Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
9.3.4 The scope and format of the environmental statement
The environmental statement for the scheme in fact comprised four separately bound
volumes rather than a single document (DoT 1992). The main document described the
proposed scheme and summarized its main impacts, while three further technical volumes
dealt with a range of specific impacts in greater depth. The impacts addressed in the ES
appear to have been based largely on those listed in the relevant DoT guidance at the time
(DoT 1983). However, certain additional effects not identified in the guidance, including
impacts on water and drainage, were also examined as part of the EIA for the scheme and
were included in the ES.
More detailed assessments, prepared by various consultants, were incorporated into
three additional, separately bound documents, which formed part of the ES. These
included an agricultural assessment, an ecological survey and assessment, an
archaeological assessment, an air quality report and a road traffic and construction noise
report. Detailed technical reports in support of the conclusions in the ES were not
provided for certain types of impact, including effects on water and drainage, landscape,
severance and construction-stage impacts. However, supporting documents on water and
drainage impacts were provided by the DoT at the subsequent public inquiry.
9.3.5 The consideration of alternatives
The environmental statement reveals that six alternative schemes had been considered by
the DoT prior to the public consultation stage in 1989. These included a do-minimum
option (involving an online improvement of the existing A556 route) and five alternative
off-line routes, including the preferred scheme. Compared with the preferred scheme,
these alternative routes were characterized by a more westerly alignment and/or a more
westerly location for the new interchange with the M56 motorway. Those alternatives not
considered included the do-nothing option and alternative modes, such as public transport
or park-and-ride. The ES stated that, as the major strategic route for motorway traffic
between the Midlands and Manchester, “only a new road was judged to be appropriate or
effective in coping with the forecast growth in demand for traffic movement” (DoT
1992).
Five of the six alternatives under consideration were rejected by the DoT before the
public consultation, including the do-minimum option and all the more westerly route
options. Consequently, only one option was presented at the public consultation stage in
late 1989. Such single-option consultation, although not the norm with road schemes, is
not unusual (NAO 1994). The route—in somewhat modified form—was confirmed as the
SoS's preferred route at the end of 1990. Further modifications were made during the
process of detailed route design prior to the submission of draft line orders for the scheme
and the environmental statement in October 1992. The ES for the scheme was therefore
submitted almost 2 years after the announcement of the preferred route and 3 years after
the public consultation stage. This sequence of events encourages the belief that the
crucial decisions about the general alignment of the route had been taken long before the
appearance of the ES, and indeed before the public consultation stage. It is therefore not
Search WWH ::




Custom Search