Assessment Findings

Preliminary Appraisal Stage Assessment

This section summarises the assessment of the Preliminary Appraisal for the A96 Corridor Review. The full assessment is provided in Appendix E (Assessment Matrices).

Active Communities

This intervention is expected to have a minor positive impact on climate change under both With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Overall, this intervention is expected to have a minor positive environmental impact under both With and Without Policy Scenarios, although this would be subject to the specific effects of the actual interventions chosen.

Active Connections

This intervention is expected to have a minor positive impact on climate change under both With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Overall, this intervention is expected to have a minor positive environmental impact under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios, although this would be subject to the specific impacts of the route chosen.

Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities

This intervention is likely to have a neutral impact on climate change in both With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Overall, this intervention is likely to have a minor positive environmental impact, under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios but this would be subject to the extent of localised negative environmental impacts caused by the infrastructure enhancements and facilities.

Bus Priority Measures and Park and Ride

This intervention is expected to have a minor positive impact on climate change in both With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Overall, this intervention is expected to have a minor positive environmental impact, under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios; however, this would be subject to the degree of potential localised negative environmental impacts from any new measures implemented to achieve this intervention.

Investment in Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) and Mobility as a Service (MaaS)

This intervention is expected to have a minor positive impact on climate change in both With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Overall, this intervention is expected to have a minor positive environmental impact in both the With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Introduce Rail Freight Terminals at Inverness, Georgemas Junction, Keith and Elgin, with Associated Gauge Enhancement

This intervention is expected to have a neutral impact on climate change in both the With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential environmental impacts of constructing rail freight terminals within the corridor are considered to be minor negative under the With and Without Policy Scenarios, although this would be subject to final site selection and associated design. This is on the basis that although there are positive environmental impacts associated with this intervention, these would potentially be outweighed by large-scale impacts from constructing new rail freight terminals. The extent of impact would only be known through the design development process. If environmental constraints can be avoided, then adverse environmental impacts can be reduced.

Linespeed, Passenger and Freight Capacity Improvements on the Aberdeen to Inverness Railway Line

At this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential climate change impacts of the intervention are considered to be minor positive under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Overall, this intervention is likely to have a minor negative environmental impact under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Improved Parking Provision at Railway Stations

This intervention is expected to have a neutral impact on the Climate Change criterion under the With Policy Scenario and a minor negative impact under the Without Policy Scenario .

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the environmental impacts of constructing additional car parking spaces is expected to be neutral in both the With and Without Policy Scenarios.

Targeted Road Safety Improvements

This intervention is expected to have a minor positive impact on climate change under the With Policy Scenario and neutral under the Without Policy Scenario.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential environmental impacts of a suite of targeted road safety improvements are considered moderate negative in both the With and Without Policy Scenarios, although this would be subject to the location and design of such improvements. If the environmental constraints can be avoided, then adverse environmental impacts can be reduced.

Elgin Bypass

The provision of a bypass could enhance resilience of the A96 to the effect of climate change, however, given the potential for GHG emissions to arise during construction and the bypass to induce travel demand, the intervention is expected to have a minor negative impact on climate change under the Without Policy Scenario and neutral impact under the With Policy Scenario.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential environmental impacts of a bypass of Elgin are considered moderate negative under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios, although this would be subject to the location and design of the bypass. If the environmental constraints are avoided, then adverse environmental impacts could be reduced.

Keith Bypass

The provision of the bypass could enhance resilience of the A96 to the effect of climate change, however, given the potential for emissions to be generated during the construction period and the bypass to induce travel demand, a bypass of Keith is expected to have a minor negative impact on climate change under the Without Policy Scenario and neutral under the With Policy Scenario.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential environmental impacts of a bypass at Keith are considered moderate negative under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios, although this would be subject to the location and design of the bypass. If the environmental constraints are avoided, then adverse environmental impacts can be reduced.

Inverurie Bypass

The provision of a bypass could enhance resilience of the A96 to the effects of climate change. Given the levels of congestion in the area, and the potential for the bypass to induce travel demand, combined with emissions arising during the construction period and the limited opportunities to increase active travel within the town, a complete bypass of Inverurie is expected to have a minor negative impact on climate change under the Without Policy Scenario and minor negative impact under the With Policy Scenario.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential environmental impacts of a complete bypass of Inverurie is considered moderate negative under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios, given there could be significant impacts on the landscape, built heritage and ecology and other constraints, although this would be subject of the location and design of the bypass. If the environmental constraints are avoided, then adverse environmental impacts can be reduced.

Forres Bypass

With the potential for the bypass to induce travel demand combined with emissions arising during the construction period, the limited opportunities to increase active travel within the town and the A96 in Forres identified as at significant risk of flooding from various watercourses, a bypass of Forres is expected to have minor negative impacts on the Climate Change criterion under the Without Policy Scenario; and minor negative on the Climate Change criterion under the With Policy Scenario.

Overall, the potential environmental impacts of a bypass at Forres are considered moderate negative for the Environment criterion under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios given there could be significant impacts on the landscape and ecology and other constraints although this would be subject of the location and design of the bypass. If the environmental constraints can be avoided, then adverse environmental impacts can be reduced.

Development of A96 Electric Corridor

Overall, the intervention is expected to have a moderate positive impact on the Climate Change criterion under the Without Policy Scenario and minor positive impact on the Climate Change criterion under the With Policy Scenario due to the higher uptake of electric vehicles.

Overall, the environmental impacts of alternative refuelling infrastructure are considered neutral in both the With and Without Policy Scenarios, although this would be subject to review at the next stage and be dependent on the specific interventions identified and their associated impacts.

Detailed Appraisal Stage Assessment

Tables 7.1 to 7.7 summarise the appraisal of Full Dualling, packages 1 to 5 and the Refined Package AST. A summary description of what is included in each of these packages is provided in Section 2.6.

The full assessment against each of the SEA objectives is provided in Appendix E (Assessment Matrices).

Table 7.1: A96 Full Dualling Assessment Using SEA Objectives
Scenario Type	Climate (GHG)	Climate Adaptation	Air Quality	Quality of life and sustainable access	Noise and vibration	High quality places	Safety	Sustainable transport network	Natural resources	Water quality and flood risk	Biodiversity	Geology & Soils	Cultural heritage	Landscape	Cumulative rating
With Policy Scenario	Major Negative	Uncertain	Minor Negative	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Major Positive	Moderate Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative
Without Policy Scenario	Major Negative	Uncertain	Minor Negative	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Major Positive	Moderate Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative	Major Negative

Table 7.2: Detailed Package 1 Assessment Using SEA Objectives
Scenario Type	Climate (GHG)	Climate Adaptation	Air Quality	Quality of life and sustainable access	Noise and vibration	High quality places	Safety	Sustainable transport network	Natural resources	Water quality and flood risk	Biodiversity	Geology & Soils	Cultural heritage	Landscape	Cumulative rating
With Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Negative	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Major Negative	Moderate Negative	Major Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative
Without Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Negative	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Major Negative	Moderate Negative	Major Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative

Table 7.3: Detailed Package 2 Assessment Using SEA Objectives
Scenario Type	Climate (GHG)	Climate Adaptation	Air Quality	Quality of life and sustainable access	Noise and vibration	High quality places	Safety	Sustainable transport network	Natural resources	Water quality and flood risk	Biodiversity	Geology & Soils	Cultural heritage	Landscape	Cumulative rating
With Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative
Without Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative

Table 7.4: Detailed Package 3 Assessment Using SEA Objectives
Scenario Type	Climate (GHG)	Climate Adaptation	Air Quality	Quality of life and sustainable access	Noise and vibration	High quality places	Safety	Sustainable transport network	Natural resources	Water quality and flood risk	Biodiversity	Geology & Soils	Cultural heritage	Landscape	Cumulative rating
With Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Minor Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative
Without Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Minor Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative

Table 7.5: Detailed Package 4 Assessment Using SEA Objectives
Scenario Type	Climate (GHG)	Climate Adaptation	Air Quality	Quality of life and sustainable access	Noise and vibration	High quality places	Safety	Sustainable transport network	Natural resources	Water quality and flood risk	Biodiversity	Geology & Soils	Cultural heritage	Landscape	Cumulative rating
With Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative
Without Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative

Table 7.6: Detailed Package 5 Assessment Using SEA Objectives
Scenario Type	Climate (GHG)	Climate Adaptation	Air Quality	Quality of life and sustainable access	Noise and vibration	High quality places	Safety	Sustainable transport network	Natural resources	Water quality and flood risk	Biodiversity	Geology & Soils	Cultural heritage	Landscape	Cumulative rating
With Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Negative	Moderate Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Major Negative	Moderate Negative	Major Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative
Without Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Negative	Moderate Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Major Negative	Moderate Negative	Major Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative	Moderate Negative

Table 7.7: Refined Package Assessment Using SEA Objectives
Scenario Type	Climate (GHG)	Climate Adaptation	Air Quality	Quality of life and sustainable access	Noise and vibration	High quality places	Safety	Sustainable transport network	Natural resources	Water quality and flood risk	Biodiversity	Geology & Soils	Cultural heritage	Landscape	Cumulative rating
With Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Negative	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Moderate Negative	Minor Negative	Moderate Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative
Without Policy Scenario	Minor Negative	Uncertain	Minor Negative	Minor Positive	Uncertain	Minor Positive	Moderate Positive	Minor Positive	Moderate Negative	Minor Negative	Moderate Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative	Minor Negative

Detailed Appraisal: Cumulative Effects by Package

The Full Dualling of the A96 would be considered to have a cumulative major negative effect under both the With and Without Policy Scenarios. There are opportunities to improve safety, for example through an increase in safe overtaking opportunities. There are also opportunities to improve placemaking, reduce traffic volumes in urban areas and improve accessibility. Minor positive effects were predicted for most of the Population and Human Health SEA objectives, for example due to improved placemaking and accessibility. Major positive effects were predicted for the safety SEA objective, mainly due to a prediction of lower traffic passing through urban areas. Many areas within the corridor could also benefit from improved climate adaptation. The infrastructure would be designed to be resilient to predicted impacts arising from current and future weather events and climatic conditions. However, as there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score was assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective.

There are still likely to be major negative effects on many environmental receptors. This is mainly due to the construction footprint on habitats, cultural heritage, water quality, soils and landscape. Major negative effects were also predicted for GHG emissions and local air quality due to construction activity and traffic emissions during the operational phase.

Overall, Package 1 is likely to have some positive environmental effects, although the likely significant negative effects from some of the physical works would result in the overall package having a cumulative moderate negative effect in both the With and Without Policy Scenarios. This is mainly due to the construction of a series of bypasses and public transport and rail freight infrastructure improvements and their potential impact on the natural environment. Minor negative effects were predicted in relation to GHG emissions and air quality, due to construction emissions and operational stage traffic emissions. However, air quality is predicted to improve in communities where new bypasses would reduce traffic passing through them. As there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score was assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective. Moderate negative effects were predicted in relation to water quality, soils, cultural heritage and landscape. Major negative effects were predicted for biodiversity, primarily due to land-take and for natural resources due to the raw material demand for the construction of new infrastructure. Minor positive effects were predicted for the Population and Human Health SEA Objectives, for example due to improved placemaking and accessibility. Moderate positive effects were predicted for the safety SEA objective, mainly due to a prediction of lower traffic passing through urban areas.

Overall, Package 2 is likely to have some positive environmental effects, particularly on the air quality and population and human health SEA objectives, as the package promotes interventions that will enable modal shift to more sustainable and active travel modes. The likely significant negative effects from some of the physical works would result in the package having a cumulative minor negative effect in both With and Without Policy Scenarios. This is mainly due to the construction of public transport infrastructure, rail freight and road safety improvements and their potential impact on the natural environment. Minor negative effects were predicted in relation to GHG emissions, mainly due to construction emissions. Minor positive effects were predicted for air quality due to an expected decrease in traffic flows and reduced congestion during the operational phase. As there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score was assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective. Minor negative effects were predicted in relation to water quality, soils, cultural heritage and landscape. Minor negative effects were also predicted for biodiversity, primarily due to land-take and for natural resources, mainly due to the raw material demand for the construction of new infrastructure. Minor positive effects were predicted for the Population and Human Health SEA Objectives, for example due to improved placemaking and accessibility. Moderate positive effects were predicted for the safety SEA objective, mainly due to a prediction of lower traffic passing through urban areas.

Overall, Package 3 is likely to have some positive environmental effects, particularly on air quality and population and human health objectives, as the package promotes interventions that will enable modal shift to more sustainable and active travel modes. The likely significant negative effects from a number of the physical works, particularly any public transport infrastructure, rail freight and road safety improvements, would result in the package having a cumulative moderate negative effect in both the With and Without Policy Scenarios. This is mainly due to the construction of transport infrastructure and its potential impact on the natural environment. Due to this, minor negative effects were predicted in relation to GHG emissions. Minor positive effects were predicted for air quality due to an expected decrease in traffic flows and reduced congestion during the operational phase. As there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score was assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective. Minor negative effects were also predicted for natural resources, water quality and cultural heritage, whereas moderate negative effects were predicted for biodiversity, soils and landscape. This is primarily due to land-take and the raw material demand for the construction of new infrastructure. Minor positive effects were predicted for the Population and Human Health SEA Objectives, for example due to improved placemaking and accessibility. Moderate positive effects were predicted for the safety SEA objective, mainly due to a prediction of lower traffic passing through urban areas.

Overall, Package 4 is likely to have some positive environmental effects, particularly on air quality and population and human health objectives, as the package promotes interventions that will enable modal shift to more sustainable and active travel modes. The likely significant negative effects from a number of the physical works, particularly any public transport improvements, rail freight and road safety improvements and the introduction of new rail freight terminals would result in the package having a cumulative minor negative effect in both the With and Without Policy Scenarios. This is mainly due to the construction of transport infrastructure and its potential impact on the natural environment. Due to this, minor negative effects were predicted in relation to GHG emissions. Minor positive effects were predicted for air quality due to an expected decrease in traffic flows and reduced congestion during the operational phase. As there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score was assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective. Minor negative effects were also predicted for natural resources, water quality, biodiversity, soils, cultural heritage, and landscape. This is primarily due to land-take and the raw material demand for the construction of new infrastructure. Minor positive effects were predicted for the Population and Human Health SEA Objectives, for example due to improved placemaking and accessibility. Moderate positive effects were predicted for the safety SEA objective, mainly due to a prediction of lower traffic passing through urban areas.

Overall, Package 5 is likely to have some positive environmental effects, particularly in terms of safety and quality of life. The likely significant negative effects from some of the physical works would result in the overall package having a cumulative moderate negative effect in both With and Without Policy Scenarios. This is mainly due to the creation of a series of bypasses, public transport, rail freight and road safety improvements and the introduction of new rail freight terminals and their potential impact on the natural environment. Minor negative effects were predicted in relation to GHG emissions and air quality, due to construction emissions and operational stage traffic emissions. However, air quality is predicted to improve in communities where new bypasses would reduce traffic passing through them. As there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score was assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective. Moderate negative effects were predicted in relation to water quality, soils, cultural heritage and landscape. Major negative effects were predicted for natural resources and biodiversity, primarily due to land-take and the raw material demand for the construction of new infrastructure. Minor positive effects were predicted for most of the Population and Human Health SEA Objectives, for example due to improved placemaking and accessibility. Moderate positive effects were predicted for the safety SEA objective, mainly due to a prediction of lower traffic passing through urban areas.

The Refined Package is likely to have a cumulative minor negative effect for the With and Without Policy Scenarios. Minor negative effects were predicted in relation to GHG emissions and air quality, due to construction emissions and operational stage traffic emissions. However, air quality is predicted to improve in communities where new bypasses would reduce traffic passing through them. As there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score was assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective. Moderate negative effects were predicted for natural resources and biodiversity, whereas minor negative effects were predicted for air quality, water quality cultural heritage and landscape and visual amenity. The likely minor and moderate negative effects are likely to arise from some of the physical works, mainly due to the creation of two bypasses, public transport infrastructure improvements and road safety improvements and their potential impact on the natural environment. There are also many minor positive environmental effects predicted for both With and Without Policy Scenarios, including quality of life and sustainable access, high quality places and sustainable transport networks. Moderate positive effects were predicted for the safety SEA objective. These positive effects mainly arise through targeted road safety improvements, the provision of high-quality active travel routes within and between settlements and various bus and rail improvements.

Detailed Appraisal: Cumulative Effects by SEA Topic - Overview

The Refined Package represents the better performing transport interventions from the STAG appraisal in comparison to Packages 1 to 5, as discussed in Section 2.6. This includes the appraisal of the ‘environment’ STAG criterion. Only one of the Packages, or Full Dualling, would be likely to be implemented. To avoid any duplication in the assessment of cumulative effects, Sections 7.5 and 7.6 therefore focus on the potentially significant cumulative effects of implementing either the Refined Package or Full Dualling respectively. The results are summarised in Section 7.7.

The sections below summarise the potential cumulative effects on each SEA topic, The construction works programme associated with different transport interventions would also likely be spread over a number of years and the environmental effects may therefore not be concurrent or cumulative. The scale of the effects of these proposals on the various SEA topics will depend on the design and location of the works and further environmental assessment would need to be undertaken as the designs progress.

Refined Package Cumulative Effects by SEA Topic

Climatic Factors

GHG emissions arising from the construction stage of this package are estimated to be in the range of approximately 140,000 tCO ₂ e to 280,000 tCO ₂ e.

Traffic flows and emissions around the A96 increase as a result of this package, due to reduced congestion and an attraction of traffic onto this part of the network. There is therefore a net increase in GHG emissions. The Net Present Value of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the proposal, indicates that road user GHG emissions would increase over the 60-year appraisal period.

The estimated increase in road users GHG emissions in the appraisal period between the ‘with scheme’ and ‘without scheme’ scenarios for this package of interventions is approximately 2,300 tCO ₂ e under the With Policy Scenario and 88,000 tCO ₂ e under the Without Policy Scenario.

The existing A96 Trunk Road is considered vulnerable to the effects of climate change, particularly in areas with a high risk of flooding such as the floodplains associated with the River Lossie near Elgin, and flood risk areas around Keith associated with the River Isla, or locations where current or future ground stability issues are known or anticipated.

The transport network improvements are expected to improve the resilience to identified flood risk areas, and other potential climate risks. The enhancements in the transport infrastructure to encourage sustainable transport modes in the area have the potential to mitigate road user emissions over time when coupled with decarbonisation of the grid, and a switch to electric vehicles.

Despite this, key long-term climate change trends for Scotland are that average temperatures will increase across all seasons; typically, summers will be warmer and drier, and winters will be milder and wetter. These are likely to have an impact on this package. Heavy rainfall events are anticipated to become more frequent in the coming decades, exacerbating flooding and landslide incidents.

Heavy rainfall events have the potential to flood railway lines, or wash sections away, leading to significant disruption on the rail network and a resultant knock-on impact on other transport modes and routes.

Paved surfaces created as part of the Refined Package options (Elgin and Keith bypasses, active communities, and targeted road safety improvements) might incur surface damage or be impacted by surface water flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. There is also an increased risk of thermal expansion and movement of paved surfaces due to increased summer temperatures. Higher summer temperatures might also lead to overheating and damage of electrical equipment developed as part of the A96 Electric Corridor intervention. Infrastructure might also be inaccessible during extreme weather events.

In order to account for the effects of climate change, the infrastructure would be designed to be resilient to predicted impacts arising from current and future weather events and climatic conditions, in accordance with current planning, design, engineering practice, and codes. A number of mitigation and adaptation measures would be considered at later design development stages to address potential extreme weather events that are anticipated to affect the region, and other likely climate risks.

As there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score has been assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective, in both With and Without Policy scenarios.

Due to the predicted GHG increases associated with constructing and operating transport infrastructure, a minor negative cumulative effect is predicted for the GHG SEA objective and an uncertain cumulative effect is predicted for the climate adaptation SEA objective.

Air Quality

The Refined Package has the potential to have negative effects in terms of air quality. The bypasses may result in an increase in the use of private vehicles due to the reduction in congestion, which may lead to a reduction in air quality in the vicinity of the bypass alignments and the wider A96 corridor.

The promotion of vehicles with lower or zero emissions through the inclusion of alternative refueling infrastructure and facilities should help to reduce vehicle emissions and thereby reduce overall air pollution. The inclusion of bypasses has the potential to reduce existing air quality concerns within the settlements of Elgin and Keith by reducing the traffic passing through them.

The inclusion of continuous vehicle-free connections between settlements to promote walking and wheeling should also reduce vehicles travelling around and between settlements. The continuous active travel measures between the settlements would result in an overall decrease in vehicles to the improvement of air quality within the settlement. The package also includes public transport and rail freight improvements which again may reduce the number of vehicles on the roads and further improve air quality. Fewer vehicle kilometres travelled would also improve the local air quality, with associated health benefits in communities along the A96.

Following the introduction of the Refined Package, total emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) are predicted to increase, under both the Low and Without Policy Scenarios. This is due to an increase in traffic flows and emissions as congestion is reduced following the inclusion of the proposed bypasses. Emissions are anticipated to reduce within the bypassed settlements as users are encouraged to transfer to more sustainable modes The package is predicted to increase NOx by two tonnes and particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM _2.5 ) emissions by 0.4 tonnes in the With Policy Scenario; and NOx by 43 tonnes and PM _2.5 emissions by 13 tonnes in the Without Policy Scenario, over the 60-year appraisal period. There are however opportunities for the transport interventions to promote and facilitate sustainable travel and assist in reducing transport-related air pollution along the corridor.

Traffic is predicted to divert away from areas of Elgin and Keith due to the potential interventions, under both the With and Without Policy Scenario scenarios.

By reducing the traffic through Elgin and Keith, there is also an opportunity to increase the active travel opportunities within these settlements. This could further reduce the use of private vehicles, with a positive effect on air quality.

A minor negative cumulative effect is predicted for the air quality SEA objective.

Population and Human Health

This package could directly improve access to local health and wellbeing infrastructure, a result of improved active travel provision, improved public transport interchange and improving the journey time and frequency of rail services. It could therefore improve access to health and wellbeing facilities in the wider A96 corridor area, for example Raigmore Hospital in Inverness, Dr Gray’s Hospital in Elgin and Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, through improved linkages to public transport services. The removal of through traffic from Elgin is also anticipated to reduce congestion which should provide benefits for accessing local health and wellbeing services, such as Dr Gray’s Hospital, whether it be by car, public transport or by active modes.

The proposals within this package are also likely to have positive effects in terms of communities and physical fitness. The options could see a modal shift to sustainable transport methods including bus, rail, walking and cycling. The increased opportunities to travel by these methods would be beneficial and create opportunities for communities to access key services, employment opportunities and healthcare particularly along the A96 corridor. In addition, this package of A96 improvements could reduce disruption and congestion and increase safety and accessibility. The active travel improvements between the settlements would have a positive environmental effect for the communities and physical fitness.

Enhancements to the active travel network to provide direct routes to public transport interchange points and stations would also benefit accessibility to key health and wellbeing services.

A minor positive cumulative effect is predicted for the quality of life and sustainable access SEA objective.

There would be positive effects in terms of a potential reduction in noise and vibration within the settlements of Elgin and Keith, with the provision of bypasses and the associated reduction in the volume of traffic passing through the settlements.

The active communities and public transport interventions associated with this package are also likely to reduce noise and vibration from vehicle traffic if the interventions lead to a modal shift.

This package may also create positive effects in terms of noise and vibration within and around settlements. The package aims to promote a shift to sustainable modes of traffic which could see a reduction in traffic. Scotland’s Noise Map illustrates that the A96 Trunk Road is a significant noise contributor in the area. The modal shift to sustainable modes of transport and away from the private car should help reduce vehicle noise and vibration along the A96 and within settlements.

Scotland’s Noise Map illustrates that vehicle noise from the A96 Trunk Road is a significant contributor of noise within these settlements and thereby noise effects could be reduced through both the reduction of vehicles by the interventions within this package and the bypassing of settlements by a large proportion of the vehicles. Noise associated with vehicles would however be prevalent along the bypass routes which could have significant effects depending on their alignment and proximity of receptors although noise mitigation could be incorporated.

However, this package also has the potential to have negative effects in terms of noise and vibration through the increase of freight on the railway and any associated rail freight facilities. The significance of the effect would depend on the location of such facilities.

An uncertain cumulative effect is predicted for the noise and vibration SEA objective. This is due to a combination of positive and negative impacts predicted, depending on location and the ways in which the transport interventions might be implemented.

Enhanced placemaking, along with reduced demand for unsustainable travel for shorter everyday trips, would also offer improvements to visual amenity in communities where centres become more about a sense of place rather than a connection of roads for the purpose of movement. Improved routes and crossing facilities for walking, wheeling and cycling would also offer better access to existing local green space. Improved public realm allows for people to gather and socialise. Studies have linked the quality of public spaces to people’s perceptions of attractiveness of an area, contributing towards their quality of life.

However, there is potential for negative environmental effects on visual amenity during construction and operation of any new road infrastructure, development of new alternative fuelling stations and any rail line improvements such as the construction of passing loops. This would need to be assessed in more detail during the development of this aspect of the package.

A minor positive cumulative effect is predicted for the placemaking (high quality places) SEA objective.

Personal security is likely to improve through an increase in people walking, wheeling and cycling in and around key communities along the A96 corridor as there would be an increase in natural surveillance. Furthermore, public realm improvements such as the provision of street lighting can prevent road traffic collisions and increase pedestrian activity through reduction in the fear of crime.

Public transport interchange improvements and DRT/MaaS may also improve personal security and make a safer network for travellers, either directly through improved security facilities at interchanges, such as improved lighting and CCTV coverage or indirectly through better passenger assistance or through minimising wait times. These interventions could therefore improve the attractiveness of public transport stops and stations as they would likely be perceived to be safer.

Safety would also be improved through better passenger assistance or through minimising wait times due to better information about services. Public transport stops and stations can become more attractive and would likely be perceived to be safer.

MaaS and DRT can also help those with mobility issues travel, thereby reducing social isolation by allowing trips to be made more easily. These interventions could also deliver better access to healthcare and wellbeing infrastructure, with additional safety benefits where people are currently travelling longer distances to bus stops using roads with poor pedestrian infrastructure.

Additionally, reducing vehicle trips with greater active travel trips and public transport use would contribute to fewer accidents on the network. A mode shift for freight to reduce the number of HGV trips would also contribute to this.

A moderate positive cumulative effect is predicted for the safety SEA objective.

Material Assets

There is potential for minor positive effects on the sustainable use of the transport network by promoting or improving the sustainable use of the transport network through planning for future travel arrangements where journeys are made by a number of different modes (including active travel modes).

There is also a potential opportunity for road schemes to improve surface conditions, and, alongside advancement in the types of materials used, reduce overall maintenance needs in the longer-term, with associated positive effects.

Depending on the source and type of materials/natural resources used to construct some of the new infrastructure, there is potential for negative effects on material assets in terms of natural resources usage.

A minor positive cumulative effect is predicted for the Material Assets (sustainable transport network) SEA objective, whereas a moderate negative cumulative effect is predicted for the Material Assets (use of natural resources) SEA objective.

Water Environment

The bypasses and other construction works associated with this package have the potential for significant negative effects on the water environment. There are large areas of floodplain around Elgin associated with the River Lossie, some of which have flood mitigation. There are areas of flood risk around Keith associated with the River Isla to the north of the town and some flood risk to the west and south-west to a lesser extent. The construction of the bypasses also has the potential to have a negative impact on water quality of these water courses and consideration would be needed as to the alignment of the bypasses in terms of water crossings and bridge design.

The physical works associated with implementing the package, including improving public transport interchanges, linespeed improvements and increasing passenger and freight capacity has the potential to have negative effects in terms of water quality (risk of surface water drainage pollution) and flooding during the construction phase.

There are areas of flood risk around Keith associated with the River Isla to the north of the town and some flood risk to the west and south-west to a lesser extent. These areas are potential constraints to the proposed physical works associated with implementing this package.

The construction of this package also has the potential to have an adverse impact on water quality of these water courses and consideration would be needed in terms of water crossings and bridge design. Any impacts would be of varying degrees depending on scale, design and location.

The rail improvements at Keith have the potential to result in some negative effects on flooding due to the areas of flood risk around Keith associated with the River Isla to the north of the town and some flood risk to the west and south-west to a lesser extent.

Construction works have the potential to lead to moderate environmental effects given the scale of these works are likely to be more significant and may affect environmental designations. For the continuous active travel route, this may need to follow the current A96 route.

The scale of the effects of these proposals would depend on the design and location of the works and further environmental assessment would be undertaken as the designs progress. These have the potential to have adverse environmental effects on water drainage and flooding which could be significant particularly if environmental designations are affected.

Construction works have the potential to lead to minor negative environmental effects given the scale of these works are likely to be more significant and may affect the water environment. For the continuous active travel route, this may need to follow the current A96 route.

The magnitude of environmental effects will depend on the design and location of the works and further environmental assessment would need to be undertaken as the designs progress. There is potential for adverse environmental effects on water drainage and flooding, which could be particularly significant if environmental designations are affected.

A minor negative cumulative effect is predicted for the water environment SEA objective.

Biodiversity

The bypasses have the potential to have moderate negative effects on biodiversity and habitats, landscape and forestry. These effects could be moderate negative (depending on alignment), given the scale of development associated with these bypasses.

The physical works associated with the other interventions within this package are likely to have negative environmental effects of varying degrees depending on scale, design and location. Some of these impacts may be short-term during the construction phase only and could be mitigated. The rail improvements at Keith and Huntly have the potential to result in some negative effects however, these effects may be limited, considering there are no environmental designations in the areas of proposed interventions. There may be some localised landscape and biodiversity effects through the loss of vegetation, however mitigation could be incorporated, such as appropriate landscaping and tree planting to reduce these effects. The construction of the Public Transport Interchange Facilities and electric corridor interventions also have the potential for negative effects but this is dependent on the extent of physical works and location. The environmental effects are likely to be low.

The scale of the effects of these proposals would depend on the design and location of the works and further environmental assessment would be undertaken as the designs progress. These have the potential to have negative environmental effects on biodiversity and habitats, landscape, historic environment, water drainage and flooding, geology and soils, agriculture and forestry, all of which could be significant particularly if the above designations are affected.

A moderate negative cumulative effect is predicted for the biodiversity SEA objective.

Geology and Soils

Soils are important for biodiversity and carbon sequestration. They also provide important ecosystem services such as crop production, pollutant filtration and protection of archaeological resources.

Construction works associated with the Refined Package have the potential to have negative effects on soils within and around the construction footprint, including high grade agricultural land, Geological Conservation Review sites, carbon rich soils and peat.

Potential construction impacts include pollution, erosion, removal, degradation, compaction and sealing.

A minor negative cumulative effect is predicted for the Geology and Soils SEA objective.

Cultural Heritage

The bypasses and other construction works associated with this package have the potential to have negative effects on cultural heritage. These effects could be minor negative (depending on alignment), given the scale of development associated with these bypasses.

The physical works associated with implementing the package, including improving public transport interchanges, linespeed improvements and increasing passenger and freight capacity has the potential to have negative effects during the construction phase. The impacts would be of varying degrees depending on scale, design and location. The rail improvements at Keith and Huntly are likely to result in some negative effects on cultural heritage. However, these effects may be limited, considering there are no cultural heritage designations in the areas of proposed interventions.

The construction of transport interventions along the current A96 route have the potential to affect designated Historic Battlefields, Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Scheduled Monuments and other designated and undesignated cultural heritage assets. The scale of the effects of these proposals would depend on the design and location of the works and further environmental assessment would be undertaken as the designs progress.

A minor negative cumulative effect is predicted for the Cultural Heritage SEA objective.

Landscape and Visual Amenity

The bypasses and improvements to public transport interchanges have the potential to have negative effects on landscape. These effects could be minor negative (depending on alignment), given the scale of development associated with these bypasses.

The physical works associated with the other interventions within this package are likely to have negative environmental effects of varying degrees depending on scale, design and location. Some of these impacts may be short-term during the construction phase only and could be mitigated. The rail improvements at Keith and Huntly have the potential to result in some negative effects however, these effects may be limited, considering there are no environmental designations in the areas of proposed interventions. There may be some localised landscape effects through the loss of vegetation, however mitigation could be incorporated, such as appropriate landscaping and tree planting to reduce these effects. The construction of transport interventions associated with the Refined Package also have the potential for negative effects but this depends on the extent of physical works and location.

Whilst the study area does not contain any nationally recognised scenic viewpoints, or nationally designated landscapes, there are visual sensitivities to some types of development within or visible from the Local Landscape Areas. There are also numerous towns, villages and rural properties, along with numerous paths, recreational trails and areas used for outdoor recreation where there is the potential for visual effects to occur.

A minor negative cumulative effect is predicted for the Landscape and Visual Amenity SEA objective.

Full Dualling Cumulative Effects by SEA Topic

Climatic Factors

GHG emissions arising from the construction stage are estimated to be in the range of approximately 700,000 tonnes CO ₂ e (tCO ₂ e) to 1,400,000 tCO ₂ e.

Traffic flows and emissions around the A96 increase as a result of this option due to a combination of reduced congestion, which potentially attracts traffic to the route, and an increase in route length which combine to increase overall vehicle kilometres under the Without Policy Scenario, resulting in a net increase in GHG emissions. The Net Present Value of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO ₂ e) of the proposal, indicates that road user GHG emissions would increase over the 60-year appraisal period.

The estimated increase in road user GHG emissions in the appraisal period between the ‘with scheme’ and ‘without scheme’ scenarios for the Full Dualling option is approximately 150,000 tCO ₂ e under the With Policy Scenario and approximately 1,450,000 tCO ₂ e under the Without Policy Scenario.

The existing A96 Trunk Road is considered vulnerable to the effects of climate change, particularly in areas at high risk of flooding, or locations where current or future ground stability issues are known or anticipated. Such areas identified in the environmental assessment for this package are the floodplains associated with the River Lossie near Elgin, flood risk areas around Keith associated with the River Isla, and flood risk areas around Inverurie associated with the River Urie and River Don.

The transport network improvements are expected to improve the resilience to identified flood risk areas, and other potential climate risks. The enhancements in the transport infrastructure to encourage sustainable transport modes in the area have the potential to partially mitigate road user emissions over time when coupled with decarbonisation of the grid and a switch to electric vehicles.

Whilst there is potential to reduce transport emissions, current key long-term climate change trends for Scotland suggest that average temperatures will increase across all seasons; typically, summers will be warmer and drier, and winters will be milder and wetter. These are likely to have an impact on the Full Dualling option. Heavy rainfall events will become more frequent in the coming decades, exacerbating flooding and landslide incidents. These events have the potential to flood railway lines, or wash sections away, leading to significant disruption on the rail network and a resultant knock-on impact on other transport modes and routes.

Paved surfaces created as part of the Full Dualling might incur surface damage or be impacted by surface water flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. There is also an increased risk of thermal expansion and movement of paved surfaces due to increased summer temperatures. Infrastructure might also be inaccessible during other extreme weather events.

In order to account for the effects of climate change, the infrastructure would be designed to be resilient to predicted impacts arising from current and future weather events and climatic conditions, in accordance with current planning, design, engineering practice, and codes. A number of mitigation and adaptation measures would be considered at later design development stages to address potential extreme weather events that will affect the region, and other likely climate risks.

As there is considerable uncertainty associated with the future impacts of climate change and any construction design is yet to be developed, an uncertain score was assigned for the climate adaptation SEA objective, in both With and Without Policy scenarios.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a major negative cumulative effect on the GHG emissions SEA Objective and an uncertain cumulative effect in relation to the climate adaptation SEA objective.

Air Quality

Full Dualling has the potential to have positive effects on air quality. Where the existing A96 Trunk Road alignment passes through settlements that would be bypassed by full dualling, these areas may experience an improvement in air quality due to a reduction in vehicle emissions, with traffic modelling indicating that at a daily level the anticipated traffic flow would reduce on the current A96 Trunk Road through the towns of Forres, Elgin, Keith and Inverurie with A96 Full Dualling in place by between approximately 45% and nearly 90% depending on location. However, as the A96 does not travel through the centre of Forres and Inverurie, benefits to air quality would not be as significant in the centre of these towns where traffic volumes are likely to remain relatively unaffected. Negative impacts on air quality may arise in the vicinity of the dualling alignment itself due to an increase in vehicles using the route. However, these are not expected to be significant due to the improved flow of traffic and the likely lower numbers of properties adjacent to the bypass route.

The option is anticipated to increase transport-based emissions over the 60-year appraisal period. There is a predicted increase of 94 tonnes of NOx and 140 tonnes of particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM _2.5 ) emissions in the With Policy Scenario; and an increase of 821 tonnes of NOx and 159 tonnes of PM _2.5 emissions in the Without Policy Scenario.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a minor negative cumulative effect on the air quality SEA Objective.

Population and Human Health

Full Dualling is likely to have positive effects in terms of communities and physical fitness. The network improvements could reduce disruption and congestion and increase accessibility, including access to services. The inclusion of the bypasses could lead to improvements in quality of life and accessibility for Elgin, Keith and Inverurie through removing some of the through traffic from the network. This has the opportunity to improve the roads in those locations to increase active travel opportunities and reduce some of the barriers to active travel. Creating a sense of place through improving these areas could increase active travel and physical fitness.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a minor positive cumulative effect on the quality of life and sustainable access SEA Objective.

Full Dualling has the potential to alleviate noise and vibration within the settlements, depending on the alignment of the dual carriageway, as it is assumed that dualling is likely to bypass settlements. Scotland’s Noise Map illustrates that vehicle noise from the A96 Trunk Road is a significant contributor of noise within the settlements on the A96 corridor and thereby noise effects could be reduced where the proposed dualling bypasses such settlements. Full dualling would inevitably result in greater noise impacts in proximity to its alignment. The significance of these effects would depend on the preferred alignment and its proximity to sensitive receptors, although noise mitigation could be incorporated. The construction of interventions included in this package and associated traffic is also likely to lead to minor negative effects on noise and vibration during the construction phase.

Full Dualling was assessed to have an uncertain cumulative effect on the noise and vibration SEA Objective.

Where the alignment of the dual carriageway results in the provision of bypasses, Full Dualling provides the opportunity to deliver interventions within towns to enhance placemaking and reduce real and perceived severance, reducing demand for unsustainable travel, particularly for shorter everyday trips. Facilitating the transition to sustainable models could further reduce traffic volumes within settlements along the corridor such as Elgin and Keith, enhancing the sense of place and supporting health and wellbeing. This is also expected to have a positive impact on the environment within any community bypassed, with improved air quality and result in benefits in relation to noise and vibration and visual amenity resulting from reduced traffic volumes within these settlements. It should however be noted that this option does not include the provision of active travel measures within bypassed settlements.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a minor positive cumulative effect on the placemaking (high quality places) SEA Objective.

The provision of a dual carriageway and an increase in safe overtaking opportunities between Hardmuir and Craibstone would result in the safer operation of the network and reduced accident rates and severity. This is particularly relevant at locations where there is a safety problem or a potential safety risk. From the analysis of accident data, the rural sections of the A96 Trunk Road have overall Personal Injury Accident (PIA) rates lower than or similar to the national average based on all A-roads of the equivalent type. There are however selected urban sections of the A96 trunk road that show a PIA rate higher than the national average, with specific locations in Forres and Keith. The rate of the Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) accidents is also significantly Higher than the national average in these two towns, nearly five times the national average in Keith and just above three times the national average in Forres. A number of rural sections of the A96 Trunk Road also have a rate of KSIs higher than the national average these being between Hardmuir and Forres, Fochabers and Keith, Keith and East of Huntly and Kintore and Craibstone. The improvement in safety would likely result in reduced accident rates and severity as well as a reduction in driver stress, through the provision of safe overtaking opportunities.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a major positive cumulative effect on the safety SEA Objective.

Material Assets

Full Dualling has significant potential for negative impacts on the sustainable transport SEA objective as dualling could potentially lead to increased vehicle traffic and associated negative impacts on several SEA topics such as climate (GHG emissions), air quality, noise and vibration, water quality and flood risk, biodiversity, cultural heritage and landscape.

However, there is a potential opportunity for road schemes to improve surface conditions, and, alongside advancement in the types of materials used, reduce overall maintenance needs in the longer-term, with associated positive effects. The full dualling option also has potential for minor positive effects on the sustainable use of the transport network by promoting or improving the sustainable use of the transport network through planning for future travel arrangements where journeys are made by a number of different modes (including active travel modes).

Bearing the potential negative and positive effects in mind, Full Dualling was assessed to have a moderate negative cumulative effect on the Material Assets sustainable transport network SEA Objective.

Depending on the source and type of materials/natural resources used to construct some of the new infrastructure associated with several of the proposed interventions, there is potential for major negative effects on material assets in terms of natural resources usage.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a major negative cumulative effect on the Material Assets natural resources SEA Objective.

Water quality and flood risk

Full Dualling has the potential for significant negative effects on water, drainage and flooding. There are large areas of floodplain around Elgin associated with the River Lossie, some of which have flood mitigation. There are areas of flood risk around Keith associated with the River Isla to the north of the town and some flood risk to the west and south-west to a lesser extent. There are also areas of flood risk around Inverurie associated with the River Urie and River Don. The construction of the new dual carriageway also has the potential to have a negative impact on water quality of these watercourses and consideration would be needed as to the alignment in terms of water crossings and bridge design.

The scale of the effects of these proposals would depend on the design and location of the works. These have the potential to have adverse environmental effects on water drainage and flooding which could be significant particularly if environmental designations are affected.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a major negative cumulative effect on the water quality and flood risk SEA Objective.

Biodiversity

Due to the overall scale of the required infrastructure, Full Dualling has the potential to have major negative effects on biodiversity and habitats, and forestry. Such impacts could either be direct such as demolition/land loss/habitat loss, or indirect such as impacts on setting or views and would depend on the alignment of the dualling. The A96 corridor and its surroundings, contain various local, regional, national, and international designated sites, the impacts on which would need to be considered. Depending on the alignment of the Full Dualling option, there could be significant effects on the environment given the scale of works which would likely be irreversible particularly given the sensitive locations along the existing route.

The local, regional, national, and international designated sites include for example SACs, SPAs and SSSIs. There are large swathes of Long-Established Woodland (of plantation origin), pockets of Ancient Woodland (of semi-natural origin) and areas with Tree Preservation Orders.

The scale of the effects will depend on the design and alignment of the dualling and further detailed environmental assessment would need to be undertaken as part of any further option development.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a major negative cumulative effect on the biodiversity SEA Objective.

Geology and Soils

Soils are important for biodiversity and carbon sequestration. They also provide important ecosystem services such as crop production, pollutant filtration, water retention and protection of archaeological resources.

Due to the overall scale of the full dual carriageway option, this package has the potential to have major negative effects on soils within and around the construction footprint, including high grade agricultural land, Geological Conservation Review sites, carbon rich soils and peat.

Potential construction impacts include pollution, erosion, removal, degradation, compaction and sealing.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a major negative cumulative effect on the soils SEA Objective.

Cultural heritage

Due to the overall scale of the required infrastructure, Full Dualling has the potential to have major negative effects on the historic environment. Such impacts could either be direct such as demolition/land loss or indirect such as impacts on setting or views and would depend on the alignment of the dualling. The A96 corridor and its surroundings, contain various local, regional, national, and international designated sites, the impact on which would need to be considered. Depending on the alignment of the Full Dualling option, there could be significant effects on designated and undesignated cultural heritage assets given the scale of works, which would likely be irreversible particularly given the sensitive locations along the existing route. This includes, but is not exclusive to, potential impacts on Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Conservation Areas, Historic Battlefields Sites and Scheduled Monuments.

The scale of the effects will depend on the design and alignment of the dualling and further detailed environmental assessment would need to be undertaken as part of any further option development.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a major negative cumulative effect on the cultural heritage SEA Objective.

Landscape

Due to the overall scale of the required infrastructure, Full Dualling has the potential to have adverse effects on landscape. Such impacts could either be direct such as demolition/land loss/loss of vegetation or indirect such as impacts on setting or views and would depend on the alignment of the dualling. The A96 corridor and its surroundings, contain various local, regional, national, and international designated sites, the impacts on which would need to be considered. Depending on the alignment of the full dualling option, there could be significant effects on the environment given the scale of works which would likely be irreversible particularly given the sensitive locations along the existing route.

In addition, according to the National Forest Inventory, wooded areas occur along the entire study area, concentrating on the outskirts of the towns of Nairn, Forres and Keith. In the southern part of the study area near Inverurie, there is less forestation than in the north. Conifers predominate, but there are also areas of fallen trees, broadleaved trees and young trees. According to the Ancient Woodland Inventory, long-established areas (of plantation origin) are found mainly from Inverness to Huntly.

The eastern end of the study area is within the Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Green Belt, the purpose of which is to help avoid coalescence of settlements and sprawling development on the edge of the city, maintain Aberdeen's landscape setting, and provide access to open space.

The scale of the effects associated with the full dualling of the A96 will be dependent on the design and alignment of the dualling and further detailed environmental assessment would need to be undertaken as part of any further option development.

Full Dualling was assessed to have a major negative cumulative effect on the landscape SEA Objective.

Summary of Cumulative Effects Assessment

In general the Refined Package has fewer negative effects and lower magnitude negative effects than Full Dualling in terms of potentially significant cumulative effects. This reflects the fact that the Refined Package was developed specifically to maximise the level of potential benefits provided by combining the best performing options from Packages 1 to 5. Both the Refined Package and Full Dualling have positive effects predicted for the Population and Human Health topics, for example due to targeted road safety improvements. However, the considerable amount of land-take, raw materials requirements and GHG emissions associated with constructing a fully dualled road for the entire corridor length has led to Full Dualling being assessed as having major or moderate negative effects for most of the SEA Objectives. In contrast, the Refined Package was assessed to be likely to lead to minor negative effects for most SEA Objectives, albeit with moderate negative effects predicted for natural resources and biodiversity due to the raw material demand and land-take associated with constructing the Refined Package bypasses.

In-combination Assessment

As stated in the UK Government SEA Guidance , “Cumulative effects arise, for instance, where several developments each have insignificant effects but together have a significant effect; or where several individual effects of the plan (for example noise, dust and visual) have a combined effect” ( ODPM (2005) A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister – Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government, Department of the Environment. ) .

Cumulative effects on an SEA topic can arise from the combined effects of plans. For example, proposals along a linear route, such as a transport corridor, may cumulatively affect the landscape qualities experienced along that route ( Scottish Government (2013) Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance. The Scottish Government, Edinburgh. ) .

The Local Development Plans (LDP) relevant to the Nairn, Forres, Elgin, Keith and Inverurie settlements have been reviewed to establish site allocations of proposed development on the periphery of the settlements, in order to identify land covered by housing policy and possible future planned large-area housing developments that need highlighting when assessing potential cumulative impacts. To focus on the development applications that are most likely to lead to significant in-combination effects, only plans to build 100 homes or more are referred to in Table 7.8.

Table 7.8: Development Land Allocations
Name/Application Site (LDP Ref)	Overview	Additional information
Nairn NA05 Nairn East	Site Type: Housing, Business, Community, Industry Area: 98.3 ha Indicative Housing capacity: 250 (650-850 Total) units	Masterplan for a new village of 650 homes on the eastern fringes of Nairn. Springfield Properties, which is nearing completion of more than 400 houses at its Lochloy development, has proposals for 650 homes on land at Balmakeith, Househill and Achnacloich. The three sites total 250 acres and, if approved, will begin close to Sainsbury’s stretching out towards Auldearn, tying in with the new Nairn bypass.
Forres R2 Farrylea	Site Type: Residential Area: 22.2 ha Indicative Housing capacity: 380 units	Phases 1 and 2 of development has commenced with 249 units consented.
Elgin Policy R10 Spynie Hospital North	Site Type: Housing Area: 21.63 ha Indicative Housing capacity: 435 units	Development commenced. 202 units remaining.
Elgin Policy R11 Findrassie	Site Type: Housing Area: 100 ha Indicative Housing capacity: 1500 units	An application for housing and amenities has been permitted for the 100ha site of R11.
Elgin Policy R17 Driving Range Site	Site Type: Housing Area: 4.81 ha Indicative Housing capacity: 132 units	Development commenced.
Elgin Policy R18 Linkwood Steading	Site Type: Housing Area: 3.49 ha Indicative Housing capacity: 111 units	Development commenced.
Inverurie Policy OP4 Phase 2 Portstown	Site Type: Mix of uses including 416 homes and commercial land	Full Planning Permission for 416 homes and 4 commercial units was approved in April 2018. The site is under construction with delivery continuing throughout the lifetime of the Plan.
Inverurie Policy OP5 Crichie	Site Type: Mix of uses including 737 homes, community facilities and a primary school	Planning Permission in Principle for 737 homes, business and industrial development, community facilities including a primary school was approved in December 2018.
Inverurie Policy OP7 Uryside Phase 2	Site Type: Housing including 681 homes	An application for the removal of a clause on an application for 611 dwellings is the only application for the site in the last five years and was withdrawn.

The remaining major vacant development sites include:

Nairn – Policy NA04 Sandown (36.3ha area proposed for housing, business and community - 350 units)
Nairn – Policy NA05 Nairn East (98.3ha area proposed for housing, business, community and industry - 850 units)
Forres – Policy R1 Knockomie (6.7ha area proposed for housing - 100 units)
Forres – Policy R3 Lochyhill (61ha area proposed for housing - 850 units)
Forres – Policy R6 Dallas Dhu (18.85ha area proposed for housing -136 units)
Forres – Policy Long1 Lochyhill (19ha area proposed for long-term residential and potential new school)
Forres – Policy OPP7 Whiterow (13.3ha area proposed for residential and/or small-scale business)
Elgin - Policy R3 Bilbohall South (9.9ha area proposed for housing -105 units)
Elgin - Policy R4 South West of Elgin High School (4ha area proposed for housing -107 units)
Elgin - Policy R12 Lossiemouth Road North East (16.5ha area proposed for housing - 150 units)
Elgin - Policy R16 Barmuckity (12.5ha area proposed for housing -190 units)
Elgin - Policy R19 Easter Linkwood and Linkwood (48ha area proposed for housing - 675 units)
Elgin - Policy R20 Glassgreen, Elgin South (18ha area proposed for housing - 195 units)
Elgin - Policy LONG 1A/B North East (located on the northern edge of Elgin and has been identified as area proposed for housing)
Keith - Policy MU (Area of 16.66ha on the eastern edge of Keith (Banff Road South) has been allocated for housing and community facilities)
Inverurie - Policy OP15 Land West of Bennachie View Care Home (Housing including 130 homes).

The in-combination effects between the A96 Corridor Review and these other plans and projects are likely to affect all of the SEA topics but will vary considerably depending on the timing of construction of each. Some effects, such as construction stage noise and vibration and air pollution are likely to be negative, but there may also be positive in-combination outcomes, for example related to improved safety or improved active travel connections. More in-depth, in-combination assessments for all environmental topics will be required at the project level when Environmental Impact Assessments are undertaken.

Assessment Summary

The results of the SEA matrix-based assessment showed that the Refined Package and Packages 2 and 4 are likely to have the lowest impact on the environment overall, with cumulative minor negative effects predicted. By comparison, Packages 1, 3 and 5 were assessed to lead to cumulative moderate negative effects and Full Dualling was assessed to potentially lead to major negative effects.

Related Assessments - Summary of Assessment Findings

Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA)

The EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (hereafter referred to as the Habitats Directive) was adopted in 1992 (as amended). The primary aim of the Habitats Directive is to promote the conservation of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species of European interest listed in the Annexes to the Directive at a favourable conservation status. It also introduces robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance.

Article 6(3) of the EC Habitats Directive requires that any plan which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European site but may be likely to have a significant effect on such a site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to an ‘appropriate assessment’ of its implications for the European site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The application of the precautionary principle is implicit in the Habitats Directive, which requires that the conservation objectives of European sites should prevail where there is uncertainty ( European Commission (2013) Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into SEA. ) . Where scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain, the precautionary principle is applied. This procedure is applied in Scotland through The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), and is known as the ‘Habitats Regulations Appraisal’ (HRA) of plans. These regulations remained in place post 31 December 2020, with only minor changes being introduced by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (United Kingdom (UK) Government (2020). The Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. ) (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.

Under the Habitats Regulations, a network of sites has been designated across Scotland and its marine environment for the purposes of nature conservation. This network comprises sites known as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs). SACs are designated for the protection of habitats, plants and non-avian animal species of conservation concern. SPAs are designated to protect rare or vulnerable species of bird, as well as certain regularly occurring migratory bird species. In addition, Candidate and Possible SACs, Potential SPAs and Ramsar wetlands (designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance) should be included in appraisals as they are afforded the same level of protection as European sites under domestic policy. European sites are designated due to the presence of specific habitats and species of internationally important biodiversity value, otherwise known as ‘qualifying interest features’.

Prior to the UK’s exit from the European Union (EU), Scotland’s SACs and SPAs were part of a wider European network of such sites known as the ‘Natura 2000 network’. They were consequently referred to as ‘European sites’. Now that the UK has left the EU, Scotland’s SACs and SPAs are no longer part of the Natura 2000 network but form a part of a UK-wide network of designated sites referred to as the ‘UK site network’. However, it is current Scottish Government policy to retain the term ‘European site’ to refer collectively to SACs and SPAs (including any which are designated following the UK’s exit from the EU).

An HRA Screening Report has been prepared to determine if the transport interventions being considered as part of the A96 Corridor Review might lead to any potential indirect or direct significant effects on European sites. The Screening Report considered potentially significant effects on 18 European Sites within a Zone of Influence. Of these, likely significant effects on the qualifying habitats and species of seven sites were ruled out. For the remaining 11 European sites, likely significant effects on the qualifying features could not be excluded at this stage, on the basis of information currently available and/or in the absence of avoidance or mitigation measures. The next stage in the HRA process, Appropriate Assessment, is therefore required for these 11 European Sites.

To avoid unnecessary appraisal of Packages and Full Dualling, with elements of them that may at a later stage be removed from consideration and not recommended to be progressed, the Appropriate Assessment will not be initiated until a final set of interventions has been determined. Despite this, in order that due diligence continues to be exercised in relation to European sites, and to inform the design of interventions being considered as part of the A96 Corridor Review, the HRA team will continue to provide high-level information on mitigation measures that may be required to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the European sites.

A summary of the HRA process completed to date will be included in the SEA Post Adoption Statement.

Climate Compatibility Assessment

The Scottish Government has confirmed the need for a transparent and evidence-based review of the A96 Dualling between Inverness and Aberdeen, including a climate compatibility assessment to assess direct and indirect impacts on the climate and the environment.

Jacobs AECOM have developed an assessment methodology, informed by existing best practice and alignment to national strategy and policy. The approach to the Climate Compatibility Assessment (CCA) was developed during the STAG Initial Appraisal (Case for Change) and Preliminary Appraisal stages and used to assess the interventions under consideration at the Detailed Appraisal stage. The CCA will remain as a separate and standalone assessment to the SEA’s Environmental Report, with both documents to be published for consultation at the same time.

Equality Impact Assessment

As a public body, Transport Scotland has a legal duty when creating new plans and policies to pay due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) included within the Equality Act 2010. The PSED aims to eliminate unlawful discrimination, promote equality and cohesion between different groups and advance equality of opportunity. Supplementary legislation (the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012), requires Transport Scotland to be proactive in meeting the PSED of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality and fostering good relations.

An EqIA report has been prepared to determine if the A96 Corridor Review packages of transport interventions and Full Dualling might lead to any potential impacts on protected characteristic groups and help demonstrate Transport Scotland’s due regard to the PSED.

The EqIA outlined the key evidence and issues relating to protected characteristic groups. It has identified both positive and negative impacts relating to Full Dualling and the transport intervention packages and Full Dualling assessed as part of the A96 Corridor Review. Overall, there is likely to be a minor or moderate positive impact on protected characteristic groups with Full Dualling and the transport packages contributing to improving outcomes by increasing accessibility to a range of transport options and enabling improved access to key educational and other destinations along the corridor.

The EqIA process started during the early stages of transport intervention development to ensure intervention options maximise positive outcomes and, where possible, include appropriate engagement with organisations representing protected characteristic groups to understand specific requirements.

A detailed EqIA should be undertaken for any outcomes of the A96 Corridor Review that progress to the next stages of design. This should include further consultation with protected characteristic groups and actions to enhance positive impacts and reduce negative impacts.

Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment (FSDA)

A FSDA report has been prepared to determine if Full Dualling and the transport interventions being considered as part of the A96 Corridor Review might lead to any potential impacts on socio-economically disadvantaged groups and help to reduce inequalities of outcome resulting from socioeconomic disadvantage. The FSDA report demonstrates Transport Scotland’s due regard to the Fairer Scotland Duty.

The FSDA report has outlined the key evidence and issues relating to socio-economically disadvantaged groups. It identified both positive and negative impacts relating to Full Dualling and the transport interventions. Overall, there is likely to be a minor positive impact on socio-economically disadvantaged groups with Full Dualling and the transport interventions contributing to reducing inequalities of outcome for socio-economically disadvantage groups by increasing accessibility to a range of transport options and enabling improved access to key employment, education and other destinations along the corridor.

The FSDA will need to be updated when Full Dualling or any transport packages are taken forward to the next stages of design.

Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA)

As a public body, Transport Scotland has a duty when creating new plans and policies to pay due regard to children and young people, as per the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, to avoid actions which breach children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

A CRWIA report has been prepared to consider if Full Dualling and the packages of transport interventions being considered as part of the A96 Corridor Review might lead to any potential impacts on children and young people and to help demonstrate Transport Scotland’s due regard to Section 1 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act.

The CRWIA report outlined the key evidence and issues relating to children and young people. It identified both positive and negative impacts relating to Full Dualling and the transport intervention packages (and Full Dualling) assessed as part of the A96 Corridor Review. Overall, there is likely to be a minor or moderate positive impact on children and young people with Full Dualling and the transport packages contributing to improving outcomes by improving noise and air quality, increasing accessibility to a range of transport options and enabling improved access to key educational and other destinations along the corridor.

As of July 2024, Transport Scotland have a legal responsibility to undertake a CRWIA for any new legislation which bring an Act into force or decisions of a strategic nature relating to the rights and wellbeing of children and young people. A detailed CRWIA will be completed for any transport intervention option taken forward as an outcome of the A96 Corridor Review that requires a Scottish Statutory Instrument. This should include further consultation with children and young people and proposed actions to enhance positive impacts and reduce negative impacts.

Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA)

A Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) has been undertaken as part of the A96 Corridor Review. A BRIA helps to assess the likely costs, benefits, and risks of any proposed primary or secondary legislation, voluntary regulation, codes of practice, guidance, or policy changes that may have an impact on the public, private or third sector (such as charities, community groups and other non-profit-making organisations). The Scottish Government recommends and encourages the completion of a BRIA as best practice to assess the impact of new legislation, as well as other changes such as voluntary guidance or policy changes, even where they do not necessarily present obvious additional obvious burdens. In such cases, it can either help confirm understanding that the impact will not change or identify and address unintended impacts which have not been identified previously.

The content of a BRIA should be proportionate to the problem involved and the size of the proposal. A Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment Toolkit and Template ( Scottish Government (2022) Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment Toolkit and Template. ) has been developed to provide guidance and information for completing a BRIA. This guidance encourages the preparation of a partial BRIA to inform consultation with stakeholders.

In line with the toolkit, an initial draft partial BRIA was developed. This provided baseline information on businesses and affected parties within the area as well as an initial screening assessment of the likely impacts, costs, benefits and risks of the various transport interventions. This was used to engage with selected relevant stakeholders in early 2023.

Assessment of the transport interventions shows that Full Dualling of the A96 could potentially reduce congestion. However, it is likely that widening the road and creating more capacity for traffic could actually induce more cars on the road. This would facilitate the issue of a high volume of cars on the road and businesses could still encounter issues due to this.

In contrast, the interventions contained within each transport package could provide more benefits to businesses. Active travel and public transport measures in particular would generally reduce the number of cars on the road and therefore allow more capacity for business trips.

The Partial BRIA will need to be updated when Full Dualling or any transport packages are taken forward to the next stages of design.

Island Communities Impact Assessment

An Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) has not been undertaken due to the geographic location of the A96 corridor.

< Previous | Contents | Next >