Highways Agency

• 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 -10

5. Environmental Assessment (continued)

5.10 Agriculture

5.10.1 Introduction

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

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

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

5.10.2 Method

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

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

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

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

SURVEY AND DATA COLLECTION

Prior to conducting field surveys, published and unpublished data and route planswere consulted.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

• 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 greaterdetail at the relevant part of the text. However, the general methodology can besummarised 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.

5.10.3 Baseline Situation

Existing conditions immediately prior to the proposed development (the baselinesituation) 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 Section 2.4. The EAR chapteron agriculture described the geology of the route corridor, relevant to theunderstanding of soils and Agricultural Land Classification.

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

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

SOILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAND USE CONDITIONS

Land Use

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

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

Land Values

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

Agricultural Holdings Affected

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

5.10.4 Potential Impacts - Permanent and Long Term

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

Impacts that are irreversible and permanent are:

• 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 patternsof 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 todetermine the cumulative effects of land loss, severance and disruption tomanagement.

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

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

IMPACTS OF THE ROUTE OPTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

IMPACTS OF THE LIMITED JUNCTION OPTION ROUTE OPTIONS

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

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

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

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

POTENTIAL IMPACTS - CONSTRUCTION PHASE

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

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

• 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

5.10.5 Summary of Agricultural Impacts

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

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

• 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
• Restoring water for livestock and irrigation, where supplies are severed

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

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