raf valley runway 13- 31, taxiway and agl · pdf fileraf valley runway 13-31, taxiway and agl...

i

RAF Valley Runway 13-31, Taxiway and AGL Refurbishment

Sustainability Appraisal

April 2015

Prepared for: Defence Infrastructure Organisation UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND

Defence Infrastructure Organisation

RAF Valley Runway 13-31 Refurbishment & Associated Works

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

April 2015

v Date Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

1.0 Mar-13 Initial Issue Bruce Sharpe

Associate

Richard Field

PSP PM

Ivan Rodriguez

Technical Director

2.0 Sept-14 Work stages 4-5 issue Hazel Weston

Principal Consultant

Kat Radford

Consultant

Martin Love

Associate

3.0 April 15 Work stages 4-5 issue following Derived Design completion

Hazel Weston

Principal Consultant

Richard Field

Project Manager

AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

Scott House

Alençon Link

Basingstoke

Hampshire

RG21 7PP

Telephone: +44 (0) 1256 310 200 Fax: +44 (0) 1256 310 201

Prepared by AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd for the Ministry of Defence, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, under Contract Number CTCOMM1/0096 on, see date above




April 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 1

2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 2

3 SITE DETAILS ............................................................................... 3

4 PROJECT DETAILS ...................................................................... 5

5 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ................... 6

6 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY ...................... 7

7 RESULTS OF SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL ............................ 8

APPENDIX 3B - SCHEDULE OF STATUTORY ASSESSMENTS, CONSENTS AND LICENCES.. ………………………………………10

APPENDIX 3C - APPRAISAL MATRICES ......................................10

APPENDIX 3D - SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT PRO-FORMA

REPORT ...........................................................................................10




April 2015

1

1 SUMMARY

1.1 This report comprises a Sustainability Appraisal that addresses the impacts of the option (Option

6) that has been chosen for the Runway 13-31 refurbishment project at RAF Valley. It has been

carried out by AECOM in accordance with the methodology contained in Defence Estates’

Sustainability Appraisal Handbook for the MOD Estate (Version 6.0 – March 20011).

1.2 Option 6 within the Assessment Study comprises refurbishment and strengthening of the

pavements , with re-profiling to address the longitudinal and transverse non-compliances with

MAD&S standards, refurbishment of the parallel taxiways, rehabilitation of aircraft standing aprons,

replacement of all Airfield Ground Lighting, consequential works to the arrestor gear and net

barriers at the runway ends, construction of a new perimeter road, re-provision of caravan

hardstand and access track, de-lethalisation and fencing to the approach lighting.

1.3 The results of the Appraisal (described in more detail in Section 7 below) indicate that overall the

sustainability impact of the project on the site and its environs is:

For Option 6

Minor negative in the short term

Neutral in the long term

1.4 Recommendations for potential actions to enhance the benefits of the positive sustainability

impacts and mitigate the adverse effects of the negative sustainability impacts have been made.

Details of these recommendations are included within Appendix 3C to this report

1.5 The proposed procurement, design and execution of Option 6 has additionally been pre-assessed

independently using the Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme

(CEEQUAL) methodology.




April 2015

2

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 This Sustainability Appraisal was carried out in accordance with the methodology set out in the

SEAT Handbook (Sustainability Appraisal Handbook for the MOD Estate (Version 6.0 – March

2011). Defence Estates Sustainability Strategy and Policy Team, Ministry of Defence.)

2.2 This report comprises an executive summary, an introduction, a brief description of the site and

project, a description of the methodology and a summary of the findings of the appraisal. There are

3 appendices (formatted in conformance with the relevant model Appendices in the SEAT

handbook). These comprise a draft schedule of Statutory Assessments, Consents and Licences

(Appendix 3B), an Appraisal Matrices (Appendix 3C) and the Sustainability Assessment Report

pro-forma (Appendix 3D).

2.3 The predicted sustainability performance of Option 6 has also been examined by AECOM under

the CEEQUAL Version 5 Sustainability Performance Assessment methodology, on a Whole Team

Award basis. A report of this exercise is available from the AECOM Sustainability Team.




April 2015

3

3 SITE DETAILS

3.1 RAF Valley is situated on the island of Anglesey, north west Wales. It was constructed in the latter

part of 1940 and opened for operations on 1 February 1941. It provides fast-jet training using the

BAE Systems Hawk and also provides training for aircrew working with Search and Rescue.

Babcock Defence services maintain all the Hawk aircraft at RAF Valley.

3.2 No. 4 Flying Training School is based at Valley. This unit takes RAF and Royal Navy pilots from No.

1 Flying Training School at RAF Linton-on-Ouse and trains them to fly fast jets, prior to training on an

Operational Conversion Unit. No. 4 Flying Training School is divided into two squadrons; 208

Squadron provides legacy Hawk T1 advanced flying training and tactical weapons training. 4

Squadron flies the Hawk T2. Valley is also home to C Flight of 22 Squadron, operating with Sea King

helicopters.

3.3 The airfield is also used as Anglesey Airport for civilian flights by arrangement with the Welsh

Assembly Government. A separate terminal facility was constructed in 2007.

3.4 RAF Valley has three runways, with lengths of 1,280m, 1,639m and 2,290m. The subject of the

refurbishment works is 13/31, the longest runway. A relief landing ground is available at RAF Mona,

nearby on Anglesey.

3.5 The last remedial work on 13/31 runway was resurfacing, carried out in 1995. Several recent reports

advised resurfacing of the main runway 13/31 to be carried out by 2012. Additionally, the

substructure across the runway and associated taxiways is in need of repair. A core sampling

exercise conducted in 2009 advised that the remaining sub-structure is now starting to break-up and

it was operationally imperative that replacement should have been completed by December 2013.

This has not yet taken place.

3.6 It is suspected, based on findings at similar airfields that a tar-bound layer of material may exist

within the runway sub-structure. This would present difficulties in implementing the policy aim of

recycling all the arisings from the refurbishment works.

3.7 The airfield is bound on the northern edge by a railway and to the south is the coast. A major coastal

footpath runs close to the southern perimeter. It is understood that there are a number of SSSI in the

local vicinity of RAF Valley.

3.8 Figure 1 below indicates the location of the runways in relationship to the remainder of the

establishment and the surrounding landscape and development.




April 2015

4

Figure 1 - Map of RAF Valley site




April 2015

5

4 PROJECT DETAILS

4.1 The objectives of the project are:

(a) To reconstruct and resurface the entire length of the main 13/31 runway and relevant taxiways

to Load Classification Grade (LCG) IV. The reconstruction is to include the refurbishment of the

Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) thresholds including turnouts and the concrete surfaces at

both the 13 and 31 ends of the runway. The runway is to be of sufficient standard and strength

to accommodate Hawk, Hawk T2, the Sea King and various visiting aircraft, including the

Typhoon and Tucano.

(b) To upgrade and/or replace completely, as appropriate, all visual aids, runway and taxiway

lighting services and associated circuit components, power supply units etc. This must comply

with the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding

(MAD&S).

4.2 The completed infrastructure, including the pavement markings and signage for the 13/31 runway,

is required to comply fully with the current MAD&S standards.




April 2015

6

5 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS

5.1 The MoD has a commitment to implement the Government’s strategy for sustainable development:

Greening Government Commitments (GGC). This means that each project is required to consider

the full range of economic, environmental and social impacts throughout project implementation

and in the operation of the Estate.

5.2 The SEAT protocol requires that at stage 4, a detailed Sustainability Appraisal is carried out,

addressing the sub-objectives within each of the appraisal themes of the preferred option. All

elements of the Appraisal should be reviewed including:

a. Completed 'Evaluation of Requirements for Statutory Assessments' – Appendix 3B

b. Summary Sustainability Appraisal Matrices – Appendix 3C

d. Completed Project Proforma – Appendix 3D

c. Consideration of Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme

(CEEQUAL).




April 2015

7

6 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY

6.1 Sustainability Appraisal is a qualitative process to ensure that sustainable development

considerations and policy requirements are integrated into all policies, plans, programmes and

projects that have the potential to affect the environment, society or the economy on, over or

around areas owned, occupied or used by MOD, its agencies and partners. It helps to identify

positive sustainability benefits and enhancement opportunities as well as potential negative

impacts. The tool allows alternative options to be compared and mitigation measures to be

identified where necessary.

6.2 Sustainability appraisal evaluates the contribution of each of sixteen sustainability themes to the

likely overall sustainability value of the project, in both the short term (essentially the construction

phase of the development) and long term (essentially the ‘operations’ or in-use, phase of the

development’s life). The SEAT methodology involves the generation of a matrix that includes a

range of relevant issues for each theme. For each theme, and for each term, summary scores are

allocated on the scale shown below.

Sustainability rating scale

6.3 Additionally, a commentary is prepared for each theme, reflecting the circumstances of the project,

the project’s location and the professional opinion of the Appraiser. The matrix also includes

recommendations for potential actions that should enhance positive impacts and mitigate negative

impacts.

6.4 Finally, an overall judgement is reached on the sustainability performance of the proposed project,

in both short and long terms, by qualitatively balancing the impact assessment for each theme. The

tool does not permit any weighting of the various themes – all contribute equally to the overall

judgement.




April 2015

8

7 RESULTS OF SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

7.1 At this stage, Appendix 3B shows that it is uncertain if any additional statutory assessments

relevant to sustainability will be necessary. The only likely assessments that will be required are

sustainability assessments such as CEEQUAL, DEEP if it is considered appropriate, and a

requirement for the contractor to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme (CCS).

7.2 The results of the appraisal process are summarised below, with a list of the sustainability impacts

of each theme and an overall impact assessment. A fuller commentary of the likely performance,

including graphical representation of the short and long term impacts of Option 6, is contained in

the matrices in Appendix 3C. These matrices also include suggested actions that could be taken to

enhance the benefits of the positive sustainability impacts and mitigate the adverse effects of the

negative sustainability impacts.

7.3 For Option 6 the overall sustainability impact of the project as scoped on the site and its environs is

considered to be, in the short term, minor negative, and, in the long term, neutral. The majority of

the short term impacts relate to the effects of construction on the site and those using it, for

example the inevitable increase in noise, dust and traffic. There are a small number of short term

positive impacts identified – Sustainable Procurement and Economy and Employment, where the

works on site will provide the opportunity to use local suppliers and contractors. In the long term,

there were no negative impacts identified. There were some major positive impacts such as Waste,

where it has been suggested that the demolition waste will be crushed and reused on site in the

refurbishment, therefore greatly minimising waste being taken to landfill. In addition, a major

positive impact under the theme of Health, Safety and Wellbeing, whereby the improvements to the




April 2015

9

runway will mean that the possibility of accident through foreign object damage to aircraft or a

sudden structural failure of lengths of the runway pavement will be significantly reduced. Also the

completion of the perimeter road included with the project should also reduce the risk of conflict

between aircraft and vehicles. Other major positive impacts can be found in the themes of

Sustainable Procurement and Economy and Employment.




April 2015

10

APPENDICES: APPENDIX 3B SCHEDULE OF STATUTORY ASSESSMENTS, CONSENTS AND LICENCES

APPENDIX 3C APPRAISAL MATRICES

APPENDIX 3D SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT PRO-FORMA REPORT

Section 3 – Sustainability Appraisal 3B-1 Version 6.0 – November 2009

APPENDIX 3B: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR STATUTORY ASSESSMENTS, CONSENTS AND LICENSES

Date completed: March 2013/ reviewed September 2014/ April 2015

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA)

See Handbook Section Two for full information on legislation, requirements and contact details for specialist teams in MOD who can help you decide whether Strategic Environmental Assessment is required.

Do the following apply to the proposal? Yes No Unsure

Is your proposal a plan or programme? If so, have you completed MOD Form 1923 to screen for the statutory requirement for statutory Strategic Environmental Assessment?

√

If your proposal is defence exempt have you considered how you will meet the requirement of the Secretary of State’s Policy Statement 2008 to undertake a study, “as far as reasonably practicable, at least as good as” the legislation? Or have you received the appropriate level of approval to confirm that it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so?

n/a

Will your proposal be formally adopted by a regional or local planning authority as part of their planning framework documents e.g. Local Development Document or Regional Spatial Strategy?

√

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

See Handbook Section Four for full information on legislation, requirements and contact details for specialist teams in MOD who can help you decide whether Environmental Impact Assessment is required.

Do the following apply to the project or proposal? Yes No Unsure

Will your proposal or project require Planning Permission under Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (incl. equivalent legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland)?

√

If so, does the type, scale and potential for significant effects meet criteria in the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999 (Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Schedule 3)?

n/a

If Yes, Have you requested a Screening Opinion from the Local Planning Authority (which may be the National Park Authority)?

n/a

Will your project fall under any of the following legislation?

Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas) Regulations 2001

√

Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) Regulations √

Environmental Impact Assessment (Land Drainage Improvement Works) Regulations 1999

√

Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999

√

Nuclear Reactors (Environmental Impact Assessment for Decommissioning) Regulations 1999

√

Environment Act 1995 Part III National Parks and Circular 12/96 √

Other Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations including those in the Devolved Administrations

√


NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE & CONSENTS

See Appendix 3E, Theme J and JSP 362 Chapter 5 for full information on policy, requirements and contact details for specialist teams in MOD who can help you decide whether Historic Environment Clearance and Consents are required

Also see S&EAT Handbook Section Five for full information on legislation, requirements and contact details for specialist teams in MOD who can help you decide whether Habitats Regulations Assessment is required.


Is your proposal or project likely to have a significant effect on a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) or a Ramsar site ie is a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ required?

√

Is your proposal or project Listed as an Operation Likely to Damage the Special Interest of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), i.e. is SSSI Assent or Consent required?

√

Is your proposal or project likely to result in an offence under protected species legislation – ie is a protected species licence required?

√

Will your proposal or project affect trees or hedgerows covered by Tree Preservation Orders, Conservation Areas or the Hedgerow Regulations, or otherwise is a Felling Licence required?

√

Will your proposal or project affect land covered by an Environmental Stewardship or Woodland Grant Scheme, i.e. could the proposal contravene MOD’s or our tenants’ obligations under these schemes?

√

OTHER POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS: FLOOD, MARINE & COASTAL CONSENTS & LICENCES See Appendix 3E, Theme B for water-related guidance. For further advice and guidance please contact PTS.

Are the following consents required for the project or proposal? Yes No Unsure

Flood Defence Consent (for works that could affect inland waterways & lakes)?

√

Food & Environment Protection Act (FEPA) Licence (for deposits or construction on the sea bed)?

√

Coastal Protection Act (CPA) Consent (for works that could affect sea defences)

√


HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE & CONSENTS

See Appendix 3E, Theme J and JSP 362 for full information on policy, requirements and contact details for specialist teams in MOD who can help you decide whether Historic Environment Clearance and Consents are required.


Will your project or proposal require Listed Building Consent under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997? This also includes the curtilage of listed structures.

√

Will your project or proposal require Scheduled Monument Clearance under DCLG Circular 02/2006 (Crown Application of the Planning Acts)?

√

Is your project or proposal subject to Planning Policy Guidance 15 and 16 (and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents), requiring archaeological evaluation before planning approval is granted?

√

Have you consulted (via Defence Estates) the County Archaeologist or relevant Statutory Heritage Body (English Heritage, Cadw, Historic Scotland, Northern Ireland Environment Agency)?

√

Is the action likely to disturb the location of a designated wreck or aircraft protected under Protection of Military Remains Act 1986?

√

Will your project or proposal affect a Registered Battlefield, Park or Garden, or World Heritage Site?

√

Does the project require demolition of structures that might be protected under Local Listing by the Local Authority?

√

Is the Site in a Conservation Area? √

PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION See Appendix 3E for Theme N and JSP 362 Chapter 7 for full information on policy, requirements and contact details for specialist teams in MOD who can provide advice on Public Access and Recreation in relation to your project.


Are there likely to be any changes to public rights of way or highways in the project area?

√

.

Are there likely to be any changes to statutory open access designation in the project area, as defined by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 or Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003?

√

Are there likely to be any changes to permissive (granted) access in the project area?

√

LAND QUALITY ASSESSMENT (LQA)

See Appendix 3E for Theme H and JSP 418 Leaflet 2 for full information on policy, requirements and contact details for specialist teams in MOD who can help you decide whether a LQA is required.


Have any historic polluting activities taken place on the site(s) in your proposal? If So, requirements under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 need to be considered and the legacy of these activities maybe a material consideration in any Planning Application.

√


BEST PRACTICE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF PROJECTS

See Handbook Sections Three (Appendix 3E) and Eight (Linked Tools & EMSs) for full information on policy, requirements and contact details for specialist teams in MOD who can provide advice on best practice environmental management of projects.


Does your proposal require a Socio Economic Report (SER)? A SER may apply if the proposal carries a Ministerial commitment to complete one, is a major MOD relocation or if the SRO determines it should be completed – refer to JSP 507 and 418 for further information.

√

Does your proposal require a design and construction environmental performance assessment such as Building Research Establishment Assessment Method (BREEAM) or Defence Related Environmental Assessment Methodology (DREAM)? See Chapter 6 of the S&EAT handbook for DREAM guidance.

√

Does your proposal require a Defence Estates’ Design Excellence Evaluation Process (DEEP)?

√

Have you or will you be registering on the Considerate Constructors Scheme?

√

Is the project’s budget manager aware of the requirements for any additional studies or mitigation requirements?

√

Is there a formal process for including any proposed mitigation measures or monitoring into the site Environmental Management System or Integrated Management Plan e.g. Integrated Rural Management Plan or Integrated Estate Management Plan?

√

Section 3 – Sustainability Appraisal 3A-1 Version 6.0 – March 2011

APPENDIX 3C - APPRAISAL MATRIX

Project title: RAF Valley Runway Option 6 Date completed: September 2014/April 2015

SUSTAINABILITY THEME AND OBJECTIVE

IMPACT () ST = short term, LT = long term

COMMENTARY ACTION REQUIRED

A B C D E

A - Travel and Transport

Minimise amount of travelling required, particularly the use of private cars

ST √

In the short term (during the construction phase), the linear nature of the site and the limited number of access points will generate a large number of vehicle movements along the axis of the runway over the duration of the works.

When the works are completed, the runway refurbishment will not significantly affect the number of vehicle movements on or to the airfield.

Programme the works to exploit the new perimeter road alignment as a haul road. Plan siting of batching plant and material dumps to minimise vehicle-km. The Contractor should source suppliers from the local area where possible. None

LT √

B – Water

Reduce total water consumption, maximise efficiency of use and encourage reuse whilst minimising the risks of water pollution and flooding

ST √

In the short term there may be risks to the local water environment during the construction phase. There could be an increase in dust and sediment entering the local water courses and coastal areas. There may also be an increase in use of water during construction.

In the long term the removal of some of the existing runway surface and sub-base and the reinstatement of the runway, thresholds and selected taxiways will change locally the run-off characteristics of the work-sites during the construction phase. However, a drainage assessment is yet to be carried out so the final strategy is yet to be decided.

Water consumption in operation is not a relevant issue to this project. A neutral impact on flood and pollution risks is predicted.

Design temporary works to avoid an increase in hard surface area. Store materials appropriately and bund stockpiles to avoid pollution risks. Provide temporary water hold-back features. Depending on the results of the drainage strategy, attenuate for any increase in the amount of run off with SUDs and link into the existing surface water drainage system.

LT √





A B C D E

C - Energy and Climate Change

Minimise total energy consumption and support the use of renewable energy rather than fossil fuel sources. Improve resilience to climate change

ST √

In the short term there will be significant CO2 emissions from the extensive use of plant, vehicles and temporary artificial lighting during the demolition and reconstruction works. The overall impact during the construction phase is likely to be strongly negative. In the long term, the reconstruction of the runway may present an opportunity to improve resilience to future climate change through design and selection of materials. The opportunities to minimise energy consumption during operation are minimal, though there is the possibility of specifying LED lighting. The overall impacts are predicted to be slightly positive. However, the climate change impacts will depend more on the future number of aircraft movements than the in-use energy requirements of the operational runway and associated infrastructure. A CIRAM assessment of the site has been completed and circulated to the design team. There is concern regarding water pooling on the runway and the surface blistering as it ages. It is anticipated that this will be addressed in the refurbishment.

Organise works and materials storage to minimise fuel consumption of vehicles on site and the plant used for the excavation of spoil and re-filling the runway alignment. Specify energy-efficient AGL and provide suitable control systems to minimise energy consumption in use by avoiding unnecessary deployment of lighting. Plan aircraft movements and operate the airfield efficiently to limit any increase in the number of future aircraft movements.

Investigate whether the CIRAM assessment is complete and, if so, implement the results. LT √

D - Noise and Vibration Minimise disturbance and annoyance to people and wildlife and stress to historic buildings caused by uncontrolled noise and vibration

ST √

In the short term, there will be disturbance from the refurbishment works which could disrupt nearby sensitive receptors such as wildlife and any built up areas. The airfield itself will be shut down for 4 weeks while construction takes place, resulting in a short period of reduced air traffic and noise. It is therefore considered that this will outweigh the potential negative impacts caused by the works, and the overall short term impact will be neutral. Historic buildings are not a relevant

Adopt best practice site procedures to minimise disturbance, such as registering with the Considerate Constructors Scheme.





A B C D E

LT √

issue.

The refurbished runway and taxiways will not generate noise themselves. Rather, the impacts will arise from the aircrafts using them. There will not be a significant change in the number of take-offs and landings or the levels of noise emitted from the aircraft types involved. The long-term impacts will therefore be neutral.

Plan aircraft movements and operate the airfield efficiently to limit any increase in the number of future aircraft movements.

E - Air Quality

Minimise greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of air with gases and particulates

ST √

In the short term, a strong negative impact is anticipated during the construction works. Removing and replacing large quantities of aggregate materials will inevitably generate particulate pollution. This will not be mitigated by the improved air quality from the shutdown of the airfield for 4 weeks.

There will be no long-term impacts as there will be no change in site activity as a consequence of the refurbishment.

Adopt best practice site procedures to minimise pollution risks. None LT √

F – Waste

Reduce waste production and promote reuse, recycling and recovery

ST √

In the short term, large quantities of waste materials will arise from the removal of the existing surface and sub-base along the present alignment and a cut and fill approach may be necessary. It is anticipated that at least 70% of the material generated on site will be reused.

The project will extend the life of the assets substantially. Eventual de-construction, with its potential for waste generation, will become more remote. The longer term impact is therefore considered strongly positive.

Design for minimum waste and reuse or recycle as much waste material as possible. Avoid removal of material from the airfield as far as practicable. Adopt best practice site procedures to minimise waste generation. Produce a SWMP with targets for waste minimisation. None

LT √

G – Construction and the Built Environment

Minimise expansion onto green sites, explore refurbishment before building

ST √

In the short term, best practice construction will take place. No significant additional land-take for the works, as scoped within Option 6, is anticipated. The predicted impact is therefore neutral.

Minimise the extent of the land temporarily required for site facilities and materials storage and processing. Maximise the beneficial re-use of material removed from the existing runway.





A B C D E

fresh, design sustainability features into new buildings and promote recycling of materials LT √

No impacts are predicted during the extended operational life of the refurbished runway and its supporting infrastructure.

None

H – Sustainable Procurement Ensure that all Departmental procurement takes full account of sustainable development principles and helps meet sustainable development targets and objectives

ST √

In the short term, sustainability outcomes will be written into the procurement documents and procedures. A CEEQUAL assessment has been specified. Positive outcomes are anticipated.

In the long term the impacts of good performance against sustainability benchmarks will persist during the extended life of the refurbished asset, though these impacts will gradually diminish over time.

Design, procure and build to achieve the target CEEQUAL ratings.

None

LT √

I – Geology and Soils

Identify, reduce, manage and mitigate the introduction of threats to soil which can reduce soil extent, diversity or quality

ST √

The survey information available is understood to indicate that there are no significant geotechnical risks or contamination issues on the Valley runway site. The re-profiling within this option may involve the removal and replacement of significant volumes of top soil and sub-soil, and it is therefore assumed that there will be short term risks of erosion on the airfield. In addition, it is expected that there will be some asbestos found and other airport-related contaminants. If discovered, these will be contained and dealt with in line with regulations.

The completed assets will have no predicted impacts to the soil.

Adopt construction site best practice to reduce risks of erosion and soil damage. Consider future landscaping and land maintenance techniques that could improve the soil overlying the airfield.

LT √





A B C D E

J – Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

Seek to protect habitats and species and promote opportunities to enhance and conserve wildlife

ST √

An Ecology survey has been carried out as part of the Derived Design. The Phase 1 study did not identify any features or habitats of ecological importance within the development area. It did identify the potential for bats around the site, but further investigations confirmed that the bat roost potential is negligible in the RVR tower, and the main development site is not suitable habitat for foraging bats. Other than that the areas likely to be damaged by works are grassed areas adjacent to the runway, taxiway and associated roads. Due to noise, dust and vibration during construction, the project is likely to have minor negative biodiversity impacts in the short term. In the long term, it is unlikely that there will be any effects on the site ecology or on the protected sites surrounding the airport. Operational constraints will mean that it is not possible to develop a biodiversity strategy to add ecological value to this site through landscaping.

Adopt construction site best practice to reduce risks of damage to habitat and species and ensure that all relevant licences are obtained. Implement any recommendations made by the ecologist to mitigate for any habitat loss, or to improve ecological value, and ensure that the future airfield maintenance regime protects habitats.

LT √

K – Historic Environment

Protect and where possible enhance the MOD historic environment in recognition that it is an integral part of cultural heritage and the role it plays in supporting defence capability

ST √

The Historic baseline study has confirmed there are a number of features that may be impacted on around the site. Consultations have been carried out with a number of relevant bodies (e.g. DIO and the Local Authority). The study area is not in the scope of any statutory amenity bodies. The study has identified areas where there could be some archaeological remains disturbed on site. However, these are not thought to be of any more than local importance.

None

LT √

L – Landscape and Townscape

Protect and enhance the character of landscapes and townscapes.

ST √

The airfield site located within a rural area with some small built up areas nearby (Bryngwran to the east, Rhosneigr to the south). The site is bounded by the coast to the south and a railway to the north. The remaining

None





A B C D E

LT √

surrounding landscape is mainly in amenity use. There is a neutral impact on this theme from Option 6 in both short and long terms.

M – Health, Safety and Well-being

Maximise opportunities to promote healthy, safe and secure environments in which to live and work.

ST √

In the short term the intensive programme of construction works will inevitably present safety risks to the workforce. A negative short-term impact is envisaged. In the long term Option 6 will deliver full compliance with military aviation current best practice. Therefore the risk of accident through foreign object damage to aircraft or a sudden structural failure of lengths of the runway pavement will be significantly reduced. Completion of the perimeter road included with the project should also reduce the risk of conflict between aircraft and vehicles. The impact is expected to be major positive.

Implement effective segregation between the project site and the operational establishment. Adopt site best practice to reduce health and safety risks. Implement an appropriate inspection and maintenance regime. Implement traffic management procedures to remove conflicts between aircraft and site traffic movements.

LT √

N – Communities and Social Values Promote the MOD as a good neighbour which works with local communities to minimise disturbance and maximise positive social impacts.

ST √

In the short term there could be some negative impacts to the local communities as a result of increased construction traffic on local roads.

In the long term, the runway project will strengthen the long-term prospects of the establishment. The impact on this theme is therefore predicted to be strongly positive.

Ensure the local community is kept fully informed of any impacts on their area such as traffic diversions or an increase in large vehicles. None

LT √

O – Infrastructure and Amenities

Support the welfare, cultural, recreational and infrastructure needs of military and civilian communities

ST √

Public access is not relevant at this site. A public footpath along the coast skirts the southern boundary beyond the wire. Option 6 will generate no short term impacts.

None





A B C D E

LT √

In terms of infrastructure, in its current state the runway is almost unusable. Therefore the improved asset will support the work of the RAF in the long term, as well as continue to be used by civilian air craft, resulting in a major positive impact. In addition, a cycle path is to remain as a result of the works which will aid movement around the site for personnel.

None

P – Economy and Employment

Maintain and encourage a strong, diverse and stable economy with rewarding employment opportunities open to all

ST √

In the short term the project will generate significant employment opportunities in a number of consultancy, contractor and supplier businesses during its execution. A strongly positive short-term impact is predicted.

This option will strengthen the long-term prospects of the establishment. The runway will be suitable for the aircraft types that are anticipated to use RAF Valley, including civilian airliners serving Anglesey Airport. Aircraft maintenance is already the subject of a private sector contract and there are proposals for future contractor operation of military flying training. These developments can be expected to create long-term opportunities for business or diversification. A strong positive impact is predicted.

None

None

LT √

ST = short term, LT = long term


Outcomes Chart

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Major positive Minor positive Neutral Minor negative Major negative

Short Term

Long Term

MOD Sustainability and Environmental Appraisal Tools Handbook

Section 3 – Sustainability Appraisal 3D-1 Version 6.0 – November 2009

Appendix 3D

3

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT

Completed by: Bruce Sharpe, URS/Hazel Weston URS Date: March 2013/ reviewed September 2014/ April 2015

DETAILS ABOUT THE PROJECT

Title:

RAF Valley Runway Refurbishment Assessment Study

Customer reference number:

Z9F0001Y11

Contract number: CTCOMM1096009

Name and position of sponsor:

Alan Baker - DIO Project Manager

Brief description:

This report follows on from an Assessment Study of the 6 options for delivering an upgrade of the

runway at RAF Valley. Option 6 is being developed as the chosen option and will include refurbishment and strengthening of the pavements , with re-profiling to address the refurbishment of the parallel taxiways, rehabilitation of aircraft standing aprons, and replacement of all Airfield Ground Lighting,

Capital cost (if appropriate):

N/K

Funding stream:

N/K

Security status:

N/K



Appendix 3D

3

Completed by: Bruce Sharpe, URS/ Hazel Weston URS Date: March 2013/ reviewed September 2014

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT

Brief description of site(s) affected

(subdivide column if more than one site is affected)

Establishment code: n/k

Site name: RAF Valley

County: Isle of Anglesey

Country: Wales

Grid reference:

SH3086575367 (Postcode LL65 3NY)

Size:

N/K

Land use: Military Establishment

Key questions (please tick)

YES NO DON’T KNOW

Major relocation, ministerial commitment or SRO discretion to complete an Socio-Economic Assessment?

x

New buildings planned? x

Refurbishment of existing buildings? x

Disposal and/or acquisition project? x

Significant intensification in estate activity? x

Statutorily-protected sites likely to be directly or indirectly affected? x

Land Quality Assessment already undertaken? x

Appraisal methodology

Date of appraisal: March 2013

Stage in decision making process when undertaken:

Options appraisal within Assessment Study

How the appraisal was undertaken (e.g. workshop, individual, consultants):

Workshop meeting to discuss issues with the assessment study team.

Desk study of drawings, photographs, relevant reports and existing site surveys.

Appraisal matrices completed for Do Nothing, Refurbishment and 2 x Refurbish/Reconstruct options.

Covering report prepared.

September 2014 – review of SA with URS PM

Names / positions of people involved:

DIO – Dan Willmott, Project Manager

URS - Bruce Sharpe, Associate (Sustainability); Richard Field, Assessment Study Manager; Mike Headworth, Associate (Airfields)

Gleeds - Jim Key, Cost Consultant; Maria Willis – Risk Assessor

September 2014 – URS Hazel Weston, Principal (Sustainability), Laura Scorse PM.

Groups and organisations consulted:

None at this stage



Appendix 3D

3

IMPLEMENTATION

Description of mechanisms in place for implementing key actions:

September 2014 – following the Assessment study process Option 6 was chosen and the derived design is being developed. This version of the SA follows a review of available information and surveys, and the CEEQUAL assessment will be the driving force for implementing sustainability on site.

Completed by: Bruce Sharpe, URS/ Hazel Weston URS Date: March 2013/ reviewed September 2014/ April 2015

MONITORING

Description of mechanisms in place for monitoring sustainability impacts:

As part of the Assessment Study, a CEEQUAL Pre-Assessment (Whole Project Award) exercise was carried out to review the predicted performance of the two Refurbish/Reconstruct options evaluated in this Appraisal, September 2014 – The CEEQUAL pre-assessment has been reviewed and updated during the Derived Design stage.

The contractor, when appointed, will be required to achieve an appropriate CEEQUAL rating for the project.

References used:

Assessment Study Brief

URD

SEAT Handbook

Magic.co.uk

Environment-agency.co.uk

Appraisal findings

(please tick)

YES NO

Checklists completed? √

Summary matrix updated? √

Form for ‘Evaluation of requirements for statutory assessments’ updated? √

raf valley runway 13- 31, taxiway and agl · pdf fileraf valley runway 13-31, taxiway and agl...

Documents