A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency

A1(T) Elkesley JunctionImprovementsStage 3 Environmental Assessment ReportOctober 20091

A1(T) Elkesley Junction ImprovementsStage 3 Environmental Assessment ReportOctober, 2009MouchelSt John’s HouseQueen StreetManchesterM2 5JBT 0161 832 4542F 0161 835 2038W www.mouchel.comThis report is presented to the Highways Agency in respect of the Stage 3Environmental Assessment Report for A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements. It maynot be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any othermatters not covered specifically by the scope of this report.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report, Mouchel Group isobliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of theservices required by the Highways Agency and Mouchel shall not be liable except tothe extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and thisreport shall be read and construed accordingly.This report has been prepared by the Mouchel Group. No individual is personallyliable in connection with the preparation of this report. By receiving this report andacting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personallyliable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.3

Document ControlProject Title:Document Title:RevisionStatusA1(T) Elkesley Junction ImprovementsStage 3 Environmental Assessment Report718386/O-ENV/003Final Rev DControl Date October, 2009Record of IssueIssue Status Author Date Checked Date Approved Date01 Draft G Cowling 04/09 K Stubbs 05/09020304Draft forCommentFinalRevisedFinalRevisedG Cowling 05/09 K Stubbs 05/09G cowling 10/09 K Stubbs 10/09K Stubbs 13/10 K Stubbs 13/10DistributionOrganisation Contact CopiesMouchel (Highways) Myriam Thomas 1 (D)4

AcronymsAADTAAWTALCAODAQMAAQPRASPTBDCBAPBCBODCCEMPCRTNdB(A)DEFRADMRBDOEAEARECEIAEUGQAHAHABAPHLCHaHAPHDVHGVHMSOHzIEEMkm/hAverage Annual Daily TrafficAverage Annual Weekly TrafficAgricultural Land ClassificationAbove Ordnance DatumAir Quality Management AreaAir Quality Progress ReportAverage Score Per TaxonBassetlaw District CouncilBiodiversity Action PlanBefore ChristBiological Oxygen DemandCarbonConstruction Environmental Management PlanCalculation of Road Traffic NoiseA-Weighted DecibelDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsDesign Manual for Roads and BridgesDissolved OxygenEnvironment AgencyEnvironmental Assessment ReportEuropean CommissionEnvironmental Impact AssessmentEuropean UnionGeneral Quality AssessmentHighways AgencyHighways Agency Biodiversity Action PlanHistoric Landscape ClassificationHectareHabitat Action PlanHeavy Duty VehicleHeavy Good VehicleHer Majesty’s Stationary OfficeHertzInstitute of Ecology and Environmental ManagementKilometres per hour5

km 2Kilometres squaredLAQMLocal Air Quality ManagementLAQM.TG3 Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance Note 3LTPLocal Transport PlanMAFFMinistry of Agriculture Fisheries and Foodmg/lMilligrams per litreMmmillimetresNNitrogenNAQIANational Air Quality Information ArchiveNMUNon motorised UserNCCNottinghamshire County CouncilNBGRCNottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record CentreNO 2Nitrogen DioxideNOxNitrogen OxidesNTAXANumber of TaxaPM 10ppvPPGPPSRSSRTSRIGSRQORSPBSAPSPZSINCSSSIUKZVIParticulate MatterPeak Particle VelocityPlanning Policy GuidancePlanning Policy StatementRegional Spatial StrategyRegional Transport StrategyRegionally Important Geological SitesRiver Quality ObjectiveRoyal Society for the Protection of BirdsSpecies Action PlanSource Protection ZoneSite of Importance for Nature ConservationSite of Special Scientific InterestUnited KingdomZone of Visual Influence6

ConnectivityControlled WatersCountrysideCropmarkCultural HeritageDeep CuttingDepartment for the Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)DesignationsDischarge ConsentDiffusion TubesDiversity‘Do Nothing’ ScenarioElementEnhancementEnvironmentEnvironmental BarriersEnvironmental Impact Assessment(EIA)Environmental Management PlanEnvironmental StatementErosionExceedenceFeatureFluvialGeologyGlacial TillHeritageHydrogeologyIndirect ImpactThe degree to which habitat patches in an urban or agriculturalmatrix are interconnected by linear habitats.Surface waters, groundwaters and coastal waters to which UKlegislation on pollution applies. It is an offence, with certainexceptions, to knowingly permit trade or sewage effluent, toxicpollutants or solid matter to enter controlled waters withoutdischarge consent.The rural environment and its associated communities.These are light and dark marks visible in growing and ripeningcrops, especially via aerial photography, which reflect thedifferences in the subsoil beneath.Encompasses the qualities and attributes of places that haveaesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present orfuture generations.Road building operation where the proposed road alignment iscut deep into the earth.UK Government department with responsibilities for EIA onuncultivated land and semi-natural areas in England and Wales.Notable sites, areas, buildings or structures protected byplanning or other laws. Can be applied at Local, Regional andNational and International level.Statutory documents produced by Environment Agency whichpermits the discharge of effluent into controlled waters undercertain conditions and limits.Devices installed at locations in a study area to sample NO2levels. The tubes are exposed and then sent off to a laboratoryfor analysis.Where a variety of qualities or characteristics occurs.The continued change or evolution that naturally occurs in theabsence of development.A component part.Improvement through restoration, reconstruction or creation.Our physical surroundings, including land, air and water.Structure that will reduce noise impacts and screen developmentmainly constructed from earth mounds or hedgerows.The systematic, reproducible and interdisciplinary identification,prediction and evaluation, mitigation and management ofimpacts from a proposed development and its reasonablealternatives. Also referenced as Environmental Assessment.A structured plan that outlines the mitigation, monitoring andmanagement requirements arising from an EnvironmentalImpact Assessment.Document in which the results of an EIA are presented todecision-makers and the public.The wearing away of rock or soil by physical and chemicalprocesses, e.g. water, wind, ice and solution.A period of time where the concentrations of a pollutant isgreater than, or equal to, the appropriate air quality standard.A prominent, eye-catching element.Of, relating to, or inhabiting a river or streamThe scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of theearth.Accumulations of unsorted, un-stratified mixtures of clay, silt,sand, gravel, and boulders; the usual composition of a moraine.Historic or Cultural Associations.The branch of geology that deals with the occurrence,distribution, and effect of ground water.See Secondary Impact.8

L 10 hourly dB(A)L AeqL A1(T)0,18hLand coverLandformLandscapeLandscape CharacterLandscape Character ZoneLandscape EffectsLandscape QualityLand takeLand UseLegislationLinkListed BuildingMagnitudeMethod AMethod BMethod CMethod DMethodologyMitigationNon-Statutory AgenciesOrdnance SurveyPM 10PM 2.5PastureNoise level exceeded for just 10% of the time over a period ofone hour.Noise measurement term where varying levels are averaged togive an equivalent level of noise audible to the human ear over aperiod of time.The arithmetic average of the values of L 10 hourly dB(A) for eachof the eighteen one-hour periods between 0600 to 2400 hours.Combinations of land use and vegetation that cover the landsurface.Combinations of slope and elevation that produce the shape andform of the land.Human perception of the land contained by knowledge, culturalassociations and identity with a place.The distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurconsistently in a particular type of landscape, and how this isperceived by people. Character reflects combinations ofgeology, landform, soils, vegetation, and land use andsettlement pattern, inferring a sense of place.A landscape type expressing broadly similar physicalcharacteristics, discernible from maps and field surveys.Change in the elements, characteristics and overall characterand qualities that make up the landscape as a result ofdevelopment, both positive and negative.The physical state of the landscape and its intactness, based onjudgements on visual, functional and ecological perspectives.Extent of land required for a proposed development.The primary use of land, encompassing both rural and urbanactivities.A law or set of laws suggested by a government and madeofficial by a parliament.A stretch of road or route identified as lying between two definedpoints.A structure which is protected by English Law to protect itsarchitectural and historic interest.A combination of the scale, extent and duration of a given effect.A simple level assessment of pollution impacts from routine runoff. If this method shows that an impact is possible, furtherassessment using Method B would be required.Detailed level assessment of pollution from routine run offUsed to assess the pollution impacts from routine runoff onground watersProvides an assessment of pollution impacts from accidentalspillages on receiving watercoursesThe specific approach and techniques used for a given study.Measures, including any process, activity or design to avoid,reduce, remedy or compensate for adverse impacts for adevelopment.Organisations that the relevant determining authority mayapproach for information or opinions relating to a proposeddevelopment. These can include Parish Councils, Local InterestGroups etc.Digital mapping agency of the British Isles.Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10micrometres.Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5micrometres.Grassland maintained primarily for and by grazing, and on whichgrazing livestock is reared and kept for a significant part of theyear.9

PercentilePerceptionPhase 1 Habitat SurveyPluvialPollutionPreferred VersionProposed DevelopmentReceptorRegulationsResidual ImpactsRiparianRiver CorridorRoad LinkScenarioScopingScreeningSedimentSense of PlaceSensitivitySeveranceSignificance CriteriaSignificant EffectsStatutoryTechnical AppendicesTechniqueµg/m 3Verification (Modelling)Visual AmenityVisual EffectVisual EnvelopeThe percentage of results below a given value.The psychology of seeing and attaching value and/or meaning tosomething.Recognised standard methodology for collating information onthe habitat structure of a particular site.Of or relating to rain; rainy.An increase of matter or energy to a level considered harmful toliving organisms or their environment.The chosen project option, selected from the process of theassessment of alternativesThe execution of construction works or of other installations orschemes and other interventions in the natural surroundings andlandscape, including those involving the extraction of mineralresources.Any component of the natural or man-made environment that ispotentially affected by an impact from a development.Official rules or acts to control something.Those impacts that would remain after the effect of mitigationmeasures have been accounted for.Relating to the banks of streams and rivers, e.g. riparianhabitats.A river and adjacent land considered a unified, linear feature ofimportance.A length of road which is considered to have the same flow oftraffic along it. Usually, a link is the road from one junction to thenext.A picture of a possible future.The process of identifying the issues to be addressed by an EIA.It is a method of ensuring that an EIA focuses on the importantissues and avoids those that are considered to be lesssignificant.A process to determine the need for an EIA.Organic or inorganic material, precipitated from water toaccumulate on the floor of a waterbody, watercourse or trap.Commonly consists of silt, but can include coarser material andparticles.The essential character and sprit of an area.The extent to which the receiving environment can accept andaccommodate change without experiencing adverse effects.The process of being cut off / severed.Defined levels at which measurements become significant.Effects that are deemed important to require an environmentalassessment.Related to legislation or prescribed in law or regulation.A separate part at the end of a book which gives additionaltechnical information.A specified working practice.Microgrammes Per Cubic Metre - A measure of concentration interms of mass per unit volume. A concentration of 1ug/m3means that one cubic metre of air contains one microgram(millionth of a gram) of pollutant.Comparison of modelled results versus any local monitoring dataat relevant locations.The value of a particular area or view in terms of what is seen.Change in the appearance of the landscape as a result ofdevelopment, both positive and negative.Extent of potential visibility to or from a specified location, areaor feature.10

Wildlife CorridorsZone of Visual InfluenceLinear habitats and landscape features which can increaseconnectivity between habitats for species, e.g. roadside verges.Defined area within which a proposed development may beinfluential in respect of visual amenity and overall receptoroutlook.11

ContentsIntroduction and Background .................................................................................... 151.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 151.2 Need for the Scheme ................................................................................ 161.3 Scheme Objectives ................................................................................... 161.4 Background to the Environmental Assessment......................................... 161.5 Scope of Assessment................................................................................ 171.6 The Existing Situation................................................................................ 172 Development of the Preferred Options .............................................................. 192.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 193 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................253.1 Findings at Stage 2 Assessment............................................................... 253.2 Reason for Scoping out............................................................................. 254 Cultural Heritage................................................................................................ 264.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 264.2 Assessment Methodology ......................................................................... 274.3 Assessment of Impacts ............................................................................. 274.4 Baseline Conditions................................................................................... 294.5 Potential Impacts....................................................................................... 304.6 Mitigation ................................................................................................... 314.7 Residual Effects ........................................................................................ 325 Disruption Due to Construction.......................................................................... 335.1 Assessment Methodology ......................................................................... 335.2 Baseline Conditions................................................................................... 335.3 Potential Impacts....................................................................................... 3312

5.4 Assessment of Environmental Impacts .................................................... 335.6 Residual Effects ........................................................................................ 356 Ecology and Nature Conservation ..................................................................... 366.1 Findings at Stage 2 Assessment............................................................... 366.2 Reason for Scoping Out ........................................................................... 367 Landscape Effects .............................................................................................377.1 Assessment Methodology ......................................................................... 377.2 Visual Impact Assessment Methodology................................................... 407.3 Baseline Conditions................................................................................... 447.4 Potential Impacts....................................................................................... 477.5 Implication of New Lighting Proposals ...................................................... 517.6 Assessment of Environmental Impacts ..................................................... 517.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................... 587.8 Residual Effects ........................................................................................ 618 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 638.1 Findings at Stage 2 Assessment............................................................... 638.2 Reason for Scoping Out ............................................................................ 639 Noise and Vibration............................................................................................ 649.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 649.2 Policy and Legislation................................................................................ 669.3 Scope of Works and Method Assessment ................................................ 689.4 Baseline Environment ............................................................................... 769.5 Potential Impacts....................................................................................... 809.6 Residual Effects ........................................................................................ 899.7 Conclusion................................................................................................. 8910 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects.......................... 9113

10.1 Findings at Stage 2 Assessment............................................................... 9110.2 Reason for Scoping Out ............................................................................ 9111 Vehicle Travellers.......................................................................................... 9211.1 Findings at Stage 2 Assessment............................................................... 9211.2 Reason for Scoping Out ............................................................................ 9212 Road Drainage and the Water Environment ................................................. 9312.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 9312.3 Assessment of Impacts ............................................................................. 9312.4 Baseline Conditions................................................................................... 9712.5 Assessment of Environmental Impacts ................................................... 10013 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... 10313.1 Findings at Stage 2 Assessment............................................................. 10313.2 Reason for Scoping Out .......................................................................... 103Annexes ..................................................................................................................104Annex 2 ...............................................................................................................104Annex 4 ...............................................................................................................105Annex 7 ...............................................................................................................106Annex 9 ...............................................................................................................107Annex 12 .............................................................................................................10914

Introduction and Background1.1 IntroductionThe Highways Agency (HA) has identified the need to improve the A1(T) junction atElkesley Nottinghamshire. The proposed preferred scheme (termed the PreferredVersion) is located northwest of the village as shown on Figure 1.1. The scheme isneeded to provide safer access/egress to and from the village given a numberaccidents caused by the current junction arrangement, which is poorly designedcompared to current standards. The current junction arrangement locally is at-grade,requiring drivers to cross the carriageway to access and leave the village andsections of sub-standard slip lengths on to the A1(T). An enforced 50 mph speedlimit has been implemented as a result. The lack of non-motorised user (NMU)provisions locally also forces people who want to make north-south movement to usea short section of the A1(T) as a crossing point.The planning, design and assessment of this proposed scheme has been carried outin accordance with the guidelines for major road schemes; the Design Manual forRoad and Bridges (DMRB). Volume 11 provides an environmental assessmentframework in relation to set topics.At the time of assessment the DMRB outlined three key stages to this process.• Stage 1 is used to identify environmental constraints to inform the definition ofpreliminary route corridors.• Stage 2 is used to define and compare options, leading to the identification ofa preferred option.• Stage 3 is used to undertake a detailed assessment of the environmentalimplications of the preferred option, identify mitigation related to identifiedimpacts, and describe the residual environmental effects, taking proposedmitigation into account.Previous StudiesThis Stage 3 Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) draws on the conclusions ofthe following reports.• A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements Environmental Scoping Report(August, 2003) by Parkman and RPS Consultants.• Draft Stage 2 A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements (Phase1: TwyfordBridge Improvements); (Phase 2: Elkesley Gap Closure and GradeSeparated Junction) and (Phase 3: Jockey Lane Gap Closure) EnvironmentalAssessment Report. By RPS Consultants. July, 2006.• Submitted Elkesley Junction Improvements Options Report Stage 2Environmental Assessment May 2009.15

1.2 Need for the SchemeThe need for the scheme is acknowledged in the A1(T) Peterborough and BlytheRoute Management Strategy (RMS) as part of the 3-year work programme. InOctober 2002, the improvements of the Elkesley junctions were identified as ’PriorityAction Sites‘. The strategy recognised the following problems along the route:• Safety - Central reserve gaps, numerous at-grade junctions and privateaccesses of varying standards, dangerous to join and leave the A1(T), poorsigning, lack of driver information, poor location of lay-bys.• Economy - Congestion, delays due to maintenance, accidents, abnormalloads and high traffic flows.• Accessibility - Walkers, cyclists and horse riders experience difficultiescrossing the road, community severance, poor access to bus stops.1.3 Scheme ObjectivesThe detailed scheme objectives are:• improve road safety for all travellers;• reduce journey times along the A1(T);• improve accessibility within the locality and to the wider area, andaccessibility to everyday facilities for all, especially those without a car;• contribute to an efficient economy, and to support sustainable economicgrowth in appropriate locations;• protect and enhance the natural and built environment; and• promote the integration of all forms of transport and land use planning,leading to a better more efficient transport system.1.4 Background to the Environmental AssessmentIn accordance with the screening process set out in DMRB Volume 11, Part 3(HD47/08), the HA has determined that an EIA is not required for this scheme. It isHA policy to “undertake an appropriate level of assessment to ensure thatinformation about the environmental effects of projects is collected, assessed andused to inform option choice, planning, design and decision making and to promotesustainable development and other environmental policies”.This EAR follows on from the Stage 2 report, which identified the Preferred Version.This report therefore assesses the potentially significant impacts of the PreferredVersion, against the requirements of the European Directive on EIA as transposed inEngland by the Highways Act 1980 (as amended).16

1.5 Scope of AssessmentThe following DMRB topics were scoped out as a result of the assessment workundertaken at Stage 2.• Air Quality• Ecology and Nature Conservation• Land Use• Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects• Vehicle Travellers• Geology and SoilsThe remaining chapters report the findings of the various topics assessed at Stage 3as part of the ongoing planning and design of the options.• Cultural Heritage :Chapter 4• Traffic Noise and Vibration :Chapter 9• Disruption due to Construction :Chapter 5• Landscape and Visual Impact :Chapter 6• Road Drainage and the Water Environment :Chapter 71.6 The Existing SituationElkesley is an old nucleated village located in the district of Bassetlaw; the mostnorthern district in Nottinghamshire. It is flanked to the north by Retford and to thewest by Worksop. The built form comprises a mixture of red-bricked 19th century andpost 1950s buildings. The wider rural environment consists mainly of land underarable farming uses and pockets of woodland. Prominent features in the landscapeinclude the Retford (Gamston) Airport north of the village and the River Poulter to theeast.The A1(T) is the principal arterial route in the area. East, the A57 from Lincoln joinsthe A1(T) at Markham Moor. This junction is currently undergoing improvement.West, the A614 from Nottingham and the A60 from Worksop join the A1(T) atAppleyhead. Here junction improvements have been completed recently.Locally there are three junctions on the A1(T) in and around Elkesley:• Jockey Lane to the west of Elkesley used as an access to the saw mill and asa secondary access to the Retford (Gamston) Airport;17

• Coalpit Lane adjacent to the village, used as the main access to the village,the junction also being used by HGVs wishing to access Plevins (awood/paper processing plant.); and• the Twyford Lane slip access off the A1(T) to the east of the village.Land cover consists of medium-sized arable fields divided by well-maintainedhedges and permanent pasture along the river corridors to the south and to the eastof Elkesley.Elkesley Wood occupies the southern bank of the River Poulter to the south as itflows through a semi-natural landscape with areas of mixed plantation woodland.The landscape to the west is scattered, with regularly shaped blocks of deciduousand mixed plantation woodland planted for game and timber.18

2 Development of the Preferred Options2.1 IntroductionThe preferred strategy with any development is to avoid negative environmentalimpacts wherever possible and thereafter minimise unavoidable impacts as far aspractical. This can be achieved at an early stage of a proposed development by theconsideration of alternatives.This section describes the history of the proposed improvements to the A1(T) atElkesley and the options considered with a brief summary of why certain optionswere discounted.History of the SchemeThe junction improvements are supported by both the Local Authority and residents,who have campaigned for a bridge for a number of years. A safety scheme whichcomprised a 50mph speed limit (enforced with safety cameras) and street lightingwas introduced in 1997. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the accidentrate.Options considered in 2003Three options were considered in 2003 which, comprised the following:• Red Option;• Yellow Option; and• Blue OptionThe Red Option consisted of a new link-road to the south of the village parallel withthe A1(T). It proposed a 2-way link road from Twyford Lane crossing over the RiverPoulter to a new roundabout on the B6387.The Yellow Option proposed a link-road from the B6387 to Elkesley village butcommencing further south of the above option with Brough Lane, a local road in thevillage. This option also incorporated a crossing over the River Poulter.The Blue Option, located to the south west of Elkesley village comprised a link roadfrom Coalpit Lane to the north-west by Jockey Lane by an over-bridge. This optionalso proposed two links branching off the route to connect with the north andsouthbound carriageway of the A1 (T).All Options were rejected on the following grounds:The Red and Yellow options were rejected as they resulted in all traffic to and fromthe village (including HGVs accessing the Crookford Hill timber works) negotiatingnarrow roads at the southern end of the village. The Blue Option would haverequired construction of a bridge and approach roads on the line of Jockey Lane andSandy Lane. This would have required significant disruption by temporary diversions,19

potentially significant environmental impacts and loss of amenity on Sandy Lane.The approach embankment for Jockey Lane would also have had significant impacton the adjacent property. Further options were developed based on bridge locationscloser to the village.Options Considered in 2005Option A proposed a new grade separated junction and local links to the southboundcarriageway from both Jockey Lane and Coalpit lane, northwest of the village. Itproposed an improvement to the Coalpit Lane link road with the northboundcarriageway of the A1(T). The existing grade separated junction at Twyford Bridge(A1(T)/B6387) east of the village would remain open.Option B consisted of a proposed new link road from Twyford Lane in Elkesleythrough to a new roundabout on the B6387 including a new bridge over the RiverPoulter. The eastern access into the village from the A1(T) would need to be closedas well as all direct private and agricultural accesses onto the A1(T) from the village.Further improvements on the A1(T) were also needed including those required forOption A, together with an improved western access into the village. The optionwould also require the closing of the right turn gaps in the central reserve,modification of the Jockey Lane and Cross Lane junctions and closing direct privateand agricultural accesses onto the A1(T) from Tea Table Cottage through toElkesley. Option B would also result in the improvement of sight lines along theA1(T), re-aligning sections for safety fencing and relocating some of the lightingcolumns and closing the lay by.In September 2005, these options were presented at a public exhibition as part ofthe formal public consultation process. Both options proposed closure of the rightturn gaps in the central reserve and field accesses. Option A (Phase 1) wasgenerally supported by the Public. Option B was thought unsuitable because itrequired traffic to pass through the village, in particular the narrow Twyford Lane.This option was not developed further. Although Option A was generally supported,many people felt that the bridge would be too close to the village, which wouldexpose Coalpit Lane residents to traffic intrusion and spoil the view. Some peoplealso noted that HGV traffic travelling between the northbound A1 and the CrockfordMill timber works would still need to use the residential part of Coalpit Lane. The HAnoted concerns made during the consultation and developed the scheme layoutaccordingly 1 .Options Considered in 2006An improved version of Option A was developed by moving the bridge locationwestwards and introducing a new slip road to remove northbound traffic from CoalpitLane. However, the estimated cost of this option exceeded the £5M ceiling for localschemes meaning that it could not be progressed without having to compete with alarger pool of transport schemes regionally. Therefore, it was decided not to advisethe Secretary of State for Transport on the preferred route until the feasibility of asmaller scale scheme had been assessed.1 A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvement Public Exhibition Brochure, February 2008.20

In 2007 a simpler scheme was developed based on the concept that it might bepossible to reduce the amount of new infrastructure by making more use of theexisting junctions given the low vehicle numbers using the junction. Thedevelopment of this concept showed that although it would be possible to develop asimple bridge scheme to allow local road network and A1 access at lower cost –within the limit for ‘smaller scale’ local schemes – this would not be satisfactory inengineering terms and would leave Coalpit Lane residents exposed to a greaterintrusion from traffic.Options Taken Forward at Stage 2All scheme options were reviewed in the summer of 2007 and it was identified thatall the scheme requirements could only be met through a scheme based on the 2006development of the original Option A (Phase 1). In the light of this finding, the priorityattached to improving the Elkesley junctions, and after discussions with theDepartment for Transport and the Local Highway Authority (Nottinghamshire CountyCouncil), the scheme was further developed on the understanding it would remain a‘smaller scale’ local scheme.Two options were developed in 2007 – Versions 1 and 2 (Figure 2.1 and 2.2),Version 1 being a development of the 2005 Scheme Option A and Version 2 beingbased on the 2006 Scheme Option A. Both options are located around the samestretch of the A1(T) and centred around the general design principle of a bridge overthe A1 linking Coalpit Lane to Jockey Lane. Coalpit Lane would be widened to 7.3m, direct field accesses to the A1(T) and existing central reserve gaps would also beclosed. Other design proposals include, relocating the link from the A1(T) to CoalpitLane and incorporating a 2 m footway along Coalpit Lane continuing on the bridgeand connecting to Jockey Lane. A return of the speed limit to 70 mph from 50 mphfor the study section of the A1(T) was also proposed.To the west of Elkesley, design sub-components of both options comprised:• Closure of the A1(T)/Cross Lane junction and provision of a turning head inCross Lane;• Closure of field accesses and the access to Tea Table Cottage from thenorthbound carriageway and provision of a new access; and• Provision of a new lay-by on each of the A1(T) carriageways to the north ofTea Tree Cottage.Design differences between the options were in the position of the new northboundslip roads and the provision of a second roundabout in Version 2. Version 1proposed closing of the existing junction between the Coalpit Lane link and the A1(T)northbound, it being replaced with a new junction around 50m to the west withimproved diverge and merge layouts.Version 2 also proposed the closure of the existing junction between the Coalpit Linkand the A1(T) northbound this being replaced with a new merge and diverge layoutaround 300 m to the west. A new two way slip road was proposed connecting to thebridge link road by means of a three arm roundabout21

These design options were presented to the public in February 2008. The exhibitionwas well attended, with over 200 visitors. Both versions of the new scheme werewelcomed, and generally felt to be the best yet exhibited. However, some ideas forfurther improvements were expressed and these have been carefully considered inthe design process.The Preferred Version – Version 1Following the Public Exhibition scheme proposals were developed. On 22 nd July2008 the Secretary of State for Transport announced the preferred version for theElkesley junction improvements. Based on the exhibited 2008 scheme, Version 1(Figure 2.3) provides for the northbound slip roads to be linked to Coalpit Lane. Thisavoids the need for an additional roundabout south of the A1, which reduces thelength of most journeys between the village and the northbound A1. It also movesthe proposed link road between Coalpit Lane and Jockey Lane westwards fromPepperly Rise. To reduce the effects of traffic, including lorries accessing theCrookford timber works on Coalpit Lane/Pepperly Rise, the scheme included a newroad parallel to Coalpit Lane from the end of High Street to the west of PepperlyRise. This will be part-funded by Nottinghamshire County Council and will allow theresidential section of Coalpit Lane to be converted into cul-de-sacs.Key Design Elements of Version 1Along with the existing road layout outlined for the options considered in 2007 –2008. The Preferred Version’s amendments include:• The introduction of a new over-bridge structure with a roundaboutconstruction to the north of the existing carriageway;• The creation of a new road junction along Coalpit Lane, with associatedwidening of Coalpit Lane;• Earthworks associated with road construction and new structures which mayconflict with the undulating topography characteristic of the agriculturallandscape;• Additional lighting columns and associated levels of light pollution;• Loss and severance of field hedgerows – in particular around the newrealigned junction with Coalpit Lane and the High Street;• Loss of agricultural land to the north and south of the A1(T) corridor;• Closure of the existing A1(T) lay-by – currently a large number of lorries parkat this location and are a consistent feature of the local landscape setting(viewpoint 14); and• Localised effects on setting of residential property on Pepperly Rise (CoalpitLane).22

It is anticipated that these amendments will aid the flow of local traffic and farmingmachinery to and from local field networks.ConsultationConsultation with statutory and non-statutory agencies is an integral part in theassessment of the potential environmental impacts of a scheme. The aim of thisconsultation has been to obtain any baseline/specialist knowledge of the site.The following agencies were consulted:• Environment Agency (EA);• Natural England;• English Heritage;• Nottinghamshire CountyCouncil (NCC);• Bassetlaw District Council(BDC);• Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust;• Nottinghamshire BadgerGroup;• Royal Society for theProtection of Birds (RSPB);• Nottinghamshire Biological andGeological Record Centre(NBGRC)• Farming and Wildlife AdvisoryGroup;• Local Mammal Recorder –John Ellis;• Local Bird Recorder – AndyHill, and,• North Nottinghamshire Batgroup23

The results of the consultation process are given in the Stage 2 EnvironmentalAssessment Report (EAR) (April 2009).There was no further environmental consultation regarding the Preferred Versionafter the Stage 2 assessment was completed.24

3 Air Quality3.1 Findings at Stage 2 AssessmentThe Stage 2 assessment indicated that during construction phase of the PreferredVersion, there would be the potential for intermittent dust impacts at sensitivereceptors depending on meteorological conditions. The impact rating indicated thatdust nuisance would be temporary, medium term and local in effect. It is consideredtherefore, that impacts would be of a slight adverse significance, once mitigationmeasures are implemented.During the operational phase of the Preferred Version, the assessment indicated thatair quality would not cause any exceedence of the annual mean objective limit foreither NO2 or PM10.3.2 Reason for Scoping outThe DMRB Simple Level Assessment carried out at stage 2 demonstrated that whilstthe proposed scheme is predicted to result in small to medium increases in pollutantconcentrations (neutral to moderate adverse) there would be no exceedence of thehuman-health based national air quality objectives for the two characteristic roadrelatedpollutants, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), or particulate matter (PM10), nor anyaffect on areas currently designated for poor air quality (termed an Air QualityManagement Area). Regional emissions are predicted to deteriorate with regards toNOX, PM10 and C with the Preferred Version.It was therefore considered that there would be no significant impacts as a result ofthe proposals and that no further assessment is required.25

4 Cultural Heritage4.1 IntroductionThe Stage 3 EAR assessment on cultural heritage updates the heritage baselinegathered at Stage 2 and assesses whether scheme impacts will significantly affectidentified receptors. The baseline has considered known and potential archaeologicalresources, built heritage and the historic landscape within the scheme footprint andup to 1 km beyond. A supporting gazetteer of identified sites is illustrated on Figure4.1.Statutory and Planning ContextPlanning Policy Guidance 15 (PPG15), ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’,provides a full statement of Government policies for the identification and protectionof historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historicenvironment. Provision for the safeguarding of the cultural heritage resource hasbeen made at a number of levels.At a national level, the current Department of Environment policy was issued in 1990as Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (PPG 16), ‘Archaeology and Planning’. Thisguidance is for planning authorities in England, as well as professionalarchaeologists, developers, property owners and the general public. It sets out thegovernment’s policy on archaeological remains on land and how they should bepreserved or recorded. It gives advice on the handling of archaeological remains anddiscoveries under the development plan and the use of planning conditions. Bothdocuments explain the role played by the wider planning system in their protection.The guidance pulls together and expands previous advice, within the existinglegislative framework.Specific local heritage policies are included in the extant. A number of policiesrelating to Heritage are set out in the Bassetlaw District Council Local Plan 2001. Ofrelevance are the following:Policy 6/10Planning permission for development affecting listed buildings or their settings willonly be granted when:a. any proposed alterations are fully in sympathy with the buildings existingcharacter;b. any extension to a listed building does not detract from the character of thebuildings as a result of its appearance, scale or nature and;c. the setting of the building is not adversely affected.26

Policy 6/12Permission will not be given for development that would destroy or detrimentallyaffect a site of national importance whether scheduled or not, a site of majorarchaeological or historical interest or the setting of such features4.2 Assessment MethodologyThis assessment has undertaken in accordance with been prepared with reference toappropriate EIA guidance and ‘good practice’ advice including that presented in theDMRB Vol. 11, Section 3 Part 2, Cultural Heritage (HA 208/07) and additional bestpractices introduced by the Institute of Field Archaeology.In carrying out this assessment a number of sources were consulted, the mostrelevant of which was the Historic Environment Records (HER) for Nottinghamshire.These included detailed lists of all known sites and monuments, listed and locallyimportant buildings and historic landscape character areas.The baseline has also been clarified through a site walkover and lithographic datacollected during the excavation of The Stage 2 assessment comprised acomprehensive study of all available sources together with a site walkover. Thecurrent assessment aims to update the information presented in the Stage 2 report,combining it with the results of the monitoring of soakaway trenches that wereexcavated in December 2008. Three 1 m x 0.2 m trenches were dug to a depth of 2m. These were located in the fields to the northeast of the A1(T) together with a sitewalkover.4.3 Assessment of ImpactsImpacts have been defined as direct where the proposed scheme would have aphysical impact on a site. They have been defined as indirect where the setting of asite would be altered or by the removal, alteration or severance of associated sitegroupings. They have been defined as being adverse or beneficial; permanent ortemporary in duration; reversible or irreversible and minor, moderate or major inmagnitudeEstimation of ValuationAssessments of value should consider how far the asset(s) contribute to anunderstanding of the past, through their individual or group qualities, either directly orpotentially. These are professional judgments, but they are also guided by legislation,national policies, acknowledged standards, designations, criteria and priorities.Table 4.1: Factors for Assessing the value of archaeological assetsValueVery HighHighExampleWorld Heritage Sites (including nominated sites)Assets of acknowledged international importanceAssets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged internationalresearch objectivesScheduled Monuments (including proposed sites)Undesignated assets of scheduled quality and importance27

MediumLowNegligibleUnknownAssets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national researchobjectivesDesignated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional researchobjectivesDesignated and undesignated assets of local importanceAssets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival ofassociations within the context of other assetsAssets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local researchobjectivesAssets with very little or no surviving archaeological interestThe importance of the resource has not been ascertainedMagnitude of ImpactImpact magnitude is based on the vulnerability of the study area, its current state ofsurvival/condition and the nature of the impact upon it. The survival and extent of thearchaeological deposits is often uncertain and consequently, the magnitude ofchange is difficult to predict with any certainty.Table 4.2: Factors for Assessing the Magnitude of ImpactMagnitude of ImpactMajorModerateMinorNegligibleNo ChangeExampleChange to most or all key archaeological materials, such that the resource ittotally alteredComprehensive changes to settingChanges to many key archaeological materials, such that the resource isclearly modifiedConsiderable changes to setting that affect the character of the assetChanges to key archaeological materials, such that the asset is slightlyalteredSlight change to settingVery minor changes to archaeological materials, or settingNo changeAssessing Magnitude of ImpactsAn impact is defined as a change resulting from the scheme that affects the culturalheritage resource. Impacts, both positive and negative, which may occur during thelife cycle of road scheme projects, are detailed below.Significance of EffectThe significance of effects for the archaeological resource is derived by combiningthe value of the resource with the magnitude of the impact for each cultural heritageasset. The following table illustrates how information on the value of the asset andthe magnitude of the impact are combined to arrive at an assessment of thesignificance of effect. The matrix is not intended to ‘mechanise’ judgement of thesignificance but act as a check to ensure that judgements regarding value,magnitude of impact and significance of effect are reasonable and balanced.28

Table 4.3: Significance of Effects MatrixMagnitude of ImpactValue/SensitivityNoChangeNegligible Minor Moderate MajorVery High Neutral Slight Moderate/ Large Large or VeryLargeVery LargeHigh Neutral Slight Moderate/ Slight Moderate/Large Large/Very LargeMedium Neutral Neutral/Slight Slight Moderate Moderate/ LargeLow Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/ Slight Slight Slight/ ModerateNegligible Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/ Slight Neutral/ Slight Slight4.4 Baseline ConditionsThe study area for the proposed scheme encompasses a 1 km area around a centralgrid point within the scheme. The landscape surrounding Elkesley is one ofpredominantly agricultural land. There are a number of low hills surrounding thevillage, which rise to a maximum height of 55 m OD. Four rivers (the Poulter, the Idle,the Maun and the Meden) converge close to the route of the A1(T) resulting inshallow river valleys in the area. The geology of the area is fine-medium roundedsand overlying mudstone and limestone. The topography and geology of the area arein line with preferred areas of settlement in prehistoric and historic times.Within the study area there are a total of 38 cultural heritage assets, which consist ofarchaeological sites, artefacts and historic buildings. A full list of these assets can befound in the attached annex. There are no scheduled monuments, registered parksand gardens or registered battlefields within the study area. There are seven listedbuildings and seven buildings considered to be of local historical and architecturalimportance within the study area. None of these heritage assets will be directlyimpacted by the proposed scheme.According to the Historic Landscape Characterisation undertaken by NottinghamshireCounty Council, the study area lies within a landscape characterised by regulargeometric fields, irregular fields, modern fields, modified modern fields and semiirregularfields. These enclosure types all date from the 19th century at the latest andare therefore capable of incorporating further change.The most relevant archaeological features that may affect the Preferred Version area collection of linear crop marks which appear to the west and northwest of thescheme (Site 1a). These have been recorded and transcribed from aerialphotographs by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England(RCHME). From the transcribed plans parts of these features appear to intersect withthe proposed layout of the junction improvements where the improvements runparallel to the current A1(T). It is also likely that these features extend further to theeast than is recorded by the RCHME. These crop marks suggest that an extensiveRomano-British settlement was located here in the prehistoric period. Althoughpedological and geological conditions, together with land use and agriculturalpractices can affect the identification of crop marks, given their quantity, morphologyand distribution they can be reliably classified as archaeological in nature.29

“The crop marks appear to be largely formed through the presence of buried ditches,which form a series of regular and irregular enclosures, track ways and settlementnuclei…. In the western portion of the study area these enclosures form a northsouthswathe that is bisected by the present course of the A1(T). These types ofenclosures are relatively common in North Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire andexcavation suggests that elements of these may date to the latter part of the firstmillennium BC and/or the Romano-British period. Moreover, within the study area anarchaeological trial trench was excavated across one of the enclosures...whichexposed two boundary ditches associated with Romano-British pottery dating to themiddle and latter part of the Roman period. These features were located at a depth ofc. 0.3 m below the present ground surface“ (Stage 2 Report).Early Medieval activity within the area is characterised by a single stray find, a VikingAge pin found at Elkesley wood. There is no settlement evidence dating from thisperiod within the study area.The Grade I Listed Building within the village, St. Giles Church, presents the earliestdefinitive evidence for the settlement of Elkesley. There are 6 Grade II listedbuildings and 9 buildings which are considered to be of local historical andarchitectural interest by the local authority.Soakaway Trench MonitoringArchaeological monitoring of three soak away trenches was carried out in December2008. This involved the excavation of three 1 m x 0.2 m trenches, to a depth of 2 m.These were located in the fields to the northeast of the A1(T).No archaeological artefacts or deposits were identified during these works. A finemediumreddish brown sand underlay a mid brown sandy silt topsoil at a maximumdepth of 0.2 m was identified.A walkover of the area was also undertaken at this time. The fields were inspectedfor surface evidence of the known and potential archaeological remains. No remainswere identified at this time.4.5 Potential ImpactsThe potential impacts of the scheme upon the cultural heritage of the area are asfollows.• Removal of archaeological deposits during construction.• Compaction of archaeological deposits during and following construction.• Impact on setting of historic monuments and listed buildings duringconstruction.The first two impacts detailed above are likely to affect the potential buriedarchaeological features as well as those known features directly to the south of theA1(T).30

Assessment of Environmental EffectsTable 4.5: Assessment of Archaeological Cultural Heritage EffectsSiteNo.Description Importance Impacts fromconstruction andoperation1 Romano-Britishsettlement site.MediumRemoval ofarchaeologicaldepositsMagnitude ofImpactModerateSignificanceof EffectModerate** Potential buriedarchaeologyassociated withRomano-Britishsettlement.MediumCompaction ofarchaeologicaldepositsRemoval ofarchaeologicaldeposits.ModerateModerate14 Grade II ListedBuilding, Brown’sCottage.MediumAdverse impact onthe setting of thebuilding duringconstruction.Negligible/MinorNeutral/SlightHistoricLandscape.LowMay slightly alterboundaries.MinorNeutral/Slight** Due to this asset being is a potential site rather than a known site there is noreference to it in the gazetteer. The gazetteer brings a list of all known sites listed inthe HER.4.6 MitigationPreservation in situ would be the optimum mitigation strategy however the likelihoodof construction traffic and processes impacting buried archaeological remains is hightherefore it is recommended that a programme of trial trenching be undertaken withinthe larger areas of the footprint of the scheme; namely the area around Jockey Landand those to the north and south of the proposed bridge.For the more linear areas such as that directly to the south of the A1(T) and therealignment of Coalpit Lane it is recommended that topsoil stripping underarchaeological conditions (i.e. toothless bucket under constant archaeologicalsupervision) be undertaken with adequate provision for the investigation andrecording of any features or finds encountered. It is highly likely that archaeologicalfeatures will be encountered alongside the verge of the A1(T).These strategies would allow for a fuller understanding of the nature and extent ofany archaeological remains encountered.31

If significant remains are encountered full scale excavation would be necessary inorder to deal with them appropriately. This will be done in consultation with EnglishHeritage and the County Archaeologist.Post excavation work would entail processing and analysis of all data retrievedtogether with the production and publication of a specialist report.4.7 Residual EffectsThere would be no residual effects as all archaeological deposits encountered wouldbe mitigated through preservation by record.32

5 Disruption Due to Construction5.1 Assessment MethodologyThis section of the report addresses the potential effects of the Preferred Version onpeople and the environment during the construction phase. The main potentialenvironmental impacts associated with the construction of the Preferred Version areanticipated to be associated with dust, noise, visual intrusion, disruption to roadusers, residents and import and disposal of fill and excavate respectively. There isalso the likelihood of damage to buried archaeology and disruption to agriculturalaccess.5.2 Baseline ConditionsThe assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the methodology outlinedin the DMRB Volume 11: Section 3: Part 3, published by the HA. The impact ofconstruction on archaeology, noise and vibration landscape and water resources areincluded under each topic contained within the report.Therefore the assessment in this chapter focuses on the following sensitive receptorswithin 100 m of the Preferred Version corridor:• 68 residential properties within 100 m of the Preferred Version. No sensitivereceptors (e.g. schools, hospitals);• and a row of garages on Coalpit Lane representing commercial land use.5.3 Potential ImpactsPotential impacts have considered those resulting in short-term temporary effectsexperienced over the 15 month construction phase starting in 2010 and those longertermor permanent effects extending over onto the operational phase.5.4 Assessment of Environmental ImpactsAccess and Journey TimesThe implementation of traffic management throughout the construction period wouldresult in temporary adverse impact on local residents, commercial properties androad users. .All deliveries to site would be off the main carriageway only. During the construction,there would be some disruption to normal movement along Coalpit Lane during itswidening. This would be particularly disruptive to local residents in the Pepperly Riseresidential area.Also the gaps in the central reserve are to be closed at the beginning of theconstruction works, and under the traffic management provisions, narrow laneswould be in operation throughout.Commercial LossThe identified A row of garages would be demolished under the scheme proposals.need to be demolished to allow for the construction of the A1(T) / Coalpit Lane link ofthe preferred scheme.33

Air QualityThe earthworks require the net import of The earthworks design would require theimport of some ~85,000 m³ of material. At present the exact location of where thismaterial will be sourced from is unknown. Whilst the majority of any generatedarisings can be accommodated in to the works a small amount of waste materials willbe removed from site to a licensed facility.Whilst the associated these traffic volumes in their own right are not considered to besufficient to impact on local or regional air quality, and any corresponding exportwaste spoil. The earthwork design has revealed that the materials needed for theconstruction of the preferred version cannot be fulfilled within the capacity of theconstruction corridor. About 85,000 m³ of materials would need to be imported. Atpresent the exact location of where this material will be sourced from is unknown.The effects of nuisance resulting from dust generated along the road and particulatematter (PM10), associated with principal movement in the area and along the haulroutes, remains a predicted impact. Other construction activities are also likely to giverisk to dust emissions including haulage routes, vehicles and construction traffic;materials handling, storage, and stockpiling.MitigationAs part of the contract, and prior to commencing the works, the currently unidentifiedcontractor will be required to prepare a detailed Construction EnvironmentalManagement Plan (CEMP). The CEMP functions to avoid environmental impactsthrough ensuring appropriate management and monitoring onsite as well as includingappropriate mechanisms to managed and report exceptional unpredicted impacts(such as those that occur during an accident or emergency). Specific inclusionswithin the CEMP will be:• the implementation of best practice dust control and suppression measures tominimise dust generation and the excessive release of particulate matterduring construction including; damping down of working earthworks in dryweather, wheel cleaning prior to movement onto public roads, limitations onearthworks activities during periods of high wind, sheeting of HGVs importingand exporting materials;• agreement and implementation of traffic control measures with the BoroughCouncil highways officers prior to commencement of the works;• the use of temporary fencing to protect areas of on-site planting that would beretained;• pre-clearance checks for nesting birds by a qualified ornithologist wherehedgerow clearance would occur between March and September; and• a requirement for the contractor to reach agreement on operational limits andassociated control measures with BDC Environmental Health Officers prior toconstruction. This is in accordance with Section 61 of the Control of PollutionAct (1974). Control measures will be based on the information containedwithin BS5228 Parts 1 (Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control onConstruction and Open Sites. Noise) and 2 (Code of Practice for Noise andVibration Control on Construction and Open Sites).34

5.6 Residual EffectsDisruption during construction of the scheme there would be impacts due to theconstruction of the bridge and widening of Coalpit Lane. The adverse impacts(section 5.4) of the Preferred Version will be mitigated against where possible, andagreed to an acceptable level in-line with local EHO requirements.It has been concluded that with the implementation of the proposed mitigation andmanagement measures there would be no long-term effects.35

6 Ecology and Nature Conservation6.1 Findings at Stage 2 AssessmentThe Preferred Version is not in close proximity to a protected site, no protectedspecies or habitats have been identified, therefore, no significant impacts areexpected.Potential local level impacts are expected in the Preferred Version due to thedestruction of hedgerows causing habitat fragmentation.No significant impacts are predicted on the ecology of any watercourse in the area.There would be a loss of trees and the loss of garages along Coalpit Lane. Thegarages have the potential to support seasonal bat roosts, however no roosts havecurrently been identified.6.2 Reason for Scoping OutSurveys conducted as part of the Stage 2 assessment identified that the schemearea is dominated by habitats that are of negligible ecological value and that thepotential for protected species to occur is low. For this reason, further detailedecological surveys were not considered necessary as part of the Stage 3assessment.There remains a low potential for small numbers of common reptiles to occur in theexisting A1(T) road verges and a low potential for bats to roost in a small number ofsemi-mature trees adjacent to the existing A1(T).There would be a requirement for pre-construction checks to ensure legalcompliance with respect to nesting birds, reptiles and bats.It is therefore considered that the proposal will have no significant impact on ecologyand has therefore been scoped out for further assessment at this stage.36

7 Landscape Effects7.1 Assessment MethodologyThe assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the guidelines held withinVolume 11, Section 3, and Part 5 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridge(DMRB) and with reference to the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual ImpactAssessment (Second Edition), published by the Landscape Institute and the IEMA(2002) (GLVIA)The GLVIA acknowledges the relationship between the perception of landscapecharacter, townscape character and the experience of viewers; referred to as‘receptors’, which in this instance are defined as people in their workplace, attendingschool, using recreational facilities, using the countryside, shoppers etc.There have been four key stages to the assessment:• recording and analysis of the existing landscape and visual context of thereceiving environment (the baseline environment);• identification of impacts that would be associated with the proposals and theirsignificance in the context of the baseline landscape and visual context of thescheme corridor and wider area;• identification of mitigation where the assessment identifies potentiallysignificant impacts appropriate to the alignment and landscape of thereceiving local area; and• description of the residual impacts and effects associated with the proposedscheme.Landscape Character Assessment MethodologyThe landscape character assessment has been based on the identification of the’sensitivity’ of the landscape within the preferred version study area, informed by anassessment of a landscape’s perceived ‘quality’ and ‘value’. The magnitude ofchange within this landscape that would result from the construction and operation ofa grade separated junction on the A1(T) at Elkesley will, in combination with alandscape’s sensitivity rating, provide an impact rating for each identified characterarea.QualityThe quality of the landscape has been defined using a 5 point scale as set out in theDMRB. The local landscape character areas are defined by taking into account howlandform, hydrology, vegetation, settlement, land use pattern and cultural and historicfeatures and associations combine to create definable units with a common ‘sense ofplace’ or identity.37

The five point scale is as follows:Value• Highest Quality - Areas comprising a clear composition of valued landscapecomponents in robust form and health, free of disruptive visual detractors andwith a strong sense of place. Areas containing a strong, balanced structurewith distinct features worthy of conservation. Such areas would generally beInternationally or Nationally recognised, e.g. World Heritage Sites andNational Parks.• Very Attractive - Areas primarily of valued landscape components combinedin an aesthetically pleasing composition and lacking prominent disruptivevisual detractors. Areas containing a strong structure with noteworthy featuresor elements, exhibiting a strong sense of place. Such areas would generallybe Nationally or Regionally recognised locations, e.g. Areas of OutstandingNational Beauty (AONB), parts within a National Park and the majority ofAreas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).• Good - Areas primarily of valued landscape components combined in anaesthetically pleasing composition with low levels of disruptive visualdetractors, exhibiting a recognisable landscape/townscape structure. Suchareas would generally be Regionally and Locally recognised areas, e.g.localised areas within AONB and AGLV designations and the majority ofAreas of Local Landscape Importance.• Ordinary - Areas containing some features of landscape value but lacking acoherent and aesthetically pleasing composition with frequent detractingvisual elements, exhibiting a distinguishable structure often concealed bymixed land uses or development. Such areas would be commonplace at thelocal level and would generally be undesignated, offering scope forimprovement.• Poor - Areas lacking valued landscape components or comprising degraded,disturbed or derelict features, lacking any aesthetically pleasing compositionwith a dominance of visually detracting elements, exhibiting mixed land useswhich conceal the baseline structure. Such areas would generally berestricted to the local level and identified as requiring recoveryLandscape value relates to areas of particularly scenic quality or those displayingimportant historic and cultural associations. It is frequently addressed by reference tointernational, national, regional and local designations. A lack of formal policydesignation on a given landscape does not however necessarily infer the landscapeis of low quality or value.SensitivityThe local character areas have accordingly been rated in relation to their potentialsensitivity to the introduction of the proposed junction, taking landscape quality andvalue into account. Table 7.1 defines the sensitivity ratings adopted.38

Table 7.1: Landscape Character Sensitivity RatingCategoryHighMediumLowCriteriaHigh visual quality landscape with highly valued or unique characteristics susceptible torelatively small change.Medium visual quality landscape with moderately valued characteristics reasonablytolerant of change.Low visual quality landscape with common characteristics capable of absorbingsubstantial change.A landscape’s ’capacity’ to accommodate change is also presented, this measurerelating to the degree to which a landscape setting may be affected or unaffected bythe scale and type of change that is proposed. Scale of landscape, topography,existing condition and sensitivity will all contribute to a settings ability to withstandchange.Magnitude of ChangeThe magnitude of change has been predicted by considering the anticipated loss ordisruption to character forming landscape components (tree planting, landform,buildings, and watercourses), the scale of the character area and the proportion of itthat would be affected by the introduction of the proposed version. In common withthe evaluation of sensitivity, three levels of magnitude of impact have been adopted.These are defined in Table 7.2.Table 7.2: Landscape Character Magnitude of ChangeCategoryHighMediumLowCriteriaTotal loss or alteration to key elements of the landscape, which result in fundamentaland/or permanent long-term change.Partial or noticeable loss of elements of the landscape and / or medium-term change.Minor alteration to elements of the landscape and / or short-term temporary change.Impact RatingsImpacts have been rated through by considering the sensitivity to change andmagnitude of change for each of the local character areas.The findings are represented using a descriptive scale ranging from large - moderate- slight adverse through neutral to an ascending scale of slight - moderate - largebeneficial. Explanation of the impact ratings is provided below.39

Table 7.3: Determinants of Significance (Landscape Character)MagnitudeHigh Moderate Large/moderate LargeModerate Slight/Moderate Moderate Large/ModerateLow Slight Slight/Moderate ModerateLow Moderate HighSensitivityTable 7.4: Landscape Impact Assessment – Significance CriteriaSignificanceLarge beneficial (positive)effectModerate beneficial(positive) effectSlight beneficial (positive)effectNeutral EffectSlight adverse (negative)effectModerate adverse(negative) effectLarge adverse (negative)effectEffects/DefinitionProposal integrates highly successfully with local landscape characterand provides significant enhancements to local landscape characterand scenic quality.Proposal fits well within local landscape character and providesenhancements to local landscape character and scenic quality.Proposal fits with local landscape character and provides limitedenhancements to local landscape character and scenic quality.Proposals are keeping with local landscape character and would notresult in significant negative or positive effects.Proposals do not quite fit with local landscape character and wouldresult in minor negative impacts which cannot be fully mitigated, withinan area of non designated landscape quality.Proposals are out of scale or otherwise at odds with local landscapecharacter, cannot be fully mitigated and would impact on an area oflocally designated landscape quality.Proposals are at considerable variance with local landscape character.Cannot be adequately mitigated and would impact on an area ofnationally designated landscape quality.7.2 Visual Impact Assessment MethodologyBaseline EnvironmentEstablishment of the existing visual context for the proposed scheme involvedconsideration of the information relating to existing landscape character establishedduring the baseline assessment, the definition of a zone of visual influence (the visualenvelope) for the proposed scheme and the identification of key visual receptorswithin the visual envelope (See attached annex Figure 7.2: Visual Receptors).The visual envelope represents the extent of the area within which there would bepotential for views of the proposed scheme. A preliminary plotting of the visualenvelope was undertaken by reviewing current OS mapping for the area to establishwhere landform, large scale established planting and areas of built developmentwould be likely to define the availability of views. The initial plotting was then checkedon site and modified.40

Inclusion of an area within the visual envelope does not itself determine that allpotential receptors within the defined area would experience views of the proposedscheme. There being many localised features such as individual buildings,hedgerows, small copses or localised variations in landform which may obstructviews from a receptor shown as being in the envelope. The prime objective is toestablish an area within which key receptors whose views may be influenced by theproposed scheme can be identified.The assumptions adopted in drafting the envelope have been that the observerheight is 1.8 metres and that the assumed height of vehicles using the proposed road4 m; the nominally accepted height for an average commercial vehicle or HeavyGoods Vehicle (HGV).Key ReceptorsThe identification of key receptors involved a review and initial plotting of buildings,areas open to public use, rights of way, informal routes and local roads located withinthe visual envelope. Site surveys were then undertaken to establish the nature,location and actual availability of view. This enabled a schedule of key receptors tobe identified for the purpose of assessing the order of impact they would be likely toexperience.Impact AssessmentThe assessment of visual impacts involved a detailed site survey on Wednesday11th March 2009. The weather was sunny, bright and clear with good visibility. Thisprovided suitable conditions to undertake a robust assessment.Impact CriteriaThe primary criteria used to evaluate visual impact relate to the extent to whichexisting views for key receptors, (such as residents, users of public facilities andvisitors to open space and public areas), would change, taking into accountlandscape proposals and mitigation measures.Other criteria used to ascertain visual impact include the size, elevation andproportion of the proposed scheme in respect of the receiving environment and thedegree to which activity within the receiving environment would alter both during andpost construction Cumulative visual impacts on the baseline environment are alsotaken account of in respect of the proposals.Impacts can be detrimental where features or key characteristics such as establishedplanting, old buildings or structures have to be removed and how these directly affectthe view or outlook of a given receptor. Conversely, impacts can prove beneficialwhere derelict buildings or poorly maintained landscape features are restored,replaced or maintained, or where there is the introduction of new tree planting and alandscape structure where none currently exist, constituting an improvement in thecurrent view.Sensitivity to ChangeSensitivity to change considers the nature of the receptor. Least sensitive receptorsare considered, for example, to be people engaged in work whose primary focus41

would not necessarily be on the surrounding landscape views. Conversely, moreemphasis is placed upon receptors whose change in view or visual amenity is eitherthe prime focus, greater in scale or potentially covers a wider area.The degree and importance of the view gained by a receptor also contributes to anunderstanding of how sensitive a given receptor is towards change. Therefore, valueof the view and scenic quality are also taken into account in the assessment. In thisassessment, sensitivity to change is ranked as follows:Table 7.5: Sensitivity RatingSensitivityDefinitionHighMediumLowIndividual dwellings or dwelling groupings with a view in which the newscheme would become an important focal element from either gardensor room windows, both upper and lower storey Roads, footpaths andbridleways, and public open spaces with a view in which the newscheme would be an important focal element in that view.Individual dwellings or dwelling groupings with a view from eithergardens or room windows, both upper and lower storey, in which thenew scheme would not be a focal element but would be a notableelement in the view.Roads, footpaths and bridleways, and public open spaces with a view inwhich the new scheme would not be a focal element but would be anotable element in the view.Industrial / commercial buildings with a view in which the new schemewould be a focal element in the viewDwellings with a view from either gardens or room windows, both upperand lower storey, in which the new scheme would not be a notableelement in the view but would be discernible.Roads, footpaths and bridleways, and public open spaces with a view inwhich the new scheme would not be a notable element in the view butwould be discernible.Industrial / commercial buildings with a view in which the new schemewould not be a focal element but would be a notable element in theview.Magnitude of ChangeMagnitude of change considers the extent of development visible, the percentage ofthe existing view newly occupied by the proposals and the viewing distance from thereceptor to the development. In this assessment magnitude is ranked as follows:Table 7.6: Magnitude of Change42

MagnitudeHighMediumLowNo ChangeDefinitionWhere the development would cause a substantial change to theexisting view.Where the development would cause a very noticeable change to theexisting view.Where the development would cause a noticeable change to theexisting view.Where the development would cause no discernible change to theexisting view.Impact RatingsThe findings are represented using a descriptive scale ranging from large - moderate- slight and adverse through neutral to an ascending scale of slight - moderate - largeand beneficial. There is a further impact rating, very large adverse, which is used toindicate impact on a receptor of very high sensitivity, significantly affecting an existingview of very high value and quality. Such a rating would indicate that the impact isconsidered highly prejudicial in relation to the specific topic of visual impact.The various levels of impact can be applied to individual properties, businesses,groups of housing, areas of open space and lengths of footpath. Explanation of theimpact ratings is provided below.43

SignificanceLarge beneficial impactModerate beneficial impactSlight beneficial impactNeutral EffectSlight adverse impactModerate adverse impactLarge adverse effectEffects/DefinitionThis would typically apply where a proposal leads to the removal of asignificant eyesore such as a derelict site or buildings and incorporateslandscape measures which substantially remodel and enhance theoutlook for a large number of people, or where the proposal wouldcause a significant improvement in the existing view.This would typically apply where visual intrusion associated with theexisting view is noticeably relieved, or where the proposals would resultin a noticeable improvement. It would also apply where the proposalsinclude provision for landscape proposals which would largely reducethe visual intrusion of the existing outlook and enhance views for aconsiderable number of people.This would typically occur where existing visual impact associated withthe current outlook is slightly relieved, or where the proposals wouldcause a barely perceptible improvement in existing receptor view.This would typically occur where implementation of the proposals wouldnot result in a discernible improvement or deterioration in existingreceptor view or outlook.This would typically occur where the receptor is at some distance fromthe proposals, or where the proposal would not constitute a new point ofprincipal focus. It would also occur where the proposal is closely locatedto the viewpoint but is seen at an acute angle and at the extremity of theoverall available view, or viewed from rarely occupied upper storeyrooms or less sensitive receptor types.This would typically apply where the proposals result in a noticeabledeterioration to the current outlook, involving removal of existing,visually screening elements in the view, exposing the scheme. It wouldalso occur where large new structures are introduced as part of theproposals which may appear at distance but be positioned as a focalpoint the field of view, or where the proposal can only be partiallymitigated.This would typically apply where the proposal would cause a significantdeterioration in the current receptor view or outlook, be positionedprominently within an existing view of local interest in a valuedlandscape, or where only selected elements of the proposal can beeffectively mitigated.Impact Application and EvaluationEach of the receptors identified has been evaluated against the key visual impactcriteria and has been allocated an impact rating. Identified receptors, potentiallysubject to the various grades of impact, are then identified. The assessmentconcludes with a brief discussion of the overall visual implications of the proposalsand a summary rating for the visual impact.7.3 Baseline ConditionsLandscape ContextThe Countryside Agency’s Character of England Map provides a broad indication oflandscape character identity across the country. Elkesley is located within the“Sherwood” Character Area, its key features defined as:44

• rolling landforms with numerous dry valleys;• large amounts of woodland, particularly oak/birch broad-leaved woodland andconifers;• extensive, enclosed, arable farmlands with rectilinear field patterns divided bylow, treeless hedges;• strong contrasts between open arable fields and woodland;• narrow river corridors with pasture, flood meadows and woodland, often insharp contrast to the adjacent arable farmland; and• buildings of local sandstone with older building materials being generally redbrick and pantile.These elements are indicative of the landscape character associated with the locality,the proposed junction located on the rise of a shallow rolling landform inpredominantly arable farmland where the A1(T) borders the village of Elkesley.Elkesley occupies the low-lying floodplain of the River Poulter; an extensive area ofwooded river corridor which provides a green backdrop to the village along itssouthern edge. To the north and west of the village the land use is predominantlygentle rolling arable landscape consisting of medium-sized fields divided by wellmaintained hedges. The A1(T) runs along the northern edge of the village and is thedominant feature of the surrounding landscape. The road corridor is dualcarriageway in construction with some boundary vegetation of scrub and hedgerowtrees. Generally, views from the corridor are onto the surrounding arable farmlandwith more distant views northwards across a rolling landform.The village is centred along a High Street which runs parallel to the A1(T), and islined with numerous historic red-brick buildings. There are intermittent views of theA1(T) through breaks in the property boundary along the High Street but generallythe road is well screened from the core of the village.The following subdivisions of local landscape character are abstracted from theElkesley Stage 2 Environmental Report by Mouchel and RPS, 2006. Their extentsare illustrated in the attached annex: Figure 7.1: Landscape and Visual Effects Map.Area A: Open Undulating Arable Farmland (Good Quality Landscape of Medium Value)To the north and east of the A1(T) corridor lies an open, flat, intermediate scalearable landscape of good quality punctuated by rivers and settlements. Regularmedium sized fields are bounded by well maintained predominantly thorn hedges,with occasional blocks of woodland. An over-mature pine windbreak is a verydistinctive and characteristic feature of the open, arable landscape. The area isconsidered to be of high sensitivity with limited capacity to accommodate change.Area B: Gamston Aerodrome (Poor Quality Landscape of Low Value)The southern part of the area comprises light industrial land uses adjacent to theA1(T) corridor. All traces of the surrounding landscape pattern have been removed in45

the creation of the aerodrome although part of the site is designated a local natureconservation site. This area of open grassland and arable crops with concrete runway is considered to be of low sensitivity with capacity to accommodate change.Area C: Dominant A1(T) Corridor and Associated Land Uses (Poor Quality Landscapeof Low Value)The A1(T) corridor cuts a swathe through the landscape and the section pastElkesley is also lit and particularly intrusive. High traffic volumes result in a veryunpleasant external environment and crossing the carriageway at the junction isdifficult.Occasional derelict commercial premises exacerbate the sense of degradation thatthe northern edge of the village portrays. The area is considered to be of lowsensitivity with considerable capacity to accommodate change.Area D: Reclaimed Tips and Old Workings (Ordinary Quality Landscape of Low Value)Locally elevated lands approximately 1.5 km to the southeast of Elkesley andcomprises former tips and mine workings. The grassed slopes are steep and are notbroken with hedges or trees and lack structure. The River Meden flows through thelandscape and has been straightened in places. The area is considered to be ofmoderate sensitivity with some capacity to accommodate change.Area E: River Corridors and Settlements (Very Attractive Landscape of Medium Value)A generally smaller scale and enclosed landscape characterized by the meanderingriver valleys and nucleated settlements located just on higher ground above therivers.Enclosure is provided by blocks of woodland and local ridgelines between the rivervalleys of the Poulter, Meden, Maun and Idle. The area is considered to be of highsensitivity with limited capacity to accommodate change.Area F: Enclosed Arable Farmland (Good Quality Landscape of Medium Value)The landscape to the west of Elkesley village is also smaller scale with blocks ofwoodland enclosing arable farmland. The area is considered to be of moderately highsensitivity with limited capacity to accommodate change.Visual ContextThe ZVI for the grade separated junction at (Figure 7.1) is broadly contained byrolling arable farmland, with views extending to existing woodland belts and limitedby the shallow rolling nature of the terrain. Landform rises broadly to the northwest;the existing A1(T) corridor gaining elevation before reaching the crest of a hill formbeyond the line of Cross Lane and Jockey Lane. There are no significant far reachingviews beyond ~1 mile in any direction; areas beyond this limit being either obscuredor very difficult to perceive.To the north and east, the openness of the undulating arable landscape along withthe expanse of Gamston Aerodrome presents the widest field of view. Maturewoodland and hedgerow vegetation define much of the visual horizon; the isolatedblocks of woodland being a familiar feature of the wider landscape. The hedge line46

associated with Jockey Lane forms an intermediate visual horizon line to views fromthe south and east.To the immediate south of the existing A1(T) corridor Elkesley village lies in closeproximity. Its northernmost fringes are visually exposed to the carriageway as itbypasses the village and rises westwards, although much of the village is obscuredfrom view by built form. The numerous field boundary hedges, hedgerow trees andthe more varied landform bounding the River Poulter further contain the visualenvelope to the south.Beyond Elkesley and the industrial estate to the east, landform descends toward thenarrow River Poulter valley and the B6387 road crossing. This area lies beyond theZVI of the proposed junction, there being a distinction between the setting of thislocal landscape and that of the proposed junction area.Lighting (in relation to both Landscape Character and Visual Context)The influence of the A1(T) corridor, in terms of both landscape character and visualcontext extends beyond daylight hours and extends to hours of darkness. Thephysical presence of lighting columns and associated constructions raises the visualprofile of the route corridor by approx 10 m above the carriageway, increasing thevisual envelope of the transport corridor and placing it as a feature or component ofthe wider landscape. Ambient light levels during hours of darkness are noticeable,particularly in a rural landscape where the presence of a major route corridor can bemore apparent at night-time when other landscape interventions are less visible.On the main carriageway of the A1(T), the existing lighting generally consists of 10metre high twin armed columns along the central reserve. Where the central reservewidens, 2 by 10 m single armed columns are utilised. At various points the columnsare verge mounted in an opposite configuration. The lanterns are mounted onbrackets estimated to be 1.0 to 1.75 m in length, and support high pressure sodium(SON/T) lamps that are assumed to be 250 watts. In addition, single-armed columnsare used on the slip roads and in areas where conflict areas exist. This provides anadequate and safe level of light for drivers at junctions.The existing Nottinghamshire CC assets that are affected by the proposed schemeare situated along the High Street, Coalpit Lane and Twyford Lane within the villageof Elkesley. Existing columns are 5 metres in height with 55W low pressure sodium(SOX) lamps, each lantern having a Photo Electric Control Unit (PECU) fitted.All of the lighting installations would have met lighting standards at the time ofinstallation but do not meet current lighting standards. The presence of the A1(T)corridor places a major source of illumination within the local landscape and inproximity to Elkesley Village.7.4 Potential ImpactsPotential Impacts on Landscape CharacterThe main predicted impacts on landscape character as highlighted within the Stage 2EAR are as follows.• The introduction of a new over bridge structure with a roundaboutconstruction to the north of the existing carriageway.47

• The creation of a new road junction along Coalpit Lane, with associatedwidening of Coalpit Lane.• Earthworks associated with road construction and new structures which mayconflict with the undulating topography characteristic of the agriculturallandscape.• Additional lighting columns and associated levels of light pollution.• Loss and severance of field hedgerows, in particular around the newrealigned junction with Coalpit Lane and the High Street.• Loss of agricultural land to the north and south of the A1(T) corridor.• Closure of the existing A1(T) lay-by, currently a large number of lorries park atthis location and are a consistent feature of the local landscape setting(viewpoint 14).• Localised effects on setting of residential property on Pepperly Rise (CoalpitLane).The Character of the area locally is heavily influenced by the alignment of theexisting A1(T) corridor to the north of Elkesley. The effects of the new road junctionwill form a part of this existing landscape characteristic, with the potential to influencethe identified Landscape Character Areas A, B, C and E (Elkesley Village section).Potential Impacts on Visual AmenityThe receptors identified as being within the visual envelope of the proposed junctionand potentially affected by the development include the following (See Appendix B4within the attached annex for the viewpoints).Properties:• “Jockey House”, 1km to north of Elkesley (viewpoint 4);• Timber yard and Industrial Estate to the north of the A1(T) corridor, accessedvia Old London Road;• “The Gables” and “The Bungalow”, to the north of the existing JockeyLane/A1(T) junction (viewpoint 7)• Properties (22 No.) along Pepperly Rise (Coalpit Lane) (Viewpoint 10)• Properties (approx 12 No.) at the northern end of Headland Avenue• Properties along southern end of Headland Avenue and bungalows onLawnwood Lane (15 No. oblique rear views)48

• Properties along the High Street (viewpoint 29); approx 33 properties (30along northern side of the High Street, 3 properties to south (adjacent to TopFarm, including Blacksmiths Cottage))• Top Farm and associated Housing Allocation H37 (High Street)• Properties along Yew Tree Road; 8 properties (2 direct, 6 oblique)• Properties along Cedar Tree View; 2 properties (direct)• Properties along Lawnwood Lane (2 properties, oblique views)• Tea Table Cottages (2 properties) adjacent to the A1(T) carriageway west ofCross LaneFootpaths, Lanes and Byways:• Jockey Lane (viewpoint 1);• Cross Lane Byway, south of the existing Jockey Lane/A1(T) junction(viewpoint 14);• Brough Lane Byway, south of Elkesley Village (viewpoint 15);• Public Footpath leading south from Elkesley Village (viewpoint 18);• A1(T) corridor (viewpoint 39).Views from Properties:Elkesley village is centred along the High Street, which runs broadly parallel with theA1(T) and has a strong sense of visual enclosure. Views of the A1(T) are limited tooccasional breaks in property boundaries and there is a good degree of visualseparation. Properties to the north of the High Street have land boundaries with theA1(T) and their rear aspect views are heavily influenced by the existing road corridorsetting.Properties on Pepperly Rise to the western edge of Elkesley Village have a broadfield of view across the proposed junction area. The Rise is elevated from CoalpitLane, enabling widespread aspects across the opposing field hedge line. Propertiessituated on Headland Avenue (at 90 degrees orientation to Pepperly Rise/CoalpitLane) have oblique and increasingly limited views of the junction area, restricted to anarrow field of view and largely screened by the properties on Coalpit Lane.Properties to the western edge of the High street (Blacksmith Cottage opposite theexisting A1(T) junction and Holly Cottage on the corner of the existing junction) wouldhave direct views. There would be oblique, restricted views experienced from otherproperties to the western end of the High Street sited near the existing junction.Lawnwood Lane (an extension of Headland Avenue) rises to the south of the village.Most properties along the lane are single storey with limited oblique views from rear49

gardens. Two detached properties of 2-storey construction and would have distant,highly oblique views of the junction area.Several properties to the western edge of Yew Tree Road and Cedar Tree View haveoblique views across the currently vacant H37 Housing Allocation area, althoughprospects tend to be limited by the outbuildings of Top Farm. Most views are oblique,although three properties face north and have slightly more direct views betweenproperties along Coalpit Lane and The High Street.North of the A1(T) corridor, the properties along Jockey Lane (The Gables, TheBungalow and Jockey House) are well screened by perimeter vegetation. Aconiferous hedge approximately 2.5 m high screens all ground window views fromJockey House (viewpoint 4), and a 3 m high hedge and tree planting screens TheGables (viewpoint 7). Both The Gables and The Bungalow are situated in relativeproximity to the proposed roundabout area.Warehouses and light industry located on the northern side of the A1(T) are exposedto the road corridor, although views are limited because of the building type and use.This area in the Bassetlaw Plan has been identified as a possible area foremployment allocation and any new buildings could themselves become potentialreceptors to environmental change.Wider views from the settlements of Gamston to the east and Bothamsall to thesouth are effectively screened by the intervening landform and woodland belts.Views from Public Rights of Way:Restricted views of the A1(T) corridor landscape are evident through tall andsomewhat gappy vegetation from Cross Lane (viewpoint 14) to the west. This is a 4m wide gravel ‘byway’ lined with historic hedgerows on raised banks. Viewseastwards through the vegetation are generally of a long distance over rollingcountryside with groups of trees on hill tops. Man made features, including a coolingtower and communications mast, are visible on the distant skyline.Brough Lane is also a Byway and consists of a 3 m wide track surfaced in a poorquality concrete wearing course. Brough Lane is lower lying than Cross Lane andviews of the proposed junction are restricted by topography and field boundaryvegetation (viewpoint 15). There are long distance views from Brough Lanesouthwards towards the River Poulter.One public footpath passes through Elkesley Village. It starts at the High Street andruns south and out of the village into open pasture, crossing Brough Lane and headsto Elkesley woods. All views towards the proposed junction from this footpath areblocked by buildings and tree canopies (Viewpoint 18).There is evidence that the byways along Cross Lane and Brough Lane are used bythe dog walkers and horse owners in Elkesley. They also provide valuable links tothe network of public footpaths and bridleways in the area; namely the footpathsleading south to the woods along the River Poulter and beyond.50

7.5 Implication of New Lighting ProposalsProposed Lighting along Main CarriagewayThe potential use of 12 metre high columns with 1.5 metre brackets and lanternshousing lamps would be utilised.This lighting would meet current design standards. It would present a slight increasein intensity of illumination across the proposed junction area although one which,given the context of the existing carriageway and associated lighting levels, would beof low perception to the human eye in terms of change. The elevation of the overbridge will increase the elevation of lighting structures and lighting levels within thelandscape.Proposed Lighting along Side RoadsA series of 8 m columns with post top lanterns are would be used along the sideroads. All columns would be setback 2 m from the kerb edge, or located at the rear ofthe footpath.Once again, there will be a slight increase in intensity of lighting levels compared withexisting. The design of new lanterns however will mean that light sources are morecontrolled and will be directed more specifically to intended areas of illumination, withless ambient light pollution from the light source. There will be minimal spillage oflight onto residential properties.7.6 Assessment of Environmental ImpactsImpacts on Landscape CharacterThe grade separated junction and required earthworks to accommodate theapproach roads and roundabout will add to the overriding influence of the existingA1(T) corridor within the local landscape. The west to east dip in landform associatedwith this length of the road corridor will effectively limit any broad landscapecharacter impacts, although the additional effect of proposed road related structureswill be noticeable at a local scale where the change of landform is less in-keepingwith the rolling nature of the agricultural landscape.The proposal requires land take through areas of arable agriculture and associatedboundary hedgerows, resulting in some field severance and accordant loss of localcharacteristic landscape features. The proposal will involve modification of theexisting A1(T) verges to accommodate new slip roads and sight lines for increasedspeeds to the national speed limit. The effect on landscape character will be aperceived erosion of arable farmland character and additional fragmentation of thislocal landscape.The elevation of the junction over bridge will give a visible indication of the roadcorridor location within the local landscape setting, although the ’buffer‘ landscapeseparating the village of Elkesley and the carriageway will remain predominantlyintact and this character relationship will not change significantly.The immediate context of Elkesley will be affected to the west by the re-alignment ofCoalpit Lane, which would bring about new sight lines associated with the new T-junction to the west of the village and involve some loss of hedgerow along thenorthern boundary of Coalpit Lane. The garages do not contribute to the local51

character of the village and currently provide a poor sense of arrival/entry. As suchtheir removal would have a neutral/slight beneficial effect.The core village setting will be negligibly affected by the proposal, this area beinglargely contained in terms of townscape quality despite it’s proximity to the A1(T).Summary:Area A: Open Undulating Arable Farmland (Good Quality Landscape of Medium Value)The proportionate loss of arable farmland to the south of this character area will havean erosive effect on its wider value. The impact is considered to be medium adverse,with the landscape character within the proposed junction area reflecting more that ofArea C than A.Area B: Gamston Aerodrome (Poor Quality Landscape of Low Value)The character of the aerodrome landscape will not be unduly affected by theproposal. The impact is considered to be slight adverse.Area C: Dominant A1(T) Corridor and Associated Land Uses (Poor Quality Landscapeof Low Value)The influence of the A1(T) corridor will expand as a result of the construction of theproposed junction area. The character of the A1(T) road corridor itself will not beheavily influenced and the impact to its character is considered to be negligible.Area D: Reclaimed Tips and Old Workings (Ordinary Quality Landscape of Low Value)There will be no change in terms of impacts on landscape character to this area.Area E: River Corridors and Settlements (Very Attractive Landscape of Medium Value)The character of the river valley landscape will remain unaffected by the proposal.The character of Elkesley Village is already influenced by the overriding character ofthe A1(T) corridor to the north and the construction of the proposed route junction willadd to this influence.The village character will not change significantly as a result of the proposal; themain junction area will be seen in context with the A1(T) corridor although the overbridge will add a further constructed element that will be evident from areas to thewest of the village. Mitigation planting along the earthwork embankments wouldsoften the appearance of the junction over time and would marginally reduce thecharacter impact of the A1(T) corridor itself on the village. The overriding issue thatremains is the A1(T) corridor in proximity to the northern edge of the village in termsof character influence.New road construction to the west of the village would have a perceived but lowimpact on village character. The addition of a new road element and relocatedjunction would add to the built form of the village but is not a significant departurefrom existing.The overall impact on Area E is considered to be slight adverse.52

Area F: Enclosed Arable Farmland (Good Quality Landscape of Medium Value)There will be no change in terms of impacts on landscape character to this area.Impacts on Visual AmenityThe predicted visual impacts on all of the identified receptors are detailed in Table1.6 below. Impacts are based on the Stage 2 design proposal, which include anymitigation measures that were developed and included as a part of the designversion for assessment purposes.Additional mitigation is described in Section 6.4 and outlined as appropriate in thetable. The predicted effects at year of opening (year 0) and in the design year (year15) take these additional mitigation measures into account.The impact tables take into account any additional visual impacts that have beenidentified from analysis of lighting requirements associated with the schemeproposal.An assessment is made of impacts during construction, as an indication of the levelsof visual impact anticipated. However, this assessment is unable to account for theduration of work programme, location of compounds, access roads, etc and thereforecannot provide a definitive measure of the visual impacts encountered by specificproperties during the construction period.53

Table 7.7: Summary of Impacts on Visual AmenityVisualReceptorDescription /DistanceSensitivitychangetoMagnitude Comment PotentialImpactAdditional mitigation IdentifiedImpacts duringconstructionJockey House(singleproperty)Timber yard /IndustrialEstateThe Gables/The Bungalow(2 No)Pepperly Rise(22 No)HeadlandAvenueHeadlandAvenue/LawnwoodAvenue1km to north ofElkesleynorth of existingJockey Lane /A1(T) junctionnorth of existingJockey Lane /A1(T) junctionMedium Low Oblique view acrossfields/hedgerows;junction area wouldappear in contextLow Low Limited receptors dueto nature ofdevelopment; junctionarea viewed in contextof existing roadcorridor, below line ofridge.Medium Medium Proximity to junctionarea and direct viewsthrough propertyvegetation to proposedearthworksCoalpit Lane High High Exposed and directviews towards junctionarea.Properties at thenorthern end ofProperties atsouthern end ofLawnwood,western side ofroadMedium Low Oblique andchannelled viewstowards junction areaalong HeadlandAvenueMedium Low Restricted and largelyoblique rear propertyviewsSlightAdverseNoneModerateAdverseNeutral None Slight AdverseModerateAdverseModerate /LargeAdverseSlightAdverseSlightAdversePotential grading out ofembankment slope and additionalplantingHedgerow reinstatement along realignedCoalpit Lane withsignificant proportion of hedgetree plantingHedgerow reinstatement alongCoalpit Lane with significantproportion of hedge tree plantingNoneSubstantialAdverseSubstantialAdverseModerateAdverseSlight Adverse54

Table 7.7: Summary of Impacts on Visual AmenityVisualReceptorDescription /DistanceSensitivitychangetoMagnitude Comment PotentialImpactAdditional mitigation IdentifiedImpacts duringconstructionHigh StreetNorthern side ofHigh Street,Medium Low Existing andimmediate context ofA1(T) corridorpredominatesSlightAdverseNoneSlight AdverseHigh Street (3No)Inc BlacksmithsCottage andHolly Cottage atexisting A1(T)junctionMedium Low Direct prospecttowards overbridgeacross existing A1(T)corridor; slight benefitin distancing of newroad junction layoutlocally from dwellingsSlightAdverseHedgerowreinstatement/introduction alongCoalpit Lane and re-alignedjunction with significant proportionof hedge tree plantingSubstantialAdverseTop Farm andhousingallocation H37Medium Low Oblique viewsbetween existingsurrounding buildingsalong Coalpit Lane,across existing A1(T)corridorSlightAdverseHedgerow reinstatement alongCoalpit Lane with significantproportion of hedge tree plantingSubstantialAdverseYew TreeRoad (8 No)Medium Low Mostly oblique viewsat distance, acrosshousing allocation H37and channelledbetween existingproperties borderingHigh Street/CoalpitLaneSlightAdverseHedgerow reinstatement alongCoalpit Lane with significantproportion of hedge tree plantingSlight AdverseCedar TreeView (2 No)Medium Low Direct views atdistance, acrosshousing allocation H37and between existingproperties borderingHigh Street/CoalpitSlightAdverseHedgerow reinstatement alongCoalpit Lane with significantproportion of hedge tree plantingSlight Adverse55

Table 7.7: Summary of Impacts on Visual AmenityVisualReceptorDescription /DistanceSensitivitychangetoMagnitude Comment PotentialImpactAdditional mitigation IdentifiedImpacts duringconstructionLaneLawnwoodLane (2 No)Tea TableCottagesAdjacent toA1(T), west ofCross LaneMedium Low Oblique views fromrear of two storeyproperties at distance,on elevated groundLow Low Direct views of A1(T)carriagewayJockey Lane North of A1(T) Low Medium Direct views acrossproposed junctionarea, filtered by laneside vegetationCross LaneBywayBrough LaneBywayPublicFootpathA1(T) (T)corridorsouth of JockeyLane / A1(T)junctionsouth of ElkesleyVillageMedium Low Views interrupted byproposed overbridgeand road embankmentMedium Low Views at distance frombyway.SlightAdverseNoneSlight AdverseNeutral None Slight AdverseSlightAdverseSlightAdverseSlightAdversePotential grading out ofembankment slope and additionalplantingNoneHedgerow reinstatement alongCoalpit Lane with significanthedge tree plantingSubstantialAdverseModerateAdverseSlight Adversesouth of Elkesley Medium Low No effects Neutral None NeutralLow Medium Interruption of localviews while movingalong road corridorsectionSlightAdverseNoneSubstantialAdverse56

Discussion of Impacts:Visual effects would be most marked on those visual receptors located to the northwesternedge of Elkesley; particularly those properties along Pepperly Rise. Existingfields of view include direct views across the A1(T) corridor and lay-by area. The newjunction would further open direct views of the new over bridge, roundabout andembankments plus the access junction in close proximity on Coalpit Lane. Theseproperties are of high sensitivity and the visual impact is assessed as moderate tolarge adverse. The ability to introduce a larger element of mitigation planting inassociation with the realignment of Coalpit Lane would mean that by year 15 therewould be filtered views of the junction area and a predicted impact of moderateadverse at this point.Elsewhere within Elkesley, views of the proposed junction area are less exposed.Properties along Headland Avenue, Lawnwood Avenue, Yew Tree Road and CedarTree View all have restricted and oblique views across limited sections of thejunction. These are all of a medium sensitivity and the relative magnitude of changeis considered to be low, giving an assessment of visual impact as slight adverse.Views toward the junction area would become more filtered as mitigation plantingmatures.Properties situated along the High Street through Elkesley are already heavilyimpacted visually by the A1(T) corridor where views of the carriageway areencountered, hence assessed as low in sensitivity. Those on the northern side of theHigh Street (bordering the A1(T)) would notice little change in terms of magnitude ofimpact from the proposed junction, giving an assessment of visual impact as slightadverse.The properties bordering the existing junction off the A1(T) (to the western limit of theHigh Street) have somewhat more direct views of the wider junction area, althoughthese are moderated by the position, proximity and exposure of the existing A1(T)corridor. While the estimated magnitude of impact does increase slightly, theassessment of visual impact remains as slight adverse in comparison with thebaseline outlook. The distancing of the re-aligned road junction, combined with theintroduction of mitigation planting will mean that at year 15 the perceived impactwould be neutral towards slight beneficial in the longer term.North of the A1(T), the elevated over-bridge and embankments associated with thenew grade separated junction will be visible from Jockey Lane, extending north toJockey House. The proximity of “The Gables” and “Bungalow” properties to theproposed junction roundabout means that, despite the presence of existing screenplanting, the sensitivity to change and magnitude of change make this locationsubject to a moderate adverse visual impact. The maturation of mitigation plantingtowards year 15 will reduce the level of visual impact associated with the junctionroundabout, although its proximity to the receptors will mean that the level of residualeffect remains unchanged.Impacts Associated with LightingThe increase in lighting intensity levels associated with the main carriageway isconsidered to be low in terms of visual impact. There will be a barely perceptibledifference to the human eye on the main carriageway itself and oblique views across57

the junction area will not perceive a significant difference other than the elevation ofthe over bridge section and its associated lighting. Those receptors with direct viewstowards the over bridge section will have a slightly increased impact over and abovethe physical influence of the construction itself.Along the roads local to Elkesley Village, the change of lighting specification andinstallation to current design standards will raise lighting intensities from thoseexisting. However, in terms of road safety and pedestrian safety (reducing fear ofcrime and improving surveillance) there will be a benefit. The proposed light fittingswill control light sources more efficiently than existing, enabling more targeteddirection of light and a reduction of ambient light spillage.7.7 MitigationMitigation proposals form an integral part of the overall road design proposals. Theycomprise a combination of earthworks, planting and grassland measures, based onbroad objectives. These are:• Successful integration of the new route into the existing local landscapestructure. This may include enhancement of the local landscape or specificfeatures where appropriate.• The key issues surrounding the proposed design and engineering which haveshaped the approach to mitigation for Landscape Effects are as follows.• Integration into the local environment, and the screening and filtering of lowlevel visual clutter and vehicle movements as far as practical.• The creation of a strong, unified landscape framework utilising tree, shrub andscrub planting and grassland• The utilisation of native species found locally.• To explore the opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement, and theprotection and enhancement of areas of existing vegetation as far as practicalwithin the design requirements of the new scheme.• The development of screening proposals primarily with vegetation• The design of earthworks in such a manner as to create a smooth transitioninto the existing topography.Landscape Design PrinciplesThe following principles have guided the overall landscape design approach adoptedin the assessment.• To ensure that the road alignment achieves best fit with local landform andrespects existing landscape character.• To conserve existing planting as far as is possible and enhance the existingplanting structure, where appropriate.58

• To optimise protection for residents and users of open space and publicfacilities through the use of earthworks and planting.• To minimise loss or damage to sites of ecological interest and enhance localdiversity, where appropriate.Earthworks PrinciplesThe following principles have guided the overall earthworks mitigation approachadopted in the assessment.• Modification of engineering slopes to create a natural rolling effect in keepingwith the existing surrounding topography.• Modification of embankment and cutting slopes by relaxing and slackeningthe gradient to allow land to be returned to agriculture, where appropriate.• Softening changes in slope at junctions and over-bridges by smoothing outtransitions.Planting PrinciplesThe following principles have guided the overall planting design approach adopted inthe assessment.• Retention of existing trees, hedgerows and vegetation as far as practicable,augmented by the introduction of new hedgerows to restore linkages betweensevered hedgerows.• Avoidance of planting across open tracts of land other than where planting isrequired for essential screening purposes.• Use of redundant field corners and landlocked areas for mitigation, to add tothe overall landscape resource of the area.• Use of mass planting at junctions and over-bridges to help assimilate andscreen extensive and complex engineering arrangements into the locallandscape pattern.• Use of visual interesting soft landscape elements to establish local identityand benefit the user's experience of the scheme.• Utilization of ecological principles in developing the planting proposals toaddress screening/integration and biodiversity issues.Landscape ElementsLandscape elements are divided into broad classification types which are then subdividedinto detailed design elements based upon their stated function. The following59

sections describe the proposed landscape types which have been adopted as part ofthe mitigation strategy.A number of planting and seeding forms have been adopted to reflect the landscapecharacter found throughout the proposed junction area.GrasslandThree types of grassland mix are proposed:• Species Rich Grassland - This would typically be a specifically selected‘wildflower mix’ used for open areas that would not be returned to agriculturaluse• Open Grassland - This would typically be a standard ‘verge and roadside mix’used for a substantial part of the open grassed areas on cutting slopes.• Agricultural Grassland - This would typically be a standard ‘agricultural mix’used on slopes identified for returning to agricultural use.Native PlantingThree types of native planting are proposed:• Linear Belts of Shrubs and Trees – Structural planting in a linear layoutcomprising a mixture of appropriate native trees and shrubs. This mix isproposed where integration with the surrounding landscape is sought, butwhere space restricts the use of standard woodland mixtures. Areas ofearthwork embankment would apply to this approach.• Shrubs with Intermittent Trees - Planting comprising a mixture of common,native shrub species appropriate to the locality but which contain a smallproportion of individual or groupings of trees. This mix is proposed wherevariation in species, structure and height is required. Areas of earthworkembankment would apply to this approach.• Shrubs - Planting comprising native, lower growing shrub species common into the locality. This mix is proposed where taller tree species growth is notdeemed necessary or where areas containing built form require softening. It isalso applicable in areas proposed to provide some ecological diversity orforaging habitat for wildlife.Hedges• Native Hedgerow with Trees - Planting comprising mixed hedgerowscontaining common individual hedgerow trees. This planting is proposedwhere linkages to existing field patterns are to be restored, and in locationswhere the route severs existing fields and boundaries. It would also be usedas a means of augmenting screening proposals for specific visual receptors.Mixed species hedgerows with hedgerow trees are proposed to support theinterests of landscape and ecological diversity.60

Detailed Mitigation ProposalsThe following mitigation measures have been introduced in progression of thescheme design following its selection as the preferred version at Stage 2. Themeasures provide levels of benefit, both in terms of landscape character and visualeffects that have been taken into consideration within the assessment of impactssection for both Landscape Character and Visual Effects.• The re-alignment of Coalpit Lane allows the retention of the existing hedgeline fronting the properties along Pepperly Rise. The new road alignmentallows further scope for introducing mitigation planting in the form of additionalhedge lines with intermittent trees, together with potential shrub/tree plantingon the land between proposed and existing road alignments.• Marginal planting to either side of the re-aligned junction to the western fringeof Elkesley would reduce the impact of direct views from properties on thewestern end of the High Street, both in context of the proposed junction areaand the existing A1(T) corridor.• A small additional land-take along the northern fringe of the proposed accessroad from Jockey Lane would provide scope for additional mitigation plantingin the form of a hedge line and shrub/tree planting. This would further help toreduce visual impacts on The Gables property by partially screening both theaccess route and traffic movement along the main A1(T) road corridor.7.8 Residual EffectsLandscape Character:The proposed junction is located within the context of the existing A1(T) corridor as itbypasses the village of Elkesley. It is predominantly rolling arable farmland in whichthe A1(T) locally predominates and which influences the open aspects of the locallandscape setting. The nature of the terrain means that widespread character changeis not an issue; it is considered that the level of change experienced locally is one oferosion of an already impacted agricultural character.The village of Elkesley itself remains most severely influenced in character by theproximity of the A1(T) corridor as it bypasses the village directly along its northernedge. The presence of the new junction will have a slight change to the perception ofthe wider landscape from the village, but will not affect the character of the villageitself.Areas to the east and south of the village will be unaffected by the proposal.In summary, the collective impact on landscape character was considered to be inthe order of slight and adverse. As mitigation planting establishes on embankmentsand re-instated/new hedgerow planting this will help integrate the new elements ofroad construction more fully. The western margin of the village will continue toexperience its current sense of separation from the route corridor, with limitedconstruction on the south side of the carriageway.Visual Impacts:61

The major visual impacts relate to properties in and around the western margins ofElkesley Village, in particular those properties sited along Coalpit Lane/Pepperly Risethat have unrestricted views of the existing A1(T) corridor and the proposed junctionarea.The siting of the major access related construction elements to the north of the A1(T)carriageway helps to minimise the visual effects experienced by these properties,although it is accepted that the magnitude of change is high and that impacts will beexperienced. The re-alignment of Coalpit Lane will provide scope for mitigationplanting that will help create filtered views of the junction area as the vegetationmatures. Similarly, the planting associated with the junction itself will soften the visualprominence of the junction. The elevation of the over bridge will be a new and visibleelement within the landscape, although set below the visible horizon level to viewsfrom the west and south.Isolated properties to the north of the scheme along Jockey Lane, despite thepresence of existing and mature garden boundary vegetation will be subject toincreased visual impacts due to the increased proximity of road networks andearthworks linking with the A1(T) corridor. Mitigation planting will moderate thisimpact over time and provide a means of visual protection from the existing A1(T)carriageway, although the relative proximity of the access road alignment will remain.Lighting:Lighting proposals in respect of landscape will not substantially alter the character ofthe setting. The presence of the existing A1(T) corridor means that the baselineimpacts already experienced would not markedly change under the new proposals.There will be an increase in elevation of lighting at the over bridge section, althoughin terms of landscape character it will be the cumulative effect of the bridge structurethat will impose the most influence.New lighting proposals local to Elkesley Village (along the western edge of the HighStreet and along Coalpit Lane) will again not substantially impact on residentialareas. While there would be a modest increase in lighting output, this would bedirected more efficiently with new lighting columns/lamps and provide a saferperceived environment for local traffic and pedestrian safety.Lighting proposals would replace existing out of date lighting arrangements whereappropriate and would be in accordance with current standards and legislation.62

8 Land Use8.1 Findings at Stage 2 AssessmentThe Stage 2 assessment indicated that an area of arable land would be required onthe northern end of the development footprint to make provisions for a 3-armroundabout which exits to Jockey Lane and the southbound A1(T). There would be aneed to close 5 field accesses and the existing junction of the A1(T). One large fieldto the north of the scheme would be severed and another area would becomeinaccessible. The Land take for the Preferred Version was calculated at 66,000 m2,.8.2 Reason for Scoping OutThe Preferred Version requires land take of grade 3 agricultural land currently usedfor arable crops. It would result in severance of viable agricultural land, however withthe provision of alternative access where field accesses have been closed,severance related impacts would be avoided. It is therefore considered that therewould be no significant land use impacts as a result of the proposals and thereforeno further assessment is required.63

9 Noise and Vibration9.1 IntroductionNoise Assessment of the potential impacts associated with Stage 3 of the proposedA1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements Scheme has been carried out for both theconstruction phase and following the opening of the scheme.The Preferred Option consists of construction of a two-level junction and local roadlinks to improve access to Elkesley and the closure of gaps in the central reservationin order to improve safety.The potential impacts of the proposed improvement are:• Changes in traffic noise levels due to the alterations to the A1(T), in particularthose arising from a proposed reinstatement of the 70mph national speed limiton the A1(T); and• Noise and vibration impacts during the construction phase.The assessment of any potential traffic noise impacts associated with the proposedscheme have been assessed in accordance with the methodology described withinVolume 11, Section 3, Part 7 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HA213/08(DMRB).As demonstrated within the scope of the noise and vibration assessment presentedbelow the assessment was only required to be undertaken to a DMRB HA213/08“Simple Level”. This was as a direct result of the nature of the scheme, the results ofthe noise assessment and the methodology of the DMRB assessment. However, inorder to present a more robust assessment of the scheme the acoustic worksundertaken go above and beyond those normally required for a “Simple Level”assessment.Noise TerminologyBefore presenting the assessment of the potential noise impacts of the proposedscheme, it is considered useful to provide some background information on noise,the units of measurement and perception of changing levels by the human ear.Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is measured in units referred to as decibels(dB). The decibel is a logarithmic measure of sound pressure i.e. the magnitude ofthe pressure vibrations in the air. The audible range of sound pressure levels isknown to be between 0 dB (the threshold of hearing) to 120 dB (the threshold ofpain).The scale of sound pressure levels is logarithmic in order to account for the responseof the human hearing system to changes in noise level, which is also logarithmicrather than linear in response. A subjective impression of a doubling of loudness isrepresented by a 10 fold increase in the sound pressure level. This equates to anincrease of 3 dB. It is considered that the general public will not detect a change innoise level less than 1 dB under normal conditions and 3dB is usually considered asthe minimum perceptible change in noise level, again under normal conditions.64

The frequency response of the human ear is usually taken to be about 20 Hz(number of oscillations per second) to 20,000 Hz. However, the human ear does notrespond equally to different frequencies at the same noise level, it is more sensitivein the mid-frequency range than the lower and higher frequencies.Therefore when undertaking the measurement of noise the low and high frequencycomponents of any given sound are reduced in importance by applying a filtering(weighting) circuit to the noise measuring instrument. The weighting which is mostwidely used and which correlates best with the subjective nature of human responseto noise is the A-weighted filter set. This is an internationally accepted standard fornoise measurements.With regard to the ‘loudness’ of a noise, this is a purely subjective parameter,dependant not only upon the sound pressure of the event but also on the dynamicsof the listener’s ear, the time of the day and the general mood of the person.Table 9.1 below gives an indication of example Sound Pressure Levels (SPLs) fortypical known activities.Table 9.1 - The level of typical common sounds on the dB(A) scaleTypical ActivitiesdB(A)Threshold of hearing 0Quiet Bedroom 35Communication starts becoming difficult 55Busy general office 60Passenger car at 60km/h at 7m 71Twin engined jet during take off at 152m 82Heavy diesel lorry at 40km/h at 7m 85Pneumatic drill at 7m 95Threshold of pain 120Noise Impacts from Road TrafficThe sources of noise from road traffic can be separated into two components:1) Mechanical noise generated from the engine, exhaust and transmissionsystems of vehicles; this is the dominant noise source when traffic is not freelyflowing; and2) Noise generated from the interaction of vehicle tyres with the road surface;this is the dominant noise source under free flow traffic conditions at moderate tohigh road speeds.65

The main factors that influence the noise from traffic at a receptor are:• traffic flow;• speed and composition;• road gradient; and• road surface characteristics.The noise level at a particular reception point will also be affected by other factorsincluding the distance from the noise source, the nature of the intervening groundsurface and the presence of any obstructions.Existing Road NetworkThe A1(T) Trunk Road between Peterborough and Blyth is a strategically importantroute linking the southwest and the east coast ports with the northeast of England.Studies carried out by the Highways Agency (HA) during the draft A1(T)Peterborough and Blyth Route Management Strategy (A1(T) RMS) highlighted thataccess to and from the A1(T) at Elkesley were very poor and relied solely on the useof gaps in the central reservation. There are two central reservation gaps along theA1(T) at Elkesley. As a consequence, during congestion or incidents, access toElkesley is very difficult.Noise from road traffic around the Elkesley junctions is dominated by the A1(T),which is of dual carriageway standard and other roads within the vicinity which are ofsingle carriageway standard. Elkesley lies to the south of the A1(T) and is accesseddirectly off the A1(T) carriageway, at junctions at either end of the village.From the analysis of the traffic data, a site visit and knowledge of the A1(T) acquiredfrom other schemes within the area it is concluded that traffic on the A1(T) comprisesof a high percentage of HGVs.Furthermore, during the site visit it was apparent that Elkesley also experiences asignificant amount of HGV traffic along Pepperly Rise, travelling between the A1(T)and a large haulage yard on the outskirts of the village. This was corroborated byanalysis of the traffic data for the road.Scheme DescriptionIt is proposed to improve safety and access at Elkesley by constructing a new twoleveljunction and a local link road to Jockey Lane northwest of Elkesley and closingthe central reservation gaps. The existing speed limit of 50 mph (80 km/h) will beraised to 70 mph (97 km/h) on the A1(T).9.2 Policy and LegislationThe Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), HA213/08, Volume 11, Section3, Part 7, provides advice on the assessment of noise and vibration impacts due to66

oad traffic. It does not provide procedures for calculating noise from road traffic;instead it provides guidance on assessing the potential magnitude of impact ofchanges in noise and vibration levels on sensitive receptors.Calculation of Road Traffic MemorandumThe Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) Memorandum describes theprocedures for calculating noise from road traffic. It is necessary to follow theseprocedures when determining entitlement under the Noise Insulation Regulationsdescribed below. It also provides guidance appropriate for the calculation of roadtraffic noise for the environmental assessment of road schemes.The procedures described in CRTN set out requirements for traffic flow, monitoring ofexisting traffic conditions, the type of ground cover, heights and distances ofcalculations, propagation of noise and barriers.The Land Compensation Act 1973Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 includes provision for compensation forloss in property value resulting from physical agents including noise. Part II includesprovision for noise mitigation measures at dwellings adjacent to new highways ifcertain conditions are satisfied.The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 as Amended 1988Under the conditions specified in The Noise Insulation Regulations (NIR) 1975 (asamended in 1988) residential properties may qualify for an offer of noise insulation.In respect of road traffic noise, properties may qualify if all four of the followingconditions are satisfied:The property must be within 300 m of the nearest point of the new or alteredcarriageway;1. The Facade Noise Level due to road traffic on any highway (the “Relevant”noise level) for the design year, or for any intervening year if the noise level ishigher, must equal or exceed 68 dB LA1(T)0,18h, (the “specified” level), withlevels of 67.5 dB LA1(T)0,18h rounded upwards;2. The “Relevant” noise level for the design year, or for any intervening year ifnoisier, must be at least 1 dB LA1(T)0,18h higher than the pre-constructionyear road traffic noise level (the Prevailing Noise Level); and3. Noise from the new or altered road must contribute at least 1 dB LA1(T)0,18hto the “Relevant” noise level.The Highway Authority has a duty under these Regulations to offer Sound Insulationfor residential properties with respect to a new road, and discretionary powers inrelation to altered roads. Various discretionary powers are also available in relation tofaçades or parts of façades contiguous with a qualifying façade. The Regulationsapply to habitable rooms and so exclude bathrooms, toilets, halls and kitchens thatdo not include dining areas.67

Some residential buildings are not eligible under the Regulations. These includehouses first occupied after the opening date. This is the date a new road was firstopened to public traffic or an altered road was opened following completion of thealteration.In the United Kingdom, the Noise Advisory Council recommended (10/1973) thatexisting residential development should not be subjected, as an act of consciouspolicy, to external noise levels in excess of 70 dB LA1(T)0,18h unless some form ofremedial or compensatory action is taken. They also stressed that this levelconstitutes the limit of the acceptable rather than a standard of what is desirable.This is the basis for the 68 dB(A) criterion that is the specified level for soundinsulation to be provided in the England and Wales, under the NIR 1988.BS 5228, 2009 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control onConstruction and Open Sites’ Parts 1 and 2This standard contains guidance on the prediction of noise levels at sensitivereceptors from the operation of fixed and mobile noise sources found on constructionsites. It provides sound level data for various machinery and tasks associated withthe construction phase of a site. It also contains information pertaining to mitigation ofnoise from a construction site.The document provides details of 2 example methodologies for determining thesignificance of construction noise impacts.Other Legislation and PolicyIn addition to the guidance documents listed above, the following legislation andguidance have been considered in the production of this assessment:• Control of Pollution Act 1974;• Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005;• Environmental Protection Act 1990; and• Environmental Noise (Wales) Regulations 2006 No.2626 (W.225).9.3 Scope of Works and Method AssessmentScope of the AssessmentIn order to assess any potential impacts of noise and vibration from road trafficassociated with the proposed scheme, guidance contained within DMRB (HA213/08)has been used. With regard to noise the DMRB follows a staged process in order todetermine which level of assessment is most appropriate to identify potential impacts.As part of this assessment, DMRB Screening and Scoping Assessments wereundertaken. The results of the Screening Assessment indicated that a change innoise level of more than 1 dB(A) may occur due to the change in traffic flow andspeed on the A1(T). Consequently, a Scoping Assessment was carried out.68

The results of the Scoping Assessment identified sensitive receptors within twokilometres of the proposed scheme that had the potential to be affected by anadverse or beneficial change in noise or vibration. Therefore, a Simple LevelAssessment was deemed required.This Simple Level Assessment has focused on the identification of changes in trafficrelatednoise impacts associated with the proposed scheme. The assessmentconsidered impacts for potentially sensitive receptors identified both within theexisting A1(T) corridor and those close to the proposed new slip and access roads.The scope of the assessment has been identified through consideration of thefollowing points:• Consultation with Environmental Health Officers (EHO) at Bassetlaw DistrictCouncil (BDC) to determine the type of noise assessment to be undertaken,taking into account any information on existing noise levels and noisenuisance;• Review of the proposed scheme, including existing and predicted traffic flows;• Identification of baseline noise levels along the existing and proposed routesby undertaking a short-term noise monitoring surveys for background noiselevels and model verification; and• Computer-based noise model predictions to quantify the traffic noiseassociated with the operational phase of the proposed scheme.The assessment has considered the potential for construction noise and vibration toresult in nuisance for residents or structural damage to properties within theproposed scheme corridor. The potential for traffic-related vibration during theoperational phase of the proposed scheme has also been considered.The results of the DMRB HA213/08 Simple level assessment undertaken informedthat due to the level of the predicted impacts associated with the proposed schemeno further assessment, beyond a Simple level assessment would be required.However, to provide a robust assessment of the scheme as proposed additionalassessment works, above that required at a Simple level have been undertaken.Method of AssessmentAssessment of the impact of noise and vibration in accordance with the DMRB(HA213/08) “Simple” level assessment requires a comparison of the predicted noiselevels resulting from the proposed scheme in operation (do something) with the preexisting(baseline) levels (do minimum). The predicted changes may then be judgedagainst known subjective effects and quantified with a view to minimising the impactof the scheme and assisting the design of suitable mitigation measures.For the purpose of this assessment, an impact is defined as a change in road trafficnoise level resulting from the scheme. An effect is the resulting effect on people andthe environment, for example, subjective annoyance.69

The ambient noise level in an area is defined as the total noise level experienced. Itmay result from a combination of several individual sources such as road traffic,aircraft, industrial and human activities. Such noise levels generally fluctuate withtime and may be described by a variety of indices.The index adopted in the UK for assessing road traffic noise is the dB LA1(T)0,18hlevel, defined as the arithmetic mean of the dB(A) noise level exceeded for 10% ofthe time in each of the 18, one-hour periods between 6 a.m. and midnight on atypical weekday. A reasonably good correlation has been shown to exist betweenthis index and residents’ dissatisfaction with traffic noise.Details of the assessment methodology and the specific issues considered areprovided in the following sections.Construction Phase Assessment MethodologyThe construction phase of a development is often the period in which potential noiseimpact is greatest. There are difficulties in applying the same noise control measuresto temporary construction activities as to fixed and permanent installations oroperations. The reasons for this are as follows:Measures imposed to control noise levels can be restrictive to construction activitiesand could result in unreasonable prolonging of the site works and constructionprogramme;• Construction sites are not fixed and may change according to the demands ofthe construction programme;• Construction activities, in the initial stages, are normally conducted outdoorswithout the noise-attenuating effect of fixed buildings; and• The use of mobile plant machinery/equipment during construction works canreduce the scope for fixed noise control measures.Advice and guidelines with regard to noise and vibration associated with constructionand open sites to local planning authorities and developers can be found in the 2009revision of the British Standard document BS 5228. This document presents withinAnnex E two example methodologies that could be employed in order to determinethe significance of construction noise levels considering the change in ambient noiselevels as a result of the construction operations. These methods are as defined anddiscussed in detail below:The document further defines situations where insulation or re-housing would beappropriate and example criteria for the assessment and conclusion of such.BS5228 Example Method 1 – The ABC MethodThe BS5228 ABC method is based upon threshold noise levels defined by both timeand existing ambient noise levels.The method requires the ambient pre construction noise level to be determined androunded to the nearest 5dB. This ambient noise level would then be compared to thetotal noise level which would contain noise associated with the construction70

operations. If the total noise level exceeds the appropriate category value then asignificant effect is deemed to have occurred.The threshold/category values and definitions are contained within Table E.1 ofannex E of BS5228 and reiterated within Table 9.2 below:Table 9.2 – BS5228 Example Method 1 – ABC MethodAssessment category and threshold Threshold value, in decibels (dB)value period (L Aeq ) Category A A) Category B B) Category C C)Night-time (23:00 – 07:00) 45 50 55Evening and Weekends D) 55 60 65Daytime (07:00 -19:00) and Saturdays65 70 75(07:00 – 13:00)NOTE 1 A significant effect has been deemed to occur if the total L Aeq noise level, includingconstruction, exceeds the threshold level for the Category appropriate to the ambient noiselevel.NOTE 2 If the ambient noise level exceeds the threshold values given in the table (i.e. theambient noise level is higher than the above values), then a significant effect is deemed tooccur if the total LAeq noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due toconstruction activity.NOTE 3 Applied to residential receptors only.A) Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to thenearest 5 dB) are less than these valuesB) Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to thenearest 5 dB) are the same as category A valuesC) Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to thenearest 5 dB) are higher than category A valuesD) 19:00 – 23:00 weekdays, 13:00 – 23:00 Saturdays and 07:00 – 23:00 Sundays.BS5228 Example Method 2 – 5 dB(A) ChangeThe BS5228 5 dB(A) change method is based upon the premise that a significanteffect is deemed to occur if the total noise (pre construction ambient plusconstruction noise) exceeds the pre construction ambient noise by 5dB or more.The criterion is detailed to be subject to lower cut-off values of 65dB, 55dB and 45dBLAeq, period from construction noise alone, for the daytime, evening and night-timeperiods respectively. The criteria further requires that for a significant effect to occurthe total noise level must exceed the pre construction ambient noise for a duration ofone month or more, unless works of a shorter duration are likely to result insignificant impactsVibration due to ConstructionDuring the construction phase of a scheme there is a potential, depending upon thecompetency of the ground conditions that pile driving, or other similar groundstabilisation operations may need to be employed. Such plant has the potential toresult in ground-borne vibration which, depending upon the geology of the71

surrounding ground and the separation distances involved could become perceptibleat adjacent sensitive receptors.If the construction phase involves the demolition of existing structures, vibration mayalso occur as a result of the impact of large sections of the structure on the ground.In addition, small construction plant such as generators may have the potential tocause limited vibration in very close proximity.Significant vibration from construction activities has the potential to result in structuraldamage to buildings, such as cracking of walls and plaster coverings. However,vibration can be perceived by people at much lower levels than those applicable tostructural damage. Human response to vibration levels is influenced by the durationof vibration events (temporary or long-term) and an individual’s perception.Table 9.3 below summaries the guidance of BS 7385 with respect to damage criteria.The table presents thresholds at which vibration from construction activities mayresult in structural damage as measured in Peak Particle Velocity (PPV).It is stated within BS7385 that “Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) has been found to be thebest single descriptor” of vibration induced damage. The standard recommends thesimultaneous measurement of the three orthogonal components of particle velocity(Longitudinal, Vertical and Transverse) in order to attain the maximum value in anyplane. The figures stated below relate to this maximum value.Table 9.3 - Significance criteria of structural damage from construction vibrationBuilding/LocationIndustrial/Heavy Commercial BuildingResidential/Light Commercial BuildingThreshold Criterion mm/s50 mm/s at 4Hz and above15 mm/s at 4Hz,20 mm/s at 15Hz50 mm/s at 40Hz and aboveTable 9.4 below summarises the guidance of BS 6472 with respect to humanperception thresholds. The table presents values at which vibration from constructionactivities are likely to result in adverse comment from occupiers in terms of 16hrdaytime (07:00 – 23:00) and 8hr night time (23:00 – 07:00) Vibration Dose Values(VDV).Vibration Dose Value (VDV) can be defined as the relationship between the durationof the exposure and the magnitude of a vibration event for the assessment ofimpulsive and intermittent vibration. VDV is a time dependant based parameterwhereby “a two fold decrease in vibration magnitude is equivalent to a 16 folddecrease in the duration of the vibration”. This is due to the relationship between theexposure and magnitude, which is defined by the fourth root of the integral of thefourth power of the frequency weighted acceleration.72

Table 9.4 - Significance criteria of human perception of construction vibrationBuilding/Location Period Threshold Criterion mm/sResidential Building Day-time 0.4 – 0.8 mm/sResidential Building Night-time 0.26 mm/sOperational Phase Assessment MethodologyIn order to assess the operational phase of the development modelling of the schemeand calculation of noise levels at sensitive receptor locations was undertaken for fivescenarios as detailed within Section 3.3:The future impact of noise from the altered road network has been assessed atsensitive receptor locations within 600m of roads where existing traffic is likely toincrease by at least 25% or be reduced by at least 20% due to the scheme.Predictions were undertaken in accordance with CRTN and based on the traffic flowsforecast for the surrounding road network in the projected year of opening (2011) andfifteen years hence (2026), considered to be the ‘worst case’ design year.Road traffic noise levels for the scheme have been calculated using NoiseMapServer Edition, a computer modelling software package which follows themethodology contained in CRTN. The CRTN procedure is valid for receptorsbetween 4m and 300m from the road.The noise level predictions are compared against the existing measured noise levelsdetermined during the baseline survey. The likelihood of disturbance to residentsliving nearby will be determined by assessment against the criteria contained withinDMRB and other relevant standards and guidelines.Assessment of Noise Nuisance from Road TrafficWhen planning a scheme, which has the potential to alter traffic noise in an areathrough changes in flow-rates, vehicle speeds or re-alignment of the road, animportant factor to be taken into account is whether the resultant noise levels areacceptable in relation to the existing environment. The results of social surveyinvestigations have enabled judgements to be made on the average response ofpeople to traffic noise.Such surveys have indicated that external traffic noise levels of up to 55 dB(A) areacceptable to a large majority of the population. Internally, noise generated bynormal domestic activities could be expected to mask the influence of traffic noise(allowing for the sound insulation of the building façades). As traffic noise increases,the level of public dissatisfaction increases accordingly. It has been found that asubstantial proportion of the population would be annoyed, in their homes, by trafficnoise when the external levels exceed 70 dB(A).The DMRB methodology quantifies changes in noise nuisance based on predictedchanges in traffic noise levels generated by the road scheme. Graphs and tablescontained in DMRB show the relationship between noise level change and thepercentage of population bothered by change. The relationship between the steadystate noise level and the percentage of population bothered is also detailed. This73

information is used to determine the noise effects of a scheme both in the short- andlong-term within a “detailed” level assessment.The assessment method dictates that the effect of the immediate change on openingis considered in addition to that in the long-term, usually fifteen years hence.Research has indicated that individuals are more sensitive to abrupt changes innoise but that some habituation occurs over a long-period. The worst-case change isused for the assessment, which is generally the short-term abrupt change followingthe opening of the scheme and 15 years hence.Magnitude of Noise Impact CriteriaSubjective reaction to changes in noise varies widely between individuals and factorssuch as the tonal and temporal character of the noise as well as the time of day havea bearing on an individual’s perception of a noise. The noise change bands given inthe DMRB broadly reflect subjective reaction and are related to an appropriatemagnitude of noise impact which has been adopted for this assessment. These aresummarised within Table 9.5.Table 9. 5 - Classification of magnitude of noise impactNoise Change L A1(T)0, 18h dBMagnitude of Impact0 No change0.1 - 0.9 Negligible1 - 2.9 Minor3 - 4.9 Moderate5 + MajorThe existing DMRB (HA213/08) methodology does not contain criteria for assessingthe overall significance level of noise according to both the value of a receptor (i.e. itssensitivity) and the magnitude of impact (see Table 9.5 ). A change of 1 dB(A) in theshort-term is the smallest that is considered perceptible. In the long-term, a 3 dB(A)change is considered perceptible, and as such mitigation should be consideredabove this level.Assessment of Vibration from Road TrafficExtensive research has shown that there is little evidence to indicate that vibrations,at the level induced by road traffic, cause damage to roadside buildings or structures.Nevertheless, traffic-induced vibrations can be a source of annoyance to local peopleand can be perceived at much lower levels. Under normal conditions lower limit ofthe human perception of vibration is at around 1.5 mm/sec PPV (Peak PartialVelocity). The PPV for cosmetic damage to residential properties occurs at levels inexcess of 20 mm/sec at frequencies of 15 Hz to 40 Hz.• Significance Criteria of Vibration from Road TrafficThe DMRB notes a correlation between the percentage people bothered very muchor quite a lot by vibration nuisance and LA1(T)0 18 hr levels. However for a givenlevel of noise exposure the percentage of people bothered very much or quite a lotby vibration is 10% lower than the corresponding figure for noise nuisance. Where74

noise levels are below 58 dB LA1(T)0 18 hr it should be assumed that 0% would bebothered.The DMRB further states that it is unlikely for vibration from road to be perceivedoutside of 40m from the carriageway edge, as such vibration need not be consideredfrom road traffic sources outside of this corridor.Assessment Years and ScenariosThe noise assessment has been undertaken based upon five scenarios. The detailsof each scenario modelled are provided below:• The baseline (2007);• 2011 Do-Minimum (DM) without scheme;• 2026 DM without scheme;• 2011 Do-Something (DS) with scheme; and• 2026 DS with scheme.Traffic DataThe traffic data set used within this assessment was provided by the Mouchel TrafficTeam and is summarised within the Traffic Statement (TS) relating to this scheme.Study AreaIn order to determine the potential area of noise impact, it is necessary to identifyroads that are affected by the proposed scheme.An affected road is defined as a new, altered or existing road which is predicted toexperience the following;• A change in traffic flow of an increase of at least 25% or a reduction of atleast 20%;• A change in vehicle composition (e.g. percentage HGV) or traffic speed;• Alteration to the alignment; and• Changes to the surrounding infrastructure (e.g. road surface, barriers,bridges).The above criteria will generally result in a change in the noise level of at least 1dB(A). An abrupt change of 1 dB(A) is generally accepted as a threshold ofsignificance and equates to the minimum noise change that people can perceive.75

According to the DMRB (HA213/08) the area of potential impact of noise is within600m of affected roads. The study area for potential vibration impact is within 40m ofaffected roads.The proposed scheme is not expected to produce changes in traffic flow or traffictype, such as the percentage of heavy goods vehicles. The change in noise due totraffic, which will result following completion of the scheme, will be due to an increasein traffic speed as well as the introduction of new slip roads to access the local roadnetwork.• Sensitive Receptor LocationsFaçade noise levels have been specifically predicted at nine identified residentialproperties which would be directly affected by noise from the A1(T). These arelocated both within Elkesley itself and at more isolated locations in the surroundingarea. Figure 3.1 shows the receptor locations used in this assessment. Noise contourmaps have been produced covering these nine receptors, which all lie within 600 mof the A1(T).Sensitive receptor locations also include areas or locations that are especiallysensitive to noise, for example community facilities, public rights of way anddesignated areas (e.g. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, andSites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).The following sensitive receptors for this scheme have been identified:• St. Giles Church – High St. – 107 m from A1(T)• Elkesley Primary School – off Headland Ave. – 311 m from A1(T)• Elkesley Memorial Hall – off High St. –187 m from A1(T)Locations that have the potential to be affected to a greater extent by vibrationimpacts include occupants of hospitals, education establishments, and laboratoriescontaining sensitive instruments. It is also prudent to consider areas or features ofecological, archaeological, or historic value within the study area.Within the scope of the noise model constructed all properties within the study areahave been assumed to be 6 m in height. All receiver points in the noise model havebeen calculated at 1.5 m in height. The intervening ground between the modelledroads and receiver points has been assumed to be hard and reflective and be subjectto a positive wind vector from source to receiver.9.4 Baseline EnvironmentAmbient Noise SurveyWhilst within a “Simple” level assessment monitoring is not specifically required it canbe undertaken where deemed appropriate.Within the scope of this assessment noise monitoring was considered necessary.The purpose of the monitoring was to establish noise levels for the verification of theresults of the noise model. The monitoring undertaken is representative of the noise76

climate for a typical day on the existing traffic network. Furthermore the surveyenabled the ascertaining of the influence of other non-traffic noise sources in thearea.The survey was undertaken fully attended by competent Mouchel employees on the18th and 19th March 2009 at two locations, for a period of 3 hours at each. Themeteorological conditions during the measurement period were noted to be dry, withwind speeds measured to be below 3 m/s and an ambient air temperature ofbetween 7 and 8ºC.Figure 3.1 shows the locations of the measurement positions.The baseline survey was undertaken in accordance with the principles of BS 7445and following the guidance given in CRTN.The instrumentation used for the survey was a Norsonic 118 Type 1 Sound LevelMeter (serial number 31787). The monitoring equipment was calibrated prior tocommencement and upon completion of the survey using a Norsonic 1251 calibrator(serial number 31461). The relevant calibration certificates for the equipment usedare contained in Appendix 1 of this report and are traceable to national standards.ResultsThe detailed data obtained during the noise level surveys are contained in Appendix2 of this report. A summary of the LA1(T)0, LA90, and LAeq T values are shown inTable 6.Along the A1(T) corridor ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicle movementson the A1(T).The other minor sources of noise within the area that contributed to the backgroundnoise levels included:• Aircraft flyover, in particular low-flying light aircraft from the nearby RetfordAirfield. Aircraft pass-bys were encountered on several occasions during thetwo 3 hour measurement periods;• Agricultural machinery operating in the area;• Wildlife, particularly birdsong.There are no industrial noise sources identified within the vicinity of the existingA1(T).Detailed below is a definition of each of the statistical parameters presented withinTable 6.LA1(T)0LA90is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for 10% of the sampleperiod; this parameter gives an indication of the upper limit of fluctuatingnoise, such as that from road traffic.is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for 90% of the sampleperiod; generally used to quantify background noise.77

LAeq,TLAMAXis the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level during the sampleperiod (T) and effectively represents an average energy value.is the maximum A-weighted sound level during the sample period; thehighest level of environmental noise during the measurement.Table 9.6 - Summary of ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Preferred OptionI.DMonitoringLocationLocationDescriptionTime(hrs)DateTimePerioddBL AeqOverall LeveldBL A1(T)0dBL A90dBL AMAXCommentsMP1JockeyLaneFree-field,1.5m aboveground,100m fromA1(T)carriageway,soft ground3 18/03/200910:15–13:1564.7 63.1 54.9 93.5Noisecaused byroad trafficmovementson A1(T),lightaircraft,HGVsMP2Yew TreeRoadFree-field,1.5m aboveground. 2mfrom YewTree Road,soft ground3 19/03/200910:15–13:1555.3 57.1 51.7 86.3Noisecaused byroad trafficmovementson A1(T),lightaircraft,HGVsWithin paragraph 43 of the CRTN document a procedure is presented for a“Shortened measurement procedure” where for practical reasons measurementcannot be undertaken over the full 18 hour period. The monitoring undertaken andreported above was undertaken in line with this shortened methodology acquiring 3hours worth of data at each location between the hours of 10:00 and 17:00.The shortened method then provides a formula for the conversion of the LA1(T)0,3hour to an LA1(T)0, 18hour as detailed below:LA1(T)0, 18hr = LA1(T)0, 3hr – 1dBDiscussion of the measured noise levels below concerns the corrected LA1(T)0,18hour levels as calculated from the measured LA1(T)0, 3 hour levels using theprocedure as outlined above.Noise Model PredictionsWithin the assessment of the proposed A1(T) Elkesley scheme noise levelsassociated with road traffic noise have been modelled using supplied traffic flow datafor 2007. Table 9.7 below details the results of this baseline modelling at the nine78

identified receptors within the study area and the two positions where ambient noisemonitoring was undertaken. Figure 3.2 shows the noise contours.Table 9.7 - 2007 Predicted ambient noise levelsI.DReceptor Location2007 Predicted AmbientNoise Level L 10, 18h dB(A)Monitored DataL 10, 18h dB(A)R01 1 Pepperly Rise 66.7 -R02 9 Coalpit Lane 71.2 -R03 Top Farm 72.8 -R04 The Gables, Jockey Lane 73.1 -R05 The Bungalow, Jockey Lane 69.8 -R06 1 High Street 81.8 -R07 14 Holly Bush Close 69.9 -R08 1 Robinson Close 64.3 -R09 Tea Table Cottage 80.6 -MP01 Jockey Lane 69.9 62.1MP02 Yew Tree Road 62.9 56.1Initial results from the NoiseMap model do not correlate closely with on-sitemeasurements made at the Jockey Lane receptor. The monitored LA1(T)0, 18hrlevel of 62.1 dB being some 7.8 dB lower than the predicted LA1(T)0, 18hr level of69.9 dB. The predicted LA1(T)0, 18hr 18hr level from the NoiseMap model at thereceptor on Yew Tree Road is 62.9 dB. Compared with the corrected monitoredLA1(T)0, 18hr level of 56.1 dB, there is a discrepancy of 6.8 dB.One reason for the potential discrepancies between the monitored and measurednoise levels is that the background noise survey was undertaken in March 2009whereas the baseline traffic data used within the noise model was dated 2007.Furthermore, the monitoring data may be lower due to potentially reduced trafficflows on the day that the measurements were taken, whereas the 18 hour AAWTdata used within the model is averaged over the whole year.It is also apparent that the monitoring results at both locations show a largedifference between the measured LA1(T)0 and LA90 values. This indicates that thereis a very low ambient background noise level in the area and that the predominantsource of noise is from road traffic. Therefore, at the nine receptor locations along theA1(T) as identified above, road traffic movements can justifiably be considered to bethe dominant noise source.79

VibrationSubjective observations were undertaken during the noise monitoring survey, whichindicated that there were no major sources of vibration in the vicinity of the proposedscheme. Therefore, neither baseline vibration monitoring nor a detailed assessmentof vibration would be required as the potential for vibration impact is deemed to beinsignificant.9.5 Potential ImpactsConstruction PhaseAt present, detailed information regarding construction phasing, timescales andprocesses on which to base a thorough assessment are not available. However, inorder to provide an indication of the potential impacts of this phase, qualitativeassessment of key construction activities typically associated with highwayconstruction works has been undertaken. Typically, the main stages of highwaysconstruction are as follows:• Top soil strip;• Bulk cuts;• Bulk fills;• Ground improvement layer; and• Laying of surface.Construction activities associated with developments of this type have the potential toresult in significant noise impacts dependent upon the proximity of existing sensitiveproperties, the need for significant earth moving and the use of ‘heavy’ plant andmachinery. The greatest impacts generally occur during the initial site establishmentstage when the ground is being prepared/excavated and the main infrastructure isbeing installed. Once this is complete, it is considered that general constructionactivities associated with the proposed scheme should give rise to lower noiseemissions.Increased noise may also result on the local road network due to an increasedvolume of HGV's travelling to and from the site during the construction programme(e.g. for import/export of raw materials, clean fill and waste). The potential effects ofthese sources on local receptors will be most significant in the vicinity of specificworks sites, which may change as development phases proceed.Given that exact details regarding construction techniques and types of plant likely tobe used are not available at present, it is difficult to predict accurately the potentialimpacts of construction noise on local receptors. Nevertheless, it is considereduseful to present potential worst-case noise levels from a selection of typicalconstruction plant, which may be used in a development such as this, and tocalculate noise levels back to different distances, which may reflect noise levels atlocal receptors. The noise levels calculated at distance from each item of plant donot take into account attenuation due to screening and have been based upon hardreflective ground between source and receiver as a worst-case scenario. The figures80

presented are also based upon a 100% ‘on’ time, which is unlikely to occur inpractice.Table 9.8 below presents details for plant which could reasonably be used during thedevelopment programme, with corresponding worst-case noise levels taken from BS5228.Table 9.8 – Potential Noise Levels of Construction PlantPlant Sound power Sound Pressure Level (dB LAeq)Level (dBLWA) 10m20m50m100m200m300mExcavators 118 90 84 76 70 64 60Dumper trucks 110 82 76 68 62 56 52Dozers 118 90 84 76 70 64 60Delivery lorries 105 77 71 63 57 51 47Concretedelivery lorry109 81 75 67 61 55 51Vibrating rollers 106 78 72 64 58 52 48Road roller (5km/h)101 73* 67* 59* 53* 47* 43**Drive by maximum sound pressure level, LpA (max), at speed in km/h shown in bracketsIt is considered that the potentially worst affected properties due to construction noisewould be those located directly adjacent to the new highway alignment, with lesserimpacts at those properties located further away and adjacent to the existing roadnetwork.Impacts to specific identified receptors during the construction phase are expected tobe relatively short-term in duration, although the exact duration over which impactsmight arise is not yet known.It is recommended that a range of good site practices, including ‘Best PracticableMeans’ (BS5228:1997), be adopted in order to mitigate against construction phasenoise and vibration impacts at local receptors. This will be undertaken in the form ofa Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which should includeprovision for a Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) plan. Examples of suchmeasures and techniques include:81

• Ensuring that mechanical plant and equipment used for the purpose of theworks are fitted with effective exhaust silencers and are maintained in goodworking order;• Careful selection of quiet plant and machinery to undertake the required workwhere available.• All major compressors should be ‘sound reduced’ models fitted with properlylined and sealed acoustic covers which should be kept closed whenever themachines are in use.• Any ancillary pneumatic percussive tools should be fitted with mufflers orsilencers of the type recommended by the manufacturers;• Machines in intermittent use should be shut down in the intervening periodsbetween work i.e. maintain a ‘no idling policy’;• Positioning of all ancillary plant such as generators, compressors and pumpsbehind existing physical barriers, and direction of noise emissions from plantincluding exhausts or engines away from sensitive locations, in order to causeminimum noise disturbance. Where possible in potentially sensitive areas,acoustic barriers or enclosures should be utilised around noisy plant andequipment. A well constructed 3 m high barrier of 10 mm softwood canreduce noise levels by 5 – 10 dB;• Handling of all materials in a manner which minimises noise;• Switching of all audible warning systems to the minimum setting required bythe Health and Safety Executive;• Adherence to the codes of practice for minimising noise emissions fromconstruction and piling works, including those provided in British Standard BS5228:1997.In order to reduce disturbance to local residents, the District Councils and affectedresidents should be kept informed of the works to be carried out, and of anyproposed work outside normal hours, especially night time works. The Contractorthroughout the construction phase should operate a complaints procedure whichshould ensure that any complaints or queries raised by residents are promptlyaddressed.It is also recommended that on-site monitoring of noise levels and constructionactivities be undertaken in order to verify the predicted worst-case noise levels andalso to ensure that all available and appropriate measures are implemented tominimise the potential impact upon local sensitive receptors.Construction Phase Residual EffectsWith appropriate mitigation measures implemented it is anticipated that noise levelsat sensitive receivers would comply with the construction noise criteria in Table 9.2.82

Operational PhaseTable 9.9 and Table 9.10 provide the predicted noise levels at the 9 selectedreceptor locations for the 2011 Do-Minimum, 2011 Do-Something, 2026 Do-Minimumand 2026 Do-Something scenarios. For each scenario, noise contour maps havebeen produced in 3 dB bands between 47.5 dB(A) and 83.5 dB(A) in accordance withthe requirements of the DMRB. Figures 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 show the noise contourmaps.A comparison of the change in noise level between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios has been undertaken in the Opening year of 2011 and theDesign year of 2026 in the form of level difference contours is shown in Figures 3.7and 3.8 respectively. The changes in level are displayed in bands between -+5dB as specified in the DMRB and used to define the significance criteriagiven in Table 9.5.A further comparison has been made of the change in noise level between the 2026(Design Year) Do-Something and 2011 (Opening Year) Do-Minimum scenarios. This+15 year difference would highlight any potential for qualification for sound insulationwithin dwellings if the level change they experience is above the 4 stage threshold forqualification under the NIR. A graphical representation of this comparison in the formof noise level difference contours is given in Figure 3.9.2011 Do-Minimum and Do-Something ScenariosTable 9.9 details the predicted noise levels and changes associated with theproposed scheme at the 9 identified receptor locations. Figure 3.7 is a graphicalrepresentation of this data.All of the receptors are predicted to experience an increase in noise level, 1 of anegligible amount (

R061 High Street82.1 83.8 1.7MinorR0714 Holly BushClose70.2 71.6 1.4MinorR081 Robinson Close64.6 65.9 1.3MinorR09Tea TableCottage80.8 82.1 1.3MinorFurthermore a simple increase/decrease assessment was undertaken in line with therequirements of the DMRB simple level assessment to all properties within the studyarea. Table 9.10 details the number of dwellings predicted to be subject to a changein noise level in the opening year due to the proposed scheme.Table 9.10 - Predicted number of dwellings subject to changes in noise levels in 2011between Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenariosChange in Noise Level, Number of Dwellings Subject to a Change in Noise LevelL A1(T)0, 18h dB Increase in Noise Level Decrease in Noise Level0 – 0.91 – 2.93 – 4.95+Total37 0228 00 00 0265 02026 Do-Minimum and Do-Something ScenariosTable 9.11 details the predicted noise levels and changes associated with thescheme at the 9 receptor locations. Figure 3.8 is a graphical representation of thesedata.The results largely mirror those found in the Opening Year of 2011, albeit with slightlyhigher overall levels, due to inherent traffic growth over the intervening 15 years.Again, all of the receptors are predicted to experience an increase in noise level, 1 ofa negligible amount and the remaining 8 having a minor adverse impact. R06 (1 HighStreet) is predicted to experience the greatest increase in noise level of +2.7 dB(A).84

Table 9.11 - Predicted noise levels and changes in 2026 for Do-Minimum and Do-SomethingscenariosI.DSensitiveReceptorLocationPredicted Ambient FaçadeNoise Level L 10, 18h dB(A)2026 Do-Minimum2026 Do-SomethingPredictedChangedB(A)Magnitude ofImpactR01 1 Pepperly Rise 67.5 69.7 2.2 MinorR02 9 Coalpit Lane 71.9 73.2 1.3 MinorR03 Top Farm 73.5 74.6 1.1 MinorR04R05The Gables,Jockey LaneThe Bungalow,Jockey Lane73.9 74.7 0.8 Negligible70.0 72.1 2.1 MinorR06 1 High Street 81.8 84.5 2.7 MinorR0714 Holly BushClose70.7 72.2 1.5 MinorR08 1 Robinson Close 65.0 66.5 1.5 MinorR09Tea TableCottage81.4 82.7 1.3 MinorTable 9.12 details the total number of dwellings within the study area predicted to besubject to a change in noise level in the design year of the Preferred Option asrequired within the scope of the DMRB Simple level assessment.Table 9.12 – Predicted number of dwellings subject to changes in noise levels in 2026between Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenariosChange in Noise Level, Number of Dwellings Subject to a Change in Noise LevelL A1(T)0, 18h dB Increase in Noise Level Decrease in Noise Level0 – 0.9 0 01 – 2.9 265 03 – 4.9 0 05+ 0 0Total 265 0Comparison of Opening Year to Design YearTable 9.13 details the predicted noise levels and changes associated with theproposed scheme at the nine receptor locations when comparing the 2026 Do-Something Scenario with the 2011 Do-Minimum Scenario. Figure 3.9 is a graphicalrepresentation of this data.85

This comparison shows the noise level change from immediately prior to opening tothe design year of 15 years after opening. It is the change in this level which wouldhighlight the potential for any receptors experiencing an increase in noise level toqualify for sound insulation under the NIR criteria.The results largely mirror those found in both the Opening Year and design yearcomparisons. All of the receptors are predicted to experience an increase in noiselevel having a minor adverse impact. R01 (1 Pepperly Rise) is predicted toexperience the greatest increase in noise level of +2.9 dB(A).Table 9.13 - Comparison of Opening year (2011) with Design year (2026)I.DSensitiveReceptorLocationPredicted Ambient FaçadeNoise Level L10, 18h dB(A)PredictedChangedB(A)Magnitude ofImpactR01 1 Pepperly Rise 66.8 69.7 2.9 MinorR02 9 Coalpit Lane 71.4 73.2 1.8 MinorR03 Top Farm 73.0 74.6 1.6 MinorR04R05The Gables,Jockey LaneThe Bungalow,Jockey Lane73.4 74.7 1.3 Minor70.1 72.1 2.0 MinorR06 1 High Street 82.1 84.5 2.4 MinorR0714 Holly BushClose70.2 72.2 2.0 MinorR08 1 Robinson Close 64.6 66.5 1.9 MinorR09Tea TableCottage80.8 82.7 1.9 MinorTable 9.14 details the number of dwellings predicted to be subject to a change innoise level when comparing do minimum in the opening year, which is the stateimmediately prior to opening and do something in the scheme design year, the “worstcase” situation.86

Table 9.14 - Predicted number of dwellings subject to changes in noise level between Do-Minimum (2011) and Do-Something (2026) scenariosChange in Noise Level, Number of Dwellings Subject to a Change in Noise LevelL A1(T)0, 18h dB Increase in Noise Level Decrease in Noise Level0 – 0.91 – 2.93 – 4.95+Total0 0265 00 00 0265 0Significant ImpactsDMRB guidance (HA213/08) does not contain criteria for assessing the overallsignificance level of noise according to both the value of a receptor (i.e. its sensitivity)and the magnitude of impact (Table 5).Table 9.13 shows that in the long-term i.e. between the Do-Minimum (2011) and Do-Something (2026) there are no dwellings subject to an increase in noise level ofgreater than 3dB (A).A change of 1 dB(A) in the short-term is the smallest that is considered perceptible.In the long-term, a change of 3 dB(A) or greater is that which is consideredperceptible, and is the level above which DMRB states that mitigation should beconsidered. Therefore, no mitigation is required within the scope of the proposedscheme.Potential Qualification for Sound InsulationUnder the Noise Insulation (Amendment) Regulations 1988, dwellings and otherplaces used for residential purposes may qualify for an offer of noise insulation if thefollowing well defined conditions are satisfied at 1m in front of the most exposed dooror window of an eligible room in the façade of a property:• The noise level in the design year must be greater than or equal to 68.0dBLA1(T)0, 18 Hour. Predicted noise levels of 67.5dB LA1(T)0, 18 Hour andabove are rounded up to 68.0dB LA1(T)0, 18 Hour.• The noise level in the design year, or within any other year between the yearbefore construction works commenced and the design year, must beincreased by at least 1.0dB LA1(T)0, 18 Hour, when compared to the noiselevel predicted in the year before construction works commenced.• Noise from the new or altered road contributes at least 1.0dB LA1(T)0, 18Hour to the total noise level.87

• The property must not be more than 300m from the nearest point of the newor altered carriageway.The regulations apply only to qualifying eligible rooms, which include living roomsand bedrooms affected by road traffic noise.Table 9.13 shows that there are potentially a number of dwellings predicted to besubject to façade noise levels above the qualifying level of 68 dB(A) which is one ofthe 4 qualifying conditions required to be eligible under the Noise InsulationRegulations as detailed above. It should be noted that the majority of theseproperties also experience noise levels in excess of 68dB(A) in the baseline year.Furthermore, at certain receptors it is apparent that the increase in noise and theproportion of that due directly to the scheme would be in excess of the 1 dB(A)criteria proposed.However, the façade noise level at 1 Pepperly Rise is predicted to rise from 66.8dB(below the threshold) in the opening year to 69.7dB(A) (above it) in the design year.This indicates that there are properties which may qualify for the provision of noiseinsulation under the NIR.It is considered that a detailed assessment of qualification for insulation under theNIR is out side of the scope of this report. In order to make a full appraisal of thescheme in accordance with the Noise Insulation Regulations a further, more detailedassessment, would be required to be carried out.Figure 3.9 is a graphical representation the difference in the noise contours between2026 do something and 2011 do minimum scenarios. It should be noted from thisfigure that the area around 1 Pepperly Rise is that which is subject to the greatestincrease in noise level.VibrationVibration has the potential to result in structural damage to buildings and disturbanceto people in the surrounding area.Operational PhaseThe route corridor of the proposed scheme is rural in nature, the existing roadnetwork has relatively low flows and no sources of vibration were observed duringthe noise survey. Therefore it is considered that the likelihood of disturbance toresidents or structural damage to property as a result of traffic-induced vibration islow.Traffic-induced vibration can be caused in two ways;• Ground-borne vibrations produced by the interaction of vehicles’ wheels withthe road surface; and• Air-borne vibration transmitted through the air by energy waves.Ground-borne vibration is much less likely to be the cause of disturbance from roadtraffic and can be largely avoided by appropriate maintenance of the road surface.88

Air-borne vibration is more common in urban areas where low frequency energy fromlarge moving vehicles can generate resonances in the air, causing annoyancethrough rattling internal fixtures and fittings. The rural nature of the proposed schemeroute corridor, with few buildings, significantly reduces the likelihood of air-bornevibration.Construction PhaseThere will be various civil engineering activities employed in the construction of anew road which have the potential to cause vibration nuisance. Typical activities aredemolition, excavation works, rock-breaking operations, lorry movements and piling.The potential for vibration disturbance caused during the construction phase can beminimised by:• The use of less intrusive plant and working methods;• Locating vibrating plant as far from sensitive receptors as possible;• Placing stationary plant (e.g. compressors, generators) in resilient mountings,and;• The use of plant which has been regularly serviced and maintained.9.6 Residual EffectsThe potential of the proposed scheme to cause vibration that is either significantlyintrusive or capable of giving rise to structural or cosmetic damage is considered tobe unlikely.9.7 ConclusionThe assessment of the proposed scheme and its potential impact upon noise andvibration levels has been undertaken in accordance with DMRB HA213/08 guidance.Five scenarios have been assessed; the baseline year (2007), Do-Minimum and Do-Something for the opening year (2011) and Do-Minimum and Do-Something for thedesign year fifteen years hence (2026) to determine the significance of any impacts.The scheme was assessed in line with the staged approach of the DMRB documentand due to the magnitude and level of the results of the assessment it was notrequired to assess the proposals to any level further than a “Simple Level” where thescheme met the criteria to complete the assessment procedure. However, in order topresent a robust assessment, further aspects of the “Detailed Level” assessmenthave also been included within the scope of this acoustic report.A detailed assessment of the impacts associated with the construction phase of theproposed scheme has not been undertaken as insufficient information was availableat the time of writing. However, it has been demonstrated that any impact will beconsidered acceptable if best practice is followed and the mitigation measuresdeemed to be appropriate are implemented. It is recommended that a detailedassessment of the area subject to construction noise impact should be undertaken bythe Contractor as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).89

The impacts associated with the operation of the proposed scheme have beenpredicted using NoiseMap Server Edition based upon the scheme traffic figures. Theresults of the model have been verified using data obtained from the baseline noiselevel survey carried out at two locations within the study area. Calculations havebeen undertaken at nine representative sensitive receptor locations in the study area.The results indicate that there are no properties within the proposed scheme corridorwhich will be subject to noise level increases of 3 dB or greater, which would bedeemed to be a negligible/minor adverse impact. Therefore mitigation measures tominimise the increase in noise levels associated with the proposed scheme are notrequired.When comparing the Opening year (2011) do minimum with the Design Year (2026)do something is predicted that a number of the sensitive receptors assessed wouldpotentially qualify for insulation under the noise insulation regulations. A further moredetailed NIR assessment may be required to be undertaken at a later stage tospecifically assess qualification for insulation under the NIR.Following a site visit, no sources of vibration were identified in the vicinity of theproposed scheme. Therefore, the need for baseline vibration monitoring and adetailed vibration assessment was deemed unnecessary as the potential for adverseimpacts from vibration during the operational phase is considered to be insignificant.The potential of the proposed scheme to cause vibration that is either significantlyintrusive or capable of giving rise to structural or cosmetic damage is considered tobe unlikely if appropriate working methods and best practice are followed.90

10 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians andCommunity Effects10.1 Findings at Stage 2 AssessmentThe Stage 2 assessment indicated that the Preferred Version has the potential toreduce long term NMU severance and increase safety. However in the short-term,during the construction phase, the widening of Coalpit Lane would cause someseverance to potential users of Elkesley Primary and Nursery School.There is an anticipated/potential increase in the use of commercial business due topassing trade from cyclists and pedestrian walkers, and there will be a linking affectof the commercial properties of Jockey Lane and Elkesley village. Overall it isconsidered there will be a beneficial impact on local NMU provisions.10.2 Reason for Scoping OutAt Stage 2 it was determined that the Preferred Version would result in the significantimprovement on the current situation for non-motorised users. This is due to theprovision of a footway on the western side of the new link across the A1(T) within thePreferred Version. Journeys to either side of the A1(T) would be possible on foot asopposed to car (which is currently not the case).Currently the A1(T) provides a significant barrier to pedestrian and cyclist movement.The scheme would benefit local residents coming to and from the village byincreasing accessibility to jobs and leisure facilities as well as benefiting localcommunity facilities and shops from passing trade. It is therefore considered thatthere would be no significant impacts as a result of the proposals and that no furtherassessment is required.91

11 Vehicle Travellers11.1 Findings at Stage 2 AssessmentThe section of the A1(T) within the study area passes through landscape of goodquality for most of the study length. The landscape assessment identified areasimmediately surrounding the A1(T) as Area A: Open undulating arable farmland andF: Enclosed arable farmland, both of good quality. The landscaper near the village isof poor landscape quality as characterised by occasional derelict commercialproperties.The Preferred Version will have a significant effect on views from the road, inparticular introducing elevated views from the proposed bridge for travellers crossingover the A1(T).Views of the landscape for users of the A1(T) would be interrupted by theembankments of the proposed grade separated junction if the Preferred Version isconstructed, although the users of the grade separated junction would have moreopen views of the landscape on its crest.The Preferred Version was found to alleviate current driver stress through, theremoval of gaps in the central reserve, closure of the field accesses and the provisionof the grade separated junction removing the conflict of local turning vehicles, havingan overall beneficial impact.11.2 Reason for Scoping OutAt Stage 2 it was determined that the Preferred Version would result in a similarimpact rating with regards to views from the road and driver stress. The PreferredVersion is anticipated to significantly reduce driver stress through the points raised inthe section above.It was therefore considered that there would be no significant impacts as a result ofthe proposals and that no further assessment is required.92

12 Road Drainage and the Water Environment12.1 IntroductionThis chapter describes and assesses the baseline conditions of the waterenvironment associated with the proposed A1(T) Elkesley Grade Separated JunctionImprovements Preferred Version.12.2 Statutory and Planning ContextThe following legislation and policy guidance has been referred where applicablewithin the text:• CIRIA Report 163, the Construction of Bunds for Oil and Storage Tanks 1997• Planning Policy Statement 25, Development and Flood Risk, Dec 2006;• Pollution Prevention Guideline 6 (PPG6) ‘Working at Construction andDemolition Sites’ (2002)• The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)• The Water Resources Act 1991• Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25), ‘Development and Flood Risk’,(2006).• Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Section 3 Part 10HA216/06 Road Drainage and the Water Environment.Assessment MethodologyThe appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with DMRB Volume 11 Section 3Part 10 HA216/06 Road Drainage and the Water Environment. The method appliedto assessing the impacts on the water environment is predominantly based on a deskstudy approach combined with site information. The impacts on drainage have beenassessed by comparing existing drainage discharges with those proposed for thePreferred Version. This desk study approach includes:• ‘Screening’ the need for further assessment, and where required, defining the‘scope’ and form that the assessment should take.• Undertaking either a ‘simple’ and/or ‘detailed’ level of assessment todetermine and assess the impacts of the proposed scheme on the waterenvironment during the construction and operation;• Identifying any significant residual effects that remain post mitigation.12.3 Assessment of ImpactsFour methods are used to assess scheme impacts.93

• Method A is a simple assessment of pollution impacts from routine runoff onthe receiving surface watercourses.• Method B is used (if required) following the Method A assessment, andprovides a detailed assessment of pollution impacts from routine runoff on thereceiving surface watercourses.• Method C is used to assess the pollution impacts from routine runoff ongroundwaters.• Method D is used to assess the pollution impacts from accidental spillages onreceiving watercourses.The importance of an environmental attribute is defined by indicators of quality, rarity,scale and sustainability. Table 12.1 provides guidance for estimating the importanceof water attributes.Table 12.1 Grading Importance of Water Environmental AttributesImportance Criteria ExamplesGQA Grade A river (RE1)Site protected by EU or UK wildlife legislationVery HighAttribute with a high quality and rarityon regional or national scale andlimited potential for substitution.EC designated Salmonid/Cyprinid fisheryMajor aquifer providing a regionally importantresource or supporting river ecosystem (GSPZ 1)Floodplain or defence protecting more than 100residential properties from floodingHighAttribute with a high quality and rarity,local scale and limited potential forsubstitution.Attribute with a medium quality andrarity, regional or national scale andlimited potential for substitution.GQA Grade B river (RE2)Major Cyprinid fisheryAquifer providing locally important resource orsupporting river ecosystem (GSPZ 2)Floodplain or defence protecting between 1 and100 residential/industrial properties from floodingMediumAttribute with a medium quality andrarity, local scale and limited potentialfor substitution.Attribute with a low quality and rarity,regional or national scale and limitedfor substitution.GQA Grade C and D river (RE 3 or RE4)Aquifer providing water for agricultural orindustrial use with limited connection to surfacewater (GSPZ 3)Floodplain or defence protecting 10 or fewerindustrial properties from flooding94

LowAttribute with a low quality and rarity,local scale and limited potential forsubstitutionGQA Grade E river (RE5)Non-aquiferFloodplain with limited existing development andlow probability of flooding propertiesSource: DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 HA216/06 Road Drainage and the Water Environment.Impact magnitude of each potential impact is assessed for each receptor as well asallowing for both the permanent or temporary situations by considering theconstruction and operational phases of the scheme. Table 12.2 provides guidance fordetermining the impact magnitude of the scheme on each water attribute.Table 12.2 Criteria for Determining Impact MagnitudeMagnitude Criteria ExamplesPotential high risk in Method A (potential failure of Total Zinc andDissolved Copper in Method B)Loss or extensive change to Fishery and / or Nature ConservationSiteMajorAdverseModerateAdverseMinorAdverseResults in loss ofattribute and / orquality andintegrity of theattributeResults in impacton integrity ofattribute or loss ofpart of attributeResults in minorimpact on attributePollution from an accidental spillage >2% annuallyLoss of an aquiferPotential high risk in Method CPollution of potable source of abstractionLoss of flood storage/increased flood peak by level (1% probability)>100mmPotential high risk in Method A (and either potential failure of TotalZinc or Dissolved Copper in Method B)Partial loss in productive fisheryPollution from an accidental spillage >1% annually and 50mmPotential high risk in Method A and no change to Total Zinc andDissolved Copper in Method B)Pollution from an accidental spillage >0.5% annually and

NegligibleMinorBeneficialModerateBeneficialMajorBeneficialResults in animpact on attributebut of insufficientmagnitude toaffect the use /integrityResults in somebenefit effect onattribute or areduced risk ofnegative effectoccurringResults inmoderateimprovement ofattribute qualityResults in majorimprovement ofattribute qualityPotential low risk in Method CLoss of flood storage/increased flood peak by level (1% annualprobability) >10mmLow risk in Method A and risk of pollution from accidental spillages

Table 12.3 Criteria for Estimating the Impact RatingsMagnitude of potentialImportance of Attributeimpact Very High High Medium LowMajor Very Large Large/Very LargeLargeSlight/ModerateModerateVery Large/LargeModerate/LargeModerateSlightMinorModerate/LargeSlight/ModerateSlightNeutralNegligible Neutral Neutral Neutral NeutralSource: DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 HA216/06 Road Drainage and the Water Environment.Data CollectionThis assessment uses information from discussions with developers, designers andplanners; a review of associated correspondence and documentation; a review ofpublished maps and information; and the collation of data from the EnvironmentAgency (EA) in England.12.4 Baseline ConditionsSurface WatersThere are no fluvial watercourses or ponds within the immediate vicinity of theproposed scheme footprint. The only surface waters relate to local field drainageditches running along the edge of the A1(T).The nearest major rivers include, the River Idle/Maun to the east just beyond TwyfordBridge, and the River Poulter, running south of the A1(T) before flowing north andpassing under the carriageway to the east around Twyford Bridge where it flows in tothe Idle.Water QualityThe EA General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme classifies water quality in riversin to six grades (A-F) based on chemical and biological parameters also graded A-F.Grade A represents the highest quality. Nutrients concentrations are also gradedVery Low to Very High.The Water Framework Directive (WFD) changed the monitoring and assessmentprocesses used for surface waters. This means that the GQA for 2007 and beyond isnot comparable to the historical GQA classification. Two set of data are thereforeprovided below, one post 2007 comprising ‘interim’ data and historic data collectedprior to 2006.The most appropriate EA monitoring point is located just downstream of the site onthe River Poulter; upstream of the confluence with the River Idle (grid reference SK69993.69 75294.75).97

Table 12.4: EA Water Quality Data till 2006EA Water Quality Data for River Poulter from Normanton Bridge to confluence of River Idle.Value or gradeRiver Quality Target RE2 Grade 2 MarginalRiver ChemistryBiochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/l (90 4.34 Grade C – fairly goodpercentile)Ammonia mg/l (90 percentile) 0.121 Grade A – very good, natural ecosystemsDissolved Oxygen (DO) % saturation (10 percentile) 83.75 Grade A – very good, natural ecosystemsOverall Chemistry General Quality AssessmentGrade C - Fairly good(GQA)NutrientsNitrates mg/l (mean) 27.49 Grade 4 - ModeratePhosphates mg/l (mean) 0.23 Grade 5 – very highRiver BiologyNTAXA (observed/expected)Grade A – very good – biology is similar to thatexpected for an unpolluted riverASPT (observed/expected)0.91 Grade B – good, biology is a little short of anunpolluted riverOverall biology GradeGrade B - GoodBiology is a little short of an unpolluted riverThe water quality data show that the river has a water quality target of Grade 2 (lowpresence of nutrients) to which it is marginally compliant, with some of the EA’stargets met. In 2007, the EA recorded that both Ammonia and Dissolved Oxygenremained at Grade A, while BOD was not recorded.The river chemistry has seen great improvements over the last 15 years. The gradeof the river has risen in recent years from D in 2001 – 2003 to C in 2004 – 2006.BOD is the parameter that has affected the river chemistry grading in different yearssince 1991. From 1991 - 1993 the BOD (90 percentile) was 9.13 mg/l which hassteadily fallen to 4.34 in 2004 – 2006.Nitrate levels within the river have improved from Grade 5 in 2002 - 2004 to Grade 4in 2004 - 2006. Overall nitrate levels have fallen marginally from 33.01 mg/l (mean) in2002 – 2004 to 30.85 mg/l (mean) in 2004 – 2006. In 2007, the nitrate levelsremained at a Grade 4.Phosphate levels stood at Grade 5 in 2002 – 2004, which is Very High; possibly dueto the agricultural activities taking place in the local area. There has been a minordecrease in phosphate concentrations since from 0.35 mg/l (mean) in 1998 to 0.23mg/l (mean) in 2006. In 2007, the phosphate classification remained at Grade 5.The river biology is Grade B - Good, meaning the biology is a little short of anunpolluted river. This is an improvement from 2000 when the first EA records areavailable. The river was then graded as a C due to the high average score per taxon(ASPT).In accordance with the WFD, the River Poulter is considered to be at a high risk ofpollution overall.98

Table 12.5: Water Framework Directive Assessment Results for the River Poulter from MillBrook to River MaunBiological QualityPhysico Chemical QualitySpecific Pollutants QualityProtected AreaPoint Source PollutionDiffuse Source PollutionCombined Source Sanitary RiskCombined Source Nutrients RiskWater Abstraction & FlowRegulationPhysical or MorphologicalAlterationAlien SpeciesSource: Environment AgencyOverall - ModerateFish - ModerateMacro-invertebrates – GoodOverall – ModerateAmmonia – HighDissolved Oxygen – HighpH – BadPhosphorus – PoorOverall – HighAmmonia – HighCopper – HighZinc – HighOverall - YesFreshwater Fish Directive – YesNitrates Directive - YesOverall - No riskOverall - High RiskSediment (High Risk),Pesticides and Phosphorous from agriculture(Moderate Risk)Urbanisation (Low Risk)Overall – High RiskAmmonia – No RiskBiochemical Oxygen Demand – High RiskOverall - High RiskTotal Oxidised Nitrogen – High RiskPhosphorous – High RiskOverall - High RiskOverall - Low RiskOverall - Low RiskFlood RiskThe scheme is located within an area with a 1-in-1000 year annual risk of flooding orless (Flood Zone 1).Groundwater/HydrogeologyThe development is situated over a solid geology comprising Sherwood Sandstonesand pebble beds over Lower Mottled Sandstone and Upper Permian Marl,Magnesian Limestone and Coal Measures. The overlying drift deposits arepermeable as demonstrated through a series of soakaway tests reported in AppendixB.Three groundwater vulnerability zones are located in and around Elkesley; a MajorAquifer of high vulnerability (which includes the proposed development site), a MajorAquifer of low vulnerability and a Minor Aquifer of low vulnerability. Abstractions fromthese groundwaters are protected; the works located within the total catchment of asource protection zone (SPZ) (Figure 12.1).99

In accordance with the WFD, the associated groundwater body (the Idle Torne) isconsidered to be at high risk and currently in poor quantitative and chemical conditionwith an upward trend chemical trend.Table 12.6: Soakaway Test ResultsTrial Pit Rate of InfiltrationSA1(T) 1.13 x 10 -5 ms -1SA2 1.78 x 10 -5 ms -1SA3 8.44 x 10 -6 ms -1SA4 1.13 x 10 -5 ms -1SA5 5.32 x 10 -6 ms -1Table 12.7: Water Framework Directive Assessment Results for the Idle Torne – PTSandstone Nottinghamshire and DoncasterQuantitative QualityProtected AreaPoint Source PollutionDiffuse Source PollutionWater Abstraction & FlowRegulationSource: Environment AgencyOverall - PoorGroundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems - GoodImpact on surface waters – PoorSaline intrusion – GoodResource balance - PoorOverall - YesDrinking Water Protected Area - YesOverall – Low RiskOverall - High RiskMine and minewater - Low RiskPesticides - Moderate RiskPhosphorous - Moderate RiskUpward trend in Nitrate – High RiskUrbanisation - Moderate RiskCholrinated Solvents - Moderate RiskPriority Hazardous substance – Low RiskGroundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystemModerate RiskDrinking water protected areas – High RiskSaline intrusion – Low RiskOverall - High RiskImpact on surface water - Moderate RiskWater balance – High RiskTerrestrial Ecosystems – High RiskSaline intrusion – Low Risk12.5 Assessment of Environmental ImpactsConstruction Phase ImpactsThe hydrological aspects of the construction phase would be managed largelythrough drainage consents issued by the EA as applied for by the future contractor.The consents applications would be reviewed and accepted only if the proposals forthe site drainage are not expected to result in an unacceptable impact on waterresources, quality or flood risk. The contractor would also have to comply with therelevant aspects of the Water Resources Act (1991). Impacts would be temporary,lasting only for the duration of construction phase.100

The greatest potential remains the potential for the release of contaminants due toaccidental spillages and discharges and/or the inadequate storage and transfer ofmaterials during construction. Whilst the importance of such resources areconsidered moderate/high and the magnitude of the impact moderate/major adversethey are only likely to occur under accidental/extreme events therefore the impact israted low. Such impacts would be most intense during a ‘first-flush’ event after aheavy rainfall event post a dry-period. The same potential exists in relation to therelease of sediment loads during construction however given the distance to thenearest watercourse impacts are rated neutral.The potential for reduced inflation and increased runoff through ground compactioncaused during construction will be limited given the local surface watercharacteristics. For this reason this impact is rated neutral.Operational Phase ImpactsThe impact assessment has been made against Methods A, C and D.Pollution from Routine Runoff to WatercoursesDuring rainfall events, contaminants deposited on road surfaces are washed intoreceiving water where there may be a potential to harm the local environment.Previous studies have shown that roads with an annual average daily traffic (AADT)flow of less than 15,000 vehicles have only a very slight effect. The AADT for the newsection of road (the junction slips and roundabouts) in 2026 is between 1,300 and2,000 vehicles.Pollution from Routine Runoff to GroundwaterThe Method C calculations, based on working over a total catchment SPZ, indicatethat the groundwater has a medium risk of impact from pollutant runoff (see AppendixB5). Under such circumstances the use of pollution interceptors is recommendedshould the surface water runoff from the road be discharged to ground.Accidental Spillage RiskThe likely accidental spillage risks associated with the route was previouslycalculated in the Stage 2 EAR in accordance with the DMRB method. Thisdemonstrated that for each discreet drainage catchment covered by the proposedscheme the risk is below the critical 1% value.MitigationThe following design and mitigation measures have been committed to.Construction Phase MitigationTo mitigate the risk of accidental spillage, the works at site will be carried outfollowing the development of a Pollution Control Strategy prepared by the futurecontractor. The strategy will accord with EA guidelines such as PPG6. Guidance ongood site management practices contained within this document will be incorporatedinto the CEMP.101

Point source pollution such as oil spillage or leakage will be mitigated through theprovision of designated storage and refuelling areas that incorporate adequatebunding and containment measures to prevent spillage discharge. Constructionworks will also follow guidance issued by the Construction Industry Research andInformation Association (CIRIA Report 163, the Construction of Bunds for Oil andStorage Tanks 1997);Designated waste storage areas will be isolated from any surface water drains andany grey waters will be discharged to the foul drainage system with permission of thelocal drainage authority.In order to prevent hydrocarbons associated with construction traffic entering localwatercourses, a bypass petrol/oil interceptor will be installed upstream of any createdattenuation ponds. Alternatively such ponds may be modified to incorporate aninterceptor compartment by providing an underflow baffle wall such that any oilentering the ponds would be retained.In order to ensure that the construction phase drainage plans are adhered to,inspection and monitoring will be undertaken throughout the construction phase.Operational Phase MitigationRunoff will be controlled through a combination of oil and pollution interceptors,treatment ponds and swales (See Figure 7.3 Landscape Mitigation). Attenuation inthe form infiltration basins will be used to ensure a storage capacity up to the 1-in-100 year + 20% rainfall event. This is in accordance with PPS25. The scheme hasalso been designed to minimise the increase in the overall areas of hard-standing tominimise the rate of runoff.Residual EffectsUpon implementing the above mitigation no significant residual environmental effectsare predicted.102

13 Geology and Soils13.1 Findings at Stage 2 AssessmentThe assessment at Stage 2 found the soil composition across the study area is ofwell drained sandy and coarse and often over sandstone, leading to the potential ofthe transportation of contaminants into the underlying groundwater system.The Preferred Version would not adversely impact solid or drift geology due toexpected levels of compaction and piling for the bridge and road surfaces. In light ofthis, potential impacts from these sources were not considered when choosingVersion 1 over Version 2.The majority of the study area is situated on greenfield land with a small potential forhaving contaminated soils already in situ, therefore the chance of disturbingcontaminated during construction is perceived as being low.The Preferred Version has the potential to impact on groundwater sources andboreholes.13.2 Reason for Scoping OutThe Preferred Version does not affect any geological SSSIs.The potential for disturbing contaminated land during the construction andoperational phases, taking into consideration existing and previous known land uses,is considered to be low/insignificant with the correct mitigation in place.It was therefore considered that there would be no significant impacts as a result ofthe proposals and that no further assessment is required.103

AnnexesAnnex 2Figure 1.1 - Constraints MappingFigure 2.1 – Version 2 OptionFigure 2.2 – Version 1 OptionFigure 2.3 – The Preferred Option Version 1104

Annex 4Figure 4.1 - Constraints MappingHeritage Gazetteer105

Annex 7Figure 7.1 – Landscape and Visual AssessmentFigure 7.2 – Visual ReceptorsFigure 7.3 – Landscape Mitigation and DrainageAppendix B4 – Viewpoint Plates106

Annex 9Figure 3.1 – 3.9: Noise ContouringCalibration CertificatesBaseline Monitoring DataTable 15 – Baseline Monitoring Data for MP1File Name Date Time L Aeq L AFmax L AFmin L Apeak L A1(T)0 L A90090318_0002.NBF 18/03/2009 10:15:00 63.0 85.9 50.6 98.0 62.5 54.7090318_0003.NBF 18/03/2009 10:30:00 65.0 87.1 48.9 100.0 62.6 55.8090318_0004.NBF 18/03/2009 10:45:00 64.3 85.3 50.9 98.7 63.1 55.3090318_0005.NBF 18/03/2009 11:00:00 66.5 93.2 52.8 102.7 64.1 56.2090318_0006.NBF 18/03/2009 11:15:00 64.5 84.8 49.4 97.4 63.3 55.2090318_0007.NBF 18/03/2009 11:30:00 64.6 87.4 52.9 98.5 62.8 56.3090318_0008.NBF 18/03/2009 11:45:00 64.6 84.5 50.9 98.5 63.1 54.9090318_0009.NBF 18/03/2009 12:00:00 65.7 93.5 50.3 107.3 63.8 55.0090318_0010.NBF 18/03/2009 12:15:00 64.7 86.1 50.2 98.1 62.7 53.2090318_0011.NBF 18/03/2009 12:30:00 62.8 82.1 47.9 93.0 63.4 53.3090318_0012.NBF 18/03/2009 12:45:00 64.2 85.5 46.6 97.1 62.5 53.2090318_0013.NBF 18/03/2009 13:00:00 64.9 88.1 48.6 102.5 62.5 54.2Over 3 hour Period64.7 93.5 46.6 107.3 63.0 54.8107

Table 15 - Baseline Monitoring Data for MP2File Name Date Time L Aeq L AFmax L AFmin L Apeak L A1(T)0 L A90090319_0002.NBF 19/03/2009 10:15:00 56.1 67.7 48.1 95.7 58.0 53.1090319_0003.NBF 19/03/2009 10:30:00 55.0 62.6 48.4 75.6 57.1 51.7090319_0004.NBF 19/03/2009 10:45:00 56.7 64.0 50.6 81.2 58.6 53.8090319_0005.NBF 19/03/2009 11:00:00 56.0 66.7 47.2 80.6 58.1 52.4090319_0006.NBF 19/03/2009 11:15:00 55.5 73.6 47.5 85.7 57.5 51.5090319_0007.NBF 19/03/2009 11:30:00 54.8 61.4 48.7 77.3 56.6 51.9090319_0008.NBF 19/03/2009 11:45:00 53.4 66.5 46.5 81.3 55.7 49.6090319_0009.NBF 19/03/2009 12:00:00 57.1 86.3 47.9 107.4 58.5 50.8090319_0010.NBF 19/03/2009 12:15:00 53.0 63.9 47.2 76.6 55.2 50.0090319_0011.NBF 19/03/2009 12:30:00 53.0 68.8 48.0 80.6 54.6 50.5090319_0012.NBF 19/03/2009 12:45:00 55.7 81.4 46.9 91.6 55.7 50.8090319_0013.NBF 19/03/2009 13:00:00 55.1 61.1 49.2 82.5 57.0 52.6Over 3 hour Period55.3 86.3 46.5 107.4 56.9 51.6108

Annex 12Figure 12.1 – Groundwater Vulnerability Map.109