3.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 This chapter presents the results of the Environmental Appraisal undertaken as part of this
study. This appraisal considers:

 Route Option D as a standalone scheme.

 A Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) including
lighting impacts and arboriculture survey referencing WSCC Landscape
Character Assessment and Historic Landscape Assessment.
 Northern tie-in (Route 6) and Southern tie-in (Route 12).
 An Environmental Appraisal Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey; and
 Flood Risk Assessment (in accordance to Arun DC Draft Local Plan Policy
DM38).

3.1.2 These environmental studies are intended to enhance the evidence base for the scheme. It
should be noted that this work has been based on the route options at a feasibility stage with
no detailed design information available.

3.1.3 A summary of the findings of the environmental work is included in this chapter with further
details included in Appendix D.

3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 It was recognised at the outset of the commission that the initial timeframe identified by
Arun DC for completion of the work would not allow very detailed assessments to be
undertaken and indeed, it was not intended that the assessments would be to a level of
detail that might be expected in a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It was
therefore agreed that ‘preliminary’ assessments would be undertaken which would provide
sufficient detail to allow significant issues and constraints to be identified and
recommendations made on further work necessary to take any of the schemes forward to
the next level of design and planning.

3.2.2 Notwithstanding the above, the studies were all undertaken in general accordance with
established procedures and best practices, as described in the individual sections of this
report.

3.3 Key Findings – Ecology

3.3.1 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of Route D, Option 6 and Option 12 has been
undertaken. This included a Phase 1 habitat field survey, a protected species assessment and
a desk study. The main findings are:

 None of the alignment options are subject to any statutory or non-statutory

designations. The nearest statutory designated site is Bersted Brooks Local Nature
Reserve located 985m to the southwest of Option 12 and the nearest non-
statutory designated site is Fontwell Park Racecourse Site of Nature Conservation
Importance, located approximately 400m north of Option 6. The proposed

102601/12
A29 Realignment Feasibility Study
Final Report 11/07/2014 Page 21/60
 development is not anticipated to have any adverse direct impacts on these sites
as a result of distance.
 The land within and around the three alignments comprises a range of habitat
types – semi-natural broadleaved woodland, orchard, dense and scattered scrub,
poor semi-improved grassland, improved grassland, hedgerows, scattered trees,
running water, standing water, arable land, spoil/brash piles, hardstanding and
buildings. Much of the orchard habitat recorded is considered to qualify as the
habitat of principal importance traditional orchard and has a value of up to a
regional (Sussex) importance. Other habitats are considered to have local or
district value where they support or have the potential to support protected
species and/or species of principal importance for the conservation of
biodiversity. The Option 6 alignment is considered likely to be the most
ecologically interesting of the three sites due to the presence of orchard and
semi-natural woodland habitats.
 Badgers were confirmed as being present in the local landscape. One or more of
the sites were assessed as having high potential to support breeding birds, water
voles, and invertebrates; medium potential to support widespread reptiles, great
crested newt, bats and hazel dormouse; and low potential to support invasive
non-native plant species.

3.3.2 Further surveys are recommended in order to confirm presence/likely absence and
distribution of a number of species groups. These surveys will allow an assessment of the
potential impacts of the three routes and inform appropriate mitigation and necessary
licensing (where required). These surveys are outlined below:

 A breeding bird survey including a suitable surrounding buffer zone to detect wide
ranging species;
 A reptile survey of suitable habitats to be carried out during the period March to
October;
 A badger survey and if required a bait marking study;
 A habitat suitability assessment and presence/likely absence survey for great
crested newts;
 A preliminary roost assessment of Building 1 and Building 6 for bats, and bat
transect surveys of the wider area between April and September;
 A nest tube survey for hazel dormouse in suitable woodland, orchard, scrub and
hedgerow habitats to be carried out during the period April to November;
 A walkover survey of ditches to survey for signs of water vole within 500m of the
proposed routes to be carried out during the period late April to early October;
and
 A deadwood invertebrate survey focused on the woodland, orchard and scrub
habitats in Option 6 to be carried out between May and September.

Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement

3.3.3 There are no detailed proposals for the three options, which are currently being assessed for
their feasibility. In the absence of detailed proposals and in the absence of the additional
survey data recommended as outlined above, only broad scale mitigation and enhancement
recommendations have been made at this stage.

102601/12
A29 Realignment Feasibility Study
Final Report 11/07/2014 Page 22/60
3.3.4 The site contains orchards, woodland, scrub, hedgerows and scattered trees that had
potential to support a range of nesting birds including red list species. Where the scope of
works requires the removal of these habitats any vegetation clearance should be carried out
outside of the main bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) to avoid any potential
offences relating to nesting birds. Vegetation clearance should not be undertaken until the
recommended hazel dormouse and widespread reptile surveys have been carried out.

3.3.5 The loss of bird breeding habitat should be minimised as far as possible and new planting of
appropriate native species of a local provenance should be provided to mitigate for the loss.
New habitat should be provided as early as possible in order to allow its development and
maturity to a point that it can be utilised by breeding birds. There may be opportunities to
install artificial bird boxes on nearby buildings or in wooded habitats. Where boxes are used
this should include a combination of models tailored to the species recorded on site and
suitable for colonial, semi-colonial and territorial species.

3.3.6 Any potential loss of orchard habitat would need to be carefully mitigated for. There should
be no net loss of this habitat, which is considered to be a habitat of principal importance. Of
particular interest within the orchards in and near route option 6 is the presence of standing
and deadwood, which is a feature of importance for a number of species. Any new
compensatory orchard planting would take considerable time to develop the interest
displayed in the extant orchard and as such it may be necessary to plant a larger area than
that which could be lost.

3.3.7 Further survey work has been recommended for a number of species to determine their
presence or likely absence at the sites and in the immediate landscape. Should any of these
species be found on-site, habitat compensation measures may be required, such as creation
of new scrub woodland, creation of ponds or purchase of land for species translocations.

Impact on species

3.3.8 A road scheme has the potential to significantly impact a number of species both through
direct habitat loss and through fragmentation. It can also result in increased disturbance
from noise, lighting and vibration, along with increased risk of mortality.

3.3.9 Options would need to be carefully explored to alleviate the impact of fragmentation and
enable species to safely move throughout the landscape. Existing mammal pathways and
data from additional surveys can be used to inform the location of suitable crossing points.

3.3.10 Crossing points may take the form of culverts or tunnels under any road, or bridges over the
road. Where hedgerows or tree lines would be severed the maintenance of connectivity will
be important for a number of species including bats. At these points bridges that are unlit
and are well-vegetated at either end could help to guide species across the road.

3.3.11 A road scheme at the site could present the opportunity to explore the installation of a green
bridge as commonly seen in mainland Europe.

3.3.12 Lighting has the potential to impact a wide range of species groups including but not limited
to bats. Increasing levels of lighting can cause significant changes in animal behaviour for
example causing species to move away from suitable foraging areas and affecting their use of
movement corridors and existing resting sites.

102601/12
A29 Realignment Feasibility Study
Final Report 11/07/2014 Page 23/60
3.3.13 It is important that the use of any lighting associated with the site is carefully considered to
ensure that the impacts on wildlife are minimised.

3.3.14 A number of further surveys have been recommended for species considered to have a
moderate to high likelihood of being present within or close to the route option 6, 12 and D
alignments.

3.3.15 Should any indications of additional protected species be confirmed or suspected the advice
of a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist should be sought. Should work be underway
at this point, it should cease immediately.

3.3.16 There are opportunities to provide enhancements in the local landscape. These can
contribute towards a number of restoration targets identified for Sussex. This includes the
buffering of core water vole populations by 1-3km buffer zones of best practice land
management (Southgate, 2012).

3.3.17 Option 12 is approximately 820m to the northwest of Lidsey Rife Biodiversity Opportunity
Area (BOA), an area identified as a priority for the delivery of Biodiversity Action Plan targets.
The BOA is hydrologically linked via Ditches D and I to both Option 12 and D, and habitat is
contiguous and of a similar nature. As such enhancements for these sites should be guided
by those identified within the BOA statement, namely wetland management, restoration and
creation; delivery of an ecological network and management of access.

3.4 Key Findings – Landscape and Visual Assessment

3.4.1 A Preliminary Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of the A29 realignment route
was undertaken, including a walk over of the alignments. The outline conclusions reached by
the Preliminary LVIA are set out in the Landscape and Visual Impact Tables included in the
environmental report prepared by Temple and included in Appendix D.

3.4.2 In summary the key recommendations from the LVIA are detailed below. It is anticipated
that these will help to guide the detailed design development and help identify any necessary
mitigation measures.

 The design of the northern junction onto the existing A29 should seek to minimise
any adverse impacts on views or the residential curtilage of the existing properties
adjacent to the route;
 The crossings points to the various public rights of way need careful consideration
so that these can be integrated into the wider green infrastructure network;
 Opportunities to mitigate impacts on views from the properties along Chantry
Mead and Barnham Road should be considered so that these help to strengthen
the perception of the gap between settlements;
 The detailed alignment of the route should seek to avoid adverse impacts on
existing groups of mature trees and hedgerows;
 The design of the crossing to the Lidsey Rife valley and the alignment of the old
Chichester and Arundel canal should minimise the need for associated earthworks
so that these features can contribution positively to the overall aspirations of the
green infrastructure network linked to the wider housing policy in the area;
 The detailed alignment of the route should seek to avoid adverse impacts on
existing groups of mature trees and hedgerows;

102601/12
A29 Realignment Feasibility Study
Final Report 11/07/2014 Page 24/60
  The alignment of the proposed route adjacent to the residential property at
Lidsey Grange and the connections with Sack Lane should seek to minimise any
adverse impacts on the residential curtilage; and
 The detailed design of the final route alignment should be developed in
conjunction with the emerging proposals for the Barnham/Eastergate/
Westergate strategic housing allocation in order that opportunities for landscape
enhancements and the wider green infrastructure network can be maximised.

3.4.3 Overall, it is anticipated that any significant landscape and visual effects arising directly as a
result of the A29 proposals could be successfully mitigated by developing an appropriate
route alignment and incorporating suitable mitigation measures. It is likely that there will be
some distant views towards the scheme from more elevated viewpoints in the South Downs
National Park, but it is not anticipated that the effects of the road will be significant.
However, the indirect effects of the wider housing development may need to be considered
in this context.

3.5 Key Findings – Flood Risk Assessment

3.5.1 The proposed new A29 realignment has been assessed in the context of flood risk, in order to
understand the possible risks of flooding for the road and the possible impacts of the
proposals on flood risk for adjoining properties.

3.5.2 In order to carry out this assessment, data have been gathered from various sources
including the Environment Agency flood zone maps for fluvial (as shown below in figure 5),
tidal and surface-water flooding, LiDAR data, British Geological Survey (BGS) 50K geological
mapping, BGS borehole data, BGS groundwater vulnerability mapping, Ordnance Survey
data, the West Sussex Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) and Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment (SFRA) and information gathered in a walkover survey. The assessment has been
carried out in the knowledge of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Technical
Guidance on Flood Risk, and the relevant Environment Agency guidance.

3.5.3 The alignment of the proposed route is broadly confined to high ground (as shown in figure
5) where the risks of flooding are low, however in the few places where the route passes into
the floodplain there is enough space to provide the necessary floodplain compensation on a
level-for-level basis in order to mitigate any adverse impacts due to loss in floodplain storage.

102601/12
A29 Realignment Feasibility Study
Final Report 11/07/2014 Page 25/60
 Figure 5. Proposed route superimposed on Environment Agency Flood Zone Mapping

Nyton Road

Barnham Road

Existing A29

102601/12
A29 Realignment Feasibility Study
Final Report 11/07/2014 Page 26/60
 Figure 6. Proposed route superimposed on LiDAR thematic map to illustrate terrain

Fontwell Ave

Barnham Road

Existing A29

3.5.4 Part of route option 6 is within Flood Zone 2 which is defined as having a Low risk of flooding
(return period of between 100 and 1000 years). In the absence of any detailed flood level
data, a level-for-level floodplain compensation strategy could be implemented in order to
mitigate any adverse flooding impacts for neighbouring properties, in accordance with the
NPPF technical guidance for flood risk.

3.5.5 In the section between Barnham Road and the proposed new intermediate roundabout on
Route D (south of the railway line), the proposed route is confined to an area of very low
flood risk, with the single exception of a crossing of a small Ordinary Watercourse south of
Barnham Road. It is likely that the vertical alignment of the road will need to be raised at this
point in order to achieve sufficient clearance for the proposed crossing at this point.

102601/12
A29 Realignment Feasibility Study
Final Report 11/07/2014 Page 27/60
3.5.6 Route option 12 crosses the Lidsey Rife which is classified as Environment Agency Main River.
Proposals as assessed are for a culvert crossing of the Rife at this point, replicating the culvert
crossing under the disused Chichester and Arundel Canal immediately downstream.
Associated with the proposed culvert is a large earth embankment within the floodplain. If
unmitigated, it is possible that this might result in increased water levels on agricultural land
upstream and/or downstream of this point since the Rife is subject to tidal effects at this
point. However there is scope to provide level-for-level floodplain compensation on
agricultural land in the immediate vicinity and it should therefore be possible to mitigate any
flood-related adverse impacts entirely.

3.5.7 For some of the minor watercourses which are crossed by the proposed route, it might be
necessary in accordance with standard practice to raise the alignment slightly from the
current design in order to achieve sufficient cover on culverts.

3.5.8 The proposed road is unlikely to be at any significant risk from groundwater flooding by
virtue of the fact that it is raised slightly above surrounding ground levels along most of the
route.

3.5.9 Ground conditions would appear to be favourable for soakaways provided the underlying
groundwater table is deep enough beneath the surface. Alternatively, it should be possible to
attenuate flows to existing greenfield runoff rates using unlined attenuation ponds which will
allow some discharge to soakaway with the remainder overflowing to the nearest existing
watercourse at no more than greenfield rates.

3.5.10 In summary, the risks of flooding for the proposed A29 realignment scheme appear to be
manageable and should not result in any significant adverse flooding impacts for
neighbouring properties.

3.6 Key Conclusion and Next Steps

3.6.1 The key conclusion from this Environmental Appraisal is that the proposed route alignments
should not have any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with regard to
either ecology, landscape and visual impacts or flooding.

3.6.2 The work undertaken to date has focused mainly on the high level environmental constraints
to guide the overall feasibility appraisal of the proposed bypass scheme. Should the
proposals be taken forward for more detailed design with the intention of submitting an
application for planning consent to build the road, it is very likely that, given the
environmental issues, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental
Statement would be required to support the planning application . Flood risk issues at the
southern end are likely to require more detailed modelling. However, this should be
confirmed through the preparation of a Screening Report and submission of a formal
screening opinion from the planning authority.

3.6.3 If an EIA is required, a scoping exercise should be undertaken to confirm the environmental
topics that will need to be assessed and those which can be ‘scoped out’. Consultation with
the relevant statutory bodies and planning authority will be required, supported by a Scoping
Report and submission of a formal request for a Scoping Opinion from the planning
authority.

102601/12
A29 Realignment Feasibility Study
Final Report 11/07/2014 Page 28/60