hilton a14 - microsoftbtckstorage.blob.core.windows.net/site9386/2015 hilton...hilton a14 17th july...

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MITIGATION DESIGN STUDY

Hilton A14

17th July 2015

Sound Barrier Solutions Limited Registered Office: Nettle Hill, Brinklow Road, Ansty, Coventry, CV7 9JL Tel / Fax : +44 (0)7966 445234 Email: [email protected]

Registered in Cardiff No. 3577151

CONTENTS

• Title Page

• Contents

• Aim of study

• Introduction • Background to the Study • Necessary Assumptions

• Assessment Criteria • BSEN Standards

• Method of Analysis

• Computer Model • Choosing an Optimum Barrier Design

• Discussion of Measurements

• Findings and Results

• Mitigation Options • Barrier Designs Considered

• Conclusions and Recommendations • Tables

• Table 1: 16 hr LAeq Daytime Façade Noise Levels • Table 2: 16 hr LAeq Daytme Noise Level Differences • Table 3: 8 hr LAeq Night-time Façade Noise Levels • Table 4: 8 hr LAeq Night-time Noise Level Differences

• Figures • Figure 1: Location of Proposed Noise Mitigation • Figure 2: Location of Proposed Noise Mitigation • Figure 3: Location of Proposed Extra Noise Mitigation • Figure 4: Noise Contours: Jacobs Design: 2035 LAeq 16hr • Figure 5: Noise Contours: Jacobs Design: 2035 LAeq 8hr • Figure 6: Noise Contours: SBS Option 4: 2035 LAeq 16hr • Figure 7: Noise Contours: SBS Option 4: 2035 LAeq 8hr

• Appendix A: Traffic Data Confidentiality & Copyright This report has been prepared using all reasonable skill and care within the resources agreed by the client. No responsibility is accepted for matters outside the terms and scope of the agreement under which this report has been prepared. Information, data and drawings embodied in this Report may be legally privileged and are strictly confidential. It is supplied in trust and on the understanding that the sum and all parts thereof will be held confidentially and not disclosed to any third parties without the prior written consent of Sound Barrier Solutions Ltd. All rights reserved

AIM OF STUDY

The aim of this study was to carry out an assessment of the noise mitigation measures proposed by Jacobs for the village of Hilton in Cambridgeshire. The project is to form part of ongoing objections by the parish council to the proposals to re-route and widen the A14. The proposals will result in the road being brought closer to the village of Hilton than it currently is. Many of the residents oppose this plan as they believe it will result in a negative impact on the soundscape of the village. This report was intended to investigate the impact of the new road on the village as a whole and to propose where possible an improved system of noise mitigation which would help to safeguard the future noise climate of the village. The main requirement of the study was to produce a three-dimensional computer model to examine how the noise would spread from the new A14 to the housing. The computer model was programmed to determine the noise levels experienced at the most exposed façade of each relevant property. The model was then used to assess the current scheme of mitigation as proposed by Jacobs and to design an optimum system which would ensure the maximum potential protection into the future. The mitigation designs were specified in terms of position, height, material and acoustic performance. The computer model was used to determine how well the mitigation measures would perform by re-assessing the noise levels at each property and by calculating noise contours for the whole area, considering the impact during the most sensitive part of any 24 hour period, the night time. The A14 is already a substantial route and the proposed widening will increase its capacity to carry traffic. Whilst the new route moves the road further away from many properties in the wider area, it will move traffic closer to the villagers of Hilton. The quantity of traffic is expected to be very high in proportion to the size of this local population. The proportion of HGV traffic is also expected to be relatively large throughout the day and also during the night. It is therefore vital that any mitigation design be robust enough to limit the amount of low frequency noise generated by heavy goods vehicles being transmitted to the village.

INTRODUCTION:

Background to the study: Sound Barrier Solutions Ltd was first appointed by the client to investigate the potential impact of the new A14 in 2010. At the time Atkins were responsible for the plans for the scheme and so assessment was carried out of their proposals for noise mitigation and suggestions for an improved system were made. Since that the time the main contractor for the scheme has changed and along with it the detail of the line of the proposed road as well as the criteria of requirements for noise mitigation. As such it was necessary to re-visit the original work undertaken, bring the noise model up to date and assess the current proposals by the new main consultant Jacobs. The general location is still mostly rural farmland and as such the new A14 will be the only significant source of noise in the area. There are of course some minor roads in and around the village which also have a noise impact on the area. On completion of the new road, the

village will be located approximately 900 metres away from the closest carriageway edge. However as the village is composed of around 400 houses all located in a fairly compact area, the field of view from many of the houses to the A14 will be almost 180 degrees. Topographically, the surrounding area is generally flat and open with no significant obstacles to the path of noise between the road and the nearest houses. The A14 platform is expected to be raised by at least 2m relative to the current ground levels in order to be above the perceived flood plane of the area. The embankment may therefore lead to an added noise impact on the properties closest in to the motorway. However, the latest design of the road includes for additional 2m high earth bunds on the embankment which will create a false cutting effect along much of the route as it passes Hilton. Necessary Assumptions In order to carry out a study of this type it is necessary to have access to as much technical information about the scheme as possible. The construction of a three dimensional computer model which can be reliably used as a predictive tool requires certain information in order to be produced accurately, such as; Topographically accurate maps of the local area Topographically accurate maps (in CAD form) of the proposed new road layout The precise detail of any proposed noise mitigation measures Up to date traffic flow information consisting of data for both sides of the

carriageway, road speeds, HGV volumes as a percentage of the total vehicle numbers and an indication of the hourly traffic flow ‘diurnal’ profile across a typical 24 hour period.

The accuracy of the final model produced is entirely dependant on the quality and availability of the information listed above. When undertaking the first study back in 2010 all such information was made readily available to us by Atkins and so it was possible to proceed with a high level of confidence. For this study however there was a definite lacking in access to the correct information and so a number of assumptions have had to be made. The only information available to us for use in updating the noise model was that information which is in the public domain in the form of de-engineered brochures and reports submitted for the planning process. Some of this information included 2D non-coordinated images of the road layout and illustrative cross sections to show mitigation measures. The only height data for the new road platform came from cross section type schematics in PDF format rather than usable CAD files. This meant that updating the existing model to take into account slight changes in road line and heights was a painstaking manual process. The information used for this was drawn from the following documents; Road layout: A14 2.10 Traffic Regulation Measures Plan –CWL-Sheets 11-17 Road heights: HE-A14-EX-05 Engineering Sections_FINAL Mitigation: HE-A14_EX-04 ES Figure 3.3_FINAL Sheet 6

The mitigation document was particularly illustrative and provided just one cross section showing earth bunds for one are of the scheme in the vicinity of Hilton. The study therefore assumes a similar profile for all areas where bunds have been proposed.

Information on predicted traffic flow data was also limited and so further assumptions had to be made for this too. Information was drawn from; Total Traffic Flow Forecasts: Environmental Statement 2014 Figure 7.1 Current

and forecast traffic flows HGV Percentages: A14 6.1 ES Chapter 07_Traffic. Paragraph 7.2.4

These two documents provided a single value for the expected total number of vehicles in any given day for the year 2035 and an indication of the current percentage of HGVs on the existing A14. There was no information about the expected diurnal flow profile of the road (this provides information about the hourly flows throughout a 24 hour period and takes into account variances through ‘rush hour’ and during the night for example) or future HGV percentages. In order to carry out the modelling it was therefore necessary to assume a generic diurnal profile from our stock data and to assume the HGV percentage that was mentioned in chapter 7 of the ES. This information can be found in Appendix A of this report. Noise Assessment Data: A14 6 3 ES Appendix 14 05_ Operational Output

Noise assessments of the wider area have already been undertaken by Jacobs as part of the Environmental Statement for this construction project. This information was utilised in conjunction with the traffic flow data in order to ‘tune’ the updated noise model and ensure that its predicted results are in line with Jacobs predictions at certain receiver locations. In this way it was then possible to compare the predicted benefit of the mitigation scheme they have proposed and also to investigate how this might be improved upon. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: It should be noted that in terms of the noise criteria and units of assessment, this report takes a different approach to that of the first SBS report from 2010. The main reason for this is that having already established in that work the validity of the clients case in being concerned about noise, it is now important to focus on ensuring that a correct level of mitigation is provided. Information as to the general noise criteria which Jacobs are working to can be found in Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement and is quoted as follows:

This assessment has been configured therefore to assess both the Day (16hr LAeq) and Night (8hr LAeq) levels for all the properties in Hilton. BSEN Standards – Noise Barrier Products There are in fact now a number of European standards relating specifically to noise barriers which must be taken into consideration in the design process. Should any system recommended as a result of this study involve proprietary noise barrier products then these will need to be fully compliant with the following: BSEN 14388:2005 – ‘Road Traffic Noise Reducing Devices: Specifications’ covers acoustic, non-acoustic and long term performance of noise barriers but not aspects such as resistance to vandalism or requirements of visual appearance. It is now a general requirement in most of Europe that all new noise barrier schemes be designed to meet this standard and all the standards that it refers to. With regard to acoustic performance, we would insist that all noise barriers be laboratory tested to BSEN 1793-2:1998 and designed to achieve at least category B3 for airborne sound insulation. They should also be laboratory tested to BSEN 1793-1:1998 and designed to achieve a minimum category A3 for sound absorption (should they be absorptive in design). Similarly with regard to non-acoustic performance, all noise barriers shall be assessed in accordance with BSEN 1794-1:2003 for mechanical performance and stability requirements and in accordance with BSEN 1794-2:2003 for general safety and environmental requirements. BSEN 14388:2005 requires testing to BSEN 1793 and BSEN 1794 as a minimum for noise barrier product conformity. In other words, a product will not be approved as a ‘noise barrier’ unless it has been assessed in accordance with these two groups of standards.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Computer Model: “Mithra”

In order to assess the current proposals and design alternative mitigation systems, a computer model was used. The software package “Mithra”, a three dimensional computational system, allows for precise acoustic modelling of particular noise sources: road, rail traffic or industrial sources of noise. It shows how the noise interacts with adjacent buildings, taking into account different ground and weather conditions and it examines the effects at different noise frequencies. The model was produced showing ground topography, positions of the noise sources (roads) and locations of buildings and houses. As was mentioned by the authors of the ES for this scheme, the Calculation for Road Traffic Noise alone is not sufficient for the design of noise barriers and other methods have to be employed. Mithra allows for variation in the insulating and absorbing properties of materials. It can therefore be used to design noise barriers. Noise barrier systems are selected and put into the model and the noise levels determined before and after. In this investigation it should be noted that the approach taken was to model only the impact of the new road and not that of the side roads. During the hours in question, the layout of the village means that traffic flows on these roads are likely to be very low and infrequent. There is also a HGV ban on these roads during the night meaning that there will be no impact at all from such vehicles on these side roads. The data published in this report therefore relates solely to the direct impact of noise from the proposed new road. Choosing an Optimum Barrier Design The current design of the new road already includes for a degree of noise protection in the form of earth bunds. As this design is essentially the ‘default’ position it was important that this was modelled and the results shown, therefore the results which detail ‘Jacobs Bunds’ represent the currently proposed layout of the road with 2m high earth bunds. Having simulated this scenario in the model and tuned it to the traffic flows and Jacobs Noise Measurements it was also possible to ‘remove’ the bunds from the model and then predict what the impact would be without them present and therefore to quantify the level of noise protection these bunds will actually be capable of providing. In addition to this, further mitigation designs were explored and detailed in the results tables. All of these designs assume a low noise road surface as this should be mandatory in any case. Examination of this data also serves to illustrate the relative performances of bunds as opposed to vertical noise barriers. Acoustically speaking an earth bund will not tend to perform as well as a noise barrier. As is rightly discussed in the ES, this is mainly due to the fact that it is geometrically impossible to locate the highest diffracting edge of a bund close enough to the source of noise in order to maximise its performance. In the case of noise barriers however it is possible to achieve higher performance levels as the system can be constructed closer to the noise source. Another disadvantage of using bunds as acoustic mitigation is that the curved shape of a bund can simply mean that noise follows the line of the curve over the top of the

landscaping. Whilst this does have the potential benefit of avoiding reflections across to the other side of a road, the angle of slope does impact on its noise reducing capability. The tables detail the findings of 5 mitigation scenario options:

1. No mitigation at all 2. The Jacobs ‘current’ design of 2m high earth bunds 3. Higher Earth Bunds (3m) in the same positions with an additional section of noise

barrier to the east of the Hilton Road over bridge 4. All bunds replaced with 3m high Noise Barrier systems located closer to the flow of

traffic 5. All bunds replaced with 4m high Noise Barrier systems located closer to the flow of

traffic All the data relates to predicted traffic flows for the year 2035.

DISCUSSION OF MEASUREMENTS: (Ref Tables 1-3 and Figures 1-10) Traffic Flows Traffic flow figures were obtained through the Environmental Statement and are shown in Appendix A. The figures used were assumed to be based on 24 hour Annual Average Daily Traffic flows. This data was then processed using a diurnal profile of the existing A14 to define the spread of traffic over each hour of the 24 hour day. In this way, traffic flows for the night time and daytime periods could be isolated and programmed into the computer model. These flows were all based on future predicted traffic flows for 2035 in line with the ES. Contour Height Whilst there are a mixture of bungalows and 2 story houses in the village, the model was programmed to calculate the worst case scenario noise levels which would be experienced at each property. Many modern bungalows utilise roof space and contain skylights at approximately first floor window height and the first floor level generally captures the ‘worst case’ impact of noise on a property. It is particularly appropriate to assess first floor height location when considering night time noise as most people would be residing in a first floor bedroom. Noise Contour maps showing the current Jacobs design and the SBS Options 3 scenarios have been shown (See Figures 4-7). Findings and Results It is important to note that under normal circumstances Hilton would fall outside of the distance range (300m back from the carriageway) for which the construction client would be required to consider providing mitigation for noise. However it seems clear from the content of the ES and the subsequent intention to provide bunds that Jacobs are already considering the needs of Hilton. By doing so they are already demonstrating that the ‘300m corridor’ is not inflexibly written in stone. Having taken that step it is therefore important to ensure proposed mitigation measures are fit for purpose..

Given that Jacobs are intending to build bunds anyway, the main objective of this study therefore was to investigate what benefit these would bring and if by adjusting the design at all a greater benefit could be achieved. To this end, whilst there is a noise criterion to be aware of, this study is more concerned with a comparison of mitigation systems rather than in justifying the need for mitigation as it is clear that there is every intention of providing this. Table 1 details the Daytime 16hr LAeq results for the most exposed façade of each property in the village. It can clearly be seen that there is a progressive improvement in the noise reductions possible on utilisation of the examined alternative mitigation designs. Table 2 shows the actual reduction benefits achievable compared to a case where there is no mitigation provided at all. Tables 3 and 4 show the same data but for the Night time 8hr LAeq results. The first findings of note from Tables 1 and 3 (which show the predicted façade levels) are that even with No Bunds in place; No property in Hilton is expected to fall into the category of ‘Unacceptable Adverse

Effect Level’ UAEL. Only 1 property, Oxholme Farm is expected to fall into the ‘Significant Observed

Adverse Effect Level’, SOAEL All other properties will fall into or just below the ‘Lowest Observed Adverse

Effect Level’, LOAEL, with highest decibel values of 53 during the day and 46 at night for some properties.

From Tables 2 and 4 which show the differences in noise reduction for the different mitigation approaches it can be seen that; The Jacobs bund design is expected to provide only between a 1-2dB benefit on

average. There is however 8 properties during the day and 11 during the night which are expected to receive ‘audible’ reductions of more than 3dB. This means that for the majority of the residents, whilst the bunds will act as a visual screening of the view of the road they will provide a subjectively indiscernible level of noise reduction.

The Option 1 design which consists of higher bunds (3m) in the same locations will offer a marginally improved performance. In this scenario 45 properties at night and 46 during the day will receive an audible (3dB or more) reduction in noise.

The Option 2 design however begins to afford a major benefit in noise reduction. This design involves moving the highest diffracting edge of the bund closer to the source of noise and maintaining the 3m height. In this case 171 properties during the day and 297 during the Night time will receive a noise reduction compared to a situation with no mitigation of greater than 3dB. In the Option some properties will receive up to 5dB benefit.

Finally the Option 3 design utilises the same position and length of mitigation as in Option 2 however raises the height up to 4m. In this scenario it can be seen that of the 401 properties assessed; 346 during the day and 346 during the night will receive a significant audible benefit ranging from 3-7dB.

For reference purposes the Noise Contour plots in figures 4-7 show the noise levels with the Jacobs bund design in place for day and night and then for the Option 3 design. Comparison of the two sets shows a clear difference in noise reducing capability.

MITIGATION OPTIONS: Barrier Designs Considered (Ref Figures 1-3)

From the initial study a number of possible barrier configurations were identified for consideration: In order to provide suitable protection for Hilton this would require 3 separate lengths of mitigation running from the east of Mere Way Bridge to the west side of the Potton Road Bridge; the east side of the Potton Road Bridge to the west side of the Hilton Road Bridge; and from the east side of the Hilton Road bridge to a position 460 meters along the verge of the west bound carriageway. The 3 sections would result in a total length of 2,725 metres of mitigation running along the verge on the westbound side of the road. It appears from the Jacobs designs that sections 1 and 2 are already planned for using bunds. However the maps available to us for this study do not seem to indicate such arrangements for the third section east of the Hilton Road over bridge. This may therefore constitute an ‘extra’ mitigation requirement.

Recommended Barrier Product Options: The Option 2 and 3 designs depend on being able to move the apex of the structure closer to the road platform as well as increasing the height. We would suggest that whilst this can be achieved using proprietary noise barrier products this brings into play a whole range of standards and considerations which could be avoided in this location. Our recommended approach would simply be to adjust the ‘shape’ of the bunds already under consideration and replace them with back-filled Gabion block systems. This would result in a ‘half bund’ type of effect with the highest diffracting edge moved closer to the road edge. From the non-motorway side this would have exactly the same visual appearance as the bunds already designed and planned for. From the A14 side such systems are already widely used, are pleasant to look at and have no long term maintenance or durability issues. The design is a good economical option returning the best long term life costs for the initial investment. They are also very straightforward to install and usually require no foundations. The performance of these barriers was analysed and has been discussed above and shown in Figures 4-6. Approximate Barrier Locations:

Barrier Section ~Chainage -Start

~Chainage - End Height Length

1 13000 14250 4m 1,250 m

2 14350 15350 4m 1000 m

3 15375 15850 4m 475 m

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Ref Figures 3-8) It can be seen through the study that there is an opportunity at this stage of the construction project to improve on the mitigation design for the A14 as it passes by the village of Hilton. There is also undoubtedly a cost element to the construction of earth bunds however we would suggest that it may be no more expensive to construct the proposed Back-filled Gabion barrier system from this report than it would be to build the earth bunds. However the benefit to the residents of Hilton would be significant. We would recommend the construction of the OPTION 3 solution. The analysis has shown that this would be capable of improving the noise climate of the village of Hilton by at least 3dB in most cases and will significantly out perform the current intended bund design. If built during the construction stage of the new road and in place of the current bund design, costs could be kept to a minimum and in fact may prove to be far more cost effective than the current design.

TABLES

No Jacobs SBS SBS SBSBunds Bunds Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Oxholme Farm 1 First 63 62 62 61 60Clayfield Farm 2 First 53 53 53 52 51

Hilton End Farm 3 First 52 51 51 51 51Hampden House 4 First 52 52 52 52 51End High Field 5 First 52 52 52 51 51Green House 6 First 52 51 51 51 50

Redwoods 7 First 52 51 51 51 50Punch's Grove 8 First 52 52 52 51 51

Rose/Beech Cottages 9 First 51 50 50 49 49The Old Rectory 10 First 51 50 50 49 48

The Limes 11 First 51 50 50 49 48The Old Bakehouse 12 First 49 48 47 46 45

Manor Cottage 13 First 50 49 48 47 46The Manor House 14 First 50 49 49 48 47

Pecks Coppice 15 First 51 50 50 49 49Trins Close 16 First 51 50 50 50 49Sunnybrook 17 First 51 50 50 50 49

1 Pecks Close 18 First 45 44 43 42 412 Pecks Close 19 First 50 49 49 48 483 Pecks Close 20 First 50 50 49 49 48

Cross Farm House 21 First 51 50 50 49 49Willow House 22 First 51 50 50 49 48White House 23 First 51 50 50 49 48Wren House 24 First 51 49 49 48 48Field House 25 First 50 49 49 49 48

King's Willow House 26 First 52 52 52 51 511 The Paddocks 27 First 51 50 49 48 47

Peacehaven 28 First 50 49 48 47 452 The Paddocks 29 First 52 50 49 49 483 The Paddocks 30 First 53 51 51 50 494 The Paddocks 31 First 52 51 50 49 495 The Paddocks 32 First 53 53 53 52 526 The Paddocks 33 First 53 53 52 52 527 The Paddocks 34 First 53 52 52 52 518 The Paddocks 35 First 54 53 52 52 51

Tyto House 36 First 52 51 51 50 501 Tyto House 37 First 49 48 48 47 47

Address Floor Level

SBS No.

Table 1: 16hr LAeq (Daytime) Façade Noise Levels


Kings Willow 38 First 49 48 48 47 47Kings Willow Bungalow 39 First 53 53 52 52 52

16 Westbrook 40 First 52 51 51 51 5014 Westbrook 41 First 52 51 51 51 5112 Westbrook 42 First 53 53 52 52 5210 Westbrook 43 First 53 52 52 52 518 Westbrook 44 First 53 53 53 52 526 Westbrook 45 First 53 52 52 52 524 Westbrook 46 First 53 52 52 52 512 Westbrook 47 First 53 52 52 52 52

18 Westbrook 48 First 52 50 50 49 4920 Westbrook 49 First 52 51 51 50 4929 Westbrook 50 First 52 51 50 50 4927 Westbrook 51 First 52 51 51 51 5025 Westbrook 52 First 52 51 51 50 4923 Westbrook 53 First 52 51 50 49 49

12 New England 54 First 52 52 52 51 5111 New England 55 First 52 52 51 51 5110 New England 56 First 52 52 52 51 519 New England 57 First 53 52 52 52 518 New England 58 First 52 52 51 51 507 New England 59 First 53 52 52 51 516 New England 60 First 52 50 50 49 485 New England 61 First 53 51 50 49 484 New England 62 First 53 51 51 50 493 New England 63 First 53 52 52 51 502 New England 64 First 53 52 51 50 501 New England 65 First 51 50 49 48 4821 Westbrook 66 First 52 51 50 49 4919 Westbrook 67 First 48 46 46 44 4317 Westbrook 68 First 49 48 47 45 4415 Westbrook 69 First 48 48 47 46 4513 Westbrook 70 First 52 50 50 49 4811 Westbrook 71 First 52 51 50 48 479 Westbrook 72 First 52 51 50 48 477 Westbrook 73 First 51 51 50 48 475 Westbrook 74 First 51 51 50 48 47

SBS No.

Floor Level

Address


3 Westbrook 75 First 52 50 49 49 481 Westbrook 76 First 51 50 49 48 47

7 Westbrook Close 77 First 52 50 50 48 476 Westbrook Close 78 First 52 51 50 49 485 Westbrook Close 79 First 52 51 51 49 494 Westbrook Close 80 First 51 50 50 50 493 Westbrook Close 81 First 51 50 49 49 482 Westbrook Close 82 First 52 51 49 48 471 Westbrook Close 83 First 52 51 50 48 48

Hilton House 84 First 52 52 51 51 50Old George 85 First 52 50 49 48 48

2 Graveley Way 86 First 52 49 49 47 473 Graveley Way 87 First 51 50 49 49 48

Cedarn Cote 88 First 51 50 49 48 47Glanton 89 First 51 51 50 49 48

Rivendell 90 First 51 50 49 48 47The Old Barn 91 First 51 51 50 49 49

College Farm House 92 First 50 49 48 48 48Greenfields 93 First 50 50 49 49 49

14 Graveley Way 94 First 50 50 50 49 4812 Graveley Way 95 First 50 50 49 49 4810 Graveley Way 96 First 50 50 49 48 478 Graveley Way 97 First 51 50 49 48 476 Graveley Way 98 First 50 50 49 48 474 Graveley Way 99 First 50 49 48 48 47

1 Chequers Croft 100 First 52 51 50 49 493 Chequers Croft 101 First 52 50 50 48 485 Chequers Croft 102 First 50 49 49 48 487 Chequers Croft 103 First 49 48 48 47 479 Chequers Croft 104 First 49 48 48 47 4724 Chequers Croft 105 First 49 48 48 48 4722 Chequers Croft 106 First 50 49 49 49 4920 Chequers Croft 107 First 52 52 51 51 5018 Chequers Croft 108 First 52 52 51 50 4916 Chequers Croft 109 First 52 51 50 49 4914 Chequers Croft 110 First 52 51 50 50 4912 Chequers Croft 111 First 52 51 50 49 49

SBS No.

Floor Level

Address


10 Chequers Croft 112 First 52 51 50 49 488 Chequers Croft 113 First 52 51 50 49 496 Chequers Croft 114 First 52 50 49 48 484 Chequers Croft 115 First 52 51 50 49 48

Kidmans Farm Cottage 116 First 51 51 50 49 481 Kidmans Close 117 First 52 51 50 49 483 kidmans Close 118 First 50 49 48 47 475 Kidmans Close 119 First 51 50 50 48 477 Kidmans Close 120 First 51 50 49 48 479 Kidmans Close 121 First 51 50 49 48 4711 Kidmans Close 122 First 48 47 46 46 4515 Kidmans Close 123 First 47 46 45 45 4517 Kidmans Close 124 First 50 50 49 48 4719 Kidmans Close 125 First 50 50 49 48 4721 Kidmans Close 126 First 50 50 49 47 4623 Kidmans Close 127 First 50 50 49 47 4625 Kidmans Close 128 First 49 48 48 46 4627 Kidmans Close 129 First 50 49 48 47 4629 Kidmans Close 130 First 49 48 48 46 4531 Kidmans Close 131 First 49 48 47 45 4433 Kidmans Close 132 First 49 48 47 45 4435 Kidmans Close 133 First 49 48 47 45 4437 Kidmans Close 134 First 50 49 49 48 4839 Kidmans Close 135 First 49 49 48 47 4641 Kidmans Close 136 First 50 49 48 47 4643 Kidmans Close 137 First 50 49 48 47 4616 Kidmans Close 138 First 50 49 49 48 4714 Kidmans Close 139 First 50 50 49 48 4712 Kidmans Close 140 First 50 49 49 47 4710 Kidmans Close 141 First 49 47 46 45 448 Kidmans Close 142 First 50 49 48 47 466 Kidmans Close 143 First 50 49 49 47 474 Kidmans Close 144 First 50 49 48 47 462 Kidmans Close 145 First 50 50 49 48 47

1 Tithe Close 146 First 51 50 49 48 472 Tithe Close 147 First 51 50 50 48 473 Tithe Close 148 First 51 50 49 48 47

Floor Level

SBS No.Address


4 Tithe Close 149 First 51 50 49 48 475 Tithe Close 150 First 50 49 48 47 466 Tithe Close 151 First 50 49 48 47 467 Tithe Close 152 First 50 49 48 47 468 Tithe Close 153 First 50 49 48 47 469 Tithe Close 154 First 50 50 49 48 4710 Tithe Close 155 First 50 50 49 48 4711 Tithe Close 156 First 49 48 47 46 4612 Tithe Close 157 First 50 50 49 48 4713 Tithe Close 158 First 50 49 48 47 4614 Tithe Close 159 First 50 49 48 47 4515 Tithe Close 160 First 51 51 50 49 48Crossways 1 161 First 49 49 48 47 46Crossways 2 162 First 50 50 49 48 47Owen House 163 First 50 49 48 47 47Meadow View 164 First 50 49 48 47 46

Bemerton 165 First 50 49 48 47 45Burnt Ash 166 First 49 48 48 46 46

Noroc 167 First 49 48 47 46 45Kaipa 168 First 49 48 47 46 45

The Honey Pot 169 First 50 49 48 46 45Evergreens 170 First 49 48 47 46 45

1 Potton Road 171 First 49 48 47 46 462 Potton Road 172 First 49 49 48 47 463 Potton Road 173 First 48 48 47 46 454 Potton Road 174 First 49 48 47 46 455 Potton Road 175 First 49 48 47 46 466 Potton Road 176 First 48 47 47 46 467 Potton Road 177 First 49 48 48 46 458 Potton Road 178 First 50 49 49 47 469a Potton Road 179 First 47 45 45 44 439 Potton Road 180 First 46 46 45 44 4310 Potton Road 181 First 46 43 43 41 4011 Potton Road 182 First 45 44 43 41 4012 Potton Road 183 First 44 41 41 39 3813 Potton Road 184 First 45 42 42 40 3914 Potton Road 185 First 45 44 43 42 41

SBS No.

Floor Level

Address


15 Potton Road 186 First 45 44 44 42 4116 Potton Road 187 First 45 44 43 41 4017 Potton Road 188 First 45 44 43 42 4018 Potton Road 189 First 47 46 45 44 43Mill Hill Cottage 190 First 46 45 44 42 40

5 Home Farm Close 191 First 48 47 46 44 434 Home Farm Close 192 First 46 45 44 42 413 Home Farm Close 193 First 47 45 44 42 41

2 &1 Home Farm Close 194 First 49 47 47 45 45Gee Jay 195 First 48 47 46 44 43

Terrace House 196 First 48 46 45 43 42Beaubien 197 First 48 47 46 44 42

Fresh Fields 198 First 48 46 46 44 43Sunnyside 199 First 47 45 44 42 41Fairview 200 First 46 45 44 42 40

The Corner House 201 First 48 47 46 44 42The Cottage 202 First 48 46 46 44 42

2 Potton Road 203 First 47 46 46 43 421 Potton Road 204 First 47 46 45 43 42

Hedge End 205 First 48 48 47 45 44Brockenhurst 206 First 48 47 46 44 43

Kendal 207 First 48 46 46 44 42Oystermouth 208 First 48 47 47 45 43

Walnut Cottage 209 First 48 46 45 43 42Blacksmiths Cottage 210 First 51 50 50 49 48

The Bungalow 211 First 51 51 50 49 48Crossway Bungalow 212 First 51 50 50 49 48

1 Scotts Crescent 213 First 50 49 48 47 463 Scotts Crescent 214 First 50 49 48 47 465 Scotts Crescent 215 First 50 49 49 47 467 Scotts Crescent 216 First 49 49 48 46 459 Scotts Crescent 217 First 49 49 48 46 4511 Scotts Crescent 218 First 48 47 46 44 4313 Scotts Crescent 219 First 49 47 47 44 4315 Scotts Crescent 220 First 47 45 44 42 4117 Scotts Crescent 221 First 48 47 47 44 4319 Scotts Crescent 222 First 50 47 46 44 43

Address SBS No.

Floor Level


21 Scotts Crescent 223 First 50 50 49 47 4723 Scotts Crescent 224 First 51 50 49 47 4625 Scotts Crescent 225 First 50 49 49 47 4627 Scotts Crescent 226 First 51 50 49 48 4722 Scotts Crescent 227 First 50 50 49 48 4720 Scotts Crescent 228 First 50 49 49 47 4718 Scotts Crescent 229 First 49 47 46 45 4416 Scotts Crescent 230 First 49 48 47 45 4514 Scotts Crescent 231 First 49 49 48 47 4612 Scotts Crescent 232 First 49 49 48 46 4510 Scotts Crescent 233 First 49 48 47 46 458 Scotts Crescent 234 First 49 48 47 46 456 Scotts Crescent 235 First 49 48 47 45 434 Scotts Crescent 236 First 49 49 48 46 462 Scotts Crescent 237 First 49 48 48 46 46

1 Scotts Close 238 First 49 48 48 46 452 Scotts Close 239 First 49 49 48 46 453 Scotts Close 240 First 48 46 45 43 424 Scotts Close 241 First 48 47 46 43 425 Scotts Close 242 First 49 48 48 46 456 Scotts Close 243 First 48 48 47 45 447 Scotts Close 244 First 49 48 47 46 458 Scotts Close 245 First 49 48 48 46 459 Scotts Close 246 First 49 48 47 45 44

10 Scotts Close 247 First 49 48 47 45 4411 Scotts Close 248 First 47 46 45 44 4312 Scotts Close 249 First 47 46 45 44 4313 Scotts Close 250 First 49 49 48 47 4614 Scotts Close 251 First 49 49 48 47 4615 Scotts Close 252 First 49 49 48 47 4616 Scotts Close 253 First 49 48 47 46 4517 Scotts Close 254 First 48 47 46 44 4218 Scotts Close 255 First 49 47 46 44 4319 Scotts Close 256 First 49 47 46 44 4320 Scotts Close 257 First 50 49 48 47 4621 Scotts Close 258 First 50 50 49 48 47

Sanders 259 First 50 50 49 47 46

SBS No.

Floor Level

Address


Cob Cottage 260 First 50 50 49 48 47Cookes Cottage 261 First 51 50 49 48 47

Hilton hall 262 First 50 50 49 48 483 Grove End 263 First 50 49 49 47 462 Grove End 264 First 49 49 48 47 461 Grove End 265 First 49 49 48 47 46Grove House 266 First 48 48 47 45 44

1 The Cottages 267 First 49 49 48 46 452 The Cottages 268 First 49 48 47 46 443 The Cottages 269 First 49 48 47 46 441 Maze Road 270 First 48 47 46 44 432 Maze Road 271 First 48 47 47 45 443 Maze Road 272 First 48 47 46 45 434 Maze Road 273 First 48 47 46 45 445 Maze Road 274 First 48 47 47 45 436 Maze Road 275 First 48 48 47 45 447 Maze Road 276 First 48 48 47 45 448 Maze Road 277 First 48 48 47 46 459 Maze Road 278 First 50 50 49 48 48

Tarrant 279 First 50 50 49 48 47Wynchmore 280 First 49 49 48 47 46

Wilderness Edge 281 First 49 48 48 47 46St. Francis Taft 282 First 49 49 48 47 46Clare Cottage 283 First 49 49 48 47 46

Whispering Elms 284 First 49 49 48 47 471 The Aisled Barn 285 First 48 47 47 45 442 The Aisled Barn 286 First 48 47 47 45 443 The Aisled Barn 287 First 48 47 46 45 44Grange Cottage 288 First 48 48 48 47 45

The Grange 289 First 49 48 48 46 45Park Farm 290 First 48 48 47 46 45

1 Oaktree Farm 291 First 45 44 43 41 402 Oaktree Farm 292 First 48 47 46 44 43

Hawthorn Cottage 293 First 47 46 45 43 41Croeso 294 First 46 46 45 43 42

St. Marys Church 295 First 48 47 47 45 44Heronswood 296 First 47 47 47 45 43

Floor Level

Address SBS No.


Littlefords 297 First 48 45 44 42 41Crossbrook 298 First 47 46 45 43 41Columbia 299 First 46 44 43 41 39Pondside 300 First 47 46 46 43 42

Tanglewood 301 First 47 47 47 44 43Wistow 302 First 47 47 46 45 43

Dene House 303 First 47 47 46 44 43The Hollow 304 First 46 46 45 44 42

South Meade 305 First 47 46 46 44 43Brookside 306 First 46 46 45 43 42

Atticus House 307 First 46 46 45 43 41Elmsbrook 308 First 46 45 44 42 40

The Beech House 309 First 46 45 44 42 41Wychwood 310 First 45 44 43 41 40

Church Close 311 First 44 44 43 41 404 Church End 312 First 46 45 44 42 416 Church End 313 First 47 45 44 42 428 Church End 314 First 47 45 44 42 4110 Church End 315 First 47 46 45 43 4212 Church End 316 First 46 44 43 42 4114 Church End 317 First 46 43 42 41 4016 Church End 318 First 45 44 43 41 4018 Church End 319 First 44 41 40 39 3820 Church End 320 First 45 42 41 40 3922 Church End 321 First 45 42 42 41 4024 Church End 322 First 45 43 42 41 40

1 Smeefield 323 First 45 43 42 41 402 Smeefield 324 First 46 43 42 40 403 Smeefield 325 First 46 43 42 41 404 Smeefield 326 First 46 45 44 43 425 Smeefield 327 First 46 44 44 42 41

1 Rutland Green 328 First 46 45 44 42 413 Rutland Green 329 First 45 43 42 41 405 Rutland Green 330 First 47 45 44 42 417 Rutland Green 331 First 47 44 44 42 429 Rutland Green 332 First 46 44 44 43 42

11 Rutland Green 333 First 47 46 45 43 42

Floor Level

SBS No.Address


13 Rutland Green 334 First 46 45 45 43 4210 Rutland Green 335 First 47 46 45 43 428 Rutland Green 336 First 48 46 45 43 426 Rutland Green 337 First 46 44 43 41 414 Rutland Green 338 First 47 45 44 42 412 Rutland Green 339 First 46 44 44 42 41

1 Mill Hill End Road 340 First 47 46 45 43 432 Mill Hill End Road 341 First 47 46 45 43 423 Mill Hill End Road 342 First 46 46 45 44 434 Mill Hill End Road 343 First 48 47 46 45 445 Mill Hill End Road 344 First 48 47 46 44 446 Mill Hill End Road 345 First 47 46 45 44 43

1 Flackdale 346 First 48 47 46 45 442 Flackdale 347 First 48 47 46 44 443 Flackdale 348 First 48 47 46 44 434 Flackdale 349 First 48 47 46 45 445 Flackdale 350 First 48 46 45 44 436 Flackdale 351 First 48 46 46 44 437 Flackdale 352 First 47 46 45 44 438 Flackdale 353 First 48 47 46 44 439 Flackdale 354 First 47 45 44 43 42

10 Flackdale 355 First 47 45 44 42 4111 Flackdale 356 First 46 45 44 42 4212 Flackdale 357 First 48 46 45 44 4313 Flackdale 358 First 46 45 44 42 40

5 Sparrow Way 359 First 47 46 46 44 434 Sparrow Way 360 First 48 47 46 44 433 Sparrow Way 361 First 47 47 46 44 432 Sparrow Way 362 First 48 47 46 44 431 Sparrow Way 363 First 45 42 41 39 3814 Church Lane 364 First 48 47 47 45 4413 Church Lane 365 First 48 47 47 45 4412 Church Lane 366 First 48 48 47 45 4511 Church Lane 367 First 48 48 47 45 4410 Church Lane 368 First 48 48 47 45 439 Church Lane 369 First 48 47 46 44 438 Church Lane 370 First 49 48 47 45 44

SBS No.

Floor Level

Address


7 Church Lane 371 First 49 48 47 45 446 Church Lane 372 First 49 49 48 46 455 Church Lane 373 First 49 48 48 46 454 Church Lane 374 First 49 49 48 46 453 Church Lane 375 First 49 49 48 46 452 Church Lane 376 First 49 49 48 46 45

Ashlea 377 First 49 48 47 45 4522 Church Lane 378 First 48 47 47 45 4421 Church Lane 379 First 48 48 47 45 4420 Church Lane 380 First 48 48 47 46 4519 Church Lane 381 First 48 48 47 45 44

18 b+c Church Lane 382 First 48 48 47 46 4518+18a Church Lane 383 First 48 47 46 45 4417b+c Church Lane 384 First 48 48 47 45 4417+17a Church Lane 385 First 48 48 47 46 4516+16a Church Lane 386 First 48 47 46 44 43

15 Church Lane 387 First 48 47 46 44 431 Chapel Close 388 First 49 48 47 46 462 Chapel Close 389 First 47 45 44 42 413 Chapel Close 390 First 48 46 44 43 41Abbots Mead 391 First 49 48 47 46 46

Sherwood House 392 First 48 48 47 46 454 Chapel Close 393 First 47 46 45 43 425 Chapel Close 394 First 47 46 46 44 436 Chapel Close 395 First 49 49 49 48 477 Chapel Close 396 First 49 49 49 48 478 Chapel Close 397 First 49 49 49 48 489 Chapel Close 398 First 49 49 49 48 4710 Chapel Close 399 First 49 48 48 46 46

1 Milestone Cottages 400 First 46 45 45 44 432 Milestone Cottages 401 First 46 45 45 43 42

Address SBS No.

Floor Level

No ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆Bunds Bunds Option 1 Option 2 Option 3













Address SBS No.

Floor Level

Table 2: 16hr LAeq (Daytime) Noise Level Differences






SBS No.

Floor Level

Address











Address SBS No.

Floor Level














SBS No.

Floor Level

Address





Sanders 259 First 50 1 1 3 4

Address SBS No.

Floor Level












Address SBS No.

Floor Level







SBS No.

Floor Level

Address








Address SBS No.

Floor Level














Address SBS No.

Floor Level

Table 3: 8hr LAeq (Nighttime) Façade Noise Levels






SBS No.

Floor Level

Address











Address SBS No.

Floor Level





SBS No.

Floor Level

Address







Address SBS No.

Floor Level





Sanders 259 First 43 43 42 40 39

Address SBS No.

Floor Level












SBS No.

Floor Level

Address












Address SBS No.

Floor Level







SBS No.

Floor Level

Address








Address SBS No.

Floor Level














Address SBS No.

Floor Level

Table 4: 8hr LAeq ‘Night Time’ Noise Level Differences






SBS No.

Floor Level

Address











Address SBS No.

Floor Level














SBS No.

Floor Level

Address





Sanders 259 First 43 1 1 3 4

Address SBS No.

Floor Level












Address SBS No.

Floor Level







SBS No.

Floor Level

Address








Address SBS No.

Floor Level

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Proposed Noise Mitigation.

Figure 2: Location of Proposed Noise Mitigation.

Figure 3: Location of Proposed Extra Noise Mitigation.

NOISE LEVEL LAeq dB(A)

>68 dB(A)

66 – 68 dB(A) 63 – 66 dB(A) 60 – 63 dB(A) 8 – 60 dB(A) 55– 58 dB(A) 53 – 55 dB(A) 50 – 53 dB(A) 48 – 50 dB(A) 45 – 48 dB(A) 43 – 45 dB(A) 40 – 43 dB(A) 38 – 40 dB(A) 35 – 38 dB(A) 33 – 35 dB(A)

FIGURE 4: HILTON: CURRENT JACOBS DESIGN BUNDS: FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 2035 Day Time LAeq 16hr (dB): NOISE CONTRIBUTION FROM NEW ROAD ONLY


>68 dB(A)

66 – 68 dB(A) 63 – 66 dB(A) 60 – 63 dB(A) 58 – 60 dB(A) 55 – 58 dB(A) 53 – 55 dB(A) 50 – 53 dB(A) 48 – 50 dB(A) 45 – 48 dB(A) 43 – 45 dB(A) 40 – 43 dB(A) 38 – 40 dB(A) 35 – 38 dB(A) 33 – 35 dB(A)

FIGURE 5: HILTON: CURRENT JACOBS DESIGN BUNDS: FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 2035 Night Time LAeq 8hr (dB): NOISE CONTRIBUTION FROM NEW ROAD ONLY


>68 dB(A)


FIGURE 6: HILTON: SBS Option 3 Design: FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 2035 Day Time LAeq 16hr (dB): NOISE CONTRIBUTION FROM NEW ROAD ONLY


>68 dB(A)


FIGURE 7: HILTON: SBS Option 3 Design: FIRST FLOOR LEVEL: 2035 Night Time LAeq 8hr (dB): NOISE CONTRIBUTION FROM NEW ROAD ONLY

APPENDIX A

Traffic data

Hour Non HGV HGV Total1 500 228 7292 316 197 5123 226 178 4044 197 190 3875 220 285 5056 435 507 9417 1311 823 21338 2788 1162 39499 3473 1409 488210 3133 1555 468811 3080 1536 461612 3407 1586 499413 3771 1522 529214 3949 1369 531815 4063 1430 549216 4361 1383 574417 4778 1293 607118 5087 1078 616519 4372 858 523120 3384 676 406021 2591 548 314022 1924 458 238223 1340 385 172524 864 278 1142

Totals 59570 20934 8050426%

A1: Predicted hourly A14 Traffic Flows: 2035

A2: Traffic Flows over Day and Night-time hours.

New A14 Total Flow %HGV

16hr (Day) 74158 25

8hr (Night) 6346 25

hilton a14 - microsoftbtckstorage.blob.core.windows.net/site9386/2015 hilton...hilton a14 17th july...

Documents