A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency
A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency
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
- 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 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: 7.5 Implication of New Lighting Pro
- 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
- Page 89 and 90: Air-borne vibration is more common
- Page 91 and 92: 10 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestria
- Page 93 and 94: 12 Road Drainage and the Water Envi
- Page 95 and 96: LowAttribute with a low quality and
- Page 97 and 98: Table 12.3 Criteria for Estimating
- Page 99 and 100: Table 12.5: Water Framework Directi
- Page 101 and 102: The greatest potential remains the
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 <strong>A1</strong>(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 <strong>A1</strong>(T) Corridor and Associated Land Uses (Poor Quality Landscapeof Low Value)The influence of the <strong>A1</strong>(T) corridor will expand as a result of the construction of theproposed junction area. The character of the <strong>A1</strong>(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 <strong>Elkesley</strong> Village is already influenced by the overriding character ofthe <strong>A1</strong>(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 <strong>A1</strong>(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 <strong>A1</strong>(T) corridor itself on the village. The overriding issue thatremains is the <strong>A1</strong>(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
Change language