A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency
A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency
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
- Page 1: A1(T) Elkesley JunctionImprovements
- Page 4 and 5: Document ControlProject Title:Docum
- Page 6: km 2Kilometres squaredLAQMLocal Air
- Page 9 and 10: L 10 hourly dB(A)L AeqL A1(T)0,18hL
- Page 11 and 12: Wildlife CorridorsZone of Visual In
- Page 13 and 14: 5.4 Assessment of Environmental Imp
- Page 15 and 16: Introduction and Background1.1 Intr
- Page 17 and 18: 1.5 Scope of AssessmentThe followin
- Page 19 and 20: 2 Development of the Preferred Opti
- Page 21 and 22: In 2007 a simpler scheme was develo
- Page 23: It is anticipated that these amendm
- Page 27 and 28: Policy 6/12Permission will not be g
- Page 29 and 30: Table 4.3: Significance of Effects
- Page 31 and 32: Assessment of Environmental Effects
- Page 33 and 34: 5 Disruption Due to Construction5.1
- Page 35 and 36: 5.6 Residual EffectsDisruption duri
- Page 37 and 38: 7 Landscape Effects7.1 Assessment M
- Page 39 and 40: Table 7.1: Landscape Character Sens
- Page 41 and 42: Inclusion of an area within the vis
- Page 43 and 44: MagnitudeHighMediumLowNo ChangeDefi
- Page 45 and 46: • rolling landforms with numerous
- Page 47 and 48: associated with Jockey Lane forms a
- Page 49 and 50: • Properties along the High Stree
- Page 51 and 52: 7.5 Implication of New Lighting Pro
- Page 53 and 54: Area F: Enclosed Arable Farmland (G
- Page 55 and 56: Table 7.7: Summary of Impacts on Vi
- Page 57 and 58: Discussion of Impacts:Visual effect
- Page 59 and 60: • To optimise protection for resi
- Page 61 and 62: Detailed Mitigation ProposalsThe fo
- Page 63 and 64: 8 Land Use8.1 Findings at Stage 2 A
- Page 65 and 66: The frequency response of the human
- Page 67 and 68: oad traffic. It does not provide pr
- Page 69 and 70: The results of the Scoping Assessme
- Page 71 and 72: operations. If the total noise leve
- Page 73 and 74: Table 9.4 - Significance criteria o
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