THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF STOCKPORT ... West Coast Mainline Bridge Preliminary Design Report...

1

Proof of Evidence Volume 2/1

5th September 2014

THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF STOCKPORT (HAZEL GROVE (A6) TO MANCHESTER AIRPORT A555 CLASSIFIED ROAD) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2013 THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF STOCKPORT (HAZEL GROVE (A6) TO MANCHESTER AIRPORT A555 CLASSIFIED ROAD) (SIDE ROADS) ORDER 2013

THE HIGHWAYS ACT 1980

-and-

THE ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981

THE HIGHWAYS (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) RULES 1994

COMPULSORY PURCHASE (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) RULES 2007

REFERENCE: LAO/NW/SRO/2013/40 and LAO/NW/CPO/2013/41

A proof of evidence relating to the HIGHWAY ENGINEERING aspect of the

A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road

-of-

Nazrul Huda

B.Eng C.Eng MICE

on behalf of

The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport

acting on its behalf and on behalf

-of-

Manchester City Council

-and-

Cheshire East Borough Council

VOLUME 1 – PROOF OF EVIDENCE

Local Public Inquiry – 30th September 2014

2

Contents1 Introduction and Scope of Evidence ............................................................................................... 6

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6

1.2 Scope of Evidence ................................................................................................................... 6

2 The Scheme ..................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 8

3 Highway Design ............................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 9

3.2 Traffic Modelling ................................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Speed Limit and Design Speed .............................................................................................. 11

3.4 Typical Cross Section ............................................................................................................. 12

3.5 Departures and Relaxations .................................................................................................. 15

3.6 Horizontal Alignment ............................................................................................................ 17

3.7 Vertical Alignment................................................................................................................. 27

3.8 Consideration of Junction Options during the design process ............................................. 32

3.9 Earthwork Design .................................................................................................................. 35

3.10 Structures Rationale and Design ........................................................................................... 38

3.11 Signing Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 41

3.12 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage ................................................................................... 43

3.13 Road Safety Audit .................................................................................................................. 45

3.14 Street Lighting ....................................................................................................................... 46

3.15 Statutory Undertakers Equipment ........................................................................................ 48

4 Side Road Order ............................................................................................................................ 49

4.1 Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and Non‐Motorised User (NMU) Provision ........................... 49

4.2 Private Means of Access ....................................................................................................... 51

5 Justification of Land Acquisition ................................................................................................... 58

6 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 60

3

Appendices

A. Scheme Plan

B. Typical Cross Section

C. Departures from Standards Schedule

D. Extract of DMRB TD9/93

E. Junctions Options Summary

F. Earthwork Balance Table and Diagram (Carillion Morgan Sindall)

G. Run Off Restrictions Report (Aecom)

H. Side Roads Order – Informative

List of Tables

Table 4.1 – Schedule of New and Diverted Private Means of Access

Core Document References

Core

Document

Ref

Report Date

1102 CPO Aerial Photography Plans August 2014

1103 SRO Aerial Photography Plans August 2014

1104 List of Proposed Modifications August 2014

2063 B002 – Hazel Grove to Buxton Feasibility Report Study

(1007/7.04/082 Issue 3

September 2013

2071

B008 West Coast Mainline Bridge Preliminary Design Report

47060785‐PDR‐008 Issue 3

January 2013

2079 Transport Assessment October 2013

2081 Flood Risk Assessment ‐ Rev5 1007/6.7/061 October 2013

2085 Drainage Strategy Report October 2013

2092 Environmental Statement October 2013

4003 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Current

4402 The Floods and Water Management Act 2010

5007

Junctions Options Report November 2012

5014 West Coast Mainline Option Comparison (Over v Under)

1007/6.19/108 Rev 4

June 2012

5015 West Coast Mainline Comparison – Environmental Appraisal

1007/6.9/106 Issue 0.2

October 2012

4

5016 Network Rail Hazel Grove and Buxton Line – Justification of Rail Over Road Bridge Report 1007/7.05/106 Issue 2

June 2012

5501 Road Safety Audit Stage 1 October 2013

5505 COPECAT Report September 2013

5507

Balfour Beatty Consultant Contractor Report

November 2011

5512 General Arrangement Plans ‐ 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/200‐209

October 2013

5513 Alternative A6 Junction Online ‐ 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/316

June 2014

5514 A6 Junction Avoiding Ancient Woodland – 1007/2D/TR1/A6‐MA/GA/161A

August 2013

5515 Ringway Road Highway Improvement Works and Airport City – 1007/3D/DF5/A6‐MA/GA/510A TO 511A

November 2011

5516 Earthworks Cuttings, Embankments and Bunds ‐ 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/338‐339

August 2014

5517 Carillion Morgan Sindall ‐ Overall Plan – MS2498‐TW‐T001 REV 2

August 2013

5518 General Arrangement and CPO Extents – 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/CPO/317 to 325

August 2014

5522 Departures Report July 2014

Acronyms and Abbreviations

A list of terms and abbreviations which may have been used within this document is given below:

A6MARR A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road

APT A6MARR Project Team

AONB Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty

BS EN British Standard European Norm

CEC Cheshire East Council

CMS Carillion Morgan Sindall [Joint Venture Company]

COPECAT Concise Pedestrian and Cycle Audit

CPO Compulsory Purchase Order

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

DMSSD Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance

FRA Flood Risk Assessment

GIS Geographic Information Systems

ICE Institution of Civil Engineers

LED Light Emitting Diode

5

LLF Local Liaison Forum

MAG Manchester Airport Group

MCC Manchester City Council

NMU Non‐Motorised User

OPA Oil Pipeline Agency

PMA Private Means of Access

PRoW Public Right of Way

RSA Road Safety Audit

SEMMMS South East Manchester Multi Modal Strategy

SMBC Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

SRO Side Roads Order

SU Statutory Undertakers

TfGM Transport for Greater Manchester

TSRGD Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions

TWG Technical Working Group

UTC Urban Traffic Control

UU Plc. United Utilities Plc.

UKNA UK National Annexes

WCML West Coast Main Line

6

1 IntroductionandScopeofEvidence

1.1 Introduction

I, Nazrul Huda, hold a B.Eng Honours Degree in Civil Engineering from the University 1.1.1

of Manchester which I attained in 2001. I am a Chartered Engineer and I am a member of the

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) having attained my professional qualification in 2007.

I am giving evidence on behalf of the Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport on 1.1.2

its behalf and on behalf of Manchester City Council and Cheshire East Borough Council by

virtue of an Agreement entered into between the three partnering Authorities pursuant to

Section 8 of the Highways Act 1980. I have read the Statement of Case; I am therefore aware

of the broad case advanced to promote the aforementioned Orders.

I currently hold the position of Client Design Manager for the A6 to Manchester 1.1.3

Airport Relief Road (‘A6MARR’) scheme at Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the

council’) and have done so since 2009. Prior to that I held the post of Senior Engineer for two

years and have a total of 11 years’ experience working in local government Highway

infrastructure. I have previously worked on various highway schemes including major new

build works and highway improvement schemes for and on behalf of various local authorities.

I also have two years’ experience working for a major civil engineering contractor. I have an in‐

depth knowledge of the relevant design standards as noted within this statement, primarily

the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (1Core Document 4003) and various other

technical documents noted.

My duties previously on A6MARR included the preparation of the tender stage 1.1.4

scheme design and the preliminary design stage design in order for the Council, and its

partners, to submit the planning application. This included coordination with other facets of

the design carried out by others such as environmental design, traffic modelling, structures

and drainage. I managed the design of the proposed highway layouts, diversion of Public

Rights of Ways, diversion of statutory utilities and earthworks using the Council’s in house

team A6MARR ‘Project Team’.

My current duties include aiding integration of the previous design work into the 1.1.5

design development to be carried out by the Council’s appointed contractor. I am also

involved in agreeing advance accommodation works for the scheme including at Styal Golf

Club and with various other land owners.

1.2 Scope of Evidence

I can confirm that the contents of my statement of evidence are my professional 1.2.1

opinion and are true and gained from my own knowledge except where indicated. My

evidence shall only cover highway engineering matters including the highway alignment and

cross section, design standards, earthworks design, junction layouts, structures. I shall also

physically describe the scheme. My evidence should be read alongside the evidence of:

1 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

7

Jim McMahon, Director of Major Projects, Stockport Council

Sue Stevenson, Investing in Growth Manager, Stockport Council

Henry Church, Senior Director, CBRE

Nasar Malik, Director, Atkins

Paul Reid, Technical Director, Mouchel

Paul Colclough, Air Quality Team Leader, Mouchel

Jamie Bardot, Principal Environmental Advisor, Morgan Sindall

Alan Houghton, Head of Planning and Regeneration North, URS

I am familiar with the above evidence.

My evidence should also be read with the following core documents: 1.2.2

The Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) plans which I have superimposed onto aerial

imagery (2Core Document 1102);

The Side Roads Order (SRO) plans which I similarly superimposed onto aerial imagery

(3Core Document 1103);

The scheme design (General Arrangement) which I have superimposed onto the CPO

plans (4Core Document 5518);

List of Proposed Modifications (5Core Document 1104).

I consider that the evidence and core documents noted above together with my evidence,

provides a compelling case, in the public interest, to confirm the Orders.

2 CPO Aerial Photography Plans 3 SRO Aerial Photography Plans 4 General Arrangement and CPO Extents – 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/CPO/317 to 325 5 List of Proposed Modifications

8

2 TheScheme

2.1 Overview

I shall, below, describe the alignment of the proposed A6MARR, both horizontally 2.1.1

and vertically. The design was also converted into a 3D visualisation for illustrative purposes as

part of the public consultation process. This was also updated for the final version reflecting

the preferred scheme and submitted as part of the scheme planning application. The movie

can be viewed via the internet at via the links noted below:

http://a6marr.stockport.gov.uk/3dvisualisation/?view=Standard

The movie indicatively shows the following features: 2.1.2

The Relief Road alignment and junction layouts;

Proposed traffic signs, lighting columns and traffic signals;

The surrounding environment including local land marks;

Proposed earth bunding, environmental fencing and landscape works;

Location of drainage ponds.

The following comprises the proposed ‘Description of Development’ for the entirety 2.1.3

of the relief road. Construction of the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road, incorporating:

Seven new road junctions;

Modifications to four existing road junctions;

Four new rail bridge crossings;

Three new public rights of way/accommodation bridges;

Five new road bridges;

A pedestrian and cycle route for the whole length of the relief road, including retrofitting it

to the 4 kilometre section of the A555;

Six ponds for drainage attenuation and treatment purposes; and

Associated landscaping, lighting, engineering and infrastructure works.

The scheme plan is contained within Appendix A and the General Arrangement Plans 2.1.4

are contained within 6Core Document 2005.

6 General Arrangement Plans Sheet 1‐9 (1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/200‐209)

9

3 HighwayDesign

3.1 Introduction

The following is a summary of the highway design. I shall discuss the horizontal and 3.1.1

vertical alignment, typical cross section, junction design, earthworks design, structures ,

signing strategy and Non‐Motorised User (NMU) provision. Reference will be made to various

technical documents including the DMRB (7Core Document 4003).

The scheme has been designed in accordance with the Department for Transport’s 3.1.2

Specification for Highway Works. The Standards for Highway Works is an electronic suite of

documents which is updated quarterly by the Department for Transport and includes:

• DMRB

• Interim Advice Notes (IANs)

• Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works

The DMRB gives the designer flexibility by offering a number of options and 3.1.3

alternatives for individual highway disciplines, such as drainage and pavement. The optimum

solution is a product of a balance of factors that include scheme objectives, site conditions,

cost, buildability, maintenance and whole life cost.

Public Consultation (Stage 1) was undertaken between October 2012 and January 3.1.4

2013 in conjunction with Local Liaison Forums (LLFs). This is further described within Sue

Stevenson’s proof. This interaction with the public and local businesses aided the Project

Team to prepare an ‘Emerging Preferred Scheme’ that was presented again to the public in a

second consultation stage to be held from June to July 2013, prior to the scheme planning

application being submitted in October 2013 with the ‘Preferred Scheme’


10

3.2 Traffic Modelling

In line with the SEMMMS strategy recommendations, for a more appropriate scale 3.2.1

road proposal to provide relief to local communities affected by inappropriate through traffic

the overall A6MARR scheme philosophy has been to provide at‐grade signal controlled

junctions and safe crossing facilities for Non‐Motorised Users (NMUs) wherever possible.

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (8Core Document 4003) provides 3.2.2

guidance on the appropriate carriageway standards to be considered for new road schemes

based on the expected traffic flow levels. The guidance is given in Technical Advice Notes

(TAs) and depends on whether the scheme is a rural or urban road. The proposed A6MARR

scheme consists of a dual two lane urban all‐purpose carriageway (D2UAP) from the A6

Buxton Road to Manchester Airport and adjacent Enterprise Zone.

TA 79/99 sets out the expected carriageway standards provision for a new urban 3.2.3

road based on the expected hourly traffic volumes. The TA defines four Road Types for Urban

All‐Purpose roads – UAP1 through to UAP4. The closest Road Type to the proposed A6MARR

scheme is UAP1. This relates to a high standard single or dual carriageway road carrying

predominantly through traffic with limited access. The capacity thresholds for Road Type

UAP1 in terms of one‐way hourly traffic flow are:

1,590 vehicles per hour for a two‐lane single carriageway; and

3,600 vehicles per hour for a dual two‐lane carriageway.

The traffic modelling is further described with Nasar Malik’s Proof of Evidence. 3.2.4


11

3.3 Speed Limit and Design Speed

The A6MARR has been designed as an Urban All‐Purpose Road (DMRB, TD27, Fig 4‐3.3.1

4a) (9Core Document 4003), in line with the objectives of the A6MARR scheme and the

SEMMMS Strategy. The A6MARR comprises three sections. The first section, starting from a

new realigned section of the A6 at Hazel Grove, and extending west to the existing A555 at

Woodford Road, Bramhall has a proposed design speed of 85kph (DMRB TD 9/93 Table 2,

Appendix D).

The second section is the existing A555 between Woodford Road, Bramhall and 3.3.2

Wilmslow Road, Handforth. This has an existing speed limit of 120kph design speed which is

retained. The A34 will be improved broadly between its junction with the A555 and Stanley

Road and associated speed limit changes are proposed as part of the works. The design speed

here is 70kph north of the A555 and 120kph south of the A555.

The third section of A6MARR is the new section of road and is an extension of the 3.3.3

existing A555, which currently terminates at Wilmslow Road, and continues west toward

Manchester International Airport. The proposed design speed for the section of new

carriageway from Wilmslow Road to Styal Road junction is 85kph and from Styal Road the

proposed carriageway is designed to 70kph design speed to its merge with the existing

junction at Ringway Road/Ringway Road West.

The majority of the dual carriageway element of the scheme will have a speed limit 3.3.4

of 50mph which is in accord with the objectives and the wide SEMMMS strategy. The

realigned A6 and the Chester Road link sections of new highway retain speed limits that form

a continuation of the surrounding highways.


12

3.4 Typical Cross Section

Assessment undertaken during the original SEMMMS study (10Core Document 5002) 3.4.1

confirmed that the ‘low cost’ option for this scheme was a dual carriageway road with at‐

grade junctions. This is the scheme currently being progressed. However, alternative scenarios

in terms of the width of the carriageway were considered when putting together Appendix L

of the A6MARR Business Case. This included the following standards:

Airport to Styal Road ‐ Dual 3‐lane Carriageway

Styal Road to Handforth ‐ Dual 2‐lane Carriageway

Handforth to A34 to A5102 ‐ Existing Dual Carriageway

A5102 to the A5149 Link ‐ Dual 3‐lane Carriageway

A5149 Link to the A523 ‐ Dual 2‐lane Carriageway

A523 to the A6 ‐ Dual 2‐lane Carriageway

The assessment indicated that it is likely that the most economically viable standard 3.4.2

on two sections of the new route would be a dual 3‐lane carriageway. However, given that the

existing section of A555 is a dual 2‐lane carriageway, it was considered that it would not be

appropriate to consider building a higher standard carriageway along sections of the new

route.

The typical cross sections for the relief road is shown diagrammatically in Appendix B. I shall describe

the cross sections of each section of road which has been designed in accordance with the following

standards:

TD 27/05 Cross Sections and Headrooms

TD 90/05 The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes

TA 91/05 Provision of Non‐Motorised Users

Styal Road to Wilmslow Road and Woodford Road to Buxton Road:

The typical cross section allows for two lanes in each carriageway at 3.65m width, 3.4.3

both in the eastbound and westbound directions. The eastbound and westbound

carriageways are separated by a central reserve which varies between 1.80m and 3.90m wide.

It also allows for a concrete central reserve barrier. On the southern side a 2.00m wide soft

verge which caters for visibility requirements and highway features such as utilities, drainage

pipes/chambers, signing and lighting. On the north side there is a 2.00m wide of verge which

separates the 2.50m wide shared use cycleway / footway from the running carriageway (TA

90/05 para 7.16). There is a further 1.0m wide soft verge which separates the

cycleway/footway from embankments and cutting faces including its associated earthwork

drainage.

10 SEMMM Strategy Final Report 2001

13

Styal Road to Ringway Road

The typical cross section allows for two lanes of carriageway at 3.65m width, both in 3.4.4

the eastbound and westbound directions. The eastbound and westbound carriageways are

separated by a kerbed central reserve which varies between 2.50m and 8.20m wide. The

design speed and speed limit here dictates that a central reserve barrier can be omitted based

on risk assessment which is the case here. The extra widening of the central reserve caters for

the existing lighting column which is part of a system of landing lights for the runway (23R‐

05L) at Manchester Airport. On the southern side a 3.00m wide soft verge caters for highway

features such as utilities, drainage pipes/chambers, signing and lighting. On the north side

there is a 2.00m wide soft verge which separates the 3.00m wide shared use cycleway /

footway from the running carriageway (TA 90/05 Table 3). The width of the cycleway /

footway is wider than in other areas of the scheme due to urban nature of its surroundings

and development. There is a further 1.0m wide soft verge which separates the

cycleway/footway from embankments and cutting faces including its associated earthwork

drainage.

Existing A555 between Wilmslow Road and Woodford Road

A 2.50m wide footway / cycleway will be constructed generally on the northern side 3.4.5

of the existing carriageway. In order to minimise the area of private land take existing tracks

will be utilised for use as the footway / cycleway, ensuring that safety is safeguarded in terms

of visibility of user. The shared use footway / cycleway has also been designed within the

existing highway boundary as far as practicable to minimise landtake further. There are

instances where an acquisition of land is required to construct the facility. DMRB (11Core

Document 4003) TD27 paragraph 4.4.4 allows for the omission of hard strips on a (D2UAP) by

reason of reduced land costs, reduced construction costs and lower design speeds. It was

therefore decided to remove the hard strips where the speed limit is 50mph or less. The

cross section would therefore have a total width of 17.1m (assuming a 2.5m central reserve).

Where the speed limit is 70mph (existing A555) the hard strips should be retained for safety

reasons.

DMRB TD27 paragraph 4.11.13 indicates a minimum central reserve width without 3.4.6

hardstrips of 1.8 metres (600mm setback either side of a 600mm thick standard rigid concrete

barrier). This is subject to confirmation of the type of vehicle restraint system and visibility

requirements (DMRB TD9). This has been applied at the following chainages:

Ch 8,280 – 8,960m

Ch 10,000 – 12,440m

Ch 13,080 – 13,800m

Ch 180‐ 2,370m


14

The reduced cross section has been achieved by minimising the central reserve 3.4.7

width, omitting the hard strips and reducing the width of the shared use footway/cycleway

and therefore the area of land required to build the A6MARR has been substantially reduced.

This has been achieved without compromising safety. This applies along the length of the new

dual carriageway elements of the scheme.

15

3.5 Departures and Relaxations

In certain circumstances it has been necessary for the designer to adopt a lower 3.5.1

standard of design that would not normally be considered desirable. Acceptable reasons for a

reduced standard would be;

• to reduce the impact on people;

• to reduce the impact on the environment;

• to reduce the impact on properties; and

• the disproportionately high construction costs of not doing so.

Such a circumstance has been considered either a Relaxation or a Departure from 3.5.2

Standard depending on the severity of the reduction as described within DMRB (12Core

Document 4003). Relaxations from Standard have been introduced at the designers’

discretion, having given due consideration to safety, environmental impact and cost benefits.

The DMRB stipulates that Departures from Standard have to be approved by the 3.5.3

relevant Overseeing Authority. Proposals that require Departures from Standards have to be

agreed by the Project Team prior to submission to the relevant Overseeing Authority. There

are four Departures from Standard that is associated with the planning application design:

DMRB TD 22/06 ‘Layout of Grade Separated Junctions’ sets out the design requirements and

methodology for the geometric design and layout of grade separated junctions on trunk

roads and motorways, and is the adopted standard against which the merge, diverge and

weaving section requirements for the A6MARR scheme have been assessed.The introduction

of lane gain and lane drop arrangements on the existing section of the A555 between the

A34 and B5358 will require a Departure from Standard. The proposed layout is an over‐

provision compared to standard, and is reflective of the relative close proximity between

existing junctions. Completion of the A6MARR scheme will introduce a section of weaving

between the A34/ A555 and A6MARR/ B5358 Wilmslow Road junctions.

The existing A555 between the B5358 Wilmslow Road and the A5102 Woodford Road has a

speed limit of 70mph with a corresponding road cross section reflecting a dual two lane

Rural All Purpose Road configuration. The desirable minimum weaving length is 1km. The

distance between the A34/ A555 and B5358 junctions (junction centre to junction centre) is

1300 metres of which 650 metres is defined as being part of the slip roads. This leaves a

weaving length of approximately 650 metres. There will, therefore, also be a requirement to

obtain a Departure from Standard for the weaving section.

The proposed westbound taper diverge at the A34 Handforth Bypass junction. The proximity

of the Spath Lane over‐bridge constrains the provision of a ghost‐island diverge (or parallel)

at this location. A taper diverge is deemed acceptable on the basis that the slip road

arrangement, which flares to four lanes at the A555/ A34 roundabout, provides adequate


16

queuing capacity within the confines of the slip road. The layout has been assessed to

ensure that ant queuing traffic will not interfere with the mainline flows; and

The proposed westbound parallel merge at the B5358 Wilmslow Road junction. This is an

overprovision compared to standard based on predicted traffic flows and reflects the

outcome of consultations with local authority highway officers.

There are further Departures from Standard which are outlined within the 3.5.4

Departures Report (13Core Document 5522). The schedule of Departures is provided within

Appendix C. The report has been composed by the Council’s appointed contractor and his

designer Aecom/Grontmij Join Venture (AG). AG have reviewed the design that has obtained

planning permission and identified further departures that relate predominantly to the side

roads that the mainline intersects and therefore the overriding constraint is the existing built

environment. Departures relating to pavement design are also identified. Each relevant

highway authority has been involved in the creation of this set of departures/relaxations in

order to ensure that the A6MARR ties safely into the existing highway network.

13 Departures Report (A6MARR‐0‐W01‐500‐RE‐001‐P01) July 2014

17

3.6 Horizontal Alignment

The horizontal alignment is broadly described below. When designing the alignment 3.6.1

of the proposed relief road and associated features such as earthworks

cuttings/embankments and drainage ponds it has been determined by a number of factors

and constraints which include:

To minimise the impact of land take for all affected land owners;

To utilise the protected corridor which has been safeguarded in the local plans of the three

local authorities;

To minimise the physical impacts of the scheme for adjacent local business, schools, land

owners and residents including noise and air pollutions;

To negate any demolition of residential property if practicable;

To minimise the impacts on the local environment including ecology, archaeology, natural

habitats, watercourses etc;

To utilise land that is already in public ownership;

To design the scheme to meet its traffic related objectives;

To take cognisance of stake holder consultation in order to provide the optimal design; and

To provide value for money.

The emphasis has been to provide value within the design. For example, retaining 3.6.2

walls have been substituted for an earthworks solution where land constraints permit and

ground conditions are suitable. This minimises the whole life costs for the scheme and the on‐

going financial liability to the local highway authority which would otherwise be required to

maintain a structure. Conversely where the impacts of the increased land take are not viable

then structures have been introduced to safeguard the adjacent land owner’s interests, for

example the retaining wall introduced at the Childrens’ Day Nursery at Wilmslow Road,

Handforth between the private property and the A6MARR.

The land required for the highway works coupled with the requirements of the 3.6.3

essential environmental and ecological mitigation has been developed following stake holder

liaison in order that the Compulsory Purchase Order for the scheme requires no more land

than is absolutely necessary in order to construct the scheme. The environmental and

ecological mitigation is discussed within Paul Reid’s Proof of Evidence. The highway design

team and environmental consultants worked together in order to again consider the land

impacts of the proposed mitigation. This included achieving the optimal solution chainage by

chainage within the preferred scheme whether that included, for example, acoustic fencing or

earth bunding which require differing land requirements.

The proposed Scheme consists of a two Lane Urban All Purpose Carriageway (D2UAP 3.6.4

DMRB, TD27, Fig 4‐4a) from the A6 Buxton Road to Manchester Airport. The realigned A6 is a

two lane single carriageway which diverts the existing A6 Buxton Road and the Chester Road

link is a 4 lane single carriageway which links Chester Road and the A6MARR dual carriageway.

The existing A555 remains a two lane rural dual carriageway. The design of the mainline has

been carried out in accordance with the DMRB (TD9 Table 1), specifically the documents listed

below, as follows:

• TD9 Highway Link Design

18

• TD27 Cross Sections and Headroom

• TD22 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions

• TD19 Requirement for Road Restraint Systems

• TD50 The Geometric Layout of Signal‐Controlled Junctions and Signalised Roundabouts

• TD42 Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions

The recommendations from the Advice Notes in the DMRB (14Core Document 4003) 3.6.5

have been taken into account, specifically the documents listed below, as follows:

• TA90 The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and equestrian Routes

The greatest influence on the geometric layout is Design Speed and the proposed 3.6.6

speed limits. The speed limits have been determined based on either the objective set out

within the strategy of SEMMMS or sensibly tying into the existing adjacent highways such as

the A6. The Design Speed for the mainline and other links is summarised below:

Realigned A6, Hazel Grove 70A kph (40mph speed limit).

A6 to Woodford Road, Bramhall 85A kph (50mph speed limit).

Chester Road link, 60B kph (30mph speed limit).

Existing A555 120A kph (70mph speed limit)

Existing A34, Cheadle 70A kph (40mph speed limit).

Existing A555 to Styal Road 85A kph (50mph speed limit).

Styal Road to Ringway Road/Ringway Road West junction 70A kph (40mph speed limit).

Additional factors that affect the mainline geometry include traffic flows, existing 3.6.7

topography, environmental impact and cost benefit analysis. The central reserve width is

affected by a number of factors, which include requirements for central bridge piers, visibility

requirements, the provision of drainage, vehicle restraint systems and signing. It is a design

requirement for this scheme that no bridge supports are located within the central reserve

which minimises the width of the central reserve and negates the need for maintenance

access on safety grounds. The width of the verge is also dependent on visibility requirements,

the provision of drainage, communication equipment, vehicle restraint system, lighting and

signing.


19

Realigned A6 (Refer to Drawing 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/201 – GA Sheet 1, 15Core Document 2005)

The new road connects to the existing A6 Buxton Road. A junction layout directly 3.6.8

onto the A6 was considered and is indicated with 16Core Document 5513. There would be a

number of benefits to this including reducing the land requirements for the scheme and

omitting the requirement for the bridge at the A6 as shown on the current preferred design.

However, this would present many disbenefits:

Maintaining the existing A6 as a useable commuter route would be extremely difficult

during construction;

Minimising the above disruption would have impacts on the construction programme in

this location including potential construction of a temporary road for vehicular traffic

and Non‐Motorised Users (NMUs);

The Statutory Undertakers diversion costs would likely increase in terms of lengths of

permanent diversions and also potential requirements for two phase diversions. This is

due to the depth of construction required.

Horizontal sight lines (Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance DMSSD of TD 9/93

Table 3) would be compromised which is not permitted as per DMRB (17Core Document

4003) TD 50/04 para 2‐6‐2.7, TD 9/93 para 2.7. Extracts are contained within Appendix

D. In order to provide horizontal sight lines the Hazel Grove to Buxton Line rail bridge

widening would be required, increasing capital costs. However, other street furniture is

likely to severely compromise the visibility on the approach to the junction.

The access for the Council’s appointed contractor would be restricted when considering

the construction methodology for the rail bridge for the Hazel Grove to Buxton Line;

This option would negate the realigned A6 as natural diversion of traffic during

construction of the nearby rail bridge in this area;

The option was therefore discounted.

The new road therefore starts in the east from a traffic signalled T‐junction with an 3.6.9

approximate 1 kilometre realigned section of the A6 Buxton Road on pasture and Highways

Agency owned land, generally in shallow cutting. This retains the existing speed limit (40 mph)

and comprises a two lane single carriageway. This single carriageway utilises Departures from

Highway Standards in order to avoid the covered reservoir to the south and the golf course to

the north. The design team liaised with United Utilities in order to determine a safe distance

between the proposed new highway and the reservoir. The design team also liaised with Hazel

Grove Golf Club in order to negate any loss of permanent free hold land.

Please note that the commencement chainage for the A6MARR is derived from the 3.6.10

overall SEMMMS M60 to Manchester Airport scheme and this was determined to be retained

due to various historic engineering reports citing this chainages.

15 General Arrangement Drawings 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/201 to 210 16 Alternative A6 Junction Online ‐ 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/316 17 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

20

Chainage 8250m to Chainage 9500m (Refer to Drawing 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/202 – GA Sheet 2, 18Core Document 2005)

From the new A6 T‐junction, the A6MARR commences at ch8250m, travels west and 3.6.11

passes under the existing A6 Buxton Road which is taken over the main alignment on a new

bridge for the use of buses, cycles and pedestrians only. The A6MARR provides the two lane

dual carriageway plus the share use footway/cycleway. A connection to the shared use facility

is provided from the A6 Buxton Road. Land has been outlined for top soil storage for the

contractor bounded by the A6 Buxton Road to the south west, the A6MARR to the east and

the realigned A6 to the north.

The main alignment then goes under the Hazel Grove to Buxton railway line and 3.6.12

continues west avoiding houses along Old Mill Lane to the north and requires approximately

5% of the ancient woodland to the south. 2.3ha of the woodland at Carr Wood is ancient

woodland; that being woodland where there has been a continuous cover since 1600 AD or

earlier. There are two design options that would negate the loss of ancient woodland; one

would require the mainline of the A6MARR to move north and therefore demolish residential

property on Old Mill Lane; the other would be to relocate the mainline of the A6MARR further

south. The northern alignment has been discounted as one of the scheme design objectives is

that no residential property is required to be demolished as a product of the highway

alignment / junction layout. The southern alignment is indicated on the 19Core Document

5514 This alignment was discounted for the following reasons:

The alignment would be located outside of the current local plan protected corridor

(Unitary Development Plan);

The alignment would not provide future proofing for the A6 to M60 (Bredbury) phase of

SEMMMS;

The A6MARR / A6 junction would be located directly outside a number of residential

properties on the A6, Buxton Road;

The alignment would require construction of two structures over Norbury Brook thus

impacting more so on this main river;

The alignment would sever agricultural land in the vicinity;

The alignment would affect more Public Rights of Ways;

The vertical alignment would require the road to travel over the Hazel Grove to Buxton

line thus increasing visual impact on residential properties;

18 General Arrangement Drawings 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/201 to 210 19 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/161A A6 Junction Alternative Location

21

A bridleway quality bridge will be provided to accommodate the diversion of the 3.6.13

PRoW and farm vehicles across the proposed A6MARR near Old Mill Lane. Also a connection is

provided between Old Mill Lane and the shared use footway/cycleway for pedestrians and

cyclists. The route passes between Norbury Brook and residential properties on Ashbourne

Road and Darley Road. Land has been outlined for the purposes of topsoil storage and also for

a satellite compound in order to construct the Hazel Grove to Buxton Line rail bridge.

At the A523 Macclesfield Road an at‐grade signalised cross roads arrangement is 3.6.14

proposed allowing all traffic movements with Toucan facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. The

junction is located between residential property, Brookside Garden Centre and Norbury Hall

which is a locally listed building. The scheme requires some of the garden centre car park and

also farm land owned by the owners of Norbury Hall. The Relief Road remains in cutting from

under the rail bridge to the junction at approximately ground level at Macclesfield Road. The

Project Team has carried out the following liaison in order to determine the preferred scheme

alignment and associate land requirements:

Local residents via the public consultation and the Local Liaison Forums in order to design

the mitigation between the residential properties of Ashbourne Road, Darley Road, Longnor

Road and other streets;

Brookside Garden Centre and the freehold land owner to understand the impacts of the land

requirements on the car park, the entrance/exit, NMU/delivery movements into and out of

the garden centre;

Worked with Norbury Hall to understand their current operations which resulted in a

reduction of the land requirements;

Liaised with the owners of Norbury Court in order to ensure that they are satisfied with the

effects on the driveway entrance and that they understand the impacts of the new relief

road.

Chainage 9500m to Chainage 10300m (Refer to Drawing 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/202 to 203 – GA

Sheets 2 to 3, 20Core Document 2005)

20 General Arrangement Drawings 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/201 to 210

22

From the A523 Macclesfield Road the route continues in cutting west and runs to 3.6.15

the north of Norbury Brook and associated woods and south of the residential streets of

Sheldon Road and Longnor Road before it crosses Norbury Brook via a road bridge at Mill Hill

Hollow. The alignment is constrained to the south due to proximity of Norbury Brook. The

land at this location is agricultural land farmed by various farmers. The Project Team including

the Council’s land agents have liaised with the land owners to understand the impacts of such

matters such as use of access to the natural water course, location of the drainage ponds,

location of maintenance tracks, Private Means of Access and overall land requirements. The

relocation of the drainage ponds has introduced retaining structures which has yielded in a

reduction in land take providing the optimal solution. The shared use footway / cycleway

continues on the north side of the A6MARR with connections at Macclesfield Road and at Mill

Hill Hollow. On the south side of the A6MARR, between the dual carriageway and Norbury

Brook a new footpath is created also between Macclesfield Road and Mill Hill Hollow utilising

the severed land.

Chainage 10300m to Chainage 11950m (Refer to Drawing 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/203 to 204 – GA

Sheet 3 to 4, 21Core Document 2005)

The A6MARR continues broadly east to west across farm land and in cutting. A 3.6.16

bridleway quality bridge will be provided to divert the PRoW and farm vehicles across the road

at Hill Green (~Ch 11,040m) . The location of the bridge has been chosen in order to provide

access to land for more than one land owner and also provide access for various Public Rights

of Ways. This provides value for money and also mitigate the severance impact that the road

would cause without the introduction of the new bridge. The public consultation outputs also

led the retention of the relief road below ground for environmental mitigation purposes. The

shared use footway / cycleway is provided to the north and footpath is created to the south of

the A6MARR in order to connect the network of PRoWs in this vicinity to the safe crossing

points across A6MARR i.e. under Mill Hill Hollow Road bridge, over the accommodation bridge

at Hill Green and at Woodford Road. This negates the requirement for several crossing points

across A6MARR and also extinguishments of PRoW.

The main alignment then passes in cutting under Woodford Road, which will be 3.6.17

raised in the vicinity of the A6MARR to minimise the depth of the A6MARR, and then climbs

on embankment over the electrified West Coast Mainline (WCML) railway (Stockport to Stoke

line). The alignment travels between existing residential properties as it cross Woodford Road,

Poynton and remains south of Bramhall Golf Club. The earthworks have been designed here

with slacked sloped in order that the proposed highway boundary and final permanent land

take is reduced by returning the land to the original land owner for agricultural purposes. This

was following liaison with the farmer in this area and also aids the overall earthworks strategy

for the scheme. The shared use footway / cycleway remains on the north side of A6MARR

including over the WCML via widening of the road over rail bridge.


23

Chainage 11950 to Chainage 13800 (Refer to Drawing 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/204 to 205 – GA

Sheets 4 to 5, 22Core Document 2005)

The A6MARR travels west and a new at‐grade signalised roundabout junction will 3.6.18

provide access to the Bramhall Oil Storage Depot and a new link providing access to Chester

Road. This junction will also incorporate Pegasus facilities for equestrians, pedestrians and

cyclists. A further signalised T junction is proposed for those vehicles travelling on Chester

Road to access the Relief Road. In discussion with the land owners in this area, the permanent

land requirements have been minimised as far as practicable. Based on previous advice from a

consultant contractor (Balfour Beatty Report November 2011 23Core Document 5507) it was

decided that this area provides the most appropriate area for the contractor main compound

and offices. This is because it is a central location, provide good connection to the highway

networks for haul movements, close to the highway in terms of utility services for cabins and

provides a large area for materials storage.

The A6MARR travels towards the tie in at the A5102 Woodford Road, Bramhall into 3.6.19

a deep cutting at the proposed half diamond grade separated junction. This dictates the road

vertical alignment to travel from the high point over the WCML to the low point west of

Woodford Road, Bramhall. The A6MARR travels across farm land and an existing 9 hole golf

course and farm land. The highway alignment and the associated cutting slopes dictate the

area of land required along this length of the road. Other land requirements include for the

drainage attenuation and treatment ponds that are required prior to discharge of the highway

drainage into the existing drainage system at the A555. The pond designs are in line with

current guidelines (National Planning Policy Framework – 24Core Document 4001, The Floods

and Water Management Act 2010 – 25Core Document 4402), and standards (DMRB Volume 4

– 26Core Document 4003) with an emphasis on sustainability and reduction in water pollution.

Various connections are made between the shared use footway/cycleway and the 3.6.20

existing PRoWs. Access between the shared use facility and the residential estate to the north

is also provided for at Albany Road.

At the A5102 Woodford Road the existing roundabout joining to the A555 will be 3.6.21

replaced by a new grade separated junction (Half Diamond – west facing slip roads). The main

alignment would pass through cutting under Woodford Road. The junction configuration at

Woodford Road will be signalised and incorporate Toucan facilities which connects

pedestrians and cyclists to the new shared use facility from the existing highway network and

also aid negotiating this junction.

22 General Arrangement Drawings 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/201 to 210 23 Balfour Beatty Consultant Contractor Report Nov 2011 24 National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government) March 2012 25 The Floods and Water Management Act 2010 26 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

24

The alignment has been designed to negate the demolition of any residential 3.6.22

properties on Woodford Road, Bramhall. This includes working room to construct the bridge,

associated retaining walls and utility diversions. Woodford Recreation Ground is to the north

which will retain its function but replacement land will be required which has been identified

to the east of the Woodford Road, Bramhall junction. Access to the new Public Open Space

from the A6MARR is also provided for pedestrians and cyclists at various locations. To the

south a business property will be lost due to the construction of the merge slip road heading

west. Due to the requirement of the grade separated junction the loss of the business

property has been unavoidable.

Existing A555 and A34 (Refer to Drawing 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/206 to 207 – GA Sheets 6 to 7, 27Core Document 2005)

The existing A555 is approximately 4k long between its existing junctions with 3.6.23

Woodford Road, Bramhall and Wilmslow Road ,Handforth. The proposals allow for the

construction of a bridleway between Woodford Road, Bramhall and Hall Moss Lane on the

north side of the existing A555. From Hall Moss Lane to Spath Lane a shared use footway /

cycleway is proposed on the south side of the existing A555 in order to provide the facility

within the current adopted highway extents and avoid land acquisition from private land

owners. From the existing Spath Lane bridge over the A555 the shared use footway/cycleway

is proposed on the north side of the A555 to Wilmslow Road, Handforth again within adopted

highway extents, as far as possible.

Where the A555 crosses over the A34 there will be junction adaptations to facilitate 3.6.24

and manage the anticipated traffic flows. The upgraded junction will be fully signalised and

provide Toucan cycle crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. The existing A555 extends

as far as the B5358, Wilmslow Road.

At the A555 / A34 junction the existing roundabout will be upgraded with traffic 3.6.25

signal control and widened carriageways on the roundabout and the slip roads. This will

include the introduction of controlled crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. North of

this junction, at the junction of the A34 and Stanley Road, again the existing roundabout will

be upgraded to traffic signal control as well as providing increased circulatory capacity. The

A34 will also be widened between the two roundabouts providing increased lane capacity.

Toucan crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists will be integrated into the traffic signal

controls at both junctions. within this vicinity the compound requirements for the Council’s

appointed contractor has been minimised following discussion and liaison with the tenant

farmer.

A555 to Ringway Road (Refer to Drawing 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/208 to 209 – GA Sheets 8 to 9, 28Core Document 2005)


25

Chainage 100 to Chainage 2450m

The existing A555 alignment will be continued west under the existing grade 3.6.26

separated dumbbell junction linking to the B5358 Wilmslow Road, where new west facing

slips will be constructed. Between the B5358 Wilmslow Road, and B5186 Styal Road, the road

passes south of commercial greenhouses.

The road also passes through Styal Golf Course and agricultural land and remains in 3.6.27

cutting. The Project Team has worked with Styal Golf Club to mitigate the impacts of the

A6MARR Alignment. Three playing holes would be lost to the relief road therefore a scheme

to remodel the course has commenced on site in advance of the main construction contract.

The Project Team has secured adjacent Council owned land and obtained planning permission

to build three new holes and remodel five of the existing playing holes. This will mean that the

golf course can continue to operate with an 18 hole course during the remodelling works and

during the construction of the A6MARR.

A footbridge bridge will be provided to accommodate the provision of diverted 3.6.28

PRoW across the road at Yew Tree Farm. The relief road then passes over Styal railway line,

which is in existing deep cutting, and then between the airport southern rail spur and Moss

Nook electricity substation. The shared use footway cycleway is provided on the north side of

A6MARR which connects into an existing system of PRoWs. Land requirements for

construction of the Styal Railway bridge has been allowed for in order to site cabins and

compounds for the contractor.

Chainage 2450m to Chainage 3365m

At the B5166 Styal Road, an at‐grade signalised cross road arrangement 3.6.29

incorporating Toucan facilities, for pedestrians and cyclists, is to be constructed requiring

extensions to the existing road over rail bridge over the northern airport spur. From the B5166

Styal Road, the Relief Road runs parallel to the airport rail spur and south of existing

agricultural land including an existing plant nursery. It will terminate as it merges with the

existing Ringway Road/Ringway Road West junction west of Shadowmoss Road. Between

Shadowmoss Road and the proposed main alignment, Ringway Road would be stopped up and

a new layout arrangement connected with Shadowmoss Road will be constructed. Emergency

access will be provided for the local emergency services to reach Manchester Airport within

their required regulatory timescales. The shared use footway cycleway is provided on the

north side of the A6MARR in order to connect into the residential estate and the existing

business park at Manchester Airport. Land requirements for construction of the Airport

Railway (northern spur) bridge has been allowed for in order to site cabins and compounds for

the contractor.


26

West of Chainage 3365m

The junction of Ringway Road and Ringway Road West has been upgraded and re‐3.6.30

constructed by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) as part of the Ringway Road

Highway Improvement Works (RRHIW) scheme. These works include introduction of traffic

signal and additional lane at the existing priority junction. Construction of a dual carriageway

is programmed to be completed prior to the commencement of the A6MARR scheme which

extends from this point to west of the junction of Ringway Road West and Aviator Way. The

proposed Metrolink extension is also currently programmed to be open in 2016 and the

design of A6MARR has taken due cognisance of both the Metrolink and RRHIW schemes.

Indeed both of these schemes promoted by TfGM have considered the future construction of

A6MARR in terms of design and buildability.

Manchester Airport Group is also currently promoting a highway scheme diverting 3.6.31

Outwood Lane and providing infrastructure for future development aspirations and described

within this document as ‘Airport Link Road’. The works described by RRHIW and Airport City

Link Road are indicated within 29Core Document 5515. Both of these scheme have been

developed since by each of the client’s own respective designers.

29 Ringway Road Highway Improvement Works and Airport City – 1007/3D/DF5/A6‐MA/GA/510A TO 511A

27

3.7 Vertical Alignment

The vertical alignment of the scheme has been dictated by a number of constraints: 3.7.1

The existing highway network (carriageway levels) that the scheme ties into;

Other physical infrastructure such as the railway lines;

The relevant highway design standards within the DMRB (30Core Document);

The relevant Bridge Design Standards for clearances and maintenance;

The environmental obligations set out in the Environmental Statement in order to mitigate

the physical impacts of the scheme such as noise and visual impact;

The input of the public consultation deriving the ‘optimal’ design solution;

The impacts on affected land owners.

I have described the physical characteristics of A6MARR above which outlines the 3.7.2

scheme route from the A6 Buxton Road to Ringway Road, near Manchester Airport. The

design of the Relief Road conforms to the relevant design standards with the exclusion of the

Departures from Standard noted in Chapter 3.4.

There are a number of basic tie points for the scheme:

1. A6 Buxton Road, Hazel Grove;

2. A523 Macclesfield Road, Hazel Grove;

3. A555 junction with A5102 Woodford Road, Bramhall;

4. A555 junction with A Wilmslow Road, Handforth;

5. B5166 Styal Road, Wythenshawe;

6. Ringway Road, Wythenshawe.

Following consultation with the general public and adjacent residents the emphasis 3.7.3

on the vertical alignment has been to maintain the road level below ground as far as

practicable. This is demonstrated within the plans contained within 31Core Document 5516

The four railway lines that the new road construction interacts with are noted below 3.7.4

(east to west):

1. Hazel Grove to Buxton Line ‐non electrified;

2. West Coast Mainline (Stockport to Stoke) – electrified;

3. Styal Line – electrified;

4. Northern Airport Spur – electrified

Two studies were carried out to assess the road over and under rail line options at 3.7.5

the Hazel to Buxton Line and the WCML. The studies assessed the environmental, engineering,

cost, risk, imapcts on rail operations and construction methodology. I have summarised the

conclusions below.

30 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 31 Earthworks Cuttings, Embankments and Bunds 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/338 to 339

28

Hazel Grove and Buxton Line

Two primary options were identified for the proposed Relief Road, one running the 3.7.6

road along a raised embankment over the existing A6 and the railway line (Hazel Grove &

Buxton Line) and an alternative of a similar horizontal route locating the new road within a

cutting beneath the existing A6 and the main railway line. The existing A6 would remain a

local route through for buses, cyclists and pedestrians whilst the realigned A6 will be used for

all traffic.

The land taken as a result of going over the railway line would be significant. The 3.7.7

width of the footprint of the embankment could vary between approximately 26.0m at the

start of the scheme and 90.0m immediately to the South of the crossing. The footprint of the

proposed embankment to accommodate the highway alignment crossing over the railway is

approximately 48,750m2 from chainage 8250m to 8950m. The residential properties and the

industrial building in close proximity crossing would require demolition in order to construct

the embankment.

Mitigation measures would be required to decrease the adverse visual impact. The 3.7.8

construction of the embankment would have a significant impact on the local watercourse. It

would be necessary to construct a culvert beneath the embankment or the watercourse

would need to be diverted to avoid erosion of the embankment. It is estimated that the road

level would be up to 12m above current existing ground level. Due to its close proximity to a

residential area, the embankment would block the view of the open landscape that a number

of houses currently face. With the road elevated to level, traffic would be visible to nearby

residents.

The footprint of the cutting proposed to accommodate the highway alignment 3.7.9

under the railway is approximately 22,700m2 from chainage 8250m to 8950m which is

significantly less that the road over rail option and does not require the demolition of any

residential or commercial property.

If the Relief Road highway alignment is positioned in a cutting the road and 3.7.10

associated traffic would have a reduced visual impact. The view of the flat open farmland and

the woodland beyond will be less impacted. Sight lines on the railway would remain

unaffected.

29

Conclusion

Taking the above factors, and others noted in the reports cited below, into account 3.7.11

the scheme that was promoted was the road under rail option. Network Rail was engaged

through this option consideration process and Asset Protection Legal Agreements are

currently being drafted on this basis. The bridge would become the liability of Network Rail to

maintain in the future. Further details of the engineering, environmental , Health and Safety,

capital and whole life costs and buildability are considered in the Network Rail Hazel Grove

and Buxton Line – Justification of Rail Over Road Bridge Report (32Core Document 5017) and

the B002 – Hazel Grove to Buxton Feasibility Report Study (33Core Document 2063).

West Coast Mainline

There were two options considered for the WCML; these being an overbridge (road 3.7.12

over rail) and an underbridge (rail over road). The site is in fairly open ground either side of

the rail route with the nearest properties being along Woodford Road approximately 150m to

the southeast. The rail alignment is on a medium radius curve and results in a significant

number of overhead line gantries in this location.

The rail corridor at the crossing site is approximately 32 m wide between boundary 3.7.13

fences and rail level is some 2 to 3m below general ground level. The immediate topography is

generally flat although the land to the west of the crossing is slightly higher than at the east.

Engineering

Road over Rail Option 3.7.14

Construction of an overbridge would require long approach embankments either side of the rail

crossing to provide a minimum clearance over the overhead line equipment. The bridge will have to

span the full rail boundary in a single span to avoid any construction on Network Rail land and

further allowance is required for abutment foundation construction width beyond the boundary.

Construction of an overbridge would be less of a risk to the integrity of the rail during construction,

and with abutments outside the rail boundary line possessions can be kept to a minimum.

Road under Rail Bridge 3.7.15

Ground conditions are generally acceptable for construction beneath the rail using a ‘jacked in box’

type structure. However, ground water table at the site is higher than the finished road level for an

underbridge and therefore pumping provisions would be required. Again, long ramped approaches

would be required to gain adequate depth beneath the rail crossing. Attention also needs to be

given to the integrity of the OHLE. If any gantries require relocation this would most likely be costly

and require long term planning and NR approval.

32 Network Rail Hazel Grove and Buxton Line – Justification of Rail Over Road Bridge Report 1007/7.05/106 Issue 2 June 2012 33 Hazel Grove to Buxton Feasibility Report Study (1007/7.04/082 Issue 3 Sep 2013)

30

Cost

Road over Rail 3.7.16

Estimated cost for such a structure is likely to be between £4,000,000 and £6,000,000 depending on

form of placement and the requirement for pumping provision will have an on‐going maintenance

cost implication. This estimate is for the actual bridge construction costs only and does not include

earthworks, design fees, contractor’s fees or other Network Rail fees.

Road Under Rail 3.7.17

The road under rail structure would be in the region of £10,000,000. Again this estimate is again for

the actual bridge construction costs only and does not include earthworks, design fees, contractor’s

fees or other Network Rail fees.

Environmental

The principal differences between the proposed West Coast Mainline options with 3.7.18

regards to environmental effects, relate to air quality, landscape, ecology, materials and road

drainage and are discussed further within the Mouchel report cited below.

Conclusion

Based on these issues the recommendation of the study is to adopt a road over rail 3.7.19

option. The main concerns in not opting for a rail over road crossing are the long term

drainage liability due to a high ground water table and Network Rail’s strong opposition to

construction of a road crossing beneath such an important rail link.

The above study along with other others have determined that the vertical 3.7.20

alignment of the Relief Road travel over the WCML railway. The following reports contained

with Core Documents 345014, 355015 and 362071.

34 West Coast Mainline Option Comparison (Over v Under) 1007/6.19/108 Rev 4 June 2012 Aecom 35 West Coast Mainline Comparison – Environmental Appraisal 1007/6.9/106 Issue 0.2 Oct 2012 Mouchel 36 B008 West Coast Mainline Bridge Preliminary Design Report 47060785‐PDR‐008 Issue 3 January 2013 URS

31

Styal Railway Line

Various horizontal alignments were considered where the road travels across the 3.7.21

electrified Styal Railway line and these are discussed in Chapter III E. They all require the Relief

Road to travel over the rail line as the rail tracks are in deep cutting of various depths. The

structural design of the bridge considered the various engineering and cost aspects and was

concentrated on the preferred horizontal alignment. Ground conditions, ground water,

construction methodology, Network Rail constraints etc. were considered.

The vertical alignment was dictated by the need to clear the overhead line 3.7.22

electrification equipment and cables. The road has been maintained as low as possible across

the tracks to mitigate the environmental impacts of the scheme in particular the visual and

noise related. Landscaping and bunding has assisted this mitigation on the approaches to the

structure.

Airport Line North

Similar to the Styal Line crossing various horizontal alignments and junction layouts 3.7.23

were considered and discussed later in this document. The horizontal alignment was refined

based on the preferred horizontal alignment and ultimately had to tie in with the existing road

levels at Styal Road. The existing road over rail bridge had included the involvement of

Network Rail and has inputted into the design of the bridge to be expanded at this location.

32

3.8 Consideration of Junction Options during the design process

Between 2009 and 2013, a series of junction layout options were considered at a 3.8.1

number of junctions along the route of the A6MARR during the feasibility and preliminary

design stage of the scheme. All of the options were considered by a Technical Working Group

made up of a variety of engineering, traffic modellers and environmental specialists from the

A6MARR Project Team and some were also considered during the consultation for the

proposed development. A summary of the junction options considered and the option

pursued as part of the proposed development is provided below. A detailed explanation of

why each option was selected is provided in Appendix E which also describes the options that

were proposed during public consultation and ultimately the preferred option.

A6MARR/ A6 Junction

The two options considered were: 3.8.2

Option 1 (All movement at‐grade signalised roundabout)

Option 2 (Fully signalised T‐junction) – Preferred Option

A6MARR/ A523 Macclesfield Road

A number of junction options were considered where the A6MARR intersects the 3.8.3

A523 Macclesfield Road. These were:

Option 1 (No junction provision)

Option 2 (An at‐grade all movements signal controlled cross‐road junction) – Preferred

Option

Option 3 (A grade separated junction with restricted movements)

Option 4 (An at‐grade signalised satellite T‐junction)

Option 5 (Provision of a grade separated all movement junction)

A6MARR/ Woodford Road, Poynton

Three layout options were considered at this location: 3.8.4

Option 1 (No junction provision) – Preferred Option

Option 2 (An at‐grade all movements signal controlled right/ left stagger junction):


A6MARR/ Bramhall Oil Terminal & A5149 Chester Road Link Junctions

Five junction layout options were considered at this location ‐ junction 3.8.5

configurations have been considered at this location in conjunction with junction layout

proposals at the A5102 Woodford Road due to their proximity and impact on predicted traffic

movements in the surrounding area:


Option 2 (At‐grade signalised cross‐road junction)

Option 3 (All movement grade separated junction)

33

Option 4 (Restricted movement grade separated junction)

Option 5 (At‐grade large signalised roundabout) – Preferred Option

A6MARR/ A5102 Woodford Road

Six junction layout options were considered at this location ‐ junction configurations 3.8.6

have been considered at this location in conjunction with junction layout proposals at the

A5149 Chester Road due to their proximity and impact on predicted traffic movements in the

surrounding area:


Option 2 (At‐grade signalised crossroads)

Option 3 (At‐grade roundabout)

Option 4 (Grade separated junction – all movements)

Option 5 (Grade separated gyratory junction – restricted movements)

Option 6 (Grade separated T‐junctions – restricted movements) – Preferred Option

A34 Handforth Bypass/ B5094 Stanley Road

Two junction layout options were considered at this location. The proposals are 3.8.7

predominately located within the existing highway boundary with minor additional land‐take

required. Residential properties restrict land‐take to the east and west of the existing

roundabout junction.

Option 1 (All movement at‐grade signalised roundabout) – Preferred Option

Option 2 (All movement at‐grade signalised crossroads)

A6MARR/ B5358 Wilmslow Road

Two junction layout options were considered at this location: 3.8.8

Option 1 (Existing Junction Layout) – east facing slips only

Option 2 (Grade separated junction – all movements) – Preferred Option

A6MARR/ B5166 Styal Road

Three options were considered at this location: 3.8.9

Option 1 (At‐grade signalised cross‐road junction on a central route alignment) – Preferred

Option

Option 2 (At‐grade signalised T‐junctions on a southern route alignment)

Option 3 (At‐grade signalised cross‐road junction on a northern route alignment)

The design of the junctions have been carried out in accordance with the DMRB, 3.8.10

specifically, the documents listed below, as follows:

TD22 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions

TD50 The Geometric Layout of Signal‐Controlled Junctions and Signalised Roundabout

TD27 Cross Sections and Headroom

TD42 Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions

The recommendations from the Advice Notes in the DMRB have been taken into account, specifically

the document listed below, as follows:

34

TA48 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions.

The geometric layout of each junction is dependent on design speeds and traffic 3.8.11

flows. This will dictate the type of layout, number of traffic lanes, width of traffic lanes and

provision of traffic islands. Other factors include buildability, topography, proximity to

properties, proximity to existing structures and equipment of statutory undertakers.

The junction capacity checks that have been carried out are based on the latest 3.8.12

design submitted as part of the planning application. These were carried out by Atkins utilising

Transport for Greater Manchester Urban Traffic Control (TfGM UTC). Highway layouts were

developed by beginning with simpler and potentially smaller sized junctions. They were tested

and iterations were carried out gradually increasing the size of junctions including the

introduction of grade‐separation where appropriate such as at Woodford Road, Bramhall and

retention of the bridge at Wilmslow Road. This was to determine the layout with potentially

the least landtake, cost and impact on the environment and the community.

Carriageway and lane widths are in accordance with DMRB (37Core Document) with 3.8.13

lane widening where appropriate. Targeted initial swept path analysis has been carried out at

junction proposals where they are required including at physically constrained locations in

order to meet the movement requirements.

The verge width within the junction is dependent on a number of factors, which 3.8.14

include visibility requirements, the provision of drainage, vehicle restraint systems, lighting,

signing and communications equipment. NMU movements were also considered within the

design process and further assessed when commissioning the Road Safety Audit Stage 1

(38Core Document) and the COPECAT (Concise Pedestrian and Cycle Audit) (39Core Document

5505).

37 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 38 Roads Safety Audit Stage 1 (Oct 2013) 39 COPECAT Report (Sep 2013)

35

3.9 Earthwork Design

The design of the earthworks is dependent on various factors including the existing 3.9.1

topography and ground condition, the physical constraints including property and water

course, the route vertical and horizontal alignment, the objectives of the scheme promoters in

respect of visual and noise screening and the design standards.

The geotechnical study was carried out in accordance with the following documents: 3.9.2

1. DMRB (40Core Document 4003) Volume 4 Geotechnics and Drainage including:

a. HA 44/91 Design and Preparation of Contract Documents

Specifically the geotechnical advisors utilised the following document:

b. HD22/08 Managing Geotechnical Risk


36

This Standard sets out the procedures to be followed and certificates to be used 3.9.3

during the process of planning and reporting of all geotechnical works. The geotechnical

design was taken to an appropriate stage in order for the Council’s contractor to price the

works and also to allow further development prior to construction. Various reports were

produced which indicated how the excavated material could be utilised in order to obtain an

‘earthworks balance’ whereby all reusable material would be utilised with the design in order

to minimise the requirement to dispose excavated material off‐site or import to site which

would increase cost and lorry movements on the existing highway networks with resulting

environmental impacts.

The study also outlined and quantified where material cannot be re‐used i.e. the 3.9.4

areas of environmental risk (contaminated land) , the ground conditions at locations of

structures, ground water conditions, the areas of geotechnical risk, and gradients that

earthworks slopes should be designed to dependent on the properties of the excavated

materials. The gradients that have been used within the design are generally 1:3 slopes and

to allow ease of access as they will be maintained as a geotechnical asset by the relevant

highway authority. The design has also utilised much shallower slopes in order to return the

land to its previous use by the original agricultural owner/tenant. This yields a reduction in

land required compared to a 1:3 slope and has been utilised in liaison with the affected

parties. The relevant areas are indicated on the Mouchel Landscape Mitigation Proposals

Plans which outline the areas ‘to be returned to agricultural use’ (41Core Documents

2009).Retaining walls have been used where existing physical constraints mean that an

earthworks solution is inappropriate.

The existing land corridor where the road will be constructed has been protected by 3.9.5

the three local authorities within their respective strategic land use plans. This has meant that

the corridor is relatively free from development and the majority of land is currently used for

agricultural purposes. There are also areas where the land is currently used for recreational

use including various golf courses. The vertical alignment of the road has been developed in

order to tie into side roads as appropriate, whether that is at‐grade, above or with the relief

road travelling underneath (grade separated). At the four rail line crossings, the relief road has

either travelled above or underneath dependent on a range of site conditions, existing ground

level, environmental impacts, engineering issues and the requirements of Network Rail. These

physical features have largely influenced the quantities of the earthworks involved in the

scheme.

41 Mouchel Landscape Mitigation Proposals Plans (Sep 2013)

37

A further input into the design has been the requirement to mitigate the 3.9.6

environmental impacts of the road whether noise or of a visual nature. Where the relief road

is heading into a cutting to cross an existing road or rail line this has provided the natural

screening from adjacent residents. Where the relief road is at or above the existing ground

level earthworks, a combination of earth bunding (false cutting), fencing and landscaping, has

been utilised to provide environmental screening. The health and safety in construction and

operation (maintenance) was also considered. Basic parameters included the provision of a

3.00m wide plateau on the top of the embankments and a 3.00m wide flat separation

between cuttings/embankments and the back of highway / highway boundary. This would

cater for maintenance vehicles, drainage ditches/pipes and ground conditions.

An earthworks balance was achieved within the planning application design across 3.9.7

the length of the scheme. Furthermore there was an emphasis to create a balance between

natural barriers to the construction haul route such as the rail lines and watercourses.

The proposed cuttings and embankment locations are shown with the plans 3.9.8

contained within 42Core Document 5516. The earthworks design has been validated and

further developed by the Council’s appointed contractor, Carillion Morgan Sindall. This is

outlined with the Earthworks Balance Table within Appendix F.

42 Earthworks Cuttings, Embankments and Bunds 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/338 to 339

38

3.10 Structures Rationale and Design

The rail structures have largely been discussed earlier in the document. The below 3.10.1

describes the remaining bridges, their chainage location and their function.

Ref Chainage Name Purpose

B001 8,510m A6 Bus Bridge To carry pedestrians, equestrians, cyclists and buses over the relief road at Buxton Road.

B002 8,570m Hazel Grove and Buxton Line Road under Rail Bridge

To take the relief road under the existing rail line

B003 8,670m Mill Lane Accommodation Bridge

To carry pedestrians and farm vehicles over the relief road to accommodate diversion of PRoW and mitigate severance of land.

B004 Offline (8,800m)

Mill Lane Footbridge

To carry pedestrians over the relief road to accommodate diversion of PRoW.

B004A 9,500m Norbury Bridge Widening

To accommodate the widening of Macclesfield Road

B005 10,300m Mill Hill Hollow Bridge

To carry the relief road over Norbury Brook

B005A Offline (10,300m)

Mill Hill Hollow Footbridge


B006 11,040m Hill Green Accommodation Bridge

To carry pedestrians, equestrians, cyclists and farm vehicles over the relief road to accommodate diversion of PRoW and mitigate severance of land.

B007 11,500m Woodford Road Bridge (Poynton)

To retain Woodford Road through route and for the relief road to travel underneath via grade separation

B008 11,950m WCML Road over Rail Bridge

To carry the relief road over the rail line

B010B 13,300m Woodford Road Bridge (Bramhall)

To retain Woodford Road through route and for the relief road to travel underneath via grade separation

B012 1,300m Yew Tree Footbridge


B013 2,100m Styal Mainline Road over Rail bridge


B014 2,450m Styal Road Airport Spur Road over Rail bridge


TR1‐11

Existing A555 near Dairy House Lane

Dairy House Lane Culvert


39

A cohesive strategy was created for the footbridges, road bridges and retaining 3.10.2

structures along the length of the scheme. For structures located adjacent to other structures

and/or in groups e.g. at junctions, design proposals considered such structures as ‘families’ to

avoid visual conflict. Alternative structure options were also considered within this strategy,

particularly if the proposals enhance the environment in the immediate vicinity. Structures

were designed such that their visual impact was minimised in relation to their surroundings

where practicable.

Footway and bridleway bridges have been designed to minimise the length of the 3.10.3

diversion and also to provide for the aspirations of the local authorities to upgrade the status

of current PRoWs. For example, bridges B003 and B006 bridges have located in what is

considered to be the optimal location in order to rationalise the number of bridges and to

provide multiple purposes i.e. for land owners and for diverted pedestrians etc.

The design of the bridges and retaining walls is compliant with the principles and 3.10.4

application rules of Eurocodes, which have precedence over Design Manual for Road and

Bridges (DMRB) documents and other supplementary guidance.

Departure from Eurocodes (BS EN) and UK National Annexes (UKNA) are not 3.10.5

permitted except as follows:

‐ There is adverse safety implication in the application of BS EN and/or UKNA.

‐ Aspects not covered by BS EN or UKNA.

‐ Application to assessment of existing structure.

40

Maintenance is a key factor affecting the design life of a bridge/retaining wall. This 3.10.6

was a key consideration during the preliminary design stage. The design to date has outlined

the relevant maintenance regime to be adopted by the maintaining Council upon which the

design life has been based.

All bridges intended to carry traffic loading have been designed for Eurocode 3.10.7

‘normal’ traffic loading. In addition, those bridges carrying the relief road and other major

routes were also designed for Eurocode ‘abnormal’ traffic loading. Pedestrian loading were

included on bridges where pedestrians/equestrians are permitted access.

Pedestrian protection has been provided to all otherwise unprotected headwalls, 3.10.8

wing walls and retaining walls. The pedestrian protection was stipulated to be in the form of

of metal post and two rail pedestrian guardrail in accordance with current appropriate

standards. The scheme has been designed in order that the central reserve is kept clear of

obstructions i.e. bridge piers, street lighting and matrix signing. Suitable access shall be

provided all around bearings to facilitate their inspection, maintenance and replacement.

Various retaining walls have been proposed along the length of the scheme which as 3.10.9

well as providing an engineering function also provides a maintenance liability to the Local

Highway Authority. The highway design team has endeavoured to ‘design out’ the use of

vertical retention in the interest of minimising future maintenance costs by manipulating the

horizontal alignment and vertical alignment of the both the mainline and other features such

as link roads (slip roads), drainage ponds etc. The location of the structures is indicated in 43Core Document 5517.

43 Carillion Morgan Sindall ‐ Overall Plan – MS2498‐TW‐T001 REV 2

41

3.11 Signing Strategy

The proposed signing strategy seeks to achieve the objectives of the scheme 3.11.1

including reducing traffic on the residential estate roads or district centres and maximising the

strategic traffic utilising the new road and the primary network. It also looks to integrate the

A6MARR into the existing road network. This will be achieved by ensuring consistency and

continuity of signing across the local authority boundaries.

The approach adopted in this signing strategy is: 3.11.2

• To develop a signing strategy for the proposed A6 Hazel Grove to Manchester Airport Relief Road scheme;

• To assess the impact of the new road on the existing network signing by identifying those signs reviewed, and then in turn detailing those signs to be retained, removed and / or changed.

The proposed signing strategy supports the overall scheme objectives of improving 3.11.3

surface access to Manchester Airport, connectivity along the south Manchester corridor

helping economic growth to flourish. These objectives will be achieved by providing a clear

and concise signing scheme. The general principles that underpin this strategy are to:

• Provide consistency; • Provide continuity; • Improve clarity; • Minimise the environmental intrusion and impact of the signing.

Sign design is undertaken in accordance with guidance contained in the following 3.11.4

publications:

• TSRGD (2002) – The Traffic Signs Regulations and general Directions.

• Local Transport Note1/94 – The Design and Use of Directional Informatory

Signs.

• Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 7.

• TA 93/04 – Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England:

Guidance for Tourist Signing – General Introduction.

• TD 52/04 – Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England:

Tourist Signing – Trunk Roads.

• TA 94/04 – Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and facilities in England:

Guidance for Tourist Signing – Local Roads.

• TD 53/05 – Traffic Signs to Retail Destinations and Exhibition Centres in

England and Wales – Trunk Roads.

42

The strategy aims to be consistent in the use of primary / local destination names 3.11.5

and graphic elements along the proposed A6MARR and the surrounding existing road network

in order to eliminate conflicting information. In general only those local destinations closest to

the line of the proposed A6MARR have been signed. Traffic being directed along the most

suitable route taking account of traffic management and safety needs.

Where possible signing of non‐primary and local destinations has utilised the 3.11.6

proposed A6MARR and existing trunk roads. For example, previous signing to Manchester

Airport along local roads will now be routed long ‘A’ roads such as A34 and the A555 including

the A6MARR. Also to avoid north to south HGV movements in/near to Wilmslow town centre,

Wilmslow has been signed via the A6MARRand the existing A34.

As the strategy has been developed, emphasis has been put on minimising the 3.11.7

environmental intrusion of the signs in terms of numbers / size and also therefore the land

take required. The strategy has been agreed with all three local highway authorities

promoting the scheme.

43

3.12 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage

The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (44Core Document 2081) has considered all 3.12.1

potential sources of flooding to the proposed development including sea, river, groundwater,

land drainage, overland flow, artificial sources, water mains, sewers and surface water

drainage arrangements. Climate change has also been considered, which is projected to

increase the peak rainfall intensity by 20% and increase the peak river flow by up to 20% over

the lifetime of the development. Examination of the Environment Agency flood map confirms

the route to be located predominantly in Flood Zone 1, with isolated sections in Flood Zones 2,

which are:

• Norbury Bridge, adjacent to Norbury Brook at the proposed point of realignment

(located within the SMBC council boundary); and

• At the existing A555/A34 roundabout north of Handforth Dean (located within

both the CEC and SMBC council boundaries).

As the vulnerability of the proposed highway scheme, based on the guidance given 3.12.2

in the NPPF Technical Guidance, is predominantly ‘Essential Infrastructure’ with some ‘Water

Compatible’ features, the highway scheme is considered appropriate within the planning

context without the need for the Exception Test. The route lies in a protected corridor

identified for such a scheme, and is predominantly located in Flood Zone 1. It is therefore

assumed that the Sequential Test is considered to be passed for the proposed development.

The FRA identifies a number of potentially significant flood risk sources which may affect or be

affected by the proposed highway. The report demonstrates that it is possible to mitigate

these risks by the application of appropriate design principles and through adequate

maintenance following construction. These potential sources of risk include:

• The proposed realignment of Ox Hey Brook;

• The proposed realignment of Norbury Brook;

• The direct fluvial flood risk from Norbury Brook;

• The proposed bridge crossings of Norbury Brook;

• The direct fluvial flood risk from Spath Brook;

• The direct fluvial flood risk from other Ordinary Watercourses along the route;

• Flooding from public sewers;

• Flooding from existing highway drainage;

• Flooding from Overland flows (pluvial flooding);

• Groundwater flooding; and

• The culverting of existing watercourses and land drains.

44 Flood Risk Assessment Oct 2013

44

Within the report it has been demonstrated that disposal of surface water from the 3.12.3

proposed highway is possible, using SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) where

appropriate, and that any proposed systems can be managed sustainably and appropriately to

ensure the risk of surface water flooding is low and acceptable. The proposed surface water

drainage strategy has been developed to manage surface water from the highway in a manner

which ensures that the highway itself is adequately protected from flooding, whilst also

ensuring that the scheme will not cause an increase in flood risk elsewhere.

The Drainage Strategy Report and associated plans submitted as part of the planning 3.12.4

applications details the overall drainage strategy for the A6MARR. Prior to discharge into

existing water courses / positive drainage systems there are attenuation and pollution

treatment ponds proposed at the following locations:

• Ponds near the realigned A6 / Yew Occupiers Lane prior to discharge into Ox

Hey Brook;

• Ponds near Mill Hill Hollow prior to discharge into Norbury Brook;

• Ponds east of Woodford Road, Bramhall prior to discharge into the existing

A555 drainage system;

• Pond off Styal Road prior to discharge into existing drainage system on

Teddar Drive, Wythenshawe.

The ponds have been located ideally in land that is already in public ownership 3.12.5

where possible and the summary of proposed drainage networks are shown in drawing

60212470‐HIG‐0535 (45Core Document 5519). The discharge points and the ethos of the

sustainable design has been agreed with the Environment Agency and is summarised within

the 60212470_HIG_001_Run‐off restriction report in Appendix G and the Drainage Strategy

Report

45 Summary of Proposed Drainage Networks – 60212470‐HIG‐0535‐P03

45

3.13 Road Safety Audit

The Road Safety Audit (46Core Document 5011) has been conducted in accordance 3.13.1

with Stockport Councils Road Safety Audit Procedure, adopted 1st May 2006. In particular, it

is based on the Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HD19/03 which

supersedes the previous Standards HD19/94 and Advice Note HA42/94. It also has regard to

the Institution of Highways and Transportation reference document, ‘Guidelines for the Safety

Audit of Highways’. An ‘Engineer’s Response’ was also produced that is documented with the

RSA1 within the Transport Assessment.

The scheme travels from Hazel Grove at the east to Manchester Airport to the west. 3.13.2

The A6MARR Project Team (APT) has therefore engaged with this key stakeholder,

Manchester Airport Group (MAG), on various aspects including proposed highway layout,

reference to the Airport City development site and Aerodrome Safeguarding. The safeguarded

area for Obstacle Limitation Surfaces extends to a distance of approximately 13km from the

aerodrome.

Various constraints relating to aerodrome safety have also been taken into 3.13.3

consideration by the design team in developing the preferred scheme layout. This

development of the highway vertical and horizontal alignment, street lighting, landscape and

drainage design has also taken cognisance of the matters relating to aerodrome safeguarding.

Continuing liaison with the Manchester Airport Group throughout the design to date of the

scheme, and the future design refinement of the scheme is to be carried forward by the

Principal Contractor. This will contribute to the safe process of construction and operation of

the scheme with consideration to the above constraints, with particular attention to the risk

of bird hazard associated with the proposed scheme.

46 Road Safety Audit

46

3.14 Street Lighting

The street lighting design has been designed with sustainability and environmental 3.14.1

considerations in mind. It is proposed that only the junctions will be lit. The design of the

lanterns, columns and the illumination requirements have taken cognisance of Health and

Safety and maintenance requirements.

Within the DMRB (47Core Document 4003), TD34/07 gives guidance on the extents 3.14.2

of junctions to be lit as 1.5 times the Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance as given in

TD9/94. Therefore, based upon a design speed of approximately 85 kph the proposed lighting

will extend from the centre of each junction or roundabout approximately 240m, in either

direction and if necessary tie in with the existing lighting at the extent of each scheme.

Extract TD9/94:

Design Speed (kph) DMSSD (m) 1.5 x DMSSD (m)

85 160 240

At the proposed realigned Ringway Road and Shadowmoss Road the proposed 3.14.3

lighting will cover the extents of the carriageway realignment all the way to the Styal Road

Junction due to the urban nature of this area and will tie in with the existing lighting at each

end of the scheme. Lighting on slip roads will extend to the end of the taper, where the slip

road meets the main carriageway. All highway lighting designs within the United Kingdom are

governed by a set of recommendations which were also initially specified by Stockport MBC

and are listed below.

• DMRB specifically sections TA49/07 (Appraisal of New & Replacement

Lighting on the Strategic Motorway & All Purpose Trunk Road Network) and

TD34/07 (Design of Road Lighting for the Strategic Motorway & All Purpose

Trunk Road Network);

• BS5489‐1:2003+A2:2008 – Code of practice for the design of road lighting.


47

Whilst the site is not an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or of 3.14.4

Special Scientific Interest much of the route passes though greenfield areas. However, as far

as is practical the proposed lighting has been designed to limit the impact on the local

environment.

The use of 10m columns ensures that the lighting has a minimal impact visually on 3.14.5

the landscape and the lighting equipment specified complements the existing lighting

providing visual continuity.

The lantern specified employ flat glass protectors which minimise glare and ensures 3.14.6

there is no light above the horizontal. This limits the obtrusive light in accordance with the

Institute of Lighting Professionals ‘Guidance notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light’. Since

he appointment of the contractor the iuse of LED lanterns has been developed with a view to

reducing the each council’s energy bill and maintenance requirements. This will also mitigate

the environmental impacts of the lighting scheme on adjacent residents.

48

3.15 Statutory Undertakers Equipment

The SPT has liaised with the various Statutory Undertakers (SUs) regarding the 3.15.1

effects of the road proposals on their respective apparatus. The SU companies have

developed design and costs estimates for the protection and diversionary works in accordance

with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (48Core Document 4425). The diversionary

works required in order to divert the Oil Pipelines Agency will be carried out in accordance

with its associated planning consent.

The scheme impacts on apparatus that is managed by the following SU companies: 3.15.2

United Utilities plc.;

Electricity North West Ltd;

National Grid Gas;

British Telecom Openreach;

Virgin Media;

Oil Pipelines Agency.

Various iterations of the diversion works designs have been provided and have been 3.15.3

developed that has informed the final scheme design. The SPT has worked with the SU

engineering teams in order to mitigate and minimise the scope and costs of these works. The

design has fed into the construction programme for the works.

48 New Roads and Streets Works Act 1991

49

4 SideRoadOrder

4.1 Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and Non‐Motorised User (NMU) Provision

There is an extensive network of NMU routes (including on road and traffic‐free 4.1.1

routes), and roads adjacent to the scheme and in the surrounding area. The proposed

scheme involves severance of local roads and of public rights of way comprising footpaths,

bridleways, cycle tracks and other non‐motorised user routes with consequent potential

impacts on access and amenity value on local residents, ramblers, equestrians and cyclists.

The proposals provide for diversion of severed Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) and the

introduction of a combined cycle track and footpath along the entire length of the proposed

dual carriageway corridor.

The Environmental Statement (49Core Document 2092) includes an assessment of 4.1.2

anticipated impacts on non‐motorised users (NMUs) of the existing footpath, PRoW and road

network relative to impacts on accessibility and the amenity value of the parts of the network

affected. NMUs include pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. Motorists considered include

users of the proposed dual and single carriageway and of the existing road network where it

crosses the proposed scheme or in the proposed traffic mitigation areas.

The Environmental Statement has assessed accessibility and amenity value, has 4.1.3

involved consideration of new severance associated with the alignment of the proposed dual

carriageway and relief of severance associated with reductions in traffic flows on existing

roads in the surrounding network. The assessment for both has been focused on impacts in

the opening year of the proposed scheme.

Details of NMU route closure / diversion during construction are currently not 4.1.4

available. The impacts will be temporary and short‐term. The contractor will be required to

develop and agree a Traffic Management Plan with the appropriate local authority for the

duration of the contract. The plan will identify proposals for the principal phases of the works

and individual construction activities to address disruption to existing vehicular and NMU

movements in specific locations along the construction corridor.

The study area for the assessment of accessibility and amenity value has been based 4.1.5

on the network of NMU routes in the vicinity of and along the proposed scheme. These

include:

• PRoW;

• cycletracks;

• footways;

• minor roads; and

• local roads and cycle routes.

The assessment has involved: 4.1.6

• identification of the existing network of PRoW and local roads, likely to be

affected by the implementation of the proposed scheme;

49 Environmental Statement and Associated Appendices Oct 2013

50

• evaluation of the levels of current use of the identified network with

particular emphasis on those sections which will be crossed by the proposed

scheme or in close proximity to the proposed scheme (the baseline

environment);

• estimation of changes in distance travelled for users of the existing network,

where the proposed scheme provides for the stopping up, partial stopping

up and diversion of existing PRoW and the provision of new footpaths

cycletracks and bridleways;

• evaluation of the order of increased or reduced severance for users of the

existing network; and

• description of the impacts and the predicted effects on NMUs and motorists

using PRoW and local roads taking into account severance, increased

accessibility and changes in amenity value.

PRoW and local roads which have been included in the assessment were identified 4.1.7

from the following sources:

• OS mapping;

• the Definitive Maps held by SMBC. MCC and CEC;

• 2009 base year traffic data;

• non statutory consultees ;

Cheshire East local Access Forum;

North West Transport Activists Round Table;

The Walking Groups; and

Sustrans.

NMU routes were included in the assessment if they will be physically altered and 4.1.8

levels of use associated with them could be likely to change as a result of the implementation

of the proposed scheme. A survey of NMU on the identified routes was undertaken by Greater

Manchester Transportation Unit to establish indicative levels of use for each route. Each route

was surveyed on a single Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 07:00 to 21:00 in June and July

2010.

The design of facilities for non‐motorised users has been carried out in accordance 4.1.9

with the documents listed below, as follows:

• TD36 Subways for Pedestrians and Pedal Cyclists. Layout and Dimensions

The recommendations from the Advice Notes in the DMRB have been taken into 4.1.10

account, specifically the documents listed below, as follows:

• TA68 The Assessment and Design of Pedestrian Crossing

• TA90 The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes

The routes of the diverted PRoWs have been discussed in further detail with Sue 4.1.11

Steven’s Proof of Evidence.

51

4.2 Private Means of Access

Construction of the proposed scheme will involve the loss of agricultural land and 4.2.1

land associated with recreational and residential use. It will also involve using some areas of

industrial and commercial land. The road will sever and fragment a number of agricultural

holdings with potential implications for future operation. In addition to these permanent

impacts there are potential temporary impacts on existing uses related to disruption to

access.

The Side Roads Order also creates new rights of way in order to mitigate the 4.2.2

severance effects of the new road. Various Private Means of Access (PMA) have been

proposed following consultation with land owners and their respective agents, lease holders

and tenants. The physical infrastructure comprises ‘farmer’s tracks, gates, accommodation

bridges etc. again liaison has been undertaken to determine the specification, locations and

design of the measures in order that the proposals are fit for purpose, as far as practicable and

economically viable.

Table 4.1 below outlines the new or diverted PMAs associated with the scheme and 4.2.3

the objectives of the PMAs. A further informative describing the lengths of affected PMAs and

lengths of the diversions are set out within Appendix E.

Table 4.1 Schedule of New and Diverted Private Means of Access

SRO Schedule No. / Plan No.

Description Purpose

1 1 Vehicular access to 60 Buxton Road

2 Vehicular access to62 Buxton Road

3 Pedestrian access to Flats 9, 11, 13 and 15 Dunvegan Road

4 Vehicular access to Yew Tree Cottage, Buxton Road

5 Vehicular access to Yew Tree Cottage, Buxton Road

6 Vehicular access to Lane End House, Buxton Road

7, 10 Vehicular access to Hazel Grove Golf Course and properties on

Occupation Lane

16 Pedestrian access to 170 Buxton Road

17 Pedestrian access to 172 Buxton Road

19 Vehicular access to Simpsons Business Park and 176 Buxton

Road

21 Vehicular field access to land north of the A6 Buxton Road

22 Vehicular access to Reservoir, from the northern highway

boundary of the A6 Buxton Road

23 Vehicular access to 211 Buxton Road

24 Vehicular field access to land south of the A6 Buxton Road

52

25 Vehicular access to Robin Hood Hotel

26 Pedestrian access to 2 Red Row, Buxton Road




30 Vehicular access to land to the east of 5 Red Row, Buxton

Road

33 Vehicular access to Wellington Road

34 Pedestrian access to Wrenbury, Buxton Road

35 Vehicular access to Ellesmere, Buxton Road

36 Vehicular access to Lyndale, Buxton Road

37 Vehicular access to Richmond, Buxton Road

31 Vehicular access to Dairy, from the eastern highway

boundary of Norbury Hollow Road

32 Vehicular access to Beechwood House

38 Vehicular access to Siraston, Buxton Road

39 Vehicular access to land located between Sirestan and

Wellington View, Buxton Road

40 Vehicular access to Wellington View, Buxton Road

41 Vehicular access to land east of Eventide Cottage

42 Pedestrian access to 1 Werneth View, Buxton Road

43 Pedestrian access to 2 Werneth View, Buxton Road

44 Pedestrian access to 3 Werneth View, Buxton Road,

45 Vehicular Access to 4 Werneth View, Buxton Road,

8 Vehicular access to Easter Cottage

9 Vehicular access to Brookwood

12 Vehicular access to Easter Cottage,

11 Vehicular Access to drainage pond.

53


Description Purpose

13 Vehicular Access to land owned by Mr Tilley

14 Vehicular Access to land owned by Mr Taylor

15 Vehicular Access to ecological mitigation area

18 Vehicular Access to land owned by Mr Simpson/Mr Livesey

20 Vehicular Access to ecological mitigation area

SRO Schedule

No. / Plan No.

Description Purpose

2 1 Vehicular access to Norbury Hall, Macclesfield Road

2 Vehicular access to 94 Macclesfield Road













15 Vehicular access to Norbury Court

16 Vehicular access to Brookside Garden Centre, Macclesfield Road

17 Vehicular access to Brookside Garden Centre, Macclesfield Road

18 Agricultural Access between Mill Lane and land owned by Mr

Simpson / Mr Livesey in order to mitigate severance of

agricultural land.

54

3 1 Agricultural Access between Woodford Road and land owned by Mr Kingsley in order to mitigate severance of agricultural land.

2 Agricultural Access between Woodford Road and land owned by Mr Kingsley in order to mitigate severance of agricultural land.

3 Agricultural Access between Woodford Road and land owned by Mr Kingsley / Mrs Mort in order to mitigate severance of agricultural land.

4 Agricultural Access between Woodford Road and land owned by Mrs Mort in order to mitigate severance of agricultural land.

5 Agricultural Access between Woodford Road and land owned by Mrs Mort in order to mitigate severance of agricultural land.

6 Diversion of right of way held by Mrs D Mills

7 Access to drainage pond

8 Diversion of right of way held by Mrs D Mills and Access to drainage pond


10 Diversion of right of way held by Mrs D Mills. Access to drainage pond and for bridge maintenance.

11 Access to drainage pond and for bridge maintenance.



Description Purpose

4 1 Vehicular access to 203 Chester Road (west)

2 Vehicular access to 203 Chester Road (east)

3 Vehicular access located between 201 and 203 Chester Road

4 Vehicular access to 201 Chester Road





10 Vehicular access to Bramhall Oil Terminal, Chester

Road

9 Vehicular access to Ashmead Farm,

18 Vehicular access to 78 Woodford Road





55

24, 25 Vehicular access to Birch Hall and land owned by Alan Thompson

26 Vehicular access to Hill Green Farm, Woodford Road

27 Vehicular access to Hill Green Farm, Woodford Road

11

Vehicular access for land owned by Mr Galligan and access for bridge maintenance B008 (WCML)

12 Vehicular access for land owned by Mr Galligan and access for

bridge maintenance B008 (WCML)

13 Vehicular access for land owned by Mr Galligan

14 Vehicular access for land owned by Mr Galligan and Mr

Quiligotti

15 Vehicular access for land owned by Mr Galligan and access for

bridge maintenance B008 (WCML)

16 Vehicular access for land owned by Mr Galligan

17 Vehicular access for land owned by Bramhall Golf Club

23 Vehicular access for land owned by PE Jones


Description Purpose

5 1 Vehicular access to Woodford Recreation Ground





6 Vehicular access to 133A Woodford Road





11 Vehicular access to 141 and 143 Woodford Road




16 Vehicular access to 157A Woodford Road

17 Vehicular access to Hawthorn Farm, Woodford Road

18 Vehicular access to The Bakehouse, 156A Woodford Road

19 Vehicular access to Walnut Tree Farm, Chester Road

20 Vehicular field access, from its junction with the A5149

Chester Road to land owned by Mr Quiligotti

56


22 Vehicular access to 86 Albany Road,


Description Purpose

6 1,2,3 Vehicular access known as Dairy House Lane, from its junction with Hall Moss Lane

4 Vehicular access to land adjacent to the A555 northern highway boundary, from the north eastern highway boundary of Hall Moss Lane to land owned by Mr Jones, Mrs Rowland, Mr Darnell





Description Purpose

7 1 Vehicular access known as Henbury Lane

2 Vehicular access known as Bowery Avenue

3 Pedestrian access to 97 Stanley Road





8 Vehicular access to land located between Nos. 85 and 89

Stanley Road


10 Vehicular access to 43 Stanley Road

SRO Schedule

No. / Plan No.

Description Purpose

8 4 Vehicular Access to Nursery from its junction with the

B5358 Wilmslow Road

1 Vehicular access to Land owned by Mr Hankinson

2 Vehicular access to land owned by Mr Hankinson

3 Vehicular access to land owned by Mr Hankinson and Mr

Higham

5 Vehicular access to Beaumont Court

6 Vehicular access to Brompton Way

57

SRO Schedule

No. / Plan No.

Description Purpose

9 1 Vehicular access for emergency vehicles and to land owned by

MAG/MCC

2 Vehicular access for emergency vehicles and to land owned by

MAG/MCC

3 Vehicular access to land owned by MAG/MCC

4 Vehicular access to drainage pond

5 Vehicular access to drainage pond

6 Vehicular access to land owned by MCC (Electricity North West

Substation)

7 Vehicular access to Shuttle Park (MAG)

8 Vehicular access to land owned by Mr Hankinson (telephone

mast)


mast)


mast)

58

5 JustificationofLandAcquisition

The previous chapters describe the design development to date for the scheme. It 5.1.1

also provides a rationale of how a balanced scheme design has been developed whilst always

considering the impacts on directly affected land owners. An emphasis on minimising the land

acquisition requirement has remained throughout the design process. At various instances

this has included including design elements that have increased (or not decreased) the capital

cost of the works. This was carried out with an associated cost benefit analysis having been

conducted in order to provide best value to the client, the promoting local authorities.

The land acquisition also provides the contractor sufficient working room in order to 5.1.2

construct the scheme in an efficient manner. This is especially true at the road / rail bridges

whereby the contractor will be bound by the stipulations set by Network Rail in terms of

programme, methodology, Health and Safety, rail operations etc.

The earthworks operations for the scheme represent a substantial amount of work 5.1.3

in terms of volume, sequencing and costs. The contractor has utilised the land outlined for

compounds and material storage and has indicated his requirements on drawing ‘Overall Plan’

MS2498‐TW‐T001 Rev 2 (50Core Document 5517). This has confirmed the previous work and

discussions had between the design team and consultant contractor engaged prior to the

appointment of the Principal Contractor for the works. It also identifies the major central

compound located near to the Chester Road link junction.

It should also be noted that a Code of Construction Practice (51Core Document 2091) 5.1.4

was submitted as part of the planning application which binds the contractor to various

stipulations that will minimise the impact of the local community, highway network and

businesses during construction. It addresses:

Traffic management;

Noise and hours of working;

Vibration;

Dust and air pollution;

Site boundaries/hoardings;

Approved access and haul routes; and

Various other aspects to be read in conjunction with the ES and planning conditions.

In order to illustrate the relationship between the preferred scheme design and the 5.1.5

extents of the land requirements (taking into account the List of Proposed Modifications, 52Core Document 1104) the following has been drafted:

The scheme design (General Arrangement drawings) which I have superimposed onto

the CPO plans (53Core Document 5518);

50 Carillion Morgan Sindall ‐ Overall Plan – MS2498‐TW‐T001 REV 2 51 Code of Construction Practise Sep 2013 52 List of Proposed Modifications 53 General Arrangement and CPO Extents – 1007/3D/DF7/A6‐MA/GA/CPO/317 to 325

59

The Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) plans which I have superimposed onto aerial

imagery (54Core Document 1102);

The Side Roads Order (SRO) plans which I similarly superimposed onto aerial imagery

(55Core Document 1103).

During discussions with landowners following publication of the Orders it has 5.1.6

possible to identify some areas where minor modifications to the Orders could be

accommodated which seek to take account of their concerns without adversely affecting the

Scheme. These are set out in the List of Proposed Modifications, Core Document 1104). I am

satisfied that, with the proposed modifications, the minimum land take has been proposed in

order to construct the scheme including that required for the operation of the scheme and for

working room in order to construct the works.

54 CPO Aerial Photography Plans 55 SRO Aerial Photography Plans

60

6 SummaryandConclusions

Circular 06/2004 (56Core Document 4007) issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime 6.1.1

Minister provides guidance as to the circumstances where it may be appropriate to use

compulsory purchase powers. The essential test set out in 06/2004 is whether there is a

compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition of the land contained in

The Metropolitan Borough of Stockport (Hazel Grove A6 to Manchester Airport A555

Classified Road) Compulsory Purchase 2013 and the highway alterations in The Metropolitan

Borough of Stockport (Hazel Grove A6 to Manchester Airport A555 Classified Road) (Side

Roads) Order 2013 to support the highway alterations to facilitate the A6 to Manchester

Airport relief road.

I have carried out my role in accordance with the ICE Code of Professional Conduct, 6.1.2

with specific reference to the following extracts:

‘ICE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Made by the Council on 21 July 2004 to come into effect on 1 November 2004, in accordance

with By‐law 35. Modified in accordance with By‐law 35 by the Council on 20 May 2008 and

taking effect from 10 June 2008; modified by the Council on 17 July 2012 and taking immediate

effect, further modified by the Council on 15 April 2014 and taking immediate effect.

The duty to behave ethically

Members of the ICE should always be aware of their overriding responsibility to the public

good.

THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

All members shall discharge their professional duties with integrity and shall behave with

integrity in relation to all conduct bearing upon the standing, reputation and dignity of the

Institution and of the profession of civil engineering.

All members shall have full regard for the public interest, particularly in relation to matters

of health and safety, and in relation to the well‐being of future generations.

GUIDANCE NOTES ON THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Rule 1: All members shall discharge their professional duties with integrity and shall behave

with integrity in relation to all conduct bearing upon the standing, reputation and dignity of

the Institution and of the profession of civil engineering.

The manner in which members can fulfil this Rule includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Carry out their professional duties with complete objectivity and impartiality.

56 Office of the Deputy Prime Minster Circular 06/2004 Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules

61

When acting as expert witnesses, members must ensure that the testimony they give is

both independent and impartial. In such a role, members must be mindful that their

prime duty is to the Court or Tribunal, not to the client who engaged them to give

evidence, and they should not give any professional opinion that does not accurately

reflect their honest professional judgement or belief. To do otherwise would not only

place members in danger of perjury but would clearly breach the requirement in the

Rules of Professional Conduct to discharge their professional duties with integrity.

Rule 3: All members shall have full regard for the public interest, particularly in relation to

matters of health and safety, and in relation to the well‐being of future generations.

The manner in which members can fulfil this Rule includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Members must take account of the broader public interest ‐ the interests of all

stakeholders in any project must be taken properly into account, including the impact on

future generations. This must include regard for the impact upon the society and quality of

life of affected individuals, groups or communities, and upon their cultural, archaeological

and ethnic heritage, and the broader interests of humanity as a whole.’

I Nazrul Huda believe the matters set out in my evidence to be true to the best of my 6.1.3

knowledge and belief.

THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF STOCKPORT ... West Coast Mainline Bridge Preliminary Design Report...

Documents

Transcript of THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF STOCKPORT ... West Coast Mainline Bridge Preliminary Design Report...