Post on 30-Sep-2020
transcript
BraintreeMarks
Tey
Bowl Barrow
Great Loyesmoated siteand fishpond
Leez Augustinian Priory,fishponds, T udor mansion
Medieval tile kiln
Porter's Hallmoated site
Clavering's Farmmoated site
S tanstead Hallmoated site
Earls Colne Priory
Gryme's Dyke
Gosbecks
T he T riple Dyke
Moat Farm Dyke
R emains of S tMary's Church
T he rampartS of HaynesGreen
W ickam Bishopsrailway viaduct
Hatfield Priory
Circular brick kilns
Dovecote
CoggeshallAbbey
Gubbion'sHall
moated siteR oman villa, Anglo-S axonhall, cemetery andchurch site
Moated site and twofishponds
R oman villa
Anglo-S axoncemetery
Blunts Hallringwork
Henge
Bockingwindmill
CressingTemple
BR AX T EDPAR K
FAU LK BOU R NEHALL
Chalkney W ood
BovingdonHall W oods
R iver T ey T iptreeHeath
Marks T eyBrickpit
Belcher's &BroadfieldW oods
OliversNursery
Alsteads Farm
S tanways CoatedR oadstone
S tanwayS AR S
MarksTey R ail S idings
ApplefordFarm
BlackleyQuarry, GateFarm
Bradwell Quarry,R ivenhall Airfield
Colchester Quarry,Five W ays FruitFm, S tanway
Broardfields Farm,R ayne
Birch R evisedsite area
ColemansFarm
Hilly FieldsLex den Park
Colne Valley
Brickfield andLong Meadow
BrockwellMeadows
W hetMead
HoppitMead
BockingBlackwater
CuckooW ood
R ivenhalllong mortuaryenclosure
Long mortuaryenclosure and round
barrow
Gosfield S andpits
T iptree Parish Field
T ER LING PLACE
HAT FIELD PR IOR Y
LAY ER MAR NEY T OW ER
S ALING GR OVE
GOS FIELD HALL
W orld W ar IIEastern Command Line
Lanham Green
StrawBrook
River
Blackw
ater
RiverPant
PodsBrook
RiverBlackwater
Cove nBroo k
Abberton
Reservoir
Robin'sBrook
RiverTer
RiverColne
RiverBra in
Do
msey
Brook
LayerBrook
SpicketsBr ook
RomanRiver
BowsteadBrook
Bourne Brook
A414
A12
A120
A130
A131
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2016
R ev. Date Description of revision Drawn Checked R eview'd Approv'd
0 10/16 For issue LM CR MJCR
Drawing T itle
Mark R owe, S ervice Director, HighwaysS eax House, Victoria R oad S outh, Chelmsford, CM1 1QHTel: 0845 6037631
Drawing S tatusFOR IS S U E
© Essex County Council
ENVIR ONMENTAL CONS T R AINT S PLANOPT IONS 1B, 3, 4B, 8, 9A
FIGU R E 1S HEET 1 OF 1
S cheme T itle
A120 BR AINT R EE T O A12
DR AW ING NO.
DR AW ING U NIT S U .N.O. S CALE AT A3 (420 x 297 mm)
R EV.
DAT E
DES IGNED DR AW N
DAT E DAT E
CHECK ED R EVIEW ED
DAT E DAT E
APPR OVED
0
OCT 16
LM LM CR CR MJ
¶
T his map is reproduced from Ordnance S urvey material with the permission of Ordnance S urvey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s S tationery Office © Crown Copyright. U nauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may leadto prosecution or civil proceedings. Essex County Council,100019602, 2015
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000Metres
© OpenS treetMap (and)contributors, CC-BY -S A
P:\B3553T 41 - A120 Braintree to Marks Tey\GIS \ArcGIS \08_PER A\B3553T 41_004_R evH_A120EnvironmentalConstraintsPlan_adjustedlegend.mx d
NT SOCT 16 OCT 16 OCT 16 OCT 16
B3553T 41-JAC-HGI-00-GS -G-0131
Notes1. Do not scale2. R evision H - S tage 1K ey
Geographic area ofimpactW ider study areaS tage 1 Option 1BS tage 1 Option 3S tage 1 Option 4BS tage 1 Option 8S tage 1 Option 9AGrade I listed buildingGrade II listed buildingGrade II* listed buildingConservation AreaS cheduled MonumentAir Quality ManagementAreaNoise Important AreaCurrent Landfill S iteHistoric Landfill S iteEx isting Quarry / MineralEx traction S itePreserved / R eservedQuarry / MineralEx traction S ite
R iverFlood Z one 3Flood Z one 2Area of OutstandingNatural BeautyS ites of S pecial S cientificInterestLocal Nature R eserveCounty / Local W ildlifeS iteR egistered Parks andGardensAncient W oodlandT ree Preservation Order
Priority Habitat InventoryCoastal and floodplaingrazing marshDeciduous woodlandGood quality semi-improved grasslandT raditional orchard
R egistered CommonLand - Lanham Green-CL412 - the applicationfor Common Land statushas not been confirmed
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 108
Appendix C: Plans for Alternative Options from Public Consultation
Bradwell/Sisted alternative 1 developed (Infraworks)
Bradwell/Sisted alternative 2 developed (Infraworks)
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 109
Bradwell/Sisted alternative 3 developed (Infraworks)
Option D
Potential alternative
Option E
Option B
Option C
Links
Wood
(ancient
woodland)
Common land
Lanham Green Alternative developed (Infraworks)
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 110
Appendix D: Bradwell Quarry and Integrated Waste Management Facility Junction Assessment
Introduction:
In the non-statutory A120 public consultation, a specific question was included in the questionnaire asking for
comments or suggestions about potential locations for junctions. The responses to this question are now
available and the most popular request was for an additional junction on the central and southern A120 routes
for Quarry/Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) traffic.
If an additional junction is to be added to the central and southern routes, however, there will be implications for
the project. These implications are set out below and a decision on the best way to proceed requested.
Public Consultation Reponses:
A total of 1352 comments were received in response to the question about potential locations for junctions
(Question 9). The most popular request (from some 75 separate respondents) was for an additional junction for
Quarry/IWMF traffic only on the central/southern routes. The second most popular request was for the
A12/A120 junction to be north of Kelvedon/Feering (around 30 comments). Far fewer people asked for access
to Silver End/Bradwell or Coggeshall/Kelvedon to be provided via additional junctions.
Thus, the only change to the current Options that has been requested in what may be considered significant
numbers is a Quarry/IWMF specific junction on the central and southern routes. It would be difficult justify
investigating any other additional junctions, based on the consultation results.
Cost of Quarry/IWMF Junction
If a Quarry/IWMF specific junction were to be provided on the central and southern A120 routes, there could be
a significant cost implication. This depends on how much of the works are funded by the quarry and the extent
of ground treatment required.
Jacobs have assessed the likely additional cost of the junction as follows:
Total Cost incl preparation, risk etc
(£K at 2016 prices)
B or C
(central routes)
D or E
(southern routes)
Total cost of works £7.6m £12m
Quarry/IWMF contribution £2.3m £4.1m
HE contribution £5.3m £7.9m
This is on the basis that the HE fund works which facilitate the quarry/IWMF junction and items that would be
maintained in future by HE – so slip road tapers, the junction link road up to end of splitter island and the
additional bridge carrying the link road (for Options D & E only). It has been assumed that the earthworks for
the section of the access off the mainline (the non-HE section) as a private and low speed access settlement is
less of an issue so no ground treatment under this area has been included. Should earthworks treatment on the
private section be considered necessary the Quarry/IWMF costs would rise to £11m and £12.4m for B/C and
D/E respectively.
Traffic Impact
Based on the Stage 1 Local Traffic Model, the number of HGVs on the A120 will decrease significantly with the
introduction of the A120 scheme. The junction to the east of Bradwell on Option A will result in a larger
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 111
reduction in HGV’s through Bradwell than the other Options shown at the public consultation, as they have no
Quarry/IWMF junction.
The Quarry and the IWMF have planning permission for a total of 590 and 404 two-way HGV movements per
day respectively. These would be split approximately 60% to the west and 40% to the east on the A120.
The Table below summarises the overall impact of the A120 scheme Options (in the form shown at the public
consultation) and the Quarry/IWMF on traffic through Bradwell.
Scheme
Option
Forecast Traffic Through Bradwell Village on A120/old A120 in 2026
Modelled
AADT
Modelled
Daily HGVs
Additional
Daily HGVs
from
permitted
Quarry/IWMF
Total Traffic
(AADT) with
Quarry/IWMF
Total Daily
HGVs with
Quarry/IWMF
% Reduction
in HGVs
No Scheme 29,452 1,628 586 30,039 2,214 N/A
A 9,835 162 0 9,835 162 93%
B 10,095 196 586 10,681 836 65%
C 10,509 198 586 11,095 784 65%
D 12,836 234 586 13,422 820 63%
E 13,068 246 586 13,654 833 62%
Without any additional junction on the new A120 scheme to cater for the Quarry/IWMF HGV traffic, Option A is
predicted to see a 93% reduction in HGVs passing through Bradwell Village in 2026, when compared with the
‘No Scheme’ scenario. Options B, C, D and E are predicted to see a 62%-65% reduction in HGVs.
If a Quarry/IWMF junction were to be added to Options B, C, D and E, it is likely that they would see a similar
reduction in HGVs through Bradwell to Option A, in the order of 89% to 91%.
Given that there is explicit public support for a new junction for the IWFT/Quarry and general support for fewer
HGVs on the existing A120, and that the impact in terms of the economic appraisal is not considered likely to be
significant in distinguishing between options, it is recommended that the junction be included for Options B, C, D
and E for Stage 2 appraisal.
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 112
Appendix E: Environmental Summary
Table A8-4 highlights the key significant environmental issues with each of the routes:
Table A8-4: Key Environmental Issues
Route Key Environmental Issues Comparative Rating
A • Least benefits to local air quality
• Indirectly affects Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings
• Potential for the removal of unknown archaeological
remains
• Effects setting of Stisted Conservation Area
• Effects Blackwater Valley immediately south of Stisted
• Potential visual effects on numerous properties
• Effects on European Sites
• May lead to the loss and degradation of habitat and
fragmentation of species
• Potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be
possible, on non-statutory sites, such as local wildlife sites
• Potential effects on controlled waters including aquifers
and main watercourses (i.e. River Blackwater)
• Permanent loss of good grades for agricultural land
• Crosses a number of other ordinary watercourses, that
may also have associated fluvial flood risk
On the balance of effects this would be considered
2.0 on the rating score. This is considered to overall
lead to potential significant effects – which
potentially can be mitigated. However, it is
considered that this route may lead to more
environmental issues (such as passing close to the
Stisted Conservation area) which may require a
greater level of mitigation and management
compared to other routes.
B • Least benefits to the noise environment
• Indirectly affects Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings
• Potential removal of archaeological deposits
• May disturb known and unknown archaeological remains
(notably around the River Blackwater Valley
• Potential visual effects on numerous individual properties,
including where the route crosses over the A12 on
embankment
• Potential effects on the setting of the historic park and
gardens at Glazenwood
• Potential effects on views from common land along
Pantlings Lane
• Visual effects on numerous properties.
• May be visible from parts of Coggeshall conservation area
• Effects on European Sites
• May lead to the loss and degradation of habitat and
fragmentation of species
• Direct effects - potential significant adverse effects –
mitigation may be possible, on non-statutory sites, such
as local wildlife sites
• Potential effects on controlled waters including aquifers
and main watercourses (i.e. River Blackwater)
• Option crosses Bradwell Quarry and Rivenhall airfield –
both considered as high risk land contamination sources
• Permanent loss of good grades for agricultural land
• Crosses areas of proven mineral resources
• Potential for flood risk crossing River Blackwater and
Domsey Brook
On the balance of effects this would be considered
2.0 on the rating score. This is still considered to
overall lead to potential significant effects – which
potentially can be mitigated. However, due to more
environmental issues (such as crossing the River
Blackwater Valley LWS) which may require a
greater level of mitigation and management
compared to other routes.
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 113
Route Key Environmental Issues Comparative Rating
C • Indirectly affects Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings
• Potential removal of known and unknown archaeological
remains (including Rivenhall Airfield)
• Effects on historic landscape types
• Effects on views from conservation areas of Cressing,
Silver End and Feering. May be visible from parts of
Coggeshall conservation area.
• Effects on European Sites
• May lead to the loss and degradation of habitat and
fragmentation of species
• Direct effects - potential significant adverse effects –
mitigation may be possible, on non-statutory sites, such
as local wildlife sites
• Potential effects on controlled waters including aquifers
and main watercourses (i.e. River Blackwater)
• Option crosses Bradwell Quarry and Rivenhall airfield –
both considered as high risk land contamination sources
• Permanent loss of good grades for agricultural land
• Crosses areas of proven mineral resources
• Potential flood risk associated with the River Blackwater
On the balance of effects this would be considered
2.0 on the rating score. This is still considered to
overall lead to potential significant effects – which
potentially can be mitigated. However, it is
considered that this route may lead to more
environmental issues (such as crossing the
Blackwater River Valley and Coggeshall LWS)
which may require a greater level of mitigation and
management compared to other routes.
D • Greatest benefits to the local air environment
• Indirectly affects Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings
• Potential significant adverse effects mitigation may be
possible on setting of scheduled monuments
• Indirectly affects Rivenhall Park
• May disturb known and unknown archaeological remains
• Effects on European Sites
• May lead to the loss and degradation of habitat and
fragmentation of species
• Indirect effects to LWS and LNR
• Potential effects on controlled waters (aquifers)
• Crosses areas of proven mineral resources
On the balance of effects this would be considered
2.0 on the rating score. This is still considered to
overall lead to potential significant effects – which
potentially can be mitigated. However, due to less
environmental issues (shorter route, less landscape
effects, only slight adverse effects on non-stat sites)
this route may require a lesser level of mitigation
and management compared to other routes.
E • Greatest benefits to the noise environment
• Indirectly affects Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings.
• May disturb known and unknown archaeological remains
• May effect historic landscape types
• Effects on European Sites
• May lead to the loss and degradation of habitat and
fragmentation of species
• Indirect effects to LWS and LNR
• Potential effects on controlled waters (aquifers)
• Crosses areas of proven mineral resources
• Potential flood risk associated with the River Brain
On the balance of effects this would be considered
2.0 on the rating score. This is still considered to
overall lead to potential significant effects – which
potentially can be mitigated. However, due to less
environmental issues (shorter route, less landscape
effects, only slight adverse effects on non-stat sites)
this route may require a lesser level of mitigation
and management compared to other routes.
Methodology for Scoring
The assessment scale used for early optioneering and the EAR have been utilised for this SAR, but is informed
by further information review, consultation and preliminary field investigations. The Six Point evaluation scale is
given in Table A8-5: Six Point Evaluation Scale.
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 114
Table A8-5: Six Point Evaluation Scale
Score 6 point effect scale
1 Significant adverse effect - not possible to mitigate
2 Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible
3 Slight adverse effect - Effect not significant with typical mitigation.
4 Slight beneficial - Effect not significant
5 Significant beneficial effect
0 No effect
Following further study there have not been any significant changes to the scoring from the EAR (Jacobs 2016)
– i.e. all ratings remain within the same category of effects. It should be noted that there is one update in the
rating scores since the Stage 1 SAR. A ’half score’ has been added to aid with identifying potential differences
in the amount of environmental effects which may occur from the options. For example, a score of 2.5 is
considered to have less effects than a score of 2.0. It should be noted that a score of 5.5 is possible to
differentiate between significant beneficial effects. A score of 5.0 would indicate an overall significant beneficial
effect with more effects on receptors than a score of 5.5. The refined scheme ratings for each discipline are
given in Table A8-6: Refined Scores.
Table A8-6: Refined Scores
Environmental
Aspect A B C D E
Air Quality
and Carbon
Emissions
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0
Cultural
Heritage 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0
Landscape 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0
Nature
Conservation 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5
Geology and
Soils 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Materials 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 115
Environmental
Aspect A B C D E
Noise and
Vibration 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
People and
Communities 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Road
Drainage and
the Water
Environment
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5
The following provides a high level explanation of why a particular score has been refined.
• For cultural heritage, the routes through Bradwell Quarry (options B and C) are considered to have lesser
impacts as they are located in areas of disturbed ground.
• For landscape and visual, the route which is shortest, which does not cross the Brain or Blackwater valleys
and which incorporates major junctions in the context of existing urban areas and major infrastructure is
considered to have slightly less impacts (option D).
• For nature conservation, those routes which do not cross the LWS on the River Blackwater valley, do not
pass close to identified bat roosts and do not pass close to ponds with identified GCNs are considered to
have lesser impacts (options D and E).
• For geology and soils, those routes which do not cross the historical airfield at Bradwell Quarry are
considered to be least likely to disturb contaminated land and therefore lesser impacts (option A).
• For materials, options D and E would use the least materials and lead to the least embodied carbon usage.
• For noise and vibration, while all routes are predicted to result in more significant benefits compared to
disbenefits, option E provides more significant benefits for both the day and night time operation.
• Option D is considered to have the most benefit from improving local air quality and not provide the worst
change from greenhouse gas emissions.
• For Road Drainage and water environment, option D and E are unlikely affect high value receptors with
regards to water quality and will not have effects on small scale abstractions.
For people and communities all routes are considered to have similar effects.
References
• Essex County Council (2014) Essex Minerals Plan (adopted July 2014).
• Highways Agency et al., (2007), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 ‘Cultural Heritage’ (HA 208/07) of the Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges;
• Jacobs (2016). A120 Braintree to A12. Essex County Council. Environmental Assessment Report.
VB3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001.P00.2.
• Jacobs. (2016a). A120 Braintree to A12. Essex County Council. Transport Assessment Report.
• Jacobs (2017). Technical Memorandum. A120 to Braintree to A12. Great Crested Newt eDNA Results.
June 2017. B3553T41-JAC-EBD-00-GN-EN-0001.P001
• Jacobs. (2017a). A120 Options. Essex County Council. Winter Bird Survey Report. B3553T41-JAC-EBD-
00-RP-EN-0002.P00.1.
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 116
• Jacobs. (2017b). Air Quality Technical Note for Interim Scheme Assessment Report. A120 Braintree to
A12. B3553T41-JAC-EAQ-00-TN-EN-0001.P00.1
• Jacobs. (2017c). Noise Quality Technical Note for Interim Scheme Assessment Report. A120 Braintree to
A12.B3553T41-JAC-ENV-00-TN-N-0001.P00.1
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 117
Appendix F: AST Tables
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 118
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 119
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 120
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 121
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 122
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 123
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 124
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 125
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 126
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 127
A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report
B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 128
Appendix G: Option D General Arrangement Drawings