Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers

Related pages

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Existing Conditions
• 3. Scheme Proposals
• 4. Engineering Assessment
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 1
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 2
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 3
• 5. Environmental Assessment -4
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 5
• 5. Environmental Assessment - 6
• 5. Environmental Assessment -7
• 5. Environmental Assessment -8
• 5. Environmental Assessment -9
• 5. Environmental Assessment -10
• 5. Environmental Assessment -11
• 5. Environmental Assessment -12
• 5. Environmental Assessment -13
• 5. Environmental Assessment -14
• 5. Environmental Assessment -15
• 5. Environmental Assessment -16
• 5. Environmental Assessment -17
• 5. Environmental Assessment -18
• 5. Environmental Assessment -19
• 6. Traffic and Economic Assessment

5. Environmental Assessment -11

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.11 Landscape Effects

5.11.1 Introduction

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

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

5.11.2 Method of Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.11.3 Existing Landscape Character

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

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

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

• River Corridor - open rural
• Rural Lowland Mosaic - northern fringe and west Cambridge clay lands
• Industrial and Commercial - road corridor.

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

• Southern Wolds
• Ouse Valley
• South East Claylands

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

• Western Claylands
• Fen Edge
• Fen
• River Cam Corridor

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.11.4 Existing Landscape Quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.11.5 Townscape

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

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

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

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

LIGHTING

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

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

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

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

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

5.11.6 Effects on the Landscape

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

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

5.11.7 Section 1: Ellington to Godmanchester

SUB-SECTION A - ELLINGTON TO A1 BRAMPTON INTERCHANGE

Blue/Purple/Orange Option

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

Blue/Purple Option A1 Alternatives 3 and 4

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

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

Orange Option A1 Alternative 6

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

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

SUB-SECTION B - A1 BRAMPTON INTERCHANGE TO GODMANCHESTER

Blue/Purple Option A1

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

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

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

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

Orange Option

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

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

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

Blue/Purple Dashed Option

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

5.11.8 Section 2 : Godmanchester to Bar Hill

BLUE OPTION

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

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

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

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

PURPLE OPTION

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

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

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

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

ORANGE OPTION

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

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

5.11.9 Section 3: Bar Hill to Fen Ditton

COMMON SECTION

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

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

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

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

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

5.11.10 Visual Impact on Properties

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

• Isolated Properties: all the options have significant sections off-line through open countryside, the Purple option has the shortest; the resulting structures, lighting and traffic result in Substantial Adverse impact in year 1 reducing to Moderate Adverse in year 15 (Slight Adverse for the Purple option). The options with either A1 Alternatives 3 or 4 have less impact on isolated properties than the other alignments with Moderate Adverse in year 1 reducing to Slight Adverse in year 15.
• Brampton: all the options will affect Brampton to some degree: earthworks, structures and lighting, particularly at the A1 junction. Visual impact of the common Blue/Purple alignment being Substantial Adverse in year 1 reducing to Moderate Adverse in year 15. The more southerly Orange option would have less impact on Brampton with Moderate Adverse impact in year 1 reducing to between Moderate and Slight Adverse by year 15. The A1 Alternatives (3 or 4 with Blue and Purple alignments and 6 with the Orange option) will affect the degree of visual impact. Both Alternatives 4 and 6 result in a lower level of adverse visual impact.
• Buckden: The Orange option would have greater visual impacts on Buckden than the Blue/Purple alignment. The Orange option A1 junction is slightly to the south of the Blue/Purple junction and the route passes south of the Buckden landfill and would have a substantial adverse visual impact in Year 1 reducing to moderate adverse by Year 15. From the A1 junction the Blue/Purple option passes to the north of the Buckden landfill with less impacts on Buckden - remaining slight adverse in Year 1 to Year 15 due to lighting at the junction.
• Godmanchester: the Blue and Purple options are closer to Godmanchester than the Orange option and this is reflected in the indicative visual impact. Blue and Purple options - Moderate Adverse in year 1 reducing to slight in year 15 compared to Slight Adverse in both years 1 and 15 for the Orange option.
• Hilton: this settlement is only affected by the Orange option - Slight Adverse in years 1 and 15.
• Conington: this settlement is affected by the Orange and Blue options - Slight Adverse in years 1 and 15 for both options.
• Properties and Villages adjacent to the existing A14 and Cambridge urban fringe: all the Blue, Purple and Orange options would all create adverse visual impact through widening in close proximity to properties, loss of existing vegetation, lighting and structures, resulting in Substantial Adverse in year 1 reducing to Moderate in year 15.

5.11.11 Mitigation Measures

LANDSCAPE PROPOSALS

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

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

• 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 plantestablishment or be steeper than 1:3 for landscape maintenance safety and toprevent them from being too visually intrusive. Earthwork design profiles shouldreflect existing natural slopes. Where possible the side slope angle should bevaried to match existing topography and in this way earthworks avoid emphasisingthe line of the road. Junctions between new artificial gradients and natural onesneed careful attention to detail. There are benefits in rounding off the crests andtoes of cutting and embankment slopes to a gentle profile, creation a gradualtransition to the natural landform.

TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING

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

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

Key planting types are likely to be;

• 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 shrubsonly, to mixed trees and shrubs and open tree groups giving a variety of layers atdifferent locations. Initial planting sizes would vary from 2 year old transplants tofeathered and standard trees.

Shrub Lines

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

Offsite Planting by Agreement

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

LAND ACQUIRED BY COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (CPO)

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

BALANCING PONDS

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

GREEN BRIDGES

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

5.11.12 Summary

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

• 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;
• Impact of new landform and planting;
• Widening of Cambridge Northern Bypass road corridor and lighting between Bar Hill and Fen Ditton.

Major differences in the options are that;

• Purple route stays on line longer with substantial adverse impact on Fen Drayton, Fenstanton and properties adjacent to the existing; to the bifurcation point west of the Gore Tree over bridge. It would have less impact on the rural landscape character; than the Blue or Orange options. It is considered to have a moderate to slight adverse impact generally on landscape character with large adverse for the river Great Ouse.
• Orange route is closer to Hilton, Offord Cluny and Buckden, and is generally located within open countryside further from the existing A14. The viaduct is longer than for the Blue route and higher at the eastern end. It is considered to have more impact on landscape character than the Blue or Purple options with a large to moderate adverse impact generally and large adverse for the river Great Ouse. It is likely to have a greater adverse visual impact on Buckden than on Brampton, but less adverse visual impact on Godmanchester than the Blue route.
• Blue route is closer to the urban fringes of Godmanchester and Brampton but therefore less intrusive within the open landscape. It is considered to have a moderate adverse impact on landscape character generally with large adverse for the river Great Ouse. . It is likely to have a significantly greater adverse visual impact on Brampton than Buckden and more adverse visual impact on Godmanchester than the Orange route.
• The three A1 Alternatives follow the A1 corridor and are less intrusive in the open landscape than the Blue/Purple/Orange common route with less impact on Brampton Wood SSSI. However, as with all the options, the A1 would require widening between Buckden and Brampton Hut with the loss of some existing roadside vegetation.

LIMITED JUNCTION OPTIONS

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

• Changes to the local access road configuration e.g. from single carriageway to dual carriageway between Dry Drayton and Junction 14 on both east and west of A14 and additional local access road west of Trinity Foot on south side - would increase the adverse visual impact for properties in close proximity to the A14 and result in the loss of additional existing vegetation, although the overall number of traffic lanes would remain the same as the main carriageway reduces from dual 4 to dual 3 between Bar Hill to M11 junction 14;
• M11 junction 14 reconstructed to separate local and strategic traffic - minimal changes in impact, there may be less scope for mitigation planting within the junction layout due to the complexity of the road layout and therefore additional land would be required in order to provide the necessary landscape screening.