Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
surprising that the treatment of alternatives in the environmental statement was far from
satisfactory.
The relevant DoT guidance at the time, contained in Departmental Standard HD 18/88
(DoT 1989), indicated that a road scheme ES should include a brief description of the
alternatives considered at the public consultation stage and the reasons for the choice of
the preferred route. Therefore, since only one option for the A556(M) scheme was
presented for public consultation, it would appear that the ES did not need to address the
issue of alternatives at all. Notwithstanding this, a brief description of all six of the
original options considered before the public consultation stage was included in the ES.
The reasons for the choice of the preferred scheme were also outlined, although this did
not amount to a systematic comparison of the various options. For example, the
comparison of the environmental impacts of the different options occupied only one page
of the ES, most of the discussion focusing on the relative economic, traffic and safety
implications of the schemes.
The ES stated that “an assessment of the five do-something options revealed that there
was little to choose between them in environmental tertns”, except that a more serious
visual impact arose out of the routes involving a more westerly location for the
interchange with the M56, which would be sited in a conspicuous location. This
conclusion may or may not be true, but the ES did not contain the detailed information on
the environmental effects of each option to support such a statement. Indeed, the more
serious impact of the westerly M56 interchange locations was questioned by English
Nature, one of the statutory consultees, in its comments on a draft version of the ES:
The choice of the most easterly option [for the interchange] has been
based on traffic, operational, safety and economic grounds. There appears
to have been no consideration of the considerably greater impact of the
chosen location on Rostherne Mere [a Ramsar site, national nature reserve
and SSSI]. (English Nature, in DoT 1992)
English Nature argued that the impacts of the scheme on the important site of Rostherne
Mere, including visual intrusion and increased air pollution and noise levels, had not been
adequately addressed in the ES. Other objectors made similar comments at the
subsequent public inquiry into the proposals (see DoE/DoT 1995). Subsequent to public
consultation and the announcement of the preferred route, significant alterations were
made to the proposed route, which, the DoT argued, reinforced its selection. However,
rather unhelpfully, the ES did not clearly identify these alterations, nor did it justify them,
either in environmental or any other terms. Further modifications to the proposals were
made shortly after the submission of the ES; these were described in an addendum to the
ES, published in February 1993.
Although the ES contained only a very limited treatment of alternatives, the issue of
alternatives was one of the main pre-occupations of the subsequent public inquiry held
during 1993. No fewer than 12 main alternatives proposed by objectors were considered
at the inquiry (DoE/DoT 1995). Most of them (seven) involved route realignments,
ranging from minor adjustments to the proposed scheme to entirely different route
corridors. The other alternatives involved minor modifications to the side-road orders or
other design changes, such as the placing of part of the route in a cutting rather than on an
Search WWH ::




Custom Search