M4 Junction 13 Improvement

1

Post Opening Project Evaluation

A34 / M4 Junction 13 Improvement

Five Years After Study

April 2010

Notice

This report was produced by Atkins Transport Planning and Management for the Highways Agency for the specific purpose of Post Opening Project Evaluation. This report may not be used by any person other than the Highways Agency without Highways Agency’s express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than the Highways Agency.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 5084038.720 DOCUMENT REF: POPE _ A34 Chieveley FYA

5 Final PW Jan 2011

4 Revisions from 2nd draft PW Oct 2010

3 Environment comments NW Sep 2010

2 Following external reviews NB Aug 2010

1 Draft NB GO NM NM April 2010

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Post Opening Project Evaluation A34/M4 J13 improvements – Five Years After Study

2

Contents Section Page Glossary 4 Executive Summary 6

Scheme Description 6 Objectives 6 Main Findings 6 Summary of Scheme Impacts 7 Summary of Scheme Economic Performance 8

1. Introduction 9 The POPE Report 10 Scheme History 12 Scheme Objectives 12 Information Sources 13 Structure of the Report 13

2. Traffic Impact 14 Introduction 14 Analysis of Traffic Volumes 14 Analysis of Journey Time Changes 23

3. Safety 29 Introduction 29 Data Sources 29 Accident Locations Before and After Opening 29 Security 36

4. Economy 37 Introduction 37 Monetary Benefit 37 Scheme Costs 39 Journey Time Reliability 40

5. Environmental Impacts 42 Introduction 42 Environmental Effects 42 Noise 43 Local Air Quality 44 Greenhouse Gases 45 Landscape 46 Biodiversity 48 Heritage of Historic Resources 50 Water 51 Physical Fitness 52

6. Accessibility and Integration 54 Introduction 54 Accessibility 54 Non-Motorised User Surveys 55 Integration 59

7. Appraisal and Evaluation Summary Tables 62 8. Conclusions 65

Evaluation 74 Noise 75 Local Air Quality 78 Greenhouse Gases 79 Landscape 80 Biodiversity 86 Heritage of Historic Resources 91 Water 93 Physical Fitness 97


3

The maps in this document are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Highways Agency Licence No. 100018928. Published 2010.


4

Glossary The following table details the acronyms and specialist terms used within the context of this report

Term Definition

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic. Average of 24 hour flows, seven days a week, for all days within the year.

Accessibility Accessibility can be defined as ‘ease of reaching’. The accessibility objective is concerned with increasing the ability with which people in different locations, and with differing availability of transport, can reach different types of facility.

AM denoting the morning peak period

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AST Appraisal Summary Table. This records the impacts of the scheme according to the Government’s five key objects for transport, as defined in DfT guidance contained on its Transport Analysis Guidance web pages, WebTAG

AWT Average Weekday Traffic. Average of Monday to Friday 24 hour flows.

browsing (of an animal) moving around eating parts of plants, especially plants other than pasture

BCR Benefit Cost Ratio. The ratio between the monetised benefits and costs of a scheme, used as a measure of value for money in economic terms

COBA

COst Benefit Analysis – a computer program which compares the costs of providing road schemes with the benefits derived by road users (in terms of time, vehicle operating costs and accidents), and expresses the results in terms of a monetary valuation. The COBA model uses the fixed trip matrix.

DfT Department for Transport

Discounting

Discounting is a technique used to compare costs and benefits that occur in different time periods and is the process of adjusting future cash flows to their present values to reflect the time value of money. A standard base year needs to be used which is 2002 for POPE.

ES Environmental Statement, the document prepared to report the assessment of the environmental effects of the scheme.

EST Evaluation Summary Table. In POPE studies, this is a summary of the evaluations of the TAG objectives using a similar format to the forecasts in the AST.

HATRIS Highways Agency Traffic Information System

HEMP Handover Environmental Management Plan

Highways Agency

An Executive Agency of the Department for Transport, responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England.

IP Inter Peak, the time between the AM and PM peaks

MAC Managing Agent Contractor. A company appointed by the Highways Agency to


5

maintain trunk roads in a defined area.

NATA New Approach to Transport Appraisal. Used since 1998.

NMU Non-Motorised User. Pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.

Part 1 Claims Claims for reduction in property value arising from use of a new or altered road made under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973

PIA Personal Injury Accident. A road traffic accident in which at least one person required medical treatment.

PIA/mvkm PIA/mvkm is the number of PIAs per million vehicle kilometres where ‘vehicle kilometres’ are the number of vehicles using a section of the road multiplied by the length of the road.

PM evening peak period

PM10 Particulate Matter of less than 10 millionths of a metre (10 micrometers or 10 um) in diameter found in emissions from vehicle exhausts.

POPE Post Opening Project Evaluation, before & after monitoring of all major highway schemes in England.

PROW Public Right of Way

Receptor Something or someone who receives an effect from the construction or operation of the road

Rule of Half A technique for calculating time benefit where a scheme results in extra traffic, in which benefits to additional travellers are averaged, by assuming each receives half the benefit per trip for existing travellers.

Screenline An imaginary line drawn across a transport corridor used to determine flows between areas on either side. Each road crossed by the screenline is monitored by a traffic count (ATC).

Severance Community severance is the separation of adjacent areas by road or heavy traffic, causing negative impact on non-motorised users, particularly pedestrians.

STATS19 A database of injury accident statistics recorded by police officers attending accidents

TPI

Targeted Programme of Improvements. The Highways Agency’s programme of investment in improvements to the Trunk road and Motorway road network, comprising schemes each costing more than £5m. Now known as Major Schemes Programme.

Vehicle hours

Vehicle hours refers to the total time spent by all vehicles using a road and is expressed normally as a yearly value. For example, if 10,000 vehicles a day used a route with a 6 minute journey time, then the route’s vehicle hours for the year would be 365,000.

vpd Vehicles Per Day

webTAG Department for Transport’s website for guidance on the conduct of transport studies at http://www.webtag.org.uk/


6

Executive Summary

Scheme Description

The scheme was an improvement to the A34 where it crosses the M4 at Chieveley, West Berkshire. It consisted of the following measures:

Construction of an underpass beneath the M4, enabling A34 through traffic to avoid the Junction 13 roundabout;

Rebuilding the slip roads between the A34 and Junction 13 roundabout, and the south-facing slips linking the A34 with the local Priors Court Road;

Redesigned access arrangements to a service area and hotel;

A new local access road parallel to the A34, south of M4; and

A new bridge for non-motorised users across the A34, and a reconstructed non-motorised user bridge over the M4.

Objectives

Objective Objective Achieved?

Reduce congestion (1998 Roads Review) Yes

Reduce accidents (1998 Roads Review) Yes

Provide for future predicted growth (1998 Roads Review) Yes

Reduce noise (HA website)• Yes

Improve the local environment (HA website)

To improve public rights of way by the construction of two new bridleway bridges to create the Chieveley Village Circuit linking the villages of Curridge and Chieveley (HA website).

Yes

Yes

Main Findings

The scheme met all its objectives.

Traffic using the A34 near Chieveley junction has increased since before the scheme. On the majority of links, flows are higher than predicted.

This increase is in contrast to falling traffic levels on the M4, and most other major roads nationally, over the same period.

There have been substantial journey time savings, particularly in the peaks. These are generally close to predictions, except for being less than predicted in the PM peak.

The vehicle-time benefits are considerable. They are within the range of the low- and high-growth forecasts, but 9% lower than the central value.


7

The accident saving has been greater than predicted, with the greatest reduction being in minor-severity shunts on the A34.

The combined benefit arising from journey time and accident benefits is almost exactly as predicted.

Landscape mitigation has been implemented, including earth shaping and planting of native trees and shrubs. The planting has become established after a poor start.

Biodiversity mitigation was more extensive than proposed owing to protected species being discovered after the ES was published.

Orchids found pre construction and translocated to a new location failed to survive due either to waterlogging or by damage from rabbit grazing.

Archaeological resources were dealt with satisfactorily by geophysical research and excavation, and the publication of academic and popular reports.

Water pollution control is now better than before the scheme. A balancing pond needed modification two years after scheme opening.

This scheme provides a positive example of how junction improvements offer benefits to public transport users.

Summary of Scheme Impacts

Traffic

The underpass is used by approximately 37,500 vehicles per day (vpd) in an average weekday. The 2-way flow on the A34 slips north of the M4 is approximately 28,400 vpd, and south of the M4 it is approximately 39,500 vpd.

Traffic on the A34 has increased 9%-14% (depending on the section counted) since before the scheme was built. This contrasts with declining flows on the M4 in the same period.

Reduced traffic which has been observed regionally and nationally since 2007 has not been apparent on the A34 near Chieveley. This suggests the greater relative attractiveness of the route is counteracting any recession-induced decline.

As a result of A34 through traffic being diverted to the underpass, usage of the roundabout has fallen by about 27%. About 50,000 vehicles now use the roundabout over a 12-hour weekday.

Journey times for A34 through traffic are now fairly uniform throughout the day, without peak-time delays which occurred before the scheme. Up to 12 minutes are saved in the peak, and about 1-2 minutes inter-peak, which are generally as predicted.

In the post-opening conditions (with reduced congestion), A34 traffic using the underpass saves about 1-2 minutes compared with going via the roundabout.

Safety

There has been a 54% reduction in accidents, which is a much greater reduction than predicted.


8

The saving has been mainly in minor shunts on the A34. However there are also fewer accidents on the M4 mainline and slips (probably due to elimination of queuing), and fewer collisions between vehicles using and entering the roundabout.

Environment

Landscape mitigation has been implemented, including earth shaping, and planting of native trees and shrubs although there was poor initial establishment of vegetation in some areas.

Eroded detritus affected a balancing pond and impairing its function. This was later rectified.

The pond silting may have resulted in prolonged periods of inundation resulting in the unsuccessful translocation of southern marsh orchids..Rabbit grazing which affected areas of new planting may also have affected the translocated orchids.

Biodiversity mitigation was more extensive than proposed, due to protected species being discovered after the ES was published.

Rabbit fencing failed to protect plants. However replacing this with spiral guards on individual plants proved effective.

An unexpected rise in groundwater has occurred. While the scheme is not thought to be responsible, it has caused problems with underpass drainage.

Accessibility

There has been an improvement due to better reliability for buses and coaches (but few services are affected); the reduced to ‘rat-run’ on local roads as an alternative to the congested roundabout; and better facilities for non-motorised users.

Integration

The scheme conforms with regional and local transport policies, but conflicts with environmental and agricultural policies, as stated in the Environmental Statement (ES) and the Appraisal Summary Table (AST).

Summary of Scheme Economic Performance

The time saving was a little lower than predicted, but the accident saving was higher than predicted. These approximately balance out, giving a combined benefit similar to that predicted.

The outturn cost was £83.8 million, £120 million more than the estimated cost of £64.0 million which was derived from the Final Economic Assessment Report of 2000.

The outturn BCR is 4.9, lower than predicted but still producing a good economic return.

Costs and Benefits (2002 present value year) Pre-Scheme Forecast

Post-Opening Re-Forecast

Benefits (30 years) £409.7m £410.7m

Costs £64.0m £83.8m

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 6.4 4.9


9

1. Introduction 1.1 The A34 / M4 Junction 13 Improvement officially opened on 23rd September 2004, and

consisted of approximately 3 km of dual carriageway including an underpass for the A34 trunk road beneath the M4 motorway, removing north-south through traffic from the roundabout at M4 Junction 13.

1.2 The A34 trunk road is an important route, running north from Winchester, bypassing Newbury immediately to the south of this scheme, crossing the M4 at Chieveley, and continuing to Oxford and the Midlands. The location of the scheme and its context in the road network is shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 – Location of A34/ M4 Junction 13 Improvement

1.3 Following the opening of the Newbury Bypass in 1998, the A34/ M4 junction was the last

remaining at-grade junction on the A34 between the M40 at Oxford and the M3 at Winchester. Prior to the scheme, the junction suffered from heavy congestion resulting in severe delays, particularly at peak times.

1.4 The 3km of new dual carriageway diverts from the former A34 north of the Newbury bypass, crosses beneath the M4 motorway west of the Junction 13 roundabout, and rejoins the A34 east of Chieveley village. The roundabout has been retained and remains


10

signalised on all arms. It is connected to the new A34 by slip roads. Links with the existing highway network south of the M4 is provided by a new single carriageway Oxford Road.

1.5 A service area, including motel and maintenance depot, is located southeast of Chieveley roundabout. A hotel is situated southwest of the roundabout, between the old course of the A34 and the new dual carriageway. There are link roads connecting the service area and hotel with the old A34 and with the new Oxford Road. Newbury Showground, which is situated northeast of the roundabout, and has access from Priors Court Road, is unaffected by the scheme.

1.6 The scheme included the provision of a new bridleway bridge over the A34 south of the junction, and the construction of a bridleway bridge replacing a former footbridge across the M4, west of the junction. The scheme layout is shown in Figure 1.2

1.7 Concurrently with the scheme, resurfacing work was undertaken on the M4, between the Junction 13 slips. This was not part of the scheme, and the impacts of this have therefore not been included in this evaluation.

1.8 The scheme falls within Highways Agency Area 3, and the Managing Agent Contractor is EnterpriseMouchel. The local authority is West Berkshire Council, a unitary authority formed in 1998.

The POPE Report

1.9 The Highways Agency carries out post-opening evaluations of its Major Schemes, to identify how far the predicted objectives and benefits have been achieved. This report represents the Five-Year After report for the A34/ M4 Junction 13 Chieveley Improvement, and is prepared under the Post-Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) Commission. The report builds on an earlier One Year After Study, dated March 2006.

1.10 This report sets out a number of evaluations:

‘Before’ and ‘After’ traffic volumes on the A34 and adjacent roads, and a comparison with predictions;

A comparison of ‘Before’ and ‘After’ journey times;

An analysis of changes in accidents;

The outturn economic benefits, based on the changes in traffic volumes, journey times, and accidents;

A comparison of the outturn cost with the budgeted cost;

A comparison of the environmental impacts with those predicted;

An evaluation of the accessibility and integration impacts of the scheme; and

A review of the original Appraisal Summary Table (AST) in the form of a new Evaluation Summary Table (EST).


11

Figure 1.2 - Layout of A34/ M4 Junction 13 Improvement


12

Scheme History

1.11 The M4 motorway was constructed in 1972, and the A34 between Newbury and Oxford was dualled in the early 1980s. These routes intersected at M4 Junction 13 (Chieveley), where there was a roundabout on the A34. Congestion at this roundabout increased with the completion of other road schemes which improved access to the M4 and A34, including the M40 north of Oxford, the A419 north of Swindon, and the A34 Newbury Bypass.

A summary of the key dates related to development of the A34 Chieveley scheme is shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 – Chronology of the A34 Chieveley Improvement Scheme

Date Event

July 1990 Public Consultation.

October 1991 Preferred route announced.

January 1992 Draft Orders published.

July 1992 Public Inquiry.

1993 Roundabout signalised in 2003, with the intention of relocating queues from the M4 slip roads and main carriageways to the A34.

1994 Scheme placed on hold following a Government review.

1998 Newbury Bypass opened – resulting in increased queues on the A34.

1999 Scheme included in Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) programme.

September 2000 to June 2001

Public Inquiry.

May 2003 Construction starts.

August 2004 Scheme opened to traffic.

23rd September 2004

Official Opening.

Scheme Objectives

1.12 The scheme objectives are listed below with their sources:

To reduce congestion (1998 Roads Review);

To reduce accidents (1988 Roads Review);

To provide for future predicted growth (1998 Roads Review);

To reduce noise by using noise-reducing surfacing, noise barrier, and landscape moulding around sensitive locations (HA website); and

To improve the local environment by ground modelling to shield Chieveley from the noise and visual impact of the M4 and A34, and extensive tree and shrub planting.


13

To improve public rights of way by the construction of two new bridleway bridges to create the Chieveley Community Circuit linking the villages of Curridge and Chieveley (HA website).

Information Sources

1.13 The following sources were used in compiling this report:

Traffic data from the Highways Agency database;

Traffic and accident data provided by West Berkshire Council;

Traffic data commissioned by Atkins specifically for this study;

Appraisal Summary Table (AST), undated;

Traffic Survey Report, August 1999;

Addendum to Traffic Survey Report, February 2000;

Final Economic Assessment, April 2000;

Final Forecasting and Induced Traffic Report, December 2004 (post-dates opening);

Environmental Statement, Volumes 1 & 2, February 2000;

Environmental Statement Addendum, April 2002; and

Other environmental documents as detailed in the relevant section.

Structure of the Report

1.14 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Section 2 discusses the traffic flows, journey times, and comparisons with forecasts;

Section 3 considers the impact of the scheme on safety;

Section 4 derives updated economic benefits based on vehicle-time and accident savings and compares these with forecasts in pre-opening scheme appraisals;

Section 5 gives a summary of the environmental evaluation;

Section 6 considers accessibility and integration emerging from the scheme;

Section 7 presents the forecast impacts in the original Appraisal Summary Table (AST), and the outturn impacts in an Evaluation Summary Table (EST); and

Section 8 summarises the main conclusions and headline findings of the report.


14

2. Traffic Impact Introduction

2.1 In order to assess the traffic impacts of the scheme, this section examines:

Changes in traffic volumes at the junction and key links of the surrounding highway network;

Comparison of observed traffic volumes with those forecast during the appraisal process;

Changes in journey times on the A34 and the roundabout; and

Comparison of observed journey times vs. those predicted at the time of the appraisal.

Analysis of Traffic Volumes

2.2 Traffic data has been obtained from three sources:

The HATRIS database of counts on trunk roads and motorways. This has been interrogated to obtain volumes on the M4, the A34, and slip roads at the Chieveley junction. The ‘Before’ coverage was relatively sparse. There has been continuity of count sites on the M4, but not on the A34, even on sections which were unaffected by the scheme.

Turning counts at the M4 Junction 13 roundabout, undertaken for the purposes of this study;

Counts from permanent sites maintained by West Berkshire Council; and

Temporary automatic traffic counts on some minor roads collected by Atkins for this study at the five-year-after stage only.

2.3 Before, one year after opening, and five year after opening traffic flows are tabulated below. These are average weekday flows, without correction for any background growth which may have occurred.


15

Table 2.1 – Average Weekday Before and After Traffic Volumes

Location Before (Oct 02)

1 Yr After (Oct 05)

5 Yrs After

(Oct 09)

Difference 5YA from

Before

1 M4, J12-13 98,000 99,200 92,400 -6%

2 M4, J13-14 95,700 95,900 91,500 -4%

3 M4, J13 between slips 70,000 70,700 65,600 -6%

4 M4 EB offslip to J13 rbt 11,600 12,100 12,700 +9%

5 M4 WB onslip from J13 rbt 11,900 13,100 13,300 +12%

6 M4 EB onslip from J13 rbt 14,100 13,000 13,600 -3%

7 M4 WB offslip to J13 rbt 16.000 15,500 13,300 -17%

8 A34 underpass - 37,400 37,500 -

9 A34, south of A339 43,700 47,500 48,500 +11%

10 A34, north of A339 67,500 75,600 77,000 +14%

11 A34, north of Priors Court Rd 52,700 56,900 57,200 +9%

12 A34 NB offslip to J13 rbt - 18,900 19,900 -

13 A34 SB onslip from J13 rbt - 19,300 19,700 -

14 A34 NB onslip from J13 rbt - 10,000 10,100 -

15 A34 SB offslip to J13 rbt - 9,500 9,700 -

16 NB slip to Priors Court Rd 3,700 3,800 4,200 +14%

17 SB slip from Priors Court Rd 4,100 4,100 4,400 +7%

18 Oxford Rd, north of Chieveley No data No data 3,400 -

19 Priors Court Rd, east of A34 No data No data 8,100 -

20 B4494, Snelsmore Common No data No data 2,100 -

21 Local Oxford Rd No data No data 2,800 -

22 B4009, south of Fishers La No data No data 5,800 -

2.4 To illustrate the components of flow on the A34, north and south of the M4, the following tables show counts on two screenlines, using figures extracted from Table 2.1.

Table 2.2 – Screenline 1, North of M4

Screenline 1 - Sites north of M4 Before 5 Yrs After

8 A34 underpass - 37,500

11 A34, north of Priors Court Rd 52,700 -

14 A34 NB onslip from J13 rbt - 10,100

15 A34 SB offslip to J13 rbt - 9,700

16 NB slip to Priors Court Rd 3,700 4,200

17 SB slip from Priors Court Rd 4,100 4,400

60,500 Total 65,900 (+9%)


16

Table 2.3 – Screenline 2, South of M4

Screenline 2 - Sites south of M4 Before 5 Yrs After

10 A34, north of A339 67,500 -

8 A34 underpass - 37,500

12 A34 NB offslip to J13 rbt - 19,900

13 A34 SB onslip from J13 rbt - 19,700

Total 67,500 77,000 (+14%)

2.5 These traffic volumes are shown in the following maps. Figure 2.1 shows a wide area, but omits some counts in the vicinity of the scheme, for clarity. The ‘Before’ and ‘Five Years After’ figures are shown together, where the information is available. Figure 2.2 shows all the counts on the A34 at the junction, and on the M4 slip roads, including the counts used for the screenline analysis. It shows the ‘Before’ counts only on the left-hand map, and the ‘Five Years After’ count only on the right-hand map.


17

Figure 2.1 – Traffic Volumes (AWT) in the Wider Area


18

Figure 2.2 – Traffic Volumes (AWT) at the Junction ‘Before’ (Left) and ‘Five Years After’ (Right)

2.6 The following points may be noted from the traffic analysis:

On the M4, volumes rose between 2002 and 2005, but subsequently fell, so that the 2009 volumes were 4% - 6% lower than in 2002. This is likely to reflect regional trends including the effect of the economic recession of 2008-9.

In contrast, the A34 volumes are 9% - 14% higher in 2009 than they were in 2002. The explanation is likely to be that as a result of the Chieveley junction improvement, the gain in traffic using the A34 exceeds any potential decrease in traffic flows arising from the recession.

The volume using the underpass is about 37,500 vehicles per day (vpd), representing about 49% of the total traffic on the A34 south of the M4, and 43% of the total traffic north of the M4.

Each of the south-facing A34 slip roads carries nearly 20,000 vpd, and each of the north-facing slip roads carries about 14,000 vpd.

2.7 To investigate how traffic flow trends on the A34 and M4 compare with regional growth, the following graphs have been presented to illustrate any trends. Figure 2.3 shows trends in vehicle-kilometres travelled in England, the Southeast, and West Berkshire. To enable these figures with greatly differing magnitudes to be plotted on the same graph, the actual figures for the Southeast (which are about 1/5th of the English total) have been multiplied by 5, and those for West Berkshire (which are about 1/150

th of the English total) have been multiplied by 150. Figure 2.4 gives flow trends on four links of the M4, and Figure 2.5 shows flow trends on the A34.


19

Regional Traffic Trends

380000

390000

400000

410000

420000

430000

440000

450000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Veh

icle

-kilo

met

res

England

Southeast

W Berks

Figure 2.3 – Regional Traffic Trends

Trends in Traffic Flows on M4

80000

85000

90000

95000

100000

105000

110000

115000

120000

125000

130000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AA

DT

J11-12

J12-13

J13-14

J14-15

Figure 2.4 – Traffic Volume Trend on the M4

Trends in Traffic Flows on A34

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AA

DT S of M4

N of M4

Figure 2.5 – Traffic Volume Trend on the A34


20

2.8 It can be seen that there was regional growth, as measured by vehicle-kilometres travelled, between 2002 and 2007, followed by a decline. In contrast, flows on the M4 were virtually static up to 2007, before declining. The pattern on the A34 is different, with slightly increased growth around 2005, perhaps attributable to the scheme opening, and no sign of a decline in 2008/9.

Reassignment from Other Routes

2.9 The growth of traffic on the A34 suggests the possibility of reassignment from other north-south routes in the area. Routes likely to be affected west of the A34 would be the A419 / A346 near Swindon, and the A338 near Hungerford. Routes likely to be affected east of the A34 would be the A340 and the A33, both near Reading. These are all competing routes for long-distance north-south traffic.

2.10 The only one of these routes with traffic count information on the HATRIS database is the A419, north of the M4 near Swindon. This route has recently been improved at Commonhead Junction, where an overpass was built; however this scheme did not improve the M4 Junction 15. A comparison of trends on the A34 and A419 is shown below. Durations of the improvement schemes are also shown.

Figure 2.6 – Trends on Alternative North-South Routes

2.11 The A34 is a strategic north-south route, and the graph suggests that traffic on it was increasing, despite congestion at Chieveley Junction, and that the improvement scheme works only caused a temporary reduction in the rate of increase. In contrast, the A419 borders an urban area where there is likely to be a high component of local traffic. Growth on the A419 was reversed during construction of the Commonhead Improvement, and while it temporarily increased afterwards, there has been no growth since 2007. This could reflect local recession-related stagnation around Swindon, and/or it could indicate a transfer of some through traffic to the A34 (although if this is the only explanation, a reduction would be expected from 2004 rather than 2007). More comprehensive data would be required to confirm the role of reassignment on traffic growth on the A34.


21

Vehicle Turning Count

2.12 A video turning count was conducted at the A34 Chieveley / M4 J13 roundabout on Tuesday 6th October 2009. The survey took place over 12 hours between 07:00 and 19:00. This can be compared with a ‘Before’ survey conducted at the same roundabout on Tuesday 18th June 2002, and summary results are presented graphically in Appendix A.

2.13 Figure A1 shows the ‘Before’ turning movements over the full 12 hours, as well as the AM peak (08:00 to 09:00), interpeak (10:00 to 11:00), and PM peak (17:00 to 18:00). Figure A.2 gives the same information ‘Five Years After’. Figure A3 shows the flow differences in both absolute terms and percentages. Note that through traffic on the M4 is excluded from both surveys, and through traffic using the underpass is excluded from the five-year-after survey. No U-turns were recorded in the five-year-after survey, but they were recorded ‘Before’, particularly from the A34 south. These would be expected to be mainly vehicles gaining access to the service area from the south, which would need to turn back at the roundabout ‘Before’, but not ‘After’.

2.14 The following points can be noted from the analysis of the turning count survey information:

Usage of the roundabout has fallen about 27%, from 68,800 vehicles in 12 hours ‘Before’ to 50,000 five years after.

The drop in flow on the A34 south of the roundabout has been about 10,000 vehicles in each direction over 12 hours, or about 37%.

The corresponding fall north of the roundabout has been about 11,000, or 50%.

2.15 The points noted above are a result of A34 through traffic which previously needed to cross the M4 at the roundabout, but which now uses the underpass.

2.16 With regard to slip roads, flows on all the M4 slips have increased. Thus more traffic is turning on or off the motorway at Junction 13, even though link flows on the M4 either side of the junction are now less than they were before the scheme was built. The increase is smallest on the M4 westbound offslip (+2%), and largest on the M4 westbound onslip (+16%).

2.17 The main change in turning movements has been an increase in traffic turning from M4 eastbound to A34 southbound in the AM peak, and the reverse movement in the PM peak and Interpeak.

2.18 In any particular hour, the pattern of increases and decreases varies somewhat from the daily picture, but the percentage reduction in A34 traffic remains similar in all hours.

Volume Comparison with Predictions

2.19 The actual traffic flows may be compared with those predicted. However, there are several sources of predictions:

The Environmental Statement (ES) - These are the highest values from the various sources, and show an increase in traffic in the corridor, with the scheme. The basis for these figures is unknown;

The COBA run with a fixed trip matrix (FTM) - This assumes no traffic growth after 2004 in either the Do-Minimum or Do-Something cases. This is the lowest of the set of forecasts;


22

The COBA run with a variable trip matrix (VTM) - This assumes traffic growth, and in the Do-Something case, higher link flows were specified for 2004, 2011, and 2019 to represent induced traffic; and

The Forecasting Report - This describes both the COBA runs listed above, but does not specify which is considered to represent the definitive forecast, and flow plots are omitted from the appendices. A version containing definitive flow plots has been requested but not received, and hence is presumed to be not available.

2.20 These differing predictions are given in Table 2.4 below. The figures are 2009 AADTs1, and are central case values based on 60% of the low-growth and 40% of the high-growth flows. Although there is no indication in the Forecasting Report as to which is the preferred set of figures, the economic benefits from the fixed-trip COBA are higher (because the benefits have not been eroded by additional traffic using the network), and provide a closer match with the AST. For this reason, the COBA-FTM will be taken to represent the ‘predicted’ case in the economic evaluation. Furthermore, this was the recommendation from the forecasting consultant at the one-year-after stage, and no further advice has been received in discussions at the five-year-after stage.

Table 2.4 – Volume Predictions from Different Sources (2009 AADT)

Predicted

Environmental Statement

COBA (FTM) COBA (VTM) Actual

Location

Do-Min Do-

Some Do-Min

Do-Some

Do-Min Do-

Some Do-Min

Do-Some

A34, S of Curridge Rd 66.500 68,700 61,200 61,200 65,400 67,300 65,600 73,900

A34, S of M4 J13 roundabout 73,900 41,700 63,900 30,500 68,500 34,200 65,600 35,300

A34, N of M4 J13 roundabout 60,100 29,500 55,000 26,700 58,900 29,000 58,500 25,600

A34, N of Priors Court Rd 50,200 52,200 46,100 47,200 49,400 51,100 50,900 53,000

A34 Underpass - 31,100 - 28,300 - 30,500 - 35,300

Oxford Rd, N of Priors Court Rd 5,000 3,800 4,600 3,400 4,900 3,700 No data 3,000

Oxford Rd (new link S of M4) - 3,200 - 2,900 - 3,100 - 2,500

2.21 The ‘actual’ flows are taken from traffic counts. To allow for regional background growth between 2002 and 2009, the actual ‘Before’ counts have been factored up by 4%. The differences between actual flows and the different predictions vary between the links and model forecasts presented. The percentage differences between the Actual and the three versions of the Predicted flows are given in the following table.

1 Derived by interpolation in the case of the ES, and by re-running for 2009 in the case of the COBAs.


23

Table 2.5 – Differences between the Actual Volumes and the Different Predictions

Environmental Statement

COBA (FTM) COBA (VTM) Location

DM DS DM DS DM DS

A34, S of Curridge Rd -1% 8% 7% 21% 0% 10%

A34, S of M4 J13 roundabout -11% -15% 3% 16% -4% 3%

A34, N of M4 J13 roundabout -3% -13% 6% -4% -1% -12%

A34, N of Priors Court Rd -1% 2% 10% 12% 3% 4%

A34 underpass - 13% - 25% - 16%

Oxford Rd, N of Priors Court Rd - -20% - -11% - -18%

Oxford Rd (new link S of M4) - -22% - -14% - -19%

2.22 Overall the accuracy of flow forecasts presented in Table 2.4 and 2.5 is highly variable, with no single set of forecasts being more accurate than another.

2.23 Both the COBA predictions were reasonably accurate with regard to the proportion of A34 traffic using the underpass. The actual figure is 50% of the traffic using the A34 south of the junction (about 48% predicted), and 58% of the traffic on the A34 north of the junction (about 51% predicted).

Analysis of Journey Time Changes

2.24 Journey time surveys have been carried out on two routes:

From the A34 at the top of the Priors Court Road slip roads, via Chieveley roundabout, to the A339 junction with The Connection, Donnington (Route 1); and

From the A34 at the Beedon slip road merge, via the Chieveley underpass, to the junction with the A4 at Speen (Route 2).

The routes were surveyed by moving observer in both directions. The routes and timing points are shown in Figures 2.7 and 2.8.

2.25 At least six runs in each direction were undertaken in each of the following time periods:

AM Peak (07:30 – 09:00);

Interpeak (10:00 – 15:00), and

PM Peak (16:30 – 18:00).

2.26 Average journey times on each route are shown below in Tables 2.6 (Route 1 via roundabout) and Table 2.7 (Route 2 via underpass).


24

Figure 2.7 – Timing Points for Journey Time Route 1 via Roundabout


25

Figure 2.8 – Timing Points for Journey Time Route 2 via Underpass


26

Table 2.6 – Average Link Times on Route 1 (via Roundabout)

Average Time (min:sec) Direction

Timing Points AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak

1 to 2 00:18 00:16 00:16

2 to 3 01:09 00:38 01:04

3 to 4 00:24 00:30 00:27

4 to 5 00:46 00:30 00:30

5 to 6 00:50 00:48 00:47

6 to 7 00:07 00:06 00:06

7 to 8 01:32 01:20 01:20

So

uth

bo

un

d

Total 1-8 05:07 04:09 04:30

9 to 10 01:40 01:35 01:31

10 to 11 00:18 00:18 00:16

11 to 12 00:26 00:26 00:24

12 to 13 00:46 00:40 00:42

13 to 14 00:35 00:40 00:36

14 to 15 00:27 00:26 00:23

15 to 16 00:33 00:10 00:27

No

rth

bo

un

d

Total 9-15 04:46 04:25 04:20

Table 2.7 – Average Link Times on Route 2 (via Underpass)


Timing Points AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak

1 to 2 02:59 02:38 02:59

2 to 3 00:09 00:08 00:12

3 to 4 00:44 00:43 00:39

4 to 5 00:46 00:41 00:42

5 to 6 00:08 00:08 00:11

6 to 7 02:33 02:26 02:14

So

uth

bo

un

d

Total 1-7 07:19 06:46 06:57

8 to 9 02:24 02:24 02:21

9 to 10 00:16 00:12 00:16

10 to 11 00:20 00:23 00:16

11 to 12 00:57 00:48 00:49

12 to 13 00:09 00:09 00:11

13 to 14 02:45 02:45 02:19

No

rth

bo

un

d

Total 8-14 06:51 06:41 06:12


27

2.27 Tables 2.6 and 2.7 show that there is very little variation in journey times throughout the day, with route 1 (via the roundabout) taking about 4 minutes, and route 2 (a longer distance, but using the underpass) taking about 7 minutes. The time saving for traffic using the underpass is shown below by comparing times on the two routes between common points, these being the slip roads for Priors Court Road in the north, and the A339 in the south.

Table 2.8 – Comparison of Times Using Roundabout and Underpass

Average Time (min:sec) Route

AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak

Route 1 (via roundabout) 03:16 02:32 02:54

Route 2 (via underpass) 01:37 01:32 01:31 Southbound

Saving via underpass 01:39 01:00 01:23

Route 1 (via roundabout) 02:48 02:32 02:32

Route 2 (via underpass) 01:17 01:09 01:06 Northbound

Saving via underpass 01:31 01:23 01:26

2.28 It can be seen that through traffic on the A34 currently gains a time advantage of about 1 to 1.5 minutes by using the underpass. This is a rather theoretical comparison, because through traffic would not normally use the roundabout, and the very presence of the underpass improves conditions at the roundabout.

2.29 To understand how present conditions compare with those without the underpass, the following table compares ‘Before’1 and ‘After’ journey times on the A34 between the Beedon Junction and the A339 junction. The five-year-after times are those using the underpass.

Table 2.9 – Journey Time Comparison ‘Before’ and ‘After’


Time Period Before 5YA Saving

AM 16:30 04:46 11:44

IP 06:02 04:20 01:42 Southbound

PM 11:23 04:43 06:40

AM 08:20 04:27 03:53

IP 06:01 04:17 01:44 Northbound

PM 06:30 03:52 02:38

2.30 From Table 2.9 it is evident that ‘Before’ delays were particularly severe in the peaks in the southbound direction, due to congestion approaching the roundabout. This congestion is now avoided, giving time savings over 11 minutes per vehicle.

1 From Addendum to Traffic Survey Report, February 2000.


28

Journey Time Comparison with Prediction

2.31 A comparison of the predicted and actual 2-way journey times on the A34 along the length of the COBA network is shown in Table 2.10. The ‘predicted’ times are the central case from low and high growth COBA scenarios, for flow groups 2 (interpeak), 4 (AM peak) and 5 (PM peak). The ‘actual times’ are those surveyed, between timing points matching the COBA nodes used.

Table 2.10 – Predicted and Actual Journey Times (min:sec)

Do-Minimum Do-Something Saving Time Period Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Actual

AM 13:13 12:25 04:19 04:37 08:53 07:49

IP 05:32 06:01 04:10 04:18 01:22 01:43

PM 12:45 08:56 04:19 04:18 08:26 04:39

2.32 The Do-minimum predictions match the observed times fairly well, except the time for the PM peak was overestimated by nearly 4 minutes. For the Do-Something, predicted and actual times match quite closely. This means that the actual time saving is similar to predicted, except it is less in the PM peak.

Main Traffic Conclusions

The average weekday volume of traffic crossing a screenline north of the M4, including A34 mainline and all slip roads, is 65,900 vehicles per day (vpd). This is 9% higher than before the scheme (without adjustment for background growth).

Across a similar screenline south of the M4, the volume on the A34 and slip roads is 77,000 vpd, which is 14% higher than before the scheme.

These increases compare with a rise of 4% in vehicle-kilometres travelled in West Berkshire, and in England over the same period. However flows on the M4 have decreased by 4% - 6% in the vicinity of Chieveley.

About half the A34 traffic now uses the new underpass beneath the M4. As a result the roundabout is now used by about 50,000 vehicles (over 12 hours), a fall of 27% compared with before the scheme. Actual flows are generally higher than predicted.

The scheme has brought journey time savings of up to 12 minutes, generally similar to those predicted, except in the PM peak.


29

3. Safety Introduction

3.1 One of the main objectives of this scheme was to reduce accidents. This section of the report presents an evaluation of how the scheme is performing against the NATA safety objective. WebTAG states that this objective is:

‘To reduce the loss of life, injuries and damage to property resulting from transport accidents and crime.’

3.2 Within the WebTAG Safety Objective there are two sub-objectives:

to reduce accidents; and

to improve security.

Data Sources

3.3 In order to evaluate the impact on safety, records of personal injury accidents (PIA’s) were obtained from West Berkshire Council. The data is based on the records of PIA’s recorded in the STATS19 data collected by the local police when attending accidents.

3.4 It should be noted that owing to the need to use up-to-date information, at this stage the accident data may not have been validated by the Department for Transport (DfT). Thus it may be subject to change although as it has been sourced via a Local Processing Unit, it is not anticipated that this would not be significant in terms of the analysis of accident numbers presented in this report.

3.5 This evaluation is based on a comparison PIAs for the following periods before and after scheme opening:

Five complete years before the start of scheme construction ( January 1998 – December 2002), and

Five years after scheme opening (October 2004- September 2009).

Accident Locations Before and After Opening

3.6 The study area for the accident data corresponds with the network of links used in the COBA model developed for the scheme’s appraisal, to permit comparison between the numbers of observed accident and the predictions from the COBA model.

3.7 The network comprises the A34 between Curridge Road in the south to Beedon slip roads in the north, together with the roundabout and slip roads at M4 Junction 13, and a length of the M4 between the on-slips and off-slips. It also includes the old Oxford Road between Chieveley and Beedon, and in the new layout, the Local Oxford Road south of the M4. The study area extent is shown below in Figure 3.1.


30

Figure 3.1 – Accident Study Area

3.8 The locations of accidents in the ‘Before’ period are shown in Figure 3.2 and in the ‘After’ period in Figure 3.3. They are coloured according to severity as shown in the key.

3.9 Both before and after scheme opening, it is apparent that accident densities were higher in the vicinity of junctions and slip roads, but particularly at M4 Junction 13. However, the density is noticeably lower in the ‘After’ situation.


31

Figure 3.2 – Locations of Accidents Before Scheme Construction


32

Figure 3.3 – Locations of Accidents over One Year After Scheme Opening


33

Numbers of Accidents and Casualties

3.10 The numbers and severities of accidents within the whole study area, corresponding to the COBA network, are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – Before & After Accidents

Year Slight Serious Fatal Total Severity

Index

1998 28 3 2 33

1999 27 5 0 32

2000 36 2 1 39

2001 27 7 0 34

2002 28 4 0 32

Total 146 21 3 170 0.141

Before

Av per year

29.2 4.2 0.6 34.0

2004/05 10 4 2 16

2005/06 15 3 0 18

2006/07 14 4 0 18

2007/08 15 1 0 16

2008/09 7 2 1 10

Total 61 14 3 78 0.219

After

Av per year

12.1 2.8 0.6 15.5

3.11 The key points shown by this data are:

There were 170 injury accidents in the study area during the five years before scheme construction. This represents an average of 34 accidents per year;

For comparison, there were 78 accidents during the five years after scheme opening, giving an average of 15.5 per year;

The average has fallen from 34 to 15.5 accidents per year, a saving of 18.5 or 54%;

The severity index (defined as the proportion of serious and fatal accidents to the total) has increased from 0.141 to 0.219. This is not caused by an increase in the number of serious and fatal accidents, but by a great reduction in slight accidents.

3.12 Some accidents involve multiple casualties, and the equivalent figures for casualties appear in Table 3.2. The following points may be noted:

There were 267 casualties in the five-year ‘Before’ period. This represents an average of 53.4 casualties per year;

In the five-year ‘After’ period there were 116 casualties, or an average of 23.2 per year;

There has been a reduction of 30.2 casualties per year, or a 56% saving; and

There were approximately 1.5 casualties per accident in both the ‘Before’ and ‘After’ periods.


34

Table 3.2 – Before and After Casualties.

Year Slight Serious Fatal Total Severity

Index

1998 44 3 2 49

1999 49 5 0 54

2000 52 4 2 58

2001 44 7 0 51

2002 51 4 0 55

Total 240 23 4 267 0.101

Before

Av per year

48 4.6 0.8 53.4

2004/05 19 4 2 25

2005/06 27 4 0 31

2006/07 22 5 0 27

2007/08 21 1 0 22

2008/09 9 1 1 11

Total 98 15 3 116 0.155

After

Av per year

19.6 3.0 0.6 23.2

Test of Statistical Significance of Results

3.13 To assess the statistical significance of changes in accident rates following an improvement, it is common in accident studies to use the chi-squared test. The purpose of the Chi Squared test is to compare the observed number of accidents with an expected value. The test result then establishes whether the change is significant or likely to have occurred by chance.

3.14 A test has been carried out on the accident data, and this shows a statistically significant change. Thus the drop in accidents is likely to have occurred as a result of the scheme. This confirms the provisional result of the One Year After study, but the reduction then was smaller.

Impact on Accident Types

3.15 Road improvements may be expected to affect the types of accidents occurring as well as their frequencies.


35

3.16 Table 3.3 shows numbers of accidents occurring ‘before’ and ‘after’ by different category and location.


36

Table 3.3 – Before and After Accident Categories

Before After Category

No. % No. %

Shunt on A34 58 34% 9 12%

Single vehicle loss of control 42 25% 20 26%

Lane-change collision on A34 16 9% 17 22%

Shunt on M4 slip road 11 6% 3 4%

Collision on minor road (inc shunt & opposed) 11 6% 12 16%

Collision between circulating vehicles on roundabout 9 5% 4 5%

Collision on M4 (inc shunt, lane-change & slip merge) 8 5% 2 3%

Collision on A34 on-slip (inc shunt & lane-change) 6 4% 6 8%

Collision on A34 with vehicle merging from slip 5 3% 2 3%

Vehicle collision with pedestrian 3 2% 1 1%

Vehicle collision with pedal cyclist 1 1% 0 0%

Total 170 76

3.17 The following points can be noted from Table 3.3:

Before the improvement, there were 58 shunts on the A34, representing 34% of the

total. This would have been due to slow-moving or stationary traffic approaching the junction. Afterwards, there were 9 accidents in this category, or 12% of the total. The change is due to the reduction in congestion, with fewer slow-moving vehicles presenting themselves as targets for speeding traffic approaching queues.

Single-vehicle accidents, anywhere in the study area, remain as about a quarter of the total, even though the absolute number has more than halved, from 42 to 20.

Collisions resulting from lane-changing on the A34 numbered 16 ‘Before’ and 17 ‘After’, and with the decrease in total accidents, this class has gained in relative importance, now forming 22% of the total.

Collisions on the M4 mainline and slip roads have reduced in number. This is likely to be due to a reduction in queuing at the motorway off-slips leading to the junction when congested. For the same reason, collisions between circulating vehicles on the roundabout have also decreased, in absolute terms.

There has been a slight increase in the number of collisions on minor roads. It may be noted that the extent of this network has increased, with the construction of the Local Oxford Road. However, the greatest concentration of accidents In this category actually occurred in Graces Lane, at the junction with the A34 slips.

There were 3 accidents involving pedestrians ‘Before’ the improvement. Two of these occurred in the A34 carriageway, and one in Old Oxford Road. There was 1 pedestrian accident ‘After’ the improvement, also occurring in old Oxford Road.

Comparison with Predictions

3.18 The observed annual saving may be compared with the COBA prediction. Table 3.4 shows the predicted and actual accident savings on the network. The COBA figures are


37

the sum of link and junction accidents, and the ‘central’ value is based on 60% low-growth and 40% high-growth.

Table 3.4 – Predicted and Observed Annual PIA Savings

COBA Prediction

Low High Central Actual

Before 27.8 31.2 29.2 34.0

After 25.1 27.3 26.0 15.5

Saving 2.7 3.9 3.2 18.5

3.19 It is clear that the actual saving in accidents has exceeded the prediction by approximately a factor of six. The reason for the under-prediction is not known for certain, although it may be noted that link and junction accident numbers were input to COBA for the years 1994-1998, which are different from the years considered by POPE.

Security

3.20 According to WebTAG 3.4.2, ‘road users are more vulnerable to crime at locations where they are required to stop their vehicles or travel at slow speeds, such as at the approaches to signals or in congested conditions’.

3.21 Improving Security, was not a scheme objective. However the improved conditions at the Chieveley roundabout will have reduced the potential for crime described above, although realistically in this rural situation this is unlikely to be a major consideration, and the impact would be ‘neutral’.

Main Safety Conclusions

The number of injury accidents has fallen from an average of 34.0 per year, to 15.5 per year, after scheme opening. This is a 54% reduction, and is a statistically significant change.

There have been about 1.5 casualties per accident, on average, both before and after the scheme. Hence the number of casualties has fallen in approximately the same proportion.

The observed accident saving is far greater than predicted.

There has been a large reduction in the number of shunts in slow moving traffic on the A34. These were usually of slight severity. The number of single-vehicle accidents, which are usually more serious, has halved in absolute terms, but remained the same in relative proportion.

There have been fewer accidents on the M4 in the vicinity of the junction, but about the same number on surrounding minor roads, since scheme completion. So the scheme has successfully reduced the number of accidents in the vicinity of the junction without adversely affecting safety on local roads.


38

4. Economy Introduction

4.1 The original appraisal of the scheme included forecasts of the economic impacts of the scheme over 30 years and is detailed in the Final Economic Assessment Report, 2000 (FEAR). Two COBA scenarios were included in the FEAR:

With a fixed-trip matrix; and

With additional Do-something flows to represent induced traffic.

4.2 Both COBAs have been provided, but the FEAR gives no indication as to which version should be taken as the forecast. At the one-year-after stage, the scheme consultant advised that the fixed-trip option should be used. This is accepted for the five-year-after POPE evaluation, because the results from the fixed-trip run provide a closer match with the figures given in the Appraisal Summary table (AST).

4.3 The area included in the appraisal model is shown in Figure 3.1 in the Safety section of this report.

Monetary Benefit

4.4 The POPE methodology for re-evaluating monetary benefit uses observed data, from which it is possible to re-evaluate the two most important components of economic benefit, namely:

Vehicle-time savings; and

Accident Savings.

4.5 Annual vehicle-hours have been measured from traffic count and journey time surveys on key links in the network, in both the before and after situations. All the traffic volumes have been factored to October 2009. The vehicle-time is calculated from the product of volume multiplied by journey time. Because there is now additional traffic in the corridor, after allowing for background growth, the Rule of a Half has been employed, giving the extra travellers half the benefit of the time saving for existing travellers on the route.

4.6 The COBA model files are available for this scheme and the model was re-run with the option of showing 2009 journey times in order to calculate the predicted vehicle-hour savings on the same links as for those observed. From this, it is possible to derive the observed:predicted ratio of vehicle-hour savings. This ratio is applied to the predicted 30-year monetary benefit of time savings, to give a new re-forecast of the time benefit, based on observed data (this may be referred to as the ‘actual’ benefit for brevity).

4.7 Two separate COBA model runs were made at the time of scheme assessment, one for Low Growth and one for High Growth. For evaluation purposes, a ‘central’ case is used, based on 60% of the low-growth results and 40% of the high-growth results.

4.8 This re-forecast benefit for the 30 year appraisal period is expressed in 1994 prices discounted to 1994 at 6% per year. To permit comparison with the results from other major schemes evaluated under POPE, it is necessary to convert monetary benefits to a common base. The base year of 2002 is used, with values discounted at the current rate of 3.5%.

4.9 The conversion to 2002 is performed first to the forecast benefits, which is possible because the forecast benefits in each year of the 30-year appraisal period are known.


39

This allows a total 2002:1994 ratio to be derived, which is then applied to the ‘actual’ 1994 benefit as a means of expressing it at 2002 values.

4.10 Monetised accident benefits are treated in exactly the same way, with the ratio of observed: predicted accident savings being used to adjust the predicted 30-year accident benefit.

4.11 In accordance with current guidance, monetary benefits should now be expressed in market prices, and a conversion is made to both vehicle-time and accident benefits in this evaluation.

Time Benefit

4.12 As shown in Table 4.1, the central-case COBA model prediction was that 1,366,101 vehicle-hours would be saved in 2009, while the actual saving is 1,240,581 vehicle-hours. This is well within the range of low- and high-growth predictions, and only 9% below the central-case value.

4.13 The difference from predicted is a balance between the lower actual time saving per trip, and the higher actual number of trips, compared with predicted.

Table 4.1 – Time Saving and Monetary Benefit

Benefit in 30 yrs (£m) Vehicle hrs Saved in 2009 1994 Base 2002 Base

COBA low 1,182,632 94.2 254.0

COBA high 1,641,304 165.6 449.7

COBA central

Converted to market prices

1,366,101 122.7 332.3

401.8

Actual

Converted to market prices

1,240,581 111.4 301.8

364.9

4.14 The corresponding predicted 30-year monetary benefit was £122.7 million, at 1994 values. Scaling this down by 9% gives a benefit of £111.4 million. When this is converted to 2002 values, using the procedure described above, the re-evaluated benefit becomes £301.8 million. When expressed in market prices, this becomes £364.9 million.

Accident Benefit

4.15 The COBA prediction was that 3.2 accidents would be saved in 2009. The actual saving of 18.5 accidents is 581% of the prediction. The 30-year monetary benefit corresponding to the predicted accident saving was £2.4 million, at 1994 values. Scaling this up by 581% gives an ‘Actual’ accident benefit of £13.8 million.

4.16 Converting this benefit from a 1994 present-value year to 2002, using the procedure described above, results in a value of £37.9 million. When converted to market prices it becomes £45.8 million. The accident benefit is shown in Table 4.2..


40

Table 4.2 – Accident Saving and Monetary Benefit

Benefit in 30 years (£m) Accident saving / year 1994 Base 2002 Base

COBA – low 2.7 1.9 5.1

COBA – high 3.9 3.2 8.7

COBA – central Converted to market prices

3.2

2.4

6.5 7.9

Actual Converted to market prices

18.5

13.8

37.9 45.8

Scheme Costs

4.17 The outturn cost was £72.5 million, a figure provided by the Highways Agency Regional Finance Director in October 2009. This is the total as spent from 2000 onward, with an estimate up to 2009/10. The figure includes works, land, preparation and supervision.

4.18 In order to compare predicted and outturn costs, and to give consistency with other scheme evaluations in POPE studies, it is customary to convert all costs to a common 2002 price base. On this basis, the outturn cost was £70.6 million. This is shown in the first row of the ‘Outturn’ column in Table 4.3 below.

4.19 For the purpose of comparison with a future stream of benefits, the Present Value of Cost (PVC) must be used. This is the 2002 cost, discounted to 2002 at 3.5% p.a., and expressed in market prices. This PVC is shown as £83.8 million in the final row of the ‘Outturn’ column of Table 4.3.

4.20 The contribution made by indirect tax revenue was not taken into account in the scheme forecasting, and therefore it is not considered in this evaluation.

Comparison with Predictions

4.21 POPE is expected to use ‘Stage 5 final estimate’ costs to be compared with the outturn. From discussion with the project manager, it appears no such estimates are available for schemes of this age. Predicted costs are contained in the Final Economic Assessment Report (FEAR, April 2000), and the project manager has been asked whether these represent the final estimate. At the time of writing, no answer has been received, and so this draft of the Five Year After report makes use of the FEAR predicted costs, which are at 1994 prices. When converted to 2002 prices, the total scheme cost was predicted to be £52.6 million. This is shown in the first row of the ‘Predicted’ column in Table 4.3. It will be updated in a later draft if a different value of the final estimate is notified to POPE.

4.22 A comparison of predicted and outturn costs should use the 2002 based figures shown in the first row of Table 4.3. The outturn cost is £70.6 million, which is 34% higher than the predicted cost of £52.6 million.


41

Table 4.3 – Predicted and Actual Costs (£ million)

Predicted Outturn

Costs at 2002 prices 52.6 70.6

Cost discounted to 2002 52.9 69.3

PVC in to market prices 64.0 83.8

4.23 The discounted predicted cost very slightly higher than undiscounted. This is because the assumed construction period was 1999 to 2004, with the greater part of the costs falling before the 2002 present-value year. However, for the actual costs, the discounted value is lower than discounted, This is because in fact, the greater part of the cost was incurred after 2002.

4.24 In terms of market prices, the predicted PVC is £64 million. This is shown in the final row of the ‘Predicted‘ column of Table 4.3.

Benefit Cost Ratio

4.25 Table 4.4 summarises the results discussed above. The cost is the discounted construction cost, while the benefit is the sum of the discounted time and accident benefits. Note that the forecast also considered vehicle operating costs and maintenance savings, but these are numerically very small, and have therefore been excluded from this evaluation.

4.26 A scheme’s value for money is measured by the Benefit/ Cost Ratio (BCR). In the present case, this is evaluated at 4.1 (compared with a predicted value of 5.3). While the total benefits are slightly higher than expected, boosted by the high accident savings, the cost increase was proportionally greater, leading to a reduction in the BCR. However, the economic return is still very good.

Table 4.4 - Scheme Costs and Benefits (2002 Base)

Predicted (£m) Actual (£m)

Cost £64.0m £83.8m

Journey Time B fit

£401.8m £364.9m

Accident Benefits £7.9m £45.8m

Total Benefits £409.7m £410.7m

Benefit / Cost Ratio 6.4 4.9

4.27 It should be noted that the BCR ignores non-monetised impacts. In NATA assessments, the impact on environment, accessibility, and integration objectives must be assess, but are not monetised. The evaluation of these objectives is covered in later chapters.

Journey Time Reliability

4.28 The AST quotes Route Stress as a proxy for Reliability. This is essentially a measure of volume:capacity, with values between 75% and 125% being considered to be related to Reliability. The AST stated this was predicted to fall from 91% to 75%, giving an improvement in reliability.


42

4.29 The concept of route stress is more applicable to links than junctions. While it would be possible to evaluate the present route stress for the underpass, or the A34 slip roads, where the flows are approximately half their previous levels on the A34 on each side of the roundabout, this is not felt to be very meaningful, and is therefore not included in this report.

4.30 The AST also stated that the reduction in queues would lead to a more balanced and improved operation of the roundabout junction. From the traffic data presented in chapter 2, this is considered to have been achieved. The improvement in reliability also affects a small number of bus and coach services, as discussed later in Chapter 6.

Regeneration

4.31 As stated in the AST, the scheme does not serve a designated regeneration area. Regeneration was not an objective, and has not been significantly affected by the scheme.

Main Economy Conclusions

The monetary benefit from time savings is £364.9 million over 30 years, or 9% lower than predicted. The difference from predicted is a balance between the lower actual time saving per trip, and the higher actual number of trips, compared with predicted

The monetary benefit from accident savings is £45.8 million, which is nearly six times higher than predicted.

The combined time-and-accident benefit is £410.7 million. This is £1.0 million higher than predicted.

The PVC was £83.8 million, or 34% higher than predicted. As a result, the BCR is 4.9, a little lower than predicted.


43

5. Environmental Impacts Introduction

5.1 As part of the evaluation of this scheme’s impacts, this section of the report considers the scheme’s influence upon the environment. This section contains a summary of the environmental aspects of the scheme. A full detailed evaluation is given in Appendix C.

Environmental Effects

5.2 The key environmental effects identified in the Environmental Statement (ES) were;

Landscape and visual intrusion – landscape impacts would be slight for most of the study area in the opening year and with the maturing of the landscape planting the visual impact of the scheme would reduce to slight beneficial after 15 years;

Public Rights of Way – rights of way affected by the scheme would be reconnected into the highway network or maintained and no community severance would occur as a result of the scheme;

Heritage – archaeological potential across the route of the proposed scheme was generally low but rose to medium for Iron Age activity;

Noise – imperceptible noise changes for most properties;

Biodiversity - overall the land within the study area was considered to be of minimal nature conservation value and lacked a diversity of species;

Air Quality – at all but one receptor the scheme would result in an improvement in air quality; and

Water Quality – as the existing drainage system failed to provide any protection to groundwater from pollutants, the proposed measures would provide an improvement to groundwater pollution prevention.

5.3 The landscape proposals for the scheme were designed to:

Reduce visual intrusion to adjoining properties;

Integrate the road within its landscape setting;

Promote and protect the habitat value of the road corridor and its adjacent areas; and

Provide interest for the road user.

5.4 The ES proposed to achieve this through a mixture of dense planting, for screening purposes, retention of existing vegetation, as well as use of substantial earth shaping to provide screening to properties.

Consultations

5.5 Three statutory environmental organisations (Natural England, English Heritage and the Environment Agency) and the relevant local authorities have been contacted regarding their views on the impacts they perceive the scheme has had on the environment, and whether they feel that the mitigation measures implemented have been effective. Table 5.1 lists the organisations contacted, their area of interest, and the responses received.


44

Table 5.1 – Summary of Environmental Consultation Responses

Organisation Field of Interest Comments

Natural England Landscape and Biodiversity

No comments to make. Referred POPE-E team onto West Berkshire Council.

English Heritage Heritage and archaeology

No comment received.

Environment Agency Water and flood risk

Comments received on water quality, flood risk, nature conservation, ground water and contaminated land. Recommended contact with local authorities.

West Berkshire District Council

Biodiversity, landscape, rights of way, water, heritage, emissions

Responses received on a range of environmental topics.

HA Part 1 Claims advisor Part 1 Claims, noise insulation

Information supplied on number of Part 1 claims, basis of claim and noise insulation.

MAC Post handover maintenance

Information on condition of mitigation measures and comments on animal mortality.

5.6 Discussion has also taken place with the members of the HA team Designers, Department’s Agent and Environmental Coordinator, a specialist ecological advisor, the contractor and the MAC for the scheme.

5.7 Information provided by the HA Part 1 team indicates that there have been 16 claims to date of which none have been successful. Noise has been the main factor with lighting an issue for a limited number of claims. It is understood that the majority of claims in Aston Clinton were not upheld as, in the main, properties are closer to the old road than the new road and are now considered therefore to be less noisy.

Site Inspection

5.8 Site visits were undertaken in October 2009 which allowed a general overview of the scheme with access from over-bridges and underpasses, public footpaths and local roads.

Noise

Predicted Impacts

5.9 The AST predicted imperceptible changes in noise levels due to the mitigation measures proposed off setting any increase resulting from increased traffic flows. With the scheme, no properties would experience an increase or a decrease in noise.

5.10 The ES noted that noise changes would be imperceptible for most properties although there would be a noticeable decrease in noise for 15 properties along East Lane in Chieveley. Fifteen years after opening 25 properties were expected to experience an increase in noise and 25 properties a decrease.


45

Evaluation

5.11 Observed traffic flows on the A34 slip roads to J13 north of the M4 in 2009 were 25,600 and 41,700 south of the M4. These are noticeably (up to 15%) lower than those forecast in the ES for this year. However, observed traffic flows on the A34 underpass were higher (up to 13%) than predicted. This makes estimating the likely effect on noise complicated, but given the vertical alignment of the underpass section in deep cutting noise due to traffic overall may be better than expected for properties adjacent to scheme Also the road is in a rural area and there are only a few properties nearby. Of the 16 Part 1 Claims received by the HA, none have been upheld with the extensive noise mitigation being noted as a factor in this.

5.12 The mitigation measures included in the ES have also been implemented. To the south of the M4 the earth bund approximately 2m high between the proposed A34 and the local Oxford Road has been implemented. There is also an environmental barrier to the east of Stakis Hotel replacing the existing barrier. Extensive landscape modelling has been carried out to the north west of Junction 13 which has noise benefits for Chieveley. A 500 metre environmental barrier along the western verge of the A34 north of Chieveley Crossroads Bridge has also been built. The scheme includes a low noise surface through out.

Summary of Predicted Effects

Table 5.1 - Summary Table of Predicted Noise Effects

Origin of Assessment

Summary of Predicted Effects Assessment

AST

Change in traffic noise levels would generally be imperceptible to properties within the area due to mitigation provided by noise barriers located on the west side of the A34 corridor and proposed landscape modelling to the northwest of junction 13 roundabout.

0 properties experiencing increase in noise.

0 properties experiencing decrease in noise.

Net 0 properties experience change in noise levels with scheme.

POPE 5YA

Significantly lower traffic flows than predicted on A34 slip roads. Noise mounding has been provided. Part 1 Claims information indicates that no claim has been successful against noise.

Impacts likely to be as predicted or better.

Local Air Quality

Predicted Impacts

5.13 The AST stated that two properties experiencing an increase in NO2 concentrations would experience pollution levels exceeding NO2 air quality objective in 2005. For PM10 no properties experiencing an increase in PM10 concentrations exceed the air quality objective for this pollutant in 2005 or beyond. It stated that 17 properties would experience an improvement and 6 properties a worsening in air quality With-Scheme. An assessment score of +3 PM10 and 30 NO2 was noted.

5.14 The ES assessed the likely effects of the scheme at 20 representative receptors within 200m of the scheme. It concluded that in all but one receptor the scheme would result in an improvement in air quality.


46

Evaluation

5.15 Observed traffic flows on the A34 slip roads to J13 north of the M4 in 2009 were 25,600 and 41,700 south of the M4. These are significantly (up to 15%) lower than those forecast in the ES for this year. However, observed traffic flows on the A34 underpass were higher (up to 13%) than predicted. This makes estimating the likely effect on air quality complicated but the overall lower volumes of traffic than predicted suggests that air quality effects may be slightly better than expected for properties adjacent to scheme.


Table 5.3 - Summary Table of Predicted Air Quality Effects



AST

Two properties experiencing an increase in NO2 concentrations would experience pollution levels exceeding NO2 air quality objective in 2005. For PM10 no properties experiencing an increase in PM10 concentrations exceed the air quality objective for this pollutant in 2005 or beyond. 17 properties experiencing improvement in air quality.

6 properties experiencing worse air quality.

+3 PM10

30 NO2

POPE 5YA Based on lower overall traffic flows than predicted air quality is likely to have improved as expected or slightly more than expected.

Impacts likely to be as predicted or slightly better.

Greenhouse Gases

5.16 For transport, the most significant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, and by current guidelines this is reported in terms of tonnes of carbon. The AST shows a saving of 16 tonnes of CO2, which would correspond to a saving of 4.4 tonnes of carbon. The time over which this would be saved is not stated, but may be one year. The ES did not deal with greenhouse gases.

5.17 POPE evaluations of the carbon impact are based on COBA version 11.7 where possible, as this is the only version of the program that calculates carbon emissions. The scheme forecasting employed COBA version 10.5, and with a few modifications to the input format, it has been possible to re-run the scheme model in version 11.7, for the year 2009. The results are shown in Table 5.4.

5.18 In the ‘predicted’ case, the original traffic flows were retained, and the COBA re-run of the model showed a decrease of 132 tonnes of carbon. This is presumed to be due to a reduction in congestion, and an increase in speeds within the range where carbon emission decreases with increased speed. It should be noted that with a fixed-trip matrix, no traffic increase was assumed with the scheme, and furthermore zero traffic growth subsequently was assumed. For this reason the prediction remains the same each year.

5.19 The ‘actual’ case is based on observed flows, Do-Minimum based on with ‘Before’ counts factored up by 4% to allow for background growth. This shows an increase of 634 tonnes, due to the fact that traffic on the A34 has risen, even allowing for background growth. Although traffic actually fell on the mainline M4, this is not part of the COBA network.


47

Table 5.4 – Net Change in Tonnes of Carbon Emitted with Scheme

Year Predicted (AST) Predicted (COBA) Actual (COBA)

2005 -4 -132 +645

2006 -4 -132 +642

2007 -4 -132 +640

2008 -4 -132 +637

2009 -4 -132 +634

Landscape

Predicted Impacts

5.20 The AST stated that there would be a slight adverse impact on the North Wessex Downs AONB, with slight visual benefit at Chieveley village in the long term and that the assessment of the effect was neutral

5.21 The ES concluded that in the design year the landscape impacts would be slight for most of the study area, with the area north east of junction 13 subject to no change. Fourteen properties closest to the scheme would be subject to substantial or moderate visual impact in the opening year but most other properties with views of the scheme would experience slight visual impact. Fifteen years after opening the maturing of the landscape planting would reduce the visual impact of the scheme to slight beneficial

5.22 The following predicted key landscape and visual intrusion impacts were noted in the ES:

Loss of established hedgerows, trees and other vegetation, particularly at the Chieveley Crossroads Bridge south facing slip roads, along the A34 southbound past the Newbury Showground and alongside the M4 eastbound off slip causing landscape effects and increased visual intrusion;

Negative impacts of additional lighting, particularly at the A34/M4 roundabout and the negative impacts of 3 new gantries over the A34 south of the M4;

Widening of the A34 corridor with several new bridges built over it;

A34 lowered in cutting up to 16m deep and substantial areas of mounding using the spoil generated to the north west of the junction; and

Initial visual impact ranging from minor for some properties up to substantial for a limited number of properties reducing to slight beneficial for most properties in the design year with the maturing of planting.

Evaluation

5.23 The scheme is located on the edge of the North Wessex Downs AONB in an area of attractive countryside and landscape measures to reduce the impact of the road were an integral part of the scheme. This has principally been achieved by the lowered vertical alignment underneath the M4 and the use of the fill material generated to create


48

extensive areas of mounding for screening and integration. This has been complimented by new tree and shrub planting undertaken on highways land.

5.24 It is considered that the earth mounding west of the A34 north of the M4 has been implemented very well. The intention was to dispose of the spoil and screen the A34 and M4 from Chieveley and to return the land to agriculture and create a natural looking landform. The mounding is effective in reducing views towards the A34 and M4 and below a natural looking landform has been created. This is particularly evident to the south of Radnall Farm where the land has been returned to arable use but less so north of Radnalls Farm where the land has been subdivided for horse paddocks which blend in less well with the surrounding area.

5.25 To the south of the M4 the embankments for the bridleway bridge over the A34 have been graded out and returned to agricultural use as proposed. Again this has been successful and the resulting landform and vegetation blends in very well with the surrounding agricultural land. At the time of the site visit the graded out land and adjacent undisturbed field were not being farmed.

5.26 There are other areas of earth shaping in the scheme notably an earth bund with an environmental barrier between the Local Oxford Road and the A34 south of the M4 which prevents headlight dazzle between the two roads and screens the A34 from the rising ground to the west and reduces noise effects.

5.27 There has been extensive native tree and shrub planting throughout the scheme as proposed in the ES. The landscape contractor commented that establishment had been slow in the first years after planting probably due to the poor ground conditions/compaction resulting from the earthworks combined with the chalk subsoil. There was also a major problem with rabbit browsing with the rabbit fencing being ineffective in excluding rabbits and which was replaced by individual spiral guards on the plants. The site visit confirmed that most of the planted stock has now taken well and is beginning to put on good growth.

5.28 Maintenance at the time of the visit was seen to be very good and the MAC commented that there had been no issues in taking over the scheme after the 5 year aftercare period. One area of off-site planting has been implemented as proposed on agricultural land along Green Lane and this is also establishing well.

5.29 There are extensive areas of species rich grassland on the cuttings and embankments through the scheme. Where these have been sown on bare chalk cuttings these have established slowly with some bare patches whilst on embankments and bunds the coverage is much better.

5.30 Only two of the three proposed gantries have been erected, with the third deleted in favour of direction signs mounted on the new bridleway bridge which reduces overall visual impact. Full cut off flat glass high pressure sodium lighting was proposed at Junction 13 and at the accesses to the facilities south of the junction. This has been implemented as proposed in the ES. The changes to the lighting and the resulting effect were the subject of several Part 1 claims with five house owners making claims. The 2006 Night Time Lighting Impact Assessment was commissioned by the HA to inform the response to these claims. The report concluded that the mitigation with the scheme had done much to offset the impact of the lighting and that this would improve as vegetation grew but that lighting had increased visual impact on three of the properties. The report noted that the lighting in question was a small number of luminaires seen as pinpoint light sources against a backdrop of pre-existing lighting at the services, car headlights on pre


49

existing roads and other light sources in the area e.g. Radnalls Farm. The lit road surface was not visible from the properties. There has been no new night time survey of lighting as part of this POPE process.


Table 5.5 - Summary Table of Predicted Landscape Effects



AST Slight adverse impact on the North Wessex Downs AONB, with slight visual benefit at Chieveley village in the long term.

Neutral

POPE 5YA

Extensive mitigation proposed in the ES and addendum has been implemented. Earth mounding and shaping has been carried out well and blends the scheme into the landscape. Planting and seeding has been undertaken and is establishing well. Overall the landscape works have reduced the visual impact of the scheme as predicted and integrated it with the surrounding area.

As expected

Biodiversity

Predicted Impacts

5.31 The AST stated that there would be no significant direct impact on biodiversity. The impact was assessed as slight adverse.

5.32 The ES stated that;

Although badger setts were known to exist in the area no signs were found during the field survey;

The route corridor included potential roost sites but the surveys undertaken revealed no traces of bats;

There were fox earths in hedgerows and large and active rabbit warrens;

There were low populations of grey partridge, skylark and brown hare all of which are listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan:

No habitats likely to support protected species such as dormice or great crested newt were found;

No wetland ecosystems of significant value would be affected by the scheme; and

There were a number of sites of nature conservation value at county or local level comprising hedges and grasslands which have developed alongside the existing A34.

5.33 Overall the land within the study area was considered to be of minimal nature conservation value and lacked a diversity of species

Evaluation

5.34 The ecological mitigation measures implemented as part of the scheme are more extensive than originally proposed in the ES. This is due to protected species being found near the scheme after the ES was completed. A number of ecological surveys were carried out and reported in 2002 and 2003.


50

5.35 Although no evidence of badger activity directly in the area affected by the scheme was found and reported in the ES there was known to be badger activity in the area. The opportunity was taken to create a link between the areas east and west of the A34 north of the M4. A series of badger tunnels first short tunnels under the slip roads and then a long tunnel under the mainline were built together with badger proof fencing to guide the animals. The scheme ecologist commented that badgers were using the tunnels under the slip roads and accessing the enclosed areas between them and the mainline but the mainline tunnel was not generally used. This was thought to be because the length of the mainline tunnel was too great for the badgers to want to use.

5.36 Badger activity continued during the aftercare period in other areas around the scheme. Although the MAC had no records of badger mortality the Ecology Status Reports during the aftercare period noted two incidents of badger deaths near the north of the scheme possibly attributed to the construction of the environmental barrier north of Graces Lane preventing badgers from moving west across the A34. The scheme ecologist reported that this might be resolved by new badger fencing on the east side of the A34.

5.37 A population of southern marsh orchids lost to the scheme were translocated to a new balancing pond near to Green Lane north of the M4. Monitoring of these during the aftercare period showed that they were failing to re-establish in the new location and by year 5 there was no evidence of them. This was thought to be due to a combination of inundation possibly linked with the siltation of the pond and rabbit browsing

5.38 To the west of the scheme in Bussocks Wood twelve bat boxes were erected on trees in the wood as an environmental enhancement. Monitoring during the 5 year aftercare period indicates that all had been used at some point with the exception of one nearest the M4.

5.39 As part of the scheme mitigation a number of dormouse nest boxes were installed in Bussocks Wood and along Green Lane. Evidence of dormouse activity had been found near the hotel south west of the junction during other works and nest boxes were proposed as mitigation. In addition to this an area of open ground within Bussocks Wood owned by the Highways Agency was planted up to create a habitat suitable for dormice. The habitat established well despite some deer browsing and dormice were recorded as using the boxes at times during the aftercare period. 10 of the boxes were replaced towards the end of the aftercare period due to deterioration.

5.40 Extensive areas of amenity and species rich grassland have been created as part of the scheme as proposed in the ES in mitigation for areas lost to the scheme. The increased area of cutting and embankment means that overall there has been a net increase in such habitats. As noted in the landscape section the success of establishment is variable with some areas having no coverage and others showing good growth. No survey of the species distribution has been carried out as part of the scheme monitoring to confirm which species have established best.

5.41 Extensive areas of dense tree and shrub planting have been carried out as proposed along with substantial lengths of hedgerow planting. These measures were identified in the ES as appropriate mitigation for the losses to existing planting and are generally establishing well.


51


Table 5.6 - Summary Table of Predicted Biodiversity Effects



AST No significant direct impact. Slight adverse

effect

POPE 5YA

Ecological mitigation has been implemented to a greater extent than indicated in the ES. This is as a result of later surveys indicating the presence of species and habitats not originally found and which would be affected by the scheme. This has helped maintain the ecological value of the area despite some elements being unsuccessful and is likely to have reduced the impact of the scheme on ecological resources.

As expected

Heritage of Historic Resources

Predicted Impacts

5.42 The AST stated that there would be a slight impact on landscape setting of Chieveley village and its Listed Buildings. If as yet unknown archaeological sites survive within the route corridor then the impact upon them could be negative and should be mitigated in advance of and during construction

5.43 The ES stated that the desk based study identified that the archaeological potential across the route of the proposed scheme was generally low but rose to medium for Iron Age activity.

Evaluation

5.44 Both popular and technical archaeological reports for the scheme have now been published. These note that further investigations took place ahead of construction and confirmed that the area has been used since early prehistoric times with scatters of artefacts and burnt flint showing that activity was widespread in Neolithic and Bronze Age times. Several Bronze Age pits were discovered but the land did not become densely settled until the Roman period with a Roman farmstead being discovered near Chieveley. Sporadic Anglo Saxon finds indicate that the area continued to be settled and farmed until the present day.

5.45 The settings of the Listed Buildings in Chieveley have not affected by the scheme as was expected. Bussocks Hill hillfort is surrounded by woodland and is also unaffected by the scheme.


52


Table 5.7 - Summary Table of Predicted Heritage Effects



AST

Slight impact on landscape setting of Chieveley village and its Listed Buildings. If as yet unknown archaeological sites survive within the route corridor then the impact upon them could be negative and should be mitigated in advance of and during construction.

Neutral/Slight adverse

POPE 5YA

The effect on the landscape setting of Chieveley and the visual impact has been effectively mitigated by the mounding and planting to the west of the A34. Buried remains were fully investigated and recorded during construction.

As expected

Water

Predicted Impacts

5.46 The AST stated that the scheme lies within the catchment of a major aquifer. The increased carriageway and cut slope areas included in the scheme increases the risk of pollution, which is offset by the inclusion of petrol/oil interceptors. The AST predicted a slight adverse impact.

5.47 The ES concluded that as the existing drainage system failed to provide any protection to groundwater from pollutants, the proposed measures would provide an improvement to groundwater pollution prevention.

Evaluation

5.48 The inspection of drainage features during the site visit indicated that the scheme had been implemented as proposed. Run off from the carriageway is taken via kerbed drains or concrete v drains to pollution control structures and on to balancing/infiltration ponds or soakaways. The soakaways themselves are either of surface longitudinal or deep chamber type.

5.49 The alignment of the A34 under the M4 means that the underpass is a low point for drainage for both roads. The historic groundwater levels were normally some way below this point but it was decided during the design and construction phase to include a pumping facility to clear water in the event of groundwater levels rising and in exceptional weather events. This pumping station is located adjacent to the A34 south of the M4. The designers of the scheme have commented that the underpass became inundated twice since the scheme opened through exceptional rainfall on one occasion and through failure of the operating system on another. Groundwater levels have risen since the scheme was opened and the pumping system now comes into operation at ½ hour intervals. The rise in groundwater is not reported to be as the result of construction of the scheme but due to other unknown factors.

5.50 After about 2 years of operation the infiltration pond adjacent to the M4 west of the junction had a problem with silting and retention of water for longer periods than in the design. This was due to some early cutting face wash out problems that occurred before the grass seeding was properly established (which have now been resolved) and the fact that the delivery system to the pond is pumped which meant that the silts were


53

rapidly transmitted from the pump chamber up to the pond. These problems resulted in a change to the design which converted the first part of the pond to a silt settlement area. The chamber ring gives settled out (clear) water access to the filter material layer beneath once the level of the top of the rings is reached. Since this alteration the pond has not demonstrated any problems of water retention, beyond that which it was designed to do in heavy storms. The modified system is considered by the designer to afford better environmental protection to the aquifer than the interceptor installed upstream of the pond.

5.51 It is considered that there is no significant impact to the water environment as a result of the scheme. Although the number of vehicles and surface area of the carriageway has increased with the scheme there would already have been an existing impact on water quality and flow due to the existing A34 and M4. The existing drainage system did not include pollution control features so there is likely to be a net improvement in water quality because of the scheme.

5.52 No serious pollution incidents have been recorded since the scheme opened.


Table 5.8 - Summary Table of Predicted Water Effects



AST

The scheme lies within catchment of a major aquifer. The increased carriageway and cut slope areas included in the scheme increases the risk of pollution, which is offset against the inclusion of petrol/oil interceptors.

Slight adverse

POPE 5YA

New pollution control structures and reduced accident rates on the new scheme may have reduced the risk to water quality through pollution incidents. The pumping facility has prevented the underpass from flooding.

As expected.

Physical Fitness

Predicted Impacts

5.53 The AST did not assess physical fitness.

5.54 The ES stated that rights of way affected by the scheme would be reconnected into the highway network or maintained and no community severance would occur as a result of the scheme. Cyclists would benefit through improved cycling conditions and that pedestrians and equestrians would benefit by being able to move directly from east to west of the A34 via the proposed equestrian/pedestrian provision.

Evaluation

5.55 The dedicated bridleway bridge over the A34 has been implemented as proposed in the ES Addendum. The new bridge over the M4 at Bussocks Wood has also been constructed and these two facilities enable pedestrian and equestrians to travel safely between Chieveley and the areas to the south east of the junction creating a route locally known as the Chieveley Community Circuit. This is an improvement both on the pre – existing situation and the scheme as proposed in the ES.

5.56 The creation of the Local Oxford Road has made it safer for non motorised users to travel north-south between Newbury and the M4 as they no longer have to use the A34.


54

A wide footpath is included alongside the Local Oxford Road that can be used by all NMU’s. The other minor modifications to the local accesses and footpaths have all been carried out as proposed resulting in safer, easier routes for users.

5.57 Overall there has been a significant improvement in the situation for non motorised users and physical fitness should have improved. Further detail on the effect on NMUs is given in the following chapter.


Table 5.9 - Summary Table of Predicted Physical Fitness Effects



AST Not reported. Not reported

EST Modifications to the scheme have resulted in an improvement in facilities for non motorised users and a potential improvement in physical fitness.

Moderate beneficial

Main Environment Conclusions

Earth mounding reduced noise impacts and helped to integrate the scheme into the landscape. The lowered alignment generated extensive quantities of fill which was used creatively to blend the scheme into the landscape and return land to agricultural use. Lack of control of the returned land and use for inappropriate uses diminished this affect in one area whilst the others were well carried out.

Provision of the new bridleway bridge over the A34 in combination with the replacement bridge over the M4 has improved conditions greatly for NMU’s in the area.

For reasons unconnected with the project ground water levels changed markedly during the schemes development and construction and pumping is required more frequently than first envisaged though this might change again.

The long tunnel under the mainline may deter badgers from crossing under the A34 though there may be other reasons for this and this should be investigated. The orchid translocation has failed but other mitigation for protected species has been monitored and appears to have been successful.

The landscape works were slow to establish due to poor ground conditions, rabbit browsing and periods of low rainfall but with some remedial measures to rabbit protection these generally have now established successfully and are as expected.

Heritage was investigated thoroughly and the findings have been recorded fully.


55

6. Accessibility and Integration Introduction

6.1 This section considers the accessibility objective, which in the case of this scheme consists of the following elements:

Public Transport;

Severance; and

Pedestrians and Others.

6.2 An evaluation of the integration objective is also undertaken which examines how well the scheme achieves the objectives set out in the relevant local and regional policy documents.

Accessibility

Public Transport

6.3 The AST stated the scheme would have no significant impact on public transport, and gave a neutral score. The easing of congestion would be expected to benefit buses and coaches using the A34, as with other traffic. The A34 is used by two coach services operated by National Express:

Service no. 539 between Bournemouth and Edinburgh, running once per day in each direction. This uses the underpass; and

Service no. 304 between Weymouth and Liverpool, running once per day in each direction. This uses the roundabout and stops at Chieveley services.

6.4 In response to an enquiry, the company stated that the scheme had improved conditions, without leading to any timetable changes. Problems are now rarely encountered, except when there has been an accident on the M4. The scheme has enabled the service no. 304 to stop at Chieveley services (instead of elsewhere), as a result of the reduced congestion in the area, and the improved services layout.

6.5 A local bus service is operated by Reading Buses. This is route number 6, between Newbury, Donnington, Chieveley, Beedon, and East Ilsley. The service runs four times per day, Monday to Saturday. The company was consulted regarding the effect of the scheme, but it failed to provide a response to repeated enquiries.

6.6 The reduced congestion and its benefit to a small number of buses and coaches merits a ‘slight positive’ evaluation for the impact on public transport, which is better than the assessment shown in the AST.

Severance

6.7 The AST stated that severance would be improved by the removal of rat-running traffic. Additionally, the absence of a bridge for non-motorised users over the A34 south of the M4, and the restriction of the M4 footbridge at Bussock Wood to pedestrians only, would have constituted severance, which has been alleviated by the scheme.


56

Pedestrians and Others

6.8 The AST stated that pedestrians and equestrians would have longer but safer crossing routes, and that cyclists would benefit from better local road conditions, giving a ‘slight positive’ assessment of this impact.

6.9 This evaluation has found evidence of greater usage of local bridlepaths and footpaths, due to the construction of the new bridleway bridge over the A34 south of Chieveley services, re-establishing a link that had previously been severed. The re-building of the bridge across the M4 at Bussock Wood to accommodate horses has also encouraged equestrian use. The results of NMU surveys are presented below, and in Appendix B.

Figure 6.1 – Bridleway Bridge over A34 and Mounting Block

6.10 The new Local Oxford Road has footway provision. At Chieveley roundabout, the footways and cycleways remain unchanged, but the reduced volume of traffic at the roundabout will mean that crossing the road is easier.

6.11 The considerations indicate that the impact should be scored as ‘positive’, which is better than the ‘slight positive’ given in the AST.

Non-Motorised User Surveys

6.12 To assess the usage of the bridleway bridges and the Chieveley Community Circuit, counts of non-motorised users (NMUs) were undertaken at two locations, and short interviews were conducted. The surveys took place over 12 hours on a Thursday and a Sunday. The results may be compared with those obtained ‘Before’ the scheme in 1999, also over 12 hours on a Thursday and a Sunday, but at slightly different locations. The sites surveyed in both years are shown below in Figure 2.9.

Results of ‘Before’ NMU Surveys

6.13 The numbers of walkers and horse-riders passing the survey points are tabulated below (taken from the Traffic Survey Report 1999). It is apparent that usage of the paths was extremely low.


57

Table 6.11 – Numbers Passing Survey Points ‘Before’

Site Date Walker Horse

Thu 22/04/99 0 2 1

Sun 25/04/99 0 0

Thu 22/04/99 1 0 2

Sun 25/04/99 0 0

Thu 22/04/99 0 0 3

Sun 25/04/99 0 0


58

Figure 6.9 – Sites of NMU surveys

Results of ‘Five Year After’ NMU Surveys

6.14 Both the survey sites were located at ‘3-arm junctions’ of paths, and in each case one of the arms led to a bridge. Note that at Site 1, all the paths are bridleways which may be used by walkers, horse-riders and cyclists. At Site 2, arms B and C are restricted byways, which may also be used by motor vehicles. Arm A, although existing, is not a public right of way, and the line shown in Figure 2.9 has been added to the OS background.

6.15 The ‘turning movement’ at each site was recorded. Full results are given in Appendix B, and the essential points are summarised below. The following diagrams illustrate the numbers of all users of all modes recorded.

Figure 6.10 – NMU Movements at Site 1

Figure 6.11 – NMU Movements at Site 2

6.16 In total, 38 users were recorded at both sites over the two days. There appear to be no instances of the same user being observed at both sites. There were 18 walkers, 6


59

horse-riders, 13 cyclists, and 1 car. No motor-bikes were recorded. 28 of the users crossed a bridge.

6.17 Brief interviews were conducted where possible, and 35 users gave answers. 18 had experience of using the path before the Chieveley improvement scheme, and all of these agreed that the scheme had improved the path they were using. Of these, all but one said this had caused them to use the path more often.

6.18 24 users were aware of the Chieveley Community Circuit, and of these 17 said that its existence encouraged them to use the path. More details are shown in Table 2.12 below.

Table 2.12 – Details of Non-Motorised Users

Site 1 Site 2

Thu Sun Thu Sun

Total No. of Users 3 12 12 11

Mode - Walk 1 3 8 6

- Horse 2 0 4 0

- Cycle 0 9 0 4

- Car 0 0 0 1

No. crossing bridge 1 9 8 10

No. of users questioned 1 12 11 11

Said they had used the path since before the scheme

0 10 2 6

Said the scheme had improved the path

- 10 2 6

Said this improvement had increased their usage of the path

- 10 2 5

Aware of Chieveley Community Circuit

0 12 5 7

Said the Circuit had encouraged them to use the path

- 12 3 2

6.19 While usage of these paths remains low, there has clearly been a considerable increase since 1999. There has possibly been a generally raised interest in ‘The Outdoors’ over the decade, but nevertheless it can hardly be doubted that the scheme has made a contribution, by providing a bridge link over the A34, and by allowing horse-riders to cross the M4. It is interesting to note that all those who had been using the route since before the scheme, thought the scheme had improved the path they were using, and the majority said this prompted them to use it more often.


60

Figure 6.2 – Cycleway/ Footway south of Chieveley Roundabout

Figure 6.3 – Local Oxford Road with Footways

Integration

6.20 The AST stated that reducing congestion would assist policies for freight, pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, and equestrians. However the scheme would have adverse impacts on the surrounding land, in particular areas of outstanding natural beauty and agricultural policies.

6.21 At the time the scheme was in preparation, the land planning hierarchy was as follows:


61

Regional Planning Guidance for the Southeast (RPG9);

Berkshire Structure Plan; and

West Berkshire Local Plan.

6.22 The system changed in 2004 (the year of scheme opening). Certain policies were ‘saved’, that is, they were carried through into the new planning documents. The equivalent documents under the current system are:

The Southeast Plan (Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-region); and

West Berkshire Local Development Framework (LDF). Within this framework, the West Berkshire Local Transport Plan (LTP), prepared under the old system, remains current.

Structure Plan Policies

6.23 The Berkshire Structure Plan referred to two barriers to north-south movement in the west of the county. These were stated to be:

The A34 / M4 J13 junction; and

The indirect nature of rail links using Reading Station and the Basingstoke Line.

6.24 Policy T3 of the Structure Plan safeguarded the land required for the development of the strategic transport network. The A34 Chieveley / M4 Junction13 Improvement was listed among the 13 schemes in this category.

6.25 Policy EN1 stated that within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the primary aim of conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape is given priority over other considerations. The mitigation measures implemented as part of the scheme have contributed to this objective.

6.26 Policy EN2 was to preserve the best and most versatile agricultural land from development which would irretrievably prevent its use for agricultural production, except where sustainability considerations suggest otherwise. There is no reference to this policy being saved.

6.27 Chapter 2 of this report showed that in both intention and effect, the scheme has improved conditions for road vehicles using the junction, thereby benefiting cars, freight, buses and coaches. The Accessibility part of the present chapter has shown benefits to pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and equestrians.

6.28 Chapter 5 of this report evaluated the extent to which treatment has succeeded in reconciling the scheme with Policy EN1, so that while the landscape was not given priority over all other considerations, the impact of the scheme was mitigated as far as possible.

6.29 The ES indicated that 14.6 ha of ‘best and most versatile’ land would be taken for the road, plus an indefinite further area for landscaping. This is in conflict with Policy EN2.

West Berkshire Local Plan Policies

6.30 The scheme was listed with others in the West Berkshire Local Plan, which stated that the schemes were included in the Structure Plan on the advice given in PPG121. This is a recognition that the scheme itself is of regional significance, and therefore part of a higher level of planning than can be considered by the Local Plan. However the development around the junction is the proper concern of West Berkshire Council.

1 Planning Policy Guidance 12: Development Plans. With effect from June 2008, this has been replaced by PPS12 – Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning.


62

6.31 The Local Plan noted that West Berkshire Council has supported the provision of appropriate facilities at the junction to meet the needs of highway users, but the development hitherto allowed there should not be seen as a precedent, given its situation within an AONB. Provision of other services has been and will continue to be located in Newbury.

The Present Planning System

6.32 The Southeast Plan is a high-level strategic plan. At the Sub-regional level, the A34 corridor is recognised as one of the transport spokes, linking hubs, which will attract transport investment. The A34/ M4 junction is not specifically mentioned.

6.33 The LDF and LTP are concerned with roads under local authority control, not trunk roads or motorways, hence the A34 and M4 are not featured.

6.34 It is considered that the AST correctly identified the policies that the scheme conformed with, and those with which it was in conflict, and the ‘positive’ assessment is upheld.

Main Accessibility and Integration Conclusions

Buses have obtained the same benefit as other vehicles, giving a slight positive impact on public transport.

Walkers and horse-riders have benefited from the provision of a new bridleway bridge over the A34, and by the widening of a footbridge over the M4 to accommodate horses. The reduction in traffic using Chieveley roundabout makes it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road at Chieveley roundabout.

More non-motorised users have been observed on restricted byways forming part of the Chieveley Community Circuit, as a result of improvements which were part of the scheme.

The scheme conforms with regional and local transport policies, but conflict with environmental and agricultural policies has necessitated mitigation measures.


63

7. Appraisal and Evaluation Summary Tables

7.1 An Appraisal Summary Table (AST) is a one-page summary of the predicted economic, environmental, and social impacts of a major road scheme. Three versions of the AST are known for this scheme:

A version dated August 1998. In common with other ASTs produced at this time, it is assumed that the cost is given to a 1997 base;

An undated AST, with the scheme cost given to a 1998 base; and

An undated AST, with the scheme cost given to a 2000 base.

7.2 It is the third and most recent version that is evaluated here, and which is reproduced in Table 7.1.

7.3 The Evaluation Summary Table (EST) has been devised for the POPE process to record a summary of the actual scheme impacts. Where possible the EST mirrors the appearance and process of the AST, to permit comparison between the two. The EST for this scheme is given in Table 7.2.


64

Table 7.1 – Appraisal Summary Table

A34 Chieveley/ M4 Junction 13 Improvement Scheme (GOSE) Cost £54.8m (Q2 2000)

PROBLEMS 55,000 AADT (16% HGV) – about 45% are through A34 movements. Delays at junction due to usage exceeding capacity. Queues in excess of 2.5km on the A34 southbound in peak. Rat running affects local villages. Northbound A34 queuing problem and excessive queuing on circulatory carriageway on Junction 13 during peak hours.

OTHER OPTIONS Smaller scale schemes, e.g. providing free-flow slip lanes to 3 or 4 quadrants, would not provide full solution. Widening approach arms to Junction 13 are programmed to be completed March 2000 and will temporarily reduce peak hour queues on approaches to Junction 13.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT

Noise Changes in traffic noise levels would generally be imperceptible to properties within the area, due to mitigation provided by the noise barrier located on the west side of the A34 corridor and proposed landscape modelling to the northwest of Junction 13 roundabout.

No. properties experiencing (w/s): - Increase in noise 0 - Decrease in noise 0

Net 0 properties experience change in noise levels

Local air quality

A full DMRB Stage 3 assessment has been completed for all representative receptors within the proposed scheme. Two properties experiencing an increase in NO2 concentrations will experience pollution exceeding the NO2 air quality objective in 2005. These are Radnall Farm and Harvest Cottage. For PM10 no properties experiencing an increase in PM10 concentrations exceed the air quality objective for this pollutant in 2005 or beyond.

No. properties experiencing : - Improved air quality 17 - Worse air quality 6

+3.10 PM10 30 NO2

Landscape Slight adverse impact on AONB, with slight visual benefit to Chieveley village in the long term. - Neutral

Biodiversity No significant direct impact. - Slight –ve

Heritage

Slight impact on landscape setting of Chieveley village and its listed buildings. If as yet unknown archaeological sites survive within the route corridor then the impact upon them could be negative and should be mitigated in advance of and during construction. However the presence or absence of remains should first be determined empirically by a combination of field-walking, geophysical survey, and trial trench evaluation.

- Neutral/ slight -ve

ENVIRONMENT CO2 tonnes reduced 16

Water Scheme lies within catchment of a major aquifer. The increased carriageway and cut slope areas included in scheme increases the risk of pollution, which is offset against the inclusion of petrol/ oil interceptors. -

Slight –ve

SAFETY -

The introduction of measures to assist through trips on the A34 will reduce the number of vehicles undertaking turning movements at the Junction 13 roundabout. Additional benefits would be achieved through the transfer of rat running trips on local roads to the main road network following relief of the existing roundabout.

Accidents Deaths Serious Slight (HG) 119 2 20 154 (LG) 77 2 14 100

(HG) PVB £3.3m (HG) 12% of PVC (LG) PVB £1.9m (LG) 7% of PVC

Journey times & VOCs

The introduction of measures to assist through trips on the A34 will result in substantial journey time savings for north: south traffic; and for those trips undertaking turning movements at the relieved Junction 13 roundabout.

Trunk road journey time savings: Peak interpeak (HG) 10.4 mins 5.4 mins (LG) 7.7 mins 1.9 mins

(HG) PVB £172m (HG) 628% of PVC (LG) PVB £100m (LG) 363% of PVC

Cost - PVC £27.4m

Reliability The existing queues on the A34 roundabout approach will be significantly reduced following the introduction of the through-route resulting in a balanced and improved operation of the Junction 13 roundabout. Overall, the journey time reliability is considered to be moderate.

Route stress Before 91% After 75%

Moderate +ve

ECONOMY

Regeneration Serves regeneration area? No

Public transport No significant impact - Neutral

Severance Removal of rat running A34 through traffic from local roads - Slight +ve ACCESSIBILITY

Pedestrians and others

Pedestrians and equestrians would have longer but safer crossing routes; cyclists benefit from better local road conditions - Slight +ve

INTEGRATION -

Reducing congestion would assist policies for freight, pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, and equestrians. The introduction of the scheme would have adverse impacts for the surrounding land, in particular areas of outstanding natural beauty and agricultural policies.

Positive

COBA Cost benefit analysis (COBA 10) (HG) PVB £176m PVC £27m NPV £148m BCR 6.4 (LG) PVB £102m PVC £27m NPV £74m BCR 3.7


65

Table 7.2 – Evaluation Summary Table

A34 Chieveley/ M4 Junction 13 Improvement Scheme

Obj Sub-Objective QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT

Noise Proposed mitigation has been implemented, including low-noise surfacing, a bund between the A34 and local Oxford Road, environmental barriers, and landscape modelling. Most affected properties are near the roundabout, where traffic flows have reduced.

- As expected

Local air quality Most affected properties are near the roundabout, where traffic flows have reduced, hence they will be exposed to less pollution. - As expected

Greenhouse gases Additional traffic has been attracted to the A34 corridor, which was not predicted, hence emissions are higher. Additional 634 tonnes of carbon in 2009.

Worse than expected

Landscape Proposed mitigation has been implemented, including earth shaping, and planting of native trees and shrubs. The planting has become established after a poor start, and maintenance appears to be good.

- As expected

Biodiversity More extensive mitigation was implemented than proposed, due to protected species being discovered after the ES was published. However re-located orchids failed to survive. Most bat and dormouse nest boxes are used. Short badger tunnels under slip roads are used, but longer ones under the mainline are not used, and there have been badger deaths on the A34.

- Better than expected

Heritage Landscape planting and mounding has mitigated the impact of the scheme on Chieveley village and listed buildings. Archaeological resources dealt with satisfactorily, by geophysical research & excavation, and the publication of academic and popular reports. - As expected

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

Water Oil interceptors, balancing ponds and soakaways have been installed as proposed, giving better protection than previously existed. One pond needed modification after scheme opening to overcome problems with silting-up and water retention, and now appears to be functioning as intended. No pollution of the aquifer has been recorded. The underpass has once been closed due to flooding.

- As expected

SA

FE

TY

Accidents Accident reduction has been nearly six times greater than predicted. Accidents Deaths Serious Slight 727 562 9 94

PVB £46m 55% of PVC

Journey times & VOCs There have been journey time savings on the A34 due to construction of underpass Trunk road journey time savings:

Peak interpeak 6.2 min 1.7 min

PVB £411m 490% of PVC

Cost - - PVC £83.8m

Reliability The reduction in queues has led to improved operation of the roundabout junction. - Moderate +ve

EC

ON

OM

Y

Regeneration No impact on regeneration No regeneration area served Neutral as expected

Public transport Coaches on A34 and local buses receive a benefit from reduced congestion, although these services are infrequent. - Slight +ve, better than

expected

Severance Improvement due to reduced rat-running. - Slight +ve, as expected

AC

CE

SS

Pedestrians and others Benefit from the construction of a new bridleway bridge and the rebuilding of a footbridge to accommodate horses. Improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists due to reduced traffic at roundabout.

- +ve, better than expected

INT

EG

The scheme is consistent with regional and local transport policies, but conflicts with environmental and agricultural policies, requiring the implementation of mitigation measures.

-

As expected


66

8. Conclusions 8.1 The A34/ M4 Junction 13 Improvement officially opened on 23rd September 2004,

providing an underpass beneath the M4 to enable through traffic on the A34 to avoid the congested Chieveley roundabout. The main conclusions derived from this study can be summarised as follows:

Traffic Impacts

8.2 The underpass is used by approximately 37,500 vehicles per day (vpd), which is around half the total flow on the A34. The actual flow is higher than predicted, although the proportion of traffic using the underpass is approximately as predicted. The rate of traffic growth on this part of the A34 has been higher than growth on the M4, or regional or background growth. This is likely to be due to reassignment as a result of the scheme. The volume of traffic using the roundabout has fallen by 27% as a result of A34 through traffic being diverted to the underpass.

8.3 Journey times are now quicker for through traffic at all times of day. The largest savings are at peak times (which were previously the most congested), when up to 12 minutes are saved. Average interpeak savings are about 1.6 minutes. These time savings are generally as predicted.

Safety Impacts

8.4 The number of injury accidents has fallen by 54% since scheme opening, a greater fall than predicted. However the proportionally larger fall in slight accidents means that serious and fatal accidents have formed a higher proportion of the total. There has been a large reduction in the number of shunts in slow moving traffic on the A34, which are usually of slight severity. The number of single-vehicle accidents, which are usually more serious, has halved in absolute terms, but remained the same in relative proportion. The scheme has not had a detrimental effect on safety on local routes.

Economic Impacts

8.5 The monetary benefit of time savings is re-evaluated as £364.9 million over 30 years. This is 9% lower than predicted. However the re-evaluated accident benefit of £45.8 million is nearly six times greater than predicted. The combined benefit is slightly higher than predicted. The outturn scheme cost was £83.8 million, which is 34% higher than predicted. This means that the benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 4.9 is a little lower than predicted.

Environmental Impacts

8.6 Most environmental objectives have been met, with earth mounds and landscape planting reducing the visual impact in the AONB and providing biodiversity mitigation. The planting is now becoming established after a poor start. However orchids died after translocation. The short badger tunnels are being used, but the longer ones are not.

8.7 Water pollution control measures are better than previously existed at the junction. A balancing pond was modified two years after the scheme opened, to provide satisfactory drainage. The local water table has risen, for reasons unconnected with the scheme, and this has necessitated pumping of the underpass more frequently than expected. The underpass had to be closed during the floods of 2007.


67

Accessibility Impacts

8.8 The scheme has had a positive impact on accessibility, by reducing delays for buses, reducing the likelihood that traffic would divert to minor roads to avoid the congested roundabout, and by providing facilities for horse-riders and walkers.

Performance Against Objectives

8.9 The following table shows how the scheme objectives have been fulfilled.

Table 8.1 – Fulfilment of Scheme Objectives

Objective Achieved?

Reduce congestion

Reduce accidents

Provide for future predicted growth

Reduce noise by using noise-reducing surfacing, noise barrier, and landscape moulding around sensitive locations

Improve the local environment by ground modelling to shield Chieveley from the noise and visual impact of the M4 and A34, and extensive tree and shrub planting.

Public rights of way improved by the construction of two new bridleway bridges to create the Chieveley Community Circuit linking the villages of Curridge and Chieveley.


68

Appendix A – Turning Counts 12 Hour AM Peak Hour

J13M4

A34

4872

13944

2773

2913

45

5761

5536

14516

5564

6095

618

5178

J13M4

A34

605

1311

235

429

13

660

553

1484

643

799

66

540

1027 51

8719

8927

21,5

8

22,6

0

10,481

11,891

26,6

43

26,8

2

1,102

854

2,15

1

2,45

3

1,405

1,261

2,73

1

2,82

1

Inter-Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

J13M4

A34

363

989

169

202

2

394

335

1169

399

358

40

340

J13M4

A34

488

1443

370

268

2

596

565

1359

650

723

80

575

121 89

598

1,52

1

738

2,02

4

544

1,71

1

764

1,86

2

866

2,30

1

1,378

2,66

3

1,015

2,20

2

1,140

2,85

1

Figure A.1 – ‘Before’ Turning Flows


69

12 Hour AM Peak Hour

J13M4

4965

3056

3108

3128

0

6723

7258

2820

6871

6821

0

5290

J13M4

642

432

295

513

0

951

539

272

756

913

0

613

11,2

38

11,1

29

11,836

12,111

16,9

49

16,6

00

9,851

10,366

1,39

8

1,36

9

1,398

1,526

1,56

7

2,29

6

1,464

834

A34

A34


J13M4

306

192

212

202

0

496

551

201

417

430

0

351

J13M4

A34

499

325

387

285

0

639

870

352

954

817

0

635

754

710

723

781

1,16

9

1,11

8

698

763

1,27

2

1,21

1

1,453

1,452

2,17

6

1,78

1

924

1,257

A34

Figure A.2 – ‘After’ Turning Flows


70

12 Hour AM Peak Hour

`

J13M4

A34

+93(+21%)

-10,888 (-78%)

+335(+12%)

+305 (+10%)

-45

+962 (+17%)

+1,722(+31%)

-11,693 (-81%)

+1307 (+23%)

+726 (12%)

-618

+112 (+2%)

J13M4

A34

+37(+6%)

-879 (-67%)

+60 (+26%)

+84 (+20%)

-13

-14 (-3%)

-1,212 (-82%)

+113(+18%) +114 (+14%)

-66

+73 (+14%)

-11

,36

9 (

-50

%)

-10

,44

0 (

-48

%)

+220 (+2%)

+1355 (+13%)+1132 (+13%)

+1439 (+16%)

-1,0

55

(-

43

%)

-78

2 (

-36

%)

+137 (+11%)

+121 (+9%)

-525

(-1

9%)

-116

4 (-

-20 (-2%)

+362(+33%)

+291 (+44%)

-9,6

94

(-3

6%

)

-10

,22

7 (

-38

%)


J13M4

A34

-57(-16%)

-797 (-81%)

+43 (+25%)

-0

-2

+102 (+26%)

+216(+64%)

-968 (-83%)

+18(+5%)

+72 (+20%)

-40

+11

J13M4

A34

+11 (+2%)

-1,118 (-77%)

+17 (+5%)

+17 (+6%)

-2

+43 (+7%)

+305 (+54%)

-1,007 (-74%)

+304 (+47%)

+94 (+13%)

-80

+60 (+10%)

-81

0 (

-53

%)

-95

7 (

-56

%)

-41 (-5%)

+43 (+6%)

-74

4 (

-40

%)

-85

5 (

-42

%)

+100 (+17%)

+219 (+40%)

-93

0 (

-42

%)

-10

90

(-4

7%

)

+313 (+27%)

+74 (+5%)

-10

70

(-3

8%

)

-48

7 (

-18

%)

+58 (+7%)

+242 (+24%)

Figure A.3 – ‘Before’ and ‘After’ Differences in Turning Flows

(Increases Blue, Decreases Red)


71

Appendix B –Non-Motorised User Survey Results


72

Table B1 - Results at Site 1

Time From To Mode Used route

before scheme

Said route improved

since scheme

Said the improve-ment had increased usage of

route

Aware of Chieveley

Community Circuit

Knowledge of circuit prompted

use of route

13:45 A C Walker N - - N -

18:15 B C Horse - - - - -

Thu 24/09/09

18:15 B C Horse - - - - -

09:15 A C Cycle Y Y Y Y Y

09:15 A C Cycle Y Y Y Y Y

10:45 B A Walker N - - Y Y

11:15 C A Walker Y Y Y Y Y

12:30 C B Walker N - - Y Y

12:30 C B Cycle Y Y Y Y Y

12:45 B C Cycle Y Y Y Y Y

16:15 A B Cycle Y Y Y Y Y




Sun 27/09/09


M4

Improved bridge

A

BC

1 0

20

00

M4

Improved bridge

A

BC

2 5

11

12


73

Table B.1 – Results at Site 2

Day Time From To Mode Used route

before scheme

Said route improved

since scheme

Said the improve-ment had increased usage of

route

Aware of Chieveley

Community Circuit

Knowledge of circuit prompted

use of route

08:30 A C Walker N - - Y Y 08:30 A C Walker N - - Y Y

08:45 C A Walker N - - N -

08:45 C A Walker N - - N -

09:15 C B Horse Y Y Y Y N

09:15 C B Horse Y Y Y Y N

09:30 B A Walker N - - N -

09:30 B A Walker N - - Y Y

15:30 C A Horse N - - N -

15:45 A B Walker N - - N -

16:00 B A Horse N - - N -

Thu 24/09/09

18:15 A C Walker - - - - -

09:15 A C Cycle Y Y Y Y Y 09:30 B A Walker Y Y N Y N

11:30 C A Cycle Y Y Y Y N



13:45 B C Walker Y Y Y Y N

16:15 A C Walker N - - N -

16:15 A C Walker N - - N -

16:15 A C Walker N - - N -

16:15 A C Walker N - - N -

Sun 27/09/09

17:30 C B Car N - - Y Y

A34A

B

C

Newbridge

5 0

11

3 1

A34A

B

C

Newbridge

31

30

3 2


74

Appendix C – Environment C.1 Introduction

C.1.1 Although a One Year After study was undertaken for the scheme, its performance against the environmental sub-objectives was not evaluated in detail. The One Year After report summarised that due to a reduction in congestion, facilitated by the new layout, there would be no significant deterioration in air quality and there would be a slight reduction in noise.

C.1.2 Slight negative impacts on heritage, biodiversity and water were forecasted in the AST but the One Year After report did not include an review of the effect of the scheme on these sub objectives

C.1.3 Due to the lack of detail of the One Year After reporting on the environment sub-objectives, a more detailed approach has been adopted for the Five Year After study. The following section evaluates how the scheme is performing against the environmental sub-objectives for highways schemes as defined in WebTAG.

Data Collection and Analysis

C.1.4 The data listed in Table C.10 shows the standard list of information required to evaluate the environmental sub-objectives and the information which was available for analysis during the evaluation.

Consultations

C.1.5 Three statutory environmental organisations (Natural England, English Heritage and the Environment Agency) and the relevant local authorities have been contacted regarding their views on the impacts they perceive the road scheme has had on the environment, and whether they feel that the mitigation measures implemented have been effective.

C.1.6 Table 5.1 – Summary of Environmental Consultation ResponsesTable C.1 lists the organisations contacted, their area of interest, and the responses received.


75

Table C.1 – Summary of Environmental Consultation Responses

Organisation Field of Interest Comments

Natural England Landscape and Biodiversity

No comments to make. Referred POPE-E team onto West Berkshire Council

English Heritage Heritage and archaeology

No comment received

Environment Agency Water and flood risk

Comments received on water quality, flood risk, nature conservation, ground water and contaminated land. Recommended contact with local authorities.

West Berkshire District Council

Biodiversity, landscape, rights of way, water, heritage, emissions

Responses received on a range of environmental topics

HA Part 1 Claims advisor Part 1 Claims, noise insulation

Information supplied on number of Part 1 claims, basis of claim and noise insulation

MAC Post handover maintenance

Information on condition of mitigation measures and comments on animal mortality.

Site Inspection

C.1.7 A site inspection was undertaken in October 2009.

Evaluation

C.1.8 The following environmental sub-objectives have been evaluated in this report:

Noise;

Local air quality;

Greenhouse gases;

Landscape;

Biodiversity;

Heritage of historic resources;

Water environment;

Pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and community effects; and

Vehicle travellers.

C.1.9 The AST (see Annex A) was prepared in 2000 prior to the inclusion of physical fitness and journey ambience sub-objectives in WebTAG. Although the ES did not include specific physical fitness or journey ambience chapters, information relating to pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians, as well as vehicle travellers was included. .

C.1.10 Three of the environmental sub-objectives (noise, local air quality and greenhouse gases) are directly related to traffic flows. The ES noted that the annual average daily traffic (AADT) two-way flow in 1999 on the A34 was 49,000 vehicles north of the M4 and 60,800


76

south of the M4. Around 80,000 vehicles a day used the J13 roundabout of which around 16% were HGVs. Predicted flows for low and high growth in 2019 were 65,000 to 74,600 to the north and 80,000 to 91,600 to the south. These increases in traffic flows would considerably worsen the congestion at the junction.

Noise

Predicted Impacts

C.1.11 The AST predicted imperceptible changes in noise levels due to the mitigation measures proposed off setting any increase resulting from increased traffic flows. With the scheme, no properties would experience an increase or a decrease in noise.

C.1.12 The ES noted that noise changes would be imperceptible for most properties although there would be a noticeable decrease in noise for 15 properties along East Lane in Chieveley. Fifteen years after opening 25 properties were expected to experience an increase in noise and 25 properties a decrease.

Approved Scheme

C.1.13 The ES reported the assessment of noise levels under the following conditions:

Design year (2019) Do-Minimum; and

Design year (2019) With-Scheme.

C.1.14 Of the 53 residential properties affected: 2 would be demolished by the scheme; 26 properties would experience no change or a decrease of up to 3dB(A) in noise; and 25 an increase of up to 3 dB(A) With-Scheme in 2019 in comparison to the Do-Minimum in 2019. Without the scheme 50 residential properties would experience an increase of between 0 and 3dB(A) with no properties experiencing a decrease in noise.

C.1.15 It was considered that no properties would be eligible for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations. Other mitigation was proposed and this included:

To the south of the M4 an earth bund approximately 2m high between the proposed A34 and the local Oxford Road;

An environmental barrier to the east of Stakis Hotel, to re-provide the existing barrier;

Extensive landscape modelling to the north west of Junction 13;

A 500 metre environmental barrier along the western verge of the A34 north of Chieveley Crossroads Bridge; and

Low noise surface through out the scheme.

Modification to Scheme

C.1.16 The Secretary of States Decision letter of 27th February 2002 accepted the Inquiry Inspectors recommendation that the scheme should be modified from that assessed in the ES. A number of modifications were proposed:

Revised access arrangements for the Chieveley Service Area and adjacent maintenance depot; and

Reduction of planting and deletion of ground modelling on land in the south west corner of the junction.

C.1.17 An addendum to the ES was prepared to assess the effects of the changes but it recorded no changes in noise effects as a result of these modifications.


77

C.1.18 A post completion noise survey was carried out on 16 representative properties in the vicinity of the scheme in 2005. This did not correlate noise levels with traffic data but noted that traffic was free flowing during the survey. The One Year After POPE report indicated that traffic levels had risen by up to 14% compared with the pre-existing situation in 2002. In comparison with noise measurements taken in 1999/2000 the survey found that noise levels had fallen at all but two properties by up to 8dB and at the other two properties noise levels were the same as in 1999/2000.

Consultation Comments

C.1.19 West Berkshire made a number of comments on the scheme but did not make reference to noise levels. No other responses were received with regard to noise.

Evaluation

C.1.20 Observed traffic flows on the A34 slip roads to J13 north of the M4 in 2009 were 25,600 and 41,700 south of the M4. These are noticeably (up to 15%) lower than those forecast in the ES for this year. However, observed traffic flows on the A34 underpass were higher (up to 13%) than predicted. This makes estimating the likely effect on noise complicated but given the vertical alignment of the underpass section in deep cutting noise due to traffic overall may be better than expected for properties adjacent to scheme. The road is in a rural area and there are only a few properties nearby. Of the 16 Part 1 Claims received by the HA, none have been upheld with the extensive noise mitigation being noted as a factor in this.

C.1.21 Mitigation measures included in the ES have also been implemented. To the south of the M4 the earth bund approximately 2m high between the proposed A34 and the local Oxford Road has been implemented. There is also an environmental barrier to the east of Stakis Hotel replacing the existing barrier. Extensive landscape modelling has been carried out to the north west of Junction 13 which has noise benefits for Chieveley. A 500 metre environmental barrier along the western verge of the A34 north of Chieveley Crossroads Bridge has also been built. The scheme includes a low noise surface through out.


78

Figure C.1 Bund and environmental barrier between the Local Oxford Road and A34

Figure C.2 Environmental barrier at the Stakis (formerly Hilton) Hotel.


79


Table C.2 - Summary Table of Predicted Noise Effects



AST

Change in traffic noise levels would generally be imperceptible to properties within the area due to mitigation provided by noise barriers located on the west side of the A34 corridor and proposed landscape modelling to the northwest of junction 13 roundabout.

0 properties experiencing increase in noise.

0 properties experiencing decrease in noise.

Net 0 properties experience change in noise levels with scheme.

POPE 5YA

Significantly lower traffic flows than predicted on A34 slip roads. Noise mounding has been provided. Part 1 Claims information indicates that no Claim has been successful against noise.

Impacts likely to be as predicted or better.

Key Findings

C.1.22 Traffic flows are much lower than predicted along the A34 slip roads but higher on the mainline which is in cutting. Traffic noise could be better than expected for the properties in the vicinity of the route.

Local Air Quality

Predicted Impacts

C.1.23 The AST stated that two properties experiencing an increase in NO2 concentrations would experience pollution levels exceeding NO2 air quality objective in 2005. For PM10 no properties experiencing an increase in PM10 concentrations exceed the air quality objective for this pollutant in 2005 or beyond. It stated that 17 properties would experience an improvement and 6 properties a worsening in air quality With-Scheme. An assessment score of +3 PM10 and 30 NO2 was noted.

C.1.24 The ES assessed the likely effects of the scheme at 20 representative receptors within 200m of the scheme. It concluded that in all but one receptor the scheme would result in an improvement in air quality.

Approved Scheme

C.1.25 The ES stated that traffic congestion would be improved With-Scheme, as there would be a reduction in acceleration and deceleration and thus vehicle emissions and pollution would be reduced.


C.1.26 There have been no modifications to the scheme that would affect air quality.


C.1.27 West Berkshire Council have no monitoring equipment in the vicinity of the scheme and could not comment on air quality effects.

C.1.28 No other responses were received with regard to air quality.


80

Evaluation

C.1.29 Observed traffic flows on the A34 slip roads to J13 north of the M4 in 2009 were 25,600 and 41,700 south of the M4. These are significantly (up to 15%) lower than those forecast in the ES for this year. However, observed traffic flows on the A34 underpass were higher (up to 13%) than predicted. This makes estimating the likely effect on air quality complicated but the overall lower volumes of traffic than predicted suggests that air quality effects may be slightly better than expected for properties adjacent to scheme.


Table C.3 - Summary Table of Predicted Air Quality Effects



AST

Two properties experiencing an increase in NO2 concentrations would experience pollution levels exceeding NO2 air quality objective in 2005. For PM10 no properties experiencing an increase in PM10 concentrations exceed the air quality objective for this pollutant in 2005 or beyond. 17 properties experiencing improvement in air quality.

6 properties experiencing worse air quality.

+3 PM10

30 NO2

POPE 5YA Based on lower overall traffic flows than predicted air quality is likely to have improved as expected or slightly more than expected.

Impacts likely to be as predicted or slightly better.

Key Findings

C.1.30 Traffic flows are lower than predicted along the A34 and air quality could be better than expected for the properties in the vicinity of the route.

Greenhouse Gases

8.10 For transport, the most significant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, and by current guidelines this is reported in terms of tonnes of carbon. The AST shows a saving of 16 tonnes of CO2, which would correspond to a saving of 4.4 tonnes of carbon. The time over which this would be saved is not stated, but may be one year. The ES did not deal with greenhouse gases.

8.11 POPE evaluations are based on COBA version 11.7 where possible, as this is the only version of the program that calculates carbon emissions. The scheme forecasting employed COBA version 10.5, and with a few modifications to the input format, it has been possible to re-run the data in version 11.7, for the year 2009. The results are shown in Table 5.4.

8.12 In the ‘predicted’ case, the original traffic flows were retained, giving a decrease of 132 tonnes of carbon. This is presumed to be due to a reduction in congestion, and an increase in speeds within the range where carbon emission decreases with increased speed. It should be noted that with a fixed-trip matrix, no traffic increase was assumed with the scheme, and furthermore zero traffic growth subsequently was assumed. For this reason the prediction remains the same each year.

8.13 The ‘actual’ case is based on observed flows, with ‘Before’ counts factored up by 4% to allow for background growth. This shows an increase of 634 tonnes, due to the fact that


81

traffic on the A34 has risen, even allowing for background growth. Although traffic actually fell on the mainline M4, this is not part of the COBA network.

Table 8.4 – Change in Tonnes of Carbon Emitted with Scheme

Year Predicted (AST) Predicted (COBA) Actual (COBA)

2005 -4 -132 +645

2006 -4 -132 +642

2007 -4 -132 +640

2008 -4 -132 +637

2009 -4 -132 +634

Landscape

Predicted Impacts

C.1.31 The AST stated that there would be a slight adverse impact on the North Wessex Downs AONB, with slight visual benefit at Chieveley village in the long term and that the assessment of the effect was neutral

C.1.32 The ES concluded that in the design year the landscape impacts would be slight for most of the study area, with the area north east of junction 13 subject to no change. Fourteen properties closest to the scheme would be subject to substantial or moderate visual impact in the opening year but most other properties with views of the scheme would experience slight visual impact. Fifteen years after opening the maturing of the landscape planting would reduce the visual impact of the scheme to slight beneficial

C.1.33 The following predicted key landscape and visual intrusion impacts were noted in the ES:

Loss of established hedgerows, trees and other vegetation, particularly at the Chieveley Crossroads Bridge south facing slip roads, along the A34 southbound past the Newbury Showground and alongside the M4 eastbound off slip causing landscape effects and increased visual intrusion;

Negative impacts of additional lighting, particularly at the A34/M4 roundabout and the negative impacts of 3 new gantries over the A34 south of the M4;

Widening of the A34 corridor with several new bridges built over it;

A34 lowered in cutting up to 16m deep and substantial areas of mounding using the spoil generated to the north west of the junction; and

Initial visual impact ranging from minor for some properties up to substantial for a limited number of properties reducing to slight beneficial for most properties in the design year with the maturing of planting.

Approved Scheme

C.1.34 The landscape proposals for the scheme were designed to:

Reduce visual intrusion to adjoining properties;

Integrate the road within its landscape setting;

Promote and protect the habitat value of the road corridor and its adjacent areas; and

Provide interest for the road user.


82

C.1.35 The ES proposed to achieve this through a mixture of dense planting, for screening purposes, retention of existing vegetation, as well as use of substantial earth shaping to provide screening to properties.

C.1.36 More specifically, the following mitigation was proposed in the ES:

Earth mounding and planting over the redundant sections of the A34 south of the M4 and between the new alignment of the A34 and the new Oxford Road;

Ground modelling and planting near the service area where there would be new overbridges and junction arrangements;

Extensive new planting on fields adjacent to the southwest quadrant of the junction;

Redundant A34 carriageway broken up and reinstated to agricultural use adjacent to Chalky Lane;

Extensive mounding and ground modelling west of the A34 at Radnalls Farm;

Extensive forest and low screen planting along the A34 and slip roads north of the A34;

Hedgerow planting along the eastern boundary of the A34 adjacent to the Newbury Showground; and

Road lighting around the junctions, underpass and service areas with high pressure sodium lamps having flat glass luminaires to reduce glare.



Revised access arrangements for the Chieveley Service Area and adjacent maintenance depot;

Provision of a dedicated bridleway bridge over the A34 south of the M4; and

Reduction of planting and deletion of ground modelling on land in the south west corner of the junction. Instead of 5 hectares of planting there would be only 1.6 hectares.


C.1.38 Natural England had no comments to make on the landscape mitigation.

C.1.39 West Berkshire commented that the landscaping proposals were appropriate and have established well.

Evaluation

C.1.40 The scheme is located on the edge of the North Wessex Downs AONB in an area of attractive countryside and landscape measures to reduce the impact of the road were an integral part of the scheme. This has principally been achieved by the lowered vertical alignment underneath the M4 and the use of the fill material generated to create extensive areas of mounding for screening and integration. This has been complimented by new tree and shrub planting undertaken on highways land.

C.1.41 It is considered that the earth mounding west of the A34 north of the M4 has been implemented very well. The intention was to dispose of the spoil and screen the A34 and M4 from Chieveley and to return the land to agriculture and create a natural looking


83

landform. The mounding is effective in reducing views towards the A34 and M4 and as shown in figure C.3 below a natural looking landform has been created. This is particularly evident to the south of Radnall Farm where the land has been returned to arable use but less so north of Radnalls Farm where the land has been subdivided for horse paddocks which blend in less well with the surrounding area.

Figure C.3 Land returned to agricultural use south of Radnalls Farm

C.1.42 To the south of the M4 the embankments for the bridleway bridge over the A34 have been graded out and returned to agricultural use as proposed. Again this has been successful and the resulting landform and vegetation blends in very well with the surrounding agricultural land as shown in Figure C.4. At the time of the site visit the graded out land and adjacent undisturbed field were not being farmed.


84

Figure C.4 Land returned to agricultural use by new bridleway bridge

C.1.43 There are other areas of earth shaping in the scheme notably an earth bund with an environmental barrier between the Local Oxford Road and the A34 south of the M4 which prevents headlight dazzle between the two roads and screens the A34 from the rising ground to the west and reduces noise effects.

C.1.44 There has been extensive native tree and shrub planting throughout the scheme as proposed in the ES. The landscape contractor commented that establishment had been slow in the first years after planting probably due to the poor ground conditions/compaction resulting from the earthworks combined with the chalk subsoil. There was also a major problem with rabbit browsing with the rabbit fencing being ineffective in excluding rabbits and which was replaced by individual spiral guards on the plants. The site visit confirmed that most of the planted stock has now taken well and is beginning to put on good growth.


85

Figure C.5 Poor establishment of planting on land south west of Junction 13

C.1.45 Maintenance at the time of the visit was seen to be very good and the MAC commented that there had been no issues in taking over the scheme after the 5 year aftercare period. One area of off-site planting has been implemented as proposed on agricultural land along Green Lane and this is also establishing well.

Figure C.6 Off site planting along Green Lane

C.1.46 There are extensive areas of species rich grassland on the cuttings and embankments through the scheme. Where these have been sown on bare chalk cuttings these have


86

established slowly with some bare patches whilst on embankments and bunds the coverage is much better. See figure C.7.

Figure C.7 Good establishment of species rich grassland adjacent to the Local Oxford Road

C.1.47 Only two of the three proposed gantries have been erected, with the third deleted in favour of direction signs mounted on the new bridleway bridge which reduces overall visual impact. Full cut off flat glass high pressure sodium lighting was proposed at Junction 13 and at the accesses to the facilities south of the junction. This has been implemented as proposed in the ES. The changes to the lighting and the resulting effect were the subject of several Part 1 claims with five house owners making claims. The 2006 Night Time Lighting Impact Assessment was commissioned by the HA to inform the response to these claims. The report concluded that the mitigation with the scheme had done much to offset the impact of the lighting and that this would improve as vegetation grew but that lighting had increased visual impact on three of the properties. The report noted that the lighting in question was a small number of luminaires seen as pinpoint light sources against a backdrop of pre-existing lighting at the services, car headlights on pre existing roads and other light sources in the area e.g. Radnalls Farm. The lit road surface was not visible from the properties. There has been no new night time survey of lighting as part of this POPE process.


87


Table C.5 - Summary Table of Predicted Landscape Effects



AST Slight adverse impact on the North Wessex Downs AONB, with slight visual benefit at Chieveley village in the long term.

Neutral

POPE 5YA

Extensive mitigation proposed in the ES and addendum has been implemented. Earth mounding and shaping has been carried out well and blends the scheme into the landscape. Planting and seeding has been undertaken and is establishing well. Overall the landscape works have reduced the visual impact of the scheme as predicted and integrated it with the surrounding area.

As expected

Key Findings

C.1.48 Mitigation would appear to have been implemented in line with proposals in the ES and vegetation is establishing well. The earth shaping near Radnalls farm is a particularly good example of this type of mitigation and has been carried out well. Other grading out and return to agricultural use has also been carried out well.

C.1.49 The slow establishment of the planting is typical of many schemes and the poor ground conditions which is the cause of it needs to be addressed at the design and specification stage as well as by good site supervision. The advantage of spiral guards over rabbit fencing in preventing animal damage was evident and the use of spirals in preference to rabbit fencing could be taken forward into HA guidance.

C.1.50 It would appear that maintenance work was carried out well during the aftercare period and handover to the MAC was trouble free.

C.1.51 The overall assessment in the AST of neutral impact would seem to be justified as although the scheme has increased the road infrastructure considerably the extensive mitigation implemented as part of the scheme offsets these new impacts and some of those arising from the existing A34.

Biodiversity

Predicted Impacts

C.1.52 The AST stated that there would be no significant direct impact on biodiversity. The impact was assessed as slight adverse.

C.1.53 The ES stated that;

Although badger setts were known to exist in the area no signs were found during the field survey;

The route corridor included potential roost sites but the surveys undertaken revealed no traces of bats;

There were fox earths in hedgerows and large and active rabbit warrens;


88

There were low populations of grey partridge, skylark and brown hare all of which are listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan:

No habitats likely to support protected species such as dormice or great crested newt were found;

No wetland ecosystems of significant value would be affected by the scheme; and

There were a number of sites of nature conservation value at county or local level comprising hedges and grasslands which have developed alongside the existing A34.

C.1.54 Overall the land within the study area was considered to be of minimal nature conservation value and lacked a diversity of species

Approved Scheme

C.1.55 There would be direct adverse impacts on one site of nature conservation value in a county context and six sites of nature conservation value in a local context. Two of the sites were hedges and the others grassland. Impacts would range from moderate to minor adverse in the short term diminishing to minor adverse impact or no impact in the long term. The site which would have minor impacts in the long term was an area of very species rich grassland on the A34 cutting slope north west of the junction. This would be lost to the scheme but replaced by a much larger area in the long term

C.1.56 Severance of habitats would be increased by the scheme and would result in a slight increase in wildlife mortality

C.1.57 The ES noted that there were potential impacts on a number of species such as bats, invertebrates and some plants through habitat removal but that such species had not been found during site surveys but might colonise the area prior to construction. Pre-construction surveys would be carried out and appropriate measures would be taken if they were found.

C.1.58 Mitigation measures for habitat loss and creative conservation for the scheme included:

Substantial areas of native species tree and shrub planting. Approximately five hectares of woodland was to be created to the south west of Junction 13. All the planting areas would incorporate features of value for birds and invertebrates such as substantial scrub areas and fringes where brambles would grow;

Approximately 2225 metres of hedge planting; and

Creation of grassland of nature conservation value on verges and cuttings of new roads. This was highlighted by English Nature (now Natural England) and Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxford Naturalists Trust as being a key issue on the scheme.


C.1.59 The Secretary of States Decision letter of 27th February 2002 accepted the Inquiry Inspectors recommendation that the scheme should be modified from that assessed in the ES. A number of modifications were proposed but only the following affected biodiversity:


C.1.60 The Addendum to the ES in April 2002 concluded that these changes would not alter the significance of any of the impacts in terms of ecology and nature conservation.


89


C.1.61 Natural England had no comments to make on the ecological mitigation.

C.1.62 West Berkshire Council commented that it was not involved in the mitigation measures for wildlife either pre or post opening and therefore could not comment.

Evaluation

C.1.63 The ecological mitigation measures implemented as part of the scheme are more extensive than originally proposed in the ES. This is due to protected species being found near the scheme after the ES was completed.

C.1.64 Although no evidence of badger activity directly in the area affected by the scheme was found and reported in the ES there was known to be badger activity in the area. The opportunity was taken to create a link between the areas east and west of the A34 north of the M4. A series of badger tunnels first under the slip roads and then under the mainline were built together with badger proof fencing to guide the animals. The scheme ecologist commented that badgers were using the tunnels under the slip roads and accessing the enclosed areas between them and the mainline but the mainline tunnel was not generally used. This was thought to be because the length of tunnel was too great for the badgers to want to use.

C.1.65 Badger activity continued during the aftercare period in other areas around the scheme. Although the MAC had no records of badger mortality the Ecology Status Reports during the aftercare period noted two incidents of badger deaths near the north of the scheme possibly attributed to the construction of the environmental barrier north of Graces Lane preventing badgers from moving west across the A34. The scheme ecologist reported that this might be resolved by new badger fencing on the east side of the A34.

Figure C.8 Badger tunnel near the Radnalls Farm


90

C.1.66 A population of southern marsh orchids growing in one of the balancing ponds lost to the scheme were translocated to a new balancing pond near to Green Lane north of the M4. Monitoring of these during the aftercare period showed that they were failing to re-establish in the new location and by year 5 there was no evidence of them. This was thought to be due to a combination of inundation possibly linked with the siltation of the pond and rabbit browsing.

C.1.67 To the west of the scheme in Bussocks Wood twelve bat boxes were erected on trees in the wood as an environmental enhancement. Monitoring during the 5 year aftercare period indicates that all had been used at some point with the exception of one nearest the M4.

Figure C.9 Bat boxes on trees in Bussocks Wood

C.1.68 As part of the scheme mitigation a number of dormouse nest boxes were installed in Bussocks Wood and along Green Lane. Evidence of dormouse activity had been found near the hotel south west of the junction during other works and nest boxes were proposed as mitigation. In addition to this an area of open ground within Bussocks Wood owned by the Highways Agency was planted up to create a habitat suitable for dormice. The habitat established well despite some deer browsing and dormice were recorded as using the boxes at times during the aftercare period. 10 of the boxes were replaced towards the end of the aftercare period due to deterioration.


91

Figure C.10.New dormouse habitat created within Bussocks Wood

C.1.69 Extensive areas of amenity and species rich grassland have been created as part of the scheme as proposed in the ES in mitigation for areas lost to the scheme. The increased area of cutting and embankment means that overall there has been a net increase in such habitats. As noted in the landscape section the success of establishment is variable with some areas having no coverage and others showing good growth. No survey of the species distribution has been carried out as part of the scheme monitoring to confirm which species have established best.

Figure C.11 Calcareous grassland establishing on A34 cutting slopes


92

C.1.70 Extensive areas of dense tree and shrub planting have been carried out as proposed along with substantial lengths of hedgerow planting. These measures were identified in the ES as appropriate mitigation for the losses to existing planting and are generally establishing well.


Table C.6 - Summary Table of Predicted Biodiversity Effects



AST No significant direct impact. Slight adverse effect

EST

Ecological mitigation has been implemented to a greater extent than indicated in the ES. This is as a result of later surveys indicating the presence of species and habitats not originally found and which would be affected by the scheme. This has helped maintain the ecological value of the area despite some elements being unsuccessful and is likely to have reduced the impact of the scheme on ecological resources.

As expected

Key Findings

C.1.71 More extensive mitigation was implemented than originally proposed but the badger tunnels and orchid translocation have been only partially or have not been successful. However, other elements have been successful and it is considered that the AST score reported was correct. Once all mitigation planting is fully established, it is considered that the EST score for biodiversity should also be slight adverse.

C.1.72 The reasons for the lack of use of the mainline badger tunnel needs to be established to inform decisions on such mitigation in future schemes. The view of the ecologist was that the tunnel was too long for badgers to want to use and further work on maximum viable length of badger tunnels would be of value. Similarly the reasons for the failure of the orchid translocation should be investigated further. It was thought that a combination of rabbit browsing and inundation was responsible and better site selection and protection would be advisable.

Heritage of Historic Resources

Predicted Impacts

C.1.73 The AST stated that there would be a slight impact on landscape setting of Chieveley village and it’s Listed Buildings. If as yet unknown archaeological sites survive within the route corridor then the impact upon them could be negative and should be mitigated in advance of and during construction

C.1.74 The ES stated that the desk based study identified that the archaeological potential across the route of the proposed scheme was generally low but rose to medium for Iron Age activity.

Approved Scheme

C.1.75 Preliminary results of a field walking study that had not reported by the time the ES was published indicated that several potential in situ prehistoric sites may have been identified


93

within the proposed route corridor. It concluded that the proposed scheme would have no impact on any currently known archaeological sites or other cultural heritage features. The ES recorded the following designated features in the study area

Nine Grade II Listed buildings of which three were Grade II*; and

Bussock Hill Hillfort, a Scheduled Ancient Monument in Bussock Wood Hill towards the south west of the study area but not directly affected by the scheme.






C.1.77 The Addendum to the ES in April 2002 concluded that these changes would not alter the general conclusion drawn by the ES that there were no sites within the scheme area that merited preservation in situ.

Consultation

C.1.78 English Heritage was unable to provide comments and it suggested contacting the local authorities.

C.1.79 West Berkshire Council made no comment on heritage matters.

Evaluation

C.1.80 Both popular and technical archaeological reports for the scheme have now been published. These note that further investigations took place ahead of construction and confirmed that the area has been used since early prehistoric times with scatters of artefacts and burnt flint showing that activity was widespread in Neolithic and Bronze Age times. Several Bronze Age pits were discovered but the land did not become densely settled until the Roman period with a Roman farmstead being discovered near Chieveley. Sporadic Anglo Saxon finds indicate that the area continued to be settled and farmed until the present day.

C.1.81 The settings of the Listed Buildings in Chieveley have not affected by the scheme as was expected. Bussocks Hill hillfort is surrounded by woodland and is also unaffected by the scheme.


94


Table C.7 - Summary Table of Predicted Heritage Effects



AST

Slight impact on landscape setting of Chieveley village and it’s Listed Buildings. If as yet unknown archaeological sites survive within the route corridor then the impact upon them could be negative and should be mitigated in advance of and during construction.

Neutral/Slight adverse

POPE 5YA

The effect on the landscape setting of Chieveley and the visual impact has been effectively mitigated by the mounding and planting to the west of the A34. Buried remains were fully investigated and recorded during construction.

As expected

Key Findings

C.1.82 The extensive mounding and planting effectively reduces the impact of the scheme on Chieveley. Other mitigation through field walking, geophysical investigation and trial trenching was carried out thoroughly at the appropriate time before construction. The findings of the archaeological investigations have been written up in technical and popular publications. The finds that were discovered have been sent to West Berkshire Museum in Newbury for storage. Overall the heritage aspects of the scheme appears to have been dealt with satisfactorily.

Water

Predicted Impacts

C.1.83 The AST stated that the scheme lies within the catchment of a major aquifer. The increased carriageway and cut slope areas included in the scheme increases the risk of pollution, which is offset against the inclusion of petrol/oil interceptors. The AST predicted a slight adverse impact.

C.1.84 The ES concluded that as the existing drainage system failed to provide any protection to groundwater from pollutants, the proposed measures would provide an improvement to groundwater pollution prevention.

Approved Scheme

C.1.85 The ES stated that surface water on the A34 would be collected in surface water concrete channels positioned outside the hardstrip and would outfall to either a balancing pond or soakaway via a series of catchpits and carrier drains. At other locations within the scheme runoff water would be collected by a system of kerbs and gullies.

C.1.86 Two existing balancing ponds would be retained, one would be removed and one new balancing pond would be provided. Water in the balancing ponds and soakaways would eventually filter into the underlying chalk aquifer. As an added precaution the lowest point of the new ponds and soakaways would be above the highest recorded groundwater level.

C.1.87 To prevent pollution reaching groundwater the proposed scheme incorporated Class 1 bypass petrol/oil separators which would have a cut off valve to contain liquids in the event


95

of a spillage. At the roundabout junction a spillage containment device would be provided at the outfall location.

C.1.88 There was an undertaking to test groundwater before during and after construction with reference to UK drinking water standards and any background information available.


C.1.89 The Secretary of States Decision letter of 27th February 2002 accepted the Inquiry Inspectors recommendation that the scheme should be modified from that assessed in the ES. No modifications were proposed that would affect drainage or water issues. The Addendum to the ES in April 2002 did not require any amendments to the ES.

C.1.90 During the design and construction phase it was decided to include a pumping facility at the A34 underpass to remove water in the event of exceptional weather conditions or increased groundwater levels.


C.1.91 The Environment Agency commented that the closest sample point for water quality was on the Winterbourne at Bagnor and that there has been no change in the water quality at that site. The lack of changes at this site and the fact that it is around 5km downstream of any potential discharge site meant that they could not comment on any changes due to the improvements to junction 13.

C.1.92 The EA had no recorded category 1 and 2 pollution incidents since the road was opened and had no comment on the adequacy and effectiveness of the ecological mitigation measures.

C.1.93 The EA were not actively monitoring drainage at this site and were not aware of any flooding incidents.

C.1.94 The site overlies a major chalk aquifer and is in the outer source protection zone for public water supply but the EA had no routine monitoring of the chalk aquifer beneath the site.

C.1.95 West Berkshire Council commented that it was unaware of any pollution occurring but noted that the A34 underpass was flooded and closed in July 2007.

Evaluation

C.1.96 The inspection of drainage features during the site visit indicated that the scheme had been implemented as proposed. Run off from the carriageway is taken via kerbed drains or concrete v drains to pollution control structures and on to balancing/infiltration ponds or soakaways. The soakaways themselves are either of surface longitudinal or deep chamber type.


96

Figure C.12 Balancing pond alongside M4 west of Junction 13

C.1.97 The alignment of the A34 under the M4 means that the underpass is a low point for drainage for both roads. The historic groundwater levels were normally some way below this point but it was decided during the design and construction phase to include a pumping facility to clear water in the event of groundwater levels rising and in exceptional weather events. This pumping station is located adjacent to the A34 south of the M4. The designers of the scheme have commented that the underpass became inundated twice since the scheme opened through exceptional rainfall on one occasion and through failure of the operating system on another. Groundwater levels have risen since the scheme was opened and the pumping system now comes into operation at ½ hour intervals. The rise in groundwater is not reported to be as the result of construction of the scheme but due to other unknown factors such as reduction in abstraction of water from the aquifer for irrigation.

Figure C.13 Pumping station at the A34 underpass


97

C.1.98 After about 2 years of operation the infiltration pond adjacent to the M4 west of the junction had a problem with silting and retention of water for longer periods than in the design. This was due to some early cutting face wash out problems that occurred before the grass seeding was properly established (which have now been resolved) and the fact that the delivery system to the pond is pumped which meant that the silts were rapidly transmitted from the pump chamber up to the pond. These problems resulted in a change to the design which converted the first part of the pond to a silt settlement area. The chamber ring (see figure C.14) gives settled out (clear) water access to the filter material layer beneath once the level of the top of the rings is reached. Since this alteration the pond has not demonstrated any problems of water retention, beyond that which it was designed to do in heavy storms. The modified system is considered by the designer to afford better environmental protection to the aquifer than the interceptor installed upstream of the pond.

Figure C.14 Balancing pond modification to overcome silting problems

C.1.99 It is considered that there is no significant impact to the water environment as a result of the scheme. Although the number of vehicles and surface area of the carriageway has increased with the scheme there would already have been an existing impact on water quality and flow due to the existing A34 and M4. The existing drainage system did not include pollution control features so there is likely to be a net improvement in water quality because of the scheme.

C.1.100 No serious pollution incidents have been recorded since the scheme opened.


98


Table C.8 - Summary Table of Predicted Water Effects



AST

The scheme lies within catchment of a major aquifer. The increased carriageway and cut slope areas included in the scheme increases the risk of pollution, which is offset against the inclusion of petrol/oil interceptors.

Slight adverse

POPE 5YA

New pollution control structures and reduced accident rates on the new scheme may have reduced the risk to water quality through pollution incidents. The pumping facility has prevented the underpass from flooding.

As expected

Key Findings

C.1.101 Drainage ditches and mitigation have been installed as expected and pollution and runoff flows are controlled within pollution control structures. This may be an improvement on the control of water quality on the old A34.

C.1.102 Groundwater levels have risen for reasons not connected with the scheme and the pumping system is operating more frequently than anticipated.

C.1.103 The EA have recorded no significant incidents since the opening of the scheme and there is no record of any pollution incidents regarding the scheme.

C.1.104 Based on the information available it could be assumed that the impacts on the water sub-objective are as expected.

Physical Fitness

Predicted Impacts

C.1.105 The AST did not assess physical fitness.

C.1.106 The ES stated that rights of way affected by the scheme would be reconnected into the highway network or maintained and no community severance would occur as a result of the scheme. Cyclists would benefit through improved cycling conditions and that pedestrians and equestrians would benefit by being able to move directly from east to west of the A34 via the proposed equestrian/pedestrian provision.

Approved Scheme

C.1.107 The improvements to the A34 would affect a number of rights of way that connect with the road and arrangements were made to maintain or reconnect these. The following proposals were made:

The Private Means of Access (PMA) for Snelsmore Farm connecting Green Lane South (RUPP 9b) to PF 46 would be removed and replaced by the new Local Oxford Road. RUPP 9b and PF 46 would connect with the Local Oxford Road;

Chalky Lane (BOAT 36) would tie into the local road network at a new roundabout giving access to the Service Area;


99

Green Lane South (RUPP 9b) would connect with Chalky Lane (BOAT 36) via the Local Oxford Road bridge over the A34 and new roundabouts giving access to the facilities south of the M4;

The PMA to Radnall Farm off the A34 northbound would be lost and replaced by a new PMA off Graces Lane. PF 8 would be modified to reconnect with revised A34 northbound slip at this point; and

The PMA to Ashfields farm and PF19 along the A34 southbound would be altered slightly to accommodate a new lay-by.






C.1.109 The Addendum to the ES in April 2002 noted that the provision of a dedicated bridleway bridge over the A34 would benefit equestrians and pedestrians by providing a crossing of the A34 that would enable them to travel between BOAT 9b and BOAT 36 without encountering any vehicular traffic. The approved scheme had required them to use the Local Oxford Road to cross the A34 in close proximity to vehicular traffic.

C.1.110 Subsequent to the ES and the Addendum a further change was made to the scheme and the existing footbridge over the M4 at Bussocks Wood was replaced with a new bridge suitable for use by equestrians. This was to enable horse riders to cross the M4 and access routes south of the motorway linking in with the new bridleway crossing described above. This enabled the creation of a circular route for equestrians that is termed the Chieveley Community Circuit.


C.1.111 West Berkshire Council commented that they ‘only have incidental information that poaching, coursing and illegal vehicle use of local PROWs and damage to our pedestrian gates has been "aided" by the proximity of the junction - i.e. it may have made Chieveley 40, 17 & 18 more accessible and therefore is now more vulnerable to these activities’

Evaluation

C.1.112 The dedicated bridleway bridge over the A34 has been implemented as proposed in the ES Addendum. The new bridge over the M4 at Bussocks Wood has also been constructed and these two facilities enable pedestrian and equestrians to travel safely between Chieveley and the areas to the south east of the junction creating a route locally known as the Chieveley Community Circuit. This is an improvement both on the pre – existing situation and the scheme as proposed in the ES.


100

Figure C.15 New bridleway bridge over the Local Oxford Road and A34

Figure C.16 New NMU bridge over the M4 at Bussocks Wood

C.1.113 The creation of the Local Oxford Road has made it safer for non motorised users to travel north-south between Newbury and the M4 as they no longer have to use the A34. A wide footpath is included alongside the Local Oxford Road that can be used by all NMU’s. The other minor modifications to the local accesses and footpaths have all been carried out as proposed resulting in safer, easier routes for users.


101

C.1.114 Overall there has been a significant improvement in the situation for non motorised users and physical fitness should have improved.

Table C.9 - Summary Table of Predicted Physical Fitness Effects



AST Not reported. Not reported

POPE 5YA Modifications to the scheme have resulted in an improvement in facilities for non motorised users and a potential improvement in physical fitness.

Moderate beneficial

Key Findings

C.1.115 There have been significant improvements to the local right of way network as a result of the scheme. Some of these were included in the original scheme and described in the ES whilst others have arisen through later amendments discussed at Public Inquiry. Some concerns from local authority that greater accessibility to the PROW network has made it vulnerable to anti social behaviour and means to prevent this should be investigated or made more robust

Main Environmental Conclusions

Earth mounding reduced noise impacts and helped to integrate the scheme into the landscape. The lowered alignment generated extensive quantities of fill which was used creatively to blend the scheme into the landscape and return land to agricultural use. Lack of control of the returned land and use for inappropriate uses diminished this affect in one area whilst the others were well carried out.

Provision of the new bridleway bridge over the A34 in combination with the replacement bridge over the M4 has improved conditions greatly for NMU’s in the area.

For reasons unconnected with the project ground water levels changed markedly during the schemes development and construction and pumping is required more frequently than first envisaged though this might change again.

The long tunnel may deter badgers from crossing under the A34 though there may be other reasons for this and this should be investigated. The orchid translocation has failed but other mitigation for protected species has been monitored and appears to have been successful.

The landscape works were slow to establish due to poor ground conditions, rabbit browsing and periods of low rainfall but with some remedial measures to rabbit protection these generally have now established successfully and are as expected.

Heritage was investigated thoroughly and the findings have been recorded fully.


102

Table C.10 - Requested Box 1 Information

Box 1 Item Information Provided

Environmental Statement A34 Chieveley / M4 Junction 13 Improvement Environmental Statement, February 2000 and Non Technical Summary

AST AST version 2000

Any amendments/ updates/addendums etc to the ES or any further studies or reports relevant to environmental issues. Have there been any significant changes to the scheme since the ES.

A34 Chieveley / M4 Junction 13 Improvement Environmental Statement, (February 2000) Addendum - April 2002;

'As Built' drawings for landscape, ecological mitigation measures, drainage, fencing, earthworks etc. Preferably electronically or on CD.

Provided on CD

Copies of the H&S File, Construction Environment Management Plan Landscape/Ecology Management Plan, Handover Environmental Management Plans

H&S File, O&M information and LMP provided

Contact names for consultation Provided and sourced by POPE team

Archaeology - were there any finds etc. Have any Archaeological reports been written either popular or academic and if so are these available?

Popular archaeological booklet and academic report provided

Have any properties been eligible for noise insulation?

The insulation performance properties of any noise barriers installed (The BS EN 1794-2 result provided by the noise barrier manufacturer)

The Road Surface Influence (RSI) value of any low noise surface installed

No Not provided Not provided

Have there been any Part 1 Claims regarding noise, air quality or lighting? Have any post opening surveys been undertaken?

Yes, 5 home owners made Part 1 claims regarding lighting. Post completion surveys were undertaken for noise (2005), night time lighting (2006) and landscape and visual impact (2006) were undertaken

Has any post opening survey or monitoring been carried out e.g. for ecology/biodiversity or water quality and if so would copies of the reports be available?

Ecological monitoring undertaken during aftercare period and reported in the Ecology Status Reports in Landscape Management Plan 2009

Animal Mortality Data No records available from MAC, some information given in Ecology Status Reports in LMP

Copy of post opening Non-motorised User Survey

Not provided

Any publicity material Newsletters and Opening Brochure

Information may be available regarding environmental enhancements to streetscape/townscape for bypassed settlements

None provided

Employer’s Requirement works Information for environment

Included in LMP

Documents

M4 Junction 13 Improvement