1. Introduction

1.1 Scheme Background

The A14 is an all-purpose dual carriageway road, running from Felixstowe Docks tothe M1/M6 motorway junction, a distance of approximately 210 km. The A14 isdesignated the main east-west strategic route between the east coast ports and theMidlands and has European Route Network status. The section of the A14between Cambridge and Huntingdon also caters for north-south traffic between theM11 Junction 14 and the A1(M) at Alconbury.

The A14 through the Cambridge to Huntingdon corridor is heavily trafficked,carrying regional traffic and significant local traffic movements as well as strategicthrough-traffic, with a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).

1.2 Early Studies

Issues of congestion, journey time reliability and safety led to the Department ofTransport commissioning a number of feasibility studies into improving the A14 andits junctions between the M1-A1 link and the eastern end of the CambridgeNorthern Bypass (CNB). The following studies reported between 1990 and 1995:

In 1997, a series of Working Papers was produced by Mouchel, investigatingoptions for on-line improvement to dual 3-lane standard. Further studies weresubsequently suspended in the Government's review of the trunk roadsprogramme. However, the strategic importance of the A14 resulted in options forits improvement being considered as part of the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS).

1.3 Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study

CHUMMS was undertaken on behalf of the Department of Transport, LocalGovernment and Regions (DTLR) by a consortium led by consultants Mouchel. Thefinal report, which was published in 2001, recommended a strategy of highwayimprovements combined with a rapid transit (guided bus) system, village trafficcalming and other minor highway improvements.

The highway improvements recommended by CHUMMS are summarised asfollows:

The highway improvements element of the CHUMMS strategy was developedfurther in 2002/3, by Mouchel and Faber Maunsell, to assist the Highways Agencyin recommending the A14 Improvement scheme for entry into the TargetedProgramme of Improvements (TPI).

1.4 Consultant's Brief

The Highways Agency commissioned Atkins Consultants Ltd in June 2003 to act astheir consultant for progressing the A14 Improvement Ellington to Fen Dittonscheme through Stage 2 Scheme Assessment and Public Consultation, leading toa decision by the Secretary of State for Transport on the Preferred Route for thescheme.

The following extract from the Task Order signed with Atkins sets out the Secretaryof State's objectives for this project, which are:

Atkins was required to identify alternatives for improving the A14 between Ellingtonand Fen Ditton, undertake scheme assessment to evaluate alternatives in terms ofengineering, traffic, safety, economics and environmental impact, recommendschemes for Public Consultation and hence arrive at a preferred route.

The following factors were to be taken into account when identifying and evaluatingalternative routes:

1.5 Technical Reports

A review of the route options considered in previous studies was undertaken and anumber of alternative route options consistent with the recommended CHUMMSstrategy were identified. This initial study was reported in the Initial Route OptionsReport (IROR) in October 2003, where a number of alternative schemes wererecommended for detailed technical, economic and environmental appraisal.

Further route development work and value engineering was undertaken to optimisethe designs to meet the objectives of the brief whilst taking full account ofengineering, environmental and traffic considerations. Detailed technical appraisalof those final route options was reported in the Technical Appraisal Report (TAR) ofAugust 2004, which includes a recommendation of a Preferred Route for thescheme.

Detailed traffic modelling, forecasting and economic assessment of options ispresented in the following reports:

A detailed environmental assessment of route options was undertaken, requiringthe preparation of:

1.6 Objectives of the Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report

The objective of this Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report is to, by providing asummary of the technical reports described above, identify the factors to be takeninto account in choosing alternative schemes and the environmental, engineering,economic and traffic advantages, disadvantages and constraints associated withthose schemes.

The overriding aim is to enable the public and statutory bodies to comment onalternative proposals taking into consideration their environmental, economic andtraffic implications.

1.7 Structure of the Report

The Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report is structured into a further five chapters:

1. Introduction

2. Existing Conditions

2.1 Existing Highway Network

The A14(T) in the Cambridge to Huntingdon corridor serves several purposes:

The highway network within the study area is illustrated in Figure 2.1 below and shows the extent of the area of interest for the A14 improvement study with the proposed A14 improvements extending between Ellington in the West and Fen Ditton in the east.

figure

Figure 2.1 - A14 Improvement Study Area

The existing A14(T) between Ellington and Fen Ditton is a dual two-lanecarriageway all purpose (D2AP) road with the exception of a small section betweenBar Hill Junction and Girton Interchange which is dual three-lane carriageway(D3AP). All crossings of the existing road are grade separated, passing either overor under the A14 preventing traffic from crossing two carriageways of traffic. Thereare however many locations along the road where direct access can be gainedfrom adjacent properties or land. The majority of these accesses do not have anyform of acceleration or deceleration lane running away from or to the accessrespectively, making entry and exit manoeuvres very dangerous. Lay-bys along theexisting route are substandard in terms of their geometry and location.

Along the existing route there are strategic interchanges within the trunk roadnetwork located at Brampton Hut (with the A1), Hinchingbrooke (with the A14(T))and Girton (M11 Junction 14). Of these, only M11 Junction 14 falls within theproposed improvements scheme.

Junction 14 is the intersection of the M11, A14 and A428 to the northwest ofCambridge. It is a limited movement interchange with no connections to or fromthe A428 west of the junction. Links provide turning movements between the M11and the A14 (east) and connect the A14 (west) to the A1307 Huntingdon Road intoCambridge.

East of Junction 14, there are full-movement, grade-separated junctions with thelocal highway network at Histon and Milton, and west-facing slip roads only areprovided at Fen Ditton.

The condition of the existing A14 pavement has been analysed using the HighwaysAgency Pavement Management System (HAPMS). The data from this systemrevealed that a large proportion of the pavement along the route is in poor oraverage condition and will require replacing in the short-term.

2.2 Traffic

Traffic on the A14 is characterised by high volumes of traffic, much of which isthrough traffic. Base year (2003) traffic flows are shown on Figure 6.7 in AppendixF. Traffic flows along the majority of the section of the A14 within the study areaare high. The recommended maximum flow per day for a dual two-lanecarriageway is 39,000 vehicles in each direction of travel. The observed flow in2003 between Galley Hill and Trinity Foot is 36,000 vehicles per day (92% ofcapacity), with 37,800 vehicles per day (97% of capacity) between Trinity Foot andBar Hill.

Travel speeds vary along different sections of the A14 trunk road during themorning peak. The Cambridge Northern Bypass generally operates well withaverage speeds in the AM peak of between 91 kph and 103 kph eastbound; and 84kph to 100 kph westbound. To the west, average speeds of around 65 kph havebeen observed in the AM peak between Godmanchester and Brampton Hut,whereas the section between Alconbury and Godmanchester generally performswell, although speeds in the AM peak drop to around 70 kph on the southboundapproach to the Godmanchester Junction. However, the section of the A14between Godmanchester and Bar Hill have the lowest observed speeds in themorning peak direction (eastbound) of around 45 kph. Average speeds pick upagain between Bar Hill and Girton to around 100 kph.

A further feature of existing traffic conditions on the A14 is the high percentage ofHeavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) that use the route, which when combined with hightraffic flows contributes towards very poor travel conditions. At Swavesey, 25% ofvehicles using the road are HGV's, the majority of which are the largest type ofarticulated vehicle with four axles or more. On the Cambridge Northern Bypass theproportion of HGV's falls to 15%. These are very high figures given that thenational average for rural major trunk roads in Britain is 10%.

2.3 Accidents

Accidents are perceived as a significant issue on the A14. Analysis has shown thatthe number of accidents is not significantly different to other similar A roads, butthere is a high incidence of "slight" accidents - often minor shunts, reflecting thecongested traffic situation. This does not detract from some isolated seriousaccidents on the A14 in recent years. It is often the case that incidents on the A14(accident or breakdown) can quickly cause severe traffic jams over a wide area,with few diversion routes (other than on unsuitable local roads), presentingdifficulties for emergency services to quickly reach incident locations.

A summary of the analysis of accident data along this section of the A14 over thepast 5 years is given below:

2.4 Geological and Geotechnical Conditions

2.4.1 Geology

Information on the geology of the study area was obtained from the historicalgeotechnical investigations, 1:50,000 British Geological Survey Maps, (Sheet 187for Huntingdon and Sheet 188 for Cambridge), 1:10,000 digital British GeologicalSurvey Map for Cambridge, and the memoirs that accompany them. The geologyof the study area is shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/GI/001.

A significant proportion of the study area between Ellington and the East CoastMainline Railway (ECML) overlies gravel bearing deposits, generally terracegravels of the River Great Ouse and Ellington Brook. Between Hemingford Abbotsand Conington, the study area is underlain by gravel bearing deposits, generallyTerrace Gravels of the River Great Ouse. The elevated sections of the study areaare expected to have an upper mantle of Glacial Till. The solid geology, whichoutcrops on the flanks of the hills, is Oxford Clay.

The solid geology outcropping in sequence eastwards from Fenstanton to Bar Hillconsists of Oxford Clay, Ampthill Clay, Kimmeridge Clay and Lower Greensand.A significant proportion of the study area between the M11 Junction 14 and FenDitton is covered by gravel bearing deposits, generally Terrace Gravels of the RiverCam. The solid geology east of Bar Hill consists predominately of Gault Clay, withsome Lower Chalk at the extreme eastern end.

2.4.2 Hydrogeology

The general underlying solid geology between Ellington and the A1198 atGodmanchester consists of clay strata where only negligible flow of groundwater isexpected, and is classed as non aquifer.

Aquifers with high yields have been recorded within the Terrace Gravels.Extensive excavations have been undertaken within these deposits and have nowformed several large ponds of open water. The water levels are generally 1 to 2mbelow the general ground level.

A significant number of ponds have been identified, generally located within theTerrace Gravels near the River Great Ouse or other tributaries.

Between the A1198 and Fenstanton the underlying geology consists of TerraceGravels, Glacial Till and Oxford Clay. The Elsworth Rock formation is consideredas a minor aquifer with soils of intermediate permeability.

Additionally the Lolworth Spring occurs to the west of Bar Hill where the AmpthillClay outcrops below the Kimmeridge Clay.

The main recorded aquifers east of Bar Hill are the Lower Chalk and the LowerGreensand. The relatively impermeable Gault Clay separates the LowerGreensand and Lower Chalk horizons. This horizon of clay is confininggroundwater within the Lower Greensand aquifer and as a result the groundwaterwithin the aquifer may be under artesian conditions.

This aquifer is classified as the second most important aquifer in the regionbetween Maidenhead and Cambridge. The Lower Greensand outcrops near BarHill where springs have been recorded flowing from the base of the formation.Groundwater levels are within approximately 2m of the ground surface in the RiverTerrace Deposits, and vary between 1m and 6m below ground level in the LowerChalk outcrops.

2.4.3 Existing Earthworks

The existing A14 at Ellington is generally constructed on embankment and crossesseveral culverts, which flow north towards the Ellington Brook. Continuing east fromEllington the A14 mainly follows the existing ground level until reaching Huntingdonand later Godmanchester which it passes through on embankment.

As it begins to pass through Huntingdon the A14 crosses over the East CoastMainline (ECML) railway, which has encountered slope stability problems in thepast. The side slopes of the railway embankments and cuttings are approximately 1in 2. Stability of these slopes has been improved by locally battering back theslopes to a 1 in 3 gradient, the construction of gabion and pile reinforcement, andinstallation of slope drainage measures.

The existing A14 east of Godmanchester to the M11 Junction 14 is generally atgrade but has occasional sections formed on low embankments, with severalculvert crossings.

From the M11 Junction 14, the CNB passes through the Girton cutting. The slopesof which are approximately 7.5 metres high. East of the cutting the CNB has beenformed on embankment until it reaches the River Cam crossing. The stability ofthis embankment has been recorded as being marginal since the construction inthe late 1970's. Previous investigations indicated the marginal stability was due toover-steepening of the embankment slopes (up to 1:2) and not determiningappropriate design parameters for Gault Clay. These investigations generallyrecommended reinforced earth slopes as a remedial measure to improve thestability of the embankment. Up to 100 slope failures have been recorded on theCNB to date.

2.4.4 Contaminated Land

There are several filled gravel pits within the study as well as a number of landfillsites, both historical and currently operational. The landfill sites that affect theproposed route options include Buckden (North and South sites), Fenstanton,Conington and Milton. In addition to the landfill sites there is a potential forcontaminated land to be present, particularly in areas associated with commercialand industrial activities.

LANDFILL SITES

The following section briefly describes the four main landfills, which lie within closeproximity of the proposed road scheme.

BUCKDEN LANDFILL

The landfill site at Buckden lies between the villages of Brampton and Buckden.The landfill site itself is split into two sites: the original "south" site, which is nowclosed and restored, and the currently operational "north" site. Buckden Southlandfill is known to have operated between the 1930's and 1994. The landfill wasnoted as having received a wide variety of wastes including domestic refuse,animal carcasses, contaminated materials, Special Wastes including asbestosproducts, and certain clinical wastes. Liquids are also thought to be present withinthe landfill including non-specific liquids, sludges and on-site leachate. Landfill gasand leachate collection and treatment systems are still in operation on site.

Buckden North landfill is currently operational and contains a variety of differentwastes including approximately 75% household and commercial wastes, 15% solidindustrial wastes, 8% inert/construction materials and 2% others, which includeleachate, liquids and low level clinical (hospital) wastes. Wastes were initiallyreceived at the Buckden North site in 1989, and landfilling continues on the site tothe present day.

An area of unlicensed historic landfill is also believed to be present to the west ofthe Buckden North landfill site. This tip is thought to contain demolition materialsand although the tip is unlikely to be engineered, the nature of its contents wouldsuggest that impact to the surrounding environment will be minimal.

CONINGTON

The closed landfill at Conington lies just to the south of the existing A14. Thislandfill is reported to contain 60,000 tonnes of blue asbestos contaminated soil,domestic waste and inert (concrete wastes) materials. The actual extent of theConington Landfill is unknown at this time and there is no specific data as to whenthe filling and capping of the site was completed. The landfill forms a mound,which is topographically higher than surrounding ground level, including theexisting A14. Passive gas venting is still present on the site, approximately 20-25msouth of the A14. The Environment Agency indicates that no active controlmeasures are in place for either leachate or landfill gas.

MILTON

Milton landfill lies to the north east of the Milton Junction between the CambridgeNorthern Bypass and A10(T). The landfill was initially created by the excavation ofthe Gault Formation, which was first noted on Ordnance Survey maps in 1992.The site is currently operational with new wastes being landfilled at the far northeasternportion of the landfill, which is a significant distance away from the existingCNB. Although the proposed route of the CNB does not impact upon Milton landfill,the existing slip road from the A14 to the A10 junction represents the southernboundary of the landfill and therefore older wastes are likely to be present adjacentto the slip road.

The licence for this landfill site indicates that it is capable of accepting civil amenitywastes such as inert wastes, household waste, difficult and certain clinical wastes.In addition the landfill also accepts small amounts of special wastes, asbestos andcertain radioactive substances. Recent estimates indicate that the landfill sitetypically receives up to 250,000 tonnes per year.

In addition to Milton Landfill, a series of pits were excavated to the west of thelandfill site and to the north of the existing Cambridge Northern Bypass, between1927 and 1952. It is unclear as to the original purpose of these pits as they areshown to lie on the Gault formation by the geological maps. The pits lay just to thenorth of the sewage works that was described as a sewage farm and they mayhave had some connection with the sewage farm operations.

A portion of the pits was noted to have been backfilled between 1952 and 1974,just to the north of the existing Cambridge Northern Bypass. However, noinformation is available as to the materials that have been used in the backfill.

2.4.5 Potential Contaminated Sites

In the vicinity of Brampton village, to the north of the existing Buckden North landfillsite a former petrol station is present. In addition a historic scrap yard is known tohave been present just to the south of the Buckden South landfill, while an existingfuel distribution depot is also noted to be present in this area.

In the area around Fenstanton and Fen Drayton a number of existing and formerpetrol stations are present. In addition vehicle repair garages, a coach depot, ahaulage distribution centre, a sewage treatment works and several manufacturingindustries all lie within close proximity to either the existing A14 or the proposedroute alignments.

From Bar Hill to Fen Ditton the main potential areas of likely contamination relate tohistoric contamination associated with a former railway yard and a sewagetreatment works, which is still operational at present. Both of these features areknown to have historically extended beneath the existing A14 and therefore maypotentially impact future road construction. The remaining areas of contaminationconcern are related to industrial processes that are present on industrial estates inthe vicinity of the Bar Hill and Milton junctions.

2.5 Existing Structures

There are eighty-one existing structures within the improvement scheme area.They may be classified into six groups, as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 - Existing Structures
Type of Structure Number
Overbridges 27
Underbridges 20
Underpasses or Subways 4
Culverts 19
Sign Gantries 6
Retaining Walls 5

The location of each structure is shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/BR/001.

The bridges within the improvement scheme area were generally designed andconstructed in the 1970s and 1980s. Repairs, strengthening and modifications willbe required to some existing structures and will be incorporated into the schemewhere appropriate. Several structures have not been assessed to currentassessment standards and will need to be so assessed before the extent of anystrengthening can be finalised.

It has been assumed that the improvement scheme will be used as an opportunityto replace elements that are likely to reach the end of their design lives within tenyears of projected opening. Such elements include bridge deck waterproofing onunderbridges, bearings and parapets.

2.6 Public Utilities

Available drawings of Statutory Undertakers' (SU) apparatus indicate that thefollowing SU companies have plant located within the study area:

2.7 Environmental Aspects

The proposals for improvement of the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton willpotentially affect a large study area, impacting on environmental topics such as:

The geology of the area has been described previously.

The main environmental features and designations within the study area are shownon the Environmental Constraints drawings, numbers 5021044/DR/EN/ 01 to 03.

The following summarises the existing environmental conditions, fuller descriptionsare included in Chapter 5 of this report.

2.7.1 Traffic Noise and Vibration

The study area for the traffic noise assessment has been split into level of detail:

Noise levels in the study area have been predicted using noise modelling software.To provide information on the existing noise levels in rural areas where it was notreasonably possible to carry out noise calculations, a preliminary noise survey wasundertaken. The measurements concentrated on areas where existing levels arelow or where local roads may have some effects.

The findings of the noise survey have been taken into account when assessing theexisting conditions. Areas adjacent to the existing A14 that are exposed tosignificant levels of noise from the present A14 are described asbelow, all noiselevels are in terms of LA10 (18 hour).

From the western end the area is open countryside with isolated dwellings situatedat some distance from the A14 and A1, levels were measured above 50dB exceptat Brampton Wood. Calculations confirm that most of the area of this woodland isbelow 50dB. Calculations of noise levels indicate that levels of 60dB or maoreaffect all areas within approximately 250m to 300m of the A14 and A1M but nearthe junction the combination of the two sources extends noise over a wider area.Levels of 55dB or more may extend as far as 600m and in some places, greaterdistance near the junction.

Housing areas on the western side of Brampton have noise levels in the low 60sdB at the nearest houses and 55dB or more up to 500m. Between the A1 nearBrampton and the A141 near Stukeley Junctions the existing A14 affects houses onthe north side of Brampton with most above 55dB at up to 500m distance. AtHitchingbrooke Coutry Park, which is partly on ground rising from the road, noiselevels of 55dB or more are found within 700m each side of the A14 with additionalnoise from the B1514 thus affecting most of the park and the racecourse.

Continuing westwards, on the northern side of the A14 there are extensive housingareas of Stukeley and the southern side of Huntingdon. Noise levels are 60dB ormore within 200m of the A14 and 55dB or more within approximately 400m. Partsof Hinchingbrooke Hospital, which is on ground rising from the road, are exposed tolevels above 55dB. Within areas to the east of the B1514, those to the north of theB1044 and west of the A1198, there are further areas of housing close to the A14.Noise levels are 60dB or more within 150 to 200m of the A14 and 55dB or morewithin 300 to 600m and further where there are additional contributions of noisefrom other roads.

To the west the A14 traverses a more open area to the south of Hemingford Abbotsand Hemingford Grey. There are isolated houses on both sides with housingdevelopments on the southern side of Hemingford Abbots and Hemingford Greysomewhat further back. Noise levels are 60dB or more within 250m of the A14 and55dB or more within approximately 500m. The more distant effects of traffic noisewith levels of 50dB or more affects the southern side of Hemingford.

The noise environment to the east of Galley Hill is similar in that it traverses openareas to the south and east. There are a few isolated houses on both sides withsubstantial developments at Fenstanton. Noise levels are 60dB or more within 250to 300m of the A14 and 55dB or more within 500 to 600m but less within thehousing at Fenstanton on account of the existing environmental barriers. FenDrayton is affected by distant A14 noise with levels of approximately 50dB on thesouthern fringes.

Between the Bar Hill and the M11 Interchange at Girton noise levels are 60dB ormore within 300m of the A14 and 55dB or more within 500 to 600m but less withinthe housing area of Bar Hill.

Lolworth is affected by levels in the low 50s dB and some of the northern fringes ofBoxworth may be above 50dB due to the local road even where they areunaffected by local traffic. However, at Conington houses away from the local trafficexperience noise levels of less than 50dB.

At the eastern end of the scheme the area adjacent to the existing CambridgeNorthern Bypass is characterised by the open area near the M11 and villages andhouses adjacent to the bypass. Noise levels are60dB or more within 300m of theA14 and 55dB or more within 600m. However at Girton, where the road is incutting, houses up to 180m are affected by levels of 60dB or more with thoseclosest in the 65 to 70dB range. Similar levels affect the nearest houses aroundHiston Junction.

2.7.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

At the roadside of the A14, current measurements show that there have beenexceedances of both the annual and 1-hour mean nitrogen dioxide objectives, andthe 24-hour mean PM10 objective. However, as the closest properties to the A14are located at a greater distance from the road than the monitors, thenconcentrations at properties, where people are exposed, are likely to be lower.

Currently, air quality objectives are expected to be achieved at properties in thearea, and no air quality management areas within the A14 corridor have beendeclared to date. Further investigation is taking place near Bar Hill, Girton, Histonand Impington by South Cambridgeshire District Council.

Initial results from the nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube monitoring survey carried outby Atkins, suggest that concentrations are expected to meet the annual mean AQSobjective at all locations, except those within 10m from the roadside.

2.7.3 Land Use and Agriculture

The majority of the study area, particularly the western half, comprises of Grade 2and 3a agricultural land. The study area extends from the east of Cambridge to thewest of Huntingdon. A number of smaller settlements line the route corridor.

There are a number of significant developments located within the route corridorincluding landfill site (described previously), Beaconsfield equestrian centre, golfcourses at Brampton and Hemingford Abbott, Cambridge Services at Swavesey, ashopping centre at Bar Hill, Cambridge Crematorium and Cambridge Science Parksouth of the A14 at Milton. There are a wide range of privately owned agriculturalenterprises located throughout the study area.

There are a number of on-going planning applications and development proposalswithin the study area. These are listed in the Environmental Assessment Report. Ofthese the two major developments are:

2.7.4 Landscape and Townscape

The character of the existing A14 varies significantly along its length includingsections through built areas such as Huntingdon then sections through anagricultural landscape before following around the northern edge of Cambridge.

At the western end the A14 approaches Godmanchester on flyover from the eastwith extensive views from the road, the high bay warehouses at Cardinal Parkdistribution park to south and landfill site and allotments to north are clearly visible.Roadside vegetation / environmental barriers then enclose the views, allowingglimpses (attractive) from the road to flood meadows, parts of the historic towns,church spires, old buildings. Impressive water tower adjacent to A14 on south sideforms landmark view. Views particularly open out where the A14 is on flyover orviaduct over the river Ouse and east coast main railway.

As the A14 leaves Huntingdon on the western fringes views north are eitherenclosed by vegetation or to housing/ commercial areas and to the south opengreen space.

This area includes the low lying character area of the river Ouse to the north andthe undulating topography of the Western Claylands to the south. The existing A14passes through the southern fringes of Fenstanton which reduces the roads impacton the wider rural landscape. At the eastern edge of the town, housing estates arevisible to the north with the south being more open with remnant orchards stillevident close to the road, views are then restricted by close boarded environmentalbarriers and dense vegetation. There is significant visual clutter with road signs,service station and bus garage, Dairy Crest factory and poultry sheds. Severaloverbridges along this section.

To the west of Fenstanton views open out and Hemingford Abbot and HemingfordGrey can be seen to the north, whilst mature Willows on the south side enclose theviews and denote the large water bodies of the disused gravel workings at GalleyHill.

2.7.5 Occasional Road Side Properties

ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

The A14 study area chiefly falls within English Nature's 'West Anglian Plain NaturalArea'. Some key characteristics of the area are:

The Environmental Constraints drawings, summarise information on statutory andnon-statutory designated sites and records of legally protected species.

The most important woodland in the area is Brampton Wood SSSI. At 132 ha,Brampton Wood is one of the largest remaining blocks of ancient woodland inCambridgeshire. There are a number other SSSI's in the study area includingBrampton Meadow SSSI and Portholme Meadow cSAC (Candidate Special Area ofConservation)/ SSSI, a flood meadow relict from the old drainage system. To thewest of Hemingford Grey Village, on the south side of the existing A14 is theHemingford Grey Meadow SSSI, a species-rich meadow of the calcareous claypasture type, a type restricted nationally to the south of the country and decliningdue to the changes in traditional management practices.

In addition the study area has extensive areas designated as County Wildlife Sites,including a neutral grassland site, Buckden Pits SSSI, a series of flooded gravelpits adjacent to the Ouse and the River Great Ouse, the citation for whichcomments "in Huntingdonshire the flood plain is often wide and contains extensiveareas of semi-natural riparian habitat. The flood plain has been heavily exploited foraggregate extraction and the majority of the gravel pit complexes are now CountyWildlife Sites in their own right." At the eastern end of the study area the A14,Cambridge Northern Bypass crosses the River Cam, also designated as a CountyWildlife Site.

Surveys have been undertaken for species afforded protection through legislation,these include badgers, bats, common otter, hazel dormouse, amphibians andreptiles, water vole, wild birds and white-clawed crayfish. An extended Phase 1Habitat Survey has also been undertaken. The study areas for these surveysextend approximately 500m either side of the route options, including the on-linesections of the A14, the exception being for breeding birds where survey effort wasfocused within a 500m corridor of the off-line section.

CULTURAL HERITAGE

The A14 is broadly based on the line of a Roman Road connecting Cambridge withGodmanchester and known as the Via Devana. Important military bases werelocated at Cambridge and Godmanchester and later civilivan settlements weredeveloped. The nature of buried archaeological remains located in proximity to theA14 is likely to be in the form of small scale Iron Age and Romano-Britishsettlements or individual rural farmsteads. Remains have been recovered along theroute of the A14 dating from the Palaeolithic period through to the Post Medievalperiod. A number of villages now lie in proximity to the A14 and many of theseretain their medieval and post medieval nature, recognised in the many ListedBuildings or Conservation Area designations within the villages such as at Ellingtonand Fenstanton. Equally some milestones are Listed along the course of the A14dating to the 18th and 19th centuries.

PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, EQUESTRIANS AND COMMUNITY EFFECTS

Access to the countryside via Public Rights of Way (PROW) provide importantrecreational interests for local residents. PROW are made up of footpaths,bridleways and byways. These are illustrated on the Environmental Constraintsdrawings.


2. Existing Conditions

3. Scheme Proposals

3.1 Description of Scheme Options

As discussed below a wide range of scheme options have been identified anddeveloped prior to the technical appraisal stage of this commission. From these,three principal route options (plus local alternatives) and four junction strategieswere taken forward for full technical, environmental and economic appraisal.

As mentioned in Section 1.6 this Scheme Assessment Report aims to summarisethe technical appraisal process. However, in doing so it will only concentrate onthose route options that the technical appraisal has shown as being most likely tomeet the objectives and limitations of the scheme brief. These options aredescribed below.

3.1.1 Do-Minimum Option

A Do-Minimum scenario has been developed to represent the most realistic view oftransport conditions without improvements to the A14. This allows comparisons tobe drawn in terms of traffic and environmental issues between the Do-Somethingscenarios, described below, and a baseline scenario.

In the Do-Minimum scenario only committed transport schemes and land-useproposals within the study area have been considered as shown in Figure 3.1.These are listed in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 - Committed Highway Schemes Within Study Area
Scheme Improvement
A428 Hardwick to Caxton Common Dualling of existing A428
A1198 Papworth Bypass S2AP bypass of Papworth village
Milton Junction Safety Improvements
Access to Cambridge Science Park Double right turning lanes
Milton Junction Provision of dedicated left turn

Together with the schemes above it has been assumed that a replacementHuntingdon Viaduct and upgrading of the local road network around the proposedNorthstowe development will be required should the A14 Improvement scheme notbe implemented. These are described in more detail in the following sections.

figure

Figure 3.1 - Do-Minimum Option

HUNTINGDON VIADUCT

Huntingdon Railway Viaduct is a six span structure carrying the A14(T) over theB1514 Brampton Road and the East Coast Main Line Railway on the western sideof Huntingdon. It was constructed circa 1975.

The Do-Minimum assumption for assessing the A14 improvement options is basedon the premise that the existing Huntingdon Viaduct will be replaced. It is proposedthat the viaduct will be replaced with a structure similar to that shown in drawingnumber 5021044/DR/BR/023.

NORTHSTOWE

The proposed Northstowe development is not a committed scheme itself. However,based on information set out in the County Structure Plan it has been assumed ascommitted for the purpose of the Do-Minimum scheme.

To accommodate the increased traffic flows that will result from Northstowe the Do-Minimum Option assumes that the B1050 Hatton's Road carriageway will beupgraded to Dual 2 Lane All Purpose (D2AP) road between Northstowe and theexisting A14 and that this will feed into a new Bar Hill Junction. Improvements tothe local road network will also be made by running a local access road adjacent tothe northern perimeter of the A14 between Bar Hill and Dry Drayton, as shown inFigure 3.2.

3.1.2 Blue Route Option

A14 MAINLINE

The Blue Route Option is similar to the Targeted Programme for Improvement(TPI) route as detailed in CHUMMS. It is shown on Figure 3.3 and in more detail ondrawing number 5021044/DR/HW/101 and 102. As the drawings show, theproposed A14 mainline leaves the existing A14 corridor to the west of the A1/A14Brampton Hut Junction and runs adjacent to both sides of the A1 creating a singletraffic corridor. The eastbound carriageway crosses the A1 (options have beendeveloped to cross either over or under) and runs to the east whilst the westboundcarriageway remains to the west. The two carriageways join one another to thesouth of Brampton and the route moves eastwards passing between the town ofBrampton and Buckden North Landfill Site. It then crosses the River Great Ouseand East Coast Mainline (ECML) railway and continues in an easterly direction tothe north of the Wood Green Animal Shelter and the villages of Hilton andConington. It passes to the south of Fenstanton and the closed Conington LandfillSite before tying into the existing A14 to the south of Fen Drayton.

figure

Figure 3.2 - Northstowe Do-Minimum Option

figure

Figure 3.3 - Blue Route Option Mainline

From this point the Blue Route Option comprises online widening of the existingA14 and the Cambridge Northern Bypass (CNB) to Fen Ditton with the exception ofa short section at Bar Hill. At this location the route moves offline to the north of BarHill between Lolworth Spring and the Girton Interchange by a distance of 110metres at its maximum point to allow a new junction to be constructed to replacethe existing one.

In locations, where the Blue Route Option involves widening the existing A14,provision will be made for local traffic in the form of a Local Access Road (LAR). Inmost cases, the LAR runs adjacent to the proposed A14 mainline and ties into theexisting A14 when the route option moves offline. This maintains the route of theexisting A14, which will be used for local traffic when the proposed scheme isoperational.

The alignment of the Blue Route Option is discussed in more detail in Section 4.2of this report.

Junction Strategy

The Blue Route Option has nine associated junctions, as listed below:

Two junction strategies have been developed which include variants of each ofthese junctions together with alternative mainline cross-sections and Local AccessRoad layouts. These strategies are described in Section 4.2.2.

3.1.3 Purple Route Option

A14 MAINLINE

The Purple Route Option is shown on Figure 3.4 and in more detail on drawingnumber 5021044/DR/HW/103. As can be seen it follows the same route as theBlue Route Option from where it leaves the existing A14 at Brampton Hut to east ofthe Wood Green Animal Shelter. From this point the proposed A14 turns andtravels in a north-easterly direction before tying into the existing A14 to the west ofGore Tree Farm. It commences in an easterly direction along the route of theexisting A14, passing through Fenstanton and south of Fen Drayton. After passingFen Drayton the Purple Route Option runs along the same line as described for theBlue Route Option in Section 3.1.2 above.

JUNCTION STRATEGY

The Purple Route Option has nine associated junctions similar to those listed forthe Blue Route Option. The difference being that the Purple Route Option has ajunction at Galley Hill and no Fen Drayton Interchange.

Only one junction strategy has been developed for the Purple Route Option, whichis described in Section 4.3.

3.1.4 Orange Route Option

A14 MAINLINE

The Orange Route Option is shown on Figure 3.5 and in more detail on drawingnumber 5021044/DR/HW/104 and 105. As with the Blue and Purple Route Optionsthe commencement of the Orange Route Option is to the west of the existingBrampton Hut Junction with the A1. From here the route travels adjacent to thewest of the A1 and in doing so maintains one corridor of traffic in this area.

After crossing the A1 between Brampton and Buckden the Orange Route Optionpasses to the south of Buckden Landfill Site before crossing the River Great Ouseand East Coast Mainline. It continues eastwards to the south of the Wood GreenAnimal Shelter and north of the villages of Hilton and Conington. To the west ofConington is where the Orange Route Option begins to follow the same route asthe Blue Route Option, which it continues to do through to Fen Ditton.

JUNCTION STRATEGY

As with the Blue Route Option, the Orange Route Option has nine associatedjunctions, as listed below:

figure

Figure 3.4 - Purple Route option Mainline

figure

Figure 3.5 - Orange Route Option Mainline

Two junction strategies have been developed which include variants of each ofthese junctions together with alternative mainline cross-sections and Local AccessRoad layouts. These strategies are described in Section 4.4.2.

3.2 Cost Estimates

3.2.1 Basis of Estimates

Estimated costs for each scheme option have been calculated using basicquantities measured from preliminary design information. Table 3.2 below providesa breakdown of the estimates and the sections that follow describe associatedspecial factors and additional costs.

Where it was not considered practical to develop the design to a standard enablingdetailed quantification, an assessment of quantities or suitable allowance has beenmade. Unit rates have been obtained from various reference projects and appliedto the quantities as appropriate.

Costs are estimated to third quarter 2001 (Q3/2001) to enable them to be readilycompared to the Highway Agency's current Scheme Budget and previousestimates prepared for the HA.

Table 3.2 - Route Option Cost Estimates
Scheme Element Do-Minimum £m Blue (Junction Strategy A) £m Blue (Junction Strategy B) £m Purple £m Orange (Junction Strategy A) £m Orange (Junction Strategy B) £m
Preliminaries 0.430 26.043 27.138 25.556 26.124 27.197
Roadworks 2.184 87.052 88.728 86.522 87.214 88.849
Earthworks 0.314 39.909 39.711 28.498 36.539 36.214
Structures 26.513 94.872 98.971 95.156 98.919 103.018
Land 0.042 6.548 6.590 6.889 5.971 6.013
SU 0.300 15.994 16.249 17.781 15.278 15.533
Preparation & Supervision 0.492 34.641 35.542 33.265 34.668 35.544
Contingencies/Allowances 2.264 227.70 231.123 220.889 227.645 230.967
TOTAL 32.539 523.759 544.052 514.556 532.358 543.335

3.2.2 Special Factors

PRELIMINARIES AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Based on recorded data from previous contracts an allowance of 8% of theestimated construction costs has been made for preliminaries, excluding trafficmanagement. Traffic management has been assessed on a route specific basis toreflect the complexity of on-line widening.

SITE CLEARANCE

Huntingdon Railway Viaduct carries the existing A14 over the B1514 BramptonRoad and the East Coast Mainline Railway on the western side of Huntingdon. Ifthe new A14 is constructed the existing A14 will be detrunked and the viaductremoved and replaced with an at-grade junction at Brampton Road. The costestimates for each route includes an estimate of the cost of demolishing the viaductand replacing it with an at grade junction. All the costs associated with thedemolition of the viaduct; including those for the junction earthworks and pavementhave been included under the heading of demolition within the site clearancesection of the estimate.

EARTHWORKS

As the area is predominantly agricultural an estimated depth of topsoil for removalhas been established as 300mm.

The amount of acceptable material likely to be obtained from cuttings has beenassessed from examination of the geological data to hand. It has been assumedthat all unacceptable material will be placed in environmental bunds to avoid thecosts associated with transport and deposition to landfill sites.

There is generally a shortfall of acceptable material. Potential sites for borrow pitshave been identified along the proposed routes and so it is assumed that a fairproportion of the shortfall will be acquired in this manner.

COMMUNICATIONS

The cost estimates include allowances for emergency telephones, traffic surveyequipment, Close Circuit Television (CCTV) and Traffic Control Centres (TCC)Scheme equipment. It is possible that funding for TCC systems may be moreappropriately obtained from other budgets, but with the work still being undertakenwithin the A14 Scheme.

3.2.3 Supplementary Costs

An estimate for soft landscaping has been made from experience of typicalprovisions for similar schemes.

Diversion estimates have been requested from the various utilities companieswhose apparatus will be affected. Where estimates were not forthcoming,provisional assessments have been included in the estimates.

Land Acquisition Costs are to be estimated by the District Valuer. Atkins haveprepared drawings of land take for the various options and this has enabled a moredetailed cost estimate to be produced than would have been possible when theScheme Budget was established. The land take is predominantly agricultural and arate of £7,000 per hectare has been obtained from the DEFRA (Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs) website. In addition, development land to thesouth of the Cambridge Northern Bypass has been identified. The developers haveplanning permission for homes on the site between Histon Interchange and theImpington Rail Bridge and compulsory purchase of a strip of land will be necessaryto allow widening at the location. The cost of acquiring this land has been reviewedand an approximate value included in the estimates.

The cost of compensation for noise (Part 1 Claims) is to be estimated by theDistrict Valuer. As we have no better information at this stage we have included theScheme Budget allowance for Part 1 Claims in the cost estimates.The allowance for Preparation and Supervision has been reviewed. Werecommend that a total of 13% of the value of the works be applied for this,comprising 8% for preparation and 5% for supervision.

3.2.4 Developer Contributions

Between Bar Hill and the M11 Junction 14, the scheme has been appraised tomake provision for proposed development at Northstowe. It is possible that acontribution will be received from the developers however the scale of such isunknown and therefore has not been taken into account in the cost estimates atthis stage.

3.2.5 Detrunking Existing A14

No allowance has been made in the estimate for detrunking the A14 except for theremoval of Huntingdon Railway Viaduct and the associated at-grade junction withBrampton Road.

3.2.6 Comparison of Estimates

The estimates in Table 3.2 show the Blue Route Option (with Junction Strategy B)as the most expensive and the Purple Route Option as the cheapest.Significant variances between the elemental estimates are commented on below.

EARTHWORKS

The earthworks required for the Blue Route Option is significantly higher than theothers due to the greater imbalance between cut and fill, resulting in a far greatervolume of imported material required.

Although the Blue and Purple Routes follow the same alignment at the westernend, the Purple joins the existing A14 alignment earlier and therefore utilises moreof the existing carriageway, thus reducing earthworks requirements.

STRUCTURES

The estimates for structures vary between the routes. The cost of overbridges,underbridges and viaducts for the Orange Route Option is approximately £4m morethan for the Blue Route Option. This is predominantly because of the longer viaducton the Orange Route Option spanning both the River Great Ouse and the EastCoast Main Line.

The Galley Hill junction, unique to the Purple Route Option, requires extensivereinforced soil walling between slip roads and the main line, resulting in asignificant difference in the estimate for retaining walls.

VAT

The A14 Improvement scheme is a combination of new road construction builtoutside the existing highway boundary, on which VAT is non-recoverable, andonline widening on land within the highway boundary, on which VAT is recoverable.Therefore, because the Purple Route Option has the greatest extent of on lineconstruction the total amount of VAT for this option is lower than the other routes.


3. Scheme Proposals

4. Engineering Assessment

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a detailed engineering assessment of the route options interms of highway alignment, junction layouts, existing and new structures,geotechnics and contaminated land, earthworks, public utilities and compliancewith Standards. Significant engineering difficulties associated with route optionsare also identified.

Reference should be made to Table 4.1 in Appendix A, which provides acomparison of the route options for each of the above engineering parameters.

4.2 Blue Route Option

4.2.1 Mainline Alignment

The alignment details of the Blue Route Option are shown on drawing numbers5021044/DR/HW/202, 203, 205 to 207, 209, 230 to 234 and 240 to 241. As shownon the drawings the proposed Dual 2 Lane All Purpose (D2AP) A14 mainlineleaves the existing A14 corridor to the west of Brampton Hut Junction and headssouth towards the A1 corridor. On approaching the A1 the eastbound carriagewaymoves away from the westbound carriageway and can either rise on embankmentto cross over the A1 or move into cutting to pass beneath the A1. After crossing theA1 the carriageway then returns to follow the existing ground level as the alignmentruns parallel to the A1 and passes beneath the realigned Brampton - GrafhamRoad.

Adjacent to Brampton - Grafham Road, the A1 southbound to A14 eastbound linkdiverges to join the A14 eastbound carriageway as a lane gain turning the A14 intoa Dual 3 Lane All Purpose (D3AP) road east of the A1. Due to traffic volumesbeing higher on the A1 southbound to A14 eastbound slip, the slip road becomesthe mainline and the A14 eastbound merges in from the left.

At the point where it separates from the eastbound carriageway, the westboundcarriageway runs adjacent to the northbound carriageway of the A1, which itcrosses as it turns to move in an easterly direction and rejoin the eastboundcarriageway.

Since the mainline separates in this option and both the eastbound and westboundcarriageways have their own individual alignment the A14 mainline has beendesigned as two separate interchange links at a design speed of 85kph. This hasresulted in lower radii curves being used in the alignment producing a compactlayout in accordance with standards.

From the A1 crossing the A14 mainline runs east and passes to the north of theBuckden North Landfill Site before crossing the River Great Ouse and its floodplainon a multi-span viaduct. The mainline continues in an easterly direction across theEast Coast Mainline railway north of the Wood Green Animal Shelter. It thenpasses to the south of Fenstanton and the Conington Landfill Site prior to rejoiningthe existing A14 mainline to the south of Fen Drayton. In doing so the followinglocal roads require to be bridged:

After tying into the existing A14 the proposed mainline comprises online wideningof the existing A14 corridor as far as Lolworth Spring, west of Bar Hill. BetweenTrinity Foot and Lolworth Spring the existing eastbound verge of the A14 containsBT fibre optic cables. As a result of this, together with the need for access to bemaintained to properties on the north side of the A14, the existing road has beenwidened to the south. From Lolworth Spring, the proposed mainline moves offlineto the north of Bar Hill by approximately 110 metres at its maximum point in orderthat a high capacity junction can be constructed to replace the existing junction.After passing Bar Hill the route option requires an extra lane as a result ofincreased traffic volumes accessing the A14 at Bar Hill. It therefore continuesoffline to the west of Girton at the M11 Junction 14 as a Dual 4 Lane All Purpose(D4AP) road.

To the east of Girton the Blue Route Option continues as online widening along theCambridge Northern Bypass to Fen Ditton. From the M11 Junction 14 through theHiston and Milton Junctions to Fen Ditton Junction off-slip the CNB is upgraded toD3AP standard. As a result of traffic volumes a fourth 'auxiliary lane' has beenadded between the merges and diverges between the M11 Junction 14 and MiltonJunction.

With the construction of the improved A14 it is proposed that the existing A14 willbe detrunked between Spittals Junction and Fen Drayton. Included in thisdetrunking works would be the removal of the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct and therealignment of the existing A14 to form an at-grade staggered junction with theB1514, Brampton Road.

4.2.2 Junctions

JUNCTION STRATEGY A

Junction Strategy A has been developed following analysis of the A14 traffic model.It consists of three interchanges, namely Brampton, Fen Drayton and Girton, fourmainline junctions, Bar Hill, Histon, Milton and Fen Ditton and two Local AccessRoad junctions, Trinity Foot and Dry Drayton. These are described below in theorder that they appear along the A14 in a west to east direction together withdetails of the associated Local Access Road (LAR) layout.

Local Access Road

It is proposed that when the A14 improvement scheme is constructed the existingA14 will be maintained for use by local traffic. However, where the proposedmainline utilises the route of the existing A14 a designated Local Access Road(LAR) will be constructed in order to maintain the local road network. The LARlayout has been developed based on traffic flows taken from the A14 traffic modeland influenced by the layout of the Fen Drayton Interchange. It is shown ondrawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/230 to 232.

Traffic figures indicate that an S2 standard LAR is required between Fen DraytonInterchange and Trinity Foot LAR Junction as well as between Trinity Foot Junctionand Girton Interchange. The layout of Fen Drayton Interchange splits the LAR sothat the eastbound and westbound carriageways run on opposite sides of the A14mainline. This means that the S2 LAR eastbound carriageway runs along theexisting A14 eastbound carriageway to Trinity Foot (to avoid the BT fibre opticcables) and the S2 westbound carriageway runs adjacent to the south of the A14mainline.

To the east of Trinity Foot Junction the LAR continues towards Bar Hill on thesouthern side of the proposed mainline. On approaching Bar Hill the LAR mergeswith the existing A14 westbound carriageway at the point where the proposed A14mainline moves offline and continues along the existing westbound carriageway tothe M11 Junction 14 via Bar Hill and Dry Drayton Junctions. At the M11 Junction 14it passes over the A14 westbound Link, under the A14 mainline and over both theA428 Links before tying into Huntingdon Road.

A1 Brampton Interchange

The proposed interchange arrangement, shown on drawing number5021044/DR/HW/202, involves a restricted movement option that links the existingA1 Southbound carriageway with the proposed A14 Eastbound carriageway andthe proposed A14 Westbound carriageway with the existing A1 Northbound andSouthbound carriageways. On joining the proposed A14, the A1 Southbound toA14 Eastbound Link does not merge into the mainline, instead it becomes a lanegain, converting the A14 from a D2AP carriageway to a D3AP carriageway east ofthe A1. Similarly, the A14 Westbound carriageway experiences a lane drop wherethe A14 Westbound to A1 Northbound/Southbound Link leaves the mainline,reducing the westbound carriageway of the A14 from a D3AP to a D2AP.

The proposed A14 Westbound to A1 Northbound Link crosses over the existing A1mainline and passes under the proposed A14 before tying into the A1 Northboundcarriageway just north of the Brampton-Grafham Road structure. The result ofwhich is the need for a new structure to maintain the local road over the A1 and thedemolition of a cottage with frontage onto the A1.

Also requiring demolition is a filling station that is affected by the realignment ofBuckden Road. In order to lift the local road over the mainline it must be takenoffline as shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/202.

The location at which the proposed A14 crosses the existing A1 means thatBrampton Interchange is situated in close proximity to the existing A1/A14 Junctionat Brampton Hut. Therefore to accommodate any potential weaving issues on thestretch of the A1 between these two junctions an additional lane has been added tothe existing A1 between Brampton Hut and Buckden on both the Northbound andSouthbound carriageways.

Fen Drayton Interchange

The proposed interchange arrangement is shown on drawing number5021044/DR/HW/209 and involves a two-level, restricted movement interchangethat links the proposed A14 mainline with the local road network just to the west ofwhere the proposed A14 ties into the existing A14. The interchange allows thefollowing traffic movements:

All other movements, for example A14 Eastbound to LAR Westbound, can bemade by using the Trinity Foot LAR Junction which is situated approximately 1 kmeast of the Fen Drayton Interchange.

The location at which it is proposed to site the Fen Drayton Interchange sees theproposed A14 mainline on an embankment of between 2 - 3 metres in order thatthe road sits above the maximum flood level of a floodplain in the area. The impacton the interchange involves the vertical alignment having to be designed so that itcrosses over the A14. This produces a design that requires large amounts of fillmaterial to construct embankments that reach 10 metres in places.

Trinity Foot LAR Junction

Trinity Foot Junction is comprised of two roundabouts, one either side of theproposed A14, connected by a link that crosses mainline. The northern roundaboutis located to the west of Buckingway Business Park, north of the existing TrinityFoot Public House (Refer to drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/230). This is linkedto the existing Boxworth Road roundabout on the south of the A14 mainline by aD2AP standard road. The northern roundabout consists of four arms, one of whichis the link to the southern roundabout. The other three consist of the LAR from thewest, the realigned Buckingway Road from the north and another LAR to the eastaccessing properties on the north side of the A14.

The Blue and Orange Route Options have the D2AP westbound LAR carriagewaycoming off the dumbbell link to the south of the mainline. There is no designatedright turn lane on the link to provide access to the westbound carriageway for trafficcoming from the north and over the mainline, as this would involve widening thejunction structure considerably. Instead traffic will continue on the junction link fromthe north and use the southern dumbbell roundabout to double back to access thewestbound carriageway of the LAR.

Bar Hill Junction

The proposed junction, shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/231, involvesa two bridge roundabout layout situated over the offline section of the A14 to thenorth of the existing junction. This allows the proposed LAR to run to the south ofthe mainline along the existing A14 and prevents local traffic from conflicting withtraffic in Bar Hill.

This option provides access to the B1050 Longstanton Road to the north, and to adual carriageway link to a new roundabout serving the local link road to the south.A short length of dual carriageway is also provided between this local linkroundabout and the existing Bar Hill roundabout, which would be retained in itspresent form. These sections of dual carriageway are necessary to cater foranticipated growth in traffic volumes arising from the proposed development atNorthstowe.

As a result of this development the major traffic flow through the junction will bebetween Cambridge and Northstowe and vice versa. Therefore in order to relievethe junction of the predicted high traffic flows generated by the development adesignated link and designated lane between Hatton's Road and the A14 mainlineand junction slip roads has been included within the junction layout.

The single lane link road to carry traffic between the A14 westbound carriagewayand Hatton's Road, diverges from the proposed A14 mainline westboundcarriageway and crosses over the link road between the junction roundabout andthe LAR roundabout. It then proceeds on a curve across the junction's west facingslips and the D3AP mainline before tying into Hatton's Road to the north.

Traffic flowing in the reverse direction will be segregated from Bar Hill Junction by adesignated lane between the realigned Hatton's Road southbound carriageway andthe junction's eastbound on slip.

Dry Drayton LAR Junction

The proposed A14 mainline alignment completely removes the existing junction atDry Drayton (Refer to drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/232). The displacement ofthe A14 mainline to the north of its existing alignment necessitates a new DryDrayton Junction.

The junction consists of a four armed roundabout to the south of the A14 allowingtraffic to access Oakington Road and Dry Drayton Road from the west to eastrunning LAR and vice versa. Access from the A14 mainline to Dry Drayton in thesouth and Oakington in the north will be available via the LAR connection at BarHill.

M11 Junction 14

M11 Junction 14 is a strategic interchange that links three major routes with freeflow movement. It routes traffic from the M11 motorway and the CambridgeNorthern Bypass onto the A14. The existing interchange incorporates a number offeatures that are undesirable for the level of strategic traffic carried.

The following geometric and operational deficiencies are built into the currentlayout:

The proposed junction, shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/232, uses theexisting links and slip roads as much as possible and retains the existing bridges.This provides a compact design at minimal cost and environmental impact.

The junction design provides an improved strategic traffic movement for the A14eastbound to A14 westbound, which is currently achieved by a tight radius loop.This loop is removed and replaced with an interchange link, designed to a higherdesign speed than the existing. By removing this existing loop the weavingproblems created between the existing diverge, from the M11 northbound to theA14 eastbound are eliminated.

The design of the A14 eastbound to A14 westbound interchange link requires therealignment of the A428 to A14 eastbound link. The link merges the major A14eastbound traffic on the slow side thus eliminating the problem of turbulencediscussed above.

The A14 westbound to A14 eastbound interchange link is aligned along the existinglink until just after the u-turn for the crematorium. After the u-turn (removed in thisdesign) it moves slightly to the north in a greenfield site where the link crosses theA428 to A14E and merges with it on the right hand side.

No change is envisaged to the A14 eastbound to M11 slip road.

Another important aspect this option achieves is the segregation of long distancestrategic traffic from the local traffic. The current A1307 LAR, which is dualcarriageway, directly links into the A14 traffic. These links have been removed inthis design and replaced with a single carriageway road that utilises the currentLAR westbound alignment. The new alignment utilises the existing HuntingdonRoad Bridge and the LAR is segregated from the A14 mainline and aligned to thesouth.

Histon Junction

The existing two overbridges and County Road gyratory above the A14 at Histonare not directly affected by the Cambridge Northern Bypass improvements.

Milton Junction

The existing two overbridges and County Road gyratory above the A14 at Miltonare not directly affected by the Cambridge Northern Bypass improvements.

Fen Ditton Junction

The proposal retains the existing half diamond junction with the slip roads beingredesigned to accommodate predicted traffic flows.

JUNCTION STRATEGY B (LIMITED JUNCTION OPTION)

Junction Strategy B, known as the Limited Junction Option (LJO), has beendeveloped in order to minimise the number of locations where local traffic canaccess the A14. This allows the A14 to primarily become a strategic traffic route.

As with Junction Strategy A, Strategy B consists of three interchanges, namelyBrampton, Fen Drayton and Girton. However, there are only three mainlinejunctions, located at Histon, Milton and Fen Ditton and three Local Access Roadjunctions, Trinity Foot, Bar Hill and Dry Drayton. The only junctions, however, thatdiffer to those described for Junction Strategy A are Bar Hill Junction, Dry DraytonJunction and Girton Interchange. These are described below in the order that theyappear along the A14 in a west to east direction together with details of theassociated Local Access Road (LAR) layout.

Local Access Road

As with Junction Strategy A, the LAR layout has been developed through theanalysis of the A14 traffic model and influenced by the layout of the Fen DraytonInterchange. This LAR is shown on drawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/230 and240 to 241.

Between Fen Drayton Interchange and Bar Hill the LAR has the same layout asdescribed in Section 4.2.2 for Junction Strategy A. At Bar Hill Junction there is noaccess to or from the A14 therefore the LAR returns to a D2AP at this point toaccommodate the high volumes of traffic that will use the LAR between Cambridgeand Northstowe. To reflect this on the A14 the mainline remains as a D3AP throughBar Hill to M11 Junction 14.

At Bar Hill the LAR splits into two separate carriageways, with the eastboundcarriageway running adjacent to the A14 mainline and the westbound carriagewaycontinuing along the existing A14 westbound carriageway. The LAR continuesunder this arrangement until the two carriageways join back together before tyinginto Huntingdon Road.

Bar Hill LAR Junction

The Bar Hill Limited Junction Option, as shown on drawing number5021044/DR/HW/240, consists of a dumbbell roundabout layout linking Bar Hill andthe proposed Northstowe development with the LAR network. There is no accessto or from the proposed A14 mainline. The S2 LAR that runs to the west of Bar Hillties into the southern dumbbell roundabout, which is linked to both the existing BarHill roundabout to the south and the second dumbbell roundabout to the north by aD2AP standard link road. As well as this link the northern roundabout also has therealigned S2 Hatton's Road and eastbound carriageway of the Bar Hill to Girtonsection of the LAR tying into it.

As with the Junction Strategy A, the major traffic flow at this junction will bebetween Cambridge and the proposed Northstowe development except that trafficwill be on the LAR rather than the mainline. Therefore to avoid feeding these flowsthrough the LAR junction two designated links have been included in the junctionlayout. The westbound link has the same geometry and is very similar in its route tothat described in the Junction Strategy A section. The westbound carriageway ofthe D2AP LAR splits on the approach to Bar Hill with the LAR continuing through tothe southern dumbbell roundabout and the designated link crossing over thedumbbell link and the A14 mainline before tying into Hatton's Road. Under theproposals of the Northstowe development Hatton's Road is proposed to beupgraded to D2AP standard, therefore the link will merge with Hatton's Road as alane gain to coincide with these proposals.

Similarly, to divert traffic travelling from Northstowe to Cambridge away from thejunction itself a designated left turn link has been provided between Hatton's Roadand the eastbound carriageway of the LAR. To tie-in with the proposals for Hatton'sRoad this link diverges from Hatton's Road as a lane drop leaving an S2carriageway running into the northern dumbbell. The link then acts as a lane gainon the eastbound carriageway of the LAR where it merges with the LAR as itleaves the northern dumbbell.

Dry Drayton LAR Junction

As with the junction option for Junction Strategy A the Dry Drayton LJO is an LARjunction. As drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/241 shows the junction spans theD3AP mainline and the split D2AP LAR. Connection between Oakington Road/DryDrayton Road and the LAR is provided via a dumbbell layout, which is linked to leftin/left out junctions with the LAR.

M11 Junction 14

The layout of M11 Junction 14 associated with the LJO (Refer to drawing no.5021044/DR/HW/241) is intended to perform the same function as the option forthe previous junction strategy in that it utilises the existing corridors of theinterchange links and slip roads as much as possible and retains the existingbridges.

However the LJO layout provides linkage between the D2AP LAR/HuntingdonRoad and the trunk road/motorway network whereas the Junction Strategy A runsthe S2 LAR directly through the junction into A1307 Huntingdon Road with noconnection. The provision of LAR links to the original junction option layout createsan additional six link roads within the junction. The most significant of the twelvemerging and diverging movements introduced by these links are those interfacingwith the trunk road/motorway network, as listed below:

4.2.3 Structures

EXISTING STRUCTURES

Existing structures along the scheme have been discussed in Section 2.5. Tables4.2 and 4.3 of Appendix B list those structures affected by the Blue Route Optionand makes recommendations as to their treatment under this project.

NEW STRUCTURES

In carrying out the preliminary design of new structures, the identified structures,where appropriate, have been grouped by structural type. For each group, aconceptual design has been worked up, based on similar structures that have beenfound to be economic on other recent schemes.

The groups are shown on the following drawings:

Where space is available, open abutments (bankseats) have been shown, sincethey are generally considered to be more aesthetically attractive. Where space isrestricted, eg at junctions, closed (full height) abutments have been shown.

Steel composite construction has been assumed, since this has been found to bemore cost effective than concrete on recent schemes. However, concretesolutions, particularly precast concrete beams, will be equally technicallyacceptable.

It should be noted that the drawings show concepts and indicative details; nocalculations have been done to determine member sizes.

The major structure on this route option is the River Great Ouse Viaduct, whichcrosses the flood plain of the River Great Ouse. Details of this structure are shownon drawing numbers 5021044/DR/BR/008 and 009.

Tables 4.4 to 4.7 in Appendix C detail the number of new structures required for theBlue Route Option.

4.2.4 Relaxations and Departures From Standards

As a result of various constraints along the scheme corridor it has been necessarywhen designing the scheme to drop below desirable minimum standards in certainlocations, as permitted by the Highway Agency's Design Manual for Roads andBridges (DMRB).

The Blue Route Option mainline has been designed to standard without the need toincorporate any relaxations or Departures from Standards. However, a number ofsideroads and junctions along the route have been designed with substandardgeometry in order to minimise the impact on the surrounding area. In some of thesecases, where the geometry has had to be significantly reduced in standard, adeparture from standards has been applied for to the Highways Agency or localhighway authority for their approval. Table 4.8 in Appendix D details the Departuresfrom Standards for the Blue Route Option and provides a statement justifying theirinclusion in the scheme.

4.2.5 Earthworks

The alignment of the Blue Route Option begins by following the existing groundlevel on its approach to the A1 corridor before extensive earthworks in the form ofembankments are proposed as part of the A1 Brampton Interchange. Where thereare two A14 eastbound options for crossing the A1, it is the option that passesbeneath the A1 in cutting that is preferable in terms of earthworks, due to therebeing a shortfall of generated material along the scheme. However, it should benoted that other aspects of the design, for instance drainage and construction ofthe bridge under the A1 make this option less favourable.

From the A1 Brampton Interchange to the A1198 the main earthworks required arethe approach embankments to the River Great Ouse Crossing and the cuttingthrough the ridge to the south of Godmanchester. The Blue Route Option hasembankment heights of up to 13 metres at the River Great Ouse and cutting depthsof approximately 7-8 metres where the route intersects the A1198, masking it fromthe town of Godmanchester.

From the A1198 to the point where the route joins the existing A14 at Fen Drayton,the proposed route option generally follows the local topography requiring onlyminor cuttings and low embankments. The vertical alignments indicate that thedepth of these cuttings does not exceed 6 metres.

The low embankments referred to above have been deliberately designed into thescheme to ensure that the route runs above the flood levels of the localisedfloodplains along the A14 corridor. Fen Drayton Interchange is located on afloodplain and therefore requires embankments of up to 9 metres in order to lift thelink roads over the raised mainline.

It is the junctions and side roads within the Blue Route Option that constitute themajority of the fill required. This is because all the side roads cross above the A14mainline. For the more major side roads large sweeping alignments have beendesigned that have resulted in long lengths of embankment.

To the east of Fen Drayton Interchange the mainline mainly follows the route of theexisting A14 to Fen Ditton with the existing carriageway and earthworks beingwidened. The existing carriageway tends to follow the existing ground level with afew minor embankments and small cuttings in isolated locations. Therefore, theproposed mainline will not require any major online embankments until reachingthe CNB where widening of the existing 8 metre high embankments are required.Major earthworks are required for the numerous associated junctions, in particularthe designated Northstowe Links at Bar Hill and the M11 Junction 14 options. Alljunctions cross over the mainline and are therefore on embankment. The lack ofsite won material at this end of the scheme, as a result of there being few cuttings,means that fill material will have to be imported for the construction of the junctionembankments.

The only significant cutting in the eastern end of the scheme is where the A428eastbound carriageway is realigned to tie into the Cambridge Northern Bypass.Approximately 750 metres of the link is situated in a cutting of some 4 metresdepth.

Drawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/202, 203, 205 to 207, 209, 230 to 234 and 240to 241 provide details of the heights of the earthworks required along the schemeand Table 4.1 in Appendix A schedules the volume of cut and fill for all the schemeroute options. Drawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/301 & 302 show typical crosssectionstaken through the various route options and provide an indication of thescale of the major earthworks.

4.2.6 Contaminated Land

In addition to the landfill sites at Buckden, Conington and Milton, as discussed inSection 2.4.4, there are also several potential contaminated sites associated withboth former and existing petrol stations, fuel and goods distribution depots,scrapyards and vehicle repair garages.

South of Brampton village, to the north of the proposed Blue Route Optionalignment and the Buckden North landfill site a former petrol station is present.Although there is no visual evidence of contamination on the surface of the sitethere is a possibility that the associated underground fuel storage tanks may havehistorically leaked or discharged fuels into the underlying ground and groundwater.Therefore, as the realignment of Buckden Road impacts on this filling station thereis a possibility that the ground and groundwater beneath the route may be affectedby contaminant migration.

In the vicinity of the proposed Trinity Foot Junction a number of potentialcontaminated sites have been identified, including electroplating and metal finishingworkshops, existing and former petrol stations. The potential environmental issuesof these sites may impact on the proposed junction works at Trinity Foot and furtherinvestigation would be required at Trinity Foot prior to construction to verify if anycontamination is present which may impact upon the construction works or thescheme in the long-term.

Also within the area is an industrial estate south of Bar Hill, which contains anumber of industrial processes which may have led to contamination entering theunderlying geology and groundwater regimes. Activities include an operationalpetrol filling station, transformer manufacture, printers and glass fibre manufacture.

The industrial estate lies to the south of the existing A14 and with off-line wideningto the north being the favoured option it is unlikely that any ground contaminationwill be encountered along this northern route by the proposed road construction.

To the east of the scheme there are areas to the east and south of Milton Junctionassociated with activities such as vehicle repair, scientific apparatus andinstrumentation manufacture, pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors. Tothe north and east of Milton junction there are enamelling and sheet metal works,garage services, printers, cleaning services, hydraulic equipment servicing andscientific apparatus and instrumentation manufacture.

None of the above sites lie beneath the proposed construction route of the existingA14, and contaminant migration is likely to be minimal due to the underlyinggeology consisting predominantly of cohesive materials or clays. However, an oldrailway yard and part of the existing sewage treatment works historically underliethe existing A14 / Cambridge Northern Bypass prior to its construction. Thereforefurther widening of the A14 / Cambridge Northern Bypass may encounter potentialcontamination associated with these former uses.

4.2.7 Public Utilities

As the Blue Route Option travels from west to east the first major conflict withStatutory Undertakers' (SU) apparatus is an oil pipeline that runs in a north to southdirection parallel with the A1. Due to the angle at which the route option crossesthe pipeline it is likely that a diversion will be required rather than just theimplementation of protection measures.

East of the oil pipeline there are minor conflicts with SU apparatus (mainly watermains) where the local road network requires realigning in order to cross themainline. The next major impact occurs with BT fibre optic cables, which run in theexisting A14 eastbound verge between Fenstanton and Bar Hill. The proposed A14Eastbound to LAR Eastbound Link of the Fen Drayton Interchange crosses thisapparatus in two places as does the proposed A14 mainline as it moves offline atLolworth Spring to the north of Bar Hill.

In the same location but in the existing A14 westbound verge are 300mm diameterpotable water mains. As a result of widening this section of the existing A14 to thesouth these mains require diverting. A number of 6" and 8" gas mains are alsoaffected where they cross the mainline at Trinity Foot and Bar Hill. Foul seweragepipes that run from the Huttons Drove Sewage Treatment Works, between TrinityFoot and Bar Hill, across the existing A14 require rerouting as a result of the BlueRoute Option.

At the eastern end of the scheme the CNB was originally constructed largelythrough a green field site where disturbance to utilities was minimal. ExistingStatutory Undertakers' plant tends to cross the CNB radially into Cambridge andcrosses above the A14 in bridge decks at Histon and Milton junctions. Thesebridges, and hence the plant, are not directly affected by the Blue Route Optionproposals.

However one main, a 200mm diameter gas main running for 1,600 metreslongitudinally in the north verge of the embankment at Girton, is directly affected.Furthermore a 180mm polyethylene gas main and a cluster of minor servicescrossing in the Girton Road overbridge deck are affected as this bridge deck isrequired to be replaced.

The impact in terms of cost that each route option has on the StatutoryUndertakers' apparatus is listed in Table 4.1 in Appendix A.

4.3 Purple Route Option

4.3.1 Mainline Alignment

As can be seen on drawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/210 to 218, and 230 to 234the alignment of the Purple Route Option matches that of the Blue Route Option upto a point between the A1198 and Moat's Way. From here it runs in a north easterlydirection before tying into the existing A14 to the west of Gore Tree Farm where itcontinues to run online through Fenstanton to Fen Drayton and on to Fen Ditton.

The online section of the route option consists of asymmetrical widening to thenorth in order to avoid properties on the fringes of the southern side of the existingA14 between Gore Tree Farm and Galley Hill. By widening to the north a Site ofSpecific Scientific Interest located to the east of Gore Tree Farm is also avoided asare BT fibre optic cables situated in the existing A14 southern verge.

Between Galley Hill Junction and Fen Drayton the existing A14 is widenedasymmetrically to the south, enabling the existing local road network to be utilisedfor local traffic between Galley Hill and Fenstanton whilst at the same time avoidingthe conservation area within Fenstanton. However, it does result in the loss of fourhouses, disused farm outbuildings and a BT Feeder Station along the route. It alsorequires some substantial diversion works of Statutory Undertakers' apparatus(refer to Section 4.3.7).

In order to separate the local traffic from the strategic traffic on the proposed A14, aSingle 2 Way (S2) Local Access Road (LAR) has been provided. The LAR utilisesthe existing section of the A14 between Huntingdon and Gore Tree Farm, which ismade redundant by taking the proposed A14 offline. At Galley Hill the LAR is linkedinto the proposed Galley Hill Junction before proceeding on the route of the existingaccess road to the west of Fenstanton. It continues adjacent to the mainline alongthe boundary of the Fenstanton conservation area where it merges withFenstanton's original bypass. This avoids directing local through traffic along thevillage's narrow high street. From Fenstanton the LAR runs adjacent to thewidened A14 on the eastbound carriageway of the existing A14.

With the construction of the improved A14 it is proposed that the existing A14 willbe detrunked between Spittals Junction and Hemingford Grey. Included in thisdetrunking works would be the removal of the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct and therealignment of the existing A14 to form an at-grade staggered junction with theB1514, Brampton Road.

4.3.2 Junctions

Following the analysis of the A14 traffic model only one junction strategy wasdeemed viable for the Purple Route Option. The strategy consists of twointerchanges, namely Brampton and M1 Junction 14, five mainline junctions, GalleyHill, Bar Hill, Histon, Milton and Fen Ditton and two Local Access Road junctions,Trinity Foot and Dry Drayton.

With the exception of Galley Hill Junction, the junctions listed above are the sameas those described for the Blue Route Option Junction Strategy A in Section 4.2.2.Galley Hill Junction is described below.

JUNCTION LAYOUT
Galley Hill Junction

The proposed junction arrangement situated in the same area as the existingGalley Hill Junction and shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/217,comprises a two-bridge, grade separated, large radius roundabout allowing allmovements to and from the A14 mainline. The roundabout contains nine arms, fourof which are the westbound and eastbound on and off slip roads. The remainingarms connect into the local road network including the B1096 St Ives Road to thenorth and the B1040 to the south. There is access to the LAR located on thesection of existing A14 that has been made redundant by taking the mainlineoffline, as well to the recently levelled development area to the south east of thejunction.

The location of the proposed junction is very confined, with property and landconstraints affecting the layout of the junction. As a consequence retainingmeasures will be required in order that the junction slip roads can run in closeproximity to the mainline and allow a compact layout. A retaining measure will alsobe required to avoid a mobile phone mast and station. To the north-west of thejunction the LAR impacts on the nearby Galley Hill farm, where a farm house andsome disused outbuildings would require demolition.

4.3.3 Structures

EXISTING STRUCTURES

Existing structures along the scheme have been discussed in Section 2.5. Tables4.2 and 4.3 of Appendix B list those structures affected by the Purple Route Optionand makes recommendations as to their treatment under this project.

NEW STRUCTURES

The major structure on the Purple Route Option is the River Great Ouse Viaduct,which crosses the floodplain of the River Great Ouse as shown on drawing number5021044/DR/BR/008. For further details of new structures refer to Section 4.2.3.

4.3.4 Relaxations and Departures From Standards

The Purple Route Option mainline runs primarily on the line of the existing A14,therefore a series of relaxations from standard have been incorporated into thedesign in order to minimise the impact on nearby properties.

A number of sideroads and junctions along the route have been designed withsubstandard geometry to affect as little of the surrounding area as possible. Insome of these cases, where the geometry has had to be significantly reduced instandard, a departure from standards has been applied for to the Highways Agencyor local highway authority for their approval. Table 4.8 in Appendix D details theDepartures from Standards for the Purple Route Option and provides a statementjustifying their inclusion in the scheme.

4.3.5 Earthworks

As the Purple Route Option follows the existing A14 alignment there is very littleneed for any major earthworks on the online section as it tends to follow the localtopography. The exception to this is in isolated areas where the road climbs onembankment to rise above localised floodplains.

The commonality between this route option and the Blue Route Option means thatthere is a 9 metre deep cutting to the east of the A1198 between chainages 10000and 11150. This is to mask the route from the town of Godmanchester and toenable fill material to be generated.

It is the junctions and side roads within the Purple Route Option that require themajority of the fill material. This is because all the side roads cross above the A14mainline. For the more major side roads large sweeping alignments have beendesigned that have resulted in long lengths of embankment. However, the PurpleRoute Option has the lowest earthworks imbalance of the route options as a resultof having fewer side road crossings.

4.3.6 Contaminated Land

For details of contaminated land refer to Section 4.2.6.

4.3.7 Public Utilities

The Purple Route Option affects the same Statutory Undertakers' apparatus as theBlue Route Option with the exception of the gas mains to the south of Fenstanton.By widening the existing A14 to the south when coming online, fibre optic cables inthe existing A14 westbound verge between Galley Hill and Fenstanton aredisrupted and require diverting. A BT feeder station requires demolishing to thesouth of Fenstanton as a result of the widening, which also impacts onapproximately 2.5km of water main.

The impact in terms of cost that each route option has on the StatutoryUndertakers' apparatus is listed in Table 4.1 in Appendix A.

4.4 Orange Route Option

4.4.1 Mainline Alignment

The alignment details of the Orange Route Option are shown on drawing numbers5021044/DR/HW/222, 224 to 226, 228, 230 to 234 and 240 to 241. As shown onthe drawings the proposed Dual 2 Lane All Purpose (D2AP) A14 mainline leavesthe existing A14 corridor to the west of Brampton Hut Junction and heads south,adjacent to the west of the A1 before crossing it further south than the Blue andPurple Route Options.

On leaving the A1 A1 Brampton Interchange the Orange Route Option passes tothe south of the Buckden South Landfill Site before crossing the River Great Ouseand its floodplain and the East Coast Mainline railway on a multi-span viaduct. TheD3AP mainline continues in an easterly direction passing to the south of the WoodGreen Animal Shelter. In doing so it crosses a number of local roads, which arelisted below:

This route option then passes approximately 1.5km to the north of the village ofHilton before continuing eastwards to the site of the Fen Drayton Interchange.From this point it continues to Fen Ditton along the same alignment as the BlueRoute Option.

With the construction of the improved A14 it is proposed that the existing A14 willbe detrunked between Spittals Junction and Fen Drayton. Included in thisdetrunking works would be the removal of the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct and therealignment of the existing A14 to form an at-grade staggered junction with theB1514, Brampton Road.

4.4.2 Junctions

The Orange Route Option has two junction strategies, both of which are almostidentical to those described for the Blue Route Option. The difference between thetwo strategies is the location of the A1 Brampton Interchange, which is describedbelow for the Orange Route Option. For details of the other junctions refer toSection 4.2.2.

A1 BRAMPTON INTERCHANGE

The layout of Brampton Interchange for the Orange Route Option is similar to thatof the Blue Route Option in that the same restricted movements are provided for.The existing A1 Southbound carriageway is linked with the proposed A14Eastbound carriageway and the proposed A14 Westbound carriageway has links tothe existing A1 Northbound and Southbound carriageways. The proposed A14Westbound to A1 Northbound Link crosses over the existing A1 mainline andpasses under the proposed A14 before tying into the A1 Northbound carriagewayat the existing Brampton-Grafham Road structure. By taking the A14 mainlinefurther south and locating the interchange further south, this link is tied into theexisting A1 Northbound carriageway and can be accommodated by the existingstructure.

The vertical alignment of the A14 Westbound to A1 Northbound Link requires substandardvertical geometry in order for it to pass under Brampton Road and overthe A1 before passing beneath the proposed A14. This is discussed in more detailin Section 4.4.4.

As with the Blue and Purple Route Options the location at which the proposed A14crosses the existing A1 means that Brampton Interchange is situated in closeproximity to the existing A1/A14 Junction at Brampton Hut. Therefore, an additionallane has been added to the existing A1 between Brampton Hut and Buckden onboth the Northbound and Southbound carriageways to accommodate weaving.

4.4.3 Structures

EXISTING STRUCTURES

Existing structures along the scheme have been discussed in Section 2.5. Tables4.2 and 4.3 of Appendix B list those structures affected by the Blue Route Optionand make recommendations as to their treatment under this project.

NEW STRUCTURES

The major structure on the Orange Route Option is the River Great Ouse Viaduct,which crosses both the floodplain of the River Great Ouse and the adjacent runningEast Coast Mainline (ECML) railway as shown on drawing number5021044/DR/BR/004. For further details of new structures refer to Section 4.2.3.

4.4.4 Relaxations and Departures From Standards

As with the Blue Route Option the Orange Route Option mainline has beendesigned without the need for any relaxations or Departures from Standards.Relaxations were however required in the design of Fen Drayton Interchange aswell as in the realignment of some of the existing roads in order that they could betaken across the proposed A14 mainline.

The vertical alignment of the A14 Westbound to A1 Northbound Link has a numberof constraints along its alignment that were required to be taken into account whendesigning the link. In order to avoid these constraints the geometry has had to besignificantly reduced in standard and a departure from standards has been appliedfor to the Highways Agency for their approval. Table 4.10 in Appendix D lists anddetails the departures from standards for the Orange Route Option as well asproviding a statement justifying their inclusion in the scheme.

4.4.5 Earthworks

The alignment of the Orange Route Option begins by following the existing groundlevel on its approach to the A1 corridor before extensive earthworks in the form ofembankments are proposed as part of the A1 Brampton Interchange.

From the A1 Brampton Interchange to Fen Drayton the main earthworks requiredare the approach embankments to the River Great Ouse/ECML Crossing, whichreach heights of approximately 13 metres, and the cutting through the ridge to thesouth of Wood Green Animal Shelter, which has a maximum depth of 8 metres.The Orange Route Option also has a pronounced cutting between Offord Road andSilver Street, approximately 2 km in length and up to 11 metres in depth.

From Silver Street to the point where the route joins the existing A14 at FenDrayton, the proposed route option generally follows the local topography requiringonly minor cuttings and low embankments. The low embankments referred toabove have been deliberately designed into the scheme to ensure that the routeruns above the flood levels of the localised floodplains along the A14 corridor. FenDrayton Interchange is located on a floodplain and therefore requiresembankments of up to 9 metres in order to lift the link roads over the raisedmainline.

From Fen Drayton to Fen Ditton the Orange Route Option has the same alignmentas the Blue Route Option and hence the same earthworks. These are described inSection 4.2.5.

As with the Blue and Purple Route Options there is an overall shortfall of materialgenerated along the route as a result of the number of sideroads that cross themainline on embankment. However, the greater number of cuttings along theOrange Route does mean that it has a lower imbalance of material compared withthe Blue Route Option. This is shown in Table 4.1 of Appendix A.

4.4.6 Public Utilities

The public utilities affected by the Orange Route Option are very similar to thosedescribed for the Blue Route Option. The first main conflict occurs with an oilpipeline that runs in a north to south direction parallel with the A1. The angle atwhich the route option crosses the pipeline requires a diversion of the pipelinerather than just the implementation of protection measures.

Minor conflicts with SU apparatus (mainly water mains) on the local road networkare present where the sideroad is realigned to cross the mainline. The next majorimpact occurs where the mainline ties back into the existing A14 corridor havingrun offline from Brampton Hut. Conflicts with BT fibre optic cables, water mains andgas mains occur where the proposed route impacts on the existing verges.Reference should be made to Section 4.2.7 regarding these conflicts as they areidentical to those described for the Blue Route Option.

The impact in terms of cost that each route option has on Statutory Undertakers'apparatus is listed in Table 4.1 in Appendix A.

4. Engineering Assessment

5. Environmental Assessment - 1

5.1 Introduction

An environmental assessment has been undertaken of the route options beingconsidered for the improvement of the existing A14 from Ellington to Fen Ditton.The aim being to:

identify the environmental advantages, disadvantages and constraints associated with each of these route options; andallow the public and statutory environmental bodies to comment on their implications.lead to the selection of a preferred scheme.


5. Environmental Assessment - 1

5. Environmental Assessment - 2

5.2.1 Legislative Background

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for this scheme has been prepared inaccordance with the requirements of the Highways (Assessment of EnvironmentalEffects) Regulations 1999 (SI No. 369) under the Highways Act 1980. TheseRegulations implement the European Community Directive 85/337/EEC asamended by Directive 97/11/EC.

The EIA describes the main effects of the scheme proposals on both the man-madeand natural environment and the measures taken to reduce adverse effects.Specialist technical reports have been prepared on a variety of environmentaltopics, these are included in the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR).

5.2.2 Methodologies

Guidance for undertaking the environmental assessment of major highwaysschemes is provided in the Highways Agency publication the 'Design Manual forRoads and Bridges' (DMRB), 'Volume 11: Environmental Assessment', includingupdates. Volumes 5 and 10 of the DMRB are also relevant.

The DMRB methodology is intended to provide environmental assessment that is inaccordance with the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations1999, for schemes promoted under The Highways Act. Section 195 A(2) of the Actrequires:

The DMRB guidance is the principal guidance used for the evaluation of allenvironmental effects associated with this scheme, whether attributable to the newtrunk road or to consequent changes to the local road network. The environmentaldata from this assessment process is then also used to generate environmentalinputs to the scheme appraisal and some of the appraisal data can expand thecoverage of the environmental assessment, as noted below.

For technical appraisal of the project as part of the process of approving thefunding, the guidance to follow is TAG, the Department of Transport's detailedguidance on the appraisal of transport projects. This updates the previous DETRpublication 'Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies' (GOMMMS)(March 2000), as interpreted by the DETR & HA document 'Applying the Multi-Modal New Approach to Appraisal to Highway Schemes' (the 'Bridging Document')(March 2001). In TAG there are two broad levels of appraisal 'strategy' or 'plan',the level of reporting for this project will be at 'plan' level - previous appraisal workunder CHUMMS was to 'strategy' level.

Most of the environmental data for the scheme appraisal will be provided from theDMRB-based study. However, the TAG approach varies in its scope and analysisfrom DMRB for some topics; this additional data is also reported on in the EAR.The Scoping Report indicated where there would be material included beyond thatcovered by the DMRB.


5. Environmental Assessment - 2

5. Environmental Assessment - 3

5.3 Approach to Environmental Assessment

5.3.1 Environmental Topics

The EIA addresses all potentially significant environmental impacts. Theseencompass the following topics, each of which is also covered by a separatechapter in this environmental assessment:

5.3.2 Study Area

For each of the topics, a study area has been selected which reflects the area overwhich changes to the environment are likely to occur as a result of the scheme. Acorridor, wider than the limits of the land likely to be used or acquired, will beassessed and will vary depending on the environmental resources underconsideration.

5.3.3 Baseline Condition

Desk studies, supplemented by additional surveys and consultation, has been usedto compile a picture of the current (2003/04) environmental conditions.The general approach reviews the various surveys undertaken previously,determines their validity for use as part of this environmental assessment andmakes recommendations for an ongoing strategy for updating existing surveys orcarrying out new additional surveys.

5.3.4 Receptors and their Sensitivity

Receptors are defined as the physical resource or user group that will experiencean impact. The baseline studies are used to identify potential environmentalreceptors. Some are more sensitive to change than others. This sensitivity may beinfluenced by factors such as:

5.3.5 Types of Impact

Impacts are defined as the results of physical changes to the environment or trafficflows attributable to the construction and operation of the highway scheme. Theyreflect the magnitude of the effect on the environment and the sensitivity of theenvironment.

Impacts may be beneficial or adverse, and may also be categorised as:

5.3.6 Temporal Scope

In considering the impact of a highway scheme it is necessary to identify impactswhich may occur during the construction and operational phases, including theimpact of any maintenance activities.

The construction phase extends from the commencement of site works to theopening of the scheme. Assumptions will be made about the duration of theconstruction programme and the key activities which will be involved.

The operational phase extends from the opening of the scheme to its maximumutilisation. It is recognised that some aspects of the environment are constantlychanging and that some environmental design measures will take time to becomeestablished and effective. The assessment will therefore consider operationalphase impacts in the Opening Year (2010) and the Design Year (2025), takingmitigation measures into account.

5.3.7 Magnitude of Effects

The magnitude of effects will be assessed against a defined hierarchy of scale andwill be specific to each topic.

5.3.8 Significance of Impacts

The magnitude of an effect does not translate directly into its significance as animpact. For example, a significant impact may result from a relatively minor effecton a resource of national value or as a result of a severe effect on a resource oflocal value. Assignment of significance will be undertaken in a consistent andsystematic manner through the establishment of a set of significance criteria foreach topic.

5.3.9 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures will seek to avoid adverse impacts or to minimise them suchthat their significance is reduced to an acceptable level.

Individual mitigation measures may address more than one impact, for exampleplanting may be used to reduce visual impact while also benefiting wildlife.Occasionally, measures which seek to mitigate one impact may have an adverseeffect on another topic area. At this stage, mitigation measures will necessarily bespecified only in outline.

The scheme options will be assessed on the basis that the stated mitigationmeasures are in place.

5.3.10 The Do-Minimum Scenario

The EIA will need to draw comparisons between the Do-Something and Do-Minimum scenarios in order to establish whether the scheme is worth implementingand whether the relative "environmental cost" can be justified. Often the Do-Minimum scenario will be detrimental in environmental terms. For example, risingtraffic levels on an existing road may result in high levels of air pollution at housesclose to the route.

In specifying the Do-Minimum scenario a number of transport networkimprovements will be considered:

Recognising the current doubtful integrity of the Huntingdon viaduct the Do-Minimum transport scenario will assume that the viaduct is replaced.

5.3.11 Environmental Design Strategy

Scheme specific environmental design objectives have been developed and are setout below. Developing an environmental design strategy at this stage is beneficialbecause it promotes close liaison between the scheme designers andenvironmental specialists, allowing key environmental objectives to be consideredwithin option design. It recognises that the study area contains a number ofsignificant environmental constraints, particularly related to the valley of the RiverGreat Ouse and the close proximity of existing and planned development at theeastern end of the route. On the other hand, improvements to the road networkoffer the opportunity to improve environmental conditions for people living close tothose sections of the existing route which will be relieved and, by reducingcongestion, improve air quality and journey ambience.

TRAFFIC NOISE AND VIBRATION
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES
LANDSCAPE, TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL ISSUES
BIODIVERSITY
HERITAGE
WATER
ACCESSIBILITY
JOURNEY AMBIENCE
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
LAND USE

This environmental assessment reports on the extent to which these objectiveshave been met by the design of the preferred scheme.


5. Environmental Assessment - 3

5. Environmental Assessment -4

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.4 Environmental Topics

The following sections cover the baseline conditions, mitigations and the assessment of environmental effects for each of the environmental topics. Refer to Volume 3 for copies of the Environmental Constraints Maps.


5. Environmental Assessment -4

5. Environmental Assessment - 5

5.5 Traffic Noise and Vibration

5.5.1 Introduction and Method of Assessment

NOISE

Noise annoyance is defined by the World Health Organisation as 'a feeling ofdispleasure evoked by noise' and mainly effects people when they are in theirhomes or when they are in the streets. Individuals vary considerably in theirsensitivity to traffic noise therefore the relationship between noise exposure andnuisance adopts the concept of an average or community annoyance rating foreach noise level. The rating differs between a sudden and gradual (steady state)increase in noise. The sudden increase giving rise to a greater percentage ofpeople annoyed compared with the same noise increase for steady stateconditions.

A Stage 2 traffic noise and vibration assessment has been undertaken for thealternative options for a new route and widening works for the A14 betweenEllington and Fen Ditton. Preliminary predictions of noise levels have been madefor the options considered in the opening year (2010) Do Minimum, and a futureyear (2025) for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. The effects ofknown development schemes (including that proposed at Northstowe) have beentaken into account. Predictions of noise levels were also made for the year 2003 todetermine changes resulting from committed road surface improvements andeffects of changes in traffic flows and speeds between 2003 and 2010.

DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT

The response of the human hearing system is logarithmic rather than linear inbehaviour, and able to detect a noise level difference of about 1 dB(A) between twosteady sounds, when presented in rapid succession under controlled laboratoryconditions. The smallest change in environmental noise that is generally noticedby an individual over a period of time is about 3 dB(A). A 10 dB(A) changeapproximates to a subjective doubling or halving of loudness.

STUDY AREA

The study area has been split into two levels of detail:

TRAFFIC DATA

Existing 2003 traffic flows for the section of the A14 covered by this study are inrange between 15,000 to 25,000 (18-hr AAWT) west of the A1 near Brampton, upto 80,000 between the A1 and M11 and over 100,000 east of the M11 junction. It isknown that traffic congestion can occur frequently causing a speed reduction whichhas been taken into account. It can be shown that there is approximately 1dBreduction for each 10km/h speed reduction from 108 to 48km/h.

The noise assessment has been carried out for the initial options. These assumethe year 2025 traffic forecast option V flows are used for the Orange Route, BlueRoute and combination. Traffic forecast option Y flows are used for the PurpleRoute and Purple + Orange Route. The 'do minimum' 2010 and 2025 flows areused for the situation if the scheme is not built.

This noise assessment also describes the effects of the Enhanced JunctionStrategy (EJS) route options and the Limited Junction Strategy (LJS) optionsexplained later.

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

At this stage there has not been any consultation with local authorities regardingissues on noise.

CRTN is the methodology used to determine entitlement under the Noise InsulationRegulations 1975 (as amended 1988) and is the accepted method for theprediction of traffic noise in the UK.

To provide information on the existing noise levels in rural areas where it was notreasonably possible to carry out noise calculations, a preliminary noise survey wasundertaken in October 2003 by Atkins. These measurements concentrated onareas where existing levels are low or where local roads may have some effects.

The incremental effect of each option was calculated as outlined in TAG in order toestimate the number of people that are likely to be bothered by increased noise.

LIMITATIONS

CRTN has been developed from extensive measurement data and validated out todistances up to 300 metres from trafficked roads. However some extrapolation isacceptable for planning purposes.

In the case of this study, extrapolated levels well beyond 300 metres from roadshave been made in order to make the necessary determinations of the extent ofnoise impacts. It has generally been necessary to limit the extent of the study withinareas where noise levels are 55dB or more. Such levels may be found as much as1km from the A14. From limited measurements, some quiet rural areas exist wherelevels may be lower although, there is insufficient data to form a reliable objectivecomparison. However, indications of such quiet areas have been outlined under'Baseline Conditions'. In order to make quantitative determinations with reasonableaccuracy, it would be necessary to have further data at locations where noiselevels are low. It would also be necessary to have more precise and certain data onroad alignments and earth works to determine overall impact with greater accuracy.

In areas of open land that are enjoyed as a general public amenity, the effect ofnoise can be important. Guidance on noise is provided by the World HealthOrganisation (WHO). They have indicated that "daytime outdoor noise levels ofless than 55 dB LAeq (approximately equal to 58dB LA10, (18 hour)) are desirable toprevent any significant community annoyance" and this has been restated in PPG24 Planning and Noise - Noise exposure Categories: Explanation of Noise levels,paragraph 4, and page 11.

5.5.2 Baseline Conditions

GENERAL

The findings of the noise survey and calculated data has been used as the basisfor comparison. These take into account the present effects of road surfaceconditions, a thin wearing course surface reduces noise by up to 3dB compared toa normal hot-rolled asphalt surface. Where speeds are less than 75km/h noiselevels are 0.5dB lower.

All noise levels are in terms of LA10 (18 hour).

AREAS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING ROUTE
A14 between Ellington and A1 near Brampton

The area is open countryside with isolated dwellings situated at some distancefrom these roads. However, noise levels from these are evident in most parts of thearea with levels measured above 50dB except at Brampton Wood. Calculationsconfirm that most of the area of this woodland is below 50dB.

Levels of 60dB or more affect all areas within approximately 250m to 300m of theA14 and A1M but near the junction the combination of the two sources extendsnoise over a wider area than each road on its own. Levels of 55dB or more mayextend as far as 600m from the A14 and 500m of the A1 but more near thejunction.

A1 South of the A14 Interchange

The A1 between the A14 and Buckden Road Interchanges, affects the housingareas on western side of Brampton with levels in the low 60s dB at the nearesthouses that are within 250m and 55dB or more up to 500m and in some places,greater distance near the junction.

A14 between A1 near Brampton and A141 near Stukeley Junctions

The present A14 affects the houses on the north side of Brampton with most above55dB at up to 500m distance. At Hinchingbrooke Country Park, which is partly onground rising from the road, noise levels of 55dB or more are found within 700meach side of the A14 with additional noise from the B1514 thus affecting most ofthe park and the racecourse.

A14 between A141 near Stukeley and A1198 Junctions

On the northern side of the A14, which has a noise reduced surface, there are theextensive housing areas of Stukeley and the southern side of Huntingdon. Noiselevels are 60dB or more within 200 to 250m of the A14 and 55dB or more withinapproximately 400m.

Parts of Hinchingbrooke Hospital are exposed to levels above 55dB. Within theareas to the east of the B1514, those to the north of the B1044 and west of theA1198, there are further areas of housing close to the A14. Noise levels are 60dBor more within 150 to 200m of the A14 and 55dB or more within 300 to 600m andfurther where there are additional contributions of noise from other roads.

A1198 to A1096/B1040 Galley Hill Junctions

The houses on both sides with housing developments on the southern side ofHemingford Abbotts and Hemingford Grey experience 60dB or more withinapproximately 250m of the A14, which has a noise reduced surface and 55dB ormore within approximately 500m. The more distant effects of traffic noise withlevels of 50dB or more affects the southern side of Hemingford Grey.

A1096/B1040 Galley Hill to west of B1050 Bar Hill Junctions

Noise levels are 60dB or more within 250 to 300m of the A14 and 55dB or morewithin 500 to 600m but less within the housing at Fenstanton on account of theexisting environmental barriers.

Fen Drayton is affected by distant A14 noise with levels of approximately 50dB onthe southern fringes.

B1050 Bar Hill to M11 Interchange at Girton

Noise levels are 60dB or more within 300m of the A14 which has a noise reducedsurface and 55dB or more within 500 to 600m but less within the housing area ofBar Hill.

Lolworth is affected by levels in the low 50's dB and some of the northern fringes ofBoxworth may be above 50dB due to the local road even where they areunaffected by local traffic. However, at Conington houses away from local trafficexperience noise levels of less than 50dB.

A14 from Girton to B1047 Fen Ditton

Noise levels are 60dB or more within 300m of the A14 and 55dB or more within600m. However at Girton, where the road is in cutting, houses up to 180m areaffected by levels of 60dB or more with those closest in the 65 to 70dB range.Similar levels affect the nearest houses around Histon Junction.

AREAS ADJACENT TO BLUE ROUTE (EXCLUDING SECTION DESCRIBED ABOVE)
A14 between Ellington and A1 south of Brampton

At Brampton Wood and to the north of Buckden and levels may be in the 50's dBaway from roads but into the 60's dB close to Buckden Road.

A1 to Great Ouse Bridge near West Meadow

Noise survey, noise levels near to Offord Road are in the 60's dB but somewhatlower in the rural areas away from roads.

West Meadow to A1198 south of Godmanchester

At the southern side of Godmanchester and the open areas south of the villagelevels are in the upper 40's dB and low 50's dB.

South of Godmanchester to Fenstanton

Open areas well to the south of Hemingford Abbots show little effect of traffic andare in the mid and upper 40's and low 50's dB. Nearer to Fenstanton, there aresome influences of A14 traffic with levels in the 50's and 60's dB and more close toHilton Road.

Fenstanton to Bar Hill

The open countryside to the south of Fenstanton and to the north of Coningtonhave some noise influences of the existing A14 with levels of 55dB or more within550m of it and 60dB within 250m.

AREAS ADJACENT TO ORANGE ROUTE (EXCLUDING SECTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE)
A14 between Ellington and A1 south of Brampton

Noise levels south of the landfill site and Station Farm are isolated houses likely tobe in the low 50's dB or lower in parts.

A1 to Great Ouse Bridge near Offord

Open areas to the south of Offord Cluny to the south are likely to be in the 40's dBwith little effects from major roads.

Offord to A1198 south of Wood Green Animal Shelter

Open areas and isolated buildings that exist with noise levels are in the upper 40'sand low 50's. Close to local roads, such as the A1198, levels can be much higher.

South of Wood Green Animal Shelter to Fenstanton

Open areas to the north of Hilton where levels are in upper 40's and low 50's dB.

AREAS ADJACENT TO PURPLE ROUTE (EXCLUDING AREAS COVERED ABOVE)
A1198 south of Winsford Abbotts to A1096/B1040 Galley Hill

The section that is off the line of the Blue route is in the upper 40's dB where it iswell away from the A14.

5.5.3 Changes between Present and Opening Year (2010)

At present, over 1,700 houses are affected by noise levels of 60dB or more with220 of these 70dB or more. Changes between 2003 and 2010 will be related totraffic growth and effects of resurfacing the existing roads with quieter surfaces.

5.5.4 Key Issues/Areas

All options would introduce noise into rural areas that are presently little affected bynoise. However, the impact of noise will be dependent upon how quiet the presentarea is. This is dependent on:

This is an area which is largely low-lying or generally undulating. There are fewroad cuttings and most of the existing A14 is near or slightly above the surroundingground level. As a result, noise from this road tends to propagate over wide areasas described previously.

There would be limited opportunities to place any of the options within significantcuttings or provide substantial earth bunding so as to provide a significant reductionin the lateral spread of noise. Consequently, any option considered should be sitedas far as possible from where people live. However, this would have the effect ofintroducing noise into areas of countryside that are presently subject to low levels.

There would be a limited reduction in noise to those people affected by the existingA14, because it would continue to carry significant flows of traffic.

5.5.5 Mitigation Measures

On the basis of current Highways Agency advice, resurfacing with a thin wearingcourse (TWC) would reduce noise levels by 2.5dB(A).

Acoustic fences and/or earth bunds could reduce noise levels by up to 15dB(A) ifthey are of a sufficient size. However, where screening is only partial, noisereductions of 5dB(A) or less would be expected and beyond 300m are unlikely tohave much effect, particularly where the road is at grade and the surrounding areais level.

Noise mitigation will be required in a number of areas for each of the schemeoptions as outlined below. It is assumed that all environmental noise barriers wouldbe reflective.

5.5.6 Assessment of the Options within the Route Corridors

This Scheme Assessment Report provides details of the effects of the Blue, Purpleand Orange mainline with Junction Strategy A (referred to in this noise section asEnhanced Junction Strategy - EJS) and with Junction Strategy B - LimitedJunction Strategy. Other route options were considered and evaluated - these arereported on in the Environmental Assessment Report.

The options are compared with the 'Do Minimum' scenario using the TAG criteriaand, where appropriate, taking into account the outlined mitigation measuresdescribed previously. Indicative noise contour maps have been prepared showingthe free-field noise levels in 5dB bands from 55 to 75dB at 5m above existingground levels within a limited distance from the road (generally no more than 500mfrom the road where there are noise sensitive areas). In addition, a noise contourmap has also been prepared for the 'do minimum' scenario. All situations relate to2025.

All options include the effects of noise from the section that comprises theCambridge Northern Bypass. In the case of the 'do minimum' scenario, thisconsiders the present road layout and necessary changes that would need to bemade by 2025. In the case of all options, there are just two options east of TrinityFoot and just a single option east of the M11 junction improvements where awidening is assumed for the Cambridge Northern Bypass.

For the 'do something' options environmental barriers would be acousticallyabsorptive except where it has been shown that conventional reflective barrierswould cause no adverse impact to people.

5.5.7 Do Minimum

By the assessment year (2025) traffic increases would, in general cause noiselevels to be 1 to 2dB higher than those in the do minimum (2010). However, wheretraffic congestion increases, such noise increases may not occur.

It is expected that all of the A14 would be resurfaced in a quieter material by theyear 2025. In addition, a new single carriageway road link would be built betweenBar Hill and Dry Drayton. A new Huntingdon Viaduct would be built on the line ofthe present one.

Table 5.1 - Summary of the Effects of Do Minimum 2025
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Do-Minimum
2010 2025
55 to <60db 30,388 30,321
60 to <70db 1,793 1,881
70dB or more 243 271
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Do Minimum 2025 Changes
Increase 1 to <3dB 464
Increase 3 to <5dB 0
Increase 5 to <10dB 0
Increase 10 to <15dB 0
Increase 15dB or more 0
Decrease 1 to <3dB 0
Decrease 3 to <5dB 0
Decrease 5 to <10dB 0
Decrease 10 to <15dB 0
Increase 15dB or more 0

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of the A14 is555 at between 0-100m, 1232 at between 100-200m and 1712 at between 200-300m.

5.5.8 Enhanced Junction Strategy - Main Route Options

To illustrate the general impact of the EJS Orange, Blue and Purple routes, and 'DoMinimum' indicative 1:50,000 scale noise contour maps have been prepared.These drawings are included in the Environment Assessment Report. Each showsthe alternative junction at the A1. In the case of the Blue and Purple options, thedifferences between the O3 and O4 junctions are considered to be negligible.

Mitigation measures have been considered for these EJS options and areillustrated on the Indicative Landscape Proposals drawings.

EJS BLUE ROUTES

The EJS Blue Routes comprise B4a, B5a and B6a. The difference between them isthe A1 junction. Table 5.2 shows the effects of noise within the study area andwhere houses are affected by noise levels of 55dB or more.

Table 5.2 - Summary of EJS Blue Route Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Option
Blue 4a Blue 5a Blue 6a
55 to <60dB 31,030 31,013 31,025
60 to <70dB 1,292 1,308 1,296
70dB or more 149 150 150
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB 1,227 1,303 1,250
Increase 3 to <5dB 181 168 166
Increase 5 to <10dB 45 30 32
Increase 10 to <15dB 0 0 0
Increase 15dB or more 1 1 1
Decrease 1 to <3dB 1,907 2,019 2.022
Decrease 3 to <5dB 625 626 626
Decrease 5 to <10dB 688 687 687
Decrease 10 to <15dB 12 13 13
Decrease 15dB or more 5 6 6
Assessment

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of this optionis 221 at 0-100m, 535 at 100-200m and 1056 at 200-300m). For both thealternative A1 junction options (B5 and B6) this becomes 227 at 0-100m, 547 at100-200m and 1,047 at 200-300m. These counts include the common section.

EJS ORANGE ROUTES

The EJS Orange Routes comprise O3a and O4a. The difference between them isthe A1 junction. Table 5.3 shows the effects of noise within the study area andwhere houses are affected by noise levels of 55dB or more.

Table 5.3 - Summary of EJS Orange Route Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Option
Orange 3a Orange 4a
55 to <60dB 31,157 31,128
60 to <70dB 1,166 1,194
70dB or more 148 149
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB 793 974
Increase 3 to <5dB 80 79
Increase 5 to <10dB 18 20
Increase 10 to <15dB 0 0
Increase 15dB or more 1 1
Decrease 1 to <3dB 2,020 2,135
Decrease 3 to <5dB 681 682
Decrease 5 to <10dB 706 704
Decrease 10 to <15dB 13 15
Decrease 15dB or more 6 6
Assessment

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of this optionis 215 at 0-100m, 432 at 100-200m and 939 at 200-300m. For the alternative A1junction option this becomes 216 at 0-100m, 433 at 100-200m and 942 at 200-300m.

EJS PURPLE ROUTES

The EJS Purple Routes comprise P1a, P2a and P3a. The difference between themis the A1 junction. Table 5.4 shows the effects of noise within the study area andwhere houses are affected by noise levels of 55dB or more.

Table 5.4 - Summary of EJS Purple Route Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Option
Purple 1a Purple 2a Purple 3a
55 to <60dB 31,004 30,991 31,003
60 to <70dB 1,308 1,320 1,308
70dB or more 159 160 160
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB 1,336 1,384 1,331
Increase 3 to <5dB 213 203 201
Increase 5 to <10dB 56 32 34
Increase 10 to <15dB 2 2 2
Increase 15dB or more 1 1 1
Decrease 1 to <3dB 1,699 1,817 1,820
Decrease 3 to <5dB 605 606 606
Decrease 5 to <10dB 675 673 673
Decrease 10 to <15dB 11 13 13
Decrease 15dB or more 5 1 6
Assessment

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of this optionis 239 at 0-100m, 556 at 100-200m and 1182 at 200-300m. For both thealternative A1 junction options this becomes 244 at 0-100m, 568 at 100-200m and1,173 at 200-300m.

EJS BLUE - ORANGE ROUTES

The EJS Blue-Orange Routes comprise B/O3a and B/O4a. The difference betweenthem is the A1 junction. Table 5.5 shows the effects of noise within the study areaand where houses are affected by noise levels of 55dB or more.

Table 5.5 - Summary of EJS Blue-Orange Route Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Option
Blue/Orange 3a Blue/Orange 4a
55 to <60dB 31,368 31,345
60 to <70dB 959 981
70dB or more 144 145
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB 851 1,038
Increase 3 to <5dB 87 136
Increase 5 to <10dB 18 48
Increase 10 to <15dB 1 6
Increase 15dB or more 1 2
Decrease 1 to <3dB 1,895 1,987
Decrease 3 to <5dB 525 577
Decrease 5 to <10dB 768 803
Decrease 10 to <15dB 148 162
Decrease 15dB or more 57 59
Assessment

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of this optionis 222 at 0-100m, 485 at 100-200m and 995 at 200-300m. For the alternative A1junction option this becomes 223 at 0-100m, 486 at 100-200m and 998 at 200-300m.

EJS PURPLE-ORANGE OPTIONS

The EJS Purple-Orange Routes comprise PO1a and PO2a. The differencebetween them is the A1 junction. Table 5.6 shows the effects of noise within thestudy area and where houses are affected by noise levels of 55dB or more.

Table 5.6 - Summary of EJS Purple-Orange Route Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Option
Purple/ Orange 3a Purple/ Orange 4a
55 to <60dB 31,292 31,269
60 to <70dB 1,023 1,045
70dB or more 156 157
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB 851 1,038
Increase 3 to <5dB 94 143
Increase 5 to <10dB 21 51
Increase 10 to <15dB 3 8
Increase 15dB or more 1 2
Decrease 1 to <3dB 1,779 1,871
Decrease 3 to <5dB 684 736
Decrease 5 to <10dB 669 704
Decrease 10 to <15dB 87 101
Decrease 15dB or more 46 48
Assessment

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of this optionis 240 at 0-100m, 506 at 100-200m and 1,121 at 200-300m. For the alternative A1junction option this becomes 241 at 0-100m, 507 at 100-200m and 1,124 at 200-300m.

5.5.9 Limited Junction Strategy Options

BLUE ROUTES

The LJS Blue Routes compromise B7, B8, B9. The difference between them is theA1 junction as with the EJS options. Table 5.7 shows the effects of noise within thestudy are and where houses are affected by noise levels of 55dB or more.

Table 5.7 - Summary of LJS Blue Route Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Option
Blue 7 Blue 8 Blue 9
55 to <60dB 31,013 30,996 31,008
60 to <70dB 1,309 1,325 1,313
70dB or more 149 150 150
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB 1,240 1,316 1,263
Increase 3 to <5dB 181 168 166
Increase 5 to <10dB 45 30 32
Increase 10 to <15dB 0 0 0
Increase 15dB or more 1 1 1
Decrease 1 to <3dB 1,891 2,003 2,006
Decrease 3 to <5dB 624 625 625
Decrease 5 to <10dB 688 687 687
Decrease 10 to <15dB 12 13 13
Decrease 15dB or more 5 6 6
Assessment

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of this optionis 221 at 0-100m, 535 at 100-200m and 1056 at 200-300m). For both thealternative A1 junction options (B5 and B6) this becomes 227 at 0-100m, 547 at100-200m and 1,047 at 200-300m. These counts include the common section.

LJS ORANGE ROUTES

The LJS Orange Routes comprise O5 and O6. The difference between them is theA1 junction as with the EJS options. Table 5.8 shows the effects of noise within thestudy area and where houses are affected by noise levels of 55dB or more.

Table 5.8 - Summary of LJS Orange Route Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Option
Orange 5 Orange 6
55 to <60dB 31,128 31,074
60 to <70dB 1,194 1,216
70dB or more 149 150
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB 854 1,043
Increase 3 to <5dB 88 137
Increase 5 to <10dB 16 46
Increase 10 to <15dB 0 5
Increase 15dB or more 1 2
Decrease 1 to <3dB 1,976 2,054
Decrease 3 to <5dB 679 728
Decrease 5 to <10dB 706 739
Decrease 10 to <15dB 13 25
Decrease 15dB or more 6 38
Assessment

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of this optionis 215 at 0-100m, 432 at 100-200m and 939 at 200-300m. For the alternative A1junction option this becomes 216 at 0-100m, 433 at 100-200m and 942 at 200-300m.

LJS BLUE-ORANGE ROUTES

The EJS Blue-Orange Routes comprise B/O5 and B/O6. The difference betweenthem is the A1 junction as with the EJS options. Table 5.9 shows the effects ofnoise within the study area and where houses are affected by noise levels of 55dBor more.

Table 5.9 - Summary of EJS Blue-Orange Route Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels Option
Blue/Orange 5 Blue/Orange 6
55 to <60dB 31,331 31,332
60 to <70dB 976 1,004
70dB or more 144 145
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB 860 1,043
Increase 3 to <5dB 89 88
Increase 5 to <10dB 16 18
Increase 10 to <15dB 1 1
Increase 15dB or more 1 1
Decrease 1 to <3dB 1,328 1,440
Decrease 3 to <5dB 260 261
Decrease 5 to <10dB 300 298
Decrease 10 to <15dB 12 14
Decrease 15dB or more 6 6
Assessment

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of this optionis 222 at 0-100m, 485 at 100-200m and 995 at 200-300m. For the alternative A1junction option this becomes 223 at 0-100m, 486 at 100-200m and 998 at 200-300m.

Please note that there are no Purple or Purple-Orange LJS options considered inthis study.

OTHER AREAS AFFECTED BY NOISE CHANGES FROM TRAFFIC RE-DISTRIBUTION
From Traffic Re-distribution from EJS and LJS Options

Some areas outside the route corridors above are expected to be affected bychanges in traffic. No mitigation measures have been proposed in respect of anynoise increases that are expected to result from increased traffic on roads that arenot required to be altered by a particular route option. However, the implied effectsof noise may become improved from those stated below if (for instance) quieterroad surfaces are incorporated into the local future maintenance plans.

For each of the options, the extent of all the roads where changes in traffic flowsare expected to show increases of 25% or more (shown in green) or decreases of20% or more (shown in blue). Changes on roads with traffic flows of less than 1000vehicles per day are not regarded as significant and are ignored.

The above changes in traffic flows compare the 2025 'do minimum' with eachoption and represent the equivalent of a 1dB increase or decrease in noise andassume that there will not be any other changes (such as traffic speed or roadresurfacing) taking place. Changes in noise that are expected within the areasassessment areas described previously should be considered in preference to theoutline data below.

For each of the EJS main route and LJS options, the extent of traffic changeswhich may give rise to changes of 1dB or more are given in Figure 6.3 to Figure6.5. Table 5.10 also sets out an indication of the estimated number of housesaffected by changes of 3dB or more. Again, such changes would also be affectedby changes in traffic speeds and the proportion of heavy vehicles .In all options,this makes a general assumption that the effects are restricted to those houses thatare within 300m of the road and appear to have a direct view to the affected road.The number of people affected by changes is likely to be 2.4 times the figuresshown.

Table 5.10 - Estimated Number of Houses outside the Noise Model Affected by Changes in Noise from EJS and LJS Options
Change in Noise Levels EJS Options LJS Options
Option OXF Option PY6 Option EA9
3 to <5dB increase 2,550 2,127 2,515
5 to <10dB increase 0 0 0
10 to <15dB increase 0 0 0
15dB or greater increase 0 0 0
3 to <5dB decrease 205 123 108
5 to <10dB decrease 5 0 5
10 to <15dB decrease 114 47 114
15dB or greater decrease 0 59 0
OPTION OXF

The extent of expected changes in noise in the case of Option OXF are outlined inFigure 5.1 where traffic increases (shown green) of 25% or more and decreases(shown blue) of 20% or more are shown.

figure

Figure 5.1 - Extent of Noise Changes - Option OXF

OPTION PY6

The extent of expected changes in noise in the case of Option PY6 are outlined inFigure 5.2 where traffic increases (shown green) of 25% or more and decreases(shown blue) of 20% or more are shown.

figure
OPTION EA9

The extent of expected changes in noise in the case of Option EA9 are outlined inFigure 5.3 below where traffic increases (shown green) of 25% or more anddecreases (shown blue) of 20% or more are shown.

figure

Figure 5.3 - Extent of Noise Changes - EA9


5. Environmental Assessment - 5

5. Environmental Assessment - 6

5.6 Summary and Conclusions

5.6.1 Existing Situation and Do Minimum

At present there are a large number of people affected by noise arising from theA14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton. There are almost 3,500 houses within 300mof the present route between these places and over 1,700 are affected by noiselevels from the A14 of 60dB or more. If no scheme is built, this will rise to over2,000 by 2010 and around 2150 by 2025.

OPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The assessment examined 3 general route options (Blue, Orange and Purple) plusa number of alternative variants to the west of Trinity Foot junction. To the east ofthis, a single option has been examined. The section to the east of the M11 wouldbe a widening scheme.

Simple 2m or 3m high environmental noise barriers or earthworks were consideredin the course of the noise modelling.

The EJS options considered the same basic routes but with different junctionstrategies. The LJS options were applied to some of the same routes. Both the EJSand LJS options considered some more substantial environmental barriers andbunds in order to improve noise mitigation.

All options assume quiet road surfaces.

The effects of noise changes in areas situated some distance from the A14 wherelevels are below 55dB has not been carried out at this stage. In order to make suchdeterminations with reasonable accuracy, it would be necessary to have furtherdata at locations where noise levels are low. It would also be necessary to havemore precise and certain data on road alignments and earth works.

General Effects of the Options

West of the A1 junction, there is little to choose between any of the options.However the Orange and the Blue / Purple options with the alternative A1 junctionsare favoured because there is likely to be more scope to mitigate noise increases.The Orange and Blue/Purple options are least favoured.

The Blue option would be within 300m of over 1,800 houses. Even with noisemitigation, could expose some sizable communities to significant increases in noisemainly because many of the areas are not presently exposed to high levels. Theareas most affected would be the south side of Brampton and the southern side ofGodmanchester with some risks of noise increases at Hilton, Conington and partsof the southern side of Fenstanton. The scheme would give overall benefits ofnoise reductions to about 580 to 680 people, depending on the junction strategy.

The Blue + Orange alternative would not cause significant increases in noise at thehouses in Brampton. There would be over 1,700 houses within 300m of it.However, there is some risk of some slight noise increases at Offord Cluny andparts of Buckden and Hilton. The scheme would give overall benefits of noisereductions to over 580 people or over 640 with the alternative junctions. Thescheme would give overall benefits of noise reductions to about 920 to 970 people,depending on the junction strategy.

The Orange route would remove the impact of noise at Godmanchester. Therewould be less than 1,600 houses within 300m of it. However, risks of noiseincreases remain at the quiet areas of Buckden and Offord Cluny with further risksat Hilton, an area where present levels are low. The scheme would give overallbenefits of noise reductions to about 820 to 840 people, but 800 or less with theLJS.

The Purple Route would have the same disadvantages as the Blue route atBrampton and Godmanchester. There are almost 2,000 properties within 300m ofit. However, by using more of the existing A14 corridor, it would be possible tomitigate further increases of noise to most of these with environmental barriers andthe disadvantages to Connington and Hilton would be avoided. The scheme wouldgive overall benefits of noise reductions to about 570 to 750 people, depending onthe junction strategy. There is no LJS for this route.

The Purple + Orange route combines many of the advantages of each. However,there would still be over 1,850 houses within 300m of it but many could bemitigated by barriers as above. The disadvantages of noise increases to the quietareas of Buckden and Offord Cluny would remain. The scheme would give overallbenefits of noise reductions to about 860 to just over 900 people, depending on thejunction strategy. There is no LJS for this route.

East of Trinity Foot there is a single route option which has been considered incombination with all options above. This could provide opportunities to mitigatenoise at most locations that are within 200 or 300m of the route. Some barrierswould provide significant reductions on present levels at those houses mostaffected. However, beyond that distance and where other roads have influence,noise levels may be increased due to the increased traffic, reduced congestion andlimited extent that barriers could reduce noise.

THE EJS AND LJS OPTIONS

The effects of the EJS options differ slightly to those described previously. As theroutes follow the same alignments, the numbers of properties within 300m of eachis the same. However, more substantial environmental barriers and bunds havebeen considered and some bunds would be up to 4m above the height of the road.Table 5.11 summarises the effects of all options in terms of changes in annoyance.

Table 5.11 - Summary of Changes in Noise and Nuisance: All Options
Option Number of People Annoyed Net Change from Do Minimum Number of Houses affected by Noise Increases 1dB or more 2010 Do Minimum v 2024 with Scheme
Do Minimum 2566 - 464
EJS Options
Blue 4 1945 -621 1454
Blue 5 1884 -682 1502
Blue 6 1883 -683 1449
Orange 3 1748 -818 892
Orange 4 1724 -841 1074
Purple 1 2045 -521 1608
Purple 2 1978 -587 1622
Purple 3 1977 -589 1569
Blue - Orange 3 1623 -943 958
Blue - Orange 4 1596 -970 1230
Purple - Orange 1 1706 -860 970
Purple - Orange 2 1679 -887 1242
LJS Options
Blue 7 1969 -597 1467
Blue 8 1908 -658 1515
Blue 9 1907 -660 1462
Orange 5 1792 -774 959
Orange 6 1765 -801 1233
Blue - Orange 5 1646 -920 967
Blue - Orange 6 1624 -942 1151

Noise Changes from Traffic outside the Present A14 and the Options

The construction of any of the options would bring about changes in traffic on thesurrounding network. This will lead to changes in noise not included in Table 6.21.In the case of the original Blue, Orange and Blue - Orange routes, this wouldamount to a 3 to 5dB increase affecting over 1,000 houses - approximately 2,400people. There would be similar decreases at 112 houses (almost 270 peopleaffected) and more than 10dB decreases at a further 114 houses (over 270 peopleaffected). In the case of the original Purple and Purple - Orange Options, over1000 houses would still get a 3 to 5dB increase. However, only 15 (36people)would get a decrease and this would be between 3 and 5dB.

In the case of the ESJ options, the Blue, Orange and Blue - Orange options wouldresult in 2,550 houses (over 6,100 people) experiencing a 3 to 5dB increase innoise. Decreases of 3 to 5dB would benefit over 200 (just under 500 people), 5 to10dB would benefit just 5 houses (12 people) and more than 10dB decreaseswould benefit almost 115 (over 270 people). In the case of the Purple and Purple -Orange ESJ route options, over 2,100 houses (over 5,100 people) wouldexperience a 3 to 5dB increase. Decreases of 3 to 5dB would benefit over 120houses (almost 300 people), over 10dB decreases at almost 110 houses (over 250people).

For the LJS options, over 2,500 houses (over 6000 people) would be affected by a3 to 5dB increase in noise. Decreases of 3 to 5dB would benefit just under 110 (justunder 260 people), 5 to 10dB would benefit just 5 houses (12 people) and morethan 10dB decreases would benefit almost 115 (over 270 people).


5. Environmental Assessment - 6

5. Environmental Assessment -7

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.7 Conclusions

5.7.1 All Options

All options would reduce the number of people living close to the route of the A14.However, all would also introduce traffic noise into rural areas and villages that arepresently considered to be largely free of traffic noise. At the same time, thereductions in noise to those houses close to the existing A14 may not beparticularly large and there will be some disbenefits to 1000 to 2,550 houses nearother roads in the network that would be affected by noise increases. There wouldbe decreases at between 15 and 320 houses, however, this would still mean a netincrease to 1,900 to 5,300 outside the area of any of the options. This is a muchgreater number than the 'net change from do minimum' summarised above for theaffects near the A14 and the route options.

EJS AND LJS OPTIONS

The EJS options show that the Blue - Orange followed by the Purple - Orangegive greatest benefits with the alternative A1 preferable in terms of noise. Theimproved environmental barriers help to improve the situation.

The Purple route shows the least benefit in terms of the EJS options with thealternative A1 junctions giving more benefits. However, there is little to choosebetween the two alternatives.

For the LJS routes, the Blue - Orange option with the alternative A1 junction isagain, the winner in terms of noise. These give slightly less benefit than the EJSroute options. The Blue route would give least benefits but again, the alternative A1junctions are the better choice with this option.

In terms of preventing noise increases, the Orange, Blue- Orange and Purple -Orange are better than the Purple or Blue Options.


5. Environmental Assessment -7

5. Environmental Assessment -8

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.8 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

5.8.1 Introduction

This section details the Stage 2 air quality assessment for the proposed A14improvements between Ellington and Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire.

Vehicle exhausts contain a number of pollutants including carbon dioxide (CO2),carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particles. Thequantity of each pollutant emitted depends upon the type and quantity of fuel used,engine size, speed of the vehicle and abatement equipment fitted. Once emitted,the pollutants disperse in the air. Pollutant concentrations in the air can bemeasured or modelled and then compared with ambient air quality criteria.

5.8.2 Air Quality Criteria and Pollutants

Air quality criteria can be readily divided into two groups; those that are mandatoryand those that are designed for guidance. Mandatory criteria that apply to the UKare the objectives from the Air Quality Strategy for the UK and the EuropeanCommunity Directive limit values, which are incorporated into regulations. The airquality criteria used in this assessment are given in Table 5.15.

Table 5.12 - Air Quality Criteria
PollutantCriteriaDate to be Achieved byObjective
NO2Annual Mean200540
NO2Hourly mean200518 exceedances
PM10Annual Mean200440
PM1024-Hour Mean200435 exceedances
PM10Annual Mean (provisional)201020
PM1024-Hour Mean (provisional)20107 exceedances
COMaximum daily 8-hour running mean200310
BenzeneRunning Annual Mean200316.25
BenzeneRunning Annual Mean20105
1,3 butadieneRunning Annual Mean20012.25

It should be noted that whilst the current annual mean AQS objective for PM10 is40µg/m3, with 35 exceedances of the 24-hour mean AQS objective, a morestringent objective of 20µg/m3, with 7 exceedances of the 24-hour mean is to beapplied in 2010, although currently these objectives are provisional and notincluded in Regulations.

AIR POLLUTANTS
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Nitrogen dioxide is a secondary pollutant produced by the oxidation of nitric oxide(NO). Nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide are collectively termed nitrogen oxides(NOx). Approximately half of the UK NOx emissions are from road transport. Themajority of NOx emitted from vehicles is in the form of nitric oxide, which oxidisesrapidly in the presence of ozone to form nitrogen dioxide. In high concentrations,nitrogen dioxide can affect the respiratory system.

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter in vehicle exhaust gases consists of carbon nuclei onto which awide range of compounds are absorbed. These particles are less than 10 µm indiameter. Particles with a median diameter of less than 10 µm are referred to asPM10. Diesel engines produce the majority of particulate emissions from thevehicle fleet. About a quarter of primary PM10 emissions in the UK are derived fromroad transport. Particulate matter appears to be associated with a range ofsymptoms of ill health including effects on the respiratory and cardiovascularsystems, on asthma and on mortality.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

The majority of carbon monoxide emitted in the UK is from motor vehicles. It isreadily absorbed through the lungs and reduces the oxygen carrying capability ofthe blood.

Hydrocarbons

The term 'hydrocarbons' is used to include all organic compounds emitted fromvehicles both in the exhaust and by evaporation from the fuel system, and coversmany hundreds of different compounds. About one third of the UK hydrocarbonemissions are produced by road transport. Hydrocarbons are important precursorsof photochemical smog and oxidising compounds. The DMRB requires anassessment for benzene and 1, 3-butadiene as these are included in the Air QualityStrategy. They are both genotoxic carcinogens and exposure to them isassociated with certain types of leukaemia.

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide is a major product of the combustion of carbon containingmaterials. Carbon dioxide does not affect human health at ambient levels and so isnot significant as a local pollutant but is important for its national and internationalrole in climate change. About 20% of the UK carbon dioxide emissions areproduced by road transport.

5.8.3 Existing Conditions

LOCAL AIR QUALITY REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT

All local authorities are required by Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to reviewair quality in their area and to assess present and likely future air quality against setobjectives.

If an area is identified as being unlikely to achieve the Air Quality Strategy (AQS)objectives, the local authority is required to designate an Air Quality ManagementArea (AQMA) and develop an action plan to improve air quality.

The following local authorities contain roads with a significant change in traffic(±10%) with the proposed improvements and/or a section of the existing or newalignment of the A14:

A partnership of five local authorities in and around Cambridgeshire, includingthose listed above, was set up to carry out the review and assessment of air qualityin Cambridgeshire. Following the completion of the first round of the review andassessment process none of the local authorities above have declared anyAQMAs.

As part of the second round of the review and assessment process local authoritiesmust complete an updating and screening assessment (USA) to identify mattersthat have changed since the first round of review and assessment and identifysources that may lead to an air quality objective being exceeded. A detailedassessment is required where there is a possibility of AQS objectives beingexceeded.

Local authorities in Cambridgeshire produced their USA in 2003. Cambridge CityCouncil has proceeded to a detailed assessment for NO2 and is likely to declare anAQMA within the city centre. No other local authorities identified the requirementfor further work after completion of the USA. However, following completion of theAir Quality Review and Assessment Progress Report 2004, Huntingdon DistrictCouncil and South Cambridge District Council will be progressing to detailedassessments. Huntingdonshire will complete the detailed assessment for NO2 dueto likely exceedances in the vicinity of Huntingdon Ring road and associated feederroads. South Cambridge will produce a detailed assessment for NO2 around theA14 corridor east of Bar Hill, including Girton, Histon, Impington and aroundSawston High Street, and for PM10 due to exceedances of the daily objective atImpington.

MONITORING

Measurements may be made of pollutant concentrations by deploying analyticalinstruments that measure continuously and record the average concentrations overspecified time intervals. Simpler sampling devices, such as diffusion tubes, adsorbpollutants over a longer time period and are subsequently analysed at a laboratoryto give an average concentration for the sampling period. National survey resultsfrom both types of monitoring are published in the UK National Air Quality InformationArchive1, and the closestrelevant data are summarised below.

Continuous Monitoring

Defra operates a network of automated continuous monitoring sites throughout theUK. The closest sites in the network to the study area are Cambridge Roadside,Continuous monitoring is also undertaken by local authorities at locations given inTable 5.13.

Table 5.13 - Local Continuous Monitoring Sites
SiteLocal AuthorityGrid Referen ceSite TypePollutantsProximity to A14Available Results
Parker StreetCambridge City Council545366 258391RoadsideNO2, PM104km South of Girton Junction2000-2003
Silver StreetCambridge City Council544758 258118RoadsideNO2, PM104km South of Girton Junction2000-2003
Gonville PlaceCambridge City Council545508 257828RoadsideNO2, PM104km South of Girton Junction2000-2003
Regent StreetCambridge City Council545287 258124RoadsideNO2, CO4km South of Girton Junction2000-2003
Newmarket RoadCambridge City Council546312 258896RoadsideNO2, PM104km South of Girton Junction2002-2003
Huntingdon Ring RoadHuntingdon-shire DC524056 271533RoadsideNO2, PM10120m North of A14 at Huntingdon2000-2003
GodmanchesterHuntingdon-shire DC524419 271312RoadsideNO2, PM1025m North of A14 at Godman-chester2002-2003
Bar HillSouth Cambridge-shire DC538650 263750RoadsideNO2, PM10On eastbound A14 Carriageway at Bar Hill2001-2003
ImpingtonSouth Cambridge-shire DC543850 261750RoadsideNO2, PM10On westbound Carriageway of A14 at Impington2002-2003
Non-continuous Monitoring

Nitrogen dioxide can also be monitored passively using diffusion tubes. Localauthorities across the UK take part in Defra's nitrogen dioxide survey and alsocarry out their own monitoring surveys.

Data from the following Defra sites are considered here:

Local authorities monitor NO2 with diffusion tubes at the following number of locations:

MONITORING SURVEY NEAR A14

Atkins commenced in a year long nitrogen dioxide monitoring programme usingdiffusion tubes in June 2004. Nineteen sites were selected, based on the expectedchanges in traffic flows on the network in the study area. Refer to theEnvironmental Assessment Report for details of and location of sites.

As recommended by Defra's Technical Guidance2 three diffusion tubes were colocatedwith a continuous monitor (Cambridge Roadside site) to enable theaccuracy and precision of the tubes to be determined. Comparison of the meanconcentrations in each monitoring period gives a correction factor which can thenbe applied to the diffusion tubes at the other sites. The corrected results for thefirst three months of monitoring are shown in Table 5.14.

Concentrations are shown to exceed the annual mean AQS objective at Sites 14and 15, 5m and 10m from the edge of the A14 respectively. Concentrations at allother sites were below the AQS objective. A report will be issued followingcompletion of the monitoring survey.

SUMMARY

Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene, benzene and carbon monoxide are escaped toachieve their respective AQS objectives throughout the study area. There arenumerous exceedences of the annual mean NO2 objective, especially at roadsidesites, indicating that concentrations are likely to be sensitive to any changes intraffic flows. The hourly NO2 objective was exceeded at one site close to the A14in 2003. The annual mean PM10 AQS objective was achieved, but the 24-hourobjective was exceeded at two sites close to the A14.

Table 5.14 - Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Results, µg/m3
SiteLocationGrid ReferenceMonitoring Period
XYMean09/06/04 - 16/07/0416/07/04 - 13/08/0413/08/04 - 10/09/04
Site 1Cambridge monitor54527925812939.535.442.740.4
Site 2Cambridge monitor54527925812938.643.234.0
Site 3Cambridge monitor54527925812937.935.445.033.4
Sites 1,2,3Cambridge monitor, overall mean54527925812938.335.443.635.9
Site 4Impington monitor54371926161728.927.628.031.2
Site 5Brampton Lodge51933527006010.57.912.810.8
Site 6Brampton52032027150828.923.735.627.5
Site 7Debden Farm5258742678428.67.110.58.1
Site 8Huntingdon52395227146926.819.033.827.5
Site 9Godmanchester52546627051926.127.424.8
Site 10Rectory Farm52813026966331.023.737.931.2
Site 11Goretree Farm52891026930623.717.828.624.8
Site 12Trinity Foot Pub53562226582736.831.748.430.1
Site 13Transect 5m53665426512759.569.465.543.6
Site 14Transect 10m53664626514255.956.765.745.2
Site 15Transect 50m53668626516235.231.736.837.1
Site 16Transect 130m53671826523624.720.630.922.6
Site 17Bar Hill53828826374317.014.718.717.8
Site 18Bar Hill monitor53868626375938.735.342.038.8
Site 19Girton54255826148126.520.635.723.2

5.8.4 Methodology

APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

The assessment was carried out in accordance with the Design Manual for Roadsand Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 section 3, part 1, air quality, revision February2003 and Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) The Local Air Quality Sub-objectiveUnit 3.3.3, February 2004. The scheme has been assessed in terms of:

CONSTRAINTS MAP

Constraints maps were drawn to show areas within 200m of the roads affected bythe proposed improvements that are likely to have a change in air quality. Thisallows identification of the number of properties where people are likely to besubjected to a change in air quality, the identification of sensitive properties andproperties likely to experience higher than average pollutant concentrations atlocations such as road junctions. Sensitive properties include those where theremay be vulnerable occupants, such as schools, hospitals or homes for the elderly.Table 5.14 displays the type and number of sensitive properties identified within200m of the A14 and affected roads.

Table 5.15 - Number of Sensitive Properties Identified in the Vicinity of the A14 and Affected Roads
Type of Sensitive ReceptorNumber within 200m of A14 and Affected Roads
Care Home1
Clinic7
Table 5.16 - Number of Sensitive Properties Identified in the Vicinity of the A14 and Affected Roads
Type of Sensitive ReceptorNumber within 200m of A14 and Affected Roads
Hospice2
Hospital5
School60
Surgery29
LOCAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The DMRB screening method was used to estimate concentrations of carbonmonoxide, nitrogen dioxide, benzene, 1,3-butadiene and particulate matter (PM10)to compare with AQS objectives. Predictions were made both with and without theproposed A14 improvements, termed the scheme and do-minimum respectively.The years selected for assessment were the existing case (2003), and the openingyear (2010).

Amended Options

A total of 12 amended route options were assessed, due to the variouscombinations of the traffic options and route and junction alignments.

The assessment was carried out assuming the traffic forecasts for two schemeoptions, OXF and PY6 and a Do Minimum (DM8). The traffic options wereassigned to the appropriate route options. These were each compared with the DoMinimum situation.

Table 5.17 sets out the basic junction, route and traffic forecast options that arebroadly headed as 'Blue', 'Orange' and 'Purple' and combined Blue/Orange andPurple/Orange scenarios.

Table 5.17 - Route Options Assessed Amended Options
Option No.Basic Route OptionJunction OptionsTraffic Option
Blue Option
B4(a)Blue [Ellington to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Fen Drayton + Bar Hill + J14OXF
B5(a)A1 Alt. (Opt. 3) + Blue [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Fen Drayton + Bar Hill + J14OXF
B6(a)A1 Alt. (Opt. 4) + Blue [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Fen Drayton + Bar Hill + J14OXF
Orange Option
O3(a)Orange [Ellington to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Fen Drayton + Bar Hill + J14OXF
O4(a)A1 Alt. (Opt. 6) + Orange [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Fen Drayton + Bar Hill + J14OXF
Purple Option
P1(a)Purple [Ellington to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Galley Hill + Bar Hill + J14PY6
P2(a)A1 Alt. (Opt. 3) + Purple [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Galley Hill + Bar Hill + J14PY6
P3(a)A1 Alt. (Opt. 4) + Purple [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Galley Hill + Bar Hill + J14PY6
Combined Option
B/O3(a)Orange [Ellington to Offord Hill] + Blue/Purple Alt. + Blue [Godmanchester to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Fen Drayton + Bar Hill + J14OXF
B/O4(a)A1 Alt. (Opt. 6) + Orange [Brampton to Offord Hill] + Blue/Purple Alt. + Blue [Godmanchester to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Fen Drayton + Bar Hill + J14OXF
P/O1(a)Orange [Ellington to Offord Hill] + Blue/Purple Alt. + Purple [Godmanchester to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Galley Hill + Bar Hill + J14PY6
P/O2(a)A1 Alt. (Opt. 6) + Orange [Brampton to Offord Hill] + Blue/Purple Alt. + Purple [Godmanchester to Bar Hill] + D4 [Bar Hill to J14] + CNB (with S2 LAR)A1 + Galley Hill + Bar Hill + J14PY6
Limited Junction Options

A total of 7 limited junction options were assessed, due to the various combinationsof the traffic option and route and junction alignments.

The assessment was carried out assuming the traffic forecasts for one option, EA9and the Do Minimum used for the amended options (DM8). The traffic option wasassigned to the appropriate route options and compared with the Do Minimumsituation.

Table 5.18 sets out the basic junction, route and traffic forecast options that arebroadly headed as 'Blue' and 'Orange' and combined Blue/Orange.

Table 5.18 - Route Options Assessed Limited Junction Options
Option No.Basic Route OptionJunction OptionsTraffic Option
Blue Option
B7Blue [Ellington to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
B8A1 Alt. (Opt. 3) + Blue [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
B9A1 Alt. (Opt. 4) + Blue [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
Orange Option
05Orange [Ellington to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
06A1 Alt. (Opt. 6) + Orange [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
Combined Option
B/05Orange [Ellington to Offord Hill] + Blue/Purple Alt. + Blue [Godmanchester to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
B/06A1 Alt. (Opt. 6) + Orange [Brampton to Offord Hill + Blue/Purple Alt. + Blue [Godmanchester to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
Limited Junction Options

A total of 7 limited junction options were assessed, due to the various combinationsof the traffic option and route and junction alignments.

The assessment was carried out assuming the traffic forecasts for one option, EA9and the Do Minimum used for the amended options (DM8). The traffic option wasassigned to the appropriate route options and compared with the Do Minimumsituation.

Table 5.18 sets out the basic junction, route and traffic forecast options that arebroadly headed as 'Blue' and 'Orange' and combined Blue/Orange.

Table 5.18 - Route Options Assessed Limited Junction Options
Option No.Basic Route OptionJunction OptionsTraffic Option
B7Blue [Ellington to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
B8A1 Alt. (Opt. 3) + Blue [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
B9A1 Alt. (Opt. 4) + Blue [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
05Orange [Ellington to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
06A1 Alt. (Opt. 6) + Orange [Brampton to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
B/05Orange [Ellington to Offord Hill] + Blue/Purple Alt. + Blue [Godmanchester to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9
B/06A1 Alt. (Opt. 6) + Orange [Brampton to Offord Hill + Blue/Purple Alt. + Blue [Godmanchester to Bar Hill] + D3 [Bar Hill to J14] (with split D2 LAR) + CNBA1 + Fen Drayton + J14 (+ LAR Junctions)EA9

For all alignment and traffic options the study area for the air quality assessmenthas been defined based on the change in traffic on the road network. Additionaltraffic is expected to be induced on the A14 and the pattern of traffic flow on theroad network will be affected by the increased capacity of this road.

A large number of road links are within the study area. DfT's TAG states "optionswhich change traffic flows by less than 10% can usually be scoped out, unless theroad is a motorway or there are particular sensitivities". On this basis the networkfor the air quality assessment included all existing and new alignments of the A14,and all other roads with flows of greater than 5,000 vehicles per day whichexperience an increase or decrease in traffic of greater than 10% with any of thetraffic options.

The road network assessed for each traffic option in this study area is illustrated inthe air quality constraints maps.

Receptor Selection

Usually, a number of specific properties or receptors are chosen for assessment.However, for this assessment, as the study area under consideration was so large,Ordnance Survey Address-Point® data was used to pinpoint the location ofresidential properties. For each property, the Address-Point® dataset contains aunique identifier, national grid reference and postal address. When identifyingproperties from maps without address point data, accidental consideration ofstructures not used for occupancy by people can occur. Using Address-Point® dataensures only buildings with a postal address are included in the count. The dataalso contains a field for business name which is used to screen the data to removebusiness addresses.

The use of an access database enabled the air quality at all properties within 200mof the scheme and affected roads to be calculated. In addition to residentialproperties, the effect on air quality at schools and other sensitive properties within200m of affected roads can be assessed. Concentrations at properties near thejunctions on the A14 were calculated using the DMRB spreadsheet rather than thedatabase, due to the complexity of the junctions.

Comparison of Modelled and Monitored Concentrations

To provide some validation of the concentrations predicted using the DMRB, acomparison of estimated and measured concentrations was undertaken for NO2and PM10 at the location of continuous monitoring stations close to the A14.The DMRB screening method was used to calculate concentrations at the localauthority continuous monitoring sites at Bar Hill, Godmanchester and Impington.

TAG ASSESSMENT

This assessment gives a quantitative indication of whether the scheme would leadto an overall improvement or deterioration in air quality at properties and is basedon the DfT's Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) The Local Air Quality Sub-Objective Unit 3.3.1, February 2004.

The method involves estimating concentrations of NO2 and PM10 using the DMRBscreening method described above. The calculations were carried out with andwithout the proposed scheme for the opening year (2010).

Pollutant concentrations decrease with increasing distance from the traffic,therefore concentrations are calculated at 20 m, 70 m, 115 m and 175 m from theroad centre, with and without the proposed scheme, for each route option.

The number of properties in 50 m bands from the centre of each road link wascounted out to a distance of 200 m for the do minimum and scheme scenarios.The Address-Point® dataset, described above, and a geographic informationsystem was used to facilitate this. The number of properties in each band ismultiplied by the concentration calculated for that band for the do minimum andscheme scenarios. This is carried out for each of the four bands and the resultsadded together to give a total for each scenario. The do-minimum value isdeducted from the scheme value for each affected route. The overall assessmentscore is calculating by summing values over all routes, with an improvement(decrease in concentrations) having a negative value and a deterioration (increasein concentrations) having a positive value.

5.8.5 Results

LOCAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Pollutant concentrations at properties within 200m of the existing and newalignments of A14 and other roads affected by a significant change in traffic due tothe scheme have been calculated. This area includes some 65000 properties.

Due to the large number of properties assessed, it has not been possible to reportthe predicted concentrations at each property. Instead, the concentrations havebeen compared with the AQS objectives to determine whether any exceedanceshave been predicted.

Exceedances of AQS Objectives
Base Year (2003)

In 2003 the annual mean AQS objective for NO2 was estimated to be exceeded at21 properties. Located predominantly in Cambridge. For all other pollutants and atall other receptors the AQS objectives were achieved.

Amended Options and Limited Junction Options

In 2010 the AQS objectives for all pollutants are expected to be achieved at allreceptors for all traffic and alignment options. Some exceedances of theprovisional 2010 annual mean PM10 objective were predicted in Cambridge.Approximately 30 properties are expected to exceed this provisional objective withthe Do-Minimum and limited junction options, and 20 properties with the enhancedjunction options.

Changes in Concentrations at Receptors

Table 5.19 and Table 5.20 give details of the maximum concentrations andgreatest changes predicted at receptors for nitrogen dioxide and PM10 respectively.

Table 5.19 - Maximum Concentrations and Greatest Changes in Concentrations for NO2 (µg/m3)
Traffic OptionMaximum Conc.Greatest IncreaseNo Properties with Change >4Greatest DecreaseNo Properties with Change >4
BASE42----
DM833----
EA9315.469-15.595
OXF315.269-15.589
PY6315.467-11.288
Table 5.20 - Maximum Concentrations and Greatest Changes in Concentrations for PM10 (µg/m3)
Traffic OptionMaximum Conc.Greatest IncreaseNo Properties with Change >4Greatest DecreaseNo Properties with Change >4
BASE30----
DM822----
EA921>-20-6.237
OXF21>-20-6.234
PY621>-20-4.645

There are expected to be both increases and decreases in concentrations atreceptors with all scheme options. There are around 70 properties with anincrease in annual mean NO2 concentrations of greater than 4µg/m3, and around90 properties with a decrease in annual mean NO2 concentrations of greater than4µg/m3. The greatest increases for NO2 with the scheme options are 5µg/m3, andthe greatest decreases between 11 and 16µg/m3.

For PM10 no properties are expected to have an increase in annual meanconcentrations greater than 2µg/m3. Between 34 and 45 properties are expectedto have a decrease in annual mean PM10 concentrations of greater than 2µg/m3.The greatest decreases with the scheme options are 6µg/m3.

Amended and Limited Junction Options

Annual mean concentrations of NO2 and PM10 at the 14 receptors near junctions onthe proposed and existing alignments of the A14 for the amended and limitedjunction options are shown in the Environmental Assessment Report.

None of the receptors are expected to exceed any of the AQS objectives in anyyear or scenario. Many of the receptors are expected to have similarconcentrations with all of the scheme options, this is particularly the case for thosereceptors close to the common route alignments.

For NO2 the greatest increase at any receptor is 8.6 µg/m3 at Grafham RoadCottage. This is with O4a and BO4a, as the orange route passes close to thesereceptors.

Concentrations at Little Cottage, Brampton Lodge, Rectory Farm and Depden Farmare expected to have increases of 3.6, 2.8, 2.5 and 2.1 µg/m3 respectively.Increases at all other receptors are expected to be negligible.

The greatest decrease occurs at Hackers Fruit Farm, 9.1 µg/m3 with options B4a,B5a, B6a, O3a, O4a, B/O3a and B/O4a. This is as a result of the changes in roadalignment of the A14 near to this receptor. Little Cottage and Woodhatch Farm areexpected to have decreases of 5.4 and 5.1 µg/m3 respectively. These decreasesoccur with options P1a, and P/O1a due to changes in road alignment and trafficflows in proximity to these receptors.

The Hotel near Huntingdon Road Bar Hill, and the Public House at Trinity FootJunction are expected to have decreases of 2.8 and 1.4 µg/m3 respectively.Changes in concentrations at other receptors are expected to be negligible.

The changes in concentrations for PM10 follow the same pattern as for nitrogendioxide. The greatest increases for PM10 are at Grafham Road Cottage, LittleCottage and Depden Farm with increases of 2.4, 1.6, and 1.0 µg/m3 respectively.The greatest decreases are expected to occur at Hackers Fruit Farm, Little CottageWoodhatch Farm and Grafham Road Cottage with decreases of 2.1, 1.6, 1.4 and1.2 µg/m3 respectively. All other receptors are expected to have a negligiblechange.

Comparison of Modelled and Monitored Concentrations

The results of the comparison of modelled and monitored concentrations for 2003 are shown in Table 5.21.

Table 5.21 - Comparison of Modelled and Measured Concentrations (2003)
SiteSource RoadsPollutantPredicted Annual MeanMeasured Annual MeanDifference (%)Difference (µg/m3)
Bar HillA14NO2
PM10		37
23		50
33		26
30		13
10
GodmanchesterA14,
B1044		NO2
PM10		38
24		40
29		5
17		2
5
ImpingtonA14NO2
PM10		35
22		52
39		33
44		17
17

The results indicated that in all cases there was an under prediction in modelledconcentrations of NO2 and PM10 compared to the measured concentrations ofaround 30%. Average factors of 1.3 and 1.5 for NO2 and PM10 respectively, werederived. Meteorological conditions in 2003 were largely responsible for poorer airquality in this year than in previous years, hence concentrations were alsoestimated for 2002 using the 2003 traffic data, and compared with the monitoringdata for 2002, shown in Table 5.22.

Table 5.22 - Comparison of Modelled and Measured Concentrations (2002)
SiteSource RoadsPollutantPredicted Annual MeanMeasured Annual MeanDifference (%)Difference (µg/m3)
Bar HillA14NO2
PM10		38
23		42
30		9
22		4
7
GodmanchesterA14
B1044		NO2
PM10		39
24		39
20		0
-22		0
-4
ImpingtonA14NO2
PM10		36
22		53
30		32
26		17
8

In 2002 there is still an under prediction in modelled concentrations of NO2 andPM10 compared to the measured concentrations. However, at Godmanchester themodelled concentrations are more comparable. At Impington there is still an underprediction of around 30%, and at Bar Hill the under prediction is around 15-20%.Average factors of 1.2 and 1.1 for NO2 and PM10 respectively, were derived. Whenreceptor concentrations in 2010 are multiplied by these factors there will still be noexceedances of annual mean AQS objective for either NO2 or PM10.

However, with the 2003 adjustment factors, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide mayexceed the annual mean AQS objective at small number of receptors. The majorityof these receptors are located in Cambridge. However, there are some receptorslocated in the vicinity of the A14. These receptors are given in Table 5.23.

Table 5.23 - Properties Exceeding the Annual Mean NO2 AQS Objective in the Vicinity of the A14
Traffic OptionProperties
DM8Grange Farm Cottages, Crouchfield Villa, Hackers Fruit Farm, Huntingdon Road & Cambridge Road, Orthwaite, Huntingdon.
EA9-
OXFGrange Farm Cottages, Crouchfield Villa, Hackers Fruit Farm, Huntingdon Road & Cambridge Road, Orthwaite, Huntingdon.
PY6Grange Farm Cottages, Crouchfield Villa, Hackers Fruit Farm, Huntingdon Road & Cambridge Road, Orthwaite, Huntingdon & The Copice, Histon

A nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube monitoring survey at locations near the A14 iscurrently underway which will provide further data for validation.

AMENDED AND LIMITED JUNCTION OPTIONS

The results of the assessment are summarised in Table 5.24 for PM10 and Table 5.25 for nitrogen dioxide.

The assessment of the scheme options shows that there is an overall increase inPM10 and NO2 concentrations at the properties near the A14 with all of the options.In the wider network, there is expected to be a large decrease overall in both PM10and NO2 concentrations, which outweighs the increase near the A14.

The overall assessment shows that the scheme will lead to an improvement in bothPM10 and NO2 concentrations at affected properties. For the enhanced Junctions,the purple and purple/orange routes have the lowest number of properties with animprovement and the highest number with a deterioration. The blue and orangeroutes have broadly similar results. For the limited junctions, there is littledifference between options.

Table 5.24 - PM10 Assessment
OptionPM10 AssessmentNo. Properties with ImprovementNo. Properties with No ChangeNo. Properties with Deterioration
Amended Options
B4-10262963263413342
B5-10112963263413360
B6-10112963263413360
O3-10592963263413233
O4-10572963263413235
P1-86729102014545
P2-85129102014563
P3-85129102014563
B/O3-10332963263413293
B/O4-10312963263413295
P/O1-87329102014496
P/O2-87229102014498
Limited Junction Options
B7-4942066509148
B8-4792066509166
B9-4792066509166
O5-5262066509039
O6-5252066509041
B/O5-5002066509099
B/O6-4992066509101
Table 5.25 - NO2 Assessment for Amended Options
OptionNO2 AssessmentNo. Properties with ImprovementNo. Properties with No ChangeNo. Properties with Deterioration
Amended Options
B4-31382931963413655
B5-30832931963413673
B6-30832931963413673
O3-32602931963413546
O4-32542931963413548
P1-269428742014905
P2-263828742014923
P3-263828742014923
B/O3-31682931963413606
B/O4-31622931963413608
P/O1-272428742014856
P/O2-271828742014858
Limited Junction Options
B7-161619528010285
B8-156119528010303
B9-156119528010303
O5-173719528010176
O6-173119528010178
B/O5-164619528010236
B/O6-163919528010238

A comparison of both of route options indicates that the amended options have thelargest number of properties with an improvement in air quality. The limitedjunction options have the least properties with an improvement in air quality, andthe least properties with a deterioration in air quality.

5.8.6 Conclusions

The stage 2 air quality assessment has consisted of examining existing conditions,assessing the change in concentrations at properties likely to be affected by theproposed scheme options, and undertaking an overall assessment of exposureaccording to the TAG methodology.

Measured concentrations of annual mean nitrogen dioxide are expected to exceedthe AQS objective near roadside sites in the study area, as well as near the A14.

Concentrations of PM10 also exceeded the 24-hour mean objective at sites near theA14, although concentrations were below the annual mean objective.

Concentrations of carbon monoxide, benzene and 1,3-butadiene are all well belowtheir respective AQS objectives. Although there are no air quality managementareas in the study area at present, detailed assessments are currently in progress,and it is likely that an AQMA will be declared in Cambridge city centre, and aroundthe ring roadand associated feeder roads in Huntingdon.

The results of the local air quality assessment show that there are a small numberof exceedances of the provisional 2010 annual mean PM10 AQS objective, with allscheme options and the do-minimum situations. None of the other AQS objectivesare expected to be exceeded in the opening year, based on raw modelling results.

There are expected to be both increases and decreases in concentrations atreceptors with all scheme options. There are around 70 properties with anincrease in annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations of greater than 4µg/m3,and around 90 properties with a decrease in annual mean nitrogen dioxideconcentrations of greater than 4µg/m3. The greatest increases for nitrogen dioxidewith the scheme options are 5µg/m3, and the greatest decreases between 11 and16µg/m3. For PM10 no properties are expected to have an increase in annual meanconcentrations greater than 2µg/m3. Between 34 and 45 properties are expectedto have a decrease in annual mean PM10 concentrations of greater than 2µg/m3.The greatest decreases with the scheme options are 6µg/m3.

A comparison of modelled and measured data has been undertaken for the threecontinuous monitoring sites near the A14. Concentrations were compared to datain 2003, and due to the high results experienced in this year, to data in 2002.Modelled concentrations in 2003 were shown to under estimate the measuredconcentrations at all three monitoring stations, by around 30%. Modelledconcentrations in 2002 were still shown to underestimate those measured at theBar Hill and Impington sites, although they were comparable at the Godmanchestersite for nitrogen dioxide. By applying adjustment factors derived from the 2002comparison, modelled concentrations are still expected to achieve the AQSobjectives, although with the 2003 adjustment factors, annual mean concentrationsof nitrogen dioxide may exceed at a small number of receptors. A monitoringsurvey at sites along the A14 is currently in progress which will further help validatethe results of the modelling.

The TAG assessment of the scheme options shows that there is an overallincrease in PM10 and NO2 concentrations at the properties near the A14 with all ofthe options. In the wider network, there is expected to be a large decrease overallin both PM10 and NO2 concentrations, which outweighs the increase near the A14.The purple and purple/orange routes have the lowest number of properties with animprovement and the highest number with a deterioration. For the blue and orangeroutes the results are broadly similar. Comparison of the 2 sets of route optionsindicates that the amended options have the largest number of properties with animprovement in air quality. The limited junction options have the least propertieswith an improvement in air quality, and the least number with a deterioration in airquality control.

  1. http://www.airquality.co.uk back [1]
  2. (Ref: Local Air Quality Management: Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(03), Defra, 2003) back [2]

5. Environmental Assessment -8

5. Environmental Assessment -9

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.9 Land Use

5.9.1 Introduction

This chapter considers the characteristics of agricultural land affected by theoptions in terms of its quality and current use. The likely impacts of the options onaffected holdings are assessed and recommendations are made concerningmitigation measures.

The impacts of the options on other land uses, including local mineral workings,landfill sites, development land and existing residential dwellings is also assessed.

5.9.2 Method of Assessment

The methodology follows the DMRB Volume 11 Guidelines for a Stage 2Environmental Assessment.

Cambridge City Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and SouthCambridgeshire District Council were consulted to ascertain whether there wereany outstanding planning applications within the study area which would beimpacted by the options. Consultation was also made regarding the existing statusof landfill sites. Cambridgeshire County Council was consulted as MineralsPlanning Authority. A roadside survey was undertaken of existing significantdevelopments within the study area.

5.9.3 Existing Conditions

ALLOCATED DEVELOPMENT LAND

The majority of the study area comprises of Grade xx agricultural land. The studyarea extends from the east of Cambridge to the west of Huntingdon. A number ofsmaller settlements line the route corridor. These include in an east to westdirection, Milton, Histon, Girton, Oakington, Longstanton, Bar Hill, Boxworth,Conington, Fenstanton, Hemingford Grey, Conington, Hilton, Godmanchester,Offord Cluny, Buckden and Brampton.

There are a number of significant developments located within the route corridor ofincluding the following:

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

There are a number of planning applications and development proposals madewithin the study area, as of January 2004. The principal on-going applications arelisted in the EAR, the two major ones affecting the A14 proposals are:

Mineral and Waste Sites

Buckden North landfill site is the only active landfill site located within the studyarea. Buckden South landfill site, Hemingford Grey landfill site and Coningtonlandfill site are all full.

An application for planning permission for mineral extraction by Lafarge Aggregates(H/5004/02/CM) has been submitted for a site east of Buckden. No decision hasyet been made.

Existing Dwellings

The route options traverse agricultural land. There are a large number of farmingenterprises and village settlements located within the vicinity of the route corridor.There are also a number of dwellings located in close proximity to all route options,particularly to the south of Brampton and in the vicinity of Fenstanton.

Potential Impacts

The orange option would traverse a site on which a planning application for mineralextraction has been made. To date, a decision has not yet been made. This site islocated north west of Offord Cluny and is delineated on the EnvironmentalConstraints plan.

The purple option would require the demolition of four dwellings in the vicinity ofFenstanton Subway and a Filling Station on the south side of the existing A14 atGalley Hill, Fenstanton.

All options traverse open countryside, creating a barrier between villagesettlements located to the north and south of all route options. However, this barrierwould not be any greater to that which is already created by the existing A14.Mitigation measures in the form of oven under-bridges would allow unrestrictedmovement between these settlements, thus minimising the degree of severance.


5. Environmental Assessment -9

5. Environmental Assessment -10

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.10 Agriculture

5.10.1 Introduction

Most of the land affected by the A14 improvement proposals is agricultural.Accordingly, an assessment has been made of the potential impact on agriculturalresources and existing farm businesses of the various route options.

This Stage 2 assessment considers the characteristics of agricultural land affectedby the route options in terms of its quality and current use. The likely impacts onaffected holdings are assessed and recommendations made concerning mitigationmeasures. Impacts are assessed with and without recommended mitigationmeasures being implemented and the assumption is that, in broad terms, theagricultural circumstances prevailing at the time of survey will continue to prevail.However, it should be noted that the recent Mid-term Review of the CommonAgricultural Policy, with its far reaching reforms of agricultural support systems,may have dramatic but, as yet, largely unpredictable effects on the rural economy.

Impact is assessed for the Blue, Orange and Purple mainline alignments and forthe two junction strategies.

5.10.2 Method

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

The 1999 'Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations" state that an EIA, including an agriculturalassessment, where appropriate, is required for projects of this nature.

This agricultural assessment has involved the study of client-supplied data andoriginal survey work. It should be noted that TAG, with its use of AssessmentSummary Tables, has not been adapted to agricultural studies and so this reportfollows the DMRB Volume 11 Guidelines for a Stage 2 Environmental Assessment.

The four main areas covered in any assessment of the effects of a new road onagricultural land are specified as:

NATIONAL POLICY

Planning policy regarding agricultural land in England is set out in PPG7 (TheCountryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development). Thisstates that, where possible, development should not take place on land in Grades 1- 3a (best and most versatile), according to MAFF's 1988 revised guidelines forAgricultural Land Classification of England and Wales. It also requiresassessments to take into account the impact of a proposed development on farmsize and structure and any buildings and fixed equipment.

SURVEY AND DATA COLLECTION

Prior to conducting field surveys, published and unpublished data and route planswere consulted. The route corridors were then examined in the field betweenOctober 2003 and January 2004. Surveys comprised:

Method of Assessment

The methods of assessing the relative degree of impact are described in greaterdetail at the relevant part of the text. However, the general methodology can besummarised as follows:

5.10.3 Baseline Situation

Existing conditions immediately prior to the proposed development (the baselinesituation) can be divided into two categories:

The inherent conditions include the geology, the relief or topography of the area,the climate and the character and quality of the soils.

The basic geology of the area has been described in Section 2.4. The EAR chapteron agriculture described the geology of the route corridor, relevant to theunderstanding of soils and Agricultural Land Classification.

The land falls away northward and eastward to the Ouse and Cam valleys. East ofHilton the landscape of the route corridor is below 20 m O.D. and nearly level,consisting of Oxford Clay, terrace deposits and alluvium. This flat landscapemerges almost imperceptibly with the flat fens north of the route corridor.

The climate is one of the driest in Britain with only 560 mm of rainfall annually onthe high ground and around 520 mm on the low ground.

SOILS

The Soil Map of Eastern England with its accompanying book is a generalised soilmap that lacks field by field detail. However, it does provide a useful introduction tothe broad pattern of soils, indicating areas of lighter, better quality land in what is alandscape of predominantly heavy soils in Jurassic Clay and Chalky Till. Other mapsources provided greater detail in localised areas.

Soil surveys were carried out as part of this assessment along the line of the routeoptions in areas where the level of published information is insufficient for thepurposes of Agricultural Land Classification.

Government policy, as set out in PPG7, is designed to protect the best and mostversatile land, normally Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The published MAFF 1:250,000Agricultural Land Classification Map of Eastern England provides only a broadindication of land quality and should not be used definitively on specific sitessmaller than 80 ha in size. Moreover, the published Defra map does not subdivideGrade 3 into 3a and 3b and so cannot be used definitively in areas that aremarginal to best and most versatile. The study area is shown as an area of Grade 2and 3 land of good to moderate quality and there is no published informationavailable that subdivides the Grade 3 land of the district into 3a and 3b, accordingto the 1988 MAFF Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) of England and Wales:Revised Guidelines and Criteria for Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land.

The DMRB recommends that where more than 20 ha of best and most versatileland in Grades 1 - 3a are likely to be lost to agricultural production, Defra should beconsulted as to whether a more detailed survey is needed. Such a survey,encompassing soils, climate and topography, would be carried out according toMAFF's 1988 Revised Guidelines for the Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land,which also provides the criteria for sub-dividing Grade 3 into 3a and 3b. Recentreorganisation of government responsibilities for rural development means that theconsultee is now the Rural Affairs Team of the Regional Government Offices,rather than Defra.

For this assessment, detailed surveys were carried out in areas where the level ofdetail in the published information is not adequate to make an informed judgementof whether the land is likely to be Grade 3a or better. These were restricted to offlinesections of the route options. In the on-line sections, the relatively smallamount of land take and greater importance of engineering considerations meanthat land quality is not a significant issue in road design. Also, it is very difficult toassess the ALC of land alongside a trunk road because of the presence of ditches,hedges, farm tracks and buried infrastructure.

Hanslope soils, being in Wetness Class II - Ill and having calcareous topsoils, arein Grades 2 or 3a and so additional surveys were considered unnecessary for thisassessment. The Hanslope association may include poorer quality, decalcificiedsoils but typically these occur on the level sites on the main boulder clay plateau,well beyond the southern boundary of the route corridor.

Sutton and Efford soils can be short of moisture in summer, but existing 1:25,000scale mapping of OS Sheet TL26 (Papworth Everard) showed that most of this landis in Grade 3a. Farmers are able to compensate for the moisture shortage bygrowing early maturing varieties of cereals and also benefit from the ability to growspring sown crops in a district in which winter cropping predominates. Up until the1970s these soils around Fenstanton and Brampton were noted for fruit productionand market gardening.

Fladbury soils on floodplains are in Grade 3b and 4 because of wetness and thefrequency of flooding.

The focus of soil surveys for this assessment was the area of land containingEvesham soils. Here, the soils have the potential to be Grade 2, 3a or 3bdepending upon the clay and calcium carbonate content of the topsoil and theWetness Class (as indicated by depths to gleying and a slowly permeable horizon).Soils were examined at 100 m intervals along the route lines, with a hand auger.

Soils were allocated to Grade 2, 3a and 3b, according to the profile characteristicsidentified in Table 5.26 below. In terms of climatic data relevant to the classification,all the study area has fewer than 126 field capacity days (when the soil profile isreplete with moisture).

Table 5.26 - ALC Grades within Evesham Association
GradeSoil Characteristics
2Wetness Class II with medium clay loam or calcareous heavy clay loam or calcareous clay topsoils
3aWetness Class II with non-calcareous heavy clay loam or clay topsoils Wetness Class Ill with calcareous heavy clay loam or calcareous clay topsoils
3bWetness Class Ill and IV with non-calcareous heavy clay loam or non calcareous clay topsoils
LAND USE CONDITIONS
Land Use

This is a predominantly arable area characterised by mainly large farms. Nearlyhalf of these farms are tenanted and owned by large institutions, includingCambridge University colleges. Many agricultural holdings are uninhabited outliersof larger farms, some of which are outside the study area. The main crops arethose associated with heavy land rotations, typically winter wheat with beans andoil seed rape. Even on patches of lighter soils the rotations do not changesignificantly. There is a small amount of grassland, with a beef herds at Conington,Brampton and Girton and some pony paddocks, particularly around the towns andvillages. There are several orchards and a soft fruit grower at Fenstanton. At BarHill (Noon Folly) and east of Girton the route corridor includes nationally importantagricultural trials grounds belonging to the National Institute for Agricultural Botany(NIAB).

Many of the farms have shoots and so game covers are an important landscapefeature. However, no commercial shoots are directly affected by the route options.

Land Values

All that can be said at this point in time, and this is largely conjectural, is that ablock of arable land would be expected to sell for between £7500 and £10,000 perhectare. However, a block of land suitable for pony paddocks, close to Cambridge,Huntingdon or the larger villages could go for a far higher sum.

Agricultural Holdings Affected

A total of 74 agricultural holdings are affected by the route options. Arable farmsizes are typically in the range of 100 ha to 500 ha but there are some larger farms;the largest being 4000 ha. Holdings smaller than 50 ha, or so, are generallyclassed as part time enterprises in that the owner relies on additional sources ofincome, such as contracting. There are only two full time smallholdings in the routecorridor.

5.10.4 Potential Impacts - Permanent and Long Term

This section describes the impacts of the A14 improvement that could be long termor permanent unless mitigation measures are designed into the scheme. Likelyshort term construction impacts are summarised in a later section.

Impacts that are irreversible and permanent are:

Some impacts that are long term may, in time, become less significant as patternsof farm ownership and management change. These include:

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON FARM VIABILITY

For each route option the impact on affected holdings has been assessed todetermine the cumulative effects of land loss, severance and disruption tomanagement.

All impacts apart from land take can, in theory, be mitigated. However, somesevered parcels of land are too small to justify the cost of providing alternativeaccess. Overall impacts on the agricultural enterprise are assessed both with andwith out the proposed mitigation, so in most cases the main long term impact is thatresulting from loss of land and disruption due to the division of the farm by the roadscheme.

All agricultural impacts of this scheme are adverse and are graded on a scale fromslight to major, as shown in Table 5.27.

Table 5.27 - Scale of Farm Impacts
ImpactDescription of Impact Grade
Slight adverseThe farm will experience only minor disruption, or a decrease in land area and/or potentially profitability of less than 2%
Minor adverseLand loss or disruption to the farm will affect the land area and/or the potential profitability of the holding by 2% - 5%
ModerateLand loss or disruption to the farm will affect the land area and/or adverse potential profitability of the holding by 55 - 10%
Major adverseThere will be severe disruption to farming practice and the way the farm is managed. Land area and/ or profitability will be reduced by more than 10%
IMPACTS OF THE ROUTE OPTIONS

The impacts of the route have been assessed and detailed schedules summarisingthe impacts are included within the EAR. The information covers:

The impacts of each route option are summarised below in Tables 5.28 to 5.30.This shows that the greatest differences in impacts between the route options arein total land take and loss of land in Grades 2 and 3a.

Table 5.28 - Summary of Impacts of the Optimum Junction Strategy Route Options
OptionTotal land take (ha)Loss of land in G2-3a in off-line sections (ha)Farms affectedMajor farm impacts after mitigationModerate farm impacts after mitigationMinor farm impacts after mitigationSlight farm impacts after mitigationZero farm impacts after mitigation
B4(a)30611857111315153
B5(a) & B6(a)29712953101216141
O3(a)3111085581117172
O4(a)2801005181016170
P1(a)2768657101118153
P2(a) & P3(a)2679753101018141
B/O3(a)3101125691317152
B/O4(a)2911265491317150
P/O1(a)280785691119152
P/O2(a)261925491119150
Range261-31186-13951-578-1110-1315-1914-170-3
Mean2881055591217151.5
Table 5.29 - Ranking of Optimum Junction Strategy Options in Terms of Total Land Take
Total Land Take (ha)Option
31103(a)
310B/03(a)
306B4(a)
297B5(a) & B6(a)
291B/04(a)
28004(a)
280P/01(a)
276P1(a)
267P2(a) & P3(a)
261P/02(a)
Table 5.30 - Ranking of Optimum Junction Strategy Options in Terms of Loss of Grades 2 and 3a
Loss of Grades 2-3a in offline Sections (ha)Option
129B5(a) & B6(a)
126B/04(a)
118B4(a)
112B/03(a)
10803(a)
10004(a)
97P2(a) & P3(a)
92P/02(a)
86P1(a)
78P/01(a)

Total land take is probably the most significant impact in terms of ranking the routeoptions. Floodplains apart, the ALC grade is less significant on this generally heavyarable land than it is in other parts of the country where the grading system reflectsmore contrasting soil conditions. Here the difference between land in Grade 3b and3a is generally slight or non-existent in terms of cropping and yields. Only a smallarea of Grade 2 loamy river terrace soils around Fenstanton and Brampton,traditionally used for horticulture, are affected by the off-line options.

The routes with the greatest impact in terms of land take are 03a, B103a and B4a,taking 311ha, 310ha and 306ha respectively. B4a is has the greatest impact of thethree in terms of loss of Grades 2 and 3a (ll8ha) and farms suffering a major impact(11).

The routes with the least impact in terms of land take are P/02a, P2a/P3a and Pla,taking 261 ha, 267ha and 276ha respectively. Losses of Grades 2 and 3a are allbelow the mean.

IMPACTS OF THE LIMITED JUNCTION OPTION ROUTE OPTIONS

The impacts are summarised in Table 5.31 and ranked according to total land takeand loss of land in Grades 2 and 3a in Tables 5.32 and 5.33.

Table 5.31 - Summary of Impacts of the Limited Junction Option
OptionTotal land take (ha)Loss of land in G2-3a in off-line sections (ha)Farms affectedMajor farm impacts after mitigationModerate farm impacts after mitigationMinor farm impacts after mitigationSlight farm impacts after mitigationZero farm impacts after mitigation
B730711857111315153
B8&B929812953101216141
O53121085581117172
O62801005181016170
B/O53111325691317152
B/O62921264691317150
Range280-312100-13246-578-1110-1315-1714-170-3
Mean3001195391216161.5
Table 5.32 - Ranking of Limited Junction Option in Terms of Total Land Take
Total Land TakeOption
312O5
311B/O5
307B7
298B8 & B9
292B/O6
280O6
Table 5.33 - Ranking of Limited Junction Option in Terms of Loss of Grades 2 and 3a
Loss of Grades 2-3a in offline Sections (ha)Option
132B/O5
129B8 & B9
126B/O6
118B7
108O5
100O6

These tables show that the total land take for the Limited Junction Options is in therange of 280 - 312ha with a mean of 300ha.

Option 05 and B/05 have the greatest impact, taking 312ha and 311harespectively. B/05 also has the added adverse impact of taking the most land inGrades 2 and 3a (132ha).

Option 06 has the least impact, taking only 280ha. It also takes the least land inGrades 2 and 3a (100ha) and has the fewest farms (8) suffering a major impact.The route having the next lowest impact is B/06, taking 292ha of which 126ha arein Grades 2 and 3a. Nine farms suffer a major impact.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS - CONSTRUCTION PHASE

This section summarises the potential impacts at the construction phase. They arenot covered in detail here as they will be the subject of investigation in Stage 3. Theconstruction phase covers the period of the initial erection of fencing and definingthe way leave area, through to completion of all post-construction boundary repairs,replanting and landscaping works.

Some of the impacts which occur during the construction stage, will become longtermones. These include severance, water provision and drainage. The mainconstruction phase impacts are:

5.10.5 Summary of Agricultural Impacts

This Stage 2 assessment has considered the long-term and permanent impacts ofthe proposed A14 improvement on agricultural properties. The assessment wascarried out in accordance with DMRB, using evaluation criteria that allow acomparative analysis of impacts.

A number of impacts are long-term and can be mitigated as follows, by:

The assessment shows that for the options described in this report the OptimumJunction Strategy route combinations containing the purple option have the leastimpact on farming in the route corridor while those containing the orange and blueoptions have the greatest. The exceptions to this pattern are orange andblue/orange routes that include option 6 which take less land at the western end.

For the Limited Junction Options, it is the orange and blue/orange routes thatinclude Option 6 which have the least impact.


5. Environmental Assessment -10

5. Environmental Assessment -11

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.11 Landscape Effects

5.11.1 Introduction

This section assesses the existing landscape context including landscapecharacter and quality, the effects of the improvement options on the landscape,local views and townscape, and the proposed broad landscape mitigationmeasures. It classifies and evaluates the existing landscape and visual resource ofthe study area, identifies potential positive and negative impacts of the options andassesses their significance.

The study area for landscape and visual impact encompasses the day time visualenvelope. Topography, built up areas and significant vegetation has been used todefine the extent of views from the existing A14 and proposed routes of the A14. Inthe flatter areas where the horizon forms the limit of views, a distance of 1km fromthe line of the road has been used to define the study area.

5.11.2 Method of Assessment

This assessment has been undertaken through desk top studies and fieldwork. Inundertaking the assessment consideration has been given to the following;

The assessment of landscape character involves the classification of the landscapeinto broadly homogenous landscape types identified by similar physical / naturalelements, for example, landform, vegetation, land cover and man-made elementssuch as the historical and cultural components, including settlement patterns andland use.

The assessment of landscape quality takes account of designations by localauthorities, the historical and cultural associations in the area, and a visualappraisal undertaken by a Landscape Architect. It is a term used to indicate valuebased on character, condition and aesthetic appeal. The landscape is classified ona five point scale with parkland identified separately, which is related to landscapequality on both a national and local level. The five levels of quality as defined in theDesign Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, are as follows;

The landscape and visual impact assessment has been carried out in accordancewith the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 5 and has taken account of theapproach used inTAG.

The Countryside Agency guidance; "Landscape Character Assessment", April 2002has been referred to for the analysis of the existing landscape as has TheLandscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessmentpublication: "Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment" (GLVIA)Second Edition.

The guidance recommends that the quality of the scene is considered without thescheme and compared to the situation if the scheme were built. Adverse orbeneficial changes can then be classified according to the following scale;

Changes in visual impact would arise as a result of the loss of existing componentse.g. the loss of existing vegetation, the restriction of long distance views andchanges to landscape character, and the introduction of new features such asearthworks, structures and lighting, as well as traffic using the new road. The visualimpact assessment considers the impact on a winter day in the year of opening totraffic including any mitigation measures which would be effective, for example,fencing and the road's impact in the summer of year fifteen after opening takingaccount of all proposed planting (except off-site planting).

5.11.3 Existing Landscape Character

The Countryside Character Initiative, overseen by the Countryside Agency, isconcerned with the character of England's countryside at the end of the 20thCentury and has mapped the country into 159 separate, distinctive character areas.These designations are intended to contribute towards policy development andlocal planning, action and development.

The A14 Improvement options fall within the Countryside Agency's 'Bedfordshireand Cambridgeshire Claylands' character area. The Cambridgeshire CountyCouncil's publication 'The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines' indicate that theoptions mainly fall within two landscape character areas; the 'Western Claylands'and 'Ouse Valley', with the improvement section north east of Cambridge justfalling within the 'Chalklands' and 'Fenlands' character areas.

The Cambridge City Council's Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment April2003 sub-divides these areas into the following character areas;

More detailed analysis of the landscape character of Huntingdonshire is availableas part of the Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment July 2003.This sub-divides the overall Cambridgeshire designations of the study area withinHuntingdonshire into the following character areas;

Similarly, the Cambridge Green Belt Study for South Cambridgeshire DistrictCouncil September 2002, sub-divides the green belt around Cambridge intodetailed character areas, those appropriate to this appraisal are;

A survey has been undertaken of the existing vegetation, this is illustrated in theEAR.

Soils are mostly described as 'best and most versatile' and are Grade 2 and 3a,there is some Grade 3b on the heavier clays and Grade 4 in the floodplains. Soilsrange from variable clays on the higher ground to free draining barns on the riverterraces and wet, clayey alluvial soils in the floodplains.

West of Cambridge the landscape south of the A14 is predominantly undulatingand north of the A14 flat, both with expansive views of large scale intensive arablefarmland, contained either by sparse trimmed hedgerows, open ditches orstreamside vegetation. The scattered woods, some of which are ancient woodlandsform important visual and wildlife features.

The shallow valleys of the river Great Ouse and Ivel pass through a picturesqueand enclosed landscape, meandering through a mosaic of water meadows,working and disused gravel pits and lakes. The area is an important localrecreational resource.

Early settlement has influenced the development of the area and archaeologicalevidence is abundant in the valleys. Both the existing A14 and proposed optionspass close to the Cambridge northern fringe and settlements south of Huntingdonsuch as Brampton and Godmanchester. Cambridgeshire County Council are in theprocess of undertaking an Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) analysiswhich will provide information on the historic evolution of the landscape and whenavailable this would be a helpful additional tool in the assessment of impact on thelandscape.

Settlement within the arable landscape is sparse with small villages and isolatedfarms scattered throughout the area, usually in sheltered places with existing trees.Small grass paddocks typically occur on the edges of villages. Church spires andtowers together with windmills and water towers form distinctive local landmarks.The historic city of Cambridge is located to the east of the study area. The town ofGodmanchester has important roman connections and Buckden was a formercoaching stop for the A1Great North Road. The expansion of the town ofHuntingdon has resulted in new industrial and residential built edges encroachingon the open countryside which somewhat degrade the local landscape character.

5.11.4 Existing Landscape Quality

Landscape quality is a term used to indicate value based on character, conditionand aesthetic appeal.

Most of the study area south of the existing A14 is considered to be good qualitywith its undulating landform, frequent vegetation, small villages and hamlets. Manyof the settlements incorporate Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Sites ofArchaeological Interest. Brampton Wood at the western end of the scheme isancient woodland and SSSI. The river Great Ouse and adjacent areas designatedas a County Wildlife Site have a particularly attractive local character. The riverCam corridor is also designated as a County Wildlife site and nature conservationarea. Close by is Milton Country Park whose southern boundary abuts the A14 andpresents a well vegetated edge. The route corridor around Cambridge falls withinthe Green Belt. Huntingdonshire District Council are currently reviewing theirConservation Area boundaries, with consultation on revisions expected in Spring2005.

In the past some of the study area has been designated as an 'Area of BestLandscape', although this criterion has given way to the more character basedassessments, these areas are noted on the environmental constraints plans.

Worth noting are three registered parks and gardens of historic interest, these arewell to the south of the study area and should not be affected by the proposals.They are Childerly Park, Madingley Park and the American Military Cemetery. TheCambridge Landscape Character Assessment undertaken by Cambridgeshire CityCouncil states that "the elevated land to the west around Madingly Wood andBarton is also a prominent feature in the landscape. There are some exceptionalviews from this area back towards the city.

Land north of the A14, except for the Ouse Valley character area, is generallyconsidered to be of ordinary quality due to its flat open and unchanging nature withlittle vegetation. Residential, industrial and commercial development within thestudy area falls within this category as does land immediately adjacent to theCambridge Northern Bypass.

Overall the landscape is considered to be of ordinary to good quality, with moreattractive landscape in the river valleys.

5.11.5 Townscape

The A14 Improvement proposals do not directly affect the townscapes of any of thesettlements within the route corridor although they would have an indirect impacton the fringes of the towns and villages along the existing A14 for on-lineproposals; widening of the carriageway and the loss of road side vegetation in theshort term, new structures and lighting would combine to cause adverse visualimpact. At some locations, for example, Girton, Impington and Fenstantonproperties are currently in extremely close proximity to the existing A14. Fenstantonis already separated by the A14 with some properties somewhat isolated to thesouth and widening would worsen this situation. In addition, the on-lineimprovement proposals come very close to the western edge of the town whichfalls within the designated conservation area.

On the other hand it is likely that Godmanchester and to a lesser extent Huntingdonwould experience a reduction in through traffic and an improvement in the locallandscape character, although properties on the southern edge of Godmanchesterwould suffer visual impact from the proposed off line options. The removal of theHuntingdon viaduct and replacement with a ground level single carriagewayconnection would have positive benefits visually for the town, although there maybe some localised increase in traffic using Brampton Road out of Huntingdon inpreference to travelling through Godmanchester. Mill Common and ViewsCommon are used as public open space, a small area of Mill Common, at the footof the existing A14 embankment is Common Land. Subject to detail design of the atgrade junction options may affect this area.

The existing A14 skirts the northern fringes of Cambridge on low embankment andis visually dominant within the local landscape. It passes through an area of mixedland use including; commercial, business park and science park, industrial units,Cambridge Regional College and open fields with some ancient hedgerows.However, the road user gains extensive views towards the city including glimpsesof church spires and colleges. Land between the A14 and Kings Hedges has beenearmarked for development and there would need to be a balance betweenscreening the A14 corridor and retaining important views to the city landmarks.

The off-line options would impact upon villages and hamlets currently unaffected bythe existing A14 and these impacts are considered within the next section: effectson the Landscape.

LIGHTING

The existing A14 is lit on the approaches to the M11 junction 14. The proposal isfor the new A14 to be lit from Bar Hill to Fen Ditton and at all other interchanges.

The visual impact assessment assumes that the proposed lighting columns arelikely to be 12 and 15 m twin arm and single columns with high pressure, sodiumfull cut-off flat glass lanterns.

The lighting proposals would increase the levels of adverse visual impact onproperties and would adversely affect the character of the local landscape at night.

Distance between properties and the lighting is an important element in assessingintrusiveness of the scheme. Over a long distance, the lighting columns wouldbecome an insignificant feature in the landscape during the day, but would besignificant at close quarters. At night however, while cut-off lanterns restrict lightspill to a limited area, the light source may be visible over a considerable distance.The likely intrusiveness of the lighting is dependent upon existing conditions.Where the lighting is an extension of that already existing, the impact would be lessthan where there is currently no lighting at all. The presence of other aerialelements such as power lines etc. can also have a bearing on the effect of thelighting on the surrounding landscape during the day.

Screening of lighting by structures or vegetation that exist or are placed betweenthe lighting and the observer would help to reduce the overall visual impact. Theeffectiveness of vegetation would depend upon its height and density, and alsowhether or not shrubs and trees are deciduous, which would clearly affect theintrusiveness on a seasonal basis. Additional planting is proposed at interchangeswhich would alleviate the visual impacts to some extent.

5.11.6 Effects on the Landscape

The appraisal which follows is an initial overview of the potential landscape andvisual impacts of the A14 Improvement proposals. The effects are described for themainline alignments; alternatives 3, 4 and 6 relate to options between Ellington andGodmanchester. Refer to Section 3 of this report for a description of the SchemeProposals.

At this stage an indicative assessment has been made of the visual impact onindividual properties, more detailed assessments will take place following theselection of a preferred route.

5.11.7 Section 1: Ellington to Godmanchester

SUB-SECTION A - ELLINGTON TO A1 BRAMPTON INTERCHANGE
Blue/Purple/Orange Option

The common route alignment curves south from the existing A14 at Ellington andrises on approximately 3m embankment to the proposed Ellington junction at whichpoint it enters a deep cutting(-l5m) passing close to Brampton wood SSSI, then atgrade from the proposed bridleway over bridge to the Brampton to Grafham Roadover bridge. This alignment would significantly alter the open agricultural characterof the local landscape, some avenue trees and hedges along the bridleway accessto Brampton Wood would be lost and despite the road being in cutting for some ofits length, the isolated farms and public rights of ways are likely to suffer substantialadverse visual impact from the earthworks and night time lighting at the Ellingtonjunction. Some widening of the existing A1 would be required to overcomeweaving and this would result in the loss of existing roadside vegetation.

Blue/Purple Option A1 Alternatives 3 and 4

This option leaves the existing A14 nearer to the Brampton Hut services than theBlue/Purple/Orange common route and follows the A1 corridor before joining themain Blue/Purple alignment south of Brampton. Alignment 3 crosses over the A1and alignment 4 passes under the A1. By utilising the A1 corridor there would beless impact on the landscape character of the area between Ellington and the A1Brampton Interchange, including Brampton Wood SSSI and less visual impact onmost of the isolated properties within the rural landscape, however, the new roadwould be closer to Brampton itself. Some existing vegetation would be lost to thescheme and at least some of the small fishing lakes and mature planting at theA1/Brampton Road junction would be affected by the re aligned Brampton-GrafhamRoad over bridge on 9m height embankment. This would be offset by slightly lowerprofiles required for the A1 Brampton junction.

Alternative 4 which passes under the A1 in cutting would have less visual impactthan alternative 3 which crosses over the A1 on approximately 7m heightembankment.

Orange Option A1 Alternative 6

This alignment leaves the existing A14 and follows the Blue/Purple alternative nearto the Brampton Hut services but follows the A1 corridor south of the existing road,the A1 Brampton Interchange being very similar to the main orange option.

This alignment has the advantage of utilising the existing A1 corridor and beinglocated further away from Brampton Wood SSSI, than the common route and theA1 Brampton Interchange being further from Brampton than the Blue/Purplealignments, however, one of the embankments would be somewhat higher at 13m.Unlike the Blue/Purple alternatives, it does not affect the fishing lakes andassociated vegetation.

SUB-SECTION B - A1 BRAMPTON INTERCHANGE TO GODMANCHESTER
Blue/Purple Option A1

The Blue/Purple alignment passes over the A1 at the proposed Bramptoninterchange on approximately 9m height embankments, and then over theBrampton to Buckden Road at grade, continuing eastward and to the north of theBuckden North landfill, through the southern part of the Brampton Golf Course.Earthworks and night time lighting at the interchange would adversely impact uponproperties on the southern edge of Brampton and to a lesser extent, Buckden.Vegetation protected by Tree Preservation Orders would be affected.

From the eastern edge of the landfill, the alignment crosses the Great Ousefloodplain and the river Great Ouse on a continuous viaduct at about 13m at itshighest point, above the river. Within the floodplain on the west bank is a zonedesignated as a County Wildlife Site which would be spanned by the viaductstructure. This river corridor is visually enclosed and peaceful. It is an importantrecreational area for walking via the Ouse Valley Way, boating and enjoying accessto the countryside and the area would suffer substantial visual impact.

On reaching the eastern bank of the floodplain the alignment crosses the EastCoast Mainline Railway before continuing eastwards to the proposedGodmanchester junction close to Wood Green Animal Shelter on the A1198. Thealignment would be visible to individual properties within the open agriculturallandscape as well as properties on the outskirts of Godmanchester, particularlywhen on 3m embankments either side of Silver Street. Silver Street is also theroute of a pathfinder long distance footpath.

Some existing vegetation would be lost to the scheme, particularly adjacent to theriver Great Ouse and hedgerows south west of Godmanchester.

Orange Option

This option crosses the A1 slightly further south and on marginally lowerembankment at 8m than the Blue/Purple option and then passes south of theBuckden South landfill site at approximately the same height as the adjacent landfilland is likely to have a greater impact on Buckden than the Blue/Purple route.The alignment then crosses the floodplain, river Great Ouse and the East CoastMainline Railway on a continuous viaduct structure about 1.2 km long, and l3mabove the river at its highest point. In common with the Blue/Purple option, theviaduct crosses over the County Wildlife Site on the west bank of the river andwould have similar adverse impacts on the tranquillity of the river corridor andrecreational activities. The additional length of viaduct and 12m embankmentheight at its eastern end would however result in a worse visual impact.

The alignment then passes south of the Offord Hill properties and continueseastwards to join the A1198 south of the Beaconsfield Equestrian Centre. The roadwould be in deep cutting as it approaches Silver Street and again on the approachto the A1198, however, it would be on 3m embankment east of Silver Street andwould therefore be visible within the wider landscape and certainly for properties onthe edge of Godmanchester. The re-aligned Silver Street local access road onembankment would also add to the adverse visual impact.

Some existing vegetation would be lost to the scheme, including vegetationprotected by a Tree Preservation Order on Brampton Road, riverside trees andmature tree belts and hedgerows on the A1198.

Blue/Purple Dashed Option

This alignment runs through Offord Hill ridge to allow the possibility of connectingthe Orange option to the south of Buckden South landfill with the Blue/Purpleoption at the A1198. It passes through the open arable landscape with the realignedSilver Street local road on 8m embankments. The route is mainly in ashallow cutting of 3m depth with a short length on 2m high low embankment andwould be visible to isolated properties within the landscape.

5.11.8 Section 2 : Godmanchester to Bar Hill

BLUE OPTION

From the A1198 the alignment crosses open arable farmland in deep cuffing as faras Mere Way where it converts to low 3m embankment, passing to the south ofFenstanton and to the north of Hilton and Connington before joining the existingA14 at the Trinity Foot junction. The existing minor roads and tracks would be realignedand cross the proposed road on embankment - at 9m average heightabove existing ground level.

The landscape character adjacent to Moat's Way near Littlebury Farm is verydistinctive locally with small fields enclosed by well developed mature hedges andtrees, some scrub and copses reminiscent of a pre-war agricultural landscape. Thequality of this landscape would be adversely affected by the alignment due to theloss of vegetation and changes to the scale and pattern of the local landscape

.

Existing vegetation south of Fenstanton and in the vicinity of Hilton and Conningtonwould filter views of the proposed road. However, because the road would be onembankment and would introduce new earthworks into the landscape toaccommodate the local roads there would be an adverse visual impact on landformand for some properties. As the Blue option moves nearer to the existing A14,views of the existing A14 traffic become more intrusive and consequently therewould be less change from the existing situation.

Between Trinity Foot and Hill Farm Cottages there is online asymmetrical wideningalong the existing A14 corridor, the existing road being widened to the south. Fromthis point it moves off line to the north of Bar Hill before tying into the commonsection of the route. There is limited existing vegetation on the south side of theA14 along this section and views of the A14 are open from Cambridge Services,Clare College Farm and Lolworth. Traffic would be moved nearer to properties andtogether with the introduction of new junctions with night time lighting adversevisual impact would be experienced.

PURPLE OPTION

This alignment follows the Blue route for 2km in cutting, before moving northeastcontinuing in cutting across farmland, skirting the Golf Course to join the existingA14 to the west of Gore Tree Farm.

For the locally distinctive landscape at Littlebury Farm the impact would be as forthe Blue route with slightly more existing hedgerow affected. There would be openviews from the Golf Course and individual properties adjacent the A14, forexample, Rectory Farm would also have clear views towards the proposedalignment.

From the Galley Hill junction the A14 is then widened to the north to avoid theArthur's Meadow SSSI before continuing to Fenstanton and Bar Hill by widening onthe south. From Trinity Foot the route is common with the Blue and Orangeoptions.

The conservation area at Fenstanton is avoided, but it does result in the loss of thefilling station on the south side of the existing A14 at Galley Hill and four houses inthe vicinity of the Fenstanton Subway. Existing vegetation would be lost. The majorimpacts in this section would be within the existing route corridor, therefore thenumerous properties immediately adjacent to the route would experience asubstantial to moderate adverse effect, whereas the properties scatteredthroughout the landscape would experience a slight adverse or no additionalchange in view.

ORANGE OPTION

From the A1198 the alignment crosses open arable farmland in deep cutting toMere Way where it converts to low 2m embankment joining the Blue route at HiltonRoad to continue eastwards to the A14 at Trinity Foot.

Earthworks for the re-aligned minor roads to cross the route would average 9mabove existing ground levels. From Mere Way the route would be visible within thelandscape although topography and existing vegetation would filter some views.The A14 is not visible from Hilton and Connington at this section of the route andthere would therefore be a significant adverse change in view for isolatedproperties and the edges of the settlements where views to the proposed optionwould be possible.

5.11.9 Section 3: Bar Hill to Fen Ditton

COMMON SECTION

This section connects the offline Bar Hill junction and the M11 junction 14, with thelocal access road (LAR) aligned to the south of the proposed mainline utilising theexisting westbound carriageway. The existing junction at Dry Drayton would beredesigned. The existing National Trail, long distance footpath would need to beaccommodated within the new structure.

The route joins the Cambridge Northern Bypass (CNB) at the M11 junction 14which would be reconfigured and then follows the CNB around the northern edge ofCambridge through two interchanges at Histon and Milton to the end of theproposed A14 Improvements at Fen Ditton. A new footbridge / cycle path over theA14 at Milton has recently been opened allowing easier access from the city to thesuburbs and beyond.

From the M11 junction 14 to Fen Ditton there would be a need for new retainingstructures, for example, at Girton, which would necessitate the removal of existingtrees and shrubs on the lower embankment slopes, as well as appreciableembankment widening - again with the loss of the existing screen planting. Theedge of Milton Country Park would suffer such a loss of vegetation. The river Camcrossing would require modification and this would adversely impact upon the riverCam recreational corridor and attractive landscape character. The Cambridge CityCouncil Landscape Character Assessment identifies the area within its rivercorridor character area and seeks to safeguard the character of the river andimmediate floodplain.

The CNB passes through not particularly distinctive fringe landscape with thesatellite villages of Girton, Histon/lmpington, Milton and Fen Ditton. It is howeverwithin the Cambridge Green Belt. The existing road side screening which currentlyfilters views of traffic would be lost and this would cause an immediate adversevisual impact. The Arbury Park proposed new housing development will be locatedadjacent to the A14 south east of the Histon interchange and this would need totaken into account during any future detailed design stage.

The River Cam corridor provides an open rural setting to the river and a greenfinger access under the A14 from Cambridge to the countryside and is used forwalking - the Fen River Way and Harcamlow Way national trails, fishing andboating. The Mere Way byway is another green corridor allowing access under theA14 and is located between Histon and Milton, it follows the line of the roman roadand passes adjacent to the traveller's site north of the A14.

5.11.10 Visual Impact on Properties

The likely visual impact of the proposed options on residential properties issummarised as follows:

5.11.11 Mitigation Measures

LANDSCAPE PROPOSALS

The landscape proposals aim to reflect and enhance the character of the area.Indicative landscape proposals for the TAR preferred route are illustrated ondrawings 5021044/044/DR/EN1042 to 051 (Orange Route with A1 Alternative 6).Landscape proposals for other options have been prepared and are included in theEAR. At this stage the proposals are indicative only, the principles and objectives tobe used in producing the detailed design are listed below.

Integration of the scheme with the surrounding countryside and landscape throughsensitive road alignment, siting of structures, ground modelling and planting;

EARTHWORKS

Ideally, earthworks should not be too free draining to aid successful plantestablishment or be steeper than 1:3 for landscape maintenance safety and toprevent them from being too visually intrusive. Earthwork design profiles shouldreflect existing natural slopes. Where possible the side slope angle should bevaried to match existing topography and in this way earthworks avoid emphasisingthe line of the road. Junctions between new artificial gradients and natural onesneed careful attention to detail. There are benefits in rounding off the crests andtoes of cutting and embankment slopes to a gentle profile, creation a gradualtransition to the natural landform.

TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING

Proposals would take nature conservation and wildlife interest into consideration aspart of the detailed design stage. Of great importance would be the protection andmanagement of existing vegetation to be retained and integration of the proposalswith this retained vegetation. Locally indigenous native plants to reflect thedistinctive local character would be used. It may be appropriate to plant moreornamental varieties at key urban locations, for example, roundabouts /interchanges, village gateways and lay-bys to give a sense of place.

Cambridgeshire County Council have requested that, as far as possible, wherecompost / soil improvers are used, they should be from recycled garden wastecompost provided by Cambridgeshire County Council contractors. Products wouldneed to meet the usual Highways Agency specification requirements.

Key planting types are likely to be;

The proposed planting would eventually have a range of plant heights from shrubsonly, to mixed trees and shrubs and open tree groups giving a variety of layers atdifferent locations. Initial planting sizes would vary from 2 year old transplants tofeathered and standard trees.

Shrub Lines

Shrub lines would be proposed with individual trees where appropriate to link withexisting hedgerows to maintain the local landscape character and act as a filteringvisual screen and wildlife corridor.

Offsite Planting by Agreement

Planting by agreement with landowners outside the highway boundary could beoffered to augment on site proposals and help achieve landscape mitigationobjectives.

LAND ACQUIRED BY COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (CPO)

For an effective landscape scheme to be undertaken it may be necessary toacquire land that is essential for the proposals, outside the area required strictly forengineering purposes but included in the CPO. This land would be usedpredominantly for dense tree and shrub planting.

BALANCING PONDS

Balancing ponds regulate water run-off from the scheme thereby reducing the riskof flooding and controlling pollution via interceptors. They would be designed with anatural shape, in sympathy with the surrounding topography and to ecologicalprinciples.

GREEN BRIDGES

Cambridgeshire County Council are exploring the possibility of using 'greenbridges' to maintain habitat and access links at key points on certain developments.It may be feasible to incorporate such ideas into the A14 scheme but this would bea matter for consideration at the detailed design stage.

5.11.12 Summary

Many of the likely, long term impacts from the A14 Improvement proposals arecommon to all options;

Major differences in the options are that;

LIMITED JUNCTION OPTIONS

This limited junction strategy relates to the Blue and Orange options only and theaffects would be substantially the same as for the Enhanced Junction Strategyoption described previously. The main differences in impact result from the LARbetween Fen Drayton and the M11 resulting in a slight increase impact.Summarised as follows:


5. Environmental Assessment -11

5. Environmental Assessment -12

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.12 Ecology and Nature Conservation

5.12.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the key ecological features as they are understood at themoment, identifies key issues associated with the options for the upgrading of theA14 and describes the potential requirement for mitigation measures that should beincluded within the design proposals. Mitigation is taken into account in theassessment of the overall (residual) impact of each of the main options.

All of the options comprise of a similar route at the eastern end of the schemebetween Bar Hill and Fen Ditton, with the differences between options relating tothe proposed junction arrangements. West of the Trinity Foot junction, the optionsmainly relate to offline proposals.

The assessment has been undertaken according to Stage 2 DMRB, using the TAGappraisal methodology, with the terminology of the overall assessment scoremodified following the 'Bridging Document' Applying the Multi-modal New Approachto Appraisal to Highway Schemes (April 2001). TAG provides specific advice onevaluating features of nature conservation interest, assessing the magnitude andsignificance of impacts and assigning an overall assessment score for an option.

This section provides a description of the method of assessment. The followingsections provide:

In the first instance, an information gathering exercise was undertaken with thefollowing organisations:

These consultees provided information on statutory and non-statutory designatedsites and records of legally protected species within a corridor of 1 km either side ofthe proposed A14 route options.

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and was consulted in respect of species ofnational biodiversity concern. The Cambridgeshire Biodiversity Action Plan wasconsulted in respect of locally notable species and habitats.

A walk-over survey of the area was undertaken (August-October 2003), as far aspermissions allowed, to allow the major land uses to be identified and to identifywhere further survey would be required.

The surveys broadly followed the 'Extended Phase 1' methodology as set out inGuidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of EnvironmentalAssessment 1995). The extended Phase 1 habitat survey provides information onthe habitats in the survey area and assesses the potential for notable fauna tooccur in or adjacent to the site. Plant names follow New Flora of the British Isles(2nd edition, Stace 1997). The survey corridor extended to 500m either side of theroute options, except in the case of breeding birds, where survey effort wasfocussed within a 500m corridor of the offline section of the proposed route options.Following the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, more detailed ecological surveys targetingspecific species were conducted between March-July 2004, to assist in theelaboration of route options.

5.12.2 Legally Protected Species

Legal protection is afforded to a number of species through legislation including theBadgers Act 1992 (as amended), the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (asamended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 and theCountryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW) 2000. The species include badgers,bats, common otter, hazel dormouse, amphibians and reptiles, water vole, wildbirds and white-clawed crayfish.

With respect to legally protected species, the following characteristics wererecorded:

In some areas, surveys for legally protected species were limited by accessconstraints. The information available and described in this section should nottherefore be viewed as complete or definitive.

The ecological surveys have not tried to produce a comprehensive list of plants andanimals for the site, as any ecological survey will be limited by factors which affectthe presence of plants and animals such as the time of year, migration patterns andbehaviour. The survey was limited in some areas by being restricted to public roadsand rights of way. The overall assessment scores reflect the impacts on designatedsites of ecological value. Specifically, although the presence of legally protectedspecies is noted where it is known, they are not taken into account in theassessment of impacts, due to an inadequate level of detail. With this caveat inmind, the results allow an appropriate level of assessment for Stage 2 DMRB.

IMPACT TERMINOLOGY

The specialist reports on species have been included in the EAR and use an inhouseimpact methodology for assessing the significance of impacts. Thesignificance of the predicted impacts in the main report, the TAG Worksheets andASTs has been standardised using the TAG methodology with the terminology ofthe overall assessment score modified following the 'Bridging Document' Applyingthe Multi-modal New Approach to Appraisal to Highway Schemes (April 2001).

5.12.3 Existing Conditions

GENERAL BACKGROUND, DESIGNATED SITES AND HABITATS

The A14 Improvement options chiefly fall within English Nature's 'West AnglianPlain Natural Area'. Some of the key characteristics of the area are:

Flat or gently rolling land with managed hawthorn hedges and occasionalancient woods, separated by extensive tracts of intensively managed arableland;

At its western end the route corridor passes through gently undulating arable landwith largely arable fields bounded by ditches and/or hedgerows. The proposedroute passes within 0.5km of the Brampton Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest(SSSI), an ancient woodland of the wet ash-maple woodland type. Theconfiguration of the Ellington Junction option passes adjacent to the BramptonMeadow SSSI, a neutral grassland site, part of which was translocated to theexisting site as a result of the previous A14 link road works. To the south ofHuntingdon the corridor is dominated by the Great Ouse Valley with its associatedfloodplain, and the presence of pastoral farmed areas along/adjacent to the rivercorridor. One SSSI is present here - Portholme Meadow cSAC (CandidateSpecial Area of Conservation)/SSSI, a flood meadow relict from the old drainagesystem. Buckden Pits a County Wildlife Site, a series of flooded gravel pitsadjacent to the Ouse is also in this vicinity. To the east of the Ouse Valley thelandscape is again undulating, and predominantly turned over to arable use. ThePurple route option comes back 'online' to the west south of Hemingford Greyvillage, passing in close proximity to Hemingford Grey Meadow SSSI, a speciesrichmeadow of the calcareous clay pasture type, a type restricted nationally to thesouth of the country and declining due to changes in traditional managementpractices.

KEY SURVEY RESULTS
Habitats

The following key habitats were identified along the route corridor:

Trees and Woodland

The most important woodland in the area is Brampton Wood SSSI. At 132 ha,Brampton Wood is one of the largest remaining blocks of ancient woodland inCambridgeshire. It is of the wet ash-maple woodland type which is nationallyrestricted to heavy soils in lowland England. The rides support a rich neutralgrassland flora, representing additional plant communities which are nowuncommon in the county. Parts of the woodland have been modified by forestryactivities but a large area remains as mixed coppice of ash, field maple and hazel.Birch and aspen are also frequent throughout the wood, together with occasionaloak standards.

The woodland provides a rich ground flora of the dog's mercury-bluebell type. Avariety of plants characteristic of ancient woodland sites are present including woodanemone, wood sedge, remote sedge, yellow archangel, primrose and violets.

Elsewhere along the route corridor, there are occasional small copses, and maturetrees e.g. oak and ash trees, as standards within hedgerow field boundaries.

Hedges are predominantly of hawthorn.

Hedgerows and Scrub

Hedgerows are a common field boundary feature in this area, with hedgerowsranging from over-managed, gappy hedgerows to over-mature, species-richhedgerows. Hawthorn is the predominant species with some elder, blackthorn andoccasionally ash.

Other scrub formations are rare, limited to elder on the edges of farm holdings, theelder and hawthorn shrub layer of the shelter belts.

Grassland and Meadows

Grassland habitats comprise fields of pasture, particularly along the Ouse Valley,and the unmanaged grasslands of ditch banks, roadside verges and the remainingsections of railway embankment.

The unmanaged grasslands do not appear particularly rich in herb species.Common herbs such as cow parsley, dead nettle, dandelion, chickweed, thistle andcreeping buttercup are found throughout. Locally, common mallow and hemlockoccur, and glaucous sedge is found in some places along the railway embankment.

Three statutorily designated species-rich meadows occur in close proximity to theroute corridor. Brampton Meadow SSSI (0.97 ha) exhibits plant communities of thecalcareous clay pasture type. Grasslands of this type are restricted to the south ofthe country and are generally declining due to changes from traditionalmanagement practices. The plant community was originally characterised by theoccurrence of species such as quaking-grass, adder's-tongue, and cowslip. Alsopresent were green-winged orchid and meadow saxifrage. However, the SSSI iscurrently in unfavourable conservation' status (www.english-nature.org.uk).

Hemingford Grey Meadow SSSI (0.56 ha) is a species-rich meadow is of thecalcareous clay pasture type, a type restricted nationally to the south of the countryand declining due to changes in traditional management practices. It is owned andmanaged as a nature reserve by the Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire Naturalists'Trust. The reserve is known as Arthur's Meadow. Lying on the south side of theA14 at Hemingford Grey, it will be in close proximity to the on-line section of thePurple Option.

Portholme Meadow cSAC/SSSI (104 ha) holds grassland communities of thealluvial flood meadow type. Portholme represents one of the largest areas of thisgrassland type in the country which continues to be managed on traditional lines asa lammas' meadow.

The grassland communities are characterised by the presence of such grasses asYorkshire fog, yellow oat-grass, meadow foxtail, and meadow fescue. The range ofherbs present, typical of such meadows, includes lady's bedstraw, peppersaxifrageand great burnet. A number of locally rare and one nationally rare plantare also present. The meadow is surrounded by channels of the River Great Ouse,and the Alconbury Brook is close by. In winter and early spring Portholme isinundated by floodwaters. This provides natural fertilising of the soil and it is thisseasonal flooding coupled with the traditional management that maintains thediversity of the natural plant communities. The site is currently in unfavourableconservation status (www.english-nature.org.uk).

Brampton Flood Meadows County Wildlife Site. This is a group of seven floodmeadows on the west bank of the River Great Ouse which support a mixture ofpoorly grazed areas and areas of more closely grazed grassland. This site supportsat least 0.05 ha of meadow foxtail - greater burnet grassland, and greaterspearwort, which is rare in the county.

Arable Land

Crops include cereals and root vegetables. Some other plant species of openhabitats occur along the field edges, e.g. common field-speedwell, groundsel,thistles and sow thistles.

Water Bodies

The major watercourse which will be impacted by all of the route options is theRiver Great Ouse. This waterway flows across the proposed route corridor before itenters the Wash at King's Lynn, Norfolk. The rich floodplain and abundance ofmarshland encourages a wealth of botanical interest, including marsh woundwortand purple loosestrife. Parts of the River Great Ouse are also a County WildlifeSite. Rare plant species such as cowslip and snake's head fritillary are found atPortholme SSSI/cSAC.

There are six other main river watercourses along the course of the proposed route- (from west to east) Ellington Brook, Alconbury Brook, Brampton Brook, WestBrook/Hall Green Brook, Swavesey Drain and the River Cam. Part of the RiverCam is a CWS, including the stretch that flows beneath the current route of theA14. The Cam forms a major river with generally moderate to good water qualityand a relatively unmodified channel. It supports a wide range of submerged,floating, marginal and wetbank vegetation. Pollard willows occur along moststretches of the river with high concentrations are to be found in many areas.

Gravel pits are an important feature of the area. A number of these gravel pits areCounty Wildlife Sites (e.g. Buckden Gravel Pits, Fenstanton Pits and MadingleyBrickpits). Many of these gravel pits comprise important habitat mosaics forbiodiversity, including semi-improved grassland, swamp vegetation, open water(standing and flowing) and hedgerows.

In addition, drainage ditches intersect the farmland along the length of the routecorridor, although in some places the smaller ditches have been infilled andploughed over with subsurface pipes providing the drainage into the main drains.

Common reed dominates many of the drains along with other emergents such asreed canary-grass. Other aquatic species noted during the survey included fool'swater-cress, water starwort, milfoil, water crowfoot, jointed rush, and soft rush.

A winter waterbird count along the stretch of the River Great Ouse (20/01/2004)between the Blue-Purple and the Orange crossing options recorded the followingspecies:

Species

Key results were as follows:

Table 5.34 - Winter Bird Count - River Great Ouse
SpeciesMaximum Count
Mute Swan9
Greylag Goose165
Canada Goose2
Mallard3
Goosander1
Little Grebe1
Great Cormorant1
Grey Heron2
MoorhenSeveral

5.12.4 Assessment of Proposed Scheme

The following section describes the route options and the existing ecologicalconditions as currently known.

ELLINGTON TO GODMANCHESTER
Sub-section A - Ellington to A1 Brampton Interchange: Common Section

The common section alignment curves south from the existing A14 at Ellington,crossing mainly arable land, and rises on approximately 3m embankment to theproposed Ellington junction at which point it enters a deep cutting(-15m) passing c.300m from Brampton Wood SSSI, then at grade from the proposed bridlewayoverbridge to the Brampton to Grafham Road overbridge. There would be loss ofarable land, and the loss of avenue trees and hedges along the bridleway accessto Brampton Wood.

Some widening of the existing A1 would be required to overcome weaving and thiswould result in the loss of existing roadside vegetation.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There are two nationally designated sites within 1 km of this section of theproposed route - Brampton Meadow SSSI and Brampton Wood SSSI.

There are no County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of thissection of the proposed route.

The route corridor passes through gently undulating arable land with largely arablefields bounded by ditches and/or hedgerows.

Brampton Wood SSSI is an ancient woodland of the wet ash-maple woodland type.The configuration of the Ellington Junction option passes adjacent to the BramptonMeadow SSSI, a neutral grassland site, part of which was translocated to theexisting site as a result of the previous A14 link road works.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route there is the following legally protected and notablespecies interest:

Amphibians and Great Crested Newts
Common frog and common toad potentially present anywhere in suitable habitat. Of the 13 water bodies present, none will be directly impacted by this route option. Great crested newts have been recorded from two of these waterbodies. Seven of these waterbodies are recommended for great crested newt presence/absence surveys.
Badgers
Four active badger setts are located within this section of the route corridor. No direct impact upon any setts. The closest sett is within c.200m of proposed route.
Bats
The bridleway at NGR 189,707 offers good commuting and foraging habitat. Two pipistrelle roosts are known from the western end of Brampton village.
Birds
A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route. Five red list species are considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, house sparrow, reed bunting and yellowhammer. No Schedule I species recorded from this.
Common Otter
No otter records from this section and no major watercourses affected. Ellington Brook offers potential for otter, and otter has been recorded further downstream from the Alconbury Brook.
Hazel Dormouse
Re-introduced population occurs within Brampton Wood. Population may utilise adjacent hedgerows for dispersal.
Invertebrates
The proposed route passes within c. 300m of Brampton Wood SSSI. Large populations of the BAP butterfly species, black hairstreak, occur in Brampton Wood, as do several red data book species. Brampton Wood is also of considerable importance for its beetle fauna. However, it is considered highly unlikely that there will be any indirect impacts on this site for invertebrates. The Regionally Very Notable water beetle Anacaena bipustulata has been recorded from Ellington Brook at TL.
Reptiles
No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data.
Water Voles
No records of water voles or any predicted impacts upon water vole habitat in this section of the route.
White-clawed Crayfish
The only known existing population of White-clawed Crayfish in Cambridgeshire is present in the Wendy area (Mungovan, in press) c. 20 km away from the route corridor.
Sub-Section A - Ellington to A1 Brampton Interchange: Blue/Purple Option A1 Alternatives 3 and 4

This option leaves the existing A14 closer to the Brampton Hut services than theBlue/Purple/Orange common route and follows the A1 corridor before joining themain Blue/Purple alignment south of Brampton. Alignment 3 crosses over the A1and alignment 4 passes under the A1. This option passes close to the south ofBrampton Meadow SSSI. This SSSI is in unfavourable conservation status, andthere is some doubt as to whether or not the grassland community of natureconservation interest can be restored (www.english-nature.org.uk). This option liesfurther from Brampton Wood SSSI, at approximately 1km at the closest point.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There are two nationally designated sites within 1 km of this section of theproposed route - Brampton Meadow SSSI and Brampton Wood SSSI.

There are no County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of thissection of the proposed route.

The majority of the land take is of arable land, but this option does involve directimpact upon Lenton Fishing Lakes at TL 198 703. Whilst not having any statutorynature conservation status, this gravel pit complex has nature conservation value interms of mature trees and scrub, and aquatic interest.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Information on legally protected species for this section of the route is as for theBlue/Purple/Orange option described previously. The exception being thedescription for otters - No otter records from this section and no majorwatercourses affected, it is unlikely there would be an impact on otters.

Sub-section A - Ellington to A1 Brampton Interchange: Orange Option A1 Alternative

This alignment leaves the existing A14 and follows the Blue/Purple alternativeclose to the Brampton Hut services but follows the A1 corridor south of the existingroad, the A1 Brampton Interchange being very similar to the Orange option.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There are two nationally designated sites within 1 km of this section of theproposed route - Brampton Meadow SSSI and Brampton Wood SSSI.

There are no County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of thissection of the proposed route.

This alignment has the advantage of utilising the existing A1 corridor and beinglocated further away from Brampton Wood SSSI (c. 1km distance), than thecommon route. The key difference between the Orange Option Al Alternative 6route and the Blue/Purple alternative route is that the Orange option largelyinvolves arable land take and does not directly impact upon Lenton Fishing Lakesand their associated vegetation. The Orange Option A1 Alternative 6 route crossesarable farmland and hedgerow along the entirety of it's length within this section.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route there is the following legally protected speciesinterest:

Amphibians and Great Crested Newts
Common frog and common toad potentially present anywhere in suitable habitat. Of the 13 water bodies present, none of these waterbodies will be directly impacted by this route option. Great Crested Newts have been recorded from two of these waterbodies. Seven of these waterbodies are recommended for Great Crested Newt presence/absence surveys.
Badgers
Four active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor. No direct impact upon any setts. The closest sett is within c.200m of proposed route.
Bats
The bridleway at NGR 189,707 offers good commuting and foraging habitat. Two pipistrelle roosts are known from the western end of Brampton village.
Birds
A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor. Five red list species are considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, house sparrow, reed bunting and yellowhammer. No Schedule 1 species recorded from this section.
Common Otter
No otter records from this section and no major watercourses affected, it is unlikely there would be an impact on.
Hazel Dormouse
Re-introduced population occurs within Brampton Wood. Population may utilise adjacent hedgerows for.
Invertebrates
the proposed route passes within c. 1km of Brampton Wood SSSI. Large populations of the BAP butterfly species, black hairstreak occur in Brampton Wood, as do several red data book species. Brampton Wood is also of considerable importance for its beetle fauna. However, it is considered highly unlikely that there will be any indirect impacts on this site for invertebrates. The Regionally Very Notable water beetle Anacaena bipustulata has been recorded from Ellington Brook at TL 194721.
Reptiles
No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data.
Water Voles
No records of water voles or any predicted impacts upon water vole habitat in this section of the route.
White-clawed Crayfish
The only known existing population of White-clawed Crayfish in Cambridgeshire present in a farm reservoir in the Wendy area ( in press) c. 20 km away from the potential A14 route.
Sub-Section B - A1 Brampton Interchange to Godmanchester: Blue/Purple Option

The Blue/Purple alignment passes over the A1 at the proposed Bramptoninterchange on approximately 9m height embankments, and then over theBrampton to Buckden Road, continuing to the north of the Buckden North landfill,through the southern part of the Brampton Golf Course.

From the eastern edge of the landfill, the alignment crosses the Great Ousefloodplain and the River Great Ouse on a continuous viaduct at about 13m at itshighest point, above the river. Within the floodplain on the west bank is theBrampton Meadows County Wildlife Site which would be spanned by the viaductstructure.

On reaching the eastern bank of the floodplain the alignment crosses the EastCoast Mainline Railway before continuing eastwards to the proposedGodmanchester junction close to Wood Green Animal Shelter on the A1 198.

Some existing vegetation would be lost to the scheme, particularly adjacent to theRiver Great Ouse and hedgerows south west of Godmanchester.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There is one internationally/nationally designated site within 1 km of this section ofthe proposed route - Portholme Meadow cSAC/SSSI.

There are 4 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this sectionof the proposed route - Brampton Flood Meadows, Buckden Gravel Pits, RiverGreat Ouse and West Meadow.

This alignment involves the take of arable land and hedgerows, and crosses theGreat Ouse Valley, with is major watercourse, and the associated flood meadowsat Brampton Meadows.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route there is the following legally protected species interest:

Amphibians and Great Crested Newts
Common frog and common toad potentially present anywhere in suitable habitat. Of the 20 water bodies present, none of these waterbodies will be directly impacted by this route option. There are three desk study records of Great Crested Newt from between the northern edge of the route corridor and Godmanchester, but no records from the waterbodies themselves. Fifteen of these waterbodies are recommended for Great Crested Newt presence/absence surveys
Badgers
Five active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor. One of these setts has been present since the 1950s. The closest setts to the proposed route is c.200m distant.
Bats
Potential commuting and foraging habitats present:
  • along River Great Ouse (excellent commuting/foraging corridor) - row of mature willow trees and hedgerows along Buckden Road (NGR 217 695) (commuting/foraging potential)
  • railway line on eastern side of River Great Ouse is bordered by mature trees (willows, ash and oaks) with medium bat roosting potential; and
  • small, isolated broad-leaved woodland copse present near Corpus Christi Farm (NGR 238 692)
Two pipistrelle roosts are known from the eastern end of Brampton village and a noctule roost close to existing A14 at Godmanchester.
Birds
A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor. Seven red list species are considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, starling, house sparrow, song thrush, turtle dove, reed bunting and yellowhammer. One Schedule 1 species (kingfisher) recorded from this section.
Common Otter
Otter spraints were recorded from two points along the banks of the River Great Ouse, between the points at which the Blue and Orange route options cross the river. There is an desk study otter record from a tributary of the Great Ouse to the north of Brampton village.
Hazel Dormouse
No records from this area and no suitable habitat likely to be impacted.
Invertebrates
This proposed route option crosses the River Great Ouse and Brampton Flood Meadows County Wildlife Site, important for, respectively, the nationally scarce dragonfly Libellula fulva, and as a Grade C JNCC Invertebrate Site Register (ISR) site.
Reptiles
No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data. This route cuts across the Great Ouse valley and spans Brampton Meadows County Wildlife Site. The presence of more varied habitat along the Ouse Valley (e.g. floodplain meadows, mature hedges and ditches) offers better scope for reptiles.
Water Voles
There are two desk study water vole records to the north of he route corridor envelope, at the southern edge of Brampton village.
White-clawed Crayfish
The only known existing population of White-clawed Crayfish in Cambridgeshire is present in the Wendy area (Mungovan, in press) c. 20 km away from route corridor.
Sub-Section B - A1 Brampton Interchange to Godmanchester: Orange Option

This option crosses the A1 slightly further south and on marginally lowerembankment at 8m than the Blue/Purple option and then passes south of theBuckden South landfill site at approximately the same height as the adjacentlandfill.

The alignment then crosses the floodplain. River Great Ouse and the East CoastMainline Railway on a continuous viaduct structure about 1.2 km long. In commonwith the Blue/Purple option, the viaduct crosses over the Brampton MeadowsCounty Wildlife Site on the west bank of the river and would have similar adverseimpacts.

The alignment then continues eastwards to join the A1198 south of theBeaconsfield Equestrian Centre at the proposed Godmanchester junction.

Some existing vegetation would be lost to the scheme, including vegetation legallyprotected by a Tree Preservation Order on Brampton Road riverside trees andmature tree belts and hedgerows on the A1198.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There are no internationally/nationally designated site within 1 km of this section ofthe proposed route.

There are 4 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this sectionof the proposed mute - Brampton Flood Meadows. Buckden Gravel Pits, RiverGreat Ouse and the Settling Bed east of Silver Street.

This alignment involves the take of arable land and hedgerows and crosses theGreat Ouse Valley, with is major watercourse, and the associated flood meadowsat Brampton Meadows.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route legally protected species interest is similar to theBlue/ Purple/Orange option for Amphibians arid Great Crested Newts CommonOtter, Hazel Dormouse and White-clawed Crayfish. Interest of other legallyprotected species is described below:

Badgers
Five active badger setts are located along his section of the route Corridor. One of these sells has been present since the 1950s. One sett will potentially be directly impacted by this route option, lying 5m from the route.
Bats
Potential commuting, foraging and roosting habitats present:
  • lagoons along Van Diemen's Lane adjacent to the Ouse Valley Way and the River Great Ouse offer good foraging habitat;
  • along River Great Ouse (excellent commuting/foraging corridor);
  • hedgerow adjacent to river has occasional mature willows with medium potential for roosting bats;
  • railway line on east side of the river is bordered by mature trees (willows, ash and oaks) with medium bat roosting potential; and
  • mature vegetation along with the cattle grazed pasture (flood meadows) the edge of the railway line (good commuting/foraging habitat)
Two pipistrelle roasts are known from the eastern end of Brampton village and a noctule roost close to existing A14 at Godmanchester.
Birds
Buckden Gravel Pits, a County Wildlife Site was formerly of considerable ornithological importance, but collation of current data is required to determine the current level of interest. A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor. Eight red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, starling, house sparrow, song thrush, turtle dove, corn bunting, reed bunting and yellowhammer. Two Schedule 1 species (barn owl and kingfisher) recorded from this section.
Invertebrates
This proposed route option crosses the River Great Ouse and important for the nationally scarce dragonfly Libellula.
Reptiles
No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data. This route cuts across the Great Ouse valley and the northern edge of Buckden Gravel Pits County Wildlife Site. The presence of more varied habitat along the Ouse Valley (e.g. floodplain meadows, mature hedges and ditches) offers better scope for reptiles.
Water Voles
There are two desk study water vole records to the north of the route corridor envelope, from a ditch at the southern edge of Brampton village.
Sub-section B - A1 Brampton Interchange to Godmanchester: Orange/Purple Option and Orange/Blue Options

This alignment runs through Offord Hill ridge to allow the possibility of connectingthe Orange option to the south of Buckden South landfill with the Blue/Purpleoption at the A1198. It passes through an open arable landscape. Hare (aBiodiversity Action Plan species) is present within the arable fields here.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There are no internationally/nationally designated site within 1 km of this section ofthe proposed route.

There are 4 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this sectionof the proposed route - Brampton Flood Meadows, Buckden Gravel Pits, RiverGreat Ouse and the Settling Bed east of Silver Street.

The key habitats affected by this section of the route option will be arable fields andassociated hedgerows.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Legally protected species interest for this option is the same for the main Orange option described previously. The only minor difference being in the description of Badger interest:

Badgers
Five active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor. One of these setts has been present since the 1950s. One sett will be directly impacted by this route, lying 5m from the route. The remaining setts are at least 200m from the proposed route.
SECTION 2 GODMANCHESTER TO BAR HILL
Blue Route Option

The Blue section of the route in this section crosses mainly arable land, but crossesthe edge of a broad strip of mature woodland, which is undergrazed by sheep, andwould involve the removal of sections of hedgerow. The adjacent pastures to thenorth and west of this woodland are old ridge-and-furrow pastureland. The wooditself comprises mature and senescent trees and includes ash, oak, elm, beech,hornbeam and sycamore, some with impressive ivy growths up the trunks. Someof these trees may have potential for bats, as a number of trees have notablecavities in their trunks. Good quality, mature hedges separate the fields to thesouth.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There is nationally designated site within 1 km of this section of the proposed route- Hemingford Grey Meadow SSSI.

There is 1 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this sectionof the proposed route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits).

The key habitats affected by this section of the route option will be arable fields andassociated hedgerows.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route there is the following legally protected speciesinterest:

Amphibians and Great Crested Newts
Common frog and common toad potentially present anywhere in suitable habitat. There are 36 water bodies present within 500m of the route within this section. There are desk study records of Great Crested Newt from south of Fenstanton at TL 311 679 and from Conington village at TL 321 662. The reconfiguration of the Bar Hill junction may potentially impact upon the two balancing ponds (numbers 76 and 77) along the existing A14. These ponds are largely dry, with low terrestrial and aquatic habitat potential for Great Crested Newts, and it is not considered necessary to undertake surveys. No other waterbodies will be directly impacted by this route option. Twenty-six of these water bodies are recommended for survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment. Three of these water bodies are not recommended for survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment. Seven of these water bodies were not accessed.
Badgers
Seven active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor, along with six outlier setts. Desk study setts were recorded from four locations. Two badger road casualties (from the northern edge of the existing A14) were recorded during the period July 2003-July 2004. The closest sett to this route is an outlier, lying at 50m distant from the current A14.
Bats
Commuting corridors/foraging habitat and potential roosting sites at:
  • bridleway/footpath, forming a green lane between Gore Tree Farm and Topfield Farm (the Mere Way), and passing a small woodland copse at approximately NGR 288 687;
  • line of mature trees in hedgerow (TL 310 675) may offer potential roost sites; and
  • eastern edge of road between New Barns Road and existing A14 is ditch with semi-mature willows, ash and oak. The trees have low potential for roosting bats. There are a number of known bat roost sites within the villages/towns to the north of the A14 (e.g. Godmanchester and Hemingford Grey), but no known roosts adjacent to this proposed route option.
Birds
A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor. Eight red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, house sparrow, song thrush, turtle dove, bullfinch, reed bunting and yellowhammer. There was one Schedule 1 species (kingfisher) recorded from this.
Common Otter
No desk study or survey records of otter from this section of the proposed route, although the West Brook, Swavesey Brook and Fenstanton Gravel Pits have potential for otters.
Hazel Dormouse
No records from this area and no suitable habitat likely to be impacted.
Invertebrates
This section of the Blue route does not impact upon any noteworthy sites of invertebrate interest.
Reptiles
No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data. As landscape is predominantly arable, there is limited scope for reptiles, although the presence of hedgerows, scrub and ditches, including the West Brook does offer habitat corridors.
Water Voles
There are three desk study records of water vole from Bar Hill village and one from the north of Bar Hill village. No water voles were recorded during the surveys, but West Brook, the large ditch running from New Barns Farm, Conington to the existing A14 and Fenstanton Gravel Pits were identified as having good potential for water voles.
White-clawed Crayfish
The only known existing population of White-clawed Crayfish in Cambridgeshire is present in the Wendy area (Mungovan, in press) c. 20 km away from the route corridor.
GODMANCHESTER TO BAR HILL
Purple Route Option

This alignment follows the Blue route for 2km in cutting, before moving northeastcontinuing in cutting across farmland, skirting the Golf Course to join the existingA14 to the west of Gore Tree Farm. It would involve the removal of sections ofhedgerow.

From the Galley Hill junction the A14 is then widened to the north to avoidimpacting Hemingford Grey Meadow SSSI (0.56 ha), also known as Arthur'sMeadow, a neutral species-rich meadow, before continuing to Fenstanton and BarHill by widening on the south. From the Trinity Foot junction the route is commonwith the Blue and Orange options.

Hemingford Grey Meadow SSSI is of the calcareous clay pasture type, a typerestricted nationally to the south of the country and declining due to changes intraditional management practices. The grassland type is characterised by thepresence of sweet vernal-grass, red fescue and downy oat-grass, together withadder's-tongue fern, cowslip and green-winged orchid. Other grasses includemeadow foxtail, yellow oat-grass and quaking-grass. The variety of herbs presentincludes common knapweed, oxeye daisy and yellow rattle. The presence of theorchids common twayblade and common spotted-orchid in what is a typicallygreen-winged orchid meadow is unusual for this part of England and probablyreflects special conditions of soil and drainage.

The boundary hedgerows enhance the value of the site for invertebrates andprovide an important buffer to this small meadow in an arable setting.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There is 1 nationally designated site within 1 km of this section of the proposedroute - Hemingford Grey Meadow SSSI.

There are 3 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this sectionof the proposed route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits), Marsh Lane Gravel Pitsand Lower Road Meadows (west).

The key habitats affected by this section of the route option will be arable fields andassociated hedgerows. The online A14 passes adjacent to Hemingford GreyMeadow (see 1.94)

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Legally protected species interest is largely the same as for the Blue option alongthis section, see previous description. The only species where information differs isfor Bats:

Bats
Commuting corridors/foraging habitat and potential roosting sites present at:
  • semi-mature hedgerow, which is heavily managed with occasional trees (TL 273 689);
  • occasional mature trees present along field boundaries near Hemingford Grey (TL 281 693); and
  • woodland copse and waterbodies between Grove Cottage and West End Farm may provide good foraging and potential roosting opportunities (TL 296 691 and TL 686 309)
Orange Route Option

From the A1198 Godmanchester junction the alignment crosses open arablefarmland in deep cutting to Mere Way where it converts to low 2m embankmentjoining the Blue route at Hilton Road to continue eastwards to the A14 at TrinityFoot.

This section of this route would mainly cut across arable land, but would involve theremoval of sections of hedgerow along the route.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There is no internationally/nationally designated site within 1 km of this section ofthe proposed route.

There is 1 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this sectionof the proposed route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits).

The key habitats affected by this section of the route option will be arable fields andassociated hedgerows, and minor watercourses.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Legally protected species interest is largely the same as for the Blue and Purpleoptions along this section, see previous description. The only species whereinformation differs is for Bats:

Bats
Commuting corridors/foraging habitat and potential roosting sites present at:
  • some of the semi-mature trees adjacent to Wood Green Animal Shelter have medium potential for roosting bats (TL 264 680);
  • culverted brook under Mere Way has mature ash and oak with some dead limbs and medium potential for roosting bats; also potential commuting corridors here (TL 284 677);
  • the old buildings at Linton Farm are the only buildings scheduled to be demolished on any of the route options (TL 290 677). These buildings are all large storage 'sheds' constructed mainly of corrugated metal with wooden support beams. The roofs are open in some sections creating a draught through the buildings. No evidence of bats was observed and the buildings are considered to be unsuitable for roosting bats. No further surveys are considered necessary; and
  • line of ash trees with ivy along the B1040 close to where the route crosses, which have low-medium potential for bat roosting (TL 295 675).
BAR HILL TO FEN DITTON: (COMMON SECTION)

This Common Section connects the offline Bar Hill junction and the M11 junction14, with the local access road (LAR) aligned to the south of the proposed mainlineutilising the existing westbound carriageway. The existing junction at Dry Draytonwould be redesigned to take account of the Northstowe development with a newlayout and over bridge.

The route joins the Cambridge Northern Bypass (CNB) at the M11 junction 14which would be reconfigured and then follows the CNB around the northern edge ofCambridge through two interchanges at Histon and Milton to the end of theproposed A14 Improvements at Fen Ditton.

From the M11 junction 14 to Fen Ditton there would be a need for new retainingstructures, for example, at Girton, which would necessitate the removal of existingtrees and shrubs on the lower embankment slopes, as well as appreciableembankment widening - again with the loss of the existing screen planting Theedge of Milton Country Park would suffer such a loss of vegetation. The river Camcrossing would require modification and this may adversely impact upon the RiverCam County Wildlife Site.

Where the CNB passes alongside the satellite villages of Girton, Histon/Impington,Milton and Fen Ditton, there would be a loss of existing road side screening.

The River Cam corridor provides an open rural setting to the river and is adesignated County Wildlife Site at this point. The river bridge is a known pipstrellebat roost. This route is within the existing highways boundary, the main impact ofany new works being on the M11/A14 interchange. The majority of any additionalland take would be on arable land and highways boundary land. However, theGirton area has desk study water vole populations, e.g. along Beck Brook andWashpit Brook, so any works impacting on suitable water vole streams may requiremitigation measures.

There are a number of ponds in the Girton area close to the proposed interchangeworks (e.g. numbers 56, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64). Great Crested Newt presence/absence surveys will be required for a number of these.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There is no internationally/nationally designated site within 1 km of this section ofthe proposed route.

There are 2 County Wildlife Sites within 1 km of the boundary of this section of theproposed route - Madingley Brickpits and the River Cam.

There are 2 City Wildlife Sites within 1 km of the boundary of this section of theproposed route - Milton Road Hedge and Kings Hedges Triangle/scrub.

This route follows the existing online option, which is largely bounded by arablefields and hedgerows.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route there is the following legally protected speciesinterest:

Amphibians and Great Crested Newts
Common frog and common toad potentially present anywhere in suitable habitat. There are 20 water bodies present within 500m of the route within this section. There are desk study records of Great Crested Newt from a drain south-west of Oakington village at TL 400 639, from north of Girton village 427 627, and from the northern fringe of Cambridge at Kings Hedges at TL 462 610. The reconfiguration of the Dry Drayton interchange may potentially impact upon the two balancing ponds (numbers 54 and 55) along the existing A14. These ponds are largely dry, with low terrestrial and aquatic habitat potential for Great Crested Newts, and it is not considered necessary to undertake surveys. No other waterbodies will be directly impacted by this route option. Nine of these water bodies are recommended for survey and nine not recommended for survey. Two of these water bodies were not accessed.
Badgers
Two active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor, although sections adjacent to the route could not be accessed due to landowner restrictions, and the incidence of setts may well be higher than this. One of these setts is dug into the structure of the bridge which crosses the A14, so lies within 30m of the existing road. This work may require a DEFRA licence. Desk study setts were recorded from five locations. The closest sett to this route lies at 50m distant from the current A14.
Bats
A number of known roost sites are known from the surrounding villages and suburban areas on the Cambridge fringe. Commuting corridors/foraging habitat and potential roosting sites present at:
  • ivy-covered mature beech tree along a small hardstanding farm track with low-medium potential for roosting bats in the trunk (TL 393 637);
  • poplar and old willow both with medium bat roost potential due to, respectively, ivy-covered trunk and broken mid-trunk; also the drain may be serve as a commuting/foraging corridor (TL 393 633);
  • roost potential in concrete bridge with expansion joints over disused railway line (TL 454 619). Vegetation on either side of the disused tracks, including semi-mature trees and scrub, offer good commuting habitat; and
  • existing common pipistrelle bat roost in existing A14 bridge over the River Cam (two bats emerging from roost in July 2004 at TL 484 620). Daubenton's bats were recorded commuting along the River Cam during the same survey. Mature pollarded willows are present adjacent to the River Cam, but are unlikely to be directly affected by the works as they are at least 20m from the southern edge of the existing A14 bridge.
Birds
As the route is within the highways boundary, no systematic survey was conducted along this section of the route. However, some species of bird will utilise areas within existing highways boundaries for breeding.
Common Otter
No desk study or survey records of otter from this section of the proposed route, although Beck Brook, Washpit Brook and the River Cam have potential for otters.
Hazel Dormouse
No records from this area and no suitable habitat likely to be impacted.
nvertebrates
This section of the route does not impact upon any noteworthy sites of invertebrate interest.
Reptiles
No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data. The landscape is predominantly arable in the western section but suburban to the north of Cambridge. There is some scope for reptiles here, e.g. along hedgerows, in scrub and gardens and along the River Cam. There are also water bodies adjacent to the A14 and a southern-facing embanked slopeline along the existing A14 which may provide suitable opportunities.
Water Voles
A number of desk study records from the Beck and Washpit Brooks, including one from the Beck Brook under the existing A14 at TL 407 623); however water levels were too low for water voles at this point in this brook in August 2004. Voles have also been recorded from ditches associated with the River Cam. A water vole survey was conducted 100m either side of the A14 along the River Cam in July 2004 but was hampered by dense vegetation.
White-clawed Crayfish
The only known existing population of White-clawed Crayfish in Cambridgeshire is present in the Wendy area (Mungovan, in press) c. 20 km away from the potential A14 route corridor.

5.12.5 Biodiversity

There are a number of habitats and species that are either of UK and/or localbiodiversity value, which may be impacted by the proposed scheme. See theCambridgeshire Biodiversity Action Plan for details.

Other habitats and species which are present or are potentially present are of localvalue: tree sparrow, farmland seed-eating birds and native black poplar.

5.12.6 Nature Conservation Evaluation

The evaluation of the nature conservation sites outlined above was undertakenaccording to TAG, with the scores recorded in TAG biodiversity worksheets, theseare included in the EAR. These scores relate to the value of a habitat in terms ofits importance in an international, national, regional/county, local (parish) or sublocal(ie negligible) context.

The presence of species can also be evaluated using TAG, although due to thelevel of information available at this stage of the assessment, it is not appropriate toevaluate populations to this degree. However, the presence of legally protectedspecies is likely to be evaluated as being of somewhere between county andinternational importance, depending on the regularity of its occurrence and thepopulation size.

5.12.7 Key Issues

There are a number of key potential ecological impacts associated with roadbuilding and widening schemes, namely:

5.12.8 Mitigation

There are a range of mitigation measures that can be used that are appropriate toboth the ecological value of the features present and the extent and magnitude ofany impacts associated with the proposals.

DIRECT LOSS OF SITES AND/OR HABITATS OF NATIONAL OR COUNTY VALUE

Direct loss of habitat of national value should be avoided by design. Loss of habitatof county value can be mitigated by:

DISTURBANCE TO SITES AND/OR HABITATS OF NATIONAL OR COUNTY VALUE

Disturbance to designated sites of national and county value can be minimised byappropriate mitigation, although the precise design and effectiveness of themitigation will be dependent on the type of habitat and species for which a site isdesignated. Examples include:

IMPACTS ON LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES AND NOTABLE SPECIES

Measures to mitigate both temporary disturbance and potentially permanentimpacts on legally protected species, such as habitat loss and disturbance, arespecies specific. The following measures, which should not be regarded asexclusive or complete are in addition to best practice and/ or legislativerequirements:

Breeding Birds
Bats
Badger
Hazel Dormouse

Mitigation measures could include:

Invertebrates
Otters and Water Voles
Reptiles
White-clawed Crayfish
Reduction in Water Quality of Watercourses

A reduction in water quality of watercourses receiving surface water run-off can be avoided by:

Severance and Fragmentation of Habitats

Isolation and severance of habitats is often of major ecological significance in roadbuilding schemes. The offline section of the route, although predominantlycrossing arable land, involves crossing both major and minor watercourses, andthe severance of hedgerows.

It is a specific target in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan to, wherever possible,reverse the impacts of past fragmentation. Therefore, in order to reduce theimpacts of habitat severance and isolation that currently exist due to the presenceof the A14, consideration should be given to the design of overbridges andunderbridges, as these can provide suitable crossing points.

In the final design, English Nature will be consulted on all mitigation relating tonationally designated sites and both English Nature and lead agencies will beconsulted on mitigation for legally protected species.

5.12.9 Overall Assessment of Scheme Options

The magnitude and significance of impacts of the proposed scheme on the knownecological features were assessed in accordance with TAG and recorded in theTAG biodiversity worksheets. Ease of mitigation is taken into account in themagnitude of impact score

The result of the assessment is an overall assessment score for each option. Thissection summarises, and attempts to provide a rationale for, the results of theassessment for each option.

The following points should be noted in relation to the ecological assessment:

In relation to determining the overall assessment score, TAG guidance states that,usually, the option should be scored in the most negative category of the sitesscored. The guidance note then goes on to say, however, that some judgementmay be required to derive an overall score that fairly represents the effects of thescheme as a whole.

For this scheme, the overall assessment score has been arrived at by taking intoaccount the most negative category, the number of sites that would be affected tothat extent and the total number of sites that would experience adverse impacts.

The mainline alignment options including Junction Strategy A (Enhanced/ OptimumJunction Strategy) (eg Blue, Purple, Orange and Orange/Purple) are assessedseparately below. The limited junction option (LJOs) and the A1 Alternatives(Alternatives 3 and 4 for the Blue options; and the Orange A1 Alternative 6) areconsidered in less detail. However, Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) areprovided for all combination of options.

BLUE OPTION

It is predicted that there would be moderate adverse impact on one feature(Brampton Flood Meadows CWS, which would be spanned by the viaductstructure), slight adverse impacts on four features and eight neutral impacts (seeTAG worksheets). Although Portholme Meadow SSSI/cSAC lies within 1km of thisroute option, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impacts on thisdesignated site. Between Godmanchester and Bar Hill, the Blue route crossesmainly arable land, and also the edge of a broad strip of mature woodland. Someof these trees may have potential for bats, and there would be hedgerow lossassociated with this option.

There is a nationally designated site within 1 km of this section of the proposedroute - Hemingford Grey Meadow SSSI, and a County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within1 km of the proposed route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits).

Towards the eastern end of the proposed works, the river Cam crossing wouldrequire modification and this may adversely impact upon the River Cam CountyWildlife Site.

There would be loss of arable land, and the loss of avenue trees and hedges alongthe bridleway access to Brampton Wood. Some widening of the existing A1 wouldbe required to overcome weaving and this would result in the loss of existingroadside vegetation.

The Blue/Purple and Orange routes both bisect potentially suitable hedgerows fordormice within 300m to the east of Brampton Wood and within 700m to the north ofBrampton Wood.

ORANGE OPTION

It is predicted that there would be moderate adverse impact on one feature(Buckden Gravel Pits CWS), slight adverse impacts on four features and 10 neutralimpacts (see TAG worksheets). The section of this route between Godmanchesterand Bar Hill would mainly cut across arable land, but would involve the removal ofsections of hedgerow along the route, and there is a County Wildlife Sites (CWS)within 1 km of this section of the route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits).

Towards the eastern end of the proposed works, the river Cam crossing wouldrequire modification and this may adversely impact upon the River Cam CountyWildlife Site.

The Orange route bisects potentially suitable hedgerows for dormice within 300mto the east of Brampton Wood, and within 700m to the north of the wood. The routeoption having the least impact on invertebrates, based on the results of the studyundertaken, would be the Orange route option. With respect to otters, this routeoption is currently regarded as most favourable in terms of minimising adverseimpacts, and it is also slightly preferable in terms of reducing potential impacts onwater voles, as it avoids the Brampton Brook which has previously supported awater vole population.

PURPLE OPTION

It is predicted that there would be moderate adverse impact on one feature(Brampton Flood Meadows CWS, which would be spanned by the viaductstructure), slight adverse impacts on four features and 10 neutral impacts (see TAGworksheets). Although Portholme Meadow SSSI/cSAC lies within 1km of this routeoption, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impacts on thisdesignated site. Between Godmanchester and Bar Hill, there are 3 County WildlifeSites (CWS) within 1 km of this section of the route - Fenstanton Pits (West EndPits), Marsh Lane Gravel Pits and Lower Road Meadows (west). The key habitatsaffected by this section of the route option will be arable fields and associatedhedgerows, with the online A14 passing adjacent to Hemingford Grey MeadowSSSI.

Towards the eastern end of the proposed works, the river Cam crossing wouldrequire modification and this may adversely impact upon the River Cam CountyWildlife Site.

The Blue/Purple route bisects potentially suitable hedgerows for dormice within300m to the east of Brampton Wood, and within 700m to the north of the wood.The Purple route option will require surveying the largest number of waterbodies(5) for the presence/absence of great crested newt.

ORANGE/PURPLE OPTION

It is predicted that there would be moderate adverse impact on one feature(Buckden Gravel Pits CWS), slight adverse impacts on nine features and 15 neutralimpacts (see TAG worksheets).

There are 4 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this sectionof the proposed route - Brampton Flood Meadows, Buckden Gravel Pits, RiverGreat Ouse and the Settling Bed east of Silver Street.

The key habitats affected by this section of the route option will be arable fields andassociated hedgerows.

Towards the eastern end of the proposed works, the river Cam crossing wouldrequire modification and this may adversely impact upon the River Cam CountyWildlife Site.

The Orange route options bisect potentially suitable hedgerows for dormice within300m to the east of Brampton Wood, and within 700m to the north of the wood.

A1 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

There are three alternative junction options for the A1, namely Alternatives 3 and 4which relate to the Blue Route - Alignment 3 crosses over the A1 and alignment 4passes under the A1. With respect to the Blue A1 Alternatives, it is predicted thatthere will be a moderate adverse impact on one feature (Brampton FloodMeadows), slight adverse impacts on nine features and 18 neutral impacts (seeTAG worksheets). Although Portholme Meadow SSSI/cSAC lies within 1km of thisroute option, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impacts on thisdesignated site. Towards the eastern end of the proposed works, the river Camcrossing would require modification and this may adversely impact upon the RiverCam County Wildlife Site.

The Orange Alternative 6 leaves the existing A14 and follows the Blue/Purplealternative close to the Brampton Hut services but follows the A1 corridor south ofthe existing road, the A1 Brampton Interchange being very similar to the Orangeoption. With respect to the Orange A1 Alternative, it is predicted that there will be amoderate adverse impact on one feature (Buckden Gravel Pits CWS), slightadverse impacts on nine features and 16 neutral impacts (see TAG worksheets).Towards the eastern end of the proposed works, the river Cam crossing wouldrequire modification and this may adversely impact upon the River Cam CountyWildlife Site. The favoured route option in relation to dormice would be either of theA1 Alternative routes (Blue/Purple or Orange).

LIMITED JUNCTION OPTIONS (LJS)

This limited junction strategy relates to the Blue and Orange options only and themain differences relates to:

5.12.10 Conclusions

The overall assessment of the predicted adverse impacts on biodiversity indicatesthat all of the proposed A14 upgrade options will have Moderate Adverse impactson biodiversity. The impacts include the direct loss of habitat, habitat severanceand fragmentation, changes in water quality in watercourses, and disturbance fromtraffic noise and enhanced lighting to animal species.

The overall assessment score indicates that the adverse impacts on biodiversityare in the same category of significance for all the options (Moderate Adverse),with the chief difference being the number of slight adverse and neutral impactsassociated with the respective options (see WEBTAG tables). All route optionsdirectly affect a County Wildlife Site, with the Orange suite of route options directlyimpacting Buckden Gravel Pits CWS and the common Blue/Purple suite of routeoptions directly impacting Brampton Flood Meadows CWS. In this context,Brampton Flood Meadows CWS, a flood meadow ecosystem with species-richgrassland, represents both a scarcer habitat type and one that is much moredifficult to recreate than the gravel pit ecosystem at Buckden Gravel Pits.

Mitigation of adverse impacts on biodiversity during construction and operation ispossible by careful planning and design and by the imposition of stringentenvironmental conditions during construction.

Compensation of the residual impacts that cannot be mitigated (such as loss ofhabitat, severance and habitat fragmentation) must be taken into account for anyoption. Off-site habitat creation and habitat translocation is strongly recommendedin conjunction with long-term habitat management and enhancement either as partof the Highways Agency soft estate or through financial agreements withlandowners and occupiers.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK

The Stage 3 assessment should include a revised data gathering exercise, andfurther survey work including an extended Phase 1 survey of the preferred routeoption, any CWs's directly or indirectly affected and of all legally protected species,in accordance with current guidelines.


5. Environmental Assessment -12

5. Environmental Assessment -13

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.13 Cultural Heritage

5.13.1 Introduction

This document is an assessment of the likely impacts on the Cultural Heritageresource posed by the proposed construction of the A14 bypass from Ellington toFen Ditton in Cambridgeshire. It includes the results of a desk based assessmentand aerial photographic survey of the road corridor. The assessment is a Stage 2Assessment in accordance with the DMRB Volume II Section 3 part 2 for CulturalHeritage.

There are still a number of options for the proposed improvements. The proposedroad options pass through land primarily consisting of open arable to the south ofBrampton and Godmanchester. It then rejoins the current A14 at either HemingfordGrey (purple option) or further east at Conington (blue and orange option). Roadimprovements will continue along the existing A14 footprint to Fen Ditton.

This document assesses the impacts of the proposed A14 in three sections as setout in the Environmental Scoping Report, March 2004. Section 1 is located fromEllington to Godmanchester at the A1198 road. This section itself is broken downfurther into 3 sub sections A, B and C. Section 2 is from Godmanchester at theA1198 to Bar Hill. Again this section is sub-divided into section 2A and B. And thelast section, Section 3 runs from Bar Hill to Fen Ditton.

Known and potential Cultural Heritage resources that may be affected by theproposed bypass might, in principal, include both archaeology and built heritage.These resources could therefore include archaeological sites, Listed Buildings,Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Conservation Areas, Parks and Gardens ofSpecial Historic Interest.

The objective of this desk-based assessment and aerial photographic survey, hasbeen to identify the known and potential Cultural Heritage resources that may beaffected by the proposed improvements.

The aims of the assessment are to:

5.13.2 Method of Assessment

This document has been produced in accordance with the IFA Standards andGuidance for Desk-Based Assessments and in accordance with Stage 2 of theDesign Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, CulturalHeritage (1993).

Information was obtained for a study area of 500 metres either side of the proposednew road centrelines for the three proposed route options. An area of 500 metresto the south of the existing A14 and 50 metres to the north where roadimprovements are proposed were assessed. The following information, sourcesand opinions have been consulted:

In November 2003 an aerial photographic survey was undertaken and in September 2003 the study area was viewed from the road.

A gazetteer of known archaeological and built heritage resources in the study areahas been compiled. All sites have been given a specific number for the purposes ofthis report (ATK No).

5.13.3 Archaeological and Historical Background

INTRODUCTION

This section provides an overview of the archaeological background of the studyarea, in order to establish the nature of the Cultural Heritage resource that may beaffected by the proposed road scheme.

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The south of Cambridgeshire which incorporates the study area is relatively anupland area made up of Oxford Clay around Huntingdon and Ellington in the westand lower and Gault chalk at the east of the study area.

Both areas of clay and chalk are affected by river drainage basins and these areprobably the most striking land form. In the study area the dominant river basinsare the River Cam and the Great Ouse. The Great Ouse has a very broad valleywith wide-ranging alluvium and gravel terraces around Huntingdon and extendsbetween the A1 and Godmanchester. The Cam and its tributaries to the southhave similar gravel terraces extending around Cambridge. The area in betweenthese river basins is an area known as the southern plateau. This is a low broadarea with flat undulations and to the north of the plateau and the very north of thestudy area is the fen edge.

In the A14 corridor, the topography is made of gently sloping arable farm land andwhere the proposed route goes off line, the topography is quite hilly either side ofthe two river basins of the Great Ouse and the Cam. Parts of the study area havepreviously been excavated for gravel, brick, clay and coprolite.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic 500,000 - 4,000BC

The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods cover some quarter of a million years ofhuman history. The Palaeolithic covers the period from the first appearance of toolusinghumans to the retreat of the glacial ice in the northern hemisphere atc.8500BC.

Over 115 sites associated with the Palaeolithic period have been recovered inCambridgeshire but no known in situ sites have been discovered in the county ofPalaeolithic age. Finds are usually associated with the river terraces of the Camand the Ouse. Finds within the study area include flint implements, blades andmammoth bones found at Hemingford Grey (ATK 59, 62), Buckden (ATK 26 andFenstanton (ATK 70, 74)

During the Mesolithic period, Cambridgeshire underwent great environmentalchanges, including the rising of the water table. A large number of sites that wereon the Fen Basin in the early Mesolithic period will have been deeply buried by therising water and growth of the Fen. Finds consisting of flints have been locatedwithin the study area at Buckden (ATK 24, 34) and Slate Hall Farm (ATK 111)

Neolithic 4,000 - 2,300BC

The introduction of farming and its associated technological changes occurredc4,000 BC and quickly spread up the more favoured river valleys and coastalstrips. This led to major alterations in the landscape as woodlands were cleared.Some farming may have been restricted to temporary slash-and-burn settlementsbut the existence of major burial monuments in some areas suggest permanentsettlements were established. Few house sites survive but major ritual monumentssuch as chambered cairns, henges and stone circles show the extent of settlement.

Within the study area finds have been recovered at Brampton (ATK 22),Fenstanton (ATK 67, 72) and Fen Ditton (ATK 180). In addition evidence of activitysuch as pits and ditches has been excavated near Godmanchester (ATK 48).Ritual activity has been identified just outside of the study area at Brampton,Buckden and Godmanchester.

Bronze Age 2,300 - 700BC

In the Bronze Age, metal first began to be widely used in Britain, possibly as aresult of the increase in contact with Europe. However, various types of stone,particularly flint, remained very important long after metal became available. TheBronze Age saw the introduction of cremation of the dead and burials in roundbarrows. Bronze Age society appears to have been divided into chiefdoms basedaround a largely agricultural economy.

Settlement sites, indicated by flint scatters seem to be concentrated in the southeast of the county particularly on the chalk hills with comparatively few sites to thewest on the clay soils. Barrow and ring ditch sites again are concentrated on thechalk soils to the south east and on higher ground. There is sparse evidence forBronze Age activity in the region around Huntingdon to Cambridge, including thestudy area although finds have been recovered.

Iron Age 700 - 43BC

The Iron Age is usually taken as spanning the period from the late eighth centuryBC until the first century AD. The period is characterized, above all, by its plentifuland diverse settlement evidence, ranging from individual farmsteads occupied by asingle household, to hillforts holding larger communities. Iron Age landscapes alsoincluded field systems, trackways and linear boundaries.

In Cambridgeshire farmsteads and loose villages are concentrated in the rivervalleys and fen islands. Clusters of houses are known at Fen Ditton. By the Mid toLate Iron Age small enclosed farmsteads began to spring up in areas which werepreviously unsettled such as a farmstead at Longstanton within the study area andothers at Brampton, and Buckden. Also the hillforts characteristic of the Iron Agebecome evident by c. 300BC and include Arbury Camp. Examples of cremationburials as well as inhumations can be found within the study area (ATK1, 130).

The Roman Period AD 43 - 410

The Roman expansion into England began from AD 43-60 and a garrison firstestablished in the area at Godmanchester, where the army was stationed.Forts were set up at Godmanchester and Cambridge. Surrounding these forts,native settlements sprang up and towards the second century AD and as themilitary forts were demolished or abandoned, the civilian settlement dominatedWhich included elements such as houses, granaries, bath houses and stone walldefenses.

The first roads were for military purposes, but by the end of the 1st Century ADroads were used for commerce. The major road in the study area is based upon isthe road connecting the Roman towns of Cambridge and Godmanchester, laterknown as the Via Devana, now the approximate route of the A14. Also in the areais a section of Ermine Street (ATK 194) now the A1198 leading to Godmanchesterfrom the south and a further possible road running from Sandy to Godmanchester(ATK 189).

Clusters of rural settlement sites along river gravel terraces such as aroundCambridge can be found. The Roman road network also provided a pattern forsettlement. Clusters of villages can be found along roads such as Ermine Streetand particularly in the west section of the Via Devana near to Godmanchester.

Cambridgeshire is therefore an area intensively settled and utilised in the Romanperiod. Within the study area there are many finds and sites relating to this periodranging from individual findspots, to Roman military camps and villa sites at ArburyRoad in Cambridge.

The Early Medieval Period AD 410-1066

The most significant evidence for early medieval activity in the study area is thechapel and cemetery remains at Girton College. There is little other evidence ofsettlement or activity.

Early medieval settlement sites often continued from the Roman locations ofsettlement and sites are often found when investigated previous Roman remains.Small farming settlements were the most common of occupation sites. The town ofGodmanchester was re-occupied after the Roman period and Cambridge isbelieved to remain settled, owing to the cemetery site at Girton.

The Danish invasion and their subsequent way of life influenced the type ofsettlement, encouraging the concentration of farmhouses together to farm an areaof collective land. This was the foundation of the many villages in the region, withsmall roads connecting each settlement.

Landownership detailed in the Domesday book shows a pattern of land of EastHuntingdonshire belonging to the Abbey of Ramsey, such as Girton and Ellingtonin the study area. The other parishes were held either as Royal estates, such asLolworth and Madingley or more rare parishes with no prominent landowner.

The Medieval Period AD 1066-1547

The medieval period was relatively peaceful in the region. However castles werebuilt at Godmanchester and Cambridge. The parishes that are known today weremostly in place by 1086 at the time of writing the Domesday book and were knownas 'vills'.

Features dating to the medieval period include moated sites, which are houses thatemulate the castle architecture (ATK 55, 76), ridge and furrow earthworks whichare remnants of the agricultural field system, village churches such as at Ellingtonand Lolworth, and remains associated with shrunken or deserted medieval villages,where the population was drastically reduced in the 14th century due to the plaguewhich led to the abandonment of villages or a reduced area of settlement/workedland such as Houghton (ATK 3).

The Post-Medieval Period AD 1547 - 1901

Rapid expansion took place in most of the settlement centres in Cambridgeshire incommon with the rest of the country.

Both Huntingdon and Cambridge lay on national roads to London. The rivers alsoprovided ways of transportation of goods and people. With these roads and riversinns and hostelries were constructed to house the travellers.

The landscape has changed very little from this period to the present. The villageshave expanded but many have kept their historic cores, such as Brampton,Ellington (ATK 254), Fenstanton (ATK 255) and Fen Drayton and this element isreflected with the designations of Conservation Area status in these villages.In 1848 the great northern railway began to improve the rail network putting in aline from Huntingdon and Cambridge to York, with a freight line already existing toLondon.

The Modern Period 1901 - present

The predominance of agricultural use of the landscape continues to the present;however there has been a general increase in the development around the villagesalong the A14 and within Huntingdon and Cambridge.

In 1964 planning permission was granted to build this new village for the increasingpopulation at Bar Hill. Additional housing was provided in the boom years of 1970.Milton was another of the overflow villages to be built.

During World War II a defensive line was set up running from Bristol to the RiverWelland in Cambridgeshire. Remnants of this defensive line can be seen from thepillboxes in and around Cambridge.

The road network was improved in the later 20th century with the addition of theM11 and the improvements along the line of the A14.

5.13.4 Historic Environment within the Study Area

SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the study area.

PARKS AND GARDENS OF SPECIAL HISTORIC INTEREST

There are no Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest within the study areaof 500 metres either side of the carriageway although the landscape assessmenthas identified Madingley Park located 700 metres from the carriageway.

CONSERVATION AREAS

There are four Conservation Areas within the study area. These are centred aroundthe village of Ellington (AK 254), the village of Fenstanton (ATK 255), the village ofFen Ditton extending north across the A14 along the River Cam (ATK 256) and asection of a canal near Horningsea called Baits Bite Lock (ATK 257).

LISTED BUILDINGS

There are 60 Listed Buildings within the study area. There is one Grade I ListedBuilding, the Parish Church of All Saints in the village of Ellington (ATK 197).

There are five Grade II* Listed Buildings. They are Manor House owned byCapability Brown in the village of Fenstanton (ATK 212), Grove House just outsideof the village of Fenstanton (ATK 223), the Parish Church of All Saints in the villageof Lolworth dating to the 12th - 13th centuries (ATK 245), Girton College in Girton(ATK 251) and Biggin Abbey in Fen Ditton dating to the 14th Century (ATK 253).

There are a further fifty four Grade II Listed Building within the study area. Themajority of these are in the villages of Ellington (ATK 195 - 207), Fenstanton (ATK223 - 238) and Girton (ATK 246 - 249).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, AS LISTED IN THE SITES AND MONUMENTS RECORD

The gazetteer in Volume 2, Appendix 12-A lists all the sites from the SMR withinthe study area, and the principle sites are described below.

Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Sites

Flint implements have been found within the study area and include areas inHemingford Grey (ATK 62 & 59), Buckden (ATK 26) and Fenstanton (ATK 70 & 74).At the site in Buckden Palaeolithic animal remains were found in the gravel pitsincluding mammoth bones. There have been very few excavated Mesolithic sites inthe County. One of these is located within the study area, Slate Hall Farm (ATK111). Other finds relating to this period include flints, awls and blades found inBuckden at the gravel pits (ATK 24).

Neolithic Sites

Stray finds are most often found in areas near the fen edge and along watercourses. Finds within the study area include axes and scrapers found atFenstanton (ATK 68 & 72), Fen Ditton (ATK 180), and Brampton (ATK 22).

Bronze Age Sites

A few findspots have been located within the study area such as a beaker (A164) inMilton, an arrowhead (ATK 21) in Impington and a quantity of worked flint inHorningsea (ATK 188). Also a small occupation site in Godmanchester is likely todate to the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age period (ATK 48). Finds includedworked flint, pottery, animal bone and charcoal. (ATK 48) A site has beenexcavated in Milton and consisted of a series of Bronze Age pits and ditches (ATK169).

Iron Age Sites

Two sites where cremation burials have been uncovered have been located withinthe study area. These are in Alconbury (ATK 1) and Milton (ATK 162) and datefrom the Iron Age to the Roman Period.

Settlement sites such as a farmstead at Longstanton (ATK 106) and a complex ofIron Age features in Milton (ATK 162) are present in the study area.

Roman Sites

The principle sites from this period in the study area are in the eastern section ofthe proposed road improvements to the north of Cambridge. These include theremains of a Roman military camp (ATK 158, 159) and a further four possiblesettlement sites along the course of the A14 (ATK 162, 175, 178, 186) Finds fromthe Roman period have been recovered along the entire length of the proposedbypass. The proposed bypass also crosses the A1198 which a former Roman road,Ermine Street (ATK 194) and another possible Roman road running from Sandy toGodmanchester (ATK 189)

Early Medieval Sites

There is little evidence for early medieval activity within the study area. There are afew finds which have been recovered within the study area such as a beaker,pottery sherds, cremation urns (ATK 27, 115, 131, 181). Also there is a chapel andcemetery site located at the present Girton College (ATK 128).

Medieval Sites

A moated sites is located within the study area at Fenstanton where a possiblerampart and double moated enclosure is present (ATK 76) and a further possibleexample at Hemingford Abbots at Moats Way Farm (ATK 55).

They are the All Saints in Ellington (ATK 197) and All Saints church in Lolworth(ATK 245). Another building relating to this period is Biggin Abbey in the parish ofFen Ditton. Built in the 14th century it was the residence of the Bishops of Ely andhad a moat (ATK 253).

Deserted medieval villages have been noted within the study area. These includeLolworth (ATK 101) with associated ridge and furrow and possible village green,and Houghton near Brampton (ATK 3).

The medieval field system as represented by ridge and furrow earthwork remainsare the most numerous remains within the study area. Thirty features described onthe Sites and Monuments Record refer to ridge and furrow earthworks in the studyarea. (ATK 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 36, 39, 40, 41, 56, 57, 79, 80, 87, 88, 90, 98, 99, 100,112, 117, 122, 125, 126, 135, 146, 148, 160, 186, 190).

Post-medieval Sites

Few sites are noted in the Sites and Monuments Record of known post-medievaldate. The first is a possible site of gallows from documentary evidence located atBrampton (ATK 23). Another is the remains of a dovecote just south of the villageof Fenstanton (ATK 84) Finally there are the remains of a moat, associated with thehouse called 'The Grange', believed to date to the 18th or 19th century (ATK 104).

Modern Sites

The modern sites listed are (ATK 8, 93, 120) and are pillboxes all associated withWorld War II. One other site is from the modern period and this is a post holethought to date to the 1920s (ATK 133).

Undated Entries on the SMR

There are many undated entries on the SMR. These are predominantly cropmarkfeatures that have not been further evaluated and therefore are currently notdateable.

CARTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

1st and 2nd edition OS maps and tithe, estate and other maps dating from 1774and 1912 were analysed. These maps were analysed to gain an understanding ofthe continuity of land use from the earliest to the latest date, to identify whetherparts of the proposed development area had been previously developed, and toconfirm the presence of archaeological remains additional to those listed on theSMR. A list of maps studied is contained within the Bibliography. The OS mapsstudied included:

There were been no additional sites identified from plans or maps which were notalready noted on the Sites and Monuments Record.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

In summary the assessment examined a corridor of at least 200 metres each sideof the proposed routes of some 30 km of A14 bypass and improvements betweenEllington and Fen Ditton. The survey picked up the following features roughly fromWest to east:

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK

Extensive previous archaeological fieldwork has been undertaken within the studyarea. This has been particularly concentrated in the eastern section of theproposals at the north of Cambridgeshire due to the high level of past activity in thearea, particularly of the Roman period. The sites to which fieldwork relates alreadyappear on the SMR and are included in the baseline information above. Details ofexisting fieldwork assessments of particular note in identifying sites within the studyarea are included in the EAR.

5.13.5 Potential Impacts on the Historic Environment

TYPES OF IMPACT

An archaeological resource can be affected by development in a number of ways:by the removal of material during works, the destruction to sensitive depositscaused by the presence of heavy plant, and the alteration of stable groundconditions which may lead to degradation of the quality and survival of buriedarchaeological remains.

Equally, the built heritage can be affected by development through possibledemolition or loss of part of a structure or its grounds; increased visual intrusion,noise or vibration; changes in the original landscape; severance from linkedfeatures such as gardens, outbuildings etc or through the loss of amenity value.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Ellington to Godmanchester (A1198)

Section 1A (Ellington to the A1 Brampton Interchange)

Blue/ Orange/ Purple (Common Route)

Summary of Impacts on Designated Sites - The Conservation Area designation atEllington (ATK 254) is approximately 500 meters from the start of the commonroute scheme footprint and has views across the land to Brampton. There is aListed Milestone (ATK 208) along the existing A14 at the point where the roadscheme deviates from the existing road line.

Table 5.35 - Section 1A: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Blue/ Orange/ Purple Common Section
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
3Deserted medieval settlementRemain associated with the settlement may extend west beneath scheme footprint
4Complex ditch systemCropmarks are not noted within the area of land take proposals however the potential site could extend west beneath scheme footprint
5Linear feature, possibly the formerLinear feature may extend beneath woodland boundary scheme footprint
14Ridge and furrow earthworks andLinear features and ridge furrow linear features may extend beneath the scheme footprint
16Complex of circular and linearThe proposals pass through the cropmarks, possibly southern section of the site incorporating ring ditches and enclosures
254Ellington Conservation AreaCurrent views may be affected by the proposals
208Listed MilestoneProposals may physically impact on the milestone in its current location. The views to and from the milestone may also be impacted on
N/APotential sitesFinds and/or scattered features associated with the medieval period

Blue A1 Alternative Routes

Summary of Impacts on Designated Sites - There are no designated sitesimpacted upon.

Table 5.36 - Section 1A: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Blue Option A1 Alternative
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
9Enclosures and pit alignments of unknown dateThe proposals pass very close to or through this site
10Medieval Ridge and Furrow earthworksThe proposals pass through the field where the earthworks have been noted
14Medieval Ridge and Furrow earthworksThe proposals pass near to this site, which may extend beneath the scheme footprint
16Complex of circular and linear cropmarks, possibly incorporating ring ditches and enclosuresThe proposals pass through the southern part of this site
N/APotential sitesFinds and/or scattered features associated with the medieval period
Table 5.37 - Section 1A: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Orange Option 1A Alternative
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
9Enclosures and pit alignments of unknown dateThe proposals pass very close to or through this site
10Ridge and Furrow earthworksThe proposals pass through the field where the earthworks have been noted
14Ridge and Furrow and linear featuresThe proposals pass directly through this site
16Complex of circular and linear cropmarks, possibly incorporating ring ditches and enclosures of unknown dateTwo sections of the proposed roadways pass through a substantial section of this site
N/APotential sitesFinds and/or scattered features associated with the medieval period

Summary of the Archaeological Resource in Section 1A

In summary the type of archaeological resource identified in the section is one ofcropmarks indicated ditches and enclosures, some possibly associated with adeserted medieval settlement. There are also areas of medieval ridge and furrowearthworks noted on the sites and monuments record. There is a potential forfinding further medieval finds or features.

Section 1 B (Brampton Interchange to Offord Hill Farm/Corpus Christi Farm, wherethe alternative purple/blue alignment begins)

Blue/ Purple Options (Common Section)

Impacts on Designated Sites - there is one Listed Milestone (ATK 210) less than200 metres from one of the slip/access roads associated with the Blue/Purpleroute. It is not physically impacted upon.

Table 5.38 - Section 1B: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Blue/ Purple Options Common Section
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
25Cropmarks of linear features and an enclosureThe proposals pass through the linear feature and may impact on further unknown enclosures within the site
39Ridge and furrow earthworksThe proposals pass along the boundary to field where the earthworks have been noted
210Listed MilestoneThe proposals pass within 200 metres of the milestone, so although it will not be physically impacted upon, the setting of the milestone may be affected
N/APotentialTwo Roman coins (ATK 30 & 31) found nearby indicate the presence of activity from this period. Further finds or features related to this period may be present
Section 1B: Summary of Know and Potential Sites Orange Option
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
27Occupation site including put huts of possible Iron Age/Roman dateThe site is near to the scheme footprint and may extend beneath the proposals
37Extensive site of field boundaries, enclosures and ring ditches visible as cropmarksThe proposals may pass directly through this site
N/APotentialFindspots of prehistoric date and evidence of possible settlement relating to the Iron Age/Roman period indicate the potential for further finds or scattered features associated with the prehistoric and Roman period

Summary of the Archaeological Resource in Section 1B

The proposed routes pass near to four findspots of prehistoric date (ATK 24, 26,33, 34). This indicates that the area may have further potential for prehistoricremains/finds where the road is proposed that are as yet unknown. In additionthere are finds associated with the Roman period within this section (ATK 30, 31,32) Generally in this section more extensive sites of possible settlement arerevealed by cropmarks.

Section 1C (Offord Hill Farm/Corpus Christi Farm, where the alternative purple/bluealignment begins to the A1198 at Godmanchester)

Blue/ Purple Options

Impacts on Designated Sites - there are no designated sites impacted upon.

Table 5.39 - Section 1C: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Blue/ Purple Options
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
48Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age pits and ditch revealed in excavationsAlthough part of the site has been excavated, there may be further associated remains. The proposals pass through this site
N/APotentialThe route passes close to six findspots of Roman date (ATK 42-47). Also the route crosses the A1198 which was the Roman road, Ermine Street (ATK 194) and a further possible Roman road connecting Sandy with Godmanchester (ATK 189). In addition three mounds of unknown date (ATK 50-53) lie close to this road which may include remains. This infers the potential for further finds or archaeological remains associated with the Roman period. The presence of an earlier prehistoric site infers the potential for further sites of this kind in the area

Blue/Purple Alternative

Impacts on Designated Sites - there are no designated sites impacted upon

Table 5.40 - Section 1C: Summary of Known and Potential Sites Blue/Purple Alternative
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
N/APotentialThe route passes close to six findspots of Roman date (ATK 42-47). Also the route crosses the A1198 which was the Roman road, Ermine Street (ATK 194) and a further possible Roman road connecting Sandy with Godmanchester (ATK 189). In addition three mounds of unknown date (ATK 50-53) lie close to this road which may include remains. This infers the potential for further finds or archaeological remains associated with the Roman period. The presence of an earlier prehistoric site infers the potential for further sites of this kind in the area.

The route does not impact upon any known sites.

Orange Option

Impacts on Designated Sites - there are no designated sites impacted upon

Table 5.41 - Section 1C: Summary of Known and Potential Sites Orange Option
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
N/APotentialThe route passes close to six findspots of Roman date (ATK 42-47). Also the route crosses the A1198 which was the Roman road, Ermine Street (ATK 194) and a further possible Roman road connecting Sandy with Godmanchester (ATK 189). In addition three mounds of unknown date (ATK 50-53) lie close to this road which may include remains. This infers the potential for further finds or archaeological remains associated with the Roman period. The presence of an earlier prehistoric site infers the potential for further sites of this kind in the area.

The route does not impact upon any known sites.

Summary of the Archaeological Resource in Section 1C

The route passes near to 6 areas of findspots, all of Roman date (ATK 42 - 47).This indicates a level of Roman activity in the area and so there may be furtherfinds/remains where the road is proposed that are as yet unknown.

The A1198 runs along the course of the former Ermine Street (ATK 194) usedduring the Roman period and an additional possible Roman road may run fromSandy top Godmanchester (ATK 189). Therefore finds and remains from thisperiod in this vicinity are very probable. Near to the road footprint where theBlue/Purple route meets the A1198 are five possible dates of Roman date. All ofthese have been recorded as possible mounds (ATK 49, 50, 51, 52, 53) close tothe roadside and so this infers that there could be further remains in the same area.The Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age site indicates the possibility of further sites ofthis period to be present.

Godmanchester (A1198) to Bar Hill

Sub-Section 2A (Godmanchester, A1198 to Conington/Common Route)

Blue Option

Impacts on Designated Sites - there are no designated sites impacted upon.

Table 5.42 - Section 2A: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Blue Option
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
61Rectilinear enclosureThe scheme footprint passes through the southern extent of this site
63Large complex of rectilinear features and linear ditches and pits, possibly settlement siteThe route proposals pass 50 metres to the south of this site. It is highly possible that this site extends under the scheme footprint
58Extensive complex site of enclosures and linear features. Ridge and furrow earthworks have been notedThe proposals pass directly through the centre of this site and the ridge and furrow earthworks
60Complex including 4 rectangular enclosures and possible ring ditchThe proposals pass directly through the centre of this site
79Pit alignment, enclosures and trackway visible as cropmarks located on high groundThe route proposals pass 50 metres to the south of this site, however it is possible that the sites extend beneath the scheme footprint
87Ridge and furrow worksThe proposals pass through the field where the earthworks have been noted
89Fragmentary features which include small enclosures and ploughed out ridge and furrowThe proposals pass directly through this site
82Linear features possibly representing a larger field systemThe proposals pass directly through this site
92Linear and rectilinear cropmarks associated with site including enclosures, banks and linear ditched on the northern side of the A14The proposals pass through the southern section of this site to the southof the A14
N/APotentialFinds from the Palaeolithic period up to the Roman period (ATK 67, 70-74, 83, 85) were recovered from the area. In addition there are extensive cropmarks of sites indicating that there could be small scale settlement ranging from the Iron Age to modern periods. There is also extensive ridge and furrow earthworks representing earlier field systems in the area and further sites that are currently not noted may be present

Orange Option

Impacts on Designated Sites - there are no designated sites impacted upon.

Table 5.43 - Section 2A: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Orange Option
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
58Extensive complex site of enclosures and linear features. Ridge and furrow earthworks have been notedThe proposals pass directly through the centre of this site and the ridge and furrow works
79Pit alignment, enclosures and trackway visible as cropmarks on high groundThe proposals pass 150 metres to the south of this site, however it is possible that the sites extend beneath the scheme footprint
87Ridge and furrow earthworksThe proposals pass through the field where the earthworks have been noted
65Fragmentary features visible as cropmarks and may include enclosures, fields and paddocksThe proposals pass 100 metres to the south of these features and therefore it is possible that they extend beneath the scheme footprint
89Fragmentary features which include small enclosures and ploughed out ridge and furrow
82Linear features possibly representing a larger field systemThe proposals pass directly through thissite
92Linear and rectilinearThe proposals pass through the cropmarks associated with site southern section of this site to the south including enclosures, banks of the A14 and linear ditches on the northern side of the A14
N/APotentialFinds from the Palaeolithic period up to the Roman period (ATK 67, 70-74, 83, 85) were recovered from the area. In addition there are extensive cropmarks of sites indicating that there could be small scale settlements ranging from the Iron Age to modern periods. There is also extensive ridge and furrow earthworks representing earlier field systems in the area and further sites are currently not noted may be present.

Purple Option

Impacts on Designated Sites

There are 31 Listed Buildings within 500 metres of the scheme footprint at Section2a, purple route, of the proposals. The majority of these are within the village ofFenstanton, which is itself a Conservation Area (ATK 255). The setting of theConservation Area may be affected by the proposals for example visually or fromnoise.

There following buildings in the village are more than 250 metres from the roadimprovements and within a built up area and so will not suffer visual or noiseintrusion, (ATK 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241) Those buildings that are at thewestern edge of the village are closer to the A14 along which the purple routeproposals pass (ATK 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228. There area a group of 7buildings which are located 300 metres to the west of the village of Fenstanton,north of the A14 (ATK 212 - 218). There are a further group of 4 buildings to thesouth of Fenstanton village and the A14 (ATK 219 - 222). A further farm buildinglocated along the A14 is 400 metres from the proposed 'off line' route before thepurple route joins the A14 (ATK 211).

These buildings will not be physically impacted upon. All of these buildings, thoughthere may be increased visual and noise intrusion temporarily during constructionworks, will not be any more adversely impacted upon by the proposals than theyare at present by the A14.

There is one Listed milestone (242) located on the north side of the A14. This is theonly Listed building which may be physically impacted upon. Dependent on theexact nature of the works, this milestone may have to be relocated due to theworks.

Table 5.44 - Section 2A: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Purple Option
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
57Ridge and furrow earthworksThe proposals pass through a field noted as having ridge and furrow earthworks
69Site comprising of ring ditch, enclosures, pits and possible Iron Age barrowsThe site is on the northern side of the A14 and though is may be heavily disturbed by previous road improvement works, there may still be remains that could be impacted upon during the proposals
76Complex of earthworks possibly including a medieval rampart and double moated enclosureThis site is 250 metres to the south of the A14 and the proposals however further remains associated with this site could extend beneath the road widening proposals
83Ditches with Roman potteryThis potential site is less than 100 metres from the scheme proposals and therefore may extend beneath any road widening proposals
84Remains of a post medieval dovecoteThe remains beneath the current A14 will have been removed however further remains may extend beyond the current carriageway beneath the scheme footprint
65Rectilinear ditches visible as cropmarksThese cropmarks are visible at the southern extent of the A14 carriageway and therefore any works conducted not within the carriageway footprint may impact on this site
86Faint cropmarks visibleThese cropmarks are directly on the edge of the present carriageway. Any works outside of the carriageway footprint may impact on this possible site
93Pill Box buildingThis building is on the edge of the northern A14 carriageway. Any works that take place outside the carriageway footprint may physically impact on this building
82Linear features possibly representing a larger field systemThe site extends to the south side of the A14 and the proposals therefore further remains may extend beneath the scheme footprint
92Linear and rectilinear cropmarks associated with site including enclosures, banks and linear ditches on the northern side of the A14The site extends to the north and south of the A14 and proposals and therefore any works undertaken outside the present carriageway footprint may impact upon this site
255Fenstanton Conservation AreThe proposals may impact upon the current setting of the conservation Area
211-241Listed BuildingsListed buildings that may suffer from visual or noise intrusion, or a change in their current setting because of the proposals include ATK 211-228 because of their vicinity to the works or their setting not within a built up area
N/APotentialFinds from the Palaeolithic period up to the Roman period (ATK 67, 70-74, 83, 85) were recovered from the area. In addition there are extensive cropmarks of sites indicating that there could be small scale settlements ranging from the Iron Age to modern periods. There is also extensive ridge and furrow earthworks representing earlier field systems in the area and further sites are currently not noted may be present

Summary of the Archaeological Resource in Section 2A

Section 2a of the proposed scheme is rich in archaeological remains and thereforepotential sites. There are many areas of cropmarks that indicate enclosures, pitalignments, field systems and paddocks. In addition there have been a number offinds in particular located within the gravel terrace which has since been quarried.These finds range in date from the Palaeolithic period up to the Roman period(ATK 67, 70 - 74, 83, 85). There are a number of Listed Buildings within the villageof Fenstanton. The purple route would have the greatest impact due to the closeproximity of the route to the village.

Sub-Section 2B (Conington/Common Route - Dry Drayton Junction)

Blue/Purple/ Orange Options (Common Section)

Impacts on Designated Sites - there is one milestone on the north side of the A14and scheme proposals (ATK 243). Dependent on the exact nature of the works thismay be physically impacted upon. There is one other Listed Building within thestudy area of this section. This is the Grange (ATK 244), though it is more than 400metres from the scheme proposals.

Table 5.45 - Section 2B: Summary of Known and Potential Sites - Blue/ Purple/ Orange Common Section
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
99Ridge and furrow earthworksThe earthworks have been noted in a field to the northern boundary of the A14. Any works outside of the present carriageway footprint may impact upon the earthworks
101Deserted Medieval Village with associated building remains and ridge and furrowRemains associated with the Deserted Medieval Village may extend to the boundaries of the present carriageway and so any works that take place outside of the carriageway footprint may impact upon remains
105MilestoneThis milestone, on the north side of the A14, may be physically impacted upon dependant on the nature of the works carried out
106Complex of ditches, and closures, paddocks and surface finds, indicates site of settlementThe scheme proposals pass through the southern section of this site
111Mesolithic flint working siteAlthough a field walking exercise has recovered many of the flints, any work in the area may uncover further finds associated
112Extensive ridge and furrow earthworksThe earthworks may extend up to the boundary of the current carriageway and therefore be impacted upon by any works outside of the carriageway footprint
113MilestoneThe milestone is located on the south side of the A14 and could be within the proposed scheme footprint
116Remains of a windmillRemains may be located beneath scheme footprint
243Listed milestonePossible physical impacts in its current location
N/APotentialThe scheme in this section is on the line of the current A14 and therefore is unlikely to cut directly through the centre of an unknown site, however sites that are centres near to the road may extend within the scheme foot. Any remains or finds are likely to be of Roman date given the extensive a nearby possible settlement site and the Roman coins/inhumation of possible Roman date.

Summary of the Archaeological Resource in Section 2B

There are three find spots of Roman origin that indicate the presence of furtherfinds or remains associated with this period (ATK 108, 109, 114). These finds couldbe associated with the site at New Close Farm (ATK 106). Also an inhumation wasuncovered along the A14 roadway (ATK 110) and although this particular set ofremains has been excavated it is possible that further associated remains are stillpresent. The inhumation is possibly of Roman date and could indicate the presenceof a Roman cemetery. Again cropmarks indicate possible sites of settlement.However because the road is for the most part on the line of the present A14 theimpact on remains will be reduced because there will be less land take in general.There may be a physical impact on a Listed milestone located on the roadside(ATK 243).

Bar Hill to Fen Ditton

Impacts on Designated Sites

There are eight Listed Buildings within the study area along section 3 of the A14proposals. Four of these are within Girton village (ATK 246 - 249). There are twoListed Buildings at Girton College (ATK 250 &251) There is a Grade II* ListedBuilding near Horningsea called Biggin Abbey (ATK 253) and a Grade II ListedBuilding called Poplar Hall Farm (ATK 252).

There are two Conservation Areas within the study area in this section of theproposals. The first is Fen Ditton Conservation area which encompasses the villageof Fen Ditton and traverses north following the line of the River Cam which crossesthe A14 (ATK 256). The second in a similar location is Baits Bite Lock (ATK 257)250 metres north of the A14 and adjacent to the Fen Ditton Conservation Area.

Table 5.46 - Section 3: Summary of Known and Potential Sites
Atkins No.DescriptionImpact
118Milestone on the south of the carriagewayAny works proposed outside the carriageway footprint may impact on the milestone
119Milestone located adjacent to the carriagewayAny works proposed outside the carriageway footprint may impact on the milestone
121Pillbox adjacent to the carriagewayAny works proposed outside the carriageway footprint may impact on the pillbox
122Enclosures and trackways along with ridge and furrowAny works proposed outside the carriageway footprint may impact on the pillbox
124ParklandAnd road widening will impact on this area of parkland
127MilestoneAny works proposed outside the carriageway footprint may impact on the milestone
128Early Medieval Chapel/CemeteryThe known extent of this site is over 150 metres from the proposals however the site may extend beneath the scheme footprint
137 & 141Cluster of three rectilinear enclosures and one large curvilinear enclosures along with a right angled double ditched featureThis site may extend beneath the scheme footprint
146 & 147Double ditched enclosure with traces of an internal bank and trackways, possibly a section of Arbury Roman military campThis site may extend beneath the scheme footprint
149 & 152Ditches and large rectangular feature or Roman and post medieval dateThis site may extend beneath the scheme footprint
153Area of metalling, pits and ditches dating to the Roman periodThis site may extend beneath the scheme footprint
165Cropmarks feature visible on aerial photographsThe proposals pass though this site
173Ditches or Roman date containing potteryThis site may extend beneath the scheme footprint
175Location of Roman settlement, excavated in 1903 incorporated features such as humanThis site may extend beneath the scheme footprint
177Site of possible settlement including enclosures visible as cropmarksExtends over a wide area, 5.5 hectares and therefore it is possible that the site could extend beneath the scheme footprint
184Unidentified moundThe mound could be an indication of possible remains that could extend beneath the scheme footprint
186 & 190Possible settlement site with enclosures visible as cropmarks. Also ridge and furrow in the same areaThe site extends beneath the scheme footprint and so any works undertaken outside of the present carriageway footprint may impact upon the site
246 - 253Listed BuildingsNone of the buildings will be physically impacted upon, but their settings may be impacted upon
256Fen Ditton Conservation AreaThe current A14 crosses through the Conservation Area and so any new works undertaken in this area will be within the Conservation Area
257Baits Bits LockWithin 250 metres of the current A14 and so works may affect the setting of the Conservation Area
N/APotentialThis area is rich in remains dating to the Roman period. A Roman military camp and various possible settlement sites infer the potential to uncover remains and finds associated with the settlement of this period. Remains and scattered features relating to other periods such as the Bronze Age and post-medieval period is also a possibility

Summary of the Archaeological Resource in Section 3

This section is dominated by the presence of Arbury Roman military camp (ATK146 & 147). Cropmarks of features associated with this site have been noted andthere are a further three possible sites of settlement along the route of the A14. Thepresent A14 passes through the Conservation Area of Fen Ditton which follows theRiver Cam north of the village.

5.13.6 Summary of Potential Impacts and Recommendations for Further Assessment

SUMMARY OF KNOWN AND POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGY WITHIN THE ROUTE CORRIDORS

The impacts of each of the proposed route options have set out previously.However, in order to provide an overall picture of the archaeological issuesinvolved in the scheme, a brief summary of issues for each section of the proposedcorridor is set out in the table below. Key archaeological sites which may presentthe most significant and substantial issues are also identified in Table 5.47 below.

Table 5.47 - Summary of Potential Impacts
Route SectionListed BuildingsConservation AreasKnown Archaeological sitesArchaeological Potential
1a117 sites. 6 are areas of cropmarks of unknown date and 1 area of ridge and furrow. One site of potentially great significance (ATK16)Yes - associated with high level of medieval activity in the area
1b104 sites. 2 areas of cropmarks of unknown date, an Iron Age site and an area of ridge and furrowYes - potential remains associated with the Roman and early prehistoric period
1c001 known site of Late Neolithic dateYes - potential remains associated with Roman period and earlier
2a30111 sites relating to cropmarks, 4 known sites ranging from the Iron Age to the modern period and 2 areas of ridge and furrowYes - potential for remains associated with all periods probably relating to settlement and farming
2b108 sites. 4 sites from medieval/post medieval period and one from the Mesolithic. One area of cropmarks and 2 areas of ridge and furrow. One site of potentially great significance (ATK 106)Yes - likely to be of Roman date relating to settlement and farming activities
37219 sites. 10 areas of cropmarks probably of Roman date. 4 sites of post medieval date. One site of Saxon date and 3 relating to Roman settlement. One site of potentially great significance (ATK 186)Yes - area rich in archaeological remains associated with the Roman military camp and subsequent settlements

At this stage, the extent and survival of each site has not been evaluated in detail,so that the exact nature of impacts and appropriate mitigation cannot be specified.However, the route which impacts upon the most archaeological sites is the Purpleoption which impacts upon 52 known sites. The Blue option impacts upon 50 sitesand the Orange impacts upon 45. However the use of the alternative route optionsat Section 1A reduces the sites impacted upon by 3 and the use of the Purple/Bluealternative option reduces the sites impacted upon by 1. Therefore the route toimpact upon the least known sites would be Orange using the Alternative Orangeoption at Section 1A. The purple route impacts upon the most known sites,however it must be noted that this option returns to the existing A14 carriagewaysooner than the Blue and Orange options and so results in less new land take.Therefore the purple route may be seen as the route which has the least potentialto disturb previously unknown remains.

The potential impacts on known sites do not differ when the various route optionsor 'sets', as described previously are assessed. This is because the routes arebroadly the same and it is only the designs of junctions which differ. Therefore thepotential impacts described previously apply for both of the sets. However, thereare minor variations for each 'set', in particular the amount of land take. The setwhich result in more new land take is more likely to disturb as yet unknownarchaeological remains. Currently the route option that results in the least new landtake is the Optimum junction option. The set which results in the most new landtake is the Limited junction option.

Therefore overall, the selection which disturbs the least number of known sites isOrange Route, including the Alternative Orange section, using the Optimumjunction strategy.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT

Based on our current understanding, 5 sites have been identified which are ofpotentially great significance. The sites are all indicative of settlement and includefeatures such as enclosures, ditches, surface finds, and linear features. These siteshave been highlighted due to their likely complex nature, importance, and/or thelarge area they cover. Based on current knowledge, these sites are expected torequire the most significant/costly mitigation measures.

An evaluation strategy should be produced once a preferred route has beenannounced and this should include, but not be limited to, fieldwalking, geophysicalsurvey and trial trenching of known sites and potential sites, along the chosenroute. Priority should be given to the evaluation of key sites as identified in boldabove, as the design of the final scheme may need to take into account areaswhere archaeology will need to be preserved in situ. The evaluations will ascertainthe nature, extent and condition of the known archaeological resource and providea better understanding of the likelihood of disturbing previously unknown remains.


5. Environmental Assessment -13

5. Environmental Assessment -14

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.14 Water Quality and Drainage

5.14.1 Introduction

New roads can have an impact on the movement and quality of nearby surface andground waters, both during the construction phase and once the road isoperational. This section of the report addresses the issues, associated with thewater environment, which will need to be considered during the construction andoperation of the proposed road improvements.

5.14.2 Study Area

The study area for the water environment consists of surface watercourses (andassociated flood plains) that are crossed or receive drainage from the proposedimproved route and groundwater in the vicinity of the improvements.

5.14.3 Method of Assessment

There is a raft of legislation and guidance relevant to the potential impact of roadconstruction and operation on the quality and quantity of water within nearbysurface and ground water environments. Some of the most relevant are identifiedand described in this section.

The Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) sets out the framework in which to assessthe attributes of the existing water environment and their importance, along with thepotential impacts of a new road and their magnitude and significance. This beginsby identifying relevant features and their attributes. For this scheme the featuresare the main rivers, such as the River Great Ouse, the wider flood plain and theassociated network of tributaries and drainage ditches, groundwater and anydesignated sites associated with the water environment. The attributes includewater supply, transport and dilution of wastewater, biodiversity, aesthetics,recreation, value to economy and conveyancing of flow and flood waters.

Within the TAG framework, the potential impacts on water quality were assessedusing the established methodologies for routine runoff and spillage risk outlined inthe Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Section 3 Part 10 (DMRB11.3.10). The methodology for routine runoff involves tests to predict futureconcentrations of zinc and copper in receiving watercourses. The spillage riskassessment methodology provides the return period of a serious accident based onroad length, presence of junctions, annual average daily traffic (AADT), percentageof heavy goods vehicles (%HGV), serious spillage rates, emergency servicesresponse time and River Ecosystem (RE) Target of the receiving watercourse.

The potential influence of road development on flow regimes in the flood plain isaddressed in Advice Note HA 71 The Effects of Highway Construction on FloodPlains (DMRB 4.2.1). In addition, The Department for Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions (DTLR) has introduced the Planning Policy GuidanceNote 25 (PPG 25) in July 2001 to prescribe how flood risk should be consideredduring all stages of the planning and development process to reduce future damage to property andloss of life. This guidance is particularly relevant to any new development in theflood plain, where there are potentially acute impacts for flooding both for the newdevelopment itself and elsewhere.

Water quality in rivers and canals within England and Wales is monitored by theEnvironment Agency through the General Quality Assessment scheme (GQA),which is designed to provide an accurate and consistent assessment of the state ofwater quality and changes in this state over time. As part of this scheme; chemical,biological, nutrient and aesthetic quality are assessed. The chemical and biologicalparts of the GQA scheme are scored from Grade A, which represents water of Verygood quality, through to Grade F, which represents water of Bad quality (Tables5.48 and 5.49). Chemical quality is assessed through concentrations of ammonia,biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and dissolved oxygen (DO), and biologicalquality determined from the range of macro-invertebrate species found in thewatercourse.

Table 5.48 - Chemical General Quality Assessment Scheme (GQA) Classification Criteria
ClassificationLikely Uses and Characteristics*
A - Very goodAll abstractions, very good salmonid fisheries, cyprinid fisheries and natural ecosystems
B - GoodAll abstractions, salmonid fisheries, cyprinid fisheries and ecosystems at or close to natural
C - Fairly goodPotable supply after advanced treatment, other abstractions, good cyprinid fisheries and natural ecosystems, or those corresponding to good cyprinid fisheries
D - FairPotable supply after advanced treatment, other abstractions, fair cyprinid fisheries and impacted ecosystems
E - PoorLow grade abstraction for industry, fish absent or sporadically present, vulnerable to pollution** and impoverished ecosystems**
F - BadVery polluted rivers which may cause nuisance and severely restricted ecosystems.
Table 5.49 - Biological General Quality Assessment Scheme (GQA) Classification Criteria
ClassificationLikely Uses and Characteristics*
A - Very goodBiology similar to that expected for an unpolluted river
B - GoodBiology is a little short of an unpolluted river
C - Fairly goodBiology worse than expected for unpolluted river
D - FairA range of pollution tolerant species present
E - PoorBiology restricted to pollution tolerant species
F - BadBiology restricted to a small number of species very tolerant of pollution

Additionally, River Quality Objects (RQOs) are used in England and Wales astargets for water quality under The Surface Water (River Ecosystem)(Classification) Regulations 1994. As part of this, seven parameters (DissolvedOxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), total ammonia, un-ionisedammonia, pH, dissolved copper and total zinc) have been grouped to form theRiver Ecosystem Classification (RE). The RE Classification system is a useorientatedscheme of environmental objectives, the targets from which specify theuses for which a particular river should be able to provide (Table 5.50).

Table 5.50 - River Ecosystem Classification
ClassificationUse
RE1Water of very good quality and suitable for all fish species
RE2Water of good quality and suitable for all fish species
RE3Water of fair quality and suitable for high class coarse fish populations
RE4Water of fair quality and suitable for coarse fish populations
RE5Water of poor quality which is likely to limit coarse fish populations

The monitoring and protection of water quality within surface waters are part of theduties the Environment Agency has for 'controlled waters' under the WaterResources Act (1991). Controlled waters are essentially all waters, either above orbelow ground, which are neither in the drinking water supply pipe nor the seweragenetwork.

Water within the ground, particularly in aquifers, is important as it providesbaseflow to many rivers and provides approximately 35% of all drinking water inEngland and Wales. Once contaminated, groundwater is extremely difficult torehabilitate, so discharges to ground are strictly controlled, most notably throughthe Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC), which is enshrined in UK law in theGroundwater Regulations 1998. Furthermore, the "Policy and Practice for theProtection of Groundwater" introduced by the National Rivers Authority (NRA) (aprecursor to the Environment Agency) in 1992, established Source ProtectionZones (SPZs) to control land use and activities close to abstraction sources(springs, wells, boreholes) in order to protect vulnerable aquifer resources (Table5.51).

The monitoring and protection of water quality within surface waters are part of theduties the Environment Agency has for 'controlled waters' under the WaterResources Act (1991). Controlled waters are essentially all waters, either above orbelow ground, which are neither in the drinking water supply pipe nor the seweragenetwork.

Water within the ground, particularly in aquifers, is important as it providesbaseflow to many rivers and provides approximately 35% of all drinking water inEngland and Wales. Once contaminated, groundwater is extremely difficult torehabilitate, so discharges to ground are strictly controlled, most notably throughthe Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC), which is enshrined in UK law in theGroundwater Regulations 1998. Furthermore, the "Policy and Practice for theProtection of Groundwater" introduced by the National Rivers Authority (NRA) (aprecursor to the Environment Agency) in 1992, established Source ProtectionZones (SPZs) to control land use and activities close to abstraction sources(springs, wells, boreholes) in order to protect vulnerable aquifer resources (Table5.51).

Table 5.51 - Source Protection Zones
ZoneDescription
Zone I (Inner Source Protection)Immediately adjacent to the source and based upon a 50 day travel time (or 50 m whichever is greater) from any point below the water table to the source (50 days being the decay period for biological contaminants)
Zone II (Outer Source Protection)Defined by a 400 day travel time from any point below the water table to the source (to provide delay and attenuation of slowly degrading pollutants)
Zone III (Source Catchment)Defined by the entire catchment area of a groundwater source

The data used to assess the existing nature of the water environment within thestudy area have been obtained through a combination of desk studies, literaturereview, consultation and site visits.

5.14.4 Criteria for Magnitude and Significance of Impacts

Under the TAG framework, the attributes of the water environment are evaluatedon the basis of quality, scale, rarity and substitutability, giving an overallimportance. The operational effect of the new road is assessed using criteria fordetermining impact magnitude, for example 'loss of attribute'. The significance ofthe impact (Table 5.52) is estimated by considering both the importance of theattribute and the predicted impact magnitude.

Table 5.52 - Table Showing Impact Appraisal Categories Ordered by Significance
Significance of Impact / Appraisal CategoryExamples
Very significant adverseLoss of internationally important habitat, pollution of major aquifer
Highly significant adverseReduction in GQA grade of receiving waters, pollution of local potable water source, increase in flood risk
Significant adverseReduction in economic value, reduced productivity of fishery
Low significant adverseMeasurable but limited adverse changes in attributes
InsignificantDischarges to watercourse but no significant loss in quality, biodiversity, aesthetics or economic value and no increase in flood risk
Table 5.53 - Table Showing Impact Appraisal Categories ordered by Significance
Significance of Impact / Appraisal CategoryExamples
Low significant beneficialMeasurable but limited beneficial changes in attributes
Significant beneficialIncrease in economic value, increase in fishery productivity
Highly significantbeneficialImprovement in GQA grade of receiving waters, mitigation of pollution of local potable water source, decrease in flood risk
Very significant beneficialMitigation of pollution of major aquifer or of internationally important habitat

Specific criteria were used for assessing the magnitude and significance of theoperational impacts of the road on water quality, and whether mitigation measureswere required. If soluble copper or total zinc concentrations are predicted to behigher than the Environmental Quality Standard for the receiving watercourse, thenthe need for mitigation is determined by more detailed modelling. If the spillagerisk return period is less than 1 in 50 years, then mitigation is necessary. Both ofthese assessments consider the effects of the road in the context of the existingenvironment (i.e. current use of water and RE Target).

5.14.5 Existing Conditions

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

There are five gauging stations pertinent to the proposed improvements identifiedby the National River Flow Archive (NRFA) maintained by the Centre for Ecologyand Hydrology (CEH):

Data available for these gauging stations, from the NRFA website, pertinent to theflow regime of these watercourses are displayed in Table 5.54.

Table 5.54 - Flow Regimes for Water Courses in the Study Area
StationCatchment (km2)Mean Flow (m3s-1)Q 95%ile (m3s-1)Q 10%ile (m3s-1)Mean Rain '69-'90 (mm)
Offord2570.013.842.0634.72609
Brampton201.50.820.0122.102565
Brownshill3030.014.410.99136.53601
Jesus Lock761.52.810.7056.23-
Bottisham803.03.640.9067.033567

N.B. The data were obtained from the National River Flow Archive (NRFA) website, which is maintained by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH).

In addition, there are a number of stageboards on the River Great Ouse and theRiver Cam that are used by the Environment Agency, which would provide a waterlevel data set. On the Great Ouse, the most pertinent are at: Brampton Sluice,Garkies Mill, Godmanchester Sluice, Houghton Mill, Hemmingford Sluice, St. IvesSluice, Webb's Hole Sluice, Brownhill Staunch and Earith, and on the River Camat: Jesus Lock and Baits Bite.

Details of abstraction licences were provided by the Environment Agency for fourgeographical areas, which broadly represent the area of study associated with theproposed improvements. The four areas are defined by the following national gridreferences (NGRs): Area 1 - SW TL 110650, NE TL 190770; Area 2 - SW TL190620, NE TL 330750; Area 3 - SW TL 330580, NE TL 400720; and Area 4 - SWTL 400560, NE TL 540670.

Within the overall area, there are 65 licensed surface water abstractions. Of these,55 are for agricultural spray irrigation, five are for industrial, commercial or publicservices, one is for general agricultural or domestic use, one is of private watersupply (non-potable) and three are for public water supply (Table 5.55). Surfacewater is mainly abstracted from drains, but the licensed abstractions include: 12from the Great Ouse, three from the Cam, one from Elsworth Brook, one fromDiddington Brook and one from Swavesey Drain. The public water supplyabstractions consist of the potable water abstraction from Grafham Water licensedto Anglian Water Services for an annual quantity of 120000000 m3 at NGR TL170671 and two transfers between sources licensed to Anglian Water Servicesfrom the Great Ouse at Offord (NGR TL 214661) for annual quantities of167588290 m3 and 9436710 m3.

Table 5.55 - Breakdown of Surface Water Abstraction within the Overall Study Area by Search Area and Abstraction Type
AreaSurface Water Abstraction TypeTotal
General Farming and DomesticIndustrial ProcessesPublic/ Private Water SupplySpray IrrigationAmenity Private (non-industrial)
1001405
203210015
30207110
410034035
Total15355165
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

The area within which all of the proposed offline improvement routes and themajority of the online improvements lie is covered entirely by the one-inchGeological Sheet 187 (Huntingdon), which was originally surveyed on the one-inchscale between 1864 and 1882 and most recently reprinted at the 1:50000 scale in1975 (BGS, 1975). An additional part of the online improvement and the whole ofthe proposed Cambridge Northern Bypass are covered by the one-inch GeologicalSheet 188 (Cambridge), which was surveyed on the six-inch scale between 1936and 1953 and most recently reprinted at the 1:50000 scale in 1981 (BGS, 1981).

Regional dips in the geology are to the east or east-south-east and are generallyless than 2° and as a result, the outcropping Solid Geology tends to decrease inage from Jurassic to Cretaceous in this direction also.

To the north-west of Hilton, the uppermost layer of the Solid Geology is dominatedby Oxford Clay, whilst between Hilton and Boxworth the uppermost layer of theSolid Geology is dominated by the Ampthill Clay (and to a lesser extent Clays andlimestones including Elsworth Rock) of the Coralain Beds. Around Boxworth itself,it is the Kimmeridge Clay that largely forms the uppermost layer of the SolidGeology. Large areas of these are overlain by Boulder Clay deposits, whilst alongthe major watercourses (River Ouse, Ellington Brook and Alconbury Brook) theBoulder Clay is overlain by River Gravels. It has been noted that between St Neotsand Huntingdon much of the terrace gravel is underlain by Boulder Clay, whichappears to fill an irregular hollow in the Oxford Clay3.

To the south and east of Boxworth, the Drift deposits grade out and the bedrock(Solid Geology) forms the surface geology; the uppermost layer of which is formedinitially of Lower Greensand, then the Gault and subsequently Lower Chalk in thedirection of Cambridge. Similarly to the major watercourses in the northern area,the Solid Geology along the River Cam is overlain by River Gravels.

The Lower Chalk is considered by the BGS and Environment Agency to be a MajorAquifer, whilst the Lower Greensand is generally considered to be a Minor Aquifer.

There are 165 groundwater abstractions within the overall search area, defined forthe surface water abstractions (above). Of these, 101 are for general agriculturalor domestic groundwater remediation purposes (Table 5.56). The abstractions foruse, 26 are for industrial, commercial or public services, 25 are for agriculturalspray irrigation, six are for other agricultural purposes, three for private watersupply, three for public water supply and one for g public supply are licensed to theCambridge Water Company and are located at Fenstanton (NGR TL 314699), St.Ives (NGR TL 306698) and Fulbourn (NGR TL 511565) for annual quantities of159110 m3, 590993 m3 and 2046000 m3, respectively. These abstractions havesource protection zones associated with them, as defined by the EnvironmentAgency. Of which, those at Fenstanton and St. Ives are closest to the proposedimprovements, being directly north (1-2 km) of the existing A14 trunk road.

Table 5.56 - Breakdown of Groundwater Abstraction within the Overall Study Area by Search Area and Abstraction Type
AreaSurface Water Abstraction TypeTotal
General Farming and DomesticIndustrial ProcessesPublic/ Private Water SupplySpray IrrigationAmenity Private (non-industrial)
1700007
2101439238
324403435
4608313185
Total101266257165

'NB includes abstractions for horticultural watering

SURFACE WATER QUALITY

Data were obtained for the RE and GQA scored watercourses directly from theEnvironment Agency and also through its website. Only data for the three watercourses in the study area that are likely to be directly impacted by theimprovements included in this report.

The period of record from the data obtained directly from the Environment Agencywas, generally, 1985 to 2002 for the chemical GQA and 1990 to 2002 for thebiological GQA, whilst from the Environment Agency website, the period of recordfor chemical quality was: 1990 and 1993 to 2001 (inclusive), and for biologicalquality: 1990, 1995 and 2000. The following assessment is based upon thesedata.

RIVER GREAT OUSE

There are four reaches of the Great Ouse that are most likely to be affected by theproposed route, for which data are available: Offord Darcy to Brampton, Bramptonto Marina and Marina to Hemingford Grey Mill, which are sampled at the samepoint, and Hemingford Grey Mill to Holywell. Currently all these reaches have a RETarget of 3, which is classified as 'water of fair quality and suitable for high classcoarse fish populations'. Data for Offord Darcy to Brampton and Brampton toMarina showed that the target was met in all years from 1993 to 2001, althoughthere were only marginal passes in 1993 and 2001 for Offord Darcy to Bramptonand Brampton to Marina, respectively.

Offord Darcy to Brampton (Sampled at Offord Intake - NGR TL 214662)

The chemical GQA from 1985 to 2002 varied between Grade D (Fair) and Grade B(Good). Most recently, it was Grade B in 1999 and 2000, and Grade C (Fairlygood) in 2001 and 2002. Between 1990 and 1995, the biological GQA variedbetween Grade C (Fairly good) and Grade B (Good), but since 1996 it has beenconsistently Grade B. Recent phosphate and nitrate GQA assessments between2000 and 2002 have indicated that concentrations were Very high and High,respectively, over the period, except in 2000 when nitrate concentrations were alsoVery high.

Brampton to Hemingford Grey Mill (Sampled at Black Bridge - NGR TL278716)

Between 1985 and 1990 the chemical GQA was Grade D (Fair) except for in 1989when it was Grade C (Fairly good). From 1991 to 2000 it was Grade C, butreturned to Grade D in 2001 and 2002. The biological GQA varied between GradeB (Good) and Grade A (Very good) from 1990 to 1998, but since 1999 it has beenconsistently Grade A. Recent phosphate and nitrate GQA assessments, between2000 and 2002, have indicated that concentrations were Very high and High,respectively, over the period.

Hemingford Grey Mill to Holywell (Sampled at St. Ives Rd. Br. - NGR TL403706)

The chemical GQA was Grade F (Bad) from 1985 to 1988 and Grade E (Poor) from1989 to 2000. Since then, the GQA has improved to Grade D (Fair) in 2001 andGrade C (Fairly good) in 2002. Between 1990 and 2002, the biological GQA hasbeen Grade C (Fairly good), except for 2000 when it was Grade D (Fair). Recentphosphate and nitrate GQA assessments, between 2000 and 2002, have indicatedthat concentrations were Very high and High, respectively, over the period.

ELLINGTON BROOK

The reach of the Ellington Brook from Spaldwick to the confluence with AlconburyBrook has a RE target of 4, which is classified as 'water of fair quality and suitablefor coarse fish populations'. The watercourse passed this target in all years from1993 to 2001.

During this period, the GQA for chemical quality varied from Grade E (Poor) toGrade C, with Grade E recorded in 1993, 1994 and 1995, Grade D recorded in1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000, and Grade C recorded in 1999 and 2001. The GQAfor biological quality, meanwhile, was Grade C in 1990 and 1995 and Grade B in2000.

RIVER CAM

The River Cam is monitored by the Agency for water quality, close to where it iscrossed currently by the existing A14(T), in the reaches from Church to the A45road Bridge and from the A45 road Bridge to Clayhithe. This section of the A14 willbe subject to widening under the proposed improvements. Both reaches have aRE target of 3, which was consistently passed by the former, during the period1993 to 2001 and by the latter in 1996 and 2001. The target was not met in theA45 road Bridge to Clayhithe reach in 1993 and there were only marginal passes in1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.

In the Church to A45 road Bridge reach, the GQA chemical quality was Grade Cfrom 1993 to 1996 and 1998 to 1999, Grade B in 1997 and 2000 and Grade A(Very good) in 2001 and 2002. In contrast, in the A45 road Bridge to Clayhithereach, the GQA chemical quality was Grade D in 1994 and 1995 and from 1997 to2000, but Grade E in 1993. In 1997 and 2001 the quality was rated as Grade C,whilst in 2002 it was rated as Grade B.

The GQA biological quality of the two reaches is in contrast to the chemical quality,with the Church to A45 road Bridge reach recorded as Grade D in 1990, Grade C in1995 and Grade B in 2000 and the A45 road Bridge to Clayhithe reach recorded asGrade C in 1990 and 1995 and Grade A (Very good) in 2000.

5.14.6 Water Quality Monitoring

Owing to the scale of the proposed improvements, there are a number ofwatercourses that will potentially receive drainage from the improved road that arenot currently monitored by the Environment Agency. To address this datashortage, a monitoring programme was instigated in April 2004, which wouldprovide water quality data pertinent to the DMRB 11.3.10 Annex III routine runoffand spillage risk assessments, amongst other information relevant to the waterenvironment within these watercourses. This monitoring programme is scheduledto run from April through to August 2004.

5.14.7 Discharge Consents

According to Environment Agency records, there are 456 current licenseddischarge consents in the area of the proposed improvements, defined by arectangle of co-ordinates: NGR TL 159717 (NW) and NGR TL 483605 (SE). Themajority of these are to surface water and include: 60 to the Great Ouse and 45 tothe River Cam.

FLOOD RISK

The worst flood event on record across this area is the 1947 event, whichcorrelates to a 1 in 100 year event in some areas and to a 1 in 140 year event inothers. These events have been used by the Environment Agency to createindicative flood plain maps, which are used by the Environment Agency to evaluatethe feasibility of various types of development within the flood plain. By overlayingthe proposed improvement options on the indicative flood plain map, it is clear thatflood plain is crossed, by at least one of the route options, in three main areas(refer to the Planning Constraints drawings).

In addition, the indicative flood plain of Ellington Brook, to the east of Ellington, iscrossed where the proposed routes intersect with the existing A14 route (EllingtonJunction) and the structure of the existing crossing of the River Cam may need tobe altered to accommodate a widened A14 as part of the Cambridge NorthernBypass, which may impact upon the flood plain in this location. Developmentacross watercourses and their associated flood plain has the potential to alter theexisting flow regime and thus alter the flood risk either up or downstream of thedevelopment. Owing to the risk of loss of life or property associated with anincrease in flood risk, the potential for alteration of flow regime needs carefulconsideration prior to the detailed design being completed and construction workcommencing. Further consideration of the flood risk associated with EllingtonBrook, River Great Ouse and West Brook/Hall Green Brook is provided in thefollowing sub-sections, the information in which is taken largely from previousAtkins reports.4

ELLINGTON BROOK

The Ellington Brook is a sub-tributary of the River Great Ouse. It flows in aneasterly direction through the villages of Spaldwick and Ellington before joining theAlconbury Brook near Brampton Race Course. The Great Ouse Catchment ispredominantly underlain by clays resulting in a high percentage of surface run-offand sudden peaks in river flow in response to rainfall. The Ellington Brook isgenerally slow flowing and meandering with a deep channel. The reachimmediately upstream and downstream of Thrapston Road Bridge is shallower,faster flowing and has a number of riffles. The construction of the existing A14(T)has affected the character and structure of the brook in the vicinity of Ellington, withsections straightened and the banks artificially raised.

Residential and commercial properties in Spaldwick and Ellington, outlyingbuildings and a section of the A14 were inundated by floodwaters from the EllingtonBrook during Easter 1998; an event with a return period of approximately 30 years.Hydraulic modelling indicates that 35 residential and 20 commercial properties arethreatened by a 1 in 100 year event.

The river's physical characteristics are affected by periodic maintenance for floodprotection, including obstruction removal, grass and weed cutting and bushclearance. Dredging is undertaken infrequently on an "as-needs" basis.

RIVER GREAT OUSE

The Bedford Ouse/River Great Ouse is a substantial river system draining acatchment of over 3500 km2 Originating in the Northamptonshire Uplands it flows ina north-easterly direction through five counties before discharging to the North Sea,via the Wash, near King's Lynn. Upstream of the study area, major tributaries to theriver include the River's Twin, Tove, Ouzel, Ivel and Kym, and, within the studyarea, Alconbury Brook.

Because of its size, the River Great Ouse can also exert an influence on itstributaries during flood events, which can exacerbate flooding within these. Forexample, hydraulic modelling has shown that the Great Ouse has a considerableinfluence up the Hall Green Brook from even relatively low flood return periodevents. This work has shown that flood levels in the Great Ouse start to back upalong Hall Green Brook at around the 1 in 5 year level in the vicinity of Fenstanton.

WEST BROOK/HALL GREEN BROOK

The West Brook/Hall Green Brook watercourse is a lesser tributary of the RiverGreat Ouse. Rising to the south of the village of Papworth St Agnes(Cambridgeshire), it flows in a northerly direction around the village of Hilton beforecontinuing downstream to join the Hall Green Brook approximately 800 m upstreamof the existing Cambridge to Huntingdon A14(T) road in the village of Fenstanton.The downstream reach of the watercourse continues as Hall Green Brook alongthe western edge of the village of Fenstanton, crossing some 2 km of the GreatOuse flood plain before joining the River Great Ouse downstream of the town of StIves. From recent flood events (Easter 1998, October 2001 and January 2003), thiswatercourse has been identified as potentially being at risk from flooding.

Whilst there are no formal flood defences along the Hall Green Brook or WestBrook. an earth embankment has been constructed along the left bank of HallGreen Brook from the location of Turnpike Bridge in Fenstanton (NGR TL 313686)downstream to the confluence with the Great Ouse (NGR TL 321698), possibly bya predecessor of the Environment Agency, and also along the left bank of HallGreen Brook upstream of the A14 (T) road to the confluence with West Brook,probably to prevent inundation of the former sand and gravel workings during floodevents.

Local public perception of the embankment that stretches downstream fromFenstanton is that, during flood conditions along Hall Green Brook, it acts toprevent water from flooding across the left bank flood plain thereby increasingwater levels in Hall Green Brook along the right bank and within the village ofFenstanton itself. Flood levels produced by the Great Ouse River Model also showthat the left bank embankment is drowned out at the 1 in 5 year flood level alongthe lower length of Hall Green Brook. The length of embankment adjacent toFenstanton has a slightly higher elevation, and when compared against the GreatOuse flood level, is not drowned out until approximately a 1 in 15 year flood event.

The Environment Agency undertakes general maintenance along the WestBrook/Hall Green Brook which includes the following actions: annual weed andgrass cutting, obstacle removal and channel dredging.

DESIGNATED SITES

There are three designated sites, directly associated with the water environment,within the local area of the proposed off-line route options and two designated sitesclose to the eastern terminus of the proposed Cambridge Northern Bypass at FenDitton. None of these, however, lie directly upon the line of any of the proposedimprovement options.

To the north of the proposed improvements (and 1.5 to 2.5 km downstream of theproposed Great Ouse crossing points) is Portholme (NCR TL 238708), which is thelargest surviving traditionally-managed meadow in the UK, with an area of 104 haof alluvial flood meadow (7% of the total UK resource). Because the site supportsfeatures of national and international importance, it has been designated as a Siteof Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), andwas also classified as a Grade 2 site in the Nature Conservation Review. Thefeatures for which the site has been designated are partly attributable to the site'sinundation by floodwaters in winter and early spring from the surrounding channelsof the Great Ouse, which helps maintain the diversity of the natural plantcommunities. In addition to the Portholme site, The Great Ouse and AlconburyBrook, close by, provide habitats for dragonflies and, in particular, the dragonflyLibellula fulva, which has a nationally restricted distribution. The features for whichthis site has been designated would be potentially vulnerable to any change in theflood regime associated with a new crossing of the Great Ouse and also to adecline in the quality of water entering the system.

On the western bank of the Great Ouse, approximately 3 km upstream of theclosest proposed Great Ouse crossing point (Orange Route), is Little Paxton Pits(NGR TL 200637); a series of flooded gravel pits that are of national importance forwintering wildfowl and an important stopping point for migrants. In addition, the sitesupports a diverse vegetation structure and an extremely rich diversity ofinvertebrate fauna, including a number of national rarities. As a result of thesefeatures, the site was designated as a SSSI in 1986. It is less likely that LittlePaxton Pits would be affected by a new river crossing (or additional drainage) thanPortholme as it is upstream of the proposed improvement options. Should flowwithin the Great Ouse be restricted by the new crossing, however, there may besome effect on the site.

Approximately 3 km to the south and west of the Ellington Junction to A1BramptonInterchange section of the proposed improvements is Grafham Water (NGR TL150680), a 680 ha reservoir that is designated as a SSSI largely because of thewintering and breeding wetland birds it supports. Whilst the reservoir is supportedby the transfer of water from the Great Ouse at Offord (NGR TL 214661), theabstractions are at Offord, approximately 2 km upstream of the closest proposedGreat Ouse crossing point. Like Little Paxton Pits, it is less likely that this site wouldbe impacted by the proposed improvements than Portholme as it is upstream.

Further removed from the proposed improvements are the Ouse Washes, whichare a half mile by twenty mile washland lying between the parallel banks of the OldBedford River / River Delph and the New Bedford River or One Hundred Foot Draindownstream (NGRs TL 393747 to TL 571987), which is designated as a RamsarSite, SAC, Special Protection Area (SPA) and SSSI. The site represents one of thefew remaining areas of washland habitat in the country, which is recognized for thelarge numbers of wildfowl and waders that it supports and generally for therichness of the aquatic fauna and flora within the associated watercourse, inparticular for the presence of the Spined Loach Cobitis taenia. The Ouse Washesplay a major land drainage role as a flood water storage area and the washland isthus subject to regular winter flooding. As a result, the features for which this sitehas been designated are intrinsically linked to the flow regime within the GreatOuse and also the quality of water within it. The Ouse Washes are, however,approximately 20 km downstream of the closest proposed crossing point over theGreat Ouse.

There have are already been concerns raised about the integrity of this site, towhich any changes in the flow regime within the Great Ouse would be particularlyrelevant. The latest report on the SSSI area by English Nature (12th January 2004)stated that whilst 17.74% of the area was 'favourable', 83.26% of the area was'unfavourable with no change'. This means that, for a large area of the SSSI unit,the special interest is not being conserved and will not reach favourable conditionunless there are changes to the site management or external pressures. Thelonger the SSSI unit remains in this poor condition, the more difficult it will be, ingeneral, to achieve recovery. In addition, according to the report on the OuseWashes by the Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 49, there are two main, but interlinked,issues that appear to be affecting the features of importance: 1) an increasein the incidence of summer flooding over the last 25 years, as well as high waterlevels in winter, and 2) a decline in water quality affecting the communities ofhigher plants within the rivers and ditches of the Ouse Washes.

Approximately 2 km upstream from the Ouse Washes is the washland habitat ofBerry Fen (NGR TL 378745), which was first designated as a SSSI in 1971. Theproximity of this site to the Ouse Washes influences the use of Berry Fen bywintering wildfowl, especially when the Washes are too deeply flooded. Inparticular, the Bewick's swan numbers reach nationally significant levels. As withthe Ouse Washes, adverse changes to the quantity or quality of water reaching thissite could have a negative impact, potentially, on the features for which it has beendesignated.

To the east of Fen Ditton are Stow Cum Quy Fen SSSI (NGR TL 515627) andWilbraham Fens SSSI (NGR TL 520590), both of which have features relevant tothe water environment. Stow Cum Quy has a number of pools formed on ChalkMarl, so there may be some continuity between these and the underlyinggroundwater. The pools have a good range of emergent and aquatic living plantsand are particularly attractive to dragonflies and damselflies including the emperorAjax imperator. Wilbraham Fens, meanwhile, has a number of drainage ditchesthat run through the site, which are relatively unpolluted and thus provide a habitatfor emergent plants, along with insect and bird communities.

There are two stretches of the Great Ouse that are designated as a FreshwaterFish (Cyprinid) Stretch under the Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC) in thestudy area. The closer stretch to the improvements extends 16.5 km fromGodmanchester (NGR TL 244712) to Brownhills Staunch (NGR TL 369727), whilstthe other extends 26.5 km from Brownshill Staunch (NGR TL 369727), to WelneyBridge (NGR TL 535928). The former stretch is monitored at Brownshill Staunch.

SITE SURVEYS
River Crossing Points

A site visit was conducted on 06/08/03 to assess the crossing points of flood plainand major watercourses associated with the proposed road improvements.

Drainage Assessment Surveys

To assess the nature of watercourses that have been designed to accept drainagefrom the proposed improvements, in order to provide a preliminary assessment asto their suitability for this function, drainage assessment surveys were alsoconducted. A summary of the findings is presented below.

Table 5.57 - Watercourses Designed to Receive Drainage from Proposed A14 Improvement Routes that were Visited during the Drainage Assessment Survey
SiteWatercourseSite IdentityGrid RefRelevant Route
1EllinbrookD/S of drain inputs to W of A1/A14 interchangeTL 177719All routes
2Unnamed DrainDrainage to W of A1and culvert beneath AlTL 197699All routes
3Unnamed DrainDrainage from proposed A1/A14 crossoverTL 199701All routes
4Unnamed DrainBuckden Landfill surface drainageTL 206693All routes
5Unnamed DrainDrainage to E of Offord RdTL 231692Purple & Blue routes
6Stoneyhill BrookNext to Silver St. (Clyde Fm0)TL 244696Purple & Blue routes
7Unnamed DrainsDrainage to E and W of Silver StreetTL 246689Purple & Blue routes
8Unnamed DrainTributary to Stoneyhill BrookTL 254688Purple & Blue routes
9Unnamed DrainDrainage to E and W of A1198TL 256688Purple & Blue Routes
10Unnamed DrainU/S of Rectory FmTL 282695Purple route
11Unnamed DrainBeside Mere Way, D/S of Topfield FmTL 287686Blue route
12West BrookBeside B1040TL 296677Blue & Orange routes
13Hall Green BrookU/S of existing A14TL 311686All routes
14Trib to West BrookE of Hilton Rd.TL 309678Blue & Orange routes
15Awarded WatercourseBeside High St, U/S of existing A14TL 334673Blue & Orange routes
16Unnamed DrainTrack to Hill Fm from Hill Fm cottagesTL 372653All routes
17Oakington BrookTrack to Slate Hall FmTL 396635All routes
18Beck BrookGrange FarmTL 409624All routes
19Unnamed DrainWest HistonTL 428618Cambridge Northern Bypass
SUMMARY

Many of the watercourses that would receive drainage from the new routes arerelatively small drains that provide drainage to the agricultural land that dominatesland use within the study area. The maintenance of which is largely conducted byDistrict Councils or Internal Drainage Boards, generally on an ad-hoc basis relatedto the importance (in terms of drainage) of the watercourse. The majority of thedrains surveyed would seem suitable, in their present state, to provide thisdrainage function, assuming appropriate attenuation is provided and regularmaintenance is provided. However, a more detailed assessment of the capacity ofsome of the smaller drains maybe required to assess whether they would need tobe re-profiled to ensure that they would have sufficient capacity to accept thedrainage. In addition, current issues with flooding have been noted for the ditchtributary to West Brook (Site 14), which will need further consideration during thedetailed drainage design.

These drains flow ultimately into the Main Rivers that have been identified in thestudy area, which are maintained by the Environment Agency. It is anticipated thatdrainage will enter three of these Main Rivers (Ellington Brook, West Brook/HallGreen Brook and Oakington Brook) directly, following appropriate attenuation.Whilst these watercourses are maintained on or more formal basis than the NonmainRiver watercourses, two of these (Ellington Brook and West Brook/Hall GreenBrook) are known to have on-going issues related to flooding and as such themethod and scale of attenuation will need to be carefully considered to ensure thatthis is not exacerbated.

5.14.8 Assessment of Proposed Routes

The water environment is important in terms of water supply, transport and dilutionof wastewater, biodiversity, aesthetics, recreation, value to economy andconveyancing of flow and flood waters. The predicted impacts, and theirsignificance, to these attributes of the water environment, for each of the mainroute options, will be formally summarized in the appropriate TAG Worksheets andAppraisal Summary Tables (ASTs), following the completion of the water qualitymonitoring, when the potential impacts to water quality have been modelled. A briefqualitative assessment of each of the Optimum Junction Strategies and LimitedJunction Strategies is provided below.

MAINLINE ALIGNMENTS WITH JUNCTION A STRATEGY (ENHANCED JUNCTIONSTRATEGY)
Blue Route

Advantages

Disadvantages

Orange Route

Advantages

Disadvantages

Many of the identified differences in impacts to the water environment between theroutes can be reduced or eliminated through the use of appropriate mitigationmeasures. The early identification of potential impacts is important so that thecorrect mitigation techniques can be taken into account as the project progressesfrom design to implementation.

Orange/Blue Route

Advantages

The crossing of the Great Ouse is further south than that of the Blue Route, whichdecreases the risk of adverse impacts to Portholme SSSI, SAC, during constructionand from changes to flow regime during operation.

The route alignment passes close to the south of the completed and restoredBuckden South Landfill. Owing to the age of this part of the landfill, it is likely thatthe leachate is methanogenic and therefore less harmful to the water environmentthan newer acetogenic leachate should there be an accidental release duringconstruction activities, such as piling work.

Disadvantages

The Orange Route drainage scheme inputs drainage directly into the Great Ouse.Whilst DMRB modelling shows that there would be no significant adverse impactfrom routine runoff, the predicted return period of a serious pollution incidentresulting from a serious accident is relatively low (6 years). This increases the riskof significant adverse impacts to Portholme SSSI, SAC, during operation comparedto other routes.

The Orange route alignment passes close to the south of the completed andrestored Buckden South Landfill. Owing to the age of the landfill (operational fromthe 1930's until 1994) it is likely that there is no (or limited) engineered containmentsystem, which increases the risk of leachate migrating to the water environment asa result of construction activities, such as piling work.

5.14.9 Limited Junction Strategy - Blue and Orange Route Alignments

Blue Route (Limited Junction Option)
Orange Route (Limited Junction Option)
Purple Route

Advantages

Disadvantages

Orange/Purple Route

Advantages

The crossing of the Great Ouse is further south than that of the Purple Route,which decreases the risk of adverse impacts to Portholme SSSI, SAC, duringconstruction and from changes to flow regime during operation.

The route alignment passes close to the south of the completed and restoredBuckden South Landfill. Owing to the age of this part of the landfill, it is likely thatthe leachate is methanogenic and therefore less harmful to the water environmentthan newer acetogenic leachate should there be an accidental release duringconstruction activities, such as piling work.

Disadvantages

The Orange Route drainage scheme inputs drainage directly into the Great Ouse.Whilst DMRB modelling shows that there would be no significant adverse impactfrom routine runoff, the predicted return period of a serious pollution incidentresulting from a serious accident is relatively low (6 years). This increases the riskof significant adverse impacts to Portholme SSSI, SAC, during operation comparedto other routes.

The Orange route alignment passes close to the south of the completed andrestored Buckden South Landfill. Owing to the age of the landfill (operational fromthe 1930's until 1994) it is likely that there is no (or limited) engineered containmentsystem, which increases the risk of leachate migrating to the water environment asa result of construction activities, such as piling work.

5.14.10 Predicted Impacts and Significance

DURING CONSTRUCTION

With any construction work undertaken close to a watercourse there is an inherentrisk of adverse impacts to surface and ground water. Potential contaminantsinclude fuel oils from mechanical plant, dirty water runoff from the site, cement, sitedisturbance within the river channel and general debris from the construction site.The deliberate or accidental discharge of polluting material into controlled waters isan offence under the Water Resource Act 1991, if undertaken without consent, andcould lead to impacts of major adverse significance without mitigation.

The significance of potential impacts to surface waters associated with theseimprovements is enhanced by the proximity of conservation sites of internationalimportance (Portholme SAC and Ouse Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site)downstream of proposed construction activities. In particular, each of the proposednew routes contains a major crossing of the Great Ouse and thus all theimprovement options have the potential to negatively impact upon these sitesduring construction. The crossing of the Blue and Purple routes is, however,approximately 1 km closer to Portholme than the crossing of the Orange route,which slightly increases the risk from these options. In addition to the Great Ousecrossing, the improvement routes also cross a number of other watercourses thatultimately drain into the Great Ouse upstream of the Ouse Washes. As a result,pollutants (particularly dissolved solutes e.g. metals and substances less densethan water e.g. oil and diesel) entering these watercourses have the potential to betransported to the Ouse Washes.

Impacts associated with contaminants entering groundwater are likely to berelatively isolated compared to impacts associated with surface waters; however,once impacted groundwater is relatively difficult to remediate and contaminants canbe relatively persistent. Whilst none of the proposed routes cross source protectionzones, there are a relatively large number of licensed abstractions in the local area,many for general agricultural and domestic use, but two for public water supply andone for private water supply. The release of pollutants into groundwater close tothese abstractions would potentially enhance the significance of any impactsassociated with the contravention of the Water Resources Act (1991). In addition,close to the terminus of the Cambridge Northern Bypass is the Stow Cum Quy FenSSSI, which has a number of pools formed on Chalk Marl. These may be incontinuity with groundwater in the underlying Chalk and therefore contaminantsreleased into the Chalk could migrate into these and potentially affect a number offeatures for which the site has been designated.

The Environment Agency has stated that it anticipates the main source of impact towater resources, during the period of construction, to be associated withdewatering works, e.g. for the construction of bridge foundations. Whilst dewateringactivities are exempt from control, in accordance with Section 29 of the WaterResources Act 1991, as no abstraction licence is required, the EnvironmentAgency may wish to issue a Conservation Notice outlining measures to be taken totaken to protect existing sources under Section 30 of the Water Resources Act1991.

In addition, the Environment Agency will expect that the impact of any dewateringworks on water resources is assessed, probably at the detailed design stage. It isanticipated that this will include submission to the Environment Agency of details ofthe proposed works, the geological and hydrogeological situation, the predictedabstraction quantities, the predicted drawdown of the groundwater table and theestimated area of influence. As dewatering activities may impact upon nearbydomestic and licensed groundwater sources and other water features, a waterfeatures survey will be required to identify these.

All the new routes associated with the proposed improvement options cross theRiver Great Ouse and a number of other minor watercourses, including a numberdrains and ditches. In addition, the structure of the existing crossing of the RiverCam may need to be altered to accommodate a widened A14 as part of theCambridge Northern Bypass. During the construction of these crossings, there is apotential that flow within the watercourse could be affected or that the channel mayneed to be temporarily blocked, which could increase the flood potential, locally,within the catchment. The potential impact of this would depend upon the size ofthe watercourse and the land-use of the affected area, but it is anticipated that thiswould be of minor to moderate adverse significance without mitigation.

DURING OPERATION

It is likely, however, that the greatest impact to the water environment, withoutmitigation, will be from the crossing of watercourses and associated flood plains,and the volume of drainage entering watercourses from the new impermeable roadsurface. The potential impacts of these to the flow regime can have implications forchannel stability, aquatic habitats and flooding. Where the movement of anyexisting channels is required, this may also affect the local hydrological regime.

To assess the potential impacts of such processes on the existing watercoursesmore fully, Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs) will need to be undertaken, whichshould encompass the general requirements established in Planning PolicyGuidance Note 25 (PPG 25) and will require consultation with the EnvironmentAgency, and Local Councils and Drainage Authorities where appropriate.

Under Section 89(5) of the Water Resources Act (1991), the Highways Agency isexempt from needing to apply for discharge consents for highway runoff. It does,however, have a responsibility to ensure that highway discharges comply withcurrent pollution legislation. Water quality is potentially effected by pollutants inrunoff and spray including heavy metals (such as zinc and copper), suspendedsolids, chloride ions, organics and hydrocarbons. These are derived from routineroad surface and vehicle wear, exhaust emissions, oil, de-icing salts and rubbish,and also from accidents. Contamination can affect surface waters and alsogroundwater, potentially causing longer-term problems. A change in water qualitycan affect existing uses of the water for amenity, water abstraction and habitats.

The potential impacts from road runoff, in the form of soluble copper and total zincconcentrations, have been assessed in accordance with the method outlined inDMRB 11.3.10 Annex Ill. The analysis has been conducted for all watercoursesthat would receive highway drainage for which copper and zinc concentrations aremonitored by the Environment Agency in addition to watercourses for whichmonitoring is being conducted currently.

In addition to the routine runoff assessment, the risk of a serious pollution incidentoccurring from an accidental spillage occurring on the carriageway has beenassessed in accordance with the method outlined in DMRB 11.3.10 Annex Ill. Thespillage risk assessment was conducted using the predicted traffic density for asingle design year and information on the nature of the road and receivingwatercourse.

5.14.11 Potential Mitigation Measures

DURING CONSTRUCTION

The risk of pollution can be reduced by the adoption of good working practices andstrict adherence to the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidance,particularly to the following guidance notes:

During construction it is possible that surface water run-off from construction areasmay have a relatively high content of suspended sediment, along with elevatedconcentrations of heavy metals and hydrocarbons. Where construction work mayinvolve discharges into local receiving watercourses, early consultation with theEnvironment Agency will be necessary in order to determine the most appropriatemitigation measures that will be required to control any impacts. Discharges togroundwater will not be permitted by the Environment Agency and particular carewilt be required during construction to protect this resource.

As a minimum, the following mitigation measures should be considered duringconstruction:

In addition to these measures, consideration should be given to the potentialimpact of runoff and foul flow entering watercourses from construction compounds,under licence, on the flow within the watercourse. This is of particular importanceduring high flows when additional water entering the watercourse could increasethe potential flood risk. To mitigate against this, evaluation of this additional watershould be a part of any flood risk assessments that are undertaken.

The potential impacts from an alteration of the flow regime associated with inchannelworks are explicitly addressed in the requirement of formal consent fromthe relevant authority prior to the works being undertaken. Any work that affects theflow of a watercourse, such as culverting, will require a Land Drainage Consentfrom the Environment Agency under the Land Drainage Act 1991/Water ResourcesAct 1991; although the Environment Agency seeks to avoid culverting and itsconsent for such works will not normally be granted, except as a means of access.Furthermore, appropriate flood defence consents will need to be gained fortemporary works (construction) and permanent works under the Water ResourcesAct 1991 and Land Drainage Byelaws; with prior written consent required from theAgency for proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 9m of the top ofthe bank of Main Rivers within the study area.

In addition, consent would be required from the body responsible for thewatercourse for the construction of any road drainage outfall that enters it. Theapplication process for, and issue of, formal consent should allow potential impactsfrom the restriction of flows to be assessed formally for their significance, and, as aresult, the formal consent may impose conditions that aim to minimise thesepotential impacts. In any case, consideration should be given to the timing of anyin-channel works such that potential increases to flood risk are kept to a minimum.

Provided correct working procedures and practices are adopted, as outline above,and care is taken to avoid pollution, it is anticipated that impacts on the waterenvironment during construction will be of negligible significance.

DURING OPERATION

A number of different treatment options are available for normal road runoff, inorder to improve the quality of the discharge to the watercourse from roaddrainage. Recently guidance has been produced with regard to the use of naturaltreatment systems. This formal guidance is contained in Volume 4 of the DMRB(HA 103/01 - Vegetative Treatment Systems for Highway Runoff). There are 3 maintreatment systems that could be considered for the treatment of highway runoff:swales, petrol interceptors or constructed wetlands. It is important that the practicalconstruction and maintenance related issues, of each of these options, areconsidered during the design phase.

There is always a certain risk that a serious accidental spillage may occur on a newsection of road, which could lead to a serious pollution incident in one of the localwatercourses. Where the risk of this happening is found to be high (using the testsfrom DMRB), it will be recommended to include some form of mitigation thatprovides spillage containment. High risk sites include roads with very high trafficdensities, outfalls draining to sensitive watercourses or at roundabouts/junctionswhere risk of accidents is higher.

The treatment options should also be designed to ensure that potential impacts togroundwater are also minimized, as these impacts would potentially be moredifficult to remediate than impacts to surface waters. Should these mitigationmeasures be implemented successfully, it is anticipated that the residual impact onthese aspects of the water environment, from the operation of the new route, wouldbe of negligible significance.

Impacts associated with changes to flow conveyance are likely to have the greatestimpact on the water environment, without mitigation. In particular, the potentialimpacts associated with the crossing of the River Great Ouse and its flood plain,which include the potential for increased flood risk and adverse effects to theintegrity of conservation sites of international importance (Portholme SAC, andOuse Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar site). Increased flood risk is also a potentialimpact for smaller watercourses that would be crossed or would receive drainage;with the influence of channel alterations (such as culverts) or additional drainagepotentially more important, relatively, than for larger watercourses such as theGreat Ouse. Owing to potential severity of the effects associated with increasedflood risk, the Environment Agency has already stipulated a number of mitigationmeasures that will need to be utilised in order to reduce this potential impact:

To reduce the flood risk, IDBs may also require attenuation, to reduce the input ofwater to manageable quantities. The Ely Group of IDBs, responsible for the OldWest Internal Drainage District and the Swaffham Internal Drainage District, hasstated that 'their surface water receiving systems have no residual capacity toaccept any increased flows' and that 'all discharges of surface water will berequired to be attenuated prior to entering either Internal Drainage District'.Similarly, the Middle Level Commissioners, responsible for the Swavesey 1DB, hasstated that it 'is not prepared to accept any 'foreign' water into its system and that'any surface run off... should be attenuated to the equivalent greenfield rate of runoff'.

A similar position has been adopted by Huntingdonshire District Council (HDC) forAwarded Watercourses within its administrative boundaries, with its assessmentthat 'there is currently no additional capacity for water within the existing drainagenetwork'. However, drainage would be allowed provided appropriate attenuationwas provided prior to the water entering the drainage network. SouthCambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) has also stated that it was likely that noadditional water would be allowed into its drainage network, without appropriateattenuation.

In addition to these requirements, for some watercourses the potential impacts onflow conveyance will need to be assessed through the completion of an appropriateflood risk assessment (FRA), which will inform the detailed