Freedom of information (FOI) releases from National Highways
This is a disclosure log of National Highways' responses to freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) requests that might be of wider public interest.
If you can't find the information you're looking for, you can make a new FOI request.
37 disclosures
-
We’ve reviewed the information received as part of the FOI process, which has resulted in a few more queries. Can you please help with provide the following: 1. The ‘management plan’, as defined in National Highways standard CS 466 Section 8, for each affected structure. We understand that a decision has been made to replace all structures. Replacement is one of a range of long-term options that should have been considered alongside repair, strengthening (etc.). We wish to review the process that has resulted in selection of the ‘replace’ option in each case. We do not need to see specific replacement design details or programmes. 2. The analysis that National Highways has undertaken to forecast queues and delays as a result of the current traffic management proposals. 3. How the risk of breakdown and resulting congestion will be mitigated. 4. Could you please share the methodology used to repair the spaghetti junction s-joints in Birmingham? 5. Could you please share your economic impact assessment and environmental detriment for the Lune Gorge project works?
Published: 10 September 2024
-
In your response to a question from ***** you declined to provide data on this scheme because the full businesss case (FBC) is being updated. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_appraisal_summary_tables_of?nocache=incoming-2674985#incoming-2674985 Will the update include a revision of the monetisation calculation of the heritage benefit whether through a new contingent valuation survey or by other means? If data from such a valuation is available please supply it to me. If not then please confirm whether or not such a revaluation is being carried out.
Published: 10 September 2024
-
Please can you let me have copies of the following documents relating to the proposed dualling of the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham. - Outline Business Case - Full Business Case Please include all annexes / appendices.
Published: 10 September 2024
-
On 24th July 2024 representatives of the campaign group Save Towcester Now met with a number of National Highways employees to discuss planning application ref WNS/2021/1819/EIA a proposed development in the Towcester area by DHL. Please supply all communications: email, minutes, virtual meeting records, etc that National Highways employees and representatives exchanged with DHL and/or their consultants, SAJ Transport Consultants regarding the points raised in the meeting of the 24th.
Published: 10 September 2024
-
CONTEXT In the Toton/Chilwell area of Nottinghamshire, there’s a development site consisting of the Toton Strategic Location for Growth (TSLG) and the contiguous Chetwynd Barracks (CB). Broxtowe Borough Council, as Planning Authority, has produced the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) published at https://www.broxtowe.gov.uk/media/10328/toton-and-chetwynd-spd-february-2023.pdf . The SPD envisages that TSLG&CB will provide 4,500 homes and 6,500 jobs. The SPD mentions a Local Connectivity Study by Mott MacDonald. Presumably Nottinghamshire County Council is also involved, as Highway Authority. The map on Pages 48-49 of the SPD envisages various new roads within the TSLG&CB development, with corresponding new junctions onto the A52. … Between M1 Junction 25 and Bardill’s junction, the SPD envisages new slip-roads from the A52 eastbound carriageway, and onto the A52 westbound carriageway. … Between Bardill’s junction and the Bramcote roundabout, the SPD envisages a new junction between the A52 and a “link road” into the TSLG&CB development. REQUESTS If National Highways has made any comments on the proposals for new slip-roads onto/from the A52 -- between M1 Junction 25 and Bardill’s junction -- please may I have a copy of your comments. If National Highways has made any comments on the proposals for a junction between the “link road” and the A52 -- between Bardill’s junction and the Bramcote roundabout -- please may I have a copy of your comments. If National Highways has made any counter-proposal – for a scheme for connecting the TSLG&CB development to the A52 that’s different from the scheme shown on Pages 48-49 of the SPD – please may I have a copy of your counter-proposal.
Published: 10 September 2024
-
What does ‘not yet required’ mean? [according to what/who?] What does ‘in forward programme’ mean? Why do only around half of the ponds have interceptors present? The lack of sediment removals indicates they are overdue – would you like to comment on that? Do you have data from historic (i.e. 1980’s onwards) drainage and pollution infrastructure regimes? I mean do you have access to that data regardless of your ability to share it? Why were lots of the interceptors inspected and cleaned on the same day? Are you able to confirm or deny if the ponds have had their sediment removed since installation? I.e. in your data it says ‘not yet required’ but many of the ponds are likely to have aged beyond the first recommended sediment removal cycle. If any have had sediment removed, please will you specify which ones? Which contractors are you using for the inspection and maintenance programme?
Published: 10 September 2024
-
Dear Sirs I write seeking information regarding the M25 Junction 10 (Wisley Interchange) DCO Examination, specifically: 1. Copies of all traffic model information relied on within the DCO submission 2. Copies of and / or access to the highway assignment and microsimulation models relied on within the DCO submission. 3. Copies of any traffic data used to develop the highway assignment and microsimulation models 4. Copies of the list of assumptions used to develop the highway assignment and microsimulation models I look forward to receiving this information
Published: 10 September 2024
-
I am requesting some information about your PCD site located at these coordinates 51.40177128975272, -1.354219899833418 off of the A34, situated between two branches of the river Kennet as it passes under the road. I understand this to be a collection pond for road runoff, that is filtered through reedbeds before discharging into the river Kennet. I understand this to be a concrete lined sediment collection pond that then drains into a larger clay lined pond full of reeds to further filter the water before being released into the River Kennet. There are 2 Pollution Control Devices as indicated by signage on the fences. Please can you confirm that this site is to collect road runoff from the A34 and filter it before it is released into the river Kennet? Is there a separate silt collection pond? What maintenance, such as periodic emptying is defined in the design of the silt collection pond? Does this maintenance schedule for the silt collection pond form part of the license granted to you by the Environment Agency to discharge into the river Kennet? When was this maintenance on the silt collection pond last carried out? What maintenance, such as periodic emptying is defined in the design of the larger reed bed pond? Does this maintenance schedule for the larger reed bed pond form part of the license granted to you by the Environment Agency to discharge into the river Kennet? When was this maintenance on the larger reed bed pond last carried out? What regular monitoring do you do on this site? When was this last carried out? Do you test the water in the ponds for pollution? When was this last carried out? Do you test the water leaving the ponds for pollution? When was this last carried out? Are the Pollution Control Devices purely used in the event of a pollution incident on the road? Are the Pollution Control Devices ever used during times of high rainfall and flooding to prevent runoff entering the river?
Published: 10 September 2024
-
We could have a conversation but I’m not sure what would be achieved, would it somehow get me some nights of good solid sleep back? Probably not. Other than some platitudes and perhaps an attempt to convince me I’m just being unreasonable, what did you have in mind for such a conversation? I am an armed forces veteran, what effect do you think being abruptly woken by sudden loud bangs in the middle of the night has on war veterans like myself? The bottom line is that your CDM (2015) duty holders have made a deliberate decision to break noise nuisance laws. That is resignation territory. They are liable, and their line managers (and perhaps ultimately even transport ministers) are vicariously liable. Although normal operational traffic noise of a motor way is exempt from noise nuisance laws, construction and maintenance work clearly is not exempt in any way, shape or form. National Highways is not above the law. There should have been no nuisance noise generated from your works between 2300 - 0700 hours at all; Unless you applied for dispensation with the local authority, but they don’t seem to be able to confirm that? As an FOI it would be nice to find out the names of your CDM duty holders and see copies of your RAMS. Also what noise readings did you take during this work? What records have made of the noise, and what mitigations did you put in place to prevent noise from disturbing nearby residents?
Published: 10 September 2024
-
I would like to know how many bridge strikes e.g bridges being hit by an high vehicle have occurred since the M1 opened in 1959 till now. I only need the the information from Junction 6 to Junction 18.
Published: 10 September 2024