Braintreea120essex.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Scheme... · 2018. 11. 28. · railway viaduct...

BraintreeMarks

Tey

Bowl Barrow

Great Loyesmoated siteand fishpond

Leez Augustinian Priory,fishponds, T udor mansion

Medieval tile kiln

Porter's Hallmoated site

Clavering's Farmmoated site

S tanstead Hallmoated site

Earls Colne Priory

Gryme's Dyke

Gosbecks

T he T riple Dyke

Moat Farm Dyke

R emains of S tMary's Church

T he rampartS of HaynesGreen

W ickam Bishopsrailway viaduct

Hatfield Priory

Circular brick kilns

Dovecote

CoggeshallAbbey

Gubbion'sHall

moated siteR oman villa, Anglo-S axonhall, cemetery andchurch site

Moated site and twofishponds

R oman villa

Anglo-S axoncemetery

Blunts Hallringwork

Henge

Bockingwindmill

CressingTemple

BR AX T EDPAR K

FAU LK BOU R NEHALL

Chalkney W ood

BovingdonHall W oods

R iver T ey T iptreeHeath

Marks T eyBrickpit

Belcher's &BroadfieldW oods

OliversNursery

Alsteads Farm

S tanways CoatedR oadstone

S tanwayS AR S

MarksTey R ail S idings

ApplefordFarm

BlackleyQuarry, GateFarm

Bradwell Quarry,R ivenhall Airfield

Colchester Quarry,Five W ays FruitFm, S tanway

Broardfields Farm,R ayne

Birch R evisedsite area

ColemansFarm

Hilly FieldsLex den Park

Colne Valley

Brickfield andLong Meadow

BrockwellMeadows

W hetMead

HoppitMead

BockingBlackwater

CuckooW ood

R ivenhalllong mortuaryenclosure

Long mortuaryenclosure and round

barrow

Gosfield S andpits

T iptree Parish Field

T ER LING PLACE

HAT FIELD PR IOR Y

LAY ER MAR NEY T OW ER

S ALING GR OVE

GOS FIELD HALL

W orld W ar IIEastern Command Line

Lanham Green

StrawBrook

River

Blackw

ater

RiverPant

PodsBrook

RiverBlackwater

Cove nBroo k

Abberton

Reservoir

Robin'sBrook

RiverTer

RiverColne

RiverBra in

Do

msey

Brook

LayerBrook

SpicketsBr ook

RomanRiver

BowsteadBrook

Bourne Brook

A414

A12

A120

A130

A131

Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2016

R ev. Date Description of revision Drawn Checked R eview'd Approv'd

0 10/16 For issue LM CR MJCR

Drawing T itle

Mark R owe, S ervice Director, HighwaysS eax House, Victoria R oad S outh, Chelmsford, CM1 1QHTel: 0845 6037631

Drawing S tatusFOR IS S U E

© Essex County Council

ENVIR ONMENTAL CONS T R AINT S PLANOPT IONS 1B, 3, 4B, 8, 9A

FIGU R E 1S HEET 1 OF 1

S cheme T itle

A120 BR AINT R EE T O A12

DR AW ING NO.

DR AW ING U NIT S U .N.O. S CALE AT A3 (420 x 297 mm)

R EV.

DAT E

DES IGNED DR AW N

DAT E DAT E

CHECK ED R EVIEW ED

DAT E DAT E

APPR OVED

0

OCT 16

LM LM CR CR MJ

¶

T his map is reproduced from Ordnance S urvey material with the permission of Ordnance S urvey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s S tationery Office © Crown Copyright. U nauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may leadto prosecution or civil proceedings. Essex County Council,100019602, 2015

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000Metres

© OpenS treetMap (and)contributors, CC-BY -S A

P:\B3553T 41 - A120 Braintree to Marks Tey\GIS \ArcGIS \08_PER A\B3553T 41_004_R evH_A120EnvironmentalConstraintsPlan_adjustedlegend.mx d

NT SOCT 16 OCT 16 OCT 16 OCT 16

B3553T 41-JAC-HGI-00-GS -G-0131

Notes1. Do not scale2. R evision H - S tage 1K ey

Geographic area ofimpactW ider study areaS tage 1 Option 1BS tage 1 Option 3S tage 1 Option 4BS tage 1 Option 8S tage 1 Option 9AGrade I listed buildingGrade II listed buildingGrade II* listed buildingConservation AreaS cheduled MonumentAir Quality ManagementAreaNoise Important AreaCurrent Landfill S iteHistoric Landfill S iteEx isting Quarry / MineralEx traction S itePreserved / R eservedQuarry / MineralEx traction S ite

R iverFlood Z one 3Flood Z one 2Area of OutstandingNatural BeautyS ites of S pecial S cientificInterestLocal Nature R eserveCounty / Local W ildlifeS iteR egistered Parks andGardensAncient W oodlandT ree Preservation Order

Priority Habitat InventoryCoastal and floodplaingrazing marshDeciduous woodlandGood quality semi-improved grasslandT raditional orchard

R egistered CommonLand - Lanham Green-CL412 - the applicationfor Common Land statushas not been confirmed

A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 108

Appendix C: Plans for Alternative Options from Public Consultation

Bradwell/Sisted alternative 1 developed (Infraworks)



B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 109


Option D

Potential alternative

Option E

Option B

Option C

Links

Wood

(ancient

woodland)

Common land

Lanham Green Alternative developed (Infraworks)


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 110

Appendix D: Bradwell Quarry and Integrated Waste Management Facility Junction Assessment

Introduction:

In the non-statutory A120 public consultation, a specific question was included in the questionnaire asking for

comments or suggestions about potential locations for junctions. The responses to this question are now

available and the most popular request was for an additional junction on the central and southern A120 routes

for Quarry/Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) traffic.

If an additional junction is to be added to the central and southern routes, however, there will be implications for

the project. These implications are set out below and a decision on the best way to proceed requested.

Public Consultation Reponses:

A total of 1352 comments were received in response to the question about potential locations for junctions

(Question 9). The most popular request (from some 75 separate respondents) was for an additional junction for

Quarry/IWMF traffic only on the central/southern routes. The second most popular request was for the

A12/A120 junction to be north of Kelvedon/Feering (around 30 comments). Far fewer people asked for access

to Silver End/Bradwell or Coggeshall/Kelvedon to be provided via additional junctions.

Thus, the only change to the current Options that has been requested in what may be considered significant

numbers is a Quarry/IWMF specific junction on the central and southern routes. It would be difficult justify

investigating any other additional junctions, based on the consultation results.

Cost of Quarry/IWMF Junction

If a Quarry/IWMF specific junction were to be provided on the central and southern A120 routes, there could be

a significant cost implication. This depends on how much of the works are funded by the quarry and the extent

of ground treatment required.

Jacobs have assessed the likely additional cost of the junction as follows:

Total Cost incl preparation, risk etc

(£K at 2016 prices)

B or C

(central routes)

D or E

(southern routes)

Total cost of works £7.6m £12m

Quarry/IWMF contribution £2.3m £4.1m

HE contribution £5.3m £7.9m

This is on the basis that the HE fund works which facilitate the quarry/IWMF junction and items that would be

maintained in future by HE – so slip road tapers, the junction link road up to end of splitter island and the

additional bridge carrying the link road (for Options D & E only). It has been assumed that the earthworks for

the section of the access off the mainline (the non-HE section) as a private and low speed access settlement is

less of an issue so no ground treatment under this area has been included. Should earthworks treatment on the

private section be considered necessary the Quarry/IWMF costs would rise to £11m and £12.4m for B/C and

D/E respectively.

Traffic Impact

Based on the Stage 1 Local Traffic Model, the number of HGVs on the A120 will decrease significantly with the

introduction of the A120 scheme. The junction to the east of Bradwell on Option A will result in a larger


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 111

reduction in HGV’s through Bradwell than the other Options shown at the public consultation, as they have no

Quarry/IWMF junction.

The Quarry and the IWMF have planning permission for a total of 590 and 404 two-way HGV movements per

day respectively. These would be split approximately 60% to the west and 40% to the east on the A120.

The Table below summarises the overall impact of the A120 scheme Options (in the form shown at the public

consultation) and the Quarry/IWMF on traffic through Bradwell.

Scheme

Option

Forecast Traffic Through Bradwell Village on A120/old A120 in 2026

Modelled

AADT

Modelled

Daily HGVs

Additional

Daily HGVs

from

permitted

Quarry/IWMF

Total Traffic

(AADT) with

Quarry/IWMF

Total Daily

HGVs with

Quarry/IWMF

% Reduction

in HGVs

No Scheme 29,452 1,628 586 30,039 2,214 N/A

A 9,835 162 0 9,835 162 93%

B 10,095 196 586 10,681 836 65%

C 10,509 198 586 11,095 784 65%

D 12,836 234 586 13,422 820 63%

E 13,068 246 586 13,654 833 62%

Without any additional junction on the new A120 scheme to cater for the Quarry/IWMF HGV traffic, Option A is

predicted to see a 93% reduction in HGVs passing through Bradwell Village in 2026, when compared with the

‘No Scheme’ scenario. Options B, C, D and E are predicted to see a 62%-65% reduction in HGVs.

If a Quarry/IWMF junction were to be added to Options B, C, D and E, it is likely that they would see a similar

reduction in HGVs through Bradwell to Option A, in the order of 89% to 91%.

Given that there is explicit public support for a new junction for the IWFT/Quarry and general support for fewer

HGVs on the existing A120, and that the impact in terms of the economic appraisal is not considered likely to be

significant in distinguishing between options, it is recommended that the junction be included for Options B, C, D

and E for Stage 2 appraisal.


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 112

Appendix E: Environmental Summary

Table A8-4 highlights the key significant environmental issues with each of the routes:

Table A8-4: Key Environmental Issues

Route Key Environmental Issues Comparative Rating

A • Least benefits to local air quality

• Indirectly affects Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings

• Potential for the removal of unknown archaeological

remains

• Effects setting of Stisted Conservation Area

• Effects Blackwater Valley immediately south of Stisted

• Potential visual effects on numerous properties

• Effects on European Sites

• May lead to the loss and degradation of habitat and

fragmentation of species

• Potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be

possible, on non-statutory sites, such as local wildlife sites

• Potential effects on controlled waters including aquifers

and main watercourses (i.e. River Blackwater)

• Permanent loss of good grades for agricultural land

• Crosses a number of other ordinary watercourses, that

may also have associated fluvial flood risk

On the balance of effects this would be considered

2.0 on the rating score. This is considered to overall

lead to potential significant effects – which

potentially can be mitigated. However, it is

considered that this route may lead to more

environmental issues (such as passing close to the

Stisted Conservation area) which may require a

greater level of mitigation and management

compared to other routes.

B • Least benefits to the noise environment


• Potential removal of archaeological deposits

• May disturb known and unknown archaeological remains

(notably around the River Blackwater Valley

• Potential visual effects on numerous individual properties,

including where the route crosses over the A12 on

embankment

• Potential effects on the setting of the historic park and

gardens at Glazenwood

• Potential effects on views from common land along

Pantlings Lane

• Visual effects on numerous properties.

• May be visible from parts of Coggeshall conservation area




• Direct effects - potential significant adverse effects –

mitigation may be possible, on non-statutory sites, such

as local wildlife sites



• Option crosses Bradwell Quarry and Rivenhall airfield –

both considered as high risk land contamination sources


• Crosses areas of proven mineral resources

• Potential for flood risk crossing River Blackwater and

Domsey Brook


2.0 on the rating score. This is still considered to

overall lead to potential significant effects – which

potentially can be mitigated. However, due to more

environmental issues (such as crossing the River

Blackwater Valley LWS) which may require a

greater level of mitigation and management

compared to other routes.


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 113

Route Key Environmental Issues Comparative Rating

C • Indirectly affects Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings

• Potential removal of known and unknown archaeological

remains (including Rivenhall Airfield)

• Effects on historic landscape types

• Effects on views from conservation areas of Cressing,

Silver End and Feering. May be visible from parts of

Coggeshall conservation area.




• Direct effects - potential significant adverse effects –

mitigation may be possible, on non-statutory sites, such

as local wildlife sites



• Option crosses Bradwell Quarry and Rivenhall airfield –

both considered as high risk land contamination sources



• Potential flood risk associated with the River Blackwater




potentially can be mitigated. However, it is

considered that this route may lead to more

environmental issues (such as crossing the

Blackwater River Valley and Coggeshall LWS)

which may require a greater level of mitigation and

management compared to other routes.

D • Greatest benefits to the local air environment


• Potential significant adverse effects mitigation may be

possible on setting of scheduled monuments

• Indirectly affects Rivenhall Park





• Indirect effects to LWS and LNR

• Potential effects on controlled waters (aquifers)





potentially can be mitigated. However, due to less

environmental issues (shorter route, less landscape

effects, only slight adverse effects on non-stat sites)

this route may require a lesser level of mitigation

and management compared to other routes.

E • Greatest benefits to the noise environment

• Indirectly affects Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings.


• May effect historic landscape types




• Indirect effects to LWS and LNR

• Potential effects on controlled waters (aquifers)


• Potential flood risk associated with the River Brain




potentially can be mitigated. However, due to less

environmental issues (shorter route, less landscape

effects, only slight adverse effects on non-stat sites)

this route may require a lesser level of mitigation

and management compared to other routes.

Methodology for Scoring

The assessment scale used for early optioneering and the EAR have been utilised for this SAR, but is informed

by further information review, consultation and preliminary field investigations. The Six Point evaluation scale is

given in Table A8-5: Six Point Evaluation Scale.


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 114

Table A8-5: Six Point Evaluation Scale

Score 6 point effect scale

1 Significant adverse effect - not possible to mitigate

2 Potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible

3 Slight adverse effect - Effect not significant with typical mitigation.

4 Slight beneficial - Effect not significant

5 Significant beneficial effect

0 No effect

Following further study there have not been any significant changes to the scoring from the EAR (Jacobs 2016)

– i.e. all ratings remain within the same category of effects. It should be noted that there is one update in the

rating scores since the Stage 1 SAR. A ’half score’ has been added to aid with identifying potential differences

in the amount of environmental effects which may occur from the options. For example, a score of 2.5 is

considered to have less effects than a score of 2.0. It should be noted that a score of 5.5 is possible to

differentiate between significant beneficial effects. A score of 5.0 would indicate an overall significant beneficial

effect with more effects on receptors than a score of 5.5. The refined scheme ratings for each discipline are

given in Table A8-6: Refined Scores.

Table A8-6: Refined Scores

Environmental

Aspect A B C D E

Air Quality

and Carbon

Emissions

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0

Cultural

Heritage 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0

Landscape 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0

Nature

Conservation 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5

Geology and

Soils 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Materials 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 115

Environmental

Aspect A B C D E

Noise and

Vibration 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

People and

Communities 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Road

Drainage and

the Water

Environment

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5

The following provides a high level explanation of why a particular score has been refined.

• For cultural heritage, the routes through Bradwell Quarry (options B and C) are considered to have lesser

impacts as they are located in areas of disturbed ground.

• For landscape and visual, the route which is shortest, which does not cross the Brain or Blackwater valleys

and which incorporates major junctions in the context of existing urban areas and major infrastructure is

considered to have slightly less impacts (option D).

• For nature conservation, those routes which do not cross the LWS on the River Blackwater valley, do not

pass close to identified bat roosts and do not pass close to ponds with identified GCNs are considered to

have lesser impacts (options D and E).

• For geology and soils, those routes which do not cross the historical airfield at Bradwell Quarry are

considered to be least likely to disturb contaminated land and therefore lesser impacts (option A).

• For materials, options D and E would use the least materials and lead to the least embodied carbon usage.

• For noise and vibration, while all routes are predicted to result in more significant benefits compared to

disbenefits, option E provides more significant benefits for both the day and night time operation.

• Option D is considered to have the most benefit from improving local air quality and not provide the worst

change from greenhouse gas emissions.

• For Road Drainage and water environment, option D and E are unlikely affect high value receptors with

regards to water quality and will not have effects on small scale abstractions.

For people and communities all routes are considered to have similar effects.

References

• Essex County Council (2014) Essex Minerals Plan (adopted July 2014).

• Highways Agency et al., (2007), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 ‘Cultural Heritage’ (HA 208/07) of the Design

Manual for Roads and Bridges;

• Jacobs (2016). A120 Braintree to A12. Essex County Council. Environmental Assessment Report.

VB3553T41-JAC-EGN-00-REP-EN-0001.P00.2.

• Jacobs. (2016a). A120 Braintree to A12. Essex County Council. Transport Assessment Report.

• Jacobs (2017). Technical Memorandum. A120 to Braintree to A12. Great Crested Newt eDNA Results.

June 2017. B3553T41-JAC-EBD-00-GN-EN-0001.P001

• Jacobs. (2017a). A120 Options. Essex County Council. Winter Bird Survey Report. B3553T41-JAC-EBD-

00-RP-EN-0002.P00.1.


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 116

• Jacobs. (2017b). Air Quality Technical Note for Interim Scheme Assessment Report. A120 Braintree to

A12. B3553T41-JAC-EAQ-00-TN-EN-0001.P00.1

• Jacobs. (2017c). Noise Quality Technical Note for Interim Scheme Assessment Report. A120 Braintree to

A12.B3553T41-JAC-ENV-00-TN-N-0001.P00.1


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 117

Appendix F: AST Tables


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 118


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 119


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 120


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 121


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 122


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 123


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 124


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 125


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 126


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 127


B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 128

Appendix G: Option D General Arrangement Drawings

Braintreea120essex.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Scheme... · 2018. 11. 28. · railway viaduct...

Documents

Transcript of Braintreea120essex.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Scheme... · 2018. 11. 28. · railway viaduct...