Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Cambridgeshire Highways
November 2012
Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Cambridgeshire Highways information and use in relation to Ely Sothern Bypass EIA Scoping Report. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.
Document history
Job number: 5106611 Revision A B C Purpose description First Draft Reviewed First Draft Final Originated LB Team LB Team LB Team Document ref: Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Checked LB LB LB Reviewed JS JS JS Authorised RB RB RB Date 17/08/12 21/08/12 05/11/12
Client signoff
Client Project Document title Job no. Copy no. Document reference Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Cambridgeshire Highways Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report 5106611
Atkins Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report | Version C | November 2012 | 5106611
Table of contents
Chapter
Glossary Abbreviations 1. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 6. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 7. 8. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6. 8.7. Introduction Scheme Background Purpose of the Scoping Report Structure of the Scoping Report Consultation on Scoping The Need for the Scheme Transport problem and need for intervention Existing Transport Conditions Summary of Challenges Alternatives Considered Consultation and Options Appraisal of the Options Scheme Description Scheme Objectives Project Programme Highways Design Structures Design Earthworks Design Lighting and Signs Environmental Design Construction Approach to the EIA Overview Baseline Conditions Influence of Mitigation Measures Disruption due to Construction Significance of Effects Scenarios: Do Minimum and Do Something Plans and Policies Introduction Methodology East Cambridgeshire Design Guide and Ely Masterplan Ely Station Development Framework Summary Traffic and Transport Air Quality Introduction Study Area Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures
Pages
7 9 13 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 18 21 21 24 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 31 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 37 37 37 41 42 43 45 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 51
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report 8.8. 8.9. 9. 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. 9.5. 9.6. 9.7. 9.8. 10. 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.4. 10.5. 10.6. 10.7. 10.8. 11. 11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. 11.5. 11.6. 11.7. 11.8. 12. 12.1. 12.2. 12.3. 12.4. 12.5. 12.6. 12.7. 13. 13.1. 13.2. 13.3. 13.4. 13.5. 13.6. 13.7. 13.8. 14. 14.1. 14.2. 14.3. 14.4. Expected Effects of the Scheme Summary Cultural Heritage Introduction Study Area Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Expected Effects of the Scheme Summary Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Introduction Study Area Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Expected Effects of the Scheme Summary Nature Conservation Introduction Study Area Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Expected Effects of the Scheme Summary Geology and Soils Introduction Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Expected Effects on the Scheme Summary Materials Introduction Study Area Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Expected Effects on the Scheme Summary Noise and Vibration Introduction Study Area Review of Existing Information/Further Studies Methodology and Criteria 53 53 55 55 55 55 56 60 60 61 61 63 63 63 63 64 65 66 66 67 69 69 69 69 69 72 81 85 87 89 89 89 89 90 94 95 96 97 97 97 97 97 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report 14.5. 14.6. 14.7. 14.8. 15. 15.1. 15.2. 15.3. 15.4. 15.5. 15.6. 15.7. 15.8. 16. 16.1. 16.2. 16.3. 16.4. 16.5. 16.6. 16.7. 16.8. 17. 17.1. 17.2. 17.3. 17.4. 17.5. 17.6. 17.7. 18. 18.1. 18.2. 18.3. 18.4. Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Expected Effects of the Scheme Summary Effects on All Travellers Introduction Study Area Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Expected Effects of the Scheme Summary Community and Private Assets Introduction Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Consultation Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Expected Effects of the Scheme Summary Road Drainage and the Water Environment Introduction Study Area Review of Existing Information Methodology and Criteria Baseline Conditions Scope for Mitigation Measures Summary Summary Need for the Scheme Main Features of the Scheme Topics considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Cumulative Impacts 101 102 102 103 105 105 105 105 106 108 109 109 109 111 111 111 112 113 113 113 114 115 117 117 117 117 117 117 119 120 121 121 121 121 123
Appendices
Appendix A. Figures A.1. Location Plan A.2. Scheme Layout
125
127 129 130
Tables
Table 6-1: Planning Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................ 37 Table 8-1: Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations (g/m3) at Wicken Fen continuous monitoring site ................... 50 Table 8-2: Diffusion Tube Sites in Ely ............................................................................................................. 50 Table 8-3: Bias Adjusted Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations (g/m3) ........................................ 50 Table 8-4: 2010 Annual Mean Background Concentrations (g/m3) ............................................................... 51 Table 9-1: Archaeological Remains: Value ..................................................................................................... 57 Table 9-2: Historic Buildings: Value................................................................................................................. 57 Table 9-3: Historic Landscape: Value.............................................................................................................. 58 Table 9-4: Magnitude of Impact: Archaeological Remains .............................................................................. 58 Table 9-5: Magnitude of Impact: Historic Buildings ......................................................................................... 59
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 9-6: Magnitude of Impact: Historic Landscape ...................................................................................... 59 Table 9-7: Significance of Effect ...................................................................................................................... 60 Table 11-1: Biotic Index (Stuntney Causeway) ............................................................................................... 77 Table 11-2: Biotic Index (Ely Road) ................................................................................................................. 77 Table 11-3: Fish Species Recorded at Bypass Crossing Site ......................................................................... 78 Table 11-4: Summary of River Habitat Surveys in Site Vicinity....................................................................... 79 Table 11-5: Summary of biological WFD elements ......................................................................................... 80 Table 12-1: Summary of Potentially Contaminating Historical and Existing Land Uses ................................. 93 Table 14-1: Classification of Magnitude of Impacts....................................................................................... 100 Table 14-2: Baseline traffic conditions........................................................................................................... 102 Table 15-1: Assessment of Drivers Stress .................................................................................................... 107 Table 15-2: Categorising Relief from Severance by Reductions in Existing Traffic Levels .......................... 108 Table 16-1: Development Criteria.................................................................................................................. 113
Figures
Figure 2.1: Reported accidents between 2007 - 2011, and provisionally to end of March 2012 .................... 17 Figure 3.1: Bypass options initially considered ............................................................................................... 21 Figure 3.2: Options considered within this report ............................................................................................ 22 Figure 3.3: Bypass Route D Option ................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3.4: Bypass Route B Option ................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 8.1: Air Quality Constraints................................................................................................................... 52
Glossary
Term 1 in 100 Year Flood Abutment Description An event or an area subject to a 1% probability of a certain size flood occurring in any given year A masonry or steel mass supporting structure and the junction that receives the weight of the bridge deck and absorbs tensions from resisting earth embankments Levels in metres Above Ordnance Datum Years identified for the assessment of the environmental and transport effects of the project as set out in the Environmental Statement and Transport Assessment respectively. An artificial pond used for collection and slow release of surface water run-off Material used for refilling an excavation An all-encompassing term for the variety of habitats and species on earth A structure that allows people or vehicles to cross an obstacle such as a river or canal or railway etc A deck is the platform or floor like surface on which pedestrians, vehicles and cycles travel, contains utility services and is normally constructed of concrete and steel. The deck structure sits on top of and is supported by the abutments The underside of an architectural feature, as a beam, arch, ceiling or deck A projecting structure that is attached or supported at only one end A beam resting upon and connecting the heads of piles A lane of a highway; a road on which there is no central reservation A tube or duct for enclosing electric wires or cable The unclean or impure state of the ground, soil and waterways due to previous industrial uses and neglect A section formed by a plane cutting through an object usually, at right angles to an axis A covered structure, such as a concrete pipe, which conveys a flow under an obstruction such as a road, railway or building Removal of above ground structures to provide a cleared site to allow for site investigation and subsequent development A baseline for the EIA and transport assessments which comprises a) the environmental and development conditions existing on the site and b) consented developments and committed transport and other infrastructure at 2013. The Do Minimum baselines for assessment years after 2013 include the construction of consented and committed developments and infrastructure assumed to be completed or under construction at the year in question Alteration, movement or excavation of earth that changes landform either temporarily or permanently The process of assessing the likely environmental effects of proposed projects and developments in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impacts etc) Regulations 1999 The document which is submitted with the application and which sets out the findings of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the EIA Regulations.
AOD Assessment Years
Attenuation Pond Backfill Biodiversity Bridge Bridge Deck
Bridge Soffit Cantilever Capping Beam Carriageway Conduits Contamination Cross Sections Culvert Demolition Do Minimum Baseline
Earthworks Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Environmental Statement (ES)
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Term European Landscape Convention Description The European Landscape Convention (ELC) is the first international convention to focus specifically on landscape, and is dedicated exclusively to the protection, management and planning of all landscapes in Europe. The ELC was signed by the UK government on 24 February 2006, ratified on the 21 November 2006, and became binding on 1 March 2007. The finished ground level A bridge provided solely for the use of foot and cycle traffic A path for walkers or people on foot The formation and shaping of ground. The Formation Topographical Level is the level achieved before construction layering to obtain the finished topographical level (top ground level) The steepness of a slope or rate at which the height increases over length Lines linking areas of equal elevation High Voltage Electricity Cables See Manhole The Landscape Character Network is a free-to-join, informal, information-sharing network dedicated to landscape - delivering news, resources, links and events on Landscape Character Assessment and the European Landscape Convention. A series of homogenous landscape description units (LDUs) based on national datasets for natural and cultural attributes A subterranean inspection point or area to service utilities Open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can also act as a visual amenity Ordnance Survey Grid Reference refers to an area or coordinate of the national grid network The clean up of contaminated soil to make it suitable and safe for future use A wall required to support a higher land or ground level Rights of way are paths on which the public have a legally protected right to travel. All public rights of way are highways in law Road and rights of way closures necessary to facilitate land remediation, site enabling works and the construction of facilities and infrastructure
Finished Topographical Level Footbridge Footpath Formation Topographical Level Gradients Ground Contours HV Cables Inspection Chamber Landscape Character Network Landscape Description Units Manhole Open Space
OS Grid Reference Remediation Retaining Wall Rights of Way Road Closures
Scheme for Assessment The proposed development for which permission is sought and subject of the environmental impact assessment and transport assessment Service Diversion Service Duct Site Compound Soil Strata Stockpiling Statutory Consultation Substructure Surface Area The diversion of utility services which currently exist within the site which are to be diverted A pipe that carries a utility service i.e. gas, electricity or telecommunications An area with a dedicated use on a construction site Layers within the soil that can be defined by the grain typology, void space or moisture content The storing of construction or related material on site for future use and application Compulsory consultation with the community, interested parties or key stakeholders which is required under a law, rule or regulation The substructure of a bridge encompasses all foundations, piers and abutments upon which the deck of the bridge rests A portion of space having length and breadth but no thickness
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Term Temporary Topography Description Facilities and infrastructure which are to be provided temporarily for the purposes of construction and which will be removed prior to opening of the road The relief features or surface configuration of an area, including natural features such as mountains and rivers and constructed features such as roads and railways Concrete walls with angled sides for the purpose of erosion containment and soil support
Variable Message Signs Electronic sign providing latest information Wing Walls
Abbreviations
Abbreviation % ile AADT AAWT AOD AONB AQMA AQS AST BAP BGS CCC CLR CMS CO
2
Definition Percentile Average Annual Daily Traffic (24 hour day, 365 days per year) Average Annual Weekday Traffic (18 hour day, weekdays only) Above Ordnance Datum Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Strategy Appraisal Summary Table Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Cambridgeshire County Council Contaminated Land Report Construction Method Statement Carbon Dioxide Code of Construction Practice Compulsory Purchase Order Council for the Protection of Rural England Calculation of Road Traffic Noise Conceptual Site Model County Wildlife Sites Decibel Department for Community and Local Government Department of Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (no longer exists) Department for Transport Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency) Department for Trade and Industry Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Environment Agency East Cambridgeshire District Council English Heritage
CoCP CPO CPRE CRTN CSM CWSs dB DCLG Defra DETR DfT DMRB DTI DTLR EA ECDC EH
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Abbreviation EHO EIA EN ES EPA EPAQA EU GIS GLVIA GQA ha HCV IANs IDB IEEM km kph LEZ LDF LDU LMVR LPA m m m
2 3
Definition Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment English Nature (now part of Natural England) Environmental Statement Environmental Protection Act Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards European Union Geographic Information Systems Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment General Water Quality hectare(s) Heavy Commercial Vehicle Interim Advice Notes Internal Drainage Board Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management kilometre(s) kilometres per hour Low Emissions Zone Local Development Framework Landscape Description Units Local Model Validation Report Local Planning Authority metres square metre(s) cubic metre(s) miles per hour Not available or not applicable National Grid Company Non Motorised Users Nitrous Oxide Nitrogen Dioxide National Society for Clean Air Non Technical Summary Option Appraisal Report Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Ordnance Survey Personal Injury Accidents Particulates Potential Contaminant Linkage parts per billion Planning Policy Guidelines Planning Policy Statements Primary Road Network
Mph N/a or n/a NGC NMUs NO NO2 NSCA NTS OAR ODPM OS PIAs PM10 PCL ppb PPG PPS PRN
10
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Abbreviation PVB RDB RSI RSS RTB RTS S106 Sec SI SINC SLI SPA SPG Sqm SSI SUDs TA TAA TAG mg/m u/ha VADMA WebTAG WHO
3
Definition Present Value Benefits Red Data Book Road Side Interview Regional Spatial Strategy Regional Transport Board Regional Transport Strategy Section 106 second(s) Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Local Importance (for nature conservation) Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Guidance Square metres Site of Special Scientific Interest Sustainable Drainage Systems Transport Assessment Technical Approval Authority Transport Analysis Guidance micrograms per cubic metre Units per Hectare Variable Demand Modelling Advice Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance World Health Organisation
11
(this page has been left intentionally blank)
1.
1.1.
Introduction
Scheme Background
The Scheme is proposed to address capacity issues on the A142 Angel Drove and Station Road in Ely. The A142 passes under the Ely to Kings Lynn railway line via a low bridge (2.74m high), with heavy commercial vehicles (HCV) traffic having to use a level crossing to the east of the under bridge resulting in congestion on Angel Drove and Station Road. A Location Plan and Scheme Layout are included in Appendix A.
1.2.
Purpose of the Scoping Report
The guidance published by the Government for the preparation of Environmental Assessments of road schemes is contained in Department of Transport the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Environmental Assessment. This sets out both the general process and the methods for assessing individual environmental topics and has been applied to the Ely Southern Bypass. Prior to the commencement of works on the environmental assessment it is best practice to establish the scope of the Environmental Statement (ES). The objective of this Scoping Report is to identify the environmental topics to be taken into account in respect of the Ely Southern Bypass and to set out the methodology for assessment. In summary, the Scoping Report will: Define the study area for each topic; Assess the current state of knowledge of baseline conditions and identify where further survey work will be required; Define the survey and assessment methodologies to be used; Provide information on the likely significant effects of the Scheme; Outline the proposed approach to consultation; Outline the environmental impact assessment process; Outline the criteria for assessing significance of effects; Describe the Scheme to be assessed; Set out the environmental design strategy and potential mitigation measures for the Scheme; Summarise the key environmental issues which the Scheme may raise; Set out the proposed format for the Environmental Statement.
1.3.
1.3.1.
Structure of the Scoping Report

Range of Topics
The structure of this scoping report is intended generally to reflect the structure proposed for the ES. Following this introduction, the next five chapters provide information about the Scheme, its development and approach to environmental impact assessment: The need for the Scheme; Scheme description including description of traffic and transport; Alternatives considered; Consultation; Approach to environmental impact assessment.
The topic assessments then follow the structure: Plans and Policies;
13
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Traffic and transport; Air Quality; Cultural Heritage; Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity; Nature Conservation; Geology and Soils; Materials; Noise and Vibration; Effects on All Travellers; Community and Private Assets; Road Drainage and the Water Environment.
An assessment of relevant policies and plans will be outlined and assessed in the topic chapters of the ES and covered in the Planning Statement accompanying the application. A summary of the findings, including a discussion of potential cumulative impacts, then completes the document.
1.3.2.
Interrelationships between Topics
Inevitably, in any reporting of environmental effects, there will be potential for overlap between the identified topics headings, not least because of the need to maintain a practicable size and structure to the topic chapters. The environmental design will contain and combine all the measures to be included in the Scheme to limit adverse effects and maximise beneficial effects, beyond the underlying decisions on the route planning and highway layout. This will therefore include planting for screening, integration and habitat creation, earthworks, walls and fences for noise and visual screening, waterbodies and watercourses for drainage, water cleansing and where suitable - habitat creation, realignment of public rights of way and protection of existing environmental features. There are particularly strong relationships between certain assessment topics, which will be approached as follows: The Landscape, Townscape and Visual assessment in Chapter 10 will incorporate the historic and cultural value of places in its assessment of the value of the environmental resource, where as the Cultural Heritage Chapter 9 will address the significance of the heritage assets and setting and the effects of the Scheme on the historic fabric and pattern of the settlements and the landscape, including the historic setting; In Chapter 11 Nature Conservation, biodiversity assessment will draw upon the modelling of air quality and noise effects on sensitive sites for terrestrial habitats and on the assessment of effects on water quality for aquatic habitats; Public rights of way are essentially facilities of community value, but as this scheme will have substantial effects on the pattern of movement in the locality, both on and off road, they are included in the separate assessment of pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists in Chapter 15 Effects on All Travellers; Drainage and the Water Environment assessment also covers flood risk and effects on groundwater; with the assessment of potential pollution sources being covered in the Materials chapter. Assessment of the resultant land uses and capabilities are covered in Chapter 16 Community and Private Assets that includes rural land use and agricultural land quality.
1.4.
Consultation on Scoping
Where indicated in topic chapters consultation has been undertaken with stakeholders. Further consultation will be undertaken during the design and environmental impact assessment process. Although scoping may be considered as the first stage in the EIA process, the scope will be kept under review throughout, so that the assessment can be refined in the light of new issues that emerge from the results of environmental surveys, design changes, or consultation responses.
14
2.
2.1.
The Need for the Scheme

Transport problem and need for intervention
A transport improvement scheme is needed to reduce congestion on Angel Drove and Station Road on the south east edge of Ely. The A142 passes under the Ely to Kings Lynn railway line via a low bridge (2.74m high), with heavy commercial vehicle (HCV) traffic having to use a level crossing to the east of the under bridge. The A142 through Ely carries approximately 15,000 vehicles a day, of which 8% are HCV. This traffic causes severance between the railway station and a local supermarket with the rest of the city, particularly to pedestrians and cyclists. The implementation of better intra-regional train services for the East of England and an increase in freight movements on the FelixstoweNuneaton Corridor has meant that the level crossing is increasingly closed to road traffic and is causing difficulties in terms of congestion. At peak times, and increasingly during off-peak periods, HCV traffic form queues that back onto the main carriageway, blocking access to the under bridge for smaller vehicles. This occasionally results in gridlock when queues block the Station Road roundabout. Work is currently underway to complete the upgrades of the Ipswich to Peterborough section of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton Strategic Freight Route. Once this is completed in 2014 the frequency and length of freight trains will increase further. The Train Operating Companies also have aspirations to increase the frequency of passenger services on the line. Additional trains will result in more and longer level crossing closures, increasing congestion and delays. In addition, the railway under bridge currently has the third highest vehicle strike rate in the country. Collisions with the bridge result in disruption to the railway, as well as to other traffic, as it is necessary to close the railway to inspect the bridge after each reported strike. A Location Plan is included in Appendix A.
2.2.
2.2.1.
Existing Transport Conditions

Road
Road network - The City of Ely lies at the crossroads of the north-south A10 Primary Road between Kings Lynn and Cambridge and the east-west A142 Primary Road between Newmarket and Chatteris (OS grid Reference 554 780). The A10 bypasses Ely but the A142 continues to pass through the outskirts of the City, carrying some 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday of which about 1,200 are heavy commercial vehicles. It carries both local traffic between Chatteris, Ely, Soham and Newmarket and provides regional access to the Fens from the trunk road network. When the A14 is blocked, Earith Sutton Ely and Newmarket becomes an alternative route, but with the railway crossing at Ely being a significant pinch point. Significant periods of down time at level crossing, height constraint on bridge The level crossing has an average of 8 closures per hour, and is closed for an average of 35 minutes per hour over a typical 12-hour day (7am to 7pm). Network Rails proposals for more train paths and longer trains (see below) means that the closure time would increase to a minimum of 40 minutes per hour by 2014, and is likely to increase further post 2014. The height of the adjacent underpass is too low for HCVs and buses, and no alternative routes are available for traffic on the A142, except for a 4 mile diversion between Soham and Ely via the A1123 (through Wicken and Stretham) and then the A10. The A1123 is a Main Distributor Road, whilst the A10 is part of the Primary Road Network (PRN). Bridge strikes - The railway under bridge currently has the third highest vehicle strike rate in the country, with on average one bridge strike per month. Collisions with the bridge result in disruption to the railway, as well as to other traffic, as it is necessary to inspect the bridge after each reported
15
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report strike. The bridge strikes typically involve camper vans, transit and rental vans where the drivers would more usually drive a car. These types of vehicles often become stuck under the bridge, causing further disruption to other traffic whilst the offending vehicle is being released. Queuing of HCVs back onto the through traffic lane, delays for through traffic and traffic accessing Ely from the East, delays for buses on Angel Drove and Station Road, poor access to the station Long and frequent closures of the rail level crossing, and the high number of HCVs using the A142, combine to create regular queuing of HCVs back onto the through traffic lanes, affecting traffic in general. AM peak period queues reach 380m southbound and 1.1km northbound, and often block the A142 through lanes (using the under bridge) for long periods. The miniroundabout at the Angel Drove-Station Road junction, and the priority junction at the rail station access, are both approaching capacity. Unpredictable journey times Uncertainty / variability regarding length of queue, barrier down time, and blocking on the main carriageway leads to unpredictable journey times and driver frustration, and which is magnified by the bridge strike incidents. Community severance from the railway station and local supermarket, poor walking and cycling environment The A142 carries some 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday of which about 1,200 are heavy commercial vehicles. High volumes of traffic and congestion on the existing A142 cause severance between the railway station and the local Tesco supermarket, off Angel Drove, and the City. This limits opportunities for walking and cycling. The Ely Market Town Transport Strategy proposes a number of cycle routes across Ely, including a route between the City Centre, the Rail Station and Stuntney. A more cycle-friendly traffic environment is important in ensuring new opportunities for cycling are realised. Poor access to the national road network Congestion and poor journey time reliability on this section of the A142 limits access to the Fens and the trunk road system, for through and local traffic. The A142 is part of the Primary Route Network (PRN). Under the EU Directive 89/460/EC, the PRN must provide unrestricted access to 40 tonne vehicles. It could be argued that the current constraints at the rail crossing mean that this is not currently the case. Traffic related noise and air pollution High traffic flows and queued traffic make the environment along the A142 unpleasant and intimidating, and results in poor noise and air quality for those working and residing in the vicinity. Road safety 46 accidents were reported within the study area between 2007 and 2011, and provisionally to end of March 2012 (Figure 2.1): 1 fatal, 10 serious and 35 slight accidents. Analysis suggests that a primary contributory factor in five of the accidents could be the traffic conditions (particularly queuing) in advance of the level crossing. An additional five accidents were recorded at the junction at Queen Adelaide Way. Analysis suggests that drivers are accepting smaller gaps and not observing traffic conditions when executing right turn manoeuvres when exiting the side road onto the A142. The high traffic flow and frequent queues that form south of the crossing may be a contributory factor. Other accident clusters are located at the junction of Back Hill and Broad Street on the approach to the City Centre (a number of which involved cyclists), and at the roundabout at the A142 Bridge Street / Angel Drove junction. Future traffic growth Traffic modelling work undertaken in 2011 shows that significant traffic growth is expected by 2031 (from 8,033 trips in the AM peak in 2011 to 10,619 in 2031), with average speed in the town decreasing from 62 to 51 kph. This will exacerbate the issues described above. Enabling population and economic growth In the face of continuing population growth, the challenge presented to Elys transport network is to sustainably support an economically vibrant, multi-functional City while preserving the unique character and heritage that gives Ely its identity.
16
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Enabling growth to take place in Ely without undue congestion is essential to the future success of the City. Figure 2.1: Reported accidents between 2007 - 2011, and provisionally to end of March 2012
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council
2.2.2.
Rail
Rail network The station lies on the Fen Line from Cambridge to King's Lynn. Three other nonelectrified lines meet at Ely: the Breckland Line to Thetford and Norwich; the line to March and Peterborough; and the line to Ipswich. Four Train Operating Companies serve a wide variety of destinations including Cambridge, Stansted Airport, London (King's Cross and Liverpool Street), Ipswich, Norwich, King's Lynn, Peterborough, Leicester, Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool. Station footfall is approximately 1.8 million per year, or 3,500 passengers per day. Since 2005, patronage has increased by 27.5%, above the national average. Passenger trains play a major role in reducing congestion on the A10. The line is also important in freight terms, lying on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton Strategic Freight Route. Bridge / crossing strikes The bridge is the third most struck railway under bridge in the region with 62 bridge strikes over the five year period 2006 to 2011 inclusive. On each occasion railway services are disrupted whilst the structure of the under bridge is checked by engineers. Crossing strikes are equally common, and again, rail services are restricted until the incident is cleared and safety measures put in place.
17
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Safety issues associated with the level crossing On an average weekday there are 191 passenger and 46 freight movements across the level crossing. Safety to rail and road users is a prime consideration. The current crossing is monitored and operated remotely by a signaller in Cambridge, who uses CCTV to check that the crossing is clear of people and vehicles before closing the barriers and clearing the signals for trains to proceeds. It is the safest form of level crossing. Support for closure of the level crossing There is currently a national campaign to improve the safety of level crossings or promote closures where alternatives exist. Benefits include a reduction in ongoing maintenance costs, and a reduction in delays caused by failures or bridge strikes. Network Rail and the Train Operating Companies would therefore support closure of the crossing, providing that the alternative would not worsen access to the station. Future rail growth Rail traffic is set to increase. More passenger services are expected, due to the Thameslink / Intercity Express Programme, more trains between Cambridge and Stansted, an improved hourly Ipswich to Peterborough service, and franchise changes. Nationally, Network Rail is planning for a doubling of freight traffic over the next 30 years. The impact on Ely will be significant due to its location on the network. Many additional trains will run outside the peak periods, but there will still be an increase in barrier down time. Work is currently underway to complete the upgrades to the Ipswich to Peterborough section which passes through Ely, as part of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route improvements. Proposals indicate that there will be a possible 18 additional freight trains per day by 2014 which could increase level crossing closure times by between 4 to 6 minutes per hour, bringing a potential closure time to an average of 40 minutes per hour. Further closures up to 2020 are difficult to predict but the situation is likely to get significantly worse, particularly as passenger services increase. This will worsen queuing currently experienced at the rail crossing, causing a small proportion of road traffic to potentially reassign onto less suitable roads such as the A1123 between Soham and Stretham, through the village of Wicken, for which there are possible plans to mitigate locally. Environmental benefits The environmental benefits of rail freight are significant. Each freight train takes about 60 lorries off the road, and rail freight generates 6 times less CO2 than road freight, per tonne moved.
2.3.
Summary of Challenges
The justification of need can be summarised as follows: The A142 carries some 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday through the outskirts of the City, of which about 1,200 are HCVs. The high volume of traffic creates severance between the rail station / adjacent Tesco supermarket and the City Centre for pedestrians and cyclists, and results in a poor safety environment for road users and pedestrians on Angel Drove. The railway crossing creates a pinch point on the road network. The resulting congestion impacts on all road users, and causes: delays and unpredictable journey times for through traffic (including HCVs) and local traffic (within Ely and from the surrounding villages); poor access to the station for cars and buses; noise and air quality issues which contribute to an unattractive environment for cyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity of the station.
Congestion at the crossing will increase in the absence of intervention: Network Rail is planning substantial growth in passenger and freight services which will increase barrier down time from 35 to 40 minutes per hour by 2014, and further post 2014;
18
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report the Core Strategy (adopted 2009) identifies Ely as the most significant service and population centre in the district, and the main focus for housing, employment and retail growth in East Cambridgeshire;
Enabling growth to take place in Ely without undue congestion is essential to the future success of the City; Proposals for more train paths and longer trains, means that the time and cost implications of bridge strikes and level crossing failures will become increasingly significant for Network Rail, the Train Operating Companies, and rail passengers unless mitigation measures are implemented; There is potential to develop the station as a public transport interchange and a key gateway to the City as part of the ECDC Station Gateway proposals; and hence promote greater use of sustainable travel modes and increase the role of rail in reducing congestion on the A10. This opportunity is currently being hindered by a poor station environment (poor air quality, noise, poor visual appearance), poor access to the station for cars and buses, severance issues associated with the high volume of traffic on the A142 which limits opportunities for walking and cycling between the station and the City Centre; The A142 is part of the Primary Route Network (PRN). Under EU Directive 89/460/EC, the PRN must provide unrestricted access to 40 tonne vehicles.
19
3.
Alternatives Considered
The ES will summarise the options that have been considered during the development of the scheme to improve the A142. Since work to address the transport problem commenced in 2002, a long list of options has been refined down to five which received further assessment in the 2012 Option Appraisal Report (OAR), in accordance with Department for Transport guidelines. They reflect a long history of option and scheme development to address capacity issues associated with the railway crossing, and have emerged over time through a series of formal and informal Council decisions, reports, consultations and bids for Department of Transport funding. The bypass options initially considered are shown in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Bypass options initially considered
Route D Route A Route B
Route F
Route E
Route C
3.1.
Consultation and Options
The process of option and scheme development began in 2002, and has evolved through a series of formal and informal Council decisions, reports, consultations and bids for Department for Transport funding. Five options were identified as being worthy of further assessment at a seminar in July 2011, attended by the local MP Jim Pale, representatives of the County Council, the District Council, the
21
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report City of Ely Council, Network Rail, and major stakeholders. They comprised two bypass options, underpass improvements and two low cost intervention options, and were: Bypass Route B Bypass Route D Underpass Improvements HCV Stacking Area HCV Queuing Lane
A public consultation, providing information about the options, took place in October/November 2011. The response to this and other consultations will be detailed in the Consultation Report accompanying the planning application. Figure 3.2: Options considered within this report
3.1.1.
Bypass Route D
Option D (Figure 3.3) would run to the south of Ely, commencing from a roundabout on the existing A142 Angel Drove east of its existing junction with the A10 and run eastwards to rejoin the A142 Stuntney Causeway at a point located between the railway crossing and the Great Ouse river crossing (Ely High Bridge).
22
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Figure 3.3: Bypass Route D Option
Playing fields
Diversion and modification to historic footpath required
Viaduct spanning both rail lines (max 10.5m in height, 30 metres in width).
Figure 3.4: Bypass Route B Option
Viaduct spanning River Great Ouse and both rail lines (max: 10.5m in height).
3.1.2.
Bypass Route B
The proposed route, Option B (Figure 3.4), would run to the south of Ely, commencing from a roundabout on the existing A142 Angel Drove east of its existing junction with the A10 and run
23
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report eastwards to rejoin the A142 Stuntney Causeway at a roundabout south of its junction with Queen Adelaide Way.
3.1.3.
Underpass Improvements
The A142 passes underneath the railway line via Ely under bridge and over the railway using a level crossing. The Underpass has a clearance of about 2.74m, which restricts the height of vehicles using it. The headroom of the level crossing is about 5.3m due to it passing underneath the railway overhead electrical system. Both of the routes are subject to a 30 mph speed limit. The option assessed within the Option Appraisal Report (OAR) would entail lowering the carriageway to provide the 5.3m headroom requirement and widening the existing carriageway and footpath. The new underpass design would accommodate a 7.3m carriageway with 0.5m verge and a 2.0m wide footway. Additional footpath/ cycleway provision could be provided through a 3m wide box culvert that would form part of the bridge structure; this footway has not been allowed for in the costings. Land take is approximately 0.20ha, affecting Standons, the station car-park (but unlikely to result in loss of parking spaces), and Kings School Playing Fields (but unlikely to significantly affect amenity value).
3.1.4.
Stacking Option
This is a low cost option for segregating and holding vehicles over 2.7m high (HCVs, buses and camper vans) in designated waiting areas through the provision of stacking areas, so as to enable the free flow of vehicles able to use the underpass. The stacking areas would consist of specifically constructed parking facilities, in the form of either parking areas of parking lay-bys. The option assessed within the OAR would comprise a 20 bay stacking park on the east side of the railway and an 18 bay stacking lay-by on the west side. The park would be linked to rail crossing barrier, permitting only 3 vehicles to be released at any one time to prevent queuing and to avoid blocking access to the Underpass.
3.1.5.
Queuing Option
The provision of queuing lanes down the centre of the A142 before the was considered as a low cost option for segregating and holding vehicles over 2.7m high in selected waiting areas, permitting the free flow of vehicles able to use the Underpass. The option assessed within the OAR entailed a single queuing lane for westbound traffic (from Queen Adelaide Way and across Ely High Bridge) and no facilities provided for eastbound traffic (beyond that currently provided from the level crossing back to the Bridge Road / Angel Drove roundabout.
3.2.
Appraisal of the Options
The short listed options were assessed against the 5 five business case model (Strategic, Value for Money, Financial, Delivery, and Commercial), and drew on evidence available from a range of sources, including: Wider policy documents, including East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy, Cambridgeshires Third Local Transport Plan, Ely Masterplan, etc.; a SATURN-based transport model and bespoke spreadsheet model focusing on the interaction of car and HCV movements in the vicinity of the crossing; environmental assessments; analysis of available datasets (e.g. accident data provided by CCC); and previous and supporting studies (e.g. Ely Setting Study, Atkins, May 2012; Ely Road Bridge Road Clearance Improvement Feasibility Study Report, Atkins, May 2012).
24
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report The findings of the Option Appraisal Report (OAR) are summarised below. The two Bypass options and the Underpass Improvement (online deepening and widening) are considered viable options in terms of a Strategic, Value for Money, Financial, Delivery and Commercial context: Of the two Bypass options, Route B is considered to provide a stronger overall business case across the above criteria; Both Bypass options would provide a large or moderate beneficial impact in terms of transport-related intervention objectives, due to a significant reduction in traffic on A142 Angel Drove and Station Road. They similarly perform well against the high level goals relating to strategic road and rail movements, including maintaining the ability of the A142 as part of the Primary Road Network to facilitate the movement of all traffic, and supporting the delivery of increased levels of freight and passenger rail services (by reducing the risk of line closure due to bridge strikes by HCVs and level crossing failures. However, Route B is most effective (across all options) in terms of reducing journey times for through traffic and creating a road network which supports the expansion of Ely in the long term; Environmentally both Bypass options result in net benefits to the number of properties experiencing noise and air pollution but there are likely to be significant adverse impacts to landscape character and particularly in relation to the quintessential views of Ely and the Cathedral. Land take is generally from habitats of low value that can be mitigated. Greenhouse gas emissions would increase; Route B is the preferred option in terms of stakeholder and public support, but significant concerns have been raised by English Heritage regarding its impact on the quintessential views of Ely and its cathedral; Route D results in loss of the playing fields at Kings School, which are used by both the school and local community groups. Any re-allocated land would need to be away from the school and would not allow the same level of (bus-free) access and use. Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless an assessment has shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or that the loss resulting from proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision which clearly outweigh the loss.
Route D also has some deliverability challenges: The road design would not be fully compliant with DMRB (the Highways Agencys Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) geometric standards; Construction of a new three arm roundabout on the A142 would cause traffic disruption due to its proximity to the level crossing and Great Ouse river crossing, Ely High Bridge; Visibility on the approaches to the new three arm roundabout would be restricted from both the underpass and Great Ouse river crossing, Ely High Bridge; and There is only moderate stakeholder and public support for this option.
The Underpass option shows mixed performance against Strategic and Value for Money themes, but there are some significant challenges associated with Delivery: Deepening and widening of the underpass does not remove traffic from A142 Angel Drove and Station Road, and does not address severance issues or improve walking and cycling opportunities between the rail station and the City Centre. In addition, it would be only marginally beneficial in terms of reducing journey times for through traffic and creating a network which supports major expansion of Ely in the long term. Furthermore, the option does not enable closure of the existing A142 Station Road and would prejudice the delivery of Station Gateway concept (although these proposals currently have no status, and further concept designs are being drawn up). However, this option is more effective than either of
25
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report the Bypass options in terms of reducing the risk of vehicle strikes at the railway bridge and the level crossing; and reducing delays to bus services between Ely and Newmarket; The option is largely neutral environmentally because of existing degraded land and landscapes in the area, but involves some land take affecting habitats. The scheme would deliver a small decrease in CO2 emissions and some negligible noise improvements; Implementation would result in severe disruption due to the need to close the A142 for several months during construction. Possessions need to be agreed with Network Rail to close the rail line (generally requires two years notice); The option has very little stakeholder and public support overall.
The two HCV Stacking Bays / Queuing Lanes are considered non-viable in terms of their operation. They are also considerably less effective in terms of addressing the range of transportrelated objectives and high level goals identified. Only Bypass Route B and the HCV Queuing options represent high value for money in BCR terms, with BCRs of 2.69 and 2.09 respectively. Bypass D represents the poorest value for money, with costs outweighing benefits, resulting in a BCR of just 0.88. All options would be funded through Prudential Borrowing, and to a less extent developer and third party contributions (scale of contributions to be determined and dependent on the option chosen).
The Bypass and Underpass options would be procured through an OJEU tendering process with a standard ICE contract. The HCV stacking and queuing options would be commercially tendered or procured through Cambridgeshire County Councils existing contract networks. Bypass Route B is the only option with a strong / favourable delivery case. There are no significant buildability, construction or operational viability issues; partnership working across delivery agents would be relatively straightforward; and the scheme has strong stakeholder and public support overall. There are, nevertheless, environmental concerns, including those raised by English Heritage regarding the impact of a raised structure on the quintessential views of Ely and its cathedral. They will be addressed in the ES but, in promoting this option, it is considered that the benefits it will bring will outweigh those impacts and that careful design and mitigation will result in acceptable integration with the historic landscape.
26
4.
4.1.

Scheme Description
Scheme Objectives
Objectives for intervention are set out in a number of policy documents including the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy (2009), and the third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) (2011-2015). Reduce journey times on the A142 for longer distance traffic travelling between the A10 and A14 corridors; Reduce risk of vehicle strikes at the rail bridge and level crossing, and reduce risks of delays to rail services; Reduce noise and improve air quality in the Station Road area of Ely; Reduce congestion in the vicinity of the rail station relieve increased congestion associated with the underpass / level crossing and increased development traffic; Improve accessibility to the station for all transport modes; Reduce delays to bus services between Ely and Newmarket; Reduce accidents.
Given the environmental constraints, particularly the importance of the views, landscape character and quality of the setting, an additional intervention objective is also been included: Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment, heritage and landscape and seek solutions that deliver long term environmental benefits and demonstrate compliance at a local level (Refer to Chapter 6 Planning and Policies): Foster development which encourages walking, cycling, and public transport use; Benefit economic activity and enhance the environment; Be located sensitively; Conserve wildlife and natural features; Integrate planning and transport to promote more sustainable choices.
4.2.

Project Programme
The principal dates for the project are expected to be: Submission of the planning application in April 2013; Start of construction April 2014, assuming that the Orders are submitted in March 2013 without objection, and End of Notice to Treat Period December 2013; Opening Year of the Scheme Summer 2015; What may be termed the Future Year for assessment purposes of 2031, which has been taken as approx 15 years after Scheme opening.
4.3.
Highways Design
The principal elements of the preferred scheme are: The proposed route is a 1.7km, 7.3m single carriageway road with 1m hard strips running from the A142 Angel Drove to the A142 Stuntney Causeway. The road heads east on a low embankment from the proposed Angel Drove roundabout, rising to cross over both the Cambridge to Kings Lynn and Newmarket to Ely railway lines. It then sweeps north east passing over the Great Ouse River (3.2m navigable headroom), flood plain and flood banks before continuing on a low embankment to a new roundabout on Stuntney Causeway;
27
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report The road will be designed to the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges with a 60mph design speed and is to comply with best industry practices and be as sympathetic to the environment as is practicable; Improved facilities for NMUs are to be provided where possible (particularly at the existing underpass) and are to comply with the requirements of the Local Highway Authority; Surface water drainage is to be discharged into IDB drains or into the River via pollution control devices and attenuated as necessary to the approval of both the EA and the IDBs. The continuity of the existing drainage network will be maintained by providing culverts under the route of the Crossing.
4.4.
Structures Design
Structural options for both the rail and river crossings will be considered by the project team in consultation with the Bridge Architects Knights, to select and design the optimum solution during design development in relation to the scheme objectives and the following: The surrounding environment; Local topography and geology; Aesthetics, details and finishes; Buildability (including the Contractors preferred methods of construction); Durability and maintainability; Whole life costs.
4.5.
Earthworks Design
Earthworks design will be in accordance to current design standards and will be required to allow the construction of the new roundabouts, low rise embankments and the high rise approach embankments associated to the proposed bridges. Due to the poor ground conditions in the area, ground improvement techniques and lightweight fill materials are to be considered for the embankments. As part of the earthworks design consideration will be given to the extents of soft ground areas and selection of appropriate treatment works together with the stability of proposed embankment slopes and settlement. All earthworks design will be in accordance to current design standards which will include: Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design; British Standards: Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Volume 4.
4.6.
Lighting and Signs
Lighting for the bypass would be restricted to the two roundabouts. Requirements to tie into adjacent lighting systems less then 200m from the proposed system means the western roundabout lighting would extend to the A10 roundabout to the west. Light spill will be kept at a minimum and approved by the Environment Agency. Conventional roadside signage is to be provided which is to be kept to the minimum necessary to adequately inform road users and will be to the requirements of the Local Highway Authority. The lighting and signs design is to comply with the following: The requirements of all relevant British Standards and BSENs;
28
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report The requirements of the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Volume 8 and the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions.
4.7.
Environmental Design
Environmental design is an integral part of the Scheme development, including the delivery of successful mitigation and long term environmental benefits. The scheme design will take into account the important views, landscape character and quality of the setting of a number of important designated heritage assets as well as the environmental constraints identified as part of the baseline desk study, survey and consultation.
4.7.1.
Environmental Design Objectives
Air Quality Design junction improvements to maximise the free flow of traffic and optimise vehicle speeds. Ensure that the AQS objectives for any pollutant are not exceeded. Ensure that there would be an overall improvement in air quality, with more properties having an improvement, than a deterioration, in air quality as a result of the Scheme. Cultural Heritage Using integrated landscape design and off-line planting to integrate development into grain of historic landscape and reduce visibility of the Scheme in views across area; Ensuring appropriate provision is made for professional archaeological investigation of any remains; Developing engineering solutions that deliver a high quality structure that can be clearly read and understood as a new element of infrastructure in the historic landscape. Landscape Follow principles set out in the Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines in developing the landscape design for the Scheme; Follow an integrated approach to environmental and engineering design, including liaison with environmental specialists to develop a landscape design that helps to mitigate the Scheme and provide additional environmental benefits; Consider important views of Ely cathedral and the historic city and how these are experienced by sensitive receptors including walkers, cyclists and people approaching the city by boat along the Great
Ouse River;
Provide a pleasant environment for all travellers, including the retention of attractive views from the road and PROW where possible; Maximise the positive aspects of the Scheme and its surroundings through creative design and use of local materials, including planting. This would enhance the local sense of place and historic character, with emphasis on environmental quality and sustainability; Reflect existing landscape character and retain existing features. Create opportunities to improve landscape character through an integrated approach to mitigation providing adequate land for tree planting; Give careful consideration to the location and design of lighting to minimise impacts at both day and night; Develop opportunities to screen existing views of the Angel Droves business park and proposed future development; Specific landscape mitigation measures, such as proposed planting, should be in character with the surroundings; Embankments and earth shaping should consider the surrounding landscape character in the design; Maximise the opportunity for soft landscape and mitigation measures including the acquisition of small, but important, parcels of land to mitigate, for example, the junction improvements.
29
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Implement advance planting and mitigation measures in strategic locations to mitigate potential residual effects; Choose the route least damaging to the landscape by respecting the existing landform and avoiding disruption of major topographical features.
Nature Conservation Minimise impacts on CWSs and mitigate adequately by translocation or habitat creation on new verges; Avoid runoff affecting designated sites of nature conservation interest and watercourses; Avoid loss of or disturbance to habitats known to support protected species; Where protected species may be affected, ensure appropriate and sufficient mitigation strategies can be included within the design; Integrate nature conservation and landscape design for the road to enhance habitats and maximise opportunities for habitat creation, in accordance with HA and local biodiversity action plans; Exploit any opportunities to mitigate existing severance issues. Noise and Vibration The design will include measures to reduce the impact of noise increases, including the use of quieter road surfacing material to help mitigate the impact on the tranquillity of riverside approaches and sensitive receptors, including walkers, cyclists and people approaching the city by boat along the Great Ouse River. All Travellers Ensure public rights of way are maintained and that high quality crossings of the strategic route are provided for vulnerable users; Maximise opportunities for improving facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly on the local access roads; Excessive increase in public transport trip lengths should be avoided. Community and Private Assets High quality land should not be used where lower quality land is available. Minimise land take. Minimise severance of agricultural holdings. Avoid the creation of parcels of land which are not economic to work. Avoid prejudicing other productive land uses by avoiding the creation of unworkable access arrangements, land take or severance. Maximise potential benefits to individual business/agricultural enterprises. Road Drainage and the Water Environment Maintain floodplain storage capacity. Ensure the Scheme does not result in increase in flooding potential on local watercourses. Ensure that water quality and hydromorphology are assessed to comply with Water Framework Directive Standards Ensure arrangements are put in place for the long term effectiveness of sustainable drainage solutions.
4.7.1.1.
Reporting
The Environmental Statement (ES) will report on the extent to which these objectives are met by the design of the Scheme. The environmental design drawings will be the principal illustrations for the Scheme in this section of the ES and will be provided in plan and section form.
30
4.8.
Construction
The construction of the Scheme would inevitably lead to disruption to both people and the natural environment, between the start of pre-construction works and the end of the contract maintenance period. Most disruption is likely to occur during the main phase of construction. Each individual environmental topic chapter will address construction impacts within the ES for ease of reference. Study Area and Approach The steps to be taken in the assessment of possible disruption are: To estimate the number of properties, highlighting any which are particularly sensitive to disruption; Note any areas/ features which might need to be protected or rescued; Estimate approximate likely quantities of borrow or surplus material associated with the Scheme; Discuss the possible need for borrow pits or disposal sites with the local planning authorities, noting any potential problems; Inform the local waste regulation authority, where appropriate, about borrow and surplus fill issues.
For assessment purposes an outline construction strategy agreed with the ECI Contractor, Jacksons, would be included in the ES and would form part of the description of the Scheme being assessed. This strategy would include information on: Contractors compounds, construction yards and lay-down areas. Options for transporting materials to site, the network of haul routes and access for construction staff ; The general logic of the construction sequence, particularly for more complex junctions and online widening sections. The general pattern of the traffic management requirements for the existing roads affected. The typical durations of construction operations, particularly for the complex or programme critical locations and where large structures are required. The typical types and quantities of construction plant required, so that affects on noise and emission levels can be estimated. The approximate quantities of key materials required for the works and the associated transport and storage implications. The strategy for the excavation of fill and soil materials, including their handling, storage, amelioration where needed, and re-use. The location and remediation of any directly associated borrow pits required to provide these construction materials. The control and treatment of surface and foul water throughout the construction site. Any agreements reached with third parties regarding environmental effects and controls, such as noise levels, working hours and so on. The management plan being developed to ensure appropriate control and monitoring of environmental matters during the construction period.
31
5.
5.1.
Approach to the EIA

Overview
Reporting of the assessment for each environmental topic follows a consistent structure: a. Introduction and Scope of Topic, which can include aspects of the project and policies and guidelines of particular relevance. b. Methodology, with detailed methodologies placed in the related Appendix where appropriate. c. Description of Baseline Conditions, including changes to the baseline between assessment periods, identification of relevant sensitive receptors and a summary of any modelling, measurements or surveys undertaken. d. A summary of the Influence of the Mitigation Measures. e. Description of Impacts according to whether they would be temporary or permanent many changes resulting from construction are permanent effects. f. Consideration of potential Cumulative Impacts with other topics and with other developments. Each topic chapter sets out the basis of the assessment method adopted and identifies the relevant section of DMRB Volume 11 that has been followed and any additional guidance that has been used. The aim is to provide the reader with a clear understanding of how the assessment has been undertaken. Thus aspects of the method are described logically in each chapter, as defined under subsequent sub-headings.
5.1.1.
Study Area and Timescale
The study area for the EIA will be defined for each topic in the appropriate chapters and will vary according to the environmental resource potentially affected. Some will relate to the spread of the effect from the new works proposed and some also include effects from the changes in the traffic pattern of the area as a result of the Scheme. The timescale is based on the programme in Chapter 4 and will run from the intended start of construction in April 2014 through the intended Opening Year of the Scheme in Summer 2015 to what is termed the Future Assessment year of 2031, which has been taken to be approx. 15 years after the Scheme opening. The assessment will cover all of the construction period as well as the changes in operational effects across the 15 year period; it will include the worst case conditions within this time for each assessment topic.
5.2.
Baseline Conditions
To establish baseline conditions for each of the environmental topics covered by the ES, a review of available information has been undertaken using various methods, including literature research, desktop review of previous reports and studies, site visits, site investigations, surveys and consultations. This Scoping Report also identifies the need to undertake further surveys required to provide a baseline of existing conditions adequate to provide a robust prediction of the environmental impacts of the Scheme. These surveys are summarised in the descriptions of the baseline conditions in the relevant topic chapters.
33
5.3.
Influence of Mitigation Measures
In recognition of the iterative design process required by DMRB Volume 11 and general good practice, the approach to the design of the Scheme will be to integrate mitigation by design into the proposal in order to secure environmental outcomes and benefits and then to add any further specific mitigation, such as planting needed to address adverse effects. These mitigating measures will be taken into account when assessing the Scheme. Appropriate choice of options at the layout and design refinement stages are usually the most effective means of achieving environmental aims. The general approach for mitigation by design follows this hierarchy: a. b. c. d. e. f. Identify constraints; Optimise beneficial effects; Avoid new adverse effects; Reduce new adverse effects; Remedy new adverse effects; Consider compensatory measures for new adverse effects, but only as a last resort where these effects cannot be avoided otherwise.
5.4.
Disruption due to Construction
The construction of this Scheme and the associated disruption to the patterns of traffic and other movements would have a considerable influence on the environment. Construction-related effects will therefore be covered as an intrinsic part of each topic assessment within this ES, rather than being dealt with as a separate issue. The principal distinction made is whether the effects would be temporary or permanent, rather than how they would be caused. Potential secondary effects may occur for rail user disruption, whilst unlikely, may arise from weekend working and night closures.
5.5.
Significance of Effects
The assessment will identify the potential impacts that might occur due to the construction and operation of the Scheme. Impacts may be adverse/negative or beneficial/positive, direct, indirect, secondary or cumulative, temporary or permanent, short, medium or long term. Impacts can affect the environment in a variety of ways. The differing parts of the environment affected by a scheme are known as receptors, i.e. those things that receive an impact from a scheme. Receptors can range from individual plants, animals or human beings living in or passing through the area, through to the landscape as a whole and the physical, ecological and cultural elements within it. The assessment of the impacts of the Scheme will be based on agreed mitigation measures being designed into the Scheme, taking account of any change in effectiveness over time, such as growth of planting, the establishment of new habitats or the change in noise generation from older road surfaces. Chapter 2 of DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5 introduces the general principle underlying the assessment process, which can be summarised generally, although not necessarily for every topic, as a three-step process: a. The evaluation of the value, importance or sensitivity of the receptors; b. Assessment of the magnitude of the impact of the Scheme on the receptor, be it adverse or beneficial; c. Determination of the significance of the effect resulting from combining the impact (of a certain magnitude) on a receptor (of a particular value). Significance criteria will be set out for each assessment topic following this three step approach.
34
5.6.
Scenarios: Do Minimum and Do Something
The environmental assessment process does not merely consider the effects of the Scheme (Do Something scenario) against the conditions as they are now, but instead makes the assessment against what is described as the Do Minimum scenario; that is, what could be reasonably expected to have occurred over the same timescale if the Scheme did not go ahead. This relates both to changes in the highway network and traffic conditions and changes to the local environment and development pattern.
35
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (this page has been left intentionally blank)
36
6.
6.1.
Plans and Policies

Introduction
The development is within the administrative area of East Cambridgeshire District Council and the county of Cambridgeshire. Planning applications are determined against current planning policy within the administrative areas and the National Planning Policy Framework. This is in compliance with The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) which requires decisions to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The 2004 Act introduced Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks to replace Structure and Local Plans. In July 2010 the Government announced its intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies as part of the Localism Bill. In November 2011 the Bill became an Act. All Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) are being assessed and it will be determined by the Secretary of State if the RSS should be revoked or remain. For the purposes of this Scheme, policy from the National Planning Policy Framework, Cambridgeshire County Council and East Cambridgeshire District Council are relevant. The ES will set out the planning policy context for the development, drawing on the plans and policies summarised below. An analysis of the degree of fit of the Scheme will be included within the ES together with any other factors material to consideration of the Planning Application.
6.2.
Methodology
The methodology used in the assessment will be derived from DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 12:
Impact of Road Schemes on Policies and Plans.
The scope of the assessment reflects the following assumptions: The assessment is not designed to be an exhaustive examination of every aspect of the Scheme and every policy which might conceivably be relevant to the area but concentrates on issues that are likely to be significant to the Scheme; The assessment does not include a review of international policies.
The assessment will use the criteria outlined in Table 6-1 in order to show how policy objectives would be facilitated or hindered by the Scheme. Table 6-1: Planning Assessment Criteria Assessmen Contribution to Achievement of Policy Objectives t Score Beneficial Neutral Adverse The Scheme contributes to, or is consistent with, the policy. A change that is neither positive nor negative in terms of the objectives of planning policies. The Scheme hinders, or is inconsistent with, the policy.
37
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report The assessment will be based upon professional value judgement of policy issues, addressing the nature, extent, likelihood and significance of the effect upon policy objectives; it draws on the findings from the individual topic assessment chapters in the ES. In reaching the overall assessment, judgement will be used to weigh up policies and proposals that are facilitated by the Scheme against those which are hindered. To allow judgements to be made in a structured way (and to provide an 'audit trail'), the approach adopted will consider each relevant topic, setting out the key national, regional and local transport and land use policies pertaining to that topic, followed by a summary of how the Scheme integrates with the objectives across all policy levels. In accordance with DMRB guidance, the assessment of integration will be included in the individual environmental topic assessment chapters. The assessment of the extent to which the objectives of the above topics are facilitated or hindered by the Scheme will consider the following: Weighting: the statutory status of the policy document. Context of the Integration: location-specific policies are given greater weight than non locationspecific policies. Permanence: whether the integration of the Scheme with policy objectives would be temporary (e.g. noise and air quality during construction) or permanent (e.g. irreversible changes to the baseline environment such as land take).
6.2.1.
Review of Planning and Policies
A desk study has been undertaken to inform this scoping stage to review key planning and transport policy documents outlined below.
6.2.2.
National Planning Policy
In March 2012 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was introduced which is a consolidation of the 25 Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes, although some of the documents remain in situ, including: PPS 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, Annexe E of PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and Practice Guides relating to PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) and PPS 25 (Development and Flood Risk). The NPPF assists policy makers within Local Planning Authorities and guides decisions on development proposals. The National Planning Policy Framework addresses a variety of issues including, inter alia, flood risk, impact on the historic environment, landscape, green belt and the natural environment. There is a strong emphasis on creating sustainable communities and planning for innovation. It strives for the efficient use of land and that development should take place where there is a need to provide a vibrant and prosperous community. The document discusses, amongst other factors, the impact of developments upon heritage assets whether they are within designated Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and World Heritage Sites. Ely Cathedral is Listed Building that is a significant heritage asset in Ely and any development which has a potential impact upon the Cathedral will need to be considered. Section 12 of the NPPF discusses how the importance of a heritage asset should be considered in the light of new development proposals. Heritage assets should be considered in a manner appropriate to their significance and the desirability of a new development making a positive contribution to the local area. In any proposal there should be a: Detailed description of the heritage asset according to its importance; Minimisation of any conflict between the heritage asset and proposal; Provision of a clear and convincing justification for the development; and Where there is potential harm to a heritage asset it will be necessary to show the public benefits of the proposal.
38
6.2.3.
Structure Plan Policy Cambridgeshire County Council
As part of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Structure Plan. (2003) was reviewed in 2007 and 13 policies remain; however none of these saved policies are relevant to the development. The principles and policies of the Structure Plan have been carried forward into the Local Transport Plan and other infrastructure investment programmes. Following from former Structure Plan Policy P8/10 Transport Investment Priorities which listed the A142 Ely Southern link road, the County Councils Local Transport Plan 2011 2026, adopted in March 2011, identifies the Southern Bypass at Ely as a major scheme that should be achieved by the end of the policy period. In its allocation it stresses the importance of assessing all of the options available to seek a reduction in traffic in the station area and concluding which is the best option to achieve this. This has been addressed through the completion of an Options Assessment Report that was considered by the County Councils Scrutiny Committee in July 2012 and will be referred to in the ES in the chapter on alternatives considered.
6.2.4.
Local Planning Policy East Cambridgeshire District Council
Development Plans across England are in transition between old style Local Plans, Local Development Framework documents and new style Local Plans. East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) adopted the East Cambridgeshire District Core Strategy Development Plan Document in October 2009 following examination in public in 2008. The District Council has commenced a review of the Core Strategy and the new plan will be known as the 'East Cambridgeshire Local Plan.' It will be a single document which includes a vision for growth, strategic policies, and identifies sites for development and infrastructure provision. ECDC consulted on the issues and options for Village/Town Visions in the Plan as the first of three key stages of public consultation being undertaken between September 2012 and February 2013, all of which will need to be considered during the life of the application. It sets out the following vision for Ely up to 2025 (Paragraph 2.3.5): Ely will continue to be a thriving historic city, and the main market town in East Cambridgeshire. It will provide employment, retailing and other services to a wide catchment area, and a larger resident population of the town. Its role as a tourist centre will have strengthened, with increased numbers of visitors attracted to the cathedral and an enhanced riverside and station gateway area. The town centre will have been improved and expanded by exploiting opportunities for retail development, and improved sports facilities will have been provided. Significant new housing development will function as part of the town and be well connected by pedestrian and cycle links. Growth will be accompanied by investment in employment opportunities, new educational and health facilities, a new Country Park, and major improvements to the A142 between Angel Drove and the Stuntney Causeway. Development will be provided without compromising the sensitive historical landscape setting of the city and the cathedral, or its built heritage.The special character and important wildlife and recreational value of the river and Roswell Pits area will have been protected and enhanced. The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the Scheme: Policy CS 1: Spatial strategy Ely, Soham and Littleport are designated as Market Towns where the majority of new housing and employment development will take place (approximately 70% of new housing development and 60% of new employment land). Ely is the most significant service and population centre in the district, and will be the key focus for the majority of growth. Policy CS2: Housing At least 5,688 new homes will be provided for in the district between 2009 and 2025. The following committed allocations proposed for Ely (to the east and north of the city centre): - Approximately 150-250 dwellings to be provided on industrial/vacant land on Lisle Lane (north east of Ely)
39
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Approximately 500 dwellings to be provided as a greenfield extension to the east of the Princess of Wales Hospital Policy CS 4: Employment Opportunities for jobs growth in the district will be maximised with the aim of achieving 6,200 additional jobs (as forecast in the Councils Employment Land and Labour Market Study Update 2008). A range of sites and premises will be made available for B1/B2/B8 employment development through the allocation of approximately 61 hectares of employment land on the edge of Market Towns and Key Service Centres, of which 30 hectares are in Ely on land south-east of Lancaster Way (off the A142 Witchford Road, west of the A10). Policy CS 5: Retail and town centre uses The town centres of Ely, Soham and Littleport will be strengthened and regenerated as the focus of sustainable communities in East Cambridgeshire. Ely is identified as the Major Town Centre in the district, and will act as the main focus for shopping, leisure, and cultural development in East Cambridgeshire. Large-scale retail and leisure development, or other uses that attract large numbers of people should be located in Ely. Provision will be made to accommodate additional retail floorspace over the Plan period. The following allocations are proposed for Ely: - Approximately 900m2 (net) of convenience retail floorspace, and approximately 8500m2 (net) of comparison retail floorspace. Policy CS 6: Environment All new development should contribute to the delivery of sustainable development, by being designed and located to minimise carbon emissions and the use of non-renewable resources, mitigate/adapt to future climate change, provide attractive and safe places for people, and protect and enhance the quality of the natural and built environment. Policy CS 7: Infrastructure There should be appropriate infrastructure and community services and facilities in place to serve the needs of new development schemes and to deliver the objectives of the Core Strategy. Specific reference is made to transport improvements, including major improvements to the A142 between Angel Drove and the Stuntney Causeway in Ely, enhanced rail capacity, and enhanced public transport and walking and cycling links within and between settlements. Policy CS 8: Access Development and transport planning will be co-ordinated to improve accessibility for the whole community, reduce the need to travel by car, and increase public transport use, cycling and walking. Policy CS 9: Ely The City of Ely is designated as a Market Town and the Major Town Centre in the district. Ely will continue to be a thriving historic cathedral city of distinctive quality and will be the main focus for housing, employment and retail growth in East Cambridgeshire. EC1 Retention of Employment Sites - Seek to retain land and premises of land in use for employment uses unless these are no longer viable. S6 Transport Impact. Development should reduce the need to travel by car and promote sustainable modes of transport. EN1 Landscape and Settlement Character. Development to be informed and sympathetic to the distinctive character of the Cambridgeshire landscape. This may include where there are visually sensitive skylines, unspoilt tranquillity, space between settlements and the nocturnal character. EN2 Design. All proposals should reflect the local distinctiveness and be of a high quality. New proposals and structures should have regard to; East Cambridgeshire Design Guide; sustainable building construction; efficient use of land; avoid piecemeal development; retain important landscape; mass, scale and materials should relate to the surrounding area; make use of views, vistas and landscape; create a safe environment; buildings and places accessible to all; mix of uses; residential amenity; Ely Cathedral; distinctive public and private spaces and waste recycling. EN5 Historic Conservation. Policy EN5 refers to the historic environment and in particular the importance of the setting of Ely Cathedral. The location of the southern bypass will involve some parts of the route being elevated which will be viewed from the Cathedral or impact on views of the Cathedral EN6 Biodiversity and Geology. Protect the biodiversity and the value of land and where possible provide mitigation. -
40
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report EN7 Flood Risk. Development will not be permitted where it increases the risk of flooding; increase risk to properties; detrimental to flood defences and where safe access cannot be met during times of flood. EN8 Pollution. Development where possible should minimise and reduce emissions of light, noise and water quality.
Paragraph 2.5.1.6 provides the explanation behind required major improvements to the A142 between Angel Drove and the Stuntney Causeway in Ely: Projected increase in rail traffic through Ely is likely to lead to increasing congestion around the A142 level crossing to the north of Ely station. This will have environmental and road safety impacts on the local road network and will cause increased severance between the station area and the city centre. Significant numbers of bridge strikes and level crossing barrier strikes currently impact on the delivery and cost of both passenger and freight services. Major improvements to the road are needed, and any project will need to deliver the following: To support the delivery of increased levels of freight and passenger rail services. To relieve increased congestion on the A142 Station Road/Stuntney Causeway in the vicinity of the railway as a result of the above and of increased development traffic. To support Network Rail in improving the reliability of rail services by reducing or removing the possibility of bridge and level crossing strikes. To maintain the ability of the A142 as part of the Primary Road Network to facilitate the movement of all traffic, and avoid the need for HCV traffic to utilise other less suitable routes. To minimise the impact on the natural environment To minimise the impact on the landscape and setting of Ely and its cathedral, including quintessential views as identified in the Ely Environmental Capacity Study (2001).
Paragraph 2.5.1.7 sets out further aims for any design scheme: To improve walking and cycling routes between the city centre and the rail station To help facilitate the provision of high quality public transport links to the rail station To make the station area an attractive gateway for Ely by removing the negative environmental and visual aspects of the current situation.
The implications of the Scheme with reference to all relevant local policies will be considered in the ES as well as the feedback from the consultation and any other emerging documents.
6.3.
East Cambridgeshire Design Guide and Ely Masterplan
East Cambridgeshire District Council has also adopted the East Cambridgeshire Design Guide and Ely Masterplan which are guides to assist decision makers and those proposing development. Both of the documents consider the need to improve the road network around Ely. East Cambridgeshire District Council in 2012 adopted the East Cambridgeshire Design Guide SPD (March 2012). Included amongst its landscape objectives are: To minimise any impact on existing landscape qualities and features; To contribute positively to landscape quality by increasing the potential To enjoy the countryside; To create nature conservation and environmental education opportunities; To ensure that new landscapes are supported by sufficient Management resources for their long-term care and maintenance.
It illustrates how these objectives can be met through:
41
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Consideration of important views; Attention to edges; Use of hedges and screening; Reflecting local character; Seeking to enhance habitats; Providing space for tree planting; Reflecting historic character and; Consideration of lighting. Ely Masterplan (approved February 2010) proposes a strategic framework for managing the future development of Ely over the next 20 years or so. It was intended that the Masterplan would provide context for the Ely Area Action Plan (EAAP), one of the site-specific plans identifying land for development in association with the Core Strategy. Work on the EAAP ceased when it was resolved that the reviewed Core Strategy, the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan, would be a single document including the vision for growth, strategic policies, and sites for development and infrastructure provision. The Masterplan will similarly provide context to the site-specific proposals of the forthcoming Local Plan. The Masterplan vision for the future development of Ely is: Developing Ely into a special 21st century Cathedral City and Cambridgeshire Market Town, which offers a great quality of life for all by balancing living, working and playing in a historic and rural setting with a thriving centre. This vision will be achieved through the following development principles: Retaining Elys Distinctiveness Achieving Sustainable Growth Reinforcing the Historic Heart of Ely Promoting a Green Living Landscape Enabling Easy Access Tackling Congestion Widening Housing Choice Responding to Climate Change Strengthening Ely as a Place to Work, Live, Visit and Shop Serving the Wider Rural Community
The following short, medium and long term actions are proposed in the vicinity of the station: Angel Drove Business Park Riverside and Station Gateway Station Gateway Business Hub Enhanced Railway Services Angel Drove Boulevard Angel Drove Commercial Park Southern Link Road
The document identifies the need to regenerate the area around the station at Ely and referred to as the Station Gateway and to provide a southern link road.
6.4.
Ely Station Development Framework
Work is in progress on a Development Framework/Supplementary Development Plan to guide redevelopment of the Station Gateway area for mixed commercial, housing, employment and a transport interchange with improved linkages to Ely centre and incorporating a substantive environmental upgrade of the locality. Ely Crossing improvements, together with current development
42
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report proposals in the area provide a dramatic opportunity to enhance the present poor entry to Ely. This work contributes to the spatial aspects of the emerging Local Plan.
6.5.
Summary
The Scheme will, in principle, meet regional and local transport objectives to maintain good transportation links within the region and with the rest of the UK. In order to demonstrate compliance at a local level, the Scheme would need to fulfil the following objectives: Foster development which encourages walking, cycling, and public transport use; Benefit economic activity and enhance the environment; Be located sensitively; Conserve wildlife and natural features; Integrate planning and transport to promote more sustainable choices.
For the ES, the planning context chapter which will set out the overall planning policy framework for the Scheme taking account of any revised documents that are published between now and the submission of the final proposal. The key policies pertinent to the environmental topics will be discussed under each separate environmental topic chapter.
43
7.
Traffic and Transport
A Transport Assessment (TA) will be prepared to accompany the planning application. It will identify the impact of the Scheme on traffic volumes and distribution, the highway and public transport networks, as well as on the remainder of the movement network. A summary of the Transport Assessment will be included as a chapter in the ES. Data from the TA will inform the Air Quality, Noise and Community Asset assessments.
45
8.
8.1.
Air Quality
Introduction
This chapter examines the potential effect of the Scheme on local air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
8.2.
Study Area
The study area for air quality consists of the area within 200 metres of the proposed road Scheme and also any affected road with a change in traffic, as per guidance in the Highways Agencys Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Chapter 11.3.1 (Air Quality)1.
8.3.
Review of Existing Information
The options assessment showed that there was an overall improvement with the Scheme with the majority of properties having a decrease in pollutant concentrations. Air quality criteria were not expected to be breached either with or without the Scheme.
8.4.

Methodology and Criteria
The assessment will consist of the following: A discussion of existing baseline conditions; An assessment of the impacts from construction; An assessment of the impacts during operation including assessment of ecologically designated sites if required; A calculation of the total change in emissions that will result from the Scheme.
8.5.
8.5.1.
Existing Conditions
Construction
The findings provided in this scoping report will be reviewed and updated as necessary.
A qualitative assessment of the impacts of nuisance dust arising during the construction of the development will be undertaken in accordance with the Highways Agencys DMRB. The assessment will identify residential and other sensitive properties that may be at risk of being affected. It will consider the activities to be carried out and their duration. Construction traffic would be assessed quantitatively using the screening method outlined in the DMRB, and the associated DMRB Screening Tool (Annex C & D of DMRB 11.3.1 and available at http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/tech_info/index.htm). The findings of the assessment would be assessed with reference to EPUKs guidance3.
8.5.2.
Operation
The DMRB provides criteria for identifying whether an assessment of the effect of a road scheme on air quality is required. The criteria are:
1
Road alignment changes by five metres or more; Daily traffic flows change by 1,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) or more; Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows change by 200 AADT or more;
Highways Agency (May 2007)
47
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Daily average speed change of 10 kph or more; or Peak hour speed change of 20 kph or more.
The DMRB criteria for defining affected roads will be applied to the findings of the traffic assessment. According to the DMRB guidance, there may be a change in air quality within 200 metres of roads affected by a scheme. The changes in air quality may affect residential properties, other sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, elderly care homes), and designated ecological sites within 200 metres of affected roads. The affected road network is shown in Figure 8.1. However, it is possible that there may be revisions to the traffic data used to inform this scoping report, so the affected road network will be redefined prior to undertaking the air quality assessment. A Detailed level of assessment using the ADMS Roads dispersion model will be undertaken to determine the potential effects on NO2 and PM10 concentrations at selected sensitive receptors (locations of relevant public exposure and designated ecological receptors); in particular, comparisons will be made of modelled concentrations with the air quality criteria for these pollutants. The air quality assessment will use the most up-to-date emission factors which are available at the time of assessment. The following scenarios will be modelled: Base year (2011); Opening year (2017) without Scheme (Do Minimum); Opening year (2017) with Scheme (Do Something).
To validate the modelled concentrations, a comparison of estimated and measured concentrations will be undertaken. Verification will be undertaken for a base year, using the principles laid out in Defras Technical Guidance. Additional receptor points will be included to represent the location of any diffusion tube monitoring sites within 200 metres of the affected road network. There are currently no affected roads within 200 metres of an ecological designated site. However, following any revisions to traffic data prior to undertaking the air quality assessment, should the extent of the affected road network reach within 200 metres of an ecological designated site, then the effects of air pollutants will be assessed in accordance with Annex F in the DMRB. Regional pollutant and carbon emissions from the entire road network associated with the Scheme will be calculated using annual average traffic flow, speed, proportion of HDVs, and emission rates. Emissions will be calculated for an existing case (2011) and with and without the Preferred Scheme in the opening year (2017) and the design year (2031).
8.6.
8.6.1.
Existing Conditions
Local Air Pollutants
In most urban areas, including Ely, the main source of pollution is road traffic. Emissions from motor vehicle exhausts contain a number of pollutants including oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter (PM). The quantities of each pollutant emitted depend upon the vehicle, type, quantity and type of fuel used, engine size, speed of the vehicle and abatement equipment fitted. Once emitted, the pollutants are diluted and dispersed in the ambient air. Pollutant concentrations in the air can be measured or modelled and then compared with air quality criteria.
48
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report The air pollutants of concern in the context of this assessment are nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particles known as PM10 and PM2.5. These pollutants are the most likely to be present at concentrations close to or above their statutory limit values in an urban environment, and are hence the focus of the assessment of the development. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide is generally produced by the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) in ambient air (i.e. is not formed directly and as such is known as a secondary pollutant). Nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide are collectively termed oxides of nitrogen. Just over a third of the UK oxides of nitrogen emissions are from road transport. The majority of oxides of nitrogen emitted from vehicles are in the form of nitric oxide, which oxidises rapidly in the presence of ozone to form nitrogen dioxide. In high concentrations, nitrogen dioxide can affect the respiratory system. PM10 Particulate matter in vehicle exhaust gases consists of carbon nuclei onto which a wide range of compounds are absorbed. These particles are generally very small (1-10 m), and include those in the size range referred to as PM10. Diesel engines produce the majority of particulate emissions from the vehicle fleet. About a quarter of primary PM10 emissions in the UK are derived from road transport. Particulate matter appears to be associated with a range of symptoms of ill health including effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, on asthma and on mortality. Recent reviews by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) have suggested exposure to a finer fraction of particles (PM2.5, which typically make up around two thirds of PM10 emissions and concentrations) give a stronger association with the observed ill health effects. Dust Dust is defined as all particulate matter up to 75 m in diameter and comprising both suspended and deposited dust. Most dust particles are too large to be inhaled but can cause eye, nose and throat irritation and can have a nuisance effect with deposition on cars, windows and property. In general, elevated dust levels due to emissions from a source area that is at or near ground level will rapidly diminish with distance. As a guide, particles larger than 30 m tend to deposit within 100 metres of the source2. Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide is a major product of the combustion of carbon containing materials. Carbon dioxide does not affect human health at ambient levels and so is not significant as a local pollutant but is important for its national and international role in climate change. About 20% of the UK carbon dioxide emissions are produced by transport.
8.6.2.
Air Quality Monitoring
Measurements of pollutant concentrations can be made by deploying analytical instruments that measure continuously and record average concentrations over specified time intervals. Simpler sampling devices, such as diffusion tubes, react with pollutants over a longer time period and are subsequently analysed at a laboratory to given an average concentration for the sampling period. National survey results from both types of monitoring are published on the UK National Air Quality Archive3. Defra funds a network of automated continuous monitoring sites throughout the UK. The closest site in the network is Wicken Fen, a rural site, approximately 10 kilometres south of Ely, which monitors nitrogen dioxide. Data from this site are given in Error! Reference source not found. below, and show that concentrations are well below the annual mean criterion of 40 g/m3. ECDC started to Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), (2005), Minerals Policy Statement 2 (MPS2), Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England, Annex 1: Dust, ODPM, London 3 www.airquality.co.uk
2
49
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report operate a continuous monitoring site in February 2012 in the south of Ely. Data from this site are not yet available with which to compare with the air quality criteria. Table 8-1: Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations (g/m3) at Wicken Fen continuous monitoring site Averaging time Annual mean 2008 10.5 2009 11.7 2010 11.1 2011 11.5
NO2 can also be monitored passively using diffusion tubes. Until 2011, ECDC operated 14 sites within its district, of which 5 were located in Ely. Details of these sites are provided in Error! Reference source not found.. Bias corrected annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations measured at these sites between 2007 and 2011 are presented in Error! Reference source not found.. In October 2011, a further 11 diffusion tube sites were introduced. The results from these sites are not reproduced here as the monitoring was only carried out for a short time period in 2011 and not hence representative of long-term conditions. However, during this period, none of the average concentrations exceeded the annual mean criteria. Table 8-2: Diffusion Tube Sites in Ely ID Location Site type OS grid reference Distance & direction from proposed bypass at closest point 1.2 km N 2 km N <1 km NW 1.6 km NW 1.3 km N
NAS1 NAS2 NAS3 NAS4 NAS11
38 Market St 13 Abbot Thurston Av Station Road Fieldside Rose Ct, Nutholt Lane
Roadside Urban Background Roadside Urban Background Roadside
554154 554616 554322 553385 554255
280427 81320 279566 280309 280536
Annual mean concentrations at all sites were below the AQS objective in 2007 to 2011. Roadside concentrations are higher than those at the urban background sites as would be expected, with the highest concentrations at Station Road in each year. The roadside concentrations were in the range 23.0 to 30.4 g/m3, while the concentrations at urban background locations were in the range 15.8 to 19.9 g/m3. Table 8-3: Bias Adjusted Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations (g/m3) ID NAS1 NAS2 NAS3 NAS4 NAS11 Location 38 Market St 13 Abbot Thurston Av Station Road Fieldside Rose Ct, Nutholt Lane 2007 25.9 16.3 30.4 18.2 25.4 2008 26.0 17.2 28.6 18.1 26.9 2009 25.4 14.1 27.7 19.9 23.8 2010 27.0 17.1 29.3 17.1 25.5 2011 23.8 15.8 24.5 16.6 23.3
50
8.6.3.
Background Concentrations
Background pollutant concentrations for NOx, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are published on the UK Air Quality Archive website for every 1 x 1 kilometre grid square covering the UK. These data are based on the extrapolation and interpolation of empirical measurements and modelled dispersion of road and industrial sources. In each grid square the background concentrations are made up of contributions from the different source sectors (roads, industry and so on) within and surrounding the cell. Background concentrations for the year 2010, the latest revision to the background concentrations, for the average of grid squares in ECDC are presented in Table 8-4. The NO2 concentration is of the same order as the concentrations recorded at the Wicken Fen rural background site. Table 8-4: 2010 Annual Mean Background Concentrations (g/m3) Grid Reference Average ECDC NOx 17.3 NO2 11.8 PM10 17.1 PM2.5 10.6
There is one designated ecological site within 2 kilometres of the proposed bypass and affected road network, a nationally important Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): Ely Pits and Meadows, to the east of Ely, and to the north-east of the Scheme.
8.6.4.
Summary
Air quality monitoring data for the area around the Scheme has been reviewed. The Scheme is in an area of relatively good air quality as there are no AQMAs in ECDC. Monitoring data at the nearest diffusion tube sites to the Scheme shows no exceedences of the NO2 AQS objective, and with higher concentrations at the roadside sites, as would be expected. Mapped background concentrations suggest that there are unlikely to be exceedences of AQS objectives in the area affected by the Scheme. There is one SSSI within 2 km of the proposed bypass, Ely Pits and Meadows SSSI.
8.7.
Scope for Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to control dust during construction will be specified within contract documentation and incorporated into a CEMP. The precise measures will depend on the intended operations and the degree of severity of the dust issue. Such measures may include but not necessarily be limited to: Regular water-spraying and sweeping of unpaved and paved roads to minimise dust and remove mud and debris; Using wheel washes, shaker bars or rotating bristles for vehicles leaving the site where appropriate to minimise the amount of mud and debris deposited on the roads; Sheeting vehicles carrying dusty materials to prevent materials being blown from the vehicles whilst travelling; Enforcing speed limits for vehicles on unmade surfaces to minimise dust entrainment and dispersion; Ensuring any temporary site roads are no wider than necessary to minimise surface area; Dampening down of surfaces prior to their being worked; and Storing dusty materials away from site boundaries and in appropriate containment (e.g. sheeting, sacks, barrels etc).
The scope for mitigating adverse effects on air quality during operation is limited compared with the reductions in emissions achievable through improved vehicle technology and more stringent emission control legislation.
51
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Figure 8.1: Air Quality Constraints
52
8.8.
8.8.1.

Expected Effects of the Scheme

Construction
During construction of the bypass, local air quality could potentially be affected by the following: Dust emissions arising from any dust raising activities on site; Emissions from any plant on site; and, Emissions from the changes in numbers of construction vehicles (both heavy duty vehicles and construction workers) travelling to and from the construction site.
It should be noted that any effect during construction would be of a temporary nature only. There are properties on the A142 Stuntney Causeway which could potentially be affected by dust, as they are within 200 metres of the proposed bypass, and would need to be considered in the EIA. There would also be properties within 200 metres of roads potentially affected by traffic changes during construction.
8.8.2.
Operation
Once the Scheme is complete and operational, air quality could be affected by any changes in vehicle activity (flows, speeds and composition) on roads affected by the Scheme. Air quality could also be affected by any changes to the distance between sources of emissions and sensitive receptors. Traffic data provided by Atkins Highways and Transportation has been converted to two way flows and the change with the Scheme in speed, flow and percentage HDV was calculated across the network. Figure 8.1 shows the affected road network (ARN) as determined by applying the change criteria listed above. The road sections highlighted are expected to have traffic changes requiring assessment within the EIA. These road sections include the A142 Stuntney Causeway, A142 Angel Drove, A10 between Cambridge Road and Witchford Road, Queen Adelaide Way, and isolated links on Cambridge Road, St Marys Street, Lynn Road, and Back Hill. There are a number of properties within 200 metres of these roads.
8.9.
Summary
The air quality in East Cambridgeshire District Council is relatively good, as no AQMAs have been declared in the local authoritys area. The closest NO2 diffusion tube sites to the Scheme have all recorded concentrations below the AQS objective in the most recent years of monitoring, even at roadside locations. During construction there may be dust raising activities which if not effectively mitigated, may affect nearby sensitive properties. The Scheme may have an effect on local air quality as a result of changes in traffic flows and speeds both during construction and when complete.
53
9.
9.1.
Cultural Heritage
Introduction
The Scheme lies to the south / southeast of Ely primarily on undeveloped reclaimed fenland. Whilst the Scheme footprint does not wholly or partially encompass any designated heritage assets, the land over which the Scheme runs does form part of the setting of a number of important designated heritage assets. Potential changes to the setting of these assets, including Ely Cathedral and the historic town of Ely, are the primary historic environment issues for the Scheme. Considerable analysis and investigation has already been undertaken to inform the development of the Scheme. Key elements of this work include: Archaeological desk-based assessment (DBA) for the Scheme area and wider study area (Oxford Archaeology 2012); Draft Ely Setting Study: Part 1 Baseline Study (Atkins 2012); Draft Ely Setting Study: Part 2 Impact Assessment (Atkins 2012);
These studies provide a robust basis for the assessment of the Scheme and the EIA process will be reliant upon them.
9.2.

Study Area
Two study areas will be required to support the assessment of potential impacts: Archaeological study area as defined in Archaeological DBA Setting study area as defined in Part 1 of the Setting Study
9.3.
The Setting Study was developed to inform two separate, but interrelated, processes. Firstly, it provided information suitable to inform a broad Options Appraisal of a number of potential solutions to the transport issues at Ely Level Crossing (see Alternatives above). Secondly, it was prepared to provide baseline information for the Environmental Statement to accompany any future planning application. Given this dual purpose and the need for the Setting Study to inform assessments of different schemes / options at differing levels of detail, the study was divided into two parts: Part 1: Baseline Analysis The baseline was designed to provide a robust and credible basis for the assessment of the different options at the Options Appraisal stage as well as forming part of the environmental baseline for the Environmental Statement. This will therefore be a key foundation for the ES. Part 2: Impact Assessment The second part of the study was a separate stand-alone item that provided an initial assessment of the potential impacts of a number of options on the setting of a number of heritage assets, this part was also designed to also inform the wider Options Appraisal process. This part of the study is no longer relevant to the ES as the Scheme has developed further since the option stage.
The Setting Study also took into account the historic landscape character of the fenland areas over which the Scheme runs and provides suitable information to inform the ES. The Ely Setting Study: Part 1 Baseline Study and the separate archaeological desk-based assessment provide a robust baseline for the ES.
55
9.4.
The methodology will reflect guidance contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 Cultural Heritage 2007 as well as taking into account relevant national and local planning policy and guidance including: DCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework East Cambridgeshire District Council Core Strategy East Cambridgeshire District Council (2001) Ely Environmental Capacity Study (Supplementary Planning Guidance) English Heritage (2011a) The Setting of Heritage Assets English Heritage (2011b) Seeing the History in the View: A Method for Assessing Heritage Significance within Views
As briefly discussed above considerable baseline analysis has already been undertaken. Only limited further baseline analysis will therefore be undertaken. This will include: Review of National Heritage List (online) to determine whether any assets have been newly designated in area around the Scheme or whether identified assets have had their level of designation altered; Review of the Historic Environment Record to determine whether any new records have been added since data was originally required for the DBA. If new records have been added the DBA will be updated to reflect these; and Finalisation of Part 1 of the Setting Study in light of any comments received from English Heritage in August 2012.
Once the baseline is finalised this will be summarised into the main chapter and reported in detail in supporting appendices. Further assessment work will also include the preparation of accurate visual representations of the Scheme from a number of agreed viewpoints. Viewpoints will be agreed with East Cambridgeshire District Council and English Heritage. These accurate visual representations will directly inform the assessment of the Schemes impact on the setting of designated and undesignated heritage assets. Further consultation with East Cambridgeshire District Council and English Heritage will also occur during the EIA process. To determine the significance of effects, the methodology set out in the DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Cultural Heritage, paragraphs 5.13.1 (Archaeological Remains); 6.13.1 (Historic Buildings); 7.13.1 (Historic Landscape) will be used. This is essentially a three-step process: First, the value of the asset is assessed; Second, the magnitude of potential impacts is assessed, taking into account agreed mitigation measures. Impacts can be positive or negative and could result from the construction or operation of the Scheme; Finally, the significance of effect is determined by combining the magnitude of the impact and the value of each asset.
Each step entails the use of set criteria. These will be drawn directly from the DMRB and are set out below.
9.4.1.
Criteria for Assessing Value
The following tables provide the criteria for assessing the value of assets for each of the three subtopics:
56
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 9-1: Archaeological Remains: Value Factors for Assessing the Value of Archaeological Assets Very High World Heritage Sites (including nominated sites). Assets of acknowledged international importance. Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives. Scheduled Monuments (including proposed sites). Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance. Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives. Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objectives. Designated and undesignated assets of local importance. Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives. Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest. The importance of the resource has not been ascertained.
High
Medium Low
Negligible Unknown
Table 9-2: Historic Buildings: Value Criteria for Establishing Value of Historic Buildings Very High High Structures inscribed as of universal importance as World Heritage Sites. Other buildings of recognised international importance. Scheduled Monuments with standing remains. Grade I and Grade II* (Scotland: Category A) Listed Buildings. Other Listed Buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations not adequately reflected in the listing grade. Conservation Areas containing very important buildings. Undesignated structures of clear national importance. Grade II (Scotland: Category B) Listed Buildings. Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations. Conservation Areas containing buildings that contribute significantly to its historic character. Historic Townscape or built-up areas with important historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures). Locally Listed buildings (Scotland Category C(S) Listed Buildings). Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association. Historic Townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures). Buildings of no architectural or historical note; buildings of an intrusive character. Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance.
Medium
Low
Negligible Unknown
57
Table 9-3: Historic Landscape: Value Criteria for Establishing Value of Historic Landscape Character Units Very High World Heritage Sites inscribed for their historic landscape qualities. Historic landscapes of international value, whether designated or not. Extremely well preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time-depth, or other critical factor(s). Designated historic landscapes of outstanding interest. Undesignated landscapes of outstanding interest Undesignated landscapes of high quality and importance, and of demonstrable national value. Well preserved historic landscapes, exhibiting considerable coherence, time-depth or other critical factor(s). Designated special historic landscapes. Undesignated historic landscapes that would justify special historic landscape designation, landscapes of regional value. Averagely well-preserved historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, time-depth or other critical factor(s). Robust undesignated historic landscapes. Historic landscapes with importance to local interest groups. Historic landscapes whose value is limited by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest.
High
Medium
Low
Negligible
9.4.2.
Criteria for assessing Magnitude of Impact
The criteria for assessing the magnitude of impact for each area are set out below. Table 9-4: Magnitude of Impact: Archaeological Remains Factors in the Assessment of Magnitude of Impacts Major Change to most or all key archaeological materials, such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to setting. Changes to many key archaeological materials, such that the resource is clearly modified. Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the asset. Changes to key archaeological materials, such that the asset is slightly altered. Slight changes to setting. Very minor changes to archaeological materials, or setting. No change.
Moderate Minor Negligible No Change
58
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 9-5: Magnitude of Impact: Historic Buildings Factors in the Assessment of Magnitude of Impacts Major Moderate Change to key historic building elements, such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. Change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is significantly modified. Change to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to setting of an historic building, such that it is noticeably changed. Slight changes to historic buildings elements or setting that hardly affect it. No change to fabric or setting.
Minor Negligible No Change
Table 9-6: Magnitude of Impact: Historic Landscape Factors in the Assessment of Magnitude of Impact Major Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; extreme visual effects; gross change of noise or change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit. Changes to many key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, visual change to many key aspects of the historic landscape, noticeable differences in noise or sound quality, considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to historic landscape character. Changes to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, slight visual changes to few key aspects of historic landscape, limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight changes to use or access: resulting in limited changes to historic landscape character. Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, virtually unchanged visual effects, very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character. No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible changes; no changes arising from in amenity or community factors.
Moderate
Minor
Negligible
No Change
9.4.3.
Assessing the Significance of Effect
The significance of effect is determined by combining the value and magnitude of the impact (taking into account agreed mitigation measures). The significance of effect is expressed as score, as set out in the matrix below. The use of the matrix is not intended to lead to a purely formulaic assessment. Professional judgement is used at all stages in the process. The effects can be adverse or beneficial.
59
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 9-7: Significance of Effect Very High High Medium Low Value Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral No change Slight Slight Neutral / Slight Neutral / Slight Neutral Negligible Moderate Large Moderate / Slight Slight / Large or Very Very Large Large Moderate / Large Moderate Large / Very Large Moderate / Large Slight / Moderate Slight Major
Neutral / Slight Slight Neutral / Slight Neutral / Slight Minor Moderate
Magnitude of Impact
9.5.
Baseline Conditions
Numerous designated heritage assets have been identified in and around Ely and the Scheme. The vast majority of these designated heritage assets are listed buildings in the historic core of Ely around the cathedral and down to the historic wharves. The essentially local and urban setting of these assets would not be affected by the Scheme and they do not require consideration in the baseline. The following designated heritage assets were however identified in the Setting Study as requiring assessment as their settings may be altered by the Scheme: Historic town of Ely including Conservation Area and principal buildings Ely Cathedral Castle Mound Listed buildings on Castlehythe Stuntney and its listed buildings
Part 1 of the Setting Study provides sufficient baseline information relating to these assets. In addition to the designated assets, Ely Station has been identified by East Cambridgeshire District Council as an undesignated heritage asset. The station lies within the Ely Conservation Area but is not itself designated. Part 1 of the Setting Study provides sufficient baseline information relating to this asset. The area of reclaimed fenland over which the Scheme runs is an element of the historic landscape. Part 1 of the setting study provides sufficient baseline information relating to this feature. The archaeological desk based assessment and associated borehole monitoring has indicated that the Scheme crosses an area of low archaeological potential. The western end of the Scheme may contain limited archaeological remains near the historic fen edge and there always remains the potential that the Scheme may disturb deeply buried former land surfaces or encounter chance finds within the former fen areas. The existing archaeological desk based assessment provides a suitable baseline from which to assess potential impacts.
9.6.
Key potential mitigation measures include:
60
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Using integrated landscape design and off-line planting to integrate development into grain of historic landscape and reduce visibility of Scheme in views across area. Ensuring appropriate provision is made for professional archaeological investigation of any remains. Developing engineering solutions that deliver a high quality structure that can be clearly read and understood as a new element of infrastructure in the historic landscape.
9.7.
Based on current knowledge the Scheme is likely to have adverse impacts on the setting of Ely Cathedral and the Historic town of Ely. These are likely to result in a likely adverse significant effect. The Scheme may also alter the setting of other designated assets including listed buildings in Stuntney as well as the setting of undesignated assets. These changes are unlikely to result in significant adverse environmental effects. No notable archaeological remains were identified in the DBA around the Scheme. Based on current evidence it is unlikely that the Scheme will have significant impacts on the archaeological resource.
9.8.
Summary
The Scheme has the potential to alter the setting of the Grade I listed Ely Cathedral and the historic town of Ely this change may result in a significant adverse environmental effect. Other designated and undesignated assets are unlikely to be significantly affected. The proposed methodology will ensure that these potential impacts are identified and assessed using robust pre-existing baseline data. Mitigation and design measures to lessen potential impacts will also be developed and taken into account.
61
10. Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity

10.1. Introduction
This section considers the visible effects of the Scheme, in two ways. One considers the landscape character and quality of the setting and assesses the effect of the Scheme on the resource that this setting represents. The other considers the views available and assesses how these will be affected by the Scheme. The introduction of new infrastructure has the potential to result in significant change to the landscape, but could have indirect benefits to townscape where traffic is diverted from the eastern approach along the A142 into Ely.
10.2.
Study Area
The study area for landscape, townscape and visual impact will extend to encompass the potential daytime extent of visibility of the Scheme, which is defined as the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI). Topography, built up areas and significant vegetation will determine the extent of views from the existing and proposed routes of the A142. The Isle of Ely including Ely itself predominately confine this ZVI to the south and east of Ely where most views are within 1km of the Scheme. However, the study area has been extended to 3km to capture all the quintessential views of Ely Cathedral from the south and east as well as any other wider views and the City of Ely. Also some individual long distant views of Ely Cathedral have been included outside of this 3 km study area.
10.3.

A review of existing data has been undertaken, including: Ely Bypass Study Environmental Appraisal, Atkins, November 2003 Ely Southern Bypass Constraints Report, Atkins, May 2010 Ecological Constraints Assessment, Ely Southern Bypass, Atkins, November 2011. Ely Southern Bypass Option Assessment Report June 2012 Core Strategy Development Plan Document (including Proposals Map), ECDC, Adopted 20th October 2009 Ely Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Document, ECDC, October 2009 Design Guide - Supplementary Planning Document, ECDC, March 2012 National Character Area (NCA) profiles, NCA 46: The Fens, Natural England Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines, Cambridgeshire County Council, 1991 Ely Environmental Capacity Study Supplementary Planning Guidance, ECDC, July 2001 OS Explorer Map 1:25,000 OS Landranger Map 1:50,000
Surveys to DMRB standards have been undertaken on the following: Landscape Character; Topography; Existing Vegetation; Landscape Quality; Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI).
Indicative landscape proposals have been identified for the preferred route.
63
10.3.1. Proposals for further work

Further work for the Environmental Statement will include: Data collection through familiarisation, desk studies and field survey, including a review of existing information included within previous studies and reports. Ordnance survey maps and aerial photographs will be examined and reference will be made to Structure Plan and Core Strategy; Local landscape and townscape character assessment, which will inform the Scheme proposals; Zone of Visual Influence review; Visual Impact Assessment, providing a detailed assessment of affected residential properties in year 1 winter and year 15 summer; Public rights of way, analysis of views and impact; Landscape Proposals (plans and sections), formulated in liaison with other specialists, particularly heritage, ecology, and drainage.
Consultations will include: Liaison with the ECDC; Preliminary liaison with landowners to determine the feasibility of Offsite Planting; Liaison with property owners severely affected by the Scheme.
10.4.
The methodology for the assessment will involve undertaking desk studies, collection of baseline data and site surveys on the context, character and quality of the study area; an evaluation of the townscapes and an assessment of properties and local views potentially affected by the Scheme. The assessment will also involve the preparation of mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse effects. The assessment will reflect the following guidance: The Highway Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Interim Advice Note (IAN) 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment that aligns the landscape, townscape and visual assessments with the generic guidance provided in IAN 81/06.
The assessment will be supported by photographs and visualisations in accordance with the Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11b Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The DMRB approach requires an appreciation of the landscape and townscape context, as a basis to evaluate the sensitivity of the surroundings to visual change and the constraints placed upon the design of the highway scheme and its environmental measures. Work includes identification of landscape and townscape character areas and detailed assessment of the visual impact of the proposals on public visual receptors including residential property, public rights of way and public open space in the area. This analysis is carried out concurrently with the Scheme design and forms part of a continuing process of design refinement, ensuring that the landscape proposals are developed as an integral part of the project. The Countryside Agency (now part of Natural England) produced detailed guidance on the systematic identification and evaluation of landscape character, of which the current edition was published in April 2002. This includes the idea of a sequential depiction of the landscape character, from regional down to local level, with the level of detail amended to suit the scale of the study. This methodology includes assessment of both landscape and townscape. The intention for the ES is that the landscape methodology will be used to assess all changes to the character of the setting
64
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report brought about by the Scheme and potential changes to the existing A142 approaching Ely from the east along Stuntney Causeway and the intersection with the railway.
10.5.
Baseline Conditions
The Countryside Character Initiative, overseen by Natural England, is concerned with the character of Englands countryside at the end of the 20th Century and has mapped the country into 159 separate, distinctive character areas. These National Character Areas (NCA) are intended to contribute towards policy development and local planning, action and development. The Scheme falls within NCA 46 The Fens, relevant key characteristics include:
Large-scale, flat, open landscape with extensive vistas to level horizons and huge skies; A hierarchy of rivers, drains and ditches provide a strong influence throughout the area. Embanked rivers and roddons create local enclosure and elevation. Banks provide good grazing and grassland habitats; Modestly elevated islands within fens provide isolated higher ground for most settlement. A higher proportion of grassland, tree cover and hedgerows are associated with these areas; Settled Fens or Townlands, in arc set back from the Wash, exhibit an ancient medieval and irregular field pattern. Typically smaller-scale with scattered farmsteads and dispersed ribbon settlements along the main arterial route; Peaty Fens drained in 17th century comprise large rectilinear fields of black soil. A geometric road and drainage pattern with major high-level drains, washes and associated pumping stations. Roads and rail links often on elevated banks. Woodland cover sparse. Occasional avenues to roads, elsewhere isolated field trees have marked significance. Shelter belts including poplar, willow and leylandii hedges around farmsteads. Numerous orchards in Wisbech area. Built forms exhibit strong influence ranging from historic cathedrals and churches, like Ely and Boston to large agricultural and industrial structures. Domestic architecture displays combination of elegant Georgian brick houses and bland 20th century bungalows.
The Cambridgeshire County Councils publication The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines indicate that the Scheme lies within Landscape Character Area 8: Fenland. The assessment will take into account characteristic features and the guidelines for improvement and management of the fenland and with respect to highway schemes in the mitigation design. At a local scale The Ely Environmental Capacity Study Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001 sub divides the landscape into the following landscape character types: Ely Island Transitional Island Fenland.
The overall landscape character of the study area is distinguished by the following principal features: The expansive, flat and open, rural fen landscape -5m to +5m AOD is dominated by the historic City of Ely on the Isle of Ely rising up to 25m above the surrounding fenland with some extensive views to distant horizons, including the quintessential views of Ely Cathedral. Predominately arable and pastoral farmland of the fen landscape is characterised by a geometric field pattern that is defined by a rigid system of drainage ditches. The prominent elements within the landscape include the River Great Ouse, the A142, the railway, Stuntney village and some isolated poplar tree belts.
65
10.5.1. Landscape Importance

The quintessential views to Ely Cathedral and the City as well as the distinctive Fen landscape are nationally recognised whilst not designated. The quintessential views identified within the area are from the Ouse Valley Way and Fen Rivers Way long distance paths along both flood banks of the River Great Ouse and from Stuntney Village and the A142 Stuntney Causeway. The City of Ely (which includes a Conservation Area covering its historic centre) is recognised as regionally important. There are no other statutory or non statutory landscape designations within the study area. However, there is a County Wildlife Site that covers the wetland meadows adjacent to the River Great Ouse, which is of visual amenity value.
10.5.2. Townscape Importance

The City of Ely (which includes a Conservation Area covering its historic centre) is recognised as regionally important. There are no other statutory or non statutory townscape designations within the study area apart from listed buildings which are discussed in the heritage section.
10.6.

The principles set out in the Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines will be followed in developing the landscape design for the Scheme. Specific landscape mitigation measures might include: The use of locally indigenous native plants and grassed embankments will reflect the distinctive local character and will help to contribute to and/or repair the landscape setting / pattern. Areas of species rich grassland would be seeded at locations where conditions are suitable for their establishment to increase local biodiversity; Woodland belts planted on severed land to link into hedgerows and existing woodland to create a bold framework of planting and provide screening for settlement fringes and to manage the movement of wildlife eg Barn Owls; Tree planting eg poplar trees to reduce the scale of the road and screen structures, traffic and lighting and enhance views to Ely and Ely Cathedral; Where possible, crests and toes of the embankment would be rounded to achieve better integration with the surrounding landform. Embankment slopes could be graded out and returned to agriculture to retain the open large scale character of the area, where this does not cause conflict with conservation of the generally good agricultural land quality; The design of walls, fences and hedges along roadsides to reflect the landscape character and pattern; Fence lines should not be located at the top of cutting slopes, where they would dominate the skyline; Hedges on the highway boundary to ensure that existing field boundary planting remains intact and wildlife corridors are not severed; Careful consideration to be given to the design and siting of road signs, traffic signals, environmental barriers and other street furniture which would significantly help to lessen the overall visual impact of the Scheme; Quality design of pedestrian and cyclist routes including the possibility of new boardwalks using an agreed palette of finishes and materials that reflect the local character and taking into account the experience of users along the routes and their visual amenity including the possibility of raised viewing areas to make the most of views towards Ely Cathedral; Habitat creation to increase biodiversity and integrating scheme into distinct fen landscape enhancing appearance and ecology of new drainage ditches with marginal planting and planting reed beds in balancing ponds and attenuation areas.
10.7.
The Scheme would have a variety of adverse and beneficial effects. Adverse effects could include:
66
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Impact on the quintessential views of the Ely Cathedral and the wider open views Further fragmentation of the rural fen landscape setting / pattern of Ely and impact on landscape character Impact from the new junction layouts and associated lighting and signage; highway embankment and highway structures on visual amenity and loss of perceived openness and tranquillity of visual receptor groups, including: Residential properties in Ely, Stuntney and along the Stuntney Causeway A142, Open space, including Ely City Golf Course, Kings School playing fields and Stuntney Allotments. Public rights of way including the Ouse Valley Way and Fen Rivers Way Long Distance Footpaths, Cawdle Fen Way circular route and Sustrans National Cycle Route 11, Business properties along Angel Drove / Station Road A142 including the farms off Stuntney Causeway A142 Roads and other transport corridors including A142, Queen Adelaide Way, railway including Ely Station and the River Great Ouse (boats, canoeists etc and fishermen) The Scheme runs through open farmland dissecting fields and through tree and hedge lined boundaries. Lighting proposals for the Scheme are likely to create an adverse visual impact, which could be both daytime and night-time. Lit junctions and roundabouts in particular can result in a concentration of light pollution.
Benefits of the Scheme would include: Reduction of queuing HGV and congestion on the A142 Stuntney Causeway approaching Ely from the east and within Ely on the A142 Station Road / Angel Drove Potential for the enhancement of one of the city gateways A comprehensive landscape scheme would be implemented that will address adverse impacts wherever possible.
10.8.
Summary
The study area falls within the National Character Area 46, The Fens and Area 8: Fenland as defined by Natural England and Cambridgeshire County Council in their Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines. The fen landscape is nationally distinct and forms a significant feature of the landscape setting and quintessential views of Ely Cathedral and the historic city of Ely. The assessment of Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity will encompass a wide ranging analysis of issues that will be used to determine detailed proposals for mitigation. The assessment includes a study of: the context of the Scheme, its landform, landcover, drainage and settlement patterns; the landscape character in national terms, but also an assessment of local landscape character areas; landscape quality of the land through which the scheme passes will be classified on a five point scale; visual impact analysis will provide a detailed study of properties affected by the road both before and after proposed planting has matured; the townscape appraisal will analyse townscape character and categorise its importance; predictions will be made of the extent and severity of impacts on the landscape and townscape resource. The appraisals will all inform the design process and assist in formulating the detailed design proposals. These will include; indigenous planting in a variety of forms, from dense screening to hedgerows, occasional planting, and rows of polar; species rich grassland in site specific mixtures; and habitat creation associated with drainage ditches and balancing ponds.
67
11. Nature Conservation

11.1. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe the existing ecological features within the defined study areas, as far as they are currently known, and to set out the proposed methodology for assessing the impacts that could occur as a result of the preferred route. This scoping study collates existing ecological information that has been gathered through acquisition and review of documents previously prepared by specialist Atkins ecological consultants. It provides a summary of surveys undertaken to date and describes the ongoing and proposed further survey work to be undertaken in 2012. The results of the on-going survey work will be reported in the Environmental Statement and used to inform the detailed scheme design. Where possible, this Scoping Report also outlines measures that may be required to avoid, mitigate and/or compensate for adverse ecological effects, though in many instances this cannot be determined in any detail until the results of all 2012 surveys have been obtained.
11.2.
Study Area
The study area for this assessment covers the proposed route footprint and the zone of influence encompassing all predicted adverse ecological effects of the Scheme, including those which occur by land-take and habitat loss and those which occur through disturbance, such as air quality and noise.
11.3.

The following documents have been reviewed as part of this scoping study: Ely Southern Bypass Constraints Report, Atkins, May 2010; Ecological Constraints Assessment, Ely Southern Bypass, Atkins, November 2011; Options Appraisal Report, Atkins July 2012.
11.4.
This scoping study and previous survey work from 2010 has been undertaken in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (Volume 11, Section 3, Part 4, Ecology and Nature Conservation, August 1994 and Part 10, Road Drainage and the Water Environment, November 2009 (in respect to aquatic ecology, Also Volume 10, Section 4, Part 1, HA 84/01 Nature Conservation and Biodiversity, Feb 2001 with consideration of Interim Advice Note 130/10 Nature Conservation and Biodiversity) and taking account of the most up to date survey and best practice guidelines for ecology, in particular the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom published by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM), June 2006.
11.4.1. Desk Study

Desk studies have been undertaken to address all previously considered route options. However, now that Route B has been chosen as the preferred option, any current and ongoing desk study work and consultation will focus on the corridor for this route. Due to the large scale and permanent nature of the proposals, the effects of the Scheme could extend beyond the boundary of the proposed route footprint, its immediate surroundings and the zone of influence encompassing all predicted adverse ecological effects. Therefore, the study area at desk study covered 2 km for statutory sites, 1 km for non-statutory sites, 1 km for notable and protected species and 5 km for bats. Information relating to statutory sites of nature conservation importance, non-statutory sites of nature conservation importance and protected or notable species within this potential zone of influence has been gathered from a variety of sources, including the Multi Agency
69
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website and from statutory and non-statutory consultees. Noise and air quality will be assessed in light of the desk study results and air and noise modelling. Data were also requested from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre (CPERC) and the Environment Agency for detailed aquatic ecology aspects of the River Great Ouse in proximity to the bypass (crossing estimated at NGR TL543788). Further supporting information was also acquired from Environment Agency interactive maps4for the River Great Ouse and selected tributaries.
11.4.2. Field Survey

In addition to preliminary surveys from 2010, an extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken in September 2011 which covered the immediate land-take of the proposed route, plus adjacent land of at least 100 m either side of the development footprint for the route corridor. Extended Phase 1 habitat surveys were undertaken in 2007 with reference to the best practice methods, set out in the JNCC Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey (1993). The extended Phase 1 habitat surveys provided information on the habitats in the survey area and assessed the potential for notable fauna to occur in or adjacent to the route corridor, such as bats, badgers, otters, water voles, dormice, birds, amphibians and reptiles that could be affected by the proposals, and further survey work for these species was recommended and has or is being undertaken. The ongoing survey work for protected species also follows DMRB guidance and/or the most recently published and recognised survey guidelines and methodologies available. The further survey work that has been and currently is being undertaken includes updates to the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, wintering and breeding bird surveys, badger survey, presence / likely absence surveys for great crested newt, reptile, water vole, otter and surveys for bats to determine the presence of roosts and potentially important commuting and foraging habitats. The methodologies and results for these surveys will be provided in detail in the Environmental Statement.
11.4.3. Nature Conservation Evaluation

The following evaluation and assessment criteria have become accepted as a means of assessing the nature conservation value of a defined area of land which are set out in A Nature Conservation Review (Ratcliffe, 1977) and include diversity, rarity and naturalness. These criteria will be observed when undertaking the stages of evaluation and assessment and also apply to this scoping study. The nature conservation value or potential value of an ecological feature is determined within a defined geographic context, in line with the IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2006): International importance (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites); National importance (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England, Scotland and Wales and Areas of Special Scientific Interest in N Ireland); Regional importance (e.g. EA regional biodiversity indicators, important features in NE Natural Areas); County importance (e.g. Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation); Important within the East Cambridgeshire District Council; Local (parish) importance (e.g. significant ecological features such as old hedges, woodlands, ponds); Important within the site and immediate environs e.g. habitat mosaic of grassland and scrub (i.e. within the zone of influence only); http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?ep=maptopics&lang=_e
70
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report negligible importance would usually be applied to areas such as built development or areas of intensive agricultural land.
It should be noted that it is usual to consider habitats and species together when ascribing a value to a feature using this geographic context. However, there are circumstances where an ecologist may feel it necessary to assign a value to a particularly valuable species, when it is necessary to consider the species distribution and status, including trends based on available historical records, and to make use of any relevant published evaluation criteria. For instance, the presence of a significant population of European protected species such as bats and great crested newts may be worth separate consideration. The conservation value of water bodies designated under the Water Framework Directive is also further defined by the ecological status (or potential if artificial or heavily modified) of the water body as defined in the relevant River Basin Management Plan. The DMRB (Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10, Road Drainage and the Water Environment, November 2009) ascribes importance to the feature based on the WFD classification of the water body.
11.4.4. Impact Assessment Significance Criteria

The assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development will take into account both onsite impacts and those that may occur to adjacent and more distant ecological features. Impacts can be positive or negative. Negative impacts can include: Direct loss of wildlife habitats; Fragmentation and isolation of habitats; Disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli; Changes to key habitat features; Changes to the local hydrology, water quality and/or air quality.
Negative and positive impacts on nature conservation features will be characterised based on predicted changes as a result of the proposed activities. In order to characterise the impacts on each feature, the following parameters are taken account of: The magnitude of the impact; The spatial extent over which the impact would occur; The temporal duration of the impact; Whether the impact is reversible and over what timeframe; The timing and frequency of the impact.
The assessment identifies those positive and negative impacts which would be significant, based on the integrity and the conservation status of the ecological feature. Impacts are unlikely to be significant where features of local value or sensitivity are subject to small scale or short-term impacts. However, where there are a number of small scale impacts that are not significant alone, the assessor may determine that, cumulatively, these may result in an overall significant impact. The integrity of defined sites is described as follows and will be used in the assessment to determine whether the impacts of the proposals on a designated site are likely to be significant: The integrity of a site is the coherence of the ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified (IEEM,2006). The conservation status of habitats and species within a defined geographical area is described as follows and has been used in this assessment to determine whether the impacts of the proposals on non-designated habitats and species are likely to be significant:
71
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report For habitats, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the habitat and its typical species, that may affect its long term distribution, structure and functions as well as the long term survival of its typical species within a given geographical area; For species, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long term distribution and abundance of its population within a given geographical area (IEEM, 2006). The mitigation measures described within this Scoping Report are outline measures that may or may not be incorporated into the final scheme design. The inclusion of specific measures will depend largely on the findings of the survey and assessment work. Detailed mitigation will be agreed, incorporated into the design and programme so that the residual impact assessment reflects the completed scheme. These measures include those outlined in the DMRB and/or required to achieve the minimum standard of established practice plus additional measures to further reduce the negative impacts of the Scheme. The assessment will take into account the likely success of the mitigation using the scale of confidence in prediction given above. Monitoring requirements and the criteria for measuring the success of mitigation will be identified once the mitigation is known. In addition enhancement measures will be identified. In addition to determining the significance of an impact on any ecological features, the assessment will also identify any legal requirements for mitigation measures and discuss any policy implications.
11.5.
Baseline Conditions
This section describes the existing conditions as they are currently understood. For clarity, and because the existing information informs the need and methods of further survey work, details of ongoing and further survey are described together in the same section. This baseline information provides an indication of flora and fauna but does not contain all detailed findings of all surveys undertaken in 2012. These findings will be included in the ES. The area to be affected by the proposed bypass construction is a semi-rural area on the southern fringes of Ely. The actual route would cross through arable fields with associated field drainage ditches typical of the area, railway lines and embankments and will likely require some landtake from the River Great Ouse CWS for the piers comprising land either side of the River.
11.5.1. Designated Sites

The desk based study identified one statutory site of nature conservation importance within 2 km of the Route. Ely Pits and Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is 900m NE from Route B. The desk study identified two non-statutory sites of nature conservation within 2km of Route B, River Great Ouse County Wildlife Site (CWS) would be crossed by the route and Angel Drove Drains CWS is 350 m north. The route is not anticipated to affect the SSSI directly. However, the habitats within the SSSI are directly linked via the habitats within the River Great Ouse CWS and the SSSI is located downstream of the route and could be vulnerable to pollution arising from the construction works. It is not anticipated that Angle Drove Drains would be affected. The proposed Route will pass through the River Great Ouse CWS. The habitats within the CWS comprise swamp and mesotrophic grassland communities of importance as well as breeding habitat for a number of birds on the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and nationally rare dragonflies. The site is linked to the Ely Pits and Meadows SSSI and it is anticipated that some of the bird species that are a reason for designation of the SSSI will also nest within the CWS.
72
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report It is anticipated that the road will be elevated over the CWS which will reduce the land take within the CWS but the road construction could affect the vegetation communities though changes in hydrology and pollution from runoff. The marsh and swamp habitats within the CWS are vulnerable to changes in the hydrology of the area. The breeding bird populations may be affected through disturbance (especially noise during construction phase and traffic noise post-construction) and habitat loss/fragmentation.
11.5.2. Habitats
At the southern end of the Route, the proposed bypass will include the construction of a new roundabout within an area of young broadleaved plantation woodland with a ground layer of semiimproved grassland. At the eastern edge of the woodland the proposed route passes through a species-rich hedgerow and across an arable field running parallel with an infield drainage ditch containing reeds and sedges. Beyond the arable field the proposed route passes through another young broadleaved plantation woodland before crossing two railway lines with embankments comprising semi-improved grassland, tall herb and scattered scrub vegetation. To the east of the railway lines the route passes through more arable fields with a drainage ditch which was dry at the time of the survey. Beyond this the route crosses a steep grassy embankment and passes through the Great River Ouse CWS. The CWS comprises marsh and marshy grassland dominated by rushes with occasional sedges and reed either side of the River Great Ouse. There are at least four drainage ditches within the CWS which are linked to the River Great Ouse There are two rows of mature crack willows on the east bank of the river; the proposed route will pass to the north of these trees. Beyond the CWS the route passes though a narrow strip of rough semi-improved grassland with a footpath and drainage ditch to the east. The proposed route then curves to the north through several arable fields with drainage ditches before joining the A142 Stuntney Causeway at a newly constructed roundabout adjacent to some existing allotments. Further assessment of these sites will be undertaken as part of the detailed design and consultations with be sought with relevant stakeholders. The design of any necessary mitigation measures will be described in the Environmental Statement.
11.5.3. Protected and notable species

Bats CPERC provided records for common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule, Natterers and Daubentons bat within a 5km of the Route. There were no details whether these records were from roosting or foraging bats. There was suitable habitat for roosting bats within mature trees along Route B especially the willows lining the River Great Ouse. In addition the small derelict barn has potential to support roosting bats. There is potential foraging habitat for bats within the young broadleaved plantation and hedgerows. The River Great Ouse and drainage ditches are also likely to be utilised for foraging by species such as Daubentons bat. Badger There were no records of badger provided by CPERC and no evidence of badger was found during the survey within the route or within 50m of the route (where access was permitted). In general the habitat within the footprint of the route has potential to support badgers. Much of the habitat comprises arable fields with rough semi-improved grassland margins and areas of dense and patchy scrub. The marsh habitat within the CWS and the areas of amenity grassland are less suitable habitat for badgers.
73
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report The scattered and dense scrub within the railway embankment has potential to contain badger setts but access to check for evidence of badgers was not possible.Water Vole There were three recent records of water vole provided by CPERC from between 2005 2006 originating from drainage ditches within Caudle Fen adjacent to the southern end of the proposed bypass routes. Ditches and parts of the River Great Ouse have potential habitat for water voles. Otter CPERC provided two records of otter along the River Great Ouse within 1 km of the proposed routes: January 2001 on the River Great Ouse (TL 545 794) at Ely High Bridge; March 2002 (TL 552 787) approximately 480m east of the northern extent of the Route.
The River Great Ouse offers potential foraging and commuting habitat for otters and there are potential holt locations at the base of mature willow trees on the banks of the river which are likely to be affected by the construction of the Route. In addition the drainage ditches within the CWS and between the arable fields have potential to be used for commuting by otters and are likely to be affected by the construction. Hazel Dormouse CPERC did not provide any records of dormice. The habitat along Route D does not offer sufficient suitable density of hedge or tree understory for dormice, nor any connectivity to the wider habitat reducing any chances of any migration into the area. Therefore, it is unlikely that any dormice will be affected by the Scheme. Birds There were many bird records received from CPERC within 500m of the proposed bypass routes. The majority of the bird records were non site specific and listed just as Ely, those which did include site detail were mainly recorded within the Ely Pits and Meadows SSSI to the north east of the proposed route. The bird data included records of 23 species listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) these are included in Appendix C. However, it is unlikely that the majority of these species would be breeding within the vicinity of the bypass as many exclusively inhabit large reed beds which are not present within the survey area. Others such as brambling, whimbrel, merlin, fieldfare and redwing breed in upland habitats or tundra and only over winter in Cambridgeshire. Records of honey buzzard in September 2008 most likely relate to a migrating bird heading south to wintering grounds in mainland Europe. There is also a single record of European bee-eater which is likely to be a weather assisted vagrant as this is an extremely rare breeding species in the UK and is only known to have bred or attempted to breed five times since 1920. Of the 23 species included within the CPERC data there are five species of bird listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which have potential to be present within the existing habitats of both routes particularly in the habitats present within the River Great Ouse CWS. Barn owls are likely to use the arable fields and marsh for foraging and will nest in old buildings such as the derelict barn adjacent to the amenity grassland and tree cavities; Cettis warbler will nest in dense scrub adjacent or over water. There is low potential for cettis warbler to nest within the CWS as the potential nesting habitats present are sub optimal for this species;
74
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Kingfishers are likely to be present on the River Great Ouse and may be nesting within holes in the banks of the river or nearby ditches; Eurasian hobby could be present within the footprint. Hobbies nest in mature trees and are likely to forage over the arable and marsh habitat; Eurasian marsh harrier nest in large reed beds and marshes. There is low potential for marsh harrier to nest within the CWS.
The construction of the Route will require the removal of suitable nesting habitat for common bird species including, scrub, young broadleaved plantation, hedgerow and mature trees. The Route will result in the loss of some marsh habitat within the CWS which is suitable for ground nesting birds. Nesting birds are also likely to be disturbed by the construction and operation of the new bypass. The River Great Ouse CWS is also valuable habitat for wintering birds. Arable fields and the marshy grassland to be affected by the works could support large flocks of wintering wildfowl and shorebirds such as golden plover and lapwing. Reptiles There were no records of reptiles supplied by CPERC located within 1km of the proposed bypass routes. There is suitable foraging habitat for common reptiles within all of the semi-improved grassland, arable field margins, hedgerows and scrub to be lost in the construction of the proposed Route. In addition there are suitable refuge and hibernation sites within the compost heaps and rubble piles. There is also suitable foraging habitat for common reptiles within arable field margins and the marshy habitats of the CWS and the drainage ditches. Great Crested Newt There were no records of great crested newt provided by CPBRC within 1km of the proposed bypass routes. There are a number of ponds and ditches within 500 m of Route B. The railway embankments, marsh habitat within the CWS, broadleaved plantation woodland, rough grassland and scattered scrub habitat within the footprint of the route offers potential terrestrial habitat for great crested newts. If great crested newts are breeding in these ponds, they could use this terrestrial habitat within 500m. The proposed bypass will result in the loss of potential breeding waterbodies and terrestrial habitat for great crested newts White-clawed Crayfish CPERC did not provide any records of white-clawed crayfish. However, the River Great Ouse and drainage ditches within the construction footprint of both routes offers low suitability habitat for whiteclawed crayfish. Due to access restrictions, the river and many of the ditches to be affected could not be assessed for their habitat suitability for white-clawed crayfish. Route B is anticipated to be constructed over the River Great Ouse and will not require any modification to the river channel. On this basis white-clawed crayfish are unlikely to be affected by the construction of the proposed bypass. Invertebrates CPERC did not provide any records of legally protected or notable invertebrate species. However, the River Great Ouse CWS is designated in part for its breeding population of a nationally scarce dragonfly, the scarce chaser (Libellula fulva). In addition the marshy grassland and swamp habitats are likely to support invertebrate communities of high biodiversity value. The site is also listed as a Grade C site in the JNCC Invertebrate Site Register5.
Dataset of information on the site-based occurrence of scarcer British and strongly habitat-associated terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates.
75
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Invasive plant species There is a large patch of Japanese knotweed approximately 60 m x 10 m located on the railway embankment adjacent to the amenity grassland. It is unlikely to be affected by the proposed excavations associated with the construction of the bypass. Japanese knotweed is a strictly controlled plant species under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
11.5.4. Aquatic ecology

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates The nearest long-term Environment Agency macroinvertebrate monitoring site for the River Great Ouse is located immediately downstream of the bypass crossing point, south of Stuntney Causeway A142 (NGR TL545792). An additional monitoring site (NGR TL566815) is located approximately 3km further downstream, immediately north of Ely Road (B1382). The latter has also been included in this scoping report as it provides a further means of assessing the communities present in the proximity and importantly, downstream of the bypass. Monitoring data was provided for Stuntney Causeway spanning the period from 1985 to 2010. During this period, 26 samples were collected at intervals of two to three years. Data for Ely Road spanned a shorter period from 1985 to 2004; however data are more continuous with only two notable gaps (1987 to 1988 and 2001 to 2003) providing a total of 30 samples. Sampling regime was generally biannual (spring and autumn) at both sites. A detailed list of all macroinvertebrate taxa recorded to species level at each site will be included in the Environmental Statement. No British Red Data Book (RDB), UKBAP species or Species of Principal Importance were recorded at either site. Several Local species were recorded at both sites and will be detailed in the Environmental Statement. However, with the exception of Erythromma najas (red-eyed damselfly), occurrence of these species was highly infrequent, being recorded no more than twice over the monitoring period at each site. Four species recorded at Stuntney Causeway have been assessed as Least Concern under IUCN Red List criteria: Aeshna grandis (brown hawker- dragonfly), Calopteryx splendens (banded demoiselle- damselfly), Enallagma cyathigerum (common blue damselfly) and Ischnura elegans (bluetailed damselfly). One Regionally Scarce macroinvertebrate was also recorded at Stuntney Causeway, Polycentropus kingi (a caddisfly), but was represented in only a single sample over the monitoring period. Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Biotic Indices The following biotic indices were included with macroinvertebrate data:
6
Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP), Average Score per Taxon (ASPT) and Number of Scoring Macroinvertebrate Taxa (NTAXA)6; Community Conservation Index (CCI)7; and Lotic-invertebrate Index for Flow Evaluation (LIFE)8.
Walley W.J. and Hawkes H.A. (1997) A computer-based development of the Biological Monitoring Working Party score system incorporating abundance rating, biotope type and indicator value. Water Research 31 (2), 201-210 7 Chadd, R. & Extence, C. (2004) The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community-based classification scheme. Aquatic Conservation: Marine & Freshwater Ecosystems 14, 597-624. Extence, C.A., Balbi, D.M. and Chadd, R.P. (1999) River flow indexing using British benthic macroinvertebrates: A framework for setting hydroecological objectives. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15, 543-574.
8
76
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Summary tables for each site are included below in Table 11-1 and Table 11-2; full details of individual samples will be included in the Environmental Statement. These indices provide biological measures of community value and an indication of habitat, water quality and flow conditions. Table 11-1: Biotic Index (Stuntney Causeway) Index BMWP ASPT NTAXA CCI FAMILY LIFE SPECIES LIFE
Min
16 (49) 3.71 4 3.00 5.59 5.60
Max
119 4.76 25 10.42 7.00 8.00
Mean
83 4.20 20 5.78 6.10 6.32
Table 11-2: Biotic Index (Ely Road) Index BMWP ASPT NTAXA CCI FAMILY LIFE SPECIES LIFE Min 60 4.00 15 3.00 5.67 5.67 Max 117 4.78 26 23 6.45 8.00 Mean 89 4.33 20 6.15 6.12 6.25
The variation in BMWP, at Stuntney Causeway in particular, suggests significant fluctuations in water quality. However the abnormally low score of 16 occurred in 1992, and values have been consistently higher since. Moreover ASPT, which is less influenced by seasonal community change as compared with BMWP, shows comparatively low variability at both sites. Similarly, large variations in NTAXA are not reflected in ASPT. This suggests that although water quality may be a contributory pressure at the site, other factors are driving the variation observed. Given the artificial, linear nature of the river in this reach, this may be due to a lack of microhabitat diversity. CCI ranges from 3.00 to 10.42 at Stuntney Causeway and from 3.00 to 23.00 at Ely Road. High values are not common, with higher CCI scores observed being associated with the occurrence of the aforementioned Local and Regionally Scarce species. The CCI scores class the community at Stuntney Causeway as ranging from low to fairly high conservation value, and the community at Ely Road from low to very high conservation value. Mean LIFE scores suggest the assemblage is representative of standing to sluggish flow conditions at both sites. In summary, biotic indices are generally in accord and indicate contributory water quality issues, slow flow conditions, but a relatively high quality macroinvertebrate community, given the poor quality of the habitat. The scarce chaser (Libellula fulva) for which the River Great Ouse CWS is designated was not recorded at either long-term Environment Agency site.
77
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Macrophytes Incidental macrophyte records were included in invertebrate sample data at both sites, and summary taxa lists will be included in the Environmental Statement. A number of species recorded have been assessed as Least Concern under IUCN Red List criteria. In addition, two macrophyte surveys were conducted in 2007 and 2010 at monitoring site 36M04. The assemblage Mean Trophic Rank (Holmes, 2010) was calculated for both surveys, giving scores of 26.3 and 27.5 respectively, indicating the site is subject to nutrient enrichment. Two non-native species were found at 36M04: Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera and Nutalls pondweed Elodea nuttallii. Diatoms Bi-annual diatom surveys were conducted in 2007 and 2010 at Ely Road. The assemblage Trophic Diatom Index (Kelly and Whitton, 20019) was calculated for each survey and ranged from 46.94 to 59.75. A full species list and frequency of occurrence will be included in the Environmental Statement. Fish The Ten Mile River is designated under the Freshwater Fish Directive as a cyprinid water. However, the official extent of this designation begins downstream of its confluence with the Little Ouse River (NGR TL 60700 91800) some 20km downstream of the Scheme crossing point. Two fisheries surveys were undertaken in 2000 and 2006 immediately downstream of the proposed route crossing point (NGR-TL544791). The species recorded in these surveys were identical, with the exception of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) which was recorded only in the earlier survey. However in the same year it was absent at this site, it was recorded further downstream at an additional monitoring site near Adelaide. A full species list is shown in Table 11-3. Table 11-3: Fish Species Recorded at Bypass Crossing Site Species Rhodeus sericeus Alburnus alburnus Abramis brama Anguilla anguilla* Gobio gobio Perca fluviatilis Esox lucius Rutilus rutilus Rutilus rutilus x Abramis brama Scardinius erythrophthalmus Gymnocephalus cernuus Abramis bjoerkna Tinca tinca Sander lucioperca Common Name Bitterling Bleak Common bream European eel Gudgeon Perch Pike Roach Roach x common bream hybrid Rudd Ruffe Silver bream Tench Zander
*IUCN Critically Endangered, UKBAP species and Species of Principal Importance
Kelly, M.G. & Whitton, B.A. (2001) The Trophic Diatom Index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology 7, 433-444.
78
Based on Environment Agency survey data, roach is by far the most common species, followed by common bream and perch. European eel was the least common species based on the earlier sample. Environment Agency hydro-acoustic surveys undertaken in 2011 indicate a fish density of between 0 and 75 fish/1000m3 in this reach, increasing to over 125 fish/1000m3 further downstream. The only designated fish species found to occur in this reach is the European eel. It is listed as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List on account of an estimated population crash of 80% in the last 60 years10. However the primary threat to the European eel is physical barriers to migration, and this Scheme does not propose any such alteration to the watercourse. River Habitat Five River Habitat Surveys (RHS) have been undertaken in proximity of the bypass crossing point. These are summarised below in Table 11-4. Table 11-4: Summary of River Habitat Surveys in Site Vicinity Survey ID Site ID NGR Flow Category Habitat Modification (Cumecs) Class (HMC) 2.5 - 5.0 10.0 - 20.0 10.0 - 20.0 10.0 - 20.0 10.0 - 20.0 5 2 4 5 5 HMC Class Description
11528 11529 11530 11531 11532
7209 7210 7211 7212 7213
TL5380076000 TL5420077900 TL5450079800 TL5630080800 TL5680082700
Severely Modified Predominantly Unmodified Significantly Modified Severely Modified Severely Modified
Generally RHS identified the River Great Ouse as severely modified throughout this reach. No pools, riffles, point bars or natural channel features were recorded in any RHS, highlighting limited habitat diversity. Site 7211 lies in closest proximity to the bypass crossing point, and falls within HMC 4 (Significantly Modified). This score is due to extensive reinforcements at both banks, which at two spot checks is recorded as corrugated iron. Channel substrate was recorded as silt at eight out of ten spot checks, though gravel/pebble was recorded at the two remaining spot checks. No perceptible flow was recorded at all spot check sites.
11.5.5. Water Framework Directive Compliance

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that there should be no deterioration in the current status of any water body and that measures should be put in place to ensure that future status for those water bodies that do not currently achieve Good Status (for natural water bodies) or Good Ecological Potential (for heavily modified or artificial water bodies) can do so by specified target dates. This is being applied by the Environment Agency across England and Wales through the publication of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) for each of the 11 major river catchments. The River Great Ouse falls within the Anglian River Basin District and the study site lies within a reach known under the RBMP as the Ten Mile River Waterbody (GB105033047850)11. Annex B of the
10 11
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/60344/0 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124725.aspx
79
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report River Basin Management Plan presents the current status of each water body reach and future targets. The Ten Mile River is designated as an artificial water body for flood protection, land drainage, navigation and urbanisation, and has an overall Ecological Potential of Moderate, with an objective of Good Ecological Potential by 2027. The WFD classification or ecological status of a defined water body is produced by assessment of a wide variety of different elements, including biological elements such as fish, invertebrates and phytobenthos; other elements including chemical measurements and supporting conditions are considered within the road drainage and water environment assessment - chapter 17. In the case of heavily modified and artificial water bodies however, such as the Ten Mile River, the WFD classification or ecological potential is defined by a series of water body-specific mitigation measures being in place. A summary of the current status of the biological elements for the waterbody is presented in Table 11-5. Table 11-5: Summary of biological WFD elements Biological Element Fish Invertebrates Macrophytes Phytobenthos Current Status High High Moderate (quite certain) Moderate (uncertain) Predicted Status (by 2015) High High Moderate Moderate
The following generic environmental objectives (based on Article 4.1 of the WFD) will be used to make recommendations on WFD compliance of the Scheme. Objective 1: The Scheme will not cause a deterioration in any element of water body classification Objective 2: The Scheme will not prevent the WFD status objectives from being reached within the water body or other downstream water bodies Objective 3: The Scheme will contribute to the delivery of the relevant WFD objectives. In this case it will be what contribution the Scheme can make towards the water body reaching its objective Good Ecological Potential (GEP) through planned RBMP mitigation measures.
Compliance for chemical and supporting elements is assessed in Chapter 17 on Road Drainage and the Water Environment, which finds the Scheme compliant in respect to these elements. Assuming that no structures are built within the channel (as recommended by the Flood Risk Assessment), there is no river realignment to facilitate construction, and mitigation measures are implemented as outlined in the subsequent section, the Scheme should be deemed compliant in terms of biological elements. Alongside the assessment of supporting/chemical elements in chapter 17, it is likely that the bypass Scheme will be considered compliant with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.
11.5.6. Further survey

Further survey and update surveys are being undertaken 2012. The results and methodologies of these will be included in the ES. Further survey undertaken and currently being carried out includes;
80
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Detailed inspections of any barns or buildings in proximity to Route B for bat evidence, detailed inspection of any trees to be removed for bat evidence followed by bat surveys for presence/absence. Bat activity surveys throughout route; Presence absence surveys for reptiles along suitable habitats; Habitat Suitability Index assessments for great crested newt and presence/absence surveys; Wintering and breeding bird surveys; Barn owl surveys; Habitat suitability assessments for white-clawed crayfish; Badger survey; Phase 1 Habitat Survey update; Water vole and otter survey; and Initial invertebrate appraisal
11.6.

Further assessment is going to be undertaken with respect to affects on Ely Pits and Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Advice will be sought from Natural England. With respect to the River Great Ouse CWS consultation will take place between the Cambridgeshire County Council and the Local Wildlife Trust to determine the potential issues and to explore potential avoidance or mitigation. If the construction of the bridge piers requires any land take then mitigation will be required for loss of habitat. This could include habitat management within the retained areas of the designated sites, suitable habitat creation within the landscape design and within the existing proposed CPO, or, if this is not sufficient, habitat creation elsewhere. Mitigation measures during construction will be set out in a Construction Environmental Management Plan or equivalent document. This will include measures such as temporary fencing to protect areas outside the working corridor.
11.6.2. Protected Species

A number of measures will be required to mitigate the effects on legally protected species. These will be determined when the results of the ongoing surveys are available and the potential effects of the Scheme have been assessed. Some of these measures will require licences from Natural England, depending on the species involved and the severity of the effect. Such measures could include the following: Bats Retention of important bat commuting and foraging corridors associated with the River Great Ouse through sensitive bridge design. In particular, the new crossing over the River Great Ouse should be sufficiently high to allow bat foraging and commuting activity to continue beneath the carriageway; Retention, where possible, of trees and buildings adjacent to the road corridor which have moderate/high or high potential to support a bat roost; Consideration of lighting (type and location) to avoid disruption of flight corridors and foraging activity at key sites; Provision of artificial roost sites to provide increased roosting opportunities (including potentially within new bridges); and Creation and management of high quality habitats to off-set the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation such as planting of hedges to act as bat flight lines to replace those lost. The detail of appropriate mitigation for bats will be reviewed in the light of the 20012 survey findings and will be incorporated into the Scheme design and detailed within the Environmental Statement
81
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Badgers At present no setts have been identified within the Scheme route. However, full access onto Network Rail was not permitted. Precautionary checks will be undertaken prior to site clearance. If setts are discovered during further survey mitigation measures could include: Exclusion and closure of badger setts under licence; Provision of artificial badger setts to provide for any main setts lost; Ongoing monitoring of the site to check for any increased activity prior to the works; Suitable precautions during construction to prevent harm, reduce disturbance and minimise opportunities for the excavation of new setts;
Long term measures to protect badgers are likely to include: Badger proof fencing, maintained to ensure long term efficacy and used to direct badgers to a suitable crossing point; and Tunnels, underpasses and over-bridges to provide suitable crossing points for badgers (in combination with the well placed fencing to encourage use of these crossing points). Design solutions will need to be incorporated into these to ensure tunnels do not become waterlogged.
Final mitigation will depend on updated badger survey results. Birds In order to avoid impacts upon barn owls, mitigation may include planting to deter barn owls from foraging near road verges. The local bird club and Barn Owl Trust will be contacted for any further information and advice in relation to barn owls and the potential for the Scheme to impact upon this species. The RSPB will be contacted to discuss the results of the breeding and wintering bird surveys and appropriate mitigation. Disturbance to breeding birds can be avoided by programming site clearance and vegetation removal to be outside of the main nesting period for birds, which is between 1st February and 31st August (in practice it is usually March to July and is subject to geographical and seasonal factors) or by programming suitable checks prior to site clearance works. Additional mitigation for breeding and wintering birds may be required, and will be provided following evaluation and assessment of the 2012 bird surveys. Otter Owing to known otter populations in the River Great Ouse, mitigation to be incorporated into the Scheme design will include sensitive bridge design at the crossing point, and will include culverts and tunnels with otter ledges along the ditches. These measures will be considered elsewhere along the route where there are other aquatic habitats that could be used by otter in future and for dispersal, as otter populations in England are known to be increasing. The results of ongoing field survey in 2012 may identify new evidence of otter within the route corridor that could require the work to be undertaken under an appropriate Natural England protected species development licence and/or additional mitigation measures to be incorporated, such as artificial otter holts or habitat retention, creation and/or enhancement Water vole There are a number of watercourses to be crossed or directly affected by the route corridor that could be used by water vole (2012 survey work will determine the extent of use and will estimate population sizes). Any work in areas of known water vole habitat may require:
82
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report To be programmed to avoid the breeding period (safe working times are generally between August-October). Exclusion of water vole from the area, to a method agreed with Natural England The inclusion of mammal ledges within the design (in culverts and under bridges) Habitat retention, creation and/or enhancement.
White clawed crayfish Mitigation for this species will only be required if it is found to be present within any aquatic habitat to be affected by the Scheme proposals. Any mitigation required will be designed and incorporated into the proposals once the results of the 2012 survey work become available. Hazel Dormouse If the information to be obtained from Natural England and/or Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust confirms the presence of dormice in the hedgerows to be affected by the Scheme, then suitable mitigation measures will be proposed and details will be provided in the ES. Measures may include working practices to minimise risks to dormice during site clearance and the creation of new dormouse habitat such as attractive new hedgerows and planting away from the Scheme, as well as appropriate longterm management of these. Great Crested Newt Mitigation may be required for this species if the 2012 pond surveys confirm their presence within the route corridor. The type and extent of the mitigation will depend largely on the outcome of these surveys and will be detailed further within the ES. Invertebrates Specific mitigation measures to prevent any reduction in the value of the site to invertebrates is probably not required but until a full set of data is analysed it is not possible to fully determine. A number of measures that have been proposed for Habitats and Flora below would benefit a range of species, including invertebrates. Reptiles As a precautionary measure against the unexpected presence of reptiles, any initial clearance works on site should be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist. More detailed mitigation may be proposed and included in the Environmental Statement, in light of the results from the proposed 20012 survey work.
11.6.3. Habitats and Flora

A range of measures will be developed from the basis of the earlier work; these would also be of benefit to many of the protected species groups discussed above: Where possible, retain hedgerows and grassland habitat within the River Great Ouse corridor and floodplain area. Reconnect continuous hedgerow habitats using the same species as currently present. No further ecology survey work will be necessary unless hedgerows are to be removed during the bird nesting season; a watching brief will be required if this is the case; Where possible established trees should be retained and fenced off in accordance with BS 5837: 2005 Trees in Relation to Construction in order to reduce the possibility of any damage that may be caused during works; As part of the landscape mitigation proposals, locally native tree, shrub and herbaceous species and non-competitive native grasses should be used where possible. These areas should be designed and managed in an ecologically sensitive manner, so that once they have become established they would enhance the nature conservation value of the area; Retain as far as possible the crack willow trees located along the banks of the River Ouse and create habitat piles nearby using the wood from any trees felled at this location, in combination with replacement planting of trees in the nearby area;
83
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Maintain/create a mosaic of habitat types along the new road verge (including grassland, scrub, open water and woodland); Undertake annual management of the habitat types: annual cut of the grassland areas and reduction of scrub encroachment during the winter months, with the cuttings retained and used for on site compost heaps; Provide shelter and over-wintering sites (hibernacula) for reptiles and other species along the route by creating a series of log piles on the site, using any trees felled during the initial site clearance works and through the creation of rubble piles; Design balancing ponds to provide habitat for wildlife; Provide mitigation for potential effects on the brown hare population; Use open ditches and swales for drainage rather than enclosed pipes and French drains, as these also provide alternative habitats.
11.6.4. Aquatic Ecology

A range of measures should be considered to mitigate the effects of construction on the aquatic ecology of the River Great Ouse: Apply appropriate surface water management techniques to prevent pollution of watercourses by spillages or sediment release that could otherwise impact water quality, fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates; Ensure equipment is left in locations that will not be adversely affected by rainfall or high flow events that could occur outside of working hours and lead to erosion or release of sediments or pollutants into watercourses; Follow appropriate Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) for prevention of sediment or pollution release during construction works; Avoid crossing watercourses wherever possible; Design access routes to use existing access tracks and watercourse crossings wherever possible, to avoid the construction of new crossing structures; Himalayan balsam is an invasive species recorded in the site vicinity, listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). Any contaminated soil or plant material is classified as controlled waste and should be disposed of in a suitably licensed landfill site, accompanied by appropriate Waste Transfer documentation, and must comply with section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
11.6.5. Habitat Enhancement Measures

Objective 3 of the WFD compliance assessment states that: the Scheme will contribute to the delivery of the relevant WFD objectives. In the case of the artificial Ten Mile River, it will be what contribution the Scheme can make towards the water body reaching its objective Good Ecological Potential (GEP) through planned RBMP mitigation measures. A large number of mitigation measures have been identified in the River Basin Management Plan to achieve Good Ecological Potential for the water body. Several measures have already been implemented. Of outstanding mitigation measures, it may be possible to implement some of the following as part of the Scheme: Bank rehabilitation / reprofiling*; Increase in-channel morphological diversity; Preserve and where possible enhance ecological value of marginal aquatic habitat, banks and riparian zone; Reduce sediment resuspension; Alter timing of dredging / disposal; Removal of hard bank reinforcement / revetment, or replacement with soft engineering solution.
Using a combination of bioengineering and biotechnical techniques such as coir and rock roll installation, marginal river habitat in this reach can be enhanced. This would aim to establish marginal
84
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report vegetation and increase stream sinuosity by selective removal of hard bank revetment, contributing to outstanding WFD mitigation measures listed above. Further measures to enhance the aquatic environment may include the provision of scrapes on adjacent land, and through liaison with land-owners, the establishment of drainage ditch re-profiling and management strategies for the benefit of wildlife. Primary targets with respect to drainage ditch management would be the re-establishment of aquatic macrophytes, the inclusion of silt traps and profiling of a submerged berm. These enhancements would aim to benefit a range of species, but marginal habitat enhancements and rotational management strategies can be tailored where possible to target benefits for the scarce chaser (Libellula fulva), the Red Data Book species for which this region is known to be important.
11.7.
This section identifies the likely residual effects of the Scheme, based on current knowledge of the ecology of the zone of influence of the Scheme. If features are found during the on-going survey work, which would be affected significantly by the Scheme, this list of likely residual effects would change. It takes account of the likely ease of mitigation, and the likely success of proposed mitigation measures. Further impact assessment will be undertaken and included within the Environmental Statement once the 2012 surveys have been completed and any additional data has been collated from the consultees.

It is unlikely that there will adverse impacts of the SSSI however consultation will be undertaken with Natural England. There will be a small permanent loss of some habitat within the River Great Ouse CWS. Consideration will be given in planning mitigation and undertaking impact assessment to potential indirect effects on the CWS. Angel Drove CWS should not be affected.
11.7.2. Protected and Notable Species

Bats There should be no permanent loss of bat roosts through the removal of trees and/or buildings from the Scheme footprint. To increase the suitability of habitat in the area measures will be included such as the use of artificial roosts and bat boxes. The impacts of the Scheme upon important bat foraging habitats is likely to be negligible following incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures and may even provide benefits to bats in the long term through the creation of new foraging habitat, such as woodland and hedgerows. However, the presence of the new road is likely to result in fragmentation of bat commuting habitat, particularly where linear features such as hedge lines and ditches are severed. Badgers The predicted impacts upon badgers is negligible given no setts have yet been identified. Birds There may be negative impacts upon barn owls, and other wintering and breeding birds, although further information is required in relation to these species in order to assess the likely impacts upon them in any detail.
85
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Provided vegetation clearance is undertaken outside of the main nesting period for birds, the disturbance levels are likely to be negligible. There will be some short term loss of breeding habitat, though there are plenty of similar habitats for breeding birds to re-locate to in the wider landscape in the short term. In the long term, the new landscaped roadside verges are likely to increase the amount of bird breeding habitat available in the local area for particular species of bird. Otter The potential impact of fragmentation of otter habitat, where the proposed route crosses the River Great Ouse and other aquatic habitats, will be mitigated by the design of the river crossing and elsewhere by inclusion of culverts and tunnels with mammal ledges. Water Vole There may be some short term negative impacts upon water vole through habitat loss, although in the long term, measures to include habitat creation and enhancement as part of the proposals are likely to result in negligible impacts. The potential impact of fragmentation of water vole habitat (where the proposed route crosses ditches) will be mitigated for by the design of the river crossing and elsewhere by inclusion of culverts and tunnels with mammal ledges. White clawed crayfish There are currently no impacts upon this species predicted. Hazel dormouse There are currently no impacts upon this species predicted. Great crested newt 2012 surveys indicate that there are no great crested newts present within the Scheme footprint and up to 500 m. Invertebrates There are no significant adverse impacts upon invertebrate species predicted as a result of the Scheme proposals. It is possible that creation of new road verge habitats will provide benefits to invertebrates. Reptiles It is possible that the Scheme could have direct impacts if reptiles are found to be present within habitats that are to be lost within the footprint of the Scheme. However, mitigation measures are likely to mitigate fully any significant impacts. It is likely that creation of substantial lengths of new road verge habitats will provide benefits to reptiles.
11.7.3. Habitats and Flora

The habitats to be effected by the Scheme include ditch, arable fields, scattered scrub, hedgerow, field margins, and marsh grassland. Mitigation to provide new hedgerows, road verge and mammal friendly culverts through the ditches within the landscape scheme will, in the long term, replace the habitat lost, but will not be able provide the same link between habitats to the north and south of the road. As part of the landscape mitigation proposals, the inclusion of locally native tree, shrub and herbaceous species and non-aggressive grasses, once established are likely to enhance the nature conservation value of the area.
11.7.4. Aquatic Ecology

The Flood Risk Assessment recommends that no permanent in-channel structures are included in the bypass design, and surface drainage restrictions have been imposed on the Scheme by the
86
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Environment Agency to avoid channel erosion. Additionally, there should only be minimal alteration to the existing floodplain. Based on these assumptions, the main potential impacts are associated with the physical construction of the bypass rather than its operation. Primary effects on the aquatic environment associated with construction include: Release of industrial pollutants through spillage/seepage; Release of organic sediments leading to de-oxygenation of downstream areas (loss of fish and invertebrates may result); Shading of river habitat by haulage crossing structures; Erosion/damage of bank habitat by haulage roads.
Provided the recommended construction mitigation measures are implemented and assuming that no structures are built within the channel or floodplain as recommended by the Flood Risk Assessment, there should be no need for further surveys to investigate the aquatic ecology elements. Effects should be fully mitigated by measures outlined, with the potential for enhancement. The Scheme should also be compliant with the WFD.
11.8.
Summary
This scoping study has reviewed and summarised the findings of various ecological desk and field surveys that have been undertaken since 2010 in relation to Route B of Ely Southern Bypass. The previous data gathered provides an overview of the existing conditions at the site, and includes information on the presence of designated sites of nature conservation interest, habitats of interest and notable or protected species of flora and fauna that occur within the route corridor and within the predicted zone of influence in the surrounding area. Based on the information obtained to date, the majority of the route corridor is considered to be of low to moderate ecological value, being predominantly species poor arable land separated by species poor, low quality hedgerows and ditches. There are certain areas within the route corridor that are of higher ecological value, including the River Great Ouse and surrounding marsh grassland. It has been recognised from earlier work that more information is required in relation to particular habitats and protected species present at the site. This has been described and is ongoing. The results will be included within the ES. This report has provided a summary of ecological features at the site and gives a basic assessment of the Scheme effects upon these, providing an outline of the type of mitigation measures that are likely to be incorporated to offset any adverse impacts.
87
12. Geology and Soils

12.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the proposed approach to the assessment of ground conditions, which includes geology, soils and land contamination of the Scheme. A preliminary review of ground conditions, including geology and potential sources/presence of land contamination, has been carried out to develop the baseline conditions and sensitivity and enable preliminary identification of potential effect of the Scheme on land contamination/quality.
12.2.
Sources of information to be reviewed to obtain baseline data about the Scheme and aspects that may require further documentary searches include: Landmark Information Group for an updated Envirocheck report, which includes data from the Environment Agency and Local Authority, amongst others and provides listings including surface water features, surface watercourses, abstraction licences, discharge consents, environmental permits, waste management permits, historical landfill locations and pollution incidents; Historical maps, also provided by Landmark Information Group, from approximately 1870 to current at scales of 10, 560 (1:10,000 in more recent years) and 1:2,500; Aerial photographs viewed on Bing Maps providing additional data to the historical mapping; British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 geological mapping data for Ely (Sheet 173) and the Cambridge memoir providing data on the solid and drift geology underlying the route; Environment Agency website for information on aquifer status and groundwater Source Protection Zones; and Previous reports, particularly the Preliminary Sources Study Report and the Ground Investigation Report for Phase 1 of the GI works. A Phase 2 ground investigation is anticipated to be completed before the end of 2012.
The study area considered within this chapter includes the bypass route together with the adjacent and surrounding land and features within 500m of the Scheme. Consideration is given to: Potential human receptors on the route and study area; Potential controlled water receptors including surface watercourses and groundwater in the underlying aquifers on the route and study area; and Potential property receptors (including buildings, services and infrastructure) on the route and study area.
Interpretation of the ground investigation results will be reported separately once received.
12.3.
The methodology for assessing the impact of geology and soils has been carried out in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Primary UK guidance for assessing and managing land contamination is presented in Contaminated Land Report (CLR) 11 entitled Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. CLR11 provides a technical framework for identifying and remediating contamination through the application of a risk management process. CLR11 requires development of a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to represent the characteristics of the Site and identify any potential contaminant linkages. A CSM describes the relationship between contamination which may be present from past and current activities on a site (and any off-site activities which may affect a site) and receptors which
89
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report could be exposed to that contamination. As part of the CSM development, three elements, the source of contamination and associated contaminants, receptors to that contamination and the pathways between the two are considered separately initially. These are then assessed further to determine whether all three elements are present or are likely to be present and if so, described as a Potential Contaminant Linkage (PCL). The basic approach to land contamination risk assessment reported here follows the principles given in CLR11. The assessment of whether potential land contamination impacts are likely to exist during construction and operation of the Scheme has been carried out by developing a preliminary baseline CSM for the baseline and comparing this with the predicted preliminary CSMs during the construction and operational phases.
12.4.
Baseline Conditions
12.4.1. History of the Site and Surrounding Area

The history of the route and surrounding area (site) is summarised as follows: 1885 - Agricultural farming seems to be the primary use within the route/study area. The railway lines, River Great Ouse and associated flood defence bunds cross the route/study area in their present positions. The railway station was present at this time in its current location (approximately 800m north of the route/study area) and included an engine shed, an engine house and cattle pens. A number of drainage ditches also appear along the route alignment generally trending northeast to southwest. A building exists along the route alignment. During Phase 1 of the Ground Investigation, the landowner stated that this building comprised a former horse slaughter house. Gas works and water works are recorded to the north just across the Cawdle Fen Drove Track approximately 1km from the route/study area; 1902-1903: Allotment gardens are recorded directly west of the junction of the railway lines. A second building is shown at the boundary immediately to the west of the existing building at TL541 788, 280m to the north of the route/study area. This is marked as Cawdle Fen Engine drainage. A smaller building is shown immediately to the west of the former slaughter house at TL545 787. A goods shed is shown at Ely Rail Station to the north; 1927: Allotment gardens are shown directly east of the northern extent of the route/study area adjacent to the A142 Stuntney Causeway road. The gas works and water works to the north are no longer labelled. The old draining Cawdle Fen Engine is now called pumping station; 1958-1959: The engine house north of the central section of the route/study area is no longer labelled as such on this map, although the building is still present; 1971-1972: A track is shown directly east of the railway lines junction. More drains are recorded between the eastern flood bund and river. The slaughter house buildings at approximate TL545 787 do not appear on the map. An un-named building is recorded at the location of the northern roundabout. The Cawdle Fen pumping station and allotment gardens north of the central route/study area section are no longer indicated and the area is shown to comprise playing fields. More buildings appear at the northern end of the route/study area and Rye Farm and The Bungalow are recorded for the first time. An un-named building and tank and a telephone engineering centre are 650m to the north of the route/study area; 1974-1975: The flood defences around the River Great Ouse appear to have developed in size. The gas works no longer appear on the map; 1983: The building at the location of the northern roundabout is no longer recorded. The Cambridgeshire Business Park is present 370m to the north of the route/study area; 1990-1992: A building is recorded at the junction of the two railway lines and a depot is present 300m to the north of the route/study area; 2000: Sewage works and new tracks have appeared near the proposed A142 Angel Drove junction, approximately 80m to the south; and 2011: An area of wooded vegetation appears between the sewage works and western site end.
90
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report According to the Environment Agency website there are no landfills within 500m of the route/study area.
12.4.2. Geology
Drift and bedrock geology have been assessed from available geological data of the area including geological maps and historical borehole records. A summary of the anticipated geology is presented in Table 12-1: Table 12-1: Summary of Geology Deposit Drift Geological Period Quaternary Geological Unit Nordelph Peat Alluvium Approximate Thickness (m) Up to 1.5 Up to 1.5
Marine Alluvium (Barroway Up to 6 Drove Beds) Solid Jurassic Kimmeridge Clay Ampthill Clay 15 46 20 50
It is likely that Made Ground will be encountered at various locations across the route/study area because of former uses.
12.4.3. Mineral Resources

The route is not in an area that is affected by coal mining nor are there any BGS recorded mineral sites within 500m according to the Envirocheck Report.
12.4.4. Hydrogeology
According to the Environment Agency website (Ref Error! Bookmark not defined.), the Kimmeridge and Ampthill Clays are classified as Unproductive Strata of negligible permeability. The River Terrace Gravels and Alluvial deposits are both described as Secondary A Aquifers. These are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers.
12.4.4.1. Groundwater Abstractions

The Envirocheck Report has no records of groundwater abstractions within 500m of the route and the route does not lie within a groundwater source protection zone (SPZ).
12.4.4.2. Water Levels and Flow Directions

No information regarding groundwater levels and flow directions were included within the historical borehole information but the groundwater is assumed to be near to the surface because of the predominant land use as a fen.
12.4.4.3. Tidal Influences

None of the surface watercourses in the area are subject to tidal influence.
12.4.4.4. Discharges to Ground

There are no reported discharges to ground within the route/study area based on the Landmark Envirocheck report (Ref Error! Bookmark not defined.).
91
12.4.5. Hydrology
12.4.5.1. Surface Water Features
The Scheme will cross a series of surface water irrigation drainage channels which typically run northwest - southeast (north-south towards the eastern route extent) and drain the water towards the River Great Ouse which has a general water quality assessment (GQA) river quality B. The principal surface watercourse within the study area is the River Great Ouse, which flows in a northerly direction under the route.
12.4.5.2. Abstractions
Eight surface water abstractions from four abstraction points are recorded within 100m of the route, including abstractions from the drain south of Ely and the drain at Middle Fen Bank. These are for spray irrigation and general agriculture.
12.4.5.3. Discharges
There are no reported discharges to surface water within 500m of the route boundary based on the Landmark Envirocheck report.
12.4.5.4. Sensitive Land Uses

The closest ecological receptor is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 1.6km to the north of the route/study area.
12.4.5.5. Data Coverage

It is considered that there are sufficient data to assess the effects of the Scheme in terms of identifying historical and current sources, potential pathways and receptors.
12.4.6. Conceptual Site Model 12.4.7. Baseline Sources

Existing potential sources of contamination from current or historical land use within 500m of the route have been identified using historical maps and the Environment Agency website and are summarised in Table 12.1.
92
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 12-1: Summary of Potentially Contaminating Historical and Existing Land Uses Name Flood defence bunds Constructed between Pre 1885 Demolished between Still present Location On site Details These are unlikely to be disturbed during the construction works
Pumping station 1902
1971
280m to the Previously called draining north of the site Cawdle Fen Engine. Due to the distance from the site this is not considered a potential source of contamination On site These are unlikely to be disturbed during the construction works
Railway line
Pre 1885
Still present
Station, engine Pre 1885 sheds and depot
1971
300m to the Due to the distance from north of the site the site these are not considered a potential source of contamination In the western section of the Scheme 80m to the south Anecdotal evidence, area to be further investigated in Phase 2 of the ground investigation Due to the distance from the site this is not considered a potential source of contamination Potential risk from alluvium and peat
Possible Pre 1885 slaughter house
1972
Sewage works
2000
Still present
Ground gas
On site
Based on review of historical plans there are three land uses where there is a possibility for contamination to exist. These include the flood bunds, railway lines and the area around the building, which anecdotal evidence suggests, was a former slaughter house.
12.4.8. Receptors
Most of the route passes through agricultural land, a railway and a river. The closest residential property is Rhy Farm adjacent to the eastern extent of the route. Therefore, potential on-site human receptors to potential contamination are considered to include farm workers and members of the public using footpaths and employees who visit the railway. Controlled water receptors to potential contamination include groundwater in the Drift Deposits Secondary Aquifers and surface watercourses. Property (Buildings/Infrastructure) receptors to potential contamination include services and infrastructure present on the railway and surrounding buildings of the sewage works. Other property receptors to potential contamination include livestock and crops on the agricultural land, domestic animals walked on the land and domestic produce grown in gardens.
12.4.9. Pathways
Potential exposure pathways to the on-site and off-site human receptors identified include:
93
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report dermal contact with and ingestion and inhalation of contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and entrained surface water run-off and in shallow groundwater; and inhalation of vapours (volatile contaminants which volatilise from soil/groundwater to the surface)/ground gas.
Potential pathways to groundwater and surface water include: leaching of contaminants from the unsaturated soil zone and vertical migration to groundwater; and discharge of contaminants entrained in surface water run-off, in migrating groundwater and migration of contaminants along preferential pathways, for example service trenches and pipes.
The potential pathways to livestock and crops include: dermal contact with and ingestion and inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and inhalation of migrating vapours/ground gas (livestock); and leaf contact with contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust and root uptake of contaminants in migrating shallow groundwater (crops);
Potential pathways to buildings/infrastructure include: on-site: direct contact with contaminants in soil and shallow groundwater and migration and accumulation of migrating vapours and ground gas in enclosed spaces; and off-site: direct contact with contaminants in migrating shallow groundwater and migration and accumulation of vapours and ground gas in buildings and enclosed spaces.
12.5.
The Scheme will be designed to ensure construction works will not pose a risk to human health or the environment. A further intrusive ground investigation will be undertaken along the proposed route to inform foundation design, health and safety risk assessments, waste classification and potential reuse of materials. Such investigations will also provide information on existing contamination should any exist. Appropriate mitigation measures will be identified as part of the assessment. These could include: further ground investigation to determine areas of contaminated ground enabling incorporation of appropriate design measures to ensure minimal disturbance; design of geotechnical engineering features to ensure that contamination migration pathways are not created; assessment of the risk from migration of vapours/ground gas along infrastructure to determine protective measures that may potentially be required; and classification of waste, undertaken to inform reuse or disposal of material. This will be undertaken in accordance with current UK and European legislation regarding management of wastes. The potential effects will be reduced by adoption of mitigation measures including development of a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP).
No significant impacts land contamination risks are anticipated, but good site practices should be adhered to during construction. Measures are likely to include (but not be limited to): management of potential risks to construction workers through health and safety legislation, such as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations that require the employer to carry out an assessment of the risks associated with exposure to hazardous substances and then to prevent and if this is not reasonably practicable, to adequately control such exposures;
94
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report working methods during construction to ensure that surface water cannot run from the works and any stockpiles into adjacent surface watercourses; implementation of appropriate dust control measures; storage of fuel away from surface watercourses in accordance with Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) notes PPG2 and PPG6; and development of a methodology to address what remedial actions will be undertaken and how such actions will be validated and recorded if unsuspected contamination is encountered during the works.
The measures listed above are a small selection of those adopted as standard as part of site practices on all development sites and will be detailed in a Construction Environmental Management Plan.
12.6.
Expected Effects on the Scheme
A preliminary impact assessment has been carried out. This has assessed whether there are likely to be significant changes between the baseline CSM and the construction and operation CSMs. If no significant change is identified, there is unlikely to be a significant environmental effect from the Scheme from contamination.
12.6.1. Construction
During the construction phase construction workers are introduced as an additional human receptor. These workers are likely to come in contact with excavated material as part of the works. However, it is assumed that all construction workers will be wearing appropriate Personnel Protective Equipment and adopting appropriate working methods to minimise exposure according to site-specific health and safety risk assessments. Structures will be constructed over the railway line and the river and the risk of encountering contamination from the railway and the flood bunds is considered low. The construction phase of the works will also involve the establishment of site compounds along the proposed route for storage of plant and equipment and placement of temporary welfare and office units. It is anticipated that where compounds are required on rural land, crush or gravel will be placed on the existing soil cover and temporary structures will be solely above ground. The construction phase has the potential to introduce new sources of contamination from the potentially polluting materials used, mobilise existing contamination and create new pathways to receptors. Potential changes include but are not limited to: potential for mobilising contaminants by excavation and stockpiling material. This would increase the risk to controlled water receptors through leaching and run-off. Earthworks could provide opportunity for run-off to contain suspended solids if not managed properly; potential for creation of new pathways to groundwater by drilling; potential for construction of below ground structures to create preferential pathways for the migration of existing contamination; potential for exposure of human receptors by generation of contaminated dust released by the construction works; potential for exposure of construction workers to existing contamination because of direct contact with the material; potential for release of potentially polluting substances used during the construction phase, for example, spillages of oil or fuel from equipment particularly in construction compounds; and potential that waste generated is classified as hazardous, requiring removal from site. According to Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations, the characteristics of development must be considered having regard, in particular, to the production of waste.
95
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report These risks and issues are not unusual for a project of this type within a sensitive water environment and can be managed through the design and construction mitigation measures detailed below.
12.6.2. Operation
During the operational phase human receptors will be users of the road and maintenance workers. Controlled waters receptors (groundwater and surface water) will be the same as the baseline. Property receptors will include the new road and other property receptors will remain the same as the baseline. There is potential for spills and leaks to occur from future road users but these will be managed through the road drainage design.
12.6.3. Scoping
The route is mainly on green field land that has not been previously developed. The area with potential for contamination is around the railway and the flood bunds as well as the area of Made Ground that anecdotal information suggests was associated with a slaughter house. The section at the location of the railway and river is to be on a bridge. This means that excavations will be minimal and likely to include foundations only. It is unlikely that this will be within the railway foundations or the flood bunds and the risk of encountering contamination is considered low. There may be impacts from construction on the environment and a change in the CSM from the baseline including waste production, risk to construction workers, creating pathways to controlled water receptors and property receptors from vapours/ground gas. These can be managed by mitigation detailed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan for the Scheme. The only change from baseline to operation CSM is the risk of spills and leaks from future road users creating an additional source of contamination. This will be addressed as part of the drainage design and mitigation included. It is not considered necessary to address further. Having reviewed the CSMs for the Scheme it proposed that the land contamination and ground conditions should be scoped out of the ES.
12.7.
Summary
This section has considered the effects the construction and operation of the Scheme will have on the ground conditions underlying the route. A preliminary review of desk study information was undertaken which identified three areas of potential contamination. The possible impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Scheme through these areas is not considered significant because they can be mitigated through standard site practices such as ground investigation to inform design and good construction practices. It is concluded that there are unlikely to be any potential significant effects relating to land contamination throughout the Scheme which require further assessment/investigation beyond that which will be undertaken for design purposes. Significant environmental effects related to ground conditions are not anticipated during construction and operation of the Scheme and it is considered that ground conditions should be scoped out of further assessment at EIA stage.
96
13. Materials
13.1. Introduction
Materials used and wastes generated have the potential to generate significant environmental impacts by either using large quantities of materials or creating large amount of waste or hazardous wastes.
13.2.
Study Area
The route will run from the south of the city of Ely, commencing from a new roundabout on the existing A142 Angel Drove (TL 534 787) approximately 200m east of the A10 junction. The route will run eastwards to rejoin the A142 Stuntney Causeway road. The length of this route is approximately 1.59km and will comprise a single carriageway throughout its length. It is currently proposed to cross the Cambridge to Ely, Newmarket to Ely railway lines and the River Great Ouse by constructing one or two structures. It is currently anticipated that the option of constructing two shorter multispan structures is likely to be the preferred option.
13.3.
Information sources are to be reviewed to obtain baseline data about the Scheme and aspects that may require further documentary searches and include: Landmark Information Group for an updated Envirocheck report, which includes data from the Environment Agency and Local Authority including existing and historic landfill sites and waste facility locations;
13.4.
Assessment of the Scheme will be undertaken in line with the DRMB Interim Guidance Note 153/11 Guidance on the Environmental Assessment of Material Resources. The project value is in excess of 300,000 and the guidance highlights that the Scheme has the potential to cause significant effects. However given the scale of works proposed and in particular, the limited excavation proposed, it is considered that a simple assessment of the potential effects of material generation from the Scheme is sufficient. The scope of works proposed for the assessment comprises a full review and assessment against national, regional and local policy on waste to ensure conformity. For the construction phase, the design (as far as is developed at this stage) will be reviewed to identify the potential areas for waste generation and their magnitude assessed to establish the likely mitigation measures required. An understanding of proposed construction methods and the potential for onsite reuse will be important for this. Information of anticipated waste generation will be provided including: Volume and type of excavated material (including soil removal and vegetation clearance); Volume and type of material imported; Volume and types of waste generated during the construction phase; Information on likely method of treatment of any material generated; Information on generation of contaminated soils requiring treatment and/or disposal; and Targets will be set for onsite reuse and recycling/recovery either onsite or offsite (this will include consideration of material with a recycled content in the construction process)
Although the review will consider the availability and capacity of local waste treatment and recovery operations, this will be based on information available from the relevant Waste Planning Authorities. Consideration will be given to the significance of the impacts based on existing local waste arisings compared against the estimated levels of waste material that will be produced by the development. It is not proposed to undertake a detailed assessment of the types and capacity availability of facilities within the
97
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report local area but the planned capacity within the area will be considered and whether the waste material generated will have a significant impact will be determined.
13.5.
Baseline Conditions
The proposed development site is currently fields, a railway and a river with flood bunds. Current waste arisings produced on-site are considered minimal. There are no landfill sites or waste management facilities within 500m of the route.
13.6.

The designers will identify opportunities to maximise resource efficiency and minimise waste by the following methods: Identifying opportunities to recover and recycle material on-site; Assess the end of life options for materials to minimise the need for disposal; and Identify the opportunities to reuse excavated materials
During design, an initial Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will be produced that will include the anticipated types and quantities of waste generated on site. It will also include actions undertaken to minimise the waste generated on site and the quantities saved. This should be updated through the project.
13.7.
Expected Effects on the Scheme
Every effort will be made through the design process to maximise resource efficiency but it is inevitable that some waste will be generated during each phase of the development and this will have some impact on the local treatment/disposal infrastructure and targets. However, the quantity of wastes produced is not likely to be significant when compared to the volume of waste managed locally in the area. The Scheme will not involve a large amount of excavation and there are no cuttings proposed. Excavations are likely to mainly be for the foundations for the bridge structures. It is anticipated that potential impacts will be addressed through the design and construction of the development to ensure that wastage of construction materials is minimised, with efforts made to maximise on-site reuse and off-site recycling and recovery of any excavation and construction material generated. Material will need to be imported for the Scheme including a potentially significant amount of concrete for the bridge structures.
13.8.
Summary
The Scheme is not anticipated to include a large amount of excavation because there are no areas of cuttings. Material will be required for construction of the road including the bridge structures and the majority of excavated material is likely to be from the foundations. Quantities of wastes produced are not likely to be significant when compared to the volume of waste managed locally in the area. The Scheme value is over 300,000 and the guidance highlights that it has the potential to cause significant effects. However given the scale of works proposed and in particular the limited excavation proposed, a simple assessment of the potential effects of material generation from the Scheme is considered sufficient.
98
14. Noise and Vibration

14.1. Introduction
This chapter examines the potential Noise and Vibration impacts of the Scheme on the nearest noise sensitive properties.
14.2.
Study Area
The study area for noise and vibration will be defined as being 600m from the carriageway edge of any affected routes within 1km of the Scheme, as per guidance in the Highways Agencys Design manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Chapter 11.3.7 (Noise)12 The Wider Area will include those additional properties within 50m from roads which are affected by a change of 1dB or more from traffic changes alone.
14.3.
Review of Existing Information/Further Studies
The noise and vibration of the Scheme was assessed as part of the Option Assessment Report. It was found that overall there would be an improvement in the noise and vibration environment with the Scheme in place. Most properties would experience a decrease in noise and vibration levels as traffic would be redistributed further away from residential areas. Ongoing investigations are continuing into the effect of the Scheme and alternatives on perceived tranquillity, particularly with regard to the river corridor. Noise is one component of tranquillity that will be considered in the assessment of effects on the landscape and reported in the ES.
14.4.

The noise and vibration assessment of the Scheme will comprise: A noise survey at a selection of the most noise sensitive properties/receptors in order to ascertain the baseline noise conditions (this will include transient receptors using the river corridor); A noise and vibration assessment, using guidance published by the Highways Agency (DMRB methodologies) and using detailed computer modelling of noise impacts where appropriate; An assessment of the noise impacts from the construction of the new road junctions, by examining the effect of construction traffic as well as the noise from the individual activities carried out during the construction works; Where necessary, mitigation measures such as environmental noise barriers, or in the case of construction noise, alternative methods of working or equipment may be suggested which would reduce the noise at source.
14.4.1. Baseline Noise Survey

Baseline noise surveys would be carried out over a representative period of time to establish the noise environment. Noise surveys will be conducted in accordance with appropriate guidance and standards for environmental monitoring, and equipment will be fully calibrated.
14.4.2. Construction Phase Noise and Vibration Assessment

Noise from construction activities will be assessed for impact to noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) in the vicinity of the Scheme. An assessment of the degree of impact will be carried out in accordance with BS5228:2009, Parts 1 and 2: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites. NSRs within the vicinity of the development may include, but not be limited to, hotel facilities, residential units, offices, leisure facilities, educational facilities, hospitals, etc. The typical methodology for this procedure will cover the following points:
12
Highways Agency (Nov 2011)
99
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Locate the Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs) which would most likely be affected by noise and vibration activities from the demolition and construction works. Determine the items of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) for each discrete construction activity, based on available information or agreed plant inventories. Assign sound power levels and vibration levels to the proposed PME according to BS 5228: Part 1 and 2:2009 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites or other credible references. Consider the phased nature of the development and how this may affect the noise and vibration impacts. Predict construction noise levels in terms of impacts at NSRs in the absence of any mitigation measures. Describe impact on NSRs against the Baseline Noise Levels recorded at the site, in terms of duration and magnitude, in line with accepted assessment guidelines. Where appropriate, methods of mitigation will be identified as solutions to bring impacts to within acceptable levels. Predict construction noise / vibration levels in terms of impacts at NSRs with mitigation measures in place.
14.4.3. Operations Phase Noise and Vibration Assessment

The aim of the Operational Phase noise assessment is to highlight the potential road traffic noise and vibration impact of the Scheme, at representative sensitive receptor locations which will be significantly affected by changes in traffic flows and/or road alignment as a result of the Scheme. The noise assessment will be carried out in line with the methodology described in the Noise and Vibration chapter of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3, Part 7 published by the Highways Agency. In accordance with DMRB, noise predictions will be carried out using the UK calculation methodology Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN). This methodology will be applied using 3D noise modelling software Noisemap 5. The Department for Transport Memorandum, Calculation of Road Traffic Noise provides methods for measuring and calculating noise levels from road traffic, which are assessed over an 18 hour period from 06:00 to 24:00, using annual average weekday traffic (AAWT) flows. The basic noise level for a road segment can be calculated using the traffic flow, traffic speed and percentage heavy vehicles for a road segment. The advice note entitled Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 HD 213/11 Noise and Vibration (rev 1, Nov 2011) provides guidance on the assessment of the impacts that road projects may have on levels of noise and vibration. It provides guidance on the significance of changes in road traffic noise, identifying that changes in noise smaller than 1 dBA are not perceptible in the short term. Assuming no changes to percentage composition of heavy goods vehicles or traffic speeds, an increase in traffic volume of 25% is required to alter the noise levels by 1 dBA. In accordance with guidance contained in DMRB 11:3:7 HD 213/11, the magnitude of noise impacts in the short term (Scheme opening year) and in the long term (future assessment year, typically 15 years after opening) can be classified as shown in Table 14-1. Table 14-1: Classification of Magnitude of Impacts Noise change, dB LA10,18hr 0 0.10.9 1.02.9 3.04.9 5.09.9 10+ Magnitude of impact in the short term Nochange Negligible Minor Moderate Major Major Magnitude of impact in the long term Nochange Negligible Negligible Minor Moderate Major
100
The study will incorporate data generated by the traffic impact study and the plans of the road design. Noise levels will be predicted for the proposed opening year and the future design year, both with and without the proposed improvements.
14.4.4. Local Development Framework

The East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted by the Council in October 2009, sets out a strategic framework to guide the growth of the district up to the year 2025. It contains a range of 'development control' policies against which planning applications will be assessed. For example, Core Policy CS6 (Environment) states that all new development should contribute to the delivery of sustainable development and that opportunities to minimise air, land and water pollution and improve water quality should be taken wherever possible. Policy EN8 (Pollution) sets out the criteria against which potentially polluting developments will be considered, which reflect criteria in Government planning policy in PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control (Appendix A), which has now been revoked. The Council will seek to ensure that levels are kept to a minimum and are acceptable to human health and safety, the environment and the amenity of adjacent or nearby land users. It states that: All development proposals should minimise, and where possible, reduce all emissions and other forms of pollution, including light and noise pollution;
14.5.
Baseline Conditions
At this stage, a noise survey has not been carried out at the site, however a noise survey will be required as part of the detailed noise assessment in order to validate the noise model and to gain an understanding of the noise sources which are unrelated to road traffic.
14.5.1. Sources of Noise and Vibration

The predominant existing source of noise in the assessment area is road traffic noise, the nearest Trunk Roads being the A142, which is part of the Scheme, and to the South of Ely, and the A10 located to the East. The flow of the traffic is very stop-start, as the lorries are too large to use the underpass, which causes all traffic which is unable to overtake the lorries to queue on the A142 when the level crossing is closed. The worst affected properties are fronting the busy A142, south of the level crossing. Local Roads within Ely centre will also contribute to the noise in the Study Area
14.5.2. Noise Sensitive Receivers

In accordance with DMRB, the assessment area will consider all residential properties within 600m of the Scheme, and affected roads within 1km of the Scheme, as potential noise-sensitive receivers (NSRs). It is expected that the majority of the operational noise and vibration impacts of the Scheme will be limited to this distance. The NSRs have been identified from Ordnance Survey maps of the study area. There may be additional residential properties that have been constructed since publication of the OS data and there may have been instances of change of use (from residential to commercial or vice versa) that are not captured as part of this assessment.
14.5.3. Traffic Conditions

The Scheme bypasses the level crossing section of the A142.
101
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 14-2 provides the traffic flows for two affected sections of the A142, in 2017, without the Scheme.
102
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 14-2: Baseline traffic conditions Road A142 A338 Start junction End Junction Annual Average %HCV Weekday 18hr Flow 16430 16760 7.8% 8.3%
Queen Adelaide Way The Level Crossing Angel Drove Industrial Estate A10
14.6.
Mitigation measures may be necessary in order to reduce the negative impact of road traffic noise resulting from the Scheme. Noise mitigation measures which could improve the noise levels during the operation of the road could include environmental noise barriers and low noise surfacing. The specific location of the environmental noise barriers will be dependent on the noise assessment and the existing locations of walls alongside the Scheme; barriers would also be effective at reducing the impact of construction noise. In addition to reducing the impact of construction noise using environmental noise barriers, the noise levels could be reduced at source through the use of alternative methods or equipment, or the impact could be reduced by limiting the use of the noisiest equipment to daytime only.
14.7.
14.7.1. Construction Phase Noise and Vibration Assessment

The noise and vibration levels from the construction of the Scheme will be affected by the following; The type of plant and number of plant used on site; The number of deliveries required to the site; The duration of the works, the site working hours, and percentage on-time of the equipment; The distance from the construction site to the NSRs; The screening measures in place; and The existing noise climate.
The Scheme is likely to involve significant amount of earth works (excavation, compaction, soil removal etc) and other activities associated with road construction works. The impacts would depend on the nature of activities and the proximity of NSRs. A detailed assessment of the potential construction noise and vibration impacts of the Scheme should be undertaken at the detailed assessment stage in accordance with BS 5228 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites when further details are available. During construction, changes in traffic flows could arise as a result of heavy construction traffic or temporary diversion routes. The associated noise and vibration impacts would depend on the routes used by the construction traffic and any diversion routes. These impacts should be assessed when further details are available. However it is anticipated that the potential noise and vibration impacts would be similar for all options considered.
14.7.2. Operations Phase Noise and Vibration Assessment

The changes in noise level from the operation of the Scheme will be associated with: The changes in numbers of vehicles on the road as a result of future traffic growth and the redistribution of traffic flows on the network; The changes to the speed of vehicles on the roads, due to junction changes and signalling which improve the flow of traffic on the roads; The changes in the composition of vehicles on the network i.e. proportion of heavy goods vehicles; The changes in the horizontal distance between road and receptor, for example due to the realignment of the road; and The changes in vertical alignment of the road.
103
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report The Scheme will introduce a new source of noise which is likely to have a negative impact on some of the quieter facades of the nearest noise sensitive properties and some transient receptors, but with decreases expected on many of the facades currently fronting the A142. As a result of traffic being redistributed around the road network, 1 to 3dB decreases are expected around the town centre, with 1 to 3dB increases on Queen Adelaide Way.
14.8.
Summary
The existing noise climate is affected by road traffic noise, with the worst affected properties fronting the A142, south of the level crossing. These properties are affected by the noise of queuing traffic caused by large heavy goods vehicles, which are unable to pass under the railway through the small underpass. The bypass will enable the traffic to be more free-flowing, and will move the traffic away from the many of the worst affected properties on the A142, resulting in reductions in noise levels. In addition to this, there will be increases in noise due to the redistribution of traffic onto Queen Adelaide Way from Ely Town Centre, resulting in a decrease in noise on many roads within the town. The construction of the bypass is likely to be audible at the nearest noise sensitive properties, but with careful planning, the impact can be managed.
104
15. Effects on All Travellers

15.1. Introduction
The scope of assessment for effects on all travellers has been prepared in light of advice contained in IAN 125/09. This provides advice on assessing the effects on all travellers as introduced in HA 200/08. IAN 125/09 notes that assessment of the effects on all travellers will use a mixture of existing guidance on vehicle travellers together with existing guidance on pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. The assessment will consider the following aspects relating to all travellers using current DMRB advice: Effects on Pedestrians, Cyclists and Equestrians (DMRB 11.3.9): - Changes in journey length; - Changes in amenity; and - Community severance. Effects on Vehicle Travellers (DMRB 11.3.8): View from the road; and Driver stress.
The effects on all travellers assessment will draw upon information provided in the Landscape Chapter and Community and Private Assets Chapter as appropriate. A separate Transport Assessment (TA) will be prepared to support the application in line with detailed scoping with CCC Highways.
15.2.

Study Area
The study area comprises the proposed Ely Southern Bypass including: New carriageway approximately 1.7 kilometres long, 7.3 metre wide single carriageway with hard strips and grass verge; New four arm roundabout at the western end with A142/A142 Angel Drove/Anglian Water Waste Treatment Works access; and New three arm roundabout at the eastern end with A142 Station Road/A142 Stuntney Causeway.
The study area will also include the existing road, pedestrian, cycle and equestrian networks affected by the Scheme including: Angel Drove A142 and its junctions with The Dock Business Park and Station Road; Station Road; The existing A142 underpass and level crossing; and Pedestrian, cycle and equestrian links between Ely City Centre and Ely Station.
15.3.

The following legislation and guidance is relevant to this study: DMRB; East Cambridgeshire District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document, October 2009; Cambridgeshire County Council Local Transport Plan 2006-2011; and A142 Ely Railway Crossing Option Assessment Report, Cambridgeshire County Council, June 2012.
106
15.4.
15.4.1. Vehicle Travellers

The Ely Traffic Model was built to enable tests to be conducted for the East Cambridgeshire District Council LDF proposals for Ely in 2009. The model is a SATURN-based traffic assignment model. The model network covers the built up area of the City of Ely and the surrounding area extending as far south as the A1123 from Soham to Stretham. The forecasts have been controlled to TEMPRO 6.2 levels of household and employment growth. Committed development land use assumptions will be agreed with CCC Highways during detailed scoping of the TA.
15.4.1.1. Travellers Views

The assessment of travellers views will be based on the guidance in DMRB 11.3.9 and the Department of Transports TAG Guidance. The quality of the view from the bypass will be assessed using the following categories: No View: road in seep cutting or contained by earth bunds, environmental barriers or adjacent structures; Restricted View: frequent cuttings or structures blocking the view; Intermittent View: road generally at ground level with shallow cuttings or barriers at intervals; and Open View: view extending over many miles. Or only restricted by existing landscape features.
The effects of the Scheme on travellers views will be assessed for those rerouting from existing routes onto the Ely Southern Bypass using the overall scores suggested in TAG guidance, namely: Neutral: little or no effect for most views from the road, or improvements on some views are generally balanced by deterioration in others; Beneficial: views from the road would be, on balance, a change for the better; and Adverse: views from the road would be, on balance, a change for the worse.
In terms of significance, using the seven point scale, the significance of effect upon travellers views will be assessed using the criteria suggested in WebTAG: Minor beneficial or adverse: where the number of travellers affected is low (less than 500 a day); Moderate beneficial or adverse: where the number of travellers affected is between 500 to 10,000 travellers per day; and Major beneficial or adverse: where the number of travellers affected is high (more than 10,000 per day).
15.4.1.2. Traveller Stress

Driver stress is defined as the adverse mental and physiological effects experienced by a driver transversing a road network. Driver stress has three main components: Frustration; Fear of potential accidents; and Uncertainty relating to the route being followed.
DMRB notes that for new or improved routes, designed in accordance with the Departments current standards, the appropriate category for driver stress will normally be moderate or low for the whole route. Table 3 (replicated in Table 16-1 below) provides further information on assessment of drivers stress on single carriageway roads.
107
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 15-1: Assessment of Drivers Stress Average peak hourly flow per land, in flow Units/1 hour Under 600 600-800 Over 800 Average Journey Speed Km/hr
Under 50 High High High
50-70 Moderate Moderate High
Over 70 Low Moderate High
The assessment of drivers stress will use AADT data, traffic speeds and percentage of HCV traffic taken from the Ely Traffic Model for the worst case year for vehicle travellers 2031. No significance criteria are provided in DMRB and as a result the significance will be assessed using comparison of present and future conditions using beneficial, neutral or adverse definitions.
15.4.2. Pedestrians, Cyclists and Equestrians

The assessment of pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians will be in accordance with DMRB 11.3.8. The assessment will cover those users of the proposed Ely Southern Bypass and existing users of the A142 Angel Drove/Station Road route whom are likely to be affected by a reduction in traffic flow as a result of the Scheme.
15.4.2.1. Changes in Journey Length

No major rerouting of existing byways or pedestrian or cycle routes is predicted as a result of the Scheme and as a result changes in journey length will not be considered in the ES.
15.4.2.2. Changes in Amenity

Amenity is defined as the relative pleasantness of a journey. Amenity is concerned with changes in the degree and duration of peoples exposure to traffic, however other factors also affect amenity and vary according to user type, for example: Pedestrians footpath width and distance from traffic, barriers between traffic and pedestrians, the quality of any street furniture or planting; Ramblers changes in the quality of the landscape; Cyclists signage, crossing provision and separation at junctions; and Equestrians landscape quality.
A descriptive approach will be used to assess amenity for the Ely Southern Bypass and the existing A142 Angel Drove/Station Road route.
15.4.2.3. Community Severance

Community severance is the separation of residents from the facilities and services they use within their community caused by new or improved roads or changes in traffic flow. The proposed Ely Southern Bypass is not within a built up area and will not lead to major deviation of existing bridleways or footpaths and as a result new severance will not be considered in the ES. Relief from existing severance is likely to be important for communities living close to the existing A142 Angel Drove/Station Road route. Assessment of this effect will take account of the reduction in traffic flow along this route and the context and size of the community effected. Guidelines set out in DMRB 11.3.8 will be used in assessing the effects of severance in the opening year. These are replicated in Table 15-2.
108
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Table 15-2: Categorising Relief from Severance by Reductions in Existing Traffic Levels Level of Relief from Severance Slight Built up area Rural area c. 30% 60-75% Moderate 30-60% 75-90% Substantial 60%+ 90+%
15.5.
Baseline Conditions
15.5.1. Vehicle Drivers

15.5.1.1. Travellers Views
The existing route taken by drivers includes A142 Angel Drove and A142 Station Road. These routes will be bypassed by the Ely Southern Bypass Scheme. The A142 Angel Drove and Station Road run through the south-western part of Ely City, through an area which provides access to business parks and a superstore. Drivers on A142 Station Road use an underpass to cross under the railway line. The view along the A142 Angel Drove and A142 Station Road is largely restricted by the urban environment in which it is situated. Drivers passing through the underpass have no view for a short length of time.
15.5.1.2. Traveller Stress

The City of Ely lies at the crossroads of the north-south A10 Primary Road between Kings Lynn and Cambridge and the east-west A142 Primary Road between Newmarket and Chatteris. The A10 bypasses Ely but the A142 continues to pass through the outskirts of the City, carrying some 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday of which about 1,200 are HCVs. It carries local traffic between Chatteris, Ely, Soham and Newmarket and provides regional access to the Fens from the trunk road network. The railway underpass crossing on the A142 creates a significant pinch point for existing traffic resulting in congestion and delay for drivers using this route. The railway underpass cannot accommodate HCV traffic which is instead required to use a level crossing facility at this location. The level crossing is currently closed for 35 minutes in the average hour and this closure time is predicted to increase in the future. These long and frequent closures of the crossing combined with the high HCV numbers using the route create regular queuing back of HCVs into the through traffic lanes affecting general capacity. The result is driver delay and unpredictable journey times which are likely to cause considerable driver frustration. It is not considered that the existing route has a significant fear of accidents which would affect driver stress. However fear of accidents may be a consideration for larger vehicles such as camper vans, transit vans and Luton vans. Drivers of these vehicles are often car drivers who would not normally be required to use the level crossing. Bridge strikes, which average one per month, are most often associated with these vehicle types. The existing route is well signed, however bridge strikes continue to occur indicating that some drivers do not pay attention to the underpass height restrictions in place.

The A142 carries some 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday of which about 1,200 are HCVs. High volumes of traffic and congestion on the existing A142 cause severance between the railway station and a local supermarket off Angel Drove, and the City. This limits opportunities for walking and cycling between these locations. There is an existing pedestrians footway through the A142 railway underpass, however the footway is narrow and it is considered that the underpass is not an attractive environment for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. The presence of the underpass may prevent some from using this route due to safety concerns. No provision is available for these road users to use the level crossing.
109
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Sustrans National Cycle Route 11 currently routes along the eastern edge of the River Ouse. The Ely Southern Bypass Scheme will require minor modifications to this route to allow the route to pass beneath the proposed river crossing.
15.6.
Overall the main benefits for vehicle drivers are associated with the provision of the Ely Southern Bypass removing the need for drivers to use the existing A142 Angel Drove/Station Road route which includes the pinch point of the railway underpass/level crossing. An alternative high quality route will be provided by the bypass Scheme. In addition the current operation of the railway underpass on the A142 will need to be considered. The possibility of restriction of movement through the underpass to shuttle movement will be considered. Mitigation measures associated with the Scheme are likely to focus upon securing benefits for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians using the existing A142 Angel Drove/Station Road route. The reduction in traffic levels along this route created by the Scheme offers the opportunity to give existing road space and crossing time over to these users. Possible mitigation measures include upgraded pedestrian/cycle crossing facilities, the provision of on-road cycle lanes and clearer signage for pedestrians and cyclists between Ely City and Ely Rail Station. The Scheme should also allow more space to be given to landscaping and public realm along the route between Ely City and Ely Rail Station enhancing the overall journey for these road users. The introduction of the Ely Southern Bypass will lead to some minor changes to Sustrans National Cycle Route 11 which pass underneath the bypass river crossing. Options to provide a link between the National Cycle Route and Fen Rivers Way footpath via the river crossing are currently being considered. This would open up a circular route to the benefit of these users.
15.7.
15.7.1. Vehicle Travellers

It is anticipated that the Scheme will offer significant improvements in driver views through the introduction of a new route providing open views over existing fenland and views of Ely Cathedral, compared with the existing route through the urban environment at the outskirts of Ely. It is also anticipated that the Scheme will offer significant improvements in overall driver stress through a reduction in frustration caused by unpredictable delays at the existing A142 underpass/level crossing. Although the Scheme will increase traffic speed and flow on the new route, which may contribute to an increased fear of accidents, the rerouting of traffic from the existing route through Ely which includes two roundabout junctions and the underpass/level crossing is likely to reduce the overall fear of accidents. The Ely Southern Bypass route will be appropriately signed in line with DMRB guidance.

The Ely Southern Bypass route is likely to have a negligible impact on existing pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. The route will not require major modification of any existing footways or bridleways. The reduction of traffic levels on the existing A142 Angel Drove/Station Road route is, however, likely to offer moderate to significant benefit to existing pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians on this routes. This will particularly be the case for pedestrians and cyclists travelling between Ely City Centre and Ely Rail Station. The benefits to these users will be dependent upon the mitigation measures put in place along this route and will be further explored in the ES.
15.8.
Summary
The assessment of the effect of the Ely Southern Bypass Scheme on vehicle travellers is based upon qualitative assessment of traveller views and quantitative assessment of traveller stress. In general it is anticipated that the provision of a high quality bypass for these road users will reduce driver stress and will
110
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report enhance views and the journey of the traveller when compared to the existing route along A142 Angel Drove/Station Road. The assessment of the effect of the Ely Southern Bypass Scheme on pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians will include qualitative assessment of amenity and quantitative assessment of community severance. It is likely that the effect of the Scheme on these road users will be realised through the reduction of traffic levels along this route and any mitigation measures associated with these road users.
111
16. Community and Private Assets

16.1. Introduction
The scope of assessment for community and private assets has been prepared in light of the guidance provided in HA200/08 and IAN 111/09. The assessment proposed follows current DMRB guidance as available in June 2011. Under the new structure this chapter will consider the following aspects relating to community and private assets; Impacts on agricultural land quality, including soils; Impacts on individual farm businesses that are present on, or linked to, the site; Effects on development land.
16.2.
16.2.1. Land Use

Agricultural land use within the study area comprises mainly arable land under winter wheat, oil seed rape, beans, potatoes and sugar beet. Land east of the River Ouse is irrigated. On the Ouse Washes there is rough grassland, while on Cawdle Fen there is a small area of uncultivated land scheduled for development.
16.2.1.1. Agricultural Land Classification

The 1988 Revision of the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system classifies land into 5 grades, Grade 3 being subdivided into grades 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The MAFF ALC map of Eastern England shows the study area as containing land in Grades 1, 2 and 4. The poorest land, in Grade 4, occupies a narrow strip of washland or floodplain alongside the Ouse. There is a small area of Grade 2 in the extreme west, adjacent to Angel Drove, and the remainder is Grade 1.
16.2.1.2. Soils
The most recently published soil map of the district is the 1:250,000 Soil Map of England and Wales (Eastern Region) and the soils are described in the accompanying book, Soils and their Use in Eastern England. This map is based on the earlier 1:63,650 scale Soils of the Ely District, published by the Soil Survey in 1965. To the west of the Ouse, between Cawdle Fen and Angel Drove, there are fen skirt soils of the Peacock series of calcareous clayey soils in Jurassic clays. Typically, they have a humose topsoil which has a lightening effect and aids cultivation. However, the organic content declines with time and some of these soils are classed as non-humose. Peacock soils with a humose topsoil are normally in Grade 3a, but are in Grade 3b where it is absent and the topsoil is non-calcareous. Only a soil survey can distinguish between these two soil conditions and this will be carried out in the affected field. The narrow Ouse floodplain is in Grade 4, according to the 1988 revised ALC Guidelines, because of the risk of frequent flooding. Cawdle Fen and arable land east of the Ouse floodbank, shown on the ALC map as Grade 1, contains black fen peat soils of the Adventurers series. Ditch sections confirm that the peat is at least 60 cm thick over most of this land, so that the Grade 1 classification is still justified. Eventually, however, the peat will waste away under cultivation and the quality of the land will progressively decline.
16.2.2. Effects on Development Land

Adjacent to the proposed new route where it joins Angel Drove a new mixed development is proposed which includes retail, business and leisure uses. The Scheme has regard to this extant planning permission and its allocation within the existing Core Strategy for East Cambridgeshire District Council. A document is also set to be part of the Core Strategy which develops the idea of Ely Station Gateway which is expected to detail how the entrance to Ely at the railway station can be redeveloped to make it focal point when entering the city. These aspects will be considered in the ES.
112
16.2.3. Effects on Policies and Plans

National, regional and local planning policy will be used to determine the effects on plans and policies.
16.3.
16.3.1. Overall Land Use

The assessment will be applied to both the construction and operation phases of the proposed Scheme. Liaison with the project team will be undertaken to support the design. The assessment will follow the methodology outlined in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Part 6 Guidelines for a Stage 2 Environmental Assessment. This provides a comprehensive framework for the assessment of impacts on land use of infrastructure developments, such as the Ely Southern Bypass. The assessment will comprise desk study and field visits as outlined below. The assessment will be consistent with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of March 2012,that replaces earlier Planning Policy Statements (PPS) including PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas). NPPF, like PPS7, requires that local government seeks to protect and preserve, where possible, best and most versatile land agricultural land.
16.3.2. Desk Study Land Use

The desk study will consider: plans, drawings and proposed mitigation measures; national and local policy guidance; and published soil, climatic and agricultural maps and data.
16.3.2.1. Field Reconnaissance: Landowner Liaison

Landowner liaison will be undertaken to consider the potential impacts of the Scheme on land use and to identify opportunities for mitigation. Agricultural landowners and tenants that have the potential to be affected by the Scheme will be interviewed individually to obtain baseline data about each holding, the size and location of the units, enterprise type and methods of husbandry and management. Information will also be gathered on field access and drainage. Landowners included within the scope include rural businesses, farms and rural land parcels that the Scheme may directly impact, plus those whose access arrangements and infrastructure (such as water supply and drainage) may potentially be affected. Details of land ownership within the study area and landowner or tenant contacts are available. A soil investigation will be made of the field containing the Peacock series next to Angel Drove to establish whether it is Grade 3a or 3b. The other agricultural land affected by the Scheme cannot be poorer than Grade 2, because of the depth of peat that can still be seen in the ditches. The Ouse Washes cannot be better than Grade 4 because of flooding.
16.3.2.2. Development Land

To understand the extent of the proposed mixed use development on Angel Drove it will be necessary to obtain copies of the planning application submitted and assess the plans submitted. These proposals may have an impact on the Scheme which may need to be updatedr further to ensure the best development proposals are delivered. The Core Strategy is not due for publication until autumn 2012 whereby the initial thoughts for the Station GatewayGateway will be considered. It will be necessary to consider this through the ES and an addendum report maybe required should it be published after the completion of the ES or submission of the planning application.
16.3.3. Assessment of impacts

16.3.3.1. Land Use, Agricultural Land and Soils
The general methodology for assessment of the significance of land use impact includes consideration of factors such as land take, soils, farming practice, access, broad economic impacts, and drainage and water supply. In this study, impacts on rights of way with respect to the potential for severance will also be considered.
113
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report A nationally recognised set of standard assessment criteria for effects on agricultural land and farm and other businesses does not exist; a bespoke set of criteria will therefore be used for this assessment, Most agricultural impacts are neutral or adverse, few being positive, and are graded on a scale from neutral to major.
16.3.3.2. Development Land

The methodology for assessment of the significance of development land will be determined upon the receipt of the plans for the proposed mixed use development and the publication of the Station GatewayGateway concept. Upon assessing the proposals may require discussions with the promoter, land owners and East Cambridgeshire District Council to ensure the schemes all work together to provide the best outcome for Ely and local residents. A simple assessment is likely to be undertaken whereby the proposals will be considered in light of the Scheme and will be assessed in the same way as plans and policies. This is illustrated in table which has been adapted from Transport Appraisal Guidance. (TAG unit 3.7.3 2004) Table 16-1: Development Criteria Assessment Score Beneficial Neutral Adverse Contribution to Achievement of Policy Objectives The Scheme contributes to the achievement of, or is consistent with, the proposed development proposal. The Scheme does not affect the proposed development or equally benefits and hinders achievement of the proposed development The Scheme hinders or is inconsistent with the proposed development
16.4.
Consultation
Consultation with land owners will be undertaken as described above. The findings of the interviews will be used to identify opportunities for mitigation within the Scheme design. Liaison with the design teams will be undertaken to enable mitigation to be included as appropriate.
16.5.
Baseline Conditions
It is understood that all of the land acquired for the Scheme will be for permanent use for Ely Southern Bypass. The land take will be primarily from existing agricultural land of which it is arable. This land is within the designated countryside. The Scheme also crosses over an existing railway line and the River Great Ouse. There are some additional constraints relating to a County Wildlife Site, along the River Great Ouse which will be considered in the Ecology section of this report. There is no current information on the location of offsite construction compounds and activities which might temporarily displace or otherwise affect existing land uses
16.6.
16.6.1. Effects on Soils

The EC Thematic Strategy for Soil and Government policy set out in the First Soil Action Plan for England 2001-2006 and subsequent draft Soil Strategy for England (March 2008) has moved away from the protection of land towards the sustainable use of soil. Whilst there is no mitigation for the loss of agricultural land (apart from compensation at market value through the CPO process), it is possible to partially mitigate effects of the proposals on soil. The quality and quantity of soil on site would be maintained by implementing appropriate techniques for stripping, storing and re-use. This approach would be adopted in a Soil Handling and Management Strategy (SHMS), which would in due course form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Where possible, loss of agricultural land would be minimised by careful engineering design, sensitive landscape works and restoration of disturbed land.
114
16.6.2. Effects on Farm Holdings

Potential key opportunities for mitigation include the following: Appropriate compensation at market value for loss of land, through the compulsory purchase order (CPO) process; Returning land/soil quality within temporary construction areas (e.g. haul road, construction compounds, etc) back to farming; Maintaining access to fields during construction phase; Undertaking work in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to avoid pollution of natural springs, ditches and brooks on the farm or woodland holdings; Provision of access to severed land; Maintenance of stock proof fencing in order to prevent livestock straying off holding; Compensation for any reduction in net farm income during construction phase, e.g. due to reduction in stocking numbers or crop and timber loss associated with temporary land-take; Restoration of field drains and water supplies (troughs etc) disturbed by the proposals; Liaising with Natural England to maintain compliance with agri-environment schemes; and Implementing appropriate bio-security advice/actions given by the Defra with regard to vehicles and materials being brought on to the farm holdings.
16.6.3. Effects on Development Land

The potential for mitigation could include the following; Discussions with the promoter of the proposed development along Angel Drove to improve access arrangements; Discussions with East Cambridgeshire District Council on what their visions are for the Station Gateway and how the Scheme can assist in its delivery; Be aware of any large scale developments which are being proposed in or around this location to understand the cumulative impacts.
16.7.
16.7.1. Agricultural Land, Farm Businesses and Soils

Potential impacts relate to agricultural land quality and farm businesses: Permanent engineering land take on the footprint of the bypass; Additional land take for essential mitigation such as balancing ponds and landscaping: Demolition of farm buildings; Fragmentation and sterilisation of fields; Severance or disruption to access during and after construction; and Impacts on field drainage and water supplies.
Specific potential impacts that have been identified initially include the following: Changes to farm access arrangements; Change to farm drainage and water supply: Engineering land take.
16.7.2. Development Land

Potential impacts that have been identified include the following; That the soakaway of the proposed mixed use development and the Scheme need to be worked together to meet the necessary requirements; That the provision of the Scheme can facilitate the development of the Station Gateway and be delivered Infringements on proposed development in terms of land take which could impact upon the delivery of other proposals.
115
16.8.

Summary
The assessment of impacts on agricultural land use will consider two key elements: Impacts that relate to agricultural land quality, including soils; and Impacts on individual farm business there are present on, or linked to, the study area.
The assessment will follow the methodology outlined in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 6, Land Use. This provides a comprehensive framework for the assessment of impacts on land use of infrastructure developments, such as the Ely Southern Bypass. The assessment will comprise desk study and field reconnaissance, including liaison with landowners and tenants. Key impacts are likely to be land take in the footprint of the bypass, the loss of agricultural land in the best and most versatile category; plus field severance and impacts to drainage and access. The assessment of the development land considers what other major developments are being proposed close to the Scheme and what potential impact the Scheme may have upon their delivery. Further key considerations will be how the Scheme can facilitate extant planning permissions and the delivery of the Station Gateway proposals.
116
17. Road Drainage and the Water Environment

17.1. Introduction
This chapter provides a scoping of the water environment related to the Scheme. The assessment methodology followed is in accordance with the guidance provided in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3 Part 10 (HD45/09). This chapter considers the baseline environment conditions for the Scheme. It investigates the scope for mitigation measures related to the quality of surface water, groundwater and flood risk. Implications relating to abstraction and existing discharge of water have also been assessed. The expected effects of the Scheme will also be presented. For ecological information related to the water environment the reader should refer to Chapter 11 Ecology and Nature Conservation.
17.2.
Study Area
The study area is typically 500m from the proposed alignment of the Scheme (although abstractions are considered up to 1km away). It is proposed the water environment baseline and receptors should be shown on a series of figures to accompany the Environmental Statement.
17.3.
This assessment has been completed using information from an Environment Agency data request (Environment Agency, 2012) and a preliminary ground investigation report (URS, 2012).
17.4.
The assessment of the water environment for the full Environmental Statement will be based up methodology as described in HD45/09. This will include a Flood Risk Assessment appended to the ES in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Based on importance of receptor and magnitude of impact of the Scheme (including the influence of mitigation measures) the potential significance of effects of the Scheme on the water environment will be determined. The impact assessment will consider both construction and operational effects on the Scheme.
17.5.
Baseline Conditions
As this is a new road there is no information available with respect to the design and operation of an existing trunk road drainage system. It is expected that where possible the new road will remain separate from existing drainage systems where it ties in with the existing road to allow mitigation before discharge to water receptors. Consideration of seas and estuaries and still waters and lakes have been scoped out of further assessment due to distance to the nearest potential receptor. Consideration of recreational users, such as angling and boat users will be considered within Chapter 10 Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity.
118
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Impacts on hydromorphology of the receiving water receptors is considered in the mitigation section.
17.5.1. Surface Water Quality

There are two main watercourses within the area. These are the River Great Ouse and Middle Fen Drain. There are also other drains to the north of the river great Ouse. The key receptor is the River Great Ouse which has a high importance due to a Good Water Framework Directive classification. In addition to the watercourses described there are other small drains that discharge into the Middle Fen Drain to the south of the River Great Ouse. No water quality monitoring data have been obtained from the Environment Agency.
17.5.2. Groundwater Quality

Environment Agency maps show that the Scheme will not be located within any Source Protection Zone. In terms of geology, the land to the north of the River Great Ouse is underlain by secondary A superficial deposits which are in turn typically underlain by Kimmeridge Clay. The importance of groundwater quality is considered to be low.
17.5.3. Abstractions and Discharges

Abstractions larger than 20 m3 per day have been identified within 1km of the Scheme to ensure any effects on large public water abstractions could be addressed. There are 12 surface water licensed abstractions which have a medium importance. Five known discharge consents within 1km of the Scheme have been identified which may limit the capacity of receiving watercourses, in particular the River Great Ouse to receive untreated water.
17.5.4. Flood Risk

Fluvial, pluvial and groundwater flood risk are considered as separate flood risks in the following sections. The Environment Agency has one record of flood risk in the location of the proposed bypass.
17.5.5. Surface Water and Fluvial Flood Risk

Environment Agency mapping shows that the majority of the route is within Flood Zone 3 with the exception of the western junction. This Flood Zone indicates that industrial properties are at risk during the 1% AEP fluvial event suggesting a high importance. Additionally there is anecdotal evidence that during high water in the River Great Ouse water there can be a back up and flooding of waters in Cawdle Fen.
17.5.6. Pluvial Flood Risk

Pluvial and surface water flood risk can come from overland flow in steep or ploughed areas during heavy and intense rainfall and also from both surface water or combined drains when their capacity is exceeded during intense rainfall. The pluvial flood risk issues covered in the Flood Consequences Assessment are summarised below. There has been no record of pluvial flooding in the area of the Scheme noted in the SWMP (Cambridgeshire County Council, 2011). There is no known record of historical pluvial and surface water flooding attributable to surface run-off. Therefore the importance of current pluvial flood risk has been assessed as low.
17.5.6.1. Groundwater Flood Risk

Groundwater flood risk relates to the rising of water in the ground such that there is an effect on the Scheme. The groundwater flood risk sections of the Flood Risk Assessment are summarised below.
119
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report There has been no record of groundwater flooding in the area of the Scheme noted in the SWMP (Cambridgeshire County Council,, 2011) There is currently no known historical occurrence of groundwater flood risk on the existing route. Therefore the importance of existing groundwater flood risk has been assessed as low.
17.6.
Mitigation measures will be required during construction and operation. Ongoing ground investigations will help clarify the requirement for groundwater flood risk mitigation prior to commencement of construction. These ground investigations are to be completed before submission of the Environmental Statement.
17.6.1. Construction
During construction adverse impacts to the water environment could include, fuel spillages from construction traffic, sediment entrainment during excavation or from unseeded surfaces. There may also be increases in surface water flooding risk due to increased impermeable area and increased fluvial flood risk by building in the floodplain. During construction it is expected that best practice guidance, including the following guidance will be adhered to: CIRIA (c648), Control of water pollution from linear construction projects, and Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance.
It is also expected that reference to specific measures should be made within a construction environmental management plan (CEMP). It is recommended that any drainage mitigation is constructed at the start of the project to ensure protection of the environment. Typically all fuel tanks and chemical should be safely stored and bunded to provide a double level of protection. No foul effluent will be discharged to any water receptor without prior consultation with the Environment Agency. Any excavation should consider the potential of dewatering an aquifer and consent should be obtained from the Environment Agency prior to commencement of work. It is expected that in general the magnitude of impact during construction on the water environment with mitigation should be negligible.
17.6.2. Operation
During operation there is forecast to be an increased volume of traffic depositing pollutants, and there would be an increase in run-off from new impermeable areas and a reduction in flood storage area. The magnitude of impact on the water environment would be minor adverse without mitigation. It is proposed that sustainable drainage systems following the direction of HD45/09, HA103/06 and CIRIA c697 will be used to mitigate adverse impacts on water quality and to offset increases in run-off up to the 1 in 100 year event plus an allowance for climate change. In terms of hydromorphology, there are no proposed diversions of watercourses as part of this Scheme; it is also considered that sustainable drainage mitigation as part of the Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool (HAWRAT) assessment will mitigate any change in sediment loading to surface water discharges. The magnitude of impact for hydromorphology would be negligible.
120
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report Where any floodplain storage is lost, in agreement with the Environment Agency, compensatory floodplain storage would be provided. Additionally it may be possible to incorporate mitigation measures into the Scheme that will prevent back up of flood waters into Cawdle Fen. If this is possible then this would provide a minor beneficial impact.
17.6.3. Expected Effects of the Scheme

Given the importance of the water environment and the proposed mitigation of impacts on the Scheme it is expected that during construction the potential effects of the Scheme will be neutral. It is expected that during operation and following provision of mitigation the potential effects of the Scheme will be neutral. If improvements to the existing anecdotal flooding at Cawdle Fen can be incorporated into the Scheme then there is the potential for a minor beneficial effect of the Scheme.
17.7.
Summary
The most important receptor for the water environment is the River Great Ouse which has a high importance with regard to fluvial flood risk. The biggest magnitude of impact of the Scheme during construction and operation is likely to be a minor adverse impact on water quality without mitigation during operation. Due to mitigation in the form of sustainable drainage the overall potential effects of the Scheme will be neutral.
121
18. Summary
This section summarises the findings of the Scoping Report and includes the need for the Scheme, main features of the Scheme, and topics considered in the EIA Scoping as well as an overview of cumulative impacts.
18.1.
Need for the Scheme
The Scheme will address capacity/ delay issues on the A142 Angel Drove and Station Road in Ely arising from traffic flows of 15,000 vehicles on an average weekday including 1200 HCVs. Contributing to this are long and frequent closures of the level crossing of the Fen Line Cambridge to Kings Lynn Railway Crossing regularly resulting in long queues of traffic, up to 380m south bound and 1.1km northbound. The problem is further magnified by bridge strike incidents and the frequency of intra regional train services and freight movements on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton Strategic Route increasing congestion and the level crossing closure times. Network Rail are looking to increase train frequency on these lines which will only exacerbate the problems caused by the level crossing closure times.
18.2.
Main Features of the Scheme
The Scheme will provide a new single carriageway to the south east of Ely, linking the A142 Stuntney Causeway to Angels Drove and the A10. The bypass will be constructed on embankment except where the carriageway crosses the Great River Ouse and Fen Line Cambridge to Kings Lynn Railway. The river crossing will include access for pedestrians. A new roundabout on a low embankment, at the lit junction of the A142 Stuntney Causeway will provide online access to the bypass for northbound and southbound traffic. Traffic, with the exception of HCVs, will be able to travel to and from Ely rail station and the city centre, along Station Road through the existing underpass. Gantries and signals will control a two way, alternating traffic system through the underpass that will also include a widened access for pedestrians and cyclists. The existing level crossing will be permanently closed. The Angel Drove Junction will be lit and will include a roundabout on a low embankment, constructed to the south offline of the existing A142, a new access for cyclists and pedestrians will be provided to avoid unnecessary use of the roundabout. There would be improvement in journey times, principally along the A142, and also in journey time reliability. There would be a reduction of traffic in Ely and along Station Road, because of HCVs and through traffic using the bypass to the south.
18.3.
Topics considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping
18.3.1. Air Quality

The Scheme is within an area of relatively good air quality. Mapped background concentrations suggest that there are unlikely to be existing exceedances of the AQS objective, even at roadside locations. Ely Pits and Meadows SSSI lies 2km to the south of the Scheme. During construction, local air quality for properties on the A142 Stuntney Causeway would have the potential to be temporarily affected by dust emissions and emissions from site plant and construction vehicles travelling to and from the site. Overall the Scheme may have an effect on local air quality as a result of changes in traffic flows and speeds during construction and when complete.
18.3.2. Cultural Heritage

The Scheme lies to the south/south east of Ely primarily on reclaimed fenland. The historic character of the fenland forms part of the setting of important designated heritage assets: the Grade 1 listed Ely cathedral and the historic city of Ely - the primary historic issues for the Scheme. The Scheme has the potential to alter
122
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report the setting of Ely Cathedral and the historic city of Ely resulting in a likely adverse significance of effect. Integrated landscape design, offline planting and high quality structures will help to reduce the visibility of the Scheme across the area. Based on current evidence it is unlikely the Scheme will have a significant effect on buried archaeological remains.
18.3.3. Landscape, Townscape and Visual Impact

Landscape elements, including the River Great Ouse, flood and railway embankments and structures, the A142, development on the edge of Ely, Stuntney village and isolated tree belts are prominent in the fenland that is dominated by the city and cathedral on the Isle of Ely. Both form key features in the quintessential views identified around Ely that are nationally recognised, and include viewpoints along the Ouse Valley Way and Fen Rivers Way and from Stuntney Village, alongside Stuntney Causeway. The Scheme would have a variety of adverse and beneficial effects. The new junction layouts, lighting and signage, highway embankments and structures of the Scheme would have a likely adverse significance of effect on the visual amenity of receptor groups, resulting from the impact of the Scheme on quintessential views, the wider open views, and the loss of perceived openness and tranquillity. Whilst benefits include the reduction in queuing traffic on the eastern approach into Ely along Stuntney Causeway and the potential to enhance the city gateway Mitigation identified as part of the integrated design process will follow the principles set out in the Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines and will include a comprehensive landscape scheme of indigenous planting, screening features including offline planting, species rich grassland and habitat creation associated with ditches.
18.3.4. Nature Conservation

The overview of existing conditions included information on the designated sites of nature conservation interest: Ely Pits and Meadows SSSI that lies 900m to the south, River Great Ouse CWS that the Scheme passes over and Angel Drove Drains CWS, 350m to the north; habitats of interest and notable or protected species within the predicted zone of influence of the Scheme. Based on existing baseline data the majority of the Scheme corridor is considered to be of low to medium ecological value. There will be a small permanent loss of some habitat within the Great River Ouse CWS. There will be negative impacts on some protected species including, water voles, bats, barn owls and other winter and breeding birds though habitat loss in the short term whilst in the long term habitat creation and enhancement are likely to enhance the value and diversity of habitat through the inclusion of native trees and shrubs of local provenance and non aggressive grassland species. It is important that the Scheme is WFD compliant. Additional surveys will be undertaken and results included in the ES. During construction potential changes to hydrology and pollution of run off will be minimised if mitigation control measures implemented.
18.3.5. Geology and Soils

As part of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) three existing sources of contamination, potential pathways and on site human, controlled water and property receptors have been identified. Whilst the construction phase has the potential to introduce new sources of contamination. It is considered that the risks and issues identified are not unusual for a project of this type within a sensitive water environment can be mitigated through standard site practices such as ground investigation to inform design and good construction practices. There are unlikely to be any potential significant effects relating to land contamination throughout the Scheme which require further assessment/investigation beyond that which will be undertaken for design purposes and that further assessment can be scoped out of the ES.
18.3.6. Materials
Current waste arisings onsite are minimal. Some waste will be generated from limited excavations as the result of the Scheme however this is not likely to be significant when compared with the volume of material managed in the local area. Material will be imported for the Scheme including a significant amount of concrete for the bridge structures. Potential impacts will be addressed through the design and construction. Opportunities to maximise resource efficiency and minimise waste will be identified a Site Waste Management Plan will be prepared during the design.
123
18.3.7. Noise
The existing noise climate is affected by road traffic noise, with the worst affected properties fronting the A142, south of the level crossing. These properties are affected by the noise of queuing traffic caused by predominantly by HCVs. The bypass will enable the traffic to be more free-flowing, and will move the HCVs away from the many of the worst affected properties on the A142, resulting in a change in noise levels arising from changes in the numbers of vehicles, speed, composition of vehicles, horizontal distance between road and receptor and vertical alignment. In addition to this, there will be increases in noise due to the redistribution of traffic onto Queen Adelaide Way from Ely Town Centre, resulting in a decrease in noise on many roads within the town. During construction, changes in traffic flows would arise from heavy construction traffic or temporary diversion routes. The associated noise and vibration impacts would depend on the routes used by the construction traffic and any diversion routes. The construction of the bypass is likely to be audible at the nearest noise sensitive properties, but with careful planning, the impact can be managed.
18.3.8. Effects on All Travellers

In general it is anticipated that the provision of a high quality bypass for these road users will offer significant improvements in driver stress and will enhance views and the journey of the traveller when compared to the existing route along A142 Angel Drove/Station Road. The assessment of the effect of the Ely Southern Bypass Scheme on pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians will include qualitative assessment of amenity and quantitative assessment of community severance. The Scheme would have a likely significance of effect on users of Fen River Way, Sustrans National Cycle Route 11, and Cawdle Fen Way Circular Route. It is the intention at the river crossing to provide a safe and suitable route for pedestrians to cross the river and link the Fen River Way with the Ouse Valley Way. Further potential beneficial effects for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians will occur along Station Road through the reduction of traffic levels and the implementation of enhancements to the public realm as part of the Station Gateway proposals.
18.3.9. Community and Private Issues

The assessment will comprise desk study and field reconnaissance, including liaison with landowners and tenants to consider the impacts that relate to agricultural land quality and impacts on individual farm businesses. Key impacts are likely to be land take in the footprint of the bypass, the loss of agricultural land in the best and most versatile category; plus field severance and impacts to drainage and access. The assessment of the development land considers what other major developments are being proposed close to the Scheme and what potential impact the Scheme may have upon their delivery. Further key considerations will be how the Scheme can facilitate extant planning permissions and the delivery of the Station Gateway proposals.
18.3.10. Drainage and the Water Environment

The most important receptor for the water environment is the River Great Ouse, which has a high importance with regard to fluvial flood risk. Further ongoing ground investigations will clarify the requirement for ground water flood risk mitigation. Potential impacts during construction will be managed through adherence to good practice guidance. It is expected that where possible the new road will remain separate from existing drainage systems where it ties in with the existing road to allow mitigation before discharge to water receptors. During operation potential adverse impacts are likely from an increase in the volume of traffic depositing pollutants, run off from new impermeable areas and a reduction in the flood storage area. Sustainable drainage systems will mitigate impacts on water quality and offset increases in runoff thus minimising the likely significance of the effect. If improvements to the existing anecdotal flooding at Cawdle Fen can be incorporated into the Scheme then there is the potential for a beneficial effect of the Scheme.
18.4.
Cumulative Impacts
Disturbance to ecology through disturbance to noise and air quality is assessed in the light of noise and air quality modelling. Ecological Importance ascribed to water bodies is based on WFD classification part of Road Drainage and Water Environment Chapter 17.
124
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report The assessment of cumulative impacts will include, as a minimum, the effects of all of proposed development described in Chapter 16 as forming part of the do-minimum baseline for the assessment years. Any developments expected to be under construction prior to the start of the Scheme will be considered as existing receptors. The topic assessments will have addressed the cumulative impacts within each topic and for the traffic, air quality and noise assessments, this cumulative effect is anyway built into the traffic model used to generate the data for the traffic-related parts of the assessment. The Cumulative Assessment in the ES will address the accumulation of effects between topics for the Scheme as a whole and between this scheme and other proposed development. This will focus particularly on the accumulated influence on sensitive receptors, where, for instance, loss of tranquillity is perceived as a potentially significant issue and takes in aspects of noise, views and change in character of the setting. Cumulative impacts are not expected to be all adverse, for instance, the Station Gateway proposals will be implemented as a direct result of the Scheme and will include elements that will enhance the townscape and public realm.
125
Appendices
Appendix A. Figures
128
Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (this page has been left intentionally blank)
A.1.
Location Plan
130
A.2.
Scheme Layout
131
Atkins 5 Wellbrook Court Girton Road Cambridge CB3 0NA
Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, Carbon Critical Design and the strapline Plan Design Enable are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

AOD Assessment Years

Attenuation Pond Backfill Biodiversity Bridge Bridge Deck

Earthworks Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Environmental Statement (ES)

OS Grid Reference Remediation Retaining Wall Rights of Way Road Closures

(this page has been left intentionally blank)

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Purpose of the Scoping Report

Structure of the Scoping Report

Interrelationships between Topics

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

The Need for the Scheme

Existing Transport Conditions

Source: Cambridgeshire County Council

(this page has been left intentionally blank)

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Route D Route A Route B

Consultation and Options

Diversion and modification to historic footpath required

Figure 3.4: Bypass Route B Option

Appraisal of the Options

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Lighting and Signs

Environmental Design Objectives

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

(this page has been left intentionally blank)

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Approach to the EIA

Study Area and Timescale

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Influence of Mitigation Measures

Disruption due to Construction

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Scenarios: Do Minimum and Do Something

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Plans and Policies

Review of Planning and Policies

National Planning Policy

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Structure Plan Policy Cambridgeshire County Council

Local Planning Policy East Cambridgeshire District Council

East Cambridgeshire Design Guide and Ely Masterplan

It illustrates how these objectives can be met through:

Ely Station Development Framework

(this page has been left intentionally blank)

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Traffic and Transport

(this page has been left intentionally blank)

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Review of Existing Information

Methodology and Criteria

Air Quality Monitoring

NAS1 NAS2 NAS3 NAS4 NAS11

Roadside Urban Background Roadside Urban Background Roadside

554154 554616 554322 553385 554255

280427 81320 279566 280309 280536

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Scope for Mitigation Measures

Ely Southern Bypass Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report

Expected Effects of the Scheme

(this page has been left intentionally blank)