ev HE551464-AT K-ENV-X X -GS -LN-000004 C01 Path: P:\ADS T \Deliver W ork\IUT O\Geospatial\5155828_M621J ct1to7\002_W IP\5155828_M621_NS E_DesignY earDoMin.m xd ¯ TM dB LA10, 18Hr

> 70.9

68.0 to 70.9

65.0 to 67.9

62.0 to 64.9

59.0 to 61.9

56.0 to 58.9

53.0 to 55.9

50.0 to 52.9

< 50.0

T his m ap is reproduced from Ordnance S urvey m aterial with the perm ission of Ordnance S urvey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty 's S tationery Office Crown Copy right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copy right and m ay lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

CLIENT NAME: Highway s England

LICENCE NUMBER : 100018928

Atkins Limited © Consulting Engineers T he Hub, 500 Park Ave, Bristol, S outh Gloucestershire, England, T el: +44(0)1454 662 000 BS 32 4R Z www.atkinsglobal.com

Client

Highway s England

Project

M621 J unctions 1 to 7

T itle Figure 8.5 Design Y ear Do S om ething Day tim e Noise Contour – dB LA10,18hour

S heet S ize Designed / Drawn Checked Authorised Original S cale R B KS DT 1:20,000 A3 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19

Drawing Num ber R ev HE551464-AT K-ENV-X X -GS -LN-000005 C01 Path: P:\ADS T \Deliver W ork\IUT O\Geospatial\5155828_M621J ct1to7\002_W IP\5155828_M621_NS E_DesignY earDoS om ething.m xd ¯ TM dB LA10, 18Hr

1.0 to 2.9

-0.9 to 0.9

-1.0 to -2.9

T his map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright. U nauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

CL IENT NAME: Highways England

L ICENCE NU MBER: 100018928

Atkins Limited © Consulting Engineers T he Hub, 500 Park Ave, Bristol, South Gloucestershire, England, T el: +44(0)1454 662 000 BS32 4RZ www.atk insglobal.com

Client

Highways England

Project

M621 Junctions 1 to 7

T itle Figure 8.6 Design Y ear Daytime Change Noise Contour – dB L A10,18hour

Sheet Size Designed / Drawn Check ed Authorised Original Scale RB KS DT 1:20,000 A3 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19 Date 10/05/19

Drawing Number Rev HE551464-AT K-ENV -XX-GS-L N-000006 C01 Path: P:\ADST \Deliver Work \IU T O\Geospatial\5155828_ M621Jct1to7\002_ WIP\5155828_ M621_ NSE_ DesignY earDaytime.mxd Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Appendix H. Road Drainage and the Water Environment

H.1 WFD Compliance Assessment Introduction Legislative background H.1.1 New activities and schemes that affect the water environment may adversely impact biological, hydromorphological, physico-chemical and/or chemical quality components, leading to a deterioration in the ecological status of a water body under the Water Framework Directive (WFD, Directive 2000/60/EC). The overall ecological status (or potential if heavily modified) of a water body is determined by the lowest scoring of these elements. H.1.2 New schemes may also render proposed mitigation measures ineffective, leading to the water body failing to meet its WFD objectives for Good Ecological Status (GES) / Good Ecological Potential (GEP). Similarly, new schemes may impact the quantitative or chemical status of the underlying groundwater body. Under the WFD, activities must not cause deterioration in overall water body status or prevent a surface water body from meeting GES / GEP and should where reasonably practical help towards meeting these objectives. Approach H.1.3 Atkins undertook a preliminary WFD compliance assessment as part of the PCF Stage 2 Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) (Atkins, March 2018) for the M621 Junction 1 to 7 project (the Project). This WFD compliance assessment has now been updated as part of the PCF Stage 3 Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) with the finalised proposed Scheme. Further details of the proposed Scheme can be found in Chapter 2 of this EAR. H.1.4 The EAR identifies four WFD surface water bodies which could be impacted by the proposed works: • Milshaw Beck from Source to Low/Wortley/Pudsey Becks. • Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck. • Aire from Gill Beck (Baildon) to River Calder. • Batley Brook from Source to River Calder. H.1.5 Plus, one WFD groundwater body: Aire and Calder Carboniferous Limestone/Millstone Grit/Coal Measures. H.1.6 Two additional surface water WFD water bodies are present within the study area: Leeds and Liverpool Canal, summit to Leeds, adjacent to the Aire from Gill Beck (Baildon) to River Calder water body to the north of the M621; and, Oulton Beck from Source to River Aire to the south-east of the Junction 7 of the M621. However, neither of these are considered further within this assessment as they are not hydrologically connected to the proposed extent of works.

Revision C06 Page 304 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

H.1.7 This assessment sets out the WFD compliance assessment for both the surface water and groundwater WFD water bodies. This assessment has been based on General Arrangement drawings for the proposed Scheme, the proposed Scheme description and information from Transport Engineers; it follows Environment Agency (EA) draft WFD guidance and position paper (Environment Agency, 2016). Environmental objectives H.1.8 The following environmental objectives (based on EA guidance) were used to make recommendations on securing WFD compliance: • Prevent deterioration of the status of water bodies compared to the baseline status reported in the 2016 River Basin Management Plans; • Support the achievement of the environmental objectives in the 2016 plans; and where relevant, • Ensure a new activity or new physical modification does not jeopardise the future achievement of Good status for a water body. The proposed Scheme H.1.9 The proposed Scheme is along the length of the M621, between Junction 27 of the M62 in the west and Junction 43 of the M1 in the east. However, the focus of the works is between Junctions 1 and 4 of the M621. In brief, the proposed Scheme comprises: • Highways works: road widening and a free flow link at Junction 2, change to merge layout at Junction 3 and the conversion of the hard shoulder to a running lane westbound between Junctions 2a and 2. • A temporary construction compound near Junction 7 on the triangle of land between the M621/A62/Wakefield Road. • Technology works: Retention and addition of technology between Junctions 1 and 5 of the M621 to improve signage and traffic control. H.1.10 Further details on the proposed Scheme are provided in Chapter 2 of this EAR. WFD Summary H.1.11 The surface watercourses Milshaw Beck and Farnley Wood Beck/Dean Beck/Clark Spring are within the Milshaw Beck from Source to Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck WFD water body. This WFD water body lies between Junction 27 of the M621 and just north of Junction 1 of the M621 and encompasses a small area near Junction 1 which would have technological works. Milshaw Beck and Farnley Wood Beck both are culverted under the M621 within this WFD water body. H.1.12 Wortley Beck is within the Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck WFD water body. This WFD water body covers a small section of the study area around Junction 2. Wortley Beck flows within an open channel along the A6110 towards the M621, before turning northwards and flowing in a culverted channel towards the River Aire near Junction 1, where Milshaw Beck flows in. H.1.13 The River Aire and an unnamed watercourse are within the Aire from Gill Beck (Baildon) to River Calder WFD water body. This WFD water body extends from just east of Junction 2 to the M621/M1 junction. The River Aire flows almost parallel

Revision C06 Page 305 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

to the M621, but at a distance of between 0.6 and 1.6 km, in an open channel. The unnamed watercourse flows in an open channel near Junction 7 and is culverted under the M621. H.1.14 The Howley Beck is within the Batley Brook from Source to River Calder WFD water body. This WFD water body covers the M621/M62 junction. The Howley Beck flows in a south-easterly direction away from the junction in an open, tree- lined channel. H.1.15 The Aire and Calder Carboniferous Limestone/Millstone Grit/Coal Measures groundwater WFD water body covers the full extent of the study area (and a far wider area). H.1.16 Table H-1 and Table H-2 summarise the WFD status and associated element status for each surface water and groundwater water body in the study area. All four surface water bodies are classified as heavily modified (HMWB) meaning that they are substantially altered. They are all currently achieving Moderate potential overall, with their ecological status as Moderate and their Chemical status as Good. They are all failing to achieve Good potential due to point source sewage discharges and physical modifications from urbanisation. Low/Worley/Pudsey Beck water body is also failing due to barriers to ecological continuity. The groundwater body is currently achieving Poor status, with Quantitative status at Good and Chemical status at Poor. It is failing to reach Good status due to point source pollution from abandoned mines and suspect data. Table H-1: WFD surface water bodies within the study area (2016 status) Surface Milshaw Beck Low/ Wortley/ Aire from Gill Batley Beck from waterbody from Source to Pudsey Beck Beck (Baildon) to Source to River Low/ Wortley/ River Calder Calder Pudsey Beck

Waterbody ID GB104027062750 GB104027062830 GB104027063032 GB104027062670

Overall water Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate body potential (Good potential (Good potential potential (Good status/potential by 2027) by 2027) (Moderate by by 2027) 2015)

Heavily modified HMWB HMWB HMWB HMWB water body (HWMB)

Ecological Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Biological Moderate Bad Poor Poor

Hydro Supports Good Supports Good Supports Good Supports Good morphological

Physico-chemical Moderate Good Moderate Moderate

Specific High High High High pollutants

Supporting Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate elements (surface water) (Mitigation measures)

Revision C06 Page 306 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Surface Milshaw Beck Low/ Wortley/ Aire from Gill Batley Beck from waterbody from Source to Pudsey Beck Beck (Baildon) to Source to River Low/ Wortley/ River Calder Calder Pudsey Beck

Waterbody ID GB104027062750 GB104027062830 GB104027063032 GB104027062670

Chemical Good Good Good Good

Reasons for not Point source Point source Point source Point source achieving Good sewage sewage sewage sewage status (intermittent) (intermittent) (intermittent and (intermittent) discharges. discharges. continuous) discharges. Physical Physical discharges. Diffuse source modifications modifications Physical pollution from from from flood modifications urban and urbanisation. protection, land from flood transport. drainage and protection, Physical urbanisation. urbanisation and modifications Barriers to navigation from flood ecological including ports. protection and continuity. urbanisation. Table Source: http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/OperationalCatchment/3265

Table H-2: WFD ground water bodies within the study area (2016 status) Groundwater waterbody Aire and Calder Carboniferous Limestone/Millstone Grit/Coal Measures Waterbody ID GB40402G700400 Overall water body status/potential Poor (Poor by 2015) Quantitative Good Chemical Poor Reasons for not achieving Good status Point source pollution from abandoned mines.Suspect data (lack of certainty in data). Table Source: http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/OperationalCatchment/3265 Screening assessment of impacts on water body quality elements WFD water bodies and catchment H.1.17 The assessment considers impacts to the four-surface water and the one groundwater WFD water bodies. The majority of the water bodies fall in the Aire Lower operational catchment, with Batley Beck falling with the Calder Lower operational catchment, all within the Humber River Basin District. The Humber River Basin Management Plan (Humber RBMP, 2016) summarises the priority management issues for the Aire and Calder catchment as: • Mitigation of the effects of heavily modified water bodies • Point source pollution, primarily from water company assets • Diffuse pollution, both urban and rural

Revision C06 Page 307 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

The proposed Scheme H.1.18 Further details on the proposed Scheme are outlined in Chapters 1 -3 of the EAR. A brief description of the proposed Scheme, in terms of both the highways works and technology works, are provided here. H.1.19 The highway works comprise: • Junction 2: Widening from two to three lanes to the north of the roundabout and widening from two to four lanes to the south. A free flow link would be provided between the M621 eastbound and A643 to the north of Junction 2. Additionally, widening of the Junction 2 westbound off-slip is proposed from two to three lanes, and widening of the Junction 2 westbound on-slip from one to two lanes, to accommodate for the forecast increase in traffic flows. • Junction 3: Westbound merge layout would be changed, to provide two lanes through the junction from the M621 westbound carriageway with an offside lane gain from the slip-road. The Junction 3 improvements would require the closure of the Junction 2a westbound diverge. • Between Junction 2a and 2: Conversion of the hard shoulder into a running lane westbound. • It has been confirmed that there will be no works (extensions, updates etc.) to any of the culverts within the proposed Scheme. • Currently detailed design for the drainage across the proposed Scheme has not been undertaken. High level design has been undertaken for Junction 2, with all drainage flowing into the sewer network and oversized pipes being used for attenuation of flows. H.1.20 The temporary construction compound would comprise offices, welfare facilities, parking, vehicle recovery, materials storage and plant storage on the triangle of land between the M621/A62/Wakefield Road. H.1.21 The technology works comprise: • Overhead lane signalling using Advanced Motorway Indicators (AMIs) is proposed between Junctions 3 and 2 westbound, three along an existing gantry and three on a new gantry. • Two pairs of existing Motorway Signal Mark 1 (MS1s), located in the central reservation, are proposed to be retained - one pair west of Junction 1 and one pair east of Junction 6. • Between Junctions 1 and 4, lane signalling and network information capability would be provided by the provision of Motorway Signal Mark 4 (MS4s), with 15 new MS4s in total. • Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling (MIDAS) radar units are proposed, with reference sites being positioned upstream of signals and then at nominal intervals of 300 m, where spacing between signals dictates their requirement. • Two existing cantilever verge-mounted Motorway Signal Mark 3 (MS3s) west of Junction 1 would be retained.

Revision C06 Page 308 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

• Post-mounted Entry Slip Signals (ESS) are proposed on some entry slip roads, located at the start of the SRN (motorway) boundary. Across the proposed Scheme 12 new ESS are proposed. • The NRTS ducted network infrastructure is proposed to be replaced and re- graded along an approximate 6.2 km length of the proposed Scheme. • Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) coverage is proposed to be enhanced, with the addition of cameras to provide full coverage of the operational lanes between Junctions 1 and 4. • Existing Emergency Roadside Telephones (ERTs) would be retained apart from the ERT at Junction 2a. Average speed cameras are proposed between Junctions 1 and 6. H.1.22 The proposed Scheme is unlikely to generate significant effects on local hydrology or flood risk as the proposed Scheme is predominantly an on-line improvement. The list below describes the potential impacts to the water environment based on the works described above: • Construction impacts: including risk of pollution from fuels, concrete and chemicals as well as from the disturbance of soil during earthworks • Pollution from road drainage: including collisions, road degradation, incomplete fuel combustion, fuel, and accidental spillage for example • Increased run-off: an increase in impermeable area would increase the run-off volume and rate of discharge from the road surface • Screening assessment H.1.23 Table H-3 screens the impact of the works from the proposed Scheme on Milshaw Beck from Source to Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck, Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck, Aire from Gill Beck (Baildon) to River Calder and Batley Beck surface water WFD water bodies. H.1.24 Each surface water body is assessed based upon the following potential impacts upon the water environment: • Project footprint: encroachment resulting in a physical modification of a watercourse, including realignment or crossing (including modifications to existing crossings, such as culverts or bridges); • Pollution from road drainage: including collisions, road degradation, incomplete fuel combustion, fuel, and accidental spillage for example; and • Increased runoff: an increase in impermeable area would increase the runoff volume and rate of discharge from the road surface. H.1.25 A high-level water quality assessment (HAWRAT, Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool) has been undertaken for Junction 2 (within the Low/Wortley/Pudsey Becks water body), where high level drainage design has been undertaken. Although an assessment is not required due to runoff going into the sewer network, an assessment has been undertaken in order to provide some assessment of the quality of the runoff from the junction resulting from the known increase in impermeable area. This has been included under the physico-chemical component. Once a detailed drainage design has been established, and information is known on any new discharges which may have an impact upon

Revision C06 Page 309 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

those pollutants, the assessment will be updated. Information and results of the HAWRAT assessment are shown in Table H-6. H.1.26 Table H-4 screens the impact of the works from the proposed Scheme on the Aire and Calder Carboniferous Limestone/Millstone Grit/Coal Measures groundwater WFD water body. Information on construction aspects which may affect groundwater have been obtained at a high level from the engineering team and are used to assess the potential impact upon groundwater flow and pollution pathways. As the detailed drainage design for the proposed Scheme has not yet been established it has not been possible to assess the impact of drainage of road runoff to groundwater. This will be reviewed once this information is available. • Piling: Piling activities are likely to include: bored pile groups for the gantries, the diameter and depth of which are to be confirmed; sheet piles and king post piles for retaining structures, the depth of which will also be confirmed; driven/ planted piles may be required for minor structures such as CCTV masts. • De-watering: It is possible that some dewatering activities would be required for temporary works associated with the construction drive pits for Cross Carriageway Ducts (CCDs). • Tunnelling: Directional drilling would be required for the construction of new CCDs.

Revision C06 Page 310 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Table H-3: Screening assessment of impacts on surface water WFD water body quality elements Components with Milshaw Beck from Source Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck Aire from Gill Beck (Baildon) Batley Beck from Detailed assessment RBMP 2016 to Low/Wortley/Pudsey GB104027062830 to River Calder Source to River Calder or further information classification noted Beck GB104027063032 GB104027062670 required? Wortley Beck GB104027062750 River Aire Howley Beck Milshaw Beck Unnamed watercourse Farnley Wood Beck/Dean Beck/Clark Spring

Biology Moderate Bad Poor Poor Invertebrates - Moderate Fish – Bad Invertebrates - Poor Invertebrates - Poor Invertebrates - Good Project footprint: There are Project footprint: There are Project footprint: There are no Project footprint: There Yes – detailed no planned physical no planned physical planned physical modifications are no planned physical information on the modifications to the modifications to the to the watercourses (no modifications to the drainage strategy watercourses (no watercourses (no realignments or changes to watercourses (no needs to be realignments or changes to realignments or changes to culverts) and therefore no realignments or assessed.

culverts) and therefore no culverts) and therefore no impacts. changes to culverts) impacts. impacts. Pollution from road drainage and therefore no Pollution from road drainage Pollution from road drainage and increased runoff: The impacts. and increased runoff: The and increased runoff: The proposed Scheme has no Pollution from road proposed Scheme would proposed Scheme has the increases in highway areas drainage and not increase the highway potential to increase runoff within this WFD water body, increased runoff: The area within this WFD water volumes and runoff pollution with technological work having proposed Scheme has body, with technological and sediment from the road minimal impact. The temporary no increases in work having minimal impact widening at Junction 2. construction compound is highway areas within and therefore there are However, the high-level within this water body within this water body, with considered to be no drainage design has 100 m of the unnamed no proposed impacts. The drainage drainage from Junction 2 watercourse, however with construction or strategy however needs to entering the sewage implementation of all pollution technological works. be established and network and therefore not control mitigation measures The drainage strategy assessed to confirm this impacting watercourses there would be minimal impact. however needs to be assessment. within this WFD water body Therefore, overall there are established and

and therefore there would considered to be no impacts. assessed to confirm be no impacts. The The drainage strategy however this assessment. drainage strategy needs to needs to be established and be established and

Revision C06 Page 311 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Physico – chemical Moderate Good Moderate Moderate Ammonia – Moderate Ammonia – Good Ammonia – Good Ammonia – Good BOD – Poor BOD – Moderate BOD – Moderate DO – High DO – High DO – High DO – High pH – High pH – High pH – High pH – High Phosphate – Moderate Phosphate – Moderate Phosphate – Good Phosphate – Poor Temperature – High Temperature – High Temperature – High Temperature – Good Pollution from road drainage Pollution from road drainage Pollution from road drainage Pollution from road Yes – detailed and increased runoff: Road and increased runoff: Road and increased runoff: Road drainage and increased information on the runoff could potentially be runoff could potentially be runoff could potentially be runoff: Road runoff drainage strategy discharged into the discharged into the discharged into the could potentially be needs to be watercourses within the watercourses within the watercourses within the water discharged into the assessed. WFD water body. The WFD water body. The body. The detailed drainage watercourses within the detailed drainage strategy detailed drainage strategy strategy for the proposed WFD water body. The for the proposed Scheme for the proposed Scheme Scheme has not yet been detailed drainage has not yet been has not yet been established so this cannot be strategy for the established so potential established so this cannot fully assessed. There is a proposed Scheme has effects cannot be assessed. be fully assessed. At a high- change to the merge layout at not yet been However, as there are only level it is known that Junction 3, and conversion of established so this technological works within drainage for Junction 2 hard shoulder to a running lane cannot be assessed. this WFD water body it is would discharge into the westbound between Junctions However, as there no assumed that there would sewer network and 2a and 3, so there may be proposed construction be no increases in pollution therefore would not impact changes to the drainage. The or technological works or runoff and therefore no on surface watercourses construction of the temporary within this water body it

Revision C06 Page 312 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Components with Milshaw Beck from Source Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck Aire from Gill Beck (Baildon) Batley Beck from Detailed assessment RBMP 2016 to Low/Wortley/Pudsey GB104027062830 to River Calder Source to River Calder or further information classification noted Beck GB104027063032 GB104027062670 required? Wortley Beck GB104027062750 River Aire Howley Beck Milshaw Beck Unnamed watercourse Farnley Wood Beck/Dean Beck/Clark Spring impacts. The drainage and therefore there are no construction compound near is assumed that there strategy however needs to impacts. Westbound Junction 7 may also would be no increases be established and between Junctions 2a and 3 necessitate new drainage. The in pollution or runoff assessed to confirm this there would be the drainage strategy however and therefore no assessment. conversion of the hard needs to be established and impacts. The drainage shoulder into a running lane, assessed to confirm this strategy however needs so there may be further assessment. to be established and changes to the drainage. A assessed to confirm high level precautionary this conclusion. HAWRAT assessment at Junction 2 indicated runoff from the scheme passed the water quality tests. The drainage strategy however needs to be established and assessed to confirm this assessment. Hydromorphological Supports Good Supports Good Supports Good Supports Good Supporting Elements: Project footprint: There are Project footprint: There are Project footprint: There are no Project footprint: There No no planned physical no planned physical planned physical modifications are no planned physical Hydrological modifications to the modifications to the to the watercourses (no modifications to the regime: Supports watercourses (no watercourses (no realignments or changes to watercourses (no good realignments or changes to realignments or changes to culverts) and therefore no realignments or Mitigation measures culverts) and therefore no culverts) and therefore no impacts. changes to culverts) assessment: impacts. impacts. Flood risk: Study area and therefore no Moderate or less Flood risk: Study area Flood risk: Study area encroaches into the floodplains impacts. encroaches into the encroaches into the flood and could affect flood plain Flood risk: The study floodplains and could affect plains and could affect flood dynamics, although there are area does not encroach floodplain dynamics, plain dynamics, although only planned technological into the floodplain and

Revision C06 Page 313 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Revision C06 Page 314 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Table H-4: Screening assessment of impacts on groundwater WFD water body quality elements Components with Aire and Calder Carboniferous Detailed assessment or RBMP 2016 Limestone/Millstone Grit/Coal Measures further information classification noted GB40402G700400 required?

Quantitative Good Quantitative saline intrusion – Good Quantitative water balance – Good Quantitative GWDTEs test – Good Quantitative dependent surface water body status - Good Deep foundations may form a barrier to Yes – detailed groundwater flow, disrupting groundwater flow information on the piling paths and potentially reducing groundwater depths needs to be contributions to adjacent watercourses. assessed. Localised mounding may also occur. Nearby groundwater abstractions may be affected where they abstract from shallow horizons. Piling is due to be undertaken across the proposed Scheme for various different structures, although details on the depths of these is yet to be confirmed. However, it is assumed that these would only cause minor, local impacts. Once further information on piling can be provided this can be confirmed. De-watering has the potential to cause a local decrease in groundwater levels. Some dewatering is likely to be required, however this is for temporary works and any impacts would be minor and short-term. Tunnelling has the potential to disrupt groundwater flow paths. Some directional drilling would be required, however it is assumed that impacts upon groundwater flow paths would be minor at the groundwater body scale.

Chemical Poor Chemical drinking water protected area – Good General chemical test – Poor Chemical GWDTEs test – Good Chemical dependent surface water body status – Poor Chemical saline intrusion - Good Deep foundations may create rapid vertical Yes – detailed flow pathways into the groundwater body for information on the potentially contaminated runoff. Increased drainage strategy needs surface water runoff from the proposed to be assessed. Scheme has the potential to cause deterioration to the water quality of the groundwater body if runoff is contaminated. Potential secondary effects are to groundwater dependent surface water bodies.

Revision C06 Page 315 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Components with Aire and Calder Carboniferous Detailed assessment or RBMP 2016 Limestone/Millstone Grit/Coal Measures further information classification noted GB40402G700400 required?

Piling is due to be undertaken across the proposed Scheme for various different structures, although detail on the depths of piling is yet to be confirmed. However, it is assumed that these would only cause minor, local impacts. Once further information on piling can be provided this can be confirmed. Detailed drainage design for the proposed Scheme is yet to be undertaken and therefore it is not possible yet to assess whether there would be any discharges to groundwater which may impact upon water quality.

Screening assessment results and recommendations H.1.27 The screening assessment indicates that the proposed works are unlikely to result in a deterioration in status for all the of the elements assessed for both the surface water and groundwater bodies. This assessment will be confirmed, and updated, once detailed information on the drainage strategy is available. Potential Mitigation H.1.28 No specific measures were identified within the Humber RBMP as part of the programme of measures to achieve Good Status/Potential by 2021. However, relevant mitigation measures should be considered as part of this study together with further opportunities to help meet the objective of Good Ecological Potential under the WFD. PCF Stage 3 Mitigation (as outlined in the EAR) H.1.29 Construction mitigation includes: • following pollution prevent and construction best practice (i.e. Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs)) • production of an incident response plan • temporary site drainage to retain surface run-off within site boundary • no controlled discharges or abstractions without consent from the Environment Agency • discharges generated through construction should be controlled using the existing drainage network, and where possible ensure no increase to flood risk • Production of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP)

Revision C06 Page 316 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

WFD Mitigation/Enhancement H.1.30 From a WFD perspective while the works are unlikely to cause a status change of any WFD element, measures should be considered which can contribute to the overall water body and catchment objectives. Priority management issues for the Aire and Calder catchment are: • Mitigation of the effects of HMWBs • Point source pollution, primarily from water company assets • Diffuse pollution, both urban and rural H.1.31 The four WFD water bodies included in this assessment are assessed as being HMWB but there are few opportunities to mitigate for physical modification as many of the watercourses in the vicinity of the proposed Scheme and within the heavily urbanised city of Leeds are culverted. There may be opportunities to mitigate the effects of point source pollution through working in collaboration with the local water company (Yorkshire Water) in the long term, but the opportunities are limited on this particular scheme. In terms of diffuse pollution, any tree loss associated with the proposed Scheme is being mitigated through replacement planting. All vegetation helps to reduce the rate of runoff and soil loss. H.1.32 Milshaw Beck from Source to Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck (GB104027062750) is not achieving Good status due to physical modification for urbanisation, affecting its Mitigation Measures Assessment. It is also impacted by point source sewage discharges, which affect the ammonia (phys-chem), phosphate and invertebrate element assessments. The lower 1.5 km of Milshaw Beck (downstream of its confluence with Farnley Wood Beck) are culverted. The EA have said that they would eventually like to see this watercourse daylighted. They currently have the Live Streaming Leeds (was Leeds Urban Becks) Project within this area, which is currently working on de-culverting, re-naturalisation and reducing sediment input to Wyke Beck. However, there are opportunities for future phases to look at Holbeck and Milshaw Beck. Daylighting opportunities within urban areas can be difficult to find due to the constraints of urban development over the culverted watercourse. There may be further opportunities for habitat improvements within the open channel sections of Farnley Wood Beck, and further upstream on Milshaw Beck, but these are beyond the proposed Scheme boundary. A wider objective within the water body could be for consultation to be undertaken with the local water company (Yorkshire Water) to identify if there are any opportunities for addressing the point source sewage discharges within the water body to reduce their impact upon the water quality. H.1.33 Low/Wortley/Pudsey Beck (GB104027062830) is not achieving Good status due to physical modification for flood protection, land drainage and urbanisation, affecting its Mitigation Measures Assessment. It is also impacted by point source sewage discharges and barriers to ecological continuity which affect the fish element assessment. Approximately 3 km of the lower reaches of Wortley Beck are culverted, downstream of its confluence with Milshaw Beck, as it flows into the River Aire. Measures could be considered upstream of the culvert (through Wortley, Farnley and upstream) to offset of the physical modification and improve the habitat for fish, but this is beyond the boundary of the proposed Scheme. A wider objective within the water body would be for consultation to be undertaken with the local water company (Yorkshire Water) to identify if there are any

Revision C06 Page 317 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

opportunities for addressing the point source sewage discharges within the water body to reduce their impact upon the water quality. H.1.34 The Aire from Gill Beck (Baildon) to River Calder (GB104027063032) is not achieving Good status due to physical modification for flood protection, urbanisation and navigation, affecting its Mitigation Measures Assessment. It is also impacted by point source sewage discharges which affect the phosphate, invertebrates and Diazinon element assessment. The River Aire is not culverted and there may be space for improvement upstream of Leeds City Centre where there is open green space on either side of the channel (i.e. around Rodley). A wider objective within the water body could be for consultation to be undertaken with the local water company (Yorkshire Water) to identify if there are any opportunities for addressing the point source sewage discharges within the waterbody to reduce their impact upon the water quality. H.1.35 Batley Beck from Source to River Calder (GB104027062670) is not achieving Good status due to Physical modifications from flood protection and urbanisation affecting its Mitigation Measures Assessment and its invertebrates element assessment. It is also impacted by point source sewage (intermittent) discharges which are affecting its invertebrates and phosphate element assessment and diffuse source pollution from urban and transport is affecting its phosphate element assessment. Hawley Beck is not culverted, however there may be space for improvement in its upper reaches where this is open space either side of the channel. A wider objective within the water body could be for consultation to be undertaken with the local water company (Yorkshire Water) to identify if there are any opportunities for addressing the point source sewage discharges within the water body to reduce their impact upon the water quality. H.1.36 Progressing appropriate mitigation/enhancement measures would achieve multiple benefits for the water environment and go towards meeting the objectives of the WFD and meeting Highways England KPIs. Due to the constraints around the proposed Scheme (heavily urbanised and culverted watercourses) and no direct works proposed to the watercourses, there are few opportunities for enhancement as part of the proposed Scheme. However, there may be a chance to consider enhancements with the Environment Agency and catchment partners as part of the Highways England Environment Fund. Conclusions H.1.37 This report has undertaken a WFD assessment of the impacts of the M621 Junction 1 to 7 Scheme upon four WFD surface water bodies and one groundwater body which cover the study area. The proposed Scheme comprises mainly technological works between Junctions 1 to 5, with construction works focussed around Junctions 2 to 3 and a construction compound near Junction 7, and no direct works to the watercourses. The assessment has shown that there are unlikely to be any impacts upon the quality elements for the four-surface water and the groundwater body. However, further information on the detailed drainage design and piling depths is required in order to confirm the assessment in terms of pollution from road drainage and increased runoff. Once this information is available then this assessment will be updated. H.1.38 Opportunities for mitigation and enhancement within the surface water bodies were also identified at a wider scale (beyond the proposed Scheme boundary), which focussed on physical improvements to the channels to improve habitat and

Revision C06 Page 318 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

ecology and also consultation with the local water company to identify opportunities to address point source sewage discharges. The EA highlighted Milshaw Beck as a watercourse for daylighting as part of a current project they are undertaking within Leeds. These enhancements could be considered as part of the Highways England Environment Fund. References

• Environment Agency (December 2016), 1340_16 WFD Position Paper, Supporting implementation of river basin management plans • Environment Agency (December 2015), Humber River Basin Management Plan – Part 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 500465/Humber_RBD_Part_1_river_basin_management_plan.pdf • Environment Agency (July 2012) Water bodies for the Water Framework Directive, Guidance note (final), issued July 2012, Internal EA Guidance. • Environment Agency (July 2010) Internal Environmental Assessment and the Water Framework Directive: assessing new modifications, Issued 28/07/10, Internal EA Guidance Appendix 1 H.1.39 The Method A and Method D assessments (from DMRB 4509) were undertaken for two scenarios at Junction 2: the baseline, existing conditions (pre-Scheme); and, the opening year conditions (2021) with the proposed Scheme in place. The assessments require a variety of baseline parameters and drainage design information. As runoff from Junction 2 enters the sewer network, some assumptions about the receptor have been made to undertake a cautionary assessment: • Very High importance of receptor. • As no water quality monitoring data is available, water hardness was taken from the Drinking Water Inspectorate water hardness map. • As no flow monitoring data is available, default low flow and BFI values were used. H.1.40 Data inputs for the HAWRAT assessment for both the baseline and opening year are shown in Table H-5. Table H-5: HAWRAT inputs Input Baseline Opening Year (2021) Discharge receptor and Unknown Unknown importance Very High Very High Impermeable drainage area 1.062 1.592 (ha) Permeable drainage area 2.0 1.8 (ha) Sensitive designated receptor No No Water hardness Hard (201-300 mg/l CaCO3) Hard (201-300 mg/l CaCO3)

Revision C06 Page 319 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Input Baseline Opening Year (2021) Q95 (m3/s) 0.001 0.001 Base Flow Index (BFI) 0.5 0.5

H.1.41 Table H-6 summarises the results of the assessments. It provides results in terms of RST and EQS (EQS, annual averages) which assess the acute and chronic pollution impacts, respectively, on aquatic ecology associated with soluble and sediment bound pollutants. Spillage risk results are the probability of a serious spillage risk occurring from a serious accident that would affect the water environment in terms of a return period. Typically, an annual probability of 1% (i.e. a 1 in 100 chance of a serious pollution incident occurring in any one year) is considered by DMRB as an acceptable risk. Table H-6: HAWRAT Results Assessment Baseline Opening Year (2021) Copper Pass Pass RST Zinc Pass Pass Copper 0.26 - Pass 0.36 - Pass EQS (µg/l)* Zinc 1.12 - Pass 1.53 - Pass

Suspended Solids Test (Tier 1) Pass Pass

Spillage Risk % 0.0006 - Pass 0.0005 - Pass * EQS thresholds are: 7.8 µg/l zinc, 10 µg/l copper for hardness 100-250 mg/l CaCO3 and 28 µg/l for hardness >250 mg/l CaCO3.

H.1.42 The junction passes all of the water quality assessments for both the baseline conditions and the opening year conditions. This would result in a Negligible magnitude of impact from runoff in terms of water quality, and an overall Neutral significance of effects. This assessment was undertaken with very precautionary flow values, which would provide little dilution to runoff, therefore if flow values of receptors were to increase once this information is known then the water quality assessments would still pass. The HAWRAT assessment will be refined upon receipt of detailed drainage data.

Revision C06 Page 320 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Appendix I. Population and Human Health

I.1 Baseline Conditions Population Private Dwellings I.1.1 Near the Scheme, residential properties are found in the main settlements of Beeston, Beeston Hill, Morley, Holbeck, Hunslet, Hunslet Moor, Churwell and Bruntcliffe. These properties are predominantly two-storey dwellings. Taller tower blocks are found at Cottingley Heights and Cottingley Towers (25 storeys) and Crescent Towers/Crescent Grange (17 storeys). The main residential dwellings with potential to be affected by the proposed Scheme are shown in Table I-1 below. In addition, there are several isolated properties and farmsteads within 500 m of the proposed Scheme, particularly to the south of Junction 1. Table I-1: Private Dwellings within 500 m of the proposed Scheme Residential property/properties Junction South of Junction 1 Dwellings to the north of Morley 50-500 m south of the westbound carriageway, north of the (LS27 9**) A643, approx. 2.5 km south west of Junction 1 Dwellings north of Churwell (LS27 250-500 m south of the westbound carriageway, north of 7**) Elland Road, approx. 1.4 km south west of Junction 1 Dwellings west of Beeston 35-500 m south of the westbound carriageway, approx. 600 (Cottingley) (LS11 0**) m south and south west of Junction 1 Junction 1 to Junction 2 Dwellings to north of Beeston 315-500 m south of the westbound carriageway, immediately (LS11 8**) to the south of Elland Road stadium, approx. 500 m east of Junction 1 and 400 m west of Junction 2 Junction 2 to Junction 2a Terraced dwellings on Cross 350 m south of the westbound carriageway, approx. 400 m Flats, north east of Beeston (LS11 south east of Junction 2 8**) Terraced dwellings to south of 20-500 m north of eastbound carriageway, approx. 160 m Holbeck (LS11 0**) east of Junction 2, immediately to the west of Junction 2a Dwellings north of Hunslet Carr, 80-500 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 700 m to Beeston (LS11 8**) the east and south east of Junction 2, 150 m to the south of Junction 2a Junction 2a to Junction 3 Dwellings east of Holbeck (LS11 30-400 m north of eastbound carriageway, approx. 300 m 9**) east of Junction 2a and 550 m west of Junction 3 Dwellings north of Hunslet Carr, 100-500 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 50 m north east of Beeston (LS11 8** & south of Junction 2a and 250 m south of Junction 3 LS11 6**) Junction 3 to Junction 4

Revision C06 Page 321 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Residential property/properties Junction Dwellings north east of Beeston, 45-175 m west of westbound carriageway, approx. 150 m north of Hunslet Moor (LS11 5UL) south of Junction 3 and 150 m north west of Junction 4 Dwellings north east of Beeston, 325 m west of westbound carriageway, approx. 200 m west east of Bewerley Community of Junction 4 School (LS11 5NR) Junction 4 to Junction 5 Dwellings to the east of Beeston 10-450 m west of westbound carriageway, approx. 100 m (LS11 5**) south of Junction 4 and 90 m north west of Junction 5 (east of A563 Dewsbury Road and north of Tunstall Road) Dwellings to the east of Beeston 200 m west of westbound carriageway, approx. 300 m west (LS11 5**) of Junction 5 (east of A563 Dewsbury Road and south of Tunstall Road) Junction 5 Dwellings to south of Hunslet 165-500 m east and north of eastbound carriageway, approx. (LS10 2**) 125 m south east of Junction 5 Junction 7 Dwellings to south of Hunslet 25-225 m north of eastbound carriageway, approx. 50-500 m (LS10 2**) west of Junction 7 Terraced dwellings south of 30-100 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 50-370 m Hunslet (LS10 3**) west of Junction 7

Community Land and Facilities I.1.2 The baseline in the Stage 3 EAR sets out an overview of the community land and facilities within 500 m of the proposed Scheme. Table I-2 and Table I-3 below provide full details of educational establishments and care homes/nursing homes located closest to the proposed Scheme. Table I-2: Main Educational Establishments within 500 m of the proposed Scheme Educational Establishment Junction Nearby Community Area Bruntcliffe Academy 400 m east of westbound carriageway, New Brighton where the M621 and M62 merge at Junction 27 of the M62 Asquith Primary School 3 km west of Junction 1 and 100 m from the New Brighton and westbound carriageway Churwell New Bewerley Community 300 m west of westbound carriageway at Beeston School and Children’s Centre Junction 4, off Dewsbury Road St. Francis of Assisi Catholic 480 m west of westbound carriageway at Beeston Primary School Junction 4, near Dewsbury Road Hunslet Moor Primary School 400 m south west of westbound carriageway Beeston and at Junction 4, near Dewsbury Road Hunslet Leeds City College 220 m south west of westbound carriageway Beeston and at Junction 4, near Dewsbury Road Hunslet South Leeds Academy Between Junction 5 and Junction 6, 100 m Beeston and from westbound carriageway Hunslet

Revision C06 Page 322 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Educational Establishment Junction Nearby Community Area Hunslet Carr Primary School 150 m north of Junction 6 eastbound Hunslet and carriageway Woodhouse Clapgate Primary School 180 m west of the M1 and M621 Junction Middleton and (J43 of M1) Belle Isle Ingram Road Primary School 400 m north east of eastbound carriageway Islington and between Junction 2 and 2a Holbeck Beanstalk Nursery 300 m south of westbound carriageway Beeston between Junction 2a and 3 The Elland Academy 380 m north of eastbound carriageway at Lower Wortley Junction 1, off Gelderd Road and Islington Beeston Primary School 500 m south of westbound carriageway at Beeston Junction 1 Cottingley Primary Academy 800 m west of Junction 1, south of Churwell and westbound carriageway Beeston Little Buttons Nursery 1.7 km west of Junction 1 and 400 m south Churwell of westbound carriageway Churwell Primary School 2 km west of Junction 1 and 450 m south of Churwell westbound carriageway Natural Gas Services (Training) 350 m north of eastbound carriageway at Islington Ltd Junction 2 Beeston Hill Children’s Centre 180 m south of westbound carriageway Holbeck and between Junction 2a and 3 Beeston St Luke’s C of E Primary School 180 m south of westbound carriageway Holbeck and between Junction 2a and 3 Beeston Table I-3: Care/Homes/Nursing Homes within 500 m of the proposed Scheme Care Home/ Nursing Home Location

Stone Gables Residential 500 m north of eastbound carriageway where the M621 and Home M62 merge at Junction 27 Westward Care Ltd 350 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 3 Bismarck Court 450 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 3 Copper Hill Care Home 300 m east of eastbound carriageway at Junction 4 Larchfield Home 450 m east of eastbound carriageway at Junction 4 Victoria House 450 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 6 Fairfax Road Care Home 350 m south of westbound carriageway between Junctions 2 and 2a Aspire Community Benefit 350 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 2 Society Ltd Leeds Housing Concern, 400 m north of eastbound carriageway at Junction 2a Garforth House Octavia House 180 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 6 ASHA Neighbourhood Centre 500 m west of westbound carriageway at Junction 5

Revision C06 Page 323 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Green Space, Open Space and Allotments I.1.3 The Leeds UDP Proposals Map identifies the following protected playing pitches within 500 m: • Elland Road Football Stadium (120 m south of westbound carriageway, 175 m south west of Junction 2) • Playing fields of Matthew Murray High School, which was closed and demolished in 2004 (immediately east of Junction 2) (These pitches form part of a potential development site for Leeds United FC’s new training ground) • Playing pitches at St Luke’s Primary School (40 m south of westbound carriageway, 400 m west of Junction 3) • Playing pitches at New Bewerley Community School (290 m west of Junction 4) • Three Playing pitches approximately 1.3 km-2 km south of Junction 7 of the M621 (Land in Front of 224-234 Ring Road Middleton; playing fields at Clapgate Primary School; playing pitch at Robin Hood Football Club) I.1.4 There are six allotments in the study area, including two allotments either side of the M621 between Junctions 5 and 7. Several areas of designated green space are located along the corridor, especially between Junctions 2 and 4, and around Junction 7. Local Businesses I.1.5 Desk top research has identified a number of potential commercial and industrial business receptors within 500 m of the proposed Scheme. Table I-4: Commercial/Retail Premises within 500 m of the proposed Scheme Commercial Business Junction Nearby settlement Centre 27 Business Park 450 m south of westbound carriageway Howden Clough where the M621 and M62 merge at Junction 27 West Yorkshire Retail Park 200 m south of westbound carriageway Howden Clough where the M621 and M62 merge at Junction 27 Adwalton Business Park 375 m north of eastbound carriageway Adwalton where the M621 and M62 merge at Junction 27 Brewers Fayre and hotel 200 m north of eastbound carriageway Drighlington where the M621 and M62 merge at Junction 27 Leeds Business Park 100 m south of westbound carriageway, Bruntcliffe south of Junction 1 Asquith Avenue Business 390 m north west of eastbound Gildersome Park carriageway, south of Junction 1 Woodlands Hotel 225 m north of eastbound carriageway, Gildersome south of Junction 1

Revision C06 Page 324 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Commercial Business Junction Nearby settlement Junction 1 Retail Park Immediately to the south of Junction 1, Beeston off westbound carriageway City West One Office Park 70 m north of eastbound carriageway, at Near Elland Junction 1 Apex Business Park 200 m north of eastbound carriageway, Apex Way, west of at Junction 3 Pottery Field Crown Point Shopping Park 400 m north of eastbound carriageway, Leeds at Junction 3 Leeds Business Park 200 m east of eastbound carriageway, Hunslet north east of Junction 4 City South Retail Park 100 m east of eastbound carriageway, at South of Hunslet Junction 5

Table I-5: Industrial Premises within 500 m of the proposed Scheme Industrial Business Junction Nearby Settlement Oakwell Industrial Park 500 m south of westbound carriageway Howden Clough where the M621 and M62 merge at Junction 27 Bracken Park 300 m north of eastbound carriageway, Gildersome south of Junction 1 Treefield Industrial Estate 500 m north of eastbound carriageway, Gildersome south of Junction 1 Gildersome Spur 250 m north of eastbound carriageway, Gildersome south of Junction 1 Highcliffe Industrial Estate 270 m south east of westbound Morley carriageway, south of Junction 1 Leeds 27 Industrial Estate 150 m east of westbound carriageway, Morley south of Junction 1 Elland Road Industrial Park Immediately to the south of the Beeston westbound approach to Junction 1 Industrial Estate, off Gelderd 120 m north of eastbound carriageway, Elland Road immediately west of Junction 1 Latchmore Road Industrial 110 m north of eastbound carriageway, West of Holbeck Estate approx. 420 m west of Junction 2 Gelderd Trading Estate 450 m north of eastbound carriageway at Gelderd Junction 2 Industrial Estate 100 m east of eastbound carriageway, Hunslet east of Junction 4 Brooklands Court Industrial 80 m west of westbound carriageway, Beeston Estate south west of Junction 5 Lenton Drive Industrial 200 m south west of westbound Beeston Estate carriageway, between Junctions 5 and 6 Old Run Road Warehouses 100 m north of eastbound carriageway, Hunslet north of Junction 6

Revision C06 Page 325 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Industrial Business Junction Nearby Settlement Midland Road Industrial 400 m north of eastbound carriageway, Hunslet Estate north west of Junction 7 Pepper Road Industrial 225 m north of eastbound carriageway, Hunslet Estate north west of Junction 7 Queen Street and Pontefract 260 m north east of eastbound Hunslet Road carriageway, north west of Junction 7 Valley Farm Road 125 m east of eastbound carriageway, Rothwell Haigh east of Junction 7

Agricultural Land as Rural Enterprises I.1.6 There are several areas of agricultural land operating as rural enterprises within 500 m of the proposed Scheme. Deanacres Farm, Hill Top Farm and Snitties Farm are located closest to the proposed Scheme. Table I-6: Agricultural Land as Rural Enterprises within 500 m of the proposed Scheme Farmsteads Junction

Wyre Hall Farm 475 m north of eastbound carriageway where the M621 and M62 merge at Junction 27 Greystone Farm 250 m north of eastbound carriageway where the M621 and M62 merge at Junction 27 Hill Top Farm 270 m south of westbound carriageway, south of Junction 1

Thorn Farm 110 m south of westbound carriageway, south of Junction 1

Deanacres Farm 50 m north of eastbound carriageway, south of Junction 1

Bellroyd Farm 320 m north of eastbound carriageway, south of Junction 1

Hill Top Farm 70 m north of eastbound carriageway, south of Junction 1

Snittles Farm 70 m south of westbound carriageway, south of Junction 1

Windmill Hill Crow Nest farm 500 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 1

Heigh House Farm 250 m east of eastbound carriageway, south of Junction 7

Glebe Farm 500 m east of eastbound carriageway, south of Junction 7

Hopes Farm 180 m east of eastbound carriageway, south of Junction 7

Revision C06 Page 326 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Development Land I.1.7 The Leeds UDP Policy Maps set out land that is allocated or protected within the planning system. Table I-7: Leeds UDP Site Allocations Site Allocation reference/details Address/Allocation details

E3B:7 Land at Gildersome Spur (6.25ha) between Allocated for industry/warehousing and ancillary Wakefield Road and the M621. offices. North of eastbound carriageway, near to the Note: the eastern part of the site has been M62 junction developed. The western part had an application withdrawn for a petrol station with ancillary facilities in Nov 2017 (Planning application ref. 16/06477/FUL) E4:14 Nepshaw Lane/Asquith Avenue, Gildersome. Allocated for Economic use Adjacent to eastbound carriageway, approx. 3 km south west of Junction 1 Note: site remains undeveloped. Planning permission granted in 2015 for infrastructure works and new road layout (Planning application ref. 15/02557/RM) E3B:9 Land at Bruntcliffe Lane (13ha) Protected land for manufacturing, warehousing Approx. 250 m south of westbound carriageway, and ancillary uses approx. 3.1 km south west of Junction 1 Note: some manufacturing/commercial uses now on site E3A:27 Gelderd Road Site with outstanding industrial planning Approx. 275 m north of eastbound carriageway, permission approx. 1 km south west of Junction 1 Note: industrial development completed H3-1A.24 Woodacre Green (1.2 ha) Housing proposal site Approx. 185 m south of westbound carriageway, Note: residential development completed approx. 800 m south west of Junction 1 E4:35 Gelderd Road, Wortley (4.9 ha) Allocated for Employment use Immediately adjacent to eastbound carriageway, Note: site undeveloped approx. 600 m south west of Junction 1 E4:36 Royds Lane, Wortley (3.2 ha) Allocated for Employment use Approx. 450 m north west of Junction 1, approx. Note: planning permission granted in September 375 m north west of eastbound carriageway 2014 for 154 residential dwellings (Planning application ref. 14/00521/RM). Development has commenced. E3C:13 Gelderd Road, adjacent Highfield Farm, Beeston Committed for Employment development (2.4 ha) Note: warehousing units completed Approx. 265 m north west of eastbound carriageway and Junction 1 E4:29 Gelderd Road/Ring Road, Holbeck (8.7 ha) Allocated for Employment use Immediately to the north of Junction 1, approx. 30 m north of eastbound carriageway

Revision C06 Page 327 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Site Allocation reference/details Address/Allocation details Note: southern part of site developed for office, commercial and hotel. Northern part undeveloped E4:30 Elland Road, Beeston (1.5 ha) Allocated for Employment use Approx. 140 m south of westbound carriageway Note: Industrial and commercial development at Junction 2 completed E3C:18 Brown Lane, Holbeck (1.8 ha) Committed for Employment development Approx. 230 m north of Junction 1 and Note: development completed eastbound carriageway E3C:17 Parkside Lane, Beeston (1 ha) Committed for Employment development Approx. 470 m south west of westbound Note: offices and workshops completed carriageway, west of Junction 7 H3-3A.16 West Grange Road, Belle Isle Housing allocation (potential for 35 dwellings) Approx. 330 m south of westbound carriageway, Note: development completed approx. 1 km west of Junction 7 H3-3A.17 Urn Farm, Belle Isle Housing allocation (potential for 100 dwellings) Approx. 320 m west of westbound carriageway, Note: expired planning permission for residential approx. 400 m south west of Junction 7 development. No development implemented H3-3A.19 Westbrook Lane/Brownberrie Lane, Horsforth Housing allocation (potential for 75 dwellings) Approx. 240 m west of westbound carriageway, Note: development completed approx. 600 m south of Junction 7 E4:28 Stourton North, Hunslet (6 ha) Allocated for Employment use Adjacent to Junction 7, approx. 35 m south of Note: the site is subject to a proposed Park and westbound carriageway Ride Facility at Stourton. This land is also allocated for a Key Business Park. E4:25 North of Pontefract Road, Bell Hill, Stourton (2.4 Allocated for Employment use ha) Note: expired (old) permissions for residential Adjacent to eastbound carriageway, approx. 250 dwellings and industrial works. No development m south of Junction 7 implemented E4:26 South of Potefract Road, bell Hill, Stourton (2 Allocated for Employment use sites) (21.5 ha) Note: northern part of the site has been Approx. 25 m east of eastbound carriageway, developed for industrial and office use. The approx. 500 m south of Junction 7 southern part remains undeveloped E3A:22 Thwaite Gate and Wakefield Road Site with planning permission for Employment Approx. 250 m north of eastbound carriageway development at Junction 7 Note: commercial development completed E3A:16 Queen Street, Stourton Site with planning permission for Employment Approx. 220 m east of eastbound carriageway at development Junction 7 Note: industrial development completed

Revision C06 Page 328 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

I.1.8 The Site Allocations Plan (SAP) is a key document in the Local Plan for Leeds. The SAP identifies sites for housing, employment, retail and greenspace to ensure that enough land is available in appropriate locations to meet the growth targets set out in the Core Strategy. The Site Allocations Plan is expected to be adopted in Summer 2019. A review of the submitted Site Allocations confirms the following allocations within the wider study area. Table I-8: Leeds Site Allocations Plan (SAP) Site reference and address Details of allocation MX1-20 Mixed Use allocation (2.9 ha, with Jack Lane/Swan Street LS10 capacity for 95,570 sq. m of employment uses and 296 Approx. 250 m north east of eastbound carriageway, residential dwellings) approx. 300 m from Junctions 3 and 4 HG-263 Housing allocation (with potential Runswick Place LS11 for 42 dwellings) Approx. 50 m north of eastbound carriageway, adjacent to Junction 2a HG1-264 Housing allocation (with potential 86 Elland Road, Holbeck, Leeds, LS11 0AB for 8 dwellings) Approx. 450 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 1.5 km south west of Junction 2 HG1-265 Housing allocation (with potential Fairfax Road, LS11 for 21 dwellings) Approx. 275 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 550 m east of Junction 2 HG1-266 Housing allocation (with potential St Luke's Green, LS11 for 19 dwellings) Approx. 270 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 300 m south east of Junction 2a HG1-267 Housing allocation (with potential Beeston Road - Shaftesbury House LS11 for 8 dwellings) Approx. 420 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 600 m south east of Junction 2 HG1-268 Housing allocation (with potential Coupland Road LS11 for 10 dwellings) Approx. 325 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 425 m south east of Junction 2a HG1-269 Housing allocation (with potential Folly Lane LS11 for 18 dwellings) Approx. 350 m south of westbound carriageway, at Junction 3 HG1-271 Housing allocation (with potential Malvern Rise LS11 for 60 dwellings) Approx. 250 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 2a HG1-272 Housing allocation (with potential Malvern Road LS11 for 21 dwellings) Approx. 300 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 2a

Revision C06 Page 329 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Site reference and address Details of allocation HG1-273 Housing allocation (with potential Coupland Place LS11 for 8 dwellings) Approx. 425 m south of westbound carriageway at Junction 3 HG1-275 Housing allocation (with potential Bismarck Street, LS11 for 70 dwellings) Approx. 420 m west of Junction 4 HG1-498 Housing allocation (with potential Garnet Grove, Beeston, Leeds, LS11 5JX for 25 dwellings) Approx. 240 m west of westbound carriageway, approx. 300 m to Junction 5 HG1-504 Housing allocation (with potential Site of Former Spotted Cow, Top Moor Side, Holbeck, for 14 dwellings) Leeds, LS11 9LH Approx. 250 m north of eastbound carriageway at Junction 2a HG2-114 Housing allocation (with potential Cambrian Street, LS11 for 37 dwellings) Approx. 130 m south east of westbound carriageway at Junction 2a HG1-278 Housing allocation (with potential Pepper Road LS10 for 12 dwellings) Approx. 300 m to north of eastbound carriageway at Junction 3 HG1-280 Housing allocation (with potential West Grange Road (Ph 2) LS10 for 35 dwellings) Approx. 300 m south of westbound carriageway, approx. 900 m west of Junction 7 HG1-281 Housing allocation (with potential Middleton Road - Urn Farm LS10 for 100 dwellings) Approx. 600 m west of westbound and Junction 7 EG2-13 General Employment allocation Tulip Street/Beza Street (0.5 hectares) Approx. 250 m east of eastbound carriageway and Junction 5

Revision C06 Page 330 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Non-Motorised Users I.1.9 The definitive PRoW Map for Leeds shows there are numerous existing PRoW and permissive or informal NMU routes within 500 m radius, some of which cross or interact with the M621 corridor. A list of PRoW within the study area is shown in Table I-9 below. Table I-9: PRoW within 500 m of the proposed Scheme PROW Description

Junction 1 Definitive Footpath commencing from point, SE 2779 3093, at the junction with Elland Footpath LEEDS Way and proceeding in a west south westerly and then a west north 176 westerly direction to a point, SE 2772 3091, at the junction with Ring Road Beeston Definitive Footpath commences in Cottingley Drive, opposite No. 76 and proceeds in Footpath LEEDS a north westerly direction with tunnel under the Motorway then turns in a 178 north easterly direction thence northerly to Royds Farm Road Definitive Footpath commencing at Royds Lane (adjoining No. 1 Royds Hall Terrace) Footpath LEEDS and proceeding in a southerly direction under a railway line and over a loop 172 line to Gelderd Road. Recommences on the south side of Gelderd Road (approximately 95 metres to the south Definitive Footpath commences in the Ring Road (Beeston) south of the Drysalters Footpath LEEDS public house and proceeds in a northerly direction thence north east and 175 south east to junction with railway bridge west of Crow Nest Lane. Junction 2 Definitive Footpath commencing from a point, SE 2893 3163 at the junction with Footpath LEEDS Elland Road and proceeding in a south south easterly and then a south CITY 29 westerly direction to a point, SE 2891 3154 south east of Fairway Court Definitive Footpath commencing from a point, SE 2789 3197, at the junction with Footpath LEEDS Leeds Footpath No. 196 and proceeding in an east south easterly direction CITY 79 to a point, SE 2797 3195 at the junction with Gelderd Road opposite Low Fields Road Junction 3

Definitive Footpath commencing from a point, SE 2946 3213, at the junction with Footpath LEEDS Jenkinson Lawn and proceeding in a south south east and then an east CITY 12 south-east direction to a point SE 2949 3208 at the junction with Holbeck Moor Road Definitive Footpath commencing from a point, SE 2998 3219, at the junction with the Footpath LEEDS A653 Dewsbury Road and proceeding in an east south easterly direction to CITY 30 a point, SE 3007 3217 at the base of a bridge over the railway line Definitive Footpath commencing from a point, SE 3005 3217, at the jct with Leeds Footpath City Footpath 30 and proceeding in a north north easterly, then an easterly LEEDS CITY 31 and finally a south easterly direction to a point, SE 3007 3217 at the jct with Leeds City Footpath 30 Junction 4

Definitive Footpath commencing from a point, SE 3009 3138 at the junction with Footpath LEEDS Dewsbury Road opposite number 193/195 and proceeding in a westerly and CITY 24 then a north westerly direction to a point, SE 3005 3139, at the eastern corner of Lady Pit Lane allotment gardens Junction 5

Revision C06 Page 331 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

PROW Description

Definitive Footpath commencing from a point, SE 3089 3123, behind Unit 4 Tulip Footpath LEEDS Retail Park and proceeding in a generally south easterly and then a west CITY 34 south westerly direction to a point, SE 3075 3108, at the junction with Tulip Street Junction 7 Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with the Leeds-Exeter Road A61 at the Footpath Motorway Intersection at Stourton and proceeding southward and westward ROTHWELL 2 to the Leeds boundary at Hunslet Cemetery. Definitive Footpath commencing at Junction of Pontefract Lane and Thwaite Gate Footpath (A639) and proceeding in an easterly direction along Thwaite Lane to ROTHWELL 1 Skelton Grange Road, together with a spur leading to the Tow Path of the Aire and Calder Navigation. Definitive Footpath commences in East Grange Drive (opposite No. 26) and proceeds Footpath LEEDS ina north westerly direction to the M1 Motorway then turns in a south 199 westerly direction to junction with South View Road, adjoining No. 6 Southfield Mount. Definitive Footpath commencing from a point, SE 3121 3067, at the junction with Footpath LEEDS Sandon Mount alongside number 20 and proceeding in an easterly direction CITY 108 to a point, SE 3124 3068 at the junction with Woodhouse Hill Road alongside Hunslet Carr Primary School South of Junction 1 Definitive Footpath commencing from, SE 2756 3028, alongside Dulverton Ct and Footpath LEEDS proceeding in a west south westerly, then a westerly, then a west south 279 westerly, then a west north westerly, and finally a south westerly to, SE 2741 3024, alongside 139 Cottingley Drive Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with Path No. 27 south of the Railway Footpath and proceeding eastward to its junction with Old Road with a branch MORLEY 31 proceeding northward to the footbridge across the Railway at the Leeds Boundary. Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with Daffil Avenue and proceeding in a Footpath north easterly and north westerly direction to the Leeds Boundary at Farnley MORLEY 40 Wood Beck south of Snittles Farm Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with Path No. 27 and proceeding north Footpath eastward and south eastward to its junction with Old Road with a branch (a) MORLEY 30 proceeding northward to its junction with Path No. 31 and (b) a branch proceeding westward to its junction Definitive Footpath along Smools Lane commencing at its junction with Elland Road Footpath (A643) at Churwell and proceeding in a north westerly direction, under the MORLEY 27 M621, thence northward to its junction with Geldard Road (A62) at the Leeds Boundary Definitive Footpath known as Rooms commencing at its junction with Path No. 27 and Footpath proceeding westward via New Stables to its junction with Rooms Lane. MORLEY 28 Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with Path No. 27 and proceeding Footpath westward via Hill Top Farm to its junction with Rooms Lane. MORLEY 29 Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with Rooms Lane and proceeding Footpath westward to its junction with Springfield Lane at Springfield Mills MORLEY 41

Revision C06 Page 332 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

PROW Description

Definitive Byway Byway open to all traffic, known as Nepshaw Lane, commencing at its MORLEY 52 junction with the Wakefield Road (A650) at Ogdens Buildings, and proceeding in a north easterly direction to its junction with the Asquith Avenue. Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with Path No. 43 and proceeding Footpath eastward thence south east to adopted Highway north of M621 MORLEY 51 Definitive Footpath along Stone Pitts Lane commencing at its junction with Gelderd Footpath Road (A62) opposite College Road and proceeding southward to its junction MORLEY 43 with Nepshaw Lane near Ogdens Buildings, with a branch known as Windmill Lane proceeding westward Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with Geldard Road (A62) and Footpath proceeding southward to its junction with the Wakefield, Skipton, Kendal MORLEY 50 Trunk Road 65 opposite Goffs Buildings. Definitive Footpath along Quaker Lane commencing at its junction with Street Lane Footpath and proceeding eastward thence southward to its junction with Geldard MORLEY 46 Road (A62) opposite entrance to disused colliery near Fishmeal Works with a branch footpath proceeding northward Definitive Footpath commencing at its junction with the Wakefield-Bradford Trunk Footpath Road opposite Greystone Farm and proceeding in a south easterly direction MORLEY 49 to the Motorway Table Source: PROW Maps – Council website 2017

I.1.10 The National Cycle Network (NCN) has multiple designated routes across the study corridor which largely follow the same paths as the PRoW. There are significant NCN provisions between Junction 2 and Junction 5, on either side of the motorway. The majority of NCN’s are located away from the existing highways alignment. Those located at Junctions 3 and 4 are generally adjacent to the eastbound carriageway. I.1.11 The PRoW and NCN provide community linkages and access routes between different communities and associated facilities along the M621 corridor. This includes the communities of Beeston, Hunslet Carr and Belle Isle to the south of the westbound carriageway, and Holbeck and Hunslet to the north of the eastbound carriageway. Human Health I.1.12 The information below sets out an overview of the existing baseline conditions for physical, mental and social wellbeing of relevance for the proposed Scheme. It presents a high-level review of existing conditions, using available secondary data, including the ‘best fit’ of Middle Super Output Areas (MSOAs) that cover the extent of the proposed Scheme and NHS clinical areas, as follows: • ONS • Census 2011 • BHF 2018 • DfT • NHS Digital Mental Health Services Data Set monthly report • Public Health England

Revision C06 Page 333 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

I.1.13 The baseline identifies particular priority groups (e.g. children and adolescents, women, older people, people who are disabled and/or with other health problems, those in low income groups/people without access to a car, adults/working age people) because changes to overall health determinants can have greater or lesser effects on population sub-groups depending on, for example, their age, health, status, income and social support. Sensitive groups are more likely to be susceptible to the impacts of the proposed Scheme than other social groups. Demographic Profile Table I-10: Population (2011 and 2017) Geography Population % Under 16 % over 65 Year Study Area 97,850 18.6% 12.4% 2011 Kirklees 437,100 19.0% 15.4% 2017 Leeds 784,800 20.4% 17.1% 2017 Yorkshire and the Humber 5,450,100 19.6% 17.2% 2017 England 53,012,456 18.9% 16.3% 2017 Table Source: ONS Population Estimates and Census

I.1.14 Table I-10 above shows that the total population for the study area in 2011 was 97,850 (Census 2011). The population profile shows that 18.6% of the population were aged under 16, which is below the figure for Leeds, Kirklees and the Yorkshire and Humber Region, and slightly below the England average. The proportion of the population aged 65 and over is significantly less (12.4%) than Leeds, Kirklees and the England average (16.3%) (ONS Population Estimates and Census). General Health Table I-11: General Health of Residents (2011) Geography Very good Good health Fair health (%) Bad health (%) Very bad health health (%) (%) (%) Study Area 46.5% 34.8% 12.8% 4.5% 1.3% Kirklees 45.5% 35.0% 13.7% 4.5% 1.3% Leeds 48.1% 33.8% 12.7% 4.2% 1.2% Leeds City 46.2% 34.4% 13.6% 4.5% 1.3% Region LEP England 47.2% 34.2% 13.1% 4.2% 1.2% Table Source: Census 2011

I.1.15 As indicated in Table I-11 above, the general health of residents in the study area is similar to the England average in all categories, and generally similar to Leeds and Kirklees. Almost half of the population of the study area (46.5%) had very good health, 34.8% had good health, 4.5% had bad health and 1.3% had very bad health (Census 2011). Bad health within the study area (4.5%) is slightly higher than the England average (4.2%).

Revision C06 Page 334 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Table I-12: Long-term Health Problem or Disability of Residents (2011) Geography Day-to-day activities Day-to-day activities Day-to-day activities limited a lot (%) limited a little (%) not limited (%)

Study Area 8.0% 8.4% 83.6% Kirklees 8.4% 9.3% 82.3% Leeds 7.9% 8.9% 83.3% Leeds City Region LEP 8.7% 9.4% 81.9% England 8.3% 9.3% 82.4% Table Source: Census 2011

I.1.16 Table I-12 above shows that limiting long term illness or disability is less prevalent in the study area compared to that of Leeds, Kirklees and the England average. 16.4% of study area residents reported a limiting long-term illness or disability, compared with 17.6% for England, 17.7% for Kirklees and 16.8% for Leeds (Census 2011). Table I-13: Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) death rates per 100,000 Geography Men Women Total

Kirklees 346.2644 226.6155 279.6865 Leeds 365.8674 226.838 287.9161 Yorkshire and the Humber 345.5591 222.7275 276.9234 England 311.0019 205.389 252.6959 Table Source: BHF 2018 (standardised)

I.1.17 No statistics relating to mortality rates because of cardiovascular disease are available for the study area itself. Table I-13 above highlights that mortality rates overall from cardiovascular disease for Leeds (280 per 100,000) and Kirklees (288) are greater than the average for England (253). Mortality rates from cardiovascular disease generally are over 50% more prevalent in men than women, across all areas. I.1.18 The Leeds 2017 Air Quality Annual Status Report (ASR) notes ‘Air pollution is associated with a number of adverse health impacts. It is recognised as a contributing factor in the onset of heart disease and cancer. Additionally, air pollution particularly affects the most sensitive in society: children and older people, and those with heart and lung conditions. There is also often a strong correlation with equalities issues, because areas with poor air quality are also often the less affluent areas’. I.1.19 The Air Quality technical chapter notes there is only one air quality management area (AQMA) within the air quality study area, the Tilbury’s AQMA (properties adjacent to the eastbound slip road of Junction 2 of the M621 and the A653 Ingram Road Distributor). This was designated due to exceedances of the annual mean N2 UK AQS objective.

Revision C06 Page 335 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Table I-14: Reported ROAD casualties 2012-2016 averages Geography 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Kirklees 1456 1215 1109 1332 1127 Leeds 2748 2433 2532 2664 2549 England 174583 163844 175029 167557 163646 Table Source: DfT

I.1.20 There was an average of 2,549 and 1,127 reported road casualties in Leeds and Kirklees respectively in 2016, as set out in Table I-14 above (DfT statistics). There has been a significant decrease in the average number of reported road casualties over the period 2012-2016 for Kirklees, down by 22.6%, compared to a decrease in England of approximately 6%. The number of reported casualties in Leeds reduced by around 7% over the same period, similar to the England average. Table I-15: Index of Multiple Deprivation (2015) Geography IMD - Rank of average score IMD - Proportion of LSOAs in most deprived 10% nationally Kirklees 94 0.0888 Leeds 70 0.2178 Table Source: ONS 2015

I.1.21 Leeds and Kirklees witness relatively high levels of deprivation, as set out in Table I-15 above. Leeds City Council and Kirklees Council rank 70th and 94th respectively out of 326 local authorities in the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation (where 1 is the most deprived and 326 the least deprived) (ONS 2015). According to the IMD, around 150,000 people in Leeds are reported to be living in areas ranked amongst the most deprived 10% nationally, and this represents over 20% of the city’s population. Table I-16: Proportion of Resident Population aged 16-64 claiming Job Seekers Allowance Geography May 2014 (%) May 2015 (%) May 2016 (%) May 2017 (%) May 2018 (%)

Kirklees 3.4% 2.4% 1.6% 1.5% 0.9% Leeds 3.7% 2.7% 2.0% 1.6% 1.7% Leeds City 3.3% 2.3% 1.7% 1.4% 1.3% Region LEP England 2.5% 1.7% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% Table Source: ONS NOMIS 2018

I.1.22 Kirklees has a lower unemployment rate of 0.9% (May 2018 base date, ONS NOMIS 2018), compared to the average for England (1.1%), as provided in Table I-16 above. This is a significant improvement on previous years, where the unemployment rate was consistently higher than the England average. Leeds has a relatively high unemployment rate (1.7%) which is over 50% higher than the average for England. Unemployment rates have generally reduced year-on-year between 2014 and 2018, reflecting the general trend for England, albeit the rate in Leeds increased marginally in 2018 from the 2017 figure.

Revision C06 Page 336 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Table I-17: Proportion of Resident Population aged 16-64 claiming benefits (Nov 2016) Geography Job ESA and Lone Carer Others on Disabled Bereaved Total % seeker incapacity parent (%) income (%) (%) (%) benefits (%) related (%) benefit (%) Kirklees 1.4% 6.6% 1.1% 1.9% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 12.3% Leeds 1.5% 6.3% 1.3% 1.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 11.6% Leeds City 1.3% 6.5% 1.1% 1.9% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2% 12.1% Region LEP England 1.1% 5.8% 1.0% 1.7% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2% 10.7% Table Source: ONS NOMIS 2018

I.1.23 As illustrated in Table I-17 above, the proportion of residents of working age claiming benefits in Kirklees and Leeds (12.3% and 11.6% respectively) are both higher than the average for England (10.7%) (ONS NOMIS 2018). The proportion of residents claiming ESA and incapacity benefits (6.6% and 6.3% respectively) is also higher than the England average (5.8%). Table I-18: Mental Health admissions to hospital rate per 100,000 population Geography Rate

England 87.5 Yorkshire and Humber NHS region 74.8 NHS Hull CCG 117.6 NHS Leeds North CCG 76 NHS Leeds South and East CCG 133.8 NHS Leeds West CCG 90.6 NHS North Kirklees CCG 82.7 NHS Wakefield CCG 67.6 Table Source: NHS Digital Mental Health Services Data Set monthly reports

I.1.24 For the purposes of mental health assessment, the wider study area for the proposed Scheme predominantly encompasses the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area for Leeds South and East, some parts of Leeds West CCG, and smaller areas falling within Leeds North CCG and North Kirklees CCG. I.1.25 As provided in Table I-18 above, the mental health admission rate for Leeds South and East, which includes many of the settlements within the core and wider study area, is significantly higher (133.8 per 100,000 population) than the average for England (87.5). Mental health admissions for Leeds West (90.6) is slightly higher than the average for England, whilst North Kirklees (82.7) and Leeds North (76) are lower than the England average.

Revision C06 Page 337 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Table I-19: Public Health Profile for Leeds and Kirklees unitary authority areas Leeds Kirklees England Indicator Names Period Local Local Value Local Count Local Eng ValueEng Eng best Count Value worst Life Expectancy (Male) 2014-16 n/a 78.2 n/a 78.8 79.5 74.2 83.7 Life Expectancy (Female) 2014-16 n/a 82.2 n/a 82.3 83.1 79.4 86.8 Life Expectancy (most deprived/least 2014-16 12.7 years lower for men 8.8 years lower for men 9.3 years lower for men deprived) 9.0 years lower for 6.4 years lower for women 7.4 years lower for women women Under 75 mortality rates: all causes 2014-16 6,561 378.7 3,802 351.3 333.8 545.7 215.2 Under 75 mortality rates: cardiovascular 2014-16 1,483 87.8 849 79.6 73.5 141.3 42.3

Under 75 mortality rates: cancer 2014-16 2,557 151.3 1,520 141.7 136.8 195.3 99.1

Suicide rates 2014-16 220 10.9 112 10.0 9.9 18.3 4.6

death Lifeexpectancy andcause of Killed and seriously injured on roads 2014-16 1,003 43.2 479 36.8 39.7 110.4 13.5 Hospital stays for self-harm 2016/17 2,036 244.8 635 143.6 185.3 578.9 50.6 Cancer diagnosed at early stage 2016 1,502 53.7 800 50.0 52.6 39.3 61.9

Diabetes diagnosis (aged 17+) 2017 n/a 75.8 n/a 76.5 77.1 54.3 96.3

Dementia diagnosis (aged 65+) 2017 5,987 73.8 3,067 70.2 67.9 45.1 90.8

Health Injuriesand Ill Alcohol specific hospital stays (under 2014/15 - 179 36.7 56 18.9 34.2 100 6.5 18s) 2016/17 Alcohol related harm hospital stays 2016/17 4,727 661.8 2,719 659.7 636.4 1151.1 388.2 Smoking prevalence in adults (aged 18+) 2017 102,864 16.7 57,328 17.1 14.9 24.8 4.6 Physically active adults (aged 19+) 2016/17 n/a 66.4 n/a 61.0 66.0 53.3 78.8

Excess weight in adults (aged 18+) 2016/17 n/a 64.2 n/a 64.9 61.3 74.9 40.5 BehaviouralRisk Factors

Under 18 conceptions 2016 330 27.9 175 22.6 18.8 36.7 3.3

d d heal th Chil

Revision C06 Page 338 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Smoking status at time of delivery 2016/17 991 10.2 601 12.4 10.7 28.1 2.3 Breastfeeding initiation 2016/17 6,877 71.1 3,854 74.9 74.5 37.9 96.7 Infant mortality rate 2014-16 134 4.4 68 4.2 3.9 7.9 0.0 Obese children (aged 10-11) 2016/17 1,499 19.3 1,081 21.1 20.0 29.2 8.8

Deprivation score (IMD 2015) 2015 n/a 26.6 n/a 24.0 21.8 42.0 5.0 Smoking prevalence: routine and manual 2017 n/a 27.4 n/a 29.3 25.7 48.7 5.1

occupations Inequalities Children in low income families (under 2015 28,150 19.6 14,865 17.3 16.8 30.5 5.7 16s) GCSEs achieved 2015/16 3,990 54.8 2,664 56.3 57.8 44.8 78.7 Employment rate (aged 16-64) 2016/17 380,000 74.8 195,000 71.1 74.4 59.8 88.5

Statutory homelessness 2016/17 1,027 3.1 24 0.1 0.8

Violent crime (violent offences) 2016/17 24,221 31.3 10,565 24.3 20.0 42.2 5.7

health Widerdeterminants of Excess winter deaths Aug 2013- 1,059 17.2 681 19.4 17.9 30.3 6.3 Jul 2018 New cases sexually transmitted infections 2017 4,218 811.3 1,998 720.8 793.8 3215.3 266.6

New cases tuberculosis 2014-16 267 11.5 216 16.6 10.9 69 0

protection Health Table Source: Public Health England - Leeds Unitary Authority - Local Authority Health Profile 2018; Public Health England - Leeds Unitary Authority - Local Authority Health Profile 2018

* Note: Key to table - red indicates worse than the national average; green indicates better than the national average, with coloured gradings.

Revision C06 Page 339 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Local Health Determinants Public Health I.1.26 Most people in the wider study area, Leeds and Kirklees consider their health to be good or very good and are free from long-term health problems or disabilities - at rates of 81.3%, 81.9% and 80.5% respectively, broadly consistent with the Leeds City Region LEP and national averages. General health within the wider study area is similar to the national average, Leeds and Kirklees. Bad health is slightly higher than the England average. Limiting long-term illness or disability is less prevalent in the wider study area compared to the national average, Leeds and Kirklees. I.1.27 Leeds and Kirklees perform worse than the national average on a number of mortality measures, including male and female life expectancy, under 75 mortality rates and suicide rates. The highest suicide rate in Leeds is in the 35-64 age range, with suicide rates higher in under-65s than regional and national rates. The under 75 mortality rates for cancer and cardiovascular disease, at 151.3 and 87.8 per 100,000 in 2014-16 are notably higher in Leeds than the national averages (136.8 and 73.5 respectively). Deaths from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the second largest cause of potential years of life lost (PYLL) in Leeds. They account for around a quarter of all deaths. Cancer accounts for over 30% of the life expectancy gap between Leeds and the rest of England. Cancer and cardiovascular rates in Kirklees (141.7 and 79.6 respectively) are also higher than the national average. I.1.28 Deaths from respiratory disease are the third single cause of PYLL in Leeds. Rates are significantly higher in deprived areas than the non-deprived part of Leeds. I.1.29 Infant mortality and dementia diagnosis are higher in Leeds and Kirklees than the national average. I.1.30 The rate of people killed or seriously injured on the roads in Leeds (at 43.2 per 100,000 population compared with 39.7 across England) is higher than the national average. The rate of people killed or seriously injured on the roads in Kirklees (at 36.8 per 100,000 population) is lower than the national average. There were 2,203 and 970 reported road casualties (all casualties) in Leeds and Kirklees respectively in 2017. There has been a significant decrease in reported road traffic accidents in Kirklees between 2012 and 2016 (down 33.3%) and decrease in reported road accidents in Leeds (down 19.8%) over the same period. In line with national trends, however, cycle casualties have not improved, a trend that reflects greater usage of this mode of travel. I.1.31 The Personal Injury Accidents in Leeds - Sites for Concern (2012-2016) document produced by Leeds City Council in October 2017, identified the M621 junctions with Wakefield Road (Stourton roundabout) (Junction 7) and with Elland Road (Junction 2). The majority of these collisions were the result of nose-to-tail collisions and lane changing. I.1.32 Leeds and Kirklees suffer relatively poor physical health in the following respects: excess weight in adults (aged 18+), smoking prevalence, alcohol related harm hospital stays, new cases of tuberculosis and under 18 conception rates, which are above national trends. Leeds also suffers higher than average incidences of sexually-transmitted disease (Kirklees is below average). Many of these are lifestyle related choices. The proportion of physically active adults in Kirklees

Revision C06 Page 340 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

(61%) is lower than the national average (66%), whilst in Leeds (66.4%) it is broadly in line with the national trend. That said, 1 in 5 adults in Leeds is inactive and physical activity in Leeds is the 4th largest cause of disease and disability. Diabetes diagnosis in Leeds and Kirklees is broadly in line with the national average. I.1.33 Statistics from Public Health England show that 21.1% and 19.1% of Year 6 pupils were declared obese in Kirklees and Leeds respectively, between April 2016 and March 2017, which is above and below the national average (20%). Over one-third of Year 6 pupils were declared overweight and obese in both areas. I.1.34 The smoking rate amongst the adult population of Kirklees (17.1%) and Leeds (16.7%) exceeds the national rate of approximately 15% (2017). Accordingly, smoking attributable hospital admissions (1,914 and 1,726 per 100,000 population in people aged 35 and over in Kirklees and Leeds respectively) and smoking related deaths (292 and 332 per 100,000 population in people aged 35 and over in Kirklees and Leeds respectively) exceed the national rates (1685 and 272 respectively). I.1.35 In Kirklees, 4 in 10 adults walk/cycle in a typical week (only 4% cycle) and 1 in 3 young people travel actively (bike or walk) to school. 1 in 3 people commute less than 5 km to work by car. Half of people perceive problems with traffic (speeding, parking etc.) whilst 1 in 26 annual deaths in people over the age of 30 are attributable to air pollution. Mental Health and Social Wellbeing I.1.36 Mental health admissions rates to hospital in Leeds South and East CCG (which covers most of the core and wider study areas) are significantly higher (1.338 per 100,000 population) than the average for England (0.875). Mental health admission rates for Leeds West CCG (0.906) is slightly higher than the England average, with North Kirklees CCG and Leeds North CCG being lower28. It is estimated that 105,000 people in Leeds suffer from anxiety and depression. People with severe mental health illness die on average 15-20 years earlier than the rest of the population in Leeds29. I.1.37 Response from the Healthy Community Surveys in Leeds found that, 80% of adults said they are ‘satisfied’ with their life overall, and a similar proportion felt ‘happy’. Similarly, 80% of young people said they generally enjoy life and 81% said they feel happy most or every day. However, higher levels of poor mental health and wellbeing and mental illness are inextricably linked with deprivation in Leeds. Local mapping highlights these issues and emphasises the geographic concentration of mental health and wellbeing in the most deprived communities. Leeds has significantly higher levels of recorded psychotic disorders than predicted from national prevalence data30. I.1.38 1 in 3 adults under 50 in Kirklees are reported as having a mental health condition (up from 1 in 5 in 2012)31. I.1.39 There is evidence that some mental health problems in Leeds are becoming more prevalent, such as depression. It is also estimated that 37,000 older people (aged over 60) in Leeds, accounting for 8.5% of the population. experience social

28 NHS Digital Mental Health Services Data Set monthly reports 29 Leeds Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2016-2021 30 Leeds Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) - Executive Summary: Cross-Cutting Themes (2015) 31 Kirklees Council ‘Joint Strategic Assessment’ 2016 Revision C06 Page 341 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

isolation or loneliness. 1 in 3 adults with bad/very bad health and/or adults not working due to ill health disability in Kirklees feel lonely or isolated most/ all of the time32. I.1.40 Leeds suffers a significantly higher level of violent crime than the national average, with 31.3 offences per 1,000 residents compared to 20 across England (2016-17). Statistics for Kirklees (24.3 offences per 1,000 residents) are also higher than the national average. I.1.41 Statutory homelessness in Leeds (3.1 crude rate per 1,000 households) (2016/7) is nearly four times higher than the national average (0.8 per 1,000 households). Inequalities I.1.42 Socio-economic inequalities have material impacts on health. There are significant gaps in life expectancy between affluent and deprived areas in Leeds and Kirklees - 12.7 and 8.8 years lower for men and 9.0 and 6.4 years lower for women, respectively (2014-16). I.1.43 The assessment of poverty in Leeds highlights the correlation between economic disadvantage and poor outcomes for children, young people and adults in the city. The clear impact of worklessness, financial exclusion and poor housing on health, educational attainment and broader life chances is concentrated in certain parts of the city. I.1.44 The wider study area, over 40% of the population of Leeds South and East CCG area live within the most deprived areas of Leeds and have significant health and wellbeing issues linked to wider factors such as poverty, educational attainment, and unemployment. Crime is also a significant issue. Within the Council’s South East Management Area, the Inner South Community Committee Area has the second highest premature mortality rate for all causes in the city as well as the highest rate of premature mortality from respiratory disease. ‘City and Hunslet’ ward has the second lowest life expectancy in the city for women at 77.2 years. ‘Beeston and Holbeck’ ward in the South East Management area has the second highest death rate in the city for cancer (under 75s), and ‘City and Hunslet’ ward has the highest rates of early death from respiratory disease in Leeds. Wider Health Determinants Socio-Demographic Profile I.1.45 Leeds population numbered 801,600 in 2017 and is projected to rise by 5.3% between 2016 and 2026. Kirklees population numbered 422,500 in 2017 and is projected to rise by 4.3% between 2016 and 2026. The wider study area and Kirklees have a smaller proportion of residents aged 65 and over compared to England, whilst Leeds has a higher proportion of residents aged over 65 years. Both areas have an ageing population; as the baby-boomer generation grows older there will be a range of implications. An older population is associated with higher incidence of physical and mental illness, the latter ranging from diseases such as stroke, diabetes and dementia, to the effects of social isolation. In the future, ensuring that older people get care and support when they need it and are enabled to live independently will be a key challenge.

32 Kirklees Council ‘Joint Strategic Assessment’ 2016 Revision C06 Page 342 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

I.1.46 Leeds and Kirklees witness relatively high levels of deprivation ranked 70th and 94th respectively out of 326 local authorities in the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). According to the IMD, around 150,000 people in Leeds are reported to be living in areas ranked amongst the most deprived 10% nationally. These high levels of deprivation and social and economic polarisation are likely to exert a detrimental influence on the population’s physical, mental and social- wellbeing. I.1.47 Leeds has a relatively high unemployment rate (1.7%), higher than the average for England (1.1%). Kirklees has a lower unemployment rate of 0.9%. Unemployment has generally decreased in Leeds and Kirklees between 2014 to 2018, following the national trend. I.1.48 The proportion of working age residents claiming benefits in Kirklees and Leeds (12.3% and 11.6% respectively) are higher than the average for England (10.7%). The proportion of residents claiming ESA and incapacity benefits is also higher than the England average. I.1.49 In 2017, 20.3% and 16.5% of secondary school children, and 19.5% and 17.6% of primary school children in Kirklees and Leeds respectively were entitled to free school meals compared to national figures of 13.8% and 14.7% respectively. I.1.50 19.6% of children in Leeds and 17.3% of children in Kirklees live-in low-income families, compared to 16.8% of the population nationally. I.1.51 Educational attainment to at least Level 4 or higher (2017) in Leeds (36.4%) and Kirklees (32.7%) is below the national average. The proportion achieving 5 A*-C grades in GCSE’s including English and Maths in Leeds (54.8%) and Kirklees (56.3%) is also below the national average (57.8%). Unemployment in Kirklees (5.1%) is higher than the national average (4.4%); the unemployment rate in Leeds (4.1%) is below the national average. I.1.52 In the last decade the BME population in Leeds has increased from 11% to 19%, and the number of residents born outside the UK has almost doubled to over 86,000 people. I.1.53 The baseline identifies the following priority/sensitive groups. Sensitive groups are more likely to be susceptible to the impacts of the proposed Scheme than other social groups. Sensitive Groups Children and Adolescents I.1.54 In the wider study area 18.6% of the population is under 16, which is just below the national average (18.9%) and lower than for Kirklees (19%) and Leeds (20.4%). I.1.55 The Leeds Maternity Health Needs assessment (2014) reported that 30% of births in Leeds occur to families living in the 10% most deprived Lower Super Output areas (approximately 3,150 births per annum). I.1.56 The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile for Leeds (2016-2017), based upon children achieving a good level of development in the early years (e.g. those achieving at least the expected level within the following areas of learning: communication and language; physical development; personal, social and

Revision C06 Page 343 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

emotional development; literacy; and mathematics), is lower at 64.8% than the national average (70.7%). I.1.57 The number of under 15 hospital admissions caused by unintentional and deliberate injuries in Leeds (121.5 per 10,000 population) is higher than the regional (107.1) and national (101.5) averages. Women I.1.58 399,592 residents in Leeds are female. This accounts for over half (50.9%) of the total population for Leeds (ONS 2017). Life expectancy in the most deprived areas of Leeds and Kirklees compared to the least deprived areas is 9.0 years and 6.4 years lower for women, respectively. I.1.59 The number of female smokers (18 years +) and hip fractures (persons aged 65+) are both higher in Leeds than the regional and national averages33. Older People I.1.60 12.4% of the population in the wider study area is aged over 65, which is less than the averages for Kirklees (15.4%), England (16.3%) and Leeds (20.4%). I.1.61 12% (38,326) of total households in Leeds comprise one-person households occupied by residents aged 65 and over (ONS Census 2011). I.1.62 The number of people aged over 65 is estimated to rise by almost a third to over 150,000 by 2030. The International Longevity Centre (2014) states that by 2037 people aged 65 years and over in Leeds will account for 1 in 4 of the population. I.1.63 An estimated 37,000 older people in Leeds experience isolation or loneliness. People who are disabled and/or with other health problems I.1.64 8% of residents in the wider study area has a long-term health problem or disability. This is slightly below the Leeds average (7.9%) and below the national (8.3%) and Kirklees (8.4%). More people generally are developing multiple long- term conditions. I.1.65 105,000 people in Leeds suffer from anxiety and depression. People with severe mental illness die on average 15-20 years earlier than the rest of the population. Low-income groups I.1.66 Leeds and Kirklees witness relatively high levels of deprivation. Around 164,000 people in Leeds are reported to be living in areas ranked amongst the most deprived 10% nationally. One in five children in Leeds live in child poverty. The proportion of residents in Leeds claiming Job Seekers Allowance (1.7%) (May 2018) and benefits (11.6%) is higher than the national average. I.1.67 People living in deprived neighbourhoods are more likely to experience multiple disadvantage, die earlier, and have more years in long-term ill health. Living Environment I.1.68 Leeds and Kirklees are ranked the 43rd and 50th most deprived in Living Environment in England, a measure which encompasses quality of housing, air quality and road traffic accidents. Housing affordability and quality are key issues.

33 Hospital Episode Statistics Revision C06 Page 344 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Areas of Leeds with the lowest overall green space provision are predominantly inner city, high density housing areas. I.1.69 Like most large cities, Leeds has a substantial amount of older housing, which tends to be concentrated in more deprived neighbourhoods. What sets Leeds apart from other places, is the large amount of back-to-back housing still in use across the city. Much is in poor condition, particularly in relation to energy efficiency. Links between fuel poverty, poor housing and ill health are well established. I.1.70 In Leeds, 70,000 net new dwellings will be required between 2012 and 2028 with a target of at least 4,700 per year for 2017 to 2022. In Kirklees, 1,730 new homes need to be provided each year and 1,049 new affordable homes are required to meet demand. I.1.71 Leeds and Kirklees have a wide range of community uses provided by public, private and voluntary sectors. These can contribute to health and wellbeing through promoting social cohesion, relaxation and recreation, and are a resource of particular importance to children and sensitive households. However, the location and quality of facilities, and accessibility to them, is subject to spatial and social variation. I.1.72 Leeds City Council’s plans for the redevelopment of Leeds City centre include the closure of some city centre routes to all private vehicles, which will transfer traffic that currently travels through the city centre onto the M621. There is also an aspiration to construct 10,200 new dwellings and create 57,500 new jobs in Leeds by 2031, which would be constrained without improvement of the existing M621. In addition, 85,000 people from outside Leeds commute and work in the city each day. I.1.73 Public Health England inform that long and short-term exposure to air pollution are known to adversely affect health. Short-term exposure (over hours or days) to elevated levels of air pollution can cause a range of effects including exacerbation of asthma, effects on lung function, increases in hospital admissions and mortality. Epidemiological studies have shown that long-term exposure (over several years) reduces life-expectancy, mainly due to increased risk of mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory causes and from lung cancer. For Leeds, the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) informs that an estimated 4.3% of all-cause mortality is attributable to air pollution. It is also likely that air pollution places an additional burden on many people, being a contributory factor in bringing deaths forward, rather than being the sole cause of death for individuals. Evidence shows how air pollution disproportionately affects sensitive groups, such as children, older adults, and people with existing medical conditions. Individuals and families with a low income may also be affected in this way, as they are more likely to live in accommodation near the busiest, most polluted roads because it tends to be cheaper. I.1.74 Noise and vibration also negatively affect health and wellbeing in Leeds and Kirklees in a spatially differentiated way, with some areas subject to significant disturbance. The dominant sources of noise include road and rail traffic, construction, noisy neighbours, entertainment venues, pavement cafés/outdoor seating, noisy building services, plant and equipment. I.1.75 Further details on living environment determinants of health can be found within the baseline assessments of the following other technical chapters:

Revision C06 Page 345 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

• Air Quality • Noise and vibration • Waste and materials • Road drainage and the water environment Summary of Human Health Baseline I.1.76 Despite generally good levels of health, Leeds population suffers excessively from poor mental health, whilst mental health issues in Kirklees are becoming more prevalent. Leeds and Kirklees perform worse than the national average on a number of mortality measures, whilst lifestyle-related issues such as excess weight in adults, smoking prevalence, alcohol related harm hospital stays, new cases of tuberculosis and under 18 conception rates are also higher. The rate of people killed or seriously injured on the roads in Leeds is higher than the national average. I.1.77 Significant and entrenched inequalities exist in health outcomes, which are linked to socio-economic polarisation across Leeds and Kirklees. In addition, an ageing population and breadth of social facilities in the local area increases the potential presence of sensitive groups who are particularly susceptible to negative health impacts. I.1.78 In addition to socio-economic disparities and deprivation, health issues are likely to be exacerbated by a poor living environment characterised by high levels of air pollution and noise, and deficiencies in housing and green space – determinants which themselves are unevenly distributed. Generally, the worst living conditions are located closest to the transport networks. Sensitivity of Determinants I.1.79 Sensitivity of direct determinants, as outlined below, depends on whether the determinant is likely to be directly affected by changes to wider determinants caused by the proposed Scheme and whether the determinant is well placed to deal with impacts. This is summarised in Table I-20 below. Table I-20: Sensitivity of direct health determinants Determinant Features identified in Sensitivity Comment baseline Physical General physical Low General health of the study area health health population is good, thus should not be substantially affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Excess weight/obesity High An acute health issue, particularly in children, linked to lifestyle therefore likely to be affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme. Road-related Medium An acute health issue, particularly in injuries/deaths Leeds, partly linked to built- environment thus could be affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme.

Revision C06 Page 346 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Determinant Features identified in Sensitivity Comment baseline Cardiovascular deaths Medium An acute health issue, notably in Leeds, partly linked to exposure to air pollution thus could be affected by changes to wider determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme. Cancer deaths Low Higher than average but unlikely to be affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme. Dementia diagnosis Low An ageing population but should not be substantially affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Incidence of TB Low Unlikely to be affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Incidence of STIs Low Unlikely to be affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Smoking-related Low Unlikely to be affected by changes to deaths wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Alcohol related harm Low Unlikely to be affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Mental and General mental and High An acute health issue, likely to be social social wellbeing affected by changes to wider health wellbeing determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Suicide rates High An acute health issue, likely to be somewhat affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Violent crime Medium An acute health issue, likely to be somewhat affected by changes to wider health determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme Inequalities Social/demographic Medium The changes to wider health inequalities determinants resulting from the proposed Scheme may affect different socio-demographic groups differentially Spatial inequalities Medium Proposed Scheme is partly located in a homogenously deprived part of the Borough, therefore spatial inequalities are likely to be affected by changes to wider health determinants

Revision C06 Page 347 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

I.2 Driver Stress Assessment

Revision C06 Page 348 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Revision C06 Page 349 of 386

Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Report Volume 2: Appendices

Appendix J. Climate

J.1 Carbon Tool Effects on Climate: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Revision C06 Page 350 of 386

2018 Oct - Bulk Materials Converter: Miles = km Total Mark page as 3,790.993 Tonnes 1.00 = 1.61 complete Add new row: CO2e

Material / Product Assign % of total quantity to categories Transport Forecast Transport Next This Carbon Conver This Not Road Civils This Carbon Factor Fencing Drainage Waste Transport distance Carbon Factor Return Item Type Unit Return Factor -sion Return Allocated Pavements Structures Return Unit % % % mode value (tCO e/t.km) Quantity Quantity Value Factor tCO2e % % % 2 tCO2e (km) Forecast

Ready mix concrete C6/8 (Gen 0, ST1) m3 50.0 0.061 tCO2e/t 2.400 7.320 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 5.254

Bulk Materials 0

Ready mix concrete C8/10 (Gen 1, ST 2) m3 309.0 0.082 tCO2e/t 2.400 60.811 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 32.468

Ready mix concrete C16/20 (Gen 3, ST 4) m3 34.0 0.100 tCO2e/t 2.400 8.160 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 3.573

Ready mix concrete C20/25 (ST 5) m3 221.0 0.107 tCO2e/t 2.400 56.753 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 23.221

Ready mix concrete C25/30 m3 224.0 0.113 tCO2e/t 2.400 60.749 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 23.537

Ready mix concrete C32/40 m3 841.0 0.132 tCO2e/t 2.400 266.429 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 88.367

Ready mix concrete C40/50 m3 370.0 0.151 tCO2e/t 2.400 134.088 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 38.877

Ready mix concrete General m3 30.0 0.107 tCO2e/t 2.400 7.704 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 3.152

Reinforcement steel Steel bar and rod tonnes 264.0 1.400 tCO2e/t 1.000 369.600 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 11.558

Fill and aggregate General fill/aggregate tonnes 29396.0 0.005 tCO2e/t 1.000 152.859 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 1286.978

Asphalt General Asphalt tonnes 9597.0 0.076 tCO2e/t 1.000 729.372 100.00% HGV 200.0 0.0001095 420.164

100.00%

0 2018 Oct - Earthworks Converter: ( (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 34.058 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Imported Soil General soil/top soil tonnes 16.0 0.024 tCO2e/t 1.000 0.384 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.700

Earthworks

Geotextiles Polypropylene geotextile / matting m2 10034.0 3.430 tCO2e/t 0.001 32.558 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.416 2018 Oct - Fencing, Barriers & Road Restraint Systems Converter: (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 203.231 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Material / Product Transport Transport This Carbon Conver This This Carbon Factor Transport distance Carbon Factor Item Type Unit Return Factor -sion Return Return Unit mode value (tCO e/t.km) Quantity Value Factor tCO2e 2 tCO2e (km) Fen cing , Barr Timber rail fence (all types, includes iers Fence metres 600.0 0.590 tCO2e/t 0.014 5.056 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.375 & posts) Roa d Res

Road Restraint System/ Safety Barrier Steel RRS barrier single sided metres 5603.0 1.540 tCO2e/t 0.022 192.332 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 5.468 0 2018 Oct - Drainage Converter: (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 183.053 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Drai nag Plastic pipework (PVC) 600mm diameter metres 225.0 3.230 tCO2e/t 0.027 19.949 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.270 e

Plastic pipework (Polypropylene) 150mm diameter metres 9.0 4.490 tCO2e/t 0.002 0.093 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.001

Plastic pipework (Polypropylene) 300mm diameter metres 1637.0 4.490 tCO2e/t 0.007 53.824 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.525

Brick manholes and inspection chambers Brick (includes mortar) no. 5000.0 0.237 tCO2e/t 0.003 3.291 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.609

Precast concrete inspection chambers 750mm diameter, up to 1.2m depth no. 73.0 0.247 tCO2e/t 0.556 10.007 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 1.777

Gullies Plastic gully pots - PVC no. 30.0 2.103 tCO2e/t 0.021 1.338 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.028

Plastic (Polypropylene) channel (light Channel & slot drains metres 1699.0 2.365 tCO2e/t 0.022 88.414 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 1.636 duty)

Petrol interceptor Plastic (Polyethylene) no. 1.0 2.540 tCO2e/t 0.500 1.270 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.022 2018 Oct - Road Pavements Converter: (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 78.751 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Kerb Pre-cast concrete 125x255mm metres 2700.0 0.180 tCO2e/t 0.073 35.624 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 8.665

Road Pavements

Road markings Thermoplastic road marking tonnes 6.0 5.700 tCO2e/t 1.000 34.200 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.263 2018 Oct - Street Furniture & Electrical Equipment Converter: (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 595.651 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Traffic signs Aluminium m2 159.0 9.160 tCO2e/t 0.050 72.822 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.348

Street Furniture & Electrical Equipment

Variable Message Signs (VMS) MS4 Sign no. 18.0 5.590 tCO2e/t 0.725 72.950 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.571

Variable Message Signs (VMS) AMI (advanced motorway indicator) no. 25.0 5.590 tCO2e/t 0.100 13.975 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.109

Road lighting and columns LED light no. 5.0 9.160 tCO2e/t 0.012 0.550 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.003

Cable Armoured cable / Power cable metres 26446.0 2.493 tCO2e/t 0.001 48.795 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.857

Cable Miscellaneous cable metres 36965.0 2.493 tCO2e/t 0.000 39.171 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.688

Plastic cable ducting 50mm diameter metres 21995.0 2.520 tCO2e/t 0.000 22.169 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.385

Plastic cable ducting 150mm diameter metres 42660.0 2.520 tCO2e/t 0.002 253.889 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 4.411

Cabinets Any type no. 183.0 1.540 tCO2e/t 0.200 56.364 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 1.602

Cameras Camera unit no. 33.0 3.310 tCO2e/unit 0.025 2.731 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.036

Road Studs Any type no. 350.0 3.310 tCO2e/unit 0.000 0.058 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.001

Handrail Galvanised steel tonnes 2.0 1.540 tCO2e/t 1.000 3.080 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.088 1 2018 Oct - Civils Structures & Retaining Walls Converter: (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 633.960 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Material / Product Transport Transport This Carbon Conver This This Carbon Factor Transport distance Carbon Factor Item Type Unit Return Factor -sion Return Return Unit mode value (tCO e/t.km) Quantity Value Factor tCO2e 2 tCO2e (km) Civil s Stru ctur es Formwork / Shuttering Plywood m3 23.0 1.100 tCO2e/t 0.540 13.662 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.544 & Ret aini ng

Retaining walls Steel sheet piles tonnes 210.0 1.460 tCO2e/t 1.000 306.600 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 9.194

Retaining walls Gabion wall (stone and wire mesh) tonnes 557.0 0.083 tCO2e/t 1.003 46.443 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 24.459

Gantries ‘Bendy Pole’ MS4 no. 15.0 1.540 tCO2e/t 5.000 115.500 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 3.284

Gantries 19m Sign/Signal Cantilever no. 3.0 1.540 tCO2e/t 21.500 99.330 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 2.824

Pre-cast Concrete General concrete tonnes 65.0 0.143 tCO2e/t 1.000 9.276 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 2.846 1 2018 Oct - Fuel, Energy & Water Converter: (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 8,145.240 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Site offices, site vehicles and plant energy Electricity kWh 425250.0 0.494 kgCO2e/kWh 0.001 210.184

Fuel, Energy & Water

Site offices, site vehicles and plant energy Gas kWh 212625.0 0.210 kgCO2e/kWh 0.001 44.609

Water Mains Litres ######## 0.000 kgCO2e/l 0.001 0.937

Water Transported (Tanker) Litres 202500.0 0.000 kgCO2e/l 0.001 0.070 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 8.866

Site offices, site vehicles and plant energy Diesel Litres ######## 3.802 kgCO2e/kg 0.001 7775.284 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 89.545

Site offices, site vehicles and plant energy Petrol Litres 5848.2 3.640 kgCO2e/kg 0.001 15.559 HGV 200.0 0.0001095 0.187 1 2018 Oct - Business and Employee Transport Converter: (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 1,403.048 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Business travel Private vehicle (any type) km 1296.0 0.190 kgCO2e/km 0.001 0.246

Business and Employee Transport

Business travel Train km 38556.0 0.047 kgCO2e/km 0.001 1.827

Employee commuting Private vehicle (any type) km ######## 0.190 kgCO2e/km 0.001 1196.685

Employee commuting Bus/coach km 743034.0 0.102 kgCO2e/km 0.001 75.455

Employee commuting Train km ######## 0.047 kgCO2e/km 0.001 128.836 1 2018 Oct - Waste Converter: (excluding bulk materials) Miles = km Total Mark page as = complete 90.765 Tonnes 1.00 1.61 Add new row: CO2e

Was Mixed construction & demolition waste Recycled tonnes 7136.8 0.001 tCO2e/t 1.000 7.137 HGV 50.0 0.0001095 78.113 te

Hazardous waste Landfill tonnes 426.0 0.002 tCO2e/t 1.000 0.852 HGV 50.0 0.0001095 4.663