A6 RUSHDEN – HIGHAM FERRERS BYPASS ... - Highways Agency

Landscape5.12 The AST predicted the scheme to have a neutral effect on the Landscape sub-objectivebut the ES did not give an overall assessment of effect. The AST would appear to haveunderestimated the effect of the bypass, as the effect of such a scheme on the landscapeis considered to be adverse.5.13 In general the proposed improvements and mitigation have been carried out as proposedin the ES. The very outline nature of the description of the mitigation in the ES makes ameaningful comparison difficult. In some areas, notably the inclusion of further screenmounding towards the southern end of the scheme the mitigation is more extensive thanproposed in the ES. There is a continuing problem with noxious weed infestation whichhasn’t been eradicated during the maintenance period. Overall the landscape proposalshave been successful with only limited areas of plant failures notably at the footpathcrossing to Rushden which has been subject to ongoing vandalism and plant theft.5.14 The predicted effects and the evaluation of the landscape sub-objective is summarised inTable 5.4.Table 5. 4 – Predicted Effects and Evaluation of the Landscape Sub-objectiveOrigin ofAssessmentSummary of Predicted EffectAssessmentAST No significant impact NeutralESTIn general the improvements and mitigation have been carriedout as proposed in the ESWorse thanexpectedBiodiversity5.15 The AST predicted the scheme to have a neutral effect on the Biodiversity sub-objectivewhilst the ES made no prediction.5.16 In general the effect of the scheme on the biodiversity has been as expected in the ESwith the mitigation measures described having been implemented. A number of ecologicalsurveys were carried out after the ES was published which lead to additional mitigationmeasures being proposed5.17 Additional mitigation in the form of an artificial badger sett and tunnel under the bypasshave been created, in a response to finding a badger sett close to the line of the routeafter the ES was published. No formal evaluation has been carried out but discussionswith the badger sub consultant suggest that the sett is used but the tunnel is subject toperiodic flooding. Badger netting is also included in the northern section of the route wherebadger activity was recorded.5.18 The effect of the scheme on bat, otters, water voles and great crested newts was notconsidered in the ES as these species were not present.5.19 Table B. contains the effects predicted in the ES on the Biodiversity sub-objective, theproposed mitigation measures and an evaluation of the effect one year after the schemeopened.48