REPORT TO PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR COMMUNITY
REPORT FROM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY AND HOUSING SERVICES
SUBJECT: A127 AIR QUALITY PROJECT – STRATEGIC OUTLINE CASE
1 DECISION BEING RECOMMENDED
1.1 To agree the scope and considerations of the Strategic Outline Case (SOC) as it relates to Rochford District.
1.2 To delegate the approval of the final SOC to the Assistant Director, Community and Housing Services, in line with project guidance.
2 KEY DECISIONS DOCUMENT REFERENCE No: 2/18
3 REASON/S FOR RECOMMENDATION
3.1 To agree at a strategic level the scope of measures to be taken forward for further analysis to achieve compliance with EU air quality targets in the shortest possible time frame.
3.2 Agreement of the SOC will allow the development of an Outline Business Case and subsequent Final Business Case for approval by Key Decision prior to submission to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) in late 2018.
4 SALIENT INFORMATION
4.1 Background
4.2 The UK Government is required to meet European Union (EU) limit values for a specific set of air pollutants. Following a court ruling in late 2016, the Government had to revise and expand its ‘UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations’. It subsequently published this plan in July 2017, with a view to achieving the limit values ‘in the shortest time possible’ at a greater number of locations than previously stated.
4.3 The plan focuses on strategic (road) routes, typically picking up city or town centre locations but also predicted exceedances on ‘single stretches of road’ to which the public have access, such as the A127 Arterial Road.
4.4 The A127 is the primary strategic traffic route through South Essex between the M25 and Southend and links to London Southend Airport and key port locations of London Gateway Port and Port of Tilbury. The route is also key to delivering significant growth in the South Essex area within the next Local Plan periods up to 2035 and beyond.
1 4.5 Forecasting carried out by Defra identified short stretches of the A127 in Rayleigh and Laindon as potentially breaching roadside limit values up to and beyond its self-imposed deadline of 2020 (see appended maps).
4.6 As a result, Rochford and Basildon Councils were issued with a ministerial direction to undertake a feasibility study with initial grant funding of £50,000 each and, following a structured process, develop a local plan to tackle roadside levels of NO2 by the end of 2018.
4.7 For the purposes of the project, Rochford and Basildon are being treated as a single exceedance by Central Government. An officer working group from Rochford, Basildon and Essex Councils is therefore working closely with a jointly-commissioned team from Ringway Jacobs, Essex County Council’s integrated contractors.
4.8 All aspects of the programme - from grant funding to approval of submissions - is overseen by the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) comprising officials from Defra and DfT. Officers hold weekly teleconferences with their JAQU contacts to ensure project momentum.
4.9 All works have been, and will continue to be, funded by grants from JAQU; a total of £650,000 has been awarded for the current project phase (until July 2018) which is being managed by RDC on behalf of the project group.
4.10 It should be noted that this work is separate to the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) duties and considerations of local authorities, although there is some overlap between the issues, not least on pollutant and geographical grounds. Officers are seeking to realise mutual benefits, as well as avoid potential conflicts wherever possible.
4.11 Governance
4.12 Rochford, Basildon and Essex Councils are also being treated as one decision-making body for the purposes of the project. Although most aspects of the process require input and decisions by the officer working group, very little of the project is in the public domain.
4.13 Rochford officers have therefore decided to report to Members at this time so that they can understand the requirements of the project, have confidence in progress made to date and be assured of determining the final submissions.
4.14 Feasibility Study
4.15 A Feasibility Study formed the first part of the programme and determined the overall study area, data requirements and project management process.
4.16 The document also set out known project costs so that these could be approved and funded by grant from JAQU.
2 4.17 Early Measures Funding
4.18 All local authorities under direction were invited to bid for further funds to achieve ‘quick wins’ which did not need to go through the full appraisal process to deliver quantifiable air quality benefits in the short-term.
4.19 At the time of writing, officers are awaiting the outcome of the local bid.
4.20 The Early Measures Funding bid is separate from the recent successful application to the Clean Bus Technology Fund to retro-fit buses operating in the Rayleigh Air Quality Management Area.
4.21 Strategic Outline Case
4.22 Although not formally requiring Member approval prior to submission to JAQU, officers consider it important that Members have oversight of the SOC at draft stage.
4.23 The SOC is essentially a screening process of a long list of potential options to achieve compliance of the EU limit value for NO2 in the shortest possible time. JAQU guidance states that all options should be compared to a default benchmark of a charging Clean Air Zone (CAZ).
4.24 JAQU considers its benchmark to be the quickest solution to achieving compliance in the majority of cases, as most authorities under direction are towns and cities. However, officers acknowledge that in this case a CAZ is counter to the Local Transport Plan, likely to divert traffic off the primary route and into populated areas – contrary to JAQU’s guidance and LAQM aims of exposure reduction – and likely to have a detrimental impact on the growth and economy of South Essex.
4.25 Officers have therefore produced a technical note for JAQU’s approval to discount the default CAZ benchmark in favour of one based upon speed management.
4.26 Deadline for formal submission of the SOC is 31 March 2018. Approval is therefore sought for the scope and considerations of this draft version, with authority delegated to the Assistant Director, Community and Housing Services for the final version.
4.27 Officers are scheduled to meet with JAQU officials on 10 April 2018 to present the final SOC.
4.28 Outline and Final Business Case
4.29 An Outline Business Case (OBC) must be provided to JAQU by 31 December 2018. Member approval has to be given for this document prior to submission and has therefore already been entered on the Key Decisions list. Officers of each of the three Councils therefore intend to report to their respective Members on a final version in late autumn.
3 4.30 If the final OBC does not require public consultation as per JAQU guidance, it will be considered the Final Business Case for the project and funding for the preferred option will be given by JAQU, if approved.
5 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
5.1 To provide briefings to senior officers and the Portfolio Holder for Community only.
5.2 Due to the Ministerial Direction and a number of High Court rulings, doing nothing is not an option. A plan of action must be put in place to bring compliance in the shortest possible time.
6 RISK IMPLICATIONS
6.1 The SOC requires formal senior officer approval by Essex CC, Basildon BC and Rochford DC as part of the governance process laid out by Defra/DfT. Lack of consensus between local authorities is therefore considered the most significant risk of delay.
6.2 The statutory submission deadline for the SOC is 31 March 2018.
6.3 Failure to properly engage with the action plan process could lead to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (SSEFRA) appearing in UK court for a fourth time and the prospect of legal action by parties such as Client Earth directly against the Council.
6.4 The Localism Act 2011 allows the SSEFRA to pass on any fines from the EU in relation to non-compliance of EU limit values.
7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Project aims are to reduce levels of NO2 along the A127 in the shortest possible time.
8 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
8.1 Work to date has been funded by the initial grant from JAQU, with a total of £650,000 awarded for the current project phase (until July 2018). A spending plan is in place for these monies and is being monitored by the project group; progress will be reported back to JAQU. Failure to award resources in a timely manner could jeopardise progress of project works. In addition a £50,000 grant was awarded to both Rochford and Basildon for initial feasibility study work.
8.2 The Council’s commitments over and above the grant funding only extend to officer time, although this may be considerable at periods in the project.
4 9 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 A Ministerial Direction has been issued to Rochford District Council and Basildon Borough Council, the responsible authorities for Air Quality, to implement actions to bring estimated exceedances of the annual average level of nitrogen dioxide along the A127 down and into compliance with EU limit values in the shortest possible time. Under the Localism Act 2011, SSEFRA is able to pass on any fines as may be levied by the EU for future non-compliance.
9.2 There have also been a number of High Court judgments against SSEFRA brought about by Client Earth, a law firm specialising in environmental matters. Client Earth may wish to pursue individual local authorities perceived as failing to adequately engage in SSEFRA’s plans.
10 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS
10.1 The project should result in improved air quality for a wide range of residents within the District.
I confirm that the above recommendation does not depart from Council policy and that appropriate consideration has been given to any budgetary and legal implications.
LT Lead Officer Signature:
Date: 23/03/2018
Background Papers: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63326 9/air-quality-plan-overview.pdf
Plans of predicted exceedance A127 locations
Draft Strategic Outline Case (at 19 March 2018)
SOC Appendix A – Initial Target Determination
SOC Appendix B – Alternative Benchmark
SOC Appendix C – Stage 1 sift of options
5 SOC Appendix D – Stage 2 sift of package options
SOC Appendix E – Organogram
SOC Appendix F – Terms of Reference
For further information please contact Martin Howlett, Environmental Health Team Leader on:-
Phone: 01702 318049 Email: [email protected]
6 Defra-modelled annual Nitrogen Dioxide concentration – Rochford (pink)
1 Defra-modelled annual Nitrogen Dioxide concentration – Basildon (pink and red)
2 Strategic Outline Case (SOC) Air Quality Management Plan – A127 Date: 19 March 2018 A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Document Control Sheet
Document prepared by:
Thomas Stokes Transport Planning T 0845 603 7631 Transport Consultant Victoria House E [email protected] Ben Marcangelo Chelmsford W www.essex.gov.uk/highways Economist CM1 1JR
Report Title A127 Air Quality Management Plan SOC Project Number B3553P10 Status Final Revision 0 Control Date 19/03/2018
Record of Issue Issue Status Author Date Check Date Review Date
0 Final TS/BM 15/03/18 BM/RS 16/03/18 AF 19/03/18
Approved for Issue By Date Anne James (Deputy Project Manager) 19/03/18
Distribution Organisation Contact Number of Copies
Basildon Borough Council Tony Meech 1
Rochford District Council Martin Howlett 1
Essex County Council Beverley Gould 1
JAQU (DEFRA) Emily Clark / Martin Ellis 1
© Copyright 2018 . The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Ringway Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Ringway Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Ringway Jacobs and the Client. Ringway Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.
B3553P10-SOC-R02-1 A127 AQMP ISSUE 1 19-03-2018 i A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 3 2 Strategic Case ...... 5 3 Economic Case ...... 34 4 Commercial Case ...... 44 5 Financial Case...... 47 6 Management Case ...... 50 Appendix A: Initial Target Determination Technical Note ...... 60 Appendix B: Benchmark Option Technical Note ...... 61 Appendix C: Longlist solution options scoring ...... 62 Appendix D: Solution packages and scoring ...... 63 Appendix E: Governance Structure ...... 64 Appendix F: Working Group Terms of Reference ...... 65
Tables
Table 2-1 Total NO2 concentrations at PCM links 8 Table 2-2 Existing monitoring results within the study area 9
Table 2-3 Road component NO2 reduction required 11
Table 2-4 Road component NOx reduction required 11 Table 2-5 Daily Traffic Flow Reduction Required by 2019 11 Table 2-6 Daily Traffic Flow Reduction Required by 2020 11 Table 2-7 Changes in households & jobs across South Essex 12 Table 2-8 Key regional and local growth plans 14 Table 2-9 Key European and national policies and objectives 25 Table 2-10 Key sub-regional and local policies and objectives 27 Table 3-1 Critical Success Factors 35 Table 3-2 Sift stage one, scope options 36 Table 3-3 Solution packages identified 38 Table 3-4 Scoring of packages against primary and secondary CSFs 39 Table 3-5 Proposed scoring of Service delivery options against CSFs 42 Table 3-6 Proposed scoring of funding options against CSFs 43
B3553P10-SOC-R02-1 A127 AQMP ISSUE 1 19-03-2018 ii A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Table 5-1 Cost estimates for selected packages 47 Table 5-2 Funding sources relevant to the A127 AQMP scheme 48 Table 6-1 External stakeholders 50
Figures
Figure 2-1 A127 AQMP study area and monitoring locations 9 Figure 2-2 Basildon study area and monitoring locations 10 Figure 2-3 Rochford study area and monitoring locations 10 Figure 2-4 Average traffic speeds at Fortune of War and Noak Bridge Junctions - AM Peak 21 Figure 2-5 Average traffic speeds at Fortune of War and Noak Bridge junctions - PM Peak 21 Figure 2-6 Average traffic speeds at Rayleigh Weir Junction - AM Peak 23 Figure 2-7 Average traffic speeds at Rayleigh Weir Junction - PM Peak 23
B3553P10-SOC-R02-1 A127 AQMP ISSUE 1 19-03-2018 iii A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case Executive Summary
As a result of high volumes of traffic and congestion, three locations along the A127 route in Basildon Borough and Rochford District have been identified by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model as likely exceeding EU air quality thresholds for
Nitrogen Oxide (NO2). The PCM model predicts that these three locations will 3 continue to exceed the NO2 annual mean EU Limit Value of 40 µg/m beyond 2020 and therefore an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) must be developed to address the issues in the shortest possible time, whilst also considering the impact of significant planned future growth on the route.
This Strategic Outline Case (SOC) supports the proposed Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the A127 route in Basildon and Rochford. In line with best practice set out in guidance issued by Defra and the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU), this SOC provides:
· The rationale for investment in the AQMP, demonstrating a robust need for intervention, a clear rationale for making the investment, and explaining how it aligns with European, National, Regional and Local Policy; · A short list of potential intervention packages to determine the ‘preferred way forward’, developed through an option sifting and impact assessment process informed by Defra and JAQU guidance; and · Details regarding the commercial viability and deliverability of the AQMP, including potential funding sources and service delivery options.
The SOC report is based on best available evidence available within the timescales of the project.
Traffic flow data from the Defra PCM model indicates that an approximate maximum reduction of 17,000 to 17,500 vehicles per day would be required at the three road links to meet required limits for NO2 and NOx by 2020.
Further evidence, including traffic surveys and traffic modelling, will inform the development of the Outline Business Case (OBC) and Full Business Case (FBC). This new evidence may reveal a different scale or location of exceedance, or different sources of NOx in the study area. This has been taken into account in defining the objectives for the AQMP, which are:
1 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
1. Deliver a scheme that leads to likely compliance with the annual mean
NO2 concentration Limit Value on the PCM network in the shortest possible time.
2. Review current and likely future annual mean NO2 concentrations in the study area, identify any locations of relevant public exposure to exceedances of the national objective and, where identified, work towards achieving or maintaining achievement of the objective by drafting an air quality action plan identifying potential pollution reduction measures that could be put in place. The plan will contribute to the
achievement of the annual mean NO2 concentration Limit Value at a local level.
A two-stage option development and sifting process has been undertaken to identify the preferred way forward. This has involved identifying Critical Success Factors (CSF), assessing a longlist of individual solutions against the CSFs and developing packages of solutions which were assessed again as a whole against the same CSFs. Following this sifting process three packages have been identified as the preferred way forward for further investigation. The shortlisted packages are:
1. (‘A + G’): A permanent, enforced, reduction in the speed limit from 70mph to 50mph along the A127 between West Basildon (to the east of Fortune of War Junction) and East Basildon (to the east of the A127/Pound Lane Junction), excluding areas with a speed limit currently under 50mph which will remain at their current level. This will be supported by a number of engagement campaigns to encourage more sustainable transport. This option has been designated the ‘Benchmark Option’; 2. (‘J + A + G’): The ‘Benchmark Option’, plus a mixed package of additional measures that are achievable and will contribute to further
reductions in NO2. Some impacts will be achieved within two years and others will continue to develop in the medium to long term; and 3. (‘K + A + G’): The ‘Benchmark Option’, plus a mixed package of additional measures that are achievable and will contribute to further
reductions in NO2, but at a reduced cost relative to ‘J + A + G’, and with a likely lower level of impact. Some impacts will be achieved within two years and others will continue to develop in the medium to long term
2 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case 1 Introduction
On 26 July 2017, the Government published the UK Plan for tackling roadside
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations (the Plan). This set out how Government
would bring the UK NO2 concentrations within the statutory annual limit of 40 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m3) in the shortest possible time. The Plan sets out several national and local measures that need undertaking.
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) oversees the delivery of the Plan by supporting Local Authorities with the delivery of local measures in their area. JAQU includes a dedicated team focused on measures to be delivered by Local Authorities.
Local Authorities need to undertake local assessments to consider the best option to achieve likely compliance within the shortest possible time. A feasibility study is needed which includes local air quality assessment (monitoring and concentrations) to inform the development of a Full Business Case (FBC). It is the document Local Authorities will provide to seek approval for their Local Plan. The FBC will be delivered in December 2018 and will detail a local plan, which is ready to implement, which delivers likely compliance with
the legal limit value for NO2 in the shortest possible time. To give enough time for impact analysis and consultation, no new measure can realistically be implemented before the end of 2018. Therefore, the quickest possible timeframe to implement solutions is during 2019, with evidence to be collected of subsequent air quality improvements during the full year of 2020.
This Strategic Outline Case (SOC) has been prepared following JAQU guidance. Its primary purpose is:
1) To establish the case for change and strategic fit of the scheme with other programmes; and 2) To indicate the preferred way forward in terms of a shortlist of packages for further analysis.
This SOC is based on the best available evidence at the current time. As there is currently no traffic model available, the best available evidence is Defra’s Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model. National fleet mix data has been used in analysis because there is no suitable recent traffic survey data. Origin- destination data from a survey carried out in 2006 has been used to inform the analysis supporting a proposed alternative benchmark option.
3 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Evidence for the sifting of the longlist of solutions and determining the preferred way forward has been based on available information and professional judgement. Solutions were assessed in terms of the likely timescale for their having an effective impact, defined at a high level as ‘short-term’ (within two years), ‘medium-term’ (within five years) or ‘longer term’ (more than five years).
At Outline Business Case (OBC) stage the available evidence will include outputs from a transport model that is currently being developed and local fleet mix and age data from a recently commissioned ANPR study. This may reveal a source of the air quality problem that has not been targeted in the current packages list. For example, the national fleet data indicates that Taxis and private hire vehicles (PHV) are a small contributor to the traffic in areas of exceedance on the A127 so are not the focus of measures in this SOC. However, if evidence from the local fleet shows that Taxis and PHV are a significant source of NOX in the study area, then measures that target them will be considered in addition. Therefore, analysing the most suitable measures for inclusion in the eventual Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an iterative process based on the best available evidence.
4 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case 2 Strategic Case
2.1 Introduction The Strategic Case sets out the rationale for investment in a proposed A127 AQMP. It demonstrates a robust need for intervention, a clear rationale for making the investment, and explains why an investment in cleaner air aligns with European, National, Regional and Local policy.
2.2 Study Area – A127 The study area for the scheme comprises the length of the A127 from its junction with the M25 to Southend-on-Sea. The route provides the main route between Southend-on-Sea and London. It also links the main towns of Basildon and Rayleigh, joining them to London and the motorway network, via the M25.
Basildon is one of the largest towns in Essex with a population of approximately 100,0001. The Basildon Enterprise Corridor, to the north of the town, is directly accessed from the A127 and provides employment for over 30,0002. Brentwood, Wickford, Billericay and Rayleigh are all market towns located to the north of, and accessed from, the A127. Combined, these towns have a population of over 170,000.
The A127 links growing communities in Havering, Brentwood, Basildon, Thurrock, Southend, Rochford and Castle Point. For thousands of people, it is their daily connection to London and the wider South East, via the M25.
The A127 provides links between London Southend Airport, tourist destinations such as Southend-on-Sea and the Basildon Enterprise Corridor. It also provides access to the M25, to Europe via Dover, and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Addendum 2017 forecast currently suggests that by 2037, approximately 63,000 new jobs will be created in communities in South Essex served by the A1273 which translates to an objectively assessed need (OAN) for 90,000 new homes3 to cater for this expected growth.
1 Office for National Statistics (2018): 2011 Census aggregate data. UK Data Service (Edition: June 2016). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5257/census/aggregate-2011-1 2 Essex County Council & Southend on Sea Borough Council: A127 – Corridor for Growth, March 2014. 3 South Essex authorities - South Essex SHMA Addendum 2017, May 2017 5 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
2.2.1 Thames Gateway
The A127 also provides vital connections within the Thames Gateway region, which makes a substantial contribution to the UK economy and is predicted to deliver an additional £21bn GVA by 20212. This includes, via the A13, access to Port of Tilbury (one of London’s major ports) and the London Gateway Port (which is predicted to eventually support around 32,000 jobs)2. The Thames Gateway area is home to over two thirds of a million people, 54,300 businesses and a workforce of over 400,0002. It is a vibrant part of the UK which benefits from immediate proximity to London and Europe and good access to the UK’s largest consumer markets. This area is also home to a substantial workforce for London and other key areas. Basildon Borough and Rochford District both sit within the Thames Gateway area.
Strategically located immediately to the east of London, the Thames Gateway benefits from direct road and rail links to the capital and, via the M25, to the rest of the South East and UK markets. It also benefits from excellent port and airport connectivity to markets in Europe and beyond. With a mature and growing business environment, it contains one of the largest port clusters in the UK and London Southend Airport.
There is an ambitious growth agenda to build on existing strengths and make the most of a unique combination of opportunities, including the £1.5bn DP World London Gateway Port, London Southend Airport and the Port of Tilbury. It has the potential to further develop strong, established economic sectors (advanced manufacturing, ports and logistics, construction and financial & business services) and support smaller, emerging sectors (energy, digital, creative, cultural and environmental technologies) to generate an additional £2.4bn per annum towards the national economy2.
2.3 Reason for Intervention
2.3.1 Impact of air pollution
4 According to the UK Plan for tackling roadside NO2 concentrations, there is increasing evidence that air quality has an important effect on public health, the economy, and the environment.
Further research continues to improve understanding of the health, economic and environmental effects of air pollution, and although the evidence is subject
4 Defra: UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations, An overview, July 2017 6 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case to change, there is substantial evidence on the health impacts of particulate matter and there is a compelling and growing body of evidence on the effects of other pollutants, particularly NO2.
Health Impacts
According to Public Health England, poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK5. There is now a convincing body of evidence that two main pollutants in the air are affecting health, namely Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and NOX.
In Europe, air pollution is the biggest environmental risk factor for premature death6. While other components of air pollution damage health, particularly at high levels of exposure, the strongest evidence for harm caused by lower levels is the effect of long-term population wide exposure to PM2.5 and NO2.
Evidence collated by Defra, Public Health England and the Local Government Association7 shows that short-term exposure to high levels of air pollution can cause a wide range of adverse health effects including exacerbation of asthma, effects on lung function, increases in hospital admissions and mortality. A review by the World Health Organization concludes that long-term exposure to air pollution reduces life expectancy by increasing deaths from lung, heart and circulatory conditions. There is emerging evidence from the Royal College of Physicians (amongst others) of possible links with a range of other adverse health effects including diabetes, cognitive decline and dementia, and effects on the unborn child.8
In the UK, PM2.5 is responsible for 29,000 premature deaths annually and NO2 is associated with 23,500 deaths, based on current outdoor air pollution.5 A 10 μg/m3 reduction in pollution alone would have a larger impact on increasing life expectancy in England and Wales than eliminating all road traffic collisions or passive smoking7.
Economic Impacts
Air pollution has social costs9 and threatens economic growth. It also impacts upon people of working age which can have economic effects, for instance if
5 Public Health England, ‘Estimating local mortality burdens associated with particulate air pollution’, 2014, www.gov.uk/government/publications/estimating-local-mortality-burdens-associated-with-particulate-air-pollution 6 The Lancet, ‘The Lancet Commission on pollution and health’ (October 2017) 7 www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/6.3091_DEFRA_AirQualityGuide_9web_0.pdf 8 Royal College of Physicians ‘Every breath we take. The lifelong impact of air pollution’ (2016). 9 Defra, ‘Valuing Impacts on Air Quality: Updates in Valuing Changes in Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)’, www.gov.uk/guidance/air-quality-economic-analysis (2015) 7 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
they have to take days off work. It is estimated that in 2012, poor air quality had a total cost of up to £2.7 billion nationally through its impact on productivity10.
Environmental Impacts
Air pollution is also responsible for significant damage to the natural
environment. NO2 contributes to acidification and eutrophication of soil and watercourses, which impacts on animal and plant life and biodiversity. It also contributes to local ozone production, which has public health impacts and damages agricultural crops, forests and plants.
2.3.2 Existing Information and the source of the problem
Defra reported the outputs of its PCM model in July 2017. This identifies road links operated by Local Highway Authorities (as opposed to the Strategic Road Network operated by Highways England), which are projected to be in 3 exceedance of the NO2 annual mean EU Limit Value of 40 µg/m beyond 2020.
The results of this model for the A127 within Basildon Borough and Rochford District are displayed in Table 2-1 below. This indicates that with no intervention in place, there would be exceedances at three identified road links within Basildon and Rochford beyond 2020.
Table 2-1 Total NO2 concentrations at PCM links Local Authority Road PCM ID 2018 2020 Basildon Borough Council A127 16646 50 45 Basildon Borough Council A127 75041 51 46 Rochford District Council A127 46683 49 45
Figure 2-1 shows the majority of the wider study area of the A127 under consideration, which stretches from the M25 to Southend-on-Sea. It also
depicts the concentrations of NO2 on and around the A127, with Table 2-2 showing concentrations measured on the A127 with the distance to the kerbside. As can be seen the concentrations in most locations are significantly 3 below 40 µg/m NO2 (i.e. green), with the exception of the one towards Southend-on-Sea, which is not near any of the exceeding PCM links.
10 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ‘Valuing the impacts of air quality on productivity’, https://ukair.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat19/1511251135_140610_Valuing_the_impacts_of_air_quality_on _productivity_Final_Report_3_0.pdf (2015) 8 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Figure 2-1 A127 AQMP study area and monitoring locations
Table 2-2 Existing monitoring results within the study area Monitor Annual Mean NO2 for Distance to kerb of ID Description/Location 2015 (ug/m3) A127 (metres) BAS001 Pound Lane, Laindon 27.4 20 BAS003 Honiley Ave, Laindon 33.7 15 A127/Thorndon Avenue, West 29.5 4 BRW39 Horndon CP035 The Smithy, Arterial Road 22.6 20 CP033 17 Rivenhall, Rayleigh 20.2 35 CP032 35 Arterial Road, Rayleigh 31.0 15 Behind Cycle Sign, Arterial 30.7 25 CP034 Road, Rayleigh A127/Bridgewater Drive, 31.9 11 SOU28 Southend SOU29 A127/Abbotts Close, Southend 23.0 10 A127/Hobleythick Lane, 49.2 10 SOU33 Southend
Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 indicate the specific areas within Basildon and Rochford which are being further investigated as part of this study, as a result of the expected air quality exceedances at three link roads within these two Local Authority areas.
9 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Figure 2-2 Basildon study area and monitoring locations
Figure 2-3 Rochford study area and monitoring locations
Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 show the required percentage reduction in NO2 and
NOx respectively, relative to the levels forecast by the PCM model, to comply 3 with the annual limit of 40 µg/m NO2, assuming no intervention.
10 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Table 2-3 Road component NO2 reduction required Local Authority Road PCM ID 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Rochford DC A127 46683 38.6% 33.0% 28.0% 23.0%16.3% 7.9% Basildon DC A127 16646 39.5% 33.1% 27.8% 22.7%16.3% 8.2% Basildon DC A127 75041 42.6% 36.1% 31.0% 25.9%19.0% 10.4%
Table 2-4 Road component NOx reduction required Local Authority RoadPCM ID 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Rochford DC A127 46683 38.2% 34.3% 30.1% 25.3% 20.0% 14.0% Basildon DC A127 16646 40.8% 36.8% 32.3% 27.2% 21.5% 14.8% Basildon DC A127 75041 42.9% 39.0% 34.6% 29.6% 24.0% 17.6% Approx. Max 24% 18%
Traffic flow data from the Defra PCM model is shown in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6, including the reduction in vehicles required to meet the required emissions limits by 2019 and 2020, with no additional intervention. The data indicates that an approximate maximum reduction of 17,000 to 17,500 vehicles per day would be required at the three road links to meet required limits for NO2 and NOx.
Table 2-5 Daily Traffic Flow Reduction Required by 2019 Local Authority Road PCM ID 2019 Reduction Required Rochford District A127 46683 70,161 16,839 Basildon Borough A127 16646 67,699 16,248 Basildon Borough A127 75041 69,465 16,672 Approx. Max 17,000
Table 2-6 Daily Traffic Flow Reduction Required by 2020 Local Authority Road PCM ID 2020 Reduction Required Rochford District A127 46683 71,407 17,138 Basildon Borough A127 16646 68,881 16,531 Basildon Borough A127 75041 70,720 16,973 Approx. Max 17,500
Although the data provided by the PCM model provides an overview of the scale of the air quality issue along the route, the model is at a national level so there is potential for discrepancies between the modelled results and the extent of the actual problem on the ground.
11 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Defra has recently released updated emissions factors which, when entered into the output equations from the PCM, identify potential uncertainty regarding the level of air quality exceedance of the PCM model figures within the study area. New air quality monitoring data is currently being gathered to provide a better understanding of the actual scale of the air quality issue in the vicinity of the three identified links.
There is the potential for this new data to show that the scale of the air quality issue is smaller than anticipated. Therefore, it is important to ensure that if the three road links are actually already compliant with the 40 µg/m3 limit, any proposed intervention remains appropriate within the context of wider air quality management within the region.
2.3.3 Impact of future growth
In addition to the air quality issues caused by existing traffic flows, the South Essex region is facing unprecedented growth in terms of housing and employment, which has key implications for travel and air quality, with demand for additional trips forecast to increase by up to 30% by 20373. Forecasts currently suggest that by 2037, approximately 63,000 new jobs will be created in communities in South Essex served by the A127, with up to 90,0003 new homes needed to cater for this growth. This is likely to place increased pressure upon the A127, and drive future potential for air quality exceedances within the study area.
Table 2-7 sets out the change in numbers of households and jobs across the South Essex area over a 20-year period.
Table 2-7 Changes in households & jobs across South Essex Source: South Essex SHMA Addendum 2017, Appendix 5 and p.42
Local Authority Change 2014 – 2037 area Households Jobs Basildon 22,283 17,722 Castle Point 5,704 846 Rochford 8,088 2,942 Southend 21,890 13,172 Thurrock 31,007 27,994 Total Change 88,972 62,675
12 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
As part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport and improve air quality, Essex County Council (ECC), along with its partners, Basildon Borough Council and Rochford District Council, is planning to encourage a step change in modal shift by encouraging the use of electric vehicles and a greater use of cycling, to, in particular, replace short journey car commuting.
Table 2-8 lists additional relevant regional and local policy documents highlighting the proposed scale of growth planned across South Essex. The A127 Corridor for Growth Strategy is particularly relevant because it highlights the importance of the route as a significant future growth corridor. As such, any interventions planned to improve air quality along the route, must not be detrimental to growth plans already in place.
The following regional and local growth documents and policies are currently pertinent and have been reviewed below.
· Basildon District Draft Local Plan (January 2016) · Rochford District Core Strategy Adopted Version (December 2011) · A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan (March 2014) · South East LEP (SELEP) Strategic Economic Plan Evidence Base (September 2017) · Opportunities South Essex – Economic Growth Strategy for South Essex (2016) · South Essex Vision 2050 · Tilbury2: Development Consent Order · Lower Thames Crossing · Southend-on-Sea Borough Council – Core Strategy (December 2007) · Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2037: Proposed Submission Version · Southend Local Plan 2021- 2036 · Brentwood Draft Local Plan January 2016
Basildon Borough Council’s Local Plan 2014-2034 will be published in March 2018 and will be reviewed during the future stages of the business case development.
Rochford District Council is in the process of developing its Local Plan, which will set the strategy for the future development of the District beyond 2025 – the current plan period.
13 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Table 2-8 Key regional and local growth plans
Policy Summary
Basildon District Draft The Local Plan for Basildon will replace the policies in the 1998 Basildon District Local Plan January 2016 Plan and set out an overall framework for the development of the Borough up to 2034. The Draft Local Plan, its Sustainability Appraisal, Habitats Regulations Assessment and Service Impact Assessment were the subject of consultation from January and March 2016. The final Local Plan will be published in March 2018.
The plan will provide for at least 763 homes per annum or 15,260 homes in total between 2014 and 2034. By providing this level of growth, there is the opportunity to create a more sustainable and affordable mix of homes to meet local needs. In the period from the 1st April 2014 to the 31st March 2015, 678 homes were delivered leaving a requirement for at least 14,582 homes to be delivered between 2015 and 2034. The draft plan identifies the infrastructure required to support growth at least 14,582 homes and 49ha of employment land provision within Basildon Borough.
Rochford District Core The Rochford District Core Strategy is the main document of the Local Strategy Adopted Development Framework (LDF) and sets out the overall strategy for the future Version (December development of the District until 2025. 2011) The Core Strategy identified a housing requirement of 250 dwellings per year from 2006 to 2025. Its Economic Objectives included ‘Ensure the growth of local employment opportunities and deliver and additional net 2,000 local jobs by 2021’.
The Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan, which will set the strategy for the future development of the District beyond 2025. The Local Plan will include updated housing and employment projections based on up-to-date evidence.
14 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Policy Summary
A127 Corridor for The A127 carries a significant amount of traffic, with volumes in excess of Growth: An Economic 70,000 vehicles per day. The A127 has significant capacity issues and flows Plan March 2014 which need to be addressed if it is to maintain current jobs and aid the delivery of new jobs and housing growth along the corridor and, in particular, to areas such as Basildon Enterprise Corridor (BEC), at the new Saxon Business Park adjacent to London Southend Airport and Southend Central Area.
This strategy focuses on a coordinated approach to improve conditions along the whole length of the A127 including a catalogue of measures for junction upgrades and improvements, maintenance, signing, lighting and safety camera installation.
In the Economic Importance of the A127 Corridor chapter, it states that there were no identified Air Quality Management Areas along the corridor but it acknowledges that with greater volumes of traffic, air quality could be of concern for certain areas.
The document further suggests, that it will be necessary to continue to improve the air quality by encouraging greater use of sustainable transport modes including public transport, cycling and walking, wherever practically possible. There is a need to collectively improve the information and knowledge on air quality, and particularly links with health and wellbeing. This can be achieved through utilising developments in traffic signal technology and air quality monitoring equipment. The document recommends that a separate piece of work be commissioned to inform this, particularly as the responsibility for Public Health now rests with Local Authorities.
South East LEP (SELEP) The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) is the business-led, Strategic Economic public/private body established to drive economic growth across East Sussex, Plan Evidence Base Essex, Kent, Medway, Southend and Thurrock. This document has been (September 2017) produced as part of a process for preparing the next Strategic Economic Plan for the SELEP.
This Evidence Base is a data driven document which was designed to: • Gain a clearer picture of the current state of the economy of the area, what the future challenges are and where the opportunities are to stimulate increased growth; and • Ask some key questions of partners about what interventions they feel should be used to address some of the current challenges and exploit the emerging opportunities.
The document found that partners’ major strategic aspiration was to create a more prosperous, skilled, connected and resilient region. Two of the six partners included ‘improvement of transport infrastructure’ as one of their priorities. One partner included ‘protect and promote our clean and green environment’.
15 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Policy Summary
Opportunities South Opportunities South Essex (OSE) is driven by the private sector, with support Essex – Economic from the public sector, and is part of the federated structure of the South East Growth Strategy for Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP). This paper lists development South Essex (2016) opportunities in South Essex and their potential contribution to the economy.
OSE’s vision for South Essex is to have one of the fastest growing and most sustainable economies in the UK which provides opportunities for businesses, is attractive to inward investors and benefits local communities. One of the priorities for intervention focuses on increasing capacity of the rail network and coordinating bus and rail services to improve end to end journey times. Another priority mentioned is to influence the timing and routing of any Lower Thames Crossing.
South Essex Vision The local planning authorities in South Essex have for some time been defined 2050 as Basildon, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock and Essex County Council. More recently Brentwood has been incorporated in the group, given its close relationship with Basildon, Thurrock and key infrastructure affecting the area, such as the A127. A joint association of these councils was formed in February 2018.
Leaders and Chief Executives of the seven authorities have come together to prepare a strategic “vision” for the area, which goes beyond the normal 15-year time frame of local plans. The work has an interim title of “South Essex Vision 2050” and its intention has been to describe a joint “place-based” vision including the growth and strategies necessary to support it, the infrastructure required in the area, and how local authorities might work together to deliver these aspirations.
Chief Executives have agreed on eight industrial and infrastructure strategic priorities for the area: • Place leadership, proposition and brand; • Opening up spaces for development; • Transforming transport connectivity; • Supporting our seven sectors of industrial opportunity; • Shaping local labour and skills markets; • Creating a fully digitally-enabled place; • Securing a sustainable energy supply; and • Enhancing health and social care through co-ordinating planning.
16 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Policy Summary
Tilbury2: Development The Port of Tilbury, London's major port, has submitted an application for Consent Order a development consent order (DCO) to the Planning Inspectorate to build a new terminal (Tilbury 2) adjacent to the current port in Thurrock. The Tilbury2 Development Consent Order (DCO) will undergo its examination in 2018 by the Planning Inspectorate, with a determination by the Secretary of State for Transport anticipated in 2019.
Tilbury 2 is central to the Port of Tilbury’s £1bn investment programme, 2012-20. This investment also includes the UK's largest warehouse at the port’s second extension site, the 70-acre London Distribution Park for Amazon UK. Tilbury is projected to double the volume across the quay (from 16million to 32million tonnes) and triple the direct employment (from 3,500 to 12,000 jobs) over the next 10-15 years.
The Port of Tilbury London Limited (PoTLL) have also prepared an “active travel plan” that will improve facilities for cyclists and pedestrians throughout the area, with new crossing points and waymarked routes to the riverside and the port. PoTLL are in discussions with Thurrock Council in relation to reaching a legal agreement that will require the implementation of the active travel plan measures.
Lower Thames Crossing The Lower Thames Crossing will create a new link between the A2 and the M25 and reduce the burden on the busy Dartford Crossing. The Lower Thames Crossing is expected to carry 4.5 million heavy goods vehicles in its first year. The planned route will run from the M25 near North Ockendon, cross the A13 at Orsett before crossing under the Thames east of Tilbury and Gravesend. A new link road will then take traffic to the A2 near Shorne, close to where the route becomes the M2. This new link could create more than 6,000 jobs and boost the economy by more than £8 billion. A further £10 million will be used to improve traffic flow at and around the existing crossing as well as studying ways to further tackle congestion.
The Planning Inspectorate expects that a formal application for the crossing will be made between October and December 2019.
As a response to Highways England Lower Thames Crossing Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report October 2017, Thurrock Council recommended that additional baseline air quality monitoring is established at sensitive receptors along the new proposed link road to Tilbury, just off the A1013 along Heath Road, and along Baker Street, including Baker St/ Heath Road at A13/A1089 junction. The Council has also set up its own additional NO2 diffusion tube monitoring sites in key locations.
17 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Policy Summary
London Borough of The London Borough of Havering Local Plan sets out the council’s ambitious Havering Local Plan vision and strategy for future growth and sustainable development over the next 2016 – 2031: Proposed 15 years up to 2031. The Council's new vision is focused around four cross- Submission Version cutting priorities: Communities, Places, Opportunities and Connections.
The vision for Havering’s connectivity is that the borough will see improved bus services with more routes and services into areas which are currently poorly provided for. It is also envisioned that provision will be made for walking and cycling, offering a choice of transport modes for residents and visitors and for improving air quality, noise, land and light pollution throughout the Borough.
The Connectivity section of the report states the Council will: • Consider appropriate to set a minimum requirement of 0.5 spaces per unit in areas that would be captured by London Plan policy as having a standard of less than 1 space per unit; • The Council will expect the inclusion of a publicly accessible car club scheme where the scale of development would support the provision of such a scheme. • Developments will need to include the minimum required electric vehicle parking spaces as required at the time of the application; and • The design and layout of new residential development should take account of the needs of people wishing to cycle through the provision of safe, accessible and secure cycle parking.
In the Thriving Communities section, The Local Plan states it will promote health and wellbeing by seeking environmental improvements, minimising exposure to pollutants and improving air quality. In addition to avoiding contributing to factors that affect climate change, and contribute to prevention measures that mitigate against the effects of climate change. The Council is also preparing an Air Quality Action Plan 2018-2023 to further improve Havering’s air quality. Southend Borough Southend Borough Council is currently in the process of preparing a new Local Council Local Plan Plan for the Borough. The Southend new Local Plan will set out the Council’s 2021- 2036 strategic vision, policies and site allocations, as appropriate, and will also identify areas for protection. It will provide the planning framework for Southend to 2036, beyond the current plan period of 2021.
18 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Policy Summary
Brentwood Draft Local Brentwood Borough Council is preparing a new Local Plan which sets out the Plan January 2016 long-term vision for how and where the Borough will develop over the next 15 years (to 2033). The Draft Plan sets out proposed strategy, policies and land allocations to meet future needs. This document is currently in consultation and is expected to be adopted mid-2019.
The plan is organised into six key themes (amended in January 2018): • Managing Growth; • Sustainable Communities; • Economic Prosperity; • Environmental Protection and Enhancement; • Quality of Life and Community Infrastructure; and • Transport and Movement
In the Transport and Movement section the strategic objectives are: • Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections; • Secure the delivery of new infrastructure to support a lower carbon future including electric vehicles charging points and other measures; and • Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors.
2.4 Existing Arrangements
2.4.1 Existing Traffic
Road transport is the greatest source of emissions which reduce local air quality and cause harm11. The A127 is a vitally important primary route for the South of Essex and Thames Gateway area which connects the M25, Basildon and Southend (including London Southend Airport). It also provides access to the wider area including Billericay, Brentwood, Canvey Island, Rayleigh, Rochford and Wickford. ECC is the responsible highway authority for the road from the M25 to the Southend boundary and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council is responsible for the remaining length of road to Southend Victoria Station.
The road carries annual average daily volumes of traffic in excess of 80,000 vehicles (as of 2014)12 which means it exceeds the volume of many motorways in the UK. As a consequence, there are air quality problems along this route and for areas that have link roads that join the corridor.
The A127 suffers from congestion during peak hours, often extending outside of these hours and throughout the day. Due to its location, running in parallel to the A13, and in the vicinity of the M25, any incidents on these roads naturally
11 Air Quality Expert Group: Nitrogen Dioxide in the United Kingdom – Summary, 2004 12 Essex County Council - A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan, March 2014 19 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
lead to traffic using the A127 as an alternative. It is the single corridor and primary route for traffic travelling between Basildon and Southend. The congestion issues, particularly at the key junctions along the route exacerbate the air quality issues in these areas.
2.4.2 Basildon
As Basildon was built after World War II as a `new town`, industrial activity is largely separate from the residential areas. Therefore, road traffic emissions are
the principal source of air pollution to residents in the borough. There are NO2
diffusion tubes and a continuous NO2, PM10 and SO2 monitoring station at Gloucester Park, but Basildon Borough Council (BBC) has not needed to declare any Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) for poor air quality, to date.
PCM modelling undertaken for Basildon, has identified two junctions in the borough where the EU Limit values are currently being exceeded, and will continue to be exceeded up to around 2022. These are specifically the Fortune of War and Noak Bridge Junctions in Basildon borough. Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 show the average traffic speeds at these two junctions during the AM Peak (8-9am) and PM Peak (5-6pm), demonstrating the levels of congestion contributing to the identified air quality issue at these junctions13. Traffic speed data has been sourced from an Essex Highways online database.
13 Essex Highways: http://essex.astuntechnology.com/atEssexHighwaysSolo.html, Accessed 13th March 2018 20 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Figure 2-4 Average traffic speeds at Fortune of War and Noak Bridge Junctions - AM Peak
Figure 2-5 Average traffic speeds at Fortune of War and Noak Bridge junctions - PM Peak
The challenge is to ensure that, as the Borough grows, developments are carefully planned to maintain separation of residents from known areas of
21 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
poorer air quality. Furthermore, although Basildon has not had to declare any AQMAs, improvements are continually being sought through innovative methods. The introduction of reduced speeds on the major feeder roads from the A127 into Basildon is a good example of a ‘common sense’ measure.
2.4.3 Rayleigh
Between October and November 2014, a public consultation was conducted by Rochford District Council regarding the extent of the AQMA that had to be declared in Rayleigh town centre due to marginal exceedance of the annual
average level of NO2. An AQMA was introduced in February 2015 and subsequently approved by Defra.
An Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) was developed by Rochford District Council in partnership with ECC and specialist advisors. Between November 2016 and January 2017, a public consultation was carried out regarding the actions to be included in the AQAP. After revision and scrutiny, the final version was submitted to Defra. The actions are summarised in six priority areas and contain: · a list of the actions that form part of the plan; · the responsible departments / organisations who will deliver the action; · expected benefits in terms of pollutant emission and / or concentration reduction; · the timescale for implementation; · how progress will be monitored; and · a list of other measures that have either been completed or discounted.
During May and June 2017, Defra carried out a consultation on its revised UK Air Quality Plan following a High Court decision which found the previous version inadequate. The latest plan has direct implications for the A127 along stretches in Basildon, Rochford and Southend Local Authority areas.
In addition to the AQMA in Rayleigh town centre, the PCM model findings identified air quality limit exceedances at the Rayleigh Weir Junction on the A127, adjacent to the town centre, as one of the three problem link roads along the A127 route. Average traffic speeds during the AM and PM peaks at this junction are shown in Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7. These demonstrate average speeds as low as 0-5mph on approach to the junction from all directions during the morning and evening peaks, significantly contributing the existing air quality issues13.
22 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Figure 2-6 Average traffic speeds at Rayleigh Weir Junction - AM Peak
Figure 2-7 Average traffic speeds at Rayleigh Weir Junction - PM Peak
23 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
2.4.4 Rochford
Rochford District Council declared an AQMA for particulate matter at Rawreth Industrial Estate, Rayleigh in June 2010. This was subsequently revoked in March 2013, following measured improvements during 2011 / 2012.
Levels of NO2 arising from vehicle emissions are monitored using a continuous analyser for six months every year in High Street, Rayleigh. There are also 10
diffusion tubes measuring NO2 at eight locations in the towns of Rochford and Rayleigh.
24 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
2.5 Strategic Context
2.5.1 Introduction
A review of pertinent documents relating to air quality has been undertaken to identify how the proposed A127 AQMP scheme fits with European, national, sub-regional and local policy.
2.5.2 European and National Context
The following European and national documents and policies are currently pertinent and have been reviewed below.
· International and European standards of air quality · National air quality standards · National strategy on air quality · UK Plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations Table 2-9 Key European and national policies and objectives Policy Summary
International and Defra reports national emission totals each year for the main pollutants to the European standards of European Commission and the United Nations Economic Commission for air quality Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. The UK is compliant with its 2010 national emission ceilings for air pollutants. The UNECE subsequently agreed a number of protocols including the Gothenburg Protocol (amended in May 2012), which sets national emission reduction targets, including for fine particulate matter, to be achieved by 2020.
Like most other member states, the UK is facing difficulties in meeting the air quality standards for concentrations of NO2 alongside some of our busiest roads. Defra’s air quality plans set out all the measures being taken to achieve the air quality standards in the shortest time possible. National air quality The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 set the limit values for standards concentrations of NO2 in ambient air. These limit values reflect World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guidelines:
· Hourly mean limit value – 200μg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 18 times a calendar year. · Annual mean limit value – 40μg/m3. National strategy on air Defra published the Air Quality Strategy in 2007 in 2 volumes: volume 1 contains quality the strategy, and volume 2 provides information about the evidence the strategy was based on. This strategy set out national objectives for further improving air quality, and how we would achieve them.
The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) was established as an expert committee of the Department of Health. COMEAP
25 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
advises government on the health effects of air pollution. The Department of Health has also published an indicator for air pollution as part of its Public Health Outcomes Framework.
The Government is to publish a wider Clean Air Strategy in 2018 setting out how we will meet our international commitments to significantly reduce emissions of various air pollutants by 2020, and 2030 across transport, industry and energy generation. In the meantime, Defra has published a Plan for tackling roadside NO2 concentrations. Local authorities are responsible for reviewing and assessing air quality, to check they meet national air quality objectives.
UK Plan for tackling The focus of Defra’s UK Plan for tackling roadside NO2 concentrations published roadside nitrogen in July 2017 is on the most immediate air quality challenges: to reduce dioxide concentrations concentrations of NO2 around roads – the only statutory air quality limit that the UK is currently failing to meet; bringing NO2 air pollution within statutory limits in the shortest possible time.
The plan identifies a range of contemporary initiatives to tackling roadside NO2 concentrations including: · Creation of Low Emission Zones; · Investment in bus services to accelerate the uptake of low or ultra-low emission buses, including new buses and retrofitting older buses supported by a new accreditation scheme; · Investment in the national and local road network to relieve road congestion, including pinch points on the Strategic Road Network and to improve safety, increase provision for cyclists on and near its network, and enhance access for a variety of users, including pedestrians, horse riders and the disabled, and to help local authorities improve air quality; · Retrofit technology schemes aimed at the oldest vehicles (mainly buses); · Promoting fuel efficient driving style; · Encouraging use of alternative fuels; and · Promoting uptake of Low emission vehicles (ULEVs) including: o Conventional car and van sales to end by 2040, and for almost every car and van on the road to be a zero emission vehicle by 2050. o investment in UK’s charging infrastructure at home, on-street residential, workplaces and motorway service stations o grants towards purchase of new ultra-low electric vehicles o company car tax incentives for ULEVs.
The Plan identifies 29 local authorities in England with persistent exceedances. These authorities are required to undertake local action to consider the best option to achieve statutory NO2 limit values within the shortest possible time through a local authority led action plan.
Defra are looking for local plans that are effective, fair, good value, and deliver the necessary air quality likely compliance. Local authorities are to consider a wide range of innovative options, exploring new technologies and seeking to
26 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
support the government’s industrial strategy so that they can deliver reduced emissions in a way that best meets the needs of their communities and local businesses.
If these measures are not sufficient, local plans could include access restrictions on vehicles, such as charging zones or measures to prevent certain vehicles using particular roads at particular times. Clean Air Zone Any local authority can already implement a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) to address a Framework local air quality issue. Following a consultation in 2016, the UK government has published a CAZ Framework in England setting out the principles for the operation of CAZ in any cities which decide, or are required, to do so.
The Framework is designed to provide a consistent approach to the introduction of a CAZ by local authorities in order to help businesses and individuals and support cities to grow and transition to a low emission economy. The Framework sets out the outcomes that a CAZ is expected to deliver, and ways in which local authorities can support and encourage public transport.
2.5.3 Sub-Regional and Local Context
The following sub-regional and local documents and policies are currently pertinent and have been reviewed below.
· Rochford District Council – New Local Plan – Issues and Options · Basildon Borough Council – Air Quality Topic Paper · Havering Air Quality Action Plan 2018-2023 (AQAP) (Draft) · Southend-on-Sea Borough Council: Low Carbon Energy & Sustainability Strategy 2015-2020 · Essex Transport Strategy: The Local Transport Plan for Essex · Essex County Council’s Environmental Statement · Essex County Council’s Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy (SMoTS) · Essex Cycling Strategy · SEAT (South Essex Active Travel) Programme Table 2-10 Key sub-regional and local policies and objectives Policy Summary
Rochford District The new Local Plan is a planning policy document which will guide how Council – New Local Rochford District will look over the next 20 years, covering a range of topics Plan – Issues and including the challenge of balancing the need to deliver homes and jobs Options (Consultation supported by the necessary infrastructure, whilst protecting the local Dates: 13th December environment. The new Local Plan is an important document in setting out a 2017 – 7th March 2018) shared vision for the future of the district.
The Issues and Options Document is the first stage in the review of the current local development plan for the whole of Rochford District. It identifies a series of
27 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
strategic priorities and objectives to support the draft vision for the future of the district; these are supported by key planning issues that have been identified for a number of themes, and potential options to deal with these issues.
The Delivering Infrastructure section of the report highlights that options are being considered in the Action Plan to improve air quality in the Rayleigh Town Centre AQMA, including measures to limit the numbers of vehicles in the zone by promoting more sustainable modes of travel.
Meanwhile, in the Protecting and Enhancing our Environment section it is stated that “access to clean air is a fundamental requirement when seeking to ensure a high standard of living”, and vehicle movements are acknowledged to contribute more than any other factor to a decline in air quality, such as in the case of Rayleigh Town Centre, where NO2 levels exceed the level deemed to be safe in Government guidelines.
Basildon Borough This topic paper seeks to combine primary data with modelling currently Council – Air Quality undertaken at a national level by Defra, to determine where air quality issues Topic Paper may have implications for the Local Plan as it is progressed to submission.
Modelling was undertaken using the PCM model using 2015 baseline data from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, and 2015 road transport figures from the Department for Transport (DfT), information from COPERT V5 and AURN air quality monitoring data.
This modelling shows that there are parts of Basildon where the EU Limit values are currently being exceeded, and will continue to be exceeded up to around 2022. Discussions with Defra have indicated that this is likely to occur along the A127, and specifically at the Fortune of War Junction in Basildon Borough. The neighbouring district of Rochford has a similar issue at the Rayleigh Weir Junction, and there are also issues on the A127 in Southend Borough.
Havering Air Quality This document outlines the actions Havering Council will take to improve local Action Plan 2018-2023 air quality. The priority is to reduce key pollutants, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. In (AQAP) (Draft) Havering these pollutants are primarily produced by road traffic but there are other contributors such as construction, domestic gas use and industry.
This documents highlights action policies: • Action Policy 1: Air Quality Monitoring and Modelling • Action Policy 2: Public Health and Awareness Raising to encourage Smarter Travel • Action Policy 3: Reducing Emissions from Buildings and Developments • Action Policy 4: Reducing Emissions from Transport
Measures that have already been taken for each policy is recapped and potential future actions are described.
28 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Southend-on-Sea This paper outlines the Council’s focus on delivering low carbon growth, Borough Council: Low improving energy efficiency and providing a more sustainable future for Carbon Energy & residents, communities and businesses. Through the successful implementation Sustainability Strategy of this five-year Strategy the Council will aim to establish Southend-on-Sea as a 2015-2020 ‘Low Carbon, Smart City’.
The ‘2020 Goals’ outlined are as follows:
Reduce Carbon Emissions • Reduce the number of car journeys in the Borough. • Integrate and promote low carbon travel options. • Support the objectives of the Local Transport Plan 3.
Sustainable Transport • Encourage the uptake of active travel. • Expand the cycle route network in the Borough. • Increase the number of electric vehicle charging points.
Ideas in Motion • Deliver personalised travel planning. • Develop a smart phone app to promote ‘Ideas in Motion’. • Continue a targeted marketing programme to promote walking, cycling and public transport.
New Ways of Working • Provide opportunities for home working. • Install infrastructure at the Civic Centre for active travel. • Promote sustainable transport to Council staff.
Low Carbon Infrastructure • Ensure ‘smart’ data is collected from the Borough’s transport infrastructure. • Install energy efficient street and traffic lighting. • Undertake initiatives to reduce congestion.
Essex Transport The Essex Transport Strategy is a long-term plan published by ECC setting out Strategy: The Local the County’s aspirations for improving travel, achieving sustainable economic Transport Plan for growth and enriching the lives of residents. Essex One of the five outcomes that the County has targeted is to “reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality through lifestyle changes, innovation and technology”. This will be achieved in part by reducing the carbon-intensity of travel in Essex, reducing pollution from transport to improve air quality in urban areas and along key corridors.
There are currently 15 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in Essex as a result of transport-related pollutants, including one at Rayleigh Town Centre in Rochford District, of which the southern boundary borders the A127 within the study area of this report.
29 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Essex County Council’s The Environmental Statement, published by ECC sets out the measures taken Environmental by the authority to create a “healthy, safe, diverse, clean and attractive Statement environment”. One of the strategies outlined in the paper emphasises the importance of encouraging public sector partners, community groups and businesses to contribute to local environmental projects.
Essex County Council’s Essex County Council (ECC) is committed to working with residents, employers, Sustainable Modes of developers, schools and transport operators, with much being done across the Travel Strategy (SMoTS) Council and through the partners to tackle these issues, by introducing a range of initiatives and schemes.
A key mechanism is a Travel Plan – providing a framework for managing transport issues and promoting travel choice. Developing and implementing a Travel Plan can help to reduce the use of the private car, which in turn, helps to tackle localised congestion and emissions.
The main objectives for the Council are to: • consolidate and build on the existing Travel Plans developed within the County; • promote and support the development and enablement of a range of travel alternatives being used to access employment, health and education; • improve the environment by introducing high quality choices, thereby reducing the need to travel by car and potentially reducing NO2 and other emissions; • help improve the health, welfare and safety of all Essex residents by encouraging an active lifestyle through increased walking and cycling; • allow and enable residents to make an informed choice about how they travel for work, school and leisure; and • provide better management of congestion during peak travel times.
Essex Cycling Strategy Last year, ECC appointed a dedicated Cycling Strategy Leader for Essex, and developed an overall cycling strategy for Essex, along with a number of Cycling Action Plans (CAPs) for each Borough / District.
The key objectives were to: • Achieve a modal shift towards cycling and other sustainable transport modes (people who cycle are often likely to walk and use public transport more) to free up valuable road space to maximise economic benefits; • Achieve better management of growth and congestion by increasing an uptake in cycling in order to discourage shorter trips by private car in the key economic centres. New DfT tools highlight that Essex has a high propensity to switch to cycling from short car journeys of less than 5km (3 miles); • Improve the health of Essex residents by encouraging sustainable active journeys to enable them to achieve their daily active minutes, leading to improved independence, health and wellbeing and, thereby, reduce the risks of obesity, depression, heart disease and type 2 diabetes; and • Establish a coherent, comprehensive and advantageous cycle network in every major urban area, utilising a combination of on-carriageway and off-carriageway cycle facilities.
30 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
One of the key themes of the strategy was to introduce ‘Flagship’ cycling routes which will provide segregated cycling lanes on key cycling corridors as part of attracting new businesses and investment. These routes will provide safer, faster and more direct access to key destinations, including town centres, employment sites, and transport hubs. Flagship routes will be on high-demand corridors and will encourage a focus on innovation and design best practice.
The overall objective is to create a coherent cycle network, using District and Borough Cycling Action Plans and a number of Flagship routes to raise the profile of cycling in Essex. The first of these Flagship routes will be introduced in Basildon.
SEAT (South Essex The South Essex Active Travel Programme will facilitate a step-change in the Active Travel) area’s approach to sustainable transport; using targeted travel engagement with Programme jobseekers, young people, newly recruited employees, students, lower socio- economic communities and volunteers so they can use active travel to get to work, training and educational opportunities and fully contribute to the local economy.
Targeting six local growth areas, the programme will increase active travel by tailoring packages of advice, support and promotion to each of these groups – enhancing their access to the estimated 12,100 new jobs and 10,500 education and training opportunities available in South Essex over the next three years.
2.6 Spending Objectives The aim of the AQMP is to propose and implement measures which can deliver 3 annual mean NO2 concentrations of less than or equal to 40 µg/m in the shortest possible time within the study area of the A127. In order to give enough time for impact analysis and consultation, no new measure can realistically be implemented before the end of 2018. Therefore, the quickest possible timeframe to implement solutions is during 2019, with evidence to be collected of subsequent air quality improvements during the full year of 2020.
With this in mind two key spending objectives were developed. These have been drafted taking into consideration the problem identified using data from Defra’s PCM model, and incorporating the new emissions factors. As already noted, the new emissions factors identified potential uncertainty around the scale of the current air quality issue within the study area and, therefore, new air quality monitoring data is being collected to provide a better understanding. The further analysis undertaken to determine the initial target is summarised in the separate Initial Target Determination Technical Note, included as Appendix A.
It is important to ensure that if, for instance, new monitoring data demonstrates that air quality along the route is better than anticipated and the three key road links are already compliant with the 40 µg/m3 limit, any proposed interventions
31 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
remains appropriate within the context of wider air quality management across the region.
Therefore, the objectives for the SOC are:
Primary objective
Deliver a scheme that leads to likely compliance with the annual mean NO2 concentration Limit Value on the PCM network in the shortest possible time.
Secondary objective
Review current and likely future annual mean NO2 concentrations in the study area, identify any locations of relevant public exposure to exceedances of the national objective and, where identified, work towards achieving or maintaining achievement of the objective by drafting an air quality action plan identifying potential pollution reduction measures that could be put in place. The plan will
contribute to the achievement of the annual mean NO2 concentration Limit Value at a local level.
2.7 Benefits, Risks, Constraints & Dependencies Whilst the impact of air quality on health and the environment has long been understood, the evidence on direct health impacts and the related costs is strengthening constantly. This supports a strong case for interventions aimed at improving air quality, particularly given the alignment with key national, regional and local policies.
This section highlights the key benefits of the Plan, as well as the risks, constraints and dependencies which require consideration as part of the design and implementation of any measures.
2.7.1 Key benefits
· Improved public health along the route · Investment legacy of increased economic growth · Positive effects on nearby environmental receptors and heritage/cultural buildings · Contribution to delivery of important local, regional and national policies
2.7.2 Key risks
· Limited timescales for implementing the proposed interventions · Political and public support for proposed measures
32 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
· Measures implemented may have unintended consequences, such as increased carbon emissions or congestion · Worsening of the situation in other areas near to the route as a result of initiatives, e.g. Rayleigh AQMA · Availability of funding and resource to implement, manage, monitor and enforce the required initiatives, particularly in the long term
2.7.3 Constraints
· Time constraints - proposed measures must be implemented by the end of 2019 at the latest, to provide a year’s worth of monitoring data during 2020 to demonstrate measures address the issue · Physical constraints of the current road and surroundings · Funding constraints in maintaining initiatives over the longer term · Legislation/bus provision agreements · Essex County Council have previously publicly stated that they will not implement congestion charging
2.7.4 Dependencies
· Engagement with all major stakeholders in the study area is required for multi-faceted cross-disciplinary approach; including Local Authorities, Transport Authorities and key local organisations · Delivery of funding required to implement initiatives within short timescales · Dependency on third parties to deliver proposed initiatives · Behavioural change a factor for some potential measures
33 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case 3 Economic Case
3.1 Introduction The Economic Case presents the option sifting and impact assessment methodology as part of the A127 Air Quality Management Plan. This has been undertaken following the methodology outlined in JAQU’s guidance.
At the SOC stage, the aim is to determine a short list of potential intervention packages as the ‘preferred way forward’. The shortlist will be modelled, assessed and appraised in more detail for the OBC and FBC.
3.2 Sifting Process Option development and sifting was undertaken according to the two-stage methodology set out in JAQU’s guidance and summarised briefly below.
First stage:
· Scope and target options are generated and scored against the primary Critical Success Factor (CSF) on a pass/ fail basis · Individual technical solutions are scored against the secondary CSFs on a graded or numerical basis
Second stage:
· Solutions are combined into packages and scored again as a whole against the CSFs · Best performing solution packages are combined with the best performing Service Delivery to generate the shortlist of options that comprise the ‘preferred way forward’. The shortlist must include a Benchmark Option, typically a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) of a high enough standard to meet the primary CSF · Service Delivery and Funding options are individually scored against the CSFs
This process was undertaken over the course of two workshops attended by key stakeholder representatives from ECC, Basildon Borough Council and Rochford District Council.
3.3 Critical Success Factors The Critical Success Factors cover the range of spending objectives defined in the strategic case. They have been developed following conversations with 34 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
JAQU and local partners to reflect local circumstances. The primary CSF relates to the intervention’s ability to achieve the primary objective and is assessed on a ‘pass or fail’ basis. Secondary CSFs relate to other metrics that are important as defined by JAQU guidance.
Since adherence to the CSF is the metric of assessment, the economic case does not present a benefit-cost-ratio to prioritise options. Table 3-1 lists the primary and secondary CSFs with a short description.
Table 3-1 Critical Success Factors Rank Critical Success Factor Description CSF1 – NO2 Likely compliance Reduction of local air pollutant y r
a concentrations to below the EU limit m
i threshold values r P CSF2 – Value for Money Does the measure deliver good value for money?
CSF3 – Distributional Impacts Does the measure significantly affect one or a number of particular groups of stakeholders? CSF4 – Strategic and Wider Air Does this measure fit and/or complement Quality Fit other existing and planned national, regional and local policies? y r
a CSF5 – Supply Side Is there a sufficiently well-developed market d
n Capacity/Capability to support the efficient delivery of the o
c measure? e
S CSF6 – Affordability Is the measure likely to be affordable in both the short and long run in comparison to other measures considered? CSF7 – Achievability Given market conditions, are adequate resources available to manage and implement such a measure successfully? CSF8 – Robustness of Evidence Can the impacts of this intervention be quantified in a robust way?
3.4 Stage one scope and solution options sift Scope options were focused on the vehicle type and extent of network to be targeted. Table 3-2 presents the scope options and scores allocated in the sift process. The sifting took place in the first scope and solutions workshop with key stakeholders on 15th February 2018.
35 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Table 3-2 Sift stage one, scope options CSF1 1 e ) l 2 c i 0 n a y l f 2 a /
Scope option (what and where?) i e l s e k p i r s L o a m f p o e ( c b
Do Nothing Fail Target all vehicles on exceedance PCM links only Fail Target commercial vehicles on exceedance PCM links only Fail Target domestic vehicles on exceedance PCM links only Fail Target all vehicles along A127 Pass Target commercial vehicles along A127 Fail Target domestic vehicles along A127 Pass Target all vehicles using A127 and PCM network Pass Target commercial vehicles using A127 and PCM network Pass Target domestic vehicles using A127 and PCM network Pass
A longlist of 84 technical solutions options were identified as potential interventions that may be able to achieve or contribute to achieving the required
reduction in NO2. These interventions were grouped into six categories; Car, Intelligent Transport System (ITS), Freight and LGV, Bus, Taxi and Other.
The full longlist of options and scoring against the secondary CSFs is presented in Appendix C. This includes a scoring of CAZ options, which score negatively on the achievability CSF.
3.5 Benchmark Option The national JAQU guidance states that a charging CAZ should be used as the benchmark option for comparison with the other options included in the short list. In some instances, a charging CAZ may not be suitable for the local circumstances, therefore an alternative benchmark can be agreed with JAQU if sufficient evidence is provided. A technical note was submitted to Defra to gain approval for the proposed alternative benchmark option, this is included in Appendix B. Whereas Charging CAZs can be effectively implemented in urban areas as these represent a ‘destination’ to which all traffic movements can be managed; a Charging CAZ cannot be effectively implemented on areas of linear
36 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case non-likely compliance, such as the Basildon and Rochford links (A127), which provides a through-route for traffic, as traffic will simply switch to alternative parallel routes and potentially move non-likely compliance to other locations.
Evaluating the proposed solution
It is proposed that the following ‘Do minimum’ scenario will be used to evaluate the ‘Do Something’ (plus new intervention measure) scenarios: (i.e. with intervention)
· Do Minimum – to include projected base demand, local committed developments and local committed infrastructure schemes (targeted A127 control measures). o Significant local committed developments in or adjacent to the study area will be included in the forecast traffic model. o Local committed infrastructure schemes that are likely to have a strategic impact will be able to be modelled within the forecast traffic model14.
Alternative Benchmark
After providing evidence to JAQU that a charging CAZ is unsuitable for the study area, an alternative ‘Do Something’ benchmark has been proposed. This was determined as an outcome of the second stage of the sifting process. The benchmark represents the measure most likely to produce likely compliance in the shortest possible time from the sifting process:
· A permanent, enforced, reduction in the speed limit from 70mph to 50mph along the A127 between West Basildon (to the east of Fortune of War Junction) and East Basildon (to the east of the A127/Pound Lane Junction), excluding areas with a speed limit currently under 50mph which will remain at their current level. This will be supported by a number of engagement campaigns to encourage more sustainable transport.
14 Where local committed infrastructure schemes are expected to have a direct quantifiable (non-strategic) impact, which cannot be suitably expressed using the strategic traffic model, manual adjustments will be made using professional judgement, where possible, to forecast traffic model outputs to reflect the likely impacts of those schemes, e.g. from separate existing studies which include junction modelling 37 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
3.6 Second Stage Sift and Shortlist Following the scoring of the longlist options against the CSFs, 25 solutions were eliminated due to scoring as unacceptable against one or more CSF, with the remaining solutions available for incorporating into packages for the second stage sift (the medium list). The second stage of the sifting process took place in a second workshop with key stakeholders on 23rd February 2018. It comprised the following stages:
· Combine the best performing solutions into packages; · Identify benchmark package for inclusion in shortlist; · Score each package as a whole against the CSFs; · Identify 2-3 best packages to shortlist as the Preferred Way Forward; and · Assess solutions, service delivery and funding options individually against the secondary CSFs
The initial packages formed from the medium list of options are shown in Table 3-3 below. The components of these packages are shown in Appendix D.
Table 3-3 Solution packages identified
The solution packages were then scored again against primary and secondary CSFs as required by the methodology. An additional CSF titled ‘Risk of Recurrence’ was included in the assessment to appraise the likelihood of the package being able to maintain compliance in future years, given the large amount of growth forecasted in the study area identified in the earlier sections of this report. Therefore, the ‘Risk of Recurrence’ CSF directly relates to the secondary objective.
The results of the scoring exercise are shown in Table 3-4 which identifies the shortlisted packages. A consistency check exercise was also carried out to
38 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case ensure that participants were satisfied that the scoring of packages did not contradict the stage one scoring of individual solution elements. An outline of the reasoning for the scoring is also presented in Appendix D.
Table 3-4 Scoring of packages against primary and secondary CSFs
The scores for the different packages have been used to decide which packages to take forward to the OBC stage. The ‘risk of recurrence’ CSF was given prominence, as it is of foremost concern that the study area does not to return to exceedances of air pollution limits as a result of the large amount of growth planned along the A127 corridor.
‘Bus lite’, ‘structural change - long term’ ‘campaigning package’ and ‘semi- radical hybrid option’ all scored negatively on the ‘risk of recurrence’ CSF so were discarded. It was concluded that although the ‘campaigning package’ would not be likely to achieve compliance on its own, it is important for any package taken forward to include communication with the public. This is to ensure the package is fully understood, which is required for behavioural change. Therefore, the ‘campaigning package’ was attached to all other packages so they all included a comprehensive communication plan and budget.
‘Bus max’, ‘structural change – medium term’ and LGV target all scored neutrally on the ‘risk of recurrence’ CSF so were not shortlisted. However, they were discussed in more detail than the packages which were negatively scored. For example, even though the ‘structural change – medium term’ package had positive scores for CSFs 2-7, there was uncertainty over whether the measures 39 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case would likely ensure that air pollution levels would not return to exceedance levels. This uncertainty stems from the fact the measures within the package are anticipated to reduce air pollution levels for up to five years. However, whilst the measures are not likely to continue to reduce air pollution levels after this timeframe, the A127 corridor for growth strategy continues beyond five years.
The ‘targeting employment traffic’ and ‘focussed quick returns’ packages were the only two packages that scored positively on the ‘Risk of recurrence’ CSF.
The ‘focussed quick returns’ package was a composite of the options which were believed to offer the most reliable reductions in air pollution levels in the short medium and long term so scored highly and should be taken forward.
The ‘targeting employment traffic’ package scored positively on the ‘risk of recurrence’ CSF as the measures would be applied to new developments, therefore all of the projected growth along the A127 corridor would be coordinated to the measures in the package. There are three neutral scores due to the uncertainty over the distributional impact, supply side capability and affordability, however none are perceived to be negative. Additionally, there is a significant degree of uncertainty over the magnitude of the reduction of air pollution that can be achieved in the study area through targeting local employment traffic. This is dependent on the purpose of the journeys along the A127 i.e. what percentage of traffic is travelling for employment purposes. For traffic related to employment, the geographical scale of the employers targeted would determine the impact; if only a small number of local employers are included, the impact will be small, whereas if a large number of regional employers are included the impacts would be expected to be larger.
When discussing the ‘targeting employment traffic’ package it was noted that a number of the measures are also included in the ‘focussed quick returns’ package. Consequently, an exercise comparing the packages and the individual measures scores from the initial workshop was completed. This showed that the individual measures in the ‘targeting employment traffic’ package that were not included in the ‘focussed quick returns’ package were not expected to reduce air pollution levels by a substantial magnitude. Therefore, it was felt that the ‘targeting employment traffic’ package should not be taken forward to the OBC stage.
A preliminary high-level cost estimate of the ‘focussed quick returns’ package indicated it could cost approximately £30m, therefore a stripped back version of the ‘focussed quick returns’ package which has an estimated cost of £17m will also be taken through to the OBC stage. This package is represented in Table
40 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
3-4 as package K + A + G (Reduced scope/cost focussed quick returns), and has the same score as the full focussed quick returns package. The scores are the same for the ‘reduced scope/cost focussed quick returns’ and full ‘focussed quick returns’ package because they are both expected to deliver air quality benefits across the main areas of focus, and the variations between them cannot be captured in a high level scoring methodology. The OBC will provide a comprehensive analysis to compare the different packages and provide more clarity in how their impact may differ.
In summary, it was determined that three packages would be taken forward, which are:
Package A (Benchmark Option)
· A permanent, enforced, reduction in the speed limit from 70mph to 50mph along the A127 between West Basildon (to the east of Fortune of War Junction) and East Basildon (to the east of the A127/Pound Lane Junction), excluding areas with a speed limit currently under 50mph which will remain at their current level. This will be supported by a number of engagement campaigns to encourage more sustainable transport.
Package J + A + G
· A permanent, enforced, reduction in the speed limit from 70mph to 50mph along the A127 between West Basildon (to the east of Fortune of War Junction) and East Basildon (to the east of the A127/Pound Lane Junction), excluding areas with a speed limit currently under 50mph which will remain at their current level. This will be supported by a number of engagement campaigns to encourage more sustainable transport. · Mixed package of additional measures that are achievable. Some impacts will be achieved within two years and others will continue to develop in the medium to long term
Package K + A + G
· A permanent, enforced, reduction in the speed limit from 70mph to 50mph along the A127 between West Basildon (to the east of Fortune of War Junction) and East Basildon (to the east of the A127/Pound Lane Junction), excluding areas with a speed limit currently under 50mph which will remain at their current level. This will be supported by a
41 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
number of engagement campaigns to encourage more sustainable transport. · Mixed package of additional measures that are achievable, however, not as wide reaching as package ‘J + A + G’. Some impacts will be achieved within two years and others will continue to develop in the medium to long term.
3.7 Service Delivery and Funding
3.7.1 Service delivery
Table 3-5 presents the proposed scoring of three identified service delivery options against the CSFs:
· Internal only, i.e. Essex County Council, Basildon Borough Council and Rochford Borough Council; · external contractors only; or · a combination of both.
Table 3-5 Proposed scoring of Service delivery options against CSFs Local External Service delivery Authorities contractors option only only Combination Value for money 0 0 1 Distributional impacts - - - Strategic and wider air quality fit - - - Supply side capacity/ capability 1 0 1 Affordability 1 0 1 Achievability 0 -1 1 Robustness of evidence - - -
A combined offering of local authority and external resources was identified as the optimal option for delivering the intervention packages. The local authorities are unlikely to have the resources to delivery all aspects of the preferred packages internally. External contractors alone would also not be able to deliver some aspects of the solution. External contractors may be costlier than internal resources however their assistance, and in some cases specialist expertise,
42 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
means that a combination of internal and external resources provides the optimal affordability and deliverability.
3.7.2 Funding options
Three funding options were identified and discussed during the workshop:
· Full public funding · Mainly private funding with some public funding · Mainly public funding with limited private funding
3.7.3 Scoring of options against CSFs
The proposed scoring of the funding options against the CSFs is presented in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6 Proposed scoring of funding options against CSFs Public funding with limited Mainly private private Funding option Public funding funding contribution Value for money 0 0 1 Distributional impacts - - - Strategic and wider air quality fit - - - Supply side capacity/ capability 1 -1 1 Affordability 0 1 1 Achievability 1 0 1 Robustness of evidence - - -
Private funding would enable the package to be delivered at a lower cost to the government and therefore would be more affordable than delivering packages entirely within public funding. However, it would be impractical for the private sector to deliver some elements of a package of options without substantial funding as well. Therefore, the preferred way forward is for mainly public funding but with appropriate private contributions. This option provides the best balance of affordability and practicality.
43 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case 4 Commercial Case
4.1 Introduction The Commercial Case provides details regarding the commercial viability and deliverability of the A127 AQMP.
The assessment of service delivery options undertaken as part of the Economic Case concluded that a combined offering of Local Authority and external resources is likely to be the optimal model for service delivery.
At the SOC stage, the commercial case comprises the following three sections:
1. An assessment of relevant current procurement arrangements
2. Likely services required
3. Likely attractiveness of the project to potential service providers
4.2 Assessment of relevant current procurement arrangements ECC has entered into an Integrated Services Contract with Ringway Jacobs to provide all aspects of Highway Services. This contract was tendered via the OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union) tender process and was awarded to Ringway Jacobs with a contract start date of 2012. In addition to the Highway and Transport and Maintenance Services the 10-year contract includes Jacobs as a framework supplier providing consultancy and design services for the Council. Tenders are sought if the work is over a set value otherwise the contract is binding.
Procurement for these works is via Agreement between Rochford District Council (RDC), Basildon Borough Council (BBC) and Essex County Council (ECC). ECC will then commission Ringway Jacobs through the Highways Strategic Transformation (HST) Contract 2012 (ECC Highways Partnership Contract) to deliver the works through a 3rd party works agreement. Value for money will be ensured through the use of the ECC Highways and Maintenance Contract with ECC. The management of the contract incorporates an annual review process including setting and monitoring key performance indicators to provide an ongoing appraisal of efficiency and value for money.
The integrated services contract follows the guidelines of a New Engineering Contract (NEC) contract and contract management processes are in place to manage all work undertaken through the contract with Ringway Jacobs to ensure all projects are managed effectively and value for money is delivered for 44 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
the Council. The contract is Open Book and all parties have access to the financial details. Additional contractual details include:
· Essex County Council client team approve all project briefs and project costs prior to the commencement of the project. · The brief for the project specifies all elements of the project that are included and provides a cost for each element. · Any changes are considered for approval by the client via Compensation Events for all work that is undertaken outside or in addition to the original brief. · Project finances are reported and monitored monthly via the contract finance processes. The finance breakdown is presented for the client to view and challenge. · All projects are monitored via the Strategic Contract Board and reported to the Executive Director for Highways and Transportation via the Monthly Contract Tracker.
4.3 Likely services required The packages taken forward to OBC stage include a number of measures that require services from a variety of providers.
The different types of service include small scale high volume infrastructure, engagement with businesses and the public, travel planning, changing planning legislation and a limited number of heavy civil engineering projects.
The OJEU contract referenced above was also signed by BBC and RDC, however this is not binding, so Ringway Jacobs is not the only procurement route for the eventual packages and measures that will be implemented. In the event that Basildon and Rochford Councils require a number of services to be delivered they should go to the market to initiate a competitive bidding process to ensure value for money is secured.
4.4 Likely attractiveness of the project to potential service providers It may not be the best solution to tender the eventual package as a complete project that one service provider would be expected deliver. This would limit the number of service providers able to deliver all of the services required which could affect the quality and value for money of the service eventually delivered. Therefore, it may be preferable to split the overall package into separate sub- packages along the lines of similar services so different providers bid for
45 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case different sub-packages. This will ensure more specialised providers can bid for the sub-packages
The attractiveness of the different services required will differ depending on how well served the market is. For example, there are a number of firms who offer consultancy on travel planning so a competitive tender would be expected. This contrasts consulting on changing local planning regulations which is a specialised area, so it may be hard to attract a number of bidders which is usually required to achieve value for money.
A solution to this challenge may be to create sub-packages that combine competitive elements with more specialised sections in order to attract more firms into the tender process possible through subcontracting and/or joint venture arrangements.
46 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case 5 Financial Case
5.1 Introduction The main purpose of the financial case is to provide an assessment of the affordability of the preferred way forward.
The three shortlisted options all scored positively for affordability during the sifting process undertaken as part of the Economic Case.
At the SOC stage, the financial case comprises the following three sections:
1. Indicative costings of the shortlisted packages
2. A summary of the current financial situation and an outline of the resources available for the project
3. A summary of any capital and revenue constraints
5.2 Indicative costings A high level cost estimate exercise has been completed on the shortlisted packages based on professional judgement and similar projects in the area. Table 5-1 shows indicative costs for each shortlisted package, which range from £200,000 to £27.5m. These costs have not been verified by a detailed study and should therefore be treated as very high level indicative estimates. Further detailed estimates backed up by benchmarking and engineering costs will be provided at the OBC stage.
Table 5-1 Cost estimates for selected packages Package Indicative cost estimate
Do Minimum £0
A + G: Quantifiable measures package £200,000 (Benchmark)
J + A + G: Focused Quick Returns £27,500,000
K + A + G: Reduced Cost Focused Quick £14,500,000 Returns
47 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
5.3 Available resources for the project Funding for the measures will be sought through various sources depending on the nature of the measure. For example, those measures which require amendments to, or a change in interpretation of, local planning regulation, the source of finance will be via section 106s. The UK Plan for Tackling Roadside Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations Detailed Plan (July 2017) references a number of funds. At this initial stage, those which are relevant to the measures within the packages taken forward to OBC have been identified and summarised in Table 5-2. Further research is required to understand if these sources are still accessible and whether the Basildon and Rochford Councils are suitable candidates.
Table 5-2 Funding sources relevant to the A127 AQMP scheme Funding source Summary
Cycling and Walking Identifies £1.2 billion which may be invested in cycling and Investment Strategy walking from 2016-21
National Productivity Provides in three areas relevant to measures contained within Investment Fund the packages:
· An extra £220 million for strategic roads to tackle key pinch-points; · £80 million to support ULEV charging infrastructure; and · £100 million in support for low emission buses Bus Service Referenced as a 2015/16 scheme so need to research its Operators Grant successor.
On-Street Gives local authorities access to grant funding and guidance to Residential support the installation of charging infrastructure for drivers Charging Scheme without access to off-street parking
Workplace Charging Provides support towards the purchase and installation of Scheme electric vehicle (EV) charge points in carparks, for eligible businesses, charities and public sector organisations.
Clean Air Fund Further details awaited at OBC stage.
Additionally, a bid has been submitted to the Early Measures Funding Grant for cycle infrastructure and parking, a cycle hub and additional charging points. The level of funding has not yet been confirmed.
48 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
5.4 Inclusion of any capital and revenue constraints. The key constraint is that the BBC and RDC budgets for 2018/19 have been set and any budget requirement must be contained within the approved funding for each Local Authority.
49 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case 6 Management Case
The main purpose of the Management Case is to provide a high level assessment of achievability.
6.1 Key Stakeholders The key internal stakeholders for the project include Essex County Council, Basildon Borough Council and Rochford District Council. Table 6-1 presents the main external stakeholders identified to date:
Table 6-1 External stakeholders Group Member
Political · Essex County Council · Basildon Borough Council · Rochford District Council · Southend-on-Sea Borough Council where there is an additional noncompliance with air quality along the A127 within its boundary · Other surrounding Authorities: Castle Point District Council; Brentwood District Council; Thurrock District Council; London Borough of Havering; TfL
Inc. cabinet members, infrastructure/planning/environment portfolio holders, ward members and local councillors. Strategic traffic · London Southend Airport generators · Port of Tilbury · London Gateway Port · Basildon Enterprise Corridor Transport · Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) · Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee · The RAC · The AA · Ariva · Nibbs · Great Anglia · C2C · SEAT – South Essex Active Travel · Highways England
50 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Group Member
Freight and · Freight Transport Association passenger · Road Haulage Association transport · Transport for London · First Essex · Stagecoach Bus Media · Communications teams of local councils · East Anglian Daily Times · Echo News e.g. Basildon and Brentwood. Emergency · Essex Fire & Rescue services · Essex Police · East of England Ambulance Statutory · Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust · Natural England · Historic England · Essex Local Access Forum Non-motorised · Essex Bridleways Association users · Ramblers Association · Sustrans · Essex Roads Cycling Club Health · Public Health England · Healthwatch England · NHS Improvement Accessibility · Essex Local Access Forum · Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) · Hard of Hearing/Deaf combined group · Options for Independent Living (OIL) / Older People/Physical Impairment combined group Environment · The Environment Agency · Essex Wildlife Trust · Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) · Environment leads from local authorities Economic · Business leads from local authorities · Essex Chamber of Commerce · South East Local Enterprise Partnership
51 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Group Member
Residents · Town and Parish Council chairs · Families InFocus (Essex) · Community 360 Other · Thames Estuary Commission · Opportunity South Essex
A separate communications and engagement plan has been issued in conjunction with the SOC and should be reviewed by project partners at each stage of project development. It sets out the project objectives and key messages as well as the strategy to engage with stakeholders (when and who) outlining a range of techniques that will be deployed, including elements of public affairs, communications, marketing and social research. The plan reviews demographic information for the project area to ensure engagement is targeted, clear and consistent. Ultimately the plan helps to identify issues early and reduce future objections.
6.2 Key management considerations The project is led by Rochford District Council (RDC) and Basildon Borough Council (BBC) who are the two Responsible Authorities for the air quality noncompliance on sections of the A127. Essex County Council (ECC) as Highway Authority is leading on all highway related matters. The three Authorities are working together as a joint working group.
The Project is managed collaboratively by the three Local Authorities through the Officer Working Group. There is a dedicated Project Manager and a project team covering all aspects of the programme. The Governance of each authority has been mapped out and is described in a later section of this document. Appendix E shows an organogram of the governance structure, while Appendix F details the Working Group terms of reference which details the governance structure.
Each Local Authority’s decision making processes will require them to take individual decisions when approving the eventual measures to be delivered. The Officer Working Group will take into account the individual policies and strategies of all three authorities. Briefings are scheduled for the separate Cabinet and Portfolio Holders, Directors and Committee Chair and these will be held at regular intervals to ensure an awareness of the issues prior to decisions being required. Where there are any activities that are outside specific policies then these are being raised at an early stage with the respective Senior Officers
52 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case and Members to ensure that all plans have a consensus across all authorities. In the event of any specific non agreements then these will be raised at the appropriate Senior Officer and Member level and a joint decision will be agreed.
A separate overarching Project Board has not been convened as it is considered that the work can be included within the existing Boards and is covered by the duty to cooperate placed on all Local Authorities.
The ‘duty to cooperate’ was created in the Localism Act 2011. It places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters.
A Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) exists between the London Borough of Havering, Essex County Council, Brentwood Borough Council, Basildon Borough Council, Castle Point Borough Council, Rochford District Council, Southend on Sea Borough Council, TfL and Highways England. The purpose of this SoCG is to inform the Planning Inspectors and other parties of the agreed way forward on any issues that remain outstanding at the point of Local Plan submission. This SoCG focusses on the impact cross-boundary growth will have on strategic routes including the A127 and details how the participating authorities will work collaboratively to address the identified issues. Any work impacting on the A127 as a strategic route will be covered by this statement. The SoCG concludes that “All Local Authorities acknowledge that the Duty to Cooperate is not just a mechanism for cross-borough engagement during a Local Plan process. It is an ongoing activity that will continue beyond individual boroughs submissions, and eventual adoption of a Local Plan. All parties remain committed to continue to work together outside of the Local Plan process on these important strategic matters.”
An initial Interactive Planning session was held with all relevant parties including JAQU, Essex County Council, Rochford District Council, Basildon Borough Council and technical discipline leads. This session was used to discuss and agree the activities required and project management arrangements which include:
· Meetings/conference calls are held weekly with the lead project officers from the Essex, Rochford and Basildon to monitor progress and delivery; · A weekly conference call is held with the wider project team to clarify actions and monitor progress and delivery;
53 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
· A weekly conference call is held with the JAQU team to monitor progress and confirm progress to JAQU; and · A risk register is maintained and monitored at least monthly
· Weekly reports are issued to the project group including JAQU by the Essex Highways Project Manager on Fridays. This includes, progress to date, work planned over the coming week, and finance update.
Each Authority has well defined reporting structures and democratic processes for approving the eventual measures which need to be delivered. These are detailed in the following sections.
Basildon Borough Council
Most decisions on Council functions are dealt with by politically balanced committees subject to the general oversight of Council. The main committees are: · Policy and Resources · Housing and Community · Regeneration and Environment · Infrastructure, Growth and Development
These committees are supported by other more specialist committees and sub- committees including a planning committee and a licensing committee
The Chairman of the Policy and Resources who is appointed annually by Council at the Annual Council Meeting fulfils the role associated with the ‘Leader of the Council’ but does not use the title of ‘Leader of the Council’. The Vice-Chairman of the Policy and Resources assists and deputises as necessary.
The Council has adopted procedures for reviewing decisions made by the above committees in certain circumstances. The Council also has an Audit and Risk Committee and a Joint Standards Committee which, in different ways, scrutinise the performance of the Council and its ethical standards.
Service committees have power to deal with all matters within their remit as detailed in Part 3 of the Constitution with the exception of the following matters which are to be referred to Policy and Resources Committee: -
· Major policy changes or initiatives;
54 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
· Decisions which would have a direct effect on the majority of the Borough’s residents; · Asset management matters, including property acquisitions and disposals; · Compulsory purchase orders; and · Proposals that require virement of budgets within the committees remit of over £250k and all proposals that require virement of budgets between committee remits.
The Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer will determine the appropriate committee for issues to be considered and determined in accordance with the provisions in the Constitution. Where issues overlap across two or more committees, the Policy and Resources Committee will be asked to either advise on the relevant committee to deal with the matter, or take the decision themselves.
With regards to policies that need approval by Council and do not fall within remit of the Policy and Resources Committee (i.e. Local Plan, Licensing Policies), these are to be recommended to Council from the relevant committee, and not go through the Policy and Resources Committee.
Rochford District Council
The RDC executive council makes decisions either collectively or individually on matters of policy and management across the range of services delivered by the Council (subject to some decisions which are reserved to all Councillors meeting as “Full Council”).
The more significant decisions (known as “Key Decisions”) are published in a ‘Key Decisions Document’. Decisions made by the Executive, or by individual Portfolio Holders, are published and are subject to “call-in” by the Council’s Review Committee for a five-day period prior to being enacted.
The Executive comprises eight Councillors with Portfolios as follows:
· Leader - Overall strategy and policy direction including corporate policy development, national / regional issues, community leadership, partnership and joint working development, elections, Local Enterprise Partnership, Chairmanship of the Local Strategic Partnership and all residual functions of the Executive. · Deputy Leader - Strategic direction, strategic partnerships (including Town and Parish Councils), South Essex Parking Partnership, Essex
55 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
Partnership for Flood Management, coastal protection and performance management. · Finance – Financial resources, audit, procurement, risk management, payroll, creditors and debtors. · Enterprise – Asset management, economic development, employment, town teams, district car parks, commercial activities and tourism, ICT and Communications. · Planning – Planning policy, development control, planning enforcement and building control. · Environment – Recycling, open spaces, waste management, street scene, pollution control, emergency planning, community safety, TPO service, hedgerows and cemetery services. · Community –Young people, safeguarding, public health, housing need, grants and voluntary sector support, leisure centres, arts, culture and heritage. · Governance – Legal Services, Revenues and Benefits, licensing, land charges, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, fraud, data protection, Customer Services, Human Resources and Member support.
The agendas, reports and minutes of Executive meetings and the individual Portfolio Holder decisions are published on the Council’s website.
Essex County Council Governance
ECC, as a political decision-making body, can be divided into four main areas:
· The Council · The Cabinet · Standing Committees · Overview and Scrutiny Committees
Decisions by ECC are made by elected Councillors, who are advised by employees, also known as officers of the council. Officers are responsible for implementing decisions that are made by the Councillors and managing the day to day delivery of council services. Some Officers are responsible for ensuring that the council acts within the law and uses its resources wisely. The relationship between the Officers of the council and the Members of the council is managed by a code of conduct.
The council is made up of representatives from all of the major political parties, as well as independent candidates.
56 A127 AQMP SOC A127 – AQMP Strategic Outline Case
All 75 members of the Council meet together five times a year in public to set the annual budget; determine policy; approve the Constitution and any changes to it; discuss motions put forward by members of the Council; and ask questions of the Leader, Cabinet Members and Committee Chairmen.
57 A127 AQMP SOC
Appendices Appendix A: Initial Target Determination Technical Note
Technical Note: Initial Target Determination Air Quality Management Plan – A127
Date: 07 March 2018
A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Document Control Sheet
Document prepared by:
Chloe Smith 1180 Eskdale Road T +44 (0)118 946 7000 Air Quality Consultant Winnersh, Wokingham E [email protected] Reading RG41 5TU W www.essex.gov.uk/highways United Kingdom
Report Title A127 AQMP Initial Target Determination Technical Note
Project Number B3553P10
Status Final
Revision 1
Control Date 07.03.18
Record of Issue
Issue Status Author Date Check Date Review Date
0 Draft CS 01.03.18 MC 01.03.18 HP 02.03.18
1 Final CS 07.03.18 MC 07.03.18 HP 07.03.18
Approved for Issue By Date
Chris Beverley (Project Manager) 07.03.18
Distribution
Organisation Contact Number of Copies
Essex County Council Beverley Gould 1
Rochford District Council Martin Howlett 1
Basildon Borough Council Tony Meech 1
JAQU (DEFRA) Emily Clark / Martin Ellis 1
© Copyright 2018 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Table of Contents Introduction ...... 3 Initial Target Determination ...... 3 Approach ...... 4 Evidence Sources ...... 5 Results ...... 10 Conclusions ...... 11 Figures ...... 12
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Introduction
The purpose of this technical note is to inform the Strategic Outline Case (SOC). The purpose of the SOC is firstly to establish the case for change by looking at the existing arrangements and the desired goal; and secondly, to provide a suggested way forward by refining a long list of options to a short list of options to further develop. It is expected that the SOC will draw on existing data to elucidate a local air quality assessment. Initial Target Determination
The purpose of the Initial Target Determination is to refine the primary objective of the scheme being designed, which seeks to move a zone into compliance with the annual mean nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentration limit as quickly as possible. Initial Target Determination involves the comparison of available evidence and Defra’s Pollution Climate Model (PCM) air quality modellingi, then agreeing the most appropriate concentration assessment to be compared to the limit value.
This is needed to understand how big an improvement needs to be made in a particular location. A robust evidence base for the initial target is needed to ensure that any measures are likely to achieve compliance in the shortest possible time.
It is acknowledged that target determination outputs will be reviewed, updated and submitted as part of the Initial Evidence Submission; when local authorities have completed their baseline local air quality modelling.
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Approach
The approach to Initial Target Determination has been to review the current baseline (2018) Streamlined Pollution Climate Mapping (SL-PCM) outputs for the three non-compliance links in Basildon and Rochford (see Figures 1, 3 and 5) and to re-forecast the 2020 concentration assessments in line with the latest available assessment tools and datasets.
Five (5) evaluations were undertaken, with each building on the results of the last. These were:
1 Evaluation 1. Updated NOx to NO2 Calculator;
Evaluation 2. Updated 2015-based Background Maps;
a. including updated NOx to NO2 Calculator
Evaluation 3. Updated Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT); a. including updated 2015-based Background Maps b. including updated NOx to NO2 Calculator
Evaluation 4. Updated Speed Limits a. including updated Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT) b. including updated 2015-based Background Maps c. including updated NOx to NO2 Calculator; and
Evaluation 5. Updated Local Measured Data. a. including updated Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT) b. including updated 2015-based Background Maps c. including updated NOx to NO2 Calculator.
Given the close proximity (4m) of each modelled receptor (Census ID location) to their respective SL-PCM link, it was assumed that the relationship between each link’s all vehicle NOx emission factor and road NOx concentration was approximately direct and linear.
Evaluated road NOx concentrations were therefore calculated by factoring SL-PCM road NOx concentrations using the same ratio observed between the SL-PCM all vehicle NOx emission factor and the evalauted all vehicle NOx emission factor for each link respectively.
For the purpose of this technical note, re-forecasting of 2020 concentration assessments from revised 2018 values was made using the same year NO2 concentration ratios established in the SL-PCM.
All concentration assessment inputs and outputs are available electronically on request to support the evidence submitted in this Technical Note.
1 Oxides of nitrogen B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Evidence Sources
The following sources of evidence were used to establish the Initial Target Determination: 1. Streamlined Pollution Climate Mapping (SL-PCM) models
a. 2018 SL-PCM emissions tool (v3.2.1) ii
b. 2018 SL-PCM concentration tool (v3.2.1) iii
c. SL-PCM technical document iv
2. NOx to NO2 Calculator (v6.1) v
3. 2015-based Background Maps vi
a. NO2 Adjustment for NOx Sector Removal Tool (v6.0) vii
4. Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT) (v8.0.1a) viii
5. Speed Limits ix 6. Local Measured Data
a. Department for Transport (DfT) Count Data x
b. Trafficmaster Speed Data xi
Streamlined Pollution Climate Mapping (SL‐PCM) models
The Streamlined Pollution Climate Mapping (SL-PCM) models (v3.2.1) is used to calculate the projected roadside NO2 concentrations for the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) scenario and CAZ plus additional actions scenario.
Each SL-PCM model consists of two tools, 1. an emissions tool, and 2. a concentrations tool.
There is a dedicated SL-PCM model for each year from 2018 to 2030 inclusive.
The SL-PCM was built to approximate the results of the full PCM model (including National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory emissions calculations and emissions mapping and PCM concentration calculations) and to run scenarios considerably more quickly in order to meet the immediate needs of Defra for policy support.
The SL-PCM provides these with substantially faster run times because it relies on information previously prepared for and by the full PCM model and does not require dispersion modelling for each scenario.
Tables 1 and 2 shows the SL-PCM emission and concentration inputs for the three non- compliance links in Basildon and Rochford for the year 2018 (the earliest publicly available).
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Table 1: 2018 PCM Emission Inputs
ID Annual % % % % % % Average Cars LGV Buses Rigid Artic Motorcycles Daily Traffic and (Petrol/ (AADT) Coaches Diesel)
ID 16646 66,519 77 17.9 0.2 2.6 1.5 0.8 (Basildon) (41.8/35.2) ID 75041 68,211 82.4 12.8 1.0 2.0 1.2 0.7 (Basildon) (44.7/37.7) ID 46683 68,916 80.9 14.6 0.3 2.3 0.7 1.1 (Rochford) (43.9/37.0)
Table 2: 2018 PCM Concentration Inputs
ID Total f-NO2 Background Total Background Road
NO2 NO2 NOx NOx NOx
ID 16646 50.1 0.3 14.2 119.9 19.6 95.3 (Basildon) ID 75041 50.5 0.3 16.6 122.1 23.1 100.3 (Basildon) ID 46683 49.4 0.3 15.7 117.2 21.9 99.0 (Rochford)
Table 3 shows the characteristics of the road type applied to the three non-compliance links in Basildon and Rochford as set out in the SL-PCM technical document.
Table 3: Characteristics of Road Type 16 Considered by the SL‐PCM
Road ID Road Type Area Type General Speed Speed Heavy Speed Buses (km/h) Goods (km/h) Vehicles (HGVs) (km/h)
16 Urban Urban 36 36 32
Evaluation 1. NOx to NO2 Calculator
Evaluation 1 considered applying Defra’s latest NOx to NO2 calculator instead of relying on the PCM conversion of NOx to NO2. The calculator allows users to derive NO2 from NOx wherever NOx is predicted by modelling emissions from roads. The current version of the calculator (v6.1) should only be used with the 2015-based background maps and the EFT v8.0 onwards, and was used for the years 2018.
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Evaluation 2. 2015‐based Background Maps
In addition to considering the application of Defra’s latest NOx to NO2 calculator Evaluation 2 also considered applying Defra’s latest 2015-based Background Maps instead of relying on the values in the PCM model. To assist local authorities undertaking their air quality Review and Assessments, 2015-based 1x1km grid square background maps for years 2015 to 2030 for NOx and NO2. The 2015-based background maps are based on monitoring and meteorological data for 2015. These have been produced to provide background maps in line with the baseline projections used in the 2017 national air quality plan for NO2.
NO2 Adjustment for NOx Sector Removal Tool
This tool allows users to update the NO2 maps accordingly when emission sectors are subtracted from the NOx maps. The current version of the tool (v6.0) should only be used with the 2015-based background maps, and was used for year 2018.
2 The in-square Primary A Road sector was subtracted from the NOx maps as this would be replicated in the modelling of these specific road sources.
Evaluation 3. Emissions Factors Toolkit
In addition to considering the application of Defra’s latest NOx to NO2 calculator and Defra’s latest 2015-based Background Maps, Evaluation 3 also considered applying Defra’s latest Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT) instead of relying on the emission factors in the PCM model. The EFT allows users to calculate road vehicle pollutant emission rates for NOx for a specified year, road type, vehicle speed and vehicle fleet composition. It is updated periodically due to updates to underlying data including vehicle fleet composition and emissions factors.
Evaluation 4. Speed Limits
In addition to considering the application of Defra’s latest NOx to NO2 calculator, Defra’s latest 2015-based Background Maps, and Defra’s latest Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT), Evaluation 4 also considered applying national speed limits instead of relying on the vehicle speeds for a typical urban road as used in the PCM model. National speed limits for the three non- compliance links in Basildon and Rochford were identified and are presented in Table 4. Table 4: National Speed Limits
ID Speed Limit (mph)
16646 (Basildon) 40 75041 (Basildon) 70 46683 (Rochford) 50
2 Motorway and Trunk A Road emission sectors were not removed, as the values in them were zero. B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Evaluation 5. Local Measured Data
Department for Transport (DfT) Count Data
In addition to considering the application of Defra’s latest NOx to NO2 calculator, Defra’s latest 2015-based Background Maps, and Defra’s latest Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT), Evaluation 5 also considered applying local measured flows, fleet compositions (projected) and speeds instead of relying on the data used in the PCM model.
Sixteen (16) years’ of measured AADT and classification (fleet composition) data is available online for the three non-compliance links in Basildon and Rochford from the DfT. These data (shown in Figures 1 to 6) were used to project forward using linear regression to the year 2018 for comparison with SL-PCM inputs.
For the purpose of NOx emission factor calculations, cars were apportioned into Petrol and Diesel fuel-types using the same split as in the SL-PCM.
Table 5 shows the forecast traffic flow and composition data for the three non-compliance links in Basildon and Rochford for the year 2018.
Table 5: Forecast 2018 Traffic Flow and Fleet Composition Data
ID AADT % % % % % % Cars LGV Buses Rigid Artic Motorcycles and Coaches
ID 16646 64,984 75.9 19.1 0.2 2.6 1.9 0.5 (Basildon) ID 75041 68,272 82.4 13.4 1.0 1.7 1.0 0.6 (Basildon) ID 46683 65,263 79.1 16.7 0.3 2.5 0.7 0.8 (Rochford)
Trafficmaster Data
Additionally, current annual 12 hour average speed data is also available from Trafficmaster for east and west-bound carriageways for the three non-compliance links in Basildon and Rochford. Two-way 24 hour average speeds were estimated using a 50% time-weighted average of the annual 12 hour average speed data and annual free-flow data.
Table 6 shows the estimated 24 hour average speed data for the three non-compliance links in Basildon and Rochford.
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Table 6: Estimated 24 Hour Average Speeds
ID Annual 12 Hour Annual Free-Flow Directional Two-way Average Speed Speed (mph) Estimated 24 Estimated 24 (mph) Hour Average Hour Average Speed (mph) Speed (mph)
16646 35.6 40.5 38.1 (Basildon) 34.5 28.6 33.2 30.9 75041 50.3 61.5 55.9 (Basildon) 52.2 41.5 55.4 48.4 46683 31.0 48.5 39.7 (Rochford) 41.7 39.7 47.5 43.6
For each evaluation scenario reviewed, the associated tools or datasets were updated and fed through the calculation process.
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Results
To support the interpretation of the Tables provided in this section, the 5 evaluation scenarios are again listed below: Streamlined Pollution Climate Mapping (SL-PCM) models
Evaluation 1. NOx to NO2 Calculator;
Evaluation 2. 2015-based Background Maps ; Evaluation 3. Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT); Evaluation 4. Speed Limits; and Evaluation 5. Local Measured Data.
Tables 7, 8, and 9 show the results of each concentration assessment step evaluated. Non- compliant concentrations are shown in bold red and compliant concentrations are shown in bold green.
Table 7: Results for ID 16646 (Basildon)
Year PCM 1 2 3 4 5
2018 50.1 57.5 56.9 48.3 42.9 43.7 2020 (Forecast) 45.2 51.8 51.2 43.5 38.6 39.4
Table 8: Results for ID 75041 (Basildon)
Year PCM 1 2 3 4 5
2018 50.5 58.4 56.2 48.6 54.3 43.7 2020 (Forecast) 45.6 52.7 50.8 43.9 48.9 39.5
Table 9: Results for ID 46683 (Rochford)
Year PCM 1 2 3 4 5
2018 49.4 57.4 55.8 48.5 43.5 42.6 2020 (Forecast) 44.8 52.1 50.6 44.0 39.5 38.7
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Conclusion
It is concluded that, for the purpose of completing the SOC, the most appropriate concentration assessments for comparison to the limit value are evaluation scenario 5:
NOx to NO2 Calculator; and
2015-based Background Maps; and Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT); and Local Measured Flow, Composition and Speed Data
The results of which are shown in Table 10: Table 10: Proposed concentrations assessments
ID 2020 (Forecast)
16646 (Basildon) 39.4 75041 (Basildon) 39.5 46683 (Rochford) 38.7
Based on currently available evidence, forecast 2020 annual mean NO2 concentrations are estimated to be compliant with the limit value.
As the estimated concentrations remain close to the limit value threshold (40 µg/m3) however, the feasibility study will seek to identify measures to provide the necessary confidence that this outcome is likely to occur.
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Figures
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Figure 1: DfT Count ID 16646 ‐ Location
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Figure 2: DfT Count ID 16646 – Data and Projection
DfT Count ID 16646
AADT Cars Buses LGV Rigid Artic Linear (AADT) Linear (Cars) Linear (Buses) Linear (LGV) Linear (Rigid) Linear (Artic) 80
70 Thousands
60
50
40 Vehicles
30
20
10
0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Year
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Figure 3: DfT Count ID 75041 ‐ Location
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Figure 4: DfT Count I D 75041 – Data and Projection
DfT Count ID 75041
AADT Cars Buses LGV Rigid Artic Linear (AADT) Linear (Cars) Linear (Buses) Linear (LGV) Linear (Rigid) Linear (Artic) 80
70 Thousands
60
50
40 Vehicles
30
20
10
0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Year
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Figure 5: DfT Count ID 46683 ‐ Location
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Figure 6: DfT Count ID 46683 – Data and Projection
DfT Count ID 46683
AADT Cars Buses LGV Rigid Artic Linear (AADT) Linear (Cars) Linear (Buses) Linear (LGV) Linear (Rigid) Linear (Artic) 80
70 Thousands
60
50
40 Vehicles
30
20
10
0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Year
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx A127 – AQMP Technical Note: Initial Target Determination
Endnote
i https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/no2ten/ ii https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/no2ten/sl-pcm/SL-PCM_Emis_Baseline_v.3.2.1_2018.zip iii https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/no2ten/sl-pcm/SL-PCM_Conc_Baseline_v.3.2.1_2018.zip iv https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1511260938_AQ0959_Streamlined_PCM_Technical_Report_(Nov_2015).pdf v https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/NOx_to_NO2_Calculator_v6.1.xls vi https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-maps?year=2015 vii https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/NO2-Adjustment-for-NOx-Sector-Removal-Tool-v6.0.xlsb.zip viii Available on Huddle (not for public release) ix http://product.itoworld.com/map/124 x https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/ xi https://www.teletracnavman.co.uk/our-solutions/smartnav
B3553P10‐TN02‐1 A127 AQMP Initial Target Det Final v1.docx Appendix B: Benchmark Option Technical Note
Technical Note: Alternative benchmark Air Quality Management Plan – A127 Date: 07 March 2018
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Document Control Sheet
Document prepared by:
Ben Marcangelo New City Court, T (0) 20 7939 6286 Economist 20 St Thomas Street, E [email protected] London, W www.essex.gov.uk/highways SE1 9RS Report Title A127 AQMP Alternative benchmark technical note
Project Number B3553P10
Status Final
Revision 1
Control Date 07.03.18
Record of Issue
Issue Status Author Date Check Date Review Date 0 Draft BM 01.03.18 AF 01.03.18 AF 01.03.18
1 Final BM 07.03.18 AF 07.03.18 AF 07.03.18
Approved for Issue By Date
Chris Beverley (Project Manager) 07.03.18
Distribution
Organisation Contact Number of Copies Essex County Council Beverley Gould 1
Rochford District Council Martin Howlett 1
Basildon Borough Council Tony Meech 1
JAQU (DEFRA) Emily Clark/Martin Ellis 1
© Copyright 2018 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.
1
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Contents
Executive summary 3.
Origin – destination survey 4.
Alternative route maps 8.
2
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Executive summary
This report presents and discusses the evidence that indicates a charging Clean Air Zone (CAZ) would not be a suitable benchmark to take forward to the Outline Business Case (OBC) and Final Business Case (FBC) stages of the A127 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
JAQU guidance requires that the best available evidence is provided, which for the A127 AQMP project is a 2006 origin and destination Road Side Interview (RSI) survey. This shows that over 2/3 of traffic travelling eastbound on the A127 between Rayleigh Weir and Southend-on-Sea does not originate from the area surrounding the Basildon and Rochford area. This indicates that the majority of traffic on the A127 is through traffic, therefore, a CAZ would not incentivise them to stop or modify their trip – they are likely to re-route.
Maps are provided to show alternate routes to the A127 which would likely be used by though traffic to avoid the A127 if a charging CAZ was introduced. They show that traffic would either re-route onto other major roads such as A13 and A12 or onto the local industrial and residential roads of the Basildon and Rochford area. All alternative routes to the A127, A13 or A12 are heavily urbanised - it is undesirable to have long distance traffic on these industrial and residential routes as there is a likelihood for increase in collisions, further decrease in air quality and increased congestion and unreliable journey times for local residents that work and live on these routes.
Therefore, we recommend that a CAZ is not a suitable benchmark for the A127 in the Basildon and Rochford study area and an alternative benchmark that is more appropriate should be used. In our second sifting workshop on 23rd February 2017, we sifted various packages of options and decided on an alternative benchmark of reducing the speed limit of the A127 to 50mph in the study area where it is currently 70mph. In areas where it is below 50mph for safety reasons, it should remain at current levels. This should be supported by a number of engagement campaigns to encourage more sustainable transport. Further details on the sifting process and the options taken forward will be presented in the Strategic Outline Business Case.
3
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Origin – Destination survey
The most recent RSI origin – destination survey on the A127 was carried out on the 7th June 2006 on the eastbound carriage between Rayleigh Weir and Southend-on-Sea. The location that the survey took place is shown on Figure 1 as the blue pin. Figure 1 also shows the two locations where air quality exceedances have been identified, and are indicated through the two circles.
While the data from the RSI is 12 years old, and therefore outside the recommended age of data by WebTAG, it is the only data source available to us at the moment. The data is still likely to be representative, as traffic growth has been moderate due to the effect of the economic recession in 2009. We are proposing to collect new data in the area as part of this study, and will validate this old dataset against the new dataset when available, to ensure our conclusions drawn from this older dataset are still valid when compared against new evidence. Figure 1: Origin ‐ destination location June 2006
The survey captured 1194 complete respondents which were filtered for quality control reasons so a total of 1181 were analysed. The sample rate of the survey was 9%. Table 1 shows the split of responses by vehicle type, with the majority of responses from cars. Table 1: Responses by vehicle type
Percentage of Vehicle respondents Car 85% Van 11% HGV 4%
4
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
All of the origin and destination records were plotted on using GIS. Figure 2 shows the individual origin and destination data points at a national scale, while Figure 3 shows the individual origin and destination data points at a regional scale. They both show that the journey origins are spread across a wide geographical area, many of which come outside of the study area where exceedances have been identified. Figure 2: Individual origin and destinations – national scale
Figure 3: Individual origin and destinations – regional scale
5
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Figure 4 shows the individual origin and destination data points at a regional scale, and also highlights the area assumed to be a potential CAZ area. The locations of exceedances are also shown within the potential CAZ area. Figure 4: Individual origins and destinations, potential CAZ study area highlighted
6
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Table 2 shows the number of locations inside or outside of the potential CAZ area. It shows that over 2/3 of traffic travelling eastbound on the A127 between Rayleigh Weir and Southend-on- Sea does not originate from the area surrounding the Basildon and Rochford area. This indicates that the majority of traffic on the A127 is through traffic of a strategic nature rather than local trips. Therefore, a CAZ charge is unlikely to induce the behavioral change desired from a CAZ; e.g. switching of modes, upgrade of vehicle, etc. The trips are much more likely to re-route to avoid any potential charge. Table 2: Journey origin locations
Percentage of total Number journey origins Journey origins inside 348 29% potential CAZ area Journey origins outside potential CAZ 833 71% area
7
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Alternative route maps
As discussed above, if a CAZ was introduced in the Basildon and Rochford area then the traffic which does not originate from inside the CAZ area would seek an alternative route to avoid paying the charge. As the majority of traffic is through-traffic this implies a large number of vehicles seeking alternative routes to Southend-on-sea.
Figure 5 shows alternative routes to the A127 (source: Google Maps) from the M25 area to London Southend airport which represents a major destination in the Southend-on-sea area. It shows that the A13 is the only major alternative road according to the Google algorithm. Figure 5: Alternate routes according to Google algorithm
Figure 6 shows an alternative route on major roads not identified by Google which uses the A12 and A130.
The routes identified in figures 5 and 6 are the likely alternatives if a CAZ is introduced in the area surrounding the locations of exceedance. Figure 6: Alternate route A12 and A130
8
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Figures 7 - 9 show the alternate routes on local roads that would likely be taken rather than the main roads identified in figures 5 and 6. Figure 7: Alternate route on minor road north of A127
Figure 8: Alternate route on minor road south of A127
9
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
Figure 9: Alternative route north of A127
Figure 10 (source: Google maps) is a satellite view of the study area which highlights the urban nature of all of the alternative routes to the A127, A13 and A12. Figure 10: Satellite view of study area (source: Google maps)
Figures 5-9 show where traffic seeking to avoid a CAZ in the Basidon and Rochford area would likely re-route to; either on other major roads such as A13 and A12 or local industrial and residential roads in the Basildon and Rochford area.
It is undesirable to have long distance traffic on the industrial and residential routes as there is a likelihood for increase in collisions, further decrease in air quality and increased congestion and unreliable journey times for local residents that work and live on these routes. For example, Figure 9 shows that one alternative route along the A129 goes through Rayleigh town centre which has an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The A13 route east of the A130 is also a single carriageway road and unsuitable for increased volumes of traffic passing through a 10
A127 – AQMP Alternative benchmark
mainly residential area. Not all possible diversionary routes have been analysed but it is worth noting that other diversionary routes may impinge on the AQMA in place in Southend surrounding the Bell junction to Cookoo corner area (http://www.southend.gov.uk/downloads/file/4441/map_of_the_bell_junction_aqma).
Therefore, we recommend that a CAZ is not a suitable benchmark for the Basildon and Rochford study area and an alternative benchmark that is more appropriate should be used. In our second sifting workshop on 23rd February 2017 we propose sifted various packages of options and decided on an alternative benchmark of reducing the speed limit of the A127 to 50mph in the study area where it is currently 70mph. In areas where it is below 50mph for safety reasons, it should remain at current levels. This should be supported by a number of engagement campaigns to encourage more sustainable transport. Further details on the sifting process and the options taken forward will be presented in the Strategic Outline Business Case.
11
Appendix C: Longlist solution options scoring Scoring of solution options longlist Printed 14/03/2018
Appendix C: Stage one sift - scoring of solutions longlist
Stage one sift - scoring of solutions longlist
Critical success factors CSF scoring scale CSF1 Is the measure likely to materially contribute to achieving the primary objective? score likely impact CSF2 Does the measure deliver good value for money? 1 positive CSF3 Does the measure significantly affect one or a number of particular groups of stakeholders? 0 neutral or n/a CSF4 Does this measure fit and/or complement other existing and planned policies? -1 negative CSF5 Is there a sufficiently well-developed market to support the efficient delivery of the measure? X Unacceptable CSF6 Is the measure likely to be affordable in both the short and long run in comparison to other measures considered? CSF7 Given market conditions, are adequate resources available to manage and implement such an measure successfully? CSF8 Can the impacts of this intervention be quantified in a robust way?
Secondary CSFs CSF 2 CSF 3 CSF 4 CSF 5 CSF 6 CSF 7 CSF 8 e y t l f t i d y y u a l o t e t n a i b n y i / s l i e l d s a t i u i i y o s r i c t
Can it bring about i l t s t b q b c e i i t c n i ?
n how long will it t a a m c n a r y b u i e g f i l o v t o f a d a
Solution options compliance on PCM p Consider or Eliminate? b d t e a s p i r V e c i p t p i
take? r u p v r m o t a a t a i h i f b u e e r
links c s c f c i t S o d n A i A S D R a w C Reasoning Very difficult to achieve - This is a strategic route and therefore the council's preferred route for journeys. There is risk Charge for non-compliant vehicles entering that it would displace traffic elsewhere the relevant area including unsuitable minor roads. However it will be taken forward as the car 1 Pass Pass short term 0 0 0 0 1 -1 1 benchmark option Consider Difficult to achieve because of public and Congestion charge 2 Pass Pass short term 0 0 0 0 1 -1 1 political acceptability. Consider Difficult to achieve because of public and Graded residents parking permits 3 Pass no 0 -1 0 1 1 -1 0 political acceptability. Consider Install network of red routes/ extended 4 routes Fail Argued that would not target the problem Eliminate Privately owned so not within achievable Charge for parking at Festival Leisure Park 5 Pass X scope. Eliminate
a penalty or disincentive to reduce car The necessary consultation process would travel on council business take longer than the available time for 6 Pass possibly in package long term 0 0 0 1 1 -1 1 implementation Consider
Argued there is evidence that this measure can have a positive contribution - Region wide workplace Levy - Charge for successful scheme in place in Nottingham. workplace parking, potential to have Could be implemented Essex region wide different charge rates according to area or South East Essex. There needs to be a only if employment traffic process for it, timeframe might be an 7 Pass is a significant component medium 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 issue. Consider Essex car sharing in place and eletric cars plans and other similar schemes, will Council-led car pooling incentives for contribute but not on its own, achievable. people working in the same businesses Could be brought forward or expanded. near the A127 Cheap to implement but scale of improvement likely to be small. Requires 8 Pass depending on significance long term 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 behavioural change Consider Council tax relief, workers travellers’ Concessions already in place for elderly, concessions and reward points for miles young etc. Too expensive to implement for 9 travelled by bus X general travel. Eliminate New developments offering travel incentives and infrastructure. Including Easy to implement, costs and creative solutions such as e.g. mandatory implementation would be responsibility of charging points, subsidised e-car rental or e- no - can only control developers as a requirement for planning 10 car pooling partnership. Pass future change 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 permission. Consider Expand on what already is in place, would Expansion of existing travel planning be more likely to be accepted. Low cost schemes with large local employers 11 Pass with others long term 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 means good VfM Consider
Free LEV street parking/ on roads Loss of revenue. Could be sensitive for 12 Pass no 0 -1 1 1 -1 0 0 public, political. No parkign on A127 Consider Difficult to implement and monitor, sensitive political and for public. Difficult No unrestricted parking to ascertain the amount of NO2 13 Fail -1 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -1 improvement it would actually bring. Consider
Existing number plate restrictions have Number plate restrictions on which vehicles unintended consequences, such as people can enter Basildon or Southend at certain using second cars. Lack of targeting. times/days Uncertain target area. Not done in UK 14 Pass -1 -1 -1 -1 0 X -1 before, new legal frameworks etc Eliminate
Adjust council parking charges at different Would be beneficial for lowering NO2, but times of day to encourage retiming of could impact revenues of local businesses. travel Magnitude of improvement might be small 15 Pass in combination with other. long term 0 -1 1 1 1 1 0 as there is not that much council parking. Consider Improve junction layouts at congestion/air could be significant in Improve would take more than 1 year, one quality pinch points to reduce congestion ( package with speed scheme will be implemented by then but A176 junction – upper mayne) 16 Pass initiative medium -1 is outside scope (wolly)? Consider Already optimised for traffic flow, could Further optimision / repurpose Rayleigh maybe depending on be optimised further for air quality. Weir and similar projects magnitude of change Relatively low cost option and easy to 17 Pass needed short 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 implement Consider ITS measures: Signage and rerouting, Advanced vehicle detection for freight and Temporary area restrictions. Scoot, Bus further work needed to Bus priority lane not sure if achievable priority. (Not including variable speed assess the conditions it with current infrastructure. Also not easy ITS 18 limits) Pass would work under long term 0 0 1 0 0 0 -1 to model this. Consider pollution dynamic traffic management for ITS 19 speed limit changes 0 1 1 -1 -1 X -1 Could be done but on a temporary basis. Eliminate pollution dynamic traffic management for ITS 20 signage and re-routeing X -1 Not allowed on a permanent basis Eliminate Reduce speed limits on A127 where it goes ITS 22 from 40 to 70 at certain times of day Pass X legislation Eliminate
Permanent enforced speed limit reduction Achievable within existing legislation, from 70 to 50 along A127 at Basildon East Speed 23 Pass yes short 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 requires no new infrastructure. Consider No space adjacent to A127 for required Smart motorway lite for A127 ITS 24 Pass X infrastructure Eliminate Could be achieved, might be opportunities for these in some locations. Pollution is Managing flow on to the network, ie highest where people wait already so it release on/off roundabouts where might just move the problem. Won't exceedances are impact the number of diesel vehicles on 25 notPass likely to influence existing PCM compliancelong term -1 -1 0 1 0 1 0 A127 Consider
Need to invest in signage and enforcement New High occupancy lane cameras. Cost for maintaining and monitoring in long term. Unintended 26 Pass yes long term 1 -1 1 1 0 0 0 consequences, boundary impacts. Consider
Page 1 of 3 Scoring of solution options longlist Printed 14/03/2018
Use VMS to provide drivers with people make their choice once they get to information on journey times and congestion spot, could have written congestion before they reach A127 so they journey time display. School variations can choose a better route times would not work. Negative effects 27 Fail outside study area. Eliminate Banning of personal office delivery freight LGV/HGV 28 Fail x Can't control, impratical, lack of evidence Eliminate Working with fleet operators to maximise Companies will already be doing this for fleet efficiency (departures) 29 Pass no 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 their own benefit so questionable impact Consider Alternative loading bays off main routes Minor potential positive impact. Off PCM 30 to avoid congestion. Pass no 1 0 1 1 1 1 -1 network solution. Consider Opportunity to expand and improve on Work with existing workplaces on their existing arrangements. Low cost shift timings and employee travel schemes intervention, no new infrastructure 31 Pass as part of a package long term 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 required. Community buy in. Consider HGV/LGV recognition schemes - Recognition schemes such FORS to encourage business (HGV/LGV and Taxis) to Realtively low cost investment to promote improve efficiency, reduce fuel limited. Some impact as training course and recognise. Good PR for 32 consumption and emissions. Pass part of a package long term 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 local businesses. Consider Off peak loading and unloading permits for distribution centres - Restriction of peak loading and unloading permits allowing access for servicing local business whilst encouraging loading outside of peak already implmented at the limit of the 33 periods Pass X regulatory power Eliminate Cycle logistics hubs (last mile) - Provide cycle logistics hubs to cater for light/ small Too wide of an area, alone couldn’t stand. unit goods within the ring road for last mile The study area is not concentrated enough 34 deliveries Fail for this type of solution to have an impact. Eliminate Local delivery hubs - Use of local delivery Too wide of an area, alone couldn’t stand. hubs for smaller businesses/ goods which The study area is not concentrated enough 35 use EV or cycle for onward travel Fail for this type of solution to have an impact. Eliminate Enter general sustainable transport plans Soft measure, limited impact, could help 36 into the local future plans Pass no 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 as part of a pacakage Consider Cargo hopper/ULEV deliveries from freight centres - Use of sustainable (ULEV) vehicles to make deliveries in town centre from could go into local plan, only for new 37 consolidation centres Fail developments (won't make a contribution) Eliminate Freight consolidation through rearranging and combining goods shipments into fewer not suitable here because freight already 38 deliveries into the town centre Pass no X -1 consolidates here Eliminate Work with distribution centres to upgrade their fleets to electric vehicles. Support some impact as part of a Minor impact, can only provide support 39 their bids Pass package medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 for companies own initiatives Consider Not applicable, need to improve the route. Work with distribution centres to change Preferred delivery route is already A127 so delivery routes 40 Fail shouldn't reroute. Eliminate Promote retro fitting for LGVs to reduce Can offer grants (external funding), Dft's emissions 41 Fail no 1 money so need a way to incentivise it Consider Alternatively promote retrofit via better Providing funding for retro fitting for LGVs access to funds (provide more information to reduce emissions on where to reach these grants). Anti 42 Pass X competitive Eliminate Would discourage removing filter, not sure Improve detection and prosecution of some impact as part of a this could be modelled and not vehicles removing diesel particle filter 43 Pass package long term 1 0 1 1 1 1 -1 quantifiable. Consider 44 Charging different zones Pass X Against stated ECC policy Eliminate Partnerships with bus operators to find Could be done, something has already efficiencies that will encourage more happened between two bus operators people to use the services. Quality bus some impact as part of a (makes bus route be more attractive). bus 45 partnerships Pass package medium 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Doesn't require new infrastructure. Consider Engage with the public to encourage more 46 to use public transport Pass limited help. No long term 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Similar reasoning to above Consider Require new developments ensure bus not tacking current 47 provision Pass problem 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 as above Consider Positive but unclear what can be improve network planning rail eg. implemented as relies on Greater Anglia's Southend airport some impact as part of a franchise agreement and therefore limited 48 Pass package long term 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 in scope. Consider Would have to be paid for by commercial ZeBUS zero emission urban bus system see bus operators. Council could not afford to TS 49 Pass X X subsidise. Eliminate depends on contribution of City link shuttle service to key towns traffic between towns - It would take traffic off the road, 50 Pass package medium 0 1 1 -1 0 0 1 encourage more PT, expensive to supply Consider would help but would not do much, they got a grant for retrofitting buses (Bus euro Retrofitting of public transport fleet to 6), 40% of operation potential, scope to do cleaner alternatives some impact as part of a more. Affordable if we can get national 51 Pass package short 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 funding. Consider Convention says would need 3 lanes. Bus lane all the way along A127 as an extra Space constraints. Costs associated with lane enforcement. Public sensitive to major 52 Pass long term 0 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 changes. Consider
7 days Park and ride route into Southend This could not contribute to achieving the 53 Fail objective because it is not the target area. Eliminate Increase bus priority at traffic signals and increase bus lanes. Review bus routes and interchanges to ensure routes are not affected by bus congestion and a deterioration in air quality. Change road No new infrastructure, relatively easy to space allocation to encourage the uptake of some impact as part of a implement, complements existing 54 public transport Pass package short term 1 1 1 1 0 1 -1 measures. Consider Achievability -1 because it is already in Low emission bus zones - Deploy the some impact as part of a place to some extent. no cost to cleanest buses on the most polluted routes 55 Pass package short term 1 0 0 1 1 -1 implement Consider Not possible within a short timescale. Tram linking the major settlements Other measures can be done quicker than 56 Pass yes long term -1 that. Consider Council funding to provide free buses for all some impact as part of a Would have strong positive impacts. 57 schools Pass package long term 1 1 1 1 -1 1 0 Funding sources to be investigated. Consider Soft measures to encourage non-car Lower impact than funded buses but more 58 journeys to school Pass no 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 affordable. Consider Would require working with schools to achieve. Could be unpopular with parents School start time variations some impact as part of a due to childcare issues. Likely impact 59 Pass package long term 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 would be small. Consider Regional Advanced Quality Partnership (Bus) - A region wide advanced quality partnership scheme which would introduce requirements for bus operators to meet emissions requirements everywhere or on certain routes in return for investment in bus service infrastructure (including but not No overarching transport authority to limited to bus prioritisation) 60 Pass X work with in the area. Eliminate some impact as part of a Subsidise Discounted bus fares 61 Pass package long term X Eliminate
Page 2 of 3 Scoring of solution options longlist Printed 14/03/2018
Something like Arriva Click with hubs at Wickford and Basildon stations and Beneficial for hospital workers, no new Rayleigh and Benfleet. Also known as DRT infrastructure, offers flexibiblty, provides demand respsonsive transprt - linked to some impact as part of a meaninful substitute for workers who 62 better route planning Pass package medium 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 would have to use a car. Consider
Installation of rapid EV infrastructure for Could be worthwhile as part of a package. taxi and private hire vehicles - some impact as part of a Taxis not the main contributor to the taxis 63 Pass package medium - long -1 0 1 1 0 1 0 problem due to the nature of the route Consider Increase LPG refuelling infrastructure for some impact as part of a 64 Hackney Carriages Pass package medium - long -1 0 1 1 0 1 0 as above Consider Retrofitting of black taxi's to LPG / some impact as part of a as above but more expensive to 65 Retrofitting subsidies for local cab owners Pass package medium - long -1 0 1 1 -1 1 0 implement. Consider Clean Air Taxi Ranks - Designate taxi ranks in strategic locations as 'clean air taxi ranks' some impact as part of a 66 whereby only ULEV taxis can enter Pass package medium - long -1 0 1 1 0 1 0 as above. City oriented. Consider Accelerate the installation of infrastructure Take a long time to get the benefits, for electric vehicles eg at petrol stations, some impact as part of a benefits people with higher incomes. mcdonalds, hotel car parks. other ideas 67 Pass package medium - long -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 Dependent on grants. Consider Accelerate the installation of infrastructure for hydrogen, compressed natural gas (CNG) and LPG gas powered vehicles eg at petrol stations. In combination with some impact as part of a As above, impact and uptake dependent 68 conversion grants. Pass package medium - long 1 0 1 1 -1 -1 -1 on funding. Consider Cycle hire schemes near stations and some impact as part of a Realtively inexpensive, popular type of 69 industrial parks Pass package medium - long 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 scheme. Benefits mainly locals. Consider some impact as part of a Soft measure, limited impact, could help Walking and cycling promotion 70 Pass package medium - long 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 as part of a pacakage Consider 71 One car per household policy Pass X Legislative issues Eliminate some impact as part of a Soft measure, limited impact, could help Clean Air Campaigning 72 Pass package medium - long 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 as part of a pacakage Consider Consider public awareness initiatives such some impact as part of a Soft measure, limited impact, could help 73 as car-free days. As above package medium - long 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 as part of a pacakage Consider Public information campaigns to encourage some impact as part of a Soft measure, limited impact, could help 74 reduced car trips As above package medium - long 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 as part of a pacakage Consider Develop a local approach to engage some impact as part of a 75 communities about air quality. As above package medium - long 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 as above Consider affordability is dependent on grants but Building more cycling lanes by accessing a some impact as part of a there is a large fund available for this type central govt fund 76 Pass package medium 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 of project Consider Pollution absorbing device near receptors – e.g. Dutch innovative air purifier: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article- 3701540/Has-Beijing-solution-smog-World- s-largest-air-purifier-Chinese-capital-tackle- notorious-air-pollution.html 77 Fail -1 Not sure of the evidence Consider Vertical vegetation on buildings alongside Same useless effect as using trees to
78 the road can reduce NO2 levels Fail reduce NO2. Eliminate Need to find alternate routes. Removing De-pedestrianise A127 for the pedestrian zone in A127 but not measurement/managing exposure acheivable if we cannot get an alternative purposes some impact as part of a route, not doable just now but if have 3 79 Pass package very long term -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 0 lanes then could be. Consider 80 Pedestrianize town centre zones Fail Does not meet the primary objective Eliminate Working with large local employers (eg Ford) to get all their staff using electric or Limited impact, any benefits would only 81 hybrid vehicles Pass no 1 -1 1 1 1 1 0 affect a small number of peoplee Consider
Expensive to implement but smallimpact Upgrade local council fleet to ULEV overall. Strong signal of council taking the 82 Pass no -1 0 1 1 -1 1 0 issue seriously - positive reputation impact Consider Easing the planning process to Fast track existing proposed developments in return for inclusion of sustainable transport Low cost but depends on proposed 83 infrastructure and plans Pass explore further long term 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 development details Consider Switch regional fuelling stations to GtL (fuel additive giving tiny NOx Too dificult and out of LA's control. Very 84 improvement) Pass no -1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 marginal gain and expensive to achieved. Consider A low cost solution that could be implemented quickly, effective as part of a Workplace parking levy for businesses package with PT improvements. Could be modelled with reference to existing 85 Pass 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 scheme in Nottingham Consider
Page 3 of 3 Appendix D: Solution packages and scoring Final scoring of packages updated 14/03/2018 Priority of scoring 1 2a 2b Secondary CSFs CSF1 CSF 2 CSF 3 CSF 4 CSF 5 CSF 6 CSF 7 CSF 8 r i s t / a c y r t a i e e p c c d i a n m i p e w f l r a r o c a d y y t u n t n s i
Primary objective e Decision Scoring reasoning i c l s l a o i i d t i e y e i i t b e c t b f s R i i n c a u l a t g i f y y v n b s d l t e i b o i e r e t u r l i p a t o d k a b a h p i p m f s r s i f f c i o u v t u a R V D S q S c A A R e Package Name Can it meet? Time period?
This package meets the primary objective of compliance as soon as possible. The impacts from the soft measures 1 1 -1 1 1 alone are likely to provide little additional benefit or Quantifiable measures package + Campaigns Include in shortlist as protection against future exceedances. However they A + G (Benchmark) benchmark option may enhance and assist the success of the hard measure. The bus max package will provide some additional 1 1 0 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 0 protection against further exceedances within 2-5 years B + A + G Benchmark (A) + Campaigns (G) + Bus max Not shortlisted however it scores poorly against secondary CSFs The 'bus lite' package would take more than 5 years to 1 1 -1 1 1 provide additional benefit to protect against the impact C + A + G Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Bus lite Discard of future growth
The package will provide additional benefits within 2-5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Structural years to mitigate against potential further exceedances. D + A + G change - medium term Not shortlisted The package also scores positively against the CSFs 2-7 The 'long term options' package would take more than 5 Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Structural 1 1 -1 1 1 years to provide additional benefit to protect against the E + A + G change - long term Discard impact of future growth
The package will provide additional benefits within 2-5 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 years to mitigate against potential further exceedances Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Targeting but not as strong as package J. The package also scores F + A + G employment traffic Not shortlisted positive or neutral against the secondary CSFs The impacts from the soft measures alone are likely to 1 1 -1 1 1 provide little additional benefit or protection against G Campaigning package only Discard future exceedances. The package can provide some protection against 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 exceedances in the medium term but scores less well H + A + G Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + LGV target Not shortlisted against secondary CSFs than other options Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Semi-radical The radical options would be expensive and take a long 1 1 -1 1 -1 I + A + G hybrid option Discard time to implement and provide additional benefits This package would achieve positive impacts, above and Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Focused Quick 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 beyond the benchmark option alone, in the shortest J + A + G Returns Shortlist time. It scores positively against CSFs 2-7. Package scoring Final scoring of packages updated 14/03/2018 Priority of scoring 1 2a 2b Secondary CSFs CSF1 CSF 2 CSF 3 CSF 4 CSF 5 CSF 6 CSF 7 CSF 8 r i s t / a c y r t a i e e p c c d i a n m i p e w f l r a r o c a d y y t u n t n s i
Primary objective e Decision Scoring reasoning i c l s l a o i i d t i e y e i i t b e c t b f s R i i n c a u l a t g i f y y v n b s d l t e i b o i e r e t u r l i p a t o d k a b a h p i p m f s r s i f f c i o u v t u a R V D S q S c A A R e Package Name Can it meet? Time period?
This package meets the primary objective of compliance as soon as possible. The impacts from the soft measures 1 1 -1 1 1 alone are likely to provide little additional benefit or Quantifiable measures package + Campaigns Include in shortlist as protection against future exceedances. However they A + G (Benchmark) benchmark option may enhance and assist the success of the hard measure. The bus max package will provide some additional 1 1 0 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 0 protection against further exceedances within 2-5 years B + A + G Benchmark (A) + Campaigns (G) + Bus max Not shortlisted however it scores poorly against secondary CSFs The 'bus lite' package would take more than 5 years to 1 1 -1 1 1 provide additional benefit to protect against the impact C + A + G Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Bus lite Discard of future growth
The package will provide additional benefits within 2-5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Structural years to mitigate against potential further exceedances. D + A + G change - medium term Not shortlisted The package also scores positively against the CSFs 2-7 The 'long term options' package would take more than 5 Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Structural 1 1 -1 1 1 years to provide additional benefit to protect against the E + A + G change - long term Discard impact of future growth
The package will provide additional benefits within 2-5 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 years to mitigate against potential further exceedances Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Targeting but not as strong as package J. The package also scores F + A + G employment traffic Not shortlisted positive or neutral against the secondary CSFs The impacts from the soft measures alone are likely to 1 1 -1 1 1 provide little additional benefit or protection against G Campaigning package only Discard future exceedances. The package can provide some protection against 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 exceedances in the medium term but scores less well H + A + G Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + LGV target Not shortlisted against secondary CSFs than other options Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Semi-radical The radical options would be expensive and take a long 1 1 -1 1 -1 I + A + G hybrid option Discard time to implement and provide additional benefits This package would achieve positive impacts, above and Benchmark (A)+ Campaigns (G) + Focused Quick 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 beyond the benchmark option alone, in the shortest J + A + G Returns Shortlist time. It scores positively against CSFs 2-7. Appendix E: Governance Structure Scheme Promoter and Partner Statutory Authorities
Air Quality National Plan and Clean Air Zone Framework
JAQU Rochford District Essex County Basildon Borough Council Council Council
Project Direction
Basildon BC Rochford DC Essex CC Environmental Health Environmental Health Director of Highways & Transportation Manager Team Leader Andrew Cook Simon Humby Martin Howlett Head of Transport, Planning & Development Sean Perry Chairman Cabinet Member Regeneration and Community Cabinet Member Highways Environment Committee Cllr Webb Cllr Grundy Cllr Ball Cabinet Member Environment & Waste Cllr Walsh
Project Delivery - Joint Working Group
Basildon Borough Council Rochford District Council Essex County Council
Tony Meech Martin Howlett Beverley Gould Chris Beverley Anne James
Project Technical Support Teams
Work Packages Basildon BC Rochford DC Essex CC
Appendix F: Working Group Terms of Reference
Basildon and Rochford Nitrogen Dioxide Reduction Plan Officer
Working Group Terms of Reference
March 2018
ToR - Basildon and Rochford NOx Reduction Plan Officer Working Group – V7
1. Background/Context
Basildon and Rochford councils are to undertake, as part of the UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations 2017, a Feasibility Study in accordance with the HM Treasury’s Green Book approach. They are required also to identify the option which will deliver compliance with legal limits for nitrogen dioxide in the area for which the authority is responsible, in the shortest possible time.
Project must evidence: That the intervention is supported by a compelling case for change that provides holistic fit with other parts of the organisation and public sector– the “strategic case”; That the intervention represent best public value – the “economic case”; That the proposed Deal is attractive to the market place, can be procured and is commercially viable – the “commercial case”; That the proposed spend is affordable – the “financial case”; That what is required from all parties is achievable – “the management case”.
2. Strategic Management
The three authorities, Essex County Council, Rochford District Council and Basildon Borough Council have set up the joint officer working group to manage the development of the A127 Air Quality Action Plan and agree the package of measures that will result in a reduction in NO2 levels on the A127 in both Basildon and Rochford.
Each authority’s decision making processes will require them to take individual decisions on the Strategic Outline Case, and the Outline and Final Business cases. Officers are taking into account the individual policies and strategies of all three authorities. Briefings are scheduled for the separate Cabinet and Portfolio Holders, Directors and Committee Chair and these will be held at regular intervals to ensure an awareness of the issues prior to decisions being required. Where there are any activities that are outside specific policies then these are being raised at an early stage with the respective Senior Officers and Members to ensure that all plans have a consensus across all authorities. In the event of any specific non agreements then these will be raised at the appropriate Senior Officer and Member level and a joint decision will be agreed.
A separate overarching Project Board has not been convened as it is considered that the work can be included within the existing Boards and is covered by the duty to cooperate placed on all Local Authorities.
The ‘duty to cooperate’ was created in the Localism Act 2011. It places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage
ToR - Basildon and Rochford NOx Reduction Plan Officer Working Group – V7
constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters.
A Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) exists between the London Borough of Havering, Essex County Council, Brentwood Borough Council, Basildon Borough Council, Thurrock Council (Thurrock have not signed this), Castle Point Borough Council, Rochford District Council, Southend on Sea Borough Council, TfL and Highways England. The purpose of this SoCG is to inform the Planning Inspectors and other parties of the agreed way forward on any issues that remain outstanding at the point of Local Plan submission. This SoCG focusses on the impact cross-boundary growth will have on strategic routes including the A127 and details how the participating authorities will work collaboratively to address the identified issues. Any work impacting on the A127 as a strategic route will be covered by this statement.
The Statement of Common Ground concludes that “All Local Authorities acknowledge that the Duty to Cooperate is not just a mechanism for cross-borough engagement during a Local Plan process. It is an ongoing activity that will continue beyond individual boroughs submissions, and eventual adoption of a Local Plan. All parties remain committed to continue to work together outside of the Local Plan process on these important strategic matters.”
3. Roles and functions of the Working Group
The working group will provide independent challenge to the decisions of the officer group]generally and specifically, against the ‘five case model’ in HM Treasury’s Green Book at each stage of the project through to full final business case.
To develop deliverable measures to reduce the NOx levels to the required levels. Make available data sources to measure and monitor the air quality at agreed locations. Recognise the constraints on all partners in delivering measures to manage the local air quality Monitor the progress towards meeting the 2021 target Monitor the program budget and expenditure
4. Role of individual group members
The role of the individual members of the Working Group
Attending meetings as required and actively participating in the group’s work. Representing the interests of the respective organisations as appropriate Review scopes of work Consider proposals made by officer group and make recommendations Monitor progress of proposals Receive progress reports from officer group
ToR - Basildon and Rochford NOx Reduction Plan Officer Working Group – V7
independent scrutiny of the project’s financial and non-financial performance To review and comment on strategy, plans and resource allocation Overall, to assess project against the performance and value in terms of both value for money and public health Request relevant other persons (including officers) to attend working group meetings in order to assist the group in reaching its conclusions.
Each member must declare any interests; chairperson must make a written record of these
The working group will review the relevance and value of its work and the terms of reference at a frequency it determines appropriate, but at a minimum, at the end of each key stage of the project.
Frequency of meetings will be determined by the working group, but as a minimum; at key stages and at the request of the officer group.
Location of meetings to be determined and agreed by the working group members.
5. General
5.1. Membership
The Working Group shall be comprised of:
Beverley Gould – Essex County Council, Highway Authority. Tony Meech – Basildon Borough Council, Responsible Authority Martin Howlett – Rochford District Council, Responsible Authority - Chair Anthony Buston – Essex County Council Mark Chapman – Jacobs Chris Beverley – Essex Highways Emily Clark – DEFRA Chloe Smith – Jacobs Anne James – Essex Highways
5.2. Chair/Convenor
The group will be chaired by Martin Howlett, Environmental Health Team Leader, Rochford District Council. Meetings will be convened by the Chair and supported by the Coordinator Anne James, Essex Highways Group Coordinator.
5.3. Agenda items
All agenda items will be forwarded to the Coordinator by close of business two working days prior to the next scheduled meeting.
ToR - Basildon and Rochford NOx Reduction Plan Officer Working Group – V7
The agenda, with attached meeting papers, will be distributed at least one working day prior to the next scheduled meeting.
5.4. Minutes and meeting papers
The minutes of each Working Group meeting will be prepared by Anne James.
Full copies of the minutes, including attachments, will be provided to Working Group members no later than five working days following each meeting.
By agreement of the group, out-of-session decisions will be deemed acceptable if confirmed by email. Where agreed, all out-of-session decisions will be recorded in the minutes of the next scheduled meeting.
5.5. Frequency of meetings
The Working Group will set out a schedule of meetings to enable it to meet the project timetable.
5.6. Proxies to meetings
Members of the Working Group will nominate a proxy to attend a meeting if the member is unable to attend.
The nominated proxy will provide relevant comments/feedback about the attended meeting to their nominated representative.
5.7. Quorum requirements
A quorum will be representation of the following.
One representative of either Basildon Borough Council or Rochford District Council as Responsible Authorities.
A representative or delegated from Essex County Council as Highway Authority
ToR - Basildon and Rochford NOx Reduction Plan Officer Working Group – V7
5.8. Organogram
Air Quality National Plan and Clean Air Zone Framework
JAQU Rochford District Essex County Basildon Borough Council Council Council
Project Direction
Basildon BC Rochford DC Essex CC Environmental Health Environmental Health Director of Highways & Manager Team Leader Transportation Simon Humby Martin Howlett Andrew Cook Head of Transport, Planning & Chairman Cabinet Member Development Sean Perry Community Cabinet Member Highways Regeneration and Cllr Webb Cllr Grundy Environment Committee Cabinet Member Environment & Waste Cllr Walsh Project Delivery - Joint Working Group
Basildon Borough CouncilRochford District Council Essex County Council
Tony Meech Martin Howlett Beverley Gould Chris Beverley Anne James
Project Technical Support Teams
Work Packages Basildon BC Rochford DC Essex CC
ToR - Basildon and Rochford NOx Reduction Plan Officer Working Group – V7