STAGE 1 WELTAG APPRAISAL - NHS Wales 1 WelTAG... · 2015-10-27 · 1.3.1 The approach to the Stage...

A483/A489 NEWTOWN STUDY

April 2009

FINAL

Report Number HHC91371A/21

Prepared byParsons Brinckerhoff29 Cathedral RoadCARDIFFCF11 9HA

Prepared forWelsh Assembly GovernmentCathays ParkCARDIFFCF10 3NQ

STAGE 1 WELTAG APPRAISAL

A483/A489 NEWTOWN STUDYSTAGE 1 WELTAG APPRAISAL

Stage 1 WelTAG Appraisal_Final.docApril 09



CONTENTSPage

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose of this Report 1

1.2 Study Background 1

1.3 WelTAG Stage 1 2

1.4 WelTAG Stage 1 Appraisal Stakeholder Workshop 2

2 PLANNING STAGE 3

2.1 Identified Problems, Opportunities & Transport Planning Objectives 3

2.2 Study Problems 3

2.3 Study Opportunities 4

2.4 Transport Planning Objectives 4

2.5 Identified Solutions 6

3 OPTION TESTING 7

4 OPTION DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN PLANNING & STAGE 1 11

4.1 Introduction 11

4.2 Option 1 - Northern Bypass 11

4.3 Option 2 – Southern Bypass 12

4.4 Option 2a - Southern Bypass A 12

4.5 Option 2b - Southern Bypass B 12

4.6 Option 2c - Southern Bypass C 12

4.7 Option 3 - Link to Llanllwchaiarn via new river bridge combined with raise or lowerA483 / A489 railway bridges 13

4.8 Option 4 - Trunk Road on-line improvements combined with raise or lower A483 / A489railway bridges and traffic signals, right turn improvements and local transport measures 13



4.9 Option 5 - Trunk Road on-line improvements with local transport measures 13

4.10 Option 6 - Any Bypass option & Trunk Road on-line improvements and local transportmeasures 13

5 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORKSHOP 14

5.1 Stakeholders Invited to the Workshop 14

5.2 Material Circulated Prior to the Workshop 15

6 THE WORKSHOP 15

6.1 Stakeholders who Attended the Workshop 15

6.2 Workshop Agenda 15

6.3 Format for Group Discussion 15

7 APPRAISAL CRITERIA 16

7.1 Introduction 16

7.2 Noise Assessment Criteria 17

7.3 Air Quality Assessment Criteria 17

7.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Criteria 18

7.5 Landscape and Townscape Assessment Criteria 18

7.6 Biodiversity Assessment Criteria 20

7.7 Heritage Assessment Criteria 23

7.8 Water Assessment Criteria 25

7.9 Geology and Soils Assessment Criteria 26

7.10 Transport Safety Assessment Criteria 26

7.11 Personal Security Assessment Criteria 27

7.12 Permeability Assessment Criteria 27

7.13 Physical Fitness Assessment Criteria 28

7.14 Social Inclusion Assessment Criteria 29



7.15 Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Assessment Criteria 30

8 APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLES 32

8.1 Introduction 32

9 SUMMARY 33

9.1 General 33

10 REFERENCES 34

TABLES

Table 2.1 – Potential Solutions 6

Table 3.1 How Transport Planning Objectives meet Identified Problems and Opportunities 8

Table 3.2 How the Developed TPOs Relate to Wales Transport Strategy Outcomes 9

Table 3.3 How the Developed TPOs Related to Strategic Priorities 10

Table 7.1 Noise Assessment Criteria 17

Table 7.2 Air Quality Assessment Criteria 17

Table 7.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Criteria 18

Table 7.4 Landscape and Townscape Assessment Criteria 18

Table 7.5a Value of cultural heritage assets 23

Table 7.5b Factors in the assessment of the magnitude of impact 23

Table 7.5c Significance of effects matrix 24

Table 7.6 Water Assessment Criteria 25

Table 7.7 Geology and Soils 26

Table 7.8 Transport Safety Assessment Criteria 26

Table 7.9 Personal Security Assessment Criteria 27

Table 7.10 Permeability Assessment Criteria 28

Table 7.11 Physical Fitness Assessment Criteria 29



Table 7.12 Social Inclusion Assessment Criteria 30

Table 7.13 Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Assessment Criteria 31

APPENDICES

Appendix A Stage 1 Appraisal Workshop – List of Invitees

Appendix B Stage 1 Appraisal Workshop – Pre-Meeting Notes & Agenda

Appendix C List of Attendees and Discussion Groups

Appendix D Figures Presented at the Workshop

Appendix E Stage 1 Appraisal Workshop Presentation

Appendix F Appraisal Summary Tables



Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of this Report

1.1.1 This report outlines the methodology and reviews the conclusions from the WelshTransport Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG)1 Stage 1 workshop held on 14 October 2008at Ladywell House, Newtown.

1.1.2 During the workshop, the potential transport solutions identified in the planning stagewere appraised against the transport planning objectives and sustainability criteriaoutlined in WelTAG.

1.1.3 The structure of this report is as follows:

Section 1: Introduction

Section 2: Planning Stage

Section 3: Option Development between Planning and Stage 1

Section 4: Background Information about the Workshop

Section 5: The Workshop

Section 6: Option Appraisal

Section 7: Summary and Recommendations

1.2 Study Background

1.2.1 The A483 and A489 trunk roads provide important links between north, south and midWales. Newtown is identified as a pinch point on the network and improvement to thetraffic situation in the town is seen as of strategic importance. Congestion frequentlyoccurs and problems arise from the low headroom and reduced road width on theDolfor Road and Nantoer railway bridges. Subsequently, HGVs and high-sidedvehicles sometimes divert through residential areas compromising safety of localresidents, school children and other vulnerable road users.

1.2.2 Work on investigating a potential bypass of Newtown dates back to 1969, whichresulted in a preferred route announcement in 1973. The protection of the route wasrelaxed in 1989 and certain developments have now encroached into the protectedroute at the southwest end of Newtown.

1.2.3 A study into the transport problems within Newtown was undertaken in 2004.Transport Wales commissioned Jacobs (formerly Jacobs Babtie) to carry out anindependent study to examine the transport problems associated with the A483 andA489 through Newtown. The purpose of the commission was to identify the transportproblems within the area and develop a set of Draft Planning Objectives againstwhich broad based solution options could be assessed and to carry out a pre-appraisal sift of options generated.

1.2.4 Parsons Brinckerhoff has taken this earlier work as a base line and combined it in thenew study to develop a number of potential solutions. The most promising options orschemes will ultimately be put before the public as part of a consultation process.

1.2.5 Appraisal of options will be undertaken using the WelTAG appraisal process to siftoptions in a two-stage process. The first phase of the WelTAG process wascompleted on 17 September 2008 through a Planning Workshop. The study is



Page 2

currently in the WelTAG 1 Appraisal phase and a Stage 2 Appraisal will follow to siftthe options further and arrive at suitable option(s) to be presented to the public.

1.2.6 The consultation will include the holding of two exhibitions in Newtown to presentscheme options and afford the opportunity for members of the public to discuss theproposals with members of the project team. Following the public consultation theMinister will announce what proposal/s if any will go forward for further detaileddevelopment and be protected as appropriate for planning purposes.

1.3 WelTAG Stage 1

1.3.1 The approach to the Stage 1 Appraisal is summarised in WelTAG as follows:

‘The Stage 1 Appraisal is intended to screen and test the options against both theTransport Planning Objectives (TPOs) and the high-level strategic Welsh ImpactAreas policy to ensure that proposals address the problems identified and adhere tothe Wales Transport Strategy.’

1.3.2 The Welsh Impact Areas focus on the three elements of sustainability that underliepolicy in Wales. They are:

Economy

Environment

Society

1.3.3 The Stage 1 appraisal aims to:

Assess the extent to which the options resolve all or some of the problems, ortake advantage of identified opportunities.

Assess how well a proposal performs against the TPOs and Welsh Impact Areas.

Test the strength of the overall case for the proposal.

Evaluate deliverability and risk issues as well as the likely level of support.

Avoid wasted resources on detailed information for proposals that perform poorlyagainst the points above, eliminating them from the appraisal process.

1.4 WelTAG Stage 1 Appraisal Stakeholder Workshop

1.4.1 The WelTAG Stage 1 Appraisal Stakeholder Workshop was held on 14 October 2008at the Welsh Assembly Government buildings in Newtown.

1.4.2 The purpose of the workshop was to appraise the identified solutions against thetransport planning objectives and Welsh Impact Areas. This will lead to therefinement of transport solutions in the context of the WelTAG planning process.



Page 3

2 PLANNING STAGE

2.1 Identified Problems, Opportunities & Transport Planning Objectives

2.1.1 The problems, opportunities and objectives identified in the WelTAG Planning StageReport2 were presented at the Stage 1 Workshop. Following further appraisal of theleading options, a Stage 2 Workshop will be held to identify the best options to besubjected to a full detailed appraisal.

2.1.2 This section identifies the problems, opportunities and transport planning objectives(TPOs) that were developed during the WelTAG Planning Stage Workshop. It shouldbe noted that these are refined descriptions following further appraisal by the WelshAssembly Government and their consultants after the workshop.

2.2 Study Problems

2.2.1 The refined problems proposed to define the transport planning objectives are:

P1 - Road network is subject to significant congestion and delays,particularly at peak and tourist times or in an event of an accident.

P2 - Isolated roads where bridge headrooms are less than 5.3m preventinghigh-sided heavy goods vehicles from passing under.

P3 - A number of ‘rat runs’ have developed through housing estates as analternative to the congested through roads.

P4 - Proposed wind farm developments in the region would generate anincreased amount of abnormal loads travelling through the town.

P5 - A lack of crossing opportunity for north-south movements over the RiverSevern.

P6 - Gradual housing and commercial development will increase the demandon the existing road network.

P7 - Limited commercial opportunities within Newtown and to the west.

P8 - Parallel nature of the River Severn, trunk road and railway line causesseverance of the town.

P9 - Perceived diminished quality of life along the trunk road.

P10 - Lack of centralised public transport hub caused by separate railway andbus stations.

P11 - Perceived road safety issues along ‘rat runs’.

P12 - Considerable number of accesses onto the trunk road.

P13 - Physical barriers preventing continuous pedestrian, cycling and othernon-motorised users’ links.



Page 4

2.3 Study Opportunities

2.3.1 The refined opportunities identified to define the transport planning objectives are:

2.4 Transport Planning Objectives

2.4.1 The TPOs were derived for this study during the planning stage workshop with directreference to existing issues, and with reference to the WelTAG principles, that is,ensuring that TPOs are distinct from, and do not presuppose, particular options.

2.4.2 WelTAG requires transport planning objectives to conform to the principles known asSMART (Specific Measurable Attainable Relevant Timed). This means, once TPOshave been established, it should be possible to specify as fully as possible what it isdesired for transport objectives to achieve in a particular area. It is endeavouredhowever to develop TPOs that are SMARTER, where the additional qualities areEffective and Realistic.

2.4.3 The refined Transport Planning Objectives for the Study are shown on the followingpage.

O1- Improve the historic core of the town.

O2- Lower levels of car dependency reducing carbon footprint, pollution andcongestion

O3- Improve the rail service for both passenger and freight

O4- Integration of public transport facilities, rail/bus services

O5- Synchronisation of town’s traffic signals to improve/increase traffic flows

O6- Improve traffic management within town

O7- Improve walking and cycling facilities

O8- Enhance the attractiveness of the town and surrounding area

O9- Planning gain

O10- Improve connectivity to West Wales from the Midlands and north-south link

O11- Improve the environment health and social wellbeing of the communities ofNewtown



Page 5

Objective 1 Maintain economic base

Maintain economic base of Newtown measured by levels of local employmentby the date in local development plan (2025?)

Objective 2 Meeting relevant environmental targets

Within Newtown settlement boundary limit and within 200m of any new transportationoption:

Meet targets and comply with appropriate environmental legislation and policiesby 2015

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3% from 2008 levels, by 2011 (inaccordance with Wales Transport Strategy

Objective 3 Removing through traffic from local roads

Reduce through traffic on Heol Treowen, Plantation Lane, B4568, Milford Roadby 50% over 2008 levels by 2015

Reduce HGVs on Heol Treowen, Plantation Lane by 90% from 2008 levels, by2015

Objective 4 Increasing level of usage for non car forms of transport

For travel with origin and destination within Newtown, achieve modal shift of15% from car to non-car forms of transport (cycling, walking and publictransport), over 2008 levels, by 2015.

For travel with origin or destination within Newtown, achieve modal shift of 2%from car to public transport, over 2008 levels, by 2015.

Objective 5 Integration of public transport

Within Newtown limit interchange penalty linking bus services and train servicesto 20 minutes, by 2015

Within Newtown, during morning and evening peak hours (0700-0900 and 1600-1800) limit interchange penalty between bus services to 10 minutes, by 2015

Objective 6 Improve journey time consistency (N-S, E-W)

Reduce journey times during morning and evening peak hours (0800-0900 and1615-1715) on A489/A483 between A470/A489 junction (Caersws) andA483/B4389 junction (Aberbechan junction) by 10% by 2015

Reduce journey times during morning and evening peak hours (0800-0900 and1615-1715) on A489/A483 between A483/unnamed C class Road at ‘TheDingle, and A483/B4389 junction (Aberbechan junction) by 10% by 2015

Reduce journey times during morning and evening peak hours (0800-0900 and1615-1715) on A489/A483 between A483/unnamed C class Road at ‘TheDingle, and A470/A489 junction (Caersws) by 10% by 2015

Objective 7 Reduction in accidents

Within Newtown settlement boundary limit, reduce road traffic accidents onA483 (T), A489 (T), Heol Treowen, Plantation Lane, B4568 and Milford Road by25% by 2015.



Page 6

2.5 Identified Solutions

2.5.1 Following the identification of transport planning objectives the workshop attendeesdiscussed potential solutions that address all, or some of the problems, opportunitiesand objectives identified.

2.5.2 Table 2.1 summaries the potential solutions agreed at the workshop.

Table 2.1 – Potential Solutions

Potential Solutions

New Construction Online Improvements Sustainable Transport

Bypass north of town

Synchronise traffic signalsthroughout town. New trafficsignals at Kerry Roadroundabout (A489)

Create an additionalshared cycleway/footpath

Bypass south of townRationalise industrial estateaccesses at Mochdre andVastre

Implement Bus prioritymeasures

Bypass A483 via A483 link Raise or lower Nantoer andDolfor bridges

Improve ‘Dial a Ride’service

Bypass A483 via A489 link Limit access to existing trunkroad Improve bus/rail link

Bypass town creating newroad above railway route

Provide crossing of the railwayfor cyclists, pedestrians andother non-motorised users

Create public transportinterchange at New Church

Extend Mochdre Estate roadto A483

Restrict traffic to improvecycling facilities

Implement and promoteTravel plans

Increase parking facilitiesLink Llanllwchaiarn to A483

New Traffic Signals atMorrison’s access

Implement/improve Saferoutes to schools



Page 7

3 OPTION TESTING

3.1.1 As described in Section 2.4, the transport planning objectives were derived for theNewtown Study with direct reference to problems and opportunities identified duringthe consultation process. The TPOs were also developed with regard to relevantplans and policies and with reference to WelTAG principles.

3.1.2 Table 3.1 shows how the TPOs address or progress relevant issues identified duringWelTAG Planning Stage consultation. The relationship between each TPO and eachidentified problem or opportunity is denoted as follows:

Minor Fit

Moderate Fit

Major Fit

The table demonstrates that each of the identified problems and opportunities aredirectly addressed by at least one TPO.

3.1.3 Each option was tested against each TPO to determine the likely extent to which theimplementation of the option would meet or compromise the delivery of the objectives.Consideration was also given to the fit of the options with the Welsh Impact Areas andStrategic Priorities. Table 3.2 and 3.3 shows how the transport planning objectivesrelate to the Welsh Transport Strategy and Strategic Priorities respectively.



Page 8

Table 3.1 How Transport Planning Objectives meet Identified Problems and Opportunities

PROBLEMSTPOs P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 TOTALTPO1 - 16

TPO2 - - 16

TPO3 - - 20

TPO4 - - - 18

TPO5 - - - - - - 10

TPO6 26

TPO7 - - 21

OPPORTUNITIESO1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O11 TOTAL

TPO1 19

TPO2 19

TPO3 - - 13

TPO4 - 20

TPO5 - - - 11

TPO6 - - - - - - 11

TPO7 - - - 10



Page 9

Table 3.2 How the Developed TPOs Relate to Wales Transport Strategy Outcomes

Key Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs)Minor FitModerate Fit

Major Fit

TPO

1

TPO

2

TPO

3

TPO

4

TPO

5

TPO

6

TPO

7

TOTA

L

Wales Transport Strategy OutcomesSocial OutcomesImprove access to healthcare - 9Improve access to education, training and lifelong learning - 9Improve access to shopping and leisure facilities - 10Encourage healthy lifestyles 9Improve the actual and perceived safety of travel 11Economic OutcomesImprove access to employment opportunities - 11Improve connectivity within Wales and internationally - 9Improve the efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of people 14Improve the efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of freight 13Improve access to visitor attractions - - - 6Environmental OutcomesIncrease the use of more sustainable materials - - - - - 3Reduce the contribution of transport to greenhouse gas emissions - - 11Adapt to the impacts of climate change - - 9Reduce the contribution of transport to air pollution and other harmful emissions - - 12Improve the impact of transport on the local environment - - 10Improve the effect of transport on our heritage - - - 5Improve the impact of transport on biodiversity - - - 5TOTAL 17 24 22 27 26 29 11



Page 10

Table 3.3 How the Developed TPOs Related to Strategic Priorities

Key Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs)Minor FitModerate Fit

Major Fit

TPO

1

TPO

2

TPO

3

TPO

4

TPO

5

TPO

6

TPO

7

TOTA

L

Strategic PrioritiesReducing greenhouse gas emissions and other environmentalimpacts from transport - - 11

Integrating local transport - 9Improving access between key settlements and sites - 11Enhancing international connectivity; and - 10Increasing safety and security 10TOTAL 8 6 5 8 9 10 5



Page 11

4 OPTION DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN PLANNING & STAGE 1

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Following the planning stage workshop the potential solutions were refined withgrouping of mutually supportive measures into ‘packages’ where appropriate. Theoptions taken forward to the Stage 1 Appraisal can be found in Appendix B.

4.1.2 The suggested option of a new bypass above the railway route was sifted outfollowing a review of its anticipated construction costs, which was estimated to be inexcess of £300M, and the likely environmental impacts and objections from NetworkRail and others.

4.1.3 The refinement process resulted in the following eight options being selected for aStage 1 Appraisal. These options are illustrated in the Briefing Notes that can befound in Appendix B.

Option 1 – Northern Bypass linking the A489 with the A483 (Orange Corridor A –Figure 1)

Option 2a – Southern Bypass passing south of Mochdre Industrial Estate linkingwith the A483 (Blue Corridor D and Purple Corridor C – Figure 1)

Options 2b – Southern Bypass using existing Mochdre Industrial Estate accesslinking with the A483 (Green Corridor F and Purple Corridor C – Figure 1)

Option 2c – Southern Bypass on the approximate line of the original TR111 route(Red Corridor F and Purple Corridor C – Figure 1)

Option 3 - Link to Llanllwchaiarn via new river bridge combined with raise orlower A483 and A489 railway bridges (Yellow Corridor B – Figure 2)

Option 4 - On-line improvements combined with raise or lower A483 and A489railway bridges and traffic signals, right turn improvements and local transportmeasures (Figure 3)

Option 5 - On-line improvements with local transport measures (Figure 5)

Option 6 - Any Bypass option with On-line improvements and local transportmeasures (Figure 1 and Figure 5)

4.2 Option 1 - Northern Bypass

4.2.1 Option 1 would provide a complete northern bypass of Newtown linking the A489 withA483. The western terminus is at the eastern end of Ffridd Wood and the easternterminus at Llanllwchaiarn. No link to the inner Newtown road network would beprovided. It is believed that a northern bypass will lead a large amount of east-westthrough traffic away from the centre of Newtown. It has an anticipated constructioncost of £45M.



Page 12

4.2.2 A northern bypass would follow the alignment of the northern ridge and would havean impact on the town’s backdrop. The route for the bypass would also have animpact on several public rights of way and require two new crossings of the RiverSevern.

4.3 Option 2 – Southern Bypass

4.3.1 Option 2 considers constructing a new bypass south of Newtown. It had beenidentified during the planning stage workshop that there are three possible variationsfor the western section linking Dolfor Road with the A489. Each of the three corridorswould then be linked to a common entity east of Dolfor Road linking to the A483.These variations have been identified as sub options 2a, 2b and 2c.

4.4 Option 2a - Southern Bypass A

4.4.1 Option 2a would provide a complete southern bypass of Newtown passing south ofMochdre Industrial Estate and crossing the main Cambrian railway line east of DyffrynIndustrial Estate. It has an anticipated construction cost of £31M.

4.4.2 The Southern bypass would re-direct north, east, south and west through trafficaround the south of Newtown and provide two new links to the town centre at DolforRoad and Kerry Road. It is anticipated that such provision would remove a significantamount of through traffic from the town

4.4.3 The route of the bypass will also affect several public rights of way to the south ofNewtown and require a new crossing of the Mochdre Brook.

4.5 Option 2b - Southern Bypass B

4.5.1 Option 2b would be identical to Option 2a east of Dolfor Road. However, this optionwould require an online improvement for the section passing through the MochdreIndustrial Estate on the approximate line of Heol Ashley, before rejoining the A489 atthe College roundabout.

4.5.2 The route would affect the industrial estate and would require the remodelling of theexisting industrial estate accesses. It has an anticipated construction cost of £30M.

4.6 Option 2c - Southern Bypass C

4.6.1 Option 2c has the same eastern section as both 2a and 2b however, the westernsection linking at Dolfor Road passes between Maesyrhandir and Mochdre IndustrialEstate on the approximate line of the original TR111 route.

4.6.2 The route of the bypass would consume land set a side for future development and itis likely to cause severance of public rights of way and open space. To link thisoption with the existing road network a new arm would be created at the MochdreIndustrial Estate roundabout.

4.6.3 This option has an anticipated construction cost of £28M.



Page 13

4.7 Option 3 - Link to Llanllwchaiarn via new river bridge combined with raise orlower A483 / A489 railway bridges

4.7.1 Option 3 considers the utilisation of the existing trunk roads by removing theheadroom restrictions imposed by the railway bridges. Part of this option is also toprovide an alternative route to northern Newtown by creating a new link from theA483 to B4568 at Llanllwchaiarn.

4.7.2 The new link would also serve the proposed residential development site to the north-east of Newtown.

4.7.3 It is anticipated that this option would cost in excess of £13M however, the true cost ofconstruction could be substantially increased dependant upon the impact severity anyproposed solution would have on the railway line.

4.8 Option 4 - Trunk Road on-line improvements combined with raise or lower A483/ A489 railway bridges and traffic signals, right turn improvements and localtransport measures

4.8.1 Option 4 would provide improvements to the existing trunk roads A483 and A489,which would also include the raising or lowering of the Nantoer and Dolfor Roadrailway bridges. All existing traffic signals in Newtown would be synchronised andprovision made for new traffic signals at the Kerry Road roundabout and Morrison’sjunction. The existing industrial estate accesses would also be improved withimproved right turn facilities provided.

4.8.2 Provision would also be made for public transport, cycling, NMU provision, buspriority, public transport connectivity and safe routes to schools/college strategies. Ithas an anticipated construction cost of £20M.

4.9 Option 5 - Trunk Road on-line improvements with local transport measures

4.9.1 Option 5 considers online improvements to the existing trunk road A483 and A489such as linking of all existing traffic signals in Newtown, provision of new trafficsignals at the Kerry Road roundabout and Morrison’s junction and also makingprovision for improvements to public transport, cycling, NMU provision, bus priority,public transport connectivity and safe routes to schools/college.

4.9.2 This option has an anticipated construction cost of £11M.

4.10 Option 6 - Any Bypass option & Trunk Road on-line improvements and localtransport measures

4.10.1 Option 6 is an combination of option 5 with any bypass option



Page 14

5 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORKSHOP

5.1 Stakeholders Invited to the Workshop

5.1.1 A range of stakeholders from the public sector were invited to discuss the potentialtransport solutions identified in the planning stage and appraise them against thetransport planning objectives and sustainability criteria for Newtown. Thestakeholders invited were:

Ambulance Service

British Waterways Board

CADW

Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust

Countryside Council for Wales

Dyfed Powys Police

Environment Agency

Freight Transport Association

Mid Wales Fire Service

Mid Wales Manufacturing Group

Mid Wales Trunk Road Agency

National Public Health Service Wales

Network Rail

Newtown & Llanllwchaiarn Community Council

Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations

Powys County Council

Road Haulage Association

Sustrans Cymru

TraCC

Traws Cambria Development

Welsh Assembly Government

Welsh Health Impact Assessment Service

A complete list of invitees is given in Appendix A.



Page 15

5.2 Material Circulated Prior to the Workshop

5.2.1 In advance of the workshop, Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared a series of documents toaccompany the invitation to provide the participants with an understanding of thebasic concept of the WelTAG Stage 1 Appraisal process and to familiarise them withthe study as undertaken to date.

5.2.2 Each attendee received the following material:

The workshop agenda

WelTAG Stage 1 Appraisal Briefing Notes

Location Plan

Copies of these documents are included in Appendix B.

6 THE WORKSHOP

6.1 Stakeholders who Attended the Workshop

6.1.1 A list of stakeholders who attended the workshop can be found in Appendix C. Intotal, there were 38 attendees present at the workshop including 17 representativesfrom the various bodies listed in Section 5.1.

6.2 Workshop Agenda

6.2.1 The full workshop agenda can be found in Appendix B. The main topic forpresentation and discussion was to provide an introduction to the study. Thisincluded a summary of work carried out to date, outcomes of the planning stageworkshop, development of proposals to date and an outline of the WelTAG planningprocedure.

6.3 Format for Group Discussion

6.3.1 The workshop was divided into five discussion groups. Each group was selected toensure specialists were reviewing their respective field of interest with a proviso thatat lest one WAG representative and one PB/TACP representative would sit withineach group to lead the discussion. The breakdown of the groups is included inAppendix C.

6.3.2 The format for discussion consisted of a 2-step process:

Possible solutions that were identified in the planning stage workshop werepresented to the stakeholders at the start of the session. Attendees were thengiven the opportunity to appraise each option against the assessment criterialisted in Section 7.

The possible solutions were then considered and compared to the TransportPlanning Objectives and Welsh Impact Areas.

At the end of the discussion stage, the workshop groups completed the AppraisalSummary Tables and summarised their conclusions.

A copy of the Stage 1 Workshop presentation can be found in Appendix E.



Page 16

7 APPRAISAL CRITERIA

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 WelTAG Stage 1 requires the anticipated outcomes of each transport option to bepresented using Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) for comparison of theirperformances. The best performing options can then be identified and taken forwardto the Stage 2 Appraisal.

7.1.2 ASTs extract the core economic, environmental and social impacts from eachtransport proposal, under the respective appraisal criteria. As well as assessing howwell a proposal performs against the Transport Planning Objectives and Welsh ImpactAreas, an evaluation of deliverability, risk, and strength of local support was alsocarried out.

7.1.3 Qualitative measures for each appraisal principle are addressed on their own merits.The results of the assessment of the impact significance are summarised using aseven point scale to indicate the magnitude of the impact as follows:

Large beneficial ( +++ )

Moderate beneficial ( ++ )

Slight beneficial ( + )

Neutral ( 0 )

Slight adverse ( - )

Moderate adverse ( - - )

Large adverse ( - - - )

7.1.4 Detailed assessment criteria were developed by the study team for each specialisttopic and made available at the workshop. These criteria were then used to measureoption impacts and complete the Appraisal Summary Tables.



Page 17

7.2 Noise Assessment Criteria

7.2.1 The category of noise was appraised on the condition of the number of people likelyto be affected by an option as shown in Table 7.1:

Table 7.1 Noise Assessment Criteria

7.3 Air Quality Assessment Criteria

7.3.1 The assessment criteria for air quality were based on the change in concentrationupon completion of a proposed option, as shown in Table 7.2:

Table 7.2 Air Quality Assessment Criteria

Negative change(decrease in concentration)

Nochange

Positive change(increase in concentration)

ChangeLarge Moderate Small Neutral Small Moderate Large

Concentrationwithoutscheme

Well aboveobjective + + + + + + + + 0 - - - - - - - -

Above theobjective + + + + + + + 0 - - - - - - -

Below objective + + + + + + 0 - - - - - -

Well belowobjective + + + + 0 - - - -

Significance of change Description of change

Large adverse- - -

Increase in number of people annoyed >500

Moderate adverse- -

Increase in number of people annoyed 100 < 500

Slight adverse-

Increase in number of people annoyed 1 < 99

Neutral effect0

Decrease/ Increase in number of people annoyed = 0

Slight beneficial+

Decrease in number of people annoyed 1 < 99

Moderate beneficial+ +

Decrease in number of people annoyed 100 < 500

Large beneficial + + +

Decrease in number of people annoyed > 500



Page 18

7.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Criteria

7.4.1 The effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the surrounding environment areassessed as set out below in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Criteria

Significance ofchange

Description of change

Large adverse- - -

Proposals are expected to substantially increasegreenhouse gas emissions

Moderate adverse- -

Proposals are expected to moderately increase greenhousegas emissions

Slight adverse-

Proposals are expected to slightly increase greenhouse gasemissions

Neutral effect0

Proposals are not expected to increase or decreasegreenhouse gas emissions

Slight beneficial+

Proposals are expected to slightly decrease greenhouse gasemissions


Proposals are expected to moderately decrease greenhousegas emissions

Large beneficial+ + +

Proposals are expected to substantially decreasegreenhouse gas emissions

7.5 Landscape and Townscape Assessment Criteria

7.5.1 The appraisal of landscape and townscape effects was based on the anticipatedchanges to the existing landscape or townscape characteristics as shown in Table 7.4

Table 7.4 Landscape and Townscape Assessment Criteria

Significanceof change


Largeadverseeffect

_ _ _

The proposals would result in exceptionally severe adverse impacts on thelandscape or townscape because they: are at complete variance with the landform, structure, scale and pattern of the

landscape or townscape. are highly visual and extremely intrusive, destroying fine and valued views both

into and across the area. would irrevocably damage or degrade, badly diminish or even destroy the

integrity of characteristic features and elements and their setting. would cause a very high quality or highly vulnerable landscape or townscape to

be irrevocably changed and its quality very considerably diminished. could not be mitigated for, that is, there are no measures that would protect or

replace the loss of the landscape or townscape.Moderateadverseeffect_ _

The proposals are very damaging to the landscape or townscape in that they: are at considerable variance with the landform, structure, scale and pattern of the

landscape or townscape. are visually intrusive and would disrupt fine and valued views of the area. are likely to degrade, diminish or even destroy the integrity of a range of

characteristic features and elements and their setting. will be substantially damaging to a high quality or highly vulnerable landscape,

causing it to change and be considerably diminished in quality.



Page 19



cannot be adequately mitigated.Minoradverseeffect

_

The proposals: are out of scale with the landscape or townscape, or at odds with the local pattern,

structure and landform. are visually intrusive and will adversely impact on views within the landscape or

townscape are not possible to fully mitigate, that is, mitigation will not prevent the scheme from

adversely affecting the landscape or townscape in the longer term as somefeatures of interest will be partly destroyed or their setting reduced or removed.

will have an adverse impact on a landscape or townscape of recognised quality oron vulnerable and important characteristic features or elements.

Neutraleffect

0

The proposals: are in harmony with the scale, landform, structure and pattern of the landscape or

townscape. avoid being visually intrusive nor have an adverse effect on views within the

landscape or townscape. maintain existing landscape and townscape characters.

Minorbeneficialeffect

+

The proposals: fit well with the scale, landform, structure and pattern of the landscape or

townscape. provide an improvement to existing views within the landscape or townscape. incorporate measures for mitigation to ensure that the scheme will blend in well

with surrounding landscape or townscape features and elements will enable some sense of place and scale to be restored through well-designed

planting and mitigation measures. maintain or enhance existing landscape or townscape characters.

Moderatebeneficialeffect

+ +

The proposals provide an opportunity to enhance the landscape because: they fit very well with the scale, landform, structure and pattern of the landscape or

townscape. provide visual interest or increase the attractiveness of existing views within the

landscape or townscape. there is potential, through mitigation, to enable the restoration of characteristic

features or elements, partially lost or diminished as the result of earlier changes inthe landscape or townscape.

they enable some sense of quality to be restored or enhanced through beneficiallandscaping and sensitive design in a landscape that is not of any recognisedquality.

Largebeneficialeffect

+ + +

The proposals provide an opportunity to substantially enhance the landscape ortownscape because: they enhance the scale, landform, structure and pattern of the landscape or

townscape. they create attractive key views and increase the attractiveness of existing views

within the landscape or townscape. there is potential, through mitigation, to enable the restoration of characteristic

features or elements, completely lost or diminished as the result of earlier changesin the landscape or townscape, or to create beneficial features or elements wherenone exist.

they enable some sense of positive quality to be created through beneficiallandscaping and sensitive design in a landscape or townscape that is recognisedas being of low quality.



Page 20

7.6 Biodiversity Assessment Criteria

7.6.1 In accordance with IEEM guidelines, there is a nine-point significance of impactsscale. To fit the nine points from IEEM into the seven-point scale used for WelTAGwe will use the following:

WelTAG significance IEEM significanceLarge Adverse - - - Very Large or Large adverseModerate Adverse - - Moderate adverseSlight Adverse - Slight adverseNeutral Effect 0 NeutralSlight Beneficial + Slight positiveModerate Beneficial + + Moderate positiveLarge Beneficial + + + Very Large or Large positive

7.6.2 Very High Value - International designations:

Ramsar Sites (Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especiallyWaterfowl Habitat 1971)

Special Areas of Conservation (EU Habitats Directive)

Special Protection Areas (EU Birds Directive)

European protected species (such as Otters, bats etc)

Sites hosting habitats/species of (European) Community interest (annexes 1 &2, Habitats Directive 1992)

Sites hosting significant species populations under the Bonn Convention(Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979)

Non-designated International features such as a large population of a bird that is rareon a European scale.

7.6.3 High Value - UK and national (Wales) designations:

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs; Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 asamended and National Park and Access to the Countryside Act 1949).

Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites

Sites hosting NERC protected species

Sites hosting Red Data book species

Sites hosting species not covered by the Berne Convention but in schedules 1,5 and 8 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

Species listed within Section 42 of the NERC Act.

UK Priority Biodiversity Action Plan Species & Habitats (UK BAP)

Non-designated UK and national features such as a regionally high population of anationally rare plant.



Page 21

Regional designations, which cannot be reasonably substituted including:

Important “inventory” sites (e.g. ancient semi-natural woodland and grasslandinventories)

JNCC Red List birds of conservation concern 2002 – 2007 (awaiting update)

JNCC Wales list of birds of conservation concern 2002 – 2007 (awaitingupdate)

Non - designated regional features that cannot be reasonably substituted, such as alocally significant area of a regionally scarce complex natural habitat.

7.6.4 Medium Value - Regionally important designations that can be reasonably substitutedincluding:

Local Nature Reserves (LNRs; National Parks and Access to the CountrysideAct 1949)

Important “inventory” sites (e.g. ancient semi-natural woodland and grasslandinventories)

JNCC Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 – 2007 (awaitingupdate)

JNCC Wales list of birds of conservation concern 2002 – 2007 (awaitingupdate)

Non – designated regional features that can be reasonably substituted such a locallysignificant area of regionally scarce simple, man-made habitat.

7.6.5 Lower Value - Locally designated sites such as County and District including:

Sites of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINCs)/County Wildlife Series(CWSs)/ other local designations

Regional Important Geological Sites (RIGs)

Other sites (not described above) with Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)habitats/species

Non-designated local features (County and District) such as a of SINC valuewhere no SINCs have been designated in that region

Parish/ward level sites of local nature conservation value or some other biodiversity or geological interest

7.6.6 Negligible Value - Sites or habitats with no listed or recognised nature conservationinterest

7.6.7 The magnitude of impact will be assessed by the scale of loss or damage predicted tosemi-natural vegetation, wildlife habitats and protected species. Significance will beassigned by looking at the magnitude of change to habitats and species of local andregional importance and assigning higher significance to greater loss of regionallyimportant habitats. The following criteria for determining the magnitude of impact willbe used and are based upon, or adapted from, those given in the guidance.



Page 22

Very large or large adverse - The proposal (either on its own or with otherproposals) may adversely affect the integrity of the site, in terms of thecoherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, thatenables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the populationlevels of species of interest. This includes large-scale damage or loss of a largeproportion of a particular semi-natural habitat type or protected species habitatthat is of regional/national importance or listed as a key habitat in the UKBiodiversity Action Plan Steering Group Report Loss of Protected Species.

Moderate adverse - The site’s integrity will not be adversely affected but theeffect on the site is likely to be significant in terms of its ecological objectives.If, in the light of full information, it cannot be clearly demonstrated that theproposal will not have an adverse effect on integrity, then the impact should beassessed as major negative. This would apply in the case of damage or loss ofa small proportion of a particular semi-natural habitat type or protected specieshabitat that is of local importance or listed as a key habitat in the UKBiodiversity Action Plan Steering Group Report.

Slight adverse - Neither of the above apply, but some minor negative impact isevident. (In the case of Natura 2000 sites, a further appropriate assessmentmay be necessary if detailed plans are not yet available).This would apply inthe case of damage or loss of common semi-natural vegetation, wildlifehabitats or important wildlife but not protected species. Habitats are not locallyor regionally important.

Neutral - No observable impact in either direction. This would apply in thecase of damage or minor losses of common types of habitats or commonwildlife. Habitats are not locally or regionally important.

Slight positive - Impacts which provide a slight net gain for biodiversity overall.This would apply in the case of an increase in the population of a species orarea of habitat that is not locally or nationally important.

Moderate positive - Impact which provide a net gain for biodiversity overall(but which will not positively affect the integrity of the site). This would includea small increase in the proportion of a semi-natural habitat or habitat of aprotected species that is locally important or listed as a key habitat within theUK Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group Report.

Very large or large positive - Impact which provides a net gain for biodiversityoverall in terms of increases in habitat diversity (and which may positively affectthe integrity of the site). This would apply in the case of a large-scale increasein a protected species or habitat of a protected species that is locally importantor listed as a key habitat within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Steering GroupReport.



Page 23

7.7 Heritage Assessment Criteria

7.7.1 The assessment criteria for heritage are based on the anticipated change in conditionupon completion of a proposed option, as shown in Tables 7.5a 7.5b and 7.5c.

Table 7.5a Value of cultural heritage assets



Very High World Heritage Sites Buildings of international importance Assets of acknowledged international importance Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged

international research objectivesHigh Scheduled Ancient Monuments and sites of schedulable

quality Grade I and II* Listed Buildings and Grade II or unlisted

buildings worthy of those grades Conservation Areas containing nationally important buildings

that contribute significantly to its historic character Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged

national research objectivesMedium Grade II Listed Buildings and unlisted buildings worthy of

grade Conservation Areas containing regionally-important buildings

that contribute significantly to its historic character Assets of regional value Assets that can contribute to regional research objectives

Low Sites of local importance Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor

survival of contextual associations Assets that can contribute to local research objectives

Negligible Assets with very little or no surviving cultural heritage interest

Table 7.5b Factors in the assessment of the magnitude of impact



Largeadverseeffect- - -

Complete or near-complete destruction of the site, feature orbuilding;Alteration resulting in a fundamental negative change in our ability tounderstand and appreciate the resource and its historical contextand setting.

Moderateadverseeffect- -

Significant damage to the site, feature or building;Alteration resulting in a significant negative change in our ability tounderstand and appreciate the resource and its historical contextand setting.

Minoradverseeffect

Limited damage to the site, feature or building;Alteration resulting in a small decrease in our ability to understandand appreciate the resource and its historical context and setting.



Page 24



-

Neutral effect

0

Insignificant change or no material change to the site, feature orbuilding;No real change in our ability to understand and appreciate theresource and its historical context and setting.

Minorbeneficialeffect+

Limited physical improvement to the site, feature or building;Alteration resulting in a small increase in our ability to understandand appreciate the resource and its historical context and setting.

Moderatebeneficialeffect+ +

Significant physical improvement to the site, feature or building;Alteration resulting in a significant positive change in our ability tounderstand and appreciate the resource and its historical contextand setting.

Largebeneficialeffect+ + +

Fundamental physical improvement to the site, feature or building;Alteration resulting in a fundamental positive change in our ability tounderstand and appreciate the resource and its historical contextand setting.

Unknown Uncertain change, normally applying to an area in which the extent,character and quality of preservation of archaeological remains isnot known. Also applies where the project design is not sufficientlydeveloped for effects to be accurately determined.

Table 7.5c Significance of effects matrix

MagnitudeValue

Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Very High Slight Moderate Moderate/Large

Large (-ve)Large (+ve)

High Slight Slight Moderate Moderate/Large (-ve)Moderate/Large (+ve)

Medium Neutral/Slight

Slight Slight/Moderate

Moderate

Low Neutral/Slight

Neutral/Slight

Slight Slight/Moderate

Negligible Neutral Neutral/Slight

Neutral/Slight

Slight



Page 25

7.8 Water Assessment Criteria

7.8.1 The assessment criteria for water are based on the anticipated change in conditionupon completion of a proposed option, as shown in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6 Water Assessment Criteria



Largeadverse- - -

Where the proposal may result in a degradation of the waterenvironment because it results in predicted: very significant adverse impacts on at least one water

attribute; highly significant adverse impacts on several water attributes.

Moderateadverse- -

Where the proposal may result in a degradation of the waterenvironment, because it results in predicted: significant adverse impacts on at least one attribute, with

insignificant predicted improvements to other attributes; very or highly significant adverse impacts, but with some

improvements which are of a much lower significance and areinsufficient positive impacts to offset the negative impacts ofthe proposal.

Slightadverse-

Where the proposal may result in a degradation of the waterenvironment, because the predicted adverse impacts are ofgreater significance than the predicted improvements.

Neutral effect

0

Where the net impact of the proposals is neutral, because: they have no appreciable effect, either positive or negative, on

the identified attributes; the proposals would result in a combination of effects, some

positive and some negative, which balance to give an overallneutral impact. In most cases, these will be slight or moderatepositive and negative impacts. It may be possible to balanceimpacts of greater significance. However, in these cases greatcare will be required to ensure that the impacts arecomparable in terms of their potential environmental impactsand the perception of these impacts.

Slightbeneficial+

Where the proposal provides an opportunity to enhance the waterenvironment, because it provides improvements in waterattributes, which are of greater significance than the adverseeffects.

Moderatebeneficial+ +

Where the proposal provides an opportunity to enhance the waterenvironment, because it results in predicted: significant improvements for at least one water attribute, with

insignificant adverse impacts on other attributes; very or highly significant improvements, but with some

adverse impacts of a much lower significance. The predicted improvements achieved by the proposal should

greatly outweigh any potential negative impacts.Largebeneficial+ + +

It is unlikely that any proposal incorporating the construction of anew transport route (road or rail) would fit into this category.However, proposals could have a large positive impact if it ispredicted that it will result in a ‘very’ or ‘highly’ significantimprovement to a water attribute(s), with insignificant adverse



Page 26



impacts on other water attributes.

7.9 Geology and Soils Assessment Criteria

7.9.1 The impact of construction works on the geology and soils are assessed as set outbelow in Table 7.7.

Table 7.7 Geology and Soils



Large adverse- - -

Where the scheme would cause a significant deterioration tothe geological environment.

Moderate adverse- -

Where the scheme would cause a moderate deterioration tothe geological environment.

Slight adverse-

Where the scheme would cause a slight deterioration to thegeological environment.

Neutral effect0

Where the scheme would have no impact upon thegeological environment.

Slight beneficial+

Where the scheme would cause a slight improvement to thegeological environment.


Where the scheme would cause a moderate improvement tothe geological environment.


Where the scheme would cause a significant improvementto the geological environment.

7.10 Transport Safety Assessment Criteria

7.10.1 WelTAG refers to transport safety in relation to accidents on all modes includinghighway, railway and non-motorised modes such as cyclists, pedestrians orequestrians.

7.10.2 The appraisal criteria for transport safety at Stage 1 relates to whether the proposal islikely to have an effect on accident frequencies or their severity, whether positive ornegative. The seven point criteria shown in table 7.8 can therefore be consideredappropriate when completing the Appraisal Summary Table for each option.

Table 7.8 Transport Safety Assessment Criteria



Large adverse- - -

Proposals are expected to substantially increase accidentfrequencies and / or their severity

Moderate adverse- -

Proposals are expected to moderately increase accidentfrequencies and / or their severity

Slight adverse-

Proposals are expected to slightly increase accidentfrequencies and / or their severity

Neutral effect0

Proposals are not expected to increase or decreaseaccident frequencies or their severity



Page 27



Slight beneficial+

Proposals are expected to slightly decrease accidentfrequencies and / or their severity


Proposals are expected to moderately decrease accidentfrequencies and / or their severity


Proposals are expected to substantially decrease accidentfrequencies and / or their severity

7.11 Personal Security Assessment Criteria

7.11.1 Personal security is defined by WelTAG as: ‘relative freedom from risk of fear ofattack or robbery and extends to the transport user’s personal possessions, includingbicycles’.

7.11.2 The WelTAG guidance recognises that it is not realistic to attempt to measure actualincidents of robbery or attack whilst in transit or waiting for public transport. WelTAGalso recognises that it is perceived security that influences travel decisions.

7.11.3 The Stage 1 appraisal for personal security requires a general assessment of whetherpersonal security is likely to improve, deteriorate or remain the same because of theimplementation of the strategy or scheme. The seven point criteria shown in table 7.9can therefore be considered appropriate when completing the Appraisal SummaryTable for each option.

Table 7.9 Personal Security Assessment Criteria



Large adverse- - -

Proposals are expected to substantially deteriorate personalsecurity

Moderate adverse- -

Proposals are expected to moderately deteriorate personalsecurity

Slight adverse-

Proposals are expected to slightly deteriorate personalsecurity

Neutral effect0

Proposals are not expected to improve or deterioratepersonal security

Slight beneficial+

Proposals are expected to slightly improve personal security


Proposals are expected to moderately improve personalsecurity


Proposals are expected to substantially improve personalsecurity

7.12 Permeability Assessment Criteria

7.12.1 The impact description given for permeability in WelTAG states: ‘This aspect of socialimpacts is intended to capture the impact of a proposal upon the movement of peoplein its vicinity on foot, by bicycle and on horseback. In essence, this impact relates toany change in ease with which people in the affected area can travel by non-motorised modes’.



Page 28

7.12.2 WelTAG proceeds, ‘the appraisal for Stage 1 should reflect the degree of detailavailable concerning the strategy or scheme. In most cases, it is expected thatproposals will not be defined in such detail as would enable an appraisal to be carriedout to the standard of Stage 2 but if such data is held, an approximate appraisal usingWebTAG method is recommended’.

7.12.3 As some work has already been carried out in relation to permeability within the InitialEnvironmental Assessment Report, it is proposed that the AST tables be completedusing criteria which have drawn on the methodologies outlined in WebTAG Unit 3.6.2and DMRB Volume 11, Part 3 Section 8 (Pedestrians and Others and CommunityEffects). The following seven point criteria shown in Table 7.10 can therefore beconsidered appropriate.

Table 7.10 Permeability Assessment Criteria



Large adverse- - -

People are likely to be deterred from making non-motorisedjourneys to an extent sufficient to induce a reorganisation oftheir activities. In some cases, this could lead to a change in thelocation of centres of activity or to a permanent loss of access tocertain facilities for a particular community. Those who makejourneys by non-motorised means will experience considerablehindrance.

Moderateadverse- -

Some people, particularly children and old people, are likely tobe dissuaded from making journeys by non-motorised means.For others, journeys will be longer or less attractive.

Slight adverse-

All people wishing to make movements by non-motorised meanswill be able to do so, but there will probably be some hindranceto movement

Neutral effect0

Little or no hindrance to movement by non-motorised means.

Slight beneficial+

All people wishing to make movements by non-motorised meanswill be able to do so and there will probably be someencouragement to movement

Moderatebeneficial+ +

Some people, particularly children and old people, are likely tobe encouraged to make journeys by non-motorised means. Forothers, journeys will be shorter or more attractive.

Largebeneficial+ + +

People are likely to be encouraged to make non-motorisedjourneys to an extent sufficient to induce a reorganisation oftheir activities. In some cases, this could lead to an increase usein the centres of activity or to new access to certain facilities fora particular community. Those who make journeys by non-motorised means will experience considerable encouragement.

7.13 Physical Fitness Assessment Criteria

7.13.1 The term physical fitness has been used in WelTAG because it is the aspect ofgeneral health that can be most closely associated with active travel. Health is a highpriority in Wales and travelling on foot, by bicycle or horseback can makecontributions towards physical fitness and well-being.



Page 29

7.13.2 The Stage 1 appraisal for physical fitness states that ‘it is sufficient for the planner toreach a reasoned view as to whether travel by active modes can be expected toincrease or decrease as a result of the proposal. Where more can be said withconfidence about any distribution implications, this should also be included in theshort qualitative statement’. The following seven point criteria shown in table 7.11can therefore be considered appropriate when completing the Appraisal SummaryTable for each option in relation to physical fitness.

Table 7.11 Physical Fitness Assessment Criteria



Large adverse- - -

Proposals are expected to substantially decrease travel byactive modes.

Moderate adverse- -

Proposals are expected to moderately decrease travel byactive modes.

Slight adverse-

Proposals are expected to slightly decrease travel byactive modes.

Neutral effect0

Proposals are not expected to increase or decrease travelby active modes.

Slight beneficial+

Proposals are expected to slightly increase travel byactive modes.


Proposals are expected to moderately increase travel byactive modes


Proposals are expected to substantially increase travel byactive modes

7.14 Social Inclusion Assessment Criteria

7.14.1 The WelTAG appraisal guidance for social inclusion states that accessibility andsocial inclusion are synonymous. The former is the measurement of the relative easewith which people can get to their destinations and obtain the services that areimportant to them and the latter is the degree with which members of society are ableto lead a full life. For a WelTAG transport appraisal however, social inclusion isdefined as the degree to which a lack of accessibility hampers an individual’s qualityof life.

7.14.2 WelTAG guidance identifies eight indicators to be used in appraising social inclusionimpacts, which are as follows:

1. Proportion of households within a) 60 and b) 90 minute public transport traveltime threshold(s) of a National Health Service District General Hospitalbetween 10:00 and 12:00 on a Tuesday;

2. Proportion of people aged 16 – 74 within a) 60 and b) 90 minute publictransport travel time threshold(s) of ‘Learning Providers’ (as recognised withinthe ELWa National Planning Framework) between 7:00 and 9:00 on aTuesday

3. Proportion of households within a) 60 and b) 90 minutes public transporttravel time thresholds of a ‘Key Centre’ between 10:00 and 12:00 on aTuesday; and

4. Proportion of households within a) 60 and b) 90 minute public transport traveltime thresholds of a ‘Key Centre’ between 20:00 and 22:00 on a Saturday.



Page 30

7.14.3 The goal of the appraisal is to establish which of these numbers would change as aresult of the scheme, and whether they would increase or decrease. Therefore, thefollowing seven point criteria shown in table 7.12 can be considered appropriate whencompleting the Appraisal Summary Table for each option in relation to SocialInclusion.

Table 7.12 Social Inclusion Assessment Criteria



Large adverse- - -

Proposals are expected to substantially decrease theproportions in indicators 1 to 4.

Moderate adverse- -

Proposals are expected to moderately decrease theproportions in indicators 1 to 4.

Slight adverse-

Proposals are expected to slightly decrease the proportionsin indicators 1 to 4.

Neutral effect0

Proposals are not expected to increase or decrease theproportions in indicators 1 to 4.

Slight beneficial+

Proposals are expected to slightly increase the proportionsin indicators 1 to 4.


Proposals are expected to moderately increase theproportions in indicators 1 to 4.


Proposals are expected to substantially increase theproportions in indicators 1 to 4.

7.15 Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Assessment Criteria

7.15.1 The WelTAG guidance for a Stage 1 Appraisal states that ‘all positive and negativeimpacts, particularly disproportionate impacts, arising from the strategy or scheme(s)should be qualitatively assessed against the following equality impact groups:

Race, ethnicity, colour or nationality;

Sex marital status;

Disability: physical, sensory or mental;

Age;

Religion or belief;

Sexual orientation;

Welsh language;

Other: Lone parent, economic inactivity, social and multiple deprivation

7.15.2 Issues relating to compatibility with human rights legislation should also beconsidered.

7.15.3 Following consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government, it was suggested thatan assessment criteria for assessing equality, diversity and human rights should alsotake into account statutory duties imposed on public authorities e.g. Race Relations(Amendment) Act 2000, Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and Sex Discrimination Act1975 (as Amended by the Equality Act 2006). Therefore, the following seven pointcriteria shown in table 7.13 can be considered appropriate when completing theAppraisal Summary Table for each option.



Page 31

Table 7.13 Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Assessment Criteria



Large adverse- - -

Proposals are expected to have a severe adverse effect inrelation to one or more of the equality impact groups andstatutory duties.

Moderate adverse- -

Proposals are expected to have a moderate adverse effectin relation to one or more of the equality impact groups andstatutory duties.

Slight adverse-

Proposals are expected to have a slight adverse effect inrelation to one or more of the equality impact groups andstatutory duties.

Neutral effect0

Proposals are not expected to beneficially or adverselyeffect issues relating to equality impact groups and statutoryduties

Slight beneficial+

Proposals are expected to have a slight beneficial effect inrelation to one or more of the equality impact groups andstatutory duties.


Proposals are expected to have a moderate beneficial effectin relation to one or more of the equality impact groups andstatutory duties.


Proposals are expected to have a large beneficial effect inrelation to one or more of the equality impact groups andstatutory duties.



Page 32

8 APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLES

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 As noted in Section 7, WelTAG Stage 1 requires the anticipated outcomes of eachtransport option to be presented using Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) forcomparison of their performances. The best performing options to take forward to theStage 2 Appraisal can then be identified.

8.1.2 The ASTs included in Appendix F summarise the results of the options appraisalconducted during the Stage 1 workshop.



Page 33

9 SUMMARY

9.1 General

9.1.1 The first phase within the overall planning and implementation cycle was carried outduring the Planning Stage Workshop, which outlined the existing transport problemsand opportunities within Newtown. Transport Planning Objectives and potentialtransport options were also developed.

9.1.2 Following the planning stage workshop, the Transport Planning Objectives wererefined, made SMARTER and tested to examine their suitability to address thetransport issues and meet the Assembly Governments Strategic Priorities and WelshImpact Area criteria.

9.1.3 The potential transport solutions were refined with grouping of mutually supportivemeasures into ‘packages’ where appropriate and presented at the Stage 1 AppraisalWorkshop.

9.1.4 This report has acknowledged the outcome of the Stage 1 Appraisal and in the draftASTs has provided an overview of the relative merits of each transport option. It hasbeen used as a tool to select options that merit further consideration at a Stage 2Appraisal but does not provide an absolute indication of which options are better thanothers.

9.1.5 During the proceedings of the Stage 1 Appraisal Workshop, it was evident that theadditional transport options would require further consideration. These additionaltransport options incorporated sub options of the proposed transport optionspresented at the workshop and also new sections of possible highway improvement.

9.1.6 These options will be subjected to the same appraisal process by the design teamfollowing further investigation.

9.1.7 At the end of the Stage 1 Appraisal, a number of ‘best’ or dominant proposals will beidentified to be taken forward to a Stage 2 Appraisal. In order to reduce the risk andaddress any questions or uncertainties surrounding the transport options, further workwill be undertaken to fully develop the proposed options. This process will result infurther refinement of suitable options and the results will be included in the AlternativeOptions Report where the best or dominant proposals will be identified.



Page 34

10 REFERENCES

1 Welsh Transport Planning and Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG), June 2008, WelshAssembly Government

2 WelTAG Planning Stage Report, September 2008, Parsons Brinckerhoff



Page 35

APPENDICES



Page 36



Page 37

Appendix A Stage 1 Appraisal Workshop – List of Invitees

• List of Invitees



Page 38



Page 39

Appendix B Stage 1 Appraisal Workshop – Pre-Meeting Notes & Agenda

WelTAG Stage 1 Workshop Briefing Notes Agenda



Page 40



Page 41

Appendix C List of Attendees and Discussion Groups

List of Attendees Discussion Groups



Page 42



Page 43

Appendix D Figures Presented at the Workshop

Newtown Study Plan Aerial Photography Transport Links for Wales Location Plan Constraints Plan Ecology/Geology Constraints Plan Archaeology Constraints Plan Planning Constraints Plan Water Constraints Plan Noise & Air Receptors Constraints Plan Services Constraints Plan Public Rights of Way & Cycle Routes Constraints Plan Highways Proposed Developments Public Transport Rail & Bus Cycle Routes & Walkways ATM Traffic Flows Traffic Flows Journey Times Personal Injury Accidents 2003-2007 Alternative Bypass Corridor Options Severn Crossing Link and Raise/Lower Existing Bridges Option Online Improvements to Existing Trunk Road Option Other Transport Solutions Option Wind farm Area B Wind farm Area C



Page 44



Page 45

Appendix E Stage 1 Appraisal Workshop Presentation



Page 46



Page 47

Appendix F Appraisal Summary Tables



Page 48



Page 49

AUTHORISATION SHEET

Authorisation sheetDocument No. HHC91371A/ 21

Client: Welsh Assembly GovernmentProject: A483/A489 Newtown StudyAddress: Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ

Revision Status and Description of ChangesAuthorisationDate Revision Description of ChangePrepared Checked Approved

25/11/2008 Draft - SAB KHP PRG22/01/2009 Working Revised following WAG comments on

draft, with updated AST’sSAB KHP PRG

26/04/2009 Final - SAB KHP PRG

STAGE 1 WELTAG APPRAISAL - NHS Wales 1 WelTAG... · 2015-10-27 · 1.3.1 The approach to the Stage...

Documents

Transcript of STAGE 1 WELTAG APPRAISAL - NHS Wales 1 WelTAG... · 2015-10-27 · 1.3.1 The approach to the Stage...