es volume 1 - chapters 10 (traffic) & 11 (noise)

8/3/2019 ES Volume 1 - Chapters 10 (Traffic) & 11 (Noise)

1/34

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 10

10.0 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

INTRODUCTION

10.1 This chapter considers the possible environmental impacts that might bederived from the traffic and transport patterns associated with thedevelopment proposals for sand and gravel extraction at the proposed quarryat Overburns Farm.

10.2 Patersons envisage that the proposed quarry would produce up to 400,000tonnes per annum, which would be exported from the site in heavy goodsvehicles onto the A702 and onwards via the existing road network.

10.3 The application site was subject of The 2009 Planning Application that wasrefused planning permission. An underlying reason for refusal was that theproposed access did not meet the required visibility standards at the junctionwith the A702.

10.4 The A702 is a strategic highway (Trunk Road) that falls under the jurisdictionof Transport Scotland. Extensive consultation has been undertaken withTransport Scotland and agreement has been reached over the suitability ofthe proposed quarry access. This assessment therefore takes account of theconsultation and a suitable access solution is presented within this chapter.

10.5 With reference to the above, incorporated within the proposals are localised

highway improvements that have been designed to safely and efficientlyaccommodate development traffic in a manner that avoids disturbance toexisting traffic movements on the main roads.

Guidance, Policy and Industry Good Practice

10.6 This assessment has been prepared in accordance with the documententitled Transport Assessment and Implementation: A Guide (Scottish

Executive, August 2005), which provides the necessary guidelines on whichto assess the traffic and transportation impacts of new development.

10.7 The technical document TD 42/95: Geometric Design of Major/Minor PriorityJunctions86 provides advice and standards for the appropriate design ofmajor/minor priority junctions with regard to traffic operation and safety.Therefore the design parameters contained within TD 42/95 have been


2/34


10.9 Furthermore, in respect of The 2009 Planning Application, the consultationresponse87 from the Roads Area Manager (Clydesdale) of South LanarkshireCouncil considered that the impact of the development on SouthLanarkshires road network would be negligible, with no mitigation beingrequired on the local road network.

Planning Policies

10.10 Schedule 3(a)(i) of The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan sets out aHierarchy of Accessibility, in order of preference for traffic movements. Inrespect of the bulk movement of heavy goods, whilst the schedule expressesa preference towards rail and water routes, it identifies the use of trunk roadsas a preferred option. This assessment describes that the proposeddevelopment will access directly onto the trunk road network.

10.11 Schedule 3(a)(ii) of The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan then sets

out locational preferences to be applied in the assessment of developmentproposals which encourages new mineral extraction sites to consider wherepossible dedicated haul roads or use of rail transport. This assessmentdescribes the absence of practical alternatives to road haulage.

10.12 Policy MP18 of The South Lanarkshire Minerals Local Plan requires newproposals for mineral extraction to be accompanied by an appropriate TrafficImpact Assessment (TIA). This chapter should be considered an appropriateTIA as is envisaged in Policy MP18.

10.13 The South Lanarkshire Local Plan describes the A702 as forming part of TheClyde Valley National Tourist Route.

Scotlands National Transport Strategy (December 2006)

10.14 The vision of Scotlands national transport policy is of an accessible Scotlandwith safe, integrated and reliable transport that supports economic growth,

provides opportunities for all and is easy to use (Paragraph 5).

10.15 The document also states five high level objectives for transport, whichinclude the promotion of economic growth by building, enhancing, managingand maintaining transport infrastructure to maximise their efficiency, and toimprove the safety of journeys by reducing accidents and enhancing the


3/34


South Lanarkshire Local Transport Strategy (July 2006)

10.17 South Lanarkshire Council are responsible for roads and planning, inpartnership with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (West of ScotlandRegional Transport Partnership), and they have developed a second LocalTransport Strategy.

10.18 Pertinent policy within the Local Transport Plan when considering the

proposed development includes:

LTP 19 The council will ensure that all new major developments willprovide adequate facilities and publicity for walking and cycling and linkto existing networks

LTP 67 The council will require the transport implications of majordevelopments to be set out in a Transport Assessment (TA) and forminor developments with transport implications, within a Transport

Statement (TS) LTP 74 For major new developments that act as trip destinations,

maximum parking standards will be identified to help limit demand forindividual journeys by car

ASSESSMENT APPROACH

10.19 The potential effects of the calculated development trip attraction will be

considered in terms of the change against the current operation of junctionslocal to the site.

10.20 The study area road network considered by this assessment will include theproposed site access with the A702 trunk road, and the baseline trafficsituation will include traffic growth calculated in accordance with theTransport Scotland guidance Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)9.2.2.2 traffic growth.

10.21 A qualitative assessment of the environmental impacts of site traffic will alsobe undertaken, having particular regard to impacts caused by heavy goodsvehicles (HGVs).

10.22 The potential effects of the calculated development traffic flows in the contextof highway safety will be undertaken with regard to the historical pattern of


4/34


10.25 The accessibility of the application site by non-road modes of travel will beassessed against the following three criteria:

the proximity of the nearest serviced interchanges to the applicationsite and the opportunities for interconnecting links between the site andthese interchanges;

the frequency of services available from the transport interchanges;and

the destinations served by the services.

BASELINE CONDITION

Accessibility

Accessibility by Road

10.26 The existing highway network within the vicinity of the site is illustrated onDrawing OQ11 10/1, however, for convenience, the salient components ofthe study area road network are described below.

10.27 The site forms part of the existing Overburns Farm which currently receivesaccess from a priority T-junction that connects with the A702 Trunk Road,approximately 3.4km south of the village of Coulter. The site is locatedapproximately 10.2km north of Junction 13 of the M74 motorway.

10.28 The South Lanarkshire Transport Strategy Map identifies the A702 as beingboth a National Tourist Route and a National Strategic Route. SouthLanarkshire Council describes that National Strategic Routes connectcentres of population and economic activity; areas that are far apart, areaccessible from all parts of Scotland and are well enough constructed andmaintained to cope with the volume of traffic using them88.

10.29 The existing junction provides access to Overburns Farm and two privatecottages. It is situated immediately south of a crest in the road. The junctionis also situated opposite two private residential accesses and, by virtue ofthis, is not considered to comply with current design guidance for junctionseparation.

10 30 Th i h d f h j i ( O b F ) i


5/34


Figure 10-1Existing Site Access

10.31 The A702 trunk road is a single lane two-way carriageway that connects withthe A74(M) approximately 9.7km to the south, and the A720 City ofEdinburgh Bypass c.45km to the north. The A702 is identified as both a

tourist route and a National Strategic Route.

10.32 In proximity to the site, the A702 is a 7.3m wide carriageway that runsroughly on a northeast-southwest alignment and is subject to the nationalspeed limit.

10.33 The carriageway of the A702 is kerbed along its northern edge and bound bya soft verge on its southern side (Figure 10-2). The road is relatively straight

along the site frontage, contributing towards good horizontal visibility.

10.34 However, despite the A702 being relatively flat along the site frontage, thereare two crests located either side of the proposed access position whichrestrict visibility in the vertical plane in both directions.

10 35 The crest to the north (Figure10-1) lies approximately 25 metres from the site

Minor road(to Overburns Farm)

Existing residentialaccess

Existing crest inroad.


6/34


Figure 10-2A702 Trunk Road (View Looking North)

Accessibility by Non-Car Modes

10.38 The proposed development is unlikely to attract a significant number of non-car trips on the basis of the type of use and its geographical location in thecontext of local employment catchment areas together with the availability ofinterconnecting non-car infrastructure.

10.39 Currently, the site is not accessible to any serviced bus stops and footpathsare not provided in proximity to the site.

10.40 Consequently, this assessment robustly assumes that all staff travel wouldoccur as single occupancy car trips, irrespective of the fact that some tripswould be shared. Therefore, no further consideration of the non-caraccessibility credential of the site is deemed necessary.

Summary of Accessibility

Minor road(to Overburns Farm)


7/34


Existing Traffic Flows

10.43 Existing traffic flows at the existing site access junction were recorded by wayof a manual traffic count of movements turning into and out of the sitetogether with an automatic traffic count on the A702, which recorded thevolume of through-traffic over a 12-hour period on 26th February 2009. It isnoted that the survey day was outside of any school holidays or a week witha bank holiday.

10.44 A copy of the survey results is provided at Appendix 10/2 and a summary ofthe weekday flows is shown in Table 10-1.

Table 10-1Traffic Survey Results

Link Time Period

Two-Way Flow

Total HGV HGVComposition

A702

07:00 08:00 AM Peak 284 48 17%

17:00 18:00 PM Peak 337 41 12%

12 hour Flow 3,145 540 17%

Site Access* 12 hour Flow 28 5 18%

*Note - flows attributed to existing farm operations, which would be retained under the developmentproposals.

10.45 A review of the above traffic flow information suggests that vehicle flows onthe A702 are relatively low in comparison to other strategic trunk roads, andthe composition of traffic is implicit of the roads strategic function.

10.46 The survey results have been assessed for the volume of traffic entering theagreed study area network in order to provide an indication of the times whenthe network is at its busiest. The results indicated two pronounced peakhours and these have been adopted as the basis for assessment. They areas follows:-

AM Peak 08:30 to 09:30hours; andPM P k 16 30 17 30h


8/34


10.49 In line with Transport Scotlands requirements, traffic growth has beencalculated from the DfTs National Transport Model (NTM), having then beencorrected using TEMPRO local adjustment factors. The resultant growthfactors are shown in Table 10-2, and have been applied to the surveyedtraffic flows to provide the aforementioned baseline traffic flow conditions,which are shown on the network flow diagrams contained at Appendix 10/3.

Table 10-2

TEMPRO Traffic Growth Factors

Anticipated Opening Year

(2009 to 2012)

Horizon Year

(2009 to 2021)

NTMFactor

TemproAdjustment

ResultantGrowthFactor

NTMFactor

TemproAdjustment

ResultantGrowthFactor

AMPeak

1.059

1.032 1.055

1.238

1.100 1.219

PMPeak

1.034 1.057 1.103 1.222

GB Daily Factor 2009-2012 = 1.0355GB Daily Factor 2009-2021 = 1.1177

Traffic Speeds

10.50 Existing traffic speeds on the A702 at the location of the proposed

development were recorded by way of an Automatic Traffic Count (ATC)conducted on the 26th February 2009. The results are summarised in Table10-3.

Table 10-3Traffic Speed Survey Results A702

Average Speed(mph)

85th Percentile Speed(mph)

Northbound 48.2 55.7

Southbound 47.7 55.3

10.51 The above results indicate that the 85th percentile speed, being the indicatorused in highway design, shows vehicle speeds in the region of 55mph for


9/34


January 2006 and 30th

April 2011 for the study area road network. Theinformation was provided by South Lanarkshire Council, and the location ofeach accident is shown on Figure 10-3.

Figure 10-3Accident Locations

10.54 A copy of the data is included in Appendix 10/4 but by way of summary, theabove accidents are summarised as follows:-

41716 this involved a small goods vehicle travelling along the A702that lost traction with the road surface and over-turned, colliding withtelegraph pole. The resultant injury was classified as slight. No other

vehicle was involved. 42827 this involved a car travelling eastbound along the A702 thatthat lost traction with the road surface, possibly due to some deposit onthe carriageway. The vehicle skidded off the carriageway and collidedwith a tree, resulting in serious injury to the driver. No other vehicle wasinvolved.

43291 this involved a car travelling eastbound along the A702 that

ProposedSite Access

A702


10/34


tree, resulting in serious injury to the driver. No other vehicle wasinvolved.

10.55 In consideration of the above, it is considered that there are no clusters ofaccidents that are suggestive of a deficiency in the highway network. Allrecorded incidents involved single vehicles and adverse conditions,suggesting that inappropriate speeds for the conditions were the primarycausation factors.

10.56 It is also noteworthy that there have been no instances resulting in personalinjury recorded during the most recent 15 month period spanning 1stFebruary 2010 to 30th April 2011.

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MEASURES

Access Arrangements

10.57 It is proposed that the relocated access would be situated approximately 95-metres west of its current location.

10.58 The relocated access would minimise disruption to the residential dwellingsat Overburns Cottages, opposite the existing access. It would also reducecomplexity in the road network, with fewer junctions in such close proximity.The proposed junction improvement is shown at Drawing No. OQ11 10/2,with the detailed construction phases shown at Appendix 10/1.

10.59 In order to negate the affects of existing crests in the A702 at this location, ithas been agreed with Transport Scotland that the vertical alignment of theroad adjacent to the application site will be altered whereby the crests nolonger impede visibility.

10.60 The 85th percentile speed as recorded in the February 2009 traffic count(Table 10-3 above), shows vehicle speeds in the region of 55mph for

vehicles travelling in both directions and, on this basis, the appropriatedesign guidance from TD42/9589 states that a design speed of 100kph (60mph) should be assumed.

10.61 The proposed access has therefore been designed to achieve the desirablevisibility splay of 215 metres in either direction from a distance of 4.5 metres


11/34


12/34


10.73 In the absence of any predefined standard, this approach reflects theaspirations of local and national policy, which is to avoid an over provision ofcar parking spaces whilst ensuring there would be no adverse impact to thepublic highway.

POTENTIAL IMPACT

Future Trip Generation

Heavy Goods Vehicle Trips

10.74 As previously identified, the site would extract and distribute up to 400,000tonnes of sand and gravel per annum, which would be transported to themarket via the existing road network.

10.75 The heavy goods vehicles intended to be used at the quarry would be a

combination of articulated vehicles carrying 29 tonne loads and rigid 8 wheeltippers which carry approximately 20 tonnes of mineral. Based on theoperational profile of the proposed quarry, approximately 70% of materialswould be transported in 29 tonne payloads, with the remaining 30% being in20 tonne payloads. Consequently, the development proposals would result in15,655 heavy goods vehicle trips (31,310 two-way movements) per year.

10.76 Taking on board the intended working hours, together with bank holidays, it is

assumed that the quarry would operate over a 286-day working year,resulting in the daily trip generation of the site being 56 trips (112 two-waymovements).

10.77 Although heavy goods vehicles are likely to occur evenly throughout the day,the assessment robustly assumes that 1/8th of all HGV traffic would arrive ineach hour. Whilst this naturally over-estimates the daily trip generation, theassumption implicitly allows for the fact that some trips may arrive earlier ordepart later than the average situation. The resultant daily profile of heavygoods vehicles is given Table 10-4 and the full trip generation calculationsare included at Appendix 10/5.

Table 10-4Daily Profile of HGV Trip Generation


13/34


10.79 However, since the arrival of staff would occur just 1 hour prior to themorning peak, the assessment robustly assumes that staff would arrivewithin the morning peak. Departures of staff are considered to occur in thehour commencing 19:00hrs.

Trip Distribution & Assignment

10.80 The calculated HGV trip generation has been distributed and assigned to thehighway network following Patersons market projections for the quarry, whichsuggests that 60% of heavy goods vehicles would travel to/from the south ofthe site. The remaining 40% would be from the north.

10.81 In respect of staff trips, it has been assumed that these would occur in aneven 50:50 split from the access on the A702. The assessment is thereforebased on flows being assigned in the proportions shown in Table 10-5.

Table 10-5Assumed Trip Distribution

Origin / Destination A702 North A702 SouthHeavy Goods Vehicles 40% 60%Staff Trips 50% 50%

Total Development Trips

10.82 The daily profiles of heavy goods vehicles and staff trips have beencombined in order to provide an indication of the overall impact of theproposed development. The resultant peak hour development trips areprovided at Appendix 10/3.

10.83 In addition, the calculated development trips have been combined with thebaseline traffic flows for the opening year and horizon year scenarios in order

to provide an indication of traffic flows with the development in place. Theseare shown on the network flow diagrams contained at Appendix 10/3.

Traffic Flow Increase

10.84 The impact of the proposed development has been considered in the context


14/34


AccessA702(South) 123 130 150 138 6.0% 158 5.2%

PM A702(North) 186 197 227 199 1.4% 230 1.2%

Site Access 1 1 1 15 N/A 15 N/A

A702(South) 153 162 187 166 2.6% 191 2.3%

10.85 In consideration of the above, it can be seen that the proposed developmentwould result in an increase in traffic using the junction, and that the order ofmagnitude would, at worst, result in a 6.8% increase in traffic on theapproach from the A702 (north) in the morning peak hour. It is noteworthythat this level of impact is set against the backdrop of an unusually lowbaseline traffic flow which would be significantly under the design capacity ofthe road.

10.86 The largest explicit increase in traffic flow is calculated to occur on thesouthern A702 approach where 8 additional vehicles an hour have beencalculated. This represents, on average, one additional vehicle every sevenminutes, which is not significant in the context of highway capacity andhighway safety, when considered in terms of the low baseline traffic flow.

10.87 This assessment has identified that the daily trip generation of the heavy

goods vehicles from the quarry would be 56 trips (112 two-way movements)per day. Of this, 60% would travel south on the A702 Trunk Road towardsLamington which equates to 34 trips (68 two-way movements) per day.

10.88 The additional movements should be considered against the background ofan existing two-way traffic flow of 3,430 vehicles and therefore the relativeimpact of the proposals is calculated to be around +2.5%, which is well withinthe typical day-to-day traffic flow variation and would not be discernable interms of either highway capacity or safety.

10.89 In respect of additional traffic travelling north towards Coulter, the impactwould be less by virtue of the smaller share of traffic travelling to/from thisdirection, against an almost identical background traffic flow. Therefore, theimpacts are also considered to be indiscernible.


15/34


10.92 The RFC is provided as an indicator of a junctions performance againstcapacity, shown on a numerical scale where 1 represents capacity.Therefore, where an RFC of less than 1 is returned, the junction iscalculated to be within capacity, whereas RFCs greater than 1 indicate thatjunction capacity would be breached.

10.93 It should be noted, however, that due to site-to-site variations, a standarderror exists within the capacity formulae of between +/- 15%. This meansthat in a situation where an RFC of 0.85 is calculated, queuing in theassessment year will be avoided in 5 out of 6 peak hours. Similarly, if an RFCof 0.70 is calculated, queuing will be avoided in 39 out of 40 peak hourperiods. This equates to 98% of peak hours being void of queuing and,consequently it is implicit that RFC's less than 0.70 will almost alwaysoperate without queuing.

10.94 The full output of the capacity assessment is included at Appendix 10/6although details of the calculated RFC, queue lengths and driver delay are

summarised within Tables 10-7 and 10-8.

Table 10-7Capacity Results

AM Peak2012 With Development 2021 With Development

Max. RFC Q. Max. RFC Q.

Site Access to A702 North 0.009 0.01 0.009 0.00

Site Access to A702 South 0.013 0.01 0.013 0.01

A702 North to Site Access 0.013 0.01 0.015 0.01

Table 10-8Capacity Results

PM Peak

2012 With Development 2021 With Development

Max. RFC Q. Max. RFC Q.

Site Access to A702 North 0.013 0.01 0.013 0.01

Site Access to A702 South 0.022 0.02 0.023 0.02

A702 North to Site Access 0.013 0.01 0.013 0.01


16/34


Consideration of Environmental Impacts

10.97 The guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (IEA, 1993)suggest two broad occurrences to define where there would be a need for adetailed environmental impact analysis or traffic proposals:

highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or thenumber of HGVs will increase by more than 30%); or

sensitive areas where traffic flows will increase by 10% or more.

10.98 The above assessment demonstrates that the proposed development wouldnot result in traffic increases of more than 10% within any potentiallysensitive areas or, at all other locations, the traffic increases would be lessthan the 30% threshold. Consequently, it is determined that there is norequirement to undertake a full environmental impact analysis.

Consideration of Road Safety10.99 A review of personal injury accidents within the study area network has been

undertaken.

10.100 Having regard to the trip generations, it is concluded that the trip generationassociated with the proposed development would not worsen the existingsafety record of the highway network, particularly across the wider network.Therefore, the potential impacts are considered to be well within acceptablehighway safety limits.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Highway Improvements

10.101 The incorporated highway improvements have been designed to

accommodate the proposed development in the most efficient and safemanner possible, mitigating the potential adverse impacts that would havebeen likely if using the existing access junction.

Environmental Measures

10 102 P t ld l i t t i i i l l it


17/34


RESIDUAL EFFECTS

10.103 Taking into account all the factors assessed in this chapter and the mitigationmeasures outlined above, a final analysis of the impacts resulting from theproposed development has been undertaken and is summarised in Table 10-9.

Table 10-9Summary of Impact

PotentialImpact

ImpactDuration

Significance MitigationResidualImpact

Highway andJunctionCapacity

Permanent Minor Adverse

Relocation andimprovement of access tomore safelyaccommodate trafficwithout impediment totrunk road traffic.

Insignificant

Driver Delay Permanent Minor Adverse N/A Minor Adverse

Road Safety Permanent Minor AdverseRelocation andimprovement of accessjunction.

MinorBeneficial

Pedestrian /Cyclist Amenity

Permanent No Impact N/A No Impact

Detritus onHighwayNetwork

Permanent ModerateGood managementpractice

Insignificant

ConstructionImpacts Permanent No Impact N/A No Impact

Public Rights ofWay

Permanent No Impact N/A No Impact

10.104 Overall, therefore, it is considered that the development proposals wouldhave an insignificant impact in traffic and transport terms.

CONCLUSIONS10.105 This chapter has been prepared to assess the traffic and transport impacts of

the proposed quarry located at Overburns Farm, South Lanarkshire. Thefindings are summarised as follows:

the development proposals comprise a proposal to extract up to


18/34


the proposed development is unlikely to attract a significant number ofnon-car trips due to the type of use and its geographical location in thecontext of local employment catchment areas and the proximity to non-car infrastructure;

the existing safety record of the highway at this location has beenreviewed and it has been concluded that there is no pattern ofaccidents that is suggestive of a highway layout deficiency that leads tounacceptable safety risks. Furthermore, the impact of development

traffic would be immeasurably small. Consequently, the proposeddevelopment is acceptable from a highway safety perspective; and the generation of traffic through the development would not be

discernable in terms of either highway capacity or safety at the nearbysettlements of Lamington and Coulter in traffic terms.

10.106 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the development proposalswould not discernibly or materially worsen the existing operation of thehighway network and that all highway improvements meet the requireddesign standards. By virtue of this, the development proposal is acceptablein traffic and transportation terms.

LEGEND


19/34

02032

.00003

.18

.OQ11

-10

-1.0.H

ighway

_Ne

twork

OVERBURNS QUARRY

2011 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

EXISTING HIGHWAY NETWORK

OQ11 10/1

Scale

NOTTO SCALE @A3Date

JUNE 2011

4 WOODSIDE PLACECHARING CROSS

GLASGOWG3 7QF

T: 0141 353 5037F: 0141 353 5038

www.slrconsulting.com

N

E

S

W

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEYONBEHALF OF HMSO. CROWN COPYRIGHTAND DATABASE RIGHT

ALLRIGHTS RESERVED. LICENCE NUMBERAL100012293

OS DATALICENCE EXPIRATION: 28/07/2011

LEGEND

APPLICATION AREA

REGIONAL ROADS

LOCALROADS

TRUNK ROADS

A702

A702

A702

M74

A73

A73

A73

A72

A72

B7016B7016

B7016

B7016

B7055

Lamington

Coulter

Biggar

Edinburgh

Dumfries

Glasgow


20/34


21/34

NOISE11

11.0 NOISE

INTRODUCTION

11.1 This chapter provides an assessment of noise that has been carried out withreference to EIA good practice, the EIA Regulations, British Standards andother relevant guidance relating to the operation of the proposeddevelopment.

11.2 The basis of assessment and methodology was agreed in consultation withSouth Lanarkshire Council. This assessment takes a similar form to aprevious assessment that was undertaken in 2009 for a similar developmentat the same site. The assessment has however been updated to takeaccount of the altered scheme now presented and considers the potential forimpacts to occur at the nearest noise-sensitive properties surrounding theapplication site.

11.3 Technical terms or references are occasionally used in this section. To assistthe reader, a glossary of terminology, including a table of example noiselevels that may be found in general life, are included in Appendix 11/1.

Government Advice, Standards and Good Practice

Planning Advice Note 56 (PAN 56)

11.4 Paragraph 17 of PAN 5690 outlines that planning authorities should aim toensure that unacceptable noise disturbance is avoided but they must makeappropriate provision for development even though it may generate noise.Paragraph 18 introduces PAN 50 Annex A91 for more topic related advice onthe control of noise from mineral sites.

Planning Advice Note 50 Annex A

11.5 PAN 5092 and more particularly its Annex A provides advice on planningcontrols and good practice with regards to noise emissions from surfacemineral workings. It also sets out noise limits for surface minerals workings.

11.6 Paragraph 1 of Annex A recognises that the planning system can be used tokeep noise from mineral workings within environmentally acceptable limits


22/34

NOISE11

11.8 Paragraph 32 defines that the working week should normally be regarded asMonday to Friday and Saturday mornings and that daytime hours shouldnormally be considered as 0700 -1900 hours.

11.9 Paragraph 33 of Annex A then provides that:

During the working week, except in circumstances outlined below(Paragraphs 36-41), the daytime nominal limit at noise-sensitive propertiesused as dwellings should normally be 55 dB LAeq,1h (free field) where 1hmeans any of the one hour periods during the defined working day.

11.10 Paragraph 36 of Annex A states:

A lower nominal daytime limit might be appropriate in quieter rural areas if alimit of 55 dB LAeq,1h for noise from the proposed development would exceedthe existing background noise levels by more than 10 dB(A). In thesecircumstances, planning authorities and operators should have regard to how

noise from the development would relate to existing background levels and tothe likelihood of complaints arising from the proposed development; andthere may then be a need to modify the nominal daytime limit to a lower levelin light of the local circumstances.

11.11 Paragraph 37 of Annex A makes separate provision for where backgroundnoise levels are exceptionally low and advocates a degree of flexibility insetting limits in such circumstances. It provides that where background

levels are below 35dB(A), a condition limiting mineral operators to a 10decibel excess over the existing background noise level is likely to be bothdifficult to achieve and unduly restrictive. It would not normally be appropriateto require a daytime limit below 45 dB LAeq,1hr.

11.12 Paragraph 41 of Annex A recognises that it will often be necessary to raisethe noise limits to allow temporary but exceptionally noisy phases in themineral extraction operation which cannot meet the limits set out for routine

operations, i.e. baffle mound construction.

11.13 Paragraph 60 of Annex A states that:

It is suggested that 70dB LAeq,1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in ayear should be considered to facilitate this, but planning authorities and

t l i h t i h th ff t f h t i thi i d d


23/34

NOISE11

This Annex recommends that British Standard 5228, Part 1 (1984) NoiseControl on Construction and Open sites should form the basis for the noiseprediction model, modified to take account of particular circumstances ofmineral sites.

11.16 British Standard 5228, Part 1 (1984) has been superseded by BritishStandard 5228, Part 1 (1997). Part 1 of BS5228 is summarised below.

British Standard 5228:199711.17 British Standard 5228: Part 1: 1997 Noise and vibration control on

construction and open sites, Part 1: Code of Practice for Basic Informationand Procedures for Noise and Vibration Control, sets out a methodology forpredicting noise levels arising from a wide variety of construction and relatedactivities. As such, it can be used to predict noise levels arising from theoperations of proposed minerals extraction sites. BS5228 also sets out tablesof sound power levels generated by a wide variety of mobile equipment.

Draft Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment

11.18 The draft Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessmentproduced by the Instituteof Acoustics/Institute of Environmental Management and AssessmentWorking Party have been referenced in relation to the potential changes inroad traffic noise levels as a result of the operational use of the proposeddevelopment.

11.19 The findings of the Working Party are draft at present although they are ofsome assistance in this assessment. The draft guidelines state that for anyassessment, the noise level threshold and significance should be determinedby the assessor, based upon the specific evidence and likely subjectiveresponse to noise.

11.20 The impact scale adopted in this assessment is shown in Table 11-1 below.

Table 11-1Impact Scale for Comparison of Future Noise against Existing Noise

Noise Level Change dB(A) Subjective Response Significance

0 No change No impact


24/34

NOISE11

11.22 It is considered that the criteria specified in the above table provide a goodindication as to the likely significance of changes in noise levels in this caseand have been used alongside PAN 50 guidance to assess the likely impactof the operational noise.

Sources of Information

11.23 Information regarding the proposed development including plant utilisationassociated with the extraction and processing of minerals, the workingscheme and proposed heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the sitehas been supplied by Patersons.

11.24 Noise emission data in the form of sound power levels have been derivedfrom discussions with the relevant plant manufacturer, from machinemounted noise badges, from monitoring of similar plant in the field or fromthe tables contained in BS5228:1997.

11.25 All measured sound power levels take into consideration the operation of anyreversing warning systems fitted to the plant, where applicable.

Consultation Undertaken

11.26 South Lanarkshire Council have been consulted to confirm their views andpolicies regarding noise-related issues at the site and agreement was

reached regarding the noise monitoring locations, the duration of themonitoring periods and the assessment methodology.

11.27 South Lanarkshire Council agreed that noise from the proposed extractiveoperations should be assessed in accordance with the guidance contained inPAN50 using the calculation methodology contained in BS5228:1997.

11.28 It was agreed with South Lanarkshire Council that the background noise

levels should be measured in non-continuous 15 minute periods to give anaverage over at least a one-hour period during the proposed daytimeoperational period.

ASSESSMENT APPROACH


25/34

NOISE11

BASELINE CONDITIONS11.32 Environmental noise surveys were carried out on 3rd, 4th and 5th September

2008 to capture typical background noise levels at the noise-sensitivereceptors closest to the proposed development site. The methodology of thesurveys and the results are set out below.

11.33 The noise monitoring equipment used during the surveys is detailed inAppendix 11/2. All the equipment was field calibrated before and after themeasurements and no drifts in calibration were found to have occurred. Theequipment had been calibrated to a traceable standard by UKAS-accreditedlaboratories within the 24 months preceding the surveys.

11.34 The noise monitoring locations considered to be representative of the nearestnoise-sensitive locations to the proposed development site are shown onDrawing No. OQ11 11/1 and listed below:

Location 1 Whitehill House (Overburns); Location 2 Overburns Cottages;

Location 3 Loanhead;

Location 4 Langholm; Location 5 Symington Mains Farm; Location 6 Nether Hangingshaw; Location 7 Broadfield; and Location 8 Coulterhaugh Cottages.

11.35 Measurements were taken over four non-consecutive 15 minute periodsduring the proposed daytime operational period, 07:00 to 19:00 hours.

11.36 At the measurement positions the following noise level indices wererecorded:

LAeq,T the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level over the

measurement period; LA90 the A-weighted noise level exceeded for 90% of the

measurement period. This parameter is often used to describe thebackground noise;

LA10 the A-weighted noise level exceeded for 10% of themeasurement period This parameter is often used to describe road


26/34

NOISE11

Table 11-2Summary of Measured Noise Levels, free-field, dB

Location LAeq,T LA90 LA10 LAmax

1. Whitehill House 43.3 37.2 44.3 67.5

2. Overburns Cottages 70.6 44.0 75.5 88.3

3. Loanhead 65.6 41.0 70.4 84.0

4. Langholm 56.8 43.0 57.8 74.6

5. Symington Mains Farm 46.5 30.8 45.7 72.86. Nether Hangingshaw 59.1 41.8 53.6 91.4

7. Broadfield 57.3 33.9 45.9 86.2

8. Coulterhaugh Cottages 61.2 37.2 48.3 95.1

11.40 The daytime noise climate comprised local and distant road traffic,occasional air traffic, local and distant rail traffic, local and distant farmingactivity and natural sounds such as birdsong, wind in trees and dogs barking.

POTENTIAL IMPACT

11.41 The primary potential noise impacts from the quarry development concernthe likelihood of disturbance or annoyance at local receptors caused byoperating plant and equipment at the quarry. Sources of such noise wouldinclude the operation of dump trucks, excavators and other items of heavyplant.

11.42 Noise levels generated by the site operations and experienced at localreceptors will depend upon a number of variables, the most significant ofwhich are:

the amount of noise generated by plant and equipment being used atthe site, generally expressed as a sound power level;

the periods of operation of the plant at the site, known as the on-time; the stand-off distance between the noise source and the receptor; the attenuation due to ground absorption or barrier screening effects;

and the reflection of noise due to the presence of hard vertical surfaces

such as walls.

11 43 Consultation with South Lanarkshire Council as part of this assessment


27/34

NOISE11

Table 11-3Criteria for Normal Operations, free-field, dB

Location MeasuredBackground

Noise Level LA90

Derived Daytime CriteriaLAeq,T

1. Whitehill House 37.2 47.2

2. Overburns Cottages 44.0 54.0

3. Loanhead 41.0 51.0

4. Langholm 43.0 53.0

5. Symington Mains Farm 30.8 45.0

6. Nether Hangingshaw 41.8 51.8

7. Broadfield 33.9 45.0

8. Coulterhaugh Cottages 37.2 47.2

11.46 The absolute criterion of 70dB LAeq,1hr for temporary operations, as stated inparagraph 60 of PAN 50 Annex A is appropriate for this assessment for allproperties considered.

11.47 Plant teams and a list of plant noise sources have been provided byPatersons and are set out in Appendix 11/4 together with adopted soundpower levels.

11.48 All noise predictions represent worst-case scenarios in terms of plant

location, where plant is working at the closest approach to nearby noise-sensitive properties or at elevations where noise reductions due to purposemade screening mounds or natural landforms would be minimal or absent. Inreality operations would take place at greater distances and, therefore,additional distance attenuation would occur, leading to lower noise levelsbeing experienced.

Operational Assessment

11.49 The operational noise levels associated with the proposed development areanticipated to include the following:

soil stripping, overburden handling and screen mound construction; mineral extraction and processing;


28/34

NOISE11

Temporary Soil and Overburden Handling and Plant Operations

11.52 Soil stripping, overburden removal and handling, screen mound and habitatshallows construction operations would be undertaken on a campaign basisand would take no longer than 8 weeks in any working year. Theseoperations would therefore be classed as temporary operations as envisagedin PAN50 Annex A and would be subject to the absolute 70dB LAeq,1hr noiselimit described paragraph 60 of PAN50 Annex A.

11.53 Soils and overburden would be stripped using hydraulic excavators andwould be transported to the intended storage or deposition areas usingarticulated dump trucks. Where required, the materials would be spread andshaped using a tracked-type tractor (dozer).

11.54 Materials stripped from the south-western segment of Phase 1 of theExtraction Area would be used to construct the screening mound to the northand west of the processing plant area and the attenuation mound on thenorth side of the Access Road along the planning application boundary.

11.55 As part of the restoration concept the remainder of the overburden and siltfrom the progressing extraction operations would be used to create habitatshallows to be located principally in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 extractionvoids. In summary, overburden from Phase 1 would be retained in Phase 1,the overburden arising during Phase 2 would also be carried to Phase 1 forrestoring that area and the overburden from Phase 3 would be carried for

placement partly in Phase 1 and partly in Phase 3 for restoring those areas.

11.56 Depending on plant availability at the time of the overburden stripping andthe proximity of the material being excavated to the intended placement area,it is possible that this may require the use of additional mobile plant to thatused in routine operations. The predicted noise assessment levels fortemporary operations reflect this worst case scenario to include the activitiesassociated with an additional hydraulic excavator and dump truck.

11.57 It is also envisaged that from time to time a mobile crushing plant would beemployed at the proposed development site. Crushing operations would takeno longer than 8 weeks in any working year and for a worst case assessmentit has been assumed that those operations would be undertakensimultaneously with other temporary operations.


29/34


30/34

NOISE11

Table 11-5Predicted Noise Levels for Normal Operations, free-field, dB

Location PredictedNoise Level

LAeq,T

Criterion

LAeq,T

Difference

1. Whitehill House 42.5 47.2 -4.7

2. Overburns Cottages 39.9 54.0 -14.1

3. Loanhead 36.0 51.0 -15.0

4. Langholm 44.9 53.0 -8.1

5. Symington Mains Farm 44.3 45.0 -0.7

6. Nether Hangingshaw 36.7 51.8 -15.1

7. Broadfield 44.5 45.0 -0.5

8. Coulterhaugh Cottages 33.5 47.2 -13.7

11.67 It can be seen from Table 11-5 that the derived criteria for normal operationsdetailed in paragraphs 36 and 37 of PAN 50 Annex A would be satisfied at allof the noise-sensitive properties considered in this assessment.

11.68 All predictions are made for a worst-case situation when minerals extractionis taking place at its most exposed elevation and/or closest approach to thenoise-sensitive locations.

11.69 For the majority of the proposed development extraction, operations wouldbe undertaken at greater distances and would therefore generate lower

levels of noise. This is typified by the fact that during extraction from any oneof the three Phases of development, there would be no extraction from theother two Phases of the development.

11.70 Mitigation measures to reduce the noise from normal operations areconsidered un-necessary however attention should still be paid to goodworking practices for reducing the impact of noisy operations detailed later inthis section.

On-Site Traffic Movements

11.71 The predicted noise levels produced by site-related heavy goods vehiclemovements have been calculated using the methodology for haul routescontained in BS5228:1997 Calculations have been undertaken using the


31/34

NOISE11

11.74 Heavy goods vehicle movements at the proposed development would occurbetween 07:00 and 17:00 hours. Table 11-6 shows the predicted noise levelproduced by heavy goods vehicle movements from the proposeddevelopment for each the receptors during the daytime period.

Table 11-6Predicted Noise Levels from HGV movements, free-field, dB

Location Predicted LAeq,T

1. Whitehill Cottages 47.7

2. Overburns Cottages 47.5

3. Loanhead 43.9

4. Langholm 43.9

5. Symington Mains Farm 38.5

6. Nether Hangingshaw 31.4

7. Broadfield 39.5

8. Coulterhaugh Cottages 26.9

11.75 The future ambient noise levels at each of the noise-sensitive receptors havebeen calculated by logarithmically adding the above total predicted noiselevels to the existing ambient noise levels.

11.76 Table 11-7 compares the predicted future ambient noise levels (with inclusionof the proposed HGV movements) with the impact scale set out in the draft

Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment produced by the Institute ofAcoustics/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment WorkingParty.

Table 11-7Predicted Ambient Noise Levels from HGV Movements, free-field, dB

Location Ambient Noise Level Difference Impact

Existing PredictedFuture

1. Whitehill House 43.3 49.0 +5.7 Moderate

2. Overburns Cottages 70.6 70.6 0 None

3. Loanhead 65.6 65.6 0 None

L h l Mi


32/34

NOISE11

interest in the development proceeding. In such circumstances the propertyis not considered to be restrictively noise-sensitive.

11.79 Based on the above, mitigation measures are considered unnecessary.

MITIGATION MEASURES

11.80 Surface mineral workings, by their nature, generate noise due to the use ofheavy equipment/machinery. During the proposed development, the potential

risk of noise would vary according to the type of activity being undertaken atthe time, its relative location to sensitive receptors and the effectiveness ofany noise control measures that are in place.

11.81 The design of the site layout and operational phasing incorporates severalfeatures that provide mitigation against potential noise nuisance, thesefeatures include but are not necessarily limited to:

the use of screening mounds; the selection of the quietest, appropriate plant available; and the use of broadband reverse warning systems on all mobile plant.

Good Practice in Noise Reduction

11.82 In addition to the noise mitigation measures incorporated into the site design,good site management and good working practices would also provide

additional noise mitigation. These measures would include the followingmeasures:

activities within the site would be undertaken in locations where noiseattenuation from existing natural landforms would maximise the benefitto the nearby noise-sensitive properties;

internal haul routes would, wherever possible, be routed such thatseparation distances to the noise-sensitive properties are maximised;

all haul roads would be kept clean and maintained in a good state ofrepair, i.e. any potholes would be filled and large bumps removed, toavoid unwanted rattle and body-slap from heavy goods vehicles;

heavy goods vehicles entering the site should have tailgates securelyfastened;

all mobile plant used at the proposed development would have noise


33/34

NLEGEND

APPLICATION AREA


34/34

02032

.00003

.17.O

Q11

-11

-1.0.N

oise

_Mon

_Locs

OVERBURNS QUARRY

2011 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS

OQ11 11/1

Scale

1:25,000 @ A3Date

JUNE 2011

4 WOODSIDE PLACECHARING CROSS

GLASGOWG3 7QF

T: 0141 353 5037F: 0141 353 5038

www.slrconsulting.com

E

S

W

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEYONBEHALF OF HMSO. CROWN COPYRIGHTAND DATABASE RIGHT

ALLRIGHTS RESERVED. LICENCE NUMBERAL100012293

OS DATALICENCE EXPIRATION: 28/07/2011

APPLICATION AREA

NOISE MONITORING

LOCATION

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

es volume 1 - chapters 10 (traffic) & 11 (noise)

Documents