Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 265

embankment. Four of these alternatives were subsequently accepted by the Secretaries of
State in their decision on the scheme, following recommendations by the inquiry
inspector. These included a slight westerly realignment of the route near its junction with
the M6, to avoid the Mere Estate; putting the northern section of the route in a cutting
rather than on a high embankment, to reduce the visual impact to and from Rostherne
Mere and the Bollin Valley; bringing together the northern and southern carriageways
along part of the route; and providing a replacement bridge, to retain access along an
important side road severed by the scheme (DoE/DoT 1995).
9.3.6 A strategic level of assessment
As noted above, at the time of the publication of draft orders the proposed scheme was
part of a much longer route, known as the GMWNRR. The GMWNRR was divided into
three main stages, each of which was to be subjected to separate planning, EIA and
consent procedures. The A556(M) scheme represented Stage I of the GMWNRR. Stage II
involved the construction of a motorway link between the M56 and the M62 to the west
of the Manchester conurbation, and Stage III continued the route along the M62 corridor
around the northern perimeter of the conurbation. Public consultation on Stage II of the
route took place in October 1992, at the time of the publication of draft orders for the
A556 scheme. Despite this background, the ES for the scheme made no explicit reference
to the existence of the proposed GMWNRR, or to the relationship of the proposed
scheme to Stages II and III of the route. No strategic assessment of the environmental
consequences of the whole route appears to have taken place in this case. Although Stage
II of the GMWNRR was subsequently abandoned by the DoT, following overwhelming
public opposition to the proposals, the failure of the ES even to mention the existence of
the GMWNRR concept was unfortunate.
9.3.7 Indirect and consequential effects
The proposed scheme, as described in the draft orders and the ES, was expected to have
important implications for an existing motorway service area (MSA) alongside the M6 at
Knutsford. The scheme proposals involved closing the existing north-facing slip roads
onto the M6, with the result that the service area would no longer be open to either
northbound or southbound M6 traffic. This would therefore have left a gap of almost 40
miles between the nearest existing service areas on the motorway, and might have been
expected to result in a demand for a replacement MSA site in the Knutsford area. The
need for such a replacement MSA, its possible site and the environmental effects of its
development and operation were not addressed in the ES for the A556(M) scheme.
However, at an earlier stage in the development of the scheme, the DoT had identified
a replacement site for such a service area and submitted a notice of proposed
development on the site. This site was east of Arley Hall, some three miles north-west of
the existing Knutsford service area (see Figure 9.2). The DoT asked its consultants to
include the site in their ecological survey and impact assessment carried out during the
design and assessment of the A556 scheme. However, before the publication of draft
orders for the scheme, the Department abandoned its plans to develop the Arley Hall site.
This was because of changes to the planning regime for MSA provision introduced at this