environmental impact assessment scoping report

7/27/2019 Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

1/132

Ely Southern BypassEnvironmental Impact AssessmentScoping ReportCambridgeshire Highways

November 2012


2/132

Ely Southern BypassEnvironmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Atkins Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report | Version C | November 2012 |5106611

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Cambridgeshire Highwaysinformation and use in relation to Ely Sothern Bypass EIA Scoping Report.

Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connectionwith this document and/or its contents.

Document history

Job number: 5106611 Document ref: Environmental Impact AssessmentScoping Report

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

A First Draft LB Team LB JS RB 17/08/12

B Reviewed First Draft LB Team LB JS RB 21/08/12

C Final LB Team LB JS RB 05/11/12

Client signoff

Client Cambridgeshire Highways

Project Ely Southern Bypass

Document title Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Job no. 5106611

Copy no.

Documentreference

Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report


3/132



Table of contents

Chapter Pages

Glossary 7Abbreviations 91. Introduction 131.1. Scheme Background 131.2. Purpose of the Scoping Report 131.3. Structure of the Scoping Report 131.4. Consultation on Scoping 142. The Need for the Scheme 152.1. Transport problem and need for intervention 152.2. Existing Transport Conditions 152.3. Summary of Challenges 183. Alternatives Considered 213.1. Consultation and Options 213.2. Appraisal of the Options 244. Scheme Description 274.1. Scheme Objectives 274.2. Project Programme 274.3. Highways Design 274.4. Structures Design 284.5. Earthworks Design 284.6. Lighting and Signs 284.7. Environmental Design 294.8. Construction 315. Approach to the EIA 335.1. Overview 335.2. Baseline Conditions 335.3. Influence of Mitigation Measures 345.4. Disruption due to Construction 345.5. Significance of Effects 345.6. Scenarios: Do Minimum and Do Something 356. Plans and Policies 376.1. Introduction 376.2. Methodology 376.3. East Cambridgeshire Design Guide and Ely Masterplan 416.4. Ely Station Development Framework 426.5. Summary 437. Traffic and Transport 458. Air Quality 478.1. Introduction 478.2. Study Area 478.3. Review of Existing Information 478.4. Methodology and Criteria 478.5. Existing Conditions 478.6. Existing Conditions 488.7. Scope for Mitigation Measures 51


4/132



8.8. Expected Effects of the Scheme 538.9. Summary 539. Cultural Heritage 559.1. Introduction 559.2. Study Area 559.3. Review of Existing Information 559.4. Methodology and Criteria 569.5. Baseline Conditions 609.6. Scope for Mitigation Measures 609.7. Expected Effects of the Scheme 619.8. Summary 6110. Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity 6310.1. Introduction 6310.2. Study Area 6310.3. Review of Existing Information 6310.4. Methodology and Criteria 6410.5. Baseline Conditions 6510.6. Scope for Mitigation Measures 6610.7. Expected Effects of the Scheme 6610.8. Summary 6711. Nature Conservation 6911.1. Introduction 6911.2. Study Area 6911.3. Review of Existing Information 6911.4. Methodology and Criteria 6911.5. Baseline Conditions 7211.6. Scope for Mitigation Measures 8111.7. Expected Effects of the Scheme 8511.8. Summary 8712. Geology and Soils 8912.1. Introduction 8912.2. Review of Existing Information 8912.3. Methodology and Criteria 8912.4. Baseline Conditions 9012.5. Scope for Mitigation Measures 9412.6. Expected Effects on the Scheme 9512.7. Summary 9613. Materials 9713.1. Introduction 9713.2. Study Area 9713.3. Review of Existing Information 9713.4. Methodology and Criteria 9713.5. Baseline Conditions 9813.6. Scope for Mitigation Measures 9813.7. Expected Effects on the Scheme 9813.8. Summary 9814. Noise and Vibration 9914.1. Introduction 9914.2. Study Area 9914.3. Review of Existing Information/Further Studies 9914.4. Methodology and Criteria 99


5/132



14.5. Baseline Conditions 10114.6. Scope for Mitigation Measures 10214.7. Expected Effects of the Scheme 10214.8. Summary 10315. Effects on All Travellers 10515.1. Introduction 10515.2. Study Area 10515.3. Review of Existing Information 10515.4. Methodology and Criteria 10615.5. Baseline Conditions 10815.6. Scope for Mitigation Measures 10915.7. Expected Effects of the Scheme 10915.8. Summary 10916. Community and Private Assets 11116.1. Introduction 11116.2. Review of Existing Information 11116.3. Methodology and Criteria 11216.4. Consultation 11316.5. Baseline Conditions 11316.6. Scope for Mitigation Measures 11316.7. Expected Effects of the Scheme 11416.8. Summary 11517. Road Drainage and the Water Environment 11717.1. Introduction 11717.2. Study Area 11717.3. Review of Existing Information 11717.4. Methodology and Criteria 11717.5. Baseline Conditions 11717.6. Scope for Mitigation Measures 11917.7. Summary 12018. Summary 12118.1. Need for the Scheme 12118.2. Main Features of the Scheme 12118.3. Topics considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping 12118.4. Cumulative Impacts 123Appendices 125Appendix A. Figures 127A.1.

Location Plan 129

A.2. Scheme Layout 130

TablesTable 6-1: Planning Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................ 37Table 8-1: Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations (g/m3) at Wicken Fen continuous monitoring site ................... 50Table 8-2: Diffusion Tube Sites in Ely ............................................................................................................. 50Table 8-3: Bias Adjusted Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations (g/m3) ........................................ 50Table 8-4: 2010 Annual Mean Background Concentrations (g/m

3) ............................................................... 51

Table 9-1: Archaeological Remains: Value ..................................................................................................... 57Table 9-2: Historic Buildings: Value ................................................................................................................. 57Table 9-3: Historic Landscape: Value .............................................................................................................. 58

Table 9-4: Magnitude of Impact: Archaeological Remains .............................................................................. 58Table 9-5: Magnitude of Impact: Historic Buildings ......................................................................................... 59


6/132



Table 9-6: Magnitude of Impact: Historic Landscape ...................................................................................... 59Table 9-7: Significance of Effect ...................................................................................................................... 60Table 11-1: Biotic Index (Stuntney Causeway) ............................................................................................... 77Table 11-2: Biotic Index (Ely Road) ................................................................................................................. 77Table 11-3: Fish Species Recorded at Bypass Crossing Site ......................................................................... 78Table 11-4: Summary of River Habitat Surveys in Site Vicinity....................................................................... 79Table 11-5: Summary of biological WFD elements ......................................................................................... 80Table 12-1: Summary of Potentially Contaminating Historical and Existing Land Uses ................................. 93Table 14-1: Classification of Magnitude of Impacts ....................................................................................... 100Table 14-2: Baseline traffic conditions ........................................................................................................... 102Table 15-1: Assessment of Drivers Stress .................................................................................................... 107Table 15-2: Categorising Relief from Severance by Reductions in Existing Traffic Levels .......................... 108Table 16-1: Development Criteria .................................................................................................................. 113

FiguresFigure 2.1: Reported accidents between 2007 - 2011, and provisionally to end of March 2012 .................... 17Figure 3.1: Bypass options initially considered ............................................................................................... 21Figure 3.2: Options considered within this report ............................................................................................ 22Figure 3.3: Bypass Route D Option ................................................................................................................. 23Figure 3.4: Bypass Route B Option ................................................................................................................. 23Figure 8.1: Air Quality Constraints ................................................................................................................... 52


7/132


Atkins Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report | Version C | November 2012 |5106611 7

Glossary

Term Description

1 in 100 Year Flood An event or an area subject to a 1% probability of a certain size flood occurring in

any given yearAbutment A masonry or steel mass supporting structure and the junction that receives the

weight of the bridge deck and absorbs tensions from resisting earthembankments

AOD Levels in metres Above Ordnance Datum

Assessment Years Years identified for the assessment of the environmental and transport effects ofthe project as set out in the Environmental Statement and Transport Assessmentrespectively.

Attenuation Pond An artificial pond used for collection and slow release of surface water run-off

Backfill Material used for refilling an excavation

Biodiversity An all-encompassing term for the variety of habitats and species on earth

Bridge A structure that allows people or vehicles to cross an obstacle such as a river orcanal or railway etc

Bridge Deck A deck is the platform or floor like surface on which pedestrians, vehicles andcycles travel, contains utility services and is normally constructed of concrete andsteel. The deck structure sits on top of and is supported by the abutments

Bridge Soffit The underside of an architectural feature, as a beam, arch, ceiling or deck

Cantilever A projecting structure that is attached or supported at only one end

Capping Beam A beam resting upon and connecting the heads of piles

Carriageway A lane of a highway; a road on which there is no central reservation

Conduits A tube or duct for enclosing electric wires or cable

Contamination The unclean or impure state of the ground, soil and waterways due to previousindustrial uses and neglect

Cross Sections A section formed by a plane cutting through an object usually, at right angles toan axis

Culvert A covered structure, such as a concrete pipe, which conveys a flow under anobstruction such as a road, railway or building

Demolition Removal of above ground structures to provide a cleared site to allow for siteinvestigation and subsequent development

Do Minimum Baseline A baseline for the EIA and transport assessments which comprises a) theenvironmental and development conditions existing on the site and b) consenteddevelopments and committed transport and other infrastructure at 2013. The Do

Minimum baselines for assessment years after 2013 include the construction ofconsented and committed developments and infrastructure assumed to becompleted or under construction at the year in question

Earthworks Alteration, movement or excavation of earth that changes landform eithertemporarily or permanently

Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA)

The process of assessing the likely environmental effects of proposed projectsand developments in accordance with the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impacts etc) Regulations 1999

EnvironmentalStatement (ES)

The document which is submitted with the application and which sets out thefindings of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance withthe EIA Regulations.


8/132



Term Description

European LandscapeConvention

The European Landscape Convention (ELC) is the first international conventionto focus specifically on landscape, and is dedicated exclusively to the protection,management and planning of all landscapes in Europe. The ELC was signed bythe UK government on 24 February 2006, ratified on the 21 November 2006, andbecame binding on 1 March 2007.

Finished TopographicalLevel

The finished ground level

Footbridge A bridge provided solely for the use of foot and cycle traffic

Footpath A path for walkers or people on foot

FormationTopographical Level

The formation and shaping of ground. The Formation Topographical Level is thelevel achieved before construction layering to obtain the finished topographicallevel (top ground level)

Gradients The steepness of a slope or rate at which the height increases over length

Ground Contours Lines linking areas of equal elevation

HV Cables High Voltage Electricity Cables

Inspection Chamber See ManholeLandscape CharacterNetwork

The Landscape Character Network is a free-to-join, informal, information-sharingnetwork dedicated to landscape - delivering news, resources, links and events onLandscape Character Assessment and the European Landscape Convention.

Landscape DescriptionUnits

A series of homogenous landscape description units (LDUs) based on nationaldatasets for natural and cultural attributes

Manhole A subterranean inspection point or area to service utilities

Open Space Open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water suchas rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs which offer important opportunities forsport and recreation and can also act as a visual amenity

OS Grid Reference Ordnance Survey Grid Reference refers to an area or coordinate of the national

grid networkRemediation The clean up of contaminated soil to make it suitable and safe for future use

Retaining Wall A wall required to support a higher land or ground level

Rights of Way Rights of way are paths on which the public have a legally protected right totravel. All public rights of way are highways in law

Road Closures Road and rights of way closures necessary to facilitate land remediation, siteenabling works and the construction of facilities and infrastructure

Scheme for Assessment The proposed development for which permission is sought and subject of theenvironmental impact assessment and transport assessment

Service Diversion The diversion of utility services which currently exist within the site which are tobe diverted

Service Duct A pipe that carries a utility service i.e. gas, electricity or telecommunications

Site Compound An area with a dedicated use on a construction site

Soil Strata Layers within the soil that can be defined by the grain typology, void space ormoisture content

Stockpiling The storing of construction or related material on site for future use andapplication

Statutory Consultation Compulsory consultation with the community, interested parties or keystakeholders which is required under a law, rule or regulation

Substructure The substructure of a bridge encompasses all foundations, piers and abutmentsupon which the deck of the bridge rests

Surface Area A portion of space having length and breadth but no thickness


9/132



Term Description

Temporary Facilities and infrastructure which are to be provided temporarily for the purposesof construction and which will be removed prior to opening of the road

Topography The relief features or surface configuration of an area, including natural featuressuch as mountains and rivers and constructed features such as roads andrailways

Variable Message Signs Electronic sign providing latest information

Wing Walls Concrete walls with angled sides for the purpose of erosion containment and soilsupport

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

% ile Percentile

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic (24 hour day, 365 days per year)

AAWT Average Annual Weekday Traffic (18 hour day, weekdays only)

AOD Above Ordnance Datum

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

AQS Air Quality Strategy

AST Appraisal Summary Table

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BGS British Geological Survey

CCC Cambridgeshire County CouncilCLR Contaminated Land Report

CMS Construction Method Statement

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

CoCP Code of Construction Practice

CPO Compulsory Purchase Order

CPRE Council for the Protection of Rural England

CRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise

CSM Conceptual Site Model

CWSs County Wildlife Sites

dB Decibel

DCLG Department for Community and Local Government

Defra Department of Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs

DETR Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (no longer exists)

DfT Department for Transport

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency)

DTI Department for Trade and Industry

DTLR Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

EA Environment Agency

ECDC East Cambridgeshire District CouncilEH English Heritage


10/132




EHO Environmental Health Officer

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EN English Nature (now part of Natural England)

ES Environmental Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Act

EPAQA Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards

EU European Union

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GLVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment

GQA General Water Quality

ha hectare(s)

HCV Heavy Commercial Vehicle

IANs Interim Advice Notes

IDB Internal Drainage BoardIEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

km kilometre(s)

kph kilometres per hour

LEZ Low Emissions Zone

LDF Local Development Framework

LDU Landscape Description Units

LMVR Local Model Validation Report

LPA Local Planning Authority

m metres

m2 square metre(s)

m3

cubic metre(s)

Mph miles per hour

N/a or n/a Not available or not applicable

NGC National Grid Company

NMUs Non Motorised Users

NO Nitrous Oxide

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NSCA National Society for Clean Air

NTS Non Technical SummaryOAR Option Appraisal Report

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

OS Ordnance Survey

PIAs Personal Injury Accidents

PM10 Particulates

PCL Potential Contaminant Linkage

ppb parts per billion

PPG Planning Policy Guidelines

PPS Planning Policy Statements

PRN Primary Road Network


11/132




PVB Present Value Benefits

RDB Red Data Book

RSI Road Side Interview

RSS Regional Spatial Strategy

RTB Regional Transport Board

RTS Regional Transport Strategy

S106 Section 106

Sec second(s)

SI Statutory Instrument

SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

SLI Site of Local Importance (for nature conservation)

SPA Special Protection Area

SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance

Sqm Square metresSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SUDs Sustainable Drainage Systems

TA Transport Assessment

TAA Technical Approval Authority

TAG Transport Analysis Guidance

mg/m3

micrograms per cubic metre

u/ha Units per Hectare

VADMA Variable Demand Modelling Advice

WebTAG Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance

WHO World Health Organisation


12/132

(this page has been left intentionally blank)


13/132


Atkins Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report | Version C | November 2012| 5106611 13

1. Introduction

1.1. Scheme BackgroundThe Scheme is proposed to address capacity issues on the A142 Angel Drove and Station Road in Ely. TheA142 passes under the Ely to Kings Lynn railway line via a low bridge (2.74m high), with heavy commercialvehicles (HCV) traffic having to use a level crossing to the east of the under bridge resulting in congestionon Angel Drove and Station Road.

A Location Plan and Scheme Layout are included in Appendix A.

1.2. Purpose of the Scoping ReportThe guidance published by the Government for the preparation of Environmental Assessments of roadschemes is contained in Department of Transport the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)Volume 11 Environmental Assessment. This sets out both the general process and the methods for

assessing individual environmental topics and has been applied to the Ely Southern Bypass.

Prior to the commencement of works on the environmental assessment it is best practice to establish thescope of the Environmental Statement (ES). The objective of this Scoping Report is to identify theenvironmental topics to be taken into account in respect of the Ely Southern Bypass and to set out themethodology for assessment.

In summary, the Scoping Report will:

Define the study area for each topic;

Assess the current state of knowledge of baseline conditions and identify where further survey work willbe required;

Define the survey and assessment methodologies to be used;

Provide information on the likely significant effects of the Scheme;

Outline the proposed approach to consultation;

Outline the environmental impact assessment process;

Outline the criteria for assessing significance of effects;

Describe the Scheme to be assessed;

Set out the environmental design strategy and potential mitigation measures for the Scheme;

Summarise the key environmental issues which the Scheme may raise;

Set out the proposed format for the Environmental Statement.

1.3. Structure of the Scoping Report

1.3.1. Range of TopicsThe structure of this scoping report is intended generally to reflect the structure proposed for the ES.Following this introduction, the next five chapters provide information about the Scheme, its developmentand approach to environmental impact assessment:

The need for the Scheme;

Scheme description including description of traffic and transport;

Alternatives considered;

Consultation;

Approach to environmental impact assessment.

The topic assessments then follow the structure:

Plans and Policies;


14/132



Traffic and transport;

Air Quality;

Cultural Heritage;

Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity;

Nature Conservation;

Geology and Soils;

Materials;

Noise and Vibration;

Effects on All Travellers;

Community and Private Assets;

Road Drainage and the Water Environment.

An assessment of relevant policies and plans will be outlined and assessed in the topic chapters of the ESand covered in the Planning Statement accompanying the application.

A summary of the findings, including a discussion of potential cumulative impacts, then completes thedocument.

1.3.2. Interrelationships between TopicsInevitably, in any reporting of environmental effects, there will be potential for overlap between the identifiedtopics headings, not least because of the need to maintain a practicable size and structure to the topicchapters.

The environmental design will contain and combine all the measures to be included in the Scheme to limitadverse effects and maximise beneficial effects, beyond the underlying decisions on the route planning andhighway layout. This will therefore include planting for screening, integration and habitat creation,earthworks, walls and fences for noise and visual screening, waterbodies and watercourses for drainage,water cleansing and where suitable - habitat creation, realignment of public rights of way and protection ofexisting environmental features.

There are particularly strong relationships between certain assessment topics, which will be approached as

follows:

The Landscape, Townscape and Visual assessment in Chapter 10 will incorporate the historic andcultural value of places in its assessment of the value of the environmental resource, where as theCultural Heritage Chapter 9 will address the significance of the heritage assets and setting and theeffects of the Scheme on the historic fabric and pattern of the settlements and the landscape, includingthe historic setting;

In Chapter 11 Nature Conservation, biodiversity assessment will draw upon the modelling of air qualityand noise effects on sensitive sites for terrestrial habitats and on the assessment of effects on waterquality for aquatic habitats;

Public rights of way are essentially facilities of community value, but as this scheme will have substantialeffects on the pattern of movement in the locality, both on and off road, they are included in the separateassessment of pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists in Chapter 15 Effects on All Travellers;

Drainage and the Water Environment assessment also covers flood risk and effects on groundwater;with the assessment of potential pollution sources being covered in the Materials chapter. Assessmentof the resultant land uses and capabilities are covered in Chapter 16 Community and Private Assets thatincludes rural land use and agricultural land quality.

1.4. Consultation on ScopingWhere indicated in topic chapters consultation has been undertaken with stakeholders. Further consultationwill be undertaken during the design and environmental impact assessment process.

Although scoping may be considered as the first stage in the EIA process, the scope will be kept underreview throughout, so that the assessment can be refined in the light of new issues that emerge from theresults of environmental surveys, design changes, or consultation responses.


15/132

Ely Southern Bypass



2. The Need for the Scheme

2.1. Transport problem and need for interventionA transport improvement scheme is needed to reduce congestion on Angel Drove and Station Roadon the south east edge of Ely. The A142 passes under the Ely to Kings Lynn railway line via a lowbridge (2.74m high), with heavy commercial vehicle (HCV) traffic having to use a level crossing to theeast of the under bridge. The A142 through Ely carries approximately 15,000 vehicles a day, of which8% are HCV. This traffic causes severance between the railway station and a local supermarket withthe rest of the city, particularly to pedestrians and cyclists.

The implementation of better intra-regional train services for the East of England and an increase infreight movements on the FelixstoweNuneaton Corridor has meant that the level crossing isincreasingly closed to road traffic and is causing difficulties in terms of congestion. At peak times, andincreasingly during off-peak periods, HCV traffic form queues that back onto the main carriageway,blocking access to the under bridge for smaller vehicles. This occasionally results in gridlock when

queues block the Station Road roundabout.

Work is currently underway to complete the upgrades of the Ipswich to Peterborough section of theFelixstowe to Nuneaton Strategic Freight Route. Once this is completed in 2014 the frequency andlength of freight trains will increase further. The Train Operating Companies also have aspirations toincrease the frequency of passenger services on the line. Additional trains will result in more andlonger level crossing closures, increasing congestion and delays.

In addition, the railway under bridge currently has the third highest vehicle strike rate in the country.Collisions with the bridge result in disruption to the railway, as well as to other traffic, as it isnecessary to close the railway to inspect the bridge after each reported strike.

A Location Plan is included in Appendix A.

2.2. Existing Transport Conditions

2.2.1. RoadRoad network - The City of Ely lies at the crossroads of the north-south A10 Primary Road betweenKings Lynn and Cambridge and the east-west A142 Primary Road between Newmarket and Chatteris(OS grid Reference 554 780). The A10 bypasses Ely but the A142 continues to pass through theoutskirts of the City, carrying some 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday of which about 1,200 areheavy commercial vehicles. It carries both local traffic between Chatteris, Ely, Soham andNewmarket and provides regional access to the Fens from the trunk road network. When the A14 isblocked, Earith Sutton Ely and Newmarket becomes an alternative route, but with the railway

crossing at Ely being a significant pinch point.

Significant periods of down time at level crossing, height constraint on bridge The levelcrossing has an average of 8 closures per hour, and is closed for an average of 35 minutes per hourover a typical 12-hour day (7am to 7pm). Network Rails proposals for more train paths and longertrains (see below) means that the closure time would increase to a minimum of 40 minutes per hourby 2014, and is likely to increase further post 2014. The height of the adjacent underpass is too lowfor HCVs and buses, and no alternative routes are available for traffic on the A142, except for a 4 milediversion between Soham and Ely via the A1123 (through Wicken and Stretham) and then the A10.The A1123 is a Main Distributor Road, whilst the A10 is part of the Primary Road Network (PRN).

Bridge strikes - The railway under bridge currently has the third highest vehicle strike rate in thecountry, with on average one bridge strike per month. Collisions with the bridge result in disruption to

the railway, as well as to other traffic, as it is necessary to inspect the bridge after each reported


16/132

Ely Southern Bypass



strike. The bridge strikes typically involve camper vans, transit and rental vans where the driverswould more usually drive a car. These types of vehicles often become stuck under the bridge,causing further disruption to other traffic whilst the offending vehicle is being released.

Queuing of HCVs back onto the through traffic lane, delays for through traffic and traffic

accessing Ely from the East, delays for buses on Angel Drove and Station Road, poor accessto the station Long and frequent closures of the rail level crossing, and the high number of HCVsusing the A142, combine to create regular queuing of HCVs back onto the through traffic lanes,affecting traffic in general. AM peak period queues reach 380m southbound and 1.1km northbound,and often block the A142 through lanes (using the under bridge) for long periods. The mini-roundabout at the Angel Drove-Station Road junction, and the priority junction at the rail stationaccess, are both approaching capacity.

Unpredictable journey times Uncertainty / variability regarding length of queue, barrier down time,and blocking on the main carriageway leads to unpredictable journey times and driver frustration, andwhich is magnified by the bridge strike incidents.

Community severance from the railway station and local supermarket, poor walking andcycling environment The A142 carries some 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday of whichabout 1,200 are heavy commercial vehicles. High volumes of traffic and congestion on the existingA142 cause severance between the railway station and the local Tesco supermarket, off Angel Drove,and the City. This limits opportunities for walking and cycling. The Ely Market Town TransportStrategy proposes a number of cycle routes across Ely, including a route between the City Centre, theRail Station and Stuntney. A more cycle-friendly traffic environment is important in ensuring newopportunities for cycling are realised.

Poor access to the national road network Congestion and poor journey time reliability on thissection of the A142 limits access to the Fens and the trunk road system, for through and local traffic.The A142 is part of the Primary Route Network (PRN). Under the EU Directive 89/460/EC, the PRNmust provide unrestricted access to 40 tonne vehicles. It could be argued that the current constraintsat the rail crossing mean that this is not currently the case.

Traffic related noise and air pollution High traffic flows and queued traffic make the environmentalong the A142 unpleasant and intimidating, and results in poor noise and air quality for those workingand residing in the vicinity.

Road safety 46 accidents were reported within the study area between 2007 and 2011, andprovisionally to end of March 2012 (Figure 2.1): 1 fatal, 10 serious and 35 slight accidents. Analysissuggests that a primary contributory factor in five of the accidents could be the traffic conditions(particularly queuing) in advance of the level crossing. An additional five accidents were recorded atthe junction at Queen Adelaide Way. Analysis suggests that drivers are accepting smaller gaps andnot observing traffic conditions when executing right turn manoeuvres when exiting the side road ontothe A142. The high traffic flow and frequent queues that form south of the crossing may be a

contributory factor.

Other accident clusters are located at the junction of Back Hill and Broad Street on the approach tothe City Centre (a number of which involved cyclists), and at the roundabout at the A142 Bridge Street/ Angel Drove junction.

Future traffic growth Traffic modelling work undertaken in 2011 shows that significant trafficgrowth is expected by 2031 (from 8,033 trips in the AM peak in 2011 to 10,619 in 2031), with averagespeed in the town decreasing from 62 to 51 kph. This will exacerbate the issues described above.

Enabling population and economic growth In the face of continuing population growth, thechallenge presented to Elys transport network is to sustainably support an economically vibrant,multi-functional City while preserving the unique character and heritage that gives Ely its identity.


17/132

Ely Southern Bypass



Enabling growth to take place in Ely without undue congestion is essential to the future success of theCity.

Figure 2.1: Reported accidents between 2007 - 2011, and provisionally to end of March 2012

Source: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.2.2. RailRail network The station lies on the Fen Line from Cambridge to King's Lynn. Three other non-electrified lines meet at Ely: the Breckland Line to Thetford and Norwich; the line to March andPeterborough; and the line to Ipswich. Four Train Operating Companies serve a wide variety of

destinations including Cambridge, Stansted Airport, London (King's Cross and Liverpool Street),Ipswich, Norwich, King's Lynn, Peterborough, Leicester, Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield,Manchester and Liverpool. Station footfall is approximately 1.8 million per year, or 3,500 passengersper day. Since 2005, patronage has increased by 27.5%, above the national average. Passengertrains play a major role in reducing congestion on the A10. The line is also important in freight terms,lying on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton Strategic Freight Route.

Bridge / crossing strikes The bridge is the third most struck railway under bridge in the region with62 bridge strikes over the five year period 2006 to 2011 inclusive. On each occasion railway servicesare disrupted whilst the structure of the under bridge is checked by engineers. Crossing strikes areequally common, and again, rail services are restricted until the incident is cleared and safetymeasures put in place.


18/132

Ely Southern Bypass



Safety issues associated with the level crossing On an average weekday there are 191passenger and 46 freight movements across the level crossing. Safety to rail and road users is aprime consideration. The current crossing is monitored and operated remotely by a signaller inCambridge, who uses CCTV to check that the crossing is clear of people and vehicles before closingthe barriers and clearing the signals for trains to proceeds. It is the safest form of level crossing.

Support for closure of the level crossing There is currently a national campaign to improve thesafety of level crossings or promote closures where alternatives exist. Benefits include a reduction inongoing maintenance costs, and a reduction in delays caused by failures or bridge strikes. NetworkRail and the Train Operating Companies would therefore support closure of the crossing, providingthat the alternative would not worsen access to the station.

Future rail growth Rail traffic is set to increase. More passenger services are expected, due to theThameslink / Intercity Express Programme, more trains between Cambridge and Stansted, animproved hourly Ipswich to Peterborough service, and franchise changes. Nationally, Network Rail isplanning for a doubling of freight traffic over the next 30 years. The impact on Ely will be significantdue to its location on the network. Many additional trains will run outside the peak periods, but therewill still be an increase in barrier down time.

Work is currently underway to complete the upgrades to the Ipswich to Peterborough section whichpasses through Ely, as part of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route improvements. Proposals indicatethat there will be a possible 18 additional freight trains per day by 2014 which could increase levelcrossing closure times by between 4 to 6 minutes per hour, bringing a potential closure time to anaverage of 40 minutes per hour. Further closures up to 2020 are difficult to predict but the situation islikely to get significantly worse, particularly as passenger services increase. This will worsen queuingcurrently experienced at the rail crossing, causing a small proportion of road traffic to potentiallyreassign onto less suitable roads such as the A1123 between Soham and Stretham, through thevillage of Wicken, for which there are possible plans to mitigate locally.

Environmental benefits The environmental benefits of rail freight are significant. Each freight traintakes about 60 lorries off the road, and rail freight generates 6 times less CO2 than road freight, pertonne moved.

2.3. Summary of ChallengesThe justification of need can be summarised as follows:

The A142 carries some 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday through the outskirts of the City,of which about 1,200 are HCVs. The high volume of traffic creates severance between the railstation / adjacent Tesco supermarket and the City Centre for pedestrians and cyclists, and resultsin a poor safety environment for road users and pedestrians on Angel Drove.

The railway crossing creates a pinch point on the road network. The resulting congestion impactson all road users, and causes:

- delays and unpredictable journey times for through traffic (including HCVs) and local traffic(within Ely and from the surrounding villages);

- poor access to the station for cars and buses;- noise and air quality issues which contribute to an unattractive environment for cyclists and

pedestrians in the vicinity of the station.

Congestion at the crossing will increase in the absence of intervention:

- Network Rail is planning substantial growth in passenger and freight services which willincrease barrier down time from 35 to 40 minutes per hour by 2014, and further post 2014;


19/132

Ely Southern Bypass



- the Core Strategy (adopted 2009) identifies Ely as the most significant service and populationcentre in the district, and the main focus for housing, employment and retail growth in EastCambridgeshire;

Enabling growth to take place in Ely without undue congestion is essential to the future success of

the City; Proposals for more train paths and longer trains, means that the time and cost implications of

bridge strikes and level crossing failures will become increasingly significant for Network Rail, theTrain Operating Companies, and rail passengers unless mitigation measures are implemented;

There is potential to develop the station as a public transport interchange and a key gateway tothe City as part of the ECDC Station Gateway proposals; and hence promote greater use ofsustainable travel modes and increase the role of rail in reducing congestion on the A10. Thisopportunity is currently being hindered by a poor station environment (poor air quality, noise, poorvisual appearance), poor access to the station for cars and buses, severance issues associatedwith the high volume of traffic on the A142 which limits opportunities for walking and cyclingbetween the station and the City Centre;

The A142 is part of the Primary Route Network (PRN). Under EU Directive 89/460/EC, the PRN

must provide unrestricted access to 40 tonne vehicles.


20/132



21/132

Ely Southern Bypass



3. Alternatives Considered

The ES will summarise the options that have been considered during the development of the scheme

to improve the A142. Since work to address the transport problem commenced in 2002, a long list ofoptions has been refined down to five which received further assessment in the 2012 OptionAppraisal Report (OAR), in accordance with Department for Transport guidelines.

They reflect a long history of option and scheme development to address capacity issues associatedwith the railway crossing, and have emerged over time through a series of formal and informalCouncil decisions, reports, consultations and bids for Department of Transport funding.

The bypass options initially considered are shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Bypass options initially considered

3.1. Consultation and OptionsThe process of option and scheme development began in 2002, and has evolved through a series offormal and informal Council decisions, reports, consultations and bids for Department for Transportfunding. Five options were identified as being worthy of further assessment at a seminar in July 2011,attended by the local MP Jim Pale, representatives of the County Council, the District Council, the

Route F

Route E

Route C

Route B

Route A

Route D


22/132

Ely Southern Bypass



City of Ely Council, Network Rail, and major stakeholders. They comprised two bypass options,underpass improvements and two low cost intervention options, and were:

Bypass Route B

Bypass Route D

Underpass Improvements

HCV Stacking Area

HCV Queuing Lane

A public consultation, providing information about the options, took place in October/November 2011.The response to this and other consultations will be detailed in the Consultation Report accompanyingthe planning application.

Figure 3.2: Options considered within this report

3.1.1. Bypass Route DOption D (Figure 3.3) would run to the south of Ely, commencing from a roundabout on the existingA142 Angel Drove east of its existing junction with the A10 and run eastwards to rejoin the A142Stuntney Causeway at a point located between the railway crossing and the Great Ouse rivercrossing (Ely High Bridge).


23/132

Ely Southern Bypass



Figure 3.3: Bypass Route D Option

Figure 3.4: Bypass Route B Option

3.1.2. Bypass Route BThe proposed route, Option B (Figure 3.4), would run to the south of Ely, commencing from a

roundabout on the existing A142 Angel Drove east of its existing junction with the A10 and run

Viaduct spanning both rail lines (max10.5m in height, 30 metres in width).

Playing fields

Diversion andmodification to historicfootpath required

Viaduct spanning River Great Ouseand both rail lines (max: 10.5m inhei ht .


24/132

Ely Southern Bypass



eastwards to rejoin the A142 Stuntney Causeway at a roundabout south of its junction with QueenAdelaide Way.

3.1.3. Underpass Improvements

The A142 passes underneath the railway line via Ely under bridge and over the railway using a levelcrossing. The Underpass has a clearance of about 2.74m, which restricts the height of vehicles usingit. The headroom of the level crossing is about 5.3m due to it passing underneath the railwayoverhead electrical system. Both of the routes are subject to a 30 mph speed limit.

The option assessed within the Option Appraisal Report (OAR) would entail lowering the carriagewayto provide the 5.3m headroom requirement and widening the existing carriageway and footpath. Thenew underpass design would accommodate a 7.3m carriageway with 0.5m verge and a 2.0m widefootway. Additional footpath/ cycleway provision could be provided through a 3m wide box culvertthat would form part of the bridge structure; this footway has not been allowed for in the costings.Land take is approximately 0.20ha, affecting Standons, the station car-park (but unlikely to result inloss of parking spaces), and Kings School Playing Fields (but unlikely to significantly affect amenityvalue).

3.1.4. Stacking OptionThis is a low cost option for segregating and holding vehicles over 2.7m high (HCVs, buses andcamper vans) in designated waiting areas through the provision of stacking areas, so as to enable thefree flow of vehicles able to use the underpass. The stacking areas would consist of specificallyconstructed parking facilities, in the form of either parking areas of parking lay-bys.

The option assessed within the OAR would comprise a 20 bay stacking park on the east side of therailway and an 18 bay stacking lay-by on the west side. The park would be linked to rail crossingbarrier, permitting only 3 vehicles to be released at any one time to prevent queuing and to avoidblocking access to the Underpass.

3.1.5. Queuing OptionThe provision of queuing lanes down the centre of the A142 before the was considered as a low costoption for segregating and holding vehicles over 2.7m high in selected waiting areas, permitting thefree flow of vehicles able to use the Underpass. The option assessed within the OAR entailed a singlequeuing lane for westbound traffic (from Queen Adelaide Way and across Ely High Bridge) and nofacilities provided for eastbound traffic (beyond that currently provided from the level crossing back tothe Bridge Road / Angel Drove roundabout.

3.2. Appraisal of the OptionsThe short listed options were assessed against the 5 five business case model (Strategic, Value forMoney, Financial, Delivery, and Commercial), and drew on evidence available from a range ofsources, including:

Wider policy documents, including East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy, Cambridgeshires ThirdLocal Transport Plan, Ely Masterplan, etc.;

a SATURN-based transport model and bespoke spreadsheet model focusing on the interaction ofcar and HCV movements in the vicinity of the crossing;

environmental assessments;

analysis of available datasets (e.g. accident data provided by CCC); and

previous and supporting studies (e.g. Ely Setting Study, Atkins, May 2012; Ely Road Bridge RoadClearance Improvement Feasibility Study Report, Atkins, May 2012).


25/132

Ely Southern Bypass



The findings of the Option Appraisal Report (OAR) are summarised below.

The two Bypass options and the Underpass Improvement (online deepening and widening) areconsidered viable options in terms of a Strategic, Value for Money, Financial, Delivery andCommercial context:

- Of the two Bypass options, Route B is considered to provide a stronger overall business caseacross the above criteria;

- Both Bypass options would provide a large or moderate beneficial impact in terms oftransport-related intervention objectives, due to a significant reduction in traffic on A142 AngelDrove and Station Road. They similarly perform well against the high level goals relating tostrategic road and rail movements, including maintaining the ability of the A142 as part of thePrimary Road Network to facilitate the movement of all traffic, and supporting the delivery ofincreased levels of freight and passenger rail services (by reducing the risk of line closure dueto bridge strikes by HCVs and level crossing failures. However, Route B is most effective(across all options) in terms of reducing journey times for through traffic and creating a roadnetwork which supports the expansion of Ely in the long term;

- Environmentally both Bypass options result in net benefits to the number of propertiesexperiencing noise and air pollution but there are likely to be significant adverse impacts tolandscape character and particularly in relation to the quintessential views of Ely and theCathedral. Land take is generally from habitats of low value that can be mitigated.Greenhouse gas emissions would increase;

- Route B is the preferred option in terms of stakeholder and public support, but significantconcerns have been raised by English Heritage regarding its impact on the quintessentialviews of Ely and its cathedral;

- Route D results in loss of the playing fields at Kings School, which are used by both theschool and local community groups. Any re-allocated land would need to be away from theschool and would not allow the same level of (bus-free) access and use. Paragraph 74 of theNational Planning Policy Framework states that open space, sports and recreational buildingsand land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless an assessment has shown theopen space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or that the loss resulting fromproposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms ofquantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports andrecreational provision which clearly outweigh the loss.

Route D also has some deliverability challenges:

- The road design would not be fully compliant with DMRB (the Highways Agencys DesignManual for Roads and Bridges) geometric standards;

- Construction of a new three arm roundabout on the A142 would cause traffic disruption due toits proximity to the level crossing and Great Ouse river crossing, Ely High Bridge;

- Visibility on the approaches to the new three arm roundabout would be restricted from boththe underpass and Great Ouse river crossing, Ely High Bridge; and

- There is only moderate stakeholder and public support for this option.

The Underpass option shows mixed performance against Strategic and Value for Money themes,but there are some significant challenges associated with Delivery:

- Deepening and widening of the underpass does not remove traffic from A142 Angel Droveand Station Road, and does not address severance issues or improve walking and cyclingopportunities between the rail station and the City Centre. In addition, it would be onlymarginally beneficial in terms of reducing journey times for through traffic and creating anetwork which supports major expansion of Ely in the long term. Furthermore, the optiondoes not enable closure of the existing A142 Station Road and would prejudice the delivery ofStation Gateway concept (although these proposals currently have no status, and furtherconcept designs are being drawn up). However, this option is more effective than either of


26/132

Ely Southern Bypass



the Bypass options in terms of reducing the risk of vehicle strikes at the railway bridge and thelevel crossing; and reducing delays to bus services between Ely and Newmarket;

- The option is largely neutral environmentally because of existing degraded land andlandscapes in the area, but involves some land take affecting habitats. The scheme woulddeliver a small decrease in CO2 emissions and some negligible noise improvements;

- Implementation would result in severe disruption due to the need to close the A142 for severalmonths during construction. Possessions need to be agreed with Network Rail to close therail line (generally requires two years notice);

- The option has very little stakeholder and public support overall.

The two HCV Stacking Bays / Queuing Lanes are considered non-viable in terms of theiroperation. They are also considerably less effective in terms of addressing the range of transport-related objectives and high level goals identified.

Only Bypass Route B and the HCV Queuing options represent high value for money in BCRterms, with BCRs of 2.69 and 2.09 respectively. Bypass D represents the poorest value formoney, with costs outweighing benefits, resulting in a BCR of just 0.88.

All options would be funded through Prudential Borrowing, and to a less extent developer andthird party contributions (scale of contributions to be determined and dependent on the optionchosen).

The Bypass and Underpass options would be procured through an OJEU tendering process with astandard ICE contract. The HCV stacking and queuing options would be commercially tendered orprocured through Cambridgeshire County Councils existing contract networks. Bypass Route B is theonly option with a strong / favourable delivery case. There are no significant buildability, constructionor operational viability issues; partnership working across delivery agents would be relativelystraightforward; and the scheme has strong stakeholder and public support overall. There are,nevertheless, environmental concerns, including those raised by English Heritage regarding theimpact of a raised structure on the quintessential views of Ely and its cathedral. They will beaddressed in the ES but, in promoting this option, it is considered that the benefits it will bring willoutweigh those impacts and that careful design and mitigation will result in acceptable integration with

the historic landscape.


27/132

Ely Southern Bypass



4. Scheme Description

4.1. Scheme ObjectivesObjectives for intervention are set out in a number of policy documents including the EastCambridgeshire Core Strategy (2009), and the third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) (2011-2015).

Reduce journey times on the A142 for longer distance traffic travelling between the A10 and A14corridors;

Reduce risk of vehicle strikes at the rail bridge and level crossing, and reduce risks of delays torail services;

Reduce noise and improve air quality in the Station Road area of Ely;

Reduce congestion in the vicinity of the rail station relieve increased congestion associated withthe underpass / level crossing and increased development traffic;

Improve accessibility to the station for all transport modes;

Reduce delays to bus services between Ely and Newmarket;

Reduce accidents.

Given the environmental constraints, particularly the importance of the views, landscape characterand quality of the setting, an additional intervention objective is also been included:

Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment, heritage and landscape and seeksolutions that deliver long term environmental benefits and demonstrate compliance at a locallevel (Refer to Chapter 6 Planning and Policies):

- Foster development which encourages walking, cycling, and public transport use;- Benefit economic activity and enhance the environment;- Be located sensitively;

- Conserve wildlife and natural features;- Integrate planning and transport to promote more sustainable choices.

4.2. Project ProgrammeThe principal dates for the project are expected to be:

Submission of the planning application in April 2013;

Start of construction April 2014, assuming that the Orders are submitted in March 2013 withoutobjection, and End of Notice to Treat Period December 2013;

Opening Year of the Scheme Summer 2015;

What may be termed the Future Year for assessment purposes of 2031, which has been takenas approx 15 years after Scheme opening.

4.3. Highways DesignThe principal elements of the preferred scheme are:

The proposed route is a 1.7km, 7.3m single carriageway road with 1m hard strips running fromthe A142 Angel Drove to the A142 Stuntney Causeway. The road heads east on a lowembankment from the proposed Angel Drove roundabout, rising to cross over both the Cambridgeto Kings Lynn and Newmarket to Ely railway lines. It then sweeps north east passing over theGreat Ouse River (3.2m navigable headroom), flood plain and flood banks before continuing on alow embankment to a new roundabout on Stuntney Causeway;


28/132

Ely Southern Bypass



The road will be designed to the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges with a60mph design speed and is to comply with best industry practices and be as sympathetic to theenvironment as is practicable;

Improved facilities for NMUs are to be provided where possible (particularly at the existingunderpass) and are to comply with the requirements of the Local Highway Authority;

Surface water drainage is to be discharged into IDB drains or into the River via pollution controldevices and attenuated as necessary to the approval of both the EA and the IDBs. The continuityof the existing drainage network will be maintained by providing culverts under the route of theCrossing.

4.4. Structures DesignStructural options for both the rail and river crossings will be considered by the project team inconsultation with the Bridge Architects Knights, to select and design the optimum solution duringdesign development in relation to the scheme objectives and the following:

The surrounding environment;

Local topography and geology; Aesthetics, details and finishes;

Buildability (including the Contractors preferred methods of construction);

Durability and maintainability;

Whole life costs.

4.5. Earthworks DesignEarthworks design will be in accordance to current design standards and will be required to allow theconstruction of the new roundabouts, low rise embankments and the high rise approachembankments associated to the proposed bridges. Due to the poor ground conditions in the area,ground improvement techniques and lightweight fill materials are to be considered for theembankments.

As part of the earthworks design consideration will be given to the extents of soft ground areas andselection of appropriate treatment works together with the stability of proposed embankment slopesand settlement.

All earthworks design will be in accordance to current design standards which will include:

Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design;

British Standards:

Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Volume 4.

4.6. Lighting and SignsLighting for the bypass would be restricted to the two roundabouts. Requirements to tie into adjacentlighting systems less then 200m from the proposed system means the western roundabout lightingwould extend to the A10 roundabout to the west. Light spill will be kept at a minimum and approvedby the Environment Agency.

Conventional roadside signage is to be provided which is to be kept to the minimum necessary toadequately inform road users and will be to the requirements of the Local Highway Authority.

The lighting and signs design is to comply with the following:

The requirements of all relevant British Standards and BSENs;


29/132

Ely Southern Bypass



The requirements of the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Volume 8 and the Traffic SignsRegulations & General Directions.

4.7. Environmental DesignEnvironmental design is an integral part of the Scheme development, including the delivery ofsuccessful mitigation and long term environmental benefits. The scheme design will take into accountthe important views, landscape character and quality of the setting of a number of importantdesignated heritage assets as well as the environmental constraints identified as part of the baselinedesk study, survey and consultation.

4.7.1. Environmental Design Objectives

Air Quality

Design junction improvements to maximise the free flow of traffic and optimise vehicle speeds.

Ensure that the AQS objectives for any pollutant are not exceeded.

Ensure that there would be an overall improvement in air quality, with more properties having an

improvement, than a deterioration, in air quality as a result of the Scheme.

Cultural Heritage

Using integrated landscape design and off-line planting to integrate development into grain ofhistoric landscape and reduce visibility of the Scheme in views across area;

Ensuring appropriate provision is made for professional archaeological investigation of anyremains;

Developing engineering solutions that deliver a high quality structure that can be clearly read andunderstood as a new element of infrastructure in the historic landscape.

Landscape

Follow principles set out in the Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines in developing the

landscape design for the Scheme; Follow an integrated approach to environmental and engineering design, including liaison with

environmental specialists to develop a landscape design that helps to mitigate the Scheme andprovide additional environmental benefits;

Consider important views of Ely cathedral and the historic city and how these are experienced bysensitive receptors including walkers, cyclists and people approaching the city by boat along the GreatOuse River;

Provide a pleasant environment for all travellers, including the retention of attractive views fromthe road and PROW where possible;

Maximise the positive aspects of the Scheme and its surroundings through creative design anduse of local materials, including planting. This would enhance the local sense of place andhistoric character, with emphasis on environmental quality and sustainability;

Reflect existing landscape character and retain existing features. Create opportunities to improve

landscape character through an integrated approach to mitigation providing adequate land for treeplanting;

Give careful consideration to the location and design of lighting to minimise impacts at both dayand night;

Develop opportunities to screen existing views of the Angel Droves business park and proposedfuture development;

Specific landscape mitigation measures, such as proposed planting, should be in character withthe surroundings;

Embankments and earth shaping should consider the surrounding landscape character in thedesign;

Maximise the opportunity for soft landscape and mitigation measures including the acquisition ofsmall, but important, parcels of land to mitigate, for example, the junction improvements.


30/132

Ely Southern Bypass



Implement advance planting and mitigation measures in strategic locations to mitigate potentialresidual effects;

Choose the route least damaging to the landscape by respecting the existing landform andavoiding disruption of major topographical features.

Nature Conservation

Minimise impacts on CWSs and mitigate adequately by translocation or habitat creation on newverges;

Avoid runoff affecting designated sites of nature conservation interest and watercourses;

Avoid loss of or disturbance to habitats known to support protected species;

Where protected species may be affected, ensure appropriate and sufficient mitigation strategiescan be included within the design;

Integrate nature conservation and landscape design for the road to enhance habitats andmaximise opportunities for habitat creation, in accordance with HA and local biodiversity actionplans;

Exploit any opportunities to mitigate existing severance issues.

Noise and Vibration The design will include measures to reduce the impact of noise increases, including the use of

quieter road surfacing material to help mitigate the impact on the tranquillity of riversideapproaches and sensitive receptors, including walkers, cyclists and people approaching the cityby boat along the Great Ouse River.

All Travellers

Ensure public rights of way are maintained and that high quality crossings of the strategic routeare provided for vulnerable users;

Maximise opportunities for improving facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly on the localaccess roads;

Excessive increase in public transport trip lengths should be avoided.

Community and Private Assets

High quality land should not be used where lower quality land is available.

Minimise land take.

Minimise severance of agricultural holdings.

Avoid the creation of parcels of land which are not economic to work.

Avoid prejudicing other productive land uses by avoiding the creation of unworkable accessarrangements, land take or severance.

Maximise potential benefits to individual business/agricultural enterprises.

Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Maintain floodplain storage capacity.

Ensure the Scheme does not result in increase in flooding potential on local watercourses. Ensure that water quality and hydromorphology are assessed to comply with Water Framework

Directive Standards

Ensure arrangements are put in place for the long term effectiveness of sustainable drainagesolutions.

4.7.1.1. Reporting

The Environmental Statement (ES) will report on the extent to which these objectives are met by thedesign of the Scheme. The environmental design drawings will be the principal illustrations for theScheme in this section of the ES and will be provided in plan and section form.


31/132

Ely Southern Bypass



4.8. ConstructionThe construction of the Scheme would inevitably lead to disruption to both people and the naturalenvironment, between the start of pre-construction works and the end of the contract maintenanceperiod. Most disruption is likely to occur during the main phase of construction. Each individual

environmental topic chapter will address construction impacts within the ES for ease of reference.

Study Area and Approach

The steps to be taken in the assessment of possible disruption are:

To estimate the number of properties, highlighting any which are particularly sensitive todisruption;

Note any areas/ features which might need to be protected or rescued;

Estimate approximate likely quantities of borrow or surplus material associated with the Scheme;

Discuss the possible need for borrow pits or disposal sites with the local planning authorities,noting any potential problems;

Inform the local waste regulation authority, where appropriate, about borrow and surplus fillissues.

For assessment purposes an outline construction strategy agreed with the ECI Contractor, Jacksons,would be included in the ES and would form part of the description of the Scheme being assessed.This strategy would include information on:

Contractors compounds, construction yards and lay-down areas.

Options for transporting materials to site, the network of haul routes and access for constructionstaff ;

The general logic of the construction sequence, particularly for more complex junctions and on-line widening sections.

The general pattern of the traffic management requirements for the existing roads affected.

The typical durations of construction operations, particularly for the complex or programme critical

locations and where large structures are required. The typical types and quantities of construction plant required, so that affects on noise and

emission levels can be estimated.

The approximate quantities of key materials required for the works and the associated transportand storage implications.

The strategy for the excavation of fill and soil materials, including their handling, storage,amelioration where needed, and re-use.

The location and remediation of any directly associated borrow pits required to provide theseconstruction materials.

The control and treatment of surface and foul water throughout the construction site.

Any agreements reached with third parties regarding environmental effects and controls, such asnoise levels, working hours and so on.

The management plan being developed to ensure appropriate control and monitoring ofenvironmental matters during the construction period.


32/132



33/132

Ely Southern Bypass



5. Approach to the EIA

5.1. OverviewReporting of the assessment for each environmental topic follows a consistent structure:

a. Introduction and Scope of Topic, which can include aspects of the project and policies andguidelines of particular relevance.

b. Methodology, with detailed methodologies placed in the related Appendix where appropriate.c. Description of Baseline Conditions, including changes to the baseline between assessment

periods, identification of relevant sensitive receptors and a summary of any modelling,measurements or surveys undertaken.

d. A summary of the Influence of the Mitigation Measures.e. Description of Impacts according to whether they would be temporary or permanent many

changes resulting from construction are permanent effects.f. Consideration of potential Cumulative Impacts with other topics and with other developments.

Each topic chapter sets out the basis of the assessment method adopted and identifies the relevantsection of DMRB Volume 11 that has been followed and any additional guidance that has been used.The aim is to provide the reader with a clear understanding of how the assessment has beenundertaken. Thus aspects of the method are described logically in each chapter, as defined undersubsequent sub-headings.

5.1.1. Study Area and TimescaleThe study area for the EIA will be defined for each topic in the appropriate chapters and will varyaccording to the environmental resource potentially affected. Some will relate to the spread of theeffect from the new works proposed and some also include effects from the changes in the trafficpattern of the area as a result of the Scheme.

The timescale is based on the programme in Chapter 4 and will run from the intended start ofconstruction in April 2014 through the intended Opening Year of the Scheme in Summer 2015 to whatis termed the Future Assessment year of 2031, which has been taken to be approx. 15 years after theScheme opening. The assessment will cover all of the construction period as well as the changes inoperational effects across the 15 year period; it will include the worst case conditions within this timefor each assessment topic.

5.2. Baseline ConditionsTo establish baseline conditions for each of the environmental topics covered by the ES, a review ofavailable information has been undertaken using various methods, including literature research,desktop review of previous reports and studies, site visits, site investigations, surveys and

consultations.

This Scoping Report also identifies the need to undertake further surveys required to provide abaseline of existing conditions adequate to provide a robust prediction of the environmental impacts ofthe Scheme. These surveys are summarised in the descriptions of the baseline conditions in therelevant topic chapters.


34/132

Ely Southern Bypass



5.3. Influence of Mitigation MeasuresIn recognition of the iterative design process required by DMRB Volume 11 and general goodpractice, the approach to the design of the Scheme will be to integrate mitigation by design into theproposal in order to secure environmental outcomes and benefits and then to add any further specific

mitigation, such as planting needed to address adverse effects. These mitigating measures will betaken into account when assessing the Scheme. Appropriate choice of options at the layout anddesign refinement stages are usually the most effective means of achieving environmental aims.

The general approach for mitigation by design follows this hierarchy:

a. Identify constraints;b. Optimise beneficial effects;c. Avoid new adverse effects;d. Reduce new adverse effects;e. Remedy new adverse effects;f. Consider compensatory measures for new adverse effects, but only as a last resort where

these effects cannot be avoided otherwise.

5.4. Disruption due to ConstructionThe construction of this Scheme and the associated disruption to the patterns of traffic and othermovements would have a considerable influence on the environment. Construction-related effectswill therefore be covered as an intrinsic part of each topic assessment within this ES, rather thanbeing dealt with as a separate issue. The principal distinction made is whether the effects would betemporary or permanent, rather than how they would be caused. Potential secondary effects mayoccur for rail user disruption, whilst unlikely, may arise from weekend working and night closures.

5.5. Significance of Effects

The assessment will identify the potential impacts that might occur due to the construction andoperation of the Scheme. Impacts may be adverse/negative or beneficial/positive, direct, indirect,secondary or cumulative, temporary or permanent, short, medium or long term. Impacts can affectthe environment in a variety of ways. The differing parts of the environment affected by a scheme areknown as receptors, i.e. those things that receive an impact from a scheme. Receptors can rangefrom individual plants, animals or human beings living in or passing through the area, through to thelandscape as a whole and the physical, ecological and cultural elements within it.

The assessment of the impacts of the Scheme will be based on agreed mitigation measures beingdesigned into the Scheme, taking account of any change in effectiveness over time, such as growth ofplanting, the establishment of new habitats or the change in noise generation from older roadsurfaces.

Chapter 2 of DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5 introduces the general principle underlying theassessment process, which can be summarised generally, although not necessarily for every topic, asa three-step process:

a. The evaluation of the value, importance or sensitivity of the receptors;b. Assessment of the magnitude of the impact of the Scheme on the receptor, be it adverse or

beneficial;c. Determination of the significance of the effect resulting from combining the impact (of a certain

magnitude) on a receptor (of a particular value).

Significance criteria will be set out for each assessment topic following this three step approach.


35/132

Ely Southern Bypass



5.6. Scenarios: Do Minimum and Do SomethingThe environmental assessment process does not merely consider the effects of the Scheme (DoSomething scenario) against the conditions as they are now, but instead makes the assessmentagainst what is described as the Do Minimum scenario; that is, what could be reasonably expected to

have occurred over the same timescale if the Scheme did not go ahead. This relates both to changesin the highway network and traffic conditions and changes to the local environment and developmentpattern.


36/132


37/132

Ely Southern Bypass



6. Plans and Policies

6.1. IntroductionThe development is within the administrative area of East Cambridgeshire District Council and thecounty of Cambridgeshire.

Planning applications are determined against current planning policy within the administrative areasand the National Planning Policy Framework. This is in compliance with The Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act (2004) which requires decisions to be determined in accordance with theDevelopment Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The 2004 Act introduced Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks to replaceStructure and Local Plans. In July 2010 the Government announced its intention to abolish RegionalSpatial Strategies as part of the Localism Bill. In November 2011 the Bill became an Act. All RegionalSpatial Strategies (RSS) are being assessed and it will be determined by the Secretary of State if the

RSS should be revoked or remain.

For the purposes of this Scheme, policy from the National Planning Policy Framework,Cambridgeshire County Council and East Cambridgeshire District Council are relevant.

The ES will set out the planning policy context for the development, drawing on the plans and policiessummarised below. An analysis of the degree of fit of the Scheme will be included within the EStogether with any other factors material to consideration of the Planning Application.

6.2. MethodologyThe methodology used in the assessment will be derived from DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 12:Impact of Road Schemes on Policies and Plans.

The scope of the assessment reflects the following assumptions:

The assessment is not designed to be an exhaustive examination of every aspect of the Schemeand every policy which might conceivably be relevant to the area but concentrates on issues thatare likely to be significant to the Scheme;

The assessment does not include a review of international policies.

The assessment will use the criteria outlined in Table 6-1 in order to show how policy objectiveswould be facilitated or hindered by the Scheme.

Table 6-1: Planning Assessment Criteria

Assessment Score

Contribution to Achievement of Policy Objectives

Beneficial The Scheme contributes to, or is consistent with, the policy.

Neutral A change that is neither positive nor negative in terms of the objectives of planningpolicies.

Adverse The Scheme hinders, or is inconsistent with, the policy.


38/132

Ely Southern Bypass



The assessment will be based upon professional value judgement of policy issues, addressing thenature, extent, likelihood and significance of the effect upon policy objectives; it draws on the findingsfrom the individual topic assessment chapters in the ES. In reaching the overall assessment,judgement will be used to weigh up policies and proposals that are facilitated by the Scheme againstthose which are hindered.

To allow judgements to be made in a structured way (and to provide an 'audit trail'), the approachadopted will consider each relevant topic, setting out the key national, regional and local transport andland use policies pertaining to that topic, followed by a summary of how the Scheme integrates withthe objectives across all policy levels. In accordance with DMRB guidance, the assessment ofintegration will be included in the individual environmental topic assessment chapters.

The assessment of the extent to which the objectives of the above topics are facilitated or hindered bythe Scheme will consider the following:

Weighting: the statutory status of the policy document.

Context of the Integration: location-specific policies are given greater weight than non location-specific policies.

Permanence: whether the integration of the Scheme with policy objectives would be temporary(e.g. noise and air quality during construction) or permanent (e.g. irreversible changes to thebaseline environment such as land take).

6.2.1. Review of Planning and PoliciesA desk study has been undertaken to inform this scoping stage to review key planning and transportpolicy documents outlined below.

6.2.2. National Planning PolicyIn March 2012 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was introduced which is aconsolidation of the 25 Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes, although some of the

documents remain in situ, including: PPS 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, Annexe Eof PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and Practice Guides relating to PPS5 (Planningfor the Historic Environment) and PPS 25 (Development and Flood Risk). The NPPF assists policymakers within Local Planning Authorities and guides decisions on development proposals.

The National Planning Policy Framework addresses a variety of issues including, inter alia, flood risk,impact on the historic environment, landscape, green belt and the natural environment. There is astrong emphasis on creating sustainable communities and planning for innovation. It strives for theefficient use of land and that development should take place where there is a need to provide avibrant and prosperous community.

The document discusses, amongst other factors, the impact of developments upon heritage assetswhether they are within designated Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and World Heritage Sites.

Ely Cathedral is Listed Building that is a significant heritage asset in Ely and any development whichhas a potential impact upon the Cathedral will need to be considered. Section 12 of the NPPFdiscusses how the importance of a herita

environmental impact assessment scoping report

Documents