This snapshot taken on 13/04/2009, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
This report presents the findings of a study commissioned by the Highways Agency to confirm or otherwise the recommendation of MIDMAN that A556(M) should not proceed but that a full movement interchange at Junction 20 of the M6, ie its junction with M56, should be constructed. The MIDMAN recommendation also recognised that such a strategy would probably require the widening of M6 to D4M between Junctions 19 - 20 and possibly require the widening of M56 to D4M between Junctions 9 - 7.
The study has compared the two road based options in accordance with GOMMMS leading to the production of Appraisal Summary Tables.
The study has used the MIDMAN traffic model refined to include additional minor roads, modelling of junction capacities, reclassification of existing link types, and refinement of zone loading points. Models were developed for the AM peak and inter-peak periods leading to estimated AADT flows. Future year matrices were developed for 2011 and 2026 using MIDMAN forecasts based on their Scenario 2 recommendations. Incremental assessments were undertaken with the base assessment for comparing the two options including M6 widening between J16-19 and M56 widening between J7-6 (see below). Also various options for creating restrictions on A556 with the J20 scheme were modelled; the option of closing the south-facing slips at J19 and reducing A556 to a single carriageway with a 40mph speed limit was the option taken through the remainder of the GOMMMS assessment.
The A556(M) option has been designed as a D2M, whilst the J20 scheme has included the widening to D4M of the M6 between J19-20 and the M56 between J9-7. With regard to the J20 scheme and associated widening of the adjoining motorways, two forms of motorway widening, parallel and asymmetrical, have been assessed leading to a recommendation as to which is preferable in this case.
Both options have been costed using quantities based on 1/2500 scale plans using rates published by Spons. Both options include works on the existing A556 to reduce its scale. The estimates produced were used in the economic assessment of the options.
The study used the latest available environmental data, and in the case of landscape assessment enhanced by site surveys by qualified landscape architects. Similarly, with regard to integration, the assessment of the options was against the latest planning policies. Full consultation has been undertaken with Statutory Consultees (English Nature, English Heritage, Countryside Agency and Environment Agency).
The study has also assessed the impact of the two options on the wider area network, particularly with regard to the SEMMMS strategy.
The study has concluded that the A556(M) is preferred on:
The study also considered in accordance with GOMMMS the need for widening the M56 between junctions 7 - 6, since this section of motorway had been considered in neither the MIDMAN study nor the SEMMMS study.
The recommendations of the study are that:
1.1 A scheme to provide a motorway standard link A556(M), between the M6 at Tabley (Junction 19) and the M56 at Bowdon (Junction 7) was included in the National Roads Programme from the late 1980s until the 1998 Roads Review.
The design of scheme was developed to such an extent that a Public Inquiry into the Line and Side Roads Orders was held in Autumn 1993, following which, in Summer 1995, the Orders, with various amendments, were confirmed by the then relevant Secretary of State, and made in June 1996. In the summer of 1997 a Value Engineering exercise was undertaken involving Highway Agency staff and their consultants for the scheme, Allott & Lomax.
1.2 Before the scheme could be progressed to a Compulsory Purchase Order Inquiry, it was subject to further Government review, with the result that in the 1998 Roads Review the scheme was remitted to the West Midlands to North West Conurbation (MIDMAN) multi modal study.
1.3 The MIDMAN study1, in December 2001, incorporated within their reporting, under their scenario CS2 which took account of public transport enhancements, a recommendation that a road based solution was required in the A556, M6, M56 triangle. However their recommendation was that A556(M) should not be taken forward. Instead, the traffic to the Manchester conurbation should be diverted further north along the M6 to Junction 20 at Lymm, and then along the M56 eastwards. In order to cater for these movements, the M6 J19-J20 would probably need widening to 4 lanes in each direction; the M56 J9-7 would perhaps need widening to 4 lanes in each direction; and additional free flow links would be required at J20 to cater for the northbound to eastbound and westbound to southbound movements. This diversion of traffic to a longer route would be reinforced by traffic management measures/ restrictions being applied to the existing A556.
1.4 This alternative to the A556(M) was put forward as an Objector's Alternative at the A556(M) Public Inquiry in 1993 and rejected by both the Inspector and the Secretary of State. The MIDMAN study recommendation is recognised as being based on the results of a strategic model and that Junction 20/A556 was on the periphery of the study area with the limitations that has for the detailed qualification of local impact. It suggested therefore that a further, more detailed, study would be required in this particular area before the recommendation could be confirmed or otherwise.
1.5 Some of the MIDMAN findings on environmental impacts, and indeed information included in the relevant Appraisal Summary Table in the 1998 Roads Review, were at variance with evidence presented during the 1993 Public Inquiry. This study has considered these issues, eg landscape impact, in more detail than would normally be available at this stage of scheme assessment but generally the level of data available, particularly on the M56, is in line with that required for a Stage 1 Report as set out in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 533.
1.6 A further issue in the A556 Area is the M56 between Junctions 7 and 6. This section of M56 was not considered within MIDMAN nor within the South East Manchester Multi Modal (SEMMMS)2 and the Highways Agency are concerned about its current capacity as a Dual 3 Lane Motorway.
1.7 Babtie has been commissioned by the Highways Agency to undertake a detailed study into the two route options for enhancing the capacity of the motorway network between J19 on the M6 and J7 on the M56. The results of this study to be presented within a GOMMMS appraisal framework. This study is also to include an assessment of widening the M56 between junctions 6 and 7. The brief for the study is included in Appendix 1.
1.8 The present study is a more comprehensive and detailed assessment than was practical within the strategic MIDMAN Study. In developing the study we have drawn upon the MIDMAN strategic appraisal and a range of other sources. The GOMMMS appraisal uses the national criteria as well as the local objectives set by MIDMAN. In this respect the present study is not a stand alone study but is a focused and detailed assessment of the two route options considered at a strategic level by the MIDMAN Study.
1.9 Sections 2 to 8 of this report describe traffic modelling and forecasting work, engineering layouts of the various options, cost estimates and assessment of the schemes against the five main criteria established by the "New Approach to Appraisal"
Section 12.0 provides an appraisal of the two schemes in the wider GOMMMS appraisal framework. This appraisal process has the following four appraisal 'strands'.
The AST's provided in this section, will draw together the findings of Sections 5 to 8 which assess the impact of the schemes on the Environment, Safety, Economy, Accessibility and Integration.
1.10 The study has been carried out in accordance with the directions of a Steering Group chaired by an officer from the Highways Agency. The members of the Steering Group are listed in Appendix 2.
The MIDMAN Study's primary highway focus was the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester. To address issues relating to "widening options" north of Junction 19, it is essential to have an understanding of the role of the A556 and the specific characteristics of traffic using the route and the problems that are generated by the present network. Although these characteristics are closely related to those of traffic using the wider M6, they are different and a clear understanding of the traffic related issues is essential to inform a more detailed assessment of options for widening north of Junction 19. Section 2.2 decribes this detailed assessment.
In the light of these issues a traffic assessment approach has been developed which builds upon the MIDMAN strategic approach, refined and tailored to address the A556 issues that have been identified. An overview of this approach is given in Section 2.3 and details of the enhancements made to the MIDMAN Highway Traffic Model to provide a robust, detailed assessment are given in Section 2.4. Use of the refined model to forecast highway travel demand, consistent with the MIDMAN study's wider multi-modal strategy are given in Section 2.5. The assessment of a range of options for the two remitted highway schemes are presented in Section 2.6
The A556 is a trunk road running between North Cheshire and South Manchester. The present study focuses on the short section between the M6 (junction 19) and the M56 (Junction 7). This section of the A556 provides a key link in the Strategic Network, in that it facilitates an important movement between two motorways and for other strategic traffic, although the road is not built to motorway standard. It is the signed route into South Manchester and in particular Manchester Airport for traffic approaching from the M6 south. The geography of the motorway network in this area is such that the M6 between J19 and 20 heads north-west to the Lymm interchange (J20) with the M56. The A556 provides a significantly shorter route between J19 and J7 and it was probably for this reason that Junction 20 was constructed without free flow slips between the M6 south and M56 East and vice versa. This section of the A556 provides a key link.
Manchester is a "super-primary" destination within the strategic network and the A556 provides the "gateway" to Manchester for trips from the West Midlands, South East England, London and the South East. Manchester Airport's main road access is via Junction 5 on the M56 and as a consequence the A556 and M6 provide the primary route for passengers and freight movements between the airport and the south.
In addition to its "national" role the A556 provides a sub-regional route for traffic between Cheshire and Greater Manchester. Traffic levels on the northern third of the "inter-motorway" section of the A556 are increased by more local traffic, in particular from Knutsford, when traffic from the A5034 joins the A556 at Bucklow Hill traffic lights.
The composition of traffic on the A556 is illustrated by data collected by a Roadside Interview Survey on the A556 south of Mere Crossroads(A50) in 1996. Data was collected from northbound traffic during a six hour period covering the AM and inter-peak period. This data has been expanded to existing AADT flow levels to give an indication of the pattern of one way movements across the day. The analysis has been based on Postcode sectors. Movements are detailed in Table 2.1 and summarised in terms of origin and destination type in Table 2.2. This summary assumes local destinations are those within approximately 12km of the survey location, and long distance origins being south of M6 J16 or North Wales and long distance destinations being beyond Greater Manchester.
Table 2.2 shows over 50% of northbound traffic on the A556 has a long distance origin, whilst only 5% has a long distance destination, indicating the importance of Greater Manchester as a Primary destination. Only one third of the traffic south of the Mere cross roads has a local origin or destination and strategic movements into Manchester, or beyond, account for a majority of movements. A majority of the sub-regional to sub-regional movements are likely to be movements from the M6 to M56. The importance of the A556 for traffic to Manchester Airport is demonstrated by the fact that 8% of trips on the A556 have a destination at the airport.
North of Bucklow Hill traffic levels are higher with an additional 5000 northbound vehicles. These trips principally have origins in Knutsford, and destinations across Greater Manchester.
To summarise the above, the A556 is a key link in the "strategic network", providing access into Manchester and the airport from the M6 and as a consequence the South of England. It also serves a variety of sub-regional movements due to its proximity to Greater Manchester.
The majority of the A556 between J19 and Junction 7 is an undivided 4 lane road, with substandard lane widths in places. The northern 1.5 km is a dual two lane road. At Junction 19 there is a traditional grade -separated roundabout junction with a free-flow link for southbound access to the motorway. The junction has been signalised in the last four years to give improved operational conditions, in particular to avoid queuing back onto the motorway.
The A50 crosses the A556 at Mere crossroads - a skew crossroads with signal control. For safety reasons right turns off the A556 have been banned. Further north at Bucklow Hill, the A5034 from Knutsford and local side roads meet with the A556 at a further signalised junction.
| Origin | Destination | Total | Percentage | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northern England | Bolton/Bury/Rochdale | Oldham/Hyde | N Manchester | E and NE Manchester | Manchester City Centre and Salford | Cheadle/Stockport | S and SE Manchester | W Manchester and urmston | Sale/Altrincham | Airport | Local villages/Lymm | NW of J20 | |||
| Local to A556 | 10 | 0 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 0 | 34 | 0 | 78 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 225 | 1% |
| West Cheshire/ N Wales | 23 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 79 | 58 | 42 | 0 | 107 | 16 | 19 | 0 | 361 | 2% |
| Northwich Area | 116 | 24 | 145 | 24 | 85 | 478 | 223 | 488 | 39 | 817 | 75 | 100 | 0 | 2613 | 15% |
| Winsford/Middlewich/Sandbach | 144 | 24 | 216 | 42 | 242 | 450 | 362 | 453 | 92 | 673 | 164 | 66 | 19 | 2948 | 16% |
| Crewe/Nantwich | 75 | 28 | 218 | 42 | 0 | 230 | 338 | 184 | 94 | 347 | 73 | 23 | 0 | 1653 | 9% |
| Midlands and Southern Eng | 517 | 195 | 889 | 24 | 689 | 1507 | 1066 | 1411 | 224 | 1405 | 1041 | 150 | 24 | 9141 | 51% |
| Macclesfield/Congleton | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 32 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 218 | 1% |
| Knutsford and Southern Villages | 39 | 0 | 95 | 19 | 46 | 103 | 118 | 0 | 30 | 206 | 78 | 105 | 0 | 841 | 5% |
| Total | 941 | 271 | 1626 | 151 | 1086 | 2911 | 2166 | 2688 | 479 | 3683 | 1447 | 509 | 43 | 18000 | 100% |
| Percentage | 5% | 2% | 9% | 1% | 6% | 16% | 12% | 15% | 3% | 20% | 8% | 3% | 0% | 100% | |
| Local | Sub-Regional | Long Distance | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local | 3% | 3% | 0% | 6% |
| Sub-Regional | 13% | 26% | 2% | 41% |
| Long Distance | 15% | 35% | 3% | 53% |
| Total | 31% | 63% | 5% | 100% |
Bowdon Roundabout forms the northern end of the A556 with access to the M56 slip roads and A56 to both Altrincham and Lymm being catered for by a large diameter at grade roundabout. This has recently be partially signalised to improve operational conditions. Access from the M56 West to A556 South is facilitated by a direct slip off to the A556 (junction 7), but access for northbound A556 traffic to the M56 westbound is not catered for directly, traffic having to negotiate the roundabout before heading south on A556 to the Junction 8 loop.
Given the sub-standard nature of the single carriageway section of the route a 50mph speed limit applies on this section. A range of safety related improvements have been implemented in recent years or are planned however none of these schemes significantly increases the capacity of the route. At the present day the route operates close to capacity throughout the extended peak periods and any "minor incident" on the route or on the M6 north of J19 leads to severe congestion and unreliability of journey times. Right turn movements along the route, and to a lesser degree left turns off the mainline, regularly disrupt the flow of traffic and give rise to unstable conditions and severe hazard. The high level of traffic, high proportion of Goods vehicles and narrow lanes lead to a high level of driver stress. The lack of a full movements junction at Junction 20 means that there is no alternative principal route when problems occur (there is an indirect link via junction 20 but the dumb-bell junction arrangement means significant levels of diversion traffic cannot be accommodated).
Increasing congestion on the A556 and M6 has led to traffic finding alternative routes across East Cheshire, with degradation of traffic and environmental conditions across a wider network.
There is little scope for the road to accommodate increases in traffic levels in future years. In the face of increasing traffic demand, operational conditions will deteriorate rapidly in the near future. The problems of the A556 were appreciated by the Highways Agency leading to the development of the A556(M) scheme which was endorsed by a Public Inquiry in 1993 and which forms one of the two schemes remitted to the wider MIDMAN study.
The historic safety record of the A556 reflects the sub-standard carriageway, traffic signal junctions and a range of side road and property accesses along the route. An analysis of injury accidents over the last five years is shown in Table 2.3. The 61 accidents in 1997 represent an overall accident rate of 0.667 PIAs per million vehicle kilometres. This is over 50% higher than the default accident rate for an S2 Older road as used by COBA11. The impact of recent safety schemes is evident in the decline in accidents since 1998, to half the previous level. Further safety schemes, in particular an improvement to the Bucklow Hill junction should continue to provide a reduction in accidents in the next few years. However, many sub-standard features of the route will remain and driver's perception of the route will still be poor.
| Year | Link Only | Total Including Junctions | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slight | Serious | Fatal | Total | Slight | Serious | Fatal | Total | |
| 1997 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 14 | 50 | 11 | 0 | 61 |
| 1998 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 50 | 10 | 1 | 61 |
| 1999 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 14 | 42 | 8 | 1 | 51 |
| 2000 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 36 | 3 | 1 | 40 |
| 2001 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 28 | 2 | 0 | 30 |
The traffic related problems of the A556 can be summarised as:
The A556 presently provides a sub-standard, but in some respects, a surprisingly effective link in the "motorway network" serving strategic and sub-regional traffic movements. Future traffic growth will lead to increased congestion and unreliability of journey times, will erode recent accident reductions and lead to further degradation of the local environment along the A556. In the face of greater congestion on the A556 drivers will increasingly seek alternative routes across East Cheshire exacerbating the traffic and environmental problems presently experienced as a consequence of traffic diverting off the strategic network.
The A556 has a number of traffic problems and these lead to environmental, and safety problems in the immediate vicinity of the scheme and increasingly across the wider network. The MIDMAN Study has defined a number of local objectives which its proposed strategy seeks to address and these are detailed in Section 9, in addition to the national objectives set out in the "New Approach to Appraisal". For the present study the following local objectives are of particular relevance and need to be considered in assessing any enhancement of the highway network between Junction 19 and Junction 7:
There is a broad range of national and local criteria against which the effectiveness of the two strategies need to be judged. Traffic issues are critical to the correct assessment of many of these criteria including safety and environmental criteria. The traffic assessment needs to be able to provide robust estimates of these impacts to enable a reliable GOMMMS assessment to be completed.
The requirements of the present study are:
The choice of approach was driven by the above requirements, the timescale and the available tools. The timescale, a matter of months, precluded any major data collection exercise or major traffic model development process. The approach was therefore dictated by the available traffic data and models.
Three potential traffic models existed, upon which the assessment could have been based. These are:
The first model was ruled out because the model did not extend south of Junction 18 to include routes that might be used by traffic when testing the motorway widening scheme.
The Sub Regional Model is focused on the Manchester conurbation but does not include an appropriate network within Cheshire. Thus significant additional work would need to be done to enhance the model adequately to represent travel conditions across a wide rural network.
The MIDMAN model was developed as a strategic model, covering the whole of the country with a more refined modelling of the M6 corridor. It was developed to assess at a strategic level options across the breadth of the MIDMAN study area. The MIDMAN consultants recognise their model is not appropriate for making detailed decisions on widening options north of Junction 19. However refinement of their highway model to enable a robust assessment of the alternative schemes, offers a route which builds upon their earlier work.
To provide a robust re-assessment of the two highway options identified by MIDMAN, and to assess the need for widening of the M56 between J7 and J6, it was concluded that a refinement of the MIDMAN highway model would be the most appropriate approach.
The development of this refined model is outlined below. This model has been used to assess a range of options based on MIDMAN's forecasts of highway travel demand. A key feature of the assessment has been the identification of an appropriate and practical Junction 20 scheme, with respect to the management of the existing A556 between the M6 and M56.
The traffic assessment identified the highway improvements required with each of the two widening strategies and provided data for the economic assessment of the schemes using COBA114 and the traffic input into other aspects of the GOMMMS assessment of the strategies.
The level of assessment undertaken has been tailored to the specific needs of the current study. That is, to develop and test the two options remitted to the study, to enable an even handed assessment to be undertaken and a robust recommendation made on the scheme to be taken forward.
The development and calibration of the A556 Area Traffic Model is fully documented in a separate report (A556 Area Study -Traffic Model development Report - May 2002)5 and is summarised below.
The A556 Area Model was based upon the MIDMAN model, with a sub-area of the latter model being provided by the MIDMAN consultants from their Reference Case and Core Strategy 2 assignments for 2001 and 2026. The area of the cordoned model was defined by Babtie after consideration of the potential area over which re-assignment could occur with the two alternatives to be assessed. Figure 2.1 indicates the area covered by the model.
The scope of the network was enhanced by:
The zone definition within the core study area was refined by the splitting of a number of zones on a proportionate basis. The refined zoning system is shown in Figure 2.2. Consideration was given to further enhancement of the zoning system (which is based on administrative rather than homogeneous traffic zones) but it was considered to be impractical given the timescale.
Checks on the matrix at different stages identified some bias in the key movements assigned to the A556 corridor. Although the MIDMAN study updated their synthetic matrices with observed data on the A556 itself, movements on other parallel routes did not reflect the balance of observed movements across all routes as revealed by RSI data collected in 1996. As a consequence the matrices were updated using data for the A50, A556, A5034 and Ashley Road in the Mere area. The MIDMAN matrices represent strategic movements and analysis of them revealed that short distance trips were largely missing from the matrices. This has had an impact on the level of calibration that could be achieved and more importantly requires care to be exercised in the interpretation of model outputs. At two key locations pre-loads of local traffic were applied to the calibrated model to minimise problems in the use of the model.
Models were developed for the AM peak and inter-peak period, the periods modelled by MIDMAN. Timescale considerations precluded the development of a PM peak model, thus estimates of AADT flows have been generated by factoring the two available time periods, using factors based on available traffic counts. The calibrated and validated models are considered to be appropriate for the assessment of the two scheme options being considered by the present study and to allow a robust decision on the preferred route to be made. The model has been scrutinised by the Highway Agency's modelling experts and been passed as appropriate for forecasting and differentiating between the traffic impacts of the schemes that form the present study.
Future year matrices were developed for 2011 and 2026, based on the MIDMAN forecasts of highway travel demand that flow from their Multi-modal assessment and Reference Case scenarios. This approach ensures consistency with the MIDMAN highway demand forecasts and includes any reduction of demand resulting from public transport proposals included in the MIDMAN package of proposals.
The refined A556 Area Model base matrices were factored by zonal trip end growth factors, determined from the MIDMAN matrices. The overall growth between 2000 and 2011 across the A556 Area Model is 15.9% for the AM peak and 18.1% for the Interpeak. These rates of growth are slightly higher than national low growth (NRTF 14.1% low - 24.1% High) and reflect the constraint to growth in the peak hour that will exist due to general network limitations.
The base network was updated to include a number of highway improvements that will be in place before any MIDMAN highway improvements are implemented. These are:
The Poynton, Stockport and MAELR schemes were assessed by the South East Manchester Multi-Modal Study (SEMMMS)2 which recommended design standards for each of these schemes. These recommended standards were incorporated in the model.
The traffic and economic assessment needs to establish the traffic impacts of a number of separate but related elements of highway construction. To enable these impacts to be fully identified an incremental assessment strategy was devised.
The testing of two basic scenarios allows the benefits of a combination of proposals to be quantified on a like basis, whilst also establishing the impacts of individual elements.
This approach has been adopted throughout the traffic and economic assessment. The assessment has been based on the 2011 traffic forecasts, with reference to 2026 to confirm the appropriateness of highway standards.
The MIDMAN proposals for a Junction 20 Scheme did not quantify what actions would be taken with regard to the existing A556 to deter traffic from continuing to use this shorter route. Their strategic model could not reflect banning of turning movements etc and "management of the A556 was represented simply by a reduction of speed and capacity and a lengthening of the route to twice it's actual length". The A556 Area Model has been enhanced to allow practical solutions to be modelled.
The development of a practical scheme for the existing A556 has been difficult. The A556 provides a more direct route between the M6 J19 and M56 J7 than the proposed route via Junction 20 (a distance of 8 km compared with 16 km). It is also the signed route at the present day. To be effective a Junction 20 scheme needs to provide a signed motorway route via Junction 20 that is more attractive to drivers, than the existing, downgraded A556. As demonstrated in Section 2.2 many drivers have the alternative option of using alternative routes to the East of the M6 which "cut-off the corner", albeit requiring the use of lower standard roads and travelling through towns such as Knutsford, Holmes Chapel and Alderley Edge. Analysis of traffic movements on the existing A556 reveal that 40% of the peak and 33% of the interpeak traffic is motorway - motorway traffic, ie travelling between the M6 and M56 or vice versa. The A556 also provides a trunk road connection from West Cheshire and Northwich to Manchester and motorway routes around the conurbation and this traffic could be heavily impacted upon by a poorly designed scheme.
To demonstrate the full range of impacts that could occur, four illustrative alternatives were tested. They are:
Traffic assignments on these four basic strategies were undertaken and the impacts are considered below.
At the present day, in the peak period many links in the wider network are running at or near capacity. As a consequence longer distance traffic is using some inappropriate routes and this is of particular concern to Cheshire County Council, who are responsible for many of these routes. Increased traffic levels in future years will increase journey times and may cause some drivers to re-route. Changes to routing will also be influenced by other highway schemes that are planned. To establish how traffic flows may change, irrespective of which strategy is adopted, the A556 Area Model has been used to quantify these changes.
Proposals for an Alderley Edge bypass and improvements to the highway network around Wilmslow and Stockport, will make cross country routes to the east of the M6 more attractive once these schemes are opened. These Do-Minimum improvements are expected to lead to a 5% rise in traffic, in effect an additional 300 vehicles an hour in the AM peak on the A50/A535/A34 corridor in 2011 compared with the existing network in 2011. The Do-Minimum flows are shown in Figure 2.3.
Widening of the M6 to D4 up as far as J19 - part of the MIDMAN proposals will improve travel conditions on the M6 and there will be a net transfer back onto the M6 from the A50/A535/A34 corridor of 100 vehicles an hour in the AM peak. The improved conditions on the M6 will also draw a further 150 vehicles an hour off the local road network to the west of the M6 to the south of Northwich. The daily (AADT) impacts of widening the M6 are to increase M6 flows by 2700 vehicles with reductions on local roads to the west and east of 900 and 1500 respectively as shown in Figure 2.4. The widening proposals extend south beyond the limit of the cordoned model and thus the full impact of these proposals cannot be reflected. It demonstrates that widening of the M6 to D4 strengthens the strategic role of the motorway.
In the subsequent analysis the impact of any scheme is given with reference to the Do-Minimum Network and in each case daily flow impacts (AADT) are shown.
The impact of widening the M56 J6-7 to Dual 4 lane, relative to the Do-Minimum network, is shown in Figure 2.5. It thus includes the impact of widening the M6 to the south of Junction 19. Widening between J6 and 7 improves traffic conditions on the link and as a consequence draws more traffic onto the M56 from other parallel East-West routes as indicated by the increased flows on the M56 between Junction 7 and 9. In addition, the widening of the M56 builds upon the benefits of widening the M6 (as shown in figure 2.4). It attracts some further long distance traffic back onto the strategic network, relieving the Alderley Edge corridor of a further 300 vehicles a day and local roads around Mobberley by 600 vehicles a day. There is also a small switch of traffic from the M6 into Manchester via routes through west Manchester to a route via the A556 and M56. The scheme increases traffic on the A556 by a further 800 vehicles to give an increase of 1400 vehicles relative to the Do-Minimum network.
Widening the M56 between junctions 7 and 6 has positive impacts for the wider network:
A scenario that includes an off-line Dual 2 lane motorway, parallel to the A556 (in addition to widening the M6 south of J19 and M56 between J6-7), is discussed below. The AADT flow changes of this scenario are shown in Figure 2.6 and the forecast flows in 2011 are shown in Figure 2.7.
The A556(M) scheme provides free-flow links with the M6 and M56, bypassing the existing sub-standard A556. This removes capacity constraints on the existing route between the M6 South and M56 East, to the benefit of strategic traffic and also assists access to west Cheshire. The free flow motorway links lead to travel speeds of 90-100kph compared with overall speeds of 40-60kph in the Do-Minimum on the existing A556 where speeds are depressed by signalised junctions along the route.
Residual traffic flows on the A556 south of the A50 at Mere are less than 2000 vehicles a day and the road can be down-graded south of Bucklow Hill to a local road and traffic calming introduced, with consequent benefits for the local community. Flows north of Bucklow Hill are higher at around 10,000 vehicles a day as local traffic from Knutsford towards Manchester is not served by the A556(M).
The scheme provides a direct link between the J19 and J7, parallel to drivers' existing route and reinforces the strategic role of the motorway network in the area. This is illustrated by an analysis of motorway to motorway movements along A556. In the Do-Minimum, 2011 situation an estimated 14,500 trips a day travel between the two motorways on the existing A556. Widening of the motorway south of j19 and east of J7 as discussed above increases motorway to motorway movements to 15,700 vehicles a day, 39% of all traffic travelling between the two motorway junctions. With the A556(M) scheme in place this increases to 18,900 vehicles a day.
The increase in motorway to motorway traffic is due to the A556(M) and widened M6 and M56, drawing back onto the motorway network traffic that has sought other routes due to the previously degraded level of service, particularly in the peak periods, that was provided on the strategic network. This is illustrated by Figure 2.7 that shows reductions in traffic on the wider network to the east of the M6 of 10-13%. In addition there is a predicted reduction in traffic flow on links to the west of the M6 as traffic is drawn back onto the motorway network. Other impacts of the scheme are a reduction of traffic travelling north of the M6 J20 and on the B5212 through High Legh as traffic takes advantage of the A556(M). Flows on the M56 J7-9 are reduced as traffic from Northwich and further west switches from routes via the M56 west of the M6 to the A556(M).
The A556(M) scheme removes a number of capacity limitations on the immediate network, removing congestion experienced by strategic and other traffic on the A556. In addition it attracts traffic back to the strategic network which otherwise diverts onto the local road network adding to congestion, noise and pollution in communities such as Holmes Chapel, Knutsford, Mobberley.
Provision of a motorway link directly between J19 and J7, increases the capacity of the existing travel corridor. The scheme thus draws back onto the motorway network, significant levels of traffic which otherwise find local roads and lanes an attractive way of avoiding congestion on and around the A556. The traffic which remains on A556 is local traffic which uses the A556 and the A50 or A5034 to access Knutsford , High Legh or Mere.
The traffic impacts of a scenario that widens the M6 and M56 through to J6, provides free flow slips at J20 along with various treatments of the existing A556 are presented below.
Option 1 provides widening of the M6 and M56 and provision of free flow slips at Junction 20 to facilitate direct movement between the M6 south and M56 East. With this option no restrictions are imposed on the existing A556. This represents a Do-Minimum option in relation to the spectrum of management options that could be imposed on the A556.
As discussed earlier the route via junction 20 is significantly longer than the A556 and without any incentive to use the Junction 20 route traffic is unlikely to transfer. This is borne out by Figures 2.8 and 2.9. The model predicts only 1200 veh a day will use the Junction 20 route, the remaining traffic opting to remain on the routes they would have used with out the Junction 20 improvement. This is illustrated by comparison of figures 2.4 and 2.8 which show very similar traffic impacts. Widening of the motorway links reduces congestion and improves reliability and journey times for existing users of these links. These improvements attract North-South traffic and East-West traffic from parallel routes and are the prime reason for the increased flows on the widened motorway links, only 1200 of the increases in traffic being accounted for by South to West movements.
In summary, without some "management" of the A556, the J20 route is not attractive and the scheme fails to meet the objective of attracting strategic traffic and relieving the A556 and other routes.
Option 2, provides widening of M6 J19-20 and M56 J7-9 with free flow slips, as Option 1 but with closure of the south facing slips at Junction 19 to "force" traffic to use the new Junction 20 slips. The A556 has been reduced to a single carriageway, south of Bucklow Hill and a 40mph speed limit introduced.
Figure 2.10 shows the impact of Option 2 across the wider area, whilst Figure 2.11 shows the forecast flows. Closure of the Junction 19 slip roads results in less than 10,000 vehicles opting to use the Junction 20 slips. In the Do-Minimum 14,500 vehicles a day travel between the M6 and M56 and a further 5,000 between the M6 and A56 and both these movements are displaced by the Junction 19 slip closure in Option 2. The proportion of motorway to motorway trips that switch to Junction 20 is only 35% of those similar trips catered for by A556(M). Of the total displaced trips only 50% switch to Junction 20. Closure of the Junction 19 slips means that strategic trips that do not opt to continue to Junction 20 must leave the M6 at Junction 17 or 18. This closure also affects strategic trips heading to Northwich and Knutsford in addition to the "through traffic" discussed above. As a consequence flows on routes to the east of the M6 increase by 11%. Part of this increase is due to drivers travelling to Knutsford having to divert off the M6 at Junction 18. Flows to the west of the M6 increase by 9% as a result of trips to the Northwich area diverting off the M6 earlier and due to trips from Middlewich/Winsford finding non-motorway routes towards Manchester. Again flows on the widened sections of the M6 and M56 are higher due to higher travel speeds, but only about 70% of this additional traffic uses the new slips at Junction 20. Increases in traffic in the M6 corridor north of the M56 are in part due to some drivers opting to continue up to Junction 21a to join the M62 into Manchester, even though this junction experiences significant congestion in peak periods.
Figure 2.10 shows that across the wider network flows increase rather than decrease as a consequence of the scheme. Reductions in traffic are recorded on the M6 and A556 and the route through High Legh due to closure of the slip roads. The increase in flows across the wider network will impact on the local communities, including Holmes Chapel, Knutsford, Mobberley and other smaller communities. Local pinch points on the wider network may need to be improved to mitigate the effects of congestion. Narrowing the A556 is an integral part of the management of traffic on the A556 with this option. Although flows are approximately halved in relation to the Do-Minimum, the reduction in capacity leads to no overall improvement in traffic travel times or driver stress. Indeed, the reduction in road width may exacerbate problems when an incident occurs along the route, or on the M6 north of J19.
Option 3 represents the ultimate "traffic management" of the A556- full closure of the road between Junction 19 and Bucklow Hill for all except local access. This option impacts on all through traffic, presently using the A556 which in the Do-Minimum amounts to 38,500 vehicles a day. Figure 2.12 shows the impact on traffic flows of option 3, whilst Figure 2.13 shows the forecast flows. With this scheme 14,000 vehicles use the Junction 20 slips, higher than option 2 but the consequence of more draconian measures. Of the traffic routing via Junction 20, only 6,500 are motorway to motorway movements. Other strategic traffic diverts to a range of other routes as with Option 2. Impacts to the east of the study area are broadly similar to Option 2 as strategic traffic diverted by the closure of the A555 route chooses similar routes. This option retains access to Northwich from the M6 and flow increases to the west of the M6 are lower than Option 2 as changes are mainly due to Middlewich/Winsford traffic re-routing to new routes. The scheme prevents Northwich traffic using the A556 to travel towards Manchester. This traffic in part uses the M56 junction 10 to head north east, whilst the remainder seeks alternative routes round and through Knutsford. The A50 and A5034 route from Knutsford to Bucklow Hill is significantly affected and leads to traffic levels north of Bucklow Hill only reducing by about 50%.
Option 3 closes the A556 south of Bucklow Hill, which benefits the local community in environmental terms, however this is at the expense of other communities, in particular those on the A5034, Mobberley, Ashley and Knutsford.
With Option 4, restriction of the use of the A556 is based on reducing the road to a single carriageway and imposing a 40 mph speed limit. In practice and in particular in the peak periods speeds along the A556 are regulated by the traffic levels. The traffic impacts are shown in Figure 2.14 whilst the forecast flows are shown in Figure 2.15. This scheme is not discriminatory in that no specific movements are prevented from trying to use the A556. Due to the capacity restriction only a proportion of the total demand can be accommodated on the A556, the remainder finding alternative routes either via junction 20 or the local road network. Only 4,000 vehicles a day opt to use the J20 slip roads, only a quarter of the motorway to motorway traffic. The scheme has a broadly neutral impact on traffic levels to the south of the study area, relative to the Do-Minimum. However the scenario results in a higher level of traffic on these roads than occurs with the Incremental 2 network. So, although keeping the slip roads open at J19 reduces the impact on the network to the south of the scheme, it is at the expense of the usage of the Junction 20 slips. Narrowing the carriageway of the A556 reduces traffic levels on the road, from 38,600 in the Do-Minimum south of Mere crossroads, to 29,600, a reduction of only 25%. A comparison of journey speeds along the A556 between Junction 19 and Bowdon Roundabout is given in Table 2.4.
| Do-Minimum | Option 2 | Option 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AM Peak | 38 kph | 43 kph | 21 kph |
| Inter-peak | 60 kph | 55 kph | 28 kph |
Closure of the Junction 19 slips in Option 2, reduces the demand for travel along the A556 and narrowing the road can be accomplished without impacting on travel times. However with Option 4, using narrowing to reduce traffic levels results in a halving of travel speeds, relative to the Do-Minimum. This leads to congestion along the route throughout the day and a significant degradation of journey quality for all users whether they are making strategic or more local trips.
Demand varies over the day but capacity provided is essentially fixed. As a consequence Option 4 leads to a more uniform flow profile on the A556 across the day and this explains why although the capacity of the route has been halved, the daily flow has only been reduced by 25%. Restriction of the A556 only "displaces" 9,000 vehicles a day from the route, of which only 44% use the Junction 20 slips.
A broad range of restraint options have been investigated by the above tests, in an attempt to establish the most effective solution.
To be effective, a Junction 20 option needs to attract strategic traffic to travel a longer distance than at present via the new free flow slips. This is the nub of the matter that the MIDMAN strategic assessment was unable to firm up on. The present study has looked at a broad range of traffic management options and none of these schemes is fully effective and transfer is only achieved at a disadvantage to a significant amount of traffic.
The options investigated are summarised in Table 2.5.
| Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management measure | None | Close south facing slips at j19, narrow A556 | Close A556 completely south of Mere | Narrow A556 |
| Targetted approach? | No | Strategic traffic between M6 and Bowdon | No - all users affected | No - all users affected |
| Users Adversely affected | None | Traffic from M6 south to Knutsford and Northwich | All users. Local and strategic | All users. Local and strategic |
| Through trips displaced by management measures | None | 19,500 | 40,000 | 9,000 |
| Predicted usage of J20 slip roads AADT | 1,200 | 9,900 | 14,000 | 4,100 |
| Proportion of displaced traffic on slips | None displaced | 50% | 36% | 49% |
| Other adverse impacts | None | Local network particularly Holmes Chapel area. Trips to Northwich and Knutsford from M6 diverted off M6 | Local network particularly Knutsford and Mobberley | Local network particularly Knutsford and Mobberley |
In none of the cases do the Junction 20 slips fully serve their intended purpose, to provide an attractive route to longer distance traffic. The additional distance involved in using Junction 20 is too great to be attractive to the majority of drivers that the scheme seeks to serve.
The above analysis clearly indicates that, some management of the A556 or access to it, is required if traffic is to be encouraged to use the newly constructed slip roads at junction 20. At the present day, the A556 is the signed route from the M56 to the M6 South and if a Junction 20 option were implemented traffic would be signed via Junction 20. The traffic model cannot take account of the impact of signing and it is accepted that the estimated usage of the Junction 20 slips is likely to be under-estimated by the model.
The above analysis has demonstrated that it is not possible to develop management measures that are targeted at re-routing strategic traffic and are effective at achieving this. The A556 at present provides a direct and reasonably effective link in the strategic network. Any junction 20 solution involves "persuading" drivers to use a less direct route and thus does not meet their aspirations. This is reflected in the above analysis which shows drivers, including those making strategic trips prefer to route to lower standard routes.
Option 2 is reasonably targeted but only transfers a half of the displaced trips to the new slip roads. It has the disadvantage of most of the options that it increases traffic levels on the wider network, particularly in southern Cheshire, with consequent congestion and environmental impacts for residents in the area. It does not lead to any appreciable improvement in traffic conditions on the existing A556 (compared with the Do-Minimum) but equally nor does it lead to a significant worsening of conditions as occurs with Option 4. In relation to motorway to motorway traffic, the scheme is not effective in retaining and encouraging strategic traffic onto the motorway, with only 35% of motorway to motorway trips retained on the motorway network. In terms of practicality and acceptability, Babtie consider that Option 2 is the most appropriate option to take forward to the economic assessment and GOMMMS appraisal, along with the A556 (M) Scenario. This decision was endorsed by the Steering Group.
The A556(M) Scenario and the selected Junction 20 Scenario are compared below. The Junction 20 Scenario includes widening the M6 J19-20, M56 J7-9, closure of the south facing slips at Junction 19, provision of new slip roads at Junction 20 and narrowing of the existing A556 south of Bucklow Hill to a two lane single carriageway. A summary of the impacts is shown in Table 2.6 below.
| DO-MIN | A556(M) | M6 J20 (Opt 2) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing A556 traffic levels (2011) | 38, 600 - 50, 3000 | 1, 200 - 9, 900 | 20, 300 - 34, 000 |
| A556(M) traffic levels (2011) | N/A | 49, 200 | N/A |
| M6 J20 slips traffic levels (2011) | N/A | N/A | 9, 900 |
| SW Screenline S. of Northwich | 30, 000 | Decrease by 2,500 | Increase by 3,300 |
| SE Screenline S. of Knutsford & Alderley Edge | 50, 000 | Decrease by 6,000 | Increase by 5,300 |
| NE Screenline S. of Ashley | 10, 000 | Decrease by 1,400 | Increase by 1,200 |
| Impact on Strategic Traffic (m'way to m'way) | 14,500 | 18,900 - Additional 4,500 trips attracted back to motorway network | 6,600 use J20 slips - 7,900 Trips displaced to local road network |
| Impact on communities | N/A | Reduction of traffic through towns and villages | Increase in traffic through towns and villages |
| Traffic conditions on Existing A556 | N/A | Most traffic transferred to parallel motorway | Traffic halved but congestion levels not improved |
The two scenarios have opposing traffic effects. The A556(M) enhances the motorway network by providing a direct link between J19 and J7 and attracts strategic traffic onto the motorway, re-enforcing the strategic role of the M6 and M56. The reduction in traffic across the local road network is to the benefit of the local communities, reducing congestion and consequent environmental problems. It removes 80 - 90% of traffic from the A556 to the parallel A556(M), to the benefit of the properties fronting the existing road, but to the disadvantage of a number of properties close to the new motorway.
The Junction 20 Scenario displaces strategic, motorway to motorway, traffic from the A556(M) with only 35% of it transferring to the new Junction 20 slip roads, the remaining traffic opting to use a range of A class, B class and C class roads across the Cheshire network. Closure of the slip roads also impacts on traffic from the M6 with a local destination in the Knutsford/Northwich area that is forced to leave the M6 at Junction 17 or 18. These increases in traffic will increase the adverse impacts of traffic experienced in communities such as Holmes Chapel, Knutsford, Mobberley. The local Highway Authority may need to develop schemes to alleviate pinch points on the local road network to mitigate the impacts of the Junction 20 scheme. Narrowing of the A556 south of Bucklow Hill and the lowering of the speed limit to 40mph is a integral part of the scheme. Traffic levels on the A556 are roughly halved but there is no significant change in journey speeds along the route as identified in Table 2.1 of 40-60 kph.
To quantify the wider area impacts of the two scenarios, an analysis has been undertaken of the network within which flow changes for the two schemes are encompassed. Links have been categorised by flow level and change in flow as shown in Figures 2.16 and 2.17. The analysis method is detailed in Appendix 3.
These figures show that the whilst only 11 kilometres of the network have an increase in traffic of more than 10% with the A556 (M) scheme, 111 km of network experience this level of increase with the Junction 20 scheme. Likewise, the A556 scheme reduces traffic by more than 10% on 132 km or route, whilst the Junction 20 scheme reduces traffic on only 39 km of the network.
In conclusion, the two scenarios have markedly different traffic impacts and in terms of the traffic related objectives set by the wider MIDMAN study the A556(M) performs better, as discussed in more detail in section 9.
View larger image
The A556(M) was the subject of a Public Inquiry in 1993, at which stage it was presented as a dual 3-lane motorway (D3M) scheme. Subsequent to the publishing of the Line and Side Roads Orders in 1996, a Value Engineering Exercise was instigated by the Highways Agency, one of the outcomes of which was a reduction in standard of the A556(M) scheme to a dual two lane motorway (D2M). This standard, D2M, has formed the basis of the assessment in this study.
The MIDMAN study concluded, as part of their Scenario 2, and in particular their assessment of the J20 scheme, that the M6 between J19-20 would probably require widening to dual 4-lane motorway (D4M) and the M56 between J9-7 would perhaps require widening to D4M. Given the time limitations imposed on this study, Babtie assumed that both sections of motorway would be widened to D4M and this formed the basis of the assessment in this study. This assumption was accepted by the Steering Group as the pragmatic way forward, with the standards to be confirmed by the traffic and economic modelling and analysis.
The M56 Junctions 7 - 6 is treated in the study as a 'stand-alone' scheme and since the brief was to investigate capacity problems, a D4M standard was used as the basis of any required increase in capacity.
The proposals involve the construction of a new motorway between the M6 and M56, west of the existing A556 route. There would be free flow junctions with the M6 and M56, and two intermediate grade separated junctions with the existing A556, one located north of the M6 and one south of the M56. There would be full access to the Knutsford Motorway Service Area (MSA) from both the M6 and the new scheme. The proposals also include the closure of the south facing slip roads at Junction 19 on the M6 and their reinstatement connecting the M6 with Northwich Road. This scheme is principally that for which Line and Side Road Orders were made in 1996 and subsequently modified following a Value Engineering Review in 1997.
Commencing from the south, the M6 would be widened symmetrically to dual 4 lanes from the new south facing slip roads from Northwich Road to where the A556(M) connects with the M6.
Between a point just south of Tabley Hill Lane and Junction 19 the existing sub-standard M6 horizontal alignment would be improved and the existing south facing slip roads at Junction 19 would be removed in order to facilitate the provision of the north facing slip roads from the MSA to the M6 (see Section 3.2.3). After the MSA overbridge the northbound carriageway would develop into 5 lanes, 2 lanes forming the northbound carriageway of the new scheme which would diverge from the M6 immediately north of Northwich Road, pass under Tabley Hill Lane and then turn in a northerly direction to cross over the M6 approximately midway between Tabley Hill Lane and Junction 19. It would then cross under Swain's Walk and converge with the southbound carriageway of the A556(M) in the vicinity of Moss Lane.
The mainline would be a dual 2-lane motorway. It would pass under Chester Road, then under Bentleyhurst Lane, and turning northward to run approximately parallel to the A556 Chester Road, it would pass under the A50 Warrington Road, the Hulme Barns Farm accommodation bridge, Bucklowhill Lane and Chapel Lane. The mainline would then turn eastwards, crossing Millington Hall Lane and passing under Millington Lane before passing under New Hall Farm accommodation bridge and Chester Road.
Immediately south of the M56 the carriageways would diverge with the southbound carriageway joining the M56 just west of Bowdon Link. The northbound carriageway would pass under the M56 and westbound Bowdon Link before merging with the realigned eastbound slip road from Bowdon roundabout and joining the M56 in the vicinity of Ryecroft Covert.
The scheme would be lit in the vicinity of the free flow motorway interchanges, but the central section would not be lit.
Wherever it is necessary for a side road to cross the scheme, where possible the structure would be constructed at right angles to the mainline, and off the existing line of the side road thus enabling access to be maintained on the side road during the construction period.
Commencing from the south, Sudlow Lane would cross over the M6 on a new structure to the south of the existing, which would have to be demolished to accommodate the new south facing slip roads to the MSA and Northwich Road. Sudlow Farm accommodation bridge over the M6 would be demolished and not replaced. Northwich Road would form part of J19, receiving the south facing slip roads from the M6. Northwich Road would be realigned to the north in order to construct the new bridge over the M6. Both of the slip road junctions with Northwich Road would be roundabouts, and the length of Northwich Road between the roundabouts would become a dual carriageway. To the west of the western roundabout Northwich Road would become a wide single carriageway to its junction with A556 Chester Road.
Tabley Hill Lane would cross over the M6 and the A556(M) links on a new structure located to the south of the existing; Swain's Walk, a bridleway and private means of access, would be carried over the A556(M) links on bridges; Moss Lane would be realigned to the north in order to construct the new structure carrying it over the scheme and also to facilitate the removal of two acute bends to the east of the mainline.
North of Moss Lane, the intermediate junction between the new scheme and A556 Chester Road would be sited (see Section 3.2.4). The new structure taking Chester Road over the scheme would be to the west of the existing line, with Chester Road constructed as a wide single carriageway between the 'dumb-bell' roundabouts. The existing gaps in the central reserve on the length of Chester Road between this junction and Junction 19 would be closed, turning movements being via the roundabouts.
Bentleyhurst Lane would cross over the scheme on a structure to the north of the existing line; the A50 Warrington Road would cross the mainline on a structure constructed as close as possible to the existing line on the south side in order to maintain the highway standards of the A50; an accommodation bridge for Hulme Barns Farm would be constructed some 250 metres north of Warrington Road.
The structures carrying Bucklowhill Lane and Chapel Lane would be constructed to the north and south of the existing lines respectively. Millington Hall Lane would be severed by the scheme. Access to the eastern length of the lane would be via an improved junction with A556 and access to the western length would be via an improved junction with Millington Lane; Millington Lane would cross the mainline on a structure south of the existing line and an accommodation bridge for New Hall Farm would be constructed some 220 metres north of Millington Lane.
Yarwoodheath Lane bridge, which carries an accommodation track and a public footpath, would be demolished and not replaced. During the Public Inquiry there was no request from the affected owners for a new bridge since a large area of land to the south of M56 currently served by the bridge would be required for the A556(M). Ryecroft footbridge would be rebuilt some 20 metres to the east of the existing structure.
The construction of the new scheme would also include an improvement to the existing A556 between the proposed roundabout adjacent to Mereside Farm and Bucklow Hill. Between these two points Chester Road would be reduced from a four lane to a two lane single carriageway road, thus allowing the substandard bend to be improved and right turning facilities provided at Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. A further amendment to the A556 would be provided in the vicinity of the M56 underbridge where the carriageway configuration would be revised to allow for the addition of an extra lane. This would be done by reducing the existing lane and central reserve width.
Since the A556(M) would remove a significant amount of traffic from the existing A556 between Bucklow Hill and the proposed junction at Tabley, concern was expressed in the Public Inquiry in 1993 that if no physical measures were applied to the carriageway it would be attractive to 'boy racers' and the like. The format of any measures was never agreed with Cheshire County Council so for the purpose of this exercise it has been assumed that the carriageway would be narrowed to 7.3 metres. The proposals are shown on the drawings in Appendix 5 and have been included in the scheme cost estimates in section 4.
Commencing from the south, the existing sub-standard south facing slip roads into the Motorway Service Area would be replaced by new slip roads commencing south of Sudlow Lane. These slip roads would not only provide access into and out of the MSA from the south but would also extend to provide a highway access to and from Northwich Road. These slip roads would provide access for both Northwich and Knutsford traffic; in the case of Northwich traffic there would be redistribution of traffic such that it approaches the Northwich Road/Chester Road junction along Northwich Road instead of, as at present, from Junction 19. This increased volume in traffic requires the widening of Northwich Road between the M6 and Chester Road, and the improvement of the existing traffic signal controlled junction by the addition of a 'G-turn'. The slip roads would be located in such a position as to allow for the expansion of the Service Area.
North of Tabley Hill Lane the northbound A556(M) link would merge with the slip road carrying traffic from the MSA to the new scheme. Northbound traffic leaving the MSA wishing to access the M6 would use a new slip road from the MSA running parallel to the northbound carriageway of the new scheme joining the M6 immediately south of Junction 19. In a southerly direction, a slip road for vehicles on A556(M) wishing to access the MSA would diverge off the mainline immediately south of Swain's Walk; this slip road would merge with the southbound slip road from the M6 before entering the MSA. The southbound slip road from the M6 would diverge from the M6 south of Junction 19, go under and then over the northbound and southbound carriageways respectively of the new scheme before merging with the southbound MSA slip road from the new scheme. This overall junction arrangement ensures that all traffic movements between the M6/A556(M) and MSA, plus movements between M6 and A556(M) and M6 and A556 are catered for.
At Over Tabley a junction between the A556(M) and Chester Road will be provided by means of grade separation and north facing slip roads. Two new roundabouts will be constructed on Chester Road. This junction would cater for traffic between Northwich and A556(M) and would help to ensure maximum relief to the existing A556 between this point and Bucklow Hill.
At Rostherne a junction between the A556(M) and Chester Road will be provided by means of grade separation and a roundabout. The roundabout will be situated at Mereside Farm and a slip road will link the A556 and the southbound A556(M). This slip road will carry all southbound traffic from Altrincham, except that travelling to Knutsford. Northbound traffic will enter the existing A556 in the vicinity of the existing M56 bridge. This overall junction layout will cater for traffic between Altrincham and A556(M) and would ensure maximum transfer of traffic onto the A556(M).
Immediately south of the M56, the two carriageways of the A556(M) would diverge with the southbound carriageway joining the M56 just west of the Bowdon Link. The northbound carriageway would pass under the M56, under the M56 westbound Bowdon Link, to merge with the realigned eastbound slip road from Bowdon roundabout and joining the M56 in the vicinity of Ryecroft Covert. The existing eastbound slip road from the M56 to Bowdon roundabout would be realigned to accommodate the alignment of the northbound carriageway of the new scheme. This junction layout provides free flow between M56 and A556(M).
Two forms of motorway widening to give dual 4 lane carriageways are assessed in this report, and both forms, parallel and asymmetrical, have been applied to both M6 and M56 to allow a comparative assessment in line with GOMMMS.
The proposed layout is shown on Drawing Nos. 7201914/YA/002 in Appendix 4. The principle behind this layout is to construct a whole new carriageway outside the existing trafficked carriageways to minimise interference with traffic flows. The centreline of the widened motorway is offset from the existing centreline by 21.9 metres, to a position 6 metres outside the existing back of verge. Once the new carriageway is constructed, traffic is transferred to it from the nearest existing adjoining carriageway, which is then widened to accommodate the fourth lane before being utilised by traffic in the 'opposite' direction. The redundant carriageway is then landscaped with part of it retained for access, either emergency or during maintenance work on the motorway. Parallel widening has the advantage of minimising disruption to traffic during construction and moving the motorway away from sensitive locations. Additional land is generally only required on one side of the motorway and the choice of the widened side takes account of important engineering and environmental features, while providing for extensive landscape treatment and, where necessary, noise barriers.
The proposed layout is shown on drawing No. 7201814/YA/001 in Appendix 4. The principle behind this layout is to limit the extra amount of land required, and to purchase that land on one side of the motorway only. The centreline of the widened motorway is offset from the existing centreline by 3.6 metres, with the edge of the widened carriageway being positioned 2.4 metres beyond the back of the existing verge.
Asymmetrical widening has the advantage of minimising the landtake, but 2-way contraflow would be required during construction causing significant congestion which could lead to traffic diverting off the motorway.
Although the MIDMAN1 study recommends that the M6 motorway be widened from the south as far as J19, it was always the intention that the A556(M) would include the widening of that section of M6 affected by the A556(M) scheme, i.e. the section from a point south of Sudlow Lane to where the A556(M) scheme diverged from the M6. To allow a true comparison to be made between the two overall options, the widening of M6 as part of the Lymm Interchange solution has been taken at the corresponding point, i.e. south of Sudlow Lane.
To limit the impact on Knutsford MSA, symmetrical widening would be utilised from south of Sudlow Lane to the tie-in of the north facing slip roads from Junction 19, Tabley. Also, as incorporated in the A556(M) scheme, the sub-standard alignment of the M6 between Northwich Road and the north side of J19 is improved.
From the point north of J19, two widening schemes, parallel and asymmetrical have been designed for the remaining length of M6 as far as Junction 20. The widening has been applied to where the M6 to M56 eastbound and M56 to M6 southbound slip roads diverge from the M6, with the M6 remaining as a dual 3-lane carriageway through J20. The widening has been applied to the west side, this being the side recommended by Pell Frischmann in their earlier proposals for M6 widening. This decision of widening the west side of M6 has been confirmed by Babtie after assessment of relevant factors. The full length of the M6 within this option, being of D4M standard, would be lit.
It has been assumed that every existing crossing of the M6 motorway, be it a county road, farm accommodation bridge or footbridge, will require to be incorporated in any widening scheme, but will also require to be maintained in use during the construction of the widening works. To achieve this all the new bridges, except those specifically indicated otherwise below, would be built off line from the existing structure, which would be demolished once the 'diversion' was in use.
Commencing from the south, Sudlow Lane would cross over the M6 on a new structure to the south of the existing. The existing bridge, along with Sudlow Farm accommodation bridge, would have to be demolished to accommodate the resited slip roads from Knutsford MSA. Sudlow Farm accommodation bridge would not be replaced.
Northwich Road would be realigned to the north in order to construct the new bridge over the M6; this shift to the north will assist the resiting of the slip roads from the MSA. Tabley Hill Lane would also be realigned to the north.
Old Hall Lane bridge would be rebuilt on line, with the road closed whilst the new bridge is built. There appears to be a convenient alternative route via the B5391 Budworth Road and the A556 to allow the side road to be closed for a limited period. The footbridge carrying the public footpath between Winterbottom and Hollowood Farm will be reconstructed slightly to the north, whilst the accommodation bridge some 1km to the north, would be rebuilt on the south side of the existing.
Cann Lane would be diverted to the south to avoid impact on property sited on the north side of the existing road; also the accommodation bridge/public footbridge linking Northwood Lane and The Ashes would be rebuilt on the south side. Similarly the combined access/footpath bridge to Crowley Hall will be relocated on the south side. Finally, at the northern end, the accommodation bridge adjacent to Sebastapol Covert would be relocated on the south side.
Commencing from the south, the existing sub-standard slip roads servicing the MSA would be replaced by full standard slip roads. The south-facing ones would commence 200 metres north of Sudlow Lane, the north-facing ones north of Northwich Road.
The realignment of M6 to remove the substandard horizontal radius would necessitate the demolition of the two existing interchange bridges at Tabley. It is proposed that these bridges be replaced by a single bridge, wide enough to accommodate a dual carriageway, located in the centre of the existing interchange. A dumb-bell roundabout arrangement would be incorporated; dependent upon whether traffic restrictions are imposed on A556 north of Junction 19, the dumb-bell roundabouts could be traffic signalled controlled.
The proposals for M6 both parallel and asymmetrical widening are shown on the drawings in Appendix 5.
Lymm Interchange currently links the M6 Motorway (Junction 20) with the M56 Motorway (Junction 9). However, the layout of the interchange does not afford free-flow for all movements. Traffic travelling north on the M6, wishing to turn east towards Manchester and traffic travelling west on M56 wishing to turn south towards Birmingham are required to travel up to the Interchange with the A50 (Junction 20), sited some 1km north of M56. This interchange takes the form of a priority dumb-bell roundabout and as well as serving the A50 also provides access to the adjacent 'Truckstop', which provides service area facilities for commercial vehicles. It is considered that this junction would not cope with the additional volume of traffic diverted from A556. Owing to the convoluted layout of the existing Lymm Interchange the only feasible way to cater for the movements described above is to provide free flow links to the south east of the existing interchange.
The M6 northbound to M56 eastbound link commences in the vicinity of Crowley Hall and heads on a left-hand curve before following a radius of 720 metres to cross Intack Lane immediately west of Intack Farm, which would be isolated between this link and the M6. The link then crosses the M6 at a skew of 45° some 200 metres south of Swineyard Lane bridge, and then Swineyard Lane itself immediately east of that lane's junctions with Withers Lane. The link passes within 20 metres of the private residence, Crowthorne, where a retaining wall would be required to save the property, before crossing Fanners Lane and through three properties, Green Croft, Burnaby and Ash Dene. It then crosses the M56 at a skew of 39°, following a right-hand radius of 720 metres to cross the A50 some 50 metres south east of its junction with Broadheys Lane before joining the M56 eastbound carriageway in the vicinity of Big Wood.
The M56 westbound to M6 southbound link commences immediately east of the existing A50 bridge at Primrose Hill and follows a 720 metre radius left-hand curve to pass north of Rowlinson's Green before crossing Fanner's Lane. It then passes through Stores Farm as it crosses Swineyard Lane, and continues on the left-hand radius to cross Intack Lane some 50 metres west of Moss Oaks Farm before joining the M6 southbound carriageway in the vicinity of Sebastapol Covert. The links, being part of the motorway interchange, will be lit.
The eastbound link isolates Intack Farm by placing it between the link and the M6 Motorway. The engineering layout incorporates a bridge to allow access to this property but it may be, if this option is progressed, that it is deemed more beneficial to both Highways Agency and the property owners, to 'take' the property. Both links then bridge over Swineyard Lane, before crossing Fanner's Lane, which will be stopped up. The eastbound link then affects Withers Lane at its junction with the A50. Withers Lane would be diverted to the north, and the A50 bridged under the new link.
The proposals are shown on the drawings in Appendix 5.
The M56 is currently D2M through Lymm Interchange, gaining lanes to become D3M where the east facing slip roads tie in. The proposed scheme is for an additional lane gain to occur where the 'Lymm free-flow links' tie-in to produce a D4 motorway. This widening of the M56 is proposed on the north side between Primrose Hill (the A50 Crossing) and Junction 7 at Bowdon, with the 4-lane carriageways being continuous through Bowdon Interchange. Where the M56 passes under West Lane, a retaining wall will be required to limit the impact on the private house, Newlyn. The whole length of the M56, within this option, being D4M standard, would need to be lit.
As with M6 widening, it has been assumed that every existing crossing of the M56 will require to be incorporated in the widening scheme, but will also require to be maintained in use during the construction period. To achieve this all the new bridges would be built off-line from the existing structure which would be demolished once the diversion was in use.
The shift of the M56 to the north to accommodate widening commences west of the current A50 bridge. The A50 will remain on its current alignment but to achieve this a temporary bridge will be required during construction.
Meg Lane would be diverted to the west to limit the impact on Greatoak Farm. Beechtree Lane, which currently runs parallel to the M56, will be diverted further to the north to a new T-junction with West Lane, which itself is diverted to the west to cross the M56. Agden Lane would be diverted to the east onto its original line but this would result in the demolition of Agden House.
Reddy Lane, which goes under the M56, would remain on its current alignment, the existing bridge being extended on its northern side. The bridge also accommodates an access track for Booth Bank Farm. This track would need realigning on the north side of the M56. Coe Lane, which becomes a private road to Hope Cottage and a public footpath, will be diverted to the west.
The A556 Chester Road crossing presents major engineering difficulties. The proposed solution is to build a new bridge on line in two halves. A diversion is not possible due to the constraints of the Nag's Head on the west side and the loop to the M56 on the east side. Traffic delays during construction would be significant enough to result in traffic using local roads to avoid delay.
Yarwoodheath Lane, which is a private road and public footpath would be diverted to the east.
The proposals for M56, both parallel and asymmetrical widening are shown on the drawings in Appendix 5.
As described in Section 2, if the Junction 20 scheme proceeds, measures would need to be applied to the existing A556 to limit its attractiveness to traffic which currently uses it. The measures which have been taken through the assessment are as set out in paragraph 2.3 option 2 i.e. removal of South facing slips at Junction 19 and narrowing of the A556 to 7.3 metre wide single carriageway between J19 of the M6 and J7 of the M56. The cost of these measures have been included in the scheme cost estimates in section 4.
The M56 Junction 7 will remain the same layout in principle as exists. However the eastbound off slip will require relocating to the north to accommodate the motorway widening, and the westbound offslip will be diverted to the west to allow a new bridge to be built over M56. This latter proposal may be reconsidered if this option progresses; closure of the link during construction may be an option.
To the east of Junction 7 the widening of the M56 is proposed to be on the north side so there is no impact on Rostherne Mere, a RAMSAR site and Site of Special Scientific Interest. However, as the M56 approaches the River Bollin, the widening will be done symmetrically to limit the impact on the Bollin Valley. This symmetrical widening is then carried through to Junction 6, the termination point of this study. Currently, the M56 is a D3M through Junction 6, picking up a fourth lane east of Junction 6. There will therefore be a lane drop eastbound and a lane gain westbound west of this junction.
Ryecroft footbridge would be rebuilt east of the existing structure. Hardy's Covert bridge, which carries a private road to Ashley Hall and a public footpath, would be rebuilt to the east of the existing. Both the railway and Cow Lane pass under the M56 and in both cases, the existing bridges will be extended on the north side. Ashley Road will be diverted to the east to avoid any additional impact on Tanyard Farm. The accommodation bridge for Thornsgreen Farm will be resited on the west side.
Where the M56 crosses the River Bollin, the form of widening is symmetrical with a loss of hardshoulders. The existing river bridge will therefore remain unchanged with no additional impact on the River Bollin. Finally, Sunbank Lane which is carried over the M56 will be closed whilst a new bridge is built on-line. There is a convenient alternative route via the interchange with the Wilmslow Road.
The proposals for this section of M56, both parallel and asymmetrical widening are shown on the drawings in Appendix 5.
3.8.1 The A556(M) scheme would be predominantly D2M standard with free flow interchanges with both the M6 and M56. Its scheme length is 11.5Km and it requires no property demolition.
3.8.2 The J20 scheme requires the widening of the M6 on the West side between J19 and J20 and the widening of the M56 on the North side between J9 and 7 to D4M standard. The scheme length is 21.2Km and it requires the demolition of 5 private houses.
3.8.3 The M56 between Junction 7 and 6 requires widening to D4M standard. The widening to be on the North side to West of the crossing of the River Bollin, where symmetrical widening is proposed. The length of the widening is 5.0Km and no property demolition is required.
3.8.4 With regard to motorway widening, both parallel and asymmetrical forms of widening are considered to have merit and are taken forward throughout the following assessment.
4.1.1 The approach taken with respect to preparation of the Scheme Cost Estimates follows closely that adopted previously for Estimates prepared at OPR stage for the A556 (M) Scheme.
4.1.2 The format of the estimate is based on the Highways Agency's Works Commitment Submission pro-forma (TR 415 rev. 8/90).
4.1.3 We have assumed that all surplus material can be re-used in areas contiguous with the Scheme and therefore does not attract a premium for Landfill Tax. These particular areas are shown on the Landscape Plans in Appendix 7, since they are considered to be an integral element of the landscape proposals.
4.2.1 With respect to the Main Works Contract for most of the cost elements quantities have been measured and set against items taken from the Method of Measurement for Highway Works. Reference has been made to the Engineering Plans, Moss highways computerised modelling information, Highway Construction Details published by Highways Agency, in order to produce a Bill of items to be priced. For Preliminaries a percentage of the Main Works Total (before Preliminaries) of 12.5% has been used with costs for traffic management added separately.
4.2.2 Rates have been established by reference to published data namely "Spons Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book 2002"6 as well as in-house cost data, cost information from the Highways Agency and uplifted to an estimate base date of Q4 2001.
4.2.3 With respect to some cost elements and other Sections (e.g. Traffic signs and Road Markings) where it is not possible to properly quantify and rate such work a percentage based on the Main Works Total has been used.
4.2.4 No Allowance has been made for Accommodation Works, as they cannot at present be defined.
4.2.5 De-trunking costs for works to the existing A556 are shown under 'Other Works'.
4.2.6 Contingency and VAT have been included in the Scheme Cost Estimates at 10 and 17.5 % respectively, on all elements of the works.
4.3.1 The Total Estimated Scheme Cost for the A556 (M) is £116M. The total estimated scheme costs for the M6Junction 20 Widening Scheme options (Parallel and Asymmetrical) are £161M and £131M respectively.
4.3.2 A high level risk analysis has been undertaken on the two options of A556(M) and J20. This analysis indicates that the contingency of 10% allowed on the A556(M) scheme is of the right order but for the J20 option it should be double that allowance mainly due to the specific risk of the outcome of a public inquiry. However, both options have been estimated using a 10% contingency allowance to avoid criticism of bias.
4.3.3 The Total Estimated Scheme Costs for the M56 Junction 7 to 6 options are £34M and £29M (Parallel and Asymmetrical) respectively. Similarly to the J20 option, a risk analysis indicates that the contingency should be of the order of 20% but a figure of 10% has been used in the estimates
4.3.4 The traffic management costs are estimated at:
J20 Scheme:
Parallel Widening £2.20M
Asymmetrical Widening £3.86M
M56 J7-6
Parallel Widening £1.50M
Asymmetrical Widening £2.61M
and show a significant cost penalty, in traffic management terms, for asymmetrical widening.
The environmental assessment is based primarily on available information. This information has been collated from a number of sources including consultation information provided by statutory and non-statutory consultees, review of previous Environmental Statements and new fieldwork undertaken for the Landscape and Visual Assessments. Despite the historical nature of the information obtained from the Environmental Statements, they cover the M6 widening option and the A556(M) option in reasonable detail. While the M56 widening options have not been covered by specific environmental assessments, consultations have provided information to allow for assessments to be undertaken at a similar level of detail for these options.
The method for assessing noise was based on the principles of the guidance contained in GOMMMS Volume 2, Section 43. However because the area of impact was so extensive the method was adapted as follows:
The assessment was based on the year 2011 for consistency with the MIDMAN study.
The proposed road would affect traffic flows over a wide area extending as far as Junction 17 of the M6 to the south and to Wilmslow in the east. Noise levels may be expected to decrease noticeably (by more than 1dB LA10 (18Hr)) at houses fronting sections of the A50 and the A535. The occupiers of almost 400 properties might expect an improvement in their noise climate.
Seven residential properties stand within 50 m of proposed new road. These might expect noise levels to rise substantially to above 70dB LA10 (18Hr).
The proposed road would affect traffic flows over a wide area extending as far as Junction 17 of the M6 to the south, to Wilmslow in the east and west of the M6 as far as Middlewich. The general effect would be to reduce traffic on all-purpose roads in the area of junctions 19 and 20 of the M6 whilst increasing traffic on a network of roads to the south and east.
Noise levels may be expected to decrease noticeably (by more than 1dB LA10 (18Hr)) at approximately 100 houses fronting roads where traffic would reduce. However traffic would increase by more than 25% on approximately 50Km of highway and over 700 houses fronting these roads could expect a noticeable increase in traffic noise.
Seven residential properties stand within 50 m of proposed new slip roads at the motorway junction. These might expect noise levels to rise substantially to above 70dB LA10 (18Hr).
The changes in traffic flows resulting from the widening can be expected to be less than +25 or -20%. Consequently changes in traffic noise would be insignificant.
The worksheets 4.1 are included in Appendix 8, except for M56 J 7 - 6 where no properties would experience a change of more than 1dBA.
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening | M56 J7 J9 Parallel Widening | M56 J7 J9 Asymmetrical Widening |
| +29 population win | -37 population lose | -37 population lose | No net change | No net change |
The method for assessing air quality objective was based on the principles of the guidance contained in GOMMMS Volume 2, Section 43. However because the area of impact was so extensive the method was adapted as follows:
The assessment was based on the year 2011 for consistency with the MIDMAN study.
There would be a redistribution of traffic over a wide area. Lengths of the A50 between Knutsford and Holmes Chapel would see a reduction of up to 54% in traffic flow and, between Holmes Chapel and Alderley Edge flow would reduce by more than 30%. In total more than 1500 residential properties front sections of road that would experience reductions of more than 10% in traffic flows whilst just 180 houses front roads that would see more than 10% increases.
As a consequence there would be a significant reduction in kerbside concentrations of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter (PM10) over a total length of more than131 kilometres of road. However concentrations would rise alongside some 11 kilometres of highway. There would therefore be a net improvement in local air quality.
The assessment of greenhouse gases is based on the prediction of carbon dioxide emissions. This showed that the expected reduction of traffic on many roads would result in a reduction in emissions of some 26,000 Tonnes/year.
There would be a redistribution of traffic over a wide area. Between Junction 19 of the M6 motorway and Mere, traffic on the A556 would fall by more than a half and the A50 between Mere and Sworton Heath would see a 25% reduction. However there would be substantial lengths of highway where traffic flows would increase. In total some 309 residential properties front sections of road that would experience reductions of more than 10% in traffic flows whereas more than 1500 houses front roads that would see more than 10% traffic increases.
As a consequence there would be a significant reduction in kerbside concentrations of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter (PM10) over a total length of some 33 kilometres of road. However concentrations would rise alongside some 111 kilometres of highway. There would therefore be a net deterioration in local air quality.
The assessment of greenhouse gases is based on the prediction of carbon dioxide emissions. This showed that the expected increase of traffic on many roads would result in an increase of emissions of more than 60,000 Tonnes/year.
The impact of the scheme would be limited. Traffic flows would change by more than 10% on just 4km of road. As a consequence there would be a significant reduction in kerbside concentrations of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter (Pm10 ) alongside these roads. Air Quality at 183 frontage properties would improve significantly.
The emissions of Greenhouse Gases would also reduce. It could be expected that total emissions of CO2 would fall by 866 Tonnes. This compares with a figure of 3313K tonnes from UK transport sources for the year 1996.
The worksheets 4.3 for Air Quality and 4.5 for Greenhouse Gases are included in Appendix 8.
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening | M56 J7 J9 Parallel Widening | M56 J7 J9 Asymmetrical Widening |
| Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 -509, NO2 -303 | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 1084, NO2 6126 | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 - 509, NO2 6126 | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 -27.4, NO2 -208 | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 -27.4, NO2 -208 |
5.2.6 Summary of Impacts on Greenhouse Gases
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening | M56 J7 J9 Parallel Widening | M56 J7 J9 Asymmetrical Widening |
| Reduction in CO2 = 26250 tonnes | Increase in CO2 = 61377 tonnes | Increase in CO2 = 61377 tonnes | Reduction in CO2 = 866 tonnes | Reduction in CO2 = 866 tonnes |
This sub-objective is included in 5.2 above.
5.4.1.1 This assessment has been prepared by Randall Thorp, Landscape Architects, on behalf of Babtie, and as part of the Highways Agency detailed Appraisal of the A556 Area.
5.4.1.2 The purpose of this assessment is to compare the landscape impacts arising from the proposed A556(M) motorway scheme; with the alternative options of widening the M6/M56 and building new links at the Lymm interchange; and to consider the widening of the M56 between junctions 7-6, which is supplementary to the two options above.
5.4.3. Site inspections were undertaken to assess the effects of the options on all potential receptors. The receptor plans, landscape working papers and site notes have not been included in the Appendices because of their volume but are available to interested parties from either Highways Agency or Babtie Consulting Engineers, both in Manchester.
5.4.2.1 This assessment has been prepared in accordance with advice contained in:
5.4.2.2 This assessment is based on the following original research and investigation:
5.4.2.3 The landscape proposals for the A556(M) scheme in 1992-3 have been reviewed and where necessary modified, to take into account changes in circumstances. Landscape proposals for the M6/ M56 widening and Lymm interchange, and for the M56 junction 7-6 widening have been developed alongside this assessment, to ensure that the landscape and visual impacts of each of the proposals are minimised.
5.4.2.4 In assessing the impact of change on a landscape it is necessary to consider the importance of that landscape and its features on the various levels on which it is valued. This study has been guided by the Countryside Commissions 1998 study (see 5.4.3 below) for a description of the area as seen at national level, and by national designations of protected landscapes and features. At the local level it has been guided by the Cheshire County Council 1994 study (see 5.4.3) which describes the landscape in more detail.
5.4.2.5 However since both these studies consider this study area as part of larger units of landscape, we have refined the descriptions to give a true picture of the areas under consideration, by deleting references to features not found within the study area. This is particularly applicable to the area north of the M6 J9-7, which at national scale is part of the Mersey Valley, of which it is the edge, and not at all typical of the description of the area in the 1998 study.
5.4.2.6 The Cheshire County Council study includes strategies and landscape guidelines for conservation and restoration of each area, which have been used to design the landscape mitigation proposals for the three schemes.
5.4.2.7 Potential areas where surplus excavated material could be disposed of have been shown on the plans. The assumption has been made that these areas would be returned to agriculture at gradients to suit the type of agriculture and natural topography.
5.4.2.8 For the widening schemes the landscape proposals have been drawn for parallel widening, and the assessment of impact made on that basis. However while making that assessment a judgement was made and noted as to whether the effects of asymmetrical widening would be significantly different.
5.4.2.9 The relatively slight variations in level across the topography of the study area, made determination of a visual envelope impractical, so all potential receptors within or close to 1 km of the proposed works, were checked.
5.4.2.10 Assessment of impact has been made for the year of opening, and fifteen years later, for day and night, for winter only.
5.4.2.11 The field survey has been guided by the descriptions and importance given to the landscape and features at national and local level, and for ease of survey the study area has been divided into small areas of relatively consistent character, and designed the mitigation and assessing impacts on this detail level, prior to summarising the impacts for each option.
5.4.2.12 The landscape proposals have been prepared in accordance with the same principles as were used for the A556(M) proposals in 1993, with the following principal objectives:
To achieve integration the landscape proposals rely on those features which are listed as characteristic of the area in the Countryside Commission 1998 study, and the landscape guidelines in the CCC 1994 study.
Particular consideration has been given to the visual impact of the roads on the rural landscape, including public footpaths, and on views currently enjoyed by residents. The effects of both road lighting and vehicle lights have been considered.
5.4.2.13 The landscape plans are drafts, and will be subject to change when a final option has been selected. At that time proposals will encompass all the habitat types needed to provide mitigation, eg ponds and herbaceous layers. At the present stage the proposals have been limited to those elements that have been assessed as of primary importance in mitigating the effects of the proposed engineering works.
5.4.2.14 The landscape design elements which have been used include ground modelling, vertical barriers, and planting. Ground modelling not only accommodates surplus spoil from the works but provides permanent screening. Where possible, gradients of mounding facing away from the roads will be gentle, designed to blend in with the natural landscape, and to return the land to agriculture. The road side gradients are steep to minimise land take. Vertical barriers as screens have only been proposed in those few locations where space is very limited.
5.4.2.15 The planting is intended to:
Species used would generally be locally occurring trees and shrubs.
All hedges would be planted with occasional trees. All areas of tree planting would contain a mix of tree and shrub species (but are described in the following text as 'tree' planting for brevity).
5.4.3.1 Figure 5.5.1 illustrates the general topographic context of the A556 study area. The study area comprises a roughly triangular area based on the existing M6/M56/A556 roads, with an eastward extension along the M56 from junction 7 to junction 6.
Figure 5.5.1 - Full size map (JPG 143KB)
5.4.3.2 The topography of the study area is gently undulating (see Figure 5.5.4 in Appendix 7). The village of High Legh, situated within the M6/M56/A556 triangle, lies on a low ridge of 72-75m od. which falls away gently in all directions, draining into the River Bollin in the north, and giving onto the gently undulating Cheshire Plain in the south.
5.4.3.3 North east of High Legh, Agden Brook cuts into the landscape in a relatively steep sided valley, and passes under the M56 just west of junction 7 to flow to the River Bollin. The A556 extending south from the M56 junction 7, is aligned along the watershed between Agden Brook to the west and a more complex landscape to the east containing the meres of Rostherne, Mere, and Tatton and a number of small brooks also draining north under the M56 to the Bollin. Figure 5.5.3 identifies designated landscape features and landscape area designations.
Figure 5.5.3 - Full size map (JPG 132KB)
5.4.3.4 Figure 5.5.2 illustrates the landscape character areas around the A556 study area. The landscape character of the area has been described at two levels. A broad brush description of large national landscape character areas was undertaken by the Countryside Commission and published in a number of volumes in the series "The Character of England's natural and man-made landscape" 199813. A more detailed description of landscape character was published by Cheshire County Council in 1994. This identifies the breakdown of national character areas into smaller regional character areas, and also identifies smaller scale landscape units exhibiting more local differences within the regional areas. The boundaries of the National character areas, and the small scale landscape units identified by Cheshire County Council are shown on Figure 5.5.3. All of the Cheshire landscape units fall within the 'East Cheshire Plain', region.
Figure 5.5.2 - Full size map (JPG 144KB)
5.4.3.5 The Countryside Commission assessment adopts the M56 as the broad northern limit of National Landscape Character Area, 6.1, "the Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain", and most of the study area therefore falls into this area. The area north of the M56 and west of the A56 (junction 7 of the M56) falls into area 60, "the Mersey Valley". The area north of the M56 and east of the A56 falls into area 55, "the Manchester Conurbation".
5.4.3.6 The Shropshire, Cheshire and North Staffordshire Plain is a large area, the key characteristics of which are given by the Countryside Commission as:
5.4.3.7 Much of the landscape within the study area, particularly to the south of the M56, accords with this description. It is a rural landscape of mixed and arable farming, with strong field patterns, well managed hedgerows and plentiful hedgerow trees. The meres and mosses to the east of the A556 around Tatton Park are notable features in the landscape, as are the large estate landscapes which are concentrated in this vicinity and of which Tabley and Tatton are described in the more detailed Cheshire Landscape Assessment. Development within the study area is typically rural with small settlements and numerous isolated farms well served by public footpaths which link into a network of small lanes and farm tracks. The market towns of Knutsford, and Lymm, are situated on the edge of and just beyond the study area.
5.4.3.8 The Cheshire Landscape Assessment identifies two distinct landscape units around the M6 and A556, with the A556 providing a clear boundary between them: the Frandley character area and the Tatton area.
5.4.3.9 The Frandley area lies around the M6 and extends as far as the A556. It is described as follows:
Part of the Cheshire Plain, characterised by medium to large-scale farmland. The hedgerows are dominated by mature, sometimes over-mature, oaks with very few young hedgerow trees. The hedgerow condition is variable. The land use is principally pastoral, but arable use increases towards the north and is associated with a decline in hedgerow condition. Typical features are small ponds with copses. There are farmhouses scattered across the area with an older network of lanes remaining. In contrast to this, the area is bounded to the north by the M56 and 2 main 'A' roads cross the area.
Although much of this area is relatively intact and should be conserved there is a need for restoration where the characteristic features of hedges and hedgerow trees are beginning to break down.
5.4.3.10 The Tatton character area encompasses the mosses and meres to the east of the A556 and around the Tatton Park Estate, which is owned by the National Trust. This area is described as follows:
An area of woodland parkland centred on Tatton Hall and estate. It remains a good parkland structure with a mixture of woodland and individual trees. On the periphery, bounded by the M56 and A556, Rostherne Mere and adjacent agricultural fields continue the wooded appearance. Within the landscape, Tatton is an important feature, being a large contained area of woodland visually prominent when viewed from the surrounding area.
As a large area of established park woodland and related wetland features, the landscape strategy should be to conserve the existing character.
5.4.3.11 The Mersey Valley around the M56 J9-7 proposals and the A556(M) tie in to the M56
The Mersey Valley National character area extends from the estuary at Liverpool into the Manchester Conurbation. The Countryside Commission describe the key characteristics of the Mersey Valley as:
5.4.3.12 The landscape within the study area is on the edge of the Mersey valley area and has a transitional character between Cheshire Plain and Mersey valley. Cheshire County Council have described land adjacent and to the north of the M56 as the Bradley landscape unit. It is described as follows:
Urban fringe farmland on the northern end of Cheshire Plain where the landscape is increasingly under pressure A mixed arable and grassland landscape with medium to large-scale field pattern, the hedgerows are moderately intact with some loss of hedges due to complete removal. There is a low density of hedgerow trees but with some isolated copses and small woodlands. There is a gradual rise before dropping down to the Mersey Valley, producing a more open aspect with some long views out to the north, south and east.
The Cheshire Plain character is under threat from both the urban fringe influences and from arable farming taking over from dairying and it is felt restoration is the most appropriate policy.
5.4.3.13 The study area does not pass right into the built up area although housing extends close to the existing motorway on the north side around junction 6 of the M56 at Warburton Green. The Bollin Valley, which forms the County boundary, more or less defines the edge of the urban area. The key part of the Countryside Commission description of the Manchester Conurbation relevant to this study is therefore in respect of the river valleys, other than the Mersey, which are described as:
More sinuous and narrow than the Mersey, but nevertheless form important countryside corridors throughout the area. Many of these have large areas of woodland along their valley sides providing a buffer with neighbouring urban development. These valleys are also important as recreational areas with large expanses of playing fields, numerous golf courses and water treatment works set within an overall managed countryside. Numerous country parks and victorian urban parks are associated with the river valleys, often connected by recreational trails.
All the river valleys contain sizeable areas of open grassland and other semi-natural habitats. There are many pockets of farmland within the river valleys, many of which are viable farmsteads though many are given over to urban farming uses such as horticulture. Part of the river valleys and corridors associated with the canals have areas of derelict land.
5.4.3.14 The Cheshire Landscape Assessment identifies the landscape to the north and west of Tatton and alongside the M56 as the Ashley landscape unit. The character, strategy and guidelines are described as:
An area of small to medium-scale farmland without a major settlement to the east of Tatton Park and to the west of Manchester Airport. The farmland is mainly pasture, including areas of horse-keeping, with a high number of over mature hedgerow trees in relatively intact hedges. This gives a parkland appearance without evidence of clumps of trees or any small and medium woodlands. In contrast to this there is the small arable area around Ashley Hall, between the M56 and the County Boundary. There are few trees and hedges in this area but it is bounded by the peripheral wooded feature of the narrow Bollin Valley along the County boundary.
Conservation of the typical Cheshire Plain features would be the most desirable strategy along with the restoration in particular situations.
5.4.4.1 The study area for this option lies primarily in Frandley landscape unit (l.u.), as described by CCC, but extending into the Tabley l.u. to the south, Tatton to the east, Bradley and Ashley to the north, and the fringes of Knutsford to the south east. While the boundaries of these landscape units and their descriptions are sound in broad terms, in reality there is no sudden change on the ground at the boundary.
5.4.4.2 In this instance the classic East Cheshire Plain landscape covers most of the area, but at the north runs into the Bollin Valley, beyond which is Dunham Park; is interrupted by Rostherne Mere and the residential areas of Mere and Knutsford on the east, and Mere estate at the centre and Tabley Park at the south.
5.4.4.3 The Bollin is a steep sided, narrow, well wooded valley. Dunham Park is a deer park of national importance with views out across the Bollin into the study area. Rostherne Mere is a large water body with enclosing woodlands, of international wildlife importance. The residential area of Mere consists of ribbon development along the existing A556. The western fringe of Knutsford consists of housing on high ground. Mere estate straddles the proposed route, and consists of perimeter woodlands surrounding open agricultural land and parkland nearer Mere Hall. Tabley is an historic park and garden of national importance, and formerly extended eastwards towards Knutsford, but since the M6 and motorway service area were constructed, the area straddling the motorway has lost all its parkland features other than perimeter woodland to the north, and as a result has lost its parkland character. Tatton, another historic park and garden, lies outside of the study area, and the proposed road will have no impact on it.
5.4.4.4 The M6, its service area and the M56, and other major roads within the area, especially the existing A556, are intrusive and form the dominant features of their immediate localities. The service area has planning permission subject to S106 agreement to expand on both sides of the motorway, including extensive perimeter plantin
g.5.4.4.5 These are shown on the detailed plans in Appendix 7 (A556(M) motorway (M6-M56 Link) Landscape plans). The new motorway would be in cutting for three quarters of its length, at depths of up to 9 metres, with the exception of the northbound link from the M6, and a short section at Millington Hall Lane. The road is in cutting because it is passing over a slight ridge, which results in the best crossings of and junctions with existing roads and minimises the visual impact.
5.4.4.6 Where the new road is close to or above existing level, and there is property relatively close, it is intended to create false cuttings alongside the road to mitigate the intrusion which would otherwise occur. A false cutting is an earth embankment or mound built up along the verge of a road for screening purposes, which is not necessary for the construction of the road. In certain instances these false cuttings would be augmented by screen fences.
5.4.4.7 There would be extensive dense planting of trees and hedgerows alongside most of the new road, both to screen the traffic and structures from adjacent properties, and to blend the new road into the existing landscape. Where existing woodland is affected by the works, the edge will be reinforced by new planting, and work done to existing trees to ensure their survival.
5.4.4.8 Starting at the south end, looking at the proposals for the mainline of the new motorway in detail, (see landscape plan sheets 1 and 2) and following the northbound A556(M) carriageway, there would be a false cutting and dense tree and hedge planting to protect Tableyvale Cottages to the west. Tabley Hill Lane would be diverted and trees planted along it and in adjacent areas of severed fields. The northbound carriageway would then cross the M6 on a bridge and the field corner to the north would be tree planted to blend this in with the existing landscape.
5.4.4.9 The northbound carriageway, with hedge planting on both sides, would then drop down into cutting shortly before joining the southbound carriageway, and continuing north under the Chester Road, with dense tree planting on both cutting slopes, and in severed triangles of fields.
5.4.4.10 The southbound link carriageway remains in cutting, passing under a new MSA access slip road, prior to joining the M6. This junction will be shielded by a false cutting running north from Tabley Hill Lane, with dense tree planting to separate carriageways.
5.4.4.11 Continuous tree planting is proposed from a point 200 metres south of Moss Lane, northwards to beyond the existing A556, on both sides of the new road, on the islands between carriageways, and alongside the realigned Moss Lane to link up with Tableymoss Wood.
5.4.4.12 North of Chester Road (see sheet 3) the proposed scheme would pass under the realigned Bentleyhurst Lane in deep cutting with hedges and extensive tree planting along the cutting slopes corners, to form extensions to Square Wood and Kennel Wood.
5.4.4.13 The new road would then skirt Kennel Wood at existing ground level, before returning to deep cutting across the open parkland up to the A50. A false cutting would be provided on the east side of the road adjacent to the two properties and a hedge boundary in this vicinity. There would be extensive tree planting on both sides of this section of the road to link Kennel Wood to Belt Wood in the north.
5.4.4.14 The embankments of the realigned A50 would be heavily tree planted. The adjacent field corner would be tree planted to help blend the new bridge into the landscape.
5.4.4.15 Tree planting would be continued along both sides of the new road to a point east of Burnthouses, where it would be thickened out to include three field corners, south of the realigned Bucklowhill Lane bridge.
5.4.4.16 The northern embankments of the realigned Bucklowhill Lane would be graded out and returned to agriculture. The south eastern embankment and area up to the former road line would be planted with trees. The realigned length of the lane would be enclosed with a hedge along the highway boundary. The junction of old and new lanes to the west of Burnthouses would be laid out as a triangle with grass in the middle and tree planting in the field corner to the east.
5.4.4.17 North of the realigned Bucklowhill Lane are a number of field ponds, one of which would be lost due to road construction. The proposal is to widen the roadside planting at this point, and provide a short length of screen fence where one pond is very close to the road; this will give an improved, more sheltered environment for the anglers who use this pond.
5.4.4.18 Continuous and extensive tree planting and false cuttings on both sides of the road are proposed from Bucklowhill Lane to Millington Hall Lane, in order to screen adjacent properties. This would be augmented by a screen fence on the west side of the road at Millington Hall Lane, providing visual and aural mitigation to Rose Cottage. A further false cutting is proposed north of Rushford Cottage, east of the new road.
5.4.4.19 The embankments of Chapel Lane, and the edge of the adjacent field on the east, would be tree planted.
5.4.4.20 North of Millington Lane (see sheet 5) the carriageways would diverge. The new road would be in cutting at this point, and its side slopes plus the remnant of the field to the west, and the field corner south west of the new Millington Lane bridge would be tree planted, retaining the existing hedgerows and trees. There would be a hedge to the South of the realigned Millington Lane.
5.4.4.21 There would be extensive tree planting adjacent to this section of road, and its links to the existing Chester Road. Screen fencing would be provided for Newhall Cottages.
5.4.4.22 East of Chester Road (see sheet 6) the new road is in deep cutting with extensive tree planting on the southern cutting slope and in the severed corners of the fields to the north, up to the existing westbound slip road from the M56, near Bowdon View Farm. Extensive tree planting would also be provided on the north of the new road, between the new slip roads and the M56, plus hedge planting on the side nearest Yarwood Heath Farm. A screen fence would be provided to the rear of Cherry Tree Farm.
5.4.4.23 East of the Bowdon Link and to the north of the realigned slip road onto the eastbound M56, extensive tree and hedge planting is proposed, to extend existing woodlands at Hancock's Banks and Ryecroft Covert.
5.4.4.24 Returning to the south of this scheme (see sheet 1), there are proposed alterations to Northwich Road, and proposed new slip roads from the M6 south to Northwich Road, which runs around the proposed expanded MSA on the current eastern edge of Tabley Park.
5.4.4.25 The MSA landscape proposals extend beyond the proposed slip roads and will mitigate their effects, as well as those of the expanded service area. These proposals are shown on the landscape drawings in this document.
5.4.4.26 The northbound slip road starts in cutting through the existing mound to the west of the MSA, rising to existing ground level by Crescent Wood, and on low embankment to Northwich Road. To the west of this slip a continuous belt of tree planting is proposed, thickened out each side of Crescent Wood to provide a continuous screen belt, and to emulate the existing planting belts around the parkland.
5.4.4.27 The southbound slip road starts at ground level, dropping into shallow cutting at its southern end. False cutting and dense tree planting are proposed alongside most of the slip road, to protect the properties to the east.
5.4.4.28 Hedge and tree planting and false cuttings are proposed north of the realigned Northwich Road, on the north side of the MSA, and there will be tree planting on the redundant carriageway of Northwich Road. There is proposed hedge planting to the west of the new Chester Road/ Northwich Road junction, and reinforcement to the existing Tabley Park perimeter woodland, where this is affected by the proposed realignment of this junction.
5.4.4.29 Potential spoil disposal locations for this scheme have been identified between the MSA and Sudlow Farm (sheet 1), between the divided carriageways immediately north of the M6, in the fields east and west of the junction with the existing A556 (sheets 1 & 2), south west of the A50 outside the Mere estate woodlands (sheet 3), adjacent to Hulseheath Lane (sheet 4), in the field between the M56 and the new road immediately west of the old A556 (sheet 1), and in the fields between Yarwood Heath Farm and the A56 Bowdon roundabout (sheet 6).
5.4.4.30 In general public footpaths and bridleways are barely affected by this scheme. Typically they are shortened slightly where they meet a realigned road, or diverted slightly where an overbridge is required. However at the north end of the scheme (sheet 5), between Millington Lane, Chester Road and the M56, footpaths 6, 7 and 8 would be severed by the new road. It is proposed to stop up their severed ends and to create a new footpath alongside the NW boundary of the new road, linking footpaths 6, 7 and 8 to Chester Road north of the exit slip road for the proposed A556(M). Further east (sheet 6), since it is proposed to remove the Yarwood Heath Farm overbridge, it is intended to stop up the affected length of FP 13.
5.4.4.31 The proposed losses of existing woodlands, trees and hedges are as follows:
5.4.4.32 The quantities of planting are as follows:
5.4.4.33 134 residential properties were identified within the study area. The visual impact assessment for winter daytime is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 13 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 15 | 4 |
| Slight negative effect | 60 | 26 |
| Neutral effect | 45 | 86 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 1 | 17 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | 0 | 1 |
The visual impact assessment for the same properties for winter night-time is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 10 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 18 | 7 |
| Slight negative effect | 58 | 44 |
| Neutral effect | 47 | 78 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 1 | 5 |
5.4.4.34 The visual impact assessment for winter daytime for the eleven commercial or public buildings in the study area is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 2 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 1 | 2 |
| Neutral effect | 8 | 9 |
The visual impact assessment for winter night-time for the same properties is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 2 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 0 | 2 |
| Slight negative effect | 1 | 0 |
| Neutral effect | 8 | 9/td> |
5.4.4.35 The visual impact assessment for winter daytime for the twenty five roads in the area is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 2 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 6 | 2 |
| Slight negative effect | 12 | 5 |
| Neutral effect | 5 | 18/td> |
The visual impact assessment winter night-time for the same roads is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 1 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 4 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 9 | 8 |
| Neutral effect | 11 | 16 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 0 | 1/td> |
5.4.4.36 The visual impact assessment for winter daytime for the twenty six public foot and bridle paths is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 3 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 5 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 8 | 6 |
| Neutral effect | 7 | 16 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 3 | 1 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | 0 | 3 |
The visual impact assessment for winter night-time for the same paths is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 1 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 7 | 1 |
| Slight negative effect | 8 | 10 |
| Neutral effect | 7 | 12 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 3 | 2 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | 0 | 1/td> |
5.4.4.37 While overall the proposal fits tolerably well with the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape, the two end junctions, with their complexes of slip roads and lighting, do not quite fit the landform and scale of the landscape, resulting in an overall slight adverse effect.
5.4.4.38 There will be some loss of tranquillity in the vicinity of the new motorway, and some increase in tranquillity in the vicinity of Chester Road. Although the scheme overall is not visually intrusive, the two end junctions are, resulting in an overall slight adverse effect. The overbridges for the A50 and four side roads will initially be slightly visually intrusive, but with time mitigation will result in a slight beneficial effect.
5.4.4.39 The landcover features lost are of no special interest, and will be more than compensated for over time, resulting in a neutral, and later a slight beneficial effect.
5.4.4.40 The scheme in general has no effect on features of significant cultural importance, with the exception of Tabley Park. Here the assessment is made more difficult by the approved motorway service area proposals which in themselves will have a substantial adverse effect on the park. Since this proposal adds nothing to the extent or intrusiveness of the MSA expansion proposals, it is assessed as having a neutral effect on Tabley Park. Overall the scheme has a neutral effect on cultural features.
5.4.4.41 Due to this scheme being predominantly in cutting and unlit, it is assessed as having only slight adverse effect, even without taking into account the beneficial effect on the existing road and adjacent properties which will be relieved of much of the existing traffic. The extent of mitigation has minimised negative effects, and will provide further benefits with time.
5.4.4.42 Once the new road is built there will be slight changes in the visual and physical character of the local landscape, but these will be absorbed with time, as mitigation takes effect.
5.4.5.1 The study area for this option lies primarily in the Frandley and Bradley landscape units, as described by CCC, but extending into the Tabley l.u. to the south, and Tatton and Ashley to the east, and the fringe of Knutsford in the south east. While the boundaries of these landscape units and their descriptions are sound in broad terms, in reality there is no sudden change on the ground at the boundary.
5.4.5.2 In this instance CCC place most of the area in the East Cheshire Plain, but it extends into the Bollin Valley beyond which is Dunham Park, is close to Rostherne Mere at the extreme east, close to Arley Park on the west, and runs into Tabley Park the fringe of Knutsford at the south.
5.4.5.3 The Bollin is a steep sided, narrow, well wooded valley. Dunham Park is a deer park of national importance with views out across the Bollin into the study area. Rostherne Mere is a large water body with enclosing woodlands, of international wildlife importance. The western fringe of Knutsford consists of housing on high ground. Arley Park, on the fringe of the study area, is of national importance. Tabley is a historic park and garden of national importance, and formerly extended towards Knutsford, but since the M6 and motorway service area were constructed, the area straddling the motorway has lost all its parkland features other than perimeter woodland to the north, and as a result has lost its parkland character.
5.4.5.4 The M6, its service area and the M56, and other major roads within the area, are intrusive and form the dominant features of their immediate localities. The service area has planning permission subject to S106 agreement to expand on both sides of the motorway, including extensive perimeter planting, which will in time form a woodland belt.
5.4.5.5 The existing M6 motorway is generally at or close to original ground level, with short lengths of cutting at depths of up to 8 metres. At the junction of the M6 and M56 both motorways are in cutting at the high point of the ridge, and the whole junction is well wooded making it relatively unobtrusive.
5.4.5.6 South of this the M6 is intrusive, cutting across the grain of the landscape, with little planting, as was the practice at the time of its construction.
5.4.5.7 The existing M56 has more cutting, more embankment, and more planting than the M6, due to the topography, and changing standards of design. It is intrusive in parts and not in others.
5.4.5.8 These are shown on the detailed plans in Appendix 7 (Lymm Links M6 J 19-20 + M56 J9-7 Parallel Widening Landscape Plans). Where the new road is close to or above existing level, and there is property relatively close, it is intended to create false cuttings alongside the road to mitigate the intrusion which would otherwise occur. A false cutting is an earth embankment or mound built up along the verge of a road for screening purposes, which is not necessary for the construction of the road. In certain instances these false cuttings would be augmented by screen fences.
5.4.5.9 There would be extensive planting of trees and hedges alongside the new road where appropriate both to screen the traffic and structures from adjacent properties, and to blend the new road into the existing landscape. Where existing woodland is effected by the works, the edge will be reinforced by new planting, and work done to existing trees where necessary to ensure their survival.
5.4.5.10 Starting at the south end (see sheets 1 & 2), looking at the proposals for the parallel widening of the motorway. There would be tree planting on the embankments of the realigned Sudlow Lane and Tabley Hill Lane bridges. From Sudlow Lane to junction 19, where the widening would be more or less symmetrical, there would be hedges along both fence lines. There would be false cuttings from Sudlow Lane northwards on the east side of the motorway and MSA, and from Northwich Road to Tabley Hill Lane on the west side of the motorway.
5.4.5.11 Within the modified junction 19, all available space would be tree planted, with hedgerows on both sides of the motorway up to Old Hall Lane bridge.
5.4.5.12 North of Old Hall Lane bridge (sheets 3 & 4) there would be tree planting on the cutting slope on both sides of the motorway for 750m, followed by a hedgerow on the SW fence line, until the motorway returns to cutting, up to the Gore Farm overbridge.
5.4.5.13 North of Gore Farm overbridge (sheets 4 & 5), false cuttings are proposed on the SW side of the motorway, up to and including the eastbound Lymm Link, to the point where it crosses the M6. On the NE side of the motorway a hedge is proposed over the same length.
5.4.5.14 In the SE quadrant of the M6/M56 junction (sheets 6 & 7) both proposed link roads are on embankments around 6m high, and tree planting is proposed on all the embankments and the space between the carriageways, to tie in with the existing heavily planted motorway junction. Screen fence is proposed adjacent to two properties, and false cutting adjacent to Rowlinsons Green.
5.4.5.15 A false cutting is also proposed between the eastbound link, Holly Farm and Manor Farm, with a hedgerow on the fence line. Tree planting is proposed between this link and the M56, and a hedge and tree planting to the south of the M56 at this point.
5.4.5.16 East of the A50 (sheets 7 & 8) the eastbound link is in deep cutting, with a proposed hedge on the north fence line, turning into proposed tree planting linking into Big Wood and the Howlers and extending onto a proposed new false cutting round Old Farm.
5.4.5.17 Where Beechtree Lane (sheets 8 & 9) is realigned alongside the motorway, it will be hedged on both sides, with a false cutting to the north, up to the realigned West Lane overbridge which will have hedges to the west, and tree planting up to the old hedge line in the east.
5.4.5.18 East of West Lane, along the north of the motorway, will be tree planting on the cutting slope, followed by a hedge, and then a block of tree planting up to the severed end of Limetree Lane. There will be tree planting on the south side of the length of motorway.
5.4.5.19 Continuing east on the north side of the motorway, there will be a false cutting with tree planting, up to Agden Lane. East of Agden Lane (sheets 9 & 10) the motorway is in deep cutting, with intermittent tree planting on the slopes, changing to continuous tree planting east of the pylons, on the embankment slopes, up to and beyond Reddy Lane, followed by a hedge towards Coe Lane.
5.4.5.20 From just prior to Coe Lane, and extending up to Chester Road (sheets 10 & 11), continuous tree planting is proposed, which continues east of Chester Road, south of the M56 and the westbound exit slip road up to Ryecroft Covert at the end of this option. Similarly the new cutting slope on the north of the eastbound slip and all space between carriageways at junction 7 would be tree planted. A false cutting is proposed south of Ryecroft Farm.
5.4.5.21 Potential spoil disposal locations for the M6 widening have been identified on the west side of the motorway: south of Old Hall Lane (sheet 2), north and south of Whitley Brook Lane (sheet 4), between Stockley Farm (sheet 5) and the motorway, and between the eastbound Lymm Link and the M6 (sheet 6). Further spoil would be disposed between the two link roads, either side of Swineyard Lane (sheets 6 & 7). North of the M56 potential sites have been identified: west of Froghall Lane (sheet 9), and from Reddy Lane to Chester Road (sheets 10 & 11).
In general public footpaths and bridleways are barely effected by the scheme. Typically they are shortened slightly where an overbridge is realigned. However, in the field next to Hollowood Farm footpath 10 (sheet 2) would be diverted to run adjacent to the new motorway fence, and in the field north of Mossoaks Farm (sheet 6), FP 33 would also be diverted to run adjacent to the new link road fence. Similarly north of Jones Covert (sheet 7), FP 16 would be diverted to run along the new motorway fence line, and FP 15 would be diverted to run alongside the new link road fence to join the A50 at Broadheys Lane. East of Agden House (sheet 9), FP 4 would also be diverted to run alongside the new motorway fence, as would FP 13 to the west of Reddy Lane (sheet 10).
5.4.5.22 The landscape proposals for the asymmetrical widening are similar to those for parallel widening, but realigned to suit the narrower widening.
5.4.5.23 The proposed losses of existing woodland, trees and hedges are:
5.4.5.24 The proposed quantities of planting are as follows:
5.4.5.25 406 residential properties were identified within the study area. The visual impact assessment for winter daytime is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 1 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 19 | 4 |
| Slight negative effect | 104 | 18 |
| Neutral effect | 280 | 281 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 2 | 90 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | 0 | 13 |
The visual impact assessment of the same properties for winter night-time is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Large adverse effect | 1 | 0 |
| Moderate adverse effect | 73 | 14 |
| Slight negative effect | 144 | 167 |
| Neutral effect | 183 | 217 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 5 | 8 |
5.4.5.26 The visual impact assessment for winter daytime for the twenty two commercial or public buildings in the study area is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 1 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 4 | 0 |
| Neutral effect | 17 | 17 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 0 | 5 |
The visual impact assessment for winter night-time for the same properties is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 4 | 0 |
| Slight adverse effect | 8 | 11 |
| Neutral effect | 10 | 11 |
5.4.5.27 The visual impact assessment for winter daytime for the seventy seven roads in the area is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 3 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 29 | 2 |
| Neutral effect | 44 | 45 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 1 | 23 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | 0 | 7 |
5.4.5.28 The visual impact assessment for the same roads for winter night-time is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 12 | 3 |
| Slight negative effect | 40 | 43 |
| Neutral effect | 25 | 30 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 0 | 1 |
5.4.5.29 The visual impact assessment for winter daytime for the eighty three public foot and bridle paths in the study area is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 4 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 40 | 9 |
| Neutral effect | 37 | 43 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 2 | 25 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | 0 | 6 |
The visual impact assessment for winter night-time for the same paths is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 23 | 8 |
| Slight negative effect | 38 | 46 |
| Neutral effect | 21 | 25 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 1 | 4 |
5.4.5.30 While the widening of the carriageway will have relatively little effect, the lighting will not fit well into the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and will be intrusive, resulting in an overall moderate adverse effect.
5.4.5.31 The landcover features lost are of no special interest and will be more than compensated for over time, resulting in a neutral, and later a slight beneficial effect.
5.4.5.32 The scheme in general has no effect on features of significant cultural importance, with the exception of Tabley Park and Arley Park. At Tabley Park the effect is insignificant compared with the approved MSA expansion. At Arley Park the proposed mitigation will ensure there is a neutral effect. Overall the scheme has a neutral effect on cultural features.
5.4.5.33 The significant features of this scheme are the limitations imposed by the design of the existing motorway and the lighting, which will be obtrusive even after fifteen years, despite the mitigation. It is therefore assessed as having moderate adverse effect initially, reducing to slight negative with time. The other changes to the visual and physical character of the landscape will be slight, and will be absorbed with time, as mitigation takes effect.
5.4.5.34 If the widening was asymmetrical rather than parallel, there would be benefits particularly in terms of smaller loss of landcover features and smaller overbridges. However the overall result would not be significantly different, in that neither of these features contribute significantly to the assessment result for the parallel widening.
5.4.6.1 The character of the two study areas is substantially the same, in terms of general landscape characteristics, occasional parkland, settlements in the fringe, and intrusion from existing major roads. The losses of landcover features and extent and nature of mitigation are similar. In both cases there is a neutral effect on cultural features.
5.4.6.2 The significant difference between the two options is that the A556(M) is generally in cutting and unlit, while the widening option is lit throughout, and is limited by the design of the existing motorways, which are generally at or above adjacent levels.
5.4.6.3 These significant differences between the two options have resulted in a more adverse assessment for the widening option, for parallel or asymmetrical widening.
5.4.6.4 The number of properties adversely affected in daytime by the widening option is initially 129, decreasing to 22 after fifteen years, compared with 91 and 32 for the A556(M). The night-time figures are 230 reducing to 192 after fifteen years for the widening option, and 88 and 55 for the A556(M).
5.4.6.5 The number of roads adversely effected in daytime by the widening option is initially 32 reducing to 2 after fifteen years, compared with 20 reducing to 7 for the A556(M). The night-time figures are 52 reducing to 46 for the widening option, and 14 reducing to 8 for the A556(M).
5.4.6.6 The number of paths adversely effected in daytime by the widening option is initially 44 reducing to 9 after fifteen years, compared with 16 reducing to 6 for the A556(M). The night-time figures are 61 reducing to 54 for the widening option, compared with 16 reducing to 11 for the A556(M).
5.4.6.7 The overall comparative landscape assessment for these two options is that the widening has a more adverse effect than the A556(M).
5.4.7.1 The study area for this option lies primarily in the Ashley landscape unit, as described by CCC, but extending into Tatton to the south west, and the Manchester Conurbation in the north and east. While the boundaries of these landscape units and their descriptions are sound in broad terms, in reality there is no sudden change on the ground at the boundary.
5.4.7.2 In this instance the classic East Cheshire Plain covers most of the area, but at the north and east runs into the Bollin Valley, and beyond into the fringes of Bowdon, Hale and Warburton Green, and close to Tatton Park on the south, and Rostherne Mere to the south west.
5.4.7.3 The Bollin is a steep sided, narrow, well wooded valley. The fringes of Bowdon, Hale and Warburton Green consist of residential development on high ground. To the east of Junction 6 is the cargo handling area of Manchester Airport. Ashley Hall and Ashley village lie close to, and respectively north and south of the motorway. The fringes of Tatton Park contain large woodlands, enclosing a park of national importance. Rostherne Mere is a large water body with enclosing woodlands, of international wildlife importance.
5.4.7.4 The existing motorway is mainly in cutting, up to 7m deep, but with a 5m high embankment at Ashley village, and a short embankment on the east side of the Bollin river crossing.
5.4.7.5 These are shown on the detailed plans in Appendix 7 (M56 J7-6 Parallel Widening Landscape Plans). Where the new road is close to or above existing level, and there is property relatively close, it is intended to create false cuttings alongside the road to mitigate the intrusion which would otherwise occur. A false cutting is an earth embankment or mound built up along the verge of a road for screening purposes, which is not necessary for the construction of the road. In certain instances these false cuttings would be augmented by screen fences.
5.4.7.6 There would be extensive dense planting of trees and hedges alongside most of the new road, both to screen the traffic and structures from adjacent properties, and to blend the new road into the existing landscape. Where existing woodland is affected by the works, the edge will be reinforced by new planting, and work done to existing trees to ensure their survival.
5.4.7.7 Starting at the west end, at Ryecroft Covert (sheets 1 & 2), continuous tree planting is proposed up to Lambs Covert on the south cutting slope, and at the top of the cutting slopes on the north side, up to the field beyond Cow Lane, at Ashley village. Tree planting is also proposed on the south side, west of Hardy's Covert. A false cutting is proposed on the north side of the motorway from The Rookery to Ashley Road.
5.4.7.8 Continuous hedges are proposed between Ashley Road and the Bollin crossing (see sheets 2 & 3). False cuttings are proposed to the NW, NE and SE of the Bollin bridge, continuing up to Chapel Lane (see sheet 4) and the field beyond, with continuous tree planting up to and including the embankments of the Chapel Lane overbridge, and hedges for the next field, beyond which continuous tree planting is proposed on the north side, alongside the eastbound exit slip road at junction 6.
5.4.7.9 For this section of motorway, the area between Ashley Hall and Ashley Road (sheet 2), on the north side of the motorway, has been identified as having potential for spoil disposal.
5.4.7.10 In general public footpaths and bridleways are barely affected by the scheme. Typically they are diverted slightly where an overbridge is realigned. However, footpaths 10R and 11R between Chapel Lane overbridge and Wilmslow Road (sheet 4), will be diverted to the south alongside the realigned motorway boundary.
5.4.7.11 The landscape proposals for the asymmetrical widening are similar to those for parallel widening, but realigned to suit the narrower widening.
5.4.7.12 The proposed losses of existing woodland, trees and hedges are:
5.4.7.13 The proposed quantities of planting are as follows:
5.4.7.14 139 residential properties were identified within the study area. The visual impact assessment for winter daytime is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 7 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 25 | 8 |
| Neutral effect | 88 | 61 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 17 | 61 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | 2 | 9 |
The visual impact assessment of the same properties for winter night-time is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 24 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 42 | 57 |
| Neutral effect | 65 | 39 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 8 | 43 |
5.4.7.15 The visual impact assessment for winter daytime for the four commercial properties in the study area is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Neutral effect | 4 | 4 |
The visual impact assessment for winter night-time for the same properties is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Slight negative effect | 2 | 0 |
| Neutral effect | 2 | 4 |
5.4.7.16 The visual impact assessment for winter daytime for the sixteen roads in the study area is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Slight negative effect | 8 | 2 |
| Neutral effect | 3 | 9 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 5 | 2 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | - | 3 |
The visual impact assessment for winter night-time for the same roads is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 1 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 10 | 10 |
| Neutral effect | 3 | 4 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 2 | 2 |
5.4.7.17 The visual impact assessment for winter night-time for the thirty two paths in the study area is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 3 | 0 |
| Slight negative effect | 12 | 1 |
| Neutral effect | 13 | 18 |
| Slight positive effect | 4 | 10 |
| Moderate beneficial effect | 0 | 3 |
The visual impact assessment for winter night-time for the same paths is:
| Opening Year | After 15 Years | |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate adverse effect | 7 | - |
| Slight negative effect | 11 | 15 |
| Neutral effect | 14 | 16 |
| Slight beneficial effect | 1 |
5.4.7.18 While the widening of the carriageway will have relatively little effect, the lighting will not fit well into the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape, and will be intrusive, resulting in an overall moderate adverse effect.
5.4.7.19 The landcover features lost are of no special interest and will be more than compensated for over time, resulting in a neutral, and later a slight beneficial effect.
5.4.7.20 The scheme has a neutral effect on features of significant cultural importance.
5.4.7.21 The significant features of this scheme are the limitations imposed by the design of the existing motorway and the lighting, which will be obtrusive even after fifteen years, despite the mitigation. It is therefore assessed as having moderate adverse effect initially, reducing to slight negative with time.
5.4.7.22 If the widening was asymmetrical rather than parallel, there would be benefits particularly in terms of smaller loss of landcover features, and small overbridges. However the overall result would not be significantly different, in that neither of these features contribute significantly to the assessment result for the parallel widening.
5.4.7.23 Summary of Landscape Impacts
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening | M56 J7 J9 Parallel Widening | M56 J7 J9 Asymmetrical Widening |
| Slight Adverse Initially. Neutral Later | Moderate Adverse Initially. Slight Adverse Later. | Moderate Adverse Initially. Slight Adverse Later. | Moderate Adverse Initially. Slight Adverse Later. | Moderate Adverse Initially. Slight Adverse Later. |
The whole environment of both the route options has been assessed as rural and therefore no townscape is affected.
The available data was interrogated using criteria set out in DETR (now DfT) Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies, Volume 23, in order to assess the cultural heritage resource in terms of Form, Survival, Condition, Complexity, Context and Period against a series of Heritage Indicators, namely: Scale it matters, Significance, Rarity and Impact. The resulting worksheet provided the basis for a final assessment score that can be carried forward into the Appraisal Summary Table.
The study area consists of a 1km wide corridor centred on the proposed schemes (M6 J19 - 20 & Lymm Links and M56 J9 - 7, M56 J7 - 6 and A556 (M)). The purpose of this review was to collate existing information regarding cultural heritage sites from a number of sources including the A556(M) Improvement (M6 - M56) Archaeological Assessment Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit (GMAU) the A556(M) Improvement (M6 - M56) Environmental Statement9, Sites and Monuments Record reports for a 1km wide study corridor provided by Cheshire County Council Environmental Planning department and the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. Information regarding Conservation areas and Listed Buildings was obtained from Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, Macclesfield Borough Council and Warrington Borough Council (April - May 2002). No additional consultation or documentary research has been undertaken to update these sources.
Over eighty sites of cultural heritage interest have been identified within the study corridor. Three of these sites are designated as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, legally protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, whilst over thirty are listed buildings; ranging from the Grade I listed Tabley Hall to a variety of Grade II listed farmhouses and cottages, often representative of local vernacular traditions. Guidance on planning issues involving listed buildings is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994)14. Their protection is a material factor in the planning process and is usually expressed through policies in the relevant Structure and Local Plans.
A designated park of Special Historic Interest, Tabley Hall, also falls partially within the study area. Appropriate guidance regarding sites included in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest is also set out in PPG 15, where key guidance suggests that "Planning and highway authorities should also safeguard registered parks or gardens when themselves planning new developments or road schemes".
The remaining records relate to sites identified through the Cheshire and Greater Manchester Sites and Monuments Records and other sources. These sites (although not individually protected by law), may be of any degree of importance, up to and including national importance.
Many of these sites will not have been subjected to any form of archaeological testing and little information is available regarding their condition or internal complexity.
Guidance on development proposals affecting sites of archaeological interest is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning15 and is again usually expressed through policies in the relevant Structure and Local Plans. Here key guidance suggests "Archaeological remains should be seen as a finite and non-renewable resource, in many cases highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction" and ""The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled".
The study corridor passes through a rich and varied landscape containing evidence for human activity from the prehistoric period to the present. However the density of known sites of cultural heritage interest is low, particularly in contrast to similar sized study areas elsewhere in the country.
Evidence for the earliest phases of human occupation within the study area is scarce, with little evidence for activity prior to the Neolithic period. The find of a flint axe from Ashley may be indicative of woodland clearance for agricultural purposes at this date; however, it may equally represent a casual loss.
Understanding of Bronze Age and later settlement patterns in north Cheshire and the Greater Manchester area has however greatly increased in recent years through programs of aerial survey and subsequent fieldwork, coupled with a series of important excavations in conjunction with the construction of a second runway at Manchester Airport.
Recent surveys have identified a number of potential barrow sites at Bucklow Hill, Dunham, High Legh and Rostherne. Although situated outside the study corridor, a single barrow excavated at Little Bollington produced a cremation burial deposited in a leather bag, with other associated grave goods, which was radiocarbon dated to c. 1485 BC.
Contemporary settlement sites, including those at Legh Oaks and Arthill, are located within the study corridor, whilst significant archaeological deposits ranging in date from the Early Bronze Age to the Romano-British period have been excavated in the nearby Bollin Valley. Where investigated, these sites have typically been found to consist of ditched enclosures with internal features or structures and an associated field system. An examination of local settlement patterns suggests that the majority of settlement sites and stray finds from this period occur on the well drained sands and gravels of the Central Cheshire Ridge, the High Legh - Knutsford Ridge and around the 100m terrace of the Pennines.
The High Legh - Knutsford Ridge passes through the study area, which also contains several other sand and gravel deposits ideally suited to prehistoric settlement; however, the boulder clays forming drift deposits for much of the remaining study area are regarded as being less attractive to prehistoric settlement.
Evidence for Roman activity within the study area is largely confined to a series of roads, the best known of which links the fort at Manchester with the legionary fortress at Chester (Deva). Sometimes referred to as a northern extension of Watling Street the road appears to follow the course of the modern A556 for much its length, before crossing the River Bollin at the northern extent of the study area.
The second road which passes through the study corridor is known as the "North Cheshire Ridge" road and has been identified as running from Newhouse Farm, Hatton to Hulmes Barn Farm, following the course of the modern A50. This route is crossed by the existing M6 to the east of Bradley Hall and by the M56 to the Southeast of Primrose Hill and additional land-takes in these areas may reveal further evidence for the road and any associated features. The line of the road as it extends into the A556 study corridor remains unproven, although it has been suggested that the road may have continued eastwards, along a narrow band of sand and gravel, to meet the Manchester - Chester road at Mere.
Evidence for civilian settlement during this period is limited to the sites at Legh Oaks and Arthill, although a scatter of Roman material from Hale Barns might also be indicative of settlement. During this period rural settlement patterns often demonstrate a high degree of continuity from the Iron Age and it is not unusual to find Iron Age occupation continuing on into the Roman period at the same site.
Without the benefit of heavy ploughs the boulder clays of the region were not, as in the prehistoric period, conducive to settlement, although the existence of further small-scale farmsteads or ephemeral sites cannot be discounted.
Many of the villages and hamlets falling within the study area have their origins in the medieval period, with the villages of Bexton and Tabley both containing placename elements derived from Old English personal names. Settlement within the study corridor is largely confined to well established village centres, with outlying hamlets and moated sites on the heavier boulder clays. A number of moated sites occur within the study area including a possible moated manor house underlying a late 18th/early 19th manor house at Mere and a second site to the west of Hulseheath Lane. This latter site appears to have an associated dam and fishponds and may have been the seat of the Venebles family who held a subordinate manor within the manor of Mere.
A Motte and Bailey castle, built in the 12th century, possibly by the De Massey family, stands close to the junction of the modern A56 and A556. Not benefiting from statutory protection as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, it has been suggested that the castle was built during the rebellion against Henry II, in 1173, in order to control a crossing point or ford across the River Bollin. It is likely that the Roman road was still in use at this date, either as a track or green lane, and troops based in the castle would be able to monitor or control traffic using the river crossing.
The heavy claylands still appear to have been heavily wooded during the Anglo-Saxon and Medieval period as is evidenced by a number of placenames which contain elements reflecting partial woodland clearance. These include Rostherne - the "thorn tree" or "place growing with thorn trees" of "Rauthr" or "Roth" and Tabley, derived from the Old English "Taebba", a personal name, and "Leah", meaning a clearing. As with the above-mentioned examples High Legh is also suggestive of a late Anglo-Saxon period settlement in a previously wooded area.
On the lighter, better-drained gravels arable farming was practised with ridge and furrow earthworks surviving at Arley Green and Mere, with a water-powered corn mill recorded at Millington. However, the settlement pattern as a whole is largely reflective of the restrictions imposed by poorly drained clay soils and a predominance of moss and wetland.
The Post-Medieval period witnessed an intensification in agricultural activity, with the enclosure of the common lands and attempts to improve both drainage and soil quality; the latter through the use of marl, which has culminated in a network of small water-filled ponds across the study area.
This period also witnessed widespread improvements in communications, firstly through the introduction of tollroads and turnpikes, and later through the construction of the canal and railway networks. The Bridgewater Canal lies just outside the study area, whilst as noted earlier the modern A50 and A556 follow the course of earlier Roman Roads, highlighting the longevity and importance of these routes.
Parks and formal gardens were established at Tatton Park and Tabley Hall during the late 18th and early 19th century. Humphrey Repton designed the park at Tatton circa 1791, with formal gardens laid out in the late eighteenth and again in the early nineteenth century. These include a beech maze of c. 1795 and Charlotte's Garden, a formal garden designed by the architect Lewis Wyatt for Lady Charlotte Egerton.
At Tabley Hall a new house was built in the Palladian style for Sir Peter Byme of Leicester. Designed by the architect John Carr of York, the house replaced an earlier Medieval mansion, which was subsequently abandoned, and has been hailed as the finest Palladian house in the Northwest. Listed Grade 1, the house and its associated grounds, which are included in English Heritage's Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest fall partially within the southern end of the M6 Study corridor, bounded to the east by the M6 itself. Any development likely to impact upon the setting of the house and its grounds would almost certainly result in an adverse impact.
Following completion of the Assessment Summary Tables it is now possible to make further recommendations as to which options should be carried forward.
An assessment score of Slight Adverse for this option reflects the fact that the scheme would not result in any significant degree of impact upon the cultural heritage resource. The option would affect a number of archaeological features of local to regional importance, including disturbance of Sink Moss, an ancient upland mire, and noise/visual intrusion related impacts upon a number of listed buildings.
While all of the identifiable impacts would be of only minor significance, this option would generate the greatest number; suggesting that this scheme should not be carried forward.
An assessment score of Slight Adverse for both options once again reflects the fact that neither scheme would cause significant impacts upon the cultural heritage resource. Both schemes would create potential impacts upon a series of archaeological features of local to regional importance, including several Listed Buildings. However, any impact upon these properties would be at most of minor significance due to the distance at which they are situated from the proposed improvements.
Both widening options would create an impact upon the course of the Chester - Manchester Roman Road, however, the Roman Road is buried beneath the existing carriageway and traffic island and is likely to have been heavily truncated or destroyed. The significance of this impact is therefore felt to be very slight.
The Parallel Widening option would also result in an additional option-specific impact, namely; the partial destruction or truncation of an area of upstanding ridge and furrow earthworks. This site is also of relatively low significance and should not be viewed as a constraint upon construction.
Based upon the final assessment scores for these options, either scheme could be carried forward with minimal impact upon the cultural heritage resource.
An assessment score of Slight Adverse for both options arises from the fact that few sites of cultural heritage interest would be affected by either scheme. Affected sites include two Roman Roads, Listed and unlisted buildings of Post-Medieval date, a ditch of possibly modern origin and a number of historic field boundaries. As with the other options under consideration, impacts upon Listed Buildings would be confined to increased noise and visual intrusion, however, these impacts would be slight, due to the distance at which the affected properties are situated from the proposed improvements.
Given that both options would affect the same sites, and that any resultant impact would be of only minor significance, it is felt that either option could be carried forward.
An assessment score of Slight Adverse has been derived from the fact that both options would have very little impact upon the known archaeological resource. The proposed improvements would adversely affect the existing historic landscape, most notably a series of historic field boundaries, however, severance already exists and any additional impact is likely to be minor. As a result of the low level of impact arising from both options, either scheme could be carried forward.
The proposed scheme would impact upon a number of sites of local to regional importance, including the course of two Roman Roads, a number of Listed Buildings, a possible Deserted Medieval Village and a Registered Park of Special Historic Interest, associated with a Grade I Listed Building. Impacts upon Listed and unlisted buildings will be confined to increased noise and visual intrusion, however, all of the potentially affected buildings are situated at some distance from the proposed scheme, and any potential impact should be relatively minor.
Due to the open and largely undeveloped nature of the countryside through which the route would pass there would also be a significant impact upon the historic landscape, including widespread removal of historic field boundaries and hedgerows. The potential also exists for the discovery of additional, as yet unknown, archaeological remains, particularly settlement features associated with the Manchester to Chester Roman Road and industrial features suggested by field names. These sites are likely to include brick and tile kilns.
The most significant impact identified to date is likely to be that upon Tabley Park, a Grade II listed Park of Special Historic Interest, associated with a Grade I Listed Palladian Mansion. Construction of the current option would require a land-take within the designated park boundary, with vehicles using the new road then being visible from the house and adjacent areas of the park, until mitigation in the form of tree planting produces a visual screen.
An overall assessment score of Adverse for this option seeks to reflect both the number of sites potentially affected, and the degree of impact. Should it be possible to reduce, or avoid, any impact upon the setting of Tabley Park then the overall significance of impact for the scheme as a whole may be reduced. The A556M option would have the greatest impact upon the cultural heritage resource, and should the scheme be carried forward then extensive mitigation works would almost certainly be required; however, given the significance of the archaeological sites present within the road corridor, they are unlikely to act as a complete bar on the scheme.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the most serious impact upon sites of cultural heritage interest would arise from advancement of the A556M option. However, as has been noted above, it is unlikely that the sites present within the road corridor, with the exception of Tabley Park, would be of sufficient value as to act as a complete bar on the further advancement of this scheme.
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening | M56 J7 J6 Parallel Widening | M56 J7 J6 Asymmetrical Widening |
| Adverse | Slight Adverse | Slight Adverse | Slight Adverse | Slight Adverse |
| SITE NO' | SMR REF | NAME | Monuments | Administrative area | E'NG | N'NG | PERIOD | STATUS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 547/1/7 | The North Cheshire Ridge Roman Road | Road | Appleton, Warrington, Cheshire | 65800 | 84600 | Roman | - |
| 02 | 551 | Bradley Cross | Cross | Grappenhall and Thelwall, Warrington, Cheshire | 65800 | 84700 | Medieval | - |
| 03 | 2729/0/2 | Swineyard Lane | Cottage | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 66240 | 83580 | Modern | - |
| 04 | 2734 | Swineyard Farm | Findspot - axe | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 66400 | 83700 | Prehistoric | - |
| 05 | ESG 11/05 | Land west of Intack Farm | Cropmark - Possible settlement features | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 66600 | 83400 | Unknown | - |
| 06 | ESG 11/05 | Land west of Intack Farm | Cropmark features | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 66600 | 83400 | Unknown | - |
| 07 | ESG 11/06 | Land east of Badgerscroft Farm | Cropmark features | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 66720 | 83620 | Unknown | - |
| 08 | ESG 11/04 | Intack Farm | Farmhouse | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 66980 | 83420 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 09 | 547/1/8 | The North Cheshire Ridge Roman Road | Road | Lymm, Warrington, Cheshire | 67000 | 84900 | Roman | - |
| 10 | 547/1/8 | The North Cheshire Ridge Roman Road | Road | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67000 | 84900 | Roman | - |
| 11 | 1205 | - | Outbuilding - cow house | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67500 | 81780 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 12 | 2727 | - | Building | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67520 | 82800 | Modern | - |
| 13 | ESG 11/03 | Sink Moss | Mire | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67600 | 83000 | Undated | - |
| 15 | 1204/1 | Crowley Hall | Farmhouse | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67620 | 82240 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 16 | 624/1 | Roman Road | Road | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67690 | 84550 | Roman | - |
| 17 | ESG 11/02 | Mill Farm | Farmhouse | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67700 | 82570 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 18 | 1195/1/1 | Swineyard Hall Farmhouse | Farmhouse - timber framed building | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67810 | 83820 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 19 | 1195/1/2 | Swineyard Hall | Moat, mansion house, | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 67820 | 83840 | Medieval | SAM |
| 20 | ESG 10/03 | Stockley Farm | Farmstead - site of | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 68150 | 81420 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 21 | GAZ 48 | Land north of Arley Green | Ridge and furrow & earthwork enclosure | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 68460 | 81530 | Medieval - Post-Medieval | - |
| 22 | ESG 10/02 | Land north of Arley Green | Ridge and furrow | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 68590 | 81480 | Medieval - Post-Medieval? | - |
| 23 | 1208/1/1 | The Ashes Farmhouse | Farmhouse, timber framed building (cruck framed) | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 68740 | 80950 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 24 | 1208/1/2 | The Ashes Cottage & Farmhouse | Farmhouse and stable (cottage) | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 68760 | 80920 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 25 | 1209/1/2 | Hawthorn Cottage | Barn, (cottage) | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 69170 | 80680 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 26 | 1209/1/1 | Litley Farm House | Farmhouse - timber framed building | Aston by Budworth, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 69190 | 80700 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 27 | 1228 | Old Farm | House - timber framed building | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 69380 | 85260 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 28 | 2735 | - | Ring ditch & round barrow | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 70500 | 84630 | Prehistoric | - |
| 29 | 1265/1 | Lime Tree Farmhouse | Farmhouse - timber framed building | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 70640 | 84940 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 30 | ESG 10/01 | Hollywood Farm | Farmhouse | - | 70870 | 80350 | Post-Medieval | Listed Building |
| 31 | 1266/1 | Broad Oak Farm | Moat? - Fortified manor house | High Legh, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 70980 | 84580 | Medieval | Listed Building |
| 32 | 1274/1 | Winterbottom Farmhouse | Farmhouse - timber framed building | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 70980 | 81080 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 33 | 2458 | Tableypipe Wood | Decoy pond | Tabley Superior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 71800 | 80400 | Early Modern | - |
| 34 | ESG 9/08 | Land north of Over Tabley Hall | Ponds | Tabley Superior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 71850 | 80330 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 35 | ESG 9/07 | Over Tabley Hall | Agricultural buildings | Tabley Superior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 71920 | 79840 | Post-Medieval | Listed Building |
| 36 | ESG 9/06 | Over Tabley Hall | Hall | Tabley Superior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 71940 | 79940 | Medieval - Post-Medieval? | Listed Building |
| 37 | 1226 | - | Outbuilding | Tabley Superior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 71940 | 79820 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 38 | 1229/1 | - | Chapel | Tabley Superior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72000 | 79000 | Medieval | - |
| 39 | 1277 | Strettle | Deserted settlement | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72000 | 81000 | Medieval | - |
| 40 | ESG 9/03 | Hollybush Farm | Farmhouse | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72010 | 79300 | Post-Medieval | Listed Building |
| 41 | ESG 9/02 | Land east of Windmill Inn | Windmill - site of (field name) | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72150 | 79320 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 42 | 1273/1/1 | Hough Hall | Moated site | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72160 | 83340 | Medieval | Scheduled Monument |
| 43 | 1273/1/2 | Hough Hall | Fishpond | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72160 | 83350 | Medieval | - |
| 44 | 1273/1/3 | Hough Hall | Dam | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72180 | 83400 | Medieval | - |
| 45 | ESG 9/04 | Land east of Over Tabley Hall | Possible moated site - field name | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72200 | 80000 | Medieval - Post-Medieval? | - |
| 46 | 547/1/9 | The North Cheshire Ridge Roman Road | Road | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72200 | 82700 | Roman | - |
| 47 | ESG 9/01 | A556 | Roman Road - course of | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72265 | 79500 | Roman | - |
| 48 | 2711/1/0 | Hulse Heath Farm | Farmhouse & barn | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72300 | 83630 | Post Medieval | - |
| 49 | ESG 9/05 | St Paul's Church | Church & graveyard | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72320 | 80000 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 50 | 2711/0/1 | Chapel Lane, Hulseheath | Cottage | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72320 | 83750 | Modern | - |
| 51 | 2713 | - | Cottage | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72480 | 85090 | Modern | - |
| 52 | 1230/2/2 | Church of St Peter | Chapel | Tabley Inferior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72490 | 77760 | Post-Medieval | Listed Building |
| 53 | 1304/1 | Boothbank Farmhouse | Farmhouse | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72510 | 85090 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 54 | 1230/0/1 | Dovecote at Tabley House | Dovecote | Tabley Inferior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72520 | 77880 | Modern | Listed Building |
| 55 | 2757 | - | Archaeological investigation | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72550 | 81100 | Undated | - |
| 56 | 2291/1 | The Chapel House, Arthill | Chapel | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72560 | 85500 | Modern | Listed Building |
| 57 | 2715 | - | Cottage | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72650 | 85750 | Modern | - |
| 58 | 1268/1 | Millington Hall | Farmhouse | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72780 | 84460 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 59 | 2061/1/0 | Arthill Heath Farm | Ditched enclosure, palisade, ring ditch | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72790 | 85860 | Prehistoric (Bronze Age) | - |
| 60 | 2061/1/0 | Arthill Heath Farm | Ditched enclosure, palisade, ring ditch | Little Bollington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72790 | 85860 | Prehistoric (Bronze Age) | - |
| 61 | 2061/1/1 | - | Archaeological investigation | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72800 | 85700 | Undated | - |
| 62 | 1227 | Moss Cottage | House - timber framed building | Tabley Superior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72870 | 78800 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 63 | 1269 | Denfield Cottage | House - timber framed building, site | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 72880 | 83860 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 64 | 2164 | Bucklow Hill | Ring ditch? Round barrow - cemetery | Mere, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 73000 | 82900 | Prehistoric | - |
| 65 | 2712 | - | Windmill - site of | Millington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 73000 | 84600 | Modern | - |
| 66 | 1213/4 | Peover Park & Gardens | Garden -landscape park | Peover Superior, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 73700 | 77300 | Modern | - |
| 67 | 2214 | - | Enclosure | Little Bollington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 73700 | 85700 | Undated | - |
| 68 | 2746 | Kiln Croft | Kiln | Little Bollington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 73700 | 85700 | Modern | - |
| 69 | 2714 | - | Archaeological investigation | Little Bollington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 73950 | 85630 | Undated | - |
| 70 | 26-1-4 | - | Roman Road | Dunham Massey, Trafford, Greater Manchester | 74330 | 86080 | Roman | - |
| 71 | 844/1/20 | Roman Road - Chester to Manchester (Route 7a) | Road, embankment & postholes | Little Bollington, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 74340 | 86080 | Roman | - |
| 72 | 1481.1.0 | Home Farm | Findspot - pottery | Dunham Massey, Trafford, Greater Manchester | 74400 | 86100 | Roman | - |
| 73 | 1.1.1GM2 | Watch Hill | Motte & Bailey | Bowdon, Trafford, Greater Manchester | 74850 | 85970 | Medieval | SAM |
| 74 | 7729.1.0 | Poolbank Farm | Farmstead | Bowdon, Trafford, Greater Manchester | 75040 | 85790 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 75 | 7671.1.0 | Salt Acre | Fieldname | Bowdon, Trafford, Greater Manchester | 75040 | 85630 | Unknown | - |
| 76 | 1280/1 | - | Outbuilding - timber framed building | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 75550 | 84910 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 77 | 2163 | Ryecroft Farm | Ditch - field system | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 76000 | 84700 | Modern | - |
| 78 | 1281/1/3 | Ashley Hall Farm | Garden Wall | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 76840 | 84900 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 79 | 1281/1/1 | Ashley Hall Farm | Farmhouse - timber framed building | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 76880 | 84950 | Medieval | Listed Building |
| 80 | 1281/1/2 | Ashley Hall Farm | Gate | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 76880 | 84950 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 81 | 1282 | Sycamore Cottage | House - timber framed building | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 76980 | 84320 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 82 | 1281/0/1 | - | Findspot - skillet | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 77090 | 84950 | Medieval | - |
| 83 | 1278 | - | Findspot - axe | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 77300 | 84200 | Prehistoric | - |
| 84 | 1284/1 | Hough Green Farmhouse | Farmhouse | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 77630 | 84020 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 85 | 1283/1 | Tanyard Farmhouse | Farmhouse | Ashley, Macclesfield, Cheshire | 78020 | 84530 | Post Medieval | Listed Building |
| 86 | 7377.1.0 | Rossmill Farm | Farmhouse | Hale, Greater Manchester | 78600 | 85050 | Post-Medieval | Listed Building |
| 87 | 3703.1.0 | Ross Mill | Watermill - site of | Hale, Trafford, Greater Manchester | 78600 | 85040 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 88 | 7918.1.0 | Hale Barns | Settlement | Hale, Trafford, Greater Manchester | 79000 | 85000 | Medieval - Post-Medieval | - |
| 89 | 7591.1.0 | Skin Yard | Fieldname | Hale, Trafford, Greater Manchester | 79530 | 85060 | Unknown | - |
| 90 | 9580.1.0 | Halebank | Farmstead | Hale, Greater Manchester | 79710 | 84410 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 91 | 9580.2.0 | Halebank Cottage | Dwelling House | Hale, Greater Manchester | 79730 | 84350 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 92 | 3723.1.0 | Mill Field | Watermill - possible site of | Hale, Greater Manchester | 79800 | 84200 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 94 | 7789.1.0 | Easter Lane Farm | Farmstead - site of | Hale, Greater Manchester | 79850 | 85550 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 95 | 8629.1.0 | Yewtree House | Farmhouse | Hale, Greater Manchester | 79900 | 84400 | Post-Medieval | Listed Building |
| 96 | 9707.1.0 | Buckhall Farm | Farmhouse and barn | Hale, Greater Manchester | 80230 | 85300 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 97 | 9581.1.0 | Broad Oak Farm | Farmhouse and agricultural buildings - site of | Hale, Greater Manchester | 80430 | 84500 | Post-Medieval | - |
| 98 | 8420.1.0 | Rose Cottage | Dwelling House | Hale, Greater Manchester | 80580 | 85500 | Post-Medieval | Listed Building |
| 99 | 8421.1.0 | Ridgeways Farmhouse | Farmhouse - site of | Hale, Greater Manchester | 80600 | 85500 | Post-Medieval | - |
The methodology for production of the Biodiversity Worksheet has been based on the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMS)3. This guidance is based on advice from English Nature and builds on the methods for assessing Biodiversity and earth heritage that are established in Volume 11 of DMRB7.
Worksheet 4.10 of GOMMMS has been completed for each of the options to evaluate impacts on all potentially affected features of biodiversity and earth heritage by the options. These worksheets can be viewed in Appendix 8 at the rear of the document.
The evaluation of the affected sites and the degree of impact has been based on the following sources of information:
The sites and features identified during this exercise and the source of the information are summarised in Table 5.7.1.
Although consultations have indicated the presence of Sites of Biological Importance (SBI) in the M56 corridor no detailed surveys have been undertaken within this area and features that may retain ecological value will therefore not be considered within the assessments. However, it is unlikely that sites of anything greater than local value are present and potentially affected by the options to widen the M56.
The evaluation of features potentially affected by the options has been based on the guidance provided in GOMMS using the information provided within the above documents or consultation information. Although the SBI's identified lie within different local authority areas and are likely to have been identified using different selection criteria, they have been evaluated as prescribed in GOMMMS.
Since the surveys were undertaken for the A556 and M6 widening changes in legislation have resulted in the protection of additional species such as water voles and the lesser silver diving beetle. Both of these species may occur within the study area but have not been considered in this evaluation.
It should also be noted that the information on which these assessments have been based was collected approximately 10 years ago and the situation regarding the presence of protected species within potentially affected areas may have changed. However, up to date information held by English Nature and other bodies noted above, has also been made available for the assessment.
The area through which this option passes comprises an agricultural intensively managed landscape with species-poor hedgerows, but with many ponds, small patches of woodland and unimproved grasslands.
Ten ponds would be lost to this option. All of these have been identified as maintaining High Local or Local Botanical importance and one also maintains amphibian interest (but not great crested newts). One cluster of ponds maintaining populations of great crested newts (at Millington Hall Lane) will be affected by the proposals with the embankment slope within c. 70m of the closest pond. Impacts to all of these features have been assessed as being Minor Adverse.
In addition to the direct impacts on the ponds potential impacts resulting from the fragmentation of pond clusters maintaining great crested newt populations may occur. Such impacts have been assessed as being Minor Adverse.
Four woods would also be affected by this option. Square Wood (W10) has been evaluated as being of High Local or Local Botanical importance and of Local Ornithological Importance. Impacts to this woodland have been evaluated as being Minor Adverse. The southern areas of Belt Wood (W14) have been identified as a Site of Biological Importance and part of the SBI would be lost to this option. In addition, the northern arm of Belt Wood (outside of the SBI) has been evaluated as being of High Local or Local Botanical importance and of Local Ornithological Importance and will also be directly affected by this option. Impacts to Belt Wood have also been evaluated as being Minor Adverse. Hancock's Banks (W22) and Ryecroft Covert (W23 and W24) would also be affected by the proposals. Both of these sites are SBI's with Hancock's Banks being described in the ES as maintaining the most interesting ground flora within the study area with a semi-natural tree composition. The lines of the slip roads associated with the A556 (M) would affect both of these features and although retaining walls would be used to minimise impacts the impacts have been assessed as being Minor Adverse.
Rostherne Mere (a SSSI and Ramsar Site) and Tabley Mere SSSI would benefit from the proposals through the improvement of water quality inputs into these features. Water quality issues at Rostherne Mere would be improved due to the reduction of traffic using the A556 and the consequent reduction in oil, rubber and silt deposited on the road. Drainage from the A556(M) improvements would be channelled, after suitable settling, oil interception and balancing, into the river system well downstream of the Mere. Tabley Mere is currently subjected to drainage from approximately 2 kms of the M6 and all surface run-off from the Motorway Service Area draining into the SSSI. This has resulted in silting within the inflow area of the Mere and the smothering of aquatic plants, in addition dredging of this area has had to be undertaken. Other impacts associated with chronic oil pollution have also been recorded. These proposals would result in all road and MSA surface run-off to be collected, treated and discharged away from the Tabley Mere catchment. Impacts to both of these features have therefore been evaluated as being a Major Gain.
One subsidiary badger sett will be lost to this option and this impact has been evaluated as being Minor Adverse.
Two "wildlife corridors" identified during the survey and assessment were also identified these are "Tabley Hall Lane and Northwich Road" and "To/from Tatton Park". Both of these corridors will be severed by this option and impacts evaluated as being Minor Adverse.
Although impacts to all sites are evaluated as being Minor Adverse, with the exception of the positive impacts to Rostherne and Tabley Mere, due to the number of sites affected by this option, the overall assessment score has been determined as being Significant Adverse.
The area potentially affected by this option comprises areas adjacent to the existing M6 and M56.
Five areas maintaining woodland and other habitats (ponds and ditches) would be affected by these options. The areas W22 and W24 comprise SBI's and have been evaluated as being of Medium Value. The remaining sites (E65, E66 and E68) are all evaluated as being of Lower value. Impacts on all of these sites have been evaluated as being Minor Adverse. Site E66 lies within the larger site GCN6 which maintains a population of great crested newts, evaluation of impacts on this site result in an assessment of Minor Adverse. Area E67 (also within GCN6) comprises a hedge and pond and its impacts are also evaluated as being Minor Adverse.
As for the A556(M) impacts to both Rostherne Mere and Tabley Mere have been evaluated as being a Major Gain.
One main and one subsidiary badger sett will be lost to this option and this impact has been evaluated as being Minor Adverse.
The overall assessment score for this option has been determined as Minor Adverse.
The area potentially affected by this option comprises areas adjacent to the existing M6.
Five areas maintaining woodland and other habitats (ponds and ditches) would be affected by these options. The areas W22 and W24 comprise SBI's and have been evaluated as being of Medium Value. The remaining sites (E65, E66 and E68) are all evaluated as being of Lower value. Impacts on all of these sites have been evaluated as being Minor Adverse. Site E66 lies within the larger site GCN6 which maintains a population of great crested newts, evaluation of impacts on this site result in an assessment of Minor Adverse. Area E67 (also within GCN6) comprises a hedge and pond and its impacts are also evaluated as being Minor Adverse.
One main and one subsidiary badger sett will be lost to this option and this impact has been evaluated as being Minor Adverse.
Impacts to both Rostherne Mere and Tabley Mere have been evaluated as being a Major Gain, as for parallel widening.
The overall assessment score for this option has been determined as Minor Adverse.
The areas potentially affected by this option comprise areas adjacent to the existing M56.
Four woodland SBI's would be affected by this option. The four SBI's have been evaluated as being of Medium Value. Impacts to these features have been evaluated as Minor Adverse.
The overall assessment score for this option has been determined as Minor Adverse.
The areas potentially affected by this option comprise areas adjacent to the existing M56.
Four woodland SBI's would be affected by this option. The four SBI's have been evaluated as being of Medium Value. Impacts to these features have been evaluated as Minor Adverse.
The overall assessment score for this option has been determined as Minor Adverse.
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening> | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening> | M56 J7 J6 Parallel Widening> | M56 J7 J6 Asymmetrical Widening> |
| Significant Adverse> | Minor Adverse> | Minor Adverse> | Minor Adverse> | Minor Adverse> |
| INFORMATION SOURCE | SITE NAME | INTEREST | VALUE (AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT) |
| Environmental Statement for the M6 Widening (Junctions16 - 20) published in September 1994 | E65. Table Wood | Mixed woodland and ponds. | Parish |
| E66. Neilds Rough | Broadleaved Woodland | Parish | |
| GCN6. Hollowood Farm and Gore Lane Farm | Great Crested Newts | District | |
| E67. | Hedge and Pond | Parish | |
| E63. Mill Wood, Big Wood and Willowbed Wood | Woodland. | Parish | |
| E68. | Brook and Woodland | Parish | |
| E69. | Ditch | Parish | |
| E70. Moss Oaks | Woodland, SBI (Grade C) | Parish | |
| E71. Jones Covert | Broadleaved Woodland, SBI (Grade C) | Parish | |
| E72. Bradley Gorse and Bradley Brook | Parish. | Parish | |
| GCN7. | Great Crested Newt | District | |
| Badgers | 1 main sett and one subsidiary sett. | Parish | |
| Environmental Statement for the A556(M) Improvement (M6 - M56) published in October 1992 | P1 - 28 | Pond of local or high local botanical value. | Parish (20)* |
| P22, 25, 26, 29, 27, 30, 31, 32 | Great Crested Newts | District (8) | |
| W1 - 5, 8 - 13, 16, 18 and 19. | Woods of local or high local botanical value. W8, 10, 11, 13 and 16 are also considered to be of local ornithological importance. | Parish (14) | |
| W6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 | Woodlands of District botanical value. W6, 7, 14, 15, 17 and 20 are also considered top be of District ornithological importance. | District (10) | |
| G1 - 5 | Grasslands of local or high local botanical value. | Parish (5) | |
| Badgers | 1 active, probably subsidiary sett affected by proposals. | Parish | |
| Consultation information provided by English Nature, Cheshire Wildlife Trust, Greater Manchester Ecology Unit | W14, Belt Wood | Broadleaved Woodland | SBI |
| W22, Hancock's Banks | Broadleaved Woodland | SBI | |
| W24, Ryecroft Covert | Broadleaved Woodland | SBI | |
| Rostherne Mere | Open Water and associated habitats | SSSI/Ramsar Site | |
| Tabley Mere | Open Water and associated habitats | SSSI | |
| Jacksons Bank | Broadleaved Woodland | SBI | |
| Woodland East of Jacksons Bank | Broadleaved Woodland | SBI | |
| *Total number of ponds excludes those assessed as being of District Value due to the presence of Great Crested Newts. | |||
Due to the historical nature of the data and changes to legislation it has not been possible to design detailed mitigation measures for flora and fauna. It is anticipated that mitigation measures could include:
The methodology for production of the Water Environment Worksheet has been based on the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS)3. This guidance is based on advice from the Environment Agency and builds on the water assessment methodology established in Volume 11 of DMRB7.
Table 4.15 has been used as the basis for identification of the water features, their attributes and indicators of quality. Tables (based on table 4.15) have been compiled for each of the options to provide a relevant description of the study areas. Worksheet 4.12 of GOMMMS has been completed for each of the options to evaluate impacts on all potentially affected water environment features by the options. These tables and worksheets can be viewed in Appendix 8. A summary of the GOMMMS water environment category ratings and assessment methodology is also provided at the end of this section.
The evaluation of the affected sites and the degree of impact has been based on the following sources of information. There have been no site visits or surveys undertaken for this review:
Information requested but not supplied by the Environment Agency include:
General Quality Assessment (GQA) chemical data, water quality objectives, surface water flows/stages, aquifer designations, groundwater hydrographs, groundwater quality and groundwater protection zones (GPZ). However the Environment Agency website has been reviewed to ascertain some of this information (in less detailed format) namely GQA and GPZ. It is possible that there is no surface water flows/stages or further groundwater information available. Aquifer designations have been assumed. Flood risk areas have not been specifically identified although indicative floodplain areas have. It is assumed that the two are to be taken as equivalent.
The Environmental Statement for the M6 Widening (Junctions16 - 20) published in September 199416 has not been directly reviewed. The water environment was reviewed in conjunction with the review for the biodiversity assessment.
The following drawings have been reviewed regarding the route.
Various assumptions have been made concerning the design, construction and operation of the road. It is assumed that all schemes follow accepted good practice in terms of pollution control re spillages, work near watercourses etc. It is further assumed that design includes for silt traps/oil interceptors for all road runoff. It is also assumed that balancing ponds and/or regrading of watercourses are implemented as necessary to accommodate increased runoff due to increased hardcover.
As discussed above, the tables and worksheets provide the description and assessment for the various options and study areas. A summary of the overall assessment scores determined for the various options is shown below:
| Option | Overall Assessment Score |
|---|---|
| A556(M) including M56 J7 | Low Significance |
| Lymm Interchange (J20), M6 J19 - J20 and M56 J9 - J7, Asymmetrical Widening | Low Significance (Benefit) |
| Lymm Interchange (J20), M6 J19 - J20 and M56 J9 - J7, Parallel Widening | Insignificant (Benefit) / Low Significance (Benefit) |
| M56 J7 - J6, Asymmetric Widening | Insignificant (Benefit) |
| M56 J7 - J6, Parallel Widening | Insignificant (Non-Benefit) |
Environment Agency GOMMMS category ratings and assessment methodology:
| Quality and rarity | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | High | Medium | Low |
| Regional/national | Very high | High | Medium |
| Local | High | Medium | Low |
| Assumes all of limited substitutability | |||
| Assumes quality and rarity of same grading | |||
| Importance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnitude | Very high | High | Medium | Low |
| Major | Very significant | Highly significant | Significant | Low significance |
| Moderate | Highly significant | Significant | Low significance | Insignificant |
| Minor | Significant | Low significance | Insignificant | Insignificant |
| Negligible | Low significance | Insignificant | Insignificant | Insignificant |
Comment:
The GOMMS3 guidance (Chapter 4, Section 4.12) states that the consideration of health implications of Multi-Modal Studies should be identified through an appraisal of changes in the opportunities for increased physical activity through cycling and walking. Providing increased opportunities to walk and cycle may also have additional benefits including improvements to the physical environment within communities, fostering well-being and community spirit, which also have implications for health.
The recommended minimum level of activity for adults is 30 minutes or more of moderate activity, most days of the week. The key to promoting physical fitness within Multi-Modal Studies is to encourage walking and cycling without significantly affecting the health benefits of existing participants (i.e. avoiding a reduction in existing levels of walking and cycling). Given that the available evidence indicates the minimum level of activity which is beneficial is 30 minutes, and assuming that the analysis can distinguish between trips which fall above and below this duration, there are four levels of benefit, which can be considered:
There is scope to increase walking and cycling on the existing A556, which would be alleviated by one of the alternative highway options. A reduction in the perception of fear, and increased safety would further encourage non-motorised trips. The environment for alternative modes would be greatly improved within the corridor, and measures could be taken to formalise provision through dedicated lanes, segregated from traffic.
The improved level of safety on the route may attract cyclists as part of movements between the Knutsford and Altrincham areas, or as a constituent part of a longer journey. As the route lies in a physically remote location, there is little scope for walking to be incorporated into routine trips for purposes other than for leisure. However, there may be potential for an increase in short distance movements between settlements such as Mere and High Legh.
Worksheet 4.14 of GOMMMS focuses on the change in daily activity duration for pedestrians and cyclists. Although it is clear that the scheme would not have a negative impact in terms of Physical Fitness, there are too many unknowns (such as the length and duration of additional movements) to quantify the extent of any positive impact. Therefore, a Worksheet has not been undertaken for this sub-objective.
The scheme (encompassing all options to bypass the A556) has been assessed as Slight Beneficial with regard to Physical Fitness. Both Options relating to the widening of the M56 have been adjudged to be Neutral on the grounds that they would not encourage increased physical activity.
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening | M56 J7 J6 Parallel Widening | M56 J7 J6 Asymmetrical Widening |
| Slight Beneficial | Slight Beneficial | Slight Beneficial | Neutral | Neutral |
Travellers do not normally travel without a purpose. Travel is derived demand that arises from people's desire to engage in productive and non-productive activities. Therefore, a high quality journey when experienced, is often (but not always) taken for granted. However, a poor journey quality, when experienced, can be easily recognised. Journey quality can be affected, positively or negatively, by travellers themselves and by the network providers and operators.
The GOMMS3 methodology for Journey Ambience (Chapter 4, Section 4.13) focuses on measures under the control of network providers and operators that improve en route journey quality or Journey Ambience. The measures are an important part of the Government's commitment to:
In accordance with the guidance contained within the GOMMMS methodology, the following three Journey Ambience factors have been assessed:
This appraisal of Journey Ambience is generally focused on two principal groups - public transport users and drivers of private vehicles. However, as the A556 study area accommodates little existing public transport, with nominal scope for improvement, it has not been included within this assessment.
Using Worksheet 4.15 from GOMMMS an assessment has been made of the impact on each category using a simple three-point scale - Better, Neutral or Worse. The Worksheet included in Appendix 8 is an overall summary of the scheme's impacts in relation to the Journey Ambience Sub-Objective.
Each option has been assessed against the criteria, in addition to the impacts on the existing A556, post-construction:
This factor depends upon the facilities and information provided along a route, and by their spacing and quality. It also has regard to the facilities which may improve Journey Ambience such as service areas (Toilets, Petrol, Restaurants), and the quality of the provision.
The provision of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians is also considered (Lanes, Crossings), in addition to route specific information.
The offline A556(M) would be adequately signposted from the M6 in accordance with Best Practice Guidelines. New roadside facilities would not be created, as a current service area which would serve all traffic movements, already exists at Knutsford on the M6. As the proposal would take the form of a new alignment, it has been assessed as Better than the current standard on the A556. In addition, Cyclists and pedestrians would experience an increase in journey quality on the alleviated A556, with reduced levels of danger from traffic, and levels of air-borne pollutants.
The scheme would involve the utilisation of existing carriageway, which would be of a better standard than the current A556. Signing would be required to direct traffic between the M6 and the M56 at Lymm via a new spur, to minimise confusion. Existing service facilities at Knutsford on the M6 would continue to be utilised. The alleviated A556 may provide benefits for pedestrians and cyclists, however, the amount of traffic remaining on the route to avoid the detour incurred by the option, may offset the positive impact. The option has been assessed as Better.
The Widening of the M56 can be viewed as a means of accommodating airport-bound traffic, and increasing the standard of carriageway to that of adjoining sections. No appreciable difference would be accrued in terms of Traveller Care. It has therefore been assessed as Neutral.
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening | M56 J7 J6 Parallel Widening | M56 J7 J6 Asymmetrical Widening |
| Large Beneficial | Large Adverse | Large Adverse | Large Beneficial | Large Beneficial |
Improvements to the transport system can affect the extent to which travellers see the surrounding landscape and townscape, and can have an impact on the general travelling environment.
The level of amenity can be assessed as No View, Restricted View, Intermittent View, Open View. Attractiveness can be improved through the provision of planting, street furniture, and removal of unsightly roadside features.
The A556(M) would be constructed predominantly within cutting to minimise its impact upon the surrounding countryside. As a result, Traveller Views would be significantly Worse in comparison to the current standard on the A556, which allows open views of the Cheshire countryside, and prominent landscape features such as Rostherne.
Travellers would experience Worse views than the current A556 which crosses open land for the most part. The journey would take place partially within cutting on the existing M6/M56.
As with the M6 Widening Option, travellers would remain on the same alignment and would therefore not experience any change in view. It is therefore assumed to be Neutral.
Traveller stress is the adverse mental and physiological effects experienced by travellers. Three main factors which influence traveller stress are:
Improvements would be accrued over the existing A556 through the construction of direct slip roads onto the new alignment. This would reduce the delays which currently occur as the A556 is accessed via roundabouts at Junction 19 of the M6, and Junction 7 of the M56.
Traffic would flow more freely as a result of Grade-separation at junctions and the fear of potential accidents would be reduced accordingly. The offline alignment would also improve the perception of safety, with construction meeting motorway standards. Above the current A556 standard, traffic signals would not be used, allowing a constant speed to be maintained; each direction of carriageway would be segregated and thus reduce the risk of head-on collisions; Non-motorised users would be prohibited.
Frustration would be greatly reduced for local road users on the existing A556, especially when accessing from side-roads. The reduction in congestion on the road would improve accessibility, and instances of congestion due to incidents elsewhere (e.g. accidents on the M6), would be removed.
The route would provide a link virtually as direct as the existing alignment. It is therefore viewed as Better in terms of Traveller Stress.
The option would incur an extra 7km on top of existing movements on the A556, it would therefore increase the frustration of motorists forced to take a diversionary route. Frustration would also be increased, as motorists remaining on the M6/M56 would be subject to delays elsewhere on the motorway network.
The extra distance travelled and the diversion of extra vehicle movements onto an already congested carriageway would increase the perception of fear relating to accidents. Also, a substantial volume of traffic would divert onto the wider area network, in some cases onto roads which could not adequately cater safely.
Route uncertainty may arise initially as drivers may not be aware of the correct Junction to transfer between the M6 and M56. Improved signing would mitigate this issue.
As a result, the option has been assessed as Worse.
Traveller stress would invariably improve as a result of the Widening option. The scheme would accommodate existing traffic more effectively and would thus reduce delay around Manchester Airport. Perception of fear relating to accidents would be reduced due to the extra lane relieving congestion. It is thus assumed to be Better.
The current A556 carries 48,000 vpd, of which 20% are HGVs. Long delays are currently accrued at junctions on the road, and congestion is a feature for much of the working day.
Once it has been established if a scheme has a beneficial or adverse effect, Worksheet 4.15 of GOMMMS takes a quantitative approach in assessing the scale of this impact. To obtain an Assessment Score of Large Beneficial / Adverse in this Sub-Objective a scheme must have a daily impact for over 10, 000 travellers.
As significantly more travellers would be affected per day, each option would be pre-fixed as Large, before Beneficial or Adverse, whichever is applicable.
Each scenario for the Journey Ambience Sub-Objective has been assessed thus in the AST:
| A556(M) | Large Beneficial |
| M6 Junction 20 Widening (Parallel & Asymmetrical) | Large Adverse |
| M56 Junction 7 - 6 Widening (Parallel & Asymmetrical) | Large Beneficial |
| A566(M) | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Parallel Widening | M6 J20, M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7. Asymmetrical Widening | M56 J7 J6 Parallel Widening | M56 J7 J6 Asymmetrical Widening | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | +29 population win | -37 population lose | -37 population lose | No net change | No net change |
| Local Air Quality | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 -509, NO2 -303 | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 1084, NO2 6126 | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 - 509, NO2 6126 | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 - 27.4, NO2 -208 | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 - 27.4, NO2 -208 |
| Greenhouse Gases | Reduction in CO2 = 26250 tonnes | Increase in CO2 = 61377 tonnes | Increase in CO2 = 61377 tonnes | Reduction in CO2 = 866 tonnes | Reduction in CO2 = 866 tonnes |
| Landscape | Slight Adverse Initially. Neutral Later | Moderate Adverse Initially. Slight Adverse Later. | Moderate Adverse Initially. Slight Adverse Later. | Moderate Adverse Initially. Slight Adverse Later. | Moderate Adverse Initially. Slight Adverse Later. |
| Heritage | Adverse | Slight Adverse | Slight Adverse | Slight Adverse | Slight Adverse |
| Biodiversity | Significant Adverse | Minor Adverse | Minor Adverse | Minor Adverse | Minor Adverse |
| Water Environment | Low Significance (non-benefit) | Insignificant - Low Significance (benefit) | Low Significance (benefit) | Insignificant (non-benefit) | Insignificant (benefit) |
| Physical Fitness | Slight Beneficial | Slight Beneficial | Slight Beneficial | Neutral | Neutral |
| Journey Ambience | Large Beneficial | Large Adverse | Large Adverse | Large Beneficial | Large Beneficial |
5.11.1 Using the sub objectives for this section, the A556(M) scheme is preferred under 5 of the 9 headings, with a further 1 being equal for the competing schemes.
With regard to noise, air quality and greenhouse gases the A556(M) is significantly superior to the J20 scheme due to its ability to retain traffic on the motorway network as opposed to the J20 scheme which has the effect of dispersing traffic over a wide area on to roads with significant frontage development.
The J20 scheme is preferred on heritage, biodiversity and water environment sub objectives, although the heritage preference is marginal being influenced by the impact of Tabley Park. With regard to landscape, the A556(M), being predominantly in cutting, is preferred to the J20 scheme, which would require lighting of the adjoining sections of dual 4 lane motorway. This lighting is the major reason for the J20 scheme being assessed as having a moderate adverse impact.
5.11.2 With regard to the proposed widening of M56 between Junction 7-6 there is no environmental difference between asymmetrical and parallel widening. The impacts are generally adverse, albeit only slight/minor. The impacts in themselves would not appear to be significant enough to prevent this section of motorway being widened.
The economic assessment of the proposals has been undertaken using COBA 114 and QUADRO418, the latter to establish construction delays. As discussed in 2.3, the assessment was structured to identify the individual costs and benefits of each element of the two scenarios.
The COBA network was developed from the SATURN network and a purpose developed program used to ensure correct and efficient conversion of traffic flows from SATURN to COBA. The network covered the same geographical area as the SATURN model with some rationalisation of links where appropriate.
The model is a link based model, with no modelling of junctions in any of the networks. This simplifying approach was necessary given the size of the network and the time scale. The impact is expected to be neutral when taken across the two strategies. Only Option 2 of the strategies tested for the Junction 20 Scenario was taken through the further evaluation process, again for timescale reasons.
The A556 has historically had a poor accident record as discussed in Section 2.2 and recent safety schemes have had an impact on the number of personal injury accidents. Within COBA observed accident data has been used for the A556 between the two motorways. To ensure the impact of the ongoing safety schemes is correctly reflected in the Do-Minimum, observed accident rates have been based on only the last two years data. The government has road safety targets and nationally accident rates have been falling as a consequence of a raft of educational, legislative, highway and car design measures. This declining rate of accidents is built into COBA11, so that future accident savings with any scheme reflect national trends and targets. The use of adjusted observed rates on the A556 and the incorporation of overall declining rates over time will lead to a robust assessment of accident benefits for the two alternative scenarios.
The COBA results were subject to the full range of checks to ensure the robustness of the results.
Where widening of the motorway is involved, ie M6 J19-20 and M56 J9-6 two approached have been considered as discussed in Section 3. These are Asymmetric and Parallel Widening. There are construction cost differences, due to the different construction techniques, but more importantly there are potentially major differences in the delays to road users during construction. These delays have been assessed using the program QUADRO4. At this stage of scheme development the optimum construction sequence is not known, therefore typical construction sequences and duration's developed previously for M6 widening were adopted, to give a broad brush estimate of delays for each widening method. To ensure consistency between the two scenarios, estimates were included for the impact of constructing tie-ins on the A556 (M) scheme and for bridge replacement works on the existing motorways.
To provide a robust indication of construction delays at this stage of the scheme assessment, a number of simplifying assumptions have been made. The main assumption relates to diversion routes. The complexity of diversion routes in the area has meant that modelling specific routes is not practical. The approach adopted was to model a no diversion to other routes test with reduced levels of traffic through the works area. This implies a level of diversion and that diverted traffic does not add to delays on the wider network. Having tested a range of scenarios, a figure of 10% diversion was adopted throughout the assessment. The possible implications of this approach are discussed where appropriate later in the report.
The economic assessment was structured as described in Section 2.3. This approach has allowed the costs and benefits of each scheme to be identified. The TEE tables are summarised in Table 6.1.
Widening of Junction 6-7 of the M56 gives a good economic return, irrespective of the method of widening adopted. Travel time savings are partly offset by higher vehicle operating costs but overall the PVB is £30m for parallel widening but lower at £25.5m if asymmetrical widening is adopted due to the higher construction delays. The PVC for asymmetrical widening is lower (£17.2m compared with £20.2m) than for parallel. Overall the two methods of construction have very similar Benefit Cost Ratios. In economic terms the decision as to the form of widening adopted needs to take account of the assumptions contained in the analysis.
| Parallel | Asymmetric | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No Diversion | -772 | -6965 | 6193 |
| 10% diversion | -493 | -4983 | 4490 |
| 20% Diversion | -421 | -3715 | 3294 |
Table 6.2 summarises the overall benefit for the three diversion assumptions tested with respect to construction delays. If no diversion is assumed the difference in benefits outweighs the difference in PVC ( £4771) and parallel widening is clearly justified. If 10% of trips are assumed to divert, the delays on the motorway roughly balance the additional costs. However, delays across the wider network will occur thus if these delays are taken into account parallel widening is still the preferred solution on economic grounds. With 20% diversion delays on the wider network are likely to be significant and thus the difference in benefits may exceed the difference in PVC. On the evidence available it can be concluded that when delays on the wider network are taken into account parallel widening is likely to be the most cost effective method irrespective of the diversion that occurs. A robust economic case can be made for parallel widening.
With both parallel and asymmetric widening of the motorway links within the Junction 20 scheme, the resulting benefit cost ratio is quite negative ( 0.68 and 0.89 respectively). The performance of the Junction 20 scheme is not dependent on the form of widening chosen. Four options for the treatment of the A556 have been considered and Option 2 was selected to take forward for a full GOMMMS appraisal. This option maximises the level of traffic using the slip roads at junction 20 and thus best meets the objective of retaining diverted traffic on the widened motorway links. Given the broadly similar traffic impacts of these four options (as illustrated in Figures 2.6 -2.9), the economic performance of the schemes is likely to be broadly similar and it is not conceivable that a Junction 20 scheme could be "developed" that gives a BCR of greater than zero, let alone of 1. In economic terms there is no justification for building a J20 scheme.
The traffic efficiency of this scheme has been demonstrated by Figure 2.5 which demonstrates how, by providing the capacity where it is needed, concentrates longer distance traffic on the motorway network. The economic efficiency is demonstrated by Table 6.1 which shows significant vehicle operating costs and a very positive economic performance. It has a BCR of 2.9 and thus demonstrates in economic terms that the scheme is a sound investment.
Widening of the M56 between J6-7 is economically worthwhile in it's own right, irrespective of the overall improvement option selected between J19 and junction 7. On economic grounds parallel widening is likely to be the best option as the additional costs are likely to be more than off-set by the delays during construction.
The A556(M) scheme provides an economically sound investment with a BCR of 2.9. However, the Junction 20 scheme that has been assessed (Option 2), gives a major disbenefit to users and consequently a negative BCR. All variants of a Junction 20 scheme as tested in Section 2 are expected to give a negative Users PVB and hence a negative BCR. In effect a junction 20 scheme would not, in the period assessed, ever produce any economic return.
On economic grounds the A556 (M) scheme is the only option that can be justified.
The widening of Junction 6-7 of the M56 will provide additional lanes and reduce the level of congestion on the link. At present in the peak periods unstable flow conditions are common and traffic can "grind to a halt" at regular intervals. Such conditions can also occur outside the morning and evening peaks and leads to uncertainty over journey times. Widening the motorway will reduce the variability of travel times and give increased reliability. The additional lane will help to reduce the duration and severity of congestion when an incident occurs on the network.
The Junction 20 scheme leads to increased traffic levels on the wider road network. This increased traffic will lead to greater congestion and "stress levels" hence unreliability of journey times for all travellers on the wider network. The impacts on traffic flows are summarised in Figures 2.16 and 2.17. Generally these links are single carriageway roads and the impact of an incident could be severe. The accident analysis shows only a small saving in PIAs with on average 1.5 PIAs saved a year. The reduction in the width of the existing A556 carriageway leads to no overall improvement in journey times and travel time reliability. (with Option 4 the level of congestion is considerably greater than the Do-Minimum network, with peak journey times doubling). The route thus remains susceptible to incident induced un-reliability. The lower flows on the motorway network may contribute to a slight improvement in reliability on these links but this is expected to be less than deterioration on the wider network.
The A556 (M) scheme provides increased capacity where it is needed, along the A556 corridor, and thus draws traffic off inappropriate roads on the local network. The scheme will reduce congestion on the wider local road network and this will have consequent implications for journey time reliability. The number of accidents across the whole network is predicted to decrease by on average 11 accidents a year that will generally assist reliability of journey times. Reliability benefits will directly accrue to users of the existing A556 who switch to the new motorway link, removing the need for them to travel through 4 congested junctions on the existing route.
In conclusion it can be stated that the A556 (M) scheme will give a positive contribution to journey time reliability, whilst overall the Junction 20 scheme will not contribute to improvements in reliability.
None of the options being considered have any direct benefits in the wider sense since there are no Objective 2 areas adjacent to the study area.
| No of PIAs Saved over 30 years | Present Value of Accident Benefits £m | |
|---|---|---|
| M56 J6-7 | 21 | 0.68 |
| A556 (M) | 336 | 14.60 |
| Junction 20 | 61 | 1.43 |
The accident assessment has been undertaken with reference to the COBA assessment of accidents saved and consequent economic benefits over 30 years. The construction delay assessment using QUADRO did not include the incident assessment and hence construction method does not affect the accident data.
Widening the M56 between Junction 6 and 7 has some traffic effects over the wider network as traffic finds the motorway network more attractive for a range of journeys. The predicted overall impact of the scheme is a slight decrease of accidents of 20 over 30 years. However, switching of traffic onto different types of road leads to a change in balance of accident severity and gives an overall economic benefit of £0.68m. The scheme is broadly neutral with regard to accidents.
The A556 (M) scheme gives a significant saving in personal injury accidents, 380 over 30 years. The resulting economic benefit is over £14.6m, approximately 5% of the overall benefits. The assessment has been undertaken using COBA11 which incorporates the latest accident rates and the assumption that accident rates will fall over time as safety initiatives continue to reduce accidents at a global level. As stated in Section 6.1, the accident rate adopted for the A556 reflected the effects of recent safety schemes along the route.
The overall impact of the Junction 20 Scheme is to reduce accident numbers by 61 over the 30 year assessment period. Again the re-routing of traffic to roads of lower standard, results in a different profile of accident severity and when the benefits across the network are accrued there is an overall benefit of £1.43m. The scheme does not make a major contribution to safety.
The differing traffic impacts of the two schemes give different impacts at a global level as described above. When specific types of road user are considered the impacts are probably more dramatic. Vulnerable road users, ie pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians, are at danger on the general road network but are banned from the motorway network and thus are not at risk. The A556 (M) scheme reduces traffic on the non-motorway network and increases traffic on the motorway network, across the wider network as well as locally to the A556. It can be concluded that vulnerable users will be significant beneficiaries of the consequent accident changes the scheme is predicted to cause. In contrast, the Junction 20 scheme increases traffic levels on the non-motorway network, exposing vulnerable users to greater risk and a dis-proportionate involvement in accidents.
The highway options considered do not have any major security implications, unlike public transport schemes where personal security issues may be dominant when considering waiting for transport or walking to stops. In these cases surveillance and lighting issues are important.
Car drivers are vulnerable when their vehicles breakdown and indeed breakdown services give priority to their most vulnerable members. As far as widening the M56 J6-7 is concerned there are not considered to be any significant security issues and it has been rated as neutral.
When comparing the Junction 20 and A556 (M) schemes, the differing traffic impacts could give rise to different security effects. There is a higher likelihood of drivers breaking down on quieter rural roads with the Junction 20 scheme, than with the A556 (M) where traffic is concentrated on the motorway network. On the motorway they are more likely to be observed by surveillance cameras, be visible due to lighting and attended by the police if appropriate. However the motorway hard shoulder is not a safe place as far as accidents are concerned and may be as bad a location to breakdown as hazardous locations on a rural road.
Overall, all the schemes are considered to be neutral with regard to personal security.
The A556(M) Scheme contributes to safety targets with 15% of the economic benefits resulting from accident savings. The J20 scheme is broadly neutral with respect to safety.
The Accessibility Objective is, under the GOMMS3 methodology, split into 3 Sub-Objectives which seek to display certain aspects of total accessibility, namely:
Option Values are recognised by the SRA in their appraisal guidelines of Passenger rail services. GOMMMS puts forward the viewpoint that within assessments it is particularly important to consider Option Values, if the scheme being appraised includes measures which will substantially change the availability of transport services within the study area.
The guidance does not put forward a formal worksheet as a means of assessment. In Paragraph 4.35 of the DTLR's guidance entitled, 'Appraisal of Major Public Transport Schemes: Detailed Guidance', it is stated that the qualitative procedure defined in GOMMMS (Volume 2, Section 7.2) is a satisfactory alternative to the more detailed approach using guidance from SRA (1999). Therefore, this alternative qualitative procedure has been employed for the purpose of this appraisal. No supporting Worksheets have been produced.
Under this Sub-Objective GOMMMS stipulates that the qualitative scores should relate to the size of the resident community given options to travel by the strategy in accordance with the following scale:
| Community | Service Withdrawn | Service Added |
|---|---|---|
| >2000 People | Strong Adverse | Strong Beneficial |
| 500-1999 People | Moderate Adverse | Moderate Beneficial |
| 1-499 People | Slight Adverse | Slight Beneficial |
| 0 People | Neutral | Neutral |
There is very little existing public transport within the Study Area, it is therefore deemed most appropriate to award a Neutral score. The A556 study is essentially road-based, with analysis relating to the comparison between two competing road schemes, plus an assessment of the need for widening M56 between Junctions 7 and 6. There is little scope to improve or detract from the current public transport service provision.
The Severance Sub-Objective is concerned with the impacts of non-motorised users, especially pedestrians. Cyclists and equestrians also experience severance, but to a lesser extent than pedestrians as they can travel more quickly than people on foot. To ensure a consistent approach, Paragraph 7.3.3 of GOMMMS states that, " classification should be based on pedestrians only." However, it should be noted the removal of heavy through traffic would allow for the establishment of safer routes in the area for cyclists and equestrians.
According to the Guidance contained within GOMMMS (Chapter 7, Section 7.3), severance may be classified under one of four broad levels: None, Slight, Moderate and Severe. An overall assessment should be based on the following guidelines:
Residents along the existing A556 would experience the greatest reduction in Severance as a result of the A556(M) scheme, which would remove the majority of through-traffic from the road. The A556(M) would incur severance to communities on either side of the alignment, however, its grade-separation would negate the need for pedestrians to experience delay when attempting to cross it. Segregated crossings would be provided at all side road crossings to retain rights of way in accordance with Best Practice Guidelines except for Millington Hall Lane which would be severed and the existing accommodation bridge for Yarwood Heath Farm which also carries public footpath Rostherne 13 would be removed. The A556(M) is assessed as being Slight Beneficial.
The Widening of the M6 between Junctions 19 and 20, and the M56 between 9 and 7 would accrue little further Severance than is currently experienced within the respective corridors. Existing grade-separated crossings would be retained and widened accordingly. The construction of free-flow slips at Lymm would cause additional severance to Wither's Lane, and would isolate Intack Farm between the eastbound link and M6. The J20 scheme is assessed as Neutral, as is the widening of M56 J 7-6.
Under this Sub-Objective GOMMMS suggests analysis to show, within the study area, the proportion of households without a car who do not live within 250 metres of an hourly public transport service.
Existing public transport systems are limited to the Northwich-Altrincham railway line which has stations at Knutsford, not within 250 metres of any property within the study area, and at Ashley, within the study area for M56 Junction 7-6. There is no hourly bus service within the study area, which is rural. It can also be considered reasonably affluent in that on average each residence has access to a private car.
Given that this is a road-based study of an area with little or no public transport it is considered that a neutral score be awarded to all scheme options.
The Integration Objective is assessed under the following three Sub-Objectives:
The improvement of Interchange facilities was identified within the Government's White Paper `A New Deal for Transport' (DETR 1998)19 as a means of achieving Integrated Transport. The Sub-Objective has been divided into `Passengers' and `Freight', which are both included in the AST.
The assessment with respect to the Passenger Interchange Sub-Objective is Neutral, as the scheme does not incorporate any specification for additional public transport provision. The current provision is poor with no interchange taking place between modes within the A556 study area. The small number of users who would benefit from improved integration is deemed to be insignificant. The assessment score is contained within Worksheet 8.1 in Appendix 8.
The Freight Interchange Sub-Objective would also be Neutral as no such facility exists within the study area.
The purpose of the `Land-Use Policy' Sub-Objective is to assess the extent to which the alternative highway improvement scenarios are integrated with land use proposals and policies.
Each option has been assessed against the same criteria individually, apart from the M56 between Junctions 7 and 6, which, due to the short distance over which the improvements would take place, are assessed together but with individual results. At the end of each section, an overall score is provided for each option, and the result included within Worksheet 8.3 in Appendix 8.
The options have been assessed against National and Regional Guidance, in addition to local Development Plans and Local Transport Policy applicable to the study area.
Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act, 1991) requires Planning Applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore, whilst in some circumstances there may be issues which override the policies of the development plan (if the development plan is outdated), this is normally the foremost consideration in the planning process.
The GOMMMS Methodology applies a three-point textual scale to the Land-Use sub-objective, which requires the scheme to be assessed as either Beneficial, Neutral or Adverse in relation to the relevant policies. The Methodology states that `finer assessments' are not required, and should be supported by qualitative information where appropriate (Vol. 2, Par. 8.3.3). Policy is reviewed at `Local', `Regional, and `National' levels, however, the assessments should not be `mechanical', with key policies given greater weight, in addition to those which are more `geographically specific' (Vol. 2, Par. 8.3.6).
The documents, listed below, are reviewed to ascertain whether the proposals assist with the objective of integrating transport and land-use policy. The results of the appraisal are presented in Appendix 8, and are in accordance with GOMMMS Worksheet 8.3.
National Transport Policy is articulated through the 1998 White Paper, which recognises the need for significant change to address existing transport problems and to support the Government's sustainability principles. An integrated transport policy is proposed under which integration is comprehensively defined as between modes of transport and in relation to the environment, land use planning and other Government policy areas. The White Paper identifies five main principles or objectives on which the GOMMMS appraisal technique is based. Each is appraised briefly to avoid the potential for instances of double-counting in parallel with other objectives within the assessment:
The A556(M) and the M6/M56 Widening proposals would improve Safety on the existing A556 both for motorists and pedestrians, and the dedicated carriageway would provide a safer passage for long-distance traffic over the existing scenario.
Economic performance would be marginally improved through greater reliability of journey between the West Midlands and Greater Manchester on the A556(M). The Widening of the M6 between junctions 19 and 20 would benefit travellers using the M6 as a constituent of a longer journey between the South/Midlands, and the North West/Scotland.
Accessibility improvements would be of special relevance to Freight Hauliers, in reducing man-hours, fuel costs, and penalties for late delivery. The attractiveness of reduced journey times may serve to add further passenger and freight movements onto the road at the expense of other modes. As a result, the scheme would aid accessibility, but not by the sustainable means as suggested in the White Paper.
From a negative perspective, the M6/M56 Widening option would increase Journey Times and Fuel expenses for movements into the Greater Manchester conurbation from the south, which would be subject to an extra 7 km on their journey. The propensity for accidents on the M6/M56 would also be increased by the diversionary route.
The A556(M) option would have the greater Environmental Impact, as it is constructed wholly on previously undeveloped Green Belt. The M6/M56 option would be viewed as more favourable as it would be constructed alongside the existing alignment, and would not remove Green Belt to the same extent. In this respect, the Asymmetrical option would be preferable to the Parallel on the grounds of further reducing the land-take during construction.
The Asymmetrical option has the potential to reduce Accessibility during construction, as it would require lane closures on the existing carriageway.
The M56 Widening between Junctions 7 and 6 may attract extra movements into Manchester Airport at the expense of other modes.
To avoid double-counting, each option is assessed as Neutral on balance due to the respective Economic, Environmental and Social impacts, both positive and negative.
The 10 Year Plan provides a long term strategy for Transport Policy which builds upon the White Paper. The document was published in 2000 and stresses the role of partnership with the private sector and local government in modernising our transport network. The document is set to deliver a £180 billion funding package, both private and public money, over the next ten years.
A number of Regional Factsheets were produced to outline the major aspirations of the 10 Year Plan by region. Each document was designed to further integrate land-use and transport policy, with funding allocated for inclusion within Local Transport Plan settlements. The factsheet of most relevance to the A556 study area is the North West Region, which provides the funding for the South East Manchester, and the West Midlands to North West Conurbation Multi-Modal studies.
The 10 Year Plan seeks the most sustainable solution as a means of reducing congestion, whilst accepting that road improvement schemes, including widening proposals, are a necessary component. It highlights the needs of rural areas, and prescribes 50 bypasses to alleviate rural settlement.
The document does not address the environmental disadvantages associated with road construction.
The A556(M) option within the study area is viewed as broadly Beneficial as it would address issues of congestion on the named roads, and provide respective social and economic benefits both locally, to the rural communities of Cheshire; Regionally for the North West and targeted regeneration areas within the 'Mersey Belt' covering parts of Merseyside, Cheshire and Greater Manchester area; and Nationally in terms of aiding long distance movement along the M6. The M6/M56/J20 option is viewed as broadly Neutral since although it would reduce congestion on the A556 it would tend to create a problem in the wider area network especially to the east of the M6.
The Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG) set out Government Policy on specific areas of the Planning System. The study assessed each option in relation to the following documents:
Any local development plan which specifically refers to the safeguarding of a scheme within its policy would be regarded as Beneficial to that particular scheme, so therefore it cannot be viewed as a departure from the plan. Where this is not the case, policy would be regarded as Neutral, or Adverse. This principle will be applied to each option, but will be addressed fully at Development Plan level to avoid double-counting.
PPG 2 - Green Belt (1995, DoE)22 Sets out the objectives of Green Belts and the basis of development control policies required to protect them. PPG 2 highlights a `presumption against inappropriate development', which exists above and beyond general policies regarding the countryside.
Such proposals are only deemed acceptable where `Very special circumstances' clearly outweigh the harm and inappropriateness of development. The guidance seeks to ensure that planning authorities regard Inappropriate Development as being at odds with their development plan.
In view of the presumption against such development, PPG 2 states that the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal concerning `Inappropriate Development.'
When any large scale development of land occurs within the Green Belt, it should, where possible, contribute to the achievement of the objectives listed below. This applies to large-scale developments, irrespective of whether they are appropriate or justified by exceptional circumstance:
The A556 offline alignment lies wholly within the Macclesfield Green Belt and should therefore be reviewed in accordance with criteria contained within the guidance. It would be perceived as `Inappropriate Development'.
PPG 2 states that Planning Obligations may be used to offset the loss of or impact on any amenity present on a site prior to development. As the scheme follows an alternative alignment to the current A556, it can be seen to have a considerable impact on previously undeveloped Green Belt. Sensitive landscaping and screening would be incorporated to strengthen the existing landscape, in line with Best Practice Guidelines.
The Scheme would also serve to devalue Green Belt land in the corridor which separates the new alignment from the existing A556. It would be subject to severance and thus bounded by two roads. The extent of the impact would be dependent on the future status of the existing A556.
The scheme would be at odds with Visual Amenity issues within PPG 2 for reasons of `siting, materials or design'.
The carriageway bypassed as a result of the offline scheme could fulfil a number of the criteria required by PPG 2 to accompany major development. If footpaths, cycleways or equestrian access was accommodated and improved on the A556 through designated lanes and appropriate landscaping, the scheme would provide access to countryside for the urban population, provide opportunities for recreation near to urban areas, and enhance the existing landscape.
The issue of potential leisure-use is discussed on a site-specific level within the `Landscape' Sub-objective, Section 5.4.
The A556 offline scheme is thus viewed as having an Adverse impact on the aspirations of PPG 2.
The current M6 / M56 alignment between the A556 at Junction 19, the Interchange with the M56 at Lymm, and Junctions 9 to 7 of the M56 lies wholly within the Macclesfield Green Belt. Development associated with the route should therefore be reviewed in accordance with the guidance.
The M6 between Junctions 19 and 20, and the M6 between 9 and 7 would be widened, with construction taking place on a parallel alignment. Land-take would be considerable, as a new carriageway would, in effect be constructed alongside the existing route.
PPG 2 states that Planning Obligations may be used to offset the loss of or impact on any amenity present on a site prior to development. As the proposal lies alongside the existing motorway corridor, it can be argued that the impact would be less damaging to the Macclesfield Green Belt, than an offline A556M, which would follow a new alignment. Levels of Severance between Green Belt on either side of the corridor would not change.
As discussed for the A556 offline improvement, accessibility to alternative modes could be improved on the bypassed corridor, with dedicated provision for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
The Parallel widening option incorporates the existing motorway corridor, therefore land-take within the Green Belt can be viewed as less harmful than a fully offline alignment. However, the overall corridor width would be considerable and it is therefore adjudged to be Adverse with regard to PPG 2.
The Asymmetrical option would have less impact upon the Green Belt during construction than the Parallel widening, increasing the existing corridor by only 7.2 metres. It would be the least visually intrusive option upon the Green Belt in relation to the M6, requiring the least associated landscaping post-construction.
The option has therefore been adjudged to be Neutral in relation to PPG 2.
The option lies within the Macclesfield Green Belt, and partially within Trafford Metropolitan Borough. The Parallel option would utilise more Green Belt during construction but would be appropriately landscaped.
The asymmetrical option would be less damaging during the construction period.
On the grounds that both options would lie adjacent to the existing carriageway, and would represent an extra width of one lane on either carriageway when fully operational, both options have been assessed as Neutral.
PPG 7 - The Countryside (1997, DoE)23. PPG 7 provides advice on the role of the planning system in terms of the countryside. Its principle aims are to meet the economic and social needs of people who live and work in rural areas; to encourage further economic diversity; maintain and enhance the character of the countryside; and improve the viability of existing villages and market towns.
The A556 Offline proposal does accord partially with the aspirations for Sustainable Development within the Guidance, in that it would improve the quality of life for residents adjacent to the existing A556. The road currently severs the rural communities around Mere, and generates levels of noise, vibration and air pollution which would be alleviated by the scheme. The proposal would thus improve the `viability' of the rural area.
However, the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the countryside, with substantial acquisition of agricultural land, some 86 hectares. It would also create new issues of severance, noise, vibration and air pollution for residents of property affronting the offline alignment, albeit relatively few.
On balance, the scheme is viewed as having an Neutral impact upon the objectives of PPG 7.
The option would serve to alleviate communities along the existing A556 of through- traffic between the M6 and the M56, thus reducing Severance, and improving quality of life with regard to noise, vibration, and air quality. This would improve the `viability' of the rural area in line with PPG 7. The reduction in traffic would not be to the same extent as the A556(M), unless movements were banned. However, such a move would disbenefit local residents economically.
The widening would take place in a depopulated area and would thus have little further impact upon rural settlement as is experienced by the current alignment.
However, the improvement to Junction 20 at Lymm would involve the demolition of 5 properties, and remove a substantial amount of agricultural land, 70 hectares.
The scheme is viewed as being Neutral to the objectives of PPG 7.
The scheme would have a similar effect as the parallel option in terms of alleviating the A556, but encouraging further use of the private car. It is therefore adjudged to be Neutral.
The widening of the M56 would have an affect on the farms and settlement around Ashley, and may accrue increased levels of interference (i.e. Noise, vibration, air pollution) for residents in outlying areas to the south of Altrincham.
The Parallel Option would involve greater land-take than the Asymmetrical in the sensitive Bollin Valley Area, due to its offline construction. It has therefore been deemed as Adverse to the aspirations of PPG 7. The Asymmetrical option would be less intrusive and is thus regarded as Neutral.
PPG 9 - Nature Conservation (1994, DoE)24. PPG 9 emphasises the importance of the development plan system to provide certainty to developers, landowners and residents about the weight given to nature conservation. The guidance determines the hierarchy of important sites of interest. It also sets a development control framework for the consideration of these sites.
The removal of through-traffic from the existing A556 would reduce environmental impact at an adjoining SSSI wetland area which is currently infiltrated by surface run-off from the carriageway during inclement weather.
The route of the A556M offline scheme lies in relatively close proximity to a number of designated nature conservation sites, and two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
PPG 9 states that proposals which affect SSSI's require consultation with English Nature, and that the area of consultation can extend to a maximum of 2 kilometres from the boundary of an SSSI, where wetlands are of relevance. This jurisdiction area would affect the proposal.
The scheme also impinges directly upon a Grade B and a Grade C Site of County Importance.
The offline A556(M) has been given an Adverse rating with regard to PPG 9.
The section of widening between Junctions 19 and 20 of the M6 lies relatively close to a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, and an existing Conservation Area. The proposal does not directly impinge upon the sites, and would add little further visual intrusion to the existing transport corridor.
However, the M56 between Junctions 9 and 7 borders an Area of Special County Value and three sites of nature conservation importance, which are bounded by the existing motorway corridor. It also lies within 2km of Rostherne Mere, a SSSI.
The Parallel option would be accompanied by mitigation measures. However, the irreplaceability, and sensitive nature of a given site may mean that no amount of mitigation could recoup the loss of amenity.
The effect accrued on Designated Sites with relation to offline construction could be reduced through carrying out construction work on the opposite carriageway to that bounded by designated sites. This would minimise the negative impact accrued; however this is not feasible in relation to Rostherne Mere.
Notwithstanding the benefits of potential mitigation, the scheme has been adjudged to be Adverse with regard to PPG 9.
As with the Parallel option for widening, the M56 section of the Asymmetrical Widening proposal impinges upon sites designated in relation to their landscape value.
The Asymmetrical option may be viewed as less damaging than the Parallel option on the grounds that land-take would be minimal on either side of the corridor. However, it is still assessed in an Adverse fashion with regard to PPG 9.
The M56 between junctions 7 and 6 borders on, and lies within the Bollin Valley Area of Special County Value. It also lies adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI), and Grade B and C Sites of Biological Importance (SBI). The Asymmetrical option may be the more favourable in terms of reduced land-take. However, for the purpose of PPG 9, both are deemed to be Adverse.
PPG 11 - Regional Planning (1999, DETR)25, redefines the format and scope of the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) to provide a wider regional spatial strategy. It endorses full integration of transport policies and proposals with land-use planning at the national, regional and local levels. Integral to the PPG 11 is the preparation of a Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) covering all transport modes.
The RTS will provide a strategic framework for transport policies and proposals to be included in the development plan and in local transport plans. The existing Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG 13) was published in 1996. The review which was undertaken as a result of changes to national policy and regional circumstances, has been undertaken within the context of PPG 11.
The inclusion of PPG 11 is of more relevance to regional aspirations, and is therefore regarded as Neutral at National policy level for all options.
PPG 13 - Transport (2001, DETR)26 The main objective is to integrate planning and transport at the national, strategic and local level through more sustainable transport choices, promoting accessibility to jobs by walking, cycling and the use of public transport, and reducing the need to travel, especially by car.
Annex C of PPG 13 relates to planning for transport infrastructure. Paragraphs 4 and 5 emphasise the importance of ensuring that proposals for new roads are assessed in accordance with the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS). It also states that Regional Transport Strategies, contained within Regional Planning Guidance, set out the regional priorities for trunk roads and local roads of regional or sub-regional significance.
The offline A556 would promote accessibility and enable swifter movement from the West Midlands and South Cheshire, into Greater Manchester from the M6. However, the accrued improvements would mostly be experienced by those using private transport, and thus cannot be viewed as Sustainable.
The scheme would improve accessibility in terms of walking and cycling for residents of settlements adjacent to the existing A556 (e.g. Mere), which would be relieved of long distance traffic between the West Midlands and Greater Manchester.
There is scope for improving access to alternative modes on the existing A556 which would be bypassed by the offline scheme. Such improvements would adhere to guidance contained within PPG 13 to encourage Pedestrian and Cycling routes on dis-used Transport Corridors, and alongside existing Infrastructure.
The scheme has been assessed as broadly Neutral to the aspirations of PPG 13, as it can be viewed in both a positive and negative fashion. Whilst accessibility would be increased, the main beneficiaries would be users of the private car. Issues of increased accessibility for alternative modes have been accounted for.
The Parallel Widening option would promote accessibility and reduce delay on journeys between the West Midlands and the North West on the widened alignment. However, like the A556(M), the improvements would mostly be experienced by users of the private car, which cannot be viewed as Sustainable.
The proposal would involve the re-routing of traffic bound for Greater Manchester away from the A556 onto the M6/M56, thus adding an extra distance of approximately 7 kilometres to movements from the south. PPG 13 contains primary objectives which seek to promote more sustainable transport choices, and reduce the need to travel by private car.
The Parallel Widening option would maintain accessibility during the construction period, as its siting offline from the existing M6 would minimise disruption to traffic flow. This issue is discussed further in the Reliability Sub-Objective of the Methodology, Section 6.5
As with the A556(M) option, the potential exists for better utilisation of the alleviated A556 for alternative modes.
The scheme has been assessed as Adverse to the aspirations of PPG 13, as it would increase the attraction of private transport, and would lengthen the distance of journeys into and out of Greater Manchester on the motorway network.
Whilst accessibility would be increased, it would not be carried out in line with the major objectives of the document.
The differences between the Parallel and the Asymmetrical Widening options generally surround environmental issues. With regard to PPG 13, the same conditions are seen to apply. As a result the option has been viewed as Adverse with regard to accessibility, and the extra distance relating to the diversionary route. The scheme would also attract extra movements onto the motorway.
Asymmetrical Widening would reduce accessibility during construction, with lane closures required.
The Widening of the M56 would aid accessibility and reduce delay on journeys between Greater Manchester and North Wales.
Unlike the M6 Junction 20 options, the widening would not be constructed as part of a bypass scheme. It would address the bottleneck which would occur between the option chosen, either M6 Junction 20 or A556(M), and the four lane section of motorway around Manchester Airport.
Both the Parallel and Asymmetrical options are deemed Adverse as the scheme may serve to generate more traffic, through improvements to accessibility by private car to the airport from the motorway network.
PPG 15 - Planning and the Historic Environment (1994, DoE)14, provides guidance on the protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment. The guidance stresses the need to protect and conserve the nation's built and natural assets. Where demolition of a Listed Building is included within a proposal, any substantial benefits accrued within the affected community should be weighed against the merits of preservation (Par 3.19). Demolition of any buildings regarded as Grade 1 or Grade 2* would be wholly exceptional, and require strongest justification.
The A556 offline scheme follows a route which contains both Historic Parkland, and a Site of Archaeological Importance in the general vicinity. The guidance states that local planning authorities should include such sites in development plans, and safeguard them when planning road schemes.
Any infringement upon a Historic park is a `Material Consideration'. However, as the sites lie at a sufficient distance, the scheme has been viewed as Neutral in terms of PPG 15, and accepts that they would be reviewed within the `Heritage of Historic Resources' section of this appraisal. The same applies to the assessment of Listed Buildings affected by the scheme, of which there are 335 in the Knutsford area.
The M6 section of the Parallel widening proposal lies within the existing motorway corridor, which in turn lies relatively close to an area of Historic Parkland, and a Site of Archaeological Importance. The proposal is sited at a proximity unlikely to cause interference, and would add little further visual intrusion to the existing transport corridor.
The existing M56 corridor between Junctions 9 and 7, lies in relatively close proximity, but does not directly impinge upon a Site of Archaeological Importance. Mitigation measures would be required with either option to ensure the site is not disturbed during construction, and when operational.
The widening scheme is less intrusive in terms of visual amenity loss than the alternative A556M option which would follow a new alignment within close proximity to designated sites of Historic Importance. It is therefore deemed to be Neutral in relation to PPG 9.
As with the Parallel option for widening, direct interference upon Sites of Conservation importance would not take place. It is therefore viewed as Neutral.
The option does not affect any sites of importance relating to the Built Environment. The effect of both options on the Historic Natural Environment of the Bollin Valley has not been addressed to avoid double-counting with the assessment for PPG 9 - Nature Conservation.
Both options are therefore deemed Neutral.
| New Deal | 10 Year Plan | PPG1 | PPG2 | PPG7 | PPG9 | PPG11 | PPG13 | PPG15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A556(M) | Neutral | Beneficial | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral |
| J.20 Parallel | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral |
| J.20 Asymmetrical | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral |
| M56 Parallel | Neutral | Beneficial | Neutral | Neutral | Adverse | Adverse | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral |
| M56 Asymmetrical | Neutral | Beneficial | Neutral | Neutral | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral | Adverse | Neutral |
| A556(M) | Adverse |
| M6 J.20 with Parallel Widening | Adverse |
| M6 J.20 with Asymmetrical Widening | Adverse |
| M56 J.7-6 with Parallel Widening | Adverse |
| M56 J.7-6 with Asymmetrical Widening | Adverse |
Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) provides overall strategic planning policy at the regional level. As the aims and objectives of RPG are implemented through development plans, it forms a fundamental part of overall planning policy.
The Cheshire Structure Plan is also assessed to ascertain the aspirations relating to Land-Use Policy at the County Level.
The Draft North West Regional Planning Guidance (RPG 13)27, covers the counties of Cumbria, Lancashire and Cheshire, the metropolitan districts in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, and the unitary authorities of Blackburn-with-Darwen, Blackpool, Halton and Warrington.
Although not yet formally adopted, RPG 13 is at an advanced stage of production. The Draft RPG was published in July 2000 and was subject to a Public Examination in early 2001. The Report of the Panel is also incorporated in the assessment, as it included 104 recommendations relating to the draft guidance. It was issued in July 2001 and the North West Regional Assembly published a formal response to these recommendations. The Secretary of State has published his proposed changes to the draft RPG and these are currently open for consultation (until mid August 2002).
The Draft RPG contains a core strategy, which reflects the Regional Assembly's desire for Sustainable Development. The specific objectives are:
RPG refers to the Multi-Modal Studies assessing the capacity problems on the M6, and issues within south-east Manchester, arising from the 1998 Trunk Road Review.
The document reiterates the widely accepted notion that the construction of new roads to accommodate future traffic growth is neither environmentally nor economically sustainable. Instead, it places the emphasis upon the increasing role of public transport together with making best use of the existing highway infrastructure.
The Policies of Greatest relevance to the study area can be viewed as:
Policy AR1 states that transport Issues should be examined on a multi-modal basis to develop sustainable solutions. Transport network and service providers should seek to make the best use of existing networks.
Policy AR3 instructs the Highways Agency and Local Authorities to give a high priority to investment in the maintenance, management and selective improvement of regionally significant routes.
Policy AR4 outlines the target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 40% before 2010.
Policy AR5 underlines the role of Manchester Airport and the need for improvements to the strategic and local transport networks, particularly public transport.
Policy AR10 highlights the general priorities for transport investment within the region. It contains a list of Regionally Significant Transport Studies and Committed Schemes.
Policy EC1 contains a criteria for improving employment opportunity in a number of sectorial priority areas.
Policy EC3 lists Regional Investment Sites to be identified in development plans.
Inspectors Report and Response by North West Regional Chamber
The Draft Regional Planning Guidance does not contain the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) in line with PPG 11, as Transport Policy is dispersed throughout the document. It deals with the use of existing transport networks and the regional priorities for investment and management. The Inspectors report contains suggestions for amendment of policy which can be viewed as relevant to the scheme, and incorporated within an RTS.
The Countryside Agency suggest that Policy AR3 should state that "New roads are only appropriate if they are the most sustainable solution.' This surrounds a wide acceptance that constructing new roads to accommodate future traffic growth is neither environmentally nor economically sustainable.
The Countryside Agency suggest that within Policy AR10, schemes listed as being of greatest priority should be "investigated" by 2007, rather than "Delivered". (par 9.34)
The document does not add to the schemes listed within the Draft RPG on the grounds that many transport studies are currently being undertaken.
The main themes of the Guidance conflict with the ethos of road building, and concentrate on finding Multi-Modal solutions which are sustainable, and provide integration for users (Policy AR1).
The Guidance states that new road building is only acceptable when a `thorough examination of possible' solutions has taken place, and that the emphasis should be on the maintenance and improvement of the current highway network (Policy AR3).
Road building would only be advocated where no viable alternative exists. Paragraph 10.12 states that further investment is still required on some sections of the highway to bring it up to a safe and modern standard, and to provide relief for those communities that are affected by heavy flows of traffic.
The A556 offline scheme would aid access to Regional Investment Sites which support Urban Renaissance; Regeneration Priority Areas; Areas of Economic Assistance; the Spatial Framework Policies; and Sectorial Priorities (Policy EC3).
The scheme is compliant with aspirations for road safety through a forecast reduction of accidents as a result of the offline A556 (AR4), and would increase the capacity of access to Manchester Airport from the south. This may have a negative effect with regard to attracting further movements onto the network. (AR5).
The offline A556 is covered by Policy AR10 as part of a `Regionally Significant Transport Study' within the West Midlands to North West, and the existing A556 is defined as a `Strategic Access Route'. However, the scheme is not referred to directly, and does not appear on the RTS agenda as a `Regionally Significant Transport Proposal.'
The Guidance opposes the construction of new roads where no viable alternative exists. However, the acknowledged importance of the route suggests that A556(M) might be an acceptable solution. The scheme has been assessed as Neutral in relation to RPG.
The scheme is at odds with RPG aspirations to find Multi-Modal solutions which are sustainable, and provide integration for users. (Policy AR1).
The scheme is compliant with Policy AR3 which states that the emphasis should be placed upon the maintenance and improvement of the current highway network. A road-based option may not be viewed as the most environmentally or economically sustainable method of accommodating traffic growth within the RPG. However, it would utilise existing infrastructure, and provide relief for those communities that are affected by heavy flows of traffic on existing sub-standard roads (Par 10.12).
The option is consistent with the Economic aspirations of Regional Guidance (Policy EC3). The road would additionally improve reliability of movement and accessibility between the Mersey Belt Conurbation's which contain Objective 1 & 2 funded areas, and the West Midlands.
The scheme would increase the propensity for accidents as a result of the routing of traffic via Lymm and an additional 7 km, away from the A556. It would be in conflict with Policy AR4, which seeks a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 2010.
The proposal is covered by Policy AR10 as part of a `Regionally Significant Transport Study' within the West Midlands to North West, and the existing M6 is defined as a `Long Distance Strategic Route'. However, the scheme is not referred to directly, and does not appear on the RTS agenda as a significant transport proposal.
Whilst the scheme can be viewed as compliant in principle to the major aspirations of the Guidance, Its omission from the list of immediate five year Regional Transport Priorities (as prescribed by PPG 11) within the RTS (Inspectors Report 2001), allocates it a score of Neutral with regard to Regional Guidance.
This option can be viewed as being applicable to the same policies as the Parallel Widening scheme. It therefore assessed as broadly compliant, whilst not being referred to directly as a priority scheme favoured by the Regional Assembly. It is therefore adjudged to be Neutral.
As with the M6, the M56 can be seen to comply with the Regional aspiration to improve current transport infrastructure before constructing new roads (Policy AR3), whilst not adhering to the preference of Multi-Modal solutions as contained in the Guidance (Policy AR1).
Both options would comply with Policy AR5 in effecting improvements to the local transport network around Manchester Airport, however, they are not included as `Committed Schemes' within the document. The section of carriageway under consideration would become a bottleneck on the approach to Manchester Airport if not improved as part of the other options within the A556 study area.
The scheme would improve access to, and within the Mersey Belt corridor, and may contribute to the regeneration of Objective 1 areas within Merseyside, and Objective 2 within Greater Manchester through increased levels of Accessibility (Policy EC3).
The M56, and its access to Manchester Airport via Junction 6 is included within Policy AR10 as a Committed Scheme. This does not specifically refer to the widening of the M56 between Junctions 7 and 6. It is not included as an immediate priority to be "delivered" by 2007 (please refer to possible amendment within Inspectors Report)
The existing M56 is highlighted as a `Long Distance Strategic Route.'
The M56 improvements relating to Junction 6 have been identified within the Regional Policy Guidance as a committed scheme, however it does not extend to the Widening of the carriageway. Both options can be deemed as Neutral.
The key regional strategy document was published in draft format in November 1999 and launched during January 2000. It provides a framework that guides all activities of the NWDA and its partners, and is the platform from which all subsequent strategies and plans are developed.
The Strategy and its objectives are contained within four themes:
The Objective relating to Infrastructure highlights the integration of planning and transport in the Mersey Belt as a priority for early action. The Mersey Belt follows the M56 corridor at the northern perimeter of the study area therefore a successful assessment and selection of options can be seen as a means of furthering this aim.
The Infrastructure section highlights the lack of integrated transport and the area's dependence on car commuting. Forecasts suggest severe congestion on the M56 by 2016 if solutions are not developed.
The Strategy highlights the need for future reviews of Regional Guidance to establish how the assets of the region can be realised, in accordance with sustainable development principles. It requires particular consideration of:
The M6 is acknowledged as a `Strategic external Road Link' which is also of international importance in linking the region to the nation's ports. The impact of projected congestion levels is acknowledged within the Strategy and future solutions are sought within the West Midlands to North West Multi-modal study
The Strategy document concentrates on the economic importance of the North West road network at a regional, national, and international level. It does not address the problem with specific solutions but can be viewed as Beneficial in broad terms with regard to each option within the study area. The document does not address the environmental issues relating to such schemes, with the emphasis placed upon social and economic concerns.
The Cheshire County Structure Plan covers the six districts of Ellesmere Port and Neston, Vale Royal, Macclesfield, Chester, Crewe and Nantwich, and Congleton. The A556 study area lies within the Borough of Macclesfield and borders on the Unitary Authorities of Warrington and Trafford.
The Document reinforces the environmental guidance presented at national level, and the criteria for integrated transport. It can therefore be viewed as being in conflict with road construction schemes, with route management and reduced demand through alternative modes, the favoured scenario.
The Structure Plan has regard to National and other Regional Guidance, with relevant policies listed below.
Policy R1 seeks to protect the natural and man made heritage of the county. A scale of Irreplaceability is included within the plan against which sites should be assessed. Where unavoidable loss or damage occurs, mitigation measures are required to ensure there is no net loss of environmental value.
Policy R2 highlights the importance of Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) in terms of landscape quality, and archaeological, historic or nature conservation significance.
Policy GEN2 relates to the Macclesfield Green Belt, and states that Planning Permission will not be given for inappropriate development, `except in very special circumstances.' The policy reiterates the national guidance contained within PPG 2.
GEN7 states that development will not be allowed that is likely to cause unacceptable levels of air, surface water or groundwater pollution, or of noise, or visual intrusion by artificial light.
Policy T2 highlights the main methods prescribed to meet the Transport and Access needs of rural areas. These include:
Policy T4 highlights a number of schemes which, pending feasibility studies, may be included within future Structure Plan Policy
Policy T10 highlights the alignments of road schemes which are safeguarded from alternative development, pending the conclusion of desirability and feasibility studies.
Policy TR5 states that footpaths, bridleways and cycleways will be established as part of a countywide network for urban and rural areas. Areas to be utilised include disused railway lines and `suitable linear features'.
Policy T10 of the Structure Plan promotes the safeguarding of the alignment pending the conclusion of a feasibility study.
The GOMMMS appraisal technique states that considerable weighting must be afforded to the safeguarding of the alignment within the plan, as it indicates that the negative impacts have been assessed (or are in the process of being assessed), and that a genuine strategic need for the road has been identified within the county. The methodology states that `assessments should not be mechanical; marginal differences should be ignored, and key policies should be given greater weight, as should those which are more geographically significant.' (GOMMMS Vol. 2, par. 8.3.6).
The A556 offline scheme encroaches upon designated Areas of Special County Value at Tabley and within the Bollin Valley, and is thus in conflict with Policy R1.
Policy GEN2 reiterates the National Guidance with regard to Green Belt contained within PPG 2, and is therefore in conflict with the A556 offline scheme which would involve the construction of a road on a new alignment, entirely on Green Belt. The safeguarding of the scheme within Policy T10 would suggest that consideration of land-take within Green Belt has already taken place as part of the development plan process.
The scheme would be in accordance with Policy GEN 7 through reducing levels of surface run-off from the existing A556 into Rostherne Mere. This would accrue benefits to both surface and ground water. Positive and Negative effects on the local environment are discussed comprehensively within the Environmental section of the Methodology.
As outlined in Policy T2, the alleviated A556 would have the potential to incorporate safe pedestrian and cycle routes on its surplus carriageway space. The impact of traffic on settlements such as Mere would also be significantly reduced.
Policy TR5 states that footpaths, bridleways and cycleways will be established as part of a countywide network for urban and rural areas. The alleviated A556 could be described as a `suitable linear feature', which could be utilised for such purposes.
The A556(M) offline scheme is thus adjudged to be Beneficial in relation to the Cheshire Structure Plan.
The Parallel Widening would take place wholly within Green Belt, thus conflicting with Policy GEN2. The offline construction would mean greater land-take than asymmetrical widening. Access to the countryside could potentially be improved through the provision of recreational facilities on the existing A556.
GEN7 As the scheme would be incorporated within the existing M6 / M56 corridor, it is fair to assume that minimal impact would be added to current levels in terms of noise, vibration, air and water quality.
The diversion onto the M6/M56 may add overnight HGV trips onto the route bound for Transfer facilities within Greater Manchester (e.g. Trafford Park), thus lengthening the hours of operation. The difference again may be minimal due to the M6/M56 already accommodating such movements.
Light Pollution would be significantly increased, as the dual-four specification for the scheme would dictate the erection of motorway standard street lighting onto the existing unlit carriageway on both the M6 and M56. The interchange at Lymm is the only section of the scheme currently illuminated.
The option would significantly reduce the impact of traffic for communities aside the alleviated A556. Scope also exists to improve access to walkers and cyclists in line with Policy T2, and Policy TR5.
The land required for widening the M6 (19-20)/ M56 (9-7), and the creation of a link at Lymm, is not safeguarded within the Cheshire Structure Plan (Policy T10), despite the fact that land is safeguarded alongside Junctions 16 to19 of the M6. It is also omitted from Policy relating to future feasibility studies to be included within the next Structure Plan (Policy T4).
Overall, The Parallel Widening option is assessed as Adverse in relation to the Cheshire Structure Plan, on the grounds that the alignment has not been safeguarded, and is unlikely to be within future Policy.
The Asymmetrical option is adjudged to be subject to the same policy as the Parallel Widening. The only area to which Structure Plan Policy would differ slightly would be in relation to the amount of Green Belt consumed during construction (Policy GEN2). It is therefore also regarded as Adverse to the aspirations of the Plan.
Both options would conflict with Policy R1, as the widening of the M56 between junctions 7 and 6 lies adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI), and Grade B and C sites of Biological Importance. The Asymmetrical option may be the more favourable in terms of reduced land-take.
Both options would lie adjacent to, and within the Bollin Valley Area of Special County Value, (Policy R2), however the Asymmetrical option would be more favourable on the grounds of reduced land-take during construction, and the least disturbance required post-construction, e.g. landscaping of redundant carriageway on Parallel scheme.
The scheme conflicts with Policy GEN2 on the grounds that both options would consume land within the Green Belt. However, construction would take place within an existing transport corridor.
For both Widening Options, levels of intrusion from artificial lighting would increase in the vicinity, as the dual-four alignment after widening, requires motorway standard lighting (Policy GEN7).
Widening between Junctions 7 and 6 of the M56 would not meet any of the Transport and Access Needs of Rural areas outlined in Policy T2, as it would not be constructed as a bypass, and thus provide no additional relief to communities adjacent to existing sub-standard roads.
The scheme is neither safeguarded in the current Structure Plan (Policy T10), or highlighted as a possible scheme for future inclusion in the plan (Policy T4).
However, the M56 widening between junctions 7 and 6 can be viewed as relevant to Policy T12, which states that Development Proposals at Manchester Airport (such as the now-completed second runway), should ensure that surface travel demand can adequately be accommodated within the capacity of transport links.
The strategic nature of T12 and the regional importance of the airport, have led to both options being assessed as Neutral. The nature of improvements would relate to an increase in capacity in line with policy. The score is recorded, despite the fact that the scheme is not included within its own right.
It should be noted that Part 1 Policies of the Unitary Development Plan for Trafford, also concentrate upon Strategic level issues.
| RPG 13 | A Strategy Towards 2020 | Cheshire 2011 Structure Plan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A556(M) | Neutral | Beneficial | Beneficial |
| J.20 Parallel | Neutral | Beneficial | Adverse |
| J.20 Asymmetrical | Neutral | Beneficial | Adverse |
| M56 Parallel | Neutral | Beneficial | Neutral |
| M56 Asymmetrical | Neutral | Beneficial | Neutral |
| A556(M) | Beneficial |
| M6 J.20 with Parallel Widening | Neutral |
| M6 J.20 with Asymmetrical Widening | Neutral |
| M56 J.7-6 with Parallel Widening | Beneficial |
| M56 J.7-6 with Asymmetrical Widening | Beneficial |
The Macclesfield Borough covers 202 square miles and is bounded by the Merseyside conurbation, the Greater Manchester conurbation, and the Peak National Park. It is in the top 5% of wealthiest local authorities in the country, and has very little unemployment (1.2%). 38% of the resident workforce commute into Greater Manchester, and car ownership is above the national average.
The majority of the study area falls within the jurisdiction of the Macclesfield Borough. However, the widening of the M56 between Junctions 7 and 6 lies partially within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford. As a result, for this option only, the Unitary Development Plan for the borough has been assessed, in addition to the Local Plan for Macclesfield, which is applicable to all other options.
The Macclesfield Local Plan30 was adopted in December 1997. The Document is under review and was altered in October 2000. It is currently at Revised Deposit (2nd Alteration) Stage as of January 2002, and the Policies reviewed under GOMMMS take this into account.
The Local Plan reinforces in general terms, the aspirations contained at National and Regional level. This is of specific relevance to issues of the Environment and Nature Conservation, Visual Amenity, and Heritage, of which a number of sites are highlighted as being in conflict with the A556 offline scheme. As specific sections elsewhere in the appraisal address the issues in detail, care has been taken not to double count the impact accrued within Land-Use, and the potential for negative impacts has been weighted accordingly. The following policies are deemed to be of relevance:
Policy GC2 reinforces policy relating to Green Belt at National and Regional level. It states that Engineering operations which constitute a change of use would not be permitted unless they maintain openness; do not conflict with the purpose of including land in the Green Belt; and contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt. Where amenity is lost as a result of development, Planning obligations would be used to offset negative impact.
Policy GC3 states that where development is deemed acceptable, Visual amenity should not be affected. Proposals which are inappropriately designed and sited, in addition those with inappropriate materials, would be refused.
Policy GC13 states that the best and most versatile agricultural land should not be developed. Where development is essential, the minimum amount of land should be used; minimum earthworks should be involved; and its reversibility should be maintained.
Policies BE16 & 17, relate to the prohibition of development adversely affecting or causing the demolition of a Listed Building. In determining any application, the Local Plan advises reference to Paragraph 3.19 of PPG 15 - `Planning and the Historic Environment.'
Policy BE22 states that Development which would affect `sites of archaeological potential' may be refused. It advises that permission will only be granted where mitigation measures can be demonstrated to `ensure no net loss of archaeological value.' Where possible, mitigation measures would be employed in accordance with Best Practice guidelines. This issue is discussed further within Section 5.6 of the Appraisal.
Policy NE1 within the Local Plan states that the Borough Council will seek to conserve and enhance the quality of Areas of Special County Value, and protect it from development which is likely to have an `adverse effect on its character and appearance'.
Policy NE5 relates to the Conservation and Enhancement of Historic Landscapes, Parklands and Gardens.
The conservation of space within the Bollin River Valley is highlighted within Policies NE9 & NE10.
Policy NE12 states that Development `will not be permitted' which would affect SSSI sites. Reference should be had to PPG 9 which outlines the Consultation requirements that must take place before any development is permitted within close proximity of an SSSI site.
Policy NE13 of the Local Plan states that development will `not normally be permitted' which has an adverse affect on Grade B and C County Sites of Biological Importance.
Policy T5 (as modified 2nd Alteration, 2002), states that provision should be made for cycling `where appropriate' as part of new developments; new road proposals and where existing roads are detrunked.
Policy T7 safeguards the land on the alignment of a number of named road schemes. Reference is made to the South East Manchester and the West Midlands to North West Multi-Modal Studies, which would have a significant bearing on the roads being constructed within the plan period. The policy has been revised in the alterations of October 2000, from the adopted version (1997), which did not include the condition of further study being required.
Policy T7 safeguards the alignment of the A556(M) - M6 to M56 Link. The supporting text justifies the inclusion of the scheme as being subject to investigation as part of the West Midlands to the North West Conurbation's Multi-Modal Studies.
The scheme lies in direct conflict with Policies GC2, and GC13 on the grounds that it would be a new alignment constructed on previously undeveloped Green Belt and agricultural land. A substantial impact on local visual amenity would place the scheme at odds with Policy GC3. As with Structure Plan Policy, the fact that the alignment is safeguarded within Policy T7 would seem to suggest that the potential impact upon Green Belt has been considered in the development plan process.
Policies BE16, 17 and 22 relating to the historic environment are regarded within the assessment. The scheme would lie in relatively close proximity to a number of designated sites. However, there is unlikely to be a `net loss of archaeological value' as a result.
Policy NE1 The A556 offline scheme encroaches upon designated Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) at Tabley and within the Bollin Valley.
Policy NE5 The grounds of Tabley Park lie across the proposed alignment and thus are in conflict with the policy which states: `Development which would adversely affect their special historic interest, setting or the enjoyment of any part of their grounds will not normally be allowed.'
Policies NE9 & NE10 The A556 offline alignment joins the existing M56 within the Conservation Area of the Bollin Valley designated area. Negative impact may be reduced by the fact that work would consist of the widening of an existing corridor, as the road adjoins. However, the issue is beyond the remit of the Land-Use section of the Methodology.
Policy NE12 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are situated at Mere (Mere), and Rostherne Mere, within a relatively short distance of the A556 offline scheme.
The scheme directly impinges upon Belt Wood which is a Grade C Site of Biological Importance, and lies adjacent to a Grade B site at Hancock's Bank within the Bollin Valley. It is therefore in conflict with Policy NE13.
The scheme would facilitate the incorporation of cycling facilities on the alleviated A556 in accordance with Policy T5. As long distance traffic would be removed, it is likely that the road would be subject to future detrunking measures, within which cycle lanes could be created.
Despite a number of policies conflicting with the scheme on environmental grounds, for the purpose of the assessment, regard must be had to the GOMMMS appraisal technique, which states: `key policies should be given greater weight, as should those which are more geographically specific' (GOMMMS Vol. 2 Par 8.3.7).
The offline A556(M) option is thus viewed as Beneficial to the aspirations of Macclesfield, as the scheme does not represent a departure from the plan, and is in accordance with Section 54A (For Reference see PPG 1).
The scheme conflicts with Policy GC2 on the grounds of its siting wholly within Green Belt. As the Motorway corridors are already established, widening of the carriageway would not constitute a change of use. Mitigation measures would be used in accordance with Best Practice Guidelines, and Planning Conditions could be attached as part of the application to create leisure facilities on the alleviated A556.
Visual Amenity would not be substantially altered with regard to Policy GC3, bearing in mind the established use of the corridor, and the potential to improve screening. Some intrusion may be encountered adjacent to Junction 20 at Lymm, which would require the construction of slip roads between the M6 and the M56 to facilitate north to east and west to south movements.
Policy T7 states that land along the corridor of the M6 will be safeguarded from other development for Widening Purposes, however, no specific reference is made to the scheme. It must therefore be assumed that the policy is only advocating widening between junctions 16 to 19 of the M6 in line with Structure Plan Policy.
The scheme accords with a number of policies in principle, and can be seen to consume a less substantial amount of land in the Macclesfield Green Belt than the A556(M) option.
However, its omission from the plan as a safeguarded route means that it is adjudged to be Neutral.
For the purpose of the Local Plan, the Asymmetrical option can be viewed as subject to the same policies as the Parallel option.
The option would involve land-take to a lesser extent during construction, and would incur less intrusion on environmentally sensitive areas.
Notwithstanding the marginal benefits over the Parallel scheme, the Asymmetrical widening is viewed as Neutral, as it is not safeguarded within the Local Plan.
Policy regarding the widening of Junctions 7 to 6 of the M56 can be seen to reinforce that which is outlined at Structure Plan level.
Both options would conflict with Policy GC2 on the grounds that the scheme lies within the Macclesfield Green Belt, and Policies NE9 and 10 relating to the protection of land within the Bollin Valley. Both options would be constructed within the designated areas, with the Asymmetrical option marginally more favourable on the grounds of reduced land take during construction.
The scheme would lie in relatively close proximity to a SSSI site at Rostherne, and Grade B and C Sites of Biological Importance either side of the current alignment in the Bollin Valley (Policy NE12).
Neither option is safeguarded in the Local Plan under Policy T7, therefore a score of Neutral is awarded.
The siting of Junction 6 within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, requires the relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) to be assessed under the methodology.
The planning system differs within Metropolitan areas as the development plan covers both Strategic and Local issues, as addressed at Structure and Local Plan level within Shire areas. Unitary authorities have responsibility for all the planning functions within their geographical area, resulting from the Town and Country Planning act 1990.
The UDP was adopted in 1996, and is in the process of being updated to extend its life beyond 2001. Two consultation periods have taken place, with the revised Draft alterations of November 2001, referred to in this assessment.
The document is divided into two parts: Part 1 containing Strategic Area-Wide Policies, and Part 2 addressing Local, site-specific Proposals.
Part 1 Policy ENV2 highlights the Bollin Valley and its environs as an area of Landscape Protection. The M56 scheme would lie in opposition with the plan's intention to protect the area from development which is obtrusive or unsympathetic.
The widening scheme would lie close to a number of Conservation sites around Hale and Davenport Green (Part 1 Policy ENV5), which are designated on the grounds of architectural, archaeological, cultural and heritage value. In addition, the scheme would lie in relatively close proximity to Sites of Biological Importance (Part 1 Policy ENV6), and would conflict with conservation aspirations around the Bollin River Valley (Part 1 Policy ENV7).
Part 2 Proposal ENV8, contains criteria to determine whether development proposals are satisfactory with regard to the above policy.
The Widening would lie relatively close to a proposed High Amenity Site at Davenport Green. Part 2 Policy E13, permits the development of the site on the proviso that it does not have an adverse impact on the efficient functioning of the M56.
Part 2 Proposal T8 supports the maintenance and improvement of the highway route network within the Borough. The proposals include support for the M56 Junction 6 and airport access improvement.
Both options can be seen as Neutral in relation to the Unitary Development Plan, as the issue of access to the airport does not extend to the widening of the carriageway between Junctions 7 and 6.
The LTP was introduced in response to the 1998 White Paper: A New Deal for Transport - Better for Everyone, and has regard to the main objectives of the White Paper, in addition to the National, Regional and Local Planning Hierarchy. The key issues of the LTP reflect the rural nature of the county, such as widening travel options, improving transport to reduce social exclusion, and the high road accident rate. It seeks to address the deterioration of the road network, the impact of transport on air quality, and the impact of increased traffic growth.
The main objectives of the document are discussed in general terms, with elements related to the study area assessed individually per option.
The LTP outlines plans to improve rail services between mid-Cheshire and Manchester Airport / Piccadilly, which would assist in limiting traffic growth on the M56. The benefits accrued, if implemented, would remove a number of commuter trips from rural areas into Manchester from the motorway network.
The LTP seeks to address the level of traffic on the `Rural Highway Network', through speed-management and traffic calming measures.
The existing A556 is included as part of the strategy for De-trunking (par 16.1). between Chester and the M6 (Junction 19). There is no intention within the document to extend de-trunking to the north of junction 19.
Section 16 contains the Motorway and Trunk Road schemes relevant to Cheshire, which would be given high priority by the Highways Agency. It also lists a number of schemes subject either to further Government-sponsored study, or withdrawal from the Trunk Road Programme. The County Council wishes to see the Highways Agency safeguard schemes subject to further study.
The offline A556(M) would serve to alleviate traffic on the `Rural Highway Network', and subsequently allow safety and traffic calming measures to take place.
The scheme is specifically referred to as being safeguarded, pending future study, as incorporated in the West Midlands to North West Conurbation.
It is therefore regarded as Beneficial.
Unlike the A556(M), the widening option would not improve road safety, since traffic would divert off the M6 onto the wider area rural network, as well as accident numbers increasing on M6/M56 due to increased vehicle kilometres.
Under the LTP's Motorway and Trunk Road programme, the M6 widening between Junctions 16 and 19 is referred as being subject to ongoing Government-sponsored study (West Midlands to North West Conurbation). The actual study area between Junctions 19 and 20 is not included.
The Proposal is not included as a Scheme of Strategic Importance (Section 19), thus reinforces the aspirations at Structure Plan level.
It is therefore adjudged to be Adverse.
The option is assessed as Adverse as it is relevant to the same policy as the Parallel option.
The M56 Widening between Junctions 7 and 6 is not considered by either the West Midlands to North West or the South East Manchester Multi-Modal Studies, it is therefore absent from Section 16 of the Plan.
The omission of the scheme from both studies is regarded as an anomaly, therefore it is adjudged to be Neutral.
| A556(M) | Beneficial |
| M6 J.20 with Parallel Widening | Neutral |
| M6 J.20 with Asymmetrical Widening | Neutral |
| M56 J.7-6 with Parallel Widening | Neutral |
| M56 J.7-6 with Asymmetrical Widening | Neutral |
Overall Assessment Scores as recorded in the AST can be found within Worksheet 8.3 (Appendix 8)
This Sub-Objective considers the impact of the proposal on other Government Policies in order to assess the overall policy integration within Government. A review has been undertaken to assess the extent to which this is the case for the study, the results of which are illustrated by Worksheet 8.4 in Appendix 8.
The Overall Summary Assessment Score for this Sub-Objective is Beneficial for each option as more key policies are of benefit than hindered by the scheme.
The MIDMAN Study recommended a Junction 20 Scheme which would include free-flow slips at Junction 20, probably widening the M6 J19-20 to D4 standard and possibly widening M56 J7-9 to D4 Standard. The present study's brief was to consider whether any additional improvements are required to these adjacent sections of motorway. The study has also developed the scheme to look at ways the existing A556 can be managed so that a scheme which is as effective as possible is assessed by the present study at a more detailed level that was possible within the MIDMAN study.
The above assessment has been undertaken assuming the carriageway standards and junction configuration established in Section 3. Clearly there is a relationship between the standard of carriageway provided, the resulting forecast flows and consequent economic performance of the scheme. This section looks at the assumed carriageway standard and the potential impact on the assessment of these initial assumptions, to ensure their robustness and appropriateness.
The traffic model has been used to provide estimates of the peak and off-peak flows for 2011 and 2026. These flows have been factored up to AADT flows using factors derived from traffic counts on key links. To identify possible appropriate standards for individual links, the forecast flows for 2026 have been established using 2026 trip matrices, factored in line with MIDMAN forecasts of highway traffic growth in the period 2011 to 2031. The resulting flows are summarised in Table 9.1. The MIDMAN study established threshold flows for provision of widened carriageways and these flows have been adopted by the present study to retain consistency with the overall MIDMAN strategy. The thresholds are:
| M6 J19-20 | M56 J7-9 | M56 J6-7 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do-Minimum 2011 | 119,400 | 84,500 | 129,400 |
| Indicative Standard | D3M | D3M | D4M |
| Do-Minimum 2026 | 135,000 | 100,900 | 136,400 |
| Indicative Standard | D4M | D3M | D4M |
| A556 (M) Scheme 2026 | 135,200 | 98,300 | 149,600 |
| Indicative Standard | D4M | D3M | D4M |
| Junction 20 scheme | 156,200 | 119,400 | 140,700 |
| Indicative Standard | D4M | D3M | D4M |
On the basis of these thresholds it can be seen that widening of the M56 J7-6 should be considered before 2026, irrespective of whether any strategy for enhancing capacity north of Junction 19 is taken forward. This suggests that the strategy adopted for the traffic and economic assessment, which assumes widening of J7-6 is in place with each of the tested scenarios, is appropriate.
Table 9.1 also indicates that with the Junction 20 option tested (option 2), the forecast flows on the M56 -Junction 7-9 are 119,400, which are below the threshold of 122,500 used by MIDMAN. It is recognised that the traffic model cannot reflect the impact of signing on driver route choice and therefore the transfer of traffic may be understated. Signing impacts may have sufficient impact that flows on the M56 exceed the threshold. However, if traffic follows the signed route it will incur additional mileage and travel time and this will have an adverse impact on the economic benefits of the scheme.
On the basis of forecast demand, inclusion of M56 J7-9 widening in the Junction 20 Scenario may give a sub-optimal scheme, given a significant proportion of the scheme costs will be saved. An incremental assessment of the widening was undertaken as a sensitivity test. The estimated cost of the scheme assuming parallel widening is £73 million. The economic performance of the scheme is compared with the full scheme in Table 9.2
| Full Junction 20 Scheme | Junction 20 with no widening J7-9 | |
|---|---|---|
| Present Value Costs - PVC | -96,301 | -56,791 |
| Present Value Benefits - PVB | -65,109 | -136,929 |
| Net Present Value - NPV | -161,411 | -193,791 |
| Benefit Cost Ratio -BCR | -0.68 | -2.41 |
The reduction in costs of the scheme, if J7-9 is not widened reduces the PVC by £40m, however, the economic disbenefits increase by £72m, resulting in a worse benefit cost ratio. The increase in disbenefits is principally due to the removal of benefits that previously accrued to users of widened J7-9 link. Removing widening of Junction 7-9 from the scenario does not improve the economic. Operationally, such a scheme would be inferior and consequently the scheme attracts less traffic to the Junction 20 slips.
Table 9.1 also indicates that widening of the M6 J19-20 would be required, on capacity grounds, by 2026 even if the A556 (M) scheme is developed. It could be argued that to give an even handed comparison of the schemes the A556(M) scheme should also include widening of J19-20. Setting aside any engineering issues, an option has been tested that assessed the additional costs and benefits of also widening J19-20 to D4M.The additional cost (PVC) of widening J19-20 is £17m, but the additional benefits are only £7.2m. The benefit cost ratio is less than 1 indicating it is not economically justified.
The widening strategies are being assessed within the framework of the recommended wider MIDMAN strategy. This strategy (CS2), recognises that widening the M6 to accommodate the predicted demand (within a multi-modal context) is not practical. It examined various demand management options and concluded restraint on the motorway through tolling would be necessary in the horizon 2021-26. The present study has identified that widening of J19-20 would be required within this time horizon. It is not appropriate, at the present date, to recommend widening of this link to D4M since the need has not been clearly established.
The assessment of the two scenarios has taken as the starting point:
The assessment of carriageway standards broadly confirms this. Specific traffic and economic sensitivity tests have been undertaken which confirm the initial scenarios are also economically robust and they are the appropriate schemes to have been taken forward into the GOMMMS assessment.
The MIDMAN Study is a strategic multi-modal study, which addressed transport issues in the whole of the West Midlands to Manchester corridor. By definition this study addressed issues at a strategic level. The MIDMAN consultants accept that their strategic traffic model is not adequate to undertake a detailed assessment of the two potential options and a clear cut case is not made for recommending Junction 20.
At an early stage in their study, MIDMAN considered the merits of on and off line widening north of Junction 19 and opted for on-line widening to J20 with provision of free flow slips at Junction 20. This decision was incorporated in their Core Strategy that was taken forward with a GOMMMS appraisal undertaken of their full strategies. The decision to opt for a Junction 20 solution is contained in their Stage 2 Report and their findings are summarised in a Strategic Assessment Table. This assessment compares the A556(M) scheme with a Junction 20 Scheme which only includes provision of free flow slips. The impacts of widening the M6 J19-20 or the M56 J7-9 are not included although the accompanying text does address the possible cost of widening these links. A direct comparison between the two assessment tables is not valid and the MIDMAN justification for recommending a junction 20 solution is not clearly set out, although it accepts that on the basis of their assessment the decision is finely balanced.
The present study considers two comparable schemes that address the need for widening north of Junction 19, within the wider context of the MIDMAN Study. These schemes have been assessed in greater detail and as a consequence are able to demonstrate clearly that the A556(M) scheme performs better against national and local criteria and the objectives of the MIDMAN Study.
The strategic traffic model developed for the MIDMAN study was too coarse to be able to predict the detailed re-assignment that could occur with the two alternatives. The MIDMAN report made some global assumptions about traffic re-assignment that could not be validated by a more detailed assessment, which reflected realistic traffic management options. Para 5.8.15 of the MIDMAN report stated that the Junction 20 proposals would only attract 60 % of strategic traffic from the existing A556 and thus does not meet their objective of strengthening the strategic role of the M6. It further states that the effect on local roads would be 'relatively small'. This does not appear to be correct following a more detailed analysis and more traffic would re-assign onto the local roads than is assumed in the MIDMAN report resulting in a much larger adverse effect on these roads.
The MIDMAN report assumed that M6 J19 to J20 would "probably" be widened and "perhaps on M56 between junction 7 and 9". This report has found that both the M6 and M56 motorways would require widening partly as a result of the traffic re-assigning to an improved M6 J20, although less than half of the motorway to motorway traffic transfers. There is a consequential effect on costs. The Junction 20 option is more costly, given that M56 J7 to J9 would have to be widened to D4 along with M6 J19 to J20. Scheme costs would be higher with the Junction 20 proposals contrary to the MIDMAN report's findings. The Junction 20 proposals would be very sub-optimal economically in view of the fact that scheme costs are higher and benefits are lower. The Junction 20 proposals cannot be justified in economic terms, as suspected by the MIDMAN team. In an incremental assessment, removing widening from M56 J7 to J9 gives a worse benefit cost ratio.
The MIDMAN studies were based on a strategic appraisal approach rather than the plan approach adopted for these studies. It would appear that the MIDMAN studies did not use all of the information collated and presented within this study.
A direct comparison between the results of the environmental objectives for the A556 Scheme is not possible due to the different level of assessment (i.e. plan against strategic). However, broad comparisons are possible. Noise and Local Air Quality are broadly in agreement although Greenhouse Gases differ in that the current study indicates a reduction in CO2 while MIDMAN indicates a slight adverse impact. The assessment of landscape impacts in this study indicate a slight initial adverse impact reducing to neutral later while MIDMAN assesses the impact as being major adverse. Impacts to heritage are assessed as being neutral in MIDMAN and adverse in this study, this probably reflects the lack of detail in MIDMAN and, in particular, the potential impacts to Tabley Hall park. Impacts to biodiversity are assessed as being significant adverse in this study and slight adverse in MIDMAN, this again probably reflects the lack of review of available information in MIDMAN. Impacts to the water environment are assessed as neutral/slight beneficial in the MIDMAN report and low significance (non-benefit) in this study. Impacts on physical fitness are assessed as being slight beneficial in this study and moderate beneficial in MIDMAN while journey ambience is assessed as large beneficial in this study and moderate beneficial in MIDMAN.
MIDMAN only considers improvements to M6 Junction 20 rather than the associated widening of the M6 and M56 considered in this study. As such, comparisons between the results of MIDMAN and this study are not possible for these elements.
Finally, differences in the environmental impact of both options do not appear to be as great as the assumptions made in MIDMAN. A large quantity of environmental information had been gathered for the A556 (M) off-line scheme public inquiry. Much less information was available for the Junction 20 proposals, therefore, it is difficult to see how an objective comparison can be made in the MIDMAN report. A more detailed environmental assessment highlights some significant environmental concerns with the Junction 20 proposals.
When comparable schemes are considered, which directly address the issue of widening north of junction 19 and address all the criteria in detail, there is a strong case for the A556(M) scheme. The strategic assessment undertaken by MIDMAN was used to justify a Junction 20 solution, but this conclusion cannot be sustained.
The traffic forecasting has taken account of the South East Manchester Multi Modal Study (SEMMMS)2 schemes and these schemes have been included in the Do-minimum networks with the road standard recommended by SEMMMS. Thus the impact of the SEMMMS schemes on traffic flows in the A556 Area has been incorporated in the assessment. Also included in the Do-Minimum network is the proposed Alderley Edge Bypass and widening of the M60 between Junction 5 and 7. The A556 Area Model shows that these schemes in combination lead to a small increase in the AM peak traffic feeding into the south of the SEMMMS area rather than remaining on the un-widened motorway network. Other flow changes may be related to peripheral effects of the cordoned model. The forecast change in flows on the SEMMMS study area boundary are shown in Table 11.1.
The A556 Area strategy will also have an impact on the traffic levels entering the SEMMMS study area and potentially an impact on the SEMMMS Strategy. Table 11.1 also quantifies the impact the widening options have on the traffic flows on links feeding into the SEMMMS study area. This will allow an assessment to be made of the impact of widening options north of Junction 19 on the SEMMMS Strategy.
The change in traffic flows across the day (AADT Flows) and in the AM peak hour are also summarised in Table 11.1. The A556(M) scheme is compared with the Do-Minimum network and hence includes the traffic impacts of widening to D4M the M6 south of Junction 19 and between Junctions 6 and 7 on the M56. Likewise the Junction 20 option includes these plus the other elements of motorway widening and thus assumes widening to D4M the whole of the M6 south of Junction 20 and on the M56 between Junction 6 and 9, as well as providing free flow slips at junction 20. The A556(M) Scheme reduces flow on roads approaching the SEMMMS area from the south with a modest increase in flows on the M56. The Junction 20 scheme leads to increased flows, in particular on the Alderley Edge Bypass where flows increase by 20% across the day.
The table includes absolute changes in flow as well as percentage changes for completeness sake. The absolute change in flows are considered to be the best indicator of the impacts on the SEMMMS area, given the known limitations of the MIDMAN and consequently the present model in this area.
| Road | 2011 Base | 2011 Do Min | Change Flow | % Change | 2011 A556(M) Scheme | Change Compared to Do Min | % Change | 2011 Junction 20 Scheme | Change Compared to Do Min | % Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AADT Flows | ||||||||||
| A52 - South of Macclesfield | 17527 | 18367 | 839 | 5% | 18286 | -80 | 0% | 18298 | -69 | 0% |
| A536 - Congleton to Macclesfield | 2572 | 3202 | 630 | 24% | 3102 | -100 | -3% | 3195 | -7 | 0% |
| A537 - West of Macclesfield | 35994 | 23708 | -12285 | -34% | 24137 | 429 | 2% | 23281 | -428 | -2% |
| A34 - South of Wilmslow | 28280 | 17193 | -11086 | -39% | 12432 | -4761 | -28% | 17132 | -61 | 0% |
| A535 - South of Wilmslow | 8022 | 3017 | -5005 | -62% | 2332 | -685 | -23% | 3271 | 254 | 8% |
| Alderley Edge Bypass | 0 | 12542 | 12542 | 9514 | -3028 | -24% | 15039 | 2496 | 20% | |
| B5058 - Mobberley to Wilmslow | 2853 | 2862 | 9 | 0% | 2695 | -167 | -6% | 2898 | 36 | 1% |
| M56 - Junction 6-7 | 121322 | 120433 | -889 | -1% | 124004 | 3571 | 3% | 120894 | 461 | 0% |
| AM Peak Flows | ||||||||||
| A52 - South of Macclesfield | 1866 | 1995 | 129 | 7% | 1981 | -14 | -1% | 1996 | 1 | 0% |
| A536 - Congleton to Macclesfield | 221 | 221 | 0 | 0% | 204 | -17 | -8% | 214 | -7 | -3% |
| A537 - West of Macclesfield | 3706 | 2928 | -778 | -21% | 2971 | 43 | 1% | 2873 | -55 | -2% |
| A34 - South of Wilmslow | 2563 | 1879 | -684 | -27% | 1853 | -26 | -1% | 1882 | 3 | 0% |
| A535 - South of Wilmslow | 959 | 310 | -649 | -68% | 253 | -57 | -18% | 327 | 17 | 5% |
| Alderley Edge Bypass | 0 | 1541 | 1541 | 1153 | -388 | -25% | 1672 | 131 | 9% | |
| B5058 - Mobberley to Wilmslow | 290 | 322 | 32 | 11% | 289 | -33 | -10% | 306 | -16 | -5% |
| M56 - Junction 6-7 | 12631 | 12469 | -162 | -1% | 13029 | 560 | 4% | 13051 | 582 | 5% |
The New Approach to Appraisal was introduced in the Government's white paper 'A New Deal for Transport'19. The Approach includes the identification and assessment of problems, the identification of options, and the assessment of those options. Throughout this process, the approach works within the framework provided by the five objectives of environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration set out in 'A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England'8.
The approach to appraisal to be adopted within this study embraces fully the principles of the New Approach to Appraisal. The appraisal process has the following four appraisal 'strands'.
12.2.1 Sections 5 to 9 of this report provide assessment of the schemes contribution to the Central Government objectives for transport.
In accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 2 of GOMMMS, the assessments from the individual worksheets have been summarised and input into Appraisal Summary Tables. These tables are shown below as
| Option: A556(M) Scheme | Description: D2M Link from M6 J19 - M56 J7 | Problems: Congestion on existing sub-standard S4 link between the two motorways | Present Value Cost to Government £69.2m | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OBJECTIVE | SUB-OBJECTIVE | QUALITATIVE IMPACTS | QUANTITATIVE MEASURE | ASSESSMENT |
| ENVIRONMENT | Noise | Nearly 400 houses front roads with traffic reductions | Do min. 460; A556(M) 431 | +29 population win. |
| Local Air Quality | A large number of house will benefit | 1607 gain; 207 lose | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 -509, NO2 - 3038 | |
| Greenhouse Gases | Scheme will generate reduction of 26250 tonnes of CO2 | Reduction in Co2 = 26250+ | ||
| Landscape | Loss of tranquility part compensated by improve around ex A556 | Slight adverse initially. Neutral later | ||
| Heritage of Historic Resources | Impact on Registered Park of Special Historic Interest, Tabley Park; minor impact on other Local-Regional sites. | Adverse | ||
| Biodiversity | Loss of 10 ponds of High Local or Local Botanical Importance. Impacts to 4 woodlands, 3 of which are SBI's. Water Quality improvements to 2 SSSIs, one of which is also a Ramsar Site. | Significant Adverse | ||
| Water Environment | Potential water quality improvements to still water/watercourses currently affected by A556 runoff Potential impact on groundwater abstraction | Low Significance (non-benefit)) | ||
| Physical Fitness | Scope to increase Walking and Cycling Within alleviated A556 Corridor | Slight Beneficial | ||
| Journey Ambience | Scope for alternative modes on existing A556. Stress reduced | Large Beneficial | ||
| SAFETY | Accidents | Reduced traffic in wide area will benefit other users | Accidents saved over 30 yrs: 380 | PVB £14.7m |
| ECONOMY | Security | No significant effects | neutral | |
| Transport Economic Efficiency | Traffic retained on motorway network | BCR = 2.92 | Users NPV £206.6m Private provider NPV £1.5m Public provider NPV- £69.2m Other govmnt NPV £-8.8m | |
| Reliability | Improved through increased capacity on key links | Beneficial | ||
| Wider Economic Impacts | Objective 2 areas lie adjacent but outside study area. No direct benefits, or development dependent on scheme construction. | No/No | ||
| ACCESSIBILITY | Option Values | Little public transport | neutral | |
| Severance | Removal of traffic from A556 will improve ped-amenity | slight beneficial | ||
| Access to the Transport System | No public transport system | neutral | ||
| INTEGRATION | Transport Interchange | Scheme incorporates no scope for improved Passenger or Freight Interchange within the study area | Passenger: Neutral Freight; Neutral | |
| Land-Use Policy | Proposal conflicts with a number of environmental policies due to siting in Green Belt. However, greater weight is afforded to safeguarding of land within Development Plan. | Beneficial | ||
| Other Government Policies | Beneficial | |||
| Option: M6 J20 Links and M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7 Parallel Widening | Description: Additional Free-flow Links provided at J20 between M6 and M56 plus Parallel Widening to D4M of adjacent sections of Motorway | Problems: Congestion on ex A556 substandard S4 link between M6 & M56 | Present value Cost to Government £96.1m: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OBJECTIVE | SUB-OBJECTIVE | QUALITATIVE IMPACTS | QUANTITATIVE MEASURE | ASSESSMENT |
| ENVIRONMENT | Noise | Nearly 400 houses front roads with noise reduction | Do min 1031 J20 1068 | -37 population lose |
| Local Air Quality | Large number of houses will individually have a slight disbenefit | 329 gain; 1599 lose | Concentrations weighted for exposure PM10 1084, NO2 6126 | |
| Greenhouse Gases | Scheme will generate increase of 61377 tonnes of Co2 | Increase of 61377 tonnes Co2 | ||
| Landscape | Loss of tranquility part compensated by improvement to A556 | Lighting affects receptors adversely | moderately adverse initially, slight adverse later | |
| Heritage of Historic Resources | Potential impact upon ancient mire; minor impact on other regional sites | Slight Adverse | ||
| Biodiversity | Two woodland SBI's would be affected. Three sites of Medium value would be affected - these areas comprise woodland, ponds and ditches.. | Minor Adverse | ||
| Water Environment | Potential water quality improvements to still water/watercourses currently affected by A556 runoff Water quality improvements to watercourses currently receiving runoff from M6 and M56 Loss of 5 ponds | Insignificant- Low Significant (Benefit) | ||
| Physical Fitness | Scope to increase Walking and Cycling Within alleviated A556 Corridor | Slight Beneficial | ||
| Journey Ambience | Traveller Care improved over existing A556 Traveller Stress would be increased as a result of the extra distance travelled. | Large Adverse | ||
| SAFETY | Accidents | Diversion of traffic to non-m'way roads leads to no net benefit | Accidents saved over 30 years=61 | PVB £1.43m |
| Security | No specific security effects | Neutral | ||
| ECONOMY | Transport Economic Efficiency | Some traffic travels further, other diverts to non m'ways. | BCR = - 0.68 | Users NPV £-72.6m Private providers £-0.3m Public providers £-96.1m Other govmnt £7.5m |
| Reliability | Diversion of traffic off m'way increases stress levels | Adverse | ||
| Wider Economic Impacts | Objective 2 areas lie adjacent but outside study area. No direct benefits | No/No | ||
| ACCESSIBILITY | Option Values | Little public transport | Neutral | |
| Severance | Ex footbridges would be replaced | Neutral | ||
| Access to the Transport System | No public transport system | Neutral | ||
| INTEGRATION | Transport Interchange | Scheme incorporates no scope for improved Passenger or Freight I/C | Passenger: Neutral Freight: Neutral | |
| Land-Use Policy | The Scheme would represent a departure from the Development Plan | Adverse | ||
| Other Government Policies | Beneficial | |||
| Option: M6 J20 Links and M6 J19 - 20 and M56 J9 - 7 Asymmetrical Widening | Description: Additional Free-flow Links provided at J20 between M6 and M56 plus Asymmetrical Widening to D4M of adjacent sections of Motorway | Problems: Congestion on ex S4 A556 link between M6 & M56 | Present Value Cost £81m | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OBJECTIVE | SUB-OBJECTIVE | QUALITATIVE IMPACTS | QUANTITATIVE MEASURE | ASSESSMENT |
| ENVIRONMENT | Noise | As for Parallel Widening | As for Parallel Widening | -37 population lose |
| Local Air Quality | As for Parallel Widening | As for Parallel Widening | Concentration weighted for exposure: PM10 1084, No2 6126 | |
| Greenhouse Gases | As for Parallel Widening | As for Parallel Widening | Increase of 61377 tonnes Co2 | |
| Landscape | As for Parallel Widening | As for Parallel Widening | moderate adverse initially, slight adverse later | |
| Heritage of Historic Resources | Potential impact upon ancient mire; little impact upon other sites | Slight Adverse | ||
| Biodiversity | Two woodland SBI's would be affected. Three sites of Medium value would be affected | Minor Adverse | ||
| Water Environment | Potential water quality improvements to still water/watercourses currently affected by A556 M6/M56 Loss of 1 pond | Low Significant (Benefit) | ||
| Physical Fitness | Scope to increase Walking and Cycling Within alleviated A556 Corridor | Slight Beneficial | ||
| Journey Ambience | Traveller Care improved over existing A556. Stress increased as a result of extra distance travelled. | Large Adverse | ||
| SAFETY | Accidents | Diversion to non motorway route leads to no net benefit | Accidents saved over 30 yrs = 61 | PVB £1.43m |
| Security | No significant security effects | Neutral | ||
| ECONOMY | Transport Economic Efficiency | Traffic displaced from M'way. Significant construction delays | BCR = -0.89 | Users NPV £-77.8m Private providers NPV £-0.3m Public providers NPV £-81m Other govmt NPV £5.6m |
| Reliability | Diversion of traffic off motorway increases stress levels | Adverse | ||
| Wider Economic Impacts | Objective 2 areas lie adjacent but outside study area. No direct benefits, or development dependent on scheme construction. | No/No | ||
| ACCESSIBILITY | Option Values | Little public transport | Neutral | |
| Severance | Existing footbridges replaced | Neutral | ||
| Access to the Transport System | No public transport system | Neutral | ||
| INTEGRATION | Transport Interchange | Scheme incorporates no scope for improved Passenger or Freight Interchange within the study area | Passenger: Neutral Freight: Neutral | |
| Land-Use Policy | The Scheme would represent a departure from the Development Plan | Adverse | ||
| Other Government Policies | Beneficial | |||
| Option - M56 J.7 - J.6 Parallel widening | Description - Parallel Widening of existing Motorway to D4M | Problem: Congestion on ex D3M which serves M/cr and Airport. | Present Value Cost to Government £20.3m | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OBJECTIVE | SUB-OBJECTIVE | QUALITATIVE IMPACTS | QUANTITATIVE MEASURE | ASSESSMENT |
| ENVIRONMENT | Noise | No change in traffic flows by more than =25% or -20% | Do min 0, with scheme 0 | No net change |
| Local Air Quality | 183 houses would benefit from significant improvement | 183 properties better air quality | Concentration weighted for exposure PM10 = -27.4 NO2 = -208 | |
| Greenhouse Gases | Widening will generate a reduction of 866 tonnes of CO2 | Reduction of 866 tonnes of CO2 | ||
| Landscape | Landscape features replaceable with time. Lighting affects receptors adversely | moderate adverse initially, later slight adverse | ||
| Heritage of Historic Resources | Local-Regional Post-medieval sites may be affected | Slight Adverse | ||
| Biodiversity | Four woodland SBI's affected. | Minor Adverse | ||
| Water Environment | Water quality improvements to watercourses currently receiving runoff from M56 Loss of 2 ponds | Insignificant (Non-benefit) | ||
| Physical Fitness | No apparent Benefits | Neutral | ||
| Journey Ambience | Traveller Stress would be reduced through widened carriageway post-construction. | Large Beneficial | ||
| SAFETY | Accidents | Small accidents saving. Reduced traffic in wider area | Accidents saved over 30 yrs 21 | PVB = £0.7m |
| Security | No significant security effects | Neutral | ||
| ECONOMY | Transport Economic Efficiency | More traffic retained on m'way. Scheme good value for money | BCR = 1.48 | Users NPV £23.7m Private providers NPV £0.04m Public providers NPV £-20.3m Other government NPV £6.3m |
| Reliability | Reduced stress level on link contribute to saving | Beneficial | ||
| Wider Economic Impacts | Objective 2 areas lie adjacent but outside study area. No direct benefits. | No/No | ||
| ACCESSIBILITY | Option Values | Little public transport | Neutral | |
| Severance | Existing footbridges replaced | Neutral | ||
| Access to the Transport System | No public transport system | Neutral | ||
| INTEGRATION | Transport Interchange | Scheme incorporates no scope for improved Passenger or Freight Interchange within the study area | Passenger: Neutral Freight: Neutral | |
| Land-Use Policy | The scheme is safeguarded, pending future study, within the Trafford UDP. It is not highlighted within the Macclesfield Local Plan | Neutral | ||
| Other Government Policies | Beneficial | |||
| Option - M56 J.7 - J.6 Asymmetrical Widening | Description - Asymmetrical Widening of existing Motorway to D4M | Problem: Congestion on ex D3M, serving M/cr and Airport | Present Value Cost to Govmnt £17.2m | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OBJECTIVE | SUB-OBJECTIVE | QUALITATIVE IMPACTS | QUANTITATIVE MEASURE | ASSESSMENT |
| ENVIRONMENT | Noise | No change in traffic flows by more than +25% or -25% | Do min 0, with scheme 0 | No net change |
| Local Air Quality | 183 houses would benefit from significant improvement | 183 properties better air quality | Concentration weighted for exposure PM10 = -27.4 NO2 = -208 | |
| Greenhouse Gases | Widening will generate a reduction of 866 tonnes of CO2 | Reduction of 866 tonnes of CO2 | ||
| Landscape | Landcover features replaceable over time. Lighting affects receptors adversely | moderate adverse initially, later slight adverse | ||
| Heritage of Historic Resources | Local-Regional; Post-Medieval sites may be affected | Slight Adverse | ||
| Biodiversity | Four woodland SBI's affected. | Minor Adverse | ||
| Water Environment | Water quality improvements to watercourses currently receiving runoff from M56 | Insignificant (Benefit) | ||
| Physical Fitness | No apparent Benefits | Neutral | ||
| Journey Ambience | Traveller Stress would be reduced through widened carriageway | Large Beneficial | ||
| SAFETY | Accidents | Small accident savings. Reduced traffic in wider area | Accidents saved over 30 yrs = 21 | PVB = £0.7m |
| Security | No significant security effects | Neutral | ||
| ECONOMY | Transport Economic Efficiency | More traffic retained on motorway. Good value for money | BCR = 1.48 | Users NPV £19.6m Private providers NPV £0.03m Public providers NPV £-17.2m Other govmnt NPV £5.9m |
| Reliability | Reduced stress levels on link contributes to savings | Beneficial | ||
| Wider Economic Impacts | Objective 2 areas lie adjacent but outside study area. No direct benefits, or development dependent on scheme construction. | No/No | ||
| ACCESSIBILITY | Option Values | Little public transport | Neutral | |
| Severance | Existing footbridges replaced | Neutral | ||
| Access to the Transport System | No public transport system | Neutral | ||
| INTEGRATION | Transport Interchange | Scheme incorporates no scope for improved Passenger or Freight Interchange within the study area | Passenger: Neutral Freight: Neutral | |
| Land-Use Policy | Reference made to Jn.6 improvements. Widening not safeguardedinTrafford UDP or Macclesfield Local Plan | Neutral | ||
| Other Government Policies | Beneficial | |||
An assessment of the degree to which the local and regional objectives of the study would be achieved is likely to be of particular interest to the regional and local authorities, and the local people. Overlap between this appraisal strand and the previous one is to be expected.
When considering the contribution that a scheme may make towards local and regional objectives, it is important to use objectives which have been established as part of the process. For the purposes of this study, these objectives have been established as part of the West Midlands to North West Conurbation's Multi-Modal Study (MIDMAN).
Table 12.6 shows the objectives which were identified through the MIDMAN study and their relationship to the Governments' overarching objectives. It must be assumed that these objectives were agreed with the Steering Group and that they are a true reflection of the objectives which should be aspired to.
As the MIDMAN study covered a far greater area than the A556 study could hope to influence, it is likely that some of the objectives may not be appropriate. Target indicators have been set for each of the study objectives. As the purpose of this study is primarily to address problems and objectives relating to the A556, there may not be sufficient information to fully address the indicators for each of the objectives. Where this is so, a purely qualitative appraisal will be provided.
In Table 12.7, the contribution which each scheme makes towards the objectives has been identified.
| Government's five over-arching criteria for transport | ENVIRONMENT | SAFETY | ECONOMY | ACCESSIBILITY | INTEGRATION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To protect the built and natural environment | To improve safety | To support sustainable economic activity and get good value for money | To improve access to facilities for those without a car and to reduce severance | To ensure that all decisions are taken in the context of the Government's integrated transport policy | |
| Terms of Reference | To promote sustainable travel behaviour (through "hearts and minds" measures). To reduce the environmental impacts associated with the strategic transport networks. | To identify strategic highway improvements necessary to maintain the integrity and safety of the trunk and local road network. | To enhance public transport (including bus, air and waterways) to improve accessibility between the conurbations for both freight and passenger services. To improve the rail service to meet inter-regional and local transport movements. | To change strategic travel behaviour through initiatives aimed at a modal transfer and reducing traffic volumes. To address the interaction between land use development options and the transport system. | |
| TRANSPORT OBJECTIVES Primary Corridor Objectives | 1. To enable the M6 to retain a strategic role, this being measured by acceptable journey times, improved levels of journey time reliability and safety and reductions in the diversion of strategic traffic onto local highway routes. | 3. To enable the public transport networks (e.g. the West Coast Main Line) to provide a quality of service to facilitate modal transfer in the corridor and so to attract the maximum numbers of passengers and volume of freight. | |||
| 2. To enable the M6 to retain a strategic role for road freight. | |||||
| Specific Locational Objectives | 4. To achieve satisfactory levels of journey time, journey time reliability and safety around M6 Junction 11A following the construction of Birmingham Northern Relief Road, these to be consistent with the adjacent length of the M6 motorway. | 5. To reduce strategic traffic diverting off the M6 onto diversionary routes such as A34, A449, A5/A51, A50 (north of Stoke on Trent) and A536 so that these routes can maintain their sub-regional function. | 7. To achieve compatibility between the impact of major new developments in the corridor with the other transport objectives of the Study. | ||
| 6. To provide a transport solution between the M6 and M56 to perform the strategic role currently performed by the A556, this being assessed by acceptable journey times and improved levels of journey time reliability and safety. | |||||
| CORRIDOR SUB-OBJECTIVES | 8 Environmental Objectives (See below) | 9. To improve access to and within areas identified for regeneration, particularly existing urban areas and transport interchanges. To enable the local rail network in the corridor to provide a quality of service that is attractive for short journeys such as commuting into and between urban areas. | 10. To enhance accessibility in areas suffering from social exclusion, such as the Merseyside Objective 1 area, East Manchester, the Mersey Belt and regeneration zones identified in the West Midlands. | 11. To ensure integration between the transport strategy of the corridor with the Regional Planning Guidance and the Regional Economic Strategies of the West Midlands and the NorthWest. | |
8. Noise: to reduce traffic related noise annoyance with particular reference to communities at Madeley, Mere, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Penkridge, Sandbach, Stafford and smaller communities closer to the M6.
Local air quality: to reduce levels of air pollution with regard to the National Air Quality Strategy and standards and with particular reference to the areas of traffic related poor air quality identified in Local Air Quality Management Plans.
Landscape: to protect and enhance the characteristic landscape of the corridor (as described in the Countryside Agency's National Map and the characterisations carried out by Cheshire and Staffordshire County Councils) and to avoid proposals which impinge on Green Belts and other open countryside.
Biodiversity: to protect and enhance biodiversity by reducing direct impacts on sites of ecological interest, avoiding damage to recognised sites in any transportation proposals (such as Doxey Marshes SSSI north of Stafford) and seeking ways to create new habitats in any such developments.
MIDMAN has identified a number of strategic problems which are listed in table 12.8. The study also considers the issue of double counting, with particular reference to assessment of the problems and study objectives. As the relationship between certain objectives and problems is clear and direct in MIDMAN, double counting has been avoided by excluding the appraisal of such problems.
It is clear that there is insufficient scope within this particular study to address all of the problems which have been identified. The options under consideration will have no affect on the public transport problems or Economic/social transport related problems. There are therefore, only four problems which can be appraised from the MIDMAN study:
Specific problems have been identified which relate to the A556. These have been identified in Section 2.0 and are listed below.
Whilst these can be seen to fit within the objectives relating to the A556, there appears to be opportunity to further demonstrate the suitability of the two options. No target indicators have been provided for these problems. Table 12.9 illustrates the effects that the 2 options are likely to have on the problems described above.
Highway Problems
|
Public Transport Problems
|
Other Transport Related Problems
|
Economic/Social Transport Related Problems
|
Supporting analyses of distribution and equity, affordability and financial sustainability, and practicality and public acceptability are likely to be of interest to both Central Government and the regional and local authorities, as well as the local people. The local transport providers will be particularly interested in the impacts on the financial sustainability of their operations.
The 3 issues within this strand (distribution and equity, affordability and financial sustainability, and practicality and public acceptability) are intended to reflect a more focused view of the implications of the proposed options for a particular group of users, non-users, operators and public sector authorities.
The transport analysis undertaken has identified areas of the network which will experience changes in traffic flow as a result of the 2 options. This has been used as this basis for this appraisal.
The expected impacts have been examined and are illustrated in figures 12.1 & 12.2.
The traffic impacts of a scenario that widens the M6 and M56 through to J6, provides free flow slips at J20 along with various treatments of the existing A556 are presented below. Option 2, provides widening of M6 J19-20 and M56 J7-9 with free flow slips with closure of the south facing slips at Junction 19 to "force" traffic to use the new Junction 20 slips. The A556 has been reduced to a single carriageway, south of Bucklow Hill and a 40mph speed limit introduced.
Figure 12.1 shows the impact of Option 2 across the wider area, whilst Figure 12.2 shows the forecast flows. Closure of the Junction 19 slip roads results in less than 10,000 vehicles opting to use the Junction 20 slips. In the Do-Minimum 14,500 vehicles a day travel between the M6 and M56 and a further 5,000 between the M6 and A56 and both these movements are displaced by the Junction 19 slip closure in Option 2. The proportion of motorway to motorway trips that switch to Junction 20 is 35%. Of the total displaced trips only 50% switch to Junction 20. Closure of the Junction 19 slips means that strategic trips that do not opt to continue to Junction 20 must leave the M6 at Junction 17 or 18. This closure also affects strategic trips heading to Northwich and Knutsford in addition to the "through traffic" discussed above. As a consequence flows on routes to the east of the M6 increase by 11%. Part of this increase is due to drivers travelling to Knutsford having to divert off the M6 at Junction 18. Flows to the west of the M6 increase by 9% as a result of trips to the Northwich area diverting off the M6 earlier and due to trips from Middlewich/Winsford finding non-motorway routes towards Manchester. Again flows on the widened sections of the M6 and M56 are higher due to higher travel speeds, but only about 70% of this additional traffic uses the new slips at Junction 20. Increases in traffic in the M6 corridor north of the M56 are in part due to some drivers opting to continue up to Junction 21a to join the M62 into Manchester.
Figure 12.2 shows that across the wider network flows increase rather than decrease as a consequence of the scheme. Reductions in traffic are recorded on the M6 and A556 and the route through High Legh due to closure of the slip roads. The increase in flows across the wider network will impact on the local communities, including Holmes Chapel, Knutsford, Mobberley and other smaller communities. Local pinch points on the wider network may need to be improved to mitigate the effects of congestion. Narrowing the A556 is an integral part of the management of traffic on the A556 with this option. Although flows are approximately halved in relation to the Do-Minimum, the reduction in capacity leads to no overall improvement in traffic travel times or driver stress. Indeed, the reduction in road width may exacerbate problems when an incident occurs along the route.
A scenario that includes an off-line Dual 2 lane motorway, parallel to the A556 (in addition to widening the M6 south of J19 and M56 between J6-7), is discussed below. The AADT flow changes of this scenario are shown in Figure 12.3 and the forecast flows in 2011 are shown in Figure 12.4.
The A556(M) scheme provides free-flow links with the M6 and M56, bypassing the existing sub-standard A556. This removes capacity constraints on the existing route between the M6 South and M56 East, to the benefit of strategic traffic and also assists access to west Cheshire. The free flow motorway links lead to travel speeds of 90-100kph compared with overall speeds of 40-60kph in the Do-Minimum on the existing A556 where speeds are depressed by signalised junctions along the route. This should result in improved air quality along the existing A556 corridor. The increased traffic speeds may result in increased noise levels without appropriate mitigation.
Residual traffic flows on the A556 will be less than 2000 vehicles a day and the road can be down-graded south of Bucklow Hill to a local road and traffic calming introduced, with consequent benefits for the local community. Flows north of Bucklow Hill are higher at around 10,000 vehicles a day as local traffic from Knutsford towards Manchester is not served by the A556(M).
The scheme provides a direct link between the J19 and J7, parallel to drivers existing route and reinforces the strategic role of the motorway network in the area. This is illustrated by an analysis of motorway to motorway movements. In the Do-Minimum, 2011 situation an estimated 14,500 trips a day travel between the two motorways on the existing A556. Widening of the motorway south of j19 and east of J7 increases motorway to motorway movements to 15,700 vehicles a day, 39% of all traffic travelling between the two motorway junctions. With the A556(M) scheme in place this increases to 18,900 vehicles a day.
The increase in motorway to motorway traffic is due to the A556(M) and widened M6 and M56, drawing back onto the motorway network traffic that has sought other routes due to the previously degraded level of service, particularly in the peak periods, that was provided on the strategic network. This is illustrated by Figure 12.4 that shows reductions in traffic on the wider network to the east of the M6 of 10-13%. In addition there is a predicted reduction in traffic flow on links to the west of the M6 as traffic is drawn back onto the motorway network. Other impacts of the scheme are a reduction of traffic travelling north of the M6 J20 and on the B5212 through High Legh as traffic takes advantage of the A556(M). Flows on the M56 J7-9 are reduced as traffic from Northwich and further west switches from routes via the M56 west of the M6 to the A556.
The A556(M) scheme removes a number of capacity limitations on the immediate network, removing congestion experienced by strategic and other traffic on the A556. In addition it attracts traffic back to the strategic network which otherwise diverts onto the local road network adding to congestion, noise an pollution in communities such as Holmes Chapel, Knutsford, Mobberley.
Provision of a motorway link directly between J19 and J7, increases the capacity of the existing travel corridor. The scheme thus draws back onto the motorway network, significant levels of traffic which otherwise find local roads and lanes an attractive way of avoiding congestion on and around the A556. The traffic which remains on A556 is local traffic which uses the A556 and the A50 or A5034 to access Knutsford , High Legh or Mere.
The financial impacts of the options have been discussed in section 4. As the options will be fully financed by the Highways Agency, there does not appear to be any benefit in providing an Affordability and Financial Sustainability Table.
GOMMMS provides a ten point checklist for assessing practicality. MIDMAN has identified certain assessment criteria that have been used in this appraisal in order to remain consistent. Table 12.10 illustrates the 10 issues and provides an assessment for each option.
No specific consultation has been undertaken at this point in time. A discussion of the potential issues affecting public acceptability is provided in table 12.10.
| Practicality | Junction 20 Scheme | A556 Scheme | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility | Comment | This is a new scheme which will need to progress through statutory procedures. | The A556 scheme has been progressed passed Public Inquiry stage. Line and Side road orders have been confirmed previously. |
| Assessment | Some Problems | Likely | |
| Enforcement | Comment | A number of enforcement measures have been identified to ensure that traffic does not use the A556. Most of these are physical measures. | No enforcement measures have been identified. |
| Assessment | Enforcement required | None | |
| Area of Interest | Comment | The end use of the A556 is likely to concern local authorities. Increased traffic levels in the wider local network may be of concern. | The end use of the A556 is likely to concern local authorities. |
| Assessment | Breadth modest | Breadth modest | |
| Complexity | Comment | Some major alterations to existing highway layouts and access'. | Some major alterations at M6 junction 19. |
| Assessment | Moderately complex | Moderately complex | |
| Time-scale | Comment | Statutory procedures still to be implemented therefore long lead in period prior to construction. | Some statutory procedures already completed. This should reduce length of lead in period. |
| Assessment | Long timescale | Moderate timescale | |
| Phasing | Comment | Elements of M6 dualling may need to be phased so as to minimise disruption to road users. | Elements of M6 dualling may need to be phased so as to minimise disruption to road users. |
| Assessment | Phasing opportunities | Phasing opportunities | |
| Partitioning | Comment | Scheme may be broken down into sections. Widening of M6 and provision of slip roads will need to be in place before access to A556 is reduced. | Scheme cannot be broken down. |
| Assessment | Possible | Not possible | |
| Complementarily | Comment | Scheme is an integral part of a wider strategy. | Scheme is an integral part of a wider strategy. |
| Assessment | Independent | Independent | |
| Conflicts | Comment | No conflicts identified. | No conflicts identified. |
| Assessment | No conflicts | No conflicts | |
| Political Nature | Comment | May be seen as less environmentally damaging than off line improvement. Effects on the local network may cause some concern. | Scheme has been progressed to a more detailed level and has been discussed at a Public Inquiry. |
| Assessment | Moderately political | Moderately political | |
| Public Acceptability | Comment | Impact on the wider local network is likely to be of concern, as is the extended distance that travellers are expected to travel from junction 19 to 7. The limited environmental impact of the actual scheme should be welcomed by Statutory Consultees. | The general public should be already aware of the scheme and many of the concerns may have already been addressed. Shorter timescale will be welcomed by road users however environmental impact of new road construction may be of concern. |
The A556(M) scheme relieves the local network of traffic, whereas the J20 scheme, whatever constraints are applied to the existing A556, adds traffic to the local network.
Providing free flow links at Junction 20 would only benefit traffic during peak periods. The J20 scheme is ineffective in meeting its intended objectives.
Widening the M56 between Junction 7-6 has positive impacts for the local road network.
The A556(M) would be D2M standard between the M6 at Junction 19 and the M56 at Junction 7. It would only be lit in the vicinity of the A556(m) free-flow interchanges with M6 and M56. It would require no property demolition.
The Junction 20 scheme would provide free flow links at Lymm to give a full movement interchange. The M6 between Junctions 19-20 and M56 between Junctions 9-7 would be D4 Motorway standard. The whole length of widened motorways would be lit. The scheme would involve the demolition of 5 properties.
The M56 between Junction 7-6 would be widened to D4 Motorway standard. It would be lit throughout.
Two forms of widening have been considered, parallel and asymmetrical. From an engineering viewpoint both are feasible.
The A556(M) is the cheaper option by some £12m (PVC).
Asymmetrical widening is cheaper than parallel widening by some 15%.
The A556(M) scheme is the preferred solution on 5 of the 9 sub-objectives, with the J20 scheme being preferred on 3.
The A556(M) is strongly preferred with regard to Noise, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Journey Ambience because of its ability to retain traffic on the motorway network. It is also preferred on landscape grounds, where it is considered the scheme can be better fitted into the landscape, being almost wholly in cutting, than a widened motorway corridor, which would be lit.
The impacts on the environment, except for landtake are similar for parallel and asymmetrical widening.
The A556(M) scheme would, over a 30 year period, produce a saving in accident numbers some 6 times greater than the J20 option. Accident benefits would be strongly positive with the A556(M), as opposed to marginally positive with the J20 scheme.
The A556(M) scheme has a good economic return, whilst the J20 scheme provides significant disbenefits to users.
Parallel Widening gives a better return than asymmetrical once congestion costs during construction are included in the analysis.
Given the lack of public transport systems within the immediate study area, and the fact that this study is purely considering the road options, there is only a marginal benefit for the A556(M) scheme over the J20 option.
The A556(M) scheme is preferred in relation to Land Use policy since it is a safeguarded scheme within the Development Plan.
The A556(m) scheme provides a greater contribution to the local and regional objectives than the Junction 20 scheme. Most significantly, the A556(m) scheme provides improved journey times for route users whereas the Junction 20 scheme will increase journey times. Both schemes will improve journey time reliability.
The Junction 20 scheme has a negative impact on noise and air quality which reflects the additional traffic which will be transferred onto the local network. Both schemes involve construction on green belt which is contrary to the landscape objective which has been set.
Both schemes will have a positive effect on the problems which have been identified. This appears to justify their inclusion in the MIDMAN recommendations.
It should be noted that the assessment does not include problems that may be created as a result of the schemes. Also, many problems have been assessed as local/regional objectives in order to avoid double counting.
The general geographical influence of the two schemes is reflected in an increase in traffic within the local road network for the Junction 20 scheme and a reduction through the A556(m) scheme.
Whilst the schemes are intended to improve conditions for strategic traffic, there are opportunities to provide facilities for non motorised users on the old A556. This would only be applicable to the Junction 20 scheme if access to the A556 was significantly restricted.
The potential early implementation of the A556(m) scheme provides some benefit over the Junction 20 scheme. Its contribution to the 10 year plan is more likely to be realised within the timescale identified.
A556(m) scheme could be more acceptable publicly as it has been known for a longer time and some issues have already been addressed. Also the potential shorter timescale for implementation will be welcomed by some road users.
The A556(M) and J20 schemes (both parallel and asymmetrical) are compared in tabular form in Table 13.1.
| A556(M) | J20 Parallel | J20 Asymmetrical | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Costs(PVC) | £67.7m | £96.4m | £81.4m |
| Environment | |||
| Noise | + 29 | - 37 | - 37 |
| Landscape | Slight Adverse - Neutral | Moderate - Slight Adverse | Moderate - Slight Adverse |
| Heritage | Adverse | Slight Adverse | Slight Adverse |
| Biodiversity | Significant Adverse | Minor Adverse | Minor Adverse |
| Water | Low Significance | Low Significance | Low Significance |
| Physical Fitness | Slight Benefit | Slight Benefit | Slight Benefit |
| Journey Ambience | Large Benefit | Large Benefit | Large Benefit |
| Accidents Saved | 336 over 30 years | 61 over 30 years | 61 over 30 years |
| Economy | |||
| Roads experiencing 10% traffic increase | 11km | 111km | 111km |
| TEE (BCR) | 2.92 | -0.68 | -0.89 |
| Reliability | Beneficial | Adverse | Adverse |
| Wider Economic Impacts | None | None | None |
| Accessibility | Slight Benefit | Neutral | Neutral |
| Integration | Beneficial | Adverse | Adverse |
| Local and Regional Objectives | Overall Positive contribution | Mix of negative and positive contributions | Mix of negative and positive contributions |
| Problem Amelioration | Provides a level of solution to all problems identified. | Provides a level of solution to all problems identified. | Provides a level of solution to all problems identified. |
| Supporting Analysis | |||
| Distribution and Equity | Reduction of traffic on local network. | Increase of traffic on local network. | Increase of traffic on local network. |
| Affordability and Financial Sustainability | Not considered | Not considered | Not considered |
| Practicality and Public Acceptability | Early implementation possible. Likely to be more acceptable. | Long implementation process expected. | Long implementation process expected. |
| Engineering | |||
| Land Take | 86.0 ha | 70.1 ha | 44.1 ha |
| Additional Landscape Areas | 73.6 ha | 56.7 ha | 56.7 ha |
| Property Demolition | 0 | 5 | 5 |
14.1 The A556(M) scheme be reinstated into the Roads Programme, with a target completion data as soon as possible. The A556(M) requires neither the widening of the M6 between J19-20 nor the widening of the M56 between J9-7. On opening of the A556(M) scheme to traffic, traffic calming measures, which are an integral part of the scheme, be applied to the existing A556 between the two proposed interchanges of A556(M) and A556.
14.2 The M56 be widened to D4 Motorway Standard between Junction 7 and 6. The widening to be parallel to the North of the existing motorway. This scheme to proceed no later than the A556(M) scheme.