5 Environmental Assessment Of Route Sub-Options 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Air Quality 5.3 Cultural Heritage 5.4 Disruption due to Construction 5.5 Ecology and Natural Heritage 5.6 Landscape Effects 5.7 Visual Impact 5.8 Land Use and Agriculture 5.9 Traffic Noise and Vibration 5.10 Effects on Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects 5.11 Effects on Vehicle Travellers 5.12 Water Quality, Drainage and Hydrology 5.13 Geology, Soils and Contaminated Land 5.14 Policies and Plans
5 Environmental Assessment Of Route Sub-Options
5.1 Introduction
This section presents the key findings of the appraisal of environmental effects of the sub-options. The information is presented under the following topic headings:
- air quality;
- cultural heritage;
- disruption due to construction;
- ecology and natural heritage;
- landscape;
- visual impact;
- land use and agriculture;
- traffic noise and vibration;
- effects as pedestrian, cyclists, equestrians and community effects;
- effects on vehicle travellers;
- water quality, drainage and hydrology;
- geology, soils and contaminated land; and
- plans and policies.
Each section provides a summary appraisal based on the more detailed information contained in Appendix B. The appraisals broadly followed guidance set out in Volume 11 of the DMRB31 for each environmental topic but developed to a level of detail considered appropriate to inform a comparison of the sub-options. The methodology which was used for each environmental topic is summarised in Appendix C.
5.2 Air Quality
The key impacts on air quality as a result of the proposals would arise from the realignment of the main carriageway of the A90 either closer to or further away from residential properties. The proposals are not expected to give rise to a significant change in the number, type or speed of vehicles using the A90.
Sub-options 1, 2 and 3 would have a small positive or negative impact on a number of properties along the new routes where the main carriageway of the A90 is moved slightly closer to or further away from residential properties. The impact at the majority of properties would be positive. The most significant negative change in air quality is likely to occur in the area of Southlea and the Mains of Newtyle where the main carriageway is moved closer to these properties. There would also be a negative impact at Dambrae (Sub-option 1) and at Summerlea (Sub-options 2 and 3).
Sub-option 5 would result in small positive and small negative impacts on properties along the route corridor. The impact at the majority of properties would be positive. The most significant negative change in air quality for this sub-option is likely to occur in the area of Dambrae, Stoneyards Cottages, Aikenshill and Kirkhill where the trunk road becomes closer to these properties.
In view of the likely changes in air quality resulting from the various sub-options, the following properties were selected for further investigation of localised pollution effects: The Cock and Bull Public House, Dambrae, Southlea, Kirkhill, Foveran School and Fountainbleau. These properties are considered to be representative of properties adjacent to all sub-options the location of these properties is shown in Figure 5.1.
5.2.1 Property Count
A list of the number of properties by distance band from the A90 is given in Table 5.1. This table also shows the number of properties on each sub-option expected to experience an improvement or deterioration in air quality. The number of properties likely to experience an improvement or deterioration in air quality has been calculated by counting the number of properties that would become closer or further away from the A90. Those properties which would be closer are assumed to experience a deterioration in air quality. Those which become further away are assumed to experience an improvement in air quality.
Constraints maps showing properties that might possibly be affected by a change in air pollution are given in Figures 5.2 – 5.5. These figures show contours at 50m, 100m, 150m and 200m from the road centreline. Those properties most likely to experience an improvement or deterioration in air quality as a result of the scheme are shown in Figures 5.6 – 5.9.
Distance Band |
Number of Properties |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Existing Route |
Sub-Option 1 |
Sub-Option 2 |
Sub-Option 3 |
Sub-Option 5 |
|
0-50m |
50 |
19 |
18 |
24 |
18 |
50-100m |
38 |
38 |
34 |
30 |
30 |
100-150m |
37 |
40 |
42 |
38 |
35 |
150-200m |
40 |
45 |
38 |
46 |
46 |
0-200m |
165 |
142 |
132 |
138 |
129 |
Number of properties with an improvement in air quality |
67 |
60 |
53 |
62 |
|
Number of properties with a deterioration in air quality |
6 |
13 |
12 |
1 |
|
Table 5.1: Air Quality Effects of Sub-Options on Properties
The properties included within the property count include residential properties, schools and public houses but not other commercial properties which are considered to be less sensitive.
All sub-options have fewer total properties within both 50m and 200m of the road centre line when compared with the existing route. Sub-option 5 has the least number of properties within 200m of the road centre line and joint least (with Sub-option 2) number of properties within 50m of the road centreline where the highest pollution concentrations would be experienced.
For all sub-options more properties would experience an improvement in air quality than a deterioration. Sub-options 2 and 5 would give rise to an improvement in air quality at the most number of properties.
5.2.2 Change in Exposure
A quantitative assessment of the change in exposure to PM10 and NO2 has been carried out in accordance with the methodology described in DMRB and Interim Advice Note 54/04. These changes in exposure are also referred to as ‘route assessment scores’, a positive score indicates an increase in concentrations (i.e. a deterioration in air quality) and a negative number indicates a decrease in concentrations (i.e. an improvement in air quality). The route assessment scores for each sub-option are given in the worksheets in Appendix E and summarised in Table 5.2.
Route Assessment Score |
Sub-options |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sub-option 1 |
Sub-option 2 |
Sub-option 3 |
Sub-option 5 |
|
PM10 |
-293.91 |
-401.33 |
-330.11 |
-435.32 |
NO2 |
-263.62 |
-308.25 |
-259.67 |
-330.32 |
Table 5.2: Route Assessment Scores for each Sub-Option (µg/m3).
The route assessment scores have been calculated assuming that the flows along link B13-B14 are representative of traffic on the A90 in the existing case, and the flows along link A3-A8 are representative of traffic on the A90 for each of the sub-options.
The assessment scores show that each of the sub-options represents an improvement in exposure compared to the existing route. Sub-option 5 has the largest negative score and therefore gives rise to the largest improvement in exposure to air quality.
Concentrations at representative properties along the route have been estimated using the DMRB methodology for the existing route and each of the sub-options. The estimated PM10 and NO2 concentrations are given in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 below. The figures in brackets are the changes in concentrations for each of the sub-options compared to the existing route.
Property |
2005 |
Sub-options (2010) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Existing Route |
Existing Route |
Sub-option 1 |
Sub-option 2 |
Sub-option 3 |
Sub-option 5 |
|
The Cock and Bull Inn |
13.71 |
12.10 |
11.35 (-0.75) |
11.35 (-0.75) |
13.07 (0.97) |
11.35 (-0.75) |
Dambrea |
10.90 |
10.36 |
10.76 (0.40) |
9.88 (-0.49) |
9.87 (-0.49) |
10.53 (0.16) |
Southlea |
12.21 |
11.21 |
11.90 (0.69) |
11.89 (0.68) |
11.89 (0.68) |
10.42 (-0.79) |
Kirkhill |
9.70 |
9.62 |
8.98 (-0.65) |
8.99 (-0.63) |
8.99 (-0.63) |
10.33 (0.70) |
Foveran School |
13.85 |
12.18 |
10.60 (-1.58) |
10.60 (-1.58) |
10.60 (-1.58) |
10.60 (-1.58) |
Fountainbleau |
13.08 |
11.70 |
11.21 (-0.49) |
11.16 (-0.54) |
11.21 (-0.49) |
11.19 (-0.51) |
Table 5.3 Estimated PM10 Concentrations at representative Properties along the Route (µg/m3).
Property |
2005 |
Sub-options (2010) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Existing Route |
Existing Route |
Sub-option 1 |
Sub-option 2 |
Sub-option 3 |
Sub-option 5 |
|
The Cock and Bull Inn |
11.46 |
8.55 |
5.75 (-2.80) |
5.75 (-2.80) |
9.63 (1.08) |
5.75 (-2.80) |
Dambrea |
3.81 |
2.89 |
4.10 (1.21) |
2.60* (-0.29) |
2.60* (-0.29) |
3.38 (0.49) |
Southlea |
7.73 |
5.84 |
7.27 (1.43) |
7.25 (1.41) |
7.25 (1.41) |
3.32 (-2.52) |
Kirkhill |
3.40* |
2.60* |
2.60* (0.00) |
2.60* (0.00) |
2.60* (0.00) |
2.69 (0.09) |
Foveran School |
11.88 |
8.88 |
3.72 (-5.16) |
3.71 (-5.16) |
3.72 (-5.16) |
3.72 (-5.16) |
Fountainbleau |
10.10 |
7.53 |
5.44 (-2.09) |
5.30 (-2.24) |
5.44 (-2.09) |
5.39 (-2.14) |
* - Background concentrations assumed.
Table 5.4 Estimated NO2 Concentrations at representative Properties along the Route (µg/m3).
The assessment of concentrations at representative properties illustrates that overall re-aligning the A90 to any of the sub-options would have a positive effect on air quality.
None of the options would cause an increase in PM10 concentrations at the receptors considered of 1µg/m3 or more, or an increase in NO2 concentrations of 2µg/m3 or more, which are the thresholds above which the DMRB methodology requires further comment to be made.
The largest predicted increase in PM10 concentrations is 0.97µg/m3 at the Cock and Bull Inn for Sub-option 3. The largest predicted increase in NO2 concentrations is 1.43µg/m3 at Southlea for Sub-option 1. Almost all of the concentrations are below those predicted for the existing alignment in 2005 and all of the concentrations are well below the statutory air quality objectives.
5.2.3 Summary
No AQMAs32 have been declared in the vicinity of the section of the A90 considered and current concentrations of both NO2 and PM10 within the study area and are well below the annual mean statutory objectives for both NO2 and PM10. The proposals are not expected to give rise to a significant change in the number, type or speed of vehicles using the A90. The key impacts on air quality from the proposals would therefore result from the realignment of the main carriageway of the A90 closer to or further away from residential properties.
Generally all options would result in an improvement in air quality for residential properties in the study corridor. Sub-option 5 would result in the least number of properties within 200m of the road centreline. By considering the number of properties likely to experience an improvement or deterioration in air quality within the study corridor it was determined that Sub-option 2 performed the best, followed by Sub-option 5. The quantitative assessment of the change in exposure to NO2 and PM10 indicated that Sub-option 5 would give rise to the largest improvement in air quality.
Sub-option 5 is therefore the preferred sub-option for air quality.
None of the options would cause increases in concentrations above the threshold given in DMRB for which further comment is recommended. None of the sub-options would cause a significant increase in concentrations and no further detailed modelling of the sub-options is required.
5.3 Cultural Heritage
The key impacts on built heritage from the proposals would be, in order of significance, on the setting of Orrock House (A listed building) and the setting of Menie House, the Mill of Foveran and the Orrock House Doo’cot (B listed buildings) and then on other recorded sites. Sites of archaeological interest are shown on Figures 2.6 and 2.7 in Appendix A.
Sub-option 3 has the least impact upon Orrock House as it passes along the line of the existing A90. Sub-options 1, 2 and 5 all pass closer to Orrock House (A listed) but there are opportunities to mitigate this through careful land forming and appropriate planting. Sub-options 2 and 3 impact upon the setting of Menie House (B listed) as they cut through the estate driveway and would split the gatehouse from the main house. This could in part be mitigated by ensuring the access to the house remains intact and that the design of the bridge over the dual carriageway and the new planting was as attractive as possible.
A meeting with Historic Scotland was held on 16th May 2006 and its preference was to ensure that the impact on the A listed Orrock House would be no greater than that of the 1996 scheme. On balance Historic Scotland would seek to safeguard impacts to the A listed property in preference to any to B listed buildings. A meeting with planners from Aberdeenshire Council held on 29th June 2006 indicated their preference was to ensure no impact upon Menie House (B listed) and its curtilage.
The closest sub-option to Belhelvie Ruined Church (B listed building) is Sub-option 3, which follows the route of the current A90 at that point. The other sub options are further to the west of Sub-option 3, and therefore the existing road. The upgrading of the current A90 at that point (Sub-option 3) is likely to have an adverse impact on the setting of the building due increased traffic flow and noise. All of the other sub-options would likely have a beneficial impact on the setting, as they would move traffic flow and noise away from the building and further to the west.
All sub-options would pass close to the Mill of Foveran (B listed building) along the same line. There is potential to mitigate this impact with careful landforming.
Sub-option 2 is the only sub-option that impacts on the setting of both Orrock House and Menie House and subsequently is the sub-option that would have the greatest impact on built heritage.
Mitigation measures would include the measures outlined above and also careful landforming and appropriate planting to mitigate potential impacts to all buildings of historic importance.
Sub-options 1, 2 and 5 all have a requirement for an underpass at South Orrock. The road improvement works may have an impact on the setting of the Orrock House Doo’cot (B listed building). It is expected that the effect on the setting of this structure would be minimal as the improvement is to an existing road at South Orrock.
The key impacts on archaeology from the proposals would be the potential destruction of an imprecisely located cist burial and related sites near Keir, the effect on various potential prehistoric cropmarks, and the potential destruction of both undiscovered and known archaeological remains.
All of the sub-options include the realignment of the B977 to the new junction at Balmedie. This realignment passes in the vicinity of an unrecorded cist burial near Keir. The cist was discovered in 1915 and contained the body of a young adult female and three beakers. The exact location of this burial site is now unknown and there is the potential for other finds in the area. Potential mitigation33 for the site could be a geophysical survey and targeted excavation of the area to locate and record the burial and other potential sites along the route of the link, prior to construction. This would be followed by a watching brief condition during site stripping. Further research would be undertaken to better understand the constraints of this site and to feed into the detailed alignment of the infrastructure of this junction in Stage 3.
All of the sub-options have a requirement for a new bridge at Pitgersie Bridge near Foveran. It is possible that there would be a direct impact on a cropmark, shown on aerial photography. This cropmark is sited just to the east of the existing bridge and the sub-option routes pass along the eastern edge of the site. As such there may be no direct physical impact at all but potential mitigation could include geophysical survey and targeted excavation of the area, prior to construction, followed by a watching brief condition.
Both Sub-options 2 and 3 pass near cropmarks at Menie. The cropmarks include circular and rectilinear features and other indistinct markings. Potential mitigation could include geophysical survey and targeted excavation of the area, prior to construction, followed by a watching brief condition.
The isolated findspots of Late Bronze Age gold torcs and a flint arrowhead, combined with the Bronze Age activity in the vicinity of Keir, and the various cropmarks along the route, indicate that there is potential for the discovery of prehistoric remains during all ground-breaking works. There is potential for mitigation through intrusive survey of a representative sample of the sub-option corridor prior to construction. This would be followed by a watching brief condition on all ground breaking works with the potential to halt construction to enable the recording and excavation of archaeological sites to a suitable standard. Likewise, it is also possible that mediaeval or later remains would be uncovered during construction. This would be mitigated with the same measures as the prehistoric remains.
A number of other sites have been identified that would potentially be directly affected by the different sub-options. They are all considered to be of local importance and are post-mediaeval in date. They are detailed in the environmental appraisal table in Appendix B. Suggested mitigation would be excavation prior to construction if the site is to be destroyed or partially affected and a watching brief condition if the route passes in the vicinity of a site.
On balance the preferred route would be Sub-option 5 as it impacts on the least number of known sites, it avoids the severance of the Menie House from its gatehouse, and has less of an impact on Orrock House than the 1996 route, sub-option 1.
5.4 Disruption due to Construction
Table 5.5 lists the properties within 100m of each sub-option and these could be most affected by construction. Estimates of the required earthworks for each sub-option, as shown in Section 4.1, indicate that Sub-options 1, 2 and 3 have the greatest amount of excess material, not all of which may be lost through mitigation and landscaping. Sub-option 5 provides more of an earthwork balance therefore would mean that potentially all the material could be re-used on site. This would limit the amount of external lorry movements during construction phase. It is envisaged that all fill material would be site won.
Sub-option 3 is likely to create the greatest disruption to existing traffic as a result of the upgrading of the existing carriageway. All options would create traffic disruption at tie-ins and crossing points. Sub-option 3 is likely to require significant diversion of the existing utilities supplies.
All the off-line options would limit disruption to existing road users.
Where the new route crosses the existing route on Sub-options 1, 2 and 5 a new bridge would need to be constructed. This would involve construction of a localised temporary diversion around the bridge construction site. For Sub-option 1 there is very limited space available for a temporary diversion to be provided due to the close proximity of existing properties.
All sub-options would create noise as a result of the construction works. Restrictions on working hours would be implemented as part of the contract. The contractor would also be required to implement measures to ensure dust was controlled during construction.
Construction impacts to cultural heritage and natural heritage have been considered in each specific topic appraisal (see Sections 5.3 and 5.5 respectively).
Differences between all sub-options are small and are not considered to be a significant deciding factor. Sub-option 5 is favoured as it causes the least disruption due to its potential for reduced temporary diversion works and because it has potential for less construction traffic movements than other option due to earthworks balance.
5.5 Ecology and Natural Heritage
No significant difference between sub-options was found in terms of ecology and nature conservation. All sub-options cross a number of watercourses, including the Foveran Burn and Tarty Burn which run into the River Ythan Estuary which is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA) (see Section 2.6.4 and Figure 2.5). Mitigation measures such as adhering to all recommended good practice including SEPA best management practices during construction34 and detailed design to deliver adequate attenuation measures for the operational scheme would be implemented to reduce the risk of polluting the burns and any impact on the interests of the SAC and SPA.
Sub-options 2 and 3 could involve loss of small areas of semi-natural broadleaved woodland at the Menie Estate. These areas would be small, however, this woodland habitat is relatively scarce in the locality. Compensatory planting would help mitigate the impact in the longer term.
Sub-options 1 and 5 pass through areas of immature mixed woodland planting implemented under the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (SFGS) (see Section 5.8). The areas lost would be small and compensatory planting would be possible to mitigate the impacts.
There are badgers present in the vicinity of some sub-options but they would not be directly impacted by any sub-option. Mitigation measures such as provision of underpasses would ensure no significant indirect impacts resulted from any option. Otter activity has been identified throughout the study corridorhowever there would be no direct impacts from any sub-option. Mitigation measures such as designing culverts for wildlife passage according to best practice would ensure that there were no significant indirect impacts. No other protected species have been identified which would be affected by the proposals although further checks would be made before construction began of any option.
Broad mitigation measures are included in the discussion above. Other mitigation would include reinstatement of all disturbed habitats and careful design of new planting and ponds etc to seek to enhance local biodiversity in the longer term.
5.6 Landscape Effects
The area has a gently undulating landform created by a series of east/west ridges, smaller and more intimate in scale towards the south and larger and more open towards the north (see Section 2.6.5).
All the sub-options take effectively the same route across the northern, more open half of the study corridor. The differences lie in the southern, more undulating and smaller scale area and the key landscape issue is how they cut across the ridge and valley formation. As stated by SNH35, "where the vertical and horizontal route alignment reflects more readily the underlying landform and minimises the requirement for removal of landscape features, the … significance of those landscape changes could be reduced."
Sub-option 3 causes the least landscape intrusion. It generally sits low in the landscape and best fits the lie of the land by using the southern end of the existing A90 to avoid cutting the visually prominent ridgeline at Orrock, and by keeping to the west to avoid the more complex topography with a distinct east-west grain. Sub-options 1 and 2 both break the ridge at Orrock but then swing west to avoid the higher ground of the ridges at Aikenshill and Kirkhill and to some extent avoid cutting the grain of the landscape. Sub-option 5 also breaks the ridge at Orrock but then runs across the higher ground, across the grain of the landscape. To some degree, the fact that it runs across the higher ground gives a visual logic to breaking the ridge at Orrock which is missing for Sub-options 1 and, particularly, sub-option 2.
Sub-options 2 and 3 both cut the remnant avenue to Menie House, which whilst no longer a strong landscape element is nevertheless of importance to landscape history.
Mitigation for all sub-options would help reduce the effects on the landscape. A degree of mitigation was introduced into the design for each sub-option by following the ground profile as far as possible and, where feasible, introducing curves to traverse hillocks. There would be more land available for mitigation earthworks and with fewer property constraints for Sub-option 5 than there would be for the other sub-options. The possibilities for landscape mitigation for Sub-option 1 would be particularly limited in the area where it crosses the existing A90.
Mitigation measures which would be developed for the detailed design of any option would include:
- keeping all new works as close to existing ground levels as possible;
- avoiding visually intrusive earthworks such as upstanding features in flat landscapes and sharp cuts into ridge lines wherever possible;
- rolling out the top and bottom of embankments and cuttings to profiles more closely resembling the existing landform;
- grading out cuttings and embankments sufficiently to allow the return of the land to agriculture wherever possible;
- appropriate planting to help integrate the scheme in the landscape; and
- compensatory planting elsewhere in the vicinity of the proposals and negotiation with the relevant landowner to mitigate potential loss of woodland.
5.7 Visual Impact
All sub-options are likely to cause a significant visual impact to a comparatively small number of properties.
Visual receptors and the impact assessment for each have been included in the environmental appraisal table in Appendix B. The names in bold indicate for each sub-option properties where there appears to be insufficient room to substantially mitigate the visual impact.
Sub-option 5 is likely to cause the least visual impact overall, and there is generally more land available for mitigation (landform and/or planting) to be carried out.
Mitigation measures would be important for all sub-options and would include those listed above for landscape and also:
- sensitive planting and detailed design to help minimise the visual impact on significantly affected properties;
- false cuttings where appropriate and possible to screen the view of the road traffic from significantly affected properties; and
- careful siting of signs, lighting etc wherever possible to avoid increasing visual intrusion.
5.8 Land Use and Agriculture
The predominant land use in the area is agriculture (a mix of arable and pasture) and all route sub-options would involve loss of mainly Grade 3.2 and some Grade 3.1 (prime) land (see Appendix B). There is little significant difference in the amounts or grades of land lost from the route options however Sub-option 3 has slightly less overall impact as it impacts upon the lowest number of agricultural units and fields and makes better use of the existing road (although some parallel works are still required).
Sub-options 1 and 5 impact on a small area of immature mixed species woodland planted under the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (SFGS), which has been planted to provide commercial conifers and broadleaved mixed species shelterbelt. Sub-option 1 would result in the loss of the large pond located at the front of Dambrae whereas Sub-option 5 would result in the loss of the two ponds at the back of the property (see Section 2.6.6). Sub-options 2 and 3 may cut through small areas of mixed broad leaved woodland at Menie House and would sever the West Lodge (Menie Gatehouse) from the main house.
Sub-options 1, 2 and 5 would be viewed from the rear dining room of the Cock and Bull Public House and could impact upon trade if not mitigated effectively. The public house would not have direct access to the new road with any sub-option and this has potential to impact upon opportunistic trade from passing traffic.
Table 5.5 shows the properties within 300m that could be affected by each sub-option. Properties that would be impacted by all sub-options have been excluded36 but will be included in the Environmental Statement reporting the assessment of the preferred route.
Sub-option 1 |
Sub-option 2 |
Sub-option 3 |
Sub-option 5 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
Residential |
||||
0-50m |
Hill of Menie |
|
3 houses at Cock & Bull site |
|
|
|
Sidney Cottage |
|
|
|
|
Seaview |
|
|
50-100m |
3 houses at Newtyle House/Dykenook |
Summerlee |
Summerlee |
|
2 houses at Southlea |
2 houses at Newtyle House/Dykenook |
2 houses at Newtyle House/Dykenook |
3 houses at Cock & Bull site |
|
3 houses at Cock & Bull site |
2 houses at Southlea |
2 houses at Southlea |
||
3 houses at Hill of Menie |
3 houses at Cock & Bull site |
|
|
|
Menie House Gatehouse |
|
|
||
100-200m |
Dambrae |
1 house at Newtyle House/Dykenook |
Menie House Gatehouse |
Stoneyards |
2 houses at Menie Smithy |
Cairneylaw (derelict) |
Cairneylaw (derelict) |
South Farden |
|
3 houses at Delfrigs |
Sidney Cottage |
1 house & barn at South Farden |
Sidney Cottage |
|
Cairneylaw (derelict) |
Seaview |
1 House |
Seaview |
|
Sidney Cottage |
Mains of Newtyle |
Pettens Croft |
1 of 3 houses at Hill of Menie |
|
Seaview |
3 houses at Pettens |
Dambrae |
||
Mains of Newtyle |
Mains of Newtyle |
|||
200-300m |
Pettens Croft |
Pettens Croft |
3 houses at Hill of Menie |
South Orrock |
Summerlee |
3 houses at Pettens |
2 houses at Menie Smithy |
2 houses at Orrock House and Mains |
|
South Orrock |
4 houses at Cothill |
3 houses at Delfrigs |
Hill of Menie Croft |
|
2 houses at Orrock House and Mains |
South Orrock |
2 houses at Rashiereive |
2 houses at Wardhead |
|
2 houses at Rashiereive |
2 houses at Orrock House and Mains |
Blairton |
Seven Acres |
|
South Farden |
3 houses at Hill of Menie |
4 houses at Cothill |
2 houses at Stoneyards |
|
Menie House Gatehouse |
2 houses at Kirkhill |
|||
| 2 houses at Menie Smithy | Pettens Croft | |||
2 houses at Rashiereive |
2 houses on road to Aikenshill |
|||
|
South Farden |
5 houses at Aikenshill |
||
|
Cairneylaw (derelict) |
|||
Commercial |
||||
0-50m |
|
Cock & Bull Public House |
|
|
50-100m |
Cock & Bull Public House |
Cock & Bull Public House |
Barn, Farm Bldgs Fountainbleau |
|
Bon Accord Training Centre |
Cock & Bull Public House |
|||
100-200m |
Barn (Farm) Mains of Newtyle |
Barn (Farm) Mains of Newtyle |
Barn (Farm) Mains of Newtyle |
Bon Accord Training Centre |
Foveran Garage |
Foveran Garage |
Foveran Garage |
Barn & Silo Aikenshill |
|
200-300m |
Farm Bldgs South Orrock |
Barn at Cothill |
Bon Accord Training Centre |
Farm Bldgs, South Orrock |
Farm Bldgs South Orrock |
Barn at Cothill |
Balmedie Pet Crematorium |
||
Bon Accord Training Centre |
Bon Accord Training Centre |
|||
Farm Bldgs Aikenshill |
||||
Table 5.5 Proximity of Properties to Sub-options
Sub-option 1 has the least number of properties (236) within 300m of its centre line. Sub-option 5 has 237 properties and Sub-option 3 has 239 properties within 300m of the centre line. Sub-option 2 has the most properties (241) within 300m of its centre line. Sub-options 2 and 5 would have fewer properties within 50m of the edge of the new road than other options.
Mitigation measures which would be developed to reduce the impacts of the proposals would include:
- adequate accommodation works to allow access to properties and farms to continue in affected areas;
- new planting within the scheme to compensate for the loss of any woodlands affected by the scheme;
- new planting to mitigate the loss of woodland from the SFGS areas through negotiation with affected landowners;
- sensitive design and careful land forming and planting to reduce impacts at the Cock and Bull; and
- maintaining good communication during construction with all affected parties to advise on disruption or delays.
5.9 Traffic Noise and Vibration
All sub-options have fewer properties within 100m of their centre lines than the current route. Sub-options 1, 2 and 3 have the fewest specific receptors within 0 to 100m and Sub-options 1, 2 and 3 have the fewest specific receptors within 300m of their centre lines. All proposed sub-options have fewer receptors within 300m of their centre lines than the current route alignment.
Sub-option 5 has the fewest number of dwellings in the 0 to 100m distance band. Sub-option 5 has the lowest number of properties subject to a noise increase of greater than 1dB. Sub-option 5 has the fewest properties subject to a noise decrease of greater than 1dB. Sub-option 2 has the most properties subject to a noise decrease. Sub-option 5 has the most properties subject to a neutral noise level change.
Overall, Sub-option 5 has the fewest dwellings within 100m, the lowest total number of dwellings within 300m, the lowest number of receptors subject to a noise increase of greater than 1dB, and the greatest number of receptors subject to a neutral noise level change. On this basis, whilst the differences between the route sub-options are only subtle, Sub-option 5 is considered to be the preferred option for noise. Figures 5.10 – 5.13, show details of individual sub-option noise affects.
At the design stage for the preferred option noise mitigation measures would be designed to reduce impacts such as bunding and/or fencing. In terms of general landscape there is more space for potential bunding etc with Sub-option 5 than for the other sub-options.
5.10 Effects on Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects
The access to the majority of local services would be maintained, because the existing A90 would be retained, and junctions provided on the new route at key locations. All sub-options would benefit pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists using and crossing the existing A90 as the old road would experience significantly less traffic. All sub-options would improve access for pedestrians and vehicles to Foveran School by reducing traffic on the existing A90 and moving the Mill of Foveran access road from directly opposite the school approximately 50m north. For all sub-options there would be an increase in severance from Balmedie for the Drumhead community. There would be minimal severance on the southern and northern sections of all sub-options.
Sub-options 1, 2 and 3 would increase severance between Delfrigs and Cothill. Sub-options 2 and 3 would pass between the gatehouse and Menie House (B listed), severing the estate although access would be maintained. Sub-option 1 would increase severance for properties around the Menie Estate and Delfrigs area. Sub-option 3 would increase severance for residents at Pettens wishing to travel north.
On balance Sub-option 5 is preferred as it results in severance effects for fewer properties in the vicinity of the route than other sub-options.
5.11 Effects on Vehicle Travellers
All sub-options offer a variety of views along the mainline route and are also likely to reduce driver stress due to a reduction in journey time and the effective removal of platooning traffic.
5.12 Water Quality, Drainage and Hydrology
There are no significant differences between the sub-options in terms of their potential effects on water quality, drainage and hydrology. All sub-options would cross the main burns in the area, the Foveran Burn and the Sandend Burn and some smaller burns, and are in the catchment of the Tarty, Menie and Blairton Burns (see Section 2.6.10). All route sub-options would cross the flood plain and so no significant differences in impacts are predicted. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to control potential impacts from activities on site and the design for the scheme would include measures to mitigate impacts during operation (polluted run-off etc) such as filter drains and detention ponds.
The volume of water in the existing watercourses would not significantly increase as a result of any of the sub-options. Attenuation measures would be implemented on all options to ensure that the design run-off is no greater than the existing greenfield run-off.
5.13 Geology, Soils and Contaminated Land
There are no significant differences between the sub-options for geology, soils and contaminated land. All topsoils disturbed by the works would be stored in accordance with best practice and wherever possible returned to agricultural use. If any contaminated land was encountered during construction it would be dealt with in accordance with legal requirements and best practice. Geological differences for each sub-option are considered in Section 4.3.
5.14 Policies and Plans
No sub-option impacts negatively upon an existing plan or programme in the study corridor. Aberdeenshire Council planners have indicated a preference for a route which did not sever Menie House from its gatehouse.