Highways Agency

1. introduction

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report Part I

The Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) Part I summarised all previous studies carried out under the current commission. It identified a number of factors to be considered when assessing the various alternative schemes that followed the proposals of the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi Modal Study (CHUMMS). The report also identified the environmental, engineering, economic and traffic advantages and disadvantages and constraints associated with each of the alternative schemes.

1.2 Background and Objectives of Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report Part II

Following the submission to the Highways Agency of the Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report Part I in October 2004, an internal 'scheme challenge' was undertaken on the capital costs of the Orange Route Junction Strategy B together with development work on the proposed junction with the A14 and Brampton Road at Huntingdon. As well as this and as a result of ongoing reviews of the available routes, an alternative proposal that differs from the strategy proposed by CHUMMS was investigated. This proposal, shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/106 in Volume II Part A, involves following the same layout and profile as the Orange Route Option with Junction Strategy B but replaces the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct in order to retain the existing A14 between Fen Drayton and the A1/A14 Hinchingbrooke Junction for traffic to and from the north. Traffic travelling to and from the west will use the new section of A14 between Ellington and Fen Drayton.

The objective of this addendum to the October 2004 Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report (SAR Part I) is firstly to describe the alternative option (herein referred to as the Alternative Proposal) from an environmental, engineering, economic and traffic perspective, and identify the advantages, disadvantages and constraints associated with it. It also serves to update the appraisal of the Orange Route Option with Junction Strategy B (herein referred to as the CHUMMS Strategy) to reflect the changes made to the economics and environmental assessment as a result of the 'scheme challenge' and development work undertaken on the A14 junction with Brampton Road.

1.3 Structure of the Report

The Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report Part II is structured into a further four chapters:

Chapter 2 describes the Alternative Proposal;
Chapter 3 presents a detailed engineering assessment of route options in terms of highway alignment, junction layouts, existing and new structures, geotechnics and contaminated land, earthworks, public utilities and compliance with Standards. Significant engineering difficulties associated with route options are also identified;
Chapter 4 presents a summary of the environmental assessment of scheme options, including Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs);
Chapter 5 summarises the traffic analysis undertaken, and presents traffic forecasts and economic assessment of route options;

2. scheme proposals

2. Scheme Proposals

2.1 Description of the CHUMMS Strategy

The CHUMMS Strategy is identical to the Orange Route Option with Junction Strategy B as discussed in SAR Part I. Therefore reference should be made to SAR Part I Volume I Part A Section 3.1.4.

2.2 Description of the Alternative Proposal

2.2.1 A14 Mainline

As can be seen from Figure 2.1, the Alternative Proposal follows the same route as that of the CHUMMS Strategy, shown in Figure 3.5 of Part I Volume I Part A of the SAR. The proposal commences to the west of the existing Brampton Hut Junction with the A1. From here it travels adjacent to the west of the A1 and in doing so maintains one corridor of traffic in this area.

After crossing the A1 between Brampton and Buckden the Alternative Proposal passes to the south of Buckden Landfill Site before crossing the River Great Ouse and East Coast Mainline railway. It continues eastwards to the south of the Wood Green Animal Shelter and north of the villages of Hilton and Conington. It then passes to the south of Fenstanton and the closed Conington Landfill Site prior to tying into the existing A14 to the south of Fen Drayton.

From this point the Alternative Proposal is identical to the CHUMMS Strategy, comprising widening of the existing A14 and the Cambridge Northern Bypass (CNB) to Fen Ditton, with the exception of a short section at Bar Hill. At this location the route moves offline to the north of Bar Hill, between Lolworth Spring and the Girton Interchange by a distance of 110 metres at its maximum point to allow a new junction to be constructed to replace the existing one.

In locations, where the existing A14 is widened, provision will be made for local traffic in the form of a Local Access Road (LAR). In most areas the LAR runs adjacent to the proposed A14 and ties into the existing A14 when the route moves offline at Fen Drayton. The existing A14, west of Fen Drayton will be maintained as a strategic route carrying east-north traffic flows while the proposed offline section will carry east-west and east-south traffic flows.

2.2.2 Junction Strategy

As with the CHUMMS Strategy, the Alternative Proposal has nine associated junctions, as listed below:

Brampton Interchange
Fen Drayton Interchange
Trinity Foot Junction
Bar Hill Junction
Dry Drayton Junction
M11 Junction 14 Histon Junction
Milton Junction
Fen Ditton Junction

A description of these junctions is provided in Section 3.2.2 where they differ from those detailed in Part I of the SAR for the CHUMMS Strategy.

Figure 2.1 - Alternative Proposal Mainline

2.3 Cost Estimate

2.3.1 Basis of Estimate

As mentioned briefly in Section 1.2, since the various route options were reported on in SAR Part I, the capital costs of the CHUMMS Strategy was subjected to an internal 'scheme challenge'. This challenge involved a 'top down' comparison of the scheme cost estimate against available out-turn costs for similar completed schemes for which Atkins had access to detailed cost information. (This approach was adopted to provide a contrast to the 'bottom up' approach used to derive the cost estimates). The process also entailed a detailed review of the additions made to the cost estimates to represent:

preliminaries and traffic management;
preparation and supervision;
optimism bias;and
risk.

The challenge resulted in a reduction in the estimated cost of the CHUMMS Strategy. This means that the costs included in this report are lower than those attributed to the same scheme in Part I of the SAR (where the option is reported as the Orange Route Option with Junction Strategy B). The earlier, pre-challenge costs have been retained in Part I of the report to provide consistency between the costs of the Orange Route Option and those attributed to the other options (Blue and Purple Routes and options involving Junction Strategy A) which have not been subject to the same cost challenging exercise. Table 2.1 below summarises the costs estimated for the CHUMMS Strategy together with those estimated for the Alternative Proposal.

As explained in SAR Part I, the costs in Table 2.1 are estimated to third quarter 2001 (Q3/2001) to enable them to be readily compared to the Highway Agency's current Scheme Budget and previous estimates prepared for the HA.

Scheme Element	Option
Scheme Element	CHUMMS Strategy £m	Alternative Proposal £m
Preliminaries	36.756	33.318
Roadworks	81.315	71.493
Earthworks	34.148	33.835
Structures	88.738	79.774
Land	17.493	17.493
SU	15.181	15.181
Preparation & Supervision	38.06	36.969
Risk Allowance (non land costs)	55.769	55.769
VAT Allowance	37.282	33.418
Optimum Bias (5%)	19.362	17.988
Inflation Allowance	84.421	78.359
TOTAL	508.526	473.597

2.3.2 Comparison of Estimates

The Alternative Proposal has a reduced carriageway width to that of the CHUMMS Strategy between Brampton and Fen Drayton with corresponding cost savings in earthworks and pavement. The narrower deck widths of the River Great Ouse viaduct and the Brampton Interchange structures that result from this also produce cost savings. There is however, additional cost associated with the requirement to provide accommodation tracks adjacent to the existing A14 in the Alternative Proposal to minimise direct farm access onto the existing road. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.1.

The requirement to replace the Huntingdon Viaduct by 2012 is not altered by the Alternative Proposal and therefore no costs for viaduct work have been included in the cost estimate for this scheme.

Reference should be made to Table 3.1 in Appendix A of Volume I Part B, which lists the above engineering parameters for both the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal.

3. engineering assessment

3. Engineering Assessment

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a detailed engineering assessment of the Alternative Proposal in terms of highway alignment, junction layouts, existing and new structures, geotechnics and contaminated land, earthworks, public utilities and compliance with Standards. Significant engineering difficulties associated with the proposal are also identified. Since the CHUMMS Strategy is identical to the Orange Route Option with Junction Strategy B, in terms of engineering, reference should be made to Section 4.4 in SAR Part I.

3.2 Alternative Proposal

3.2.1 Mainline Alignment

The alignment details of the Alternative Proposal are shown on drawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/230 to 239 and 240 to 241. As shown on the drawings the proposed dual 2 lane all purpose (D2AP) A14 leaves the existing A14 corridor to the west of Brampton Hut Junction and heads south, adjacent to the west of the A1 before crossing it approximately mid-way between Brampton and Buckden.

The A14 continues eastwards as a D2AP carriageway, passing to the south of the Buckden South Landfill Site and crossing the River Great Ouse and its floodplain and the East Coast Mainline railway on a multi-span viaduct. It then travels to the south of the Wood Green Animal Shelter and in doing so crosses a number of local roads, which are listed below:

Offord Road
Silver Street
The A1198
Mere Way
The B1040
Hilton Road
Conington Road

The route then passes approximately 1.5km to the north of the village of Hilton before continuing eastwards to the south of Fenstanton and the Conington Landfill Site prior to rejoining the existing A14 at the site of the Fen Drayton Interchange. At this location the A14 gains a lane and continues as a Dual 3 Lane All Purpose Road east to Fen Ditton, identical to the CHUMMS Strategy. This is described in more detail in Section 3.2.2 below.

With the exception of a 9 metre deep cutting approximately 2km in length, the Alternative Proposal generally follows the local topography. Where localised floodplains are crossed the alignment has been lifted approximately 2 to 3 metres, depending on the flood levels provided by the Environment Agency.

Both the horizontal and vertical geometry of this section has been designed to a standard above that of the desirable minimum. There are however relaxations and Departures from Standard required in order to realign the local road network in those areas affected by the route. These are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2.

The alignment of the new section of the Alternative Proposal described above runs along the same route and has the same vertical profile as the CHUMMS Strategy. The main difference between the two options is centred on the utilisation of the existing A14 trunk road and the replacement of the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct. As discussed briefly in Section 1.2, the Alternative Proposal involves replacing the Huntingdon Viaduct, which has a residual life of less than 10 years, and maintaining the existing A14 carriageway as a D2AP carrying traffic from the north to the east, and vice versa. The new section of the A14 will carry traffic between the east and the west as well as to and from the south. By keeping the existing A14 operational as a strategic traffic route the new section of the A14 will carry approximately two-thirds of the traffic flows of the CHUMMS Strategy. Therefore, between the A1 and Fen Drayton the Alternative Proposal has been designed as a D2AP standard road.

In order to improve safety on the existing A14, a review of the direct farm accesses onto the A14 carriageway has been undertaken. Localised accommodation tracks adjacent to the existing road have been incorporated into the scheme between Huntingdon and Fen Drayton Interchange. These accommodation tracks link those properties that currently have direct access to the existing A14 and divert them to the nearest main junction where acceleration and deceleration lanes assist in providing a safer merge and diverge movement onto the A14.

As a result of the mainline horizontal and vertical geometry remaining unchanged from that of the CHUMMS Strategy, the realignment of local roads affected by the route remain the same. The significant difference, in terms of sideroads, between the options is at the proposed A1 Brampton and Fen Drayton Interchanges, which are discussed in Section 3.2.2 below.

3.2.2 Junctions

A1 BRAMPTON INTERCHANGE

The proposed interchange arrangement, shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/278, involves a restricted movement option that links the existing A1 Southbound carriageway with the proposed A14 Eastbound carriageway, and the proposed A14 Westbound carriageway with the existing A1 Northbound and Southbound carriageways. The proposed A14 Westbound to A1 Northbound Link crosses over the existing A1 and passes under the proposed A14 before tying into the A1 Northbound carriageway at the existing Brampton-Grafham Road structure.

The vertical profile of the A14 Westbound to A1 Northbound Link requires sub-standard vertical geometry in order for it to pass under Brampton Road and over the A1 before passing beneath the proposed A14. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.3.

The alignment of these links remains the same as for the CHUMMS Strategy, however the number of lanes on some of the links and the geometry of the merges and diverges on all links have been modified. This modification is a result of the reduction in traffic that will use this section of the A14 and Brampton Interchange since the existing A14 will be carrying approximately two-thirds of the traffic volume.

The A14 Westbound/A1 Northbound and A1 Southbound/A14 Eastbound links have been reduced in cross section from a two-lane to single-lane carriageway. The A14 Westbound/A1 Southbound Link remains as a single-lane carriageway. Simple taper merge and diverge layouts tie the links into the main carriageways of the A1 and A14. By modifying the merge and diverge on the A1 northbound and southbound carriageways respectively the A1 weaving issue generated by the CHUMMS Strategy is removed and there is no longer a requirement to widen the A1 between Brampton Interchange and the existing Brampton Hut Junction. The desirable minimum distance of 1km, as stated in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TD22/92 is achieved between the successive junction slip roads.

On joining the proposed A14, the A1 Southbound to A14 Eastbound Link ties into the A14 carriageway as a taper merge. The need for a lane gain merge on the eastbound carriageway, as well as a lane drop diverge on the westbound carriageway, as required for the CHUMMS Strategy is removed due to the reduction in traffic flows using the proposed road.

FEN DRAYTON INTERCHANGE

The general layout of the Fen Drayton Interchange (Refer to drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/279) involves a two-tier, restricted movement interchange linking the proposed A14 with the existing A14. The movements that can be made on the interchange are as follows:

Proposed A14 Eastbound to proposed LAR Eastbound
Existing A14 Eastbound to proposed A14 Eastbound
Proposed A14 Westbound to existing A14 Westbound
Proposed LAR Westbound to proposed A14 Westbound.

Westbound. All other movements, for example proposed A14 Eastbound to existing A14 Westbound, are made using the Trinity Foot Local Access Road Junction situated approximately 1 km east of the Fen Drayton Interchange.

Interchange. At the location of the Fen Drayton Interchange, the proposed A14 is on an embankment of between 2 and 3 metres so that the road sits above the maximum flood level of a floodplain in the area. This results in the vertical profile having to be designed so that it crosses over the A14, which in turn produces a design that requires large amounts of fill material to construct embankments up to 10 metres high in places.

The main difference between Fen Drayton Interchange in the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal is the link design and how they tie into the proposed A14. As this is where the two A14 routes bifurcate in the Alternative Proposal the combined traffic flows require that the proposed A14 to the east of the interchange be a D3AP standard road. Therefore, in order to make the transition between D2AP and D3AP standard road the eastbound merge and westbound diverge take the form of a lane drop and lane gain respectively, in accordance with TD 22/92 of the DMRB. In comparison, the CHUMMS Strategy sees the lane gain and lane drop occurring at the A1 Brampton Interchange and therefore D3AP is maintained through Fen Drayton Interchange with simple taper merges and diverges connecting the links to the mainline.

All interchange links have been designed without the need for Departures from Standard although some relaxations have been required in order to minimise structure spans and reduce land take. Where these relaxations have been applied to the geometry of the links, verge widening and parapet and abutment setbacks have been applied to ensure that stopping sight distances are achieved.

GODMANCHESTER EMERGENCY ACCESS JUNCTION

Although not shown in detail on the drawings, consideration has been made to the provision of a junction where the A1198 crosses over the proposed mainline south of Godmanchester. This junction would be for the use of emergency vehicles in account of the fact that access onto the proposed D2AP A14 is limited to the A1 Brampton and Fen Drayton interchanges over a distance of approximately 13km. It would also allow queued traffic to leave the A14 in the event of an accident.

It is considered necessary that this additional junction be included in the Alternative Proposal due to the risk of the 2 lane carriageway of the D2AP standard road becoming impassable due to a road traffic accident or incident. A junction midway between the two interchanges will allow emergency access to and from the main carriageway without the need for excessive distances to be travelled.

The junction itself would comprise four gated slip roads linking the realigned A1198 with the D2AP carriageway of the proposed A14. Only a simple T-junction would be required to connect the slip roads to the A1198, as movement to and from these slips would be by emergency vehicle only.

3.2.3 Structures

EXISTING STRUCTURES

Existing structures along the scheme have been discussed in Section 2.5 of SAR Part I. Table 3.2 of Appendix B lists those structures affected by the Alternative Proposal and makes recommendations as to their treatment under this project.

NEW STRUCTURES

The number of new structures on the Alternative Proposal is the same as the CHUMMS Strategy (refer to Appendix C in SAR Part I, Volume I, Part B). However, for the Alternative, the narrower A14 Westbound/A1 Northbound Link results in a reduction in deck width of 3.0m for Underbridge No. 6.04 and a reduction in span of 3.0m for Underbridge No. 5.03 (Refer to drawing number 5021044/DR/HW/278 in Volume II Part A).

A small cost saving could be achieved by reducing the overbridge spans quoted in the SAR Part I to allow for the reduced carriageway widths associated with the Alternative Proposal. However, any future widening would then require the bridges to be demolished and rebuilt, the cost of which would be much greater than any initial saving. The overbridge spans assumed for the Alternative Proposal are therefore the same as those quoted for the CHUMMS strategy.

RIVER GREAT OUSE VIADUCT

VIADUCT A possible arrangement of the viaduct is shown on drawing number 5021044/DR/BR/026 in Volume II, Part B.

The width of the central reservation over the structure is shown as 2.5m including hard strips, as permitted by clause 4.8 of TD27/96 for long underbridges. At the west end, the structure will have to be widened over a length of approximately 100m to allow for sight line requirements.

HUNTINGDON RAILWAY VIADUCT

Brief details of the existing viaduct and retaining walls are given in Table 3.2 in Appendix B.

The deck, and possibly the piers, of the viaduct will need to be replaced. This can be undertaken once the new A14 to the south of Huntingdon has been opened, allowing the existing A14 through Huntingdon to be closed whilst the viaduct is demolished and rebuilt.

3.2.4 Relaxations and Departures From Standards

Standards As a result of various constraints along the scheme corridor it has been necessary when designing the scheme to drop below desirable minimum standards in certain locations, as permitted by the Highway Agency's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

As discussed in Section 3.2.1 the vertical profile of the A14 Westbound to A1 Northbound Link has a number of constraints that were required to be taken account of in the design. The combination of these constraints results in a vertical crest curve that is one step below desirable minimum. A one step relaxation of a crest curve automatically produces a one step relaxation in the vertical stopping sight distance, as the radius of the curve becomes too tight to be able to achieve the desirable sight envelope. In accordance with the DMRB the relaxation in the vertical element together with the relaxation in the vertical stopping sight distance requires a Departure from Standard, which has been approved by the Highways Agency. Drawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/614 and 615 provide more details on this.

The Alternative Proposal mainline has been designed within standards without the need for any relaxations or Departures from Standard. Relaxations were however required in the design of Fen Drayton Interchange as well as in the realignment of some of the existing roads in order that they could be taken across the proposed A14 with minimal land take. One Departure from Standard was required on Conington Road side road resulting from a substandard curve in close proximity to a junction.

Details of these relaxations and Departures from Standard are given on drawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/610 and 611.

3.2.5 Earthworks

The earthworks between Ellington and the A1 are very similar for both the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal. The difference occurs at Brampton Interchange where the cross-sections of two of the links have been reduced for the Alternative option and along the A1 where widening is no longer required.

From the A1 Brampton Interchange to the A1198 the main earthworks required are the approach embankments to the River Great Ouse Crossing, which are up to 13 metres high in places and the cutting through the ridge to the south of Godmanchester, approximately 7 to 8 metres deep. There is also a pronounced cutting between Offord Road and Silver Street which is approximately 2 km in length and up to 11 metres deep.

From the A1198 to the point where the route ties into the existing A14 at Fen Drayton, the proposed vertical profile generally follows the surrounding topography, requiring only minor cuttings and low embankments. These low embankments have been designed into the scheme to ensure that the route runs above the flood levels of the floodplains that are located along the A14 corridor. Fen Drayton Interchange is situated on a floodplain and therefore requires embankments of up to 10 metres in order to lift the link roads over the A14.

For both strategies the junctions and side roads form the majority of the fill requirement. This is because all the side roads cross above the A14. For the more major side roads, the adoption of desirable crest curves, required in order to avoid Departures from Standard, have meant long lengths of high embankment.

Drawing numbers 5021044/DR/HW/235 to 239 provides details of the earthworks required along the scheme and Table 2.1 in Appendix A of Volume I, Part B provides an indication of the cut/fill ratio for the two strategies within this section of the scheme.

3.2.6 Contaminated Land

Contaminated land issues along the Alternative Proposal are common to those of the CHUMMS Strategy. Therefore reference should be made to Section 4.4 of SAR Part I

3.2.7 Public Utilities

The Public Utilities' (SU) apparatus that is affected by the Alternative Proposal is very similar to that of the CHUMMS Strategy. The main difference between the two strategies is on the A1 where BT cabling is located in the existing southbound verge. Approximately 500m of this is affected by the A1 widening as part of the CHUMMS Strategy but avoided in the Alternative Proposal since widening of the A1 is not required.

4. environmental assessment

4. Environmental Assessment

4.1 Introduction

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

4.1.1 Background to the Environmental Addendum to the SAR

The objective of this part of the addendum is to appraise and compare, from an environmental perspective, the Alternative Proposal against the CHUMMS Strategy.

This addendum addresses topics previously assessed in the SAR Part I for the earlier route options. Generally the addendum describes the section from Ellington to Fen Drayton, the section between Fen Drayton Interchange and Fen Ditton being identical to that of the CHUMMS Strategy.

However due to the nature of methodologies for Noise and Air Quality assessments, chapters for these topics describe the impacts for the full length of the scheme, Ellington to Fen Ditton.

4.1.2 Traffic Considerations for Environmental Assessment

It is noted that the introduction of a junction at Brampton Road in the CHUMMS Strategy is likely to have implications on local traffic conditions across Huntingdon town centre as traffic patterns change due to the new access arrangements. Whilst an increase in traffic flows along Brampton Road could be expected, the traffic model is strategic in nature and hence not designed to examine the local impacts within Huntingdon. Therefore any changes in flow forecast at this stage should be treated with caution.

A more detailed study of the local effects of the Brampton Road junction needs to be undertaken, including traffic and environmental considerations, which also takes account of other potential local transport interventions and policy measures to complement the introduction of the scheme.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.2 Traffic Noise and Vibration

4.2.1 Introduction and Method of Assessment

NOISE

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

A Stage 2 traffic noise and vibration assessment has been undertaken for the alternative options for a new route and widening works for the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton. Preliminary predictions of noise levels have been made for the options considered in the opening year (2010) Do Minimum, and a future year (2025) for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. The effects of known development schemes (including that proposed at Northstowe) have been taken into account.

DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT

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

STUDY AREA

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

A fully-modelled area close to the existing A14 and CHUMMS road corridors;
An indicative area covering roads where there may be significant changes in traffic flow.

TRAFFIC DATA

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

This noise assessment has been carried out for the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Option only and the forecast traffic flows and speeds have been taken into account.

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

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

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

To provide information on the existing noise levels in rural areas where it was not reasonably possible to carry out noise calculations, a preliminary noise survey was undertaken in October 2003 by Atkins. These measurements concentrated on areas 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 to estimate the number of people that are likely to be bothered by increased noise.

Noise contours were generated along the proposed composite alignments using CTRN;
Areas exposed to 55dB or more have been identified.

LIMITATIONS

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

In the case of this study, extrapolated levels well beyond 300 metres from roads have been made in order to make the necessary determinations of the extent of noise impacts. It has generally been necessary to limit the extent of the study within areas where noise levels are 55dB or more. Such levels may be found as much as 1km from the A14. From limited measurements, some quiet rural areas exist where levels may be lower although, there is insufficient data to form a reliable objective comparison. However, indications of such quiet areas have been outlined under 'Baseline Conditions'. In order to make quantitative determinations with reasonable accuracy, it would be necessary to have further data at locations where noise levels are low. It would also be necessary to have more precise and certain data on road 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 of noise can be important. Guidance on noise is provided by the World Health Organisation (WHO). They have indicated that "daytime outdoor noise levels of less than 55 dB LAeq (approximately equal to 58dB LA10, (18 hour)) are desirable to prevent any significant community annoyance" and this has been restated in PPG 24 Planning and Noise - Noise exposure Categories: Explanation of Noise levels, paragraph 4, and page 11.

4.2.2 Baseline Conditions

GENERAL

The findings of the noise survey and calculated data has been used as the basis for comparison. These take into account the present effects of road surface conditions, a thin wearing course surface reduces noise by up to 3dB compared to a normal hot-rolled asphalt surface. Where speeds are less than 75km/h noise levels are 1dB 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 distance from these roads. However, noise levels from these are evident in most parts of the area with levels measured above 50dB except at Brampton Wood. Calculations confirm 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 the A14 and A1M but near the junction the combination of the two sources extends noise over a wider area than each road on its own. Levels of 55dB or more may extend as far as 600m from the A14 and 500m of the A1 but more near the junction.

A1 South of the A14 Interchange

Interchange The A1 between the A14 and Buckden Road Interchanges, affects the housing areas on western side of Brampton with levels in the low 60s dB at the nearest houses 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 above 55dB at up to 500m distance. At Hinchingbrooke Country Park, which is partly on ground rising from the road, noise levels of 55dB or more are found within 700m each side of the A14 with additional noise from the B1514 thus affecting most of the 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 the extensive housing areas of Stukeley and the southern side of Huntingdon. Taking into account the present environmental barriers and bunds, noise levels are 60dB or more within 200 to 250m of the A14 and 55dB or more within approximately 700m.

Parts of Hinchingbrooke Hospital are exposed to levels above 55dB. Within the areas to the east of the B1514, those to the north of the B1044 and west of the A1198, there are further areas of housing close to the A14. Taking into account the present environmental barriers, noise levels are 60dB or more within 350m of the A14 and 55dB or more within 800m and further 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 of Hemingford Abbotts and Hemingford Grey experience 60dB or more within approximately 250m of the A14, which has a noise reduced surface and 55dB or more within approximately 500m. The more distant effects of traffic noise with levels 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 more within 500 to 600m but less within the housing at Fenstanton on account of the existing environmental barriers.

Fen Drayton is affected by distant A14 noise with levels of approximately 50dB on the 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 reduced surface and 55dB or more within 500 to 600m but less within the housing area of Bar Hill.

Lolworth is affected by levels in the low 50's dB and some of the northern fringes of Boxworth may be above 50dB due to the local road even where they are unaffected by local traffic. However, at Conington houses away from local traffic experience 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 within 600m. However at Girton, where the road is in cutting, houses up to 180m are affected 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 CHUMMS STRATEGY

The following applies to both the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal.

A14 between Ellington and A1 south of Brampton

Noise levels south of the landfill site and Station Farm are isolated houses likely to be 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 dB with 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's and 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.

Fenstanton to Bar Hill

The open countryside to the south of Fenstanton and to the north of Conington have some noise influences of the existing A14 with levels of 55dB or more within 550m of it and 60dB within 250m.

CHANGES BETWEEN PRESENT AND OPENING YEAR (2010)

Changes between the present and 2010 will be related to traffic growth and any effects of resurfacing the existing roads with quieter surfaces. For the purposes of the following, the 2010 situation is taken as the basis for comparison.

4.2.3 Key Issues/Areas

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

The distance from the existing A14 and A1 (M).
Effects of traffic on local roads.
Benefits of providing environmental barriers

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

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

4.2.4 Mitigation Measures

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

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

Noise mitigation will be required in a number of areas for both options as outlined and it is assumed that all environmental noise barriers would be reflective. Mitigation has not been considered for the exiting A14 except where improvements are proposed.

4.2.5 Assessment of the two Options

This Scheme Assessment Report provides details of the effects of the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Option only.

The options are compared with the 'Do Minimum' scenario using the TAG criteria and, where appropriate, taking into account the outlined mitigation measures described previously. Indicative noise contour maps have been prepared showing the free-field noise levels in 5dB bands from 55 to 75dB at 5m above existing ground levels within a limited distance from the road (generally no more than 500m from the road where there are noise sensitive areas). In addition, a noise contour map has also been prepared for the 'do minimum' scenario. All situations relate to 2025.

All options include the effects of noise from the section that comprises the Cambridge Northern Bypass. In the case of the 'do minimum' scenario, this considers the present road layout and necessary changes that would need to be made by 2025. For the 'do something' options environmental barriers would be acoustically absorptive except where it has been shown that conventional reflective barriers would cause no adverse impact to people.

DO MINIMUM

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

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

Table 4.1 - Summary of the Effects of Do Minimum 2025
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels	Do-Minimum
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels	2010	2025
55 to <60dB	31,380	31,288
60 to <70dB	1,862	1,934
70dB or more	210	231
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Do Minimum 2025	Changes
Increase 1 to <3dB	1,384
Increase 3dB or more	0
Decrease 1dB or more	0

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of the A14 is 555 at between 0-100m, 1,232 at between 100-200m and 1,712 at between 200-300m.

ROUTE OPTIONS

The CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal have been examined. To illustrate the general impact of these and the 'Do Minimum' situation, indicative 1:50,000 scale noise contour maps have been prepared. These are included in the EAR.

The following table summarises the effects of noise within the study area and where houses are affected by noise levels of 55dB or more.

Table 4.2 - Summary of Options
Number of Properties Affected by Noise Levels
Noise	CHUMMS	Alternative
55 to <60dB	32,195	31,586
60 to <70dB	1,115	1,677
70dB or more	142	190
Number of properties affected by changes in noise levels: Do Minimum 2010 v Option 2025
Increase 1 to <3dB	910	1,327
Increase 3 to <5dB	84	89
Increase 5 to <10dB	18	3
Increase 10 to <15dB	0	1
Increase 15dB or more	1	1
Decrease 1 to <3dB	2,506	1,946
Decrease 3 to <5dB	629	86
Decrease 5 to <10dB	886	63
Decrease 10 to <15dB	24	12
Decrease 15dB or more	6	6

ASSESSMENT

The number of properties that would be within 300m of the centreline of new roads is 215 at 0-100m, 432 at 100-200m and 939 at 200-300m. This applies to both the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal.

On the basis of TAG and compared with the 'Do Minimum' situation 2024 there would be a net decrease of 407 people that would be annoyed by noise with the CHUMMS Strategy. With the Alternative Proposal there would be a net decrease of 149. On balance, the CHUMMS Strategy is the most favourable. However, this assessment does not include people who are affected by changes in noise where levels do not reach 55dB.

OTHER AREAS AFFECTED BY NOISE CHANGES FROM TRAFFIC RE-DISTRIBUTION

Some areas outside the route corridors above are expected to be affected by changes in traffic. The extent of these traffic changes and the consequential effects on traffic noise are dependent on the layout and location of the junctions required to gain access to the A14 route. The following table outlines the effect arising from the two options considered.

Table 4.3 - Estimated Number of Houses outside the Noise Model Affected by Changes in Noise from the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal
Change in Noise Level	CHUMMS Strategy	Alternative Proposal
3 to <5dB increase	2,515	0
0	0	0
0	0	0
0	0	0
3 to <5dB decrease	108	57
5 to <10dB decrease	5	0
10 to <15dB decrease	114	0
15dB or greater decrease	0	0

CHUMMS Strategy

The extent of expected changes in noise of 3dB or more in the case of CHUMMS Strategy are extensive as outlined in the following table.

Table 4.4 - Extent of Noise Changes outside the A14 Corridors
Road	Section	Change in noise dB	No. Houses
Hilton Road	between Conington Road and High St/Church End	-14	47
Church End	between Hilton Road and Potton Road	-13	67
Cambridge Road	A14 to Fen Drayton	-8	5
Boxworth Road	between Brockley Road and Elsworth Road/High St Knapwell	-3	108
St Johns St	between B1514 and B1044	3	953
B1514	Huntingdon between junction with B1044 and B1514 ring road	3	433
B1044	between St Peters Road and B1514, Huntingdon	4	864
Great North Road	between A1(M) and Alconbury, West of A1(M)	4	110

Alternative Proposal

By 2025, the effects of noise changes outside the A14 corridors with the Alternative Proposal would be much less extensive than and there would be only be 3 to 5dB decreases to houses near Park Lane, School Hill and High Street between Bell Hill and Station Road.

The Alternative Proposal would require the rebuilding of the viaduct after the new route is operational. This would mean that the effects of noise outside the A14 route corridors for interim situation would essentially be as for the CHUMMS Strategy.

4.2.6 Summary and Conclusions

EXISTING SITUATION AND DO MINIMUM

At present there are a large number of people affected by noise arising from the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton. There are almost 3,500 houses within 300m of the present route between these places and by 2010, over 1,850 are affected by noise levels from the A14 of 60dB or more if no scheme is built and almost 1,950 by 2025.

OPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Two options have been assessed, the CHUMMS Strategy and an alternative that retains the existing A14 as a through route, the Alternative Proposal.

For both options, the same simple 2m or 3m high environmental noise barriers or earthworks have been considered for mitigating noise from the new roads. Both options assume quiet road surfaces.

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

GENERAL EFFECTS OF THE OPTIONS

The CHUMMS Strategy would remove much of the impact of noise at Godmanchester. However, risks of noise increases remain at the quiet areas of Buckden and Offord Cluny with further risks at Hilton, an area where present levels are low.

East of Trinity Foot the scheme is on-line and there are opportunities to mitigate noise at most locations that are within 200 or 300m of the route. Some barriers would provide significant reductions on present levels at those houses most affected. However, beyond that distance and where other roads have influence, noise levels may be increased due to the increased traffic, reduced congestion and limited extent that barriers could reduce noise.

Table 4.5 - 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	7,221		692
Options
CHUMMS Strategy	6,814	-407	1,013
Alternative Proposal	7,072	-149	1,421

NOISE CHANGES FROM TRAFFIC OUTSIDE THE PRESENT A14 AND THE OPTIONS

Outside the A14 route corridors, the construction of the CHUMMS Strategy would affect increases of 3dB or more at over 2,300 houses with decreases of 3dB or more at less than 230. The Alternative Proposal would have much less effect with just 57 houses benefiting from a 3dB or more decrease.

4.2.7 Conclusions

The CHUMMS Strategy would mean that there would be a net reduction of 407 people annoyed by noise compared to 149 with the Alternative Proposal.

In the areas of the A14 corridors, over 1,000 houses would be affected by a noise increase of 1dB or more with the CHUMMS Strategy compared to over 1,400 with the Alternative Proposal. The CHUMMS Strategy would effect noise decreases of 1dB or more at over 4,000 houses (equivalent to approximately 9,600 people) compared to just over 2,100 (5,040 people) with the Alternative Proposal.

Away from the A14 Corridor, the CHUMMS Strategy would affect increases of 3dB or more at over 2,300 houses (approximately 5,500 people) with decreases of 3dB or more at less than 230. These are concentrated on Brampton Road and the western quadrant of Huntingdon inner ring road, reflecting the changed access arrangements into Huntingdon with local traffic diverted off existing routes, and the A1 corridor. Reference should be made to paragraph 1.11 on traffic considerations.

The Alternative Proposal would have much less effect with just 57 houses (approximately 137 people) benefiting from a 3dB or more decrease and no properties would experience an increase of 3dB or more.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

4.3.1 Introduction

This section details the Stage 2 air quality assessment for the Alternative Proposal for the proposed A14 improvements 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. The quantity 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 be measured or modelled and then compared with ambient air quality criteria.

4.3.2 Air Quality Criteria and Pollutants

Air quality criteria can be readily divided into two groups; those that are mandatory and those that are designed for guidance. Mandatory criteria that apply to the UK are the objectives from the Air Quality Strategy (AQS) for the UK and the European Community Directive limit values, which are incorporated into Regulations. The air quality criteria used in this assessment are given in the following table.

Table 4.6 - Air Quality Criteria
Pollutant	Criteria	Date to be Achieved by	Objective
NO2	Annual Mean	2005	40
NO2	Hourly mean	2005	18 exceedances
PM10	Annual Mean	2004	40
PM10	24-Hour Mean	2004	35 exceedances
PM10	Annual Mean (provisional)	2010	20
PM10	24-Hour Mean (provisional)	2010	7 exceedances
CO	Maximum daily 8-hour running mean	2003	10
Benzene	Running Annual Mean	2003	16.25
Benzene	Running Annual Mean	2010	5
1,3 butadiene	Running Annual Mean	2001	2.25

It should be noted that whilst the current annual mean AQS objective for PM10 is 40µg/m³, with 35 exceedances of the 24-hour mean AQS objective, a more stringent objective of 20µg/m³, with 7 exceedances of the 24-hour mean is to be applied in 2010, although currently these objectives are provisional and not included in Regulations.

AIR POLLUTANTS

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. The majority of NOx emitted from vehicles is in the form of nitric oxide, which oxidises rapidly 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 a wide range of compounds are absorbed. These particles are less than 10 µm in diameter. Particles with a median diameter of less than 10 µm are referred to as PM10. Diesel engines produce the majority of particulate emissions from the vehicle fleet. About a quarter of primary PM10 emissions in the UK are derived from road transport. Particulate matter appears to be associated with a range of symptoms of ill health including effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, on asthma and on mortality.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

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

Hydrocarbons

The term 'hydrocarbons' is used to include all organic compounds emitted from vehicles both in the exhaust and by evaporation from the fuel system, and covers many hundreds of different compounds. About one third of the UK hydrocarbon emissions are produced by road transport. Hydrocarbons are important precursors of photochemical smog and oxidising compounds. The DMRB requires an assessment for benzene and 1, 3-butadiene as these are included in the Air Quality Strategy. They are both genotoxic carcinogens and exposure to them is associated with certain types of leukaemia.

Carbon Dioxide

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

4.3.3 Existing Conditions

LOCAL AIR QUALITY REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT

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

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 Management Area (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 new alignment of the A14:

Cambridge City Council
Huntingdonshire District Council
South Cambridge District Council

Air quality review and assessment is a rolling process which requires periodic updating due to the changing nature of the air quality with time. A partnership of five local authorities in and around Cambridgeshire, including those listed above, was set up to carry out the review and assessment of air quality in Cambridgeshire. Following the completion of the first round of the review and assessment process none of the local authorities above have declared any AQMAs.

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

Monitoring

Measurements of pollutant concentrations may be made by deploying analytical instruments that measure continuously and record the average concentrations over specified time intervals. Simpler sampling devices, such as diffusion tubes, adsorb pollutants over a longer time period and are subsequently analysed at a laboratory to give an average concentration for the sampling period. National survey results from both types of monitoring are published in the UK National Air Quality Information Archive¹, and the closest relevant data are summarised below.

Continuous Monitoring

Defra operates a network of automated continuous monitoring sites throughout the UK. The closest sites in the network to the study area are Cambridge Roadside, Norwich Centre and Wicken Fen. Descriptions of these sites are given below, together with their location in relation to the study area.

Cambridge Roadside is a roadside site in the centre of Cambridge, located approximately 4 km south of the A14. The monitor is located at first floor level at a height of approximately 4 metres and a distance of 2.5 metres from the kerbside of a busy urban road leading traffic directly to the city centre shopping area. Nitrogen oxides have been monitored since 1999. This site is located at grid reference 545300 258300.
Norwich Centre is an urban centre site located approximately 90km north east of the A14. The nearest road to the site is located approximately 12 metres away, although traffic flow is free flowing and very light (1 or 2 vehicles per minute observed off peak). O3, PM10, NOx and SO2 have been monitored since 1997 and benzene since 2002. This site is located at grid reference 623000 308900. Although located at some distance from the A14 this site was selected as it is the closest Defra site where PM10 and CO are monitored.
Wicken Fen is a rural site located approximately 12km north east of the A14. The area surrounding the monitoring station is open field with isolated trees. O3, NO2 and SO2 have been monitored between 1997 and 2002. This site is located at grid reference 556400 269200

Continuous monitoring is also undertaken by local authorities at locations given in the following table.

Site	Local Authority	Grid Reference	Site Type	Pollutants	Proximity to A14	Available Results
Parker Street	Cambridge City Council	545366 258391	Roadside	NO2, PM10	4km South of Girton Junction	2000-2004
Silver Street	Cambridge City Council	544758 258118	Roadside	NO2, PM10	4km South of Girton Junction	2000-2004
Gonville Place	Cambridge City Council	545508 257828	Roadside	NO2, PM10	4km South of Girton Junction	2000-2004
Regent Street	Cambridge City Council	545287 258124	Roadside	NO2, CO	4km South of Girton Junction	2000-2004
Newmarket Road	Cambridge City Council	546312 258896	Roadside	NO2, PM10	4km South of Girton Junction	2002
Huntingdon Ring Road	Huntingdon-shire DC	524056 271533	Roadside	NO2, PM10	120m North of A14 at Huntingdon	2000-2004
Godmanchester	Huntingdon-shire DC	524419 271312	Roadside	NO2, PM10	25m North of A14 at Godmanchester	2002-2004
Bar Hill	South Cambridge-shire DC	538650 263750	Roadside	NO2, PM10	On eastbound A14 Carriageway at Bar Hill	2001-2003
Impington	South Cambridge-shire DC	543850 261750	Roadside	NO2, PM10	On westbound Carriageway of A14 at Impington	2002-2003

Non-continuous Monitoring

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

Data from the following Defra sites are considered here:

Cambridge - 5 sites located approximately 3-4 km south of the A14 at Histon Junction;
Histon - 5 sites located approximately 2 km north of the A14 at Histon Junction;
Sawston - 2 sites located approximately 3 km east of the M11 between junctions 10 and 11/ 12km south of the A14 at Fen Ditton;
St Neots - 5 sites located approximately 12 km south southeast of the A14 at Huntingdon.

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

Cambridge City Council - 42 locations;
Huntingdonshire District Council - 22 locations;
South Cambridgeshire District Council - 19 locations.

Full results from the monitoring locations described above are presented in the Environmental Assessment Report Addendum, but summarised below.

Monitoring Survey near A14

Atkins commenced in a year long nitrogen dioxide monitoring programme using diffusion tubes in June 2004. Nineteen sites were selected, based on the expected changes in traffic flows on the road network in the study area. The Environmental Assessment Report and Addendum give details of the location of sites.

As recommended by Defra's Technical Guidance³ three diffusion tubes were co-located with a continuous monitor (Cambridge Roadside site) to enable the accuracy and precision of the tubes to be determined. Comparison of the mean concentrations in each monitoring period gives a correction factor which can then be applied to the diffusion tubes at the other sites. The corrected results for the first seven months of monitoring are shown in the following table.

Concentrations are shown to exceed the annual mean AQS objective at sites 12, 13 and 14, the Trinity Foot Public House and 5m and 10m from the edge of the A14 in transect respectively. Concentrations at all other sites were below the AQS objective, although marginally so at the Bar Hill monitor and Cambridge Roadside monitor. A report will be issued following completion of the monitoring survey.

SUMMARY

Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene, benzene and carbon monoxide are expected to achieve their respective AQS objectives throughout the study area. There are numerous exceedences of the annual mean NO2 objective, especially at roadside sites, indicating that concentrations are likely to be sensitive to any changes in traffic flows. The hourly NO2 objective was exceeded at one site close to the A14 in 2003. The annual mean PM10 AQS objective was achieved, but the 24-hour objective was exceeded at two sites close to the A14 in 2003.

2 (Ref: Local Air Quality Management: Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(03), Defra, 2003)

Table 4.8 - Bias Adjusted Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Results (µg/m3)

4.3.4 Methodology

APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

The assessment was carried out in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 section 3, part 1, air quality, revision February 2003 and Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) The Local Air Quality Sub-objective Unit 3.3.3, February 2004. The scheme has been assessed in terms of

A constraints map showing areas within 200m of roads affected by the scheme, which may experience changes in air quality;
A Local Impact Assessment comprising estimated pollutant concentrations at selected properties in relation to the relevant criteria;
An assessment of the overall change in exposure to concentrations of NO2 and PM10 following guidance in the DfT's TAG, the TAG Assessment

CONSTRAINTS MAP

A constraints map was drawn to show areas within 200m of the roads affected by the proposed improvements that are likely to have a change in air quality. This allows identification of the number of properties where people are likely to be subjected to a change in air quality, the identification of sensitive properties and properties likely to experience higher than average pollutant concentrations at locations such as road junctions. Sensitive properties include those where there may be vulnerable occupants, such as schools, hospitals or homes for the elderly. The following table displays the type and number of sensitive properties identified within 200m of the A14 and affected roads.

Table 4.9 - Number of Sensitive Properties Identified in the Vicinity of the A14 and Affected Roads
Type of Sensitive Receptor	Number within 200m of A14 and Affected Roads
Care Home	1
Clinic	7
Hospice	2
Hospital	5
School	60
Surgery	29

LOCAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The DMRB states that the screening method should be used to estimate concentrations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, benzene, 1,3-butadiene and particulate matter (PM10) to compare with AQS objectives. However, the assessment focuses in particular on the pollutants NO2 and PM10 as the air quality criteria for these two pollutants are likely to be most difficult to achieve in the vicinity of roads. Predictions were made both with and without the proposed A14 improvements, termed the scheme and do-minimum respectively. The years selected for assessment were the existing case (2003), and the opening year (2010).

4.3.5 Alternative Proposal

The assessment was carried out for the Alternative Proposal (a limited junction option) and a Do Minimum.

The study area for the air quality assessment has been defined based on the change in traffic on the road network. Additional traffic is expected to be induced on the off-line section of the A14 and the pattern of traffic flow on the road 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 "options which change traffic flows by less than 10% can usually be scoped out, unless the road is a motorway or there are particular sensitivities". On this basis the network for 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 which experience an increase or decrease in traffic of greater than 10% with any of the traffic options.

The road network assessed for the study area is illustrated in the air quality constraints map.

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 of residential properties. For each property, the Address-Point® dataset contains a unique identifier, national grid reference and postal address. When identifying properties from maps without address point data, accidental consideration of structures not used for occupancy by people can occur. Using Address-Point® data ensures only buildings with a postal address are included in the count. The data also contains a field for business name which is used to screen the data to remove business addresses.

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

Comparison of Modelled and Monitored Concentrations

To provide some validation of the concentrations predicted using the DMRB, a comparison of estimated and measured concentrations was undertaken for NO2 and PM10 at the location of continuous monitoring stations close to the A14.

The DMRB screening method was used to calculate concentrations at the local authority continuous monitoring sites at Bar Hill, Godmanchester and Impington.

In addition, the DMRB screening method was used to calculate concentrations at the locations of the nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube survey being carried out by Atkins. Data from the first seven months of the survey, adjusted for bias, was used to compare with the estimated results.

TAG Assessment

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

Pollutant concentrations decrease with increasing distance from the traffic, therefore concentrations are calculated at 20 m, 70 m, 115 m and 175 m from the road 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 was counted out to a distance of 200 m for the do minimum and scheme scenarios. The Address-Point® dataset, described above, and a geographic information system was used to facilitate this. The number of properties in each band is multiplied by the concentration calculated for that band for the do minimum and scheme scenarios. This is carried out for each of the four bands and the results added together to give a total for each scenario. The do-minimum value is deducted from the scheme value for each affected route. The overall assessment score is calculated by summing values over all routes, with an improvement (decrease in concentrations) having a negative value and a deterioration (increase in concentrations) having a positive value.

RESULTS

Local Air Quality Impact Assessment

Pollutant concentrations at properties within 200m of the existing and new alignments of A14 and other roads affected by a significant change in traffic due to the scheme have been calculated. This area includes some 65,000 properties.

Due to the large number of properties assessed, it has not been possible to report the predicted concentrations at each. Instead, the concentrations have been compared with the AQS objectives to determine whether any exceedances have been predicted and the magnitude of any changes in concentrations analysed.

Exceedances of AQS Objectives

In 2010 the AQS objectives for all pollutants are expected to be achieved at all receptors with the Alternative Proposal. Some exceedances of the provisional 2010 annual mean PM10 objective were predicted in Cambridge. Approximately 28 properties are expected to exceed this provisional objective with the Do-Minimum, and 21 properties with the Alternative Proposal.

Changes in Concentrations at Receptors

The following tables give details of the maximum concentrations and greatest changes predicted at receptors for NO2 and PM10 respectively.

Table 4.10 - Maximum Concentrations and Greatest Changes in Concentrations for NO2 (µg/m3)
Traffic Option	Maximum Conc.	Greatest Increase	NO2 (µg/m3) Traffic Option Maximum Conc. Greatest Increase No Properties with Change >4	Greatest Decrease	No Properties with Change <-4
BASE	42
Do Minimum	33
Alternative Proposal	31	7.84	4	-8.72	27

Table 4.11 - Maximum Concentrations and Greatest Changes in Concentrations for PM10 (µg/m3)
Traffic Option	Maximum Conc.	Greatest Increase	NO2 (µg/m3) Traffic Option Maximum Conc. Greatest Increase No Properties with Change >2	Greatest Decrease	No Properties with Change <-2
BASE	30
Do Minimum	22
Alternative Proposal	21	2.28	1	-3.15	2

There are expected to be both increases and decreases in concentrations at receptors with the scheme.

With the Alternative Proposal there are 4 properties with an increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations of greater than 4µg/m³, and 27 properties with a decrease in annual mean NO2 concentrations of greater than 4µg/m³. The greatest increase for NO2 with the scheme is 8µg/m³, and the greatest decrease is 9µg/m³.

For PM10 there is 1 property with an increase in annual mean concentrations greater than 2µg/m³ and 2 properties expected to have a decrease in annual mean PM10 concentrations of greater than 2µg/m³ . The greatest increase for PM10 is 2µg/m³, and the greatest decrease with the scheme is 3µg/m³.

Junction Options

Annual mean concentrations of NO2 and PM10 at 14 receptors near junctions on the proposed and existing alignments of the A14 for the alternative proposal are shown in the Environmental Assessment Report Addendum.

None of the concentrations predicted at the receptors are expected to exceed any of the AQS objectives in 2010 with or without the scheme. The majority of receptors are expected to have similar concentrations with both scheme options, the one exception being Hackers Fruit Farm, where concentrations differ due to the traffic flows associated with the proposed local access road.

For NO2 the greatest increase at any receptor is 6.3 µg/m³ at Little Cottage, as the proposed route passes close to this receptor.

Concentrations at Grafham Road Cottages, Depden Farm, Rectory Farm, Tree Avenue and Impington Farm are expected to have increases of 4.8, 4.1, 4.0, 4.0 and 3.4 µg/m³ respectively. Increases at all other receptors are expected to be less than 3 µg/m³.

The greatest decreases with the scheme proposal are expected to occur at the 8 additional receptors affected by the Alternative Proposal between Ellington and Fenstanton. These include a decrease of 13.1 µg/m³ for 28 Greendale, 10.4 µg/m³ for Rectory Farm near Godmanchester Junction, 10.3 µg/m³ for 52 Cambridge Villas and 9.2 µg/m³ for the Motel at Fenstanton. At the other receptors (Meadow View Farm, 17 Lodge Close, 9 Laurel Court and 51 Pitfield Close) concentrations are expected to decrease by 3-4 µg/m³.

The changes in concentrations for PM10 follow the same pattern as for NO2. The greatest increases for PM10 are at Little Cottage, Depden Farm, and Tree Avenue with increases of 2.1, 1.3, and 1.1 µg/m³ respectively. The greatest decreases are expected to occur at the receptors affected by the Alternative Proposal between Ellington and Fenstanton. Decreases range between 1.1 and 7.4 µg/m³. All other receptors are expected to have a negligible change.

Generally the concentrations predicted for the Alternative Proposal options are slightly higher than those for the CHUMMS Strategy orange route options at all receptors; with concentrations up to 5 µg/m³ higher for nitrogen dioxide, and 2 µg/m³ higher for PM10.

4.3.6 Comparison of Modelled and Monitored Concentrations

CONTINUOUS MONITORING SITES

The results of the comparison of modelled and monitored concentrations for 2003 are shown in the following table.

Table 4.12 - Comparison of Modelled and Measured Concentrations (2003)
Site	Source Roads	Pollutant	Predicted Annual Mean	Measured Annual Mean	Difference (%)	Difference (µg/m3)
Bar Hill	A14	NO2	37	50	26	13
Bar Hill	A14	PM10	23	33	30	10
God-manchester	A14, B1044	NO2	38	40	5	2
God-manchester	A14, B1044	PM10	24	29	17	5
Impington	A14	NO2	35	52	33	17
Impington	A14	PM10	22	39	44	17

The results indicated that at Bar Hill and Impington there was an under prediction in modelled concentrations of NO2 and PM10 compared to the measured concentrations of around 30%. Average factors of 1.3 and 1.5 for NO2 and PM10 respectively, were derived. Meteorological conditions in 2003 were largely responsible for poorer air quality in this year than in previous years, hence concentrations were also estimated for 2002 using the 2003 traffic data, and compared with the monitoring data for 2002, shown in the following table.

Table 4.13 - Comparison of Modelled and Measured Concentrations (2002)
Site	Source Roads	Pollutant	Predicted Annual Mean	Measured Annual Mean	Difference (%)	Difference (µg/m3)
Bar Hill	A14	NO2	38	42	9	4
Bar Hill	A14	PM10	23	30	22	07
God-manchester	A14, B1044	NO2	39	39	0	0
God-manchester	A14, B1044	PM10	24	20	-22	-4
Impington	A14	NO2	36	53	32	17
Impington	A14	PM10	22	30	26	8

In 2002 there is still an under prediction in modelled concentrations of NO2 and PM10 compared to the measured concentrations. However, at Godmanchester the modelled concentrations are more comparable. At Impington there is still an under prediction 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.

When receptor concentrations in 2010 are multiplied by these factors there will still be no exceedances of annual mean AQS objective for either NO2 or PM10. However, with the 2003 adjustment factors, concentrations of NO2 may exceed the annual mean AQS objective at a small number of receptors with the Do Minimum. The majority of these receptors are located in Cambridge. However, there are some receptors located in the vanity of the A14 which are expected to exceed the objective with the Do Minimum. These receptors are given in the following table.

Table 4.14 - Properties Exceeding the Annual Mean NO2 AQS Objective in the Vicinity of the A14
Traffic Option	Properties
Do Minimum	Crouchfield Villa, Hackers Fruit Farm, Huntingdon Road & Cambridge Road, Orthwaite, Huntingdon.
Alternative Proposal

Diffusion Tube Survey

Nitrogen dioxide results estimated using the DMRB have also been compared with the monitoring data from the diffusion tube survey carried out by Atkins. The results of the comparison are presented in the following table.

Table 4.15 - Comparison of NO2 Concentrations with Diffusion Tube Survey Results
Site No	Location	Modelled Concentration	Monitored Concentration	Difference µg/m3	% Under/ Over Estimation
1,2,3	Cambridge Continuous monitor	29.8	37.2	-7.4	-24.8%
4	Impington Continuous monitor	38.6	25.5*	13.2	34.1%
5	Brampton Lodge	22.1	18.0	4.1	18.4%
6	Thrapston Road, Brampton	33.9	27.1	6.8	20.1%
7	Depden Farm	20.2	17.5	2.8	13.6%
8	Castle Hills, Huntingdon	28.9	27.9	1.0	3.5%
9	Cambridge Villas, Godmanchester	33.1	25.2	7.9	23.7%
10	Rectory Farm	36.9	28.9	8.0	21.6%
11	Gore Tree Farm	29.2	28.2	1.1	3.6%
12	Trinity Foot PH	35.8	44.7	-8.8	-24.6%
13	Transect 5m	35.9	55.8	-19.9	-55.4%
14	Transect 10m	34.3	49.1	14.8	-43.0%
15	Transect 50m	26.4	35.0	-8.7	-32.9%
16	Transect 130m	21.1	26.2	-5.1	-23.9%
17	Acorn Ave, Bar Hill	22.0	27.4	-5.4	-24.3%
18	Bar Hill monitor	34.6	39.3*	-4.7	-13.6%
19	Cambridge Road, Girton	31.8	20.8	11.0	34.7%

* Comparison of the results has taken place with the diffusion tube at this location. Comparison will also take place with the data from the continuous monitor when this becomes available

The results show that there is an overall variation of +35% and -50% between the concentrations modelled and monitored. At two rural locations, where there are no road sources within 200m (Brampton Lodge and Depden Farm the background concentrations taken from the 1km grid squares which are provided in the Air Quality Archive were higher than those measured using diffusion tubes (22µg/m3 and 20µg/m3 compared to 18µg/m3 and 18µg/m3 respectively). This suggests that at rural locations, the DMRB method may be overestimating by up to 20% due to background concentrations used. However, as the concentrations at these sites are well below the AQS objective, this is unlikely to have any significant consequences.

At the other extreme, concentrations are being under estimated by the DMRB by up to 55% at the closest points to the A14, 5 and 10m from the edge of the carriageway. It is not certain why this underestimation is occurring; it may be as a result of the prevailing wind direction which the DMRB does not take into account. At other locations, estimated concentrations are within ±35% of the measured data (which can be considered a reasonable estimate). Overall, the model was found to be under estimating by around 5%.

4.3.7 TAG Assessment Results

The results of the TAG assessment are summarised in the following table.

The assessment of the Alternative Proposal shows that there is an overall increase in PM10 and NO2 concentrations at the properties near the off-line section of the A14. In the wider network, there is expected to be a large decrease overall in both PM10 and NO2 concentrations, which outweighs the increase near the off-line section.

The overall assessment shows that the scheme will lead to an improvement in both PM10 and NO2 concentrations at affected properties compared to the Do Minimum.

Table 4.16 - TAG Assessment Results
Pollutant	PM10 Assessment	No. Properties with Improvement	No. Properties with No Change	No. Properties with Deterioration
PM10	-950	18,982	0	2,122
NO2	-3,442	18,846	0	2,258

4.3.8 Comparison of the Alternative Proposals with the CHUMMS Strategy

CHANGES IN CONCENTRATIONS

The following two tables compare the maximum concentrations and greatest changes predicted at receptors for NO2 and PM10 respectively, for the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal.

The maximum predicted concentrations of NO2 and PM10 are the same for both the Alternative Proposal and the CHUMMS Strategy. Fewer properties are expected to experience a change in NO2 concentrations of greater than ±4 µg/m3 for the Alternative Proposal. Similarly for PM10 there are expected to be fewer properties expected to experience a change in concentrations of greater than ±2 µg/m3 for the Alternative Proposal.

With the CHUMMS Strategy, the largest decrease in concentrations is significantly greater for both pollutants than with the Alternative Proposal. This is a result of the improvements along the Huntingdon Viaduct section.

Table 4.17 - Maximum Concentrations and Greatest Changes in Concentrations for NO2 (µg/m3)
Traffic Option	Maximum Conc.	Greatest Increase	No Properties with Change >4	Greatest Decrease	No Properties with Change <-4
CHUMMS Strategy	31	5.4	69	-15.5	95
Alternative Proposal	31	7.84	4	-8.72	27

Table 4.18 - Maximum Concentrations and Greatest Changes in Concentrations for PM10 (µg/m3)
Traffic Option	Maximum Conc.	Greatest Increase	No Properties with Change >2	Greatest Decrease	No Properties with Change <-2
CHUMMS Strategy	21	<2	0	-6.2	37
Alternative Proposal	21	2.28	1	-3.15	2

The following two tables compare the changes in concentrations at 20m (taken from the TAG assessment) between the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal through the Huntingdon Viaduct and along the New A14 alignment, south of Godmanchester, the key areas where there are differences between the options.

Table 4.19 - Comparison of Changes in Concentrations at 20m from the Road Centre through Huntingdon Viaduct (µg/m3)
Pollutant	CHUMMS Strategy	Alternative Proposal	Difference
NO2	-6.4	-3.5	2.9
PM10	-2.7	-0.8	1.9

Table 4.20 - Comparison of Changes in Concentrations at 20m from the Road Centre Along New A14 Alignment South of Godmanchester (µg/m3)
Pollutant	CHUMMS Strategy	Alternative Proposal	Difference
NO2	13.0	12.1	-0.9
PM10	4.8	4.0	-0.8

TAG ASSESSMENT

A comparison of the results for the Alternative Proposal with the CHUMMS Strategy previously assessed was made. A comparison of the TAG assessment scores are given in the following two tables.

Table 4.21 - PM10 Assessment
Option	PM10 Assessment	No. Properties with Improvement	No. Properties with No Change	No. Properties with Deterioration
CHUMMS Strategy	-525	20,665	0	9,041
Alternative Proposal	-950	18,982	0	2,122

Table 4.22 - NO2 Assessment
Option	PM10 Assessment	No. Properties with Improvement	No. Properties with No Change	No. Properties with Deterioration
CHUMMS Strategy	-1,731	19,528	0	10,178
Alternative Proposal	-3,442	18,846	0	2,258

The CHUMMS Strategy is expected to result in a greater improvement on the existing road network than the Alternative Proposal. However the Alternative proposal will have a much smaller deterioration in air quality at properties in the vicinity of the new A14 route alignments than the CHUMMS Strategy. The overall assessment scores indicate that the Alternative Proposal is expected to result in a greater improvement in air quality than the CHUMMS Strategy.

The total number of properties affected is expected to be smaller for the Alternative Proposal. The Alternative proposal will result in a similar number of properties having an improvement in air quality, but there will a lot fewer properties with a deterioration in air quality than for the CHUMMS Strategy.

4.3.9 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 the proposed scheme options, and undertaking an overall assessment of exposure according to the TAG methodology.

Measured concentrations of annual mean nitrogen dioxide are expected to exceed the 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 the A14, although concentrations were below the annual mean objective.

Concentrations of carbon monoxide, benzene and 1,3-butadiene are all well below their respective AQS objectives. Although there are no air quality management areas 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 around the ring road and associated feeder roads in Huntingdon.

The results of the local air quality assessment show that there are a small number of exceedances of the provisional 2010 annual mean PM10 AQS objective, with and without the scheme. None of the other AQS objectives are expected to be exceeded in the opening year based on raw modelling results.

There are expected to be both increases and decreases in concentrations at receptors with all scheme options. There are 4 properties with an increase in annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations of greater than 4µg/m³ and 27 properties with a decrease in annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations of greater than 4µg/m³ . The greatest increases for nitrogen dioxide with the scheme options are 8µg/m³, and the greatest decreases between 8 and 9µg/m³. For PM10 there is 1 property expected to have an increase in annual mean concentrations greater than 2µg/m³. The greatest increase with the scheme is 2µg/m³. Two properties are expected to have a decrease in annual mean PM10 concentrations of greater than 2µg/m³. The greatest decrease with the scheme is 3µg/m³.

A comparison of modelled and measured data has been undertaken for the three continuous monitoring sites near the A14. Concentrations were compared to data in 2003, and due to the high concentrations experienced in this year, to data in 2002. Modelled concentrations in 2003 were shown to under estimate the measured concentrations at all three monitoring stations, by around 30%. Modelled concentrations in 2002 were still shown to underestimate those measured at the Bar Hill and Impington sites, although they were comparable at the Godmanchester site for nitrogen dioxide. By applying adjustment factors derived from the 2002 comparison, modelled concentrations are still expected to achieve the AQS objectives, although with the 2003 adjustment factors, annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide may exceed the objective at a small number of receptors.

A comparison of the modelled results with the measured data from the Atkins diffusion tube survey suggests that concentrations are being over and underestimated by as much as 55%, although in general the range is largely within ± 35%. It is recommended that a detailed dispersion study is carried out, as with an underestimate of 30% this could lead to exceedances of the 2010 annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective.

The TAG overall assessment score shows that the scheme will lead to an improvement in both PM10 and NO2 concentrations at affected properties. There is an overall increase in PM10 and NO2 concentrations at the properties near the new alignment of the A14 with all of the options. In the wider network, there is expected to be a large decrease overall in both PM10 and NO2 concentrations, which outweighs the increase near the A14.

A comparison between the Alternative Proposal and the CHUMMS Strategy indicates that the Alternative Proposal is expected to result in a greater improvement in air quality than the CHUMMS Strategy as indicted by the TAG assessment. In addition there are expected to be fewer properties with large changes in concentrations of NO2 and PM10 (change of ±4µg/m3 for NO2, ±2µg/m3 for PM10.) as compared to the Do Minimum. However, the CHUMMS Strategy is expected to result in significantly greater improvements in air quality in the areas adjacent to the Huntingdon Viaduct due to significantly lower traffic flows through this section of the route with this option.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.4 Land Use

4.4.1 Introduction

This chapter considers the characteristics of land affected by the options in terms of its quality and current use.

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

4.4.2 Non Agricultural Land Use

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Allocated Development Land

The majority of the study area comprises of Grade 2 and 3a agricultural land. The study area extends from Ellington, to the west of Huntingdon to Fen Drayton Interchange. A number of smaller settlements line the route corridor. These include in an east to west direction, Conington, Fenstanton, Hemingford Grey, Hilton, Godmanchester, Offord Cluny, Buckden and Brampton.

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

Buckden landfill site, located between Buckden and Brampton,the northern part of which is currently active;
Wood Green Animal Shelter;
Beaconsfield Equestrian Centre;
Brampton Park Golf Course;
Hemingford Abbots Golf Complex;
There are a wide range of privately owned agricultural enterprises located throughout the study area.

Planning Applications

This Addendum uses information on planning applications/permissions obtained in January 2004 for locations adjacent to the road.

The following list outlines the principal on-going planning applications and development proposals made within the study area, as of January 2004:

A substantial area of land has been zoned for a new settlement of up to 10,000 houses at Longstanton/ Oakington which will generate significant traffic on the A14.
Permission has been granted for extraction of sand and gravel at Buckden Quarry, Huntingdon. It is expected that this site will be worked on over the next few years.
Planning permission was granted for the construction of 3 office buildings at Eden Park, West End Road, West End Farm, south west of Fenstanton.
Planning permission for a grain store at Topfield Farm, Cambridge Road, Hemingford Grey was granted in May 2003.
Planning permission was granted in 2003 for the construction of an indoor golf centre and extensions to clubhouse at Hemingford Driving range, Cambridge Road, Hemingford Abbots.
Planning permission was granted in 2003 for additional cattery buildings, kennels, reception areas, restaurant and a function hall at Wood Green Animal shelter, London Road, Godmanchester.
Planning permission was granted for a golf driving range building at Station Farm, Buckden Road, Brampton in October 2001.

Mineral and Waste Sites

Buckden North landfill site is the only active landfill site located within the study area. Buckden South landfill site, Hemingford Grey landfill site and Conington landfill 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. This application was recently granted consent.

A full review of the policies and objectives of the Cambridgeshire County Council Minerals Local Plan is included in 'Plans and Policies'.

Existing Dwellings

The Alternative Proposal traverses agricultural land. There are a number of farming enterprises and village settlements located within the vicinity of the route corridor. There are also a number of dwellings located in close proximity to the route option, particularly to the south of Brampton and in the vicinity of Fenstanton.

Huntingdon Viaduct

Land adjacent to the viaduct currently comprises land associated with the A14 and B1514 roads, Huntingdonshire railway station (including parking and access), and areas of open space and scrubland. Views Common is situated towards the north-west; Mill Common is located towards the south-east.

Based on discussions with Planning Officers at Huntingdonshire District Council, it is understood that there are no outstanding planning permissions or applications within the immediate vicinity of the viaduct. Similarly, according to the most updated version of the Local Plan, there is no land adjacent to the viaduct allocated for development purposes.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS

The Alternative Proposal would traverse a site on which a planning application for mineral extraction has been approved.

The route traverses open countryside, creating a barrier between village settlements located to the north and south. However, this barrier would not be any greater to that which is already created by the existing A14. Mitigation measures in the form of over/ under-bridges would allow unrestricted movement between these settlements, thus minimising the degree of severance.

In relation to the viaduct, land take and road closures associated with the construction phase would conflict with adjacent land uses in the short term.

COMPARISON WITH CHUMMS STRATEGY

The differences in impacts between the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal would be negligible in land use terms. A reduced area of land take associated with the Alternative Proposal could slightly reduce conflict with the area of land subject to the minerals extraction (east of Buckden).

The construction phase (Alternative Proposal) associated with the viaduct replacement would cause disruption to adjacent land uses in the short term. The CHUMMS Strategy would encroach into Mill Common (protected open space) in the longer term, during both the construction and operational phases.

The construction phase associated with the viaduct replacement (Alternative Proposal) would cause disruption to adjacent land uses in the short term. The CHUMMS Strategy would encroach into Mill Common in the longer term, during both the construction and operational phases.

4.4.3 Agricultural Land Use

INTRODUCTION

Most of the land affected by the A14 improvement is agricultural. Accordingly, an assessment has been made here of the potential impact on agricultural resources and existing farm businesses.

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

In the final section, the off-line Alternative Proposal is compared with the CHUMMS Strategy.

No detailed analysis is presented here of the agricultural impacts of the scheme along the existing A14 between Fen Drayton and the Spittals Interchange. This is because there is no agricultural land take and the only impact will be the closure of farm and field accesses off the A14 and their replacement with accommodation tracks from the junctions. These new access arrangements will be safer than the present arrangements and so the impact of the scheme in this section will be neutral or slightly beneficial.

Reconstruction of the Huntingdon Viaduct will have no impact on the adjacent grazing meadows of Mill Common and Views Common.

METHOD

Legislative Requirements

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

This agricultural assessment has involved the study of client-supplied data and original survey work. It should be noted that TAG, with its use of Assessment Summary Tables, has not been adapted to agricultural studies and so this report follows 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 on agricultural land are specified as:

Land take in relation to quality and quantity of agricultural land lost
Type of husbandry
Severance
Major accommodation works

National Policy

Planning policy regarding agricultural land in England is set out in PPS7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development), concerning sustainable development in rural areas. This states 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 for Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales. It also requires assessments to take into account the impact of a proposed development on farm size and structure and any buildings and fixed equipment.

SURVEY AND DATA COLLECTION

Prior to conducting field surveys, published and unpublished data and route plans were consulted. The route corridor was examined in the field between October 2003 and January 2004. Surveys comprised:

Assessment of soils.
Interviews.
Route examination: either during or after interviews, the route was examined in order to verify details discussed at the interview, and to examine land use and condition. Agri-Environmental grant schemes.

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

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

Land Take: this is assessed in terms of quantity and quality, and the losses evaluated against national and local criteria.
Farming practice: the methods of working of individual farms are described, and the impact of the proposals assessed.
Access: the effect on access both into and out of farms and internally within units is described.
Economic impacts: the effect of the proposed routes are described and assessed in terms of broad economic impact. Comparative assessments have been made to evaluate the order of magnitude of the impact. These are for comparative assessment purposes only, using standardised data, and do not necessarily reflect accurately the potential financial losses on each farm. It should be noted that the purpose of this assessment is to indicate the severity of impact and not to evaluate levels of compensation payable.
Other effects: these include drainage, prospects for farm-based diversification, sporting and other interests or effects as identified during this assessment.

BASELINE SITUATION

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

Inherent conditions not influenced by man to a significant degree; and
Land use conditions reflecting man's use of natural resources. These are generally of a more short-term nature.

Inherent Conditions

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 Part I of the SAR. The EAR chapter on agriculture described the geology of the route corridor, relevant to the understanding of soils and Agricultural Land Classification.

The land falls away northward and eastward to the Ouse and Cam valleys. East of Hilton 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 landscape merges 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 on the high ground and around 520 mm on the low ground.

Soils

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

Soil surveys were carried out as part of this assessment along the line of the route options in areas where the level of published information is insufficient for the purposes of Agricultural Land Classification. Government policy, as set out in PPG7, is designed to protect the best and most versatile land, normally Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The published MAFF 1:250,000 Agricultural Land Classification Map of Eastern England provides only a broad indication of land quality and should not be used definitively on specific sites smaller than 80 ha in size. Moreover, the published Defra map does not subdivide Grade 3 into 3a and 3b and so cannot be used definitively in areas that are marginal to best and most versatile. The study area is shown as an area of Grade 2 and 3 land of good to moderate quality and there is no published information available that subdivides the Grade 3 land of the district into 3a and 3b, according to 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 versatile land in Grades 1 - 3a are likely to be lost to agricultural production, Defra should be consulted as to whether a more detailed survey is needed. Such a survey, encompassing soils, climate and topography, would be carried out according to MAFF'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. Recent reorganisation of government responsibilities for rural development means that the consultee 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 of detail in the published information is not adequate to make an informed judgement of whether the land is likely to be Grade 3a or better. These were restricted to offline sections of the route options. In the on-line sections, the relatively small amount of land take and greater importance of engineering considerations mean that land quality is not a significant issue in road design. Also, it is very difficult to assess 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, are in Grades 2 or 3a and so additional surveys were considered unnecessary for this assessment. The Hanslope association may include poorer quality, decalcificied soils 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 1:25,000 scale mapping of OS Sheet TL26 (Papworth Everard) showed that most of this land is in Grade 3a. Farmers are able to compensate for the moisture shortage by growing early maturing varieties of cereals and also benefit from the ability to grow spring sown crops in a district in which winter cropping predominates. Up until the 1970s these soils around Fenstanton and Brampton were noted for fruit production and market gardening.

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

The focus of soil surveys for this assessment was the area of land containing Evesham soils. Here, the soils have the potential to be Grade 2, 3a or 3b depending upon the clay and calcium carbonate content of the topsoil and the Wetness 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 characteristics identified in the following table. In terms of climatic data relevant to the classification, all the study area has fewer than 126 field capacity days (when the soil profile is replete with moisture).

Grade	Soil Characteristics
2	Wetness Class II with medium clay loam or calcareous heavy clay loam or calcareous clay topsoils
3a	Wetness Class II with non-calcareous heavy clay loam or clay topsoils Wetness Class III with calcareous heavy clay loam or calcareous clay topsoils
3b	Wetness Class III 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. Nearly half of these farms are tenanted and owned by large institutions, including Cambridge University colleges. Many agricultural holdings are uninhabited outliers of larger farms, some of which are outside the study area. The main crops are those associated with heavy land rotations, typically winter wheat with beans and oil seed rape. Even on patches of lighter soils the rotations do not change significantly. There is a small amount of grassland, with a beef herds at Conington and Brampton and some pony paddocks, particularly around the towns and villages. There are several orchards and a soft fruit grower at Fenstanton. No irrigation was recorded, except at Fenstanton.

Many of the farms have shoots and so game covers are an important landscape feature. 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 a block of arable land would be expected to sell for between £7,500 and £10,000 per hectare. However, a block of land suitable for pony paddocks, close to Huntingdon or the larger villages could go for a far higher sum.

Agricultural Holdings Affected

A total of 29 agricultural holdings are affected by the Alternative Proposal. The boundaries of the holdings are shown in Figure 9.6, EAR Volume.

Twelve of these holdings are tenanted and often form part of a larger farming enterprise. Others are farmed under contract by neighbours or contract farming companies and this is an increasing trend as farmers dispose of labour and machinery to reduce costs.

Arable farm sizes are typically in the range of 100 ha to 500 ha. Holdings smaller than 50 ha, or so, are generally classed as part time enterprises in that the owner relies on additional sources of income, such as contracting.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS - PERMANENT AND LONG TERM

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

Impacts that are irreversible and permanent are:

Loss of agricultural land to road construction and associated works such as balancing ponds and landscaping.
Some impacts that are long term may, in time, become less significant as patterns of farm ownership and management change. These include:
- Severance and loss of access
- Disruption to drainage
- Cumulative impacts resulting from reductions in farm size and/or manageability and/or income as a result of land take, severance or loss of buildings

Cumulative Impacts on Farm Viability

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

All impacts apart from land take can, in theory, be mitigated. However, some severed parcels of land are too small to justify the cost of providing alternative access. Overall impacts on the agricultural enterprise are assessed both with and with out the proposed mitigation, so in most cases the main long term impact is that resulting from loss of land and disruption due to the division of the farm by the road scheme.

All agricultural impacts of this scheme are adverse and are graded on a scale from slight to major, as shown in the following table.

Table 4.24 - Scale of Farm Impacts
Impact	Description of Impact Grade
Slight adverse	The farm will experience only minor disruption, or a decrease in land area and/ or potentially profitability of less than 2%
Minor adverse	Land loss or disruption to the farm will affect the land area and/ or the potential profitability of the holding by 2% - 5%
Moderate adverse	Land loss or disruption to the farm will affect the land area and/ or potential profitability of the holding by 55 - 10%
Major adverse	There 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%

POTENTIAL IMPACTS - CONSTRUCTION PHASE

This section summarises the potential impacts at the construction phase. They are not covered in detail here as they will be the subject of investigation in Stage 3. The construction phase covers the period of the initial erection of fencing and defining the 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 long-term ones. These include severance, water provision and drainage. The main construction phase impacts are:

Disturbance to soils and land for reinstatement
Construction severance
Loss of buildings
Damage to crops
Disturbance to livestock
Disease transmission
Field drainage and water supply
Disruption to field sports
Working camps, dumps etc

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL - PERMANENT AND LONG TERM IMPACTS

The permanent and long term impacts of the off-line sections of the Alternative Proposal on the farms through which they pass have been assessed and detailed schedules summarising the impacts are included within the EAR. The information covers:

Land take in hectares and as a percentage of the farm's area;
Loss of land in Grades 2 and 3a;
Main impacts and proposed mitigation; and
The scale of impacts before and after mitigation.

The impacts of the off-line sections of the Alternative Proposal are summarised below. This shows that nearly three quarters of the 178ha of land take is best and most versatile land in Grades 2 and 3a. Of the 29 affected working farms, 17 (59%) have cumulative impacts that are minor or slight while only three (10%) would suffer a major impact.

Table 4.25 - Alternative Proposal: Summary of Impacts on Agricultural Holdings
Total Land Take (ha)	Loss of Land in G2 - 3a in Off-line Sections (ha)	Farms Affected	Major Farm Impacts after Mitigation	Moderate Farm Impacts after Mitigation	Minor Farm Impacts after Mitigation	Slight Farm Impacts after Mitigation
178	132	29	3	9	10	7

COMPARISON WITH CHUMMS STRATEGY

A comparison of the Alternative Proposal with the CHUMMS Proposal is presented in table below. This shows that the total agricultural land take is reduced by 9ha (4.8%) under the former and the loss of best and most versatile land in Grades 2 and 3a is reduced by 6ha. The number of affected farms is the same, as is the relative distribution of cumulative farm impacts after mitigation. In terms of agriculture, therefore, the Alternative Proposal has a slightly lesser impact than the CHUMMS strategy, by reducing the total loss of farmland.

Table 4.26 - Comparison of Impacts of the Alternative Proposal and CHUMMS Strategy
Option	Total Land Take (ha)	Loss of Land in G2 - 3a in Off-line Sections (ha)	Farms Affected	Major Farm Impacts after Mitigation	Moderate Farm Impacts after Mitigation	Minor Farm Impacts after Mitigation	Slight Farm Impacts after Mitigation
CHUMMS Strategy	187	138	29	3	9	10	7
Alternative Proposal	178	132	29	3	9	10	7

SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS

This assessment has considered the long-term and permanent impacts of the Alternative Proposal on agricultural properties. The assessment was carried out in accordance with DMRB, using evaluation criteria that allow a comparative analysis of impacts. A number of impacts are long-term and can be mitigated as follows, by:

Minimising the effects of severance by providing alternative accesses as specified;
Minimising the land take for landscaping, particularly on Grade 2 and 3a land;
Monitoring off-site field drainage and making good, as necessary; and
Restoring water for livestock and irrigation, where supplies are severed.

A total of 29 working farms would be affected by the Alternative Proposal and the land take would be 178 ha of which 132ha are in the best and most versatile category (Grades 2 and 3a). After mitigation only three farms would suffer major impacts, due to land loss, and 17 would suffer only slight or minor impacts.

By comparison, the CHUMMS Strategy would take 187ha of which 138ha are in the best and most versatile category. The number of affected farms is the same, as is the number of farms suffering a major impact.

For the Alternative Proposal along the existing A14 between Fen Drayton and the Spittals Interchange there would be no loss of agricultural land. Existing farm and field accesses off the A14 would be replaced by a much safer arrangement of accommodation tracks from junctions and so the impact of the scheme is likely to be beneficial.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.5 Landscape Effects

4.5.1 Introduction

This section assesses the existing landscape context including landscape character and quality, the effects of the Alternative Proposal on the landscape, local views and townscape, and the proposed broad landscape mitigation measures. It classifies and evaluates the existing landscape and visual resource of the study area, identifies potential positive and negative impacts of the route option and assesses its significance.

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

4.5.2 Method of Assessment

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

Appreciation of landscape is not only a visual experience but involves all of the five senses;
Data relating to the components of the landscape which affect its character and quality includes that dealt with in separate related studies e.g. ecology and cultural heritage;
The value placed on an area of landscape is dependent not only on its inherent quality but on its situation and rarity;
Historical and cultural associations may contribute to the value placed on landscapes not generally considered to be of visual or other importance; and
Landscapes which are not of a quality to warrant national or regional designation may be of great local value.

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

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

Highest quality landscape
Very attractive landscape
Good landscape
Ordinary landscape
Poor landscape

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

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

Substantial - where there would be a significant change
Moderate - where there would be a noticeable change
Slight - where the change would be barely perceptible
No change - no discernable change in the existing view

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

4.5.3 Existing Landscape Character

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

The Alternative Proposal falls within the Countryside Agency's 'Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Claylands' character area some of the key characteristics of which are;

Gently undulating topography and plateau areas, divided by broad shallow valleys;
Predominantly an open and intensive arable landscape. Fields bounded by either open ditches or sparse closely trimmed hedges both containing variable number and quality of hedgerow trees;
River corridors of Great Ouse and Ivel compose cohesive sub-areas characterised by flood plain grassland, riverine willows and larger hedges;
Woodland cover variable. Clusters of ancient deciduous woods on higher plateau area. Smaller plantations and secondary woodland within river valleys;
Settlement pattern clusters around major road (A1) and rail corridors many with raw built edges. Smaller, dispersed settlements elsewhere. Village edge grasslands an important feature; and
Restored gravel working lakes adjacent to river Ouse.

The Cambridgeshire County Council's publication 'The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines' indicates that the Alternative Proposal falls within two landscape character areas; the 'Western Claylands' and 'Ouse Valley'.

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

Southern Wolds
Ouse Valley
South East Claylands

The overall landscape character of the study area - see Volume 3 Environmental Assessment (EA), Figure 10.1 is distinguished by three principal features;

The flood plains of the river Great Ouse and Ivel, generally 10m and below O.D.;
The low rounded hills which rise up gently on either side of the valleys to form plateau areas to 50m O.D. ; and
The flatter fen edges to the north of the existing A14 below 20m O.D. merging almost imperceptibly with the fens at 10m O.D. and below.

The topography of the study area is illustrated on Figure 10.2 in Volume 3 EA.

A survey has been undertaken of the existing vegetation, this is illustrated on Figures 10.3 to 10.15 in Volume 3 EA. This does not extend westwards along the A14 beyond the Galley Hill junction; however, fieldwork has confirmed the extent of the existing road side vegetation and this is indicated on Figures accompanying this Addendum.

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. Soils range from variable clays on the higher ground to free draining loams on the river terraces and wet, clayey alluvial soils in the floodplains. Illustrated on Figure 9.2 in Volume 3 EA.

West of Cambridge the landscape south of the A14 is predominantly undulating and north of the A14 flat, both with expansive views of large scale intensive arable farmland, contained either by sparse trimmed hedgerows, open ditches or streamside vegetation. The scattered woods, some of which are ancient woodlands form important visual and wildlife features.

The shallow valleys of the river Great Ouse and Ivel pass through a picturesque and enclosed landscape, meandering through a mosaic of water meadows, working and disused gravel pits and lakes. The area is an important local recreational resource and the vegetation types and patterns are distinctive to this river landscape.

Early settlement has influenced the development of the area and archaeological evidence is abundant in the valleys. The offline section of the Alternative Proposal passes close to villages south of the existing A14 such as Hilton and Conington, as well as villages such as Brampton and Godmanchester south of Huntingdon. Cambridgeshire County Council is in the process of undertaking an Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) analysis which will provide information on the historic evolution of the landscape and when available this would be a helpful additional tool in the assessment of impact on the landscape.

Settlement within the arable landscape is sparse with small villages and isolated farms scattered throughout the area, usually in sheltered places with existing trees. Small grass paddocks typically occur on the edges of villages. Church spires and towers 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 of Godmanchester has important roman connections and developed at the crossing point of the River Great Ouse. The A1 and A1198 follow the route of Roman roads. Buckden was a former coaching stop for the A1 Great North Road.

Huntingdon has long been a place of importance; it is situated on the north bank of the River Great Ouse and is accessible from the A14, which passes around the southern edge of the town. The East Coast Mainline railway runs through the town on a north south axis. The expansion of the town has resulted in new industrial and residential built edges encroaching on the open countryside which somewhat degrade the local landscape character.

4.5.4 Existing Landscape Quality

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

Most of the study area south of the existing A14 is considered to be good quality with its undulating landform, frequent vegetation, small villages and hamlets. Many of the settlements incorporate Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Sites of Archaeological Interest. Brampton Wood at the western end of the scheme is ancient woodland and SSSI. The river Great Ouse and adjacent areas designated as a County Wildlife Site have a particularly attractive local character. Huntingdonshire District Council is currently reviewing their Conservation Area boundaries, with consultation on revisions expected in Spring 2005.

In the past some of the study area has been designated as an 'Area of Best Landscape', although this criterion has given way to the more character based assessments, these areas are noted on the environmental constraints plans included within Section 5 of Volume 3 EAR.

The landscape immediately around Fen Drayton has a distinctive quality derived from its history of market gardening and small holdings started by the Land Settlement Association. Families were resettled from coal mining areas between the mid 1930's to the early 1980's. Fenstanton was once a fruit producing area and remnant orchards are still evident.

Land north of the A14, except for the Ouse Valley character area, is generally considered to be of ordinary quality due to its flat open and unchanging nature with little vegetation. Residential, industrial and commercial development within the study area falls within this category.

Overall the landscape is considered to be of ordinary to good quality, with more attractive landscape in the river valleys (Figure 10.16 in Volume 3 EAR).

4.5.5 Townscape

The offline section of the Alternative Proposal between Ellington and Fen Drayton does not directly affect the townscapes of any of the settlements within the route corridor. The proposal would impact upon the setting of villages and hamlets currently unaffected by the existing A14 and these impacts are considered within the next section: effects on the Landscape.

With regard to the on line section of the A14 between Fen Drayton and Spittals Interchange, it is presumed, at this stage in the design process, that existing road side vegetation and environmental barriers would remain. Immediately adjacent to the railway viaduct in Huntingdon some loss of vegetation would be necessary in order to accommodate the rebuilding of the structure. Initial visual impacts at this point in Huntingdon would be worse than at present but in the longer term visual impacts would be expected to be no worse than at present.

The Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (HLTA) identifies the urban character of the immediate area of the railway viaduct as industrial with the crossing point of the Brampton Road and railway line as an historic gateway into the town. The water tower is a local landmark and also a distinctive element in the landscape for drivers on the A14. To the west of the railway line and south of the A14 is Views Common open space which is linked under the A14 via an underpass and joins the Stukeley Meadows open space. Views Common is within the Hinchingbrooke local landscape character area as are the Police and Fire headquarters, both close to the A14 with significant areas of mature trees in an open setting.

One of key issues noted in the HLTA is that planning and enhancement strategies should improve the appearance of the key gateways into the town centre through appropriate enhancement programmes. Decisions over the Huntingdon viaduct should be assessed in the light of the overall development of Huntingdon urban framework.

The HLTA states in the key characteristics of Godmanchester that the A14 flyover and the large warehouses at Cardinal Park have a significant impact on the setting of the town when approached from the north east. Godmanchester remains strongly influenced by the town's riverside location and the street pattern of the original Roman settlement. Two of the five historic gateways and memorable areas leading to the historic fringe are located on the southern edge of the town - at West Street and Silver Street. To the south and east the urban area rises into the South East Claylands which provides a rural context to the town edge.

4.5.6 Effects on the Landscape

The appraisal which follows is an initial overview of the potential landscape and visual impacts of the Alternative Proposal between Ellington and Fen Drayton Interchange. Between Fen Drayton Interchange and Fen Ditton the Alternative Proposal is identical to that of the CHUMMS Strategy; therefore, this part of the scheme is not described in this addendum to the main EAR.

Further site survey work to look specifically at visual impacts on individual properties will take place following the selection of a preferred route. Figures 10.17 and 10.18 in Volume 3 show the approximate visual envelope and includes viewpoints (Point 1 to Point 24) which are described in more detail in Appendix 10-A in Volume 2.

The appraisal looks at the routes as described in the Technical Appraisal Report February 2005 as follows;

Ellington to A1 Brampton Interchange

The Alternative Proposal A14 eastbound and westbound dual 2 lane carriageway curves south from the existing A14 approximately 1100 metres west of Brampton Hut Junction. It then continues at ground level adjacent to the existing A1. The road rises on embankment to pass over the A1 on structure at the proposed Brampton Interchange.

At Ellington traffic travelling on the existing A14 eastbound carriageway wanting to continue east on the A14 to Brampton and Huntingdon leaves the new road and rejoins the existing A14 Brampton Hut Junction. Traffic from Brampton Hut Junction wanting to continue west on the A14 can do so via a new link road which passes over the proposed A14 before merging back into the existing A14.

The route follows the existing A1 corridor which minimises its impact upon the open agricultural character of the local landscape, although isolated farms and public rights of way would suffer some adverse visual impact. There would also be adverse visual impact from the earthworks and night time lighting at the Ellington junction and the earthworks associated with two over bridges. Existing vegetation adjacent to the A1 would offer screening of the new road from Brampton. The realignment of the Brampton - Grafham road over bridge on embankment would result in the loss of at least some of the small fishing lakes and mature planting.

The proposed road is approximately 0.75km from Brampton Wood SSSI and it is estimated that any visual impacts would be slight.

A1 Brampton Interchange to A1198

The Alternative Proposal crosses the A1 at the proposed Brampton Interchange on approximately 8m high embankment and the Brampton to Buckden Road at grade and then passes south of the Buckden South landfill site at approximately the same height as the adjacent landfill. Earthworks and night time lighting at the interchange would adversely impact upon properties on the edges of Brampton and Buckden.

The alignment then crosses the floodplain, River Great Ouse and the East Coast Mainline Railway on a multi span viaduct structure about 1.2 km long, and 13m above the river at its highest point. The viaduct crosses over a zone designated as a County Wildlife Site on the west bank of the river. This river corridor is visually enclosed and peaceful. It is an important recreational area for walking via the Ouse Valley Way, boating and enjoying access to the countryside and the area would suffer substantial adverse impacts visually, as well as on the tranquillity of the river corridor.

On reaching the eastern bank of the floodplain the alignment crosses the East Coast Mainline railway, then passes south of the Offord Hill properties and continues eastwards to join the A1198 south of the Beaconsfield Equestrian Centre and Wood Green Animal Centre. The A1198 follows the route of the Roman road - Ermine Street. The new road would be in deep cutting as it approaches Silver Street and again on the approach to the A1198, however, it would be on 3m embankment east of Silver Street and would therefore be visible within the wider landscape and certainly for properties on the southern edge of Godmanchester. The re-aligned local access roads on embankment e.g. Silver Street would also add to the adverse visual impact.

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

It is understood that consideration is being given to emergency vehicle access to the Alternative Proposal carriageway from the A1198 local road. Slip roads and lighting ( if required) would increase adverse visual impact.

A1198 to Fen Drayton Interchange

From the A1198, with the exception of a 9 metre deep cutting, approximately 2km in length, the Alternative Proposal generally follows the local topography. Where localised floodplains are crossed the alignment has been lifted approximately 2 to 3 metres, depending on the flood levels provided by the Environment Agency. It crosses open arable farmland, passing to the south of Fenstanton and to the north of Hilton and Conington before joining the existing A14 at the Fen Drayton Interchange.

From Mere Way the route would be visible within the landscape although topography and existing vegetation would filter some views. The existing A14 is not visible from Hilton and Conington and there would therefore be a significant adverse change in view; for isolated properties the edges of the settlements and various Public Rights of Way where views to the Alternative Proposal would be possible. Small groups of properties south of the existing A14 in the vicinity of Fenstanton would have views of overbridges with the Alternative Proposal.

Existing minor roads and tracks would be re-aligned and cross the proposed road on embankment at 9m average height above existing ground level. The introduction of new earthworks into the landscape to accommodate the local roads would result in an adverse visual impact on landform and for some properties. Environmental barriers are also proposed for some locations and whilst screening views these would in themselves be alien components in the local landscape. As the alignment moves nearer to the existing A14, views of the existing A14 traffic become more intrusive and consequently there would be less change from the existing situation.

Fen Drayton Interchange is situated on a floodplain and requires embankments of up to 9 metres in order to lift the link roads over the A14. This new landform in an otherwise flat landscape together with the associated night time lighting would lead to substantial adverse visual impacts. There is currently no junction on the A14 at this point.

Within this section of the route some existing vegetation would be lost to the scheme, mainly in the form of field boundary hedgerows.

4.5.7 Existing A14 - Fen Drayton to Huntingdon

As well as the offline section the Alternative Proposal utilises the existing A14 and replaces the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct which is coming to the end of its design life. The existing A14 carriageway would be maintained as a D2AP carrying traffic from the north to the east, and vice versa. The new section of the A14 will carry traffic between the east and the west as well as to and from the south.

Currently there are significant areas of existing road side vegetation and some environmental barriers which restrict views out from the road and provides screening of traffic. Views out from the A14 are possible e.g. to the attractive landscape around the Hemingford villages, more extensive views north and south at Godmanchester and glimpses of the River Great Ouse south of Huntingdon.

It has been presumed as part of this appraisal that, apart from changes at the viaduct itself, no changes to existing road side vegetation or environmental barriers will be required and therefore the local landscape character and visual impacts would remain as at present. Some visual benefits would become apparent with a reduction in traffic volumes.

The rebuilding of the Huntingdon viaduct would require the removal of some existing vegetation from the adjacent embankment slopes to enable the engineering works to take place and this would result in adverse visual impacts for properties and public open spaces close by in the short term.

Additional accommodation works would also be provided as a safety measure along the existing A14 in order to minimise the number of direct farm accesses onto the A14 carriageway. A desk study has been undertaken to review the potential for localised accommodation track provision adjacent to the existing road between Fen Drayton Interchange and Huntingdon.

The exact impacts would depend upon the final location of access tracks. With careful design to avoid existing hedgerows and road side planting, where it exists, it would be unlikely that such tracks would adversely impact on the local landscape. However, great care would need to be exercised to ensure that there was no impact on Arthur's Meadow SSSI which is adjacent to the A14 on the south side and east of Goretree Farm over bridge.

4.5.8 Visual Impact on Properties

The likely visual impact of the Alternative Proposal on residential properties is summarised in the following table.

Table 4.27 - Visual Impact Table
Properties/ Settlements	Alternative Proposal
ISOLATED PROPERTIES	Off line through open countryside, structures, lighting and traffic in rural landscape.
ISOLATED PROPERTIES	Year 1 Substantial Adverse	Year 15 Moderate Adverse
BRAMPTON	Earthworks structures, lighting - particularly at A1 junction
BRAMPTON	Year 1 Moderate Adverse	Year 15 Moderate to Slight Adverse
BUCKDEN	Earthworks structures, lighting - particularly at A1 junction and across landfill
BUCKDEN	Year 1 Substantial Adverse	Year 15 Moderate Adverse
RIVER GREAT OUSE CORRIDOR	Viaduct over river corridor
RIVER GREAT OUSE CORRIDOR	Year 1 Substantial Adverse	Year 15 Substantial Adverse
GODMANCHESTER	Structures junctions and lighting, embankment east of Silver Street
GODMANCHESTER	Year 1 Slight Adverse	Year 15 Slight Adverse
HILTON	Structures, earthworks and , traffic in the rural landscape
HILTON	Year 1 Slight Adverse	Year 15 Slight Adverse
CONINGTON	Structures, earthworks and , traffic in the rural landscape
CONINGTON	Year 1 Slight Adverse	Year 15 Slight Adverse
FEN DRAYTON	New interchange in flat landscape, earthworks,lighting
FEN DRAYTON	Year 1 Substantial Adverse	Year 15 Moderate Adverse
PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO A14	Combination of works to the existing A14 between Fen Drayton and Fenstanton ie viaduct and accommodation works and off-line section where routes merge
PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO A14	Year 1 Slight Benefit for properties along existing A14, offset by Slight Adverse where views of off-line section	Year 15 Slight Benefit for properties along existing A14, Neutral where views of off-line section
HUNTINGDON	Rebuilding of Huntingdon Railway Viaduct - local removal of some vegetation from embankment slopes
HUNTINGDON	Year 1 Substantial adverse	Year 15 No change

LIGHTING

The visual impact assessment assumes that only the new junctions at Fen Drayton, Brampton (A1) and Ellington would be lit and that the proposed lighting columns are likely to be 12 and 15 m twin arm and single columns with high pressure, sodium full cut-off flat glass lanterns.

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

Distance between properties and the lighting is an important element in assessing intrusiveness of the scheme. Over a long distance, the lighting columns would become an insignificant feature in the landscape during the day, but would be significant at close quarters. At night however, while cut-off lanterns restrict light spill 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 less than where there is currently no lighting at all. The presence of other aerial elements such as power lines etc. can also have a bearing on the effect of the lighting on the surrounding landscape during the day.

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

4.5.9 Mitigation Measures

LANDSCAPE PROPOSALS

The landscape proposals aim to reflect and enhance the character of the area and are illustrated on drawings 5021044/DR/EN/052 to 057 included with this addendum. At this stage the proposals are indicative only; the principles and objectives to be used in producing the detailed design are listed below.

Integration of the scheme with the surrounding countryside and landscape through sensitive road alignment, siting of structures, ground modelling and planting;
Minimising damage to existing vegetation and retention wherever possible. Reinstatement of existing trees and shrubs lost during the construction phase. Integration of existing vegetation within the landscape proposals;
Planting of locally indigenous native trees and shrub species with plants and planting design to be of a scale, form and species choice that responds to the pattern of the landscape and that would develop to form plant associations characteristic to the area;
A variety of grass seed mixtures used for verges, wetland and wild flora areas, seeded at locations where conditions are suitable for their establishment to increase local biodiversity;
Where possible, woodland belts planted on severed land to link into hedgerows and existing copses to create a bold framework of planting and provide screening for settlement fringes;
Dense planting to road embankments to break up the scale of the road and screen structures, traffic and lighting;
Retain views to local landmarks through breaks in planting to help create a sense of place for drivers;
Where possible, crests and toes of embankments rounded to achieve better integration with the surrounding landform. Subject to agreements with landowners embankment slopes could be graded out and returned to agriculture to retain the open large scale character of the area;
The use of false cuttings in flat landscapes could be used to screen traffic in sensitive situations e.g. adjacent to sites of cultural interest;
The detailed design of bridges to reflect local materials, character and traditions;
The design of walls, fences and shrub lines along roadsides to reflect the landscape character and pattern;
Fence lines not located at the top of cutting slopes, where they would dominate the skyline; Shrub lines on the highway boundary to ensure that existing field boundary planting remains intact and wildlife corridors are not severed;
Careful consideration given to the design and siting of road signs, traffic signals, environmental barriers and other street furniture which would significantly help to lesson the overall visual impact of the scheme;
Breaking out redundant carriageways, then topsoil and plant, undertake habitat creation or return to agriculture as appropriate; and
The principles set out in the Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines to be followed in developing the landscape design for the scheme.

EARTHWORKS

Ideally, earthworks should not be too free draining to aid successful plant establishment or be steeper than 1:3 for landscape maintenance safety and to prevent them from being too visually intrusive. Earthwork design profiles should reflect existing natural slopes. Where possible the side slope angle should be varied to match existing topography and in this way earthworks avoid emphasising the line of the road. Junctions between new artificial gradients and natural ones need careful attention to detail. There are benefits in rounding off the crests and toes of cutting and embankment slopes to a gentle profile, creation a gradual transition to the natural landform.

TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING

Proposals would take nature conservation and wildlife interest into consideration as part of the detailed design stage. Of great importance would be the protection and management of existing vegetation to be retained and integration of the proposals with this retained vegetation. Locally indigenous native plants to reflect the distinctive local character would be used. It may be appropriate to plant more ornamental 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, where compost / soil improvers are used, they should be from recycled garden waste compost provided by Cambridgeshire County Council contractors. Products would need to meet the usual Highways Agency specification requirements.

Key planting types are likely to be;

Dense tree and shrub cover which would provide a visual screen with a range of species, age and structural diversity;
Open tree groups would be provided for interest and in order to break up or select views. This type of planting would also encourage diversity of the ground flora species within the open areas;
Dense shrub cover with intermittent trees would be used where a dense tall screen is not necessary, but an element of vertical interest is desirable in large areas of planting;
Dense shrub cover providing a visual screen from ground level to approximately 3m, would be proposed where taller screening is not required and also to add interest and variety.

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

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

OFFSITE PLANTING BY AGREEMENT

Planting by agreement with landowners outside the highway boundary could be offered to augment on site proposals and help achieve landscape mitigation objectives.

LAND ACQUIRED BY COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (CPO)

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

BALANCING PONDS

Balancing ponds regulate water run-off from the scheme thereby reducing the risk of flooding and controlling pollution via interceptors. They would be designed with a natural shape, in sympathy with the surrounding topography and to ecological principles.

GREEN BRIDGES

Cambridgeshire County Council are exploring the possibility of using 'green bridges' 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 be a matter for consideration at the detailed design stage.

4.5.10 Summary

Overall the Alternative Proposal is considered to have a large to moderate adverse impact on local landscape character generally and large adverse for the River Great Ouse. The likely long term impacts from the Alternative Proposal on landscape character and quality can be summarised as follows;

Changes to the local landscape character and quality by the introduction of a new road and side roads into the rural landscape;
Visual impact of new structures and grade separated junctions;
Additional sources of light pollution; and
Impact of new landform and planting.

4.5.11 Comparison with CHUMMS Strategy

The alignment of the new section of the Alternative Proposal runs along the same route and has the same vertical profile as the CHUMMS Strategy and in general terms impacts for both options between Ellington and Fen Drayton are very similar. The main differences are;

The reduction in carriageway width for the Alternative Proposal allows for less land take and as a consequence less adverse impact on the landscape;
Widening of the A1 to overcome weaving would not be required for the Alternative Proposal and therefore the existing vegetation adjacent to the A1 would not be lost; and
An additional emergency junction would be required at the A1198 for the Alternative Proposal, this could have slight adverse impacts particularly if night time lighting was necessary.

By fully utilising the existing A14 carriageway between Fen Drayton and Huntingdon and replacement of the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct as part of the Alternative Proposal the main differences between the options are;

For the Alternative Proposal, accommodation tracks will be required at some points alongside the A14 to reduce direct access onto the A14, subject to careful location to preserve existing road side vegetation, adverse impacts on landscape should be minimal;
It is difficult to estimate the impacts of the replacement of the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct as part of the Alternative Proposal until it is decided whether existing screening is being removed on the approaches to the structure. It is assumed that the requirement for working space will result in existing planting having to be cleared, in which case this would be an adverse impact until mitigation takes effect, with the long term impacts 'no change';
The CHUMMS Strategy requires a new at grade junction which would replace the Huntingdon Viaduct at Brampton Road; until the detail of the earthworks is know it is not possible to fully assess the impacts. In the short term it is presumed that there could be an improvement in visual impact where traffic is moved further away from properties and a worsening of the current situation where it is located nearer to properties and existing vegetation is removed and mitigation would not have taken effect. How the old embankments are dealt with (e.g. are they to be removed and an alternative use put forward) could significantly affect landscape impacts. Long term the opportunity exists for beneficial impacts, the viaduct would no longer block high level views and there could be possibilities of redeveloping the adjacent areas to link the urban green spaces and re-establish the significance of the historic gateway.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.6 Ecology and Nature Conservation

4.6.1 Introduction

This addendum describes the important ecological features as they relate to the Alternative Scheme (hereafter known as the Alternative Proposal). It identifies key issues associated with this option and describes the potential requirement for mitigation measures that should be included within the design proposals. Mitigation is taken into account in the assessment of the overall (residual) impact of each of this scheme option.

The assessment has been undertaken according to Stage 2 DMRB, using the TAG appraisal methodology. TAG provides specific advice on evaluating features of nature conservation interest, assessing the magnitude and significance of impacts and assigning an overall assessment score for an option.

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

A description of the existing conditions;
An evaluation of the known ecological features within the study area in terms of their nature conservation value;
An identification of key ecological issues;
Proposed mitigation measures in respect of adverse impacts;
An assessment of the potential ecological impacts of the proposal, including habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance and potential off-site impacts; and
Identification of residual impacts taking account of proposed mitigation measures.

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

Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire & Peterborough Wildlife Trust;
Cambridgeshire Badger & Otter Group;
Cambridgeshire Bat Group;
Cambridge Bird Club;
Cambridgeshire Mammal Group;
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology;
English Nature (Bedfordshire & Cambridgeshire Team);
English Nature Headquarters (Tony-Mitchell Jones, Mammals);
Environment Agency; Grafham Water Wildlife Trust Reserve;
Hawk & Owl Trust;
Invertebrate Recorders for Cambridgeshire, where known (recorders for the following groups were contacted: Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Odonata, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Arachnida); and Local Farmers provided some information on badgers.

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

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

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

The surveys broadly followed the 'Extended Phase 1' methodology as set out in Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment 1995). The extended Phase 1 habitat survey provides information on the habitats in the survey area and assesses the potential for notable fauna to occur in or adjacent to the site. Plant names follow New Flora of the British Isles (2nd edition, Stace 1997). The habitats described below are illustrated (see Figures 11.1 to 11.6 in Volume 3 for the Phase 1 Habitat Survey) and refer to numbered Target Notes (Appendix 11-A, Volume 2). The survey corridor extended to 500m either side of the route options, except in the case of breeding birds, where survey effort was focussed within a 500m corridor of the offline section of the proposed route options.

Following the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, more detailed ecological surveys targeting specific species were conducted between March-July 2004, to assist in the elaboration of route options.

LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES

Refer to EAR.

4.6.2 Impact Terminolgy

The specialist reports on species (Appendices 11-C to 11-K in Volume 2) use an in-house impact methodology for assessing the significance of impacts. The significance of the predicted impacts in the main report, the TAG Worksheets and ASTs has been standardised using the TAG methodology with the terminology of the overall assessment score modified following the 'Bridging Document' Applying the Multi-modal New Approach to Appraisal to Highway Schemes (April 2001).

4.6.3 Existing Conditions

GENERAL BACKGROUND, DESIGNATED SITES AND HABITATS

Refer to EAR.

KEY SURVEY RESULTS

Refer to EAR.

4.6.4 Assessment of Alternative Proposal

The following section describes the Alternative Proposal and the existing ecological conditions as currently known.

Ellington to Godmanchester

Sub-section A - Ellington to A1 Brampton Interchange

This alignment curves south from the existing A14 at Ellington, passing through arable land close to the Brampton Hut services but follows the A1 corridor south of the existing road.

Some widening of the existing A1 would be required to overcome weaving and this would 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 the proposed route - Brampton Meadow SSSI and Brampton Wood SSSI.

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

This alignment has the advantage of utilising the existing A1 corridor and being located away from Brampton Wood SSSI (c. 1km distance). The Alternative Proposal largely involves arable land take with some loss of hedgerow and does not directly impact upon Lenton Fishing Lakes and their associated vegetation.

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 (e.g. watercourses, field margins, hedge bottoms and gardens). There are 13 water bodies present within 500m of the route within this section. None of these waterbodies will be directly impacted by this route option. The desk study indicates that Great Crested Newts are recorded from two of these waterbodies. Seven of these waterbodies are recommended for Great Crested Newt presence/absence survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment (see Appendix 11-I, Volume 2 and Figures 11.12 to 11.16, Volume 3).

Badgers: Four active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor (two within Brampton Wood). No direct impact upon any setts. The closest sett is within c.200m of proposed route. Based on observer experience, it is recommended that setts lying within 350m of the proposed route option are recommended for further survey work (see Appendix 11-C, Volume 2 and Figures 11.22 to 11.26, Volume 3).

Bats: The bridleway at approximately NGR 189,707 is c. 5m wide, grassed and bordered by dense hedgerows containing regularly spaced standards of semi-mature to mature ash and oak. Although the trees have low potential as roosts, the bridleway offers good commuting and foraging habitat. Two pipistrelle roosts are known from the western end of Brampton village (see Appendix 11-D, Volume 2 and Figures 11.17 to 11 21, Volume 3).

Birds: A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor (e.g within 500m of the proposed route options along proposed 'off-line section'). Within this section of the route, five red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, house sparrow, reed bunting and yellowhammer. There were no Schedule 1 species recorded from this section (see Appendix 11-L, Volume 2 and Figures 11.27 to 11.31, Volume 3).

Common Otter: There are no otter records from this section of the route and with no major watercourses affected, it is unlikely there would be an impact on otters (see Appendix 11-G, Volume 2 and Figures 11.7 to 11.11, Volume 3).

Hazel Dormouse: Re-introduced population occurs within Brampton Wood. Population may utilise adjacent hedgerows for dispersal (see Appendix 11-H, Volume 2 and Figures 11.7 to 11.11, Volume 3).

Invertebrates: the proposed route passes within c. 1km of Brampton Wood SSSI. Large populations of the BAP butterfly species, black hairstreak, also listed on Schedule 5 of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (for sale only) occur in Brampton Wood, as do several red data book species and the wood is one of the only sites in Britain for the micro-moth Ectoedemia amani. Brampton Wood is also of considerable importance for its beetle fauna, both locally and regionally, with 550 species of coleoptera recorded in the wood, of which five are Red Data Book species and a further 36 are classified as nationally notable. 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 (see Appendix 11-J, Volume 2).

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 does offer habitat corridors (see Appendix 11-K, Volume 2).

Water Voles: There are no records of water voles or any predicted impacts upon water vole habitat in this section of the route (see Appendix 11-F, Volume 2).

White-clawed Crayfish: There are currently no known White-clawed crayfish within the study area, although a number of water bodies are potentially suitable for the species, with the only known existing population of White-clawed Crayfish in Cambridgeshire present in a farm reservoir in the Wendy area (Mungovan, in press) c. 20 km away from the potential A14 route corridor (see Appendix 11-E, Volume 2).

Sub-section B - A1 Brampton Interchange to Godmanchester

The Alternative Proposal option crosses the A1 and passes south of the Buckden South landfill site at approximately the same height as the adjacent landfill.

This alignment then crosses the floodplain, River Great Ouse and the East Coast Mainline Railway on a continuous viaduct structure about 1.2 km long, and 13m above the river at its highest point. The viaduct crosses over the Brampton Meadows County Wildlife Site on the west bank of the river.

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

Some existing vegetation would be lost to the scheme, including vegetation legally protected by a Tree Preservation Order on Brampton Road, riverside trees and mature 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 of the proposed route.

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

This alignment involves the take of arable land and hedgerows, and crosses the Great Ouse Valley, with is major watercourse, and the associated flood meadows at 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 (e.g. watercourses, field margins, hedge bottoms and gardens). There are 20 water bodies present within 500m of the route within this section. 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 survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment (see Appendix 11-I, Volume 2 and Figures 11.12 to 11.16, Volume 3).

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 potentially be directly impacted by this route option, lying 5m from the route. Based on observer experience, it is recommended that setts lying within 350m of the proposed route option are recommended for further survey work (see Appendix 11-C, Volume 2 and Figures 11.22 to 11.26, Volume 3).

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 roosts are known from the eastern end of Brampton village and a noctule roost close to existing A14 at Godmanchester (see Appendix 11-D, Volume 2 and Figures 11.17 to 11.21, Volume 3).

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 (e.g within 500m of the proposed route options along proposed 'off-line section'). Within this section of the route, eight red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, starling, house sparrow, song thrush, turtle dove, corn bunting, reed bunting and yellowhammer. There were two Schedule 1 species (barn owl and kingfisher) recorded from this section (see Appendix 11-L, Volume 2 and Figures 11.27 to 11.31, Volume 3).

Hazel Dormouse: No records from this area and no suitable habitat likely to be impacted (see Appendix 11-H, Volume 2 and Figures 11.7 to 11.11, Volume 3).

Invertebrates: This proposed route option crosses the River Great Ouse and important for the nationally scarce dragonfly Libellula fulva (see Appendix 11-J, Volume 2).

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 (see Appendix 11-K, Volume 2).

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 (see Appendix 11-F, Volume 2 and Figures 11.7 to 11.11, Volume 3).

Section 2 Godmanchester - Fen Drayton

From the A1198 Godmanchester junction the alignment crosses open arable farmland in deep cutting to Mere Way where it converts to low 2m embankment and continues eastwards to join the existing A14 at Trinity Foot.

This section of this route would mainly cut across arable land, but would involve the removal 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 of the proposed route.

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

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

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 (e.g. watercourses, field margins, hedge bottoms and gardens). There are 31 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. Twenty-five of these water bodies are recommended for survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment. One of these water bodies are not recommended for survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment. Five of these water bodies were not accessed (see Appendix 11-I, Volume 2 and Figures 11.12 to 11.16, Volume 3).

Badgers: Six active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor, along with three outlier setts. Desk study setts were recorded from one location. 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. Based on observer experience, it is recommended that setts lying within 350m of the proposed route option are recommended for further survey work (see Appendix 11-C, Volume 2 and Figures 11.22 to 11.26, Volume 3).

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).

Birds: A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor (e.g within 500m of the proposed route options along proposed 'off-line section'). Within this section of the route, 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 section (see Appendix 11-L, Volume 2 and Figures 11.27 to 11.31, Volume 3).

Common Otter: There are 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 Alternative Proposal 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 (see Appendix 11-K, Volume 2).

Water Vole: 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.

4.6.5 Biodiversity

Refer to EAR.

4.6.6 Nature Conservation Evaluation

The evaluation of the nature conservation sites outlined above was undertaken according to TAG, with the scores recorded in a TAG biodiversity worksheet (Appendix 11-B, Volume 2). These scores relate to the value of a habitat in terms of its importance in an international, national, regional/county, local (parish) or sub-local (ie negligible) context.

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

4.6.7 Key Issues

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

Direct loss of sites and/or habitats of national or county value;
Disturbance to sites and/or habitats of national or county value, resulting in a reduction in quality or an increase in the vulnerability of that habitat;
Adverse impacts on legally protected species and notable species;
Reduction in water quality of watercourses crossed by the scheme;
Severance and fragmentation of habitats

4.6.8 Mitigation

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

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

Refer to EAR.

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

Refer to EAR.

IMPACTS ON LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES AND NOTABLE SPECIES

Refer to EAR.

4.6.9 Overall Assessment of Alternative Proposal

The magnitude and significance of impacts of the Alternative Proposal on the known ecological features were assessed in accordance with TAG and recorded in the TAG biodiversity worksheets. Ease of mitigation is taken into account in the magnitude of impact score

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

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

No account has been taken of lighting as there is no indication of the extent of lighting, or whether there would be any differences between the options;
Account is taken of the ease of mitigation, but detailed mitigation measures are not known at this stage;
Good construction practice is assumed, for example as described above in terms of generic ecological mitigation;
The assessment score may change to a higher adverse impact when fuller information is available on the activity and distribution of legally protected species;
The assessment score may change either way when precise information is available on the quality of habitats and species that would be affected at designated sites.

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 sites scored. The guidance note then goes on to say, however, that some judgement may be required to derive an overall score that fairly represents the effects of the scheme as a whole.

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

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

It is predicted that there would be (a large adverse impact on one feature (Arthur's Meadow SSSI) - potentially deleted as accommodation works amended), a moderate adverse impact on one feature (Buckden Gravel Pits CWS), slight adverse impacts on nine features, 11 neutral impacts and three unknown impacts (see TAG worksheets). The section of this route between Godmanchester and the existing A14 would mainly cut across arable land, but would involve the removal of sections of hedgerow along the route, and there is a County Wildlife Site (CWS) within 1 km of this section of the route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits). (There is currently a proposed shared accommodation track associated with the Alternative Proposal passing through the northern part of Arthur's Wood SSSI - again potentially delete).

4.6.10 CHUMMS Strategy versus Alternative Proposal

The main differences in impact between the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal are assessed below.

The Alternative Proposal requires a number of access tracks and accommodation works tracks along the existing A14. Outline proposals have been produced to date, however they will be subject to further design development.

It is not considered that the provision of the access tracks will have additional negative impacts on biodiversity. (Text to be added if impacts on Arthur's Wood SSSI) The majority of these new accommodation routes impact upon agricultural land and, in a number of cases, located close to the existing A14 route. One site (check with Tony Stones - is this Arthur's Wood?) of nature conservation interest will be directly impacted, and neither known badger setts nor ponds with the potential for supporting great crested newts will be directly impacted. There will be some loss of hedgerows associated with the development of these options.

The CHUMMS Strategy involves the reconfiguration of the existing A14 in the location of the existing Huntingdon viaduct. There is additional land take associated with this option, as opposed to the Alternative Proposal which sees like-for-like replacement of the viaduct. This additional land take involves the take of part of a car park and part of Mill Common to the south of the existing A14, and some loss of brownfield land and the realignment into Views Common to the north of the existing A14. On the basis of existing information, it is not considered that there will be significant additional loss of biodiversity as a result of this re-configuration.

The CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal shows the following variations from previous schemes (between Ellington and Fen Drayton):

On both the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal, the introduction of a free flow interchange at Fen Drayton will result in additional land take, including the loss of parts of two hedgerows, and the loss of a small field of semi-improved grassland; the remainder of the land impacted would be arable land. The impact upon biodiversity as a result of this free flow interchange is therefore more adverse;
Removal of the Trinity Foot junction and replacement by local access road junction - this change does not materially alter the overall adverse biodiversity impacts of the junction; and
An additional local access road west of Trinity Foot on the south side of the existing A14 would result in the loss of additional existing vegetation.

The CHUMMS Strategy will result in one moderate adverse impact on one feature, slight adverse impacts on 9 features, 15 neutral impacts and 3 unknown impacts.

4.6.11 Conclusions

The overall assessment of the predicted adverse impacts on biodiversity indicates that both the Alternative Proposal and the CHUMMS Strategy will have Moderate Adverse impacts on biodiversity (additional text to be added and category changed if Arthur's Wood impacted). The impacts include the direct loss of habitat, habitat severance and fragmentation, changes in water quality in watercourses, and disturbance from traffic noise and enhanced lighting to animal species.

Both the Alternative Proposal and the CHUMMs Strategy directly affect a County Wildlife Site - Buckden Gravel Pits CWS.

However, it is not considered that the overall impacts of the Alternative Proposal will be more adverse than the impacts from the CHUMMS Strategy.

Mitigation of adverse impacts on biodiversity during construction and operation is possible by careful planning and design and by the imposition of stringent environmental conditions during construction.

Compensation of the residual impacts that cannot be mitigated (such as loss of habitat, severance and habitat fragmentation) must be taken into account for any option. Off-site habitat creation and habitat translocation is strongly recommended in conjunction with long-term habitat management and enhancement either as part of the Highways Agency soft estate or through financial agreements with landowners and occupiers.

4.6.12 Recommendations for Further Work

Refer to EAR.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.7 Cultural Heritage

4.7.1 Introduction

This document is an assessment of the likely impacts on the Cultural Heritage resource posed by the proposed construction of the Alternative Proposal from Ellington to Fen Drayton in Cambridgeshire. It includes the results of a desk based assessment and aerial photographic survey of the road corridor. The assessment is a Stage 2 Assessment in accordance with the DMRB Volume II Section 3 part 2 for Cultural Heritage.

The off-line section of the Alternative Proposal passes through land primarily consisting of open arable to the south of Brampton and Godmanchester starting at Ellington. It rejoins the current A14 at Fen Drayton. The second part of the scheme involves replacing the deck of the Huntingdon viaduct bridge at NGR TL232 716. The replacement of the Huntingdon viaduct will involve removing the existing deck from the piers, which will be left in place and replacing the deck with another structure which will be almost identical in scale and appearance.

This document assesses the impacts of the Alternative Proposal in two sections as proposed in the Environmental Scoping Report, March 2004. Section 1 is located between Ellington to Godmanchester (A1198). Section 2A is from Godmanchester (A1198) to Fen Drayton where it rejoins the existing A14. It also assesses the impact of the replacement of the Huntingdon viaduct.

Known and potential Cultural Heritage resources that may be affected by the Alternative Proposal 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 of Special Historic Interest.

The objective of this desk-based assessment and aerial photographic survey has been to identify the known and potential Cultural Heritage resources that may be affected by this option.

The aims of the assessment are to:

Identify the known Cultural Heritage constraints relating to the proposed development along the entire length of the route and at the location of the existing viaduct;
Determine the potential for disturbing previously unknown remains in areas of archaeological sensitivity;
To determine the value/importance of the heritage resource;
Assess the impact of the Alternative Proposal on existing and potential Cultural Heritage resources and to make recommendations for any further investigation which may be required (e.g. geophysics, field walking, trial trenching etc.) in order to better characterise the nature, extent and importance of the resources and enable a suitable mitigation strategy to be devised

4.7.2 Method of Assessment

This document has been produced in accordance with Stage 2 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Cultural Heritage (1993).

Information was obtained for a study area of 500 metres either side of the Alternative Proposal centreline. The following information, sources and opinions have been consulted:

Cambridgeshire County Council Sites and Monuments Record (SMR)
Huntingdon Archive/Public Record Offices for published/unpublished literature and cartographic sources
Planning Office/Conservation Office of Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Huntingdonshire District Council for details of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
National Monuments Record
Andy Thomas (Planning Archaeologist) and Sarah Poppy (SMR Officer) at Cambridgeshire County Council
Katharine Fletcher (Regional Planner), Jenny Carlisle (Historic Areas Advisor) and Philip Walker (Ancient Monuments Inspector) all of English Heritage

No detailed assessment of the area immediately surrounding the viaduct has been undertaken in relation to this assessment as the option currently under consideration will not involve any new land take and will be similar in design and scale to the viaduct deck already in place.

In November 2003 an aerial photographic survey was undertaken, a copy of the report is included in the EAR along with a gazetteer of known archaeological and built heritage resources in the study area. All sites have been given a specific number for the purposes of this report (ATK No). The locations of these resources can be seen in the EAR.

4.7.3 Archaeological and Historical Background

INTRODUCTION

This section provides an overview of the archaeological background of the study area, in order to establish the nature of the Cultural Heritage resource that may be affected by the proposed road scheme. This background will help to establish the value of the Cultural Heritage resource in its regional context within the corridor itself and determine the likelihood of finding as yet unknown buried archaeology along the route.

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The county is made up of some of the lowest land in England, the majority of which is just 60m above sea level. The north east of Cambridgeshire contains part of the East Anglian Fen system. Fingers of this fen stretch as far south as Teversham and Fulbourn to the east of the study area (CCC, 1991, 4-1)

Superficial drift deposits have accumulated during the glacial and post glacial period. During the glacial phase certain areas where rock was less resistant was subject to erosion and deposits which were created and once mixed with melt water, resulted in the formation of large areas of boulder clay. This boulder clay is present over the large majority of the county. During the Devensian phase, ice advanced over the county again and when it thawed, the ice melt created swollen rivers which in turn deposited gravel in river valleys. This deposited gravel scoured the boulder clay from these river valley areas (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 1).

The south of Cambridgeshire which incorporates the study area is a relatively an upland area. There are two very differing types of bedrock geology in the county and there is a north east / south west division in these types of geology. To the west, the oldest stratum is Oxford Clay. This was laid down in the Jurassic age and covers the area around Huntingdon and Ellington to the west (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 1). To the south east lie areas of chalk. These are further divided into upper, middle and lower chalk (Ravendale & Muir, 1984, 46).

Both areas of clay and chalk are affected by river drainage basins and these are probably the most striking land form. In the study area the dominant river basin is the Great Ouse. The Great Ouse has a very broad valley with wide-ranging alluvium and gravel terraces around Huntingdon and extends between the A1 and Godmanchester.

In the A14 corridor, the topography is gently sloping arable farm land and is quite hilly either side of the river basin of the Great Ouse. Parts of the study area have previously 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 of human history. The Palaeolithic covers the period from the first appearance of tool-using humans to the retreat of the glacial ice in the northern hemisphere at c.8500BC. The study area in general is an upland area and as such is not boggy in nature. The fen edge, which is a focus of activity during the prehistoric periods, is outside of the study area to the north east.

Palaeolithic people lived as hunter-gatherers without agriculture and without formal pottery production. After the retreat of the glaciers, in the Mesolithic period, movement of people can be traced through shell middens left near the coasts or distinct flint scatters found inland, marking hunting camps. Traces of temporary shelters are occasionally found by excavation. Some impact on the landscape in the Mesolithic has been suggested from the pollen record by possible burning of woodland to create grazing areas. Remains of these transient peoples have been dated well into the 2nd millennium BC suggesting they coexisted with the Neolithic farmers.

Over 115 sites associated with the Palaeolithic period have been recovered in Cambridgeshire but none can be related to sites or features (Reynolds, 1999, 6). Finds are usually associated with the river terrace of the Ouse and the nearby Cam to the east.

During the Mesolithic period, Cambridgeshire underwent great environmental changes, including the rising of the water table. A large number of sites that were on the Fen Basin in the early Mesolithic period will have been deeply buried by the rising water and growth of the Fen (Taylor, 1977, 10). The potential within general study area is believed to be quite low since it is believed that foci of activity were located at the fen edge and fen islands more to the north east of the county.

Neolithic 4,000 - 2,300BC

The introduction of farming and its associated technological changes occurred c4000 BC and quickly spread up the more favoured river valleys and coastal strips. This led to major alterations in the landscape as woodlands were cleared. Some farming may have been restricted to temporary slash-and-burn settlements but the existence of major burial monuments in some areas suggests permanent settlements were established. Few house sites survive but major ritual monuments such as chambered cairns, henges and stone circles generally show the extent of settlement in many parts for the country.

Evidence of Neolithic settlement is patchy within the region itself. Settlement was still based on mobility, or at most on very short-term sedantism (Hunter & Ralston, 1999). Settlement itself is difficult to locate as evidence of settlement usually comes in the form of flint tool scatters which can cover several hectares and therefore make it very difficult to pinpoint the precise settlement site. Settlement in any case is likely to have been semi-permanent consisting of temporary shelters for use seasonally or for short periods.

There is an uneven distribution of Neolithic settlement sites within the county. Within the study area there are no known settlement sites of this period, but flint scatters indicate that settlement did exist here. These sites are concentrated along the western side of the Great Ouse River. Examples of where known mortuary enclosures and cursus exist include nearby areas of Huntingdon, Buckden, Brampton and Godmanchester, representing the ritual aspect of life in this period (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 8). Just outside of the study area at Brampton a series of ceremonial monuments including ring ditches and barrow containing Neolithic burials and further possibly associated ditches have been identified (Malim & Mitchell, 1993, 11). There is generally a notable lack of ceremonial monuments in the county.

Again, during this period activity was focused on the fen edge, fen islands and the south of the county (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 7).

Bronze Age 2,300 - 700BC

In the Bronze Age, metal first began to be widely used in Britain, possibly as a result of the increase in contact with Europe. However, various types of stone, particularly flint, remained very important long after metal became available. The Bronze Age saw the introduction of cremation of the dead and burials in round barrows. Bronze Age society appears to have been divided into chiefdoms based around a largely agricultural economy.

The distribution of Bronze Age activity in the county is patchy due to environmental changes leading to the waterlogging of many sites and gradual assimilation into the fenland. The county is well represented by bronze metal work, and increasing numbers of settlement and burial sites are being identified though aerial photography and concentrated research projects, such as the Fenland Survey. Settlement sites, indicated by flint scatters seem to be concentrated in the south east of the county particularly on the chalk hills with comparatively few sites to the west on the clay soils. Barrow and ring ditch sites again are concentrated on the chalk soils to the south east and on higher ground (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 9). There is sparse evidence for Bronze Age activity in the region around Huntingdon, including the study area.

Activity during this period is once more focused on the fen edge, with the clay lands such as those within the study area believed to be far less settled.

Iron Age 700 - 43BC

The Iron Age is usually taken as spanning the period from the late eighth century BC until the first century AD. The period is characterized, above all, by its plentiful and diverse settlement evidence, ranging from individual farmsteads occupied by a single household, to hillforts holding larger communities. An increasingly complex society developed with the introduction and development of coinage, industry, warfare and incipient urbanism. Iron Age landscapes also included field systems, trackways and linear boundaries, although unless they are directly associated with settlements, these are often difficult to distinguish from their Bronze Age and Roman counterparts.

There is a distinction between the Late Bronze Age, the Early Iron Age and the Mid - Late Iron Age settlement patterns. In the early period, settlement was concentrated on individual unenclosed farmsteads with field systems. These farmsteads slowly became incorporated into loose villages. In Cambridgeshire they are concentrated in the river valleys and fen islands to the north east outside of the study area. By the Mid to Late Iron Age small enclosed farmsteads began to spring up in areas which were previously unsettled such as at Brampton and Buckden. Also the hillforts characteristic of the Iron Age become evident by c. 300BC and include Arbury Camp which is located in Cambridge, approximately 11km east of the study area and a large defended enclosure with associated massive ditch has been identified in Huntingdon which dates to this period (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 12).

In north Cambridgeshire, the popular method of burial was inhumation, rather than cremation (examples of which are more commonly found south of Cambridge). There is an example of an inhumation at Alconbury within the study as well as further cremations and inhumations outside of the study area near to Cambridge to the east.

In general, the study area becomes more utilised during this period, with both single farmsteads and more complex villages along with patterns of field systems and trackways are evident.

The Roman Period AD 43 - 410

The Roman influence grew from the early part of the first century AD and a garrison first established in the area at Godmanchester in the middle of the 1st century, where the army was stationed.

The garrison at Godmanchester was thought to have had two successive forts with defences, such as ditches with timber and turf ramparts, and internal timber buildings such as a granary. The Iron Age settlement and defence site was taken over by the Roman army as a station and a small wooden fort was built on top.

Surrounding these forts, native settlements sprang up and towards the second century AD and as the military forts were demolished or abandoned, the civilian settlement increased. At Cambridge, which was the major centre but lies outside of the study area, the settlement included houses and occasionally more substantial buildings such as inns along with important transport connections (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 14). Outside of the town suburban villas were established along with burial grounds such as those located on the outskirts of Godmanchester.

The first roads were for military purposes, but by the end of the 1st Century AD roads were used for commerce. The major road in the study area is based upon is the road connecting the Roman towns of Cambridge and Godmanchester, later known as the Via Devana, now the approximate route of the existing A14. Also in the area is a section of Ermine Street, now the A1198 leading to Godmanchester from the south (Fox, 1923, 161). More minor roads also exist within the study area such as the road linking Sandy with Godmanchester.

At the town of Godmanchester (Durovigutum) a larger scale more significant town was created than at Cambridge. It had the basic features of a Roman town including houses and granaries, bath houses, town halls and stone wall defences.

The majority of the population did not live in towns or villas, but in rural villages and farms. Clusters of sites along river gravel terraces such as around Cambridge to the east can be found. The Roman road network also provided a pattern for settlement. Clusters of villages can be found along roads such as Ermine Street and particularly in the west section of the Via Devana near to Godmanchester. They were mostly rectilinear plots of timber housing aligned on the main road frontage (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 20).

Cambridgeshire is therefore an area intensively settled and utilised in the Roman period. Within the study area there are many finds and sites relating to this period ranging from individual findspots, to evidence of former field systems and potential settlement sites.

The Early Medieval Period AD 410-1066

There is little evidence of settlement or activity during this period within the study area. During the period, two rival groups attempted to dominate the area of Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Anglia and the Midlands (known then as Mercia). They both tried to gain control of the East Cam frontier. The pressure to retain land can be seen from the dykes built in this period to the east and south east of Cambridge. There are five in all and these are made up of banked and ditched linear earthworks and representing the East Anglian defences built to maintain control of the eastern section of Cambridgeshire (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 27). The area around Huntingdon and Godmanchester was probably dominated by Mercia but did not come under direct control until the later 8th century. The East Anglian place names usually ending in -ham are notably lacking in the west of Cambridgeshire.

Early medieval settlement sites often developed in the locations of Romano-British settlement and early medieval sites are often found when investigating known Roman sites. Small farming settlements were the most common of occupation sites. The town of Godmanchester was re-occupied after the Roman period and Cambridge in the east is believed to have remain settled; its population continuing to use a cemetery site at Girton, approximately 7km east of the study area (Wright, 1982, 248) (Spoerry, 200, 35).

In 881 it is documented that the Danes came to the Cambridgeshire region and settled. Evidence of this invasion comes in the form of fortification of estates as well as at Huntingdon. The Danes influenced the type of settlement encouraging the concentration of farmhouses together to farm an area of collective land. This was the foundation of the many villages in the region, with small roads connecting each settlement (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 30). An earlier form of the medieval field system developed in this period can be seen extensively over the study area in ridge and furrow earthworks. This autonomous region was retained for only 37 years after which it became part of the kingdom of Mercia.

The disparity between areas of Cambridgeshire which were controlled by Mercia in the west and those areas to the east is evident in the form of placenames. Those ending in -ham, meaning settlement originated in the late C7th century. The ending -ton is an 8th century and later ending also meaning settlement. Places in the east of Cambridgeshire have high numbers of placenames ending in -ham whereas only 3% of placenames end in -ham in the west, there are far more placenames ending in -ton, including the study area. It seems therefore that there was far more longstanding settlement earlier in the east than in the west - around the study area, reflecting the continuing battle for dominance between the Angles and the Mercians in the west into the 8th century.

Landownership described in the Domesday Book indicates that land in East Huntingdonshire belonging to the Abbey of Ramsey, such as Ellington in the study area (Page & Proby, 1926, 44) (Salzmann, 1938, 118). Other parishes were held as Royal estates, such as Brampton. Large Royal estates were centred on Huntingdon and Godmanchester probably based on the centre of the Roman town. More rarely parishes were held by independent landowners however these are found to the east and north east of the County, outside of the study area (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 31) (RCHM, 1968, 170)

The Medieval Period AD 1066-1547

The medieval period was relatively peaceful in the region. However, as in other regions of the country the castle building programme led by William the Conqueror was seen at Huntingdon. The Castle probably consisted of an earthen motte with a wooden keep. The organisation of the county changed with a sheriff provided at Cambridge and the old manorial Saxon landlords were replaced with Norman lords. The parishes that are known today were mostly in place by 1086 at the time of writing the Domesday Book and were known as 'vills'. The population of the county at this time is estimated to be around 40,000 and according to the Hundred roles of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire taken in 1279 the population had double or even tripled in some areas since 1086 (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 34).

There were a great many moated houses built at this time, approximately 325 in Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire often concentrated on roadsides. The moats were not for defence but possibly an emulation of castle architecture (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 37). There is evidence of two of these moated houses within the study area at Hemingford Abbots and Fenstanton, both along the line of the road as was common. This indicates a high potential for further remains of this type along the roadside.

Field systems, made up of large communally run fields in which each villager farmed a number of ridge and furrow strips, were in use during the medieval period. This was common over the whole of the county and in the study area there is extensive evidence of remaining 'ridge and furrow' earthworks associated with this method of farming. The arable fields occupied the majority of the township and were cultivated on a two to three year rotation leaving on field fallow.

Roads changed little other than general improvement. The A14 as it is now known, continued to be a commercial road for travellers between Godmanchester and Cambridge and the small roads between the villages created in the early medieval period continued to be used.

Village churches were a common feature and within the study area and there is one parish churches dating from the 13th and 14th centuries at Ellington.

Contraction of villages and even desertion in villages occurred from 1300 - 1450. There was decrease in population and the areas of cultivation were reduced. This will largely have been as a result of the spread of plague which reduced the available agricultural workforce. According to the 'Nonae Rolls' written in 1342 and documenting the previous 50 years, 5000 acres were lying 'untilled' Darby, 1977, 16).

The Post-Medieval Period AD 1547 - 1901

Further continuity in the patterns of land-use and settlement is evident during this period. Evidence of houses and buildings from this period survive particularly in villages such as Fenstanton and Ellington. Enclosure of the fields (generally taking place in the 16th - 18th centuries in England) had little effect on the parishes within the study area until the parliamentary Enclosure Act in mid c19th century. The dates of Enclosure of many of the parishes within the study area are included in the Bibliography.

Both Huntingdon and Cambridge lay on national roads to London and trade between the centres flourished at this time. "Many inhabitants of Huntingdonshire lived within a days walk of more than one market town" (Kirkby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 46). The rivers also provided ways of transporting of goods and people. Alongside these roads and rivers inns and hostelries were constructed to house the travellers.

The landscape has changed very little from this period to the present. The villages have expanded but many have kept their historic cores, such as Brampton, Ellington (ATK 254), Fenstanton (ATK 255) and Fen Drayton and this is reflected with the designation of Conservation Area in these villages. Equally the administrative boundaries remained largely unchanged from the 11th century until about the 19th century, when the boundaries were tidied, however this had little impact on the study area.

In 1848 the great northern railway began to improve the rail network putting in a line from Huntingdon and Cambridge to York, with a freight line already existing to London.

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 villages along the A14 and within Huntingdon and Godmanchester.

During World War II a defensive line was set up running from Bristol to the River Welland in Cambridgeshire. Remnants of this defensive line can be seen from the pillboxes for example at Brampton.

The road network was improved in the later 20th century with the addition of the M11 and the improvements along the line of the A14.

4.7.4 Historic Environment within the Study Area (500m eitherside of the Alternative Proposal)

SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the study area (excluding the Huntingdon viaduct area).

PARKS AND GARDENS OF SPECIAL HISTORIC INTEREST

There are no Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in the study area.

CONSERVATION AREAS

There are two Conservation Areas within the study area. These are centred around the village of Ellington (AK 254) and the village of Fenstanton (ATK 255). Both of these Conservation Areas surround the historic core of the village. They both lie slightly set back from the existing A14. Fenstanton itself is closer to the existing A14 than at Ellington, though it is screened from view with a line of trees.

LISTED BUILDINGS

There are 49 Listed Buildings within the study area. There is one Grade I Listed Building, the Parish Church of All Saints in the village of Ellington (ATK 197). This church is located in the centre of the village, somewhat set back from the existing A14 and surrounded by other buildings.

There are two Grade II* Listed Buildings. They are Manor House owned by Capability Brown in the village of Fenstanton (ATK 212) and Grove House just outside of the village of Fenstanton (ATK 223). These buildings are in close proximity to the existing A14, though there is a screening of trees between the buildings and the road.

There are a further forty six Grade II Listed Building within the study area. The majority of these are located within the historic core of the villages of Ellington (ATK 195 - 207), Fenstanton (ATK 223 - 238).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES KNOWN AND AS YET UNKNOWN, AS LISTED IN THE SITES AND MONUMENTS RECORD

The principle sites are described below; for each period the known sites are described and an indication is given for the likely potential for further remains to lie within the route corridor.

Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Sites

Flint implements have been found within the study area and include areas in Hemingford 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 pits including mammoth bones. There have been very few excavated Mesolithic sites in the County, mostly due to the difficulty in identifying sites and they very ephemeral nature of settlement. There is a possibility that sites may be located within the route corridor, however there is generally low potential for these sites. Other finds relating to this period include flints, awls and blades found in Buckden at the gravel pits (ATK 24)

Neolithic Sites

Stray finds are most often found in areas near the fen edge and along water courses. Finds within the study area include axes and scrapers found at Fenstanton (ATK 68 & 72) and Brampton (ATK 22). As they study area is located further from the fen edge, no major expected settlement sites are expected.

Bronze Age Sites

A few findspots have been located within the study area such as a small socketed spearhead in Buckden (ATK 15) and a black flint arrowhead in Huntingdon (ATK 21). Also a small occupation site in Godmanchester is likely to date to the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age period (ATK 48). Finds at this site included worked flint, pottery, animal bone and charcoal (ATK 48).

As with the potential for Neolithic sites, Bronze Age sites are more concentrated towards the fen edge outside of the study area. Therefore although they are not expected, the possibility of identifying sites within the study area cannot be discounted.

Iron Age Sites

A site where a cremation burial has been uncovered has been located within the study area. This is at Alconbury (ATK 1) together with finds at the site which date from the Iron Age to the Roman Period. Further pottery finds have been identified at Fenstanton (ATK 73), Alconbury (ATK 6) and Godmanchester (ATK 19)

Settlement sites such at Hemingford Grey and Buckden date from the Iron Age and into the Roman period (ATK 58 & 27). Spread of sites could extend into the route corridor.

The land within the study area became more utilised in this period and so sites within the road corridor can be expected.

Roman Sites

Finds from the Roman period have been recovered along the entire length of the proposed bypass (ATK 18, 27, 31, 32, 41 - 47, 64, 71, 77, 85). Foci of activity such as occupation sites are located at Buckden (ATK 27) and Fenstanton (ATK 68), as well as agricultural practices at Hemingford Grey (ATK 58) and an iron working site at Conington (ATK 89). The principle sites from this period are further east at Cambridge, where a Roman military camp and associated occupation was based; however these are outside of the study area.

Due to intensive settlement of the area surrounding Cambridge and Godmanchester, dispersed settlement evidence associated with farming and small industry can be expected within the road corridor.

Early Medieval Sites

There is little evidence for early medieval activity within the study area. The only evidence is an occupation site which dates from the Iron Age but continues in use into the Early Medieval period. This is at Buckden (ATK 27). The early med period is a real unknown entity because of the lack of evidence and therefore any discovered sites would be of particular value.

Medieval Sites

A moated site is located within the study area at Fenstanton where a possible rampart and double moated enclosure is present (ATK 76) and a further possible example at Hemingford Abbots at Moats Way Farm (ATK 55).

The only standing building that dates to this period is All Saints church in Ellington (ATK 197) which dates to the 14th and 15th centuries.

A deserted medieval village, Houghton near Brampton (ATK 3), has been noted within the study area.

The medieval field system as represented by ridge and furrow earthwork remains are the most numerous remains within the study area. Thirty features described on the Sites and Monuments Record refer to ridge and furrow earthworks in the study area (ATK 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 36, 39, 40, 41, 56, 57, 80, 87, 88, 90).

The large majority of settlements which exist today are likely to have existed in the medieval period. Therefore, the archaeological potential for medieval sites will be high within the existing villages with less activity outside of village centres.

Post-medieval Sites

Few sites are noted in the Sites and Monuments Record of known post-medieval date. The first is a possible site of gallows from documentary evidence located at Brampton (ATK 23). Another is the remains of a dovecote just south of the village of Fenstanton (ATK 84).

Analysis of historic maps does not reveal any particular activity other than what is evident today. The maps show the rural character of the landscape, which is still dominant and so archaeological potential outside of known sites is low.

The large majority of Listed Buildings identified in the Study Area, concentrated in the villages of Ellington and Fenstanton date from this period.

Modern Sites

The modern sites listed are pillboxes (ATK 8, 93) constructed during World War II. Again, using historic maps, the archaeological potential of finding as yet unknown sites that date to the modern period is low.

Undated Entries on the SMR

There are many undated entries on the SMR. These are predominantly cropmark features that will require further evaluation.

CARTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

1st and 2nd edition OS maps and tithe, estate and other maps dating from 1774 and 1912 were analysed. These maps were analysed to gain an understanding of the continuity of land use from the earliest to the latest date, to identify whether parts of the proposed development area had been previously developed, and to confirm the presence of archaeological remains additional to those listed on the SMR. A list of maps studied is contained within the Bibliography. The OS maps studied included:-

Huntingdonshire 1st Edition 1882 - 1887 Sheets XVII SE, XXI SE, XXII NE, XXII NW, XXII SE, XXIII SW, XXII NE;
Huntingdonshire 2nd Edition 1899 - 1901 Sheets XVI - XVIII
Cambridgeshire 1st Edition 1876 - 1887 Sheets XXI - XLI
Cambridgeshire 2nd Edition 1896 - 1901 Sheets XXI - XLI

There were been no additional sites identified from plans or maps which were not already noted on the Sites and Monuments Record.

Maps show very little change from this period to present day. Further more detailed map analysis will be carried out in relation to a final scheme.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

An aerial photographic survey was commissioned in October 2003, to inform assessment of the route corridor. The report is contained within Appendix 12-D in Volume 2 and a summary of sites and their impacts is contained within Section 5.

In summary the assessment examined a corridor of at least 200 metres either side of the proposed route options. The survey picked up the following features within the study area roughly from West to east:-

The clay from Ellington to the River Ouse retains some medieval field patterns. It should be noted that the clay soil did not produce as many features as the eastern section of the study area, but this does not point to the absence of features
Between the River Ouse and Hemingford Grey are medieval fields and one small ditched enclosure next to Ermine Street
Gravel deposits south of Hemingford Grey and around Fenstanton are rich in archaeological features, such as ditched enclosures, and pit defined field systems plus other unidentified fragments, and so more must be expected where they continue into currently blank fields
Ridge and furrow cultivation is scattered over the clay between Fenstanton and Cambridge

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK

Extensive previous archaeological fieldwork has been undertaken within the study area. Previous fieldwork has been concentrated in the area to the east around Cambridge outside of the study area, due to the high level of activity in the area, in particular of the Roman period. The sites to which fieldwork relates already appear on the SMR and are included in the baseline information above.

The following fieldwork assessments have been of particular note in identifying sites within the study area:-

An Archaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric and Roman activity at the New School Site, London Road, Godmanchester by Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit 1996, Report 123
Roman Cremations and Field System at Weybridge Farm, Alconbury by Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit Report 115
An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Evaluation at Land off West End and Belle Isle, Brampton by Herefordshire Archaeological Trust, Report 1052

4.7.5 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 deposits caused by the presence of heavy plant, and the alteration of stable ground conditions which may lead to degradation of the quality and survival of buried archaeological remains.

Equally, the built heritage can be affected by development through possible demolition or loss of part of a structure or its grounds; increased visual intrusion, noise or vibration; changes in the original landscape; severance from linked features such as gardens, outbuildings etc or through the loss of amenity value.

The Alternative Proposal comprises the construction of an offline section of carriageway which will be 2 lanes wide. The proposal departs from the existing A14 just east of Ellington and runs to the south of Godmanchester and Huntingdon. It rejoins the existing A14 at Fen Drayton.

The proposals also involve the replacement of the deck at the Huntingdon viaduct. These works will not involve any new land take and the replacement structure will be of a similar design and scale. Some accommodation works will be required which will lie adjacent to the existing A14 alignment, for the purposes of this assessment the assumption is that any plant movements during the removal and construction of the deck would stay within the highway/network lane which has already been subject to ground disturbance, so that no areas of new land take are disturbed.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS

No statutorily designated sites are directly affected along the whole length of the scheme.

Section 1A (Ellington to the A1 Brampton Interchange)

Table 4.28 - Section 1A: Summary of Known and Potential Sites
Atkins No.	Description	Impact
9	Enclosures and pit alignments of unknown date	The proposals pass very close to or through this site
10	Ridge and Furrow earthworks	The proposals pass through the field where the earthworks have been noted
14	Ridge and furrow and linear features	The proposals pass directly through this site
16	Complex of circular and linear cropmarks, possibly incorporating ring ditches and enclosures of unknown date	Two sections of the proposed roadways pass through a substantial section of this site
N/A	Potential sites; finds and/or scattered features associated with the medieval period	Any earth moving may affect potential sites.

Section 1 B (Brampton Interchange to Offord Hill Farm/Corpus Christi Farm)

Table 4.29 - Section 1B: Summary of Known and Potential Sites
Atkins No.	Description	Impact
27	Occupation site including pit huts of possible Iron Age/Roman date	The site is near to the scheme footprint and may extend beneath the proposals
37	Extensive site of field boundaries, enclosures and ring ditches visible as cropmarks	The proposals pass directly through this site
N/A	Potential; findspots 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	Any earth moving may affect potential sites.

Section 1C (Offord Hill Farm/Corpus Christi Farm to the A1198 at Godmanchester)

Table 4.30 - Section 1C: Summary of Known and Potential Sites
Atkins No.	Description	Impact
N/A	Potential; the 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. 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.	Any earth moving may affect potential sites.

The route does not impact upon any known sites.

Section 2A - Godmanchester (A1198) to Conington/Fen Drayton

Table 4.31 - Section 2A: Summary of Known and Potential Sites
Atkins No.	Description	Impact
58	Extensive complex site of enclosures and linear features. Ridge and furrow earthworks have been noted.	The proposals pass directly through the centre of this site and the ridge and furrow earthworks
79	Pit alignment, enclosures and trackway visible as cropmarks located on high ground	The proposals pass 150 metres to the south of this site, however it is possible that the sites extends beneath the scheme footprint
87	Ridge and furrow earthworks	The proposals pass through the field where the earthworks have been noted
65	Fragmentary features visible as cropmarks and may include enclosures, fields and paddocks	The proposals pass 100 metres to the south of these features and therefore it is possible that they extend beneath the scheme footprint
89	Fragmentary features which include small enclosures and ploughed out ridge and furrow	The proposals pass directly through this site
82	Linear features possibly representing a larger field system	The proposals pass directly through this site
92	Linear and rectilinear cropmarks associated with site including enclosures, banks and linear ditches on the northern side of the A14	The proposals pass through the southern section of this site to the south of the A14
N/A	Potential; finds 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.	Any earth moving may affect potential sites.

4.7.6 Summary of Potential Impacts and Recommendations for Further Assessment

SUMMARY OF KNOWN AND POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGY WITHIN THE ROUTE CORRIDORS

A small amount of desk based assessment will be required at DMRB Stage 3 level. In particular, this will involve more detailed historical map analysis.

The impacts of each of the proposed route options are set out in paragraphs 8.97 & 8.98. However, in order to gain a full picture and understanding of the nature, extent and importance of sites within the proposed road corridor further archaeological field evaluation will be required. Known sites and areas of potential identified above have been summarised together with an assessment of likely importance and the need for further evaluation in the table below.

Based on our current understanding, at least 2 sites have been identified which are potentially of national importance. They are highlighted in bold in the Table below. The sites are all potentially multi-period settlement sites and include features such as enclosures, ditches, surface finds and linear features. These site have been highlighted due to their likely complex nature, importance and/or the large area they cover. The level of importance has been described in the table below using a grading system has been adopted using the following terms: - locally important, regionally important and nationally important. Based on current knowledge, the sites in bold described as of potentially national importance are expected to require the most significant/costly mitigation measures, which could include preservation in situ.

An evaluation strategy should be produced once a preferred route has been announced and this should include, but not be limited to, fieldwalking, geophysical survey and trial trenching of known sites (including but not limited to those sites detailed in paragraphs 8.97 & 8.98) and potential sites, along the chosen route. Priority should be given to the evaluation of key sites as identified in bold below, as the design of the final scheme may need to take into account areas where archaeology will need to be preserved in situ. The evaluations will ascertain the nature, extent and condition of the known archaeological resource and provide a better understanding of the likelihood of disturbing previously unknown remains.

Table 4.32 - Summary of Potential Impacts
Route Section	Known Archaeological Sites	Archaeological Potential	Need for Further Evaluation
1a	4 sites. 2 are areas of cropmarks of unknown date and 2 areas of ridge and furrow. Three sites are likely to be of local or regional importance. One site of potentially national importance (ATK16).	Yes - Associated with high level of medieval activity in the area. Sites that are as yet unknown are likely to be of local or regional importance.	All known sites and a sample of cropmarked features and other areas of potential should be subject to a phased programme of evaluation.
1b	2 sites. 1 area of cropmarks of unknown date, and an Iron Age site. sites are likely to be of local or regional importance.	Yes - potential remains associated with the Roman and early prehistoric periods. Sites that are as yet unknown are likely to be of local or regional importance.	All known sites and a sample of cropmarked features and other areas of potential should be subject to a phased programme of evaluation.
1c	0 sites.	Yes - potential remains associated with Roman period and earlier. Sites that are as yet unknown are likely to be of local or regional importance.	All known sites and a sample of cropmarked features and other areas of potential should be subject to a phased programme of evaluation.
2a	7 sites, 5 relating to cropmarks and another relating to finds from quarrying and 1 area of ridge and furrow. Six sites are likely to be of local to regional importance. One site of potentially national importance. (ATK58).	Yes - potential for remains associated with all periods probably relating to settlement and farming activities. Extensive settlement sites associated with the Roman period could be of national importance.	All known sites and a sample of cropmarked features and other areas of potential should be subject to a phased programme of evaluation.

4.7.7 Comparison with CHUMMS Strategy

The Alternative Proposal involves proportionately less land take being 2 lanes wide instead of 3 lanes wide and therefore in comparison with the CHUMMMS, it will potentially affect fewer archaeological sites.

Whereas the CHUMMS Strategy would involve a small amount of new land take at the location of the Huntingdon viaduct for a new junction, the Alternative Proposal would require no extra land take at this location. Therefore there may be an impact on both the built historic resource and the buried archaeological resource with the CHUMMS Strategy.

Furthermore, due to the new junction design as part of the CHUMMS Strategy, there may be an impact on the heritage resource of the area. The new junction, depending of the visibility of the design compared to that of the existing viaduct, may change the character of the historic landscape at nearby Brampton and Huntingdon.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.8 Water Quality and Drainage

4.8.1 Introduction

The Environmental Appraisal Report evaluated the potential environmental impacts of a number of proposed alternative route options for the proposed A 14 Improvements. This report provides the evaluation of the Alternative Proposal and compares it with the environmental impacts associated with the CHUMMS Strategy. This section of the report addresses the difference in potential impacts to the water environment between the two options.

4.8.2 Study Area

The study area was defined within Part I of this Report.

4.8.3 Method of Assessment

The offline alignment of the Alternative Proposal is the same as that for the identified CHUMMS Strategy, so in many respects the potential impacts to the water environment are the same as those already identified within the main Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report. There are, however, some key differences between the Alternative Proposal and the CHUMMS Strategy and these are identified below.

North-south traffic will continue along the existing A14 alignment to the north of the Trinity Foot junction.
East-west traffic ONLY will use the new A14 alignment between the Trinity Foot junction and Ellington.
The offline alignment will be four lanes in the Alternative Proposal compared to the six lanes in the CHUMMS Strategy.
The railway viaduct at Huntingdon will be replaced by a similar structure in the Alternative Proposals, whilst a smaller crossing is proposed within the CHUMMS Strategy.

The reduction in developed area and traffic volumes along the new offline section associated with the Alternative Proposal has potential benefits to the watercourses that will receive drainage it. The potential benefit was evaluated using the methodologies identified within the TAG framework.

Within the TAG framework, the potential impacts on water quality were assessed using the established methodologies for routine runoff and spillage risk outlined in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Section 3 Part 10 (DMRB 11.3.10). The methodology for routine runoff involves tests to predict future concentrations of zinc and copper in receiving watercourses. The spillage risk assessment methodology provides the return period of a serious accident based on road length, presence of junctions, annual average daily traffic (AADT), percentage of heavy goods vehicles (%HGV), serious spillage rates, emergency services response time and River Ecosystem (RE) Target of the receiving watercourse.

The DMRB assessment has only been undertaken for those watercourses for which appropriate supporting data were available (either from the Environment Agency or through baseline water quality monitoring). An evaluation of the potential impacts to Ellington Brook has not been undertaken in this assessment as the drainage from the A14 will enter into the same drainage channel that serves the A1 at present. No data were available for the A1 with which to evaluate the combined impact downstream of the outfall.

Whilst there are potential benefits to the watercourses that will receive drainage from the new alignment, in the Alternative Proposal north-south traffic will continue to use the existing alignment. As such in the Alternative Proposal, this section of the existing A14 will continue to drain into the same watercourse with the associated risks to the quality and quantity of water from routine runoff and accidental spillages. In the time available, an evaluation of the existing drainage system has not been possible and therefore a DMRB assessment has not been undertaken. The potential impacts and associated mitigation are, however, discussed qualitatively.

4.8.4 Criteria for Magnitude and Significance of Impacts

These have been identified within Part I of this Report.

4.8.5 Existing Conditions

These have been identified within Part I of this Report.

4.8.6 Assessment of Proposed Routes

The water environment is important in terms of water supply, transport and dilution of wastewater, biodiversity, aesthetics, recreation, value to economy and conveyancing of flow and flood waters. The predicted impacts, and their significance, to these attributes of the water environment, for the Alternative Proposal have been formally summarized in the TAG Worksheet and Appraisal Summary Table (AST).

PREDICTED IMPACTS AND SIGNIFICANCE

During Construction

The predicted impacts associated with the construction of the Alternative Proposal are considered to be not significantly different from those associated with the construction of the CHUMMS Strategy. The offline alignment of the improvements is the same for each option, so they both have the potential to impact the same watercourses. The difference between constructing a dual lane two-way rather than a three lane two-way is considered to be insignificant in terms of potential impacts to the water environment.

Furthermore it is considered that the replacement of the railway viaduct with a similar structure within the Alternative Proposal has a similar potential to impact upon the groundwater environment as the construction of the smaller crossing required as part of the CHUMMS Strategy.

During Operation

The output of the DMRB surface water and spillage risk modelling that was conducted for each of the two routes is included in a table (located at the end of this chapter).

The analysis shows that there would be no significant benefit to water quality within watercourses receiving routine runoff from the Alternative Proposal compared to that predicted for the CHUMMS Strategy. The analysis did however show a more adverse impact in the watercourse that would receive drainage closest to the eastern interchange of the offline alignment and the existing alignment. This is because of the increased road area that will drain to this watercourse with the more complex interchange required with the Alternative Proposal.

The analysis did show that there would be some reduction in the spillage risk in a number of watercourses associated with the Alternative Proposal compared to the CHUMMS Route. The reduction in risk was not so significant, however, that there would be a change in the mitigation required to reduce potential impacts to receiving watercourses. There was an increased risk from spillages identified for the watercourse identified in paragraph 9.14, associated with the addition of slip roads within the Alternative Proposal layout that would drain into it.

In the Alternative Option a significant proportion of the traffic would continue to use the existing alignment in order to gain access to the A1 to the north of Huntingdon along the existing eastern A1/A14 Interchange (Ref to appropriate Traffic Section in the Technical Appraisal Report). As such watercourses that receive drainage from the existing alignment would continue to receive runoff under the Alternative Proposal therefore there would be no potential improvement to water quality within these under this option.

No evaluation of the existing drainage system as part of this Stage 2 assessment It is possible, however, that the drainage system that serves the current A14 would not be acceptable, both in terms of the quality and quantity of run off, under current standards. The existing drainage system along the A14 would need to be evaluated to assess the suitability of current mitigation, if the Alternative Proposal was progressed.

4.8.7 Potential Mitigation Measures

The potential mitigation measures the Alternative Proposal are the same as those proposed within Section 13 of the main Stage 2 Environmental Appraisal Report. In addition, a thorough assessment would be required of the compatibility of the existing A14 drainage system with current drainage standards along the stretch that is to be retained.

4.8.8 Summary

The quantitative and qualitative assessment of the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal suggests there is no significant difference between the two options in terms of potential impacts to the water environment. The most significant difference is that in the Alternative Proposal a significant proportion of the traffic would continue to use the existing A14 alignment; the drainage of which may not be appropriate to current drainage standards in terms of the quality and quantity of runoff.

Table 4.33 - Comparison of the Results of the DMRB Water Quality Assessment Modelling for the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal

Surface Water Quality Results (CHUMMS Strategy)
Impact	Ouse		6		7		8		9
Impact	Zinc	Copper	Zinc	Copper	Zinc	Copper	Zinc	Copper	Zinc	Copper
Downstream conc (mg/l)	0.085	0.019	1.235	0.308	0.644	0.102	1.280	0.289	0.651	0.094
EQS (mg/l)	0.500	0.112	0.500	0.112	0.500	0.112	0.500	0.112	0.500	0.112
% of EQS	17.01%	17.02%	247.05%	275.13%	128.75%	91.37%	255.95%	258.08%	130.16%	84.31%
Fail EQS?	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No

Note: Concentrations are for Total zinc and Dissolved copper. Watercourses have been assigned a River Ecosystem target of RE2 unless there were data available to the contrary. See text of main EAR for other assumptions made for modelling.

Surface Water Quality Results (Alternative Proposal)
Impact	Ouse		6		7		8		9
Impact	Zinc	Copper	Zinc	Copper	Zinc	Copper	Zinc	Copper	Zinc	Copper
Downstream conc (mg/l)	0.084	0.019	1.046	0.271	0.573	0.081	1.211	0.267	0.861	0.160
EQS (mg/l)	0.500	0.112	0.500	0.112	0.500	0.112	0.500	0.112	0.500	0.112
% of EQS	16.71%	16.70%	209.26%	241.52%	114.66%	72.54%	241.99%	238.46%	172.22%	142.69%
Fail EQS?	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Spillage Risk Assessment Results (CHUMMS Strategy)
Watercourse	Ouse	6	7	8	9
Probability of serious accident	0.333	0.117	0.122	0.143	0.060
Return period (years)	6	11	11	9	22

Spillage Risk Assessment Results (Alternative Proposal)
Watercourse	Ouse	6	7	8	9
Probability of serious accident	0.316	0.081	0.088	0.103	0.082
Return period (years)	6	17	15	13	16

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.9 Vehicle Travellers

4.9.1 Introduction

This chapter assesses the impact of the Alternative Proposal on Vehicle Travellers in terms of journey ambience. Journey ambience refers to the quality of the journey and can be affected, positively or negatively by travellers themselves and by the journey surroundings.

Traveller care refers to the facilities that improve en-route ambience including lay-bys, service areas and travel information along the route. The proposal does not involve construction of these en-route facilities and the impacts here would be neutral. The two issues which are examined include views from the road and driver stress.

'Views from the road' have the potential to make a journey more interesting due to the different types of scenery through which a route passes. Aspects to be considered relate to the extent to which travellers may be able to view the scenery, the various types of scenery, quality of the landscape and features of particular interest.

'Driver stress' is defined as the adverse mental and physiological effects experienced by a driver traversing a road network. Factors influencing the level of stress include road layout and geometry, surface characteristics, junction frequency, and speed and flow per lane. The extent of stress will depend on the travellers driving skills and experience, temperament, knowledge of the route and state of health.

4.9.2 Method of Assessment

The assessment is predominantly a qualitative one and has been undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 9, Vehicle Travellers.

4.9.3 Existing Conditions

Landscape quality is a term used to indicate value based on character, condition and aesthetic appeal which is informed by various landscape character assessments and guidance notes. These include the Countryside Agency's guidance 'Landscape Character Assessment' April 2002, Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment June 2003, Cambridge Greenbelt Study September 2002 and the Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines. The majority of the study area, south of the existing A14 consists of good quality landscape with its undulating landform, frequent vegetation, small villages and hamlets. The landscape north of the A14 is considered to be of ordinary quality due to its flat open and unchanging nature with little vegetation. The landscape in the vicinity of the River Great Ouse is considered to be of Attractive Quality.

4.9.4 Effect of Proposed Routes on the Traveller

TRAVELLERS VIEWS

The extent to which the option would augment travellers' views is difficult to assess, even on a subjective basis, until more detail is known about the design of the scheme.

Form east to west, the Alternative Proposal passes over the River Great Ouse on a 13m high viaduct, providing views of the surrounding landscape, which is assessed as being attractive and good quality. East of the A1198, the scheme would be on an embankment of 3m, thus providing for new and attractive views to the south of the South Cambridgeshire plateau. As such, between Ellington and Fenstanton, the option would contribute to the enhancement of travellers' views as it traverses open countryside.

The majority of this scheme running west of A1198 is in deep cutting or low embankments of 2m. It would not open up any significant views of the surrounding countryside.

DRIVER STRESS

The Alternative Proposal would reduce driver frustration, which contributes to traveller stress, as the new road would help to increase the average speed of vehicles and increase opportunities for over-taking of slower moving vehicles. It would reduce the fear of accidents which can also contribute to traveller stress and reduce potential pedestrian/vehicle conflict and turning movements. However, increased flow and speed of traffic would also increase fear.

The route option incorporates a number of structures, including Brampton (A1) and Ellington. In addition there are other crossings and footpath/accommodation crossings.

These structures will generate a degree of route uncertainty, which is also a factor in assessing traveller stress. However, this will be alleviated by route specific and general road signage, which will be provided in accordance with the DETR's guidelines for road building. In the short term the Alternative Proposal would lead to uncertainty because it deviates from the existing A14. However, this perception should quickly dissipate as travellers become familiar with the new road layout.

Driver stress - frustration and route uncertainty - would be exacerbated during the construction phase as a result of road closures and diversions associated with the replacement viaduct.

4.9.5 Summary

The provision of a high quality road, the reduced potential for accidents and reduction in traveller stress would contribute to enhancing the quality of the journey for travellers.

The proposal is assessed as neutral in accordance with the TAG methodology, in terms of the Journey Ambience sub-objective.

4.9.6 Comparison with CHUMMS Strategy

The impact on traveller views - enhancement - is considered to be equal for both options since it involves the same route. The impact in relation to driver stress would be similar. Frustration levels experienced by travellers would be slightly higher for the Alternative Proposal due to lower speeds associated with a dual carriageway; however slower speeds of traffic would result in lower fear levels.

During the construction phase for the replacement viaduct, stress levels (frustration and route uncertainty) would be made worse for travellers due to added congestion and road diversions.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.10 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects

4.10.1 Introduction

The Government's Transport White Paper sets the framework for a number of issues in relation to health and transport. This refers mainly to the encouragement of physical fitness by reducing reliance on private cars and making it easier to cycle and walk in safety.

The Highways Agency's 'Encouraging Sustainable Travel - Strategic Plan for Accessibility' aims to improve access to everyday facilities for those without access to a car, thereby realising one of the governments key transport objectives. It aims to ensure that the needs of disabled people are met, ensure the severance effect which strategic roads can have on communities is reduced and improve access to public transport.

With reference to community severance, the Strategic Plan for Accessibility states that objectives will include measures to enable disabled people, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians to cross busy trunk roads with improved safety and personal security. It further states that links for these users to key destinations will be improved.

This chapter considers the potential effects of the Alternative Proposal on local journeys made by modes of transport other than the car, thereby assessing the impacts of the scheme on personal activity. The potential for community severance is also considered.

4.10.2 Method of Assessment

The approach to this assessment is predominantly qualitative. The methodology is based on the from TAG. A pedestrian survey has not been carried out at this stage of the scheme development. The following maps were consulted at Cambridgeshire County Council:

The Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way for the former County of Cambridgeshire 1952 (amended 1957 and 1962);
The Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way for the former County of Huntingdonshire 1953 (amended 1961).

4.10.3 Existing Conditions

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

Access to the countryside via Public Rights of Way (PROW) provide important recreational interests for local residents. PROW are made up of footpaths, bridleways (which may be used by cyclists) and byways. These are illustrated in the Planning Constraints Map. Each PROW has a reference number which was retrieved from the Definitive Rights of Way Map at Cambridgeshire County Council. The reference number for each PROW changes as it traverses parish boundaries.

The route corridor predominately runs through rural countryside, impacting on a range of PROW. National Trails, as shown on Ordnance Survey Maps (225 and 209, Scale 1:25000) have been referred to as they are important local attractions. These include the Ouse Valley Way and the Fen River Way.

In relation to the viaduct, a PROW commences from beneath the viaduct, running northwards, which eventually joins up with FP6.

SETTLEMENTS

The A14 links the major urban settlements in the study area, Cambridge and Huntingdon. Cambridge is a high level service centre, and attracts visitors from the whole of the study area, principally for work, but also for comparison shopping. A number of smaller settlements are found in a corridor approximately 5 km either side of the road. Many people living in those communities work in Cambridge, and to a lesser extent Huntingdon, and need to use the A14 for this purpose. There is also interaction between the remaining settlements, with those offering a greater range of services, such as schools, shops and other community facilities, exerting a pull on their smaller neighbours.

In addition, there are a number of businesses and facilities in the study area which serve the local and wider communities. This is particularly true for strategic traffic. These facilities include:

The Trinity Foot public house and the Buckingway Industrial Park are located on the northern side of the A14. A service station, including restaurant and motel, is located on the south side of the existing A14.
Hemingford Abbots Golf Complex is located south of the A14, between the A1198 and B1040. Brampton Park Golf Course is located west of the River Great Ouse, south east of Brampton. Cambridgeshire Moat House Golf Club is located south of the A14 and east of Bar Hill.
Buckden Marina is located west of Offord Cluny and south of the orange route. It occupies 92 acres of Cambridgeshire countryside, with the River Great Ouse skirting its eastern boundaries.
Hinchingbrooke County Park is located south west of Huntingdon and extends to over 170 acres of meadows, grassland, woodlands and lakes. Milton Country Park comprises a mixture of woodland and water areas. Both country parks are popular local attractions. Brampton Wood is located southeast of Huntingdon. It is a popular area for walking, bird watching and nature appreciation.
There are a number of rural enterprises located throughout the study area. These include a number of equestrian centres which utilise the local bridleway network as part of their business. There is a wide range of former gravel pits throughout the area, many of which are currently used for leisure activities such as fishing, bird watching etc. An area of land located at High Harthay farm, to the south of the A14 and west of the A1, is used for paintballing.

4.10.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation

SCHEME PROPOSALS

At present, where a local access road is proposed, full details have not yet been developed. However, to satisfy the planning policies, it will be necessary to incorporate in the final design, detailed design measures to encourage and facilitate walking, cycling, equestrian activities and public transport. These can involve the physical separation of roads, footpaths, cycle routes and bridleways; measures to make public transport more attractive such as bus lanes and lay-bys; use of landscaping measures to make roads more attractive and protection from the noise of the motorway.

The Alternative Proposal would result in a majority of strategic traffic leaving the existing A14 either east of Fenstanton or west of Hemingford Grey. This diversion of traffic would make journeys along the existing A14 up to Ellington safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and local vehicular traffic. The scheme proposal would facilitate an accessible route for strategic traffic, encouraging people to walk and cycle along the existing A14 in safety, thus improving physical fitness. The existing A14 would be principally used for local vehicle and NMU traffic.

Hinchingbrooke Country Park is currently severed from Huntingdon by the existing Huntingdon Viaduct. The reduction in traffic along this route could encourage a greater use of this area by the local population, improving access for cyclists and pedestrians. The diversion of traffic from the vicinity of this park would help to encourage passive recreation.

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Routes

Criteria for Significance

The significance of the impacts of the route options on PROW is assessed as follows:

Substantial Adverse - The option impacts on PROW resulting in a substantial loss of amenity and use for NMU;
Moderate Adverse - Existing public right of way would now cross the proposed route, would not incorporate a significant diversion, loss in amenity would result;
Slight Adverse - no impact, minor loss in amenity;
Neutral - no impact, no loss in amenity;
Beneficial - no impact, opportunity for NMU to access proposed LAR.

The following table outlines the physical impact of the Alternative Proposal on the range of Public Rights of Way. During the construction phase of the viaduct the impact is assessed as slight adverse since the adjacent footpath would be temporarily affected.

Table 4.34 - Effects on PROW - Alternative Proposal
Route Option	Alternative Proposal
Public Rights of Way	Magnitude	Impact
BW8	Slight adverse	Truncated by option
FP23	Slight adverse	Truncated by option
FP2	Option severs track - diversion proposed via High Street overbridge	Moderate adverse
BW19	Moderate adverse	Severed by option
FP15 Ouse Valley Way	Moderate adverse	Viaduct traverses footpath
BW10	Route traverses bridleway in two places	Substantial adverse
Mere Way (BW13 and BW16)	Option severs track	Moderate adverse
FP10	Option runs adjacent to footpath	Moderate adverse
FP14	Severed by option - overbridge proposed	Moderate adverse
Byway 14	Truncated by LAR	Slight adverse
FP6 (adjacent to viaduct)	Diversion during construction	Slight adverse

4.10.5 Junctions

It is anticipated that the reconfiguration of the Ellington junction would not impact any PROW Routes. Fen Drayton interchange would not impact any PROW routes.

4.10.6 Community Severance

CRITERIA FOR SIGNIFICANCE

The significance of community severance is assessed as follows:

Beneficial - Proposed route would reduce necessity to travel on A14 to access local settlements, community facilities etc and make it easier for community residents to move within the study corridor;
Neutral - no significant change;
Adverse - significant barrier to movement such as long diversions etc.

Offline widening could increase the severance between villages on opposite sides of the A14 by increasing the length of journey between them. However, at present traffic on the A14 is so heavy that the road acts as a very sever barrier to people using cars or non-motorised transport. The table below seeks to summarise the severance effect on individual villages. On balance, a significant reduction in community severance could result. This is particularly true where there is daily movement of school children to other villages.

Diversions resulting from replacement of the viaduct, during construction, would result in a short term adverse impact.

Table 4.35 - Effects on Community Severance
Settlement	Alteration	Effect	Overall Severance Effect
Settlements north of the A14
Fen Drayton			Negligible
Fenstanton	Service road through village, no strategic traffic	Less through traffic, difficult access to strategic route except purple route	Negligible
Hemingfords	Moves strategic traffic further away	Difficult access to strategic route except for purple route	Negligible
Settlements south of A14
Conington	Moves strategic route closer	Greater severance from Fen Drayton	Increased
Hilton	Moves strategic route closer	Over bridges and Galley Hill Junction should reduce severance	Reduced
Godmanchester	Moves strategic route further away	Reduction of traffic in vicinity of settlement	Reduced
Offord Cluny	Moves strategic traffic closer to village	Impact on rural nature of the surrounding area	Increase
Buckden	Moves strategic traffic closer to village	Impact on rural nature of the surrounding area	Increased
Brampton	Moves strategic traffic closer to settlement	Greater severance from Buckden and Offord Cluny	Reduced
Huntingdon	Moves strategic traffic south of Huntingdon	Reduced strategic traffic	Reduced

4.10.7 Access to recreational Activities

There are a number of equestrian centres located in the area of which rely on local bridleways as part of their enterprise. The route option runs in close proximity of these bridleway, impacting significantly on the tranquillity of these paths which are used by local equestrians.

The Alternative Proposal would traverse Buckden Gravel Pits, adversely impacting on local wildlife. Buckden Gravel Pits provides water sports and other leisure activities.

The route would also run in close proximity to an area of water located between the A1 and Brampton Park residential estate. It would adversely impact on this resource which is used by locals for fishing etc.

An area of land used for paintballing activities is located south of the A14 at High Harthay farm. The Alternative Proposal would run in close proximity to this area adversely impacting on this leisure activity.

4.10.8 Mitigation Measures

Detailed scheme design proposals will incorporate provision for public rights of way. This would most likely involve diversions to the existing public rights of way or the use of over/under bridges if appropriate. Therefore, people still wishing to make pedestrian movements would be able to do so with no hindrance to movement.

The option would affect the usability of these paths, significantly reducing their amenity value. This would be due, not only to the physical impact on these PROW, but also to the increase in noise levels and car vehicle exhaust fumes, adversely impacting on local air quality. The general rural ambience of the area and amenity value of the PROW would be adversely affected.

In many cases as outlined above, the option either traverses or truncates a PROW, necessitating some form of appropriate mitigation measure. The scheme could provide opportunities to enhance and improve the existing network of PROW within the study through the mitigation measures. In addition, linkages between existing PROW to provide longer networks which could be used for recreational purposes and also as a means to reach employment and shopping facilities could also be seen as appropriate forms of mitigation.

4.10.9 Summary

The study area is served by an extensive network of public rights of way, which would be traversed or impacted by the route. In addition, it would traverse the Ouse Valley Way and Fen River Way both of which are important amenity resources and local attractions. In most cases their continuity would be maintained by the provision of overbridges or short diversions.

The existing level of community severance would not be increased, although this would be affected during the construction phase as a result of the viaduct replacement. It is anticipated that journey time for residents located along the A1198 would be increased with the construction of the new junctions and associated local access roads as part of both the Alternative Proposal. This impact would not be significant but the journey would be safer.

The route would traverse Brampton Flood Meadows and Buckden Gravel Pits, adversely impacting on the amenity of both these areas. It would run in close proximity to Fenstanton Pits which is a local fishery. This area would not be directly impacted by the either of these routes. The option run to the north of Brampton Wood, traversing a number of public rights of way. It is anticipated that appropriate mitigation measures will alleviate the impact of the option on PROW. In some cases, short diversions could facilitate linkages within the network, thereby improving the networks overall attractiveness and usage.

With appropriate mitigation measures, the proposal is assessed as neutral in terms of impact on existing PROW, local rural enterprises and community severance.

4.10.10 Comparison with CHUMMS Strategy

This proposal is assessed as having a neutral impact in terms of impact on existing PROW, local rural enterprises and community severance - the same score as for the CHUMMS Strategy. However, there would be an adverse impact on community severance during the construction phase as a result of works to the viaduct. Opportunities for crossing the road by NMU traffic would be slightly safer by the Alternative Proposal due to there being a dual lane in place, rather than three lanes. For this reason, journey times of such users would also be marginally increased.

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.11 Policies and Plans

4.11.1 Introduction

This chapter assesses the Alternative Proposal option in terms of transport and planning policies at a national, regional and local level and the extent to which it conflicts or complies with such policies.

This addendum (Part II) uses information on policies and plans obtained in Spring 2004.

The route option lies within the county of Cambridgeshire and is subject to the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan 2003. The local planning framework is provided by the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, as updated by the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (adopted 2002).

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 changes the nature of plans that will be produced in the future. Under the new system the development plan will now comprise: a Regional Spatial Strategy (a new form of regional planning guidance), and a number of Development Plan Documents (comprising a Local Development Framework) prepared by local authorities. The former comprises the East of England Plan in this instance; the timetable remains to be published by Huntingdonshire District Council with respect to preparing the latter.

4.11.2 Method of Assessment

The Stage 2 assessment identifies policies in broad terms which could conflict with the development of the route option.

The policy assessment was carried out in accordance with the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS); Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11: Environmental Assessment; and 'Applying the Multi-Modal New Approach to Appraisal of Highway Schemes' which provides a link between the DMRB and the GOMMMS approach to appraising road schemes.

4.11.3 Existing Conditions

Consideration has been given to the following strategic policy documents. These documents are considered to be the most relevant sources in assessing the impact of the scheme on land-use policy objectives.

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development [This supersedes PPG1: General Policies and Principles (1997)]
PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) [This supersedes PPG7: The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (1997)]
PPG9: Nature Conservation (2001); has this been updated to 2003;
PPG13: Transport (2001);
PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994);
PPG16: Archaeology and Planning (1990);
PPG25: Development and Flood Risk (2001);
A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone (1998);
Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia (RPG6, 2000);
Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England (RPG14, 2004);
Draft East of England Plan;
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003);
Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2004-2011;
Cambridgeshire Aggregates (Minerals) Local Plan (1991);
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Proposed Modifications (2003); Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995);
Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (December 2002);
Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment - Supplementary Planning Guidance (2003); Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines (1991);

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES

Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) set out the guiding principles for a range of planning issues. The relevant national planning objectives which apply to the route option can be summarised as follows:

Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development (PPS1);
Planning policies should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole (PPS1);
Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments in terms of function and impact (PPS1);
Accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions (PPS7);
All development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness (PPS7);
There is a need to balance adequate provision for development and economic growth whilst ensuring effective conservation of wildlife and natural features. With careful planning and control, conservation and development can be compatible. Proximity to a designated area, such as a SSSI, does not always mean that development proposals will be refused. They could be approved if planning conditions can effectively limit any impact on habitats or important physical features (PPG9);
PPG9 recognises the importance of local nature conservation and recognises that wildlife heritage is not confined to designated sites;
PPG 12 provides a comprehensive statement of Government policy in relation to the development plan process. It states that development plans should include specific policies and proposals on the overall development of the transport network and related services, such as roads (para. 5.16);
There is a need to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional and local level to promote more sustainable transport choices, to promote accessibility, and to reduce the need to travel, especially by private car (para. 4, PPG13);
PPG 13 states that great care must be taken to minimise the impact on both the natural and built environment of any new transport infrastructure projects, or improvements to existing infrastructure. This includes the potential impacts caused during construction;
Local highway and planning authorities should integrate into their policies measures to avoid and minimise the impacts of new transport infrastructure developments on the various elements of the historic environment and their settings (PPG15);
New roads should, wherever possible, be kept away from listed buildings, conservation areas and other sites of architectural importance. However, in each case, a suitable balance should be struck between conservation, other environmental concerns, economics, safety and engineering feasibility (PPG15);
There should always be a presumption in favour of preserving in situ, nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings. Archaeological excavations for the purposes of preservation by record may be an acceptable alternative (PPG16);
PPG25 seeks to ensure that flood risk is properly taken into account in the planning of developments to reduce the risk of flooding and the damage which floods cause. Consideration should be given to "the specific risk of flooding to the development being proposed over its current expected lifetime and its possible effects on flood risks elsewhere in terms of its effects on flood flow, flood storage capacity and the run-off implications".

OTHER GOVERNMENT POLICIES

A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone July 1998

The Government's White Paper on the future of transport, 'A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone' was published in July 1998 and highlights the need for an integrated approach to transport policy. The criteria which are fundamental to achieving a more strategic approach to transport planning are detailed as follows:

Integration - ensuring that decisions are taken in the context of a coherent, integrated transport policy covering all modes;
Accessibility - making it easy to reach the places we wish to get to;
Safety - making travel safer;
Economy - obtaining good value for money and supporting sustainable economic activity in appropriate locations; and
Environment - considering both the positive and negative effects on the built environment, at a global, regional and local scale.

Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia RPG6 2000

The primary purpose of RPG6 is to establish a regional framework for development plans in East Anglia, up to 2016. RPG6 aims to guide development within a sustainable framework, ensure economic opportunities are maintained and improved, social and economic equity are increased, the environment is protected and enhanced while the distinctiveness of each locality is maintained.

RPG6 aims to:

Maximise energy efficiency and minimise harmful emissions and waste;
Minimise the need to travel and promote sustainable transport modes;
Maintain and enhance the region's economy and competitiveness;
Increase employment and promote a closer relationship between homes and jobs.

Chapter 5 details a range of sustainable development strategies for the largest urban areas located within the East Anglia region. Cambridge is highlighted as an urban area which will act as a primary location for growth. Policies 21 to 25 detail the vision and planning framework for the Cambridge sub-region. These refer to the location of housing and new development; employment generating development; Green Belt review and new settlements.

Paragraph 6.6 refers to sustainable transport policies which should 'contribute to the management of traffic growth and travel demands, whilst widening choice and accessibility for all'. It further states that improvements to road capacity will only be supported when other options have been fully appraised, and the quantified benefits outweigh any environmental or other dis-benefits.

Paragraph 6.29 outlines the improvements for trunk roads within the East Anglian region. The dualling of the A11 to Norwich; improvements of the A47 between Norwich and Great Yarmouth; improvements to the A14; and improvements to the A47 between the A1 and Norwich have all been identified. The paragraph further states that it will be the responsibility of local authorities to consider, through their local transport plans, what localised improvements may be required.

Paragraph 6.33 refers to Multi-Modal Studies. It highlights the Tranche 1, Cambridge to Huntingdon study which will consider solutions to ease congestion and improve safety in the corridor around the A14, which is subject to substantial development pressure.

Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England RPG14 2004

The Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England aims to guide development in the region over the next 20 years. The East of England region includes Bedfordshire, Luton, Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Hertfordshire, Essex, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock, Norfolk and Suffolk. The Spatial Planning Vision aims to 'sustain and improve the quality of life for all people who live in, work in or visit the region, by developing a more sustainable, prosperous and outward-looking region whilst respecting its diversity and enhancing its assets'. Amongst its objectives, RPG14 aims to ensure that infrastructure programmes will meet current deficiencies, development requirements and deliver more integrated patterns of land use, movement, activity and development, including employment and housing.

Chapter 5 details Sub-Regional policies. With reference to transport, the vision for the Cambridge Sub-Region aims to deliver integrated transport systems, which are closely linked to the development patterns in the area and which include high-quality public transport which will support more sustainable travel patterns. Policy CSR5 refers to infrastructure provision and states that a comprehensive approach will be adopted to secure infrastructure, which will be needed to support the development strategy for the Cambridge Sub-Region. Supporting text for this policy refers to a programme of transport infrastructure improvements that will be required to deliver the strategy and which are also detailed in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan. The Strategy states that these improvements will be 'saved' when the RPG14 is approved.

Table 3 'Proposal List' details a range of transport schemes. The A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon is referred to as a committed project.

Draft East of England Plan (December 2004)

This document sets out the East of England Plan, a draft spatial strategy to guide development in the East of England for at least the next 20 years. Chapter 3 contains a number of objectives including:

Improve social inclusion and access to employment and services and leisure and tourist facilities among those who are disadvantaged;
Deliver more integrated patterns of land use, movement, activity and development;
Protect and enhance the built and historic environment and encourage good quality design;
Protect and enhance the natural environment, including its biodiversity and landscape character;
Minimise the environmental impact of travel, by reducing the need to travel, encouraging the use of more environmentally friendly modes of transport, and widening choice of modes;
Ensure that infrastructure programmes meet current deficiencies and development requirements.

The regional transport strategy (chapter 8) contains a number of objectives, including:

Enable infrastructure programmes and transport service provision to support both existing development and that proposed in the spatial strategy;
Reduce the need to travel;
Minimise the environmental impact of transport provision and travel;
Improve safety and security.

Policy T11 - environment and safety - states that the development and design of transport infrastructure, and policy will seek to protect and enhance the natural, built and historic environment, minimise environmental impact and improve safety and security by reducing sources of danger.

The Plan makes reference to the A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton improvement scheme.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 seeks to encourage sustained economic growth, deliver infrastructure which meets the needs of the economy, minimise the need to travel through reducing reliance on the car, make better use of brownfield sites and ensure the environment is adequately protected from development. Furthermore, it aims to secure greater sustainability through integrating environmental, social and economic objectives whilst providing for development requirements.

Policy 1/1 details land which has been zoned for new development within Cambridge, including the provision of a small town at Longstanton/Oakington.

Chapter 7 refers to environmental and heritage resources. Policy 7/2 refers to Biodiversity. It states that all development will seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity areas which they affect; landscape features will be retained, managed and enhanced and, where damage is unavoidable, agreements will be sought to re-create features on or off-site.

Policy 7/4 states that development should sensitively relate to the local environment and should contribute to distinct landscape character areas.

Figure 7.2 details the landscape character areas. Land located within the vicinity of Huntingdonshire and St Ives is highlighted as 'River Valleys'. The area of land between Cambridge and Huntingdon is indicated as 'Claylands'.

Policy 7/4 states that development must 'relate sensitively to the local environment and contribute to the sense of place, identity and diversity of the distinct character areas'. Supporting text to the policy states that 'proposals for prominent structures will only be permitted if they are essential in the countryside and if the location, siting and design minimise adverse impact on the environment'. It further states that local authorities will be expected to undertake landscape character assessments and include appropriate landscape policies.

Policy 7/5 states that planning authorities will draw up strategies for urban fringe areas which will assist in enhancing their character, conservation value and improve public access to the countryside.

Policy 7/9 refers to minerals supply, stating that overall mineral supply met from secondary and recycled aggregates will be increased. An appropriate landbank of permitted aggregate reserves should be maintained to meet local, regional and national needs. Figure 7.1 outlines target areas for habitat creation. The route options run through land designated for 'Wet Grassland and Hay Meadows' and an area designated for 'Woodland and Hedgerows', both of which are located to the southwest of Huntingdon.

Chapter 8 of the structure plan details transport policies. These policies refer to vehicular transport, rail services, sustainable transport and the promotion of Area Transport Plans.

Policy 8/3 states that Area Transport Plans will be developed for Cambridge, Peterborough, Market Towns and surrounding areas. Policy 8/4 states that local authorities will introduce measures to manage demand for car travel. These measures will include reallocation of road-space to be used by public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. Policy 8/9 refers to Public Rights of Way which will be protected from development. New and existing public rights of way will be integrated into new development and existing definitive map routes will be protected from development. Reference is also given to providing links to key activities in town and village centres, educational establishments, public open spaces and to Countryside Enhancement Areas.

Policy 8/10 details Transport Investment Priorities relating specifically to Rapid Transit, Multi Modal Studies, Bus/Rail, Cycling/Walking, Park and Ride Interchanges and improvements to Trunk/Local roads. In addition, the plan will support a comprehensive and high quality network bus services across the Structure Plan Area, including improved links between market towns and rural centres with Cambridge. Park and Ride interchanges will be allocated on the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon Rapid Transit System. Policy 8/10 further states that both on line and off line improvements are designated for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Corridor. Junction improvements have also been designated on the A14, west of the A1.

Figure 8.1 outlines the road and rail network. Multi-Modal Transport improvements as supported and recommended by the Regional Planning Body are highlighted for the A14, commencing west of Cambridge and terminating at the A14 north of Brampton.

Chapter 9 details the overall development strategy for the Cambridge Sub-Region and figure 9.2 illustrates this. Part of the A14 Improvement study area is located within the defined sub-region boundary. The plan states that 'The Sub-Region is the focus for a dynamic economy founded on a strong service sector, an international reputation as a centre for education and research and rapidly growing clusters of high technology industries'. The vision for the Cambridge Sub-Region includes integrated transport systems related closely to development patterns, including high-quality, sustainable, public transport networks. These networks will support public transport links with market towns.

Policy 9/1 states that 'provision will be made for 47,500 additional homes in the sub-region between 1999 and 2016. These include 7,500 homes dwellings proposed for Huntingdonshire and the 6,000 dwellings proposed for a new settlement at Longstanton/Oakington (see para 3.18). Policy 9/2B refers to a greenbelt review being carried out to serve the long-term development needs of Cambridge. It is proposed that land be released from the greenbelt between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road.

Figure 9.2 illustrates the vision for the Cambridge Sub-Region. It highlights the A14 Improvements and a corridor for 'High-Quality Public Transport' which extends from Cambridge and runs in a northwesterly direction south of St Ives and Huntingdon.

Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2004-2011

The Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2004-2011 sets out the objectives, strategy and programme for transport in the county. The seven key objectives are as follows:

To make travel safer;
To develop integrated transport;
To promote sustainable forms of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling;
To maintain and operate efficient transport networks;
To create an accessible transport system;
To provide a transport system that meets the needs of the economy;
To protect and enhance the built and natural environment.

Cambridgeshire Aggregates (Minerals) Local Plan 1991

Cambridgeshire possesses a variety of important mineral resources. This plan relates specifically to sand, gravel and limestone, which are referred to as primary aggregates and are exploited by opencast mining.

Sand and gravel are the most important of the County's aggregate minerals, and are dispersed throughout the county. The principal workings are in the river terrace deposits found along the valleys of the River Great Ouse, the Nene and the Welland.

The DOE Circular 21/82 'Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales' states "for the economic health of the country, it is essential that the construction industry is provided with an adequate and steady supply of minerals". These guidelines set out the supply patterns for each mineral. These guidelines were further updated in 1989 with the publication of the Mineral Planning Guidance No. 6, which proposes that East Anglia will need to produce about 201m tonnes of aggregates between the period 1986-2005.

The Proposals Map highlights eighteen areas within the county where mineral extraction can be exploited. The following minerals workings are located within the study area.

Brampton West - This site extends to 55.8 ha and includes an area of approved working. An extension to the original site has also been granted.
Margetts Farm, Buckden/West of Little Paxton Pits - This site extends to 119.4 ha and includes an area of approved workings. Land is also zoned for extensions to existing sites where planning permission has been granted since 1986 and where planning permission has not been granted since 1990.
Woolpack Farm, Hemingford - This site extends to 5.6 ha and includes an area of approved working. An extension to the original site has also been granted.
North of Fen Drayton - This site extends to 25.6 ha and includes an area of approved workings. Land is also zoned for an extension, where planning permission has not been granted since 1990.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Proposed Modifications 2003

The DOE Circular 21/82, 'Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales' states "for the economic health of the country, it is essential that the construction industry is provided with an adequate and steady supply of minerals". These guidelines set out the supply patterns for each mineral. These guidelines were further updated in 1989 with the publication of the Mineral Planning Guidance No. 6, which proposes that East Anglia will need to produce about 201m tonnes of aggregates between the period 1986-2005.

The Proposals Map highlights eighteen areas within the county where mineral extraction can be exploited. The following minerals workings are located within the study area.

Brampton West - This site extends to 55.8 ha and includes an area of approved working. An extension to the original site has also been granted.
Margetts Farm, Buckden/West of Little Paxton Pits - This site extends to 119.4 ha and includes an area of approved workings. Land is also zoned for extensions to existing sites where planning permission has been granted since 1986 and where planning permission has not been granted since 1990.
Woolpack Farm, Hemingford - This site extends to 5.6 ha and includes an area of approved working. An extension to the original site has also been granted.
North of Fen Drayton - This site extends to 25.6 ha and includes an area of approved workings. Land is also zoned for an extension, where planning permission has not been granted since 1990.

Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995

The Huntingdonshire Local Plan aims to improve public transport services, provide adequate roadside service and ensure high standards of highway design and provision. Policies T1, T2 and T3 state that the District Council supports the early completion of the A14T and its upgrading to Dual 3 lanes between Bar Hill and Huntingdon. This will incorporate junction improvements, whilst extending such improvement via a southern link between the A14 and the A1.

Areas of Best Landscape are located south of Ellington, in the vicinity of Brampton Wood, Grafham Water, Buckden, Offord Cluny and north of the A14T in the vicinity of Hemingford Abbots and Fenstanton. Policy EN21 states that the District Council will not normally grant permission for development which would adversely affect such areas. Policy EN17 refers to development in the countryside which will normally be restricted to development associated with agriculture, horticulture, forestry, mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services. Policy EN18 seeks to protect trees, woodlands, hedges and meadowland. Policy EN22 states that the determination of planning applications will take appropriate account of the interests of nature and wildlife conservation.

Chapter 6 details policies aimed to promote recreation and leisure. Policy R15 aims to improve access to the countryside, including the extension and improvement of public rights of way, where appropriate. Policy R16 refers to the re-use of former gravel workings and clay pits for public recreation. Grafham Water will be promoted as a major area for informal countryside recreation.

The Ouse Valley Recreation Local Plan Continuation-in-Force Direction 1994 directs the management of this area until appropriate alternative provisions are incorporated into a district-wide local plan. The provisions refer to future development of moorings, subdivision of riverside land, improvement of boating facilities, upgrading of footpaths to allow for disabled access and the provision of visitor car parks and picnic sites. The implementation of restoration, landscaping and after-use schemes for disused active and future mineral extraction areas will also be promoted. In particular, the early implementation of after-use schemes at Little Paxton Pits, St Ives Pits and at Hinchingbrooke will be considered.

Chapter 7 refers to environmental considerations. Policy EN17 states development outside defined village limits will generally be restricted to that which is essential to the operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services. EN18 refers to the protection of trees, woodlands, hedges and meadowland. Supporting text refers to Areas of Best Landscape, within which the impact of development will be carefully assessed. EN21 states that development will not normally be granted which would adversely affect the character of the area of best landscape. EN23 states that development will not normally be permitted which would affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve, local nature reserves or which has an adverse effect on the interests of wildlife in an area of special importance for nature conservation.

The local plan includes detailed inset plans for a range of settlements in Huntingdonshire. Those settlements which are located within the study area are as follows.

Buckden (Map No. 9)

The proposed scheme run to the north of, but does not impact Buckden. The village centre is a designated conservation area. There are numerous sites zoned for residential development and open spaces/gaps for protection. The option runs to the north of and does not impact the village boundary.
Fenstanton (Map No. 22A)

The village centre is a designated conservation area, with numerous other open spaces and gaps for protection located in the vicinity of this area. One large site is designated for housing allocation, north of the existing residential development. The option run to the south of Fenstanton and does not impact directly on the settlement. The Gallery Hill junction is highlighted for Junction Improvements.
Hilton (No. 36)

The majority of Hilton is a designated conservation area. There are three individual sites designated for housing allocation, with additional large areas zoned as open spaces and gaps for protection.
The Offords (Map No. 46)

The northern section of this village is a designated conservation area. Small areas throughout the village are designated as open spaces and gaps for protection. All options run to the north of and do not impact The Offords.
Huntingdon Inset (Godmanchester Section)

Numerous sites with Godmanchester have been zoned for residential and employment allocation. Land west of Godmanchester and land north of the A14 have been allocated as Areas of Best Landscape.
Huntingdon Inset (Brampton Section)

Brampton village centre is a designated conservation area. There are open spaces and gaps for protection located throughout the village centre. Views Common is designated as an 'open space allocation', adjacent to the viaduct. Mill Common to the east of the viaduct, is designated as an 'open space and gap for protection'. Given that Views Common is currently being used for open space purposes, this latter designation would effectively apply to both commons in question. Here, Local plan policy EN15 states that development which would impair the open nature of such open spaces will not normally be allowed. A small area of Mill Common, at the foot of the existing A14 embankment is designated as Common Land.

Land located to the west of the A14, east of Buckden Road and north/south of the B1514 is protected as Areas of Best Landscape. The A14 and A1 have both been allocated for junction improvements.

A Scheduled Ancient Monument is located towards the south-west of the viaduct, where policy EN11 states that the Council will normally refuse planning permission for development that would have an adverse effect upon such monuments.

Huntingdonshire Local Plan (Alteration) December 2002

Consultation was undertaken during February 1998 to commence a review of the 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan. A revised draft incorporating proposed changes was published in May 1999. Following a public inquiry, the inspectors report was issued in 2002 and the deposit draft was published in June 2002.

The primary objectives of this alteration are to update the housing land provision in the adopted Plan, to co-ordinate public and private development and to identify specific expectations for affordable housing provision.

Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment - Supplementary Planning Guidance 2003

The landscape of Huntingdonshire covers an approximate area of 91,000ha and embraces a diversity of landscapes from the flat, expansive Fenlands in the north east to rolling upland landscapes in the west. The overall purpose of the guidelines is to provide the Council and others with a more detailed understanding of the character and composition of the natural and built environment, with a particular emphasis upon those features that may need to be conserved, enhanced or reflected in the new environment.

The scheme falls within the following landscape character areas:

Southern Wolds;
Ouse Valley;
South East Claylands.

The key characteristics of the Southern Wolds character area are gentle topography, well-wooded landscape with broad valleys of the River Kym and the Ellington Brook. The Southern Wolds are under pressure from the effects of intrusive and insensitive development and the loss of traditional features of the agricultural landscape. Key issues include the preservation and management of woodlands; protection of the rural character and long distance views and improve screening of existing developments.

The Ouse Valley includes the broad, shallow valley of the River Great Ouse, a mosaic of land uses and existing gravel workings and former workings which have been flooded to create significant areas of water. The area is under development pressure and future management should focus on protection and enhancement of the river valley, resistance to new development which could be liable to flooding, protection and enhancement of the 'Green Corridor' along the river and careful consideration of the extent of future gravel extraction.

The south eastern claylands character area is situated in the south eastern corner of Huntingdonshire. Key characteristics heavy clay soils, subtle variations in topography and tall hedgerows with frequent hedgerow trees. Many parts of the landscape character of this area remains unspoilt. Key emphasis should refer to the preservation of medieval features, protection of tall hedgerows and the planting of tree and woodland belts along major roads to screen visually intrusive development particularly to the edges of the main settlements.

Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines 1991

These guidelines aim to improve the overall visual quality and strengthen the contrast between landscapes in different parts of the county, protect and enhance historic features and conserve existing features. The guidelines refer to minimising the impact of new roads and improvement schemes, detailing examples of how this can be achieved. Land located between Huntingdon and Cambridge is referred to as the western claylands. This undulating landscape consists of large-scale arable farmland with open fields, sparse trimmed hedgerows, scattered woodlands, a large part of which are ancient semi-natural woodlands.

4.11.4 Potential Impacts and Mitigation

GENERAL COMMENTS

The option would meet regional transport objectives to maintain good transportation links within the region and with the rest of the UK. The Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia 2000, the Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England 2004 and the East of England Plan refer to improvements to the A14.

In order to demonstrate compliance at a local level, the scheme must fulfil the following objectives:

Foster development which encourages walking, cycling, and public transport use;
Benefit economic activity and enhance the environment;
Be located sensitively;
Conserve wildlife and natural features; and
Integrate planning and transport to promote more sustainable choices.

Mitigation principles are set out in each specialist chapter. However the following list summarises the basic principles which road design should seek to adhere to:

Biodiversity: avoid key sites, such as badger setts; help create new habitats through careful use of trees, hedgerows and ground cover;
Land use: avoid high grade agricultural land, where possible;
Noise: use design to avoid noise at sensitive locations, e.g. careful choice of horizontal and vertical alignment; use of low noise surfaces. If problems persist, consider the use of noise fences or bunds, and as a last resort use double glazing to cut down noise levels inside dwellings;
Water and flooding: in order to avoid rapid discharge of rainwater into watercourses, the use of balancing ponds is proposed. This, and other forms of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) could benefit water quality, and in turn foster improvements to biodiversity quality;
Landscape: use of planting and topography to 'hide' development from public view; and
Pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and community effects: use design to ensure that the local network fosters walking, horse-riding and cycling. This can involve the physical separation of roads, footpaths and cycle routes; noise and visual buffers between the motorway and local access routes on amenity grounds; avoidance where possible of bridges for non-car users, since these are unpopular and costly; give proper consideration to the needs of buses, e.g. lay-bys for bus-stops, and the avoidance of 'unfriendly' road geometry.

DETAILED COMMENTS

Alternative Proposal

The option would conflict with policies to protect the open countryside, trees and hedgerows and other environmental resources. Development in such cases refers to 'inappropriate development'.

From Ellington to Godmanchester, the option diverges from the A14 east of Ellington, running in southerly direction, traversing the A1 between the settlement of Buckden to the south and Buckden Landfill Site to the north. It would traverse an Area of Best Landscape north of Brampton Wood. It would continue to run in an easterly direction south of Buckden Landfill Sites. It would traverse the River Great Ouse and floodplains and East Coast Mainline Railway prior to merging with the A1198 south of Wood Green Animal Shelter. This section would neither impact land designated for future development or local settlements. However, it would traverse Buckden Gravel Pits and River Great Ouse and floodplains, thereby conflicting with local plan policies aimed at facilitating environmental conservation. The slip roads which form part of the Godmanchester junction run in close proximity to Beaconsfield Equestrian Centre. There would be no direct adverse impact on this facility.

From Godmancester, it runs in an easterly direction over open countryside, traversing the B1040 north of Hilton. It runs between the village settlements of Fenstanton to the north and Hilton to the south, prior to merging with the A14 northeast of Conington.

Viaduct

The construction phase associated with the replacement viaduct could adversely affect the setting of the adjacent Scheduled Ancient Monument in the short term.

4.11.5 Summary

The option would traverse Areas of Best Landscape as designated in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan. However, it would not impact on zoned development land.

It facilitates transport policies in the Structure Plan and Huntingdonshire Local Plan which refer to improvements to the A14.

If the scheme is built to a high standard, then, using the three point scale to determine the overall assessment score, the option is assessed as beneficial in terms of impact on land use policy.

4.11.6 Comparison with CHUMMS Strategy

The Alternative Proposal would have a marginally less adverse effect in environmental terms compared with the CHUMMS Strategy, in terms of land take, since less land would be required to accommodate a dual carriageway and slip road adjacent to the existing viaduct. The Alternative Proposal does not require an at grade junction with Brampton road and as such would not effect the Mills Common. During the construction phase, the replacement viaduct works could adversely affect the setting of the adjacent Scheduled Ancient Monument. The overall assessment score is assessed as beneficial for both options.

5. traffic and economic assessment

5. Traffic and Economic Assessment

5.1 Traffic Analysis

5.1.1 Overview

The traffic analysis undertaken during the assessment of the performance of the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal has been fully documented in the Forecasting and Economic Assessment Report: Part II³ with the approach to transport modelling discussed in Part I of this report (Chapter 6). This section summarises the differences between the performance of the highway network under the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal scenarios, and hence the economic case of each.

5.1.2 Network Differences between the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal

The CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal differ in the nature of the highway link provided between Godmanchester and Spittals.

In the CHUMMS Strategy the existing A14 would be retained as a dual 2 lane standard carriageway road between Fen Drayton and Huntingdon. The existing Huntingdon Railway Viaduct would be removed and an at-grade junction with Brampton Road constructed to retain a route between Godmanchester and Spittals. The precise form of this junction requires more detailed examination; however, for the purposes of running the traffic model, a staggered signalised junction has been assumed. No additional local highway improvements or policy measures have been assumed for the Huntingdon town centre within the traffic model.

Conversely, in the Alternative Proposal the Huntingdon Railway Viaduct would be reconstructed in its current configuration, with a similar level of carriageway provision, and hence no interchange with Brampton Road. On this basis, the new section of the A14 to the south of Godmanchester would only require a dual 2-lane standard carriageway. The rest of the highway network would remain the same as in the CHUMMS Strategy.

5.1.3 Comparison of A14 Journey Times and Route Choice

The key difference between the two options in traffic terms relates to the journey times experienced along the existing A14 between Fen Drayton and the A1(M)/A14 junction near Alconbury. Although the distances are virtually identical in both options, the journey times along this section of the existing A14 are lower in the Alternative Proposal than the CHUMMS Strategy. In 2025, AM peak forecast journey times along the railway viaduct section between Fen Drayton and Alconbury are around 14 minutes in the Alternative Proposal and 20 minutes in the CHUMMS Strategy. This compares to forecast journey times along the new A14 of around 15 minutes in both the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal. Table 5.1 provides a summary of distances and forecast journey times between Fen Drayton and both Alconbury and Ellington in 2025 in the AM Peak.

The reduced journey time along the existing A14 in the Alternative Proposal would make this route more attractive for journeys between the south-east of the study area (e.g. Cambridge area, A14 east and M11) and the A1(M) to the north. Traffic would therefore use the existing A14 for these journeys in preference to the new A14 south of Godmanchester, as used by traffic in the CHUMMS Strategy.

For traffic travelling between the south-east and west of the study area (e.g. Cambridge/M11 to Ellington), the new A14 route would provide the quickest and most attractive option in both the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal.

The new junction with Brampton Road in the CHUMMS Strategy would primarily provide an additional access for local traffic travelling to and from the Huntingdon area. In the Alternative Proposal this access would not be provided and local traffic travelling to and from Huntingdon would follow the same routes as at present, either along the B1044 via Godmanchester or the A141 via Spittals interchange.

It is noted that the introduction of a junction at Brampton Road in the CHUMMS Strategy would be likely to have implications for local traffic conditions across Huntingdon town centre as traffic patterns would change due to the new access arrangements. Whilst the model is strategic in nature and hence not designed to examine the local impacts within Huntingdon, it does indicate that total delay across the town centre may rise as the new junction increases the number of traffic conflict points in the area. A more detailed study of the local implications of the Brampton Road junction needs to be undertaken, which also considers other potential local transport interventions and policy measures to complement the introduction of the scheme.

5.1.4 Forecast Traffic Flows

The forecast traffic flows for the two scenarios in the vicinity of Huntingdon are given on Figure 5.1 (in Appendix D), which shows the 2010 (opening year) and 2025 (design year) AADT flows. As might be expected, the Alternative Proposal shows an increase in flow on the link to the Huntingdon railway viaduct and a corresponding reduction in flow on the new A14 route south of Godmanchester. Traffic flows along the whole length of the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal are presented on Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (in Appendix D) for the forecast years 2010, 2016 and 2025 respectively. The 2016 forecast flows are presented as it represents the end of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan period.

5.1.5 Design Considerations

Traffic flow ranges for use in the assessment of new rural roads are given in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Advice Note TA 46/97. The note gives the economic assessment and recommended flow ranges for new rural road links for opening year AADT flows relating to various carriageway standards. These are set out in Table 5.5 as extracted from TA 46/97. On this basis the required carriageway standards have been identified for each option (Table 5.6 in Appendix D) based on the AADT forecasts for the different sections of the route.

Table 5.5 - Opening Year Economic Flow Ranges
Carriageway Standard	Minimum	Maximum
S2	Up to 13,000
WS2		21,000
D2AP		39,000
D3AP	23,000	54,000
D2M	Up to 41,000
D3M	25,000	67,000
D4M	52,000	90,000

AADT Flows in each direction of travel

5.2 Economic Assessment Process

5.2.1 Overview

The economic assessment of the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal has been fully documented in the Forecasting and Economic Assessment Report Part 2⁴. The approach adopted is also summarised in Part I of this report. This section summarises the approach, setting out the assumptions used only where they differ from those used in the route option assessments documented in Part I of this report. It also summarises the results of the economic assessment.

5.2.2 Costs and Benefits Considered

The economic assessment of the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal has been carried out in line with Department for Transport (DfT) and Treasury guidance as detailed on the DfT Transport Appraisal website⁵ and in the Transport User Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) guidance⁶.

In summary, the assessment process was based on a comparison of the total monetised benefits generated by each scheme against its total monetised costs, covering the following four elements:

The impacts of each scheme on travel times and travel costs for trips made within and through the modelled study area together with the associated impacts on revenue and indirect tax levels. These impacts were estimated on the basis of the forecast change in travel conditions caused by each scheme compared to a Do-Minimum scenario. Conditions in each scenario were forecast using the A14 transport modelling framework, with outputs from the models used to calculate traveller user benefits, revenue and indirect tax benefits using the DfT's TUBA program;
The impacts of each option on road accidents in the study area. These were estimated using COBA 11⁷ methodology and changes in traffic levels forecast by the transport models;
The capital and maintenance costs associated with each option. These were derived on the basis of reference schemes and standard rates. Allowances were also made for risk and optimism bias;
The impacts of the construction and ongoing maintenance programmes on travel times and delay for journeys within and through the study area; estimated using the local highway model and a single year application of the TUBA model.

The approach and underlying assumptions adopted for these assessments has remained largely as those used for the earlier assessment of the route options for the scheme, as reported in Part I of the Technical Assessment Report (TAR)⁸ and Economic Assessment Report (EAR)⁹. The approach is identical for user and provider impacts, accident savings, Do-Minimum costs and construction and maintenance costs. The only change relates to the scheme costs and is detailed in the following section.

5.2.3 Capital Costs of Schemes

The process used to estimate the capital costs of the A14 improvement route options is documented in detail in Part I of the SAR. Details on how the cost estimate has developed since this report is summarised in Section 2.3 of this report.

For the economic assessment and in line with TUBA guidance, the cost estimates were converted to 2002 prices and excluded the VAT and inflation allowances. The Alternative Proposal assessment also included a £21.9 million cost for replacing the Huntingdon Viaduct. This is not considered as part of the total scheme cost because the replacement would be required in any case (i.e. in the Do-Minimum scenario). However, it does need to be included in the economic assessment because the associated cost under the Alternative Proposal differs from that in the Do-Minimum (i.e. the process is cheaper in the Alternative Proposal as the new off-line A14 provides a suitable diversion for many trips and hence a temporary structure parallel to the viaduct would not be required). On this basis the costs incurred in the Do-Minimum but not under the Alternative Proposal have been included as a saving generated by the scheme (as described in Part I of this report). The at-grade junction on Brampton Road is considered to be part of the CHUMMS Strategy and therefore is already included within the scheme cost and therefore the economic assessment.

5.3 Economic Assessment Results

5.3.1 Summary of Results

Tables 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 provide the summary information from the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts and Summary Analysis Tables respectively for each alternative. The tables summarise the costs and benefits associated with each alternative during the 60 year period following opening, disaggregated by benefit type, purpose and vehicle type. The TEE Table (Table 5.8) summarises the impact of each alternative on transport users and the private sector whilst the Public Accounts Table (Table 5.9) summarises the impact on the public sector.

The overall summary results (including the NPV and benefit to cost ratios) are shown in Table 5.10. The NPVs indicate that there is a strong economic case for both alternatives. Of the two, the Alternative Proposal shows the stronger economic case, yielding an NPV of around £2.3 billion compared to approximately £2.0 billion for the CHUMMS Strategy.

Table 5.7 - Summary of TEE Tables for CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal
Table 5.8 - Summary of Public Accounts Table for CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal
Table 5.9 - Summary Analysis Table for CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal
Download tables 5.7 to 5.9 (40KB PDF)

Overall the pattern of costs and benefits are similar for both alternatives. The following highlights a number of key findings drawn from the tables:

There is a strong economic case for the schemes. The BCRs (showing the ratio of benefit to central Government's cost) and the BKRs (showing the ratio of benefit to the HA's cost) are considerably greater than 1, demonstrating that the economic benefits of both schemes exceed their costs. The BCRs are 19.6 and 21.4 for the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal respectively and the BKRs 6.1 and 7.1.
For both schemes, the majority of benefits are derived from highway time savings. Travellers using the new route in both schemes would experience savings between Ellington and Fen Ditton of up to 8 minutes in the westbound direction and 20 minutes eastbound (compared to the Do-Minimum in the AM peak, 2016).

Travellers using the existing A14 would also experience savings relative to Do-Minimum journey times. In the CHUMMS Strategy (where the Huntingdon railway viaduct would be replaced by an at-grade junction on Brampton Road) journey times would be approximately 2 minutes lower in the westbound direction and 7 minutes lower eastbound (between Ellington and Fen Ditton in the AM peak, 2016). These are relatively modest savings and therefore benefits would mainly be experienced by those using the new route which would offer considerably shorter journey times than the existing route.

In the Alternative Proposal (where the existing A14 and the viaduct would be retained), traffic and consequently time related benefits would be more evenly split between the two routes. Journey times along the existing A14 would be comparable to those along the new route and up to 2 minutes lower for journeys between the south-east of the study area (i.e. the Cambridge area, M11 and A14 east) and the A1(M), for which the existing road and retained viaduct would provide a more direct route than the new off-line road and the A1.

During an average weekday, the value of savings accrued during peak hours in both schemes are approximately 10% greater than those accrued during the non-peak. The annual weekend (and bank holiday) savings equate to approximately 20% of the total value of savings experienced over the working days of the year.

It is noted that, in the CHUMMS Strategy, time benefits are offset to a degree by a forecast increase in localised congestion and delay within Huntingdon. This is caused by the potential increase in route conflict and associated delay which could be caused by the introduction of an at-grade junction to replace the viaduct. The model forecasts less delay in Alternative Proposal, where the reinstatement of the viaduct would mean that Do-Minimum travel patterns remained largely undisrupted. However, the model is strategic in nature and not designed to examine local impacts and changes in traffic flow within Huntingdon. As discussed above, a more detailed study is required to examine the local impacts of the Brampton Road junction, including consideration of other potential complementary local transport interventions and policy measures. Such a study would provide more accurate indications of the local impacts of the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal in the Huntingdon area and the implications for their economic performance.

The overall time savings in both alternatives are also offset to some degree by delays experienced during the construction process. In the CHUMMS Strategy, the construction related losses equate to approximately 4.5% of the total time savings generated by the scheme. In the Alternative Proposal they equate to 6.5% of total savings. The losses are larger in this alternative because the construction period for the new railway viaduct in Huntingdon could last up to 2 years compared to the possible 6 to 9 month construction period for the at-grade junction in the CHUMMS Strategy.
Both alternatives generate accident savings. The implementation of either the CHUMMS Strategy or the Alternative Proposal would have two main impacts with opposing influences on accident numbers. The introduction of a new, high quality road link between Ellington and Fen Ditton on one hand would tend to result in fewer accidents, but on the other hand, slightly increasing the average distance travelled would act to increase the number of accidents. The combined effect of these impacts would be to reduce the annual number of accidents by nearly 150 personal injury accidents (PIAs) by the year 2025 in the CHUMMS Strategy and by over 2900 total accidents including PIAs and damage only accidents. The savings associated with the Alternative Proposal would be smaller in scale (around 130 PIAs and 2600 total accidents) because the reinstatement of the Huntingdon railway viaduct would cause more traffic to continue to use the existing A14. Consequently, less would divert to the new off-line route which would be designed to more modern standards and hence have a lower expected average accident rate.

The reduction in accidents equates to less than 3% of annual accidents in the study area in both schemes. However, in monetary terms the savings generate an NPV of around £310 million in the Alternative Proposal and £335 million in the CHUMMS Strategy, representing approximately 15% of the present value of benefits (PVB).
There is a net increase in fuel and non-fuel vehicle operating costs. The magnitude of this increase equates to between 8% and 13% of the monetary value of the time savings for each alternative. The changes are primarily due to the slight increase in average distance travelled per journey, as the new A14 route influences travel patterns causing more drivers to make longer distance trips as they take advantage of the improved route. One contributory factor to the increase in distance in the CHUMMS Strategy is the fact that the journey from the south-east of the study area (i.e. the Cambridge area, M11 and A14 east) and the A1 (M) to the north is around 4.5 km longer using the new route than the existing A14. This has less influence in the Alternative Proposal where the reinstatement of the viaduct causes drivers to continue using the more direct route along the existing A14.

Despite the relatively large increase in vehicle operating cost for these trips, it only represents a very small change in the total vehicle operating costs associated with highway travel in the modelled area (less than 1%).
Both alternatives generate increased indirect tax revenues for central Government. This is largely due to increased expenditure on fuel and non-fuel related highway costs brought about by the slight increase in average travel distance caused by the schemes.

5.3.2 Reliability

The economic assessments presented do not include a monetised estimate of reliability benefits because the methodology for quantification is still under development and any results are considered provisional. However, both the CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal should produce reliability improvements through a number of effects.

Firstly, both would provide increased capacity and therefore reduced stress on the network, improving performance and providing more flexibility to cope with incidents and with fluctuations in capacity and demand. Additionally, the improvements are forecast to reduce accidents and therefore the number of incidents occurring and influencing journey time reliability. Finally, through providing a new section of road, the improvements would provide a new alternative route for a long section of the corridor, helping to mitigate the impacts of incidents by providing more options for diversion routes. In the Alternative Proposal this contribution to improved reliability would be particularly marked because the retention of the existing A14 would result in this section of the corridor being served by two trunk roads.

A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton, Forecasting and Economic Assessment Report Part 2, by Atkins on behalf of the Highways Agency (February 2005) back [3]
A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton, Forecasting and Economic Assessment Report: Part 2, by Atkins on behalf of the Highways Agency (February 2005) back [4]
http://www.webtag.org.uk back [5]
TUBA User Guidance and User Manual, Version 1.6A, prepared by Mott MacDonald on behalf of the DfT, June 2004. TUBA is the DfT's bespoke software for carrying out economic assessments of the impacts multi-modal transport schemes. back [6]
The COBA Manual: DMRB, Volume 13, Section 1, Part 2: The Valuation of Costs and Benefits back [7]
A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton, Technical Appraisal Report Part I, Chapter 8 Economic Assessment, by Atkins on behalf of the Highways Agency (February 2005) back [8]
A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton, Economic Assessment Report Part I, Final Draft, by Atkins on behalf of the Highways Agency (October 2004) back [9]

Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers

1. introduction

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report Part I

1.2 Background and Objectives of Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report Part II

1.3 Structure of the Report

2. scheme proposals

2. Scheme Proposals

2.1 Description of the CHUMMS Strategy

2.2 Description of the Alternative Proposal

2.2.1 A14 Mainline

2.2.2 Junction Strategy

2.3 Cost Estimate

2.3.1 Basis of Estimate

2.3.2 Comparison of Estimates

3. engineering assessment

3. Engineering Assessment

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Alternative Proposal

3.2.1 Mainline Alignment

3.2.2 Junctions

A1 BRAMPTON INTERCHANGE

FEN DRAYTON INTERCHANGE

GODMANCHESTER EMERGENCY ACCESS JUNCTION

3.2.3 Structures

EXISTING STRUCTURES

NEW STRUCTURES

RIVER GREAT OUSE VIADUCT

HUNTINGDON RAILWAY VIADUCT

3.2.4 Relaxations and Departures From Standards

3.2.5 Earthworks

3.2.6 Contaminated Land

3.2.7 Public Utilities

4. environmental assessment

4. Environmental Assessment

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Background to the Environmental Addendum to the SAR

4.1.2 Traffic Considerations for Environmental Assessment

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.2 Traffic Noise and Vibration

4.2.1 Introduction and Method of Assessment

NOISE

DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT

STUDY AREA

TRAFFIC DATA

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

LIMITATIONS

4.2.2 Baseline Conditions

GENERAL

AREAS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING ROUTE

A14 between Ellington and A1 near Brampton

A1 South of the A14 Interchange

A14 between A1 near Brampton and A141 near Stukeley Junctions

A14 between A141 near Stukeley and A1198 Junctions

A1198 to A1096/B1040 Galley Hill Junctions

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

B1050 Bar Hill to M11 Interchange at Girton

A14 from Girton to B1047 Fen Ditton

AREAS ADJACENT TO CHUMMS STRATEGY

A14 between Ellington and A1 south of Brampton

A1 to Great Ouse Bridge near Offord

Offord to A1198 south of Wood Green Animal Shelter

South of Wood Green Animal Shelter to Fenstanton

Fenstanton to Bar Hill

CHANGES BETWEEN PRESENT AND OPENING YEAR (2010)

4.2.3 Key Issues/Areas

4.2.4 Mitigation Measures

4.2.5 Assessment of the two Options

DO MINIMUM

ROUTE OPTIONS

ASSESSMENT

OTHER AREAS AFFECTED BY NOISE CHANGES FROM TRAFFIC RE-DISTRIBUTION

CHUMMS Strategy

Alternative Proposal

4.2.6 Summary and Conclusions

EXISTING SITUATION AND DO MINIMUM

OPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

GENERAL EFFECTS OF THE OPTIONS

NOISE CHANGES FROM TRAFFIC OUTSIDE THE PRESENT A14 AND THE OPTIONS