Hertfordshire County Council South Central

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

SOUTH CENTRAL GROWTH & TRANSPORT PLAN

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

January 2020

Environment & Infrastructure 0300 123 4047 www.hertfordshire.gov.uk

© Crown copyright and database rights 2020 OS EUL 100019606 You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form.

Contents Page

1 Introduction 3 1.1 This Report 3 1.2 The SEA Process 3 1.3 Related Processes to SEA 4 1.4 Why do we need a South Central Growth & Transport Plan? 5

2 South West Herts Growth & Transport Plan 7 2.1 Outline of the Plan’s Contents 7 2.2 South West Herts Area Profile 7 2.3 Objectives of South West Herts Growth &Transport Plan 13

3 Baseline Data & Key Issues & Problems in South West Hertfordshire 15 3.1 Difficulties Encountered in the Collection of Information 15 3.2 Key Issues & Problems in South Central 16

4 Assessment Methodology 17 4.1 Introduction 17 4.2 Assessing the South Central GTP & Identifying the Effects 18

5 The Effect of the South Central Packages 19 5.1 Introduction 19 5.2 Assessment of the Packages – Summary of findings 20

6 Cumulative, Secondary and Synergistic Effects 97 6.1 Introduction 97 6.2 Summary of Cumulative Effects 102 6.3 Causal chain analysis 106

7 Monitoring 107 7.1 Introduction 107 7.2 Monitoring the South Central GTP 107 7.3 What Needs to be Monitored for the South Central GTP 107 7.4 Baseline Data Gaps 110 7.5 Monitoring Recommendations 111 7.6 SEA Monitoring and Review Timeframes 116

8 Conclusions 117

9 Next Steps 119

Page 1

Page APPENDICES:

Appendix 1: Environmental Baseline Data/Maps 121 Appendix 2: SEA Sub-objectives 139 Appendix 3: Assessments 145 Appendix 4: Cumulative Assessments 467 Appendix 5: Causal chain analysis

Page 2

South Central Growth & Transport Plan - Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report This report sets out the results of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Draft South Central Growth & Transport Plan – a supporting document of Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan. The Draft South Central Growth & Transport Plan is subject to public consultation January 2020 to March 2020

The purpose of this report is to:

• Give consultees information on the potential environmental and sustainability effects of the draft South Central Growth & Transport Plan to aid their consideration of the plan during its consultation; • Assist Hertfordshire County Council in improving the final South Central Growth & Transport Plan by highlighting where there are potential environmental and sustainability effects of implementing the draft South Central Growth & Transport Plan.

1.2 The SEA process The European Directive 2001/42/EC requires certain plans to be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment. This Directive is realised in the UK through Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1633: The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (otherwise known as the SEA Regulations). These Regulations require an environmental assessment to be carried out on certain plans and programmes prepared by public authorities that are likely to have a significant effect upon the environment.

SEA extends the assessment of environmental impacts from individual development projects to regional, county and district level plans. Strategic Environmental Assessment is a systematic way to examine (and where necessary suggest ways to reduce) the likely effects of a plan on environmental, social and economic objectives.

SEA is a tool to ensure the integration of environmental and sustainability considerations into the plan and decision making process.

Page 3

Certain plans, including LTP’s and their supporting documents, have been deemed by the Government to automatically require an SEA. The Local Transport Plan 4 underwent a full SEA in line with requirements of the SEA Regulations. A scoping exercise to identify the topics to be covered and establishing a baseline of environmental information for Hertfordshire was undertaken for the LTP4. Growth & Transport Plans are supporting documents of the LTP4 and are developed in line with its policies; however, as the GTPs put forward area-specific objectives and scheme concepts that build on the content of LTP4, further assessment of the likely significant effects and cumulative impacts of these will be necessary for all Growth & Transport Plans. The SEA topics and objectives are the same as LTP4, however the baseline environmental information is reviewed for each plan area to ensure appropriate assessment, mitigation and monitoring is established.

1.3 Related processes to SEA (i.e. other assessments, HRA, EqIA) A number of parallel assessment processes were undertaken at the same time as the SEA, a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) and an Equality Impact Assessment.

Habitats Regulation Assessments (HRA)

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/490) provides legal protection for habitats and species of European importance (Natura 2000 sites). The regulations require that any plan or programme that is likely to have a significant effect on a European site is subject to HRA. The regulations state that ‘the plan-making authority for that plan shall, before the plan is given effect, make an appropriate assessment for the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives’.

The County Council is therefore required to assess any Growth & Transport Plans through the HRA process as the packages of interventions could potentially affect Natura 2000 sites. The County Council has decided not to undertake a detailed HRA screening assessment as the SC Herts GTP area is not close to a designated Natura 2000 site. The nearest site is Wormley Hoddesdon Park Woods SAC, which is to the east of the Plan area. This site should not be directly or indirectly affected by any of the proposals as the nearest schemes are in the Potters Bar/Northaw area.

Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) Local authorities have a duty under race, disability and gender legislation to carry out an EqIA of their LTP and supporting documents. EqIA can determine how a plan may affect different groups of people. Government guidance advises that an EqIA encompasses race, gender, disability, age, religion/belief and sexual orientation. The County Council has produced an EqIA for the South Central Growth & Transport Plan which will be published alongside the adopted GTP and monitored regularly.

Page 4

Health Impact Assessment

HCC has recently developed a process to undertake Health Impact Assessments on new plans and policies. A Health Impact Assessment has been undertaken prior to adoption of the South Central GTP. The SEA does include an objective that considers health impacts both physical and mental.

1.4 Why do we need a South Central Growth &Transport Plan?

Hertfordshire is facing significant levels of housing and employment growth, which are expected to have an impact on the county’s local and strategic transport systems and networks. Delivering economic growth has become one of the UK Government’s main priorities. However, this is in a context of increasing competition for funding to help invest in new infrastructure, with less money available for local authorities to spend on local services and infrastructure.

The transport needs of large-scale residential and employment development coming forward within Hertfordshire and surrounding areas may be reliant on seeking vital funding from Central Government and other sources. A good case will need to be made for investment which is based on robust evidence and positive collaborative planning.

With this in mind Hertfordshire County Council has developed a new approach to planning for the short-, medium- and long-term transport needs. The county council has adopted a new Local Transport Plan (LTP4),which sets the overarching direction of transport policy and priorities across Hertfordshire.

In the past, the County Council has produced Urban Transport Plans - usually for individual towns. However, the UTP approach to transport planning doesn’t allow a fuller understanding of transport issues in an area derived from a more extensive review of evidence. Without a more strategic view of the transport issues, UTPs have tended to identify smaller-scale interventions which may not be the most effective means of tackling the root causes of challenges occurring over a wider geographical area.

The Growth & Transport Plan is a new approach to sub-county transport planning, more in alignment with planned future housing and employment growth and based on evidence. It applies Local Transport Plan policies and objectives to a growth- focused sub-area, defined on the basis of travel and growth patterns. This is helping to lead towards a more joined-up approach to transport planning.

In line with the new draft Local Transport Plan 4, the GTP also has a focus on the role of transport in improving the health of the population and the quality of the environment. Local authorities have a duty to take proactive steps towards improving the health of local people. HCC’s Public Health unit has an increasingly integrated role within the authority’s wider functions and works with other services on matters such as development and transport, which have implications for health through air quality, levels of physical activity, access to work and social inclusion, for instance. Increasing physical activity and promoting healthy and active lifestyles is a priority in the Hertfordshire Public Health Service Strategy (2017-21).

Page 5

The South Central Growth & Transport Plan is the one of a suite of GTPs which will cover different sub-areas of Hertfordshire with the intention of promoting modal shift to non-motorised and public transport, providing greater modal choice and facilitating growth sustainably. The GTPs are being developed by Hertfordshire County Council in partnership with key stakeholders including local district and borough councils and the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership.

Page 6

2 SOUTH CENTRAL GROWTH & TRANSPORT PLAN

The South Central Growth and Transport Plan is a strategic transport plan which translates and applies Local Transport Plan objectives to the south section of the A1(M) corridor in Hertfordshire – an area which includes the towns of Borehamwood, Hatfield, Potters Bar, St Albans and Welwyn Garden City, as well as their interactions with Stevenage, Luton and the London fringe. The plan area reflects the strong travel and movement patterns and flows within and between these places.

Growth & Transport Plans are not meant to be constrained by county or district boundaries, as people’s journeys are not constrained by them. The study area of a GTP reflects the predominant urban and interurban travel movements, the location of current and future transport challenges and where significant employment and housing growth is planned.

2.1 Outline of the Plan’s Contents

The South Central Growth & Transport Plan comprises a portfolio of documents:

• Evidence Review Paper • Strategy Development Paper • Interventions paper • Prospectus

Reference is also made to various town based Evidence Packs.

The South Central GTP Interventions Paper provides an overview of the whole plan and sets out the following:

• Spatial portrait of South Central Hertfordshire summarising the key evidence on transport, movement, economic development and socio-demographics in the plan area. • Summary of the objectives and vision developed specifically for the GTP which have guided the review of evidence, prioritisation and sifting of growth and transport challenges • method used to identify growth and transport challenges and development of innovative packages of interventions. • Summary of the approach to prioritising interactions to determine what might be most in need of mitigation through the GTP. • Summary of the main growth and transport challenges addressed through the GTP and the formulation of transport interventions nad the

To support residents, businesses and other interested parties to take part in the consultation the Prospectus summarises in the key points from the Interventions Paper into a shorter more accessible document that will form part of the consultation. 2.2 South Central Area Profile The parts of Hertfordshire covered by this plan consists of the southern portion of the A1/A1(M) and East Coast Main Line corridor while also covering key connections to

Page 7

Watford, Hemel Hempstead and beyond to the west and Hertford and Harlow in the east. The area broadly encompasses Hertsmere Borough, Welwyn Hatfield Borough and parts of St Albans and City District.

St Albans and Welwyn Garden City are two of the largest towns in Hertfordshire by population and size and are both located within the SC GTP area. Other key towns include Borehamwood, Hatfield and Potters Bar along with a host of smaller settlements including Radlett and London Colney.

The character of the area varies considerably, with a mixture of urban and suburban neighbourhoods being separated by areas of rural farm land and countryside. The SC GTP area is strongly influenced by London, with many of the existing transport connections servicing movements to/from the capital, however many of the towns also offer employment locations with Hatfield Business Park serving as an employment provider for a large catchment area spanning Hertfordshire and beyond. The SC GTP area also contains the University of Hertfordshire and the Royal Veterinary College.

Hertsmere is a largely rural Borough situated immediately to the north of London. There are four main settlements, Borehamwood, Bushey, Potters Bar and Radlett though substantial redevelopment of the former hospital site in the Green Belt has meant that the village of Shenley has taken on a more suburban character. The majority of the Borough’s 100,000 residents live in these settlements. Bushey tends to have stronger links with Watford than Hertsmere’s other settlements, and Potters Bar is physically quite separate from other settlements in the Borough. Factors such as these shape the distinct characters of the different areas in Hertsmere. New housing growth to date has been centred on Borehamwood along the Elstree Way Corridor. Borehamwood is also home to both the BCC and Elstree Television studios.

St Albans City and District is a blend of the City, towns, villages. The city of St Albans is Hertfordshire’s oldest town and still contains a strong medieval heritage within the City core. This does result in a street layout not suited to car traffic. Harpenden is the second largest settlement in the District. Both St Albans and Harpenden are prosperous and popular towns, primarily due to their high quality environment, excellent schools and transport links to London and the rest of the country. London Colney, the next largest settlement in the District has the most urban character. It contains employment areas and the large Colney Fields retail park. Other settlements in the District are Bricket Wood, Chiswell Green, How Wood, Park Street/Frogmore, Redbourn and Wheathampstead. Redbourn and Wheathampstead have village centres and each settlement has its own local identity

Welwyn Hatfield Borough is located centrally within Hertfordshire with central London just 15 miles to the south of the borough boundary. The borough has two main towns Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield, as well as a number of large and small villages providing a mix of urban, suburban and rural areas. . Each town and village has its own distinct identity and character - from roman origins in Welwyn to the 20th century garden city and new town growth of Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield. The two towns are home to regionally-significant employment areas with a

Page 8

particular prevalence of large businesses and national headquarters. Hatfield is home to the two main campuses of the University of Hertfordshire, and the main campus of the Royal Veterinary College is located west of Brookmans Park - this gives parts of the borough a notable student population and character.

Transport network

Several major strategic transport corridors dissect the area, specifically the A1/A1(M) trunk road, the M25 London orbital trunk road, the Midland Main Line and the East Coast Main Line. There are a number of interurban corridors and strategic roads crossing the SC GTP area. The A1000 provides key north-south connections between Welwyn, Hatfield, and Potters Bar (and onwards into High Barnet/London) while the A1081 links St Albans, London Colney, with the M25 and A1.

The A5183 also provides a north-south connection to the west of the GTP area linking St Albans, Radlett, and Elstree & Borehamwood. The A414/A405 corridor connects West Hertfordshire with south St Albans, Hatfield, south Welwyn, and the rest of East Hertfordshire. The A1057 also serves some east-west movements between St Albans and Hatfield. The area itself is bisected by the A1 and A1M (Stirling Corner Roundabout to J6) and the M25 (J22 to J24).

A number of key B road connections also exist across the area, namely the B556 linking Potters Bar with London Colney and Radlett, the M25/A5183, the B5378 linking St Albans with Shenley and Borehamwood, the B653 linking Welwyn Garden City with Wheathampstead (and Harpenden), the B197 linking Welwyn Garden City, Welwyn, and Knebworth, and the B651 linking St Albans with Wheathampstead.

Other key connections include Coopers Green Lane/Sandpit Lane connecting St. Albans with Welwyn Garden City and Theobold Street linking Borehamwood and Radlett.

The SC GTP has two major rail lines that have stations within the area; the East Coast Main Line and the Midland Main Line. These lines provide regular commuter services to central London, with services about every 5 minutes from St Albans to London and less than every 10 minutes from Welwyn Garden City to London, during the peak morning hours. These two rail lines account for a significant number of morning commuter journeys originating from the SC GTP area.

Page 9

FIGURE 2.1 - SOUTH CENTRAL AREA TRANSPORT NETWORK

A wide range of bus services serve routes within and between towns in south Hertfordshire. Longer distance local services include the 300/301 (Hemel Hempstead to Stevenage via St Albans and Hatfield), 321 (Watford to Luton, via St Albans and Harpenden), and 724 (Heathrow Airport to Harlow via Watford and St Albans). There are several frequent bus routes connecting St Albans to Welwyn Garden City, most of which are via Hatfield. There are also frequent bus routes between Potters Bar and Barnet

Parts of the National Cycle Network (NCN) route through the area, iincluding NCN route 6/61 linking Rickmansworth, Watford and St Albans as the Ebury Way and Page 10

Abbey Way/Colne Valley Way, continuing to Harpenden and Luton (route 6) and Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City and Hertford (route 61) (Alban Way and Cole Green Way). St Albans Green Ring provides a cycle route around the city. National Cycleway 12 also connects southward from Hatfield, although this cycle corridor ends at Hadley Wood from where there is a short missing link to Barnet.

As part of the GTP process, Evidence Packs have been produced for Borehamwood and Radlett, Hatfield and Welham Green, Potters Bar, Welwyn Garden City and St Alban These present further information primarily in a visual format on the geography, community and economic characteristics, transport network and travel patterns for these particular areas.

South Central Hertfordshire growth

Planned housing and employment growth is identified by the Local Planning Authorities (which in Hertfordshire means the district and borough councils) in their Local Plans. These set out local planning policies, identify how land should be used and determine the type and quantity of development to be built where and when. Local Plans are produced on a cycle. Each of the Districts is at a different stage in their Local Plan process, with Hertsmere currently identifying potential sites and Welwyn Hatfield and St Albans both having draft Local Plans at the examination stage. The sites within the draft St Albans and Welwyn Hatfield Local Plans have been considered when identifying proposed measures with the SC GTP. For the purposes of this GTP, the growth plans are taken from the emerging Local Plans for ST Albans and Welwyn Hatfield and the existing local Plan growth in Hertsmere, as the new site allocations have not been confirmed at the time of development of the GTP.

Across the area, it is estimated that almost 34,000 new homes will be built and over 23,000 new jobs could be created by the mid 2030’s. Key development sites include the Radlett Rail Freight Interchange/ Park street Garden Village, Symondshyde and West of Hatfield (HAT1). Community and Economic portraits Evidence Packs have been produced for Borehamwood and Radlett, Hatfield and Welham Green, Potters Bar, Welwyn Garden City and St Albans, which provide an economic portrait and describe the community characteristics of these areas.

Herts Insight is an interactive online resource that brings together and presents a variety of social, economic and demographic information on Hertfordshire communities at different geographies.

Page 11

TABLE 2.1: SOUTH CENTRAL HERTS DEMOGRAPHIC & SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION Hertsmere St Albans Welwyn Hatfield Hertfordshire Population 10.3 9.14 9.47 persons/ha 7.21 persons/ha density 1 persons/ha persons/ha Age profile 1 More 0-16 year More 0-16 About the same More 0-19 year olds year olds 0-16 year olds olds Fewer 20-34 Fewer 20-34 More 20-34 year Fewer 20-34 year year olds year olds olds olds Fewer 35-59 More 35-59 Fewer 35-59 More 35-59 year year olds year olds year olds olds about the same Fewer 60-79 Fewer 60-79 Fewer 60-79 year 60-79 year olds year olds year olds olds More 80+ about the about the same More 80+ ...relative to same 80+ 80+ … relative to Hertfordshire ... relative to ... relative to England overall overall Hertfordshire Hertfordshire overall overall Males % 1 48.08% 49.05% 49.23% 48.96% Females % 1 51.92% 50.95% 50.77% 51.03%

White British 75.73% 81.15% 76.50% 80.82% (%) 2 Non-white 14.96% 11.6% 15.92% 12.42% (%) 2 Working age 63,100 89,200 57,100 739,500 population 1

Working age 60.56% 60.52% 66.01% 62.44% population % 1 Economically 73.32% 74.66% 69.97% 74.23% active % 2 Unemployed 3.71% 2.72% 3.30% 3.51% (%) 2 Economically 26.68% 25.34% 30.03% 25.77% inactive (%) 2 Under 16s 11% 7.2% 12.8% 11.0% living in poverty % 3 No car 17.02% 13.55% 20.29% 16.93% households 1 1 car 41.63% 42.94% 41.47% 42.16% households 1 2 car 30.61% 33.78% 28.42% 30.89% households 1 3 car 7.74% 7.08% 7.11% 7.23% households 1 4 or more car 3.00% 2.65% 2.71% 2.79% households 1 NOTES: 1 = 2018 mid-year population estimate; 2 = 2011 Census; 3 = 2016

Page 12

2.3 Vision and Objectives of South Central Growth &Transport Plan The vision for the South Central GTP area describes a positive future scenario for personal travel following successful implementation of the intervention packages in the South Central GTP. From this vision six key objectives have been identified. Objectives for the South Central GTP have been developed based on the transport challenges for the area (identified in the plan) and reflect the characteristics of the settlements and the local transport network in South Central. The objectives align with Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan, the District and Borough adopted Local Plans and Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan.

Page 13

FIGURE 2.3 - SOUTH CENTRAL GTP OBJECTIVES

Page 14

3. BASELINE DATA & KEY ISSUES AND PROBLEMS IN SOUTH CENTRAL

The SEA Directive requires environmental baseline data to be assembled. Collection of such information allows environmental problems to be established, but this information gathering exercise is not to be a snapshot of the current situation, but should show trends and be kept updated for future plans. Under the Directive it is also required to consider the evolution of the environment without the plan, and the baseline appendix (Appendix 1) includes a column to describe what might happen to each of the baseline issues if the LTP was not implemented.

Baseline data was collected for each of the SEA objectives, and this was mainly in the form of performance indicators. The data was then grouped under the 8 SEA topics as set out in the SEA Directive.

The majority of data was collected from published and internal County Council documents. Sources included in the current Local Transport Plan and Traffic & Transport Data Report, the Hertfordshire County Council Corporate Plan 2017-2021 and Herts Insight Data & Information System. Data was also collected from official websites.

3.1 Difficulties encountered in the Collection of Information

When collecting the baseline information, there were gaps in the availability of existing data within the county for the following SEA objectives:

- To protect and enhance biodiversity (for specific species) - To improve the sustainable use of resources - To move away from waste disposal to minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery - To reduce contamination, and safeguard soil quality and quantity - To ensure the sustainable supply and use of energy (no data available for Hertfordshire). - To maintain the vitality of viability of existing centres - Current perception of transport access issues (former Environment Telephone Survey has ceased) - Difficulty accessing current data on noise complaints, other than aircraft noise - Difficulty accessing current data on conservation areas. - Further advice is required from Historic England on providing baseline data for designated and non-designated heritage assets, and the ‘setting’ of heritage assets. - Further advice is required from Natural England on providing baseline data for statutory and non-statutory biodiversity sites.

More details including the County Council’s remedial intentions for the above are included in Section 7 (Monitoring) of this report.

Page 15

3.2 Key Issues and Problems in Hertfordshire

From analysis of the baseline data, a number of key issues have emerged. More details are available in Section 7 of this report.

These are: • Road congestion – specifically urban traffic in peak hours, and the rise in car ownership figures; • The need to limit carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide emissions; • Air quality and the rising number of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) (including mortality attributable to particulate air pollution); • Noise pollution (aircraft); • Childhood obesity is increasing countywide, exacerbated by lack of active travel.

Other issues that the baseline has highlighted include: • There has been no real change in the condition levels of SSSIs but only 52% are in favourable condition. • Road casualty figures still a cause for concern. • Cycling trips are below target, but walking trips are well above target levels. • More and more people are participating in cycling training. • Road condition targets are generally exceeded. • The percentage of ‘Ease of use of rights of way’ is worsening. • The numbers of Hertfordshire Health Walks are steadily increasing. • Data shows that the numbers of children using sustainable modes to travel to school is increasing. • Information around Bus satisfaction is not collected anymore and bus journeys are decreasing. • There has been growth in active local enterprises and an increase in GVA per head.

Page 16

4. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

4.1 Introduction

Details on the full SEA assessment process can be seen in Section 5 of the LTP4 SEA Environmental Report (www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/ltp).

The SEA regulations do not specifically require the use of a framework of environmental objectives in SEA (to assess a plan against), but it is a recognised way in which environmental effects can be described, analysed and compared. The LTP4 SEA Objectives have been chosen for the South Central GTP, as Growth & Transport Plans are delivering LTP4 policy and objectives.

The County Council’s Environmental Resource Planning team had previously developed a master set of sustainability appraisal objectives in response to sustainability appraisals and the SEA Directive. This master set is based on the objectives of relevant national, regional and local plans. To create a set of objectives for the SEA of LTP4 and its supporting documents, this master set was taken and adapted to reflect SEA topics and local circumstances (further detail can be found in Section 5.2 of the LTP4 SEA Environmental Report).

The final set of 19 SEA Objectives chosen to make up the framework for LTP4 and any Growth & Transport Plans are:

SEA Topic SEA Local Objective

Biodiversity, 1. To protect and enhance biodiversity fauna and flora

Population and 2. To maximise the opportunities for leisure and a healthy human health lifestyle for all, and to improve the physical and mental health of the population, and reduce health inequalities 3. To reduce crime and create safe environments Water and soil 4. To improve the sustainable use of resources 5. To move away from waste disposal to minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery 6. To ensure the efficient use of water, and safeguard water resources 7. To reduce contamination, and safeguard soil quality and quantity Air 8. To protect and enhance air quality and minimise noise pollution 9. To improve the choice of sustainable transport modes, encourage their use, and reduce the need to travel by car Climatic factors 10. To adapt to the impacts of climate change such as flooding 11. To reduce greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, emitted by vehicular transport 12. To ensure the sustainable supply and use of energy

Page 17

SEA Topic SEA Local Objective

Historic 13. To protect and enhance the character of landscape, Environment and townscape and green spaces Landscape 14. To conserve and enhance the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings Social 15. To tackle the causes of poverty and social exclusion inclusiveness by improving access to services and community facilities for all 16. To empower all sections of the community to participate in decision making and local action Economic 17. To maintain employment, improve economic development competitiveness (consistent with environmental constraints) and create a vibrant economy 18. To spread economic growth more evenly to benefit deprived areas 19. To maintain the vitality and viability of existing centres

The SEA Local Objectives are also supported by a number of sub-objectives, these are examples of issues that should be considered by the appraisal, and should be used during the testing of the schemes/projects against the SEA Objectives, a full list of these sub-objectives can be found in Appendix 2.

4.2 Assessing the South Central GTP, and Identifying the Effects

The SC GTP contains a large number of proposed schemes/interventions and so this SEA has only assessed the 36 packages that cover the plan area. Each package has 2 or more schemes/interventions and some may feature in more than one package. Each package has been assessed individually against the LTP4 SEA Objectives (See Appendix 3 for the individual Assessment Matrices).

Once effects are identified, it is important to determine which of the effects are likely to be minor and which significant. With regards to the SC GTP, it has been difficult to assign significance of effects due to uncertainty of scheme design at the assessment stage. Also the timings and extent of implementation and level of funding resource available is also uncertain, and so it is difficult to assess schemes and measures accurately.

Page 18

5. THE EFFECT OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL GTP PACKAGES

5.1 Introduction

Thirty six packages are defined in the Draft SC GTP. Each package has an overarching aim; a map broadly indicating the locations and spatial extents of interventions, and their relationship to proposed large scale development sites; the outcomes intended; costs, and the indicative sequence for delivery.

It should be noted that some interventions featured in more than one package, because they focus on tackling more than one challenge across the Plan area.

The summaries in Section 5.2, show for each package: • a summary of the main positive and negative impacts of the interventions in that package; • the recommendations from the SEA Assessments to mitigate any negative impacts, or promote any positive impacts; • the HCC Response, i.e. how these recommendations will be taken on board.

The South Central GTP packages represent a collection of Schemes and Linked Project Groups, often within distinct geographical areas, with schemes being medium to large scale interventions that would impact a broader geographical area than a project. A scheme could also comprise of a single large intervention or a closely related set of measures which could not be deliverable as separate projects.

The packages have been split into 5 areas:

Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City: Packages 1 – 16 Potters Bar: Packages 17 – 19 Borehamwood, Elstree and Radlett: Packages 20 – 23 St Albans: Packages 24 – 29 South of St Albans District: Packages 30 - 36

Page 19

5.2 Assessment of the Packages – Summary of Findings

PACKAGE 1 – HATFIELD – COLLEGE LANE/CAVENDISH WAY CORRIDOR

Aim:

To reduce severance and improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists along the College Lane/Cavendish Way corridor, enhancing connectivity between the University campuses and Hatfield town centre.

The package consists of:

• junction improvements along the corridor that increase priority for active transport modes; • cycleway improvements, including a new cycle lane along Cavendish Way and general improvements and maintenance; • cycle hire and cycle parking locations at key destinations along the corridor; • development of a new active travel bridge across the A1(M); • upgraded road crossings.

Package 1 - Summary of SEA Assessment Schemes: (SM1, SM2, SM5, SM7, SM9, SM10, SM11, SM12, SM13, SM16, PR3, PR4, PR6, PR8, PR15)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 1, but the combination of new cycle routes, a new A1M Junction 3 bridge, a cycle hire scheme and footway and crossing improvements will provide potential benefits depending on how much modal shift is achieved to walking and cycling.

The schemes will enhance the range of sustainable transport options and improve resident’s abilities to access leisure opportunities and opportunities for a healthy lifestyle.

Cycling and walking is affordable and can improve access to local services and facilities and is affordable for all sectors of the community, particularly for those without access to a car. New and improved sustainable mode links would improve links to employment areas such as the Galleria in Hatfield and the University of Hertfordshire, and opening up the labour market for employers. Environmental benefits from any modal shift to cycling and walking would include better air quality and less vehicle noise, less consumption of fossil fuels and therefore fewer greenhouse gas emissions, reductions in energy use (from less fossil fuel consumption), less of an impact on local biodiversity, and the historic environment (particularly 3 listed buildings west of the A1(M)), less heavy metals and particulates in runoff that can pollute the local soil and water environment. All of the above contribute towards maintaining the vitality and viability of Hatfield town centre.

There are no significant negative impacts from the scheme proposals for this

Page 20

package but any new infrastructure i.e. for the new cycle bridge and A1(M) link roads should be mindful of resources required and waste produced and impacts on local air quality.

SEA Recommendations:

Promotion of the benefits of active travel modes will be key to the uptake of these modes, and it may be worth undertaking targeted/tailored promotion to certain sectors i.e. employees of larger businesses such as the Galleria and the University of Hertfordshire. Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle or walk, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training. Cyclists would also benefit from secure cycle parking at destinations (particularly at the Galleria). Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the Biodiversity, soil environment, lighting, climate change adaptation, drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets), and scheme design should consider safety issues of the infrastructure and interactions between the different road users.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally in Hatfield at the College Lane/Cavendish Way Corridor with relevant target groups to encourage use.

HCC delivers Bikeability Training to schools, and this would be envisaged to continue as long as government funding of the programme continues. There are opportunities in Hertfordshire for adults to access cycle training as well. Junction improvements that will increase priority for active modes will also help to improve safety, making it more attractive for user to travel via active modes.

A bike hire scheme will ensure that travelling via bike is available to all. An increase in parking locations for bikes will incentivise more people to travel by bike as they know it has a safe and secure parking location.

A new active travel bridge across the A1 (M) should be encouraged to be used, especially for staff/students/visitors travelling between the College Lane Campus and the De Havilland Campus at the University of Hertfordshire.

Page 21

PACKAGE 2: HATFIELD – CAVENDISH WAY/QUEENSWAY CORRIDOR

Aim:

To reprioritise the main transport corridor through Hatfield town centre to reduce the dominance of motorised vehicles, improve connectivity to the surrounding area and make a more attractive entrance to the town centre.

The package consists of:

• implementation of bus priority measures including a bus lane along Cavendish Way; • Improvement of cycle lanes along the corridor; • junction improvements, including signalisation, to improve conditions for active travel modes; • new and upgraded road crossings;

Package 2 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM20, SM23, PR17, PR18, PR19, PR21, PR22)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 2, but the combination of bus priority measures, cycle lane improvements, Junction improvements, and new and upgraded crossing improvements will provide potential benefits depending on how much modal shift is achieved to sustainable modes.

The schemes will enhance the range of sustainable transport options and improve resident’s abilities to access leisure opportunities (Galleria) and opportunities for a healthy lifestyle, through increased active travel and access to the Hatfield Swimming Centre.

Cycling and walking is affordable and can improve access to local services and facilities and is affordable for all sectors of the community, particularly for those without access to a car. New and improved sustainable mode links would improve links to employment areas such as the Galleria and the Asda retail centre, also opening up the labour market for employers. Environmental benefits from any modal shift to cycling, walking and bus patronage would include better air quality and less vehicle noise, less consumption of fossil fuels and therefore fewer greenhouse gas emissions, reductions in energy use (from less fossil fuel consumption), less of an impact on local biodiversity, and the historic environment, less heavy metals and particulates in runoff that can pollute the local soil and water environment. All of the above contribute towards maintaining the vitality and viability of Hatfield town centre. With fewer motor vehicles on the roads this could also reduce the need for regular road maintenance, reducing the pressure slightly on County Council resources both financial and material.

Page 22

There are no significant negative impacts from the scheme proposals for this package but cycle/pedestrian and bus improvements will result in more people using the public realm, which could result in safety issues such as conflicts between the different road users, and increased incidents of Hate Crime (especially on buses).

SEA recommendations:

Promotion of the benefits of active travel modes (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes. Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle or walk, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training. Cyclists would also benefit from secure cycle parking at destinations (particularly at the Galleria). Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the Biodiversity, soil environment, lighting, climate change adaptation, drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), energy sources for signalisation, and the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets). Scheme design should consider safety issues of the infrastructure and interactions between the different road users, in particular consider the Hertfordshire Hate Crime Strategy.

Lobby for more passenger transport vehicles being Euro 6 or electric, and be more proactive in seeking funding for cleaner buses.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure in Hatfield, Cavendish Way/Queensway Corridor can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

HCC engages with bus operators through the Intalink Partnership to work to improve bus services and vehicle standards.

New and upgraded road crossings will increase safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

Page 23

It is considered that consistency with the Hertfordshire Hate Crime Strategy should be secured at the level of policy in the first instance and permeate down to schemes as a result rather than being considered on an ad hoc basis. The matter could be considered as part of the Bus Strategy. Issues of Hate Crime should be considered balanced against other county council objectives and in a wider context of seeking to improve security, safety and perceptions of safety.

PACKAGE 3: HATFIELD – BISHOPS RISE CORRIDOR

Aim:

To improve active transport connections and urban realm between the Hatfield Business Park, University and the residential areas along Bishops Rise.

The package consists of:

• development of cycling infrastructure along Bishops Rise, including a cycle lane, raised entry treatments to side streets, junction upgrades, and new crossings; • Urban realm improvements at the South Hatfield Shopping Centre at High View; • Parking rationalisation along Bishops Rise.

Package 3 – Summary of SEA Assessment Schemes: (SM24, SM25, SM26, SM28, SM30, PR27, PR29)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 3, but the combination of cycling improvements, Junction improvements, and new crossings, urban realm improvements will provide potential benefits depending on how much modal shift is achieved to sustainable modes.

The schemes will allow residents to make more sustainable travel choices and provide improved access to leisure opportunities (Galleria) and opportunities for a healthy lifestyle, through increased active travel.

Page 24

There are no significant negative impacts from the scheme proposals for this package but the cycle and pedestrian improvements will result in more people using the public realm, which could result in safety issues such as conflicts between the different road users.

There are a number of uncertainties at this early stage of the GTP, the impacts of the parking rationalisation on various SEA objectives is unclear, but it could increase car use if parking is made easier, or could affect local shops if parking is reduced. Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what the impacts would be on resources and how much construction waste would be produced. Some of the schemes could require some soil capping but again without scheme details impacts are unknown.

Public realm improvements could impact negatively on the listed church of St John the Evangelist, but this will depend on scheme design. SEA recommendation:

The County Council will look to developing a ‘light touch’ Environmental Impact Assessment or checklist, for smaller scale schemes that do not require a full EIA, to identify and consider impacts on the environment. HCC response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally in Hatfield along the Bishops Rise corridor with relevant target groups to encourage use.

The High View Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was developed and adopted by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council in April 2011 and this sets out details for parking provision and the public realm around the church. This document would be considered in the development of the package proposals.

Page 25

Page 26

PACKAGE 4 – HATFIELD – WOODS AVENUE/TRAVELLERS LANE CORRIDOR

Aim:

To enhance connectivity between south Hatfield and the town centre along Travellers Lane/Woods Avenue by improving facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and reducing traffic speeds.

The package consists of:

• development of cycling infrastructure along Travellers Lane and Woods Avenue, including raised entry treatments to side streets, junction upgrades, and new crossings; • Implementation of traffic calming measures along the corridor; • Formalised parking along Travellers Lane.

Package 4 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM31, SM34, SM36, SM37, SM38, PR32, PR33, PR35)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 4, but the combination of cycling improvements, Junction improvements, and new crossings, and traffic calming aims to provide a more suitable environment for active travel and sustainable modes, but this is dependent on how much modal shift is achieved to these sustainable modes.

The schemes will facilitate active travel which allow residents to make healthier travel choices, in particular the cycle connections on the A1000 South Way.

New and improved sustainable mode links would improve links to employment such as the Asda retail store. Environmental benefits from any modal shift to cycling, and walking would include better air quality and less vehicle noise, less consumption of fossil fuels and therefore fewer greenhouse gas emissions, reductions in energy use (from less fossil fuel consumption), less of an impact on local biodiversity, less heavy metals and particulates in runoff that can pollute the local soil and water environment.

The proposed traffic calming measures could have both positive and negative impacts, positive with regards to road safety, but negatives in that depending on what type of engineering measures are used, vehicles accelerating and decelerating can worsen air quality and release more greenhouse gases.

There are a number of uncertainties at this early stage of the GTP, the impacts of the parking bays on various SEA objectives is unclear, but it could increase car use if parking is made easier, or could affect local shops if parking is reduced. Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what the impacts would be on resources and how much construction waste would be produced.

Page 27

SEA Recommendations:

When looking at the parking bays consider the impact on local businesses.

Recommend that secure cycle parking is provided at the Asda Superstore. HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally in Hatfield - Woods Avenue/Travellers Lane Corridor with relevant target groups to encourage use.

HCC delivers Bikeability Training to schools, and this would be envisaged to continue providing government funding of the programme continues. There are opportunities in Hertfordshire for adults to access cycle training as well. Junction improvements that will increase priority for active modes will also help to improve safety, making it more attractive for users to travel via active modes.

Improved cycle parking has not been proposed within this package of the SC GTP, although it is recognised within the list of general interventions that will support delivery of the plan's objectives and improve scheme outcomes.

Impacts from changes to parking would be assessed through consultation with the local residents.

Page 28

PACKAGE 5 – HATFIELD – FRENCH HORN LANE CORRIDOR

Aim:

To increase active transport provision between Hatfield town centre and the train station by improving facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

The package consists of:

• Development of cycling infrastructure along French Horn Lane, including cycle lanes with a link to Queensway, junction upgrades, and new crossings; • Implementation of public realm and safety improvements along the corridor, including wayfinding, street lighting and CCTV along streets and underpasses/bridges; • Improvement of the pedestrian railway bridge.

Package 5 - Summary of SEA Assessment Schemes: (SM42, PR39, PR40, PR41, PR43, PR45, PR46, PR47, PR48, PR49)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 5, but the combination of cycling improvements, public realm and safety improvements, and pedestrian footbridge improvements aim to provide a more suitable environment for active travel and sustainable modes, but this is dependent on how much modal shift is achieved to these sustainable modes.

New and improved sustainable mode links would improve access to the town centre and the railway station, this in turn should improve access to local employment such as at the Asda retail store and businesses within the town centre, and open up the labour market for local employers especially for those who do not have access to a car.

The schemes within this package aim to improve public safety in the public realm which is a potential positive impact, but the widening of the pedestrian bridge over the railway does not mention if it includes any safety works.

There are a number of uncertainties at this early stage of the GTP, the impacts of the parking rationalisation on various SEA objectives is unclear, but it could increase car use if parking is made easier, or could affect local shops if parking is reduced which could have various negatives on some of the environmental SEA Objectives. Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what the impacts would be on resources and how much construction waste would be produced. It is also unclear what impacts CCTV and new signals would have on energy supplies.

Page 29

SEA Recommendations:

When looking at the parking rationalisation scheme consideration should be given to social and economic impacts, particularly on local businesses.

With the GTP wanting more people to cycle it is recommended that secure cycle parking is provided in the town centre, as this may be a barrier for people at the moment when choosing their travel mode.

Any schemes that require an energy supply such as the CCTV and signalisation, should consider alternative sustainable energy sources. HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally in Hatfield along French Horn Lane Corridor and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

HCC delivers Bikeability Training to schools, and this would be envisaged to continue provided government funding of the programme continues. There are opportunities in Hertfordshire for adults to access cycle training as well. Junction improvements that will increase priority for active modes will also help to improve safety, making it more attractive for users to travel via active modes.

Safety improvements such as increased street lighting and CCTV along streets and underpasses/bridges could form part of the discussion at consultation stage subject to existing policies.

Page 30

PACKAGE 6 – HATFIELD – COMET WAY/WELLFIELD ROAD CORRIDOR

Aim:

To implement sustainable transport improvements along the Wellfield Road corridor, providing greater mode choice for trips between the Hatfield business park and the town centre.

The package consists of:

• Implementation of improvements at Comet Way, including downgrading Comet Way to one lane, improved crossings, roundabout signalisation, and provision of an off road cycle lane around the roundabout; • Implementation of bus priority measures including a bus lane along Wellfield Road; • Safety improvements at the A1(M) pedestrian bridge.

Package 6 - Summary of SEA Assessment Schemes: (SM51, SM52, SM53, SM54, SM202, PR50, PR55, PR56)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 6, but the combination of cycling improvements, bus priority measures and pedestrian safety improvements aim to provide a more suitable environment for active travel and sustainable modes, but this is dependent on how much modal shift is achieved to these sustainable modes.

Bus priority improvements will result in more people using the public realm, which could result in safety issues such as conflicts between the different road users, and increased incidents of Hate Crime (especially on buses), but increase bus use and cycle use would have positive impacts on local air quality.

New and improved sustainable mode links would improve access to employment west of the A1(M), opening up the labour market for local employers especially for

Page 31

those who do not have access to a car.

There are a number of uncertainties at this early stage of the GTP, the impacts of the Comet Way reconfiguration on various SEA objectives is unclear, particularly on the environmental objectives i.e. soil and air quality, and if the scheme would cause congestion in the town which could impact on local employment. Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what the impacts would be on resources and how much construction waste would be produced. It is also unclear what impacts new signals would have on energy supplies. SEA Recommendations:

Any new bus priority i.e. the bus lane should consider personal security and how users of different modes will interact, and ensure that the package has considered the Hertfordshire Hate Crime Strategy, as the GTP does not at this stage mention Hate Crime and conflicts between road users. Lobby for more passenger transport vehicles being Euro 6 or electric, and be more proactive in seeking funding for cleaner buses.

When looking at the Comet Way reconfiguration scheme consideration should be given to social and economic impacts, particularly on local businesses.

With the GTP wanting more people to cycle it is recommend that secure cycle parking is provided in the business parks west of the A1(M), as this may be a barrier for people at the moment when choosing their travel mode.

Any schemes that require an energy supply such as roundabout signalisation, should consider alternative sustainable energy sources. HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally in Hatfield along the Comet Way/Wellfield Road Corridors and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 32

HCC engages with bus operators through the Intalink Partnership to work to improve bus services and vehicle standards. Bus priority measures will ensure services are reliable and punctual, therefore making bus services a real alternative to the private motor vehicle. New and upgraded road crossings will increase safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

Environmental Impact Assessments would be undertaken on any schemes that qualify under the Regulations, or where scoping has identified EIA is needed, to identify measures to avoid and mitigate significant negative impacts. This would be the responsibility of the scheme promoter (e.g. Highways England for any schemes they take forward through their programmes). It is considered that consistency with the Hertfordshire Hate Crime Strategy should be secured at the level of policy in the first instance and permeate down to schemes as a result rather than being considered on an ad hoc basis. The matter could be considered as part of the Bus Strategy. Issues of Hate Crime should be considered balanced against other county council objectives and in a wider context of seeking to improve security, safety and perceptions of safety.

PACKAGE 7 – HATFIELD – ST ALBANS ROAD EAST/HERTFORD ROAD CORRIDOR

Aim:

To reduce severance in north east Hatfield and enhance connectivity between this residential area, the town centre and railway station.

The package consists of:

• Development of cycling infrastructure along the corridor, including cycle lanes along Mount Pleasant Lane, an off road cycleway along St Albans Road East, junction upgrades, signage improvements, lighting, and new crossings; • Widened St Albans Road East rail bridge.

Page 33

Package 7 - Summary of SEA Assessment Schemes: (SM58, SM60, SM62, PR57, PR59, PR61, PR63, PR64)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 7, but the combination of cycling and pedestrian improvements, aim to provide a more suitable environment for active travel and sustainable modes, but this is dependent on how much modal shift is achieved to these sustainable modes.

New and improved sustainable mode links would improve access to services in the town centre, Hatfield House (a site of historic interest and an area of known biodiversity within the park and gardens), and the industrial estate south of Mount Pleasant Lane, which also opens up the labour market for local employers especially for those who do not have access to a car.

The widening of the bridge over the railway doesn’t mention any safety impacts, such as personal security impacts on this already busy bridge.

Any construction of off road cycle infrastructure could have a potential negative impact on the local soil environment and result in soil removal and/or soil capping. SEA Recommendations:

Page 34

With the GTP wanting more people to cycle it is recommended that secure cycle parking is provided in the business area south of Mount Pleasant Lane, as this may be a barrier for people at the moment when choosing their travel mode.

Any schemes that require an energy supply such as lighting for personal security, should consider alternative sustainable energy sources. The railway bridge widening scheme should also consider personal security for pedestrians and cyclists using that bridge, particularly at night. HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure in Hatfield - St Albans Road East/Hertford Road Corridor can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 35

PACKAGE 8 – SYMONDSHYDE CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To ensure sustainable development at Symondshyde & North West Hatfield (Stanboroughbury) through integrated transport that encourages and prioritises active travel and bus over private car travel.

The package consists of:

• Development of an active transport corridor along Coopers Green Lane, including cycling and footway infrastructure supported by a reduction in the speed limit and new crossings, linking Symondshyde & N W Hatfield (Stanboroughbury) developments to Hatfield business park, WGC and St Albans; • Highway network upgrades to support increased demand due to development, including junction improvements at Lemsford village.

Package 8 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM65, SM66, SM67, SM69, SM70, SM209, PR68)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 8, but the combination of cycling and pedestrian improvements, and reduced speed limits aim to provide a more suitable environment for active travel and sustainable modes, but this is dependent on how much modal shift is achieved to these sustainable modes.

The schemes should assist in facilitating mode shift which could provide benefits to health, the environment, air quality and emissions, and the local townscape. In particular, cycling and pedestrian improvements wont decrease the amount of runoff but there should be less pollution (heavy metals and particulates) within the runoff, but any new infrastructure should adhere to SUDS. The junction improvements are fairly close to the ‘Broadwater’ water course, and runoff from any traffic growth as a result of the works should be considered, as this existing highway infrastructure is unlikely to adhere to the new SUDs regulations.

Any speed limit reductions would have positive impacts on local road safety for all road users.

There are a number of uncertainties at this early stage of the GTP. Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what the impacts would be on resources and how much construction waste would be produced. It is also unclear at this stage without detailed scheme design what impacts positive or negative the potential tunnelling scheme and the cycle paths on Coopers Green Lane would have particularly on the nearby key biodiversity area (Symondshyde Common) and it would result in considerable soil removal if tunnelling is required.

Page 36

This package would have potential positives and negatives to Brocket Hall registered park and listed buildings, but it is unknown at this stage the exact impacts of any increase in capacity at the B653/Green Lane junction. SEA Recommendations: Promotion of the benefits of active travel modes (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes. Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle or walk, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training. Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the Biodiversity, soil environment, lighting, climate change adaptation, drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), and the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets). Potential tunnelling would result in considerable soil removal and the reuse of this soil should be considered i.e. local landscaping. Junction improvements could facilitate car use which would add to pollution levels in runoff, as this is existing infrastructure it will most likely not adhere to the new SUDs regulations, runoff should therefore be considered as part of any junction improvement scheme close to the ‘Broadwater’ water course. The County Council will look to developing a ‘light touch’ Environmental Impact Assessment or checklist, for smaller scale schemes that do not require a full EIA, to identify and consider impacts on the environment. This is of importance for this package as the schemes would be delivered in an area of key biodiversity and there are a number of historic assets in the area. HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

HCC delivers Bikeability Training to schools and this would be envisaged to continue providing government funding of the programme continues. There are opportunities in Hertfordshire for adults to access cycle training as well. Junction improvements that will increase priority for active modes will also help to improve safety, making it more attractive for users to travel via active modes.

Road Safety Audits are undertaken as standard on Highways schemes.

Page 37

PACKAGE 9 – ST ALBANS – WELWYN GARDEN CITY CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To form a sustainable transport corridor between St Albans and Welwyn Garden City, facilitating attractive and convenient journeys on foot and by bike between the towns with links to the Symondshyde and North West Hatfield developments, as well as Hatfield Business Park.

The package consists of:

• Development of cycling and walking infrastructure along Coopers Green Lane and Sandpit Lane, integrated with development along the corridor, including Symondshyde village and NW Hatfield (Stanboroughbury) development; • A reduced speed limit along Coopers Green Lane to support active transport infrastructure and reflect the more urbanised environment along the route, particularly alongside the NW Hatfield development.

Package 9 - Summary of SEA Assessment Schemes: (SM66, SM67, SM207, PR68)

Package 9 has positive impacts for maximising opportunities for leisure and health, and improving the choice of sustainable transport, from the development of the cycling and walking infrastructure proposed for Coopers Green Lane. There are no significant negative impacts from the implementation of Package 9.

The schemes should assist in facilitating mode shift which could provide benefits to health, the environment, air quality and emissions, and the local townscape. However, any new infrastructure could be within an area of key biodiversity in Hatfield.

Any speed limit reductions would have positive impacts on local road safety for all road users.

In particular, cycling and pedestrian improvements wont decrease the amount of runoff but there should be less pollution (heavy metals and particulates) within the runoff, but any new infrastructure should adhere to SUDS, this will particularly apply to the soil environment, as some of the schemes may fall within areas of key biodiversity. SEA Recommendations:

Page 38

promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training.

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the Biodiversity, soil environment, lighting, climate change adaptation, drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), and the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets). New cycling and footway infrastructure could result in considerable soil removal and the reuse of this soil should be considered i.e. local landscaping as it could be in a key biodiversity area. The County Council will look to developing a ‘light touch’ Environmental Impact Assessment or checklist, for smaller scale schemes that do not require a full EIA, to identify and consider impacts on the environment. This is of importance for this package as the schemes would be delivered in an area of key biodiversity.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure connecting St Albans to Welwyn Garden City can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 39

PACKAGE 10 – HATFIELD – WELWYN GARDEN CITY CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To strengthen connections between Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City by modes of active transport, encouraging modal shift and improving recreational facilities within the green spine running between the towns.

The Package consists of:

• Improvement and promotion of the A1000 corridor cycleway between Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City.

• Development of a southern Welwyn Garden City cycle bypass linking Hatfield directly to the Cole Green Way cycleway.

• Implementation of a recreational Welwyn Hatfield Green Corridor between the towns.

Package 10 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM71, SM76, SM79, PR72, PR73, PR74, PR75)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 10. Package 10 includes the implementation of a green corridor between Hatfield and WGC, and a Hatfield/Cole Green Way cycle link, both of these schemes would improve the choice of sustainable modes and would provide positive health benefits as they would facilitate active travel.

The schemes should assist in facilitating mode shift which could provide benefits to the environment, air quality and emissions, and the local townscape, accessibility to services and employment.

However, any new infrastructure delivered should be mindful of local conditions, i.e. where the River Lea flood zones are (and any historic assets both from the built environment and natural environment, there is a historic woodland nearby).

Promotion of the benefits of active travel modes (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes, and this promotion should reach all residents in the vicinity of the scheme to give all the opportunity to change their travel habits. Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle or walk, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability

Page 40

training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training. Cyclists would also benefit from secure cycle parking at destinations (in Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City).

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure Hatfield to Welwyn Garden City can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use including active modes of transport.

HCC engages with bus operators through the Intalink Partnership to work to improve bus services and vehicle standards.

Page 41

PACKAGE 11 – A1(M) – A414 JUNCTION 4 INTERCHANGE

Aim:

To reduce congestion and increase reliability for inter-urban trips at A1(M) J4 and adjoining links and junctions on the A414.

The Package consists of:

•A1(M) Junction 4 upgrades.

•A414 junctions upgrades at A1001/Oldings Corner and A1000/Mill Green.

Package 11 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM77, SM78, SM80)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 11. Package 11 includes junction improvements for the A1(M)/A414 junction 4, a new link road bridge and improvements to the current line markings and signage with the aim of improving congestion and improving the reliability of trips around this motorway junction.

It has been difficult to assess this package without detailed scheme design as this package is mainly about providing new infrastructure, therefore many of the SEA topics have been scored as U (uncertain, depends on implementation). The new bridge could facilitate car use which would have negative impacts on the local environment, and could impact on health and air quality as it would not promote active travel. Other uncertainties include impacts on the soil environment, some removal of soil would be necessary for construction and the new bridge could result in further surface runoff and pollution to the immediate environment. It is unknown at this stage if the infrastructure would provide any benefits to sustainable modes. The infrastructure would need some construction materials and would produce construction waste, but it is difficult to determine the impacts without the exact scheme details. The new bridge would also require regular maintenance to ensure safety.

Positives would include improved road safety with new line markings and signage, and the bridge could reduce the numbers of vehicles using the roundabout. The local economy would also benefit from a reduction in congestion and access would be improved to local retail parks (Oldings Corner) and local businesses south of Mount Pleasant Lane.

The only potential negative scores was the potential impact of the new bridge visually on the local landscape, and impacts on the local historic environment due to a potential to increase vehicle traffic as a result of the junction interchanges.

Page 42

SEA Recommendations:

In particular for this package the infrastructure that is being proposed should also ensure that it provides for sustainable travel modes in its design, and not just cater for motor vehicles. The impacts on the local soil environment should also be carefully considered in any construction, minimise the soil removal and possibly consider reusing soil through local landscaping.

The proposed bridge could have negative impacts visually on the local landscape this should be considered during the design stage, and it could be an opportunity to create a new landmark that fits in with the local landscape.

HCC Response:

No new bridge is proposed as part of this package as the additional lanes would be provided within the existing bridge structure.

Design of schemes would take into account construction impacts on the environment and historic assets. Scheme designs would be in line with design standards, with departures from standard being managed through a review and sign-off process. Environmental Impact Assessments would be undertaken on any schemes that qualify under the Regulations, or where scoping has identified EIA is needed, to identify measures to avoid and mitigate significant negative impacts. This would be the responsibility of the scheme promoter (e.g. Highways England for any schemes they take forward through their programmes).

Page 43

PACKAGE 12 – MUNDELLS AREA NON-CAR ACCESSIBILITY & TRAVEL PLANNING

Aim:

To alleviate peak congestion issues at the Business Park in the Mundells Area.

The package consists of:

• Implementation of travel planning for the employment site; • Improvements to cycle routes feeding into the west side of the Mundells Area.

Package 12 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (PR200, PR201, PR202)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 12. Package 12 includes measures that should result in modal shift which would provide benefits to local biodiversity, air quality, emissions, fossil fuel use, the townscape, and access to employment.

Travel planning and the shared use cycle/footways would improve the choice of active travel modes which would provide health benefits for anybody who makes the choice to shift modes.

The only potential negative identified is that some soil may be removed in the construction of the shared use cycle/footways.

Promotion of the benefits of active travel modes from travel planning and the new shared cycle routes(both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes. Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle or walk, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training. Cyclists would also benefit from secure cycle parking at destinations (particularly at the Mundells Business Park).

Page 44

Lobby operators for more passenger transport vehicles being Euro 6 or electric, and be more proactive in seeking funding for cleaner buses.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally in the Mundells area with relevant target groups to encourage use.

HCC engages with bus operators through the Intalink Partnership to work to improve bus services and vehicle standards. HCC's approach to Electric Vehicles and charging infrastructure on highway will have to be decided as a policy matter.

HCC provides Travel Plan Guidance for Business and Residential Developments and will continue to encourage engagement with businesses and developers through Highways Development Management team input and updates to the HCC Travel Plan Guidance.

Page 45

PACKAGE 13 – WELWYN GARDEN CITY ACTIVE TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS

Aim:

To transform Welwyn Garden City into a town that facilitates safe, attractive, and convenient journeys by active and sustainable transport modes.

The package consists of:

• Redevelopment of Welwyn Garden City town centre, improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists; • Improvement of the town cycleway network, including completing missing links, improving infrastructure, cycle parking at key locations, signage, wayfinding and promotion; • Development of a town bus network.

Package 13 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM84, PR85, PR86, PR87, PR88, PR89, PR90, PR91)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 13. Package 13 includes mainly measures that would result in modal shift and a few road infrastructure improvements like new road layouts, signalisation and pedestrian crossings. The package should result in modal shift which would provide benefits to local biodiversity (especially to the nearby SSSI Sherrardspark Wood), air quality, emissions, fossil fuel use, the townscape, and access to employment and community facilities. Local historic assets would also benefit from any modal shift to sustainable modes e.g. Attimore Hall, the Beehive Public House and the Shredded Wheat Factory building.

All schemes would either improve the choice of active travel modes or reduce congestion, which would provide health benefits both from participating in active travel and better air quality, particularly the town centre development.

There are a number of uncertainties at this early stage of the GTP. Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what the impacts would be on resources and how much construction waste would be produced. SUDs will be important in any scheme design, as the Howlands/Heronswood Road area is in a known flood zone, and schemes will need to be mindful of not adding to surface runoff, as extreme weather events are likely to become more frequent. Active travel projects should reduce the pollution within surface runoff. It is also unknown as this stage if the signalisation and pedestrian crossing schemes would require additional energy sources, and if there would be any significant soil impacts.

Page 46

SEA Recommendations:

Promotion of the benefits of all the active travel modes (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes, and get the highest level of modal shift possible. One barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations (particularly in the town centre and the train station).

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 47

PACKAGE 14 – BRIDGE ROAD TRANSFORMATION - WELWYN GARDEN CITY TOWN CENTRE

Aim:

To transform Bridge Road into a sustainable spine that enhances connections on foot, by bike and by bus between the WGC town centre and the employment zone east of the rail line, and reduce the dominance of motorised traffic.

The package consists of:

• Reduction of vehicular traffic to one lane in each direction, facilitating the development of cycleways, widened footways, and improved bus stops along Bridge Road with reference to the town centre North SPD; • Improvements to the Bridgewater Road/Broadwater Road junction.

Package 14 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM93, PR97)

There are no negative impacts or uncertainties from the implementation of Package 14, this package is about developing access for sustainable modes in WGC and would provide significant benefits to both the choice of sustainable modes and health, as this package will create new options for sustainable travel.

The package should result in modal shift which would provide benefits to local biodiversity (especially to the nearby SSSI Sherrardspark Wood), air quality, emissions, fossil fuel use, the soil environment, the townscape, and access to employment and community facilities. Local historic assets would also benefit from any modal shift to sustainable modes e.g. the Old Cottage. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion of the benefits of all the active travel modes (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes, and get the highest level of modal shift possible. Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle or walk, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training, and to help with interactions between road users. Another barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations. When designing bus stop improvements personal security issues should be considered, and to work with bus operators to run the cleanest buses in the area, and assist in bidding for cleaner bus funds.

Page 48

of known historic assets). Any additional energy sources required for bus stops and signals should consider all options and use renewable sources where possible.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 49

PACKAGE 15 – WELWYN GARDEN CITY – WELWYN GARDEN CITY- STEVENAGE AND HITCHIN CORRIDOR

Aim:

To improve connections between towns and facilitate development on the WGC to Stevenage and Hitchin corridor through formation of a sustainable transport corridor along the B197 (via Oaklands), B656 (via Codicote) and Digswell Road, which aims to discourage longer distance trips from using the corridor in preference over the A1(M).

The package consists of:

• Development of a sustainable transport corridor along the B197 and B656, including bus priority, speed reduction, and urban realm improvement interventions in towns including Oaklands, Woolmer Green, Codicote and Knebworth; • Improved cycling and walking infrastructure between Welwyn village and WGC; • Improved pedestrian accessibility to Welwyn North train station at Digswell, including footways, cycleways, crossings etc.

Package 15 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM98, SM99, SM100, SM205, SM210)

There are no negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 15, this package is about improving sustainable travel choices along the B197 and B656 (cycleways, footways, bus priority, traffic calming, and crossings).

The assessment has identified that there would be significant positive impacts for both health benefits and choice of sustainable modes. All of the schemes proposed for this package will increase the choice of sustainable modes along this corridor and as they are active travel modes should assist in improving the health of those who chose to change their travel behaviours.

If sufficient promotion of the new infrastructure is undertaken the package should result in modal shift which would provide benefits to local biodiversity (especially to the nearby SSSIs Sherrardspark Wood and Knebworth Woods), fossil fuel use, local water courses (reduced pollution in runoff), the townscape, and access to employment and community facilities (especially access to employment in WGC and via the Welwyn north station). Local historic assets would also benefit from any modal shift to sustainable modes, through improved access, less pollution that affects exteriors, and fewer vibrations. Local assets include: local listed buildings and the Dicket Mead Roma Villa scheduled monument. Improving the choice of sustainable modes will provide positive impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, but will be dependent on levels of modal shift. The proposed traffic calming measures will need careful consideration of the type of measure as traffic calming can result in vehicles braking and accelerating which is known to worsen

Page 50

local air quality. This package should also empower people to make better travel choices and improve access to facilities, especially for those in the surrounding villages.

There are a number of uncertainties at this early stage of the GTP, without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what the impacts would be on resources and how much construction waste would be produced. Without detailed scheme design it is unclear at this stage the impacts on the soil environment and if soil removal or capping would have negative impacts. Impacts as a result of climate change and increased flooding incidents, are again unknown without detailed scheme design.

SEA Recommendations:

Promotion of the benefits of all the active travel modes (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes, and get the highest level of modal shift possible. Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle or walk, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training, and to help with interactions between road users. Another barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations (particularly at Welwyn north station).

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure along the Welwyn Garden City-Stevenage and Hitchin Corridor can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 51

PACKAGE 16 – LUTON – WHEATHAMPSTEAD – HATFIELD AND WELWYN GARDEN CITY CORRIDOR

Aim:

To facilitate new and existing public transport connections between Luton, Hatfield and WGC, alongside improvements to inter-urban cycling infrastructure and selective highway upgrades in order to improve reliability on the corridor.

The package consists of:

• Support for new and existing bus services between Luton and WGC and between Luton and Hatfield; • Development and promotion of a cycleway between Luton and WGC/Hatfield, completing the gap in the existing National Cycleway 57 between Harpenden and Wheathampstead, and forming a new /improved cycle corridor between Wheathampstead and WGC (where it links to National Cycleway 12),(Hatfield linked to the Symondshyde and Stanboroughbury development) and Hatfield business park; • Junction upgrades at Lemsford village and A6129/B197 to improve reliability of the highway network.

Package 16 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM70, SM106, PR101, PR102, PR103, PR104, PR105, PR203)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 16, this package is about improving sustainable travel choices and providing additional bus services between towns, with some road schemes to improve junctions and reduce congestion.

There are a number of potential negatives that the assessment has identified, firstly that there could be potential negative impacts for health, as the road infrastructure schemes to do junction improvements and signalise the roundabout could facilitate car use as congestion is eased by the schemes, and people are less likely to choose sustainable modes. Secondly, the road proposals could increase car use and so could worsen greenhouse gas emissions. Depending on the scheme design for the junction improvements this could also impact on local biodiversity and habitats. Any increase in car use would have road safety

Page 52

implications. Any increase in bus use could result in conflicts between users.

The package should result in some modal shift which would provide benefits to local biodiversity (Brocket Hall registered park), local water courses (reduced pollution in runoff), air quality, choices of sustainable modes, the townscape, and access to employment and community facilities (especially access to employment in WGC/Luton/Hatfield).

There are a number of uncertainties at this early stage of the GTP, without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what the impacts would be on the crime and road safety SEA objective for particularly the cycling and bus service schemes, but the road improvements should provide some road safety benefits. It is also uncertain what resources and how much construction waste would be produced and any impacts on the soil environment. Modal shift should provide benefits for energy use (i.e. fossil fuels) but it is unsure what Euro rating any buses would have on the proposed new bus services.

Local historic assets would also benefit from any modal shift to sustainable modes but without any detailed scheme designs it is difficult to determine impacts on local assets such as the Wheathampstead Earthwork monument. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion of the benefits of modal shift to cycling and buses (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes, and get the highest level of modal shift possible. Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and to help with interactions between road users. Another barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations in the package area. Another barrier for bus use may be personal security, therefore ensure that any new services are consistent with the Hertfordshire Hate Crime Strategy and Policy 18 in LTP4. Advise working with bus operators to run their cleanest buses in the area, and assist in bidding for cleaner bus funds.

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the Biodiversity, soil environment, climate change adaptation, drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), and the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets and scheduled monuments).

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure along the Luton- Wheathampstead-Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City Corridor can be promoted

Page 53

locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

HCC delivers Bikeability Training to schools, this and would be envisaged to continue providing government funding of the programme continues. There are opportunities in Hertfordshire for adults to access cycle training as well.

Page 54

PACKAGE 17 – HATFIELD – POTTERS BAR CYCLE CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENTS

Aim:

To develop an active transport corridor between Hatfield, Welham Green, Brookmans Park and Potters Bar.

The package consists of:

• Development and promotion of a cycleway between Hatfield and Potters Bar. Improving the National Highway 12 section between Hatfield and Welham Green, creating a new active travel link between Welham Green and Brookmans Park, and upgrading the rail line path between Brookmans Park and Potters Bar with a link to the Royal Veterinary College; • Improved pedestrian accessibility to Welham Green train station, including footways, cycleways, crossings etc.

Package 17 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM107, SM108, SM109, SM110)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 17, or any potential negative impacts. This package is about improving sustainable travel choices to Welwyn Green station pedestrian and cycle improvements in the package area.

There is a key biodiversity area/SSSI that will benefit from any modal shift to walking or cycling, Water End Swallow Holes, with better air quality, less noise, less pollution from runoff to the soil environment, but this will be dependent on the location of the new pedestrian/cycle link.

The package should result in some modal shift which would provide benefits to personal health, local water courses (reduced pollution in runoff), air quality, choices of sustainable modes, the townscape, and access to employment and community facilities (including deprived areas).

Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced and any impacts on the soil environment. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion of the benefits of modal shift to cycling and walking (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes and get the highest level of modal shift possible. A barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations in the package area (particularly at Welham Green Station).

Page 55

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure for the Hatfield- Potters Bar Cycle Corridor Enhancements can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 56

PACKAGE 18 – POTTERS BAR ACTIVE TRAVEL IMPROVEMENTS

Aim:

To make Potters Bar a safe, attractive, and convenient place to walk and cycle, and enhance cycle connections to north London.

The package consists of:

• Increased pedestrian priority and safety improvements, including at the Potters Bar train station junction, and along The Causeway; • Implementation of wayfinding measures and active travel promotion throughout Potters Bar; • Development of new pedestrian and cycleway crossings of the M25, including at Bentley Heath Lane/Sawyers Lane.

Package 18 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM113, PR111, PR112, PR114, PR115, PR116)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 18, or any potential negative impacts. This package is about making it easier for people to cycle and walk in Potters Bar and further afield over the M25 which currently acts as a barrier to north London unless you have access to a car.

The package should result in some modal shift which would provide benefits to: personal health (particularly the M25 cycle crossing this may enable active travel to employment and facilities in North London), biodiversity (Morven Park, Wrotham Park and Parkfield open space would benefit from less vehicles on the road, and the infrastructure proposed could improve access to these areas especially for those without access to a car), local water courses (reduced pollution in runoff), air quality (there are 4 Air Quality Management Areas in Potters Bar), choices of sustainable modes, the townscape, historic assets, and access to employment and community facilities (including deprived areas).

Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced and any impacts on the soil environment. The M25 cycle crossing could be a substantial scheme that could have impacts on resources, and drainage would impact on the local soil environment and local water courses. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion to all of the benefits of modal shift to cycling and walking (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes, and get the highest level of modal shift possible, if a new crossing is made across the M25 this should be widely promoted especially for the southern side of the town. A barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations in the package area. Perception of safety may also be a barrier to the numbers of

Page 57

people choosing to cycle, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and to help with interactions between road users.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support Potters Bar active travel can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 58

PACKAGE 19 – POTTERS BAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS

Aim:

To increase the attractiveness of public transport as the preferred mode of choice for journeys within and beyond Potters Bar and facilitate seamless interchange between modes within the town centre.

The package consists of:

• Implementation of integrated ticketing to facilitate train-bus transfers at Potters Bar Station; • Increase cycle parking facilities at Potters Bar station to facilitate cycle-bus and cycle-train transfers; • Upgrades to increase capacity at Potters Bar bus station; • Improvement of bus services in Potters Bar, particularly services connecting to north London, as well as reinstating Cranborne Road services.

Package 19 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM118, PR117, PR119, PR120, PR121)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 19. This package is mainly focused on bus improvements including: services, the bus station, links to London, integrated ticketing, and improving cycle parking at the train station. Only one potential negative has been identified, for the crime and safety SEA topic, with no detailed scheme design no detail is currently known about how the schemes will consider personal security such as CCTV, secure cycle parking and incidents of Hate Crime. The draft GTP will need to acknowledge these issues.

The package should result in some modal shift to bus use and cycling, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity, personal health (bus travel and cycling are active travel modes), leisure opportunities (in the North London area), local water courses and soil (reduced pollution in runoff), air quality (there are 4 Air Quality Management Areas in Potters Bar), choices of sustainable modes, the townscape, historic assets, and access to employment and community facilities (including deprived areas).

Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced and any impacts on the soil environment. Improvements to greenhouse gas emissions and energy use will depend on an increase in bus patronage and it is uncertain at this stage the level of this increase, and how many of the buses in the package area would be cleaner buses. It is also uncertain at this early stage the impact on those in deprived areas and on lower incomes as train and bus fares can be unaffordable for these sectors of the community.

Page 59

SEA Recommendations:

Promotion to all of the benefits of using buses and cycling (both to the environment and to personal health), and promotion of any new or reinstated bus services will be key to any modal shift.

A barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations in the package area, particularly at the train station.

This package is aiming to increase bus patronage numbers within Potters Bar and across the county border into north London, with more people in the public realm and on buses there is a risk of more incidents of Hate Crime, the final GTP should acknowledge personal security issues and the interaction of different road users and be consistent with the Herts Hate Crime Strategy and Policy 18 of the LTP4. Affordability of buses should also be considered when considering which bus services to run and the integrated ticketing, and promotion of bus concessions. Advise working with bus operators to run their cleanest buses in the area, and assist in bidding for cleaner bus funds.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support Potters Bar public transport can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 60

PACKAGE 20 – BOREHAMWOOD ACTIVE TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS

Aim:

To make Borehamwood a safe, attractive, and convenient place to walk and cycle by connecting key locations with active transport infrastructure and urban realm improvements that prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and passenger transport users.

The package consists of:

• Development of the Elstree Way corridor scheme, enhancing active travel infrastructure provision along the sustainable spine of the town; • Marketing and promotion of active transport opportunities in Borehamwood.

Package 20 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM123, PR122)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 20 or any potentially negative impacts. This package is mainly focused on active travel improvements along the Elstree Way corridor and the marketing and promotion of active travel in Borehamwood.

The package should result in some modal shift to walking and cycling, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity, personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), local water courses and soil (reduced pollution in runoff), road safety from junction reconfigurations, air quality (there is 1 Air Quality Management Area in Elstree), emissions, energy use (fossil fuels), choices of sustainable modes, the townscape, historic assets, and access to employment and community facilities.

Page 61

Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced. SEA Recommendations:

The marketing and promotion part of this package should make all sectors of the community of Borehamwood and Elstree aware of all of the benefits of active travel modes (both to the environment and to personal health), this will be key to any modal shift.

A barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations in Borehamwood and Elstree. Perception of safety may also be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and to help with interactions between road users.

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the Biodiversity, soil environment, climate change adaptation, the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), and the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets and scheduled monuments).

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support Borehamwood active travel can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 62

the responsibility of the scheme promoter (e.g. Highways England for any schemes they take forward through their programmes).

PACKAGE 21 – BOREHAMWOOD – ELSTREE CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To improve connectivity by active transport modes between Borehamwood, Elstree, and the Centennial Park Employment area.

The package consists of:

• Development of a cycleway and footway between Borehamwood and Elstree, and between Elstree and the Centennial Park employment area; • Increased cycling parking provision at key locations along the corridor; • Rationalised parking provision in Borehamwood town centre; • Improved access by all modes to the Centennial Park Employment area.

Package 21 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM129, PR124, PR125, PR126, PR127, PR128)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 21 or any potentially negative impacts. This package is mainly about improving pedestrian and cycling improvements in the Borehamwood to Elstree corridor, with some access improvements to the Centennial Park employment site, which should give a significant opportunity for access to sustainable transport modes.

The package should result in a number of potential positives as a result of modal shift to walking and cycling, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity (open spaces: Elstree Hill and Aldenham Country Park), personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), local water courses and soil (reduced pollution in runoff), road safety, air quality (there is 1 Air Quality Management Area in Elstree), emissions, energy use (fossil fuels), choices of sustainable modes, the townscape (particularly Elstree), historic assets, and access to employment and community facilities (particularly for those on lower incomes and deprived areas).

Without detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced. At this stage of the GTP it is also unclear if the Centennial Park proposals would attract modal shift or just facilitate car use which could have potential negative impacts on local biodiversity, surface runoff, air quality, emissions, and energy use. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be an integral part of this package to ensure the community of Borehamwood and Elstree aware of all of the benefits of active travel modes (both

Page 63

to the environment and to personal health), this will be key to any modal shift.

A barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations in Borehamwood and Elstree (particularly at Centennial Park). Perception of safety may also be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and to help with interactions between road users.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support improved connectivity between Borehamwood and Elstree can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 64

PACKAGE 22 – BOREHAMWOOD – LONDON CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To maintain and improve connections between Borehamwood and North London by strengthening sustainable transport links and addressing pinch points, which reduce congestion and improve non-car connectivity.

The package consists of:

• Development of cycleways along the A5 towards Edgware and along Rowley Lane towards Barnet; • Upgrades at the Stirling Corner roundabout and A1/Rowley Lane junction to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as improve traffic reliability; • Support for increased bus services to surrounding areas including Barnet, Edgware, Watford and Stanmore.

Package 22 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM130, SM131, SM132, PR133, PR134, PR135)

There are no significant negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 22 or any potentially negative impacts. This package is about improving links between Borehamwood and north London by the delivery of new cycleways, upgrading A1 junctions and improving bus services into north London, which should provide significant improvements to sustainable transport choices in this area.

The package should result in a number of potential positives as a result of modal shift to walking and cycling and bus patronage, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity, personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), local water courses and soil (reduced pollution in runoff), road safety (new pedestrian/cycle bridge), air quality (there is 1 Air Quality Management Area in Elstree), emissions, energy use (fossil fuels), choices of sustainable modes, and access to employment and community facilities (particularly for those on lower incomes and deprived areas). However, the junction improvements along the A1 could facilitate car use which would result in potential negative impacts to most of the above, but without any detailed scheme design it is difficult to make accurate predictions.

Without detailed scheme designs it is also unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced, and if any schemes would contribute to localised flooding. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion to all of the benefits of modal shift to cycling and walking, and the benefits of buses (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes, and get the highest level of modal shift possible.

Page 65

A barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at destinations in Borehamwood. Perception of safety may also be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and to help with interactions between road users.

This package is aiming to maintain or increase bus services and patronage numbers over the border into north London, but with more people in the public realm and on buses there is a risk of more incidents of Hate Crime, the final GTP should acknowledge personal security issues and the interaction of different road users and be consistent with the Herts Hate Crime Strategy and Policy 18 of the LTP4. Advise working with bus operators to run their cleanest buses in the area, and assist in bidding for cleaner bus funds.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support connectivity between Borehamwood and London can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 66

schemes they take forward through their programmes).

Consistency with Hertfordshire Hate Crime Strategy should be secured at the level of policy in the first instance and permeate down to schemes as a result rather than being considered on an ad hoc basis. The matter could be considered as part of the Bus Strategy. Issues of Hate Crime should be considered balanced against other county council objectives and in a wider context of seeking to improve security, safety and perceptions of safety.

PACKAGE 23 – RADLETT STATION ACCESSIBILITY

Aim:

To improve accessibility by active modes to Radlett station as a key node for interurban journeys.

The package consists of:

• Improvement of footways, cycleways, and crossings in the vicinity of Radlett town centre and station; • Increased provision of cycle parking at the train station; • Marketing and promotion of active transport opportunities in Radlett.

Package 23 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM136, PR137, PR138)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 23 or any potentially negative impacts. This package is centred on improving access to Radlett Station by walking and cycling and the promotion of these improvements.

The package should result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking and cycling when accessing Radlett Station, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity, personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), soil (reduced pollution in runoff), road safety, air quality, emissions, energy use (fossil fuels), choices of sustainable modes, townscape, access to employment and community facilities, and historic assets (there are 5 listed buildings in Watling St, and 3 in close proximity to the station).

Page 67

Without detailed scheme designs for the footway and cycleway infrastruture it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced, and if any schemes would contribute additional runoff which would add to localised flooding (the station is in a known flood zone). SEA Recommendations:

The marketing and promotion included as part of this package should focus on all sectors of the community and promote all of the benefits of modal shift to cycling and walking (both to the environment and to personal health) will be key to the uptake of these modes, and get the highest level of modal shift possible.

A barrier to the uptake of cycling maybe the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to secure cycle parking at Radlett station to prevent an increase in bicycle theft. Perception of safety may also be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and to help with interactions between road users.

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), and the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets and scheduled monuments).

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use and inform about Radlett Station accessibility.

Page 68

PACKAGE 24 – ST ALBANS CITY CENTRE IMPROVEMENTS

Aim:

To make St Albans city centre a safe, attractive, and convenient place to walk and cycle, through improvements to active transport infrastructure and the urban realm.

The package consists of:

• Urban realm, footway, and junction improvements, including a new crossing along St Peter’s St, revisions to the St Peter’s St/Victoria St junction, enhancement along Victoria St linking the city centre and railway station, and along a new pedestrian link between Victoria and St Peter’s St through the civic centre redevelopment site; • Expansion of the 20mph zone in St Albans.

Package 24 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM142, SM143, SM144, PR139, PR140, PR141)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 24 or any potentially negative impacts. This package is about improving the city centre of St Albans for pedestrians and cyclists and the overall public urban realm.

The package should result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking and cycling in St Albans town centre, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity, personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), road safety (with the 20mph zone and urban realm improvements), air quality (there is an air quality management area at the Peahen Junction), emissions, choices of sustainable modes, townscape, access to employment in the town centre, historic assets (St Albans Abbey), and all of the above should improve the vitality and viability of the town centre.

At this stage it is unclear exactly what other impacts the 20mph zone would have other than improving road safety for all users. It is difficult to predict impacts (positive or negative) on mode shift to active travel, air quality, emissions and access. SEA Recommendations:

St Albans is a fairly affluent town, to get local residents to change their travel behaviour and leave the car at home, marketing and promotion will be essential and should focus on the multiple benefits of modal shift to cycling and walking (both to the environment and to personal health).

Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and to help with interactions between road users.

Page 69

All schemes should also consider the economic impacts on local businesses.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure in St Albans City Centre can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Schemes are subject to informal consultation – consideration can be given to early engagement with communities for larger scale/more complex schemes.

The various potential direct and indirect impacts of 20mph zones including air quality would be identified during the development of the scheme and used to identify indicators for success of the scheme that can be measured v=before and after implementation.

Environmental Impact Assessments would be undertaken on any schemes that qualify under the Regulations, or where scoping has identified EIA is needed. Recommendation of EIA for these schemes are noted.

Page 70

PACKAGE 25 – ST ALBANS GREEN RING AND ALBAN WAY IMPROVEMENTS

Aim:

To unlock the potential of the St Albans Green Ring and Alban Way infrastructure and maximise its benefits.

The package consists of:

• Upgrades including crossings, signage and markings to the Green Ring at various locations; • Development of spoke routes facilitating active transport modes between the Green Ring and St Albans town centre; • Development of a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the Abbey Line near the existing level crossing; • Upgrades to the Alban Way, including wayfinding and signage, lighting, maintenance, and marketing and promotion of the corridor.

Package 25 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM152, SM153, SM157, PR148, PR149, PR150, PR151, PR154, PR155, PR156, PR158)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 25 or any potentially negative impacts. This package is about making the best use of the existing Green Ring infrastructure and making some improvements for cyclists and pedestrians.

The package should result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking and cycling, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity (especially for Verulanium Park), personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), road safety (as a result of new crossings and lighting), air quality (there is an air quality management area at the Peahen Junction), emissions, choices of sustainable modes, landscape and townscape, historic assets (Beech Bottom Dyke scheduled monument), and any local water courses (reduced pollution in any runoff that could end up in the nearby River Ver).

At this stage without any detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced, and any impacts on the local soil environment from any widening of footpaths, the new bridge, and new spoke routes. SEA Recommendations:

The marketing and promotion aspect of this package should focus on the multiple benefits of modal shift to cycling and walking (both to the environment and to personal health) and be promoted to all sectors of the community.

the uptake of cycling may be the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to providing secure cycle parking at destinations in St Albans. With more people using the public realm scheme design needs to consider personal security i.e. consider lighting issues on the new bridge scheme.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support St Albans Green Ring and Alban Way Improvements can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 72

PACKAGE 26 – ST ALBANS ABBEY STATION ACCESSIBILITY

Aim:

To improve accessibility by active modes to St Albans Abbey Station.

The package consists of:

• Improvements to existing inter-station shuttle buses in order to enhance station to station connectivity; • Increased provision for cycle parking at the station; • Investigating longer term options for an Abbey Line Park and Ride hub, or relocation of the existing Abbey Line station.

Package 26 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM152, SM161, SM162, PR159, PR160)

The assessment of package 26 has highlighted two SEA topics that are showing significant negative impacts, this package includes some fairly major projects with a train station relocation and a park and ride hub proposed. These would both require significant resources and would impact on the local environment and in particular could require large amounts of soil removal.

There would be potential negative impacts on amounts of construction waste produced but this would depend on HCC construction practices. The scheme detail at this stage does not recognise the use of SUDs which would minimise any additional runoff entering local water courses, and contributing to any localised flooding issues.

There are no significant positives identified through the assessment of this package, but the package could result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking and cycling and train use, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity), personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), air quality (there is an air quality management area at the Peahen Junction), emissions, choices of sustainable modes, landscape and townscape, historic assets (preserving the historic character), and broadening access to employment via train travel.

At this stage without any detailed scheme designs (especially for the larger projects) it is unclear how the station relocation and park and ride hub would incorporate safety issues and secure cycle parking. The St Albans Abbey station would be close to a known flood zone and the current scheme description does not give enough information on drainage to comment on the impact on flooding. The station relocation and park and ride hub would also require energy sources but there is not enough scheme detail to rate this as a positive or negative impact.

Page 73

SEA Recommendations:

The marketing and promotion should be seriously considered for this package to promote the sustainable access to the train station and the benefits of train use and be promoted to all sectors of the community.

A barrier to the uptake of cycling may be the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to providing secure cycle parking at destinations in St Albans (at the train station and park and ride hub).

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets and scheduled monuments, and known areas of flooding (check the HCC flooding map)).

The more substantial projects in this package (the station relocation and park and ride hub) could have significant environmental impacts therefore it is advised that a full EIA is done on these schemes. HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support St Albans Abbey Station accessibility can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 74

PACKAGE 27 – ST ALBANS CITY STATION ACCESSIBILITY

Aim: that

To improve accessibility by active modes to St Albans City Station, particularly through strengthened connectivity between the station and the City centre.

The package consists of:

• Improvements to footways, crossings, and implementation of wayfinding along Victoria St between the station and the city centre; • Development of cycleway infrastructure leading to the station along Grosvenor Rd/Ridgmont Rd; • Increased provision for cycle parking at the station and safeguarded location for future increases.

Package 27 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM163, SM165, PR164, PR167, PR168)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 27 or any potentially negative impacts. This package is about improving access to St Albans City Station by foot and cycle.

There are no significant positives identified through the assessment of this package, but the package could result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking and cycling and subsequent train use, which would provide benefits to: biodiversity, personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), air quality (there is an air quality management area at the Peahen Junction), emissions (although any additional pedestrian crossings could cause road traffic to stop and start which can lead to increased emissions), choices of sustainable modes, historic assets (preserving the historic character), and broadening access to employment via train travel.

At this stage without any detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be considered for this package to promote any new sustainable access to the train station and the benefits of train use and be promoted to all sectors of the community.

A barrier to the uptake of cycling may be the safety of bicycles left at train stations, therefore serious consideration should be given to providing secure cycle parking at St Albans City train station.

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets and scheduled monuments, and known areas of flooding

Page 75

(check the HCC flooding map)). HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support St Albans City Station accessibility can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Scheme designs would take account of the balance between air quality issues and the provision of more walking and cycling infrastructure

Page 76

PACKAGE 28 – HATFIELD ROAD CORRIDOR – ST ALBANS

Aim:

To transform Hatfield Road in St Albans into an attractive and inviting high street and enhance its function as an efficient public transport corridor.

The package consists of:

• Implementation of bus priority measures along Hatfield Road, potentially facilitated by removal of on-street parking as investigated through a parking study; • Urban realm improvements along Hatfield Road, including footway and crossing upgrades and bus stop improvements.

Package 28 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM171, PR169, PR170)

There are no significant negative or potential negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 28. This package is about improving the urban realm along Hatfield Road to make pedestrian and bus travel easier along this corridor, and give the motor vehicle less dominance. One potential negative was identified in that the bus schemes do no acknowledge personal security issues with more people using buses and potential conflicts and Hate Crime.

There is one significant positive identified through the assessment of this package in that it improves the choice of sustainable modes, but the package could also result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking and bus use. This would provide benefits to: biodiversity (particularly on the western side of the corridor which borders a key biodiversity area), personal health (walking is an active travel mode), air quality, emissions (although this will also depend on what Euro rating the buses have along this corridor), townscape and historic assets (preserving the historic character), and broadening access to services along Hatfield Road.

At this stage without any detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced particularly for any bus priority schemes, and any impacts of infrastructure on the soil environment. It is unclear how any of the bus priority works would consider personal security for users. Without scheme details for the bus priority works it is also difficult to determine energy requirements for real-time infrastructure and the energy needs for the bus fleet using this corridor). The parking study has suggested that some parking needs to be removed but it is unclear how this may impact on local businesses and the economy and growth, which ultimately will impact on the vitality of the town centre.

Page 77

SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be considered for this package to promote any bus services and pedestrian improvements, to all sectors of the community.

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets and scheduled monuments, and known areas of flooding (check the HCC flooding map)).

This package is aiming to increase bus patronage along this corridor, but with more people in the public realm and on buses there is a risk of more incidents of Hate Crime, the final GTP should acknowledge personal security issues and the interaction of different road users and be consistent with the Herts Hate Crime Strategy and Policy 18 of the LTP4.

Lobby for more passenger transport vehicles being Euro 6 or electric, and be more proactive in seeking funding for cleaner buses.

When considering any reduction of parking levels consideration should be given to immediate social and economic impacts, particularly on local businesses.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure and bus services can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

HCC engages with bus operators through the Intalink Partnership to work to improve bus services and vehicle standards.

All the scheme concepts proposed will require further feasibility and investigatory work, which would establish likely impacts on the network and allow cost-benefit analysis to be done. Schemes could also be modelled in future runs of the Countywide Transport Model. No changes to parking would be considered without a thorough review and engagement with the local community.

Page 78

other county council objectives and in a wider context of seeking to improve security, safety and perceptions of safety.

Environmental Impact Assessments would be undertaken on any schemes that qualify under the Regulations, or where scoping has identified EIA is needed.

PACKAGE 29 – LONDON ROAD CORRIDOR – ST ALBANS

Aim:

To make London Road a more attractive place for pedestrians and cyclists and improve reliability of journeys along the corridor.

The package consists of:

• Development of new pedestrian crossing points, including at the Odyssey Cinema and other locations, potentially facilitated through reduction of on-street parking; • Junction upgrades and signal timing reconfiguration to improve conditions for pedestrians at the Peahen junction and Watsons Walk/Latimore Road junctions.

Package 29 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM173, SM174, PR172, PR175)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 29 or any potentially negative impacts. This package is about improving journey times along London Road in St Albans, and improving the infrastructure for walking and cycling.

The package could result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking and cycling. This would provide benefits to: biodiversity (particularly the River Ver trail), personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes), road safety (from additional signalised crossings and junction improvements), air quality, emissions, improving the choice of sustainable modes, townscape and historic assets (preserving the historic character), and broadening access to services and employment. Although negative impacts were noted, the assessment comments do acknowledge that the signal timing reconfigurations would reduce congestion, but this could then facilitate car use due to improved congestion levels. Any increase in car use would have minor negative impacts on most of the above.

At this stage without any detailed scheme designs it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced particularly for the junction improvement and crossing schemes, and any impacts of infrastructure on the soil environment. Electricity will be required for the signalised crossings and at this stage it is unclear what the source of electricity would be. This package should improve congestion and result in some modal shift which would have a positive impact on the vitality of the town centre, but it is unclear the full impact of the

Page 79

junction signal reconfiguration. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be considered for this package to promote any new infrastructure and any changes to the existing infrastructure (i.e. parking changes, signal reconfigurations), to all sectors of the community.

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets and scheduled monuments, and known areas of flooding (check the HCC flooding map)).

Any schemes that require an energy source i.e. for signals, should consider all alternatives for that energy supply.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure along St Albans, London Road corridor can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 80

PACKAGE 30 – A414 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS (SOUTH OF ST ALBANS)

Aim:

To enhance the function of the A414 as a strategic east-west route in south central Hertfordshire through capacity and reliability upgrades.

The package consists of:

• A414 junction upgrades at London Colney, Park Street and Colney Heath; • Implementation of smart traffic management; • Improving signage within St Albans to route long distance strategic trips to the A414; • Improving the A414 cycleway between London Colney and Hatfield to facilitate cycle journeys.

Package 30 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM176, SM177, SM178, SM179, SM180, SM181, SM206)

The assessment of package 30 has identified a number of potential negative impacts, in that the roundabout and longabout upgrades could facilitate car use and so will not offer additional choices for sustainable modes along the A414. These upgrades could also result in potential negatives for health (with no modal shift), and a possible increase in emissions. Any signals and the smart traffic management would require an electricity source.

No significant positive impacts have been identified as a result of the assessment of package 30, but this package is about improving journey times along the A414, and through St Albans.

At this stage without any detailed scheme designs there are many uncertainties with this package, it is unclear what resources and how much construction waste would be produced for a package that is very infrastructure based, and any impacts of this infrastructure on the soil environment. It is unclear if any of these schemes would be built within the current highway boundary and not require any further landtake which would impact on habitats. The schemes would result in both positive and negatives for air quality, with a reduction in congestion, but possibly an increase in car use with the longabout increasing capacity. It is also unclear the full impact on access to services and employment as the schemes are mainly vehicle focused which doesn’t cater for those on lower incomes who cannot afford a car. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be considered for the cycling aspect of this package.

Any new infrastructure will need to consider impacts on the use of resources for construction and disposal of construction waste (check policy in HIAMP), soil removal, drainage issues (compliance with SuDS), the historic environment (check the HCC map of known historic assets and scheduled monuments, and Page 81

known areas of flooding (check the HCC flooding map)).

When designing the road based schemes in this package consideration should also be given to other road users and shared road space (consistency with LTP4 Transport User Hierarchy Policy 1).

Any schemes that require an energy source i.e. for signals, and the smart traffic management, should consider all alternatives for that energy supply.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

All the scheme concepts proposed will require further feasibility and investigatory work, which would establish likely impacts on the network and allow cost-benefit analysis to be done. Schemes could also be modelled in future runs of the Countywide Transport Model. The proposals in this package need to be viewed in context with the other packages for London Colney. Full assessment will be carried out as part of the design process to understand the full impact of measures on the different modes of transport.

Page 82

PACKAGE 31 – LONDON COLNEY INTER-URBAN STRATEGIC PUBLIC TRANSPORT CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To integrate London Colney into broader east-west public transport and cycle connections within south central Hertfordshire.

The package consists of:

• Development of an envisioned small scale interchange adjacent to the A414 to serve London Colney and east-west rapid bus services alongside an upgrade of the junction at Napsbury; • Development of an active travel corridor along the B5378 to link London Colney to a mass rapid transit interchange at Napsbury.

Package 31 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM185, SM186, SM187, SM206)

The assessment of package 31 has identified one significant negative impact, in that an interchange scheme would result in large amounts of soil removal and/or capping. A new interchange could also result in potential negative impacts on local biodiversity, as the scheme is in areas of key biodiversity and near Napsbury Hospital registered park, and raw resources would be required to construct the schemes.

One significant positive impact was identified in that this package would significantly improve the choice of sustainable transport modes, as they are passenger transport based and for cyclists and pedestrians.

At this stage without any detailed scheme designs there are also a number of uncertainties with this package with its fairly substantial schemes: it is unclear how much construction waste would be produced. With a new interchange it is unclear at this stage the water requirements for such a facility, and any impacts on local water courses, and energy requirements for the passenger transport facilities. It is difficult to determine whether or not personal security measures would be considered for any passenger transport schemes, as the scheme details do not mention such issues. A new interchange would have an impact on the local landscape, and on green spaces (i.e. Napsbury Hospital registered park) but the level of impact is difficult to assess at this early stage.

The passenger transport and active travel schemes would have some positives: to health through active travel, air quality and emission level improvements, better access to services and local employment, it should empower local people to make better travel choices, and improve the vitality of the area by removing vehicles off the roads.

Page 83

SEA Recommendations:

Extensive promotion should be considered for this package to promote the new interchange, and any new active travel schemes along the B5378.

This package will result in new passenger transport infrastructure which should result in more people in the public realm and on buses/trains, but this brings an additional risk of more incidents of Hate Crime, the final GTP should acknowledge personal security issues and the interaction of different road users and be consistent with the Herts Hate Crime Strategy and Policy 18 of the LTP4.

The new interchange in this package could have significant impacts on the Napsbury Hospital registered park, therefore it is advised that a full EIA is done on these schemes. HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 84

PACKAGE 32 – LONDON COLNEY INTER-URBAN LOCAL CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To improve connectivity by all modes of transport between London Colney and St Albans.

The package consists of:

• Improvements to cycling infrastructure within London Colney, as well as between London Colney and St Albans, including upgrades to the A414 pedestrian/cycle bridge; • Development of a new sustainable transport bridge across the A414; • Improvements to bus services between London Colney and St Albans.

Package 32 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM190, SM176, SM206, SM208, PR188, PR191)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 32 or any potentially negative impacts. This package aims to improve the choice of sustainable modes between St Albans and London Colney, by improving the infrastructure and improving local bus services.

The package could result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking, cycling and bus use. This would provide benefits to: biodiversity (particularly to the Napsbury Hospital registered park), personal health (walking and cycling are active travel modes, but the roundabout improvements could facilitate car use), road safety (both personal safety, and road safety), air quality, emissions (although the roundabout could facilitate car use and so in that location worsen emissions), improving the choice of sustainable modes, townscape, and broadening access to services and employment, particularly for those on lower incomes.

At this stage without any detailed scheme designs there are also a number of uncertainties with this package: it is unclear the resources required and how much construction waste would be produced for any infrastructure delivered. Without the exact location for the new cycle links and the new bridge, it is difficult to assess the impacts on the local water environment, and whether or not these schemes would be within a known flood zone, and any impacts on soil. Some of these schemes could require an electricity source but without scheme details exact impacts are difficult to determine. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be considered for this package to promote any new infrastructure particularly for sustainable modes, this would help optimise modal shift.

Page 85

Lobby for more passenger transport vehicles being Euro 6 or electric using bus routes with improvements, and be more proactive in seeking funding for cleaner buses.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 86

PACKAGE 33 – LONDON COLNEY INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To make London Colney a safe attractive, and convenient place to walk and cycle through improvements to active transport infrastructure and urban realm in the town centre.

The package consists of:

• Improvements to pedestrian and cycle infrastructure and urban realm within London Colney; • Development of new pedestrian and cycling infrastructure linked to new development west of London Colney; • 20mph speed limits in the town centre and throughout the town.

Package 33 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM192, PR193, PR194, PR195)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 33 or any potentially negative impacts. This package aims to improve the environment for those choosing to walk or cycle in London Colney by improving the local infrastructure.

The package could result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking and cycling. This would provide benefits to: personal health (particularly from the core walking and pedestrian route), townscape (with streetscape improvements), historic assets (there are various listed buildings in the area), and broadening access to services.

There are a significant number of uncertainties at this stage due to a lack of detailed scheme designs: it is unclear the resources required and how much construction waste would be produced for any infrastructure delivered. It is unclear any impacts on local biodiversity (especially on the nearby Napsbury Hospital registered park). Without the exact location for schemes it is difficult to assess the impacts on the local soil environment, and impacts to local air quality and emissions. Some of these schemes could require an electricity source but without scheme details exact impacts are difficult to determine. The proposed traffic calming and 20mph speed limits could cause some environmental negatives e.g. air quality and emissions, it is unclear if these schemes would cause any modal shift. Impacts on the local economy and businesses is also unclear if any parking provision is reduced as part of this package. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be considered for this package to promote any new infrastructure particularly for the core pedestrian/cycle route and any new speed limit changes, this should help optimise modal shift.

Page 87

How will the 20mph speed limits be enforced?

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Any speed limit changes will be in accordance with the County Councils Speed Management Strategy which is a joint document with the Police and also covers when enforcement can be expected

Page 88

PACKAGE 34 – ST ALBANS – HATFIELD LOCAL CONNECTIVITY

Aim:

To enhance local transport between St Albans and Hatfield and facilitate growth along the Sandpit Lane – Coopers Green Lane Corridor.

The package consists of:

• Development of an active transport corridor along Coopers Green Lane with a link to Hatfield Business Park, including cycling and footway infrastructure supported by a reduction in the speed limit; • Improvements to traffic routing signage to ensure longer distance strategic trips are routed to strategic roads including the A414; • Improvements to local bus services including increased frequency and extended hours of operation of routes including the 724 and 300/301.

Package 34 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM180, SM67, PR197, PR68)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts identified as a result of the assessment of package 34 or any potentially negative impacts. This package aims to improve sustainable transport modes between St Albans and Hatfield, and to reroute through traffic onto the A414.

The package could result in a number of potential positives as a result of any modal shift to walking, cycling and bus patronage. This would provide benefits to: personal health (this package aims to develop an active travel corridor), road safety through speed limit reductions, the soil environment (through reduced pollution in runoff), air quality levels and a reduction in emissions, historic assets (there are various listed buildings in the area).

There are a number of uncertainties at this stage due to a lack of detailed scheme designs: it is unclear how much construction waste would be produced for any infrastructure delivered. It is unclear any impacts on local biodiversity as the exact locations for the schemes are unknown. Without any scheme locations it is also difficult to determine impacts on flooding and runoff, and whether or not the schemes will be delivered in known areas of flooding. Impacts on the landscape and townscape are also unknown at this stage, particularly impacts on local tranquillity (from the possibility of additional buses). SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be considered for this package to promote any new infrastructure particularly for any new walking and cycling infrastructure, any new speed limit changes, and any changes to bus services, this should help optimise modal shift.

Page 89

Perception of safety may be a barrier to the numbers of people choosing to cycle or walk, therefore consider promoting locally Bikeability training for confidence building and road safety, and pedestrian training. Another barrier to the uptake of cycling may be the safety of bicycles left at train stations, therefore serious consideration should be given to providing secure cycle parking at destinations in St Albans and Hatfield.

This package also includes bus service improvements which could bring an additional risk of more incidents of Hate Crime, the final GTP should acknowledge personal security issues and the interaction of different road users and be consistent with the Herts Hate Crime Strategy and Policy 18 of the LTP4. Cost can be a barrier for some when accessing public transport, consider promoting any concessions that are available for those on lower incomes or on benefits, especially in Hatfield.

Lobby for more passenger transport vehicles being Euro 6 or electric using bus routes with improvements, and be more proactive in seeking funding for cleaner buses.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 90

the responsibility of the scheme promoter.

PACKAGE 35 – CHISWELL GREEN CORRIDOR DOWNGRADE

Aim:

To improve connectivity between Chiswell Green and Park Street and St Albans and reduce through traffic on the Watford Road corridor.

The package consists of:

• Improvements along the B4630 Watford Road with the aim of discouraging through traffic (i.e. trips which neither begin nor end in Chiswell Green), ensuring capacity is given to other modes of transport. • Improvements along the A405, including roundabout upgrades at the A414/A405/A5183 Park Street Roundabout and at the B4630 Watford Road/A405 Noke Roundabout.

Package 35 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM177, SM200, SM201)

The assessment of package 35 has highlighted a number of potential negatives, in that the roundabout and junction schemes which aim to reduce congestion may actually facilitate an increase in car traffic and do not offer substantial improvements to sustainable transport choices. With some of the schemes possibly facilitating car use by improving local congestion and pinch points, an increase in car use would also have negative impacts on local air quality and an increase in emissions.

There are a number of uncertainties at this stage due to a lack of detailed scheme designs, (particularly for the junction improvements): it is unclear how much construction material would be required and how much waste would be produced for any infrastructure delivered. It is unclear any impacts on local biodiversity as it is unclear if any construction is required. Impacts on the landscape/townscape are

Page 91

also unknown at this stage, and the local historic environment (there is a listed public house nearby). These schemes will increase access to services and facilities but benefits would be mainly for car users, the scheme details at this stage do not mention any benefits to other road users. A reduction in congestion could benefit the prosperity of local businesses.

Only one potential positive was identified by the assessment of this package in that it could potentially improve the vitality and viability of existing centres, as the schemes should improve connections along the Chiswell Green corridor. SEA Recommendations:

Promotion should be considered for this package to promote the new on road cycleway to optimise modal shift.

For the roundabout and junction improvement schemes for this package, the needs of other sustainable road users should also be considered (i.e. consider policy 1 Road User Hierarchy in LTP4).

Consider alternative energy sources for any new signals.

Consider any economic impacts that these schemes may have on local businesses particularly from the road narrowing part of the cycle scheme, as this could cause congestion if sufficient modal shift is not achieved.

HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support Chiswell Green active travel corridor can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Page 92

the responsibility of the scheme promoter (e.g. Highways England for any schemes they take forward through their programmes).

During the design process the proposals will be fully assessed and technical reviews carried out to ensure that the impacts on all travel modes are considered.Road Safety Audits are undertaken as standard on Highways schemes.

PACKAGE 36 – ALBAN WAY IMPROVEMENTS

Aim:

To enhance the Alban Way and promote it as a safe, convenient and attractive option for trips between St Albans and Hatfield.

The package consists of:

• Implementation of physical improvements to the Alban Way, including wayfinding and signage, lighting, crossings and maintenance; • Marketing and promotion of the Alban Way as an attractive transport corridor.

Package 36 - Summary of SEA Assessment

Schemes: (SM157, PR154, PR155, PR156, PR158)

There are no significant positive or negative impacts from the implementation of Package 36, and no potential negative impacts, this package is about making further improvements to the existing Alban Way, but potential benefits will be subject to the level of modal shift achieved.

The schemes should assist in facilitating mode shift and active travel, which could provide benefits to health, air quality (providing benefits to the AQMA in St Albans), the local townscape (by removing cars). By the re-marketing of the Alban Way this should allow local residents to make better travel choices, and access employment and facilities and so improve the local economy. The Alban Way should attract more visitor numbers to St Albans which could improve the vitality of the town.

There are a number of uncertainties with this package would any significant construction will be required, and would the positives reach out to deprived areas in the package area. SEA Recommendations:

Page 93

the uptake of cycling may be the safety of their bicycle, therefore serious consideration should be given to providing secure cycle parking at destinations in St Albans and Hatfield.

Promotion should be considered for this package to promote the new on road cycleway to optimise modal shift.

Consider alternative energy sources for any new lighting, and make sure that new lighting doesn’t add to light pollution. HCC Response:

Subject to resource availability, newly implemented infrastructure to support the Alban Way can be promoted locally and with relevant target groups to encourage use.

Summary of findings:

The assessments of the 36 packages in the South Central GTP have highlighted similar impacts, as similar scheme types are proposed for the Growth & Transport Plan area (pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, junction improvements, bus priority, public realm improvements etc.). The SEA also recognises that there is some uncertainty with the assessments, as it has been difficult to assess the packages and give definite positive and negative impacts without having detailed schemes designs and location maps, but the following summarises the potential positive and negative impacts that the South Central GTP would be expected to produce.

A number of the packages identified some significant positive impacts in that there could be significant health benefits as a result of modal shift to active travel modes, and that the schemes would offer residents more choice in sustainable mode travel.

Page 94

A number of the packages also include 20mph proposals which would provide significant road safety benefits to all road users (but other impacts are unclear).

The majority of the schemes in this GTP show potential positive impacts, in particular they will provide access to sustainable modes (cycling, walking and bus use) which should allow residents to make better sustainable travel choices. The schemes should also provide improved access to employment, facilities, and leisure opportunities, and provide opportunities for a healthy lifestyle, through increased active travel.

Environmental benefits from any modal shift to cycling and walking would include better air quality (particularly on the AQMAs in the GTP area), and less vehicle noise, less consumption of fossil fuels and therefore fewer greenhouse gas emissions, reductions in energy use (from less fossil fuel consumption), less of an impact on local biodiversity, and the historic environment, less heavy metals and particulates in runoff that can pollute the local soil and water environment. All of the above contribute towards maintaining the vitality and viability of town centres in the GTP area.

This GTP does include some major infrastructure proposals (railway station relocation, Park & Ride hub, roundabout and longabout upgrades, bus/rail interchange, and a new railway station), these could potentially have significant negative impacts on resource requirements, soil removal and capping, landtake, and negative impacts on local areas of key biodiversity. Assessments have identified that roundabout and junction upgrades do not appear to offer any improvements to other modes and would only provide journey time improvements to car users.

Passenger transport schemes will provide many benefits with regards to improved access to services and employment, but the use of cleaner vehicle technology (and bidding for funds to replace vehicles) should be high priority to minimise negative environmental impacts on air quality and emission levels. The aim of this GTP is to achieve modal shift, therefore with more people in the public realm using public transport this issue of hate crime on public transport should be considered and recognised in the final GTP, it is a growing issue for Hertfordshire and any scheme should be consistent with the Hertfordshire Hate Crime Strategy.

There are a number of historic assets (listed buildings, and scheduled monuments) and key biodiversity areas (e.g. SSSIs, registered parks, woodlands, and swallow holes) in the plan area, maps of historic assets and key biodiversity areas should be considered as part of any scheme design work, for larger infrastructure schemes, an environmental impact assessment may be required to identify in detail, and mitigate impacts on the local environment.

Without detailed scheme information and exact locations it has been difficult to give definite positive or negative impacts, therefore a number of the assessments were rated as uncertain. In particular it has been difficult to determine impacts on raw resources required for infrastructure schemes and the levels of construction waste that would be produced. Some of the packages are recommending parking rationalisation, but if more parking is provided this can facilitate car use, but if parking is taken away this could have a negative impact on local businesses.

Page 95

The GTP and scheme detail at this stage does not recognise the use of SUDs which would minimise any additional runoff entering local water courses, and contributing to any localised flooding issues, this will be important as a number of the schemes will be in areas of known flooding.

Page 96

6. CUMULATIVE, SECONDARY AND SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS.

6.1 Introduction.

It is a requirement of Annex 1 of the SEA Directive that cumulative, synergistic and secondary affects are identified and addressed in the assessment. It is one of the advantages of carrying out a Strategic Assessment that the combined effects of different measures can be more effectively identified. These effects are explained below:

Cumulative effects occur when individual developments that, on their own, have an insignificant effect, combine to produce a detrimental environmental impact.

Secondary effects are indirect effects which occur away from the original effect or through a complex pathway and not as an obvious result of the Local Transport Plan.

Synergistic effects arise when a combined effect (cumulative and secondary) is greater than the sum of the individual effects.

Table 6.1 shows the overall results of the cumulative effect assessment process on the 36 Growth & Transport Plan packages.

The numbers of the SEA objectives in the table below relate to the following objectives:

SEA objectives: 1. To protect and enhance biodiversity; 2. To maximise the opportunities for leisure and a healthy lifestyle for all, and to improve the physical and mental health of the population, and reduce health inequalities; 3. To reduce crime and create safe environments; 4. To improve the sustainable use of resources; 5. To move away from waste disposal to minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery; 6. To ensure the efficient use of water, and safeguard water resources; 7. To reduce contamination, and safeguard soil quality and quantity; 8. To protect and enhance air quality and minimise noise pollution; 9. To improve the choice of sustainable transport modes, encourage their use, and reduce the need to travel by car; 10. To adapt to the impacts of climate change such as flooding; 11. To reduce greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, emitted by vehicular transport; 12. To ensure the sustainable supply and use of energy; 13. To protect and enhance the character of landscape, townscape and green spaces; 14. To conserve and enhance the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings; 15. To tackle the causes of poverty and social exclusion by improving access to services and community facilities for all; 16. To empower all sections of the community to participate in decision making and local action; 17. To maintain employment, improve economic competitiveness (consistent with environmental constraints) and create a vibrant economy; 18. To spread economic growth more evenly to benefit deprived areas; and 19. To maintain the vitality and viability of existing centres.

Page 97

Table 6.1: Overall comparison of effects of the 36 Packages on the SEA objectives:

SEA Objectives

I I

transport

historic assets historic

. adapt to climate change toclimate . adapt gases . greenhouse . energy spaces townscape/green landscape/ . . exclusion . social . empowerment economy . employment/ growth .economic centres of . vitality/viability

. air / noise / . air . sustainable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. biodiversity population of 2. health 3. crime/safety 4. resources disposal waste 5. water 6. 7. soil 8 9 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Overall effect P+ P P+ U U P+ P+ P P P+ P P+ P+ P+ P+ U P+ P+ P+ of package 1 + + + +

Overall P+ P P+ U U P+ U P+ P P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ P+ P+ effect of + + package 2

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U P+ U P+ P P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ P+ P+ effect of + package 3

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U P+ P+ P+ P P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ U U effect of + package 4

Overall P+ P P+ U U P+ P+ P+ P P+ P+ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of + + package 5

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U P+ P+ P+ P P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of + package 6

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U U P+ P+ P U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of + package 7

Page 98

Overall P+ P+ U U U U P- P+ P U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O O impact of + package 8

Overall U ✓ P+ U U U P- P+ ✓ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O O impact of package 9

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U U P+ P+ P+ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of package 10

Overall U U U U U U U U U U U U P- P- U O U U U impact of package 11

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U U P- P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ P+ P+ impact of package 12

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U P+ P+ P+ P+ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of package 13

Overall P+ ✓ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ ✓ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of package 14

Overall P+ ✓ P+ U U P+ U P+ ✓ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of package 15

Overall P- P+ P- U U P+ U P+ P+ P+ P- U U U P+ U P+ P+ P+ impact of package 16

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ P+ P+ impact of package 17

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U U U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ U P+ impact of package 18

Overall P+ P+ P- U U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ U U P+ P+ U U P+ U P+ impact of package 19

Page 99

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U P+ P+ P+ ✓ O P+ P+ ✓ P+ U U P+ U P+ impact of package 20

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U P+ P+ P+ ✓ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ P+ P+ impact of package 21

Overall P+ P+ U U U P+ P+ P+ P+ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ U P+ P+ P+ impact of package 22

Overall P+ P+ P+ U U U P+ P+ P+ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ U P+ U P+ impact of package 23

Overall P+ P+ P+ U O U P+ P+ P+ O P+ U P+ U P+ U P+ P+ U impact of package 24

Overall U P+ P+ U U O O P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of package 25

Overall P+ P+ U X P- P- X P+ P+ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ P+ P+ impact of package 26

Overall U P+ P+ U U O O P+ P+ O P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ P+ O impact of package 27

Overall P+ P+ P- U U O U P+ ✓ O P+ U P+ U P+ P+ U U P+ impact of package 28

Overall U P+ P+ U O O O P+ P+ O P+ U P+ P+ P+ O P+ O U impact of package 29

Overall U P- P+ U U O U U P- O P- P- P+ U U O U O U impact of package 30

Overall P- P+ P+ P- U U X P+ ✓ O P+ P+ U U U U U O P+ impact of package 31

Overall P+ P+ U U U U U P+ P+ O P+ U P+ U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ impact of package 32

Page 100

Overall U P+ U U U O O U U O U U P+ P+ U O U O U impact of package 33

Overall U P+ U U U U P+ P+ P+ O U U P+ U U O U U P+ impact of package 34

Overall U U U U U O U P- P- O P- P- U U U O U O P+ impact of package 35

Overall U P+ U U U O O U P+ O U U P+ U U O P+ O P+ impact of package 36

Overall impact of P P+ P+ P+ U U P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ P+ O P+ P+ P+ all 36 + packages

Key: ✓ Positive impact

P+ Potentially positive impact

O No relationship/link

U Uncertain/ Depends on implementation

P- Potentially negative impact

X Negative impact

Page 101

6.2 Summary of Cumulative Effects

Environmental problems often result from the accumulation of multiple, small and indirect effects e.g. worsening air quality, changes in landscape and loss of habitat. For the South Central Growth & Transport Plan cumulative impacts are the total impacts of the Plan and any impacts from business as usual (without the plan scenario). Appendix 1 – Baseline, shows the ‘without the plan’ impacts on the baseline indicators.

Summary Table 6.2 describes the overall cumulative effects of the 36 packages of the South Central Growth & Transport Plan. This takes into consideration the evidence from Table 6.1, and appendix 4.

Table 6.2 – Summary of Cumulative Effects

Summary of cumulative effects of 36 packages on SEA objectives: objectives.

P+ Overall – the GTP could have a potentially positive impact on local biodiversity, mainly as a result of modal shift to more sustainable modes. However, Package 31 (London Colney Inter-Urban Strategic Public Transport Connectivity) could have a potential negative effect on a key biodiversity area (Napsbury Hospital Registered 1. biodiversity Park) as a result of new infrastructure, lighting and additional noise. Package 16 (Luton – WGC corridor) includes junction upgrades at Lemsford Village which could impact verge-side habitats. Impacts from Packages 9, 11, 25, 27, 29, 30 and 33-35 are uncertain at this stage, it will depend on scheme design and exact scheme locations. P+ Overall – Many of the schemes within the 36 packages are about modal shift to more sustainable modes and in particular, walking and cycling which are active travel modes, and provide benefits to both physical and mental health. Assessment of Package 30 shows that there could be potentially negative impacts on health 2. health of in that this package includes infrastructure improvement population schemes which could facilitate car use. Impacts of Package 11 are uncertain at this stage as scheme details for an A1(M)/A414 junction 4 interchange are unknown at this stage of the GTP development, there are also uncertainties with impacts on health of Package 35 as some schemes will improve active travel and others may facilitate car use. P+ Overall – As the exact details of some schemes and packages are unknown as this stage, impacts on crime levels and road/personal safety is uncertain, but for 3. crime/safety others we are able to say that the packages will have a potentially positive impact. With more people using the public realm, lighting, and conflicts between users will need careful consideration. Packages 16, 19 and 28

Page 102

Summary of cumulative effects of 36 packages on SEA objectives: objectives.

include public transport proposals, and these packages should be mindful of a potential increase in Hate Crime incidents with more people using the public realm.

U Overall – There should not be too much of a need for large amounts of construction materials for the plan overall as the majority of proposals are for improvements to sustainable transport, but there is some uncertainty 4. resources without detailed scheme designs. Package 26 would require significant resource if St Albans Abbey station is relocated. Package 31 also shows a potential negative impact with regards to construction materials for various passenger transport infrastructure schemes. U Overall – it is uncertain at this stage whether or not the South Central GTP would have a positive or negative impact on levels of waste produced that would require disposal, as detailed scheme design is not known. Highways policy should be revisited to check that the 5. waste disposal Council aims to move away from waste disposal to minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery. Package 26 has been recognised as needing to consider waste as a result of the proposal to relocate St Albans Abbey Station and any construction waste from a new park and ride hub. P+ Overall – This will depend on detailed scheme design and the use of SuDS to prevent any surface runoff from infrastructure schemes from entering local water courses. 6. water Package 26 and the proposal to relocate St Albans Abbey Station and a park and ride hub would need careful design and drainage consideration to minimise the impact on the local water environment. P+ Overall – Similar to impacts on the water environment, impacts on the soil environment will depend on the detailed scheme design and the use of SuDS to prevent any surface runoff entering the soil environment adjacent to any scheme. Some of the new infrastructure schemes would result in some soil capping/loss of soil 7. Soil habitat, in particular in packages 26 and 31, that involve major passenger transport interchanges and the relocation of St Albans Abbey Station. In the short term soil capping from new pedestrian/cycle infrastructure, and soil contamination from runoff from additional infrastructure may increase particularly from packages 8, 9 and 12. P+ Overall – The majority of the 36 packages aim to reduce car use and provide infrastructure to enable 8. air / noise modal shift to more sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling and passenger transport which can bring improvements to local air quality and noise levels.

Page 103

Summary of cumulative effects of 36 packages on SEA objectives: objectives.

At this stage it is only a potential positive impact as it is reliant on behavioural change. Some of the proposed highway improvements could facilitate car use and have negative impacts on air and noise quality, in particular within Package 35. P+ Overall – The majority of the packages should have a potentially positive impact on improving the choice of sustainable modes for the South Central GTP area. 9. sustainable However, any major junction or roundabout transport upgrades/improvements (Packages 30 and 35), could facilitate car use and should consider the needs of other modes and follow the new LTP4 Transport User Hierarchy. P+ Overall – With the majority of packages aiming to achieve modal shift to sustainable modes, this should 10. adapt to climate potentially be a positive and not contribute further to change climate change. Any new infrastructure provided will need to be future proofed against further climate change issues such as flooding and high summer temperatures, and colder winters. P+ Overall – With many of the packages aiming to achieve modal shift to sustainable modes, this should 11. greenhouse see a reduction in emissions from vehicles, however gases caution will be needed with any junction or roundabout improvement or upgrades, so that they do not result in further traffic growth and emissions (Packages 16, 30 and 35). P+ Overall – Modal shift to more sustainable modes should reduce the amount of fossil fuels used by vehicles. However, any new signalisation and smart 12. energy traffic management should carefully consider the options available for the energy supply. Junction improvements can facilitate car use and so increase the use of fossil fuels, Packages 30 and 35 will need to be wary of this. P+ Overall – By reducing the numbers of vehicles on local roads this should provide improvements to the local 13. landscape/ landscape, townscape and green spaces. Any major junction improvements, link roads, new car parks townscape/green (including park and ride), bridges etc should be mindful of spaces. their visual impact on the landscape, townscape. Package 11 is mainly infrastructure improvements which would visually change the streetscape and possibly facilitate traffic growth. P+ Overall – By promoting more sustainable modes this should have a positive impact on any local historic 14. Historic assets assets, but any infrastructure schemes should be mindful of any local historic assets (listed buildings, monuments etc.) and the HCC map of historic assets should be

Page 104

Summary of cumulative effects of 36 packages on SEA objectives: objectives.

checked at the scheme design stage, to determine the location of any such protected sites, particularly for Package 11 which includes mainly infrastructure schemes. P+ Overall – Sustainable modes are affordable and available to all (especially walking and cycling) and would improve access to services and facilities within the towns 15. social exclusion in the South Central GTP area. Some of the infrastructure schemes that will improve capacity and provide new car parks or park and ride facilities will not provide many benefits to those on lower incomes and without access to a car. O Overall – The assessments show more ‘O’ scores than P+’s, but the delivery of this growth and transport plan 16. empowerment would have a potentially positive impact on empowering all sections of the community to make better transport choices and participate in local decision making. P+ Overall – Delivery of the schemes within the 36 packages would have a potentially positive impact on maintaining local employment, improving economic 17. employment/ competitiveness and creating a vibrant economy, as the economy promotion of sustainable modes and the provision of key infrastructure should improve access to employment, and to a wider labour market, and reduce congestion which benefits the productivity of local businesses. P+ Overall – The delivery of the 36 packages would 18.economic potentially have a positive impact on spreading economic growth growth evenly to deprived areas, as sustainable modes improve access to employment and services. P+ Overall – The 36 packages would have a potentially 19. vitality/ positive impact on maintaining the vitality and viability of existing centres, with sustainable transport schemes viability of centres improving access to town centres and infrastructure schemes taking traffic and congestion out of the town centres, and improvements to the public realm.

The 36 South Central GTP packages would mostly have a potentially positive impact on the 19 SEA objectives/topics, but the cumulative assessments have highlighted a number of issues that will need to be closely monitored around the impacts of any new infrastructure (such as major passenger transport infrastructure, station relocation, park and ride, and major junction upgrades), as if not carefully designed taking into account the new LTP4 Transport User Hierarchy then road schemes could facilitate car use and contribute to further traffic growth and local congestion, and could have significant negative impacts on:

- local habitats (key biodiversity areas and registered parks and gardens i.e. Napsbury Hospital registered park);

Page 105

- air quality and emissions;

- the soil environment (loss and contamination);

- on the landscape and townscape (visual intrusions of new infrastructure);

- energy requirements (additional energy sources required for highways improvements);

Packages 11, 16, 30, 31, and 35 will need careful design and monitoring to ensure that impacts are kept to a minimum, package 26 could involve a train station relocation and a park and ride hub and it is expected that this size scheme would need a full Environmental Impact Assessment.

Any passenger transport schemes need to be mindful of not worsening any personal safety perceptions relating to having more people in the public realm, such as Hate Crime, and schemes should be consistent with the Herts Hate Crime Strategy. Any scheme that requires new infrastructure will require construction materials and require the disposal of construction waste, it is worth revisiting HIAMP policies on the use of recycled or local construction materials and the minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery of construction waste to minimise any negative impacts. With modal shift to more sustainable modes, conflicts between road users will also need careful consideration in any scheme design, i.e. the use of road signs, and road space allocation.

6.3 Causal Chain Analysis (Indirect or Secondary Impacts)

A Causal Chain Analysis has been undertaken which considers indirect or secondary impacts which are caused by the chain of events which emerge whilst delivering the South Central GTP. The causal chain analysis was based on the 36 packages proposed in the Growth & Transport Plan, and shows how the GTP objectives will be reached, and how during the process indirect/secondary positive (or negative) impacts will be caused. It shows a range of indirect impacts ranging from benefits to public health to dis-benefits including impact on air quality. The analysis can be seen in Appendix 5.

Page 106

7. MONITORING

7.1 Introduction

Article 10(1) of the SEA Directive requires the significant environmental effects of plans and programmes to be monitored, in order to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to take appropriate remedial action. It goes on to state that “The Environmental Report should provide information on ‘a description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring” (Annex 1 (i)). Full Information on the monitoring process is available in the LTP4 SEA Environmental Report (www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/ltp).

7.2 Monitoring the South Central Hertfordshire Growth & Transport Plan

Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan 4 includes a list of performance indicators for monitoring transportation issues and implementation across Hertfordshire. There are no requirements anymore to include mandatory performance indicators in a Local Transport Plan, but the County Council have decided that this is still the best way to monitor the effectiveness of a Plan, and indictors were chosen for their local significance.

To compile a list of indicators for the South Central Growth & Transport Plan, the LTP4 baseline list has been used as the starting point and the aim is to tailor this where possible for the South West area of Hertfordshire. Data from any evidence packs will also be used to form the baseline data, this has not been possible to do in time for this consultation draft.

7.3 What needs to be monitored for the South Central GTP?

Table 7.1 shows the types of performance indicators and data that could be used to monitor the success of the delivery of the Growth & Transport Plan.

Table 7.1 Environmental Baseline Data SEA Topic Indicator / Data Countywide data or Localised Data Biodiversity Condition of SSSIs (Sites of Special Locations of SSSIs in Scientific Interest) Plan area Presence of Water Voles in District Monitored Sites Sightings of Hares District

Health Childhood obesity (reception age, Countywide and by and Year 6) District Hertfordshire health walks (walks Countywide, and District. led) % of all cause adult mortality Regional and District attributable to long term exposure to level data. current levels of anthropogenic particulate air pollution

Page 107

SEA Topic Indicator / Data Countywide data or Localised Data Crime / Safety Number of children killed & seriously Countywide, but localised injured in road traffic accidents data to be investigated. Number of people killed or seriously Countywide, but localised injured on roads in the authority data to be investigated. Number of slight injuries Countywide, but localised data to be investigated. % of compliance of speed limits Countywide. Resources Condition of footways (% where Countywide. maintenance should be considered) Principal road condition - % of the Countywide. network with negative residual life, where maintenance should be considered Non-principal classified road Countywide. condition - % where structural maintenance should be considered Unclassified road condition - % Countywide. where structural maintenance should be considered Overall road condition index for Countywide. Hertfordshire roads Waste Disposal Herts waste partnership overall Countywide, but localised recycling rate data to be investigated. Water Data gap - Soil Data gap - Air/Noise % of residents who are concerned Countywide, localised about different types of noise in their district data to be area investigated. Noise complaints received per 1000 Countywide, localised population district data to be investigated.

Complaints from aircraft noise London Luton and Stansted Airport data Number of Air Quality Management Countywide and District Areas in Herts data Annual mean nitrogen dioxide levels Countywide, but localised close to busy roads data to be investigated. Number of ULEV vehicles registered Countywide, but localised in Hertfordshire data to be investigated. Choice of % of all trips (under 3 miles) made Countywide, but localised Sustainable by cycling data to be investigated. Transport % of all trips (under 1 mile) made by Countywide, but localised walking data to be investigated.

Page 108

SEA Topic Indicator / Data Countywide data or Localised Data % of the total length of footpaths Countywide, but localised and other Rights of Way that were data to be investigated easy to use by members of the i.e. by district public Children travelling to school. Mode Countywide, but localised share of sustainable school journeys data to be investigated. (Age 5-10, and 11-16) % of schools with travel plans Countywide, but localised data to be investigated. % of sustainable mode share for Countywide. Hertfordshire residents % of bus users satisfied with local Countywide data provision of passenger transport information Number of bus passenger journeys Countywide, but localised (boardings per year, millions) data to be investigated. % of bus users satisfied with the Countywide Data provision of passenger transport services % of passengers travelling to Airport data. airports by non car modes (London Luton & Stansted) % of employees travelling to airports Airport data by non car modes (London Luton & Stansted) Adapt to climate Data gap - change Greenhouse Per capita CO2 emissions in the Countywide data gases local authority area (tonnes) Car ownership in Herts (cars per Countywide, but localised household) data to be investigated. Congestion – Average journey time Countywide, but localised per mile during the morning peak data to be investigated. Journey time reliability in Countywide. Hertfordshire Energy Data gap - Landscape/ Area of greenfield land lost other Countywide, but localised townscape/ than to development that accords data to be investigated. green spaces with development plans % of new homes built on previously Countywide, but localised developed land data to be investigated.

% of rural land in Hertfordshire Countywide data

Historic assets Number of scheduled monuments Countywide and Plan area

Page 109

SEA Topic Indicator / Data Countywide data or Localised Data Number of registered parks and Countywide and Plan gardens area Number of listed buildings Countywide and Plan area Social Exclusion % of new development within 30 Countywide. minutes by public transport of key services TRACC Accessibility modelling by Town level mode Empowerment Number of people achieving Level 2 Countywide, but localised of the National Cycling Training data to be investigated. Standards Number of children achieving Level Countywide, but localised 2 of the National Cycle Training data to be investigated. (Bikeability) Employment/ Bus services running on time Countywide, but localised Economy data to be investigated. Active enterprises in Hertfordshire Countywide and District Level GVA per head Countywide level Spread Income deprivation affecting Countywide and ward Economic children index level Growth to Income deprivation affecting older Deprived Areas people index Vitality/viability of Data gap - centres

7.4 Baseline Data Gaps

A number of gaps have been identified in the environmental baseline data. These will need to be considered through the monitoring process. The following table shows these gaps and how the County Council will deal with each through the monitoring process.

Table 7.2: Environmental Baseline Data Gaps Baseline Gap HCC Response There is limited baseline data In co-operation with colleagues preparing a for the SEA objective ‘to move new HIAMP, HCC will investigate data away from waste disposal to available around the re-use of construction minimisation, reuse, recycling materials. and recovery’. There are no indicators/data on SuDS data to be investigated. the SEA Objective ‘to ensure the efficient use of water, and safeguard water resources’.

Page 110

Baseline Gap HCC Response There are no indicators/data on To be further investigated. the SEA Objective ‘to reduce contamination, and safeguard soil quality and quantity’. There are no indicators/data on Investigate data held by the flood management the issue of adaptation to team i.e. number of flooding incidents. climate change i.e. dealing with greater flooding incidences. There are no indicators/data % of green energy statistics have only been available for the SEA Objective found for the UK, rather than by County or ‘to ensure the sustainable District. The County Council will continue to supply and use of energy’. look for data. Perception of accessibility data. HCC used to use an Environment Residents telephone survey, this survey is no longer undertaken. The County Council will investigate other sources of information. There are no indicators/data To be further investigated. available for the SEA Objective ‘to maintain the vitality and viability of existing centres’.

7.5 Monitoring Recommendations

When looking at the baseline data for the South West Hertfordshire area, a number of key areas were identified that would need monitoring throughout the delivery of the Plan, for indicators and data that are showing worsening trends, or are consistently not meeting targets. These areas are:

• Road congestion – specifically urban traffic in peak hours, and the rise in car ownership figures; • The need to limit carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide emissions; • Air quality and the rising number of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) (including mortality attributable to particulate air pollution); • Noise pollution (aircraft from London Luton and Stansted airports; • Childhood obesity is increasing countywide, exacerbated by lack of active travel.

7.5.1 Effects on Congestion

Congestion is an issue in the county occurring both in urban areas and on the major routes particularly in the peak hours. The County Travel Survey in 2018 revealed that congestion and longer journey times is the second most important transport issue for households participating in the survey (63.1% of households), the number one issue being road condition. Hertsmere residents (63.3%) consider congestion to be a slightly bigger issue than residents in Welwyn Hatfield (56.9%). Peak hour congestion reference flow maps show that in the South Central Plan area serious congestion occurs along the A1(M) and M25.

Page 111

Congestion can have adverse impacts, not just on the environment but on society and the economy also. Economic impacts include the amount of lost productive time in businesses due to the network being heavily congested particularly during the peak periods. Social impacts can include the anxieties associated with congestion and the health impacts of poor air quality and other environmental issues to which congestion contributes.

HCC Response

The new Local Transport Plan 4 demonstrates a move away from car-based investment and capacity enhancements and a move towards reducing the need to travel and prioritising modes other than car through the new Transport User Hierarchy policy and supporting Network Management Strategy. This new Transport User hierarchy will apply to transport service delivery, from development of transport strategies, design of transport schemes and the planning and design of new developments.

DfT publish average speed data tables detailing a variety of information on the Strategic Road Network. Table CGN050 1b shows the average speed on local ‘A’ roads by local authority by year, and has been used by the County Council as a performance indictor to monitor congestion and average journey times in the County. LTP4 has identified the need for a performance indicator on journey time reliability in Hertfordshire, which is aligned to the emerging Network Management Strategy. This indicator will need further definition and development.

The SC GTP aims to reduce congestion and improve journey times in the plan area by improving connectivity by sustainable modes and providing a greater choice of attractive alternatives to private car transport. With coherent delivery of packages of sustainable transport infrastructure improvements and targeted promotion it is hoped that sufficient modal shift could be achieved to reduce car use and improve journey times for all users.

7.5.2 Effects on Climate Change

Greenhouse gases emitted from vehicles contribute to around a quarter of the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the UK. Although scientific data allows us to roughly estimate how many tonnes of carbon dioxide are emitted from vehicles, this is not exact and depends on a number of factors. These include: numbers of vehicles passing through the county; which roads are used; types of vehicle; the fuel efficiency of the vehicles; and the average speed. The wide ranging factors make greenhouse gas emissions from transport complex and difficult to assess. However, because the predicted impacts of climate change are particularly severe and given that a large proportion of emissions come from transport, it is increasingly important for this to be monitored and reduced to help achieve emission reduction aims.

It is not just the most direct impacts which need to be considered, but also those which are not always as obvious, such as how climate change will affect the transport network. If recent trends towards drier summers and more intense periods of rain continue, this will potentially have an impact on a number of aspects of the

Page 112

asset. As well as the potential impact on drainage, such changes could increase the rate of deterioration of roads and other assets from to the effects of standing water as well as subsidence and ground heave’. Recent winters have seen more marginal weather with temperatures frequently fluctuating around zero. Although not as severe as prolonged periods of lower temperatures, this freeze/thaw cycle can increase the rate of damage to roads as well as placing extra demands on the winter service.

Although there is recognition of the potential impacts of climate change on the transport network, Hertfordshire currently does not have a direct indicator or data set to monitor how the transport network is being made resilient to the potential impacts of climate change.

HCC Response

The LTP4 has an emissions reduction policy and an air quality policy, both outline how carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions will be reduced at a county level. The SC Growth & Transport Plan includes an ‘Efficient’ objective to reduce the need to travel and enable a shift to more sustainable travel modes, and a ‘Healthy & Safe’ objective to reduce negative impacts on the environment, both of these objectives aim to reduce emissions from vehicles, by modal shift or other means.

National Indicators for measuring carbon emissions have been set up and are monitored by the Council and districts/boroughs. These will be monitored through the LTP4 Strategic Environmental Assessment annual monitoring reports. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy annually releases CO2 emissions data from all sources including road transport. The County Council will continue to use such data sets to help identify trends and particular issues.

The second important issue is that there is currently no performance indicator for significant flooding events affecting Hertfordshire’s local roads. It will be investigated if data is collected by Highways, with the aim of developing an indicator to estimate whether flooding incidents are increasing and whether they are being dealt with effectively.

7.5.3 Effective Monitoring of Air Pollution

The third area of concern is that of ensuring a sufficient monitoring mechanism is in place for air pollution monitoring. Air pollution is particularly difficult to assess, as once the data is collected it takes specialist knowledge to analyse and interpret the data appropriate for the purpose required. There is also a lack of air quality evidence in the county, as monitoring varies by District/Borough Council.

The percentage of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution for Hertsmere and Welwyn Hatfield (both 5.9%) is worse than the Eastern Region (5.5%) and England (5.1%) figures for 2017.

Page 113

HCC Response

Air pollution and its cumulative impacts are considered in the development of any substantive scheme and mitigation measures will be investigated and put in to place to ensure adverse impacts on air quality are managed and minimised as far as possible. Major schemes also have to undergo an EIA assessment which includes air quality as an objective.

There is some county-wide monitoring of air pollution but levels are influenced by a variety of factors and not just transport.

All local authorities with Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) where transport is a primary factor are required to develop joint Air Quality Action Plans. Hertfordshire County Council continues to work in partnership with district and borough councils to develop and monitor joint action plans for the growing number of AQMAs in the county, the South Central Plan area contains a number of AQMAs in the district of Hertsmere on both County Council maintained roads and Highways England roads. The County Council is also working with other authorities on preventative measures, to ensure that no further AQMAs arise. Evidence will continue to be collected and the County Council will provide highways engineers with more information on the effects schemes can have on air quality, so that air quality issues can be considered at an early stage when schemes are designed.

7.5.4 Effective Monitoring of Noise Pollution

Noise from traffic and aircraft is an element of transport’s impact on the environment. While complaints about traffic noise are relatively few there are locations where residents are subject to high levels of general noise or to occasional or frequent high levels as a result of particularly noisy vehicles, sometimes associated with anti-social behaviour. Noise complaints for aircraft from both London Luton and Stansted airports are increasing year on year, with around 2500 complaints per year for each airport.

Noise pollution including that from vehicles on roads should be monitored by local government every five years using strategic noise maps, from March 2012 onwards (under the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006). The latest set of data was collected in 2017.

HCC Response

Traffic noise will be addressed where feasible but there is no easy cost-effective solution for most problems. Noise reducing surfaces and even noise barriers may be appropriate and will normally be provided as part of wider schemes while quieter vehicles, partly as a result of older ones being replaced and quieter electric vehicles, may provide some solution in the longer term. Aircraft noise, including that from helicopters, affects most parts of the county to varying degrees and individuals’ reaction to noise also varies. Aircraft noise can only be addressed in conjunction with the industry and the government, and there is no action the County Council can Page 114

take to mitigate its impacts. The County Council will work with the Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on Action Plans as a result of the noise maps when required. Noise Action Plans for both Stansted airport and London Luton airport have been published (2109 – 2023) and are available on their websites.

The South Central GTP includes an objective ‘Place’ which looks to preserve and enhance the local environment and quality of life, persistent noise can significantly impact on people’s mental health. Noise issues would be considered at the design stage of any schemes.

7.5.5 Childhood Obesity

Regular monitoring of weight is undertaken on children in Reception and Year 6 (by the National Child Measurement Programme) and the numbers of children who are obese or overweight is continuing to rise in some areas. The problem is that this issue is not only linked with lack of exercise, e.g. numbers of children walking and cycling, but also with food intake. However, the LTP4 can still monitor this even though reducing obesity levels must be a partnership exercise, combining efforts with the health and education authorities.

HCC Response

The LTP4 recognises transport’s contribution to wider issues, of which health is one. Extensive work has been focused on school travel and increasing the number of schools producing Travel Plans. HCC continue to work with schools in the county to encourage children of all ages to use more sustainable modes of travel to get to their school, highlighting the benefits of doing so and offering many incentives. The Travel Plans & Behavioural Change Policy in the LTP4 reads:

“Supporting school travel plans, and working closely with parents, pupils, teachers and local residents to deliver a network of more sustainable transport links to school.”

This policy will be delivered through Hertfordshire’s Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy (SMoTS) for Schools and Colleges. SMoTS is a requirement of section 76 of the Education Act 2006 and aims to:

• Reduce the use of the car for journeys to, from and between educational establishments • Improve accessibility to, from and between educational establishments • Improve child road safety • Improve child health • Improve the quality of the local environment

The SC GTP objectives and packages focus on improving sustainable transport including walking and cycling links and making active and sustainable travel a more attractive choice. The packages of schemes would therefore help encourage people to travel actively more often, so increasing their level of physical activity. It’s proposals are therefore complementary to the SMoTS objectives.

Page 115

Although monitoring obesity rates is useful, the transport network is only one part of the jigsaw in addressing the obesity issue. Monitoring the number of trips by walking and cycling in the area of the plan and trends in this data can help monitor the effect of the GTP and its proposals.

7.5.6 Additional Monitoring Identified as a Result of the SEA Assessments

From the cumulative assessments of the 36 packages delivery could result in potentially negative cumulative impacts in the SC GTP Plan area. From the cumulative assessments the following was highlighted as needing monitoring once the South Central GTP is adopted and delivery and implementation starts: • Biodiversity, in particular key biodiversity sites near to schemes; • Air quality/Emissions, monitor air quality/emissions near any new significant infrastructure schemes; • Soil, investigate how soil environments can be monitored; • Crime/Safety, levels of Hate Crime, perceptions of personal safety; • Energy, investigate how energy usage for highways infrastructure can be measured; • Resources/Waste, check what is included in the developing HIAMP around the use of recycled materials and recycling waste materials with regards to highways infrastructure.

7.6 SEA Monitoring and Review Timeframes

It is recommended that the process for monitoring and review be undertaken on a regular basis. It is anticipated that the monitoring and review for the LTP4 SEA and any supporting documents SEAs will be annual with one SEA monitoring report for all LTP4 documents. Monitoring of the SC GTP SEA would be included within this LTP4 SEA Monitoring Report.

Page 116

8. CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the analysis of the 36 Packages of Interventions of the South Central Hertfordshire Growth & Transport Plan has concluded that overall there would be no significant negative impacts on the environment in Hertfordshire as a result of the delivery of the Growth & Transport Plan. The emphasis of the South Central Growth & Transport Plan is to promote modal shift to non-motorised modes and public transport, reducing car dependency which should have less negative impacts on the environment compared to car travel. The SEA has identified some significant negative impacts for some of the road infrastructure schemes proposed (i.e. railway station relocation, Park & Ride hub, roundabout and longabout upgrades, bus/rail interchange, new railway station, and major junction improvements) as these schemes if not carefully designed could facilitate car use. At this stage it is difficult to determine the exact impacts as the schemes are only at concept stage, further detailed environmental assessments would need to be undertaken i.e. EIAs.

Delivery and implementation will be key in determining the extent of the environmental effects of the South Central GTP but this will depend on scheme designs and the level of funding available.

The collection of the baseline data (along with the assessments) have highlighted a number of key areas that will need to be monitored over the lifetime of the GTP (Section 7.5). Collection of the baseline data has also shown that there are gaps in data at both a county level and a local level (for the plan area), these some of these will need further investigation and research to fill the gaps.

The assessments in particular, have highlighted: - That passenger transport schemes need to be mindful of personal security, and perceptions, in particular Hate crime is not currently recognised specifically in the GTP; - The SEA has identified some significant negative environmental impacts for some of the infrastructure proposals (new link roads, major junction improvements, and passenger transport infrastructure), and recommends that a full EIA should be considered to look at environmental impacts in more detail, and identify, avoid and mitigate any negative impacts; - That to achieve maximum modal shift that promotion is key, schemes should be widely promoted locally and would benefit from targeted promotion to key groups. - That HIAMP practices/policies are revisited to determine current policy on the use of recycled/local construction materials and the recycling of construction waste, and any data. - With schemes encouraging the use of sustainable modes, there will be more people in the public realm, the SEA has highlighted the potential for conflicts between different road users, and careful consideration will be required at the design stage i.e. road signage and road space allocation. Cycle training should also be widely publicised. - The following should be considered as part of any contracted works: lighting (fear of crime and energy efficiencies), SuDS for drainage issues and ensuring local water courses are not contaminated, soil removal, construction materials used. Checking the HCC historic assets and flooding maps.

Page 117

No significant negative cumulative impacts have been identified overall, but the SEA cumulative assessment recommends that the GTP would need to carefully monitor the delivery of major road infrastructure as some schemes if not carefully designed could facilitate car use and therefore contribute to traffic growth and congestion impacting on local habitats, the soil environment, air quality and emissions, energy usage and on the landscape/townscape.

Page 118

9. NEXT STEPS

The primary role of the draft Environmental Report is to facilitate consultation with interested parties, including the public. The draft Environmental Report is published alongside the draft South Central Growth & Transport plan with the aim of providing stakeholders with sufficient information on the likely significant environmental effects of the plan. This is done at the draft stage to allow time to influence the development of the Growth & Transport Plan prior to its completion.

This Environmental Report was taken to the Growth, Infrastructure, Planning & the Economy Cabinet Panel on 4 December 2019, (alongside the draft South Central Growth & Transport Plan), and will be made available on the county’s website (www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/consultation) for public consultation during January to March 2020

9.1 Consultation on the Draft Environmental Report

In addition to encouraging participation by the general public the consultation communications will target some key stakeholders to increase the likelihood of receiving responses from these (i.e. district/borough councils, Network Rail, Highways England, transport operators, SEA bodies). A number of communication channels will be used to increase awareness and disseminate information to residents and interested parties about the environmental report and the SC GTP, including press releases, social media and the county council website. Comments received on the content of the Environmental Report will be taken into consideration in the next stages of the SEA and the preparation of the final Environmental Report and Environmental Statement that will accompany the published South Central Growth & Transport Plan.

9.2 Adoption of South Central Growth & Transport Plan

Following consultation, feedback on the South Central Growth & Transport Plan and its supporting documents including the Environmental Report will be reviewed and analysed. If significant changes are made to the South Central Growth & Transport Plan following the consultation, these changes will be assessed in terms of likely significant effects and information made available to the public.

The final version of the South Central GTP and supporting documents will be put forward for adoption by the County Council’s Cabinet later in 2020.

Once the South Central Growth & Transport Plan has been adopted it is necessary to produce a statement which reports how the findings of the SEA and consultation results have been taken into account – an SEA Statement. This SEA Statement will be made available to stakeholders and will cover:

• How environmental considerations have been integrated into the South Central GTP, for example any changes to or deletions from the Plan in response to the information in the Environmental Report; • How the Environmental Report has been taken into account;

Page 119

• How the opinions and consultation responses have been taken into account. The summary should be sufficiently detailed to show how the South Central GTP was changed to take account of issues raised, or why no changes were made; • The reasons for choosing the South Central GTP chosen route as adopted in the light of other reasonable alternatives dealt with; and • The measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental effects of implementation of the South Central GTP. The Environmental Report will already have documented proposed measures concerning monitoring; these can now be confirmed or modified in the light of consultation responses.

Page 120