12. Traffic and Transport

12.1. Introduction

1. This chapter presents the assessment of the likely significant effects (as per the “EIA Regulations, 2017”) on the environment of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm onshore transmission works (OnTW) (the Proposed Development) on traffic and transport. Specifically, this chapter considers the potential impact of the Proposed Development landward of Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) during the construction, operational and maintenance, and decommissioning phases.
2. This chapter summarises information contained within Volume 4, Appendix 12.1: Transport Assessment and Volume 4, 12.2 Abnormal Load Route Assessment Report[1] By Sweco.
3. This chapter is supported by the following figures:

Figure 12.1   Open ▸ : Study Area Road Links;

Figure 12.2   Open ▸ : Automatic Traffic Count Location Plan;

Figure 12.3   Open ▸ : Accident Location Plan; and

Figure 12.4   Open ▸ : Construction Vehicle Delivery Routes.

12.2. Purpose of this Chapter

4. This chapter:

presents the existing environmental baseline established from desk studies, site-specific surveys and consultation with stakeholders;

identifies any assumptions and limitations encountered in compiling the environmental information;

presents the potential environmental impacts on traffic and transport arising from the Proposed Development, and reaches a conclusion on the likely significant effects on traffic and transport based on the information gathered and the analysis and assessments undertaken; and

highlights any monitoring and/or mitigation measures recommended to prevent, minimise, reduce or offset the likely significant adverse environmental effects of the Proposed Development on Traffic and Transport.

12.3. Study Area

5. The traffic and transport study area includes local roads that are likely to experience increased traffic flows resulting from the Proposed Development. The geographic scope was determined through a review of Ordnance Survey (OS) plans and an assessment of the potential origin locations of construction staff and supply locations for construction materials.
6. Access for construction materials for each of the elements of the Proposed Development (onshore substation, cable landfall and onshore cable route) will be via the A1 trunk road (A1(T)) and subsequently by the local road network. The routes are described as follows:

onshore substation – construction traffic will depart the A1(T) at Innerwick junction and will continue towards the onshore substation site via the unclassified road to the north of Innerwick.

cable landfall – construction vehicles will leave the A1(T) at access to Skateraw and will continue towards the cable landfall site via the unclassified road to Skateraw and subsequently via the existing access track beyond the entrance to Skateraw beach car park.

onshore cable route – There will be several anticipated construction vehicle site accesses associated with the onshore cable route sites, which are as follows:

-            Cable (1 – 3) Sites – Construction vehicles will leave the A1 (T) at the A1 (T) / Skateraw priority junction and will continue towards the site access via the unclassified road to Skateraw;

-            Cable (4) Site – Construction vehicles will leave the A1 (T) and access the site via a newly formed left-in access junction from the A1 (T). Vehicles exiting the site will egress via the road which crosses under the East Coast Main Line and subsequently through Skateraw and the A1 (T) / Skateraw priority junction. Larger vehicles will exit via the newly formed left-in / left-out junction due to the height constraints of the ECML bridge;

-            Cable (5) Sites – Construction vehicles will leave the A1 (T) at Innerwick junction and join the local road network. Approximately 70 m after the Innerwick junction, vehicles will turn left towards Crowhill / Oldhamstocks. Approximately 180 m along this road, vehicles will access the Cable (5) site via a newly upgraded access junction. Vehicles will access /egress the site at this location.

-            Cable (6 – 8) Sites – Construction vehicles will leave the A1 (T) at Innerwick junction and join the local road network. Approximately 70 m after the Innerwick junction, vehicles will turn left towards Crowhill / Oldhamstocks and will continue along this road until they reach their respective accesses; and

-            Cable (9) Site – Construction vehicles will leave the A1 (T) at Innerwick junction and join the local road network. Approximately 70 m after the Innerwick junction, vehicles will turn left towards Crowhill / Oldhamstocks and will continue along this road and across Thornton Bridge towards the site access. Should access for larger vehicles over the Thornton Bridge not be feasible, they are anticipated to access this area of the site via C8 and over the proposed cable bridge crossing.

7. The location of each of the separate access points is presented in Volume 4, Appendix 12.1 and Volume 2, Figure 12.4   Open ▸ The access junctions will be designed in accordance with appropriate standards.
8. The study network includes roads within the following areas which will be impacted by construction traffic delivering materials to each of the elements of the Proposed Development:

The A1 (T) between Easter Pinkerton and Bilsdean;

The local road network in Skateraw; and

The local road network around Innerwick and Thorntonloch, including the U209, the C121, the C122 and the C124.

9. The study area road links are presented in Volume 2, Figure 12.1   Open ▸

12.4. Policy and Legislative context

10. Policy in relation to traffic and transport, is set out in Volume 4, Appendix 12.1 of the Onshore EIA Report. A summary of the policy provisions relevant to traffic and transport is provided in Table 12.1   Open ▸ below.
11. It should be noted that there is no legislation specific to the Traffic and Transport assessment which should be considered as part of this Chapter.

Table 12.1:  Summary of Policies Relevant to Traffic and Transport

12.5. Consultation

12. A summary of the key issues raised during consultation activities undertaken to date specific to traffic and transport is presented in Table 12.2   Open ▸ below, together with how these issues have been considered in the production of this traffic and transport chapter. Further detail is presented within Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report and the Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report.

Table 12.2:  Summary of Key Consultation Undertaken for the Proposed Development Relevant to Traffic and Transport

12.6. Methodology to Inform Baseline

13. The baseline review focused on the nature of the surrounding road infrastructure and the current level of traffic use and was informed by desktop studies and field surveys.

12.6.1.              Desktop Study

14. Information on traffic and transport within the traffic and transport study area was collected through a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets. These are summarised in Table 12.3:               Summary of Key Desktop Studies & Datasets

Table 12.3:  Summary of Key Desktop Studies & Datasets

12.6.2.              Site-Specific Surveys

To inform the traffic and transport impact assessment, site-specific surveys were undertaken in the form of Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) volume and speed surveys. These were undertaken in November and December 2021, over the extent of the traffic and transport study area. Survey locations are shown in Volume 2, Figure 12.2   Open ▸

12.7. Baseline Environment

12.7.1.              Overview of Baseline Environment

Current Baseline

15. In order to establish a baseline for the traffic and transport assessment, traffic flow data for within the traffic and transport survey area was obtained from Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) volume and speed surveys which were undertaken over a 7-day period at the following locations:

               1. Skateraw;

               2. C122 (near Thurston Doggy Daycare);

               3. U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace);

               4. C121 (north of Border Belles);

               5. C124 (near Blackberry Farm Paddocks); and

               6. C121 (Barns Ness Terrace).

16. ATC surveys were undertaken at survey locations 2 – 6 between Wednesday 24th to Tuesday 30th November 2021, while ATC surveys were undertaken at survey location 1 between Friday 3rd to Thursday 9th December as the equipment was damaged during the initial survey. The difference in dates by one week is not considered to affect the validity of the traffic survey results in this assessment.
17. Traffic flows for the A1 (T) were obtained from the Transport Scotland (TS) database for the nearest count point to the site and comprised 2019 data, so as not to be affected by Covid-19 travel restrictions:

               7. A1(T) Thortonloch – TS Count Point JTC00418.

18. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that traffic flows along the A1(T), to the west of Innerwick junction, will equate to the traffic recorded at TS Count Point JTC00418:

               8. A1(T) west of Innerwick Junction.

19. To factor the 2019 traffic flows obtained from the TS database to 2021 flows, National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF) low growth factors were applied. The NRTF low growth factor from 2019 to 2021 is 1.016.
20. The traffic data was split into vehicle classes and summarised into Cars / Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs) and HGVs (buses and all goods vehicles > 3.5 tonnes gross maximum weight). The locations of the traffic count sites are presented in Figure 12.2   Open ▸ : ATC Traffic Count Locations.
21. A summary of the results for the average daily traffic flows are shown in Table 12.4.

Table 12.4:  Average Daily Traffic Flows (2021)

Please note minor variances due to rounding may occur.

22. The two-way five-day average and 85th percentile speeds observed at the count locations are summarised below in Table 12.5.

Table 12.5:  Speed Summary (Weekday Average Two Way Flows) MPH

*2021 two-way seven-day average and 85th percentile speeds

**There is no speed data available at count location no. 8, as this is an estimated count location based on traffic flows sourced from count location 7

23. A review of the speed survey data suggests that there is compliance with current speed limits within the traffic and transport study area.

Accident Review

24. Road traffic accident data was extracted for the last available five year period between January 2016 and December 2021 within the traffic and transport study area from the Crashmap website.
25. A total of 14 accidents were recorded within the traffic and transport study area over the five year study period, of which 10 accidents were classified as slight and four as serious.
26. A total of 13 accidents were recorded along the A1 (T) within the traffic and transport study area and one was recorded along an unnamed road approximately 300m north-west of Bilsdean.
27. Four accidents which were recorded as slight were recorded along the A1 (T) in the vicinity of the Torness Power Station access.
28. The locations of the accidents are presented in Volume 2, Figure 12.3   Open ▸ : Accident Location Plan and further information is provided in Volume 4, Appendix 12.1 Transport Assessment.

Cycle and Pedestrian Network

29. Within the traffic and transport study area Core Path 309 connects to Core Path 310 and comprises a tarred path which runs along the boundary of the A1 (T), within the eastern section of the site.
30. Core Path 196 connects to Core Path 197 and forms part of John Muir Way Link route. Core Path 187 also forms part of John Muir Way Link. The locations of the Core Paths are presented in Volume 4, Appendix 12.1.
31. National Cycle Route 76 is located within the site and comprises both on-road and off-road cycle route and connects Edinburgh to Musselburgh, Haddington and Skateraw in the east.

East Coast Main Line

32. The East Coast Main Line (ECML) railway lines travels through the study area, running adjacent to, and crossing, the A1 trunk road. The line is 936 miles in length and links Aberdeen and Edinburgh to London.

12.7.2.              Future Baseline Scenario

33. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, require that a “a description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (the “baseline scenario”) and an outline of the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the development as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort, on the basis of the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge” is included within the Onshore EIA Report.
34. In order to ensure that the Proposed Development is assessed against a realistic baseline scenario, i.e. what the baseline conditions are likely to be once the Proposed Development is operational, a description of the likely future baseline conditions is provided within this section.
35. It is anticipated that construction of the Proposed Development will commence in 2025 and will take approximately 40 months to complete. For the purpose of the traffic and transport assessment, it is proposed that future year which is assessed as the future year baseline will be the year when which it is anticipated that the peak construction period will occur. (i.e. 2026).
36. The NRTF low growth factor for 2021 to 2026 is 1.027. These factors were applied to the 2021 traffic flows in Table 12.4 to estimate the 2026 Base traffic flows, which are shown in Table 12.6.

Table 12.6:  Average Daily Traffic Flows (2026)

37. If the Proposed Development did not proceed, traffic growth will occur and the links within the study network will experience increased traffic flows resulting from other development pressures, tourism traffic and population flows.

Identified Receptors Following Baseline Review

38. Following a review of the baseline information within the study area, the below receptors have been identified and will be considered in the assessment further in the chapter:

Skateraw residents;

Innerwick residents;

Residents along C121;

Residents along C124;

Skateraw road users;

C122 road users;

U209 road users;

C121 road users;

C124 road users

A1 (T) road users; and

Core Path users.

12.7.3.              Data Assumptions And Limitations

39. The assessment is based upon average traffic flows in one month periods. During the peak month, activities at the site may fluctuate between one day and another and at this stage of the development process it is not possible to fully develop a day by day traffic flow estimate as no Balance of Plant (BoP) contractor has been appointed. It should be noted that external factors can impact upon activities on a day by day basis (weather conditions, availability of materials, time of year, etc). 
40. Traffic data was obtained from existing TS database for 2019 flows as these were not affected by travel restrictions associated with the Covid-19 pandemic.  A NRTF low growth factor was applied to these flows to forecast 2021 flows.
41. Although some data assumptions and limitations have been identified, it should be noted that the information presented within the assessment is sufficient to identify and assess the likely significant environmental effects on traffic and transport.

12.8. Key Parameters for Assessment

12.8.1.              Maximum Design Scenario

42. The maximum design scenario relating to Traffic and Transport is during the peak month of the Construction Phase which has been selected as having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. This scenario has been selected from the details provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Onshore EIA Report. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Design Envelope (e.g. different infrastructure layout), to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.
43. Peak month construction activities will see an average 669 two-way journeys, of which 522 will be Cars & LGVs and 147 will be HGVs.
44. Construction traffic data presented in this chapter will be used to inform Chapter 9: Noise.
45. Potential effects considered within this assessment are an increase in traffic flows as a result of the Proposed Development, which can cause the following impacts;

 severance;

driver delay;

pedestrian delay;

pedestrian amenity;

fear and intimidation; and

accidents.

46. These are defined within Section 12.9 below.

12.8.2.              Impacts Scoped out of the Assessment

47. Impacts scoped out of the assessment were agreed with key stakeholders through consultation. These, together with a justification, are presented in Table 12.7   Open ▸

Table 12.7:  Impacts Scoped Out of the Assessment for Traffic and Transport (tick denotes scoped out)

12.9. Methodology For Assessment of Effects

12.9.1.              Overview

48. The traffic and transport assessment of effects has broadly followed the methodology set out in Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report. Specific to the assessment of traffic and transport, the following guidance documents have also been considered:

Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic;

Institution of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (2005) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (the ‘IEMA Guidelines’); and

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2020) LA 104 – Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Impact Assessment Criteria.  

49. The following rules, also taken from the IEMA Guidelines are used to determine which links within the traffic and transport study area should be considered for detailed assessment:

Rule 1 – include highway links where traffic flows are predicted to increase by more than 30% (or where the number of heavy goods vehicles is predicted to increase by more than 30%); and

Rule 2 – include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows are predicted to increase by 10% or more.

50. Examples of sensitive areas include hospitals, churches, schools and historical buildings, as well as locations where it is felt that specific environmental problems may occur, such as accident black-spots and links with high pedestrian flows etc.
51. The IEMA Guidelines identify the key impacts that are most important when assessing the magnitude of traffic impacts from an individual development: the impacts and levels of magnitude are discussed below:

Severance – the IEMA Guidelines states that, “severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes separated by a major traffic artery.” Further, “Changes in traffic of 30%, 60%, and 90% are regarded as producing ‘slight’, ‘moderate’, and ‘substantial’ [or minor, moderate, and major] changes in severance respectively”. However, the Guidelines acknowledge that “the measurement and prediction of severance is extremely difficult”. (Para 4.28);

Driver delay – the IEMA Guidelines note that these delays are only likely to be “significant [or major] when the traffic on the network surrounding the development is already at, or close to, the capacity of the system.” (Para 4.32);

Pedestrian delay – the delay to pedestrians, as with driver delay, is likely only to be major when the traffic on the network surrounding the development is already at, or close to, the capacity of the system. An increase in total traffic of approximately 30% can double the delay experienced by pedestrians attempting to cross the road and would be considered major;

Pedestrian amenity – the IEMA Guidelines suggests that a tentative threshold for judging the significance of changes in pedestrian amenity would be where the traffic flow (or its lorry component) is halved or doubled (Para 4.39). It is therefore considered that a change in the traffic flow of -50% or +100% would produce a major change in pedestrian amenity;

Fear and intimidation – there are no commonly agreed thresholds for estimating levels of fear and intimidation, from known traffic and physical conditions. However, as the impact is considered to be sensitive to traffic flow, changes in traffic flow of 30%, 60% and 90% are regarded as producing minor, moderate and major changes respectively; and

Accidents and safety – professional judgement would be used to assess the implications of local circumstances, or factors which may elevate or lessen risks of accidents.

52. While not specifically identified, as more vulnerable road users, cyclists are considered in similar terms to pedestrians.
53. To determine the overall significance of effects, the results from the receptor sensitivity and magnitude of change assessments are correlated and classified using a scale set out in Table 3.4N of DMRB LA104 – Environmental Assessment and Monitoring, and presented in Table 12.8.

Table 12.8:  Magnitude of Impact and Typical Descriptions

Criteria for Assessing the Sensitivity of Receptors

54. The IEMA Guidelines notes that the separate ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993) document should be used to characterise the environmental traffic and transport effects (off-site effects) and the assessment of significance of major new developments. These guidelines intend to complement professional judgement and the experience of trained assessors.
55. In terms of traffic and transport impacts, the receptors are the users of the roads within the traffic and transport study area and the locations through which those roads pass.
56. The IEMA Guidelines includes guidance on how the sensitivity of receptors should be assessed. Using that as a base, professional judgement was used to develop a classification of sensitivity for users based on the characteristics of roads and locations. This is summarised in Table 12.9.
57. Determining the significance of effects is a two-stage process that involves defining the magnitude of the potential impacts and the sensitivity of the receptors. This section describes the criteria applied in this chapter to assign values to the magnitude of potential impacts and the sensitivity of the receptors. The terms used to define magnitude and sensitivity are based on those which are described in further detail in Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report.
58. The criteria for defining sensitivity in this chapter are outlined in Table 12.9   Open ▸ below.

Table 12.9:  Definition of Terms Relating to the Sensitivity of the Receptor

59. Where a road passes through a given location, road users (pedestrian, cyclists, drivers, etc) are considered subject to the highest level of sensitivity defined by either the road or location characteristics.
60. The significance of the effect upon traffic and transport is determined by correlating the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the receptor, as outlined in Table 12.10   Open ▸ below.

Table 12.10:  Matrix Used for the Assessment of the Significance of the Effect

61. Effects would be considered to be significant where they are assessed to be Large or Moderate. Where an effect could be one of Large/Moderate or Moderate/Slight significance, professional judgement would be used to determine which option should be applicable.

12.10. Primary & tertiary mitigation

62. As part of the Proposed Development design process, a number of measures have been proposed to reduce the potential for impacts on traffic and transport (see Table 12.11:               ). These include measures which have been incorporated as part of the Proposed Development’s design (referred to as ‘primary mitigation’) and measures which will be implemented regardless of the impact assessment (referred to as ‘tertiary mitigation’). As there is a commitment to implementing these measures, they are considered inherently part of the design of the Proposed Development and have therefore been considered in the assessment presented in Table 12.11 below (i.e. the determination of magnitude and therefore significance assumes implementation of these measures). These measures are considered standard industry practice for this type of development.

Table 12.11:  Measure Adopted as Part of the Proposed Development (Primary & Tertiary Mitigation)

63. Further details of the mitigation measures outlined in Table 12.11   Open ▸ are presented in EIA Volume 4, Appendix 12.1: Transport Assessment., including a framework CTMRP.

12.11. Assessment of Significance

64. Table 12.12   Open ▸ details the receptors (as previously identified in baseline review) and their sensitivities for use within the traffic and transport impact assessment. A justification for the sensitivity has been provided, based upon the methodology contained in Table 12.9.

Table 12.12:  Receptor Sensitivity

65. Based on the indicators which are stated within the IEMA Guidelines outlined in Section 12.9.2 (where ‘sensitive areas’ are defined to include hospitals, churches, schools and historical buildings, as well as locations where it is felt that specific environmental problems may occur), the following are identified as sensitive areas in this assessment and will therefore be subject to ‘Rule 2’ of the IEMA Guidelines which requires a full assessment of effects if the locations are subject to an increase in 10% of traffic:

Innerwick Residents; and

Core Path Users.

66. All other locations within the study area are subject to ‘Rule 1’ and are assessed if traffic flows (or HGV flows) on highway links increase by more than 30%.

Construction Phase Activities Generating Increased Traffic

67. During the anticipated 40 month construction period, the following traffic will require access to the site:

Staff transport, either cars or staff minibuses;

Construction equipment and materials, deliveries of machinery and supplies such as cement; and

Abnormal loads consisting of transformers, reactors, cable drums, and cranes.

68. Average monthly traffic flow data were used to establish the construction trips associated with the Proposed Development and are detailed in Volume 4, Appendix 12.1. The trip estimates have been based upon first principle estimates of traffic movements to and from the site, having established the likely volumes of construction materials, resources and components.
69. It is proposed that material associated with the construction phase of the Proposed Development will be sourced from the Central Belt and will be delivered to the site via the A1 (T).
70. Investigations are underway to identify the Port of Entry (PoE) for abnormal loads.
71. The trip estimates have been assigned to the proposed construction programme to allow the identification of the peak of construction traffic to be established. The proposed construction programme is also provided in Volume 4, Appendix 12.1.
72. The peak of construction traffic activity was identified as being Month 14 of the programme. The traffic associated with this month was then assigned to the study area network using the distribution of traffic described within Volume 4, Appendix 12.1.
73. The anticipated peak traffic flows associated with the Proposed Development’s construction phase results in an average of 669 movements per day (335 trips in and 335 trips out), of which 522 would be made by light vehicles (261 inbound and 261 outbound) and 147 by HGV (74 inbound and 74 outbound).
74. The construction traffic was compared against the future baseline traffic (without construction traffic) (Table 12.16) to estimate the increase in traffic associated with this phase of the proposed Development. Table 12.13   Open ▸ illustrates the potential traffic impact at the peak of construction activity.

Table 12.13:  2026 Future Baseline + Construction Traffic

Please note minor variances may occur due to rounding.

75. With reference to the IEMA Guidelines, total traffic movements are predicted to increase by more than 30% at the Skateraw access road and U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace).
76. The table suggests that total traffic flows are expected to increase by 179.6% along the road leading to Skateraw while the HGV flows are anticipated to increase by 117.2%. Although the increase in traffic flows is statistically significant, they are mainly caused by relatively low total and HGV flows along Skateraw road which sees an additional 262 Cars & LGVs and 59 HGV daily two-way journeys during the peak month. This represents a total of approximately thirteen inbound trips every hour, which is not considered significant in terms of traffic operations.
77. The U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace) is expected to see an increase of total traffic flows by 157.6% in the peak month, which includes an increase in HGV flows by 194.0%. This is mainly attributed to the relatively low baseline traffic flows along this road. While the increase in traffic flows is statistically significant, it is generally caused by relatively low total and HGV flows along the U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace) which will anticipate an additional 170 Cars & LGVs and 52 HGV daily two-way journeys during the peak month. This represents a total of approximately seven inbound Car & LGVs trips and less than two HGV trips every hour which is not considered significant in terms of overall traffic flow terms.
78. Therefore, following a review of the anticipated traffic impacts relating to construction, the following receptors should be assessed further:

Skateraw Users;

U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace) Users; and

Core Path Users.

79. It should be noted that construction phase is transitory in nature and the peak of construction activities is short lived.
80. A review of existing road capacity has been undertaken using the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 15, Part 5 “The NESA Manual”. The theoretical road capacity has been estimated by calculating the number of vehicles per hour per direction for each of the road links for a 12-hour period. The results are summarised in Table 12.14   Open ▸ .

Table 12.14:  2026 Future Baseline + Construction Traffic – Flows and Impact

Please note minor variances may occur due to rounding.

81. The results indicate that there are no road capacity issues resulting from trips associated with the Proposed Development as the 2026 Base + Development Flows are much lower than the theoretical road capacity for each of the assessed roads. Table 12.15 shows that ample spare capacity exists within the trunk and local road network to accommodate construction phase traffic.

Magnitude of impact

82. The impacts of traffic associated with the construction phase of the Proposed Development on the identified receptors, prior to the application of any mitigation measures, are as follows:

Skateraw Users –

-            Severance: Total increase in traffic flows greater than 90% (179.6% outlined Table 12.13), the increase in traffic may also lead to possible severance between farms. The magnitude of impact is therefore considered major.

-            Driver delay: It is anticipated that there will approximately 98% spare theoretical road capacity (Table 12.14), magnitude of impact is considered negligible, as it is not expected that the addition of construction traffic will lead to congestion issues over a 12-hour period

-            Pedestrian Delay: There are no pedestrian facilities along Skateraw, and it is assumed that there would be a low number of pedestrian users, however this road is considered as a “Suggested links on quiet roads” on East Lothian Core Maps (Map K)[6], the magnitude of impact is therefore considered minor.

-            Pedestrian Amenity: The increase in traffic along this road is over 100%, however due to the lack of pedestrian facilities and the assumed low number of pedestrian users, the magnitude of impact is considered minor.

-            Fear and Intimidation: The total increase in traffic flows is greater than 90% and it should also be noted that HGV traffic is also to be over 90%. However, as the baseline traffic is considered low and the assumed number of pedestrian users is also assumed to be low. It should be noted that Skateraw road is located next to the A1, and as such there will be familiarity with HGV traffic, as well as good visibility along Skateraw road. The magnitude is considered moderate.

-            Accidents and Safety: The accident analysis indicated that no accidents were recorded along this road within the study period,  and so there is no indication of accident trends along this road due to the layout of the road. The magnitude of impact is therefore considered to be minor.

-             

83. Summary of magnitude of impact of construction traffic on Skateraw Users – The overall magnitude prior to the application of any mitigation measures would be major. The application of primary and tertiary mitigation measures such as the CTMRP would reduce this impact to minor. The impact of the construction phase on Skateraw Users is direct, short term and intermittent.

Users U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace) –

-            Severance: Total increase in traffic flows greater than 90% (157.6% outlined Table 12.13) and this road provides a link between businesses to the east of Innerwick and the A1 (T). The magnitude of impact is therefore considered major.

-            Driver delay: It is anticipated that there will approximately 89% theoretical road capacity (Table 12.14), magnitude of impact is considered negligible.

-            Pedestrian Delay: There are no pedestrian facilities along U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace), however this road is considered as a “Suggested links on quiet roads” on East Lothian Core Maps (Map K)[7]. It should also be noted that there no dwellings along this road. The magnitude of impact is therefore considered minor.

-            Pedestrian Amenity: The increase in traffic along this road is over 100%, however, it is assumed that there is low pedestrian flow along this road as there are no dwellings along this road and the surroundings are rural in nature. The magnitude of impact is considered minor.

-            Fear and Intimidation: The total increase in traffic flows is greater than 90% and it should also be noted that HGV traffic is also to be over 90%. However, as the baseline traffic is considered low and the assumed number of pedestrian users as well, the magnitude is considered moderate.

-            Accidents and Safety: The accident analysis indicated that no accidents were recorded along this road within the study period, and so there is no indication of accident trends along this road due to the layout of the road. The magnitude of impact is therefore considered to be minor.

84. Summary of magnitude of the impact of construction traffic on Users U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace) – The overall magnitude prior to the application of any mitigation measures would be major. The application of primary and tertiary mitigation measures such as the CTMRP would reduce this impact to minor. The impact of the construction phase on Users of U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace) is direct, short term and intermittent.

Core Path Users –

-            Severance: Total increase in traffic flows is expected to be greater than 90%, and the Core Paths will be severed by the construction of the Landfall element, the magnitude of impact is therefore considered major.

-            Driver delay: The magnitude of impact for driver delay along the Core Paths is considered negligible.

-            Pedestrian Delay: The magnitude of impact regarding pedestrian delay on the Core Paths is considered major, as there would previously not have been traffic in the vicinity of the Core Paths.

-            Pedestrian Amenity: The magnitude of impact is considered major as there will be traffic in the vicinity of the Core Path network where there previously would have been no traffic.

-            Fear and Intimidation: As there would previously not have been traffic in the vicinity of the Core Paths, the increase in traffic will be greater than 90%, therefore the magnitude of impact is considered major.

-            Accidents and Safety: As there is to be an increase in traffic flows of over 90% along this road, the magnitude of impact is considered to be moderate.

-            The impact of the construction phase on Core Path Users is direct, short term and intermittent. The overall magnitude is major.

85. Summary of magnitude of the impact of construction traffic on Core Path Users –The overall magnitude of impact prior to the application of any mitigation measures would be major. The application of primary and tertiary mitigation measures such as the CTMRP would reduce this impact to minor. The impact of the construction phase on the Core Path Users is direct, short term and intermittent.
86. In conclusion, the impacts are predicted to be of local spatial extent, short term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the construction impact will affect the receptors directly.

Sensitivity of the receptor

87. The sensitivity of the receptors brought forward for assessment as a result of the impact of traffic associated with the construction phase of the Proposed Development which have been previously described in Table 12.12   Open ▸ , and are as follows:

Skateraw Users – High Sensitivity;

Users U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace) – High Sensitivity; and

Core Path Users – High Sensitivity.

88. For each of the receptors listed in the above, the vulnerability as a result of traffic associated with the construction phase is high, without the inclusion of any mitigation measures.
89. The recoverability once the construction phase is complete is high. It is expected that once the construction phase has been completed that traffic characteristics in the study area will return to pre-construction trends.

Significance of Effect

90. The likely significance of effects has been determined using the guidance and thresholds discussed above in the Impact Assessment Criteria section of this chapter.
91. The assessment of the significance of effect has assumed that primary and tertiary mitigation measures, which includes the CTMRP, are in place and an assessment of the likely effects has been undertaken using the previously described thresholds. The results of this for each of the receptors are presented in Table 12.15   Open ▸ :

Table 12.15:  Overall Construction Phase Effects Summary

92. Table 12.15   Open ▸ details that Skateraw Users, Users of U209 (north of Barns Ness Terrace) and Core Path Users are not deemed significant prior to the introduction of secondary mitigation measures.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

Secondary Mitigation

93. Although none of the effects shown in Table 12.15 are anticipated to be significant following the implementation of primary and tertiary mitigation measures, the following secondary mitigation will complement the primary and tertiary mitigation measures outlined in Table 12.11 to reduce the significance of effects associated with construction traffic during the construction phase.