A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency
A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency
• 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 (
- 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
- 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: presented are also based upon a 100
- 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
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 (
Change language