A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 and 52: 7.5 Implication of New Lighting Pro
Page 53 and 54: Area F: Enclosed Arable Farmland (G
Page 55: Table 7.7: Summary of Impacts on Vi
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
Page 103 and 104: 13 Geology and Soils13.1 Findings a
Page 105 and 106: Annex 4Figure 4.1 - Constraints Map
Page 107 and 108:
Annex 9Figure 3.1 - 3.9: Noise Cont
Page 109:
Annex 12Figure 12.1 - Groundwater V
show all

A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?