Highways Agency

• 1. introduction
• 2. scheme proposals
• 3. engineering assessment
• 4. environmental assessment
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 5. traffic and economic assessment

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.

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.

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.

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.