A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency
A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency
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
- 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 and 24: It is anticipated that these amendm
- Page 25 and 26: 3 Air Quality3.1 Findings at Stage
- 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: 7 Landscape Effects7.1 Assessment M
- 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
- Page 75 and 76: noise levels are below 58 dB LA1(T)
- Page 77 and 78: climate for a typical day on the ex
- Page 79 and 80: identified receptors within the stu
- Page 81 and 82: presented are also based upon a 100
- Page 83 and 84: Operational PhaseTable 9.9 and Tabl
- Page 85 and 86: Table 9.11 - Predicted noise levels
- Page 87 and 88: Table 9.14 - Predicted number of dw
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
Change language