Junction Options Comparative Assessment Reportassets.highways.gov.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/... · A 56 K nu tsf ordB w E vi meal I p Junction Options Comparative Assessment Report 1 Issued

Junction Options Comparative Assessment Report

A556 Knutsford to Bowdon Environmental Improvement

Janu

ary

2012

A556 Knutsford to Bowdon Environmental Improvement Junction Options Comparative Assessment Report

i Issued January 2012

Contents

� Executive Summary................................................................................................. 1

� Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2

1.1 The Purpose of this Report ........................................................................................ 2

1.2 Recent Local Feedback and Issues ........................................................................... 2

� Options Considered ................................................................................................ 3

2.1 General...................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Option N0 (Baseline Design): Junctions at Tabley and Millington .............................. 3

2.3 Option N1: Junctions at Tabley and Millington Loops................................................. 4

2.4 Option N2: Junctions at Tabley and Bucklow Hill ....................................................... 5

2.5 Option N3: Junctions at Tabley, the A50 and Millington ............................................. 6

2.6 Option N4: Junctions at Tabley and the A50.............................................................. 7

2.7 Option N5: All-Movements Junction at the A50.......................................................... 8

� Assessment Methodology ...................................................................................... 9

3.1 General...................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Rating of Impacts....................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Traffic Flow Data ..................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Engineering (Traffic, Operation and Safety) Methodology........................................ 10

3.5 Engineering (Construction and Maintenance) Methodology..................................... 11

3.6 Cost Methodology.................................................................................................... 12

3.7 Environment Methodology ....................................................................................... 13

� Comparative Assessment ..................................................................................... 14

� Rejected Options ................................................................................................... 16

5.1 General.................................................................................................................... 16

5.2 Option N1 ................................................................................................................ 16

5.3 Option N2 ................................................................................................................ 16

� Options to be Presented at Consultation............................................................. 17

6.1 General.................................................................................................................... 17

6.2 Option N3 ................................................................................................................ 17

6.3 Option N4 ................................................................................................................ 17

6.4 Option N5 ................................................................................................................ 17

� Conclusion............................................................................................................. 18

Comparative Assessment Tables

Engineering (Traffic, Operation & Safety)

Engineering (Construction & Maintenance)

Cost

Environment (Air Quality)

Environment (Noise)

Environment (Cultural Heritage)

Environment (Landscape)

Environment (Ecology and Nature Conservation)

Environment (Road Drainage and the Water Environment)

Environment (Community and Private Assets)

Environment (Effects on all Travellers)

Figures

Figure 1 – Scheme Area Plan

Figure 2 – Option N0 (Baseline): Junctions at Tabley and Millington

Figure 3 – Option N1 & Sub-Options A / B: Junctions at Tabley and Millington Loops

Figure 4 – Option N2: Junctions at Tabley and Bucklow Hill

Figure 5 – Option N3 & Sub-Options A / B: Junctions at Tabley, the A50 and Millington

Figure 6 – Option N3 & Sub-Option C: Junctions at Tabley, the A50 and Millington

Figure 7 – Option N4 & Sub-Options A / B: Junctions at Tabley and the A50

Figure 8 – Option N4 & Sub-Option C: Junctions at Tabley and the A50

Figure 9 – Option N5 & Sub-Options A / B: All-Movements Junction at the A50

Figure 10 – Option N5 & Sub-Option C: All-Movements Junction at the A50

Appendices

Appendix A – Traffic Flow Tables

Appendix B – Traffic Flow Diagrams


ii Issued January 2012

Page not used.


1 Issued January 2012

� Executive Summary

0.1.1 This report presents the findings of a junction options comparative assessment that has been undertaken for the A556 Knutsford to Bowdon Environmental Improvement scheme. The assessment compares the performance of several alternative junction strategies to that of the current scheme design (referred to as the Baseline Design, shown in Figure 2), and forms part of the consultation exercise commencing in January 2012.

0.1.2 This comparative assessment has been carried out in response to recent feedback from the local area, which raised some concerns regarding the proposed junction locations for the scheme. The main issues identified were:

• Limited consultation on design changes;

• Impacts on the Millington community due to the proposed Millington Junction;

• Environmental impacts of the scheme; and;

• Traffic impacts of the scheme.

0.1.3 Five alternative options have been considered for this comparative assessment. These differ from the Baseline Design in terms how traffic would leave or join the new A556 and interact with the local roads in the area. The alternative options considered within this assessment are summarised as follows:

• Option N1 – Junctions at Tabley and Millington Loops (see Figure 3)

• Option N2 – Junctions at Tabley and Bucklow Hill (see Figure 4)

• Option N3 – Junctions at Tabley, the A50 and Millington (see Figures 5 & 6)

• Option N4 – Junctions at Tabley and the A50 (see Figures 7 & 8)

• Option N5 – All-Movements Junction at the A50 (see Figures 9 & 10)

0.1.4 As well as the location of the main junctions with the new A556, several alternative local road connections have also been considered. These are referred to as ‘sub-options’ and have been considered in combination with the ‘main’ options where appropriate, as shown on Figures 3 to 10.

0.1.5 The performance of each alternative option has been assessed and compared against that of the Baseline Design (i.e. assessed as being Better or Worse) and considers the four key categories listed across the page:

• Engineering (Traffic, Operation and Safety)

• Engineering (Construction and Maintenance)

• Cost

• Environment

0.1.6 The results of the assessment have been presented in comparison tables to clearly highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each option in relation to these assessment categories.

0.1.7 Based on the results of the assessment, two of the options were not considered to be viable alternatives to the Baseline Design. These have been rejected at this stage and will not be presented at the consultation. The two rejected options are:

• Option N1 – Junctions at Tabley and Millington Loops: Performed the same or worse than the current design in all four assessment categories. This option was primarily rejected on engineering (traffic, operation and safety) grounds.

• Option N2 – Junctions at Tabley and Bucklow Hill: Despite a slight benefit operationally, this option has been rejected based on negative impacts in the construction and maintenance, cost and environmental assessment categories.

0.1.8 All other options were considered to be potentially viable alternatives and will therefore be presented at the consultation.

Terminology

0.1.9 For clarity at the consultation, the option references (i.e. N1, N2, etc) have been amended. The Baseline Design and alternative options to be presented at consultation are to be referred to as follows:

• Junction Option 0 (Baseline) – Junctions at Tabley and Millington (Option N0 within assessment)

• Junction Option 1 – Junctions at Tabley, the A50 and Millington (Option N3 within assessment)

• Junction Option 2 – Junctions at Tabley and the A50 (Option N4 within assessment).

• Junction Option 3 – All-Movements Junction at the A50 (Option N5 within assessment)

0.1.10 The naming convention for the two rejected options is as follows:

• Junction Option R1 – Junctions at Tabley and Millington Loops (Option N1 within assessment)

• Junction Option R2 – Junctions at Tabley and Bucklow Hill (Option N2 within assessment)



� Introduction

1.1 The Purpose of this Report

1.1.1 This report presents the comparative junction options assessment that has been undertaken for the A556 Knutsford to Bowdon Environmental Improvement scheme.

1.1.2 Recent feedback from the local area has raised some concerns regarding the proposed locations of the junctions with the new A556 (summarised in Section 1.2). This report has been prepared in response to this feedback, and will form part of the consultation exercise which will commence in January 2012. The Highways Agency has undertaken this comparative assessment to ensure that the public and other interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the design and the alternative options. This feedback will be taken into account when deciding the layout of the scheme, along with the following other key criteria:

• Environmental Impact

• Technical Feasibility

• Affordability

1.1.3 This report should be read alongside the DMRB Stage 3 Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) and the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). The SAR describes the project and sets out the advantages and disadvantages of the current preliminary design in terms of the impact on traffic, economics, engineering and the environment. Further detail on the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures is covered within the PEI.

1.1.4 The design described in the SAR and PEI is a development of the amended preferred route announced in March 2010 and is referred to as the Baseline Design within the comparative assessment. The changes to the Baseline Design since March 2010 are described within Section 4.3 of the SAR and in Paragraphs 3.2.12 to 3.2.21 of the PEI.

1.1.5 This assessment considers a number of alternative junction arrangements and local road connections for the scheme. Engineering, cost and environmental impacts for each option have been assessed and compared against the Baseline Design.

1.1.6 During the consultation, the public and other interested parties will have the opportunity to comment and offer preferences for the options presented. Details of how the consultation process will run, and how comments will be gathered is provided within the SAR and PEI. The data gathered from the consultation will then be analysed and

presented within a consultation report. This will justify any design amendments that have been implemented as a result of the consultation whilst also providing justification for those that have not.

1.1.7 This comparative assessment has been prepared in a short time, with limited opportunity to optimise the layouts of each alternative option. Therefore, should an amendment be made to the Baseline Design as a result of the consultation, this will be subject to further design development.

1.2 Recent Local Feedback and Issues

1.2.1 This comparative assessment has been carried out in response to local concerns regarding the current junction layout for the Baseline Design. The main issues identified are listed below:

• Consultation on Recent Design Changes – There has been limited opportunity to fully consult on design changes made since the amended preferred route announcement of March 2010 due to the General Election and Comprehensive Spending Review constraints. This exercise seeks to engage public opinion in confirming the optimum layout of the preliminary design.

• Impacts on the Millington Community – Concerns have been raised regarding the location and size of the proposed junction and local link road in the Millington area. Residents are concerned that the junction would ‘split’ the community, adversely affect farming in the area and impact on their ‘rural way of life’. This assessment presents a number of alternative junction layouts and locations in response to these concerns.

• Environmental Impacts – There are concerns that the Baseline Design would have significant adverse environmental impacts, especially in the Millington area. This includes the amount of land take in green belt land, visual impacts and impacts on important trees and hedgerows.

• Traffic Impacts – Concerns have been raised regarding the potential adverse impact of high flows and risk of ‘rat-running’ along some local roads adjacent to the scheme, and whether these roads are suitable for the anticipated flow.




� Options Considered

2.1 General

2.1.1 This assessment considers five alternatives to the Baseline Design. These differ in terms of how traffic would leave and join the new A556. Each option would include slip roads to/from the northbound carriageway of the new A556, and slip roads to/from the southbound carriageway.

• Option N1 – Junctions at Tabley and Millington Loops (see Figure 3)

• Option N2 – Junctions at Tabley and Bucklow Hill (see Figure 4)

• Option N3 – Junctions at Tabley, the A50 and Millington (see Figures 5 & 6)

• Option N4 – Junctions at Tabley and the A50 (see Figures 7 & 8)

• Option N5 – All-Movements Junction at the A50 (see Figures 9 & 10)

2.1.2 Several alternative local road options have been considered. These are referred to as ‘sub-options’ and have been considered in combination with the main options where appropriate.

• Sub-Option A – Bucklow Hill Overpass

• Sub-Option B – Chapel Lane Overpass

• Sub-Option C – Millington Overpass

2.1.3 The combination of options and sub-options are shown on Figures 2 to 10 and summarised within the following table:

Main Option

Sub-Option Main Option Sub-Option

A A N1

B B

N2 ‘With’ or ‘Without’ Bucklow Hill Lane Link (West)

N4

C

A A

B B

N3

C

N5

C

2.1.4 The key components of each alternative option are described in Sections 2.3 to 2.7 below. A summary of the relevant parts of the Baseline Design is also provided in Section 2.2. It should be noted that the assessment only considers changes to junction locations and local road proposals. In all cases, the alignment of the new A556 remains the same at this stage, but will be optimised during detailed design. Similarly, other common features, such as the Burleyhurst Lane crossing and the M56 Junction are also unchanged. The option descriptions below only cover features that would vary across the options.

2.1.5 The reader is referred to the Scheme Assessment Report for a full description of the Baseline Design, including the features that are unaffected by this comparative assessment.

2.1.6 All local communities and existing road names referred to in this report are shown on Figure 1.

2.2 Option N0 (Baseline Design): Junctions at Tabley and Millington

2.2.1 Option N0 is shown on Figure 2. The components of the Baseline Design affected by the alternate junction options are:

• Tabley Junction

• Old Hall Lane NMU* Link / Underpass

• A50 Diversion

• Millington Junction

• Chapel Lane Diversion

*NMU – Non-Motorised Users, e.g. equestrians, cyclists, pedestrians and disabled users.

2.2.2 All other aspects of the design would remain the same for all alternative options considered as part of this assessment.

Tabley Junction

2.2.3 A grade separated junction comprising tight radii south facing slip roads. The junction would connect the new A556 (northbound) to the existing A556 (Chester Road), and existing Chester Road to the new A556 (southbound) only. No local vehicular connection to the west of the scheme is proposed at this junction. The slip roads to and from Tabley Junction would form a T-junction with the existing Chester Road, with a ghost island provided for vehicles turning right from the de-trunked road.




2.2.4 Tabley Junction would not provide any dedicated facilities for NMUs. An alternative underpass would be provided as outlined below.

Old Hall Lane NMU Link / Underpass

2.2.5 Old Hall Lane NMU Link would be provided adjacent to the new A556 (northbound) carriageway and would allow the movement of NMUs from the M6 Junction 19 Roundabout to Old Hall Lane. The link would connect to an underpass which crosses under the new A556, providing a link for all NMUs between the east and west of the scheme.

A50 Diversion

2.2.6 The A50 diversion would cross the new A556 via a new overbridge (approx. 5.5m above the level of the existing A50), with no access to the A556 at this location.

Millington Junction

2.2.7 A grade separated junction comprising two small roundabouts, connected by a 2-way link road that crosses the new A556 via an overbridge. The junction would provide an on-slip for access to the A556 northbound carriageway only, and an off-slip for access from the A556 southbound carriageway only. At its highest point, the junction would be approximately 4m above existing ground level.

2.2.8 Millington Junction would be connected to the local road network via the two new single carriageway link roads. To the west, a new link referred to as Chapel Lane Diversion would connect Chapel Lane with the western roundabout (described in more detail below). To the east, a new link road would extend Chester Road to connect with the eastern roundabout.

2.2.9 Millington Junction would also incorporate segregated NMU facilities, which would cross the new A556 via Millington Junction Overbridge. It is proposed that this NMU track would also form part of the Regional Cycle Route 70, which currently runs along Chapel Lane and would therefore be severed by the new A556.

Chapel Lane Diversion

2.2.10 This new link road would connect the existing Chapel Lane to the western roundabout of Millington Junction. In addition, two minor T-Junctions are also proposed along this link for access to Millington Hall Lane. This link is necessary in order to maintain the local connection between the east and west of the scheme, as well as providing access between the new A556 and the Millington Area as is provided at present.

2.3 Option N1: Junctions at Tabley and Millington Loops

2.3.1 Option N1 is shown on Figure 3. The main components of this option considered as part of the assessment are:

• Tabley Junction

• Old Hall Lane NMU Link / Underpass

• A50 Diversion

• Millington Loop Junction

• One of the following local road crossings:

o Bucklow Hill Overpass (Sub-Option A); or

o Chapel Lane Overpass (Sub-Option B).

• Millington / Chapel Lane Link

Tabley Junction, Old Hall Lane NMU Link / Underpass and the A50 Diversion

2.3.2 Option N1 would only affect aspects of the scheme north of the A50. Tabley Junction, Old Hall Lane NMU Link/Underpass and the A50 Diversion would therefore remain consistent with Option N0 (Baseline).

Millington Loop Junction

2.3.3 A grade separated junction comprising reduced radii slip road ‘loops’. The junction would be in the same location as the current (Baseline) Millington Junction and at a similar height, but would not provide a local road connection to the west of the scheme. The north facing slip roads would connect the existing Chester Road to the new A556 northbound, and the new A556 southbound to the existing Chester Road only. The two slip roads would converge just north of the tie-in to the de-trunked Chester Road single carriageway.

2.3.4 A signalised junction with Cherry Tree Lane is proposed to the south of where the two slip roads would converge. The location and form of the junction would be similar to that provided in the Baseline Design. A NMU crossing controlled by traffic signals would also be provided in this location, and would be suitable for use by all NMUs.

2.3.5 Millington Loop Junction would also incorporate a segregated NMU track which would run adjacent to the northbound on-slip. The track would cross the new A556 via the Millington Junction Overbridge, and would form part of the Regional Cycle Route 70. To




the west of the new A556, the NMU track would connect to Millington Hall Lane to the south, and Millington Lane to the north.

Local Road Crossing

2.3.6 As noted above, Millington Loop Junction would not provide a local vehicular connection between the east and west of the scheme. This option would therefore include an additional crossing of the new A556 for local traffic only, with no connection to or from the new road.

2.3.7 This assessment considers a number of alternative ‘sub-options’ to determine the optimum location of the local road crossing. The two sub-options relevant to this option are described below.

Bucklow Hill Overpass (Sub-Option A)

2.3.8 Bucklow Hill Overpass would comprise a new 700m long single carriageway link road, which crosses the new A556 approximately 200m south of the existing Chapel Lane. The road would provide a connection between Chapel Lane to the west of the new A556, and Bucklow Hill Lane to the east. At its highest point, the local road embankments would be approximately 8m above existing ground level.

Chapel Lane Overpass (Sub-Option B)

2.3.9 Chapel Lane Overpass would comprise a new 400m long offline single carriageway link road, which crosses the new A556 directly north of the existing Chapel Lane. The road would maintain Chapel Lane as a through route between the east and west of the scheme. At its highest point, the local road embankments would be approximately 9.5m above existing ground level.

Millington / Chapel Lane Link

2.3.10 This option would provide a new single carriageway link road between Chapel Lane and Millington Hall Lane. This is required in order to allow local journeys within the Millington community and avoid the large diversions that would otherwise result.

2.4 Option N2: Junctions at Tabley and Bucklow Hill

2.4.1 Option N2 is shown on Figure 4. The main components of this option considered as part of the assessment are:

• Tabley Junction


• A50 Diversion

• Bucklow Hill Grade-Separated Junction

• Rostherne NMU Overpass

• Millington / Chapel Lane Link

Tabley Junction, Old Hall Lane NMU Link / Underpass and the A50 Diversion

2.4.2 Option N2 would only affect aspects of the scheme north of the A50. Tabley Junction, Old Hall Lane NMU Link / Underpass and the A50 diversion would therefore remain consistent with Option N0 (Baseline Design).

Bucklow Hill Grade Separated Junction (With / Without Sub-Option)

2.4.3 A new grade separated junction would be located approximately 300m south of the existing Chapel Lane. The junction would comprise north facing slip roads only, with local connections to both the east and west of the scheme. A small roundabout to the west would provide a connection to the northbound on-slip, as well as local connections to the A50 (via Bucklow Hill Lane Link (West)) and Chapel Lane. The provision of Bucklow Hill Lane Link (West) has been considered as a sub-option and Option N2 has been assessed ‘with’ and ‘without’ its inclusion.

2.4.4 The eastern most link of the roundabout would cross the new A556 (at approx. 8m above existing ground) and connect into a new roundabout which would replace the existing Bucklow Hill Junction. The roundabout would facilitate movements between Bucklow Hill Grade Separated Junction (via the east link road), the A5034 Mereside Road and the de-trunked Chester Road.

2.4.5 The off-slip from the southbound A556 would form a simple T-junction with the new local road linking the two new roundabouts.

Rostherne NMU Overpass

2.4.6 The location of Bucklow Hill Grade Separated Junction is away from the Rostherne Lane / Millington Lane desire line which has been identified for NMUs wishing to cross the new A556. Therefore, a separate overpass (approx. 7.5m above existing ground level) would be provided to the north of Millington Lane, and would be used by NMUs only (no access for vehicular traffic). The overpass would be suitable for use by all NMUs and would form part of the Regional Cycle Route 70.




Millington / Chapel Lane Link

2.4.7 Millington / Chapel Lane Link, as described for Option N1, would be provided as part of this option.

2.5 Option N3: Junctions at Tabley, the A50 and Millington

2.5.1 Option N3 is shown on Figures 5 and 6. The main components of this option considered as part of the assessment are:

• Tabley Junction


• A50 Northbound On-Slip

• Millington Southbound Off-Slip


o Bucklow Hill Overpass (Sub-Option A):

o Chapel Lane Overpass (Sub-Option B); or

o Millington Overpass (Sub-Option C).

• Rostherne NMU Overpass (for Sub-Options A or B only)

• Millington / Chapel Lane Link (for Sub-Options A or B only)

Tabley Junction and Old Hall Lane NMU Link / Underpass

2.5.2 Option N3 would only affect aspects of the scheme north of Burleyhurst Lane. Tabley Junction and Old Hall Lane NMU Link/Underpass would therefore remain consistent with Option N0 (Baseline).

A50 Northbound On-Slip

2.5.3 This grade separated junction would be located directly to the south of the A50. The junction would comprise a northbound on-slip only, with the southbound off-slip provided further north at Millington. A single roundabout to the west of the scheme would facilitate movements between the A50 and the northbound on-slip, via provision of two new single carriageway link roads to the east and west of the scheme. The eastern A50 link road would cross the new A556 via a new overbridge.

Millington Southbound Off-Slip / Local Crossing

2.5.4 Option N3 would provide a southbound off-slip between Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane, with the northbound on-slip located further south at the A50 (as described above). The layout and form of this slip road would vary depending on which local crossing is provided (i.e. Sub-Option, A, B or C), although the location of the junction with the A556 would remain consistent. This variation, along with the associated sub-options is described below.

Millington Southbound Off-Slip (Sub-Options A or B)

2.5.5 This junction would comprise an at-grade southbound on-slip only, located between Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. The off-slip would consist of a tight radius bend before connecting to a new at-grade roundabout approximately 200m north of Millington Lane. The roundabout would allow traffic to move from the new A556 to both the de-trunked Chester Road and Cherry Tree Lane. A grade-separated crossing of the new A556 would not be provided at this location.

Local Crossing (Sub-Options A or B)

2.5.6 As a crossing of the new A556 would not be provided at Millington Southbound Off-Slip, either Bucklow Hill Overpass (Sub-Option A) or Chapel Lane Overpass (Sub-Option B) would be provided further south to maintain the local connection between the east and west of the scheme. The options considered for this local crossing would be as described for Option N1.

Millington Southbound Off-Slip (Sub-Option C)

2.5.7 For this option only the location of Sub-Option C (referred to as Millington Overpass) coincides with that of Millington Southbound Off-Slip. As such, the slip road would form a direct connection with the local crossing of the new A556. This junction would therefore be grade separated and comprise a southbound off-slip only, with the northbound on-slip provided further south at the A50. Unlike the layout associated with Sub-Options A and B, the off-slip would continue on an upgrade and through a relatively straight alignment. It would then form a priority junction with Millington Overpass, which crosses the new A556 approximately 200m north of Millington Hall Lane. A more detailed description of this crossing is provided below.

Local Crossing (Sub-Option C)

2.5.8 As mentioned above, this local crossing of the new A556 would be located to the north of Millington Hall Lane, and provides a direct connection from the A556 southbound carriageway via Millington Southbound Off-Slip. To the east, this new link would extend




the existing de-trunked Chester Road, with a signalised junction provided for access onto Cherry Tree Lane. A NMU crossing controlled by traffic signals would also be provided in this location for use by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and disabled users.

2.5.9 To the west of the new A556, Millington Overpass would continue for approximately 200m before sweeping south-westwards through a tight bend. The road would then straighten up to form a priority junction with Chapel Lane approximately 250m west of the new A556. Minor T-junctions would be provided for access to Millington Hall Lane.

2.5.10 Millington Overpass would also incorporate segregated NMU facilities, which would cross the new A556 via an overbridge. The track would run adjacent and to the south of the new link road, and would form part of the Regional Cycle Route 70. A separate NMU crossing would therefore not be required.

Rostherne NMU Overpass (Sub-Options A or B only)

2.5.11 Rostherne NMU Overpass, as described for N2, would be provided as part of this option. However, as Sub-Option C incorporates segregated NMU facilities, this overpass would only be required with provision of Sub-Options A or B.

Millington / Chapel Lane Link (Sub-Options A or B only)

2.5.12 Millington / Chapel Lane Link, as described for N1, would be provided as part of this option. However, as provision of Sub-Option C (Millington Overpass) provides a connection to Chapel Lane and Millington Hall Lane, this link road would only be required with provision of Sub-Options A or B.

2.6 Option N4: Junctions at Tabley and the A50

2.6.1 Option N4 is shown on Figures 7 and 8. The main components of this option considered as part of the assessment are:

• Tabley Junction


• A50 North Junction


o Bucklow Hill Overpass (Sub-Option A);



• Rostherne NMU Overpass (Sub-Options A & B only)

• Millington / Chapel Lane Link (Sub-Options A & B only)

Tabley Junction and Old Hall Lane NMU Link / Underpass

2.6.2 Option N4 would only affect aspects of the scheme north of Burleyhurst Lane. Tabley Junction and Old Hall Lane NMU Link / Underpass would therefore remain consistent with Option N0 (Baseline).

A50 North Junction

2.6.3 A grade separated junction with both a northbound on-slip and southbound off-slip. The junction would comprise two roundabouts located either side of the new A556, connected by a short single carriageway link road. New link roads to the west and to the east of the proposed junction would be provided to divert the A50. Connections to and from the new A556 carriageway would be via the western and eastern roundabouts respectively.

Local Road Crossing (Sub-Options A, B or C)

2.6.4 Locating the north facing junction at the A50 would remove the local crossing of the new A556 in the Millington area. An additional crossing would therefore be provided with this option to maintain local road connectivity between the east and west of the scheme. This option again considers the same three sub-options for this local crossing as described for N3 (i.e. Sub-Options A, B and C). However, as the southbound off-slip would now be provided at the A50, access to/from the new A556 would not be provided at Millington Overpass (Sub-Option C).

Rostherne NMU Overpass (with Sub-Options A or B only)

2.6.5 Rostherne NMU Overpass, as described in previous options, would be provided as part of this option. However, as Sub-Option C incorporates segregated NMU facilities, this overpass would only be required with provision of Sub-Options A or B.

Millington / Chapel Lane Link (with Sub-Options A or B only)

2.6.6 Millington / Chapel Lane Link, as described for previous options, would be provided as part of this option. However, as Sub-Option C provides a connection to Chapel Lane and Millington Hall Lane, this link road would only be required with provision of Sub-Options A or B.




2.7 Option N5: All-Movements Junction at the A50

2.7.1 Option N5 is shown on Figures 9 and 10. The main components of this option as part of the assessment are:

• Old Hall Lane Overpass

• A50 All-Movements Junction


o Bucklow Hill Overpass (Sub-Option A);



• Rostherne NMU Overpass (with Sub-Options A or B only)

• Millington / Chapel Lane Link (with Sub-Options A or B only)

2.7.2 There is no requirement for Tabley Junction as part of this option as this facility would be catered for at the A50.

Old Hall Lane Overpass

2.7.3 Relocating the south facing slip roads further north would reduce the level of traffic using the de-trunked Chester Road. In order to avoid significant local diversion lengths within the Tabley area, and reduce the length of the cul-de-sac on the de-trunked road, a vehicular overpass at Old Hall Lane is proposed.

2.7.4 The crossing would provide a connection between Old Hall Lane and the existing Chester Road, and would maintain a higher level of local ‘background’ traffic using the de-trunked Chester Road.

2.7.5 The maximum height of the embankment to carry the local road over the new A556 is approx. 10.5m above existing ground level.

A50 All-Movements Junction

2.7.6 A grade separated junction with both north and south facing slip roads. The junction would consist of two roundabouts, one either side of the new A556, connected by a short single carriageway link road. New links to the west and to the east of the proposed junction would be provided to tie back into the A50 away from its current line.

Local Road Crossing (Sub-Options A, B or C)

2.7.7 As with Option N4, relocating the junction at the A50 would remove the local crossing of the new A556 in the Millington Area. An additional crossing would therefore be provided with this option to maintain the local road connectivity between the east and west of the scheme. The ‘sub-options’ considered as part of this option would be the same as described for Option N4 (i.e. Sub-Options A, B and C).

Rostherne NMU Overpass (with Sub-Options A or B only)

2.7.8 Rostherne NMU Overpass, as described in previous options, would be provided as part of this option. However, as Sub-Option C incorporates segregated NMU facilities, this overpass would only be required for Sub-Options A or B.

Millington / Chapel Lane Link (with Sub-Options A or B only)

2.7.9 Millington / Chapel Lane Link, as described for previous options, would be provided as part of this option. However, as Sub-Option C provides a connection to Chapel Lane and Millington Hall Lane, this link road would only be required for Sub-Options A or B.




� Assessment Methodology

3.1 General

3.1.1 The performance of each alternative option has been compared against that of the Baseline Design (i.e. considered Better or Worse). The assessment of each option has been carried out against four main topics, as listed below:



• Cost

• Environment

3.1.2 Results of the assessment have been presented in comparison tables (provided towards the back of this report) to clearly highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each option in relation to these four main topics.

3.1.3 In response to local feedback (see Section 1.2), this comparative assessment has been prepared in a short timescale leading up to the consultation planned to commence in January 2012. As such, time limitations have not allowed for the design of each junction strategy to be fully optimised. The assessment has also been carried out to a lesser standard of detail than provided in the SAR for the Baseline Design. Therefore, should an amendment be made to the Baseline Design as a result of the consultation, this will be subject to further design development. More detail on assumptions and limitations for each assessment category is provided in Sections 3.3 to 3.7.

3.1.4 For each of the options considered, forecast traffic models have been developed to approximate the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the year 2030 (i.e. the forecast total annual traffic divided by 365). Although traffic has not been assessed as a distinct category in its own right, the forecast AADT flows have been analysed and then used to inform the Engineering and Environmental (mainly impacts on noise, air and all-travellers) parts of the assessment.

3.1.5 As mentioned above, each alternative junction strategy has been assessed and compared against the Baseline Design. However, to highlight certain impacts relative to existing conditions, a comparison has also been made against the volume of traffic that would be expected without the scheme in place. This is referred to as the ‘Do-Minimum’ or ‘Do-Min’ scenario.

3.2 Rating of Impacts

3.2.1 Notable impacts that are considered to form differentiators between the various options have been identified and listed within the comparison tables. Each impact has been compared against the Baseline Design and assigned a significance rating based on professional judgement and knowledge of the scheme area. The significance ratings have been assigned using the seven point system below for all four assessment categories:

• Significantly Better

• Better

• Slightly Better

• Neutral (similar to Option N0)

• Slightly Worse

• Worse

• Significantly Worse

Overall Rating of Impacts

3.2.2 For each topic area, the cumulative effects of the individual impacts have been rationalised into an overall impact rating for each of the alternative options when compared to the Baseline Design. These are shown in the final column of the comparison tables and have also been extracted into the collated results table included within Section 4 of this report.

3.2.3 It is important to note that there is no simple arithmetic relationship linking the ratings given for the individual impacts to those given for the overall impacts. Instead, a balanced professional judgement has been reached, considering the type of impact, the number of changes and the extent of the improvement/worsening for each category.

3.2.4 The assessment does not combine the impacts and rank the performance of the four topics. This will allow consultees to consider the information provided for each topic and offer preferences / comments from their own viewpoint. This feedback will complete the assessment and allow the optimum design layout to be determined.

3.2.5 A more detailed description on how the significance of impacts for each category has been determined is provided in Sections 3.4 to 3.6.




3.3 Traffic Flow Data

Methodology

3.3.1 Traffic flow data used to inform the engineering and environmental parts of the assessment has been derived and assessed in terms of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the year 2030 (i.e. the design year, 15 years after the road opening date assumed in the traffic modelling).

3.3.2 Traffic flow data for the alternative options is presented within Appendix A and B. Appendix B includes schematic diagrams which present the traffic flow volumes using key roads within the area. Appendix A includes collated tables which present the AADT flows for all options (Table A.1) and allow a simpler comparison of flows against the Baseline Design (Table A.2) and the Do-Minimum scenario (Table A.3).

3.3.3 The starting point for all the comparative assessment models were the forecast models completed in August 2011 for the Baseline Design, the output of which is summarised in the SAR. These models had been used to estimate future traffic levels and movements and included the A556 scheme and any surrounding developments that might be in place in the future. This information forms part of the Baseline Design, against which traffic forecasts for the alternative options were compared.

3.3.4 Forecast models have been developed for each option by modifying a version of the Baseline forecast models to account for highway layouts associated with the alternatives (e.g. addition/removal of certain roads or junctions). These models give an indication of how traffic would respond to the proposed changes to the highway network in each option.

Assumptions and Limitations

3.3.5 The following assumptions have been made as part of the traffic modelling for the comparative assessment:

• The Forecast 2030 Core Scenario models were used as a starting point for all the comparative assessment models.

• No significant changes have been undertaken outside the A556 Area of Interest e.g. additional developments / highway improvements.

• AADT calculations are locally derived and in line with other estimations of daily traffic levels.

• More detailed interventions (such as traffic signal optimisation) have not been modelled.

• No economic assessment (i.e. comparing the costs against benefits of the scheme to determine which option represents the best ‘value for money’) was carried out on the options because the changes in traffic flows were highly localised, with the flows on the major roads remaining stable. Therefore, the alternatives were not considered to make a significant difference to the overall economic performance of the scheme.

3.3.6 The following limitations have been identified as part of the traffic modelling for the comparative assessment:

• The model was designed to simulate more regional, strategic trips rather than smaller, localised trips along rural links.

• The model does not account for every single link around the new A556 as it was not designed to simulate that level of detail.

• The models were not designed for simulating small changes in localised flows, and the results would be subject to a margin of error, as with any modelled forecast.

• Complex junction arrangements can only be approximated in the models, so some of the smaller highway improvements would not be simulated.

• Some of the options have been simplified to allow for easier model coding. However, these simplifications are predominantly visual and do not impact upon the performance of the modelled network.

• The networks used in the comparative models have not been refined to the same level as the Baseline forecast models. This could lead to traffic becoming sensitive to changes in junction delay within the model.

3.4 Engineering (Traffic, Operation and Safety) Methodology

Methodology

3.4.1 This part of the assessment considers how the location, form and layout of each junction strategy would affect the operational and safety performance of the scheme. Key assessment criteria under this topic are described below.

Traffic Flow

3.4.2 A key consideration for this part of the assessment was the effect each junction strategy would have on traffic flows. Traffic models were analysed to identify notable changes in flows on the adjacent road network, which were then rationalised into a Better or Worse rating, based primarily on the following:




• Shifts in traffic flow from low to high standard roads generally results in a positive (Better) impact.

• Shift in traffic flow away from roads with a high level of access (i.e. private driveways and field entrances) reduces the risk of conflict.

• Significant increases in flow on any standard of road generally results in a negative (Worse) impact.

3.4.3 The traffic flow data output from the traffic models for the alternative options is presented within Appendix A and B. Appendix B includes schematic diagrams which present the traffic flow volumes for key roads within the area. Appendix A includes collated flow tables which present the flows for all options (Table A.1) and allow a simpler comparison of flows against the Baseline Design (Table A.2) and the Do-Minimum scenario (Table A.3).

Geometric Layout and NMU Provision

3.4.4 Options presented as part of this assessment have been designed generally in accordance with the guidelines within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 6 (Road Geometry). The focus of the design has been placed on achieving compliant layouts in relation to horizontal and vertical alignment, cross-section and driver visibility. Each option has therefore been assessed against the minimum requirements stipulated in these guidelines, with positive, negative or neutral effects depending on the level of compliance compared to the Baseline Design.

3.4.5 The assessment also considers the effect that each junction strategy would have on the safety of Non Motorised Users (NMUs). Where it is considered that the risk to NMUs would increase (e.g. greater interaction with vehicular traffic), a negative impact has been identified. Conversely, where the risk to NMUs is considered to reduce, a positive impact has been assigned.


3.4.6 Time limitations have not allowed an iterative design process in order to optimise the geometric layout of each junction strategy, to a preliminary design standard as is the case for the Baseline Design. Therefore, should an amendment be made to the Baseline Design as a result of the consultation, this will be subject to further design development.

3.4.7 It has been assumed that any departures from standards identified throughout this process would receive technical approval by the Highways Agency / Cheshire East Council as required.

3.5 Engineering (Construction and Maintenance) Methodology

Methodology

3.5.1 This part of the assessment considers how the location, form and layout of each junction strategy would affect the construction and maintenance of the scheme. Key assessment criteria under this topic are described below.

Construction

3.5.2 The main consideration for the construction of the different options is their ‘buildability’. This means how simple or straightforward they are to build. A more buildable option means that it is likely to be quicker, safer, less disruptive and less costly to build. Factors which make construction more complicated, therefore reducing buildability include:

• Access requirements for working at height when constructing structures.

• Working next to traffic when connecting the new A556 into the existing road network.

• Disruption to local road networks where options require temporary road closures to enable the construction of the scheme.

• Works associated with diverting services e.g. gas, water, electricity which often involve work in excavations close to the live road.

3.5.3 Options that require more of these areas of work therefore scored negatively (i.e. Worse than the Baseline Design), whereas a reduction in these works scored positively (i.e. Better than the Baseline Design).

Maintenance

3.5.4 The main consideration for maintaining the road is the number of assets to maintain and the traffic management required to access the asset. Fewer assets, particularly structures and lighting would reduce the need to close lanes and work on the side of the road. Another consideration is what diversion routes are available when the new A556 needs to be closed for emergency or planned maintenance work, e.g. resurfacing.

3.5.5 Separating the northerly and southerly aspects of the junctions (e.g. by providing slip roads at Tabley and Millington Junctions as in the Baseline Design) means that there might be the opportunity for traffic to be taken off at the junctions and diverted along the de-trunked Chester Road. Having junctions closer together, or as a single all-movements junction at the A50, would reduce the length of the new A556 that can be accessed once traffic has been diverted onto the de-trunked Chester Road.





3.5.6 As the maintenance strategy for the proposed scheme has not been finalised, the above assessment is based on an assumed strategy. This includes the assumption that the de-trunked Chester Road can be used as a diversion route during maintenance works, which has yet to be confirmed.

3.5.7 It is intended that a ‘Green Bridge’ will be provided as part of the scheme, the function of which is to link wildlife habitats either side of the new A556. Although the location and design has yet to be finalised (and is therefore not shown on any layout drawings), for Options N0, N1, N2, N3 and N4 it is assumed that the Green Bridge would be provided as a combined structure with the Tabley Junction Overbridge or A50 Overbridge . For Option N5 however, provision of a combined structure would not be possible as the Tabley Junction Overbridge is not part of this option and the slip roads either side of the A50 junction would present a barrier to wildlife. Although this option includes Old Hall Lane Overpass, the structure would be away from an ecologically beneficial crossing location. It has therefore been assumed that for Option N5 an independent structure would be provided.

3.6 Cost Methodology

Methodology

3.6.1 This part of the assessment considers how the cost of the different options was assessed. An initial estimate for the Baseline Design has been developed previously in more detail. The cost assessment has only looked at the cost difference between the Baseline Design and the alternative options, and has been rated using the cost bands listed below.

• Significantly Worse Increase more than £3million.

• Worse Increase between £1million and £3million.

• Slightly Worse Increase between £0.25million and £1million.

• Neutral Increase or reduction of less than £0.25million.

• Slightly Better Reduction between £0.25million and £1million.

• Better Reduction between £1million and £3million.

• Significantly Better Reduction more than £3million.

3.6.2 The costs for each option were derived using the following components.

Principal Quantities

3.6.3 Earth moving, road surfacing, and structures (bridges etc.) together make up approximately 65% of the direct costs of construction. The increase or reduction in the quantities for these three main elements was calculated from the outline design of the options. The difference in quantities when compared to the Baseline Design was then priced using typical rates.

Other disciplines, overheads and method related costs

3.6.4 Quantities have only been calculated for earthworks, pavement and structures, but the options will change the quantities of the other elements of the road construction such as drainage and safety fencing. Similarly, overheads and method related costs have not been calculated due to the limited timescale available. For both of these elements costs have been estimated on a pro-rata basis using the more detailed estimate developed for the Baseline Design.

Utility Diversions

3.6.5 An estimate was made using professional judgement for the utility diversion implications for the different options. This judgement used the estimates that have already been received from utility companies for the Baseline Design.

Risk, Inflation, VAT and Contractor’s Fee

3.6.6 Allowances for risk, inflation, VAT and contractor’s fee have been applied to the above elements.


3.6.7 In order to provide cost estimates for each option within the time available, focus was put on calculating outline quantities and costs for the main price areas in detail, and applying professional judgement to quantify and price other areas. As the aim of this assessment is to compare the different options, and a consistent approach has been used for all of the options, this approach is considered appropriate.

3.6.8 As noted in Section 3.5, it is assumed within the cost estimates that a Green Bridge would be provided as an extension to either the Tabley or A50 overbridges for all but Option N5, where a stand-alone structure has been assumed.




Land Costs

3.6.9 This part of the assessment estimates the costs that will be incurred due to the need to acquire and make use of land for the scheme. This involved producing land valuation reports for each of the alternative junction options.

Land Cost Assumptions

3.6.10 It has been assumed that the costs for any works on adjacent land for the benefit of landowners and occupiers, for example fencing, have been included within the construction costs.

3.6.11 It has also been assumed that planning permission for alternative types of development would not be granted on any land that is to be acquired for the scheme. Therefore, no provision has been made for the effects of implementing any planning permissions that have not yet been granted.

3.6.12 No significant cost implications relating to acquiring mineral rights on this scheme have been assumed.

3.6.13 No provision has been made for the costs of dealing with contaminated land, as no issues have been identified at this stage.

Land Cost Limitations

3.6.14 The land valuation costs have been based on the scheme land requirements currently identified for the Baseline Design and the alternative options. The requirements for the Baseline Design have been based on requirements identified in May 2011, and those for the other options were identified in December 2011. If the size and shape of any of these areas, the parties that have an interest in them, or the way in which they are owned or occupied changes at any point before all compensation claims are settled, this will have an affect on the land valuation figures.

3.6.15 The cost figures for the Baseline Design include values for land required temporarily during construction and for land required permanently for environmental mitigation measures including the creation of habitats. The costs for the other options do not take these types of land requirements into account, because these areas have not been determined yet for the options.

3.6.16 The cost figures for all options are not able to take into account costs relating to charges and other items on the title / deeds for land to be used for the scheme.

3.6.17 It is difficult to estimate compensation relating to residential properties without the benefit of internal and detailed external inspections of properties, which at this stage have not been carried out.

3.6.18 It is difficult to estimate compensation relating to commercial properties without the benefit of seeing detailed trading information, as this forms the key basis on which to estimate any compensation due. At this stage no such information has been received.

3.6.19 It has been difficult to estimate compensation for certain types of property, due to the lack of available recent and local information that can be used as property market evidence from which to develop estimates for this scheme.

3.7 Environment Methodology

3.7.1 An initial assessment of the differences in impact on environmental receptors/features between the Baseline Design and the alternative options was undertaken. This was completed for each of the ten environmental disciplines defined within the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). Following this assessment, no significant differences in impact were considered to arise for any of the junctions on Geology and Soils and Materials. It was considered that an approximate balance of earthworks material should be achievable for all of the options, which remains unchanged from the Baseline Design. Consequently, these two disciplines/subjects were not considered further as part of this comparative assessment.

3.7.2 Based on the above, this comparative assessment has considered the change of impacts and significance of impacts from the Baseline Design for the remaining eight of the ten environmental disciplines/subjects presented in the PEI. These were:

• Air Quality

• Noise

• Cultural Heritage

• Landscape

• Ecology and Nature Conservation

• Road Drainage and the Water Environment

• Community and Private Assets

• Effects on All Travellers

3.7.3 The environmental component of this comparative assessment was based on professional judgement, drawing upon design drawings, traffic models (specifically used for Air Quality and Noise and Vibration) and land take calculations (specifically used for Community and Private Assets). No environmental models or calculations were run.




3.7.4 The aim of this comparative assessment was to draw out the differentiators between each of the alternative options and the Baseline Design. This assessment therefore only took into account environmental impacts that would change from the assessments given in the PEI (with reference to the Baseline Design) if one of the alternatives were to be selected. It should be assumed that if there is no mention of a receptor/feature within the assessment then the significance of impact on these features is unchanged from Baseline Design.

3.7.5 For the Ecology section of the comparative assessment, 2011 survey data was considered where it was available.

3.7.6 Each discipline has assigned an impact rating for each option, applying professional judgement as described in Paragraph 3.7.3 and using the seven point scale described in Paragraph 3.2.1. These assessments are described in a separate comparative assessment table for each discipline, at the end of this report, and summarised in the table overleaf.

3.7.7 The environmental comparison tables make reference to a number of specific locations/receptors in the scheme area (e.g. specific tree or ecological survey locations). For location plans of such references the reader should refer to the PEI.

Overall Rating of Impacts

3.7.8 An overall environmental impact rating for each option is given in the collated results table overleaf (referred to as ‘Environment Combined’), using the seven point system described in Section 3.2. It is important to note that there is no simple arithmetic relationship between the ratings given for the individual topics and the overall environmental rating (i.e. three topics with a rating of ‘Better’ do not necessarily outweigh two topics with a rating of ‘Worse’). Instead, a balanced professional judgement has been reached, in the light of knowledge of the specific individual impacts that would occur. This approach considers the type of impact, the number of changes and the extent of the improvement/worsening for each environmental discipline, and focuses in particular on impacts that provide differentiators between the various options.

Limitations and Assumptions

3.7.9 This comparative assessment considers the impacts of the five alternative scheme options in relation to the Baseline Design, rather than the existing environment. It is therefore not as detailed or robust as the Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken for the PEI. A full assessment will need to be undertaken on the selected option, if different from the Baseline Design.

3.7.10 The assessment of agricultural impacts was completed as a desk based exercise, utilising farm business data obtained during survey visits in 2009, which may not reflect the situation at the time of writing.

3.7.11 There were limitations when comparing land take values to the Baseline Design. Firstly, the land take values for the Baseline Design included essential mitigation areas, however, these did not form part of the land take calculations available for this assessment. It is assumed that, for each of the five options, the land take values would be higher than the amounts provided for this assessment.

3.7.12 No judgements were made about the temporary uses of land during the construction phase. These sites would be required as part of any option and it is assumed that these sites would be restored.

3.7.13 As noted in Section 3.5, it is assumed within the cost estimates that a Green Bridge would be provided as an extension to either the Tabley or A50 overbridges for all but Option N5, where a stand-alone structure has been assumed.

� Comparative Assessment

4.1.1 As described in the general methodology, the performance of each alternative option has been compared against that of the Baseline Design (i.e. considered Better or Worse). The assessment of each option has been carried out against four main topics, as listed below:



• Cost

• Environment

4.1.2 Each aspect of the assessment is summarised on individual comparison tables which are included towards the back of the report. The results of the assessment have been collated into a single table, which is presented on the next page.




Individual Environmental Topics

Engineering (Traffic, Operation

& Safety)

Engineering (Construction &

Maintenance) Cost Environment

Combined

Air

Qua

lity

Noi

se

Cul

tura

l Her

itage

Land

scap

e

Eco

logy

and

Nat

ure

Con

serv

atio

n

Roa

d D

rain

age

and

the

Wat

er

Env

iron

men

t

Com

mun

ity a

nd

Pri

vate

Ass

ets

Eff

ects

on

all

Trav

elle

rs

N0

Sub-Option A

N1

Sub-Option B

With Sub-Option

N2

Without Sub-Option

Sub-Option A

Sub-Option B

N3

Sub-Option C

Sub-Option A

Sub-Option B

N4

Sub-Option C

Sub-Option A

Sub-Option B

N5

Sub-Option C

KEY:

Significantly Better

Better

Slightly Better

Neutral

Slightly Worse

Worse

Significantly Worse




� Rejected Options

5.1 General

5.1.1 Based on the results of the comparative assessment it is considered that a number of options are not viable alternatives to the Baseline Design and will therefore not be presented at the consultation. The following options have been rejected:

• Option N1

• Option N2

5.1.2 A brief justification behind each rejected option is given below.

5.2 Option N1

5.2.1 Although provision of this option would result in benefits for local vehicular travellers (i.e. less interaction with trunk road traffic), it is considered that the layout and form of the proposed Millington Loop Junction would be unacceptable for the large volume of traffic flow that is forecast. A combination of high traffic flows, a sub-standard horizontal off-slip alignment and a confusing layout at the point where the slip roads converge, which all occur in close proximity to Cherry Tree Lane NMU crossing / junction, would increase the risk of accidents in this area.

5.2.2 Provision of Option N1 would increase the overall cost of the scheme through construction of an additional overbridge, as well as an increase in pavement construction, embankment construction and diversionary works for buried services. A ‘Neutral’ or ‘Slightly Worse’ impact would also be seen in relation to construction and maintenance.

5.2.3 Environmentally, the impacts associated with this option are considered to be broadly comparable to that of the Baseline Design. Although there are benefits for the topics of Noise, Landscape (Sub-Option B only) and Effects on All Travellers, when these are considered with the adverse impacts associated with Air Quality (Sub-Option B only), Heritage, Ecology and Community and Private Assets, the overall difference is considered to be negligible when compared to the Baseline Design.

5.2.4 Overall, the traffic, operational and safety impacts associated with this option are not considered to be acceptable when compared to the Baseline Design. Additional impacts on cost and construction and maintenance add further justification to the rejection of this option.

5.3 Option N2

5.3.1 Although this option has been rejected, its performance in terms of traffic, operation and safety is considered to be ‘Slightly Better’ than the Baseline Design. This is predominantly a result of the improved junction spacing in both the northbound and southbound directions.

5.3.2 Provision of Option N2 would result in the most significant cost increase across all alternative options. This option requires provision of an additional structure as well as a significant increase in embankment construction, pavement construction and diversionary works for buried services. Land take from private businesses at the existing Bucklow Hill Junction may also result in a significant increase in lands cost.

5.3.3 The combined environmental performance of this option is considered to be ‘Worse’ than the Baseline Design. Despite a benefit associated with Effects on All Travellers, the impacts for most other assessment categories would be between ‘Slightly Worse’ and ‘Worse’ when compared to the Baseline Design (N0), and ‘Significantly Worse’ for ecology (if the Bucklow Hill Lane Link (West) sub-option is included).

5.3.4 This option would adversely impact on construction and maintenance for the scheme. Although the new junction could be used to divert traffic from Chapel Lane, the overall impact is considered to worsen due to the complexity of the tie-in at Bucklow Hill Roundabout, as well as provision of an additional overbridge for the Rostherne NMU Overpass.

5.3.5 Overall, and despite a slight benefit operationally, it is considered that the cumulative effects of construction and maintenance, cost and environmental impacts justify rejection of this option.




� Options to be Presented at Consultation

6.1 General

6.1.1 Based on the results of the comparative assessment the following options are considered to be potentially viable alternatives to the Baseline Design and shall therefore be presented at the consultation:

• Option N3

• Option N4

• Option N5

6.1.2 A brief justification behind each alternative option is given below.

6.2 Option N3

6.2.1 Provision of this option would result in a notable increase in traffic flow along the A50 (mainly through Mere to the east of the new A556) compared to the Baseline Design. Despite this, the overall performance in terms of traffic, operation and safety is considered to be ‘Better’ than the Baseline Design. This is primarily based on the improved junction spacing in the northbound direction, reduced speeds along the A50 as a result of the proposed roundabout, and a reduction in traffic flow along local roads within the Millington area.

6.2.2 The benefits mentioned above would be achieved whilst also offering ‘Neutral’ / ‘Slightly Better’ impacts in terms of constructability and maintenance. The impact on cost however would be more significant, with impacts ranging from ‘Slightly Worse’ to ‘Worse’ depending on which sub-option is selected. This is predominantly a result of the additional structure required for Sub-Options A and B. The cost associated with Sub-Option C, which incorporates a combined structure, would only be ‘Slightly Worse’ to that of N0.

6.2.3 The combined environmental impact is considered to vary between ‘Neutral’ and ‘Worse’ than the Baseline Design, depending upon which sub-option is selected. Although benefits would arise in relation to Noise, Landscape, Community and Private Assets and Effects on All Travellers, the majority of these would be Slight. It is therefore considered that the ‘Significantly Worse’ impact on Ecology (A and B only, ‘Worse’ for C), together with a ‘Slightly Worse’ impact on Heritage would outweigh the benefits mentioned above. All other topics result in a ‘Neutral’ impact when compared to the Baseline Design.

6.3 Option N4

6.3.1 Provision of Option N4 would result in a significant increase in traffic flow along the A50. This increase would predominantly occur to the east of the new A556 (through Mere), where an approx. 41% rise in flows are expected when compared to the Baseline Design. When compared to the Do-Minimum scenario, this corresponds to an increase of almost 80%. As all vehicles joining the northbound A556, or leaving the southbound A556 carriageways, would now do so via the A50, traffic flows along Mereside Road (through Bucklow Hill) would significantly decrease by up to 95%. Although this uneven distribution of flow would benefit a number of direct accesses along the A5034, this is not considered to make the best use of the existing road. The A5034 is of a comparable standard to the A50 and both roads are of a significantly higher standard than the other local roads in the area.

6.3.2 Despite adverse impacts along the A50, the overall performance of this option in terms of traffic, operational and safety impacts is considered to be ‘Better’ than the Baseline Design. This is primarily based on the improved junction spacing between the A50 and M56 junctions, reduced speeds along the A50 as a result of the proposed roundabouts, and a reduction in traffic flow along the de-trunked Chester Road and Mereside Road. There would also be a reduction in traffic flow on local roads in the Millington Area.

6.3.3 The benefits mentioned above would be achieved with only a ‘Neutral’ to ‘Slightly Worse’ impact on construction and maintenance activities. However, the impact on cost would be more significant, with impacts ranging from ‘Worse’ to ‘Significantly Worse’ depending on which sub-option is selected. This is predominantly a result of the additional structure required for Sub-Options A and B.

6.3.4 Environmentally, the overall impact associated with this option is considered to be ‘Slightly Worse’ than the Baseline Design. For most topics, the environmental effects range between ‘Slightly Better’ and ‘Slightly Worse’, although there are ‘Worse’ impacts for Ecology and ‘Better’ impacts for Effects on All Travellers. Although the impacts on ecology and travellers appear to cancel each other out, the ecological impacts have been given greater weight in the overall environmental rating. This is because they entail an actual increase in ecological impact, in some cases in ways that are difficult to effectively mitigate. By contrast, the improvement for travellers is a further improvement over the Baseline Design, which is already considered to improve the existing situation.

6.4 Option N5

6.4.1 Provision of Option N5 would significantly increase traffic flow along the A50 when compared to the Baseline Design. This increase would occur both through Mere (approx. 35% rise in AADT) and Hoo Green (approx. 43% rise in AADT), located to the east and west of the new A556 respectively. When compared to the Do-Minimum scenario, this corresponds an increase of almost 70% though both areas. As all vehicles




travelling to / from the new A556 would now do so via the A50, flows along the A5034 Mereside Road (through Bucklow Hill) are expected to decrease by up to 95%. As noted for Option N4, this uneven distribution of flow is not considered to make best use of the A5034, and would result in significant increases in traffic on the A50 between Mere and the junction with the A5034.

6.4.2 The provision of an all-movements junction at the A50 is also anticipated to result in significant congestion / delay during large Tatton Park events (both at the junction itself and on the A50 through Mere).

6.4.3 Although provision of this option would result in significant negative impacts along the A50, the overall performance of this junction strategy in terms of traffic, operation and safety is considered to be ‘Significantly Better’ than the Baseline Design. This is based largely on the improved junction spacing between the M6, A50 and M56 junctions. Speeds along the A50 would also reduce due to the provision of the double roundabout, which is considered to be beneficial in terms of safety. Reduced flows along the de-trunked Chester Road, Mereside Road, Pickmere Lane and local roads in the Millington area also improve the performance of this option compared to the Baseline Design.

6.4.4 The benefits mentioned above would be achieved with only ‘Neutral’ / ‘Slightly Worse’ impacts on constructability and maintenance. The impact on cost however would be more significant, with impacts ranging from ‘Worse’ to ‘Significantly Worse’ depending on which sub-option is selected. This is predominantly a result of the additional structure required for Sub-Options A and B.

6.4.5 As this option would remove the junction in Tabley, this would worsen local access to and from the strategic road network. Significant diversions would be necessary for those living in the Over Tabley area close to the existing Chester Road.

6.4.6 On balance, this option is also considered to perform ‘Slightly Better’ in terms of the environment when compared to the Baseline Design. Although the environmental effects would be ‘Worse’ for the topics of Heritage and Ecology (and it is the worst-performing of all options for Heritage), there are benefits for Noise, Landscape, Community and Private Assets and Effects on All Travellers, the majority of which are rated as ‘Better’ than the Baseline Design. Noise has been given particular weighting in this assessment, because it is directly related to one of the key objectives of the scheme and this is the best performing option in relation to this topic.

� Conclusion

7.1.1 This report has been prepared in response to feedback received from the local area, and will form part of the consultation exercise commencing January 2012. The Highways Agency has undertaken this comparative assessment to ensure that the public and other interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the design and the alternative options. This feedback will be taken into account, along with environmental impact, technical feasibility and affordability when deciding the layout of the scheme.

7.1.2 Following the comparative assessment of each option in terms of engineering, cost and environmental impacts, it has been concluded that two of the options considered were not viable alternatives to the Baseline Design. The following options have therefore been rejected at this stage and will not be presented at the consultation:

• Option N1 – Performed the same or worse than the current design in all four assessment categories. This option was primarily rejected on engineering (traffic, operation and safety) grounds.

• Option N2 – Despite a slight benefit operationally, this option has been rejected based on adverse impacts in the construction and maintenance, cost and environmental assessment categories.

7.1.3 All other options considered as part of this assessment will be presented at the consultation.

Consultation Options Terminology

7.1.4 The terminology for all main options and sub-options presented within this report has been amended for the consultation. This new naming convention should avoid confusion and clearly identify the options which are considered as potentially viable alternatives and those which have been rejected as part of this assessment.




7.1.5 The naming convention for the Baseline Design, and viable alternative options during the consultation is as follows:

• Junction Option 0 (Baseline) – Junctions at Tabley and Millington (Option N0 within the assessment)

• Junction Option 1 – Junctions at Tabley, the A50 and Millington (Option N3 within the assessment)

• Junction Option 2 – Junctions at Tabley and the A50 (Option N4 within the assessment)

• Junction Option 3 – All-Movements Junction at the A50 (Option N5 within the assessment)

7.1.6 Each of the rejected options will be renamed:

• Junction Option R1 –Junctions at Tabley and Millington Loops (Option N1 within the assessment)

• Junction Option R2 – Junctions at Tabley and Bucklow Hill (Option N2 within the assessment)


Comparative Assessment Tables

Engineering (Traffic, Operation & Safety)

Engineering (Construction & Maintenance)

Cost

Environment (Air Quality)

Environment (Noise)

Environment (Cultural Heritage)

Environment (Landscape)

Environment (Ecology and Nature Conservation)

Environment (Road Drainage and the Water Environment)

Environment (Community and Private Assets)

Environment (Effects on all Travellers)

ENGINEERING (TRAFFIC, OPERATION & SAFETY) GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0

Provision of a dual-carriageway would reduce the likelihood of accidents with oncoming traffic, as well as with vehicles performing turning manoeuvres across the opposing carriageway High standard grade-separated junctions along the new A556 would provide a safer means of access between the local road network and strategic trunk road. At-grade access to side roads, fields and residential properties would be removed, significantly reducing the likelihood of accidents. Removing the conflict between local and strategic traffic would also improve journey time reliability. Traffic Traffic flow increases are likely to occur in the Millington Area, particularly on Peacock Lane / Chapel Lane (increase of up to 2100 AADT), due to the stopping up of adjacent side roads and the presence of Millington Junction. Flows along the A50 would also rise by up to 2700 vehicles per day (25%) as it becomes a more attractive through route between Knutsford and High Legh.

The new scheme would remove up to 49000 vehicles per day from the existing Chester Road, reducing the amount of vehicular traffic passing through the villages of Mere and Bucklow Hill. This would improve conditions for local traffic, public transport and NMUs in these areas. A reduction in traffic flows would also be seen along Ashley Road (up to 59%), West Lane (24%) and Mereside Road (18%). The scheme would increase severance of the Tabley community by stopping up Old Hall Lane, which also forms part of the traffic management strategy for Cheshire Show events. This would increase the utilisation of Pickmere Lane, which could exceed the capacity of the existing junction. Existing right turn manoeuvres into and out of Pickmere Lane are currently hazardous. The scheme is considered to improve the traffic management strategy for large Tatton Park events. Provision of a split junction strategy, as well as converting the existing Mere Junction to cater for all turning movements, would distribute events traffic on the northbound and southbound A556 more evenly. This is considered likely to reduce congestion on the local road network during events.

The Baseline Design would distribute local traffic flow in a similar manner as the existing conditions, with the most notable flows continuing to use both the A5034 Mereside Road (though Bucklow Hill) and the A50 (through Mere). Although traffic volumes along the A50 would increase (when compared to the Do-Minimum scenario), the extent of this increase would be limited by maintaining a stable level of flow along the A5034. Distributing the flow in this way would reduce the significance of impacts on either Mere or Bucklow Hill. This option would also make the best use of both the A50 and A5034, which are of a significantly higher standard than the other local roads in the area.

GENERAL ASSESSMENT COMMENTS (COMPARED TO THE BASELINE DESIGN – N0) SUB-OPTION SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT COMMENTS IMPACT

A

Alignment of Bucklow Hill Overpass more in keeping with surrounding road network. (Neutral) High embankment height on Bucklow Hill Overpass would increase the severity of accidents should a vehicle abscond from the carriageway. (Slightly Worse) Unnecessary / unsafe priority junction at Millington / Chapel Lane Link. (Slightly Worse)

Worse

N1

Unconventional / confusing alignment as the A556 Northbound On-Slip / Southbound Off-Slip converge. Risk of vehicles travelling in wrong direction along the A556 SB Off-Slip. (Worse) High flows make low radius slip roads less appropriate. Increased probability of accident occurring. (Worse) Sub-standard alignment and potentially high diverge speeds on approach to signalised NMU crossing / junction at Cherry Tree Lane. Departure from standards required. (Worse) NMU track running adjacent to the outer edge of tight radius on-slip. Risk of vehicular collision with NMUs. Horses would also be more likely to be startled due to the close proximity of this track to the on-slip. (Slightly Worse) An existing departure related to sub-standard visibility between the two roundabouts of Millington Junction would be removed. (Slightly Better)

Conflict between trunk road and local traffic at Millington would be removed through provision of a separate local road crossing. (Slightly Better) Traffic Diversion of east west traffic on to the A56 would increase flows from approximately 14300 to 15,600. (Slightly Worse) Chapel Lane diversion would not be provided with this option (i.e. a direct link from local roads to the west of the scheme and the new A556). Therefore the 3500 vehicles per day that use this link would be removed and would not pass through the Millington Area. Consequently, flows along Chapel Lane and Hulseheath Lane would decrease by approximately 2000 AADT and 200 AADT respectively. (Better)

B

Sub-standard alignment on Chapel Lane Overpass, not in keeping with existing Chapel Lane. Risk of accidents is worsened where moving from an existing section of street lighting to an unlit stretch if heading west along Chapel Lane. Road users may not acknowledge the change in alignment along the new section of Chapel Lane. (Worse) High embankment height on Chapel Lane Overpass would increase the severity of accidents should a vehicle abscond from the carriageway. (Slightly Worse)

Worse

With

Provision of Bucklow Hill Lane Link (West) would maintain the Public Right of Way (PROW) along the existing Bucklow Hill Lane. (Slightly Better)

Traffic - Approx. 200 AADT removed from Hulseheath Lane and routed via the part existing / part new Bucklow Hill Lane. (Slightly Better)

Slightly Better

N2

Current sub-standard weaving distance to/from M56 junction increased (existing departure severity reduced) as well as improved merge/diverge signing provision (i.e. one mile Advanced Directional Sign (ADS) for merging vehicles). (Better) Provision of Bucklow Roundabout would increase risk to NMUs crossing at this location (more confusing). However, provision of Rostherne NMU Overpass further north would reduce NMU conflict with vehicular traffic. Overall impact considered to be (Slightly Better) Parapet obstruction results in reduced visibility at the A556 Southbound Off-Slip priority junction. However, the current visibility departure between the two roundabouts of Millington Junction would be removed. (Neutral) Unnecessary / unsafe priority junction with Millington / Chapel Lane Link. (Slightly Worse)

Several junctions occur on the immediate approach to or exit from Bucklow Roundabout. Unsafe access to Petrol Station due proximity to proposed Bucklow roundabout. Departures required. (Slightly Worse) Traffic Provision of the north facing slip roads further south would remove approx. 3500 AADT from Chapel Lane Diversion. The majority of these vehicles would instead use the proposed Chapel Lane Link that connects Chapel Lane to Bucklow Hill Grade Separated Junction. A slight reduction in flow is also forecast along Chapel Lane (up to 15%). (Slightly Better) To the east of the scheme, local flows would route along Cicely Mill Lane, rather than Cherry Tree Lane as in the Baseline Design. (Neutral) Nominal change in traffic flow on the A50, with a 22% increase on Mereside Road. (Slightly Worse)

With-out

Traffic - Approx. 120 AADT removed from Hulseheath Lane. (Slightly Better)

Slightly Better

A

Alignment of Bucklow Hill Overpass more in keeping with surrounding road network. (Neutral) High embankment height on Bucklow Hill Overpass would increase the severity of accidents should a vehicle abscond from the carriageway. (Slightly Worse) Unnecessary / unsafe priority junction at Millington / Chapel Lane Link. (Slightly Worse)

Better

N3 (A&B)

Current sub-standard weaving distance on the northbound A556 to M56 junction would be increased (existing departure eliminated) as well as improved merge signing provision (ability to provide one mile ADS downstream of northbound on-slip). Junction proximity issues in the southbound direction would remain. (Better) The existing A50 has a poor accident record, especially in the Hoo Green area where three serious accidents (one fatal) occurred in the five year period between 2005 and 2009. Provision of the A50 roundabout would interrupt the flow and reduce through speeds, minimising the likelihood of future accidents occurring along this stretch of road. (Better) Provision of Rostherne NMU Overpass would reduce the risk of conflict between NMUs and vehicular traffic. (Slightly Better) Sub-standard alignment and potentially high approach speeds to the roundabout on the A556 Southbound Off-Slip. (Slightly Worse) Conflict between two streams of high traffic flow introduced at A50 roundabout as vehicles heading southeast on the A50 would need to give way to those wishing to turn right at the roundabout onto the northbound A556. Both are significant traffic volumes. (Slightly Worse) The split junction layout is unconventional and may be confusing to drivers. Potential issues in terms of incident response (inability to u-turn). (Worse)

Traffic Chapel Lane Diversion would not be provided with this option. Therefore, the 3500 vehicles that use this link daily would divert elsewhere, and would therefore not pass through the Millington Area. Consequently, flows along Chapel Lane and Hulseheath Lane would decrease by approx. 2100 AADT (62%) and 200 AADT (98%) respectively. (Better) To the east, combined local flows in the Rostherne area (Rostherne Lane / Cicely Mill Lane / Cherry Tree Lane) would reduce by approx. 600 AADT, as well as a 800 AADT reduction along the de-trunked Chester Road between Mere and Bucklow Hill. The most significant decrease would occur along the A5034 Mereside Road (74%), which has numerous direct field/private accesses off the existing road. (Better) Flows along the A50 would rise by approx. 4200 AADT (31%) and 1400 AADT (10%) to the east (Mere) and west (Hoo Green) of the proposed road respectively. When compared to the Do-minimum scenario, this corresponds to an increase of 64% (Mere) and 29% (Hoo Green), as opposed to an increase of approx. 25% (Mere) and 17% (Hoo Green) in the Baseline Design. This uneven distribution of traffic between Mereside Road and the A50 does not replicate proportion of existing flow, or make best use of existing infrastructure. (Worse)

B

Sub-standard alignment on Chapel Lane Overpass, not in keeping with existing Chapel Lane. Risk of accidents is worsened where moving from an existing section of street lighting to an unlit stretch if heading west along Chapel Lane. Road users may not acknowledge the change in alignment along the new section of Chapel Lane. (Worse) High embankment height on Chapel Lane Overpass would increase the severity of accidents should a vehicle abscond from the carriageway. (Slightly Worse) Better

ENGINEERING (TRAFFIC, OPERATION & SAFETY) GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0

Provision of a dual-carriageway would reduce the likelihood of accidents with oncoming traffic, as well as with vehicles performing turning manoeuvres across the opposing carriageway High standard grade-separated junctions along the new A556 would provide a safer means of access between the local road network and strategic trunk road. At-grade access to side roads, fields and residential properties would be removed, significantly reducing the likelihood of accidents. Removing the conflict between local and strategic traffic would also improve journey time reliability. Traffic Traffic flow increases are likely to occur in the Millington Area, particularly on Peacock Lane / Chapel Lane (increase of up to 2100 AADT), due to the stopping up of adjacent side roads and the presence of Millington Junction. Flows along the A50 would also rise by up to 2700 vehicles per day (25%) as it becomes a more attractive through route between Knutsford and High Legh.

The new scheme would remove up to 49000 vehicles per day from the existing Chester Road, reducing the amount of vehicular traffic passing through the villages of Mere and Bucklow Hill. This would improve conditions for local traffic, public transport and NMUs in these areas. A reduction in traffic flows would also be seen along Ashley Road (up to 59%), West Lane (24%) and Mereside Road (18%). The scheme would increase severance of the Tabley community by stopping up Old Hall Lane, which also forms part of the traffic management strategy for Cheshire Show events. This would increase the utilisation of Pickmere Lane, which could exceed the capacity of the existing junction. Existing right turn manoeuvres into and out of Pickmere Lane are currently hazardous. The scheme is considered to improve the traffic management strategy for large Tatton Park events. Provision of a split junction strategy, as well as converting the existing Mere Junction to cater for all turning movements, would distribute events traffic on the northbound and southbound A556 more evenly. This is considered likely to reduce congestion on the local road network during events.

The Baseline Design would distribute local traffic flow in a similar manner as the existing conditions, with the most notable flows continuing to use both the A5034 Mereside Road (though Bucklow Hill) and the A50 (through Mere). Although traffic volumes along the A50 would increase (when compared to the Do-Minimum scenario), the extent of this increase would be limited by maintaining a stable level of flow along the A5034. Distributing the flow in this way would reduce the significance of impacts on either Mere or Bucklow Hill. This option would also make the best use of both the A50 and A5034, which are of a significantly higher standard than the other local roads in the area.


N3 (C)

Current sub-standard weaving distance on the northbound A556 to M56 junction would be increased (existing departure eliminated) as well as improved merge signing provision (ability to provide 1 mile ADS downstream of northbound on-slip). Junction proximity issues in the southbound direction would remain. (Better) Through speeds along the A50 would be reduced by provision of the new roundabout. (Better) Less flow over Millington Overbridge (due to removal of the northbound on-slip) improves the safety of NMUs. Conflict between local and trunk road traffic also reduced. (Slightly Better) Split layout is unconventional and may be confusing to drivers. Potential issues in terms of incident response (inability to u-turn). (Worse)

Conflict between two streams of high traffic flow introduced at A50 roundabout as vehicles heading southeast on the A50 would need to give way to those wishing to turn right at the roundabout onto the northbound A556. Both are significant traffic volumes. (Slightly Worse) Millington Hall Lane priority junctions with Millington Overpass are located on/near sub-standard horizontal bends, potentially increasing the risk of accidents. (Slightly Worse) Traffic 2200 vehicles per day would be removed from the new link between Chapel Lane and Millington Hall Lane, with flows along Chapel Lane and Hulseheath Lane also decreasing by approx. 2000 AADT and 180 AADT respectively. A 800 AADT reduction would be seen along the de-trunked Chester Road between Mere and Bucklow Hill, with the most notable decrease occurring along the Mereside Road (73%), which has numerous direct field/private accesses to the existing road. (Better)

Flows along the A50 would rise by approx. 4300 AADT (31%) and 1500 AADT (11%) to the east (Mere) and west (Hoo Green) of the proposed road respectively. When compared to the Do-Minimum scenario, this corresponds to an increase of 64% (Mere) and 29% (Hoo Green), as opposed to an increase of 25% (Mere) and 17% (Hoo Green) in the Baseline Design. This uneven distribution of traffic between Mereside Road and the A50 does not replicate proportion of existing flow, or make best use of existing infrastructure. (Worse)

Better

A

Alignment in keeping with surrounding road network. (Neutral) High embankment height on Bucklow Hill Overpass would increase the severity of accidents should a vehicle abscond from the carriageway. (Slightly Worse) Unnecessary/unsafe priority junction between Chapel Lane and Millington/Chapel Lane Link. (Slightly Worse) Reduced traffic along the de-trunked Chester Road together with provision of Rostherne NMU Overpass minimises the risk of vehicular conflict with NMUs. (Slightly Better)

Better

B

High embankment height on Chapel Lane Overpass would increase the severity of accidents should a vehicles abscond from the carriageway. (Slightly Worse) Sub-standard alignment on Chapel Lane Overpass, not in keeping with existing Chapel Lane. Risk of accidents is worsened where moving from an existing section of street lighting to an unlit stretch if heading west along Chapel Lane. Road users may not acknowledge the change in alignment along the new section of Chapel Lane. (Worse) Reduced traffic along the de-trunked Chester Road together with provision of Rostherne NMU Overpass minimises the risk of vehicular conflict with NMUs. (Slightly Better)

Better

N4

Improved weaving length / signing provision in both northbound and southbound directions. (Significantly Better) Provision of the north facing junction at the A50 would reduce through speeds. (Better) Conflict between trunk road and local traffic in the Millington Area removed through provision of a separate local crossing. (Slightly Better)

The location of A50 junction would reduce the potential to distribute traffic for large Tatton Park Events. All flow would be focussed on Mere Junction, leading to significant congestion. (Slightly Worse) Provision of both an on-slip and off-slip at the A50 would introduce additional conflict between multiple streams of high traffic flow (i.e. between vehicles leaving the new A556, vehicles joining the new A556 and vehicles continuing on the A50). (Slightly Worse) Traffic Considerable reductions in flow would also occur along the de-trunked Chester Road (up to 82%) and Mereside Road (95%), both of which have numerous direct field / private accesses off the existing road. (Better)

Chapel Lane Diversion would not be provided with this option. Therefore, the 3500 vehicles that use this link daily would divert elsewhere, and would therefore not pass through the Millington Area. Consequently, flows along Chapel Lane and Hulseheath Lane would decrease by approx. 1800 AADT (54%) and 200 AADT (98%) respectively. (Better) To the east, local flows are slightly reduced and route along Cicely Mill Lane, as apposed to Cherry Tree Lane in the Baseline Design. (Neutral) A significant rise in traffic flow would occur on the A50, especially through Mere (to the east of the new A556) where a rise of approx. 5600 AADT (41%) is anticipated. When compared to the Do-Minimum scenario, this corresponds to an increase of almost 80%. To the west of the new A556 (i.e. through Hoo Green), the percentage increase would be approx. 18% and 37% when compared to the Baseline Design and Do-Minimum scenario respectively. These high flows result in an uneven distribution of traffic between Mereside Road and the A50, which does not replicate existing flow or make best use of existing infrastructure. (Significantly Worse)

C Priority junctions with Millington Hall Lane located on / close to tight radii bends. Potential

visibility issues. (Slightly Worse) Better

A

Alignment in keeping with surrounding road network. (Neutral) High embankment height on Bucklow Hill Overpass would increase the severity of accidents should a vehicle accidently leave the carriageway. (Slightly Worse) Unnecessary / unsafe priority junction between Chapel Lane and Millington / Chapel Lane Link. (Slightly Worse) Reduced traffic along the de-trunked Chester Road together with provision of Rostherne NMU Overpass minimise the risk of vehicular conflict with NMUs. (Slightly Better)


B

High embankment height on Chapel Lane Overpass would increase the severity of accidents should a vehicle accidently leave the carriageway. (Slightly Worse) Sub-standard alignment on Chapel Lane Overpass, not in keeping with existing Chapel Lane. Risk of accidents is worsened where moving from an existing section of street lighting to an unlit stretch if heading west along Chapel Lane. Road users may not acknowledge the change in alignment along the new section of Chapel Lane. (Worse) Reduced traffic along the de-trunked Chester Road together with provision of Rostherne NMU Overpass minimise the risk of vehicular conflict with NMUs. (Slightly Better)


N5

Improved weaving length/ signing provision in both northbound and southbound directions. (Significantly Better) Junction proximity issues / departures associated with Tabley Junction are removed (for more information refer to the Stage 3 SAR). (Significantly Better) More conventional / less confusing junction layout with improved incident response / access to breakdowns on the new A556. (Better) Conflict between trunk road and local traffic removed in the Millington area through provision of a separate local crossing. (Better) Provision of an all-movements junction at the A50 would introduce additional conflict between multiple streams of high traffic flow. (Worse) Traffic Chapel Lane Diversion would not be provided with this option. Therefore, the 3500 vehicles that use this link daily would divert elsewhere and would not pass through the Millington Area. Subsequently, flows along Chapel Lane and Hulseheath Lane would also decrease by approx. 1800 AADT (54%) and 180 AADT (93%) respectively. (Better) Considerable reductions in flow would also occur along the de-trunked Chester Road (up to 83%), Mereside Road (95%), and Mereheath Lane (26%), all of which have numerous direct field / private accesses off the existing road. (Better)

Within the Tabley community, Old Hall Lane Overpass would provide a local vehicular connection between the east and west of the scheme. Subsequently, flows along Pickmere Lane (directly off the A556) would reduce by approx. 900 AADT as vehicles divert along the new link at Old Hall Lane, which would carry approx. 2500 AADT. Although the flow would be greater than desired, this would reduce the demand for the Pickmere Lane / A556 junction, which is considered favourable (no conflict with trunk road traffic). (Better) To the east, local flows are slightly reduced and route along Cicely Mill Lane, as apposed to Cherry Tree Lane in the Baseline Design. (Neutral) Flows on the A50 would rise significantly by approx. 4800 AADT (35%) through Mere and 6000 AADT (43%) through Hoo Green. When compared to the Do-minimum scenario, this corresponds to an increase of 69% (Mere) and 68% (Hoo Green) respectively, as opposed to an increase of 25% (Mere) and 17% (Hoo Green) in the Baseline Design. High flows on the A50 result in an uneven distribution of traffic between Mereside Road and the A50, which does not proportionally replicate existing flow or make best use of existing infrastructure. (Significantly Worse) Single junction results in a less distributed traffic management strategy for Tatton Park Events. Likely to be significant congestion at the junction and on the A50. (Worse) Flows along West Lane and Ashley Road will also increase by approximately 2500 AADT (34%) and 500 AADT (13%) respectfully. (Slightly Worse)

C Millington Hall Lane priority junctions with Millington Overpass are located on/near sub-standard horizontal bends, potentially increasing the risk of accidents. (Slightly Worse)


ENGINEERING (CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE) GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0 Constructing the scheme introduces safety risks that would not be present were the scheme not to be built.

The new scheme will significantly improve the safety of maintaining the road as the presence of full lane widths and a central reservation increases the space available to maintain the road.

New structures are being introduced which require maintenance and the associated safety risks.


A Bucklow Hill Overpass can be built completely offline eliminating the approx two month period between shutting Chapel Lane and opening the tie in of the junction to the existing Chester Road with the associated disruption to the users of Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. (Slightly Better)

Neutral

N1

Additional overbridge to construct and maintain with the associated worker safety risks. (Slightly Worse) Opening either Chapel Lane Overpass or Bucklow Hill Overpass would remove a haul road crossing from the site once the overpass has opened. (Slightly Better)

B Completion of the eastern tie in of Chapel Lane Overpass would require an approximate two month closure of Chapel Lane with associated disruption to users of Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. This is a similar duration that Chapel Lane would be closed for completion of the new A556 in Option N0. (Neutral)

Slightly Worse

With Negligible difference. Worse

N2

Completion of roundabout tie in would require additional working in close proximity to traffic. (Worse) Likely to have more complex stats diversions. (Slightly Worse) Additional NMU overbridge to construct and maintain with the associated worker safety risks. (Slightly Worse)

Possible to open new link before closing Chapel Lane by running traffic onto Bucklow Hill Lane (or temporary link into Chapel Lane) so traffic disruption to Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane is less. (Slightly Better) With-

out Negligible difference. Worse

A Bucklow Hill Overpass can be built completely offline eliminating the approx two month period between shutting Chapel Lane and opening the tie in of the junction to the existing Chester Road, reducing the associated disruption to the users of Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. (Slightly Better)

Slightly Better

N3 (A&B)

Tie in of SB off-slip simplified as all at grade. (Slightly Better) Opening the local crossing (either Sub-Option A or B) will remove a haul road crossing from the site once the overpass has opened. (Slightly Better) Additional NMU overbridge to construct and maintain with the associated worker safety risks. (Slightly Worse)

Less of the NB carriageway can be accessed for maintenance activities by shutting between junctions and diverting via the de-trunked Chester Road due to NB on-slip being further south. (Slightly Worse)

B

Completion of the eastern tie in of the Chapel Lane Overpass would require an approximate two month closure of Chapel Lane with associated disruption to users of Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. This is a similar duration that Chapel Lane would be closed for completion of the new A556 in Option N0. (Neutral) Neutral

N3 (C)

Tie in grade difference reduced. (Slightly Better) Less of the NB carriageway can be accessed for maintenance activities by shutting between junctions and diverting via de-trunked Chester Road due to NB on-slip being further south. (Slightly Worse)

Unlike Chapel Lane Diversion in the Baseline Design, the western link of Millington Overpass avoids having to place embankment through a dip to the west of Millington Lane, and reduces the associated drainage and maintenance requirements. (Slightly Better)

Slightly Better

A

Bucklow Hill Overpass can be built completely offline eliminating the approx two month period between shutting Chapel Lane and opening the tie in of the junction to the de-trunked Chester Road, reducing the associated disruption to the users of Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. (Slightly Better) No direct tie of junctions to existing Chester Road reduces the worker safety risks of completing this work. (Slightly Better) Opening Bucklow Hill Overpass would remove a haul road crossing from the site once the overpass has opened. (Slightly Better) Additional bridge (Rostherne NMU Overpass) to construct and maintain with the associated worker safety risks. (Slightly Worse)

Neutral

B

No direct tie of junctions to existing Chester Road reduces the worker safety risks of completing this work. (Slightly Better) Completion of the eastern tie in of the Chapel Lane Overpass would require an approximate two month closure of Chapel Lane with associated disruption to users of Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. This is a similar duration that Chapel Lane would be closed for completion of the new A556 in Option N0. (Neutral) Opening Chapel Lane Overpass would remove a haul road crossing from the site once the overpass has opened. (Slightly Better) Additional NMU overbridge to construct and maintain with the associated worker safety risks. (Slightly Worse)

Slightly Worse

N4

Less of the NB and SB carriageways can be accessed for maintenance activities by shutting between junctions and diverting via de-trunked road due to NB on-slip being further south. (Slightly Worse)

C Similar to N0. (Neutral) Slightly Worse

A

Bucklow Hill Overpass can be built completely offline eliminating the approx two month period between shutting Chapel Lane and opening the tie in of the junction to the de-trunked Chester Road, reducing the associated disruption to the users of Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane and Millington Lane. (Slightly Better) Opening Bucklow Hill Overpass would remove a haul road crossing from the site once the overpass has opened. (Slightly Better) Additional NMU overbridge to construct and maintain with the associated worker safety risks. (Slightly Worse) No direct tie in of junctions to existing Chester Road reduces the worker safety risks of completing this work. (Slightly Better)

Neutral

B

Completion of the eastern tie in of the Chapel Lane Overpass would require an approximate two month closure of Chapel Lane with associated disruption to users of Bucklow Hill Lane, Chapel Lane, Millington Hall Lane, and Millington Lane. This is a similar duration that Chapel Lane would be closed for completion of the new A556 in Option N0. (Neutral) Additional bridge (Rostherne NMU Overpass) to construct and maintain with the associated worker safety risks. (Slightly Worse) Opening Chapel Lane Overpass would remove a haul road crossing from the site once the overpass has opened. (Slightly Better) No direct tie of junctions to existing Chester Road reduces the worker safety risks of completing this work. (Slightly Better)

Slightly Worse

N5

No opportunity to close sections of the road and divert via the de-trunked Chester Road to undertake maintenance work and loss of the associated opportunity to reduce the new A556 carriageway cross section. (Worse) Reduced traffic on the de-trunked Chester Road and A5034 improving road worker safety. (Slightly Better)

C Similar to N0. (Neutral) Slightly Worse

COST GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0

The Baseline Design has a budget estimate of £174million.


A None. Significantly

Worse N1

Additional land / compensation, pavement and a bridge required to provide the local crossing.

B Additional cost to divert utilities that currently run along Chapel Lane via the new overbridge.

Significantly Worse

With

Higher pavement and earthworks costs to provide Bucklow Hill Lane Link (West). Additional cost to divert utilities that currently run along Bucklow Hill Lane via the new overbridge.

Significantly Worse

N2

Additional land / compensation, earthworks and pavement required to provide the Bucklow Hill Lane Link (East). Additional utilities diversion required to construct the Bucklow Hill roundabout. Additional bridge required to provide the Rostherne NMU Overpass.

With

out None.

Significantly Worse

A None.

Worse N3

(A&B)

Additional bridge required to provide the Rostherne NMU Overpass. Additional land/compensation and earthworks required to provide the local crossing (either Sub-Option A or B). Slight increase in pavement costs. B

Additional cost to divert utilities that current run along Chapel Lane via new overbridge. Worse

N3 (C)

Slight increase in pavement costs. Slightly Worse

A Additional bridge required to provide Rostherne NMU Overpass.

Significantly Worse

B Additional bridge required to provide Rostherne NMU Overpass. Additional cost to divert utilities that current run along Chapel Lane via the new overbridge.

Significantly Worse N4

Overall, this option increases the land / compensation and earthworks required.

C None.

Worse

A Additional bridge required to provide Rostherne NMU Overpass. Significantly

Worse

B Additional bridge required to provide Rostherne NMU Overpass. Additional cost to divert utilities that current run along Chapel Lane via new overbridge.

Significantly Worse N5

Reduction in earthworks, pavement and a bridge at the southern end of the scheme as separate Southern Junction at Tabley is no longer required. Additional earthworks, pavement and a bridge required to provide an overbridge at Old Hall Lane rather than the underpass. Overall, this option increases the land / compensation and earthworks required. Additional cost to construct an independent ‘Green Bridge’ required to provide a wildlife habitat connection.

C None.

Worse

Cost Bands

Significantly Worse:

Worse:

Slightly Worse:

Neutral:

Slightly Better:

Better:

Significantly Better:

Increase more than £3million

Increase between £1million and £3million

Increase between £0.25million and £1million

Increase or reduction of less than £0.25million

Reduction between £0.25million and £1million

Reduction between £1million and £3million

Reduction more than £3million

ENVIRONMENT (AIR QUALITY)

GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0

Vehicle exhaust fumes are a significant contributor to air pollution. Pollutants are most concentrated immediately adjacent to the road, and become less concentrated with increasing distance from the road. The effects of air pollution on human health are mainly felt by people who live in areas where concentrations of air pollution are high. The key factors affecting the consideration of air quality in relation to road schemes are therefore the volumes of traffic using the road and the proximity of the road to locations where large numbers of people live.

Traffic using the existing Chester Road generates concentrations of the pollutant Nitrogen Dioxide above the upper limits set by European and UK legislation, and runs in close proximity to large numbers of residential properties in Mere, Bucklow Hill and Over Tabley. Shifting the traffic from the existing Chester Road onto the new A556 alignment would move the main source of air pollution further away from most residential properties. This would improve air quality around these properties, so that no residential properties would be affected by concentrations of pollutants exceeding the upper limits set by European and UK legislation.

Millington and Tabley Junctions are set over a 100m and 150m away from any residential properties respectively. At these distances, the traffic levels using the junctions are insufficient to give rise to significant air quality effects. The key factors influencing air quality in relation to the choice of junction strategies and layouts are any differences in the volume of traffic on individual side roads and any differences in the proximity of any diverted side roads to residential properties. However, the flows on all side roads are very small compared to the flows on the main-line of either the existing Chester Road or the new A556, and therefore have much lesser influence on local air quality.


A Bucklow Hill Overpass diverts traffic away from existing properties on Chapel Lane (Slightly Better than Sub-Option B) Neutral

N1

No change in Air Quality (AQ) from N0 (Neutral), except as noted in relation to sub-options.

B Chapel Lane properties (to the east of the new A556) would see small increase in flow over N0 (Slightly Worse than either N0 or Sub-Option A), but no concentrations of pollutants above EU or UK limits at residential properties.

Slightly Worse

With Small reduction in traffic on the A50 through Mere – Slightly Better Small increase in traffic on the A50 west of the new A556, affecting parts of Hoo Green and High Legh – Slightly Worse

Slightly Worse

N2

Increased traffic flows on new Bucklow Hill Lane Link (East) compared to existing flows on Bucklow Hill Lane (very low) or N0 (no flow) lead to Worse AQ close to some properties in Bucklow Hill.

Increased traffic on Mereside Road and on Cicely Mill Lane compared to N0, leading to Slightly Worse AQ.

Reduction in traffic on Peacock Lane compared to N0 (Slightly Better)

Without Small reduction in traffic on the A50 both east and west of the new A556, affecting parts of Mere, Hoo Green and High Legh – Slightly Better

Slightly Worse

A Bucklow Hill Overpass diverts away from existing properties on Chapel Lane (Slightly Better than Sub-Option B) Neutral

N3 (A&B)

Flow of traffic reduced on Chester Rd north of Mere Junction because northbound traffic joins the new A556 at the A50 NB On-slip, leading to small improvement in AQ, which would already be good under N0 (Slightly Better). Flow of traffic increased on A50 east of Mere Junction, leading to deterioration in AQ (Slightly Worse) – partly offset by reduced traffic on Mereside Road, leading to Slightly Better AQ.

Increase in traffic on the A50 west of the new A556, affecting parts of Hoo Green and High Legh (Slightly Worse)

B Chapel Lane properties (to the east of the new A556) would see small increase in flow over N0 (Slightly Worse than either N0 or Sub-Option A), but no concentrations of pollutants above EU or UK limits at residential properties.

Neutral

N3 (C)

Flow of traffic reduced on Chester Rd north of Mere Crossroads because northbound traffic joins the new A556 at the A50 on-slip, leading to small improvement in AQ, which would already be good under N0. (Slightly Better). Flow of traffic increased on A50 east of Mere Junction, leading to deterioration in AQ (Slightly Worse) – partly offset by reduced traffic on Mereside Road, leading to Slightly Better AQ.

Millington Overpass diverts away from existing properties on Chapel Lane (Slightly Better). Increase in traffic on the A50 west of the new A556, affecting parts of Hoo Green and High Legh (Slightly Worse)

Reduction in traffic on Peacock Lane / Chapel Lane compared to N0 (Slightly Better)

Neutral


B Some traffic flows past properties on Chapel Lane that would otherwise see no traffic (Slightly Worse than either N0 or Sub-Option A) Neutral N4

Flow of traffic reduced on Chester Road north of Mere Junction because both northbound and southbound traffic would join/leave the new A556 at the A50, leading to small improvement in AQ, which would already be good under N0. (Slightly Better). Flow of traffic increased on A50 east of Mere Junction, leading to deterioration in AQ (Worse), – partly offset by reduced traffic on Mereside Road, leading to Slightly Better AQ for properties on that road.



Reduction in traffic on West Lane in High Legh (Slightly Better)

C Millington Overpass diverts traffic away from existing properties on Chapel Lane (Slightly Better than Sub-Option B) Neutral


B Some traffic flows past properties on Chapel Lane that would otherwise see no traffic (Slightly Worse than either N0 or Sub-Option A) Neutral N5

Flow reduced on Chester Rd north of Mere Junction, leading to small improvement in AQ, which would already be good under N0 (Slightly Better). Flow of traffic increased on A50 east of Mere Crossroads, leading to deterioration in AQ (Worse) – partly offset by reduced traffic on Mereside Road, leading to Slightly Better AQ for properties on that road.



Increase in traffic on West Lane in High Legh (Slightly Worse)

C Millington Overpass diverts traffic away from existing properties on Chapel Lane (Slightly Better than Sub-Option B) Neutral

ENVIRONMENT (NOISE)


N0

Noise can be defined as ‘unwanted sound’. Regular or prolonged exposure can affect health and quality of life. The principal factors influencing the noise impacts of a road scheme are the volume and speed of traffic and its proximity to locations where people may be exposed to noise regularly or for prolonged periods, particularly in residential areas and certain other types of sensitive property. Overall noise and vibration impact of the scheme would be beneficial for the surrounding environment (i.e. many more beneficial than adverse impacts).

Many properties near the existing Chester Road and Mereside Road would experience reductions in noise and vibration, with only a few properties close to the new A556 experiencing an increase in noise and vibration. Noise levels in Mere reduced by up to 20 dB. Traffic noise at Rangemore Nursing Home, Montebello Castle and Denfield Smithy noise would be moved from the east side of the properties to the west side, and the overall noise level would reduce. Increases in noise to 1&2 Millington Lane, Three Oaks.

Noise increases to The Crescent in Bucklow Hill, 31&37 White House Road and Thornedge on Chapel Lane (6-10 dB). Major impacts at Denfield Cottages (+14 dB), Rushford Cottage & Rose Cottage on Millington Hall Lane. Burnthouse Cottages in Bucklow Hill experiences large noise increase (+5 dB). Large noise increases on Peacock Lane, Hulseheath Lane and Chapel Lane (+10 dB). Adverse impacts to Kennelwood Cottage, Faraway and Sawpit Cottage at Mere Hall Estate (+8 dB). Gardeners Cottage and Travelodge Knutsford experience noise increases of approximately 5dB.


A More noise for properties on Hulseheath Lane (Simons Thatch etc); at Chapel Lane House; and Maltkiln Cottages and Maltkiln House in Bucklow Hill. (Slightly Worse) Slightly

Better N1

Reduction in traffic on Mereside Road. This benefits a total of 20 properties fronting on to both Mereside Road and the de-trunked Chester Road through Mere. (Better). Small increase in traffic on de-trunked Chester Road north of Mere Crossroads (Slightly Worse).

Adverse impacts to Denfield Smithy and Montello Castle (Slightly Worse). Less traffic through Chapel Lane / Peacock Lane means less noise than under Option N0, also reduced impacts at Rushford Cottage & Rose Cottage located on Millington Hall Lane (Better)

B More noise for properties in The Crescent in Bucklow Hill, 31&37 White House Road and Thornedge, and approx 16 other properties fronting onto Chapel Lane. (Slightly Worse) Slightly

Better

With Maximises the noise increase to Burnthouse Cottages, but also maximises the reduction in noise on Peacock Lane/Chapel Lane, compared to N0. (Worse) Slightly

Worse N2

Less traffic through Peacock Lane means less noise than under Option N0, also reduced impacts at Rushford Cottage & Rose Cottage on Millington Hall Lane (Slightly Better). Increased noise impacts to Hulseheath Lane properties and 20 properties fronting onto Chapel Lane (Slightly Worse).

The embankments of Rostherne NMU Overpass give marginal benefits to Newhall Farm (Slightly Better). Increase in traffic on Cicely Mill Lane means increased noise for a small number of properties (Slightly Worse) Major noise increase to Burnthouse Cottages, Maltkiln Cottages and Maltkin House, all located in Bucklow Hill, as well as properties along Hulseheath Lane. (Worse) Without

Reduced benefit for Peacock Lane/Chapel Lane; but reduced adverse impact for Burnthouse Cottages. (Neutral) Slightly

Worse

A Noise impacts to Maltkiln Cottages and Maltkiln House in Bucklow Hill. (Slightly Worse). Slightly

Better N3 (A&B)

Less traffic through Peacock Lane/Chapel Lane giving noise benefits. Also reduced impacts at Rushford Cottage & Rose Cottage on Millington Hall Lane (Better). The earthworks of Rostherne NMU Overpass give marginal benefits to Newhall Farm (Slightly Better). Large reductions in traffic on Mereside Road benefit 40 properties on both Mereside Road and the de-trunked Chester Road through Mere. (Better).

Increase in traffic on the A50 both east and west of the new A556 increases noise for some properties in Mere, Hoo Green and High Legh – Slightly Worse Noise impacts to Hulseheath Lane properties (Slightly Worse).

B Noise impacts to Hulseheath Lane properties and 20 properties fronting onto Chapel Lane. (Slightly Worse). Slightly

Better

N3 (C)

Increases traffic on to the new A556 and A50, meaning more noise than N0, particularly for properties on the A50 in Mere, and to some extent in Hoo Green and High Legh (Slightly Worse). Less traffic through Peacock Lane/Chapel Lane means less noise than under Option N0, also reduced impacts at Rushford Cottage & Rose Cottage on Millington Hall Lane (Better).

The earthworks of Rostherne NMU Overpass give marginal benefits to Newhall Farm (Slightly Better). Large reductions on Mereside Road. This benefits a total of 40 properties fronting on to both Mereside Road and the de-trunked Chester Road through Mere. (Better).

Noise moves from west façade to eastern façade of Chapel Lane House (Neutral).

Slightly Better

A Noise impacts to Hulseheath Lane properties and Maltkiln Cottages and Maltkiln House in Bucklow Hill. (Slightly Worse). Slightly

Better

B Noise impacts to Hulseheath Lane properties and 20 properties fronting onto Chapel Lane. (Slightly Worse) Slightly

Better N4

More traffic removed from the de-trunked Chester Road, reducing noise levels in Mere by over 20 dB (Better). Large reductions on Mereside Road which benefits a total of 40 properties fronting on to both Mereside Road and the de-trunked Chester Road through Mere (Better). Increased traffic on the A50, leading to more noise, particularly for properties on the A50 in Mere, and to some extent in Hoo Green and High Legh (Worse).

Less traffic through Peacock Lane/Chapel Lane giving noise benefits, also reduced impacts at Rushford Cottage & Rose Cottage on Millington Hall Lane (Slightly Better). Increase in traffic on Cicely Mill Lane means increased noise for a small number of properties (Slightly Worse)

C Noise moves from west façade to eastern façade of Chapel Lane House. (Neutral). Slightly

Better

A Noise impacts to Hulseheath Lane properties and Maltkiln Cottages and Maltkiln House in Bucklow Hill. (Slightly Worse). Better

B Noise impacts to Hulseheath Lane properties and 20 properties fronting onto Chapel Lane. (Slightly Worse). Better N5

More traffic removed from the de-trunked Chester Road, reducing noise levels in Mere by over 20 dB (Better). Large reductions on Mereside Road which benefits a total of 40 properties fronting on to both Mereside Road and the de-trunked Chester Road through Mere (Better). Increased traffic on the A50, leading to more noise, particularly for properties on the A50 in Mere, and to some extent in Hoo Green and High Legh (Worse).

Less traffic through Peacock Lane/Chapel Lane giving noise benefits, also reduced impacts at Rushford Cottage & Rose Cottage on Millington Hall Lane (Slightly Better). Increase in traffic on Cicely Mill Lane means increased noise for a small number of properties (Slightly Worse) Increase in traffic on West Lane means higher noise levels for some properties in High Legh (Slightly Worse) Reduction in traffic on Pickmere Lane reduces noise levels (Slightly Better) C

Noise moves from west façade to eastern façade of Chapel Lane House (Neutral). Better

ENVIRONMENT (CULTURAL HERITAGE)


N0

Potential adverse impacts on cultural heritage comprise removal of archaeological remains during construction and impacts on setting. These include physical impacts on two Roman Roads and an area of geophysical anomalies possibly associated with a potential barrow cemetery (i.e. a group of prehistoric burials originally covered by earth mounds).

Impacts on setting will also affect historic buildings and archaeological sites, including the Grade II Listed Buildings of Mere Old Hall and Denfield Cottage, and the Scheduled Monument of Hough Hall. Four historic landscape character types will be affected by the scheme.

A small number of beneficial impacts have also been identified where the proposed scheme will lead to a reduction in traffic passing close to historic buildings. Measures proposed to mitigate impacts on cultural heritage include the detailed recording of archaeological remains, photographic survey of the existing setting of historic buildings and historic landscapes, and tree and shrub planting designed to integrate the proposed scheme into the historic landscape.


A

Archaeological Remains Increased impacts on the setting of Hough Hall Scheduled Monument (Site 69) (Slightly Worse). Historic Buildings Introduction of impacts on setting of the undesignated Hulseheath Farm (Site 76) (Slightly Worse). Impacts on the setting of the Listed Building of Denfield Cottage (Site 81) (Slightly Worse).

Slightly Worse

N1

Archaeological Remains Greater land take from the field associated with the Brick Field Place name (Site 146), increasing the potential for impacts on potential archaeological remains within this area (Slightly Worse).

Historic Buildings Introduction of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rushford Cottage (Site 175) (Slightly Worse). Avoidance of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rose Cottage on Millington Lane (Site 85) (Slightly Better). Historic Landscape Impacts on the Historic Landscape would remain unchanged (Neutral).

B

Archaeological Remains Removal of all three possible clay pits on Chapel Lane (Site 74) (Slightly Worse) Historic Buildings Increased impacts on the setting of the Grade II Listed Building of Denfield Cottage (Site 81) (Worse)

Slightly Worse

With

No additional impacts.

Slightly Worse

N2

Archaeological Remains Increased impact on: • One of the Conjectural Routes of North Cheshire Ridge Roman Road

(Site 50) and the Area of Archaeological Potential (Site 138) (Slightly Worse for both sites).

• The setting of Hough Hall Scheduled Monument (Site 69) (Slightly Worse).

Reduced physical impact on the field associated with the Brick Field Place name (Site 146) (Slightly Better).

Historic Buildings Increased impacts on the setting of: • Hulseheath Farm (Site 76) (Slightly Worse).

• The undesignated building of Rushford Cottage (Site 175) (Slightly Worse).

• Numbers 1 & 2 Millington Lane (Site 91) and Newhall Farm (Site 92) (Slightly Worse for both sites).

• Heritage assets within Bucklow Hill, including Mere Hall Farm, the Swan Hotel and historic residential buildings on Chapel Lane (currently located outside the PEI study area) (Worse).

Impact on Denfield Cottage would remain unchanged from N0 (removal of Millington Junction would reduce the impact, but Millington / Chapel Lane Link would introduce an impact). (Neutral) Avoidance of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rose Cottage on Millington Lane (Site 85) (Slightly Better). Historic Landscape Impacts on the Historic Landscape remain unchanged (Neutral).

With

out


Slightly Worse

A

Archaeological Remains Increased impacts on the setting of Hough Hall Scheduled Monument (Site 69) (Slightly Worse).

Slightly Worse

N3 (A&B)

Archaeological Remains Increased impact on: • Archaeological remains of Site 48 (a former cottage) (Slightly Worse).

• The Conjectural Routes of North Cheshire Ridge Roman Road (Site 50) (Slightly Worse).

• Increased potential for impacts on an area of geophysical anomalies (Site 136) possibly associated with a barrow cemetery (Slightly Worse).

A physical impact on the field associated with the Brick Field Place name (Site 146) however this would result in a similar physical impact to N0 (Neutral).

Historic Buildings Increased impacts on the setting of: • Hulme Barns Farm (Site 53) (Slightly Worse than N0).

• Hulseheath Farm (Site 76) (Slightly Worse).

• Undesignated building of Rushford Cottage (Site 175) (Slightly Worse).


Impact on Denfield Cottage would remain unchanged from N0 (removal of Millington Junction would reduce the impact, but Millington / Chapel Lane Link would introduce an impact). (Neutral) Avoidance of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rose Cottage on Millington Lane (Site 85) (Slightly Better). Historic Landscape Increased physical impacts on the Post-Medieval Ornamental Parkland (HLCT 8) (Slightly Worse).

B

Archaeological Remains

Removal of all three possible clay pits on Chapel Lane (Site 74) (Slightly Worse).

Slightly Worse

N3 (C)



• An area of geophysical anomalies (Site 136) possibly associated with a barrow cemetery (Slightly Worse).

Reduced impact on the field associated with the Brick Field Place name (Site 146) (and the possible archaeological remains in this area) (Slightly Better).

Historic Buildings Increased impacts on the setting of Hulme Barns Farm (Site 53) (Slightly Worse). Increased impacts on the setting of the Grade II Listed Building of Denfield Cottage (Site 81) and introduction of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rushford Cottage (Site 175) (Slightly Worse for both sites).

Reduced impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rose Cottage on Millington Lane (Site 85) (Slightly Better).

Historic Landscape Increased physical impacts on the Post-Medieval Ornamental Parkland (Slightly Worse). Slightly

Worse

ENVIRONMENT (CULTURAL HERITAGE)


N0

Potential adverse impacts on cultural heritage comprise removal of archaeological remains during construction and impacts on setting. These include physical impacts on two Roman Roads and an area of geophysical anomalies possibly associated with a potential barrow cemetery (i.e. a group of prehistoric burials originally covered by earth mounds).

Impacts on setting will also affect historic buildings and archaeological sites, including the Grade II Listed Buildings of Mere Old Hall and Denfield Cottage, and the Scheduled Monument of Hough Hall. Four historic landscape character types will be affected by the scheme.

A small number of beneficial impacts have also been identified where the proposed scheme will lead to a reduction in traffic passing close to historic buildings. Measures proposed to mitigate impacts on cultural heritage include the detailed recording of archaeological remains, photographic survey of the existing setting of historic buildings and historic landscapes, and tree and shrub planting designed to integrate the proposed scheme into the historic landscape.


A

Archaeological Remains Increased impacts on the setting of Hough Hall Scheduled Monument (Site 69) (Slightly Worse). Historic Buildings Impacts on setting of the undesignated Hulseheath Farm (Site 76) (Slightly Worse).

Slightly Worse

B Archaeological Remains Removal of all three possible clay pits on Chapel Lane (Site 74) (Slightly Worse).

Slightly Worse

N4



• The Mound - Potential barrow site (Site 134) (Worse).


Avoidance of physical impacts on the field associated with the Brick Field Place name (Site 146) (Slightly Better)

Historic Buildings

Increased impacts on the setting of : • Hulme Barns Farm (Site 53) (Slightly Worse).

• Undesignated building of Rushford Cottage (Site 175) (Slightly Worse).


Impact on Denfield Cottage would remain unchanged from N0 (removal of Millington Junction would reduce the impact, but Millington / Chapel Lane Link would introduce an impact). (Neutral) Avoidance of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rose Cottage on Millington Lane (Site 85) (Slightly Better).

Historic Landscape Increased physical impacts on the Post-Medieval Ornamental Parkland (Slightly Worse).

C

Historic Buildings Increased impacts on the setting of the Grade II Listed Building of Denfield Cottage (Site 81) (Slightly Worse)

Introduction of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rushford Cottage (Site 175) (Slightly Worse).

Reduced impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rose Cottage on Millington Lane (Site 85) (Slightly Better).

Slightly Worse

A

Archaeological Remains Avoidance of physical impacts on the field associated with the Big Kiln Field Place name (Site 19) (Slightly Better) Reduction in physical impacts on the Ridge and Furrow Crop marks (Site 121) (Slightly Better) Historic Buildings Impacts on setting of the undesignated Hulseheath Farm (Site 76) (Slightly Worse).

Worse

B

Archaeological Remains Removal of all three possible clay pits on Chapel Lane (Site 74) (Slightly Worse).

Worse

N5

Archaeological Remains Increased impact on: • The Linear Crop marks (Site 47) and the possible enclosures (Site 190)

(Slightly Worse for both sites).

• Archaeological remains of Site 48 (a former cottage) (Slightly Worse).


• The Mound - Potential barrow site (Site 134) (Worse).


• The setting of Hough Hall Scheduled Monument (Site 69) (Slightly Worse).

Avoidance of physical impacts on the field associated with the Brick Field Place name (Site 146) (Slightly Better)

Historic Buildings Increased impacts on the setting of : • The Listed Building of Mere Old Hall (Site 38) (increased potential for adverse

visual impacts on the Listed Building) (Worse).

• Hulme Barns Farm (Site 53) (Slightly Worse).

• The undesignated building of Rushford Cottage (Site 175) due to the presence of the Millington / Chapel Lane link to the west of the building (Slightly Worse).


Impact on Denfield Cottage would remain unchanged from N0 (removal of Millington Junction would reduce the impact, but Millington / Chapel Lane Link would introduce an impact). (Neutral)

Avoidance of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rose Cottage on Millington Lane (Site 85) (Slightly Better). Historic Landscape Increased physical impacts on the Post-Medieval Ornamental Parkland (Worse). C

Historic Buildings Increased impacts on the setting of the Grade II Listed Building of Denfield Cottage (Site 81) (Slightly Worse) Introduction of impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rushford Cottage (Site 175) (Slightly Worse). Reduced impacts on the setting of the undesignated building of Rose Cottage on Millington Lane (Site 85) (Slightly Better).

Worse

ENVIRONMENT (LANDSCAPE) GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0

Landscape Character Millington Junction - Significant impacts locally to Landscape Character through the introduction of high embankments, double roundabout junction and overbridge and the adverse effects resulting from Chapel Lane Diversion. No loss of woodlands/vegetation at the junctions, other than 50m approx. hedgerow at the Millington Junction and additional losses at tie-ins with existing roads. A50 Diversion – Moderate impacts to Landscape Character. Land between the new and old A50 sections suitable for landscape mitigation if required or return to agriculture/landscape improvement/enhancement.

Visual Significant visual intrusion impacts resulting from new embankments, overbridge and elevated views of moving traffic. A large proportion of the properties are Undesignated Historic Buildings or Locally Listed Buildings suffering moderate/significant impacts including No. 1 and 2 Denfield Cottages, Rose Cottage, Rushford Cottage, Sandhole Farm, Millington Hall Farm, Keldan, Montebello Castle and Old Smithy Cottage. Mitigation No off site planting is required. Good mitigation opportunities such as planting trees, shrubs, grassland etc. as appropriate and landscape mounding.


A

Landscape Character Comparable land take to Chapel Lane Diversion in terms of impacts on landscape character and severing/disruption to landscape pattern (Neutral). Visual Views from Burnt Houses (locally designated) on Bucklow Hill Lane would have increased impacts. Views from Aysgarth House and other properties on Chapel Lane (east) would alter with the introduction of Bucklow Hill Overpass, but could be partially mitigated (Slightly Worse). Views from Thornedge on Chapel Lane would be less affected (Slightly Better). Very minor views or no change from properties in Hulseheath (Neutral).

Neutral

N1

Landscape Character Millington Junction – Reduced embankment requirement would result in less landscape impacts at this location. Omission of Chapel Lane Diversion would further reduce landscape impacts (Slightly Better). Separating the junction elements and additional overbridge would have impact on a wider area of rural land. The addition of Millington / Chapel Lane Link would cause additional impacts through minor disruption of landscape pattern at this location. (Slightly Worse). Visual Reduced embankments on Millington Junction would reduce levels of visual intrusion and visual changes for surrounding receptors (Slightly Better). The Millington / Chapel Lane Link would increase changes in views for Denfield Cottage listed building (Slightly Worse). Mitigation Good mitigation opportunities within the footprint of the junction, but no mitigation measures additional to Option N0 (Neutral).

B

Landscape Character Lesser land take than Chapel Lane Diversion in terms of impacts on landscape character and severing/disruption to landscape pattern (Slightly Better). Visual Chapel Lane properties and housing estate views would be altered by Chapel Lane Overpass, but this effect would be limited by the orientation of views from housing, with good opportunities to mitigate the additional impact (Slightly Worse). Views from Aysgarth House, Thornedge and others further east on Chapel Lane would be less affected than neighbouring properties. Views from Denfield Cottages 1 and 2, Denfield Cottage and Rushford Cottage would be affected by cumulative effects of views of a second new over bridge (i.e. Rostherne NMU Overpass as well as Chapel Lane Overpass) (Worse). Properties on Millington Hall Lane would have fewer impacts than N0 (Slightly Better).

Slightly Better

With

The Bucklow Hill Lane Link (West) would have only minor visual impacts (compared to N0). (Neutral)

Slightly Worse

N2

Landscape Character Bucklow Hill Grade Separated Junction – The location of the roundabout further away from the existing Chester Road would increase impacts on landscape character and cause severing/disruption to landscape pattern. Additional link roads would increase impacts (Slightly Worse). The Bucklow Hill Lane Link (East) and Bucklow Hill Roundabout would have a significant impact to Bucklow Hill Townscape Character (Worse). Minor increase impacts from Rostherne NMU Overpass (Slightly Worse). Visual The junction location would result in fewer receptors affected with lower levels of effects likely (Slightly Better). The roundabout to the west of the A556 would have minor visual impacts (compared to N0). Bucklow Hill Lane Link (East) and Bucklow Hill Roundabout would have a significant increase in visual impacts on receptors at Bucklow Hill (Worse). Rostherne NMU Overpass would cause visual impacts but not significant (Slightly Worse). Mitigation Good opportunities overall at the Bucklow Hill junction. Poor opportunities at Bucklow Hill Roundabout.

With

out


Slightly Worse

A

Landscape Character Comparable land take to Chapel Lane Diversion in terms of impacts on landscape character and severing/disruption to landscape pattern (Neutral) Visual Views from Burnt Houses (locally designated) on Bucklow Hill Lane would be impacted. Views from Aysgarth House and other properties on Chapel Lane (east) would alter with the introduction of Bucklow Hill Overpass, but could be partially mitigated (Slightly Worse). Views from Thornedge on Chapel Lane would be less affected (Slightly Better). Very minor views or no change from properties in Hulseheath. (Neutral).

Slightly Better

N3 (A & B)

Landscape Character Reduced concentration of landscape impacts by separating A556 SB Off-Slip and A556 NB On-Slip, but separating the junction elements would ‘spread’ the developed area. However, as an A50 overbridge is required in any case, the additional on-slip and roundabout would be less intrusive than if provided at Millington. The impact is therefore limited, as well as having good mitigation opportunities in this location. (Neutral). A556 SB Off-Slip is less intrusive to landscape character and less disruptive to landscape pattern (Slightly Better). The addition of Millington / Chapel Lane Link would cause additional impacts but not unduly disrupt landscape pattern (Neutral). Visual Omission of the Millington Junction would have less impacts on sensitive receptors on Millington Hall Lane (Slightly Better). Increased impacts at Hulme Barns Farm (Slightly Worse). Rostherne NMU Overpass would cause visual impacts but not significant (Slightly Worse). Mitigation A556 NB On-Slip has good mitigation opportunities due to the possibility of using land between the old and new A50. Good opportunities at A556 off-slip, but no mitigation measures additional to Option N0 (Neutral).

B


Slightly Better

N3 (C)

Landscape Character Reduced concentration of landscape impacts by separating A556 SB Off-Slip and A556 NB On-Slip, but separating the junction elements would ‘spread’ the developed area. However, as an A50 overbridge is required in any case, the additional on-slip and roundabout would be less intrusive than if provided at Millington. The impact is therefore limited, as well as having good mitigation opportunities in this location. (Neutral). Reduction in embankments at the A556 SB Off-Slip and mitigation opportunities between slip road and A556 SB carriageway (Slightly Better). Millington Overpass would result in less landscape impacts and the A556 SB Off-Slip would cause less impacts than comparable Millington Junction (Slightly Better). The western link of Millington Overpass would be comparable to impacts of Chapel Lane Diversion (as provided with N0). (Neutral)

Visual Millington Overpass would result in reduced visual impacts for properties on Millington Hall Lane (Fewer embankments) (Slightly Better). The western link of Millington Overpass would reduce impacts to Rose Cottage but some impacts would remain. More southerly location would result in impacts to Denfield Cottage Listed Building. (Slightly Worse) Mitigation A556 NB On-Slip has good mitigation opportunities due to the possibility of using additional land between old and new A50. Good opportunities at Millington Overpass, but overall no mitigation measures additional to Option N0. (Neutral).

Slightly Better

ENVIRONMENT (LANDSCAPE) GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0

Landscape Character Millington Junction - Significant impacts locally to Landscape Character through the introduction of high embankments, double roundabout junction and overbridge and the adverse effects resulting from Chapel Lane Diversion. No loss of woodlands/vegetation at the junctions, other than 50m approx. hedgerow at the Millington Junction and additional losses at tie-ins with existing roads. A50 Diversion – Moderate impacts to Landscape Character. Land between the new and old A50 sections suitable for landscape mitigation if required or return to agriculture/landscape improvement/enhancement.

Visual Significant visual intrusion impacts resulting from new embankments, overbridge and elevated views of moving traffic. A large proportion of the properties are Undesignated Historic Buildings or Locally Listed Buildings suffering moderate/significant impacts including No. 1 and 2 Denfield Cottages, Rose Cottage, Rushford Cottage, Sandhole Farm, Millington Hall Farm, Keldan, Montebello Castle and Old Smithy Cottage. Mitigation No off site planting is required. Good mitigation opportunities such as planting trees, shrubs, grassland etc. as appropriate and landscape mounding.


A

Landscape Character Comparable land take to Chapel Lane Diversion in terms of impacts on landscape character and severing/disruption to landscape pattern (Neutral). Visual Views from Burnt Houses (locally designated) on Bucklow Hill Lane would have increased impacts. Views from Aysgarth House and other properties on Chapel Lane (east) would alter with the introduction of Bucklow Hill Overpass but could be partially mitigated (Slightly Worse). Views from Thornedge on Chapel Lane would be less affected (Slightly Better). Very minor views or no change from properties in Hulseheath (Neutral).

Slightly Better

B

Landscape Character Lesser land take than Chapel Lane Diversion in terms of impacts on landscape character and severing/disruption to landscape pattern (Slightly Better). Visual Chapel Lane properties and housing estate views would be altered by Chapel Lane Overpass, but this effect would be limited by the orientation of views from housing, with good opportunities to mitigate the additional impact (Slightly Worse). Views from Aysgarth House, Thornedge and others further east on Chapel Lane would be less affected than neighbouring properties. Views from Denfield Cottages 1 and 2, Denfield Cottage and Rushford Cottage would be affected by cumulative effects of views of a second new overbridge (i.e. Rostherne NMU Overpass as well as Chapel Lane Overpass) (Worse). Properties on Millington Hall Lane would have fewer impacts than N0 (Slightly Better).

Slightly Better

N4

Landscape Character Double roundabout junction format would have greater impact on a sensitive landscape at Mere Hall (Slightly Worse). The A50 Junction is slightly less intrusive to landscape character and less disruptive to landscape pattern than N0 as it is adjacent to an existing road (Slightly Better). Visual Omission of Millington Junction would significantly reduce overall impact on the many sensitive receptors on Millington Hall Lane (Better). Impact increased at Hulme Barns Farm and Mere Hall Listed Building (Slightly Worse). Rostherne NMU Overpass would cause visual impacts but not significant (Slightly Worse). Mitigation A50 has good mitigation opportunities to screen the road from Hulme Barns Farm and Mere Hall. Mitigation measures at the A50 are different from N0, but no greater or lesser (Neutral).

C

Landscape Character Millington Overpass would result in less landscape impacts (Slightly Better). The western link of Millington Overpass would be comparable to impacts of Chapel Lane Diversion (as provided with Option N0) (Neutral). Visual Millington Overpass would result in reduced visual impacts for properties on Millington Hall Lane (fewer embankments) (Slightly Better). The western link of Millington Overpass would reduce impacts to Rose Cottage but some impacts would remain. More southerly location would result in impacts to Denfield Cottage Listed Building (Slightly Worse).

Slightly Better

A

Landscape Character Comparable land take to Chapel Lane Diversion in terms of impacts on landscape character and severing/disruption to landscape pattern (Neutral). Visual Views from Burnt Houses (locally designated) on Bucklow Hill Lane would have increased impacts. Views from Aysgarth House and other properties on Chapel Lane (east) would alter with the introduction Bucklow Hill Overpass but could be partially mitigated (Slightly Worse). Views from Thornedge on Chapel Lane would be less affected (Slightly Better). Very minor views or no change from properties on Hulseheath Lane (Neutral).

Slightly Better

B


Slightly Better N5

Landscape Character Double roundabout junction format would have greater impacts on a sensitive landscape at Mere Hall (Worse). The A50 Junction would be more intrusive to landscape character than N0, but would still be along the line of the A50 working within the general landscape pattern in this area. This option would also remove the need for the Tabley Junction. Although Old Hall Lane would still require an overbridge, these works would be located closer to the M6 junction having a lesser impact on landscape character than the large footprint of Option N0 (Better). The addition of Millington / Chapel Lane Link would cause additional impacts but not unduly disrupt landscape pattern (Neutral). Visual Omission of Millington Junction would significantly reduce overall impact on the many sensitive receptors on Millington Hall Lane (Better). Impact increased at Hulme Barns Farm and Mere Hall Listed Building (Slightly Worse). The removal of Tabley Junction would also be an improvement to the N0 reducing impacts to visual receptors in this area. Although works at Old Hall Lane will mean Tabley Hall is still affected, the affected views will be more limited than N0 making up less of the panorama (Slightly Better). Rostherne NMU Overpass would cause visual impacts but not significant (Slightly Worse). Mitigation A50 has good mitigation opportunities to screen the road from Hulme Barns Farm. Poor opportunities to screen the entire junction from Mere Hall. Possibility of using land between old and new A50, but no mitigation measures additional to Option N0 (Neutral). The embankments of Old Hall Lane Overpass would provide good opportunities for mitigation for Tabley Hall over Option N0 (Slightly Better). C

Landscape Character Millington Overpass would result in less landscape impacts (Slightly Better). The western link of Millington Overpass would be comparable to impacts of Chapel Lane Diversion (as provided with Option N0) (Neutral). Visual Millington Overpass would result in reduced visual impacts for properties on Millington Hall Lane (fewer embankments) (Slightly Better). The western link of Millington Overpass would reduce impacts to Rose Cottage but some impacts would remain. More southerly location would result in impacts to Denfield Cottage Listed Building (Slightly Worse).

Slightly Better

ENVIRONMENT (ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION) GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0

Habitats Loss, severance and fragmentation of hedgerows and loss of trees within hedgerows, including hedgerow either side of Bucklow Hill Lane. Fragmentation of Belt Wood and loss of woodland habitat near A50. Loss of arable and improved grassland, including land behind Rangemore Nursing Home. Loss of ponds 82, 77, 95, 66 and 62. Badger Severance of badger pathways and loss/fragmentation of badger foraging habitat (Belt Wood). Bats Loss of foraging and commuting habitat. Loss of potential roosting habitat (Belt Wood).

Habitat fragmentation. Possible disturbance during construction to bat roosts: • Denfield Cottage (100m). • Stables roost (50m). • 1 & 2 Denfield Cottage. Breeding and Wintering Birds Loss of suitable breeding and nesting habitat (hedgerows/trees, ponds and arable/improved grassland for ground nesting birds) and foraging habitat for wintering birds (arable). Fragmentation of habitat. Great Crested Newts (GCN) and other amphibians Loss of Pond 66 (GCN present in 2010). Loss of Ponds 95, 82, 77 and 62 – no GCN (at present) but other amphibian species likely.

Loss and fragmentation of terrestrial (foraging) habitat near: • Pond 76 (100m from scheme, historic GCN records). • Pond 91 (50m, GCN present). • Pond 92 (50m, GCN breeding pond). Severance of habitats between: • Ponds 80 and 73-78. • Pond 61 and ponds in the west. Otter Severance of terrestrial commuting route and loss of foraging resource (Pond 77). Barn Owl, Water Vole • No significant specific impacts relating to this junction option. Green Bridge – It is intended to provide one ‘green bridge’ on the scheme, to link habitats either side of the scheme and provide a crossing point for badgers and other wildlife. For Option N0, this is most likely to take the form of an extension to either the Tabley Junction overbridge or the A50 overbridge, as this would be less costly than a separate structure. These are acceptable locations, but not the optimum location.


A

Habitats – Additional loss of hedgerow adjacent to Pond 77 (Slightly Worse). Loss of arable land under footprint (Slightly Worse) GCN etc - More construction disturbance to pond 87 (no GCN 2010, but potential future use by GCN) (Slightly Worse). More fragmentation of foraging habitat near ponds 73-76 (Slightly Worse). Birds - More habitat fragmentation, plus loss of suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds (Slightly Worse).

Worse

N1

Habitats Isolation of small area of arable land within Millington Loop Junction. Assume that these loops would provide habitat creation opportunities (wetland and/or woodland). Increased fragmentation as road taken further away from existing road (Slightly Worse). Badger Habitat fragmentation issues for badger exacerbated as Millington Loop Junction footprint is over known badger pathways (Slightly Worse). Sensitive design of the local crossing would enable use by badger as safe crossing point over A556. Avoidance of construction related disturbance to outlier sett 23 as link road is located further away from sett (100m) compared with Option N0 (>50m) (Slightly Better)

Bats Greater construction disturbance (Denfield Cottage / Rushford Cottage (historical roost) located 50m from link road) (Slightly Worse). Sensitive planting design of overpass will facilitate use by bats as safe crossing point over scheme. GCN etc Exacerbation of isolation of Pond 91 due to the scheme to east and link road to west (Slightly Worse) Breeding/Wintering Birds Isolation of wintering bird foraging habitat within Millington Loop (Slightly Worse). Barn Owl, Water Vole and Otter No significant change in specific impacts relating to this junction option (Neutral).

B

Habitats - Fragmentation increased over N0, but less than N1 Sub-Option A. (Slightly Worse) GCN etc - Loss of ponds 81, 83, 84 (amphibian potential). Disturbance to pond 80 (GCN) (Worse). Bats - More disturbance to un-surveyed locations with bat roost potential (Slightly Worse). Birds - Loss of breeding habitat, more fragmentation and disturbance (Slightly Worse). Slightly

Worse

With

Bats - Disturbance during construction of Tree 86 (high potential to support roosting bats) which is adjacent to Bucklow Hill Lane Link (West) (Worse). GCN - Isolation of Ponds 73 and 75 from 74 and 76. (Pond 76 has historical record of GCN.) Ponds 73 and 75 would become completely isolated from other ponds in the vicinity (Significantly Worse). Significantly

Worse

N2

Habitats Increased loss of arable land (Slightly Worse). Greater habitat fragmentation and loss of hedgerow by Bucklow Hill Lane (Slightly Worse). Possible increased habitat creation opportunities. Bats Disturbance of bat roost at Tree T93 during construction, located by Chapel Lane (Slightly Worse). Possible disturbance/habitat fragmentation at Bucklow Hill roundabout (not surveyed; assume two building roosts and one tree roost) (Slightly Worse). Rostherne NMU Overpass - construction disturbance of bat roost at 2 Millington Lane (Slightly Worse). Sensitive design could reduce fragmentation as structure may act as a bat bridge.

Breeding / Wintering birds Increased loss of suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds (hedgerows/ arable) and foraging habitat for wintering birds (arable). Coupled with greater fragmentation of habitat (Worse). GCN Greater loss and fragmentation of suitable terrestrial foraging habitat. Increased disturbance during construction at Pond 87 (no GCN but prob. other amphibians). Increased fragmentation/severance at Pond 80 (Worse). Badger, Barn Owl, Otter and Water Vole As per N0 (Neutral)

Rostherne NMU Overpass could by used by badgers as safe crossing point over scheme providing sensitive design – but little badger activity recorded in this area so chances of being used are limited.

Without

Sub-option impacts would not occur.

Worse

A

Habitats – Additional loss of hedgerow adjacent to Pond 77 (Slightly Worse). Loss of arable land under footprint (Slightly Worse) GCN etc – More construction disturbance to pond 87 (no GCN 2010, but potential future use by GCN) (Worse). More fragmentation of foraging habitat near ponds 73-76 (Slightly Worse than Sub-Option B). Birds –Greater additional habitat fragmentation at Bucklow Hill Overpass, plus loss of suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds through loss of hedgerows and arable land under Bucklow Hill Overpass footprint (Worse).

Significantly Worse

N3 (A&B)

Habitats More loss of improved grassland habitat at A50 and Rangemore Nursing Home (Slightly Worse). Additional partial loss of pond 69 and full loss of pond 66 (Worse). Additional loss of habitat from Belt Wood (Slightly Worse). Reduced opportunities for GCN mitigation if required (Slightly Worse). Badger Additional fragmentation as A50 link has larger footprint (Slightly Worse). Assumed that old road would be broken up and tarmac removed. Barn Owl Potential disturbance during construction: A50 Link approx 100m from Hulmes Barn Farm - potential nesting site (Slightly Worse).

Bats Loss of tree 83 - high roosting potential. Loss/fragmentation of foraging, commuting, poss. roosting habitat at Belt Wood (Slightly Worse). GCN Loss of Pond 69 (no GCN, other amphibians likely) and Pond 66 (GCN Breeding 2010) (Worse). Greater fragmentation of terrestrial habitat (Slightly Worse). Breeding Birds and Wintering Birds Additional habitat loss from Belt Wood. See sub-option specific comments. Otter and Water vole As per N0 (Neutral).

B

Habitats – Fragmentation increased over N0 (Slightly Worse). GCN etc – Loss of ponds 81, 83, 84 (amphibian potential). Disturbance to pond 80 (GCN) (Worse). Bats – More disturbance to un-surveyed locations with bat roost potential (Worse). Birds – Loss of breeding habitat, more fragmentation and disturbance (Slightly Worse).

Significantly Worse

ENVIRONMENT (ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION) GENERAL COMMENTS / IMPACTS OF BASELINE DESIGN (N0)

N0

Habitats Loss, severance and fragmentation of hedgerows and loss of trees within hedgerows, including hedgerow either side of Bucklow Hill Lane. Fragmentation of Belt Wood and loss of woodland habitat near A50. Loss of arable and improved grassland, including land behind Rangemore Nursing Home. Loss of ponds 82, 77, 95, 66 and 62. Badger Severance of badger pathways and loss/fragmentation of badger foraging habitat (Belt Wood). Bats Loss of foraging and commuting habitat. Loss of potential roosting habitat (Belt Wood).

Habitat fragmentation. Possible disturbance during construction to bat roosts: • Denfield Cottage (100m). • Stables roost (50m). • 1 & 2 Denfield Cottage. Breeding and Wintering Birds Loss of suitable breeding and nesting habitat (hedgerows/trees, ponds and arable/improved grassland for ground nesting birds) and foraging habitat for wintering birds (arable). Fragmentation of habitat. Great Crested Newts (GCN) and other amphibians Loss of Pond 66 (GCN present in 2010). Loss of Ponds 95, 82, 77 and 62 – no GCN (at present) but other amphibian species likely.

Loss and fragmentation of terrestrial (foraging) habitat near: • Pond 76 (100m from scheme, historic GCN records). • Pond 91 (50m, GCN present). • Pond 92 (50m, GCN breeding pond). Severance of habitats between: • Ponds 80 and 73-78. • Pond 61 and ponds in the west. Otter Severance of terrestrial commuting route and loss of foraging resource (Pond 77). Barn Owl, Water Vole • No significant specific impacts relating to this junction option. Green Bridge – It is intended to provide one ‘green bridge’ on the scheme, to link habitats either side of the scheme and provide a crossing point for badgers and other wildlife. For Option N0, this is most likely to take the form of an extension to either the Tabley Junction overbridge or the A50 overbridge, as this would be less costly than a separate structure. These are acceptable locations, but not the optimum location.


N3 (C)

Habitats More loss of improved grassland habitat and woodland in Belt wood, at A50 (Slightly Worse). Additional partial loss of pond 69 and full loss of pond 66 (Worse). Additional loss of habitat from Belt Wood (Slightly Worse). Reduced opportunities for GCN mitigation if required (Slightly Worse). Increased fragmentation, severance and isolation of plots of remaining land (Slightly Worse). Badger Additional fragmentation as A50 link has larger footprint. Works nearer to outlier sett S20 in Belt Wood (Slightly Worse). Loss of badger outlier sett S23 due to Millington / Chapel Lane Link road (Slightly Worse)

Barn Owl Poss. construction disturbance; A50 Link approx 100m from Hulme Barns Farm - potential nesting site. Embanked roundabout increases the risk of collision/mortality of barn owl (Slightly Worse). Bats Loss of tree 83 - high roosting potential. Loss/fragmentation of foraging, commuting, poss. roosting habitat at Belt Wood (Worse). Construction disturbance to Brook Cottage (confirmed roost site) (Worse)

Breeding Birds and Wintering Birds Additional habitat loss from Belt Wood compared with N0. Loss of nesting habitat due to loss of hedgerow under Millington / Chapel Lane Link road (Slightly Worse). Loss of nesting habitat due to loss of hedgerow under Millington / Chapel Lane Link road (Slightly Worse). GCN Loss of Pond 69 (no GCN, other amphibians likely) and Pond 66 (GCN Breeding 2010) (Worse). Greater fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – particularly around pond 92 (historical record of GCN and actual presence in 2011) (Slightly Worse). Millington Overpass results in more fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – especially around pond 92 (historical record of GCN and actual presence in 2011). But, retains opportunities to disperse to the west (Worse).

Worse

A

Habitats - Additional loss of hedgerow adjacent to Pond 77 (Slightly Worse). Loss of arable land under footprint (Slightly Worse) GCN etc - More construction disturbance to pond 87 (no GCN 2010, but potential future use by GCN) (Worse) More fragmentation of foraging habitat near ponds 73-76 (Slightly Worse). Birds – More habitat fragmentation, plus loss of suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds (Slightly Worse).

Worse

B

Habitats – Fragmentation increased over N0 (Slightly Worse). GCN etc – Loss of ponds 81, 83, 84 (amphibian potential). Disturbance to pond 80 (GCN) (Worse). Bats – More disturbance to un-surveyed locations with bat roost potential (Worse). Birds – Loss of breeding habitat, more fragmentation and disturbance (Slightly Worse).

Worse N4

Habitats Increased loss of woodland habitat at Belt Wood (Slightly Worse). Increased hedgerow severance and loss of arable land due to A556 off and on-slips at A50 junction (Slightly Worse). Badger Additional fragmentation as A50 link has larger footprint (Slightly Worse). Barn Owl Poss. construction disturbance; A50 Link approx 100m from Hulme Barns Farm - potential nesting site. Embanked roundabout increases the risk of collision/mortality of barn owl (Slightly Worse).

Bats Loss of tree 83 - high roosting potential (Worse). Loss/fragmentation of foraging, commuting, poss. roosting habitat at Belt Wood (Slightly Worse) Breeding and Wintering Birds Additional habitat loss from Belt Wood (Slightly Worse) GCN Additional partial loss of Pond 69 (no GCN recorded but likely to support other amphibian species) (Slightly Worse) Greater fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – particularly around pond 92 (historical record of GCN) (Slightly Worse)

C Habitats - Loss of hedgerow along length of Millington / Chapel Lane Link road (Slightly Worse). GCN - Greater fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – particularly around pond 92 (historical record of GCN and actual presence in 2011) (Worse)

Worse

A

Habitats – Additional loss of hedgerow adjacent to pond 77 (Slightly Worse). Loss of arable land under footprint (Slightly Worse) GCN etc – More construction disturbance to pond 87 (no GCN 2010, but potential future use by GCN) (Worse). More fragmentation of foraging habitat near ponds 73-76 (Slightly Worse). Birds – More habitat fragmentation, plus loss of suitable nesting habitat for breeding birds (Slightly Worse).

Worse

B

Habitats - Fragmentation increased over N0 (Slightly Worse). GCN etc - Loss of ponds 81, 83, 84 (amphibian potential). Disturbance to pond 80 (GCN) (Worse). Bats - More disturbance to un-surveyed locations with bat roost potential (Worse). Birds - Loss of breeding habitat, more fragmentation and disturbance (Slightly Worse).

Worse N5

Habitats Increased loss of woodland habitat at Belt Wood (Slightly Worse). Increased hedgerow severance and loss of arable land due to A556 off and on-slips at A50 junction (Slightly Worse). Badger Additional fragmentation as A50 link has larger footprint. Construction works closer to sett 20 (Slightly Worse) Barn Owl Poss. construction disturbance; A50 Link approx 100m from Hulme Barns Farm - potential nesting site. Embanked roundabout increases the risk of collision/mortality of barn owl (Slightly Worse).

Bats Loss of tree T69 which offers high potential to support roosting bats. Also loss of larger area of Belt Wood under A50 link roundabouts would lead to fragmentation effects due to severance of commuting route. Together with loss of foraging and potential roosting and habitat. (Worse) Breeding and Wintering Birds Additional habitat loss from Belt Wood (Slightly Worse). GCN Additional partial loss of Pond 69 (no GCN recorded but likely to support other amphibian species) Greater fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – particularly around pond 92 (historical record of GCN) (Slightly Worse) Green Bridge - The opportunity to save cost by providing the green bridge as an extension to one of the overbridges would not be available. It would therefore probably take the form of a separate structure, located at the optimum location near the southern section of Belt Wood (Slightly Better).

C

Habitats - Loss of hedgerow along length of Millington / Chapel Lane Link road (Slightly Worse). GCN – Greater fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – particularly around pond 92 (historical record of GCN and actual presence in 2011) (Worse)

Worse

ENVIRONMENT (ROAD DRAINAGE AND THE WATER ENVIRONMENT)


Most of the existing Chester Road in the study area drains to tributaries of Rostherne Brook, and through The Mere, Little Mere and Rostherne Mere. No treatment of the water or protection of watercourses is currently provided.

Drainage of the new A556 would avoid the sensitive water bodies listed above. Approximately half of the southern offline section would drain into small tributaries of Tabley Brook to the west of the new A556. Further north, the new A556 would drain into a small tributary to the west which passes below the M56 and join the River Bollin further west. Drainage from the re-designed M56 Junction (including the new A556/M56 Spur in this location), would outfall into Birkin Brook and the River Bollin.

Treatment and flood protection would be provided, in the form of wetlands and ponds.

The Environmental Impact Assessment reported in the Preliminary Environmental Information has considered the various attributes of each feature of the water environment. Many of the impacts have been assessed as ‘Neutral’. However, there would be beneficial impacts on water quality in Rostherne Brook, The Mere and Little Mere as a result of diverting large volumes of traffic from the existing Chester Road onto the new A556. There would be adverse impacts on tributaries of Tabley Brook as a result of introducing new discharges to those watercourses, although these would be mitigated by treatment and attenuation at the discharge locations.


A Approx. 1700m2 increase in impermeable area (Neutral). Neutral

N1

No notable effect. Drainage strategy within Baseline Design unchanged (Neutral).

General increase (<1% max.) in impermeable area owing to additional local road construction and longer slip roads (Neutral).

New local road construction (either sub-option) to be drained over the edge, without treatment or attenuation. This strategy has been confirmed with the local highways authority and is not considered to represent a significant impact due to the relatively narrow road widths and low traffic levels (Neutral).

Construction of Millington / Chapel Lane Link road is in close proximity to existing ponds. In additional, this link will cut across existing surface flow paths and drainage (Slightly Worse).

B Marginal increase in impermeable area (Neutral) Neutral

With Approx. 8700m2 increase in impermeable area (Slightly Worse). Slightly

Worse

N2

General increase (<4% max.) in impermeable area owing to additional local road construction (Slightly Worse).

The proposed Bucklow Hill Lane Link (East) and new roundabout with Chester Road would carry significant traffic volumes (up to 10,000AADT in 2030). This would have negative impacts on local water quality if the link is drained over the edge. If new A556 drainage is to be installed, this would likely be routed towards the existing outfall along Cicely Mill Lane, which would increase the amount of discharge and reduce water quality (assuming no attenuation / treatment is introduced). This discharge would route toward Rostherne Mere (albeit a significant distance (>1km) downstream). This outfall would now receive highway drainage from both the existing Chester Road as well as the new Bucklow Hill Lane Link (East) (Worse).


Without

Approx. 1700m2 increase in impermeable area (Neutral). Slightly Worse

A Approx. 3350m2 increase in impermeable area (Slightly Worse). Neutral

N3 (A&B)

General increase (<2% max.) in impermeable area owing to additional local road construction (Neutral).

Additional impermeable area at the A50 junction would see more highway drainage routed southwards (towards Tabley Brook), and less drainage routed towards the River Bollin (via the tributary running through Little Bollington). Both watercourses are similar. (Neutral).


B Approx. 1850m2 increase in impermeable area (Neutral) Neutral

N3 (C) Similar to N3 (A&B) above. C Approx. 4300m2 increase in impermeable area (Slightly Worse) Neutral

A Approx. 1500m2 increase in impermeable area (Neutral) Neutral

B Marginal increase in impermeable area (Neutral) Neutral N4

General increase (<1.5% max.) in impermeable area owing to additional local road construction (Neutral).



C Approx. 2500m2 (assumed) increase in impermeable area (Neutral) Neutral

A Approx. 1250m2 reduction in impermeable area (Neutral) Neutral

B Approx. 1450m2 reduction in impermeable area (Neutral) Neutral N5

General reduction (<1% max.) in impermeable area owing to additional local road construction (Neutral).



C Marginal reduction (assumed) in impermeable area (Neutral) Neutral

Page not used.

ENVIRONMENT (COMMUNITY AND PRIVATE ASSETS)


The majority of communities would experience longer-term operational impacts through a reduction in community severance as a result of less traffic on the de-trunked Chester Road, reduced congestion and more reliable journey times.

Some communities, particularly Millington would have longer journeys with the current alignment.

No properties would be demolished or community land lost (Neutral).

Agriculture

Five farm businesses would lose a total of 31.0 ha of agricultural land to the proposals, including land for essential mitigation.

Approximately 70% of the permanent agricultural land take is estimated to be of good or very good quality, with the remaining 30% as moderate quality land.

Other agricultural impacts include severance of fields, creation of smaller irregularly shaped fields, changes to access points and extended distances to fields.

All five farms would experience adverse impacts, two having significant adverse residual impact.


A Millington Hall Farm: Less land take than Sub-Option B (Slightly Better) and much shorter road diversion (Slightly Better). Mere Hall Farm: Increased land take (Worse). Overall, net additional 2.64 ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots.

Slightly Worse

N1

Millington Junction, together with the new local crossing, would provide a similar link between the local and wider communities as N0 and therefore would not cause a significant change to community severance (Neutral). There would be a slight increase in land take from several non-agricultural properties: • Rangemore Nursing Home (0.02ha). • Secretary of State for Transport (0.09ha). • Cheshire East Council (0.1ha). And a slight decrease for: • Secretary of State (0.3ha). Overall Impact in relation to non-agricultural land take - Slightly Worse

Agriculture Two farms would experience a change to impact: Millington Hall Farm: Increased land take and severance of fields (Slightly Worse) Mere Hall Farm: Increased land take (Slightly Worse) but much shorter route to severed plot of land (Slightly Better). Overall impact on agriculture in relation to N0 – Worse B Additional non-agricultural land take from Thornedge (0.04ha) and Aysgarth (0.02ha), both

located on Chapel Lane (Slightly Worse) Millington Hall Farm: More land take than Sub-Option A (Worse than Sub-Option A). Reduced severance to west but increased route to east (Slightly Worse). Mere Hall Farm: Very slightly increased land take (Slightly Worse) Overall, net additional 1.79 ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots

Slightly Worse

With

Reduced community severance and journey times between Hoo Green and Bucklow Hill (Significantly Better).

Slightly Worse

N2

Increased community severance and journey time for Millington travelling to the east and north of the scheme (Slightly Worse). There would be a slight increase in land take from several non-agricultural properties: • Secretary of State for Transport (0.2ha). • Rangemore Nursing Home (0.08ha). • Denfield Smithy, Chester Road (Aqua Air Ltd) (0.1ha). Overall impact in relation to non-agricultural land take - Slightly Worse Agriculture Three farms would experience a change to impact: Mere Hall Farm: Land take doubled (Significantly Worse) but much shorter route to the severed land (Better)

Millington Hall Farm: Reduced land take (Better). Reduced severance of fields to west but much longer diversion to severed land to east. Newhall Farm: Small additional land take (Slightly Worse). Overall, net additional 2.04 ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots. Overall impact on agriculture in relation to N0 – Worse

Without

No additional impacts

Worse

A Millington Hall Farm: Less land take than Sub-Option B (Slightly Better) and much shorter road diversion (Slightly Better). Mere Hall Farm: Increased land take (Worse). Overall, net additional 2.64 ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots.

Slightly Better

N3 (A&B)

Increased community severance and journey time for Millington, Rostherne and Bucklow Hill travelling to the north of the scheme (Worse). Reduced community severance and journey time for Hoo Green and Mere (Slightly Better). There would be a slight increase in land take from several non-agricultural properties: • Cheshire East Council (0.1ha). • Moss House Farm (0.005ha). • Rangemore Nursing Home (0.03ha). And a slight decrease for: • Secretary of State for Transport (0.2ha). • Denfield Smithy, Chester Road (Aqua Air Ltd) (0.01ha). Overall impact in relation to non-agricultural land take - Neutral

Agriculture Four farms would experience a change to impact: Hulme Barns Farm: Increased land take. No change in accessibility but increased conflict with A556 traffic. (Slightly Worse) Mere Hall Farm: Increased land take (Worse) but much shorter diversion route to severed land (Better). Millington Hall Farm: Reduced land take and reduced severance to fields to west, but a much longer diversion to severed land to east. (Better). Newhall Farm: Small additional land take (Slightly Worse) Overall, net reduced area of 0.25 ha of agricultural land compared to N0, excluding any potentially severed small plots.

B Additional non-agricultural land take from Thornedge (0.04ha) and Aysgarth (0.02ha), both located on Chapel Lane (Slightly Worse) Millington Hall Farm: More land take than Sub-Option A (Worse than Sub-Option A). Reduced severance to west but increased route to east (Slightly Worse). Mere Hall Farm: Very slightly increased land take (Slightly Worse)

Slightly Better

N3 (C)

Increased community severance and journey time for Millington, Rostherne and Bucklow Hill travelling to the north of the scheme (Worse). Reduced community severance and journey time for Hoo Green and Mere (Slightly Better). There would be a slight increase in land take from the following non-agricultural properties: • Rangemore Nursing Home (0.02ha). • Moss House Farm (0.03ha). • Cheshire East Council (0.03ha). And a slight decrease for: • 1 Millington Lane, Millington (0.01ha). • Secretary of State for Transport (0.1ha). Overall impact in relation to non-agricultural land take - Slightly Worse

Agriculture Four farms would experience a change to impact: Hulme Barns Farm: Increased land take. No change in accessibility but increased conflict with A556 traffic. (Slightly Worse) Mere Hall Farm: No change in land take (Neutral). No change in accessibility but reduced conflict with A556 traffic. (Slightly Better) Millington Hall Farm: Reduced land take and severance of fields. (Better) Newhall Farm: Very small reduction in land take from Newhall Farm. (Slightly Better)

Overall, net reduced area of 0.16 ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots. Overall impact on agriculture in relation to N0 – Better

Better

ENVIRONMENT (COMMUNITY AND PRIVATE ASSETS)


The majority of communities would experience longer-term operational impacts through a reduction in community severance as a result of less traffic on the de-trunked Chester Road, reduced congestion and more reliable journey times.

Some communities, particularly Millington would have longer journeys with the current alignment.

No properties would be demolished or community land lost (Neutral).

Agriculture

Five farm businesses would lose a total of 31.0 ha of agricultural land to the proposals, including land for essential mitigation.

Approximately 70% of the permanent agricultural land take is estimated to be of good or very good quality, with the remaining 30% as moderate quality land.

Other agricultural impacts include severance of fields, creation of smaller irregularly shaped fields, changes to access points and extended distances to fields.

All five farms would experience adverse impacts, two having significant adverse residual impact.


A Slight increase in journey length between Millington and Bucklow Hill (Slightly Worse) Additional non-agricultural land take from Cheshire East Council (0.1ha) and Moss House Farm (0.005ha) Reduction in non-agricultural land take from Secretary of State for Transport (0.2ha) Mere Hall Farm: Increased land take and severance of fields (Worse) Millington Hall Farm: Reduced land take (Better) Newhall Farm: There would be a very small increase in land take (Slightly Worse). Overall, net increased area of 0.17ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots. Overall impact on agriculture in relation to N0 – Slightly Worse

Slightly Worse

B Slight increase in journey length between Millington and Bucklow Hill (Slightly Worse) Additional non-agricultural land take from Cheshire East Council (0.1ha), Moss House Farm (0.005ha), Thornedge on Chapel Lane (0.04ha) and Aysgarth on Chapel Lane (0.02ha). Reduction in non-agricultural land take from Secretary of State for Transport (0.2ha) Mere Hall Farm: Very slight increase in land take (Slightly Worse) Millington Hall Farm: Reduced land take (Better) Overall, net increased area of 1.27ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots. Overall impact on agriculture in relation to N0 – Slightly Better

Slightly Worse

N4

Increased community severance and journey time for Millington, Rostherne and Bucklow Hill travelling to and from the north of the scheme (Worse).

Reduced community severance and journey time for Hoo Green and Mere (Slightly Better). There would be a slight decrease in land take from several non-agricultural properties: • Rangemore Nursing Home (0.08ha). • Denfield Smithy, Chester Road (Aqua Air) (0.01ha). Overall impact in relation to non-agricultural land take - Slightly Better

Slight negative impact on Cheshire Lounge (commercial property in Millington) from N0 (Slightly Worse).

Agriculture Three farms would experience a change to impact: Hulme Barns Farm: Increased land take. No change in accessibility but increased conflict with A556 traffic. (Worse) Mere Hall Farm: Much shorter road diversion to severed land, avoiding conflict with the A556 traffic. (Better) Millington Hall Farm: Significantly reduced land take. Reduced severance of field to west but a much longer road diversion to severed land, albeit avoiding conflict with the A556 traffic. (Significantly Better)

C No change in local community severance (Neutral) Additional non-agricultural land take from Moss House Farm (0.03ha) and Cheshire East Council (0.03ha ) Reduction in non-agricultural land take from Secretary of State for Transport (0.3ha) Mere Hall Farm: Very slight increase in land take (Slightly Worse) Millington Hall Farm: Increased land take (Worse)

Neutral

A Slight increase in journey length between Millington and Bucklow Hill (Slightly Worse) Additional non-agricultural land take from Cheshire East Council (0.1ha) and Moss House Farm (0.005ha) Reduction in non-agricultural land take from Secretary of State for Transport (0.2ha) Mere Hall Farm - Increased land take (Worse) Newhall Farm: There would be a very small increase in land take (Slightly Worse). Overall, net land take would be a reduced area of 3.0 ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots.

Better

B Slight increase in journey length between Millington and Bucklow Hill, (Slightly Worse) Additional non-agricultural land take from Cheshire East Council (0.1ha), Moss House Farm (0.005ha), Thornedge on Chapel Lane (0.04ha) and Aysgarth on Chapel Lane (0.02ha). Reduction in non-agricultural land take from Secretary of State for Transport (0.2ha) Mere Hall Farm: Very slight increase in land take (Slightly Worse) Overall, net land take would be a reduced area of 4.44 ha of agricultural land, excluding any potentially severed small plots.

Better N5

Community Severance

Holehouses and Over Tabley: • Increased severance travelling from south. • Reduced severance travelling to north.

Mere and Hoo Green: • Decreased severance to and from the north and south.

Bucklow Hill, Millington and Rostherne • Increased severance from north. • Reduced severance to south. There would be a slight decrease in land take from several non-agricultural properties: • Rangemore Nursing Home, Chester Road (0.08ha). • Denfield Smithy, Chester Road (Aqua Air Ltd) (0.01ha). • Over Tabley Hall, Old Hall Lane (0.1ha). Overall impact in relation to non-agricultural land take (Slightly Better)

Slight adverse impact on commercial properties of Cheshire Lounge (Millington) and Over Tabley Service Area (Slightly Worse).

Agriculture Eight farms would be affected by this Option: Over Tabley Development Land: Increased land take creating four small severed plots of land (Slightly Worse) Pownell Green Farm: Very small land take (Slightly Worse) Over Tabley Hall Land and Tabley Hill Farm: Significant reduction in land take and shorter journeys to the severed areas east of the A556 (Significantly Better) Church Farm: No longer affected (Significantly Better) Hulme Barns Farm: Increased land take. No change in accessibility but increased conflict with A556 traffic (Worse) Mere Hall Farm: Increased land take and severance of fields (Worse). Much shorter road diversion to severed land, avoiding conflict with the A556 traffic (Better). Millington Hall Farm: Significantly reduced land take (approx 25%). Reduced severance of fields but a much longer road diversion to severed land east of the new A556, albeit avoiding conflict with the A556 traffic (Significantly Better). Overall impact on agriculture in relation to N0 – Significantly Better

C No change in local community severance (Neutral) Additional non-agricultural and take from Moss House Farm (0.03ha) and Cheshire East Council (0.03ha ) Reduction in non-agricultural land take from Secretary of State for Transport (0.3ha) Mere Hall Farm: Very slight increase in land take (Slightly Worse) Millington Hall Farm: Increased land take (Worse)

Slightly Better

ENVIRONMENT (EFFECTS ON ALL TRAVELLERS)


N0

The transfer of traffic to the new A556 and the provision of safe crossing points eliminates the existing ‘barrier’ effect. The de-trunked Chester Road becomes an attractive route for NMUs (pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists). Provision of segregated NMU facilities at Millington Junction and Old Hall Lane NMU Underpass provides and a connecting route between Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) either side of the new A556. Changes to side roads and footpaths would increase journey lengths to cross A556.

The higher standard of the new A556 and the elimination of conflict with local traffic would reduce driver stress on the trunk road. In the long term driver views would improve as the landscaping works mature.


A Bucklow Hill Overpass reduces length of diversion for Regional Cycle Route 70 and bus route (Better). Better

N1

Millington junction retains segregated NMU facilities as per N0, but also provides improved connectivity through provision of a link southwards to Millington Hall Lane as well as northwards to Millington Lane (Better). Two crossing points for NMUs are provided in the northern part of the scheme (Millington Junction and the local crossing) rather than one (Millington Junction) in N0 (Better)

Significant reduction in diversion of Regional Cycle Route 70 and bus route (see sub-options).

B Chapel Lane Overpass removes diversion for Regional Cycle Route 70 and bus route (Significantly Better). Better

With Eliminates severance of Bucklow Hill Lane, reducing journey length between Hoo Green and Bucklow Hill (Significantly Better) Better

N2

Provides two crossing points for NMUs in the northern part of the scheme (Rostherne NMU Overpass and at Bucklow Hill Grade-Separated Junction), both on or close to existing desire lines, rather than a single crossing point located half way between two desire lines (Better) and improves connectivity to the de-trunked Chester Road (Significantly Better).

Potential conflict between NMUs and vehicular traffic at new roundabout to the west of the new A556 (Slightly Worse)

Without Bucklow Hill Lane still severed (Neutral compared to N0; Worse compared to ‘With’ sub-option) Better

A Bucklow Hill Overpass reduces length of diversion for Regional Cycle Route 70 and bus route (Better).

Better

N3 (A&B)

Provides two crossing points for NMUs in the northern part of the scheme (Rostherne NMU Overpass and the local crossing), both on or close to existing desire lines, rather than a single crossing point located half way between two desire lines (Better) and improves connectivity to the de-trunked Chester Road (Significantly Better).

A556 NB On-Slip at the A50 creates conflict between vehicle travellers and NMUs (Worse). Journeys along A50 affected by roundabout, which slows vehicle travellers down (Slightly Better in relation to safety, Slightly Worse in relation to driver stress). B Chapel Lane Overpass removes diversion for Regional Cycle Route 70 and bus route

(Significantly Better). Better

N3 (C)

No significant difference at Millington Junction for NMUs (Neutral)

A556 NB On-slip at the A50 creates conflict between vehicle travellers and NMUs (Worse). Journeys along A50 affected by roundabout, which slows vehicle travellers down (Slightly Better in relation to safety, Slightly Worse in relation to driver stress).

Neutral


B Chapel Lane Overpass removes diversion for Regional Cycle Route 70 and bus route (Significantly Better). Better N4


Two slip roads at A50 create conflict between vehicle travellers and NMUs (particularly pedestrians, which are required to cross two slip-ways) (Worse). Journeys along A50 are affected by two roundabouts, which slows vehicle travellers down (Slightly Better in relation to safety, Worse in relation to driver stress).

C Diversion for Regional Cycle Route 70 unchanged (Neutral) Better


B Chapel Lane Overpass removes diversion for Regional Cycle Route 70 and bus route (Significantly Better). Better N5


All-movements junction at A50 significantly increases conflict between vehicle travellers and NMUs (multiple slip-ways) (Worse). Journeys along A50 are affected by two roundabouts, which slows vehicle travellers down (Slightly Better in relation to safety, Worse in relation to driver stress).

C Diversion for Regional Cycle Route 70 unchanged (Neutral) Better

Documents

Junction Options Comparative Assessment Reportassets.highways.gov.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/... · A 56 K nu tsf ordB w E vi meal I p Junction Options Comparative Assessment Report 1 Issued