Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

9

Smart Motorways Programme

AECOM-WSP M6 Junction 21A to 26 : Environmental Assessment Report November 2020

Volume 1

Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Highways ’s information and use in relation to the Smart Motorways Programme.

Document history AECOM-WSP assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 289 pages including the cover

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 1.0 | October 2018 1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Document history

Job number: Document ref: HE549339 HE549339-ACM-GEN-M6- SW-ZZ-ZZ-RP-LE-0001 Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Approved Date P01 First draft –(The Proposed Scheme, 19/10/2018 Ecology and Nature Conservation, Air Quality and Landscape and Visual chapters) P02 Inclusion of the Executive Summary, 31/10/2018 Noise and Vibration, Cumulative Effects, References and Abbreviations, Appendix F and amendments made to Chapters 1-4, Air Quality and Appendix A. P03 Incorporation of approved template 23/10/19 changes and updated chapters including Martinscroft satellite compound and 60mph mitigation for air quality P04 Addition of Chapter 9 Road Drainage 03/12/19 and the Water Environment and updated text for the Road Drainage and Water Environment section of the Executive Summary P05 Addition of Chapter 10 Cumulative 09/12/19 Assessment and Chapter 11 Environmental Management. Updated text for the Cumulative Assessment section of the Executive Summary. P06 Addition of Chapter 5 Air Quality and 20/12/19 updated text for the Air Quality section of the Executive Summary P07 Re-issue of all chapters with 29/05/20 exception of Air Quality for stage approval P08 Reissue of Chapters 1-4, 6, 7 and 10 24/07/20

P09 Inclusion of Chapter 8 Noise and 21/08/20 Vibration and Chapter 9 Road Drainage and the Water Environment P10 Inclusion of Chapter 5 Air Quality and 27/08/20 Re-issue of Executive Summary, Chapters 1-4, 6, 10 and 11 P11 Re-issue of all chapters for stage 28/09/20 approval P12 Re-issue of all chapters for stage 16/11/20 approval following minor amendments

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 i Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Client signoff

Client Project Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-J26 Document title Environmental Assessment Report Job no. HE549339 Document HE549339-ACM-GEN-M6- SW-ZZ-ZZ-RP-LE-0001 reference

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 ii Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP Table of Contents

Executive Summary 0-1 1. Introduction 1-1

1.1. Overview of the Proposed Scheme 1-1

1.2. Purpose of this Environmental Assessment Report 1-2

1.3. Background to the Smart Motorways Programme 1-3

1.4. Regulation and Guidance 1-4

1.5. Professional Competency 1-7 2. The Proposed Scheme 2-1

2.1. Need for the Proposed Scheme 2-1

2.2. Description of the Proposed Scheme 2-1

2.3. Rectification of outfalls and culverts 2-16

2.4. Scheme construction 2-16

2.5. Forecast traffic characteristics 2-21 3. Alternatives Considered 3-1

3.1. Programme level alternatives 3-1

3.2. Scheme-specific alternatives 3-1 4. Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology 4-1

4.1. Screening 4-1

4.2. Scoping 4-1

4.3. Methodology 4-12

4.4. Stakeholder consultation 4-16 5. Air Quality 5-1

5.1 Introduction 5-1

5.2. Assessment Approach 5-1

5.3. Study area 5-2

5.4. Methodology 5-3

5.5. Baseline conditions 5-10

5.6. Design and mitigation measures 5-12

5.7. Potential operational effects 5-12

5.8. Mitigation Measures 5-19

5.9. Residual Effects 5-21

5.10. Summary 5-21

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 iii Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

6. Biodiversity 6-1

6.1. Introduction 6-1

6.2. Study area 6-2

6.3. Methodology 6-4

6.4. Baseline conditions 6-11

6.5. Value of Feature 6-21

6.6. Assumptions and Limitations 6-23

6.7. Design and mitigation measures 6-25

6.8. Potential Construction Effects 6-27

6.9. Potential operational effects 6-33

6.10. Enhancement Measures 6-36

6.11. Residual effects 6-36

6.12. Summary 6-36 7. Landscape, Visual and Cultural Heritage Effects 7-1

7.1. Introduction 7-1

7.2. Scoping 7-3

7.3. Methodology 7-5

7.4. Baseline conditions 7-12

7.5. Assumptions and limitations 7-34

7.6. Design and mitigation measures 7-35

7.7. Enhancement opportunities 7-36

7.7. Potential Construction Effects 7-37

7.8. Potential operational effects 7-40

7.9. Residual effects 7-42

7.10. Summary 7-43 8. Noise and Vibration 8-1

8.1. Introduction 8-2

8.2. Scoping 8-3

8.3. Methodology 8-3

8.4. Baseline Conditions 8-14

8.5. Potential Construction Effects 8-16

8.6. Potential Operational Effects 8-25

8.7. Design, mitigation and rectification measures 8-33

8.8. Residual Effects 8-38

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 iv Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

8.9. Summary 8-38 9. Road Drainage and the Water Environment 9-1

9.1. Introduction 9-1

9.2. Study area 9-2

9.3. Methodology 9-2

9.4. Baseline conditions 9-8

9.5. Assumptions and limitations 9-14

9.6. Design and mitigation measures 9-15

9.7. Potential construction effects 9-16

9.8. Potential operational effects 9-24

9.9. Residual effects 9-35

9.10. Summary 9-36 10. Assessment of Cumulative Effects 10-1

10.1. Introduction 10-1

10.2. Methodology 10-2

10.3. Baseline Conditions 10-4

10.4. Impact Assessment 10-5

10.5. Summary 10-25 11. Environmental Management 11-1

11.1. Overview 11-1 12. References 12-1 13. Abbreviations 13-1

List of Tables within this Report

Table 1-1 Fulfilment of the amended EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) ...... 1-4 Table 1-2 Professional competence ...... 1-7 Table 2-1 Proposed EA locations ...... 2-7 Table 2-2 Gantry and signing provision M6 J21A to J26 ...... 2-8 Table 2-3 Roadside devices ...... 2-11 Table 2-4 Proposed works to Overbridges ...... 2-13 Table 2-5 Proposed works to Underbridges ...... 2-14 Table 2-6 Proposed noise barriers ...... 2-15 Table 2-7 Details of flood hotspots ...... 2-17 Table 2-8 Site clearance assumptions ...... 2-19 Table 4-1 Scoping conclusions ...... 4-1 Table 4-2 Comparison of road user emissions – ‘DM’ versus ‘DS’ scenarios ...... 4-7 Table 4-3 Carbon emissions for operation of the Proposed Scheme ...... 4-8 Table 4-4 Historic Climate Data ...... 4-8 Table 4-5 Projected change in temperature variables (°C) ...... 4-9

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 v Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 4-6 Projected changes in precipitation variables (%) ...... 4-10 Table 5-1 Professional Competency Air Quality ...... 5-3 Table 5-2 Magnitude of Change Criteria for Local Air Quality ...... 5-3 Table 5-3 Guideline to Number of Receptors Constituting a Significant Effect for Air Quality ...... 5-10 Table 5-4 M62 J10 to J12 Geographical Area Designated Ecosystems Results Summary ...... 5-11 Table 5-5 M6 J21A to 26 Geographical Area Designated Ecosystems Results Summary ...... 5-14 Table 5-6 Mitigated Results ...... 5-19 Table 5-7 Number of Receptors with Perceptible Changes in Air Quality above the Objective Value ...... 5-28 Table 5-8 Overall Evaluation of Local Air Quality Significance ...... 5-28 Table 6 1 Professional Competency Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 6-2 Table 6-2 Study Area and Zone of Influence for Each Ecological Feature ...... 6-3 Table 6-3 Resource Valuation, adapted from IAN 130/10 ...... 6-7 Table 6-4 Magnitude of Impact Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 6-8 Table 6-5 Significance of Effects (IAN 130/10) ...... 6-9 Table 6-6 Significance of Ecology and Nature Conservation Categories ...... 6-10 Table 6-7 Non-statutory designated sites within the ZoI of the Proposed Scheme...... 6-13 Table 6-8 Designated sites within the ZoI of the ARN ...... 6-15 Table 6-9 Rationale and Valuation of Ecological Features ...... 6-21 Table 6-10 Summary of impacts and residual effects ...... 6-37 Table 7-1 Professional Competency Landscape and Visual ...... 7-2 Table 7-2 Change to Potentially Susceptible Receptors Recorded in Scoping Report ...... 7-3 Table 7-3 Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Criteria ...... 7-6 Table 7-4 Magnitude of Impact Landscape Criteria ...... 7-8 Table 7-5 Magnitude of Impact Visual Criteria ...... 7-8 Table 7-6 Significance of Landscape and Visual Effects Categories ...... 7-9 Table 7-7 Determination of the Value of Heritage Assets ...... 7-10 Table 7-8 Determination of the Magnitude of an Impact ...... 7-11 Table 7-9 Matrix for Determination of Significant Effect...... 7-12 Table 7-10 Summary of Landscape Character Areas ...... 7-13 Table 7-11 Summary of Heritage Assets ...... 7-17 Table 7-12 Visual Receptors Potentially Sensitive to Visual Intrusion ...... 7-22 Table 7-13 Sensitivity of Key Landscape and Visual Receptors ...... 7-32 Table 7-14 Value of Heritage Assets ...... 7-32 Table 8-1 Professional Competency – Noise and Vibration ...... 8-2 Table 8-2 Assessment methodology for each noise and vibration topic...... 8-4 Table 8-3 Construction noise thresholds at residential dwellings ...... 8-6 Table 8-4 Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage ...... 8-7 Table 8-5 Construction vibration impact criteria for human receptors (annoyance) ...... 8-7 Table 8-6 SOAEL and LOAEL for long-term road traffic noise during day and night-time ...... 8-8 Table 8-7 Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the short term ...... 8-8 Table 8-8 Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the long term ...... 8-9 Table 8-9 Proposed Mitigation Barrier (operational) – included in the scheme design ...... 8-9 Table 8-10 Noise levels predicted for the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988) ...... 8-10 Table 8-11 Criteria to define whether a property qualifies for insulation under the Noise Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988)...... 8-10 Table 8-12 Uncertainty in relation to the construction noise assessment ...... 8-11 Table 8-13 Uncertainty in relation to the construction vibration assessment ...... 8-12 Table 8-14 Uncertainty in relation to the operational road traffic noise assessment ...... 8-12 Table 8-15 Count of residential properties within road noise important areas ...... 8-14 Table 8-16 Indicative construction noise levels – road works ...... 8-17 Table 8-17 Sensitive receptor distance bands – Retaining Walls ...... 8-18 Table 8-18 Indicative construction noise levels – compound ...... 8-21 Table 8-19 Indicative construction vibration levels – percussive piling ...... 8-21 Table 8-20 Summary of planned diversion routes ...... 8-22 Table 8-21 Summary of potential carriageway closures ...... 8-24 Table 8-22 Long-term traffic noise changes (DM2020 to DM2035) ...... 8-25

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 vi Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 8-23 Short-term traffic noise changes (DM2020 to DS2020) ...... 8-26 Table 8-24 Long-term traffic noise changes (DM2020 to DS2035) ...... 8-29 Table 8-25 Traffic noise annoyance changes ...... 8-31 Table 8-26 Traffic airborne vibration annoyance changes ...... 8-31 Table 8-27 Affected routes outside 1km scheme buffer ...... 8-32 Table 8-28 Daytime NPSE significance summary ...... 8-33 Table 8-29 Nigh-time NPSE significance summary ...... 8-33 Table 8-30 Proposed Noise Barriers- Subject to Additional Funds ...... 8-35 Table 8-31 Levels of additional stakeholder engagement ...... 8-37 Table 8-32 Summary table of temporary effects on noise and vibration during construction ...... 8-38 Table 8-33 Summary table of permanent effect on noise during operation ...... 8-39 Table 9-1 Professional Competency Road Drainage and the Water Environment ...... 9-2 Table 9-2 Criteria to determine receptor importance, ...... 9-3 Table 9-3 Criteria to determine magnitude of effect ...... 9-4 Table 9-4 Matrix to determine significance of effect ...... 9-6 Table 9-5 WFD Water quality and ecological status of watercourse catchments ...... 9-9 Table 9-6 Original Data for Priority Outfalls and Culverts Obtained from HADDMS ...... 9-12 Table 9-7 Importance of Receptors ...... 9-13 Table 9-8 Location of EA Works ...... 9-17 Table 9-9 Location of Gantry Works ...... 9-18 Table 9-10 Location of hydrodynamic vortex separator construction works ...... 9-22 Table 9-11 HAWRAT Results for M6 J21a to J26 ...... 9-25 Table 9-12 Road Drainage and Water Environment Potential Impact Table ...... 9-35 Table 9-13: Summary of Networks requiring mitigation ...... 9-37 Table 10-1 Professional Competence Assessment of Cumulative Effects ...... 10-1 Table 10-2 Significance of Cumulative Effects ...... 10-4 Table 10-3 Potential for Intra-Project Cumulative Effects ...... 10-6 Table 10-4 Intra-Project Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 10-11

List of Plates within this Report

Plate 1-1 Proposed Scheme Location Plan ...... 1-2 Plate 2-1 Illustrative drawing of All Lane Running layout ...... 2-3 Plate 2-2 Illustrative drawing of an EA ...... 2-6 Plate 2-3 Indicative EA ...... 2-7 Plate 2-4 Typical views of a Superspan Gantry, MS3/ MS4 Cantilevers, Directional Signs and AMI signage………………...... 2-11 Plate 4-1 Assessment matrix ...... 4-12 Plate 5-1 Illustration of geographical study area for air quality...... 5-4 Plate 8-1 Four properties within NIA 8195 where the scheme passes over the A572 ...... 8-28 Plate 8-2 Properties adjacent to the M62 WB - M6 NB link road ...... 8-29 Plate 9.1 Schematic Plan Showing where the traffic two way AADT is predicted to increase above 20% comparing Do Minimum and Do Something (indicated by light blue line) 9-6

Figures and Appendices

Figures and appendices to accompany Volume 1 of this Environmental Assessment Report can be found in the following documents:

M6 Junction 21A to 26 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report - Volume 2: Figures can be found in Document Reference: HE549339-ACM-GEN-M6- SW-ZZ-ZZ-RP-LE- 0002 (AECOM-WSP, May 2020):

M6 Junction 21A to 26 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report - Volume 3: Appendices can be found in Document Reference: HE549339-ACM-GEN-M6- SW-ZZ-ZZ-RP- LE-0003 (AECOM-WSP, May 2020)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 vii Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP Executive summary

Introduction

Highways England has commissioned the AECOM-WSP to design and assess a proposed Smart Motorway - All Lane Running (SM-ALR) scheme on the M6 between Junctions 21A – Croft Interchange and Junction 26 – Orrell Interchange, referred to in this report as the ‘Proposed Scheme’ at Project Control Framework (PCF) Stage 3. The Proposed Scheme lies within the counties of Greater , and (see Plate 1-1 for a location plan). Highways England expects to commence construction of the Proposed Scheme in Spring 2021 and is expected to take less than two years to construct, including commissioning.

The Proposed Scheme would provide four permanent running lanes, by converting the hard into a running lane (lane 1), between Junction 21A (J21A) and Junction 26 (J26). Through junction running (TJR) will be provided at J22, J23, J24 and J25. The ALR will be supported through the installation of technology to monitor conditions and inform drivers.

Highways England is proposing to upgrade the motorway as an improvement scheme under the Highways Act 1980 as amended by the Planning Act 2008. As an improvement scheme with no works beyond the existing highway boundary, the Proposed Scheme falls under Highways England’s permitted development rights provided no significant environmental effects arise. The Proposed Scheme can be delivered pursuant to Part 9 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and does not require express planning permission.

Three residential properties at Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft are being purchased by agreement as essential air quality mitigation. These properties and associated area footprint are considered as part of the Proposed Scheme.

A full description of the Proposed Scheme is provided in Chapter 2 with a summary below:

· 66 overhead gantries (including 44 new gantries, one retained gantry and 21 gantries where existing foundations would be reused) fitted with Advanced Motorway Indicators (AMIs), New Message Signs and/or Advanced Directional Signs (ADS), strategic signs (MS3/ MS4-L) and Variable Messaging Signs (MS4). These will display variable speed limits based on traffic conditions. · Ten emergency areas (EAs) will be installed, four on the northbound and six on the southbound carriageway. They will be constructed to provide a safe area for vehicles to stop in an emergency without interrupting the flow of traffic. · Cameras and loop detectors will provide information to support the technology, where through junction running (TJR) will be introduced. · Hardening of the central reserve and installation of a reinforced concrete barrier between J21A and J26. · Existing lighting will be removed and replaced with modern LED lighting. Traffic modelling has been undertaken to support the development, design, environmental assessment and business cases for the delivery of the four North West SM schemes (i.e. M6 J21a to J26, M62 J10 to J12, M56 J6 to J8 and M60 J24 to J4). Arup has used the Trans Pennine South Regional Transport Model (TPSRTM) as the basis for development of a single local traffic model to be used to assess the M6, M62 and M56 schemes. Mott MacDonald has then utilised the Transport for Model (TfGM Model) for the M60 as it is more geographically appropriate. Given the proximity of the four North West SM schemes to each other the traffic modelling teams have worked closely to generate consistent traffic outputs which have formed the basis for cumulative environmental assessments. This Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) presents the findings of the non-statutory environmental assessment undertaken to identify and assess potential environmental effects that could arise from the Proposed Scheme and proposes mitigation measures to minimise these effects in order to inform the planning, design and construction process and satisfy legal obligations.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Air Quality

The four North West SM Schemes (M6 J21a-26, M62 J10-12, M56 J6-8 and M60 J24-4) were all planned to be open within 18 months of each other and hence, to present a robust environmental assessment for the North West region, these four schemes were assessed as one cumulative worst case for air quality. This assessment work was done by using forecast opening year traffic flows which include the cumulative worst case traffic associated with all four North West SM Schemes with a common 2020 opening year.

Therefore, the air quality assessment utilises the cumulative Do-Something (DS) traffic flow predictions which includes all four North West SMP Schemes consistent with the previous North West SMP Schemes assessments. This is because these air quality predictions are representative of the future situation with the implementation of the Tranche 4 North West SMP compared to the situation without all of the schemes.

The potential air quality impacts of the scheme have been considered through a detailed level of assessment. The detailed air quality assessment presented for the M6 J21a-26 Scheme considers a study area of the roads affected by the M6 J21a to 26 Scheme only, and this affected road (ARN), is illustrated in Figure 5.1 in Volume 2 of this EAR.

The local air quality assessment has focused on the impacts of the air pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as the air quality criteria for this pollutant are those most likely to be exceeded in the air quality assessment study area. The air quality study area includes: 7 Air Quality Management Areas, 654 representative human receptors, 6 nationally/internationally designated ecological sites and 32 compliance receptors.

The proposed Scheme without mitigation may be considered significant for air quality as there was predicted to be three large changes in nitrogen dioxide concentration at one location – Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft. The proposed mitigation solution at Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft, is to remove the receptors through property purchase by agreement.

There are perceptible increases in annual mean oxides of nitrogen (NOx) concentrations and nitrogen deposition levels at some ecological sites within the study area. The potential for significant adverse effects on these sites is considered within Chapter 6: Ecology and Nature Conservation.

In terms of regional emissions, there is a predicted increase in all pollutant emissions of between 0.6-1.2% in the opening year and between 1.0-1.7% in the design year. This is due to the predicted increase in vehicle kilometres travelled with the worst case cumulative scenario of 0.9% and 1.5% respectively compared to without the schemes.

Construction impacts for SM Schemes were scoped out in the Scoping Report, July 2017 (Highways England – document reference MP0173) and so have not been considered in this assessment.

Overall the Scheme is not significant for air quality, with property purchase at Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft and it can progress without further mitigation.

Biodiversity

Ecological receptors in the study area (2km of the Proposed Scheme) include:

· Ravenhead Brickworks Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (approximately 428m west of the Proposed Scheme, North-west of J26) · Highfield Moss SSSI (approximately 825m east of the Proposed Scheme, between J22 and J23) · Greenslate Water Meadows Local Nature Reserve (LNR) (approximately 480m west of the Proposed Scheme, south-west of J26) · Three Sisters LNR (approximately 1.14km south-east of the Proposed Scheme at J25) · The Flashes LNR (approximately 1.18km east of the Proposed Scheme, between J25 and J26) · Bryn Marsh and Ince Moss SSSI (approximately 1.29km east of the Proposed Scheme, north-east of J25) · Manchester Mosses Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/ Risley Moss SSSI and LNR (approximately 1.5km north-east of the Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· Woolston Eyes SSSI (approximately 950m south of the Proposed Scheme (Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area). No significant effects are anticipated on these statutory designated sites during construction or operation of the Proposed Scheme.

In line with the air quality approach, potential air quality effects to sensitive ecological receptors (statutory designated sites including SSSI’s, SAC’s, Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) and Ramsar sites within 200m of the of the ARN) have been assessed using traffic flows and predictions for all four North West SM schemes (cumulative worst- case scenario), and concluded that there were no significant air quality effects on any of the identified sites during operation of the Proposed Scheme.

A Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) was undertaken to consider potential impacts from the Proposed Scheme to designated European Sites (including SAC’s, SPA’s and Ramsar sites, located within 2km of the Proposed Scheme, or 30km of European Sites which include bats as a qualifying feature, within 200m of the ARN and/ or 5km downstream of the Proposed Scheme for assessment of potential hydrological links); and concluded that there were either no pathways and/or no likely significant effects predicted during operation (using traffic flows and predictions for all four North West SM schemes combined) or construction of the Proposed Scheme.

Statutory sites which are located at a distance greater than 2km from the proposed scheme and have been identified via the Affected Road Network (ARN) defined for the air quality assessment and / or HRA included the following sites within 200m of the ARN:

· Manchester Mosses SAC/ Holcroft Moss SSSI (located approximately 3.9km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI (located approximately 3.4km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar/ Oakhanger Moss SSSI (located approximately 39km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Woolston Eyes SSSI (located approximately 3km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI (located approximately 26km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Red Moss SSSI(located approximately 10km from proposed M6 main scheme works). The following legally protected species have been recorded or habitats are present within the Proposed Scheme which may support roosting bats, great crested newts (Triturus cristatus), reptiles, badger (Meles meles) and breeding birds. These require avoidance, mitigation, compensation and/or enhancement measures which have or will be incorporated into the Proposed Scheme. A European Protected Species Mitigation Licence (EPSML) for great crested newts is anticipated to be required for works up to 500m of ponds with great crested newt confirmed presence. It is possible that further mitigation/development licences for bats and badger may also be required, dependent upon further survey and design development work undertaken at DF4/5 by the Delivery Partner. The Road Investment Strategy (RIS) for the 2015/16 to 2019/20 Road Period includes an objective to halt ‘net loss’ of biodiversity across the RIS Schemes. It also includes that ‘in the long term, the Company [Highways England] should deliver a net gain across its broader range of works’. Within the existing motorway soft estate, construction will involve a permanent loss of habitats beneath the footprint of new infrastructure which cannot be compensated for within the boundary of the Proposed Scheme. A total of 4.4 hectares (ha) of permanent habitat loss with an additional area of 14.4ha being subject to vegetation clearance is predicted based on worst case assumptions. Approximately 0.27ha of Priority woodland will be lost due to the installation of new infrastructure, however this approximately 1% of the total area of Priority woodland located within the Proposed Scheme boundary (20.56 ha) and replacement tree planting will mitigate this minor loss. The temporary loss of habitats within the Proposed Scheme will result in a temporary reduction in available habitat resources for notable and legally protected species. However, these temporary effects are not considered to be significant with respect to the favourable conservation status of these species.

The Proposed Scheme will include mitigation and compensation measures to ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity, such as appropriate timing of site clearance and enabling works and measures to restore and enhance existing habitats. This is detailed in the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), which will be adopted and refined in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP will be prepared prior to construction commencing and will apply throughout the construction period. Compensation

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP measures will involve appropriate re-planting of temporarily cleared habitats, or measures to promote natural re-colonisation. Retained habitats will be enhanced to increase their carrying capacity for these species. This will include the creation of log/debris piles to provide sheltering, hibernating and foraging opportunities. As the design progresses, areas will be identified to integrate species rich or wildflower grass mixes to increase biodiversity and visual amenity throughout the corridor. These measures will benefit other notable species such as a range of invertebrate species, common reptiles and toads. By carrying out this work, greater floristic and structural diversity in the soft-estate habitats is anticipated and there will be no net loss of biodiversity as part of the Proposed Scheme.

Pollution risk throughout construction related to noise, lighting, water and air will be managed as part of the Environmental Management Plan for the Proposed Scheme. There will be small-scale permanent habitat loss (approximately 4.9ha) within the soft estate (highway boundary) to accommodate proposed infrastructure such as new EAs, gantries, Abnormal Load Bays (ALB) and other equipment. This habitat loss will be relatively minor in relation to the total area of the Proposed Scheme and will not result in a significant effect on protected/ notable species. Construction operations have the potential to cause the spread of non-native invasive plant species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). A Schedule 9 invasive plant species Method Statement and Management Plan will be implemented by the delivery partner to prevent the spread of invasive species outside of the Proposed Scheme and therefore no significant effects are anticipated.

Provided that appropriate mitigation is in place as outlined within the OEMP which will be refined and adopted in the CEMP, then the Proposed Scheme will not result in any significant adverse effects on statutory or non-statutory designated sites, legally protected or notable habitats or species.

Landscape, Visual and Cultural Heritage Effects

The landscape within the study area is not covered by any defined local or national designations but is located within Green Belt. The Green Belt covers an area between the urban edge of in the south, to the urban edge of Wigan in the north. The M6 forms a locally prominent feature through the landscape. The removal of sections of existing mature vegetation in this area, along with additional gantries, signs and environmental barrier (noise barrier), will increase the awareness of the motorway as a locally prominent feature. This will not result in significant effects on the landscape character, either with or without established mitigation planting. Although additional gantries and signs will slightly exacerbate the prominence of the M6, mitigation will be provided to ensure that the residual effects on local character areas and their setting are not considered to be significant.

There will be localised visual intrusion on sensitive visual receptors as a result of construction works, vegetation clearance and the addition of new infrastructure within the highway boundary, this will slightly exacerbate the prominence of the M6. However, the character, setting and perception of the landscape will not markedly change as a result of construction activities. Gantries, EAs and cabinet sites have been located to reduce potentially significant effects and the mitigation strategy includes the reinstatement of any vegetation lost as a result of the scheme, wherever feasible. During the construction period, at the location where EA E23B1 will be installed, mitigation of visual intrusion is to include the erection of a temporary screen fence and a vegetation clearance exclusion zone (between approximately ch.48730 and 49250. Refer to receptor PSVR17 mitigation in Table 7-12).

During operation there will be localised visual intrusion on individual sensitive visual receptors scattered through the corridor and within Ashton-in-Makerfield and Bryn. Mitigation principles, including the replacement of screening vegetation, are detailed within the OEMP which will be refined and adopted into the CEMP. It may not be feasible to fully reinstate cleared vegetation where there are areas of permanent new hardstanding, sightline requirements for new infrastructure and the additional running lane or new earthworks with gradients with slopes beyond 1 in 2 gradients.

While there will be a short term moderate adverse effect as a result of construction activities at one receptor location in Ashton-in-Makerfield (PSVR17), the temporary nature of the works, the use of a temporary screen fence combined with the very limited number of receptors impacted across the scheme as a whole has been considered and as a result the nature of the effect will not be significant. During the operational phase with the Proposed Scheme in place, there will also be no significant visual effects.

Overall, residual landscape and visual effects will not be significant.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Insofar as cultural heritage is concerned, the following assets are located within the zone of influence of the scheme:

· Castle Hill motte and bailey and bowl barrow – Scheduled Monument (approximately 65m from the southbound carriageway); · St Oswald’s Well - Scheduled Monument and a Grade II listed building (approximately 300m from the northbound carriageway; · Winstanley Hall - Grade II* listed building (approximately 500m from the southbound carriageway); · Myddleton Hall - Grade II* listed building (approximately 218m from the northbound carriageway); · Stocks at Windy Arbour - Grade II listed building (approximately 172m from the northbound carriageway); · Woodhead Farmhouse and Barn at Woodhead Farm - Grade II listed building (approximately 190m from the northbound carriageway); · Old Mill Farmhouse and Barn Grade II listed building (approximately 290m from the northbound carriageway); · Myddleton Hall Farmhouse - Grade II listed building (approximately 235m from the northbound carriageway); · Dean School Cottage - Grade II listed building (approximately 230m from the southbound carriageway); · Home Farmhouse - Grade II listed building (approximately 115m from the southbound carriageway); · Milestone 1392445, Fearnhead Lane - Grade II listed building (approximately 300m from the northbound carriageway); · Willow Park Conservation Area – Conservation Area (approximately 1m from the northbound and southbound carriageway); There are no Registered Parks & Gardens or battlefields within the study area. There will be no significant effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets during construction or operation.

Noise and Vibration

Key residential areas are situated near to the Proposed Scheme in , Houghton Green, Newton-le- Willows, Ashton-in-Makerfield and Orrell. There is a total of 20 Noise Important Areas within 1km of the scheme extent, the majority of which are associated with the M6 and adjoining motorways. There are two existing noise barriers within the scheme study area, but not within the scheme extent. For opening year, the Proposed Scheme will include the provision of one new noise barrier (NNB7-B between Chainages 48700 and 49260 at 2m high) and low noise surfacing on lane 1 and lane 4 of both carriageways. In the short term, with the Proposed Scheme in place, a total of 4785 residential properties experience a negligible increase in noise level (within the 0.1 to 0.9 dB range and 7 residential properties experience a minor increase, ranging from 1.0 dB to 1.6 dB. Of these 7 properties, two are located to the east of the Proposed Scheme and two are located to the west of the Proposed Scheme, where it passes over the A572 in Newton-le-Willows. These four properties will be provided with noise insulation measures. The remaining 3 properties are not on the Proposed Scheme, but adjacent to the M62 WB to M6 NB Link Road at Junction 21a. Of the remaining residential properties, 2969 experience no change in noise levels, 3507 experience negligible decreases (< 1 dB) in noise levels, 27 experience minor decreases (1 < 3 dB) in noise levels and 1 property experiences a moderate noise decrease (3 < 5 dB). A total of 14 non-residential sensitive receptors experience noise increases, all negligible. The remaining 20 non-residential sensitive receptors experience no change or negligible noise decreases. In the long term, the Proposed Scheme will include the provision of low noise surfacing across all lanes of both carriageways. In the long term, with the Proposed Scheme in place, 1314 residential properties experience noise increases, all of which are negligible. Of those noise increases 198 are ≥ 1 dB, ranging from 1 to 2 dB. Of these 198 properties, two are located to the east of the Proposed Scheme and one is located to the west of the Proposed Scheme, where it passes over the A572. The remaining 195 properties

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP are not on the Proposed Scheme, but on other roads which experience increases in traffic from 2020 to 2035, both with and without the Proposed Scheme. The vast majority of residential properties (88% of the total) experience no change or negligible decreases in noise levels for the daytime period, along with 1 property which experiences a minor noise decrease. A total of 9 non-residential sensitive receptors experience noise increases, in the long term, all negligible. The remaining 25 non-residential sensitive receptors experience no change or negligible noise decreases. For the night-time period, 619 residential properties experience noise increases, all of which are negligible. Of those noise increases only 80 are ≥ 1 dB, ranging from 1 to 1.4 dB. Of these 80 properties, two are located to the east of the Proposed Scheme, where it passes over the A572. The remainder are not on the Proposed Scheme, but on roads which experience increases in traffic from 2020 to 2035, both with and without the Proposed Scheme. The vast majority of residential properties (83% of the total) experience no change or negligible decreases in noise levels for the night-time period, along with 1 property which experiences a minor noise decrease.

Aim 1 (to avoid) of the NPSE has been addressed by providing low noise surfacing over lanes 1 and 4 of both carriageways. In addition, one new noise barrier has been provided as part of the Proposed Scheme and noise insulation has been specified for 4 properties adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. Overall, the Proposed Scheme has a positive effect on people living near to the M6 between J21a and J26, providing reductions in noise levels for people exposed to noise levels above the SOAEL during both the daytime and night-time periods in the long term. For daytime, 228 fewer people will be exposed to noise levels at or above the SOAEL. For night-time, 1829 fewer people will be exposed to noise levels at or above the SOAEL. In the case of Aim 2 (to mitigate and minimise), the provision of low noise surfacing and one new noise barrier (2m in height) will result in negligible noise changes and no significant effects along the Proposed Scheme. Also, 5 noise barriers which would provide rectification to the existing high noise levels in the noise climate have been identified (these 5 noise barriers are not included as part of the Proposed Scheme) and could possibly be delivered in the future. The location of the five barriers will be protected during detailed design such that their future delivery is not compromised without approval of Highways England following review of the Evaluation of Change Register.

As for delivery against Aim 3 (contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life), there were no further measures which were not listed against the Aim 2.

During the construction period, motorway traffic would be under traffic management and, on occasions, be further away from receptors. Hence, a noticeable reduction in noise levels is anticipated, which on occasions would be interrupted by construction noise that could give rise to localised temporary (non-significant) adverse impacts. Traffic management will be implemented through contraflow and narrow lane flows, when possible, rather than full motorway closures, thereby avoiding the requirement to divert motorway traffic along the Local Highway Authority diversion routes (except in an emergency). As such, no significant adverse effects are anticipated in relation to diverted traffic. Where closures are unavoidable, it estimated that there would be 32 single carriageway link night time closures, and six full motorway link closures required for gantry removal and installation works. On these occasions traffic would be required to use local diversion routes for the period of the closure. To avoid potential for significant adverse effects the Delivery Partner will be required to ensure that the frequency of night-time closures does not exceed either 10 closures in any 15 consecutive days, or 40 closures in any six months period as defined in BS5228. Ten diversion routes have been identified to cater for the various closures on the motorway. In total there are 3095 sensitive receptors within 50 metres of these diversion routes.

Construction activities, particularly those at night, risk giving rise to increased disturbance affecting the following communities: Areas of Ashton-in-Makerfield, adjacent to the M6, including Clough Grove, Satinwood Close, Firwood Grove, Old Hall Drive, and Willowfield Grove. The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will set out the measures to be taken to ensure that disturbance to residents does not give rise to a significant effect.

Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Following a review of the Highways England Drainage Data Management System (HADDMS), initially a total of 40 priority outfalls, five Very High (A), twelve High (B), eleven Moderate (C), twelve Low (D), and three Not Determined Overall Status; and fifty three priority culverts were initially identified as being located along the

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Proposed Scheme on HADDMS. A drainage assessment has been undertaken to update and reclassify these into drainage Networks i.e. networks which are known to receive drainage from the carriageway.

An assessment of the Network outfalls has been undertaken which takes account of the forecast change in traffic volume as a result of the scheme and the outcomes of the Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool (HAWRAT) assessments which have been carried out. The following summarises the findings: · Six networks (Networks 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7 and 8)1 which are forecast to experience a ≥20% increase in traffic require treatment, in the form of Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators, to avoid significant effects on the Spittle Brook Catchment and Millingford (Newton) Brook catchments; Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators at these six networks have been incorporated into the scheme design based on advice in Design Guide Annex E5.22. The areas of mainline carriageway between junctions which experience an increase in traffic of over 20% are Junctions 22 – 23, which contain drainage to Networks 4,5,6,7 and 8. Sliproads within J21a which outfall to Network 3 and Network 4 also are predicted to experience an increase in traffic of over 20%. · Seven networks (Networks 4.1, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15/16/16.1 (combined) and 17) are forecast to experience a <20% increase in traffic and have been identified as candidates which would benefit from additional treatment which should be considered under Designated Funds in the future. A sensitivity test using the Environment Agency’s Metals – Bioavailability Assessment Tool (M-BAT) tool has been undertaken to enable consideration of the dissolved copper and zinc results from the HD45/09 HAWRAT assessment in the context of the bioavailable Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) - 1 µg/l for copper (bioavailable); and 10.9 µg/l for zinc. The test was carried out for outfalls 4.0 (individually and cumulatively with 4.1) and 8.0 as these outfalls warranted further investigation as the total dissolved concentrations calculated using HAWRAT were higher than 1 µg/l copper and/or 10.9 µg/l zinc. These outfalls are also located within sections of the M6 which would be subject to a greater than 20% increase in traffic in the Do-something scenario compared to the Do-Minimum scenario. The sensitivity test has been informed by historical background water quality data available from the EA’s Catchment Data Explorer for the following parameters: in-river dissolved copper/ zinc, pH, water hardness, and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). The M-BAT assessment derives a risk characterisation ratio; a ratio of 1 or more is defined as a fail. All the outfalls assessed for copper and zinc using M-BAT derived a ratio of less than 1, the highest being 0.27, hence these would pass the M-BAT assessment. The drainage system is not connected to any SSSI or European sites, although there are four private groundwater abstraction points within the study area.

No potential changes in groundwater recharge, and the closest groundwater abstraction is located 300m from the motorway for golf course use.

The Proposed Scheme will result in no adverse residual effect on surface water flow and flood risk. While the Scheme includes the provision of ten EAs and paved central reserves, giving rise to a small increase in the impermeable area, the drainage system will ensure no increase in the rate of discharge from the existing situation. Attenuation will include a 20% allowance for climate change for the additional impermeable area.

None of the EAs are located within known fluvial floodplains, and the effects of the placement of new and replacement gantries in the floodplain on surface water flow is considered to be negligible.

No major works have been identified within 8m of a watercourse at PCF Stage 3. It is therefore considered unlikely that a WFD compliance assessment to support any consent or approvals from the Environment Agency of Lead Local Flood Authority will be required for works near watercourses. However, this should be reviewed during later stages of the project (DF4/5) as detailed design is developed.

A CEMP will provide protection of watercourses and floodplains during construction. The water and drainage protection clauses described in the OEMP which will be refined and adopted into the CEMP.

The assessment confirms that the Proposed Scheme will have a neutral effect on surface water, flood risk and groundwater resources during construction and operation with the implementation of mitigation.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Population and Health

There are no significant adverse operational effects upon noise as a result of the Proposed Scheme, also following the removal of three residential properties at Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft, there would also be no significant adverse operational effects upon air quality. As such, these key environmental determinants of health would not contribute to an adverse effect upon people and their health. Temporary construction activities have the potential to give rise to localised sleep disturbance of nearby residents, but such effects are of insufficient duration to contribute towards an adverse health outcome for most of the population. The Delivery Partner will develop and implement a stakeholder communications plan that includes community engagement before work commences on site. All receptors within 300m of the Proposed Scheme will be kept informed of the progress of the works, including the nature and timing of the works. The Delivery Partner will appoint a responsible person to liaise with the public, a representative will be available on site during daytime working hours to answer queries or address any concerns expressed. In terms of the works that may adversely affect levels of stress, the removal of screening vegetation or the introduction of a new source of visual intrusion (new gantry or sign) may give rise to heightened anxiety. Indeed, the removal of screening vegetation may lead to a perception that noise levels have been made worse, again on a highly localised basis. In those situations, an elevated level of engagement with residents provide notification of the works as well as mitigation measures where practicable, to avoid an adverse health outcome for a few residents. The SM scheme does not involve any substantive change to the design of junctions and hence there would be no physical effect on the movement of non-motorised users. The scheme does not involve the demolition of structures used by non-motorised users and thus no adverse effect would result affecting the ability of people to exercise or impose increased risks to personal safety. For the above reasons, no health effects assessment has been necessary.

Climate change

Effects on climate change

The Proposed Scheme gives rise to an increase in traffic, for example it is envisaged to generate an increase in one-way Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow (AADT) of up to 16.0% at Junction 23 to Junction 22 compared to the ‘do minimum’ scenario. However, the change in greenhouse gas emissions is influenced by the extent to which existing traffic simply selects the SM route in preference to others that may involve a longer distance or slower speed in addition to any induced traffic. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are thus a consequence of the overall change across the affected road network. In the year of Proposed Scheme opening, GHG emissions would be approximately 46,217 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2) higher than the Do-minimum (DM) scenario, whilst for the design year (2035), GHG emissions with the Proposed Scheme would be approximately 71,828 tCO2 higher than the DM scenario. Emissions from the operation of the Proposed Scheme will fall into the third, fourth, fifth and subsequent future UK Government’s carbon budget periods. The net tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) associated with Proposed Scheme operation during each of the UK carbon budget period has been calculated. When compared to the UK carbon budgets, these equate to 0.0006% and 0.00018% of the respective carbon budgets described in section 4.2 of this report. It is therefore anticipated that GHG emissions from the operation of the Proposed Scheme will not be significant and will not impact the UK meeting its carbon budgets.

Likewise, estimated carbon emissions for the construction (benchmark emissions only) phase of the Proposed Scheme have been compared against the UK carbon budgets and it has been concluded that they would not be significant, and will not impact the UK meeting its carbon budgets.

Vulnerability of the project to climate change The historic climatic conditions insofar as flooding of carriageways are considered during the design of the drainage regime for the Proposed Scheme which also makes a 20% allowance for climate change for the additional impermeable area in the attenuation capacity of the drainage system. Given the limited nature of SM works, the implications of increasing temperatures and rainfall intensity are matters for those responsible for maintenance of the motorway. While, the soft estate, in which landscape planting species are selected that can withstand demanding conditions are able to accommodate climate change.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-8 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Material assets and waste

There is a reasonable likelihood that construction of the Proposed Scheme would recover material on site where practicable and use secondary and/ or recycled aggregate. The regional recycled aggregate content target for the North West is 30% for the period up to 20201. The project will target the use of at least 30% recycled or secondary aggregate for those applications where their use is technically feasible. The Proposed Scheme will not sterilise any mineral sites or peat workings. No significant effects on materials are therefore considered to arise. Standard mitigation measures are included in the OEMP which will be refined and adopted into the CEMP, with respect to procurement of sustainably sourced and recycled/ secondary materials. Although the quantities of waste are not known at this time, the potential quantities of waste have been estimated based on data from other SM schemes. The proportion of waste that would be recycled is expected to be greater than the 70% target set in the European Union Waste Framework Directive for recycling of construction waste (excluding excavated clean soils), since most of the waste generated by the proposed SM comprises materials which can be readily recycled, such as steel, asphalt pavement and concrete. In comparing the Proposed Scheme to other SM schemes it is concluded that the impact of project wastes on disposal capacity is expected to be negligible. The overall quantity of waste generated (estimated 305,000 tonnes) is small in comparison with the annual total of more than 8 million tonnes of construction waste which was managed in the region in 2018. Significant effects on waste infrastructure are therefore not expected. Standard construction practices will be undertaken by the Delivery Partner in managing materials and waste; a number of mitigation measures are included within the OEMP which will be refined and adopted into the CEMP. For the above stated reasons, no significant effects are anticipated to arise and therefore the topic of materials and waste has been scoped out of further assessment.

Major accidents & disasters

In terms of both man-made and natural major accidents the incremental environmental risk is associated with a SM scheme could be associated with water quality. Given the low probability of a significant impact arising from a low probability major event, no measures are proposed to deal with major accidents or disasters and thus they are scoped out of the assessment.

Heat and radiation

As the widening of the motorway and the introduction of signs and gantries etc do not involve the use of a significant heat resource, or radiation, this aspect is scoped out of consideration in the assessment.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects assessment considered two types of cumulative effects:

· Intra-project cumulative effects: Those caused only by the Proposed Scheme and arise when an individual receptor or group of receptors would experience multiple effects as a result of the Proposed Scheme; for example, an individual property experiencing combined noise, air quality and visual amenity effects. · Inter-project cumulative effects: Those caused by a combination of the Proposed Scheme with other relevant schemes.

1 Highways England, Transport , Llywodraeth Cymru and the Department of Infrastructure (August 2019). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Sustainability and Environment Appraisal LA 110 Material Assets and waste (formerly IAN 153/11). Revision 0.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-9 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Intra-project cumulative effects

A review of areas predicted to experience operational air quality, noise and landscape and visual effects was undertaken. The cumulative effects assessment has focused on air quality and noise changes in the opening year. The cumulative effects assessment has focused on visual effects in year 15 from the opening year to capture the residual effects following the growth of mitigation planting along the scheme.

Receptors exposed to two or more sources of effect were taken forward for an initial assessment, as shown in Appendix G. Those receptors with a Minor adverse visual effect, and a medium increase in NO2 concentrations were taken forward to the intra-project effects assessment. Additionally, two receptors were taken forward with a combined exposure of a Minor adverse visual effect, medium increase in NO2 concentrations and a minor increase in noise levels. A further two receptors were taken forward with a combined exposure of a minor adverse visual effect and a minor increase in noise levels. Consideration was given to whether there would be any additive effects of greater significance than each of the effects when considered alone. Each receptor with potentially an intra-project cumulative effect was described in further detail. Given that the sources of effects are very different in some cases, a quantitative assessment was not possible, and it was necessary to apply professional judgement in determining the level of significance. Whilst the topic assessments have, in many cases, considered the same receptors, it is considered that there would be no combined effects that would be significant prior to the application of mitigation measures as specified in the OEMP which will be refined and adopted into the CEMP. During construction, it is considered that mitigation measures would be sufficient to mitigate any single effects in relation to air quality, noise, biodiversity and visual amenity to such a level that no significant combined effects would arise. During operation, whilst it is acknowledged that there would be localised minor adverse effects on visual amenity, negligible to minor increases in traffic-related noise in the short term and imperceptible to medium increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations, which will be mitigated these combined would result in no significant cumulative effects. To accommodate proposed infrastructure such as new EAs, gantries 4.9ha of permanent land take will be required from within the existing 300ha soft estate, this equates to 1.6% which is not significant. Temporary loss of vegetation will be replaced by mitigation planting where possible therefore it is concluded that there is no potential for cumulative landscape and ecological effects.

There are two European statutory designated sites Manchester Mosses SAC (Holcroft Moss SSSI) and Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar site (Oakhanger Moss SSSI), within the Zone of Influence (ZOI) (200m from the ARN) and these were assessed as part of the air quality and biodiversity assessments in the HRA. On review of the Proposed Scheme’s study area, the European Site’s qualifying interest features, conservation objectives and potential threats to site integrity, air quality was the only potential impact pathway identified. As described in the HRA the assessment concluded there are no likely significant effects on European designated sites and therefore there is no potential for cumulative air quality and ecological effects.

During operation, whilst it is acknowledged that there would be slight adverse effects on visual amenity, negligible to minor increases in traffic-related noise in the short term and imperceptible to large increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations, which will be mitigated these combined would result in no significant cumulative effects. Inter-project cumulative effects

The traffic model takes account of consented developments and road schemes in the wider region around the Proposed Scheme, including development projects at a greater distance than 1km and consequently, air quality, noise and road drainage assessments are inherently cumulative assessments.

Other relevant projects as of January 2020 were identified using a selection criteria methodology including scale, distance from the Proposed Scheme and development type. The criteria focused on identifying developments within 1 km of the Proposed Scheme, which reflects the widest study area adopted for the specialist topics (this being the landscape and visual study area of 1 km from the Proposed Scheme). Schemes between August 2014 and August 2019 were considered within this assessment. Relevant projects were identified by searching Local Planning Authority Planning Registers and gathering information on planning permissions yet to be implemented, developments with planning permission in place and which are under construction and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project applications at the pre application stage onwards. This is due to the Planning Act process making these developments reasonably foreseeable. It is likely due to construction timescales that cumulative effects will be limited to the operational phase.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-10 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

A total of seven land use developments and four transport schemes were identified. Each identified development was examined to determine the potential for interactions that may result in significant cumulative effects. It is considered that there would be no significant cumulative effects mainly due to distance of receptors and the nature of proposed works.

Monitoring

The environmental assessment of SM schemes that are delivered without recourse to the DCO process, conclude that significant effects are not expected due to the deployment of standard construction management or operational practices. Also, measures identified during the design and assessment and recorded in the ‘Outline Environment Management Plan’ (OEMP) which will be refined and adopted into the CEMP are intended to avoid significant adverse effects. The following uncertainties exist in the outcome or the effectiveness of a mitigation measure for which it is appropriate to consider targeted monitoring to enable corrective measures to be taken and to demonstrate effectiveness. In this context, the OEMP which will be refined and adopted into the CEMP has identified that there are several situations where monitoring of the mitigation measure and/or its effectiveness is required, as detailed below: Biodiversity – the Delivery Partner will undertake targeted pre-construction surveys along the Scheme. If necessary, a programme of monitoring surveys for badgers (if found to be present), bats and great crested newts will be included to ensure that, should the construction programme change, these species will continue to be taken into account throughout the works. Any requirement for an EPS licence for any of these species (EPS required for GCN confirmed) will require monitoring to ensure no adverse impacts are encountered. Road Drainage and the Water Environment - To ensure the quality of the water environment does not deteriorate during construction the Delivery Partner will prepare and implement a surface water and/or groundwater monitoring plan, particularly in relation to works that could affect aquifers, or drilling works. Landscape - the Delivery Partner will undertake appropriate inspection, monitoring and maintenance of landscaping and planting provided as part of the Scheme to facilitate the effective establishment of vegetation and record the effectiveness of landscaping proposals. In order to ensure the replacement of tree and shrub areas establish as intended there will be a defect correction period of 12 months and the Delivery Partner is responsible for landscape maintenance for 24 months post completion. Noise and vibration - the Delivery Partner will undertake and report noise and vibration monitoring as is necessary to ensure and demonstrate compliance with all noise and vibration commitments and any Section 61 consent(s). Regular onsite observation monitoring and checks/audits will be undertaken to ensure that Best Practicable Means is being employed at all times. Air Quality– the Delivery Partner will develop and submit method statements, monitoring and reporting protocols that demonstrate to Highways England that no significant impact will result from their construction works (dust, idling vehicles).

Conclusion

As described above, no significant adverse environmental effects have been identified. The Proposed Scheme includes design measures to avoid and reduce effects as well as address existing environmental issues. Also, a spatially specific risk-based approach has been taken towards the specification of the environmental management measures to be taken during the delivery and operation of the Proposed Scheme. This is supported by mapping that highlights where specific environmental management clauses across the environmental topics occur. Key environmental management measures required to ensure that adverse impacts would not arise include: · Purchase by agreement of 3No. properties at Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft prior to Scheme operation. · Review design and construction approach/method at DF4 and DF5 against conclusion of EAR to confirm conclusions remain valid. Generate additional mitigation measures if required. The Project Control Framework (PCF) product, the ‘Evaluation of Change Register’ (EoCR) will record changes to the design and assumptions assessed at PCF Stage 3. The EoCR will be submitted to Highways England for approval prior to the change being adopted. · Management of construction dust. · Management of construction noise and vibration.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-11 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· Provision of noise insulation at four residential properties. · Essential reflective noise barrier located along the southbound carriageway extending from chainage 48700 to chainage 49260 with a height of 2m. · Habitats and vegetation in areas of high ecological sensitivity adjacent to the Proposed Scheme e.g. Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and Sites of Biological Interest (SBI) are to be retained and protected. Major earthworks adjacent to these designated sites will be avoided and a buffer zone of no works (clearly marked and signed) will be put in place supported by standard pollution prevention measures. The buffer zone will be informed by site specific requirements at PCF Stage 5. Where required, trees located within local designated sites which border the Proposed Scheme (as shown on Figure 6-4 Statutory and Non Statutory Designated Sites) will be protected according to British Standard BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction to prevent damage to tree roots and stems during works. . · Vegetation clearance to be undertaken under an ecological watching brief where required, as specified in the OEMP which will be refined and adopted into the CEMP. This will include clearance in areas of suitable reptile habitat and within the great crested newt mitigation areas, in accordance with an EPSML or RAMMS. Checks for nesting birds will be required if it is necessary to undertake vegetation removal during the breeding bird season. · Works will be undertaken under EPSML for GCN where required. · Preconstruction badger and invasive species surveys to be undertaken. · Continued monitoring of bats, badger and GCN as required to ensure data remains valid should scheme design require future updates. · Reinstatement of visual screen planting where lost. Key locations include but not limited to chainages: 44550-44750SB, 44650-45100NB, 48700 to 49450SB, 50225-50545SB, 50570- 51435SB, 51150-51300NB and 55300-55450NB. · During the construction period, a temporary screen fence is to be erected at one location (between approximately ch.48730 and 49250). · The Delivery Partner will develop and implement a stakeholder communications plan that includes community engagement before work commences on site. Communities which may require elevated engagement may include Willowfield Grove, Woodfield Crescent, Downall Green Road, Satinwood Close and Winstanley Road. Stakeholder engagement commitments are addressed in Chapter 8 Noise and Vibration sections 8.7.26, 8.7.27 and 8.7.29 to 8.7.31. · Installation of Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators on Networks 3, 4.0, 5, 6, 7 and 8. For Network 8 there are three locations where Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators will be constructed, known as 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 0-12 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 1. Introduction

1.1. Overview of the Proposed Scheme 1.1.1. Highways England is proposing to upgrade the M6 between Junctions 21A (J21A) and Junction 26 (J26) to a Smart Motorway (SM). Smart motorways are a technology driven approach to improving the capacity and operational efficiency of the existing motorway network. The Proposed Scheme is SM - All Lane Running (SM-ALR), which permanently converts the existing hard shoulder into an extra lane to provide additional capacity. This will relieve congestion and smooth traffic flow; improve journey times and journey time reliability; maintain safety levels for all road users; and support the economic development of the nation. 1.1.2. The forms part of the Strategic Road Network in the North West, with key connections to the M62 and M58 motorways. The Proposed Scheme is 16.4km long and extends from the Croft Interchange at J21A (Chainage 39600), where it meets the M62, to the Orrell Interchange at J26 (Chainage 56000), at the eastern terminus of the M58. Plate 1-1 below shows the location of the Proposed Scheme. The southern end of the Proposed Scheme, at J21A, is located approximately 5km north east of Warrington town centre (Ordnance Survey (OS) grid reference of SJ631922). The northern end of the Proposed Scheme, at J26, is located approximately 4.5km west of Wigan Town Centre (OS grid reference of SD 538044). 1.1.3. At the time of writing, advanced construction of the Proposed Scheme is expected to commence in Spring 2021 and is expected to take less than two years to construct. Highways England is proposing to upgrade the motorway as an improvement scheme under the Highways Act 1980 as amended by the Planning Act 2008. As an improvement scheme with no works beyond the existing highway boundary, the Proposed Scheme falls under Highways England’s permitted development rights provided no significant environmental effects arise. The Proposed Scheme can be delivered pursuant to Part 9 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and does not require express planning permission. Three residential properties at Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft are being purchased by agreement as essential air quality mitigation. The land holding associated with the three properties at Martinscroft will become part of the Proposed Scheme.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Plate 1-1 Proposed M6 Scheme Extents (J21a to J26) Location Plan

I

1.2. Purpose of this environmental assessment report 1.2.1. Highways England has commissioned AECOM-WSP to design and assess the Proposed Scheme at Project Control Framework (PCF) Stage 3. 1.2.2. This Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) presents the findings of the non-statutory environmental assessment undertaken to identify and assess the likelihood of potential significant environmental effects that could arise from the Proposed Scheme. It recommends mitigation, rectification and enhancement measures, which aim to fulfil the environmental objectives noted within the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS) and Highways England’s Licence. This will minimise impacts in order to inform both the planning and design and to satisfy any environmental legal obligations. Where no significant residual effects are predicted, the conclusions of the detailed environmental assessment process are recorded in a final EAR and summarised in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening (Determination) with the decisions then published in a public Notice of Determination (NoD). 1.2.3. The assessment of the Proposed Scheme has been undertaken utilising the Design Fix (DF) 3 layout which following further engineering refinement and the incorporation of environmental mitigation inputs has resulted in DF3 stage design reported upon in this EAR. 1.2.4. Subsequent design change through DF4 to DF5 (Design for construction) is not expected to lead to a change in the significance of the environmental effects of the Proposed Scheme, but may

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

affect the detailed mitigation requirements and definitions of measures to be reported within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Any changes that take place during this period will be evaluated and reported to the Regional Environmental Advisor through the Evaluation of Change process. 1.2.5. This EAR is supported by a number of other related documents produced at DF3 stage, including the Project Design Report: SGAR 3 (HE549339-ACM-GEN-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-LE-0004), Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) (HE549339-ACM-VES-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RQ- LE-0001), the M6 Junctions 21A to J26 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-LE-0001) located in Appendix C of Volume 3: Appendices, and the M6 Junctions 21A to J26 Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD- M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001). The relationship between the EAR and the OEMP is set out in Chapter 11 of this report. An OEMP has been developed at this stage of the programme, based on a Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC). The OEMP will be developed further and will form the basis for the Delivery Partner’s CEMP at SGAR 5.

1.3. Background to the Smart Motorways Programme 1.3.1. Highways England has commenced a programme to introduce SM to actively manage traffic and improve journeys on their motorway network. SM are managed by Regional Control Centres (RCC), and use closed circuit television (CCTV), allowing Highways England traffic officers to be deployed to incidents if they occur and to help keep traffic moving. The SM schemes that have been introduced have been highly successful in providing additional capacity, and improving journey times. 1.3.2. Early SM schemes used a combination of variable mandatory speed limits and extra capacity through the use of the hard shoulder as a running lane during peak traffic periods. The current SM schemes (those that started design development from 2013 onwards) will be built to a new design standard in accordance with Interim Advice Note (IAN) 161/15: Smart Motorways. 1.3.3. Using the knowledge and experience gained from previous SM schemes as well as additional research and assessments, Highways England has developed and refined their original SM design so that it can deliver the same benefits for a lower whole life cost (design, construction, operation and maintenance). 1.3.4. The new SM design provides additional capacity without compromising safety; supports the economy by addressing congestion problems; and continues to deliver a technology-driven approach to managing traffic on some of the busiest parts of England’s motorway network. The new design involves making the hard shoulder available for use as a traffic lane at all times. This approach forms the basis of the Proposed Scheme between J21A and J26 of the M6. 1.3.5. The Proposed Scheme’s objectives relate to the wider objectives of the Smart Motorways Programme (SMP). The strategic case of the SMP supports achievement of the following national objectives: • Support the Treasury’s Business Plan 2011-2015 to secure an economy that is growing sustainably, is more resilient, and is more balanced between public and private sectors and between regions through developing a more effective transport network that facilitates movement of people, goods and services between places. • The Government’s priority to invest in the strategic road network to promote growth and address the congestion that affects people and businesses, and continue to improve road safety as set out in the (DfT) Business Plan 2011-15. • Delivering a Sustainable Transport System, implementing the recommendations of the Eddington Transport Study 2006, through enhancing national networks to tackle congestion, capacity constraints and unreliability in particular on key inter-urban corridors and international gateways. • Support continued enhancements to the Trans European Road Network and secure the benefits it gives in terms of maintaining international connectivity for road users. 1.3.6. The programme also supports the Strategic Outcomes of Highways England, as defined in its

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Delivery Plan1, directly contributing to the following outcomes: • Supporting economic growth – “In order to relieve congestion and minimise delay, we will deliver 112 individual schemes generating £4 in long term economic benefit for every £1 invested. Between 2015/16 and 2019/20 (Road Period or RP1), we will start work on 15 Smart Motorways projects as identified in Spending Round 2013 (SR13), with eight of these to be completed by the end of RP1”. • Achieving a freer flowing network – capacity will be added through Smart Motorways and “the capital investment of more than £7bn will contribute significantly to increase capacity and remove bottlenecks to facilitate our ambition for a free-flowing strategic road network. The investment will also allow us to address the environmental impact on people and improve access to and from the strategic and local road networks”. 1.3.7. In addition to these direct contributions, the SMP will support the remaining Strategic Outcomes of ‘A Safe and Serviceable Network’, ‘Improved Environment’ and an ‘Accessible and Integrated Network’, through a sympathetic and collaborative approach to design, working with key stakeholders. Support of all of these outcomes should, in turn, support an improvement in user satisfaction. The delivery of the Proposed Scheme is to be in accordance with a suite of Governmental and Client policy documents, which have been included within the Highways England Licence2 and RIS objectives3.

1.4. Regulation and Guidance Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 1.4.1. The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 2011/92/EU was amended by EIA Directive 2014/52/EU which was transposed into English legislation in June 20174. Highways England issued a Major Projects’ Instructions in May 2017 and revised in May 2018 to ensure that all projects are considered in accordance with the Directive. Table 1-1 details how this EAR meets those requirements.

Table 1-1: Fulfilment of the amended EIA Directive (2014/52/EU)

EIA Directive Requirement Consideration of the The demolition works for the Proposed Scheme is described in demolition phase Chapter 2 with mitigation measures detailed in the OEMP as appropriate. Evolution of the The approach to this aspect is described in Chapter 4 with each environment ‘without the topic providing details of how that aspect would evolve without scheme’ the scheme. Biodiversity Ecology and nature conservation, now re-titled as Biodiversity. Population & human Health effects are scoped out since the intention is to avoid a health deterioration in air quality and to reduce noise levels. Where a health risk has been identified, then the topic is reported in Chapter 10 – Cumulative effects. The loss of three residential properties as a result of the purchase of the properties for air quality mitigation is considered in Chapter 4, Section 4.2. Land As part of the Proposed Scheme, three residential properties and associated land at Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft is being purchased by agreement to address essential air quality mitigation. As this land will become part of Highways England’s estate this

1 Highways England. (2015). Highways England Delivery Plan 2015-2020. 2 Highways England Licence (2015) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431389/strategic-highways- licence.pdf 3 Road Investment Strategy (2014): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408514/ris-for-2015- 16-road-period-web-version.pdf 4 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/571/contents/made

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

EIA Directive Requirement purchase of private land is not considered further as a discipline chapter, however the potential implications of the demolition of the properties has been addressed across all other relevant environmental disciplines. Climate Climate effects are scoped out see Chapter 4, Section 4.2 Major Accidents and This topic was ‘scoped out’ see Chapter 4, Section 4.2 Disasters Heat and Radiation This topic was ‘scoped out’ see Chapter 4, Section 4.2 Monitoring The approach to monitoring is described in Chapter 4, Section – 4.2. Expertise for EIA The expertise used in the assessment of each topic is presented in Section 1.5 below and the introductory section of each topic Chapter. 1.4.2. Under the Directive 2014/52/EU and current EIA regulations in England those developments listed under Annex II may need to be subject to statutory EIA depending on whether the Proposed Scheme qualifies as a ‘relevant project’ (that is if it meets certain criteria and thresholds defined in Annex II) and gives rise to significant effects (see Annex III of the EIA Directive). A modification to a motorway is identified as an Annex II project. 1.4.3. In England and Wales, the requirements of the EIA Directive with regards to road projects is enacted through the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017. Screening procedures that accord with the requirements of the EIA Regulations exist within Highways England to determine whether trunk road and motorway developments require statutory EIA. This process is known as Determination with this Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) informing that process. 1.4.4. Where significant effects are anticipated then a statutory EIA would be prepared pursuant to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. In the event of no significant effects being predicted the conclusions of the EAR are recorded in an EIA Screening Determination and published in a Notice of Determination (NoD) pursuant to Part VA of the Highways Act 1980. Guidance documents 1.4.5. The EAR has been undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11: Environmental Assessment5 and associated Interim Advice Notes (IAN’s): • IAN 161/15 – Smart Motorways6 • IAN 183/14 – Environmental Management Plans7 • IAN 125/15 – Supplementary guidance for users of DMRB Volume 11 ‘Environmental Assessment Update’8 • IAN 185/15 – Updated Traffic, Air Quality and Noise Advice on the Assessment of Link Speeds and Generation of Traffic Data into Speed-Bands for Users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality (HA207/07) and Volume 11, Section 3. Part 7 Noise (HD213/11) • IAN 126/15 – Environmental Assessment, Screening and Determination9 1.4.6. The following Major Project Instructions (MPIs) have been taken into account during the assessment: • MPI 28 – Determining the correct base year traffic model to support air quality assessments

5 The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11: Environmental Assessment – see individual topic chapters (Chapters 5 to 10) of this EAR for further details. 6 IAN 161/15 – Smart Motorways: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/IAN161_15.pdf 7 IAN 183/14 - Environmental Management Plans: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian183.pdf 8 Supplementary guidance for users of DMRB Volume 11 ‘Environmental Assessment Update’: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian125r2.pdf 9 IAN 126/15 - Environmental Assessment, Screening and Determination: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian126r2.pdf

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

• MPI 29 – One-Team’ delivery approach for Traffic and Environmental Teams • MPI 57 – Environmental Impact Assessment: Implementing the Requirements of 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU (EIA Directive) – 2018 Revision • MPI 71 – National Noise Policy and EIA Significance of Noise Effects • For the Smart Motorways Programme (SMP), the above guidance is tempered by consideration that SMP schemes are delivered within the existing highway estate and supported by specific advice is set out in the SMP Design Guide Environmental Annex10 addressing the following topics: • E5.01 – Site clearance • E5.02 – Soft estate • E5.03 – Analysis of existing noise barriers • E5.04 – Noise assessment methodology • E5.05 – Value for money analysis of noise improvement measures • E5.06 – Construction noise and vibration assessment • E5.07 – Noise surveys • E5.08 – Candidate construction compound site tool • E5.09 – Ecological survey report template • E5.10 – Environmental data (specification and reporting) to SMP GIS • E5.11 – Dynamic reporting of environmental risk • E5.12 – Implementation of limits of deviation to environmental assessment • E5.22 – Priority Outfalls 1.4.7. Additional guidance is listed for each topic specific assessment in the Chapters 5 to 10. 1.4.8. The scope and content of this EAR have been informed by the M6 J21A to J26 Smart Motorway Scoping Report11 (hereafter referred to as the Scoping Report). Highways England Licence requirements 1.4.9. It is the responsibility of Highways England to comply with (or have due regard to) the conditions set out in the Highways England License (April 2015)12, which constitute statutory directions and guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Transport to the Licence holder as provided for in section 6 of the Infrastructure Act 201513. 1.4.10. The relevant License requirements that this EAR must consider, on behalf of the License holder, are 4.2 g and h, as follows: (g) Minimise the environmental impacts of operating, maintaining and improving its network and seek to protect and enhance the quality of the surrounding environment. (h) Conform to the principles of sustainable development. Road Investment Strategy (RIS) 1.4.11. The RIS was published in December 201414, setting out a long-term strategic plan for investment in the Strategic Road Network (SRN) between 2015 and 2020. Smart Motorway schemes consider the RIS Objectives and seeks to: • Reduce noise levels within noise Important Areas (see Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration)

10 Environmental Annexes of the Design Guide are available on request. 11 Highways England 2017: M6 J21A to 26 Smart Motorway Scoping Report, https://hebim.withbc.com/bc/bc.cgi/d1108934/M6%20J21a%20to%2026%20Scoping%20Report%2017072017.pdf 12 Highways England License: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431389/strategic- highways-licence.pdf 13 Infrastructure Act (2015): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/7/pdfs/ukpga_20150007_en.pdf 14

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

• Minimise biodiversity loss (see Chapter 6: Biodiversity) • Enhance landscape setting (see Chapter 7: Landscape, Visual and Cultural Heritage Effects) • Improve the quality of runoff at priority outfalls (See Chapter 2: The Proposed Scheme, Section 2.3)

1.5. Professional Competency 1.5.1. All environmental reports and other technical reports must be provided with details of the competent experts that have undertaken the assessments. This is to include individual lead topic specialists, the Environmental Coordinator as well as those responsible for assuring the quality of the report. This expectation is to fulfil requirement of EU Directive 2014/52/EU (frequently referred to as the EIA Directive, which is the legislation under which certain projects must be assessed for potential effects on the environment). 1.5.2. Article 5(3) (a) also states that ‘the developer shall ensure that the environmental impact assessment report is prepared by competent experts. 1.5.3. The DMRB Volume 11 is to be revised to define a ‘competent expert’ as: Individuals who can demonstrate that they have relevant: qualifications; and expertise, in the environmental assessment of infrastructure projects or related environmental factor(s)’. A maximum of three relevant recent schemes or policy development commissions must be provided along with the academic and professional qualifications. 1.5.4. The Environmental Coordinator and Quality Assurance Lead for this EAR are detailed in Table 1- 2 below. The expertise of the specialist topic leads can be found in the ‘Introduction’ Section of each of the individual topic Chapters. Table 1-2 Professional competence

Name Grade and Expertise and Professional Qualification Company

Environmental lead and coordination of environmental assessments and environmental mitigation design and management on major transport infrastructure projects Regional Director including most recently the M62 J10 to 12 upgrade to Smart - Environment, Motorways package, other projects include the Manchester Environmental AECOM Co-ordinator Metrolink Phase 3A and 3B extensions and the A6 to Relief Road. BSc (Hons) Geography and Management Studies MSc and DIC Environmental Technology Full Member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and Chartered Environmentalist Technical Coordination and/ or technical assurance of numerous Manager, Environmental Assessment Reports of SM and other major Technical technology and highways schemes including: WSP Assurance · M42 Active Traffic Management Pilot · Box Managed Motorways 1 and 2 (BB3MM) · M1 Smart Motorways J28-31 and J32-35a · M62 J10 to 12 Smart Motorway has also provided technical input to Highways England IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways and other IANs. BSc (Hons) Agricultural Zoology MPhil Landscape Design Chartered member – Landscape Institute

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 2. The Proposed Scheme

2.1. Need for the Proposed Scheme 2.1.1. The M6 is a strategic route that carries high volumes of heavy goods (between 17 and 25%15)and other vehicles. The M6 links the North of England and West Scotland with key areas of the country from the Midlands through to . Between J21A and J26, the M6 is of strategic importance for local, regional and international traffic and freight with key connections with the M58 and M62. The motorway is set within a predominantly rural corridor passing adjacent to urban areas along sections such as Ashton-in-Makerfield. Congestion and unreliable journey times are experienced at busy periods and traffic is predicted to continue to grow. Delays occur in the morning peak along the M6 in the southbound direction between junction 26 and 21a. In the PM peak period delays can be seen to occur in the northbound direction J21a and J23. 2.1.2. The base year (2015) traffic flows and journey times16 are as follows: • The 2015 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) northbound flows on the M6 between J21A to J26 are between 46,000 and 63,500 vehicles. Southbound flows are between 42,000 and 60,000 AADT with J25 to J24 having the greatest flow at 60,000/63,500 AADT. • The percentage of HGVs on the M6 between J21A and J26 in 2015 was on average 20.90% in the southbound direction and 20.54% in the northbound direction. • At an average speed of 113km/hr (70mph), the journey time should take 8.62 minutes for weekdays. • The average northbound journey time in a typical morning period (7am to 10am) was 11.13 minutes, which is an average delay of 2.51 minutes for every light vehicle. • The average southbound journey time in a typical morning period (7am to 10am) was 15.07 minutes, which is an average delay of 6.45 minutes for every light vehicle. • In the inter-peak period (10am to 4pm) the journey time is 11.25 minutes, although this still represents an average delay of 2.63 minutes for every car travelling northbound. • In the inter-peak period (10am to 4pm) the journey time is 11.68 minutes, representing an average delay of 3.06 minutes for every car travelling southbound. • PM peak period (4pm to 7pm) in a northbound direction, the average journey time is 14.06 minutes, equivalent to a delay of 5.44 minutes for each light vehicle. • PM peak period (4pm to 7pm) in a southbound direction, the average journey time is 11.67 minutes, equivalent to a delay of 3.05 minutes for each light vehicle. 2.1.3. These delays are the result of intensive traffic flows, with network stress high along the scheme section. This leads to slow journey speeds and frequent incidents of flow-breakdown, resulting in physical queues and delays. This poses a threat to road safety, because delays can lead to sudden braking and last-minute lane-changing behaviours. Congestion occurs southbound during the morning (AM) peak between J26 and J21A, and northbound during the afternoon (PM) peak from J21A to almost J23. 2.1.4. The Proposed Scheme 16.4km in length would contribute towards the improvement of this strategic route as well as provide improvements to traffic management and travel times on a local scale.

2.2. Description of the Proposed Scheme 2.2.1. This section provides a summary of the Proposed Scheme and is supported by Figure 2-1 Scheme Overview (found in Volume 2: Figures) and DF3 drawings located in Appendix A

15 M6 Junctions 21a-26 Smart Motorway Scheme – Draft Outline Business Case (SGAR 3), Sept 2018 (Table 3.1 - Existing traffic flows (2015)) 16 Base year (2015) traffic flows and journey times are taken from the Trans Pennine South Regional Transport Model (TPSRTM)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

(Volume 3: Appendices). 2.2.2. The Proposed Scheme provides ALR between J21A and 26 designed in accordance with the standards set out in IAN 161/15, comprising: • Permanent removal of the hard shoulder facility on the mainline and conversion to a running lane to create extra capacity necessary to support economic growth. • A reinforced concrete barrier (RCB). This component requires the hardening of the central reserve in addition to the installation of RCB along the extent of the scheme between J21A and J26. • Emergency Areas (EAs) to provide safe stopping areas in case of emergency. • Overhead gantries fitted with Advanced Motorway Indicators (AMIs), new Variable Message Signs (MS4) and/or Advanced Directional Signs (ADS), strategic signs (MS3S/ MS4-L). • Incident detection systems, speed enforcement cameras and comprehensive CCTV coverage. 2.2.3. SM-ALR schemes have the following key features: • Through-Junction Running (TJR) - the conversion of the hard shoulder into a running lane within the extent of the intermediate junction and associated merge and diverge lining modifications. This is implemented at all junctions unless there is an operational reason not to do so (see section 2.2.7 for TJR included within the Proposed Scheme). • Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (VMSL) enabled using a combination of verge and gantry-mounted variable message signs and lane-specific signalling, with variable speed limits displayed on Advanced Motorway Indicators (AMIs) mounted above each lane on portal gantries. • Verge mast mounted radar vehicle detection systems will be provided to support incident detection, queue protection, VMSL and congestion management. Automatic signal setting in response to traffic conditions, driven by a more advanced version of the Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling (MIDAS) system, with additional driver information on enhanced message signs. At calculated thresholds, the mandatory speed limit displayed to drivers is reduced or increased as required. • Creation of EAs to provide safe stopping areas in case of emergency. • Emergency roadside telephones (ERTs) will be provided in EAs and possibly adjacent to hard shoulders on slip roads. • Earthwork modifications at some of the gantry, cabinet/ chamber and EA locations to accommodate the new technology. • Existing noise barriers to be retained with alterations, and additional new noise barriers provided only where justified by assessment. • Provision of speed enforcement using Highways Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System 3 (HADECS3). • Pan tilt zoom (PTZ) CCTV camera coverage of 100% of the carriageway within the Proposed Scheme extents in unlit sections these will also be supported by infra-red lighting units mounted on the camera heads. 2.2.4. In accordance with Highways England aims to streamline delivery, efficiency and productisation, the design has also made best use of generic and/ or standardised solutions, where appropriate, which have been employed on other SMP schemes. The SM-ALR scheme has been designed within the existing highway boundary. 2.2.5. An indicative layout required by an ALR scheme is presented in Plate 2-1. A more detailed summary of the main features of the Proposed Scheme is provided below.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Plate 2-1 Illustrative drawing of SM-ALR

Source: IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways Carriageways 2.2.6. Where the existing dual three-lane carriageway (motorway) with hard shoulder is to be upgraded to four-lane ALR the proposed layout will be accommodated within the existing paved area (current carriageway and hard shoulder in general, no pavement widening within the verge will be required, with the exception being occasional locations near junctions.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

2.2.7. Where a lane drop/ lane gain is to be provided at the terminal junctions, the existing three lanes and hard shoulder configuration will be retained through the junction. TJR involves taking the four running lanes through the junction with junction layouts realigned to accommodate the fourth lane generally by re-configuration of slip roads and amending road markings and vehicle restraint systems (VRS) appropriately. Lane-drop and lane-gain or TJR arrangements will be provided as detailed below: • J21A – will provide the lane gain on the northbound merge from M62, and will introduce a lane-drop at the M6 southbound slip onto the M62 eastbound • J22 – will implement TJR, with no other major changes • J23 – will implement TJR, with no other major changes • J24 – will implement TJR, with no other major changes • J25 – will implement TJR, with no other major changes • J26 – will maintain the existing lane-drop on the northbound carriageway, and will provide a lane-gain on the southbound carriageway, to link with the highway layout to the north of the scheme which is three lane motorway with hard shoulder. 2.2.8. The physical design elements of the Proposed Scheme include: • Conversion of the hard shoulder to a permanent traffic lane making four lanes of 13.75m overall width. The operational width of the road would be 3.5m wider than existing; • Provide a hard strip of approximately 1m width with enhanced edge drainage; • Re-configure junction layouts to accommodate the fourth lane; • An estimated 4.4ha would be permanently removed from the soft estate. 2.2.9. The General Arrangement of the Proposed Scheme, including the location of new and existing gantries, other signs and Emergency Areas is presented in Figure 2-1 Scheme overview (Volume 2: Figures). 2.2.10. Where space within the highway boundary is limited and surrounding ground levels require, retaining walls may be required to accommodate Emergency Areas, communications cabinet sites and gantries. 2.2.11. The mainline horizontal and vertical alignment will not be changed as part of the scheme and as such is not expected to have any operational impact. Pavement 2.2.12. The carriageway within the Proposed Scheme limits will be resurfaced within lanes 1 and 4, with low noise surfacing (thin wearing course (TWC)). 2.2.13. There will also be provision of a nearside hardstrip of enhanced edge drainage. It is proposed to replace the existing kerb and gully system with linear combined kerb and drainage systems where widths between the running lane and existing kerb and gully system are reduced. Where the carriageway gradients are slack and there is adequate space in the verge, existing drainage system will be replaced with a surface water channel system. 2.2.14. Filter drains are not being proposed as a surface water collection system except only in areas where the risk of stone scatter is small (i.e. cut off drainage). Central reserve works 2.2.15. The Proposed Scheme provides a hardened central reserve pavement with a new RCB throughout to replace the steel barrier VRS separating the northbound and southbound carriageways. This will allow the central reserve to be narrowed to accommodate the ALR cross- section and provide a consistent treatment for the majority of the Proposed Scheme, bringing benefits for standardisation of maintenance. It will also reduce the requirement for future maintenance work in the centre of the motorway, which has benefits for road worker safety. 2.2.16. Existing and proposed lighting within the central reserve is described in section 2.2.28 to 2.2.33. 2.2.17. The central reserve works comprises the following components:

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

• RCB will be installed between Chainage 39600 to Chainage 56000 totalling approximately 16.4km. The introduction of raised central reserve with kerbs and concrete infill to support the RCB; • Central reserve pavement throughout, with narrowing to 3.36m minimum to 5.07m (average 4.8m); • Between J22 and 23, existing highway alignment is generally moved towards the central reserve. In all other areas the existing alignment will be amended to centralize it through fixed points such as overbridges and underbridges • Strengthening and collars at overbridge locations (refer to Table 2-4 for locations of overbridges); and • Drainage in the central reserve will largely be replaced with a surface water collection system. Where the carriageway is super elevated, a surface water collection system will be required within the central reserve; this will be a 0.9m wide surface water channel in accordance with the SMP design guide drainage hierarchy. Where the carriageway is balanced, there will be no requirement for a surface water collection system. Verge / ALR works 2.2.18. The ALR component of the Proposed Scheme provides four running lanes by permanently converting the hard shoulder into lane 1, commencing at J21A and finishing at J26. The proposed scheme requires significant works within the verge to accommodate the new technology and other infrastructure assets required to support conversion of the scheme to SM-ALR throughout its length. 2.2.19. The ALR verge works comprises the following components: • ALR sections will be provided with a nearside hardstrip (approximately 300mm wide) with enhanced edge drainage. Drainage assets located within the new Lane 1 will be relocated where possible. New drains are also required in some sections of the verges to accommodate new roadside features; • All drainage pipes that are identified in the survey as having grade 4 or 5 defects which are essential as core scope for SM delivery and/or where flooding of the hard shoulder occurs will be repaired or replaced. • Resurface using low noise surfacing material of the hard shoulder where it becomes a running lane (lane 1) and also lane 4; • Provision of 66 gantries, including 44 new gantries built on new foundations, 21 existing gantry foundations to be reused, and the retention of one existing gantry; • Removal of 14 existing gantries; • Provision of 10 new EA’s with ERT; • New longitudinal communication ducting along the Proposed Scheme length; • Provision of 35 new PTZ CCTV cameras will be installed on 15m or 10m masts to provide 100% coverage of the carriageway; • Eight HADECS3 enforcement sites including four dummy sites; • Provision of 57 MIDAS radar at regular centres throughout the Proposed Scheme; • Provision of 40 sets of ROTTMS each set consists of five signs (1 mile, 800, 600, 400 and 200 yards) that are linked with a location from which traffic management will be deployed; • New VRS at specific locations, new infrastructure such as gantries; • New retaining structures to accommodate EA’s, communication cabinets, gantries and other verge infrastructure; • New environmental barrier located on the southbound carriageway on the top of cuttings between Chainages 48700 to 49260; • Installation of vortex separators at eight locations; • Work at fifteen underbridges;

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

• Replacement lighting; and • A new signing strategy. Emergency areas 2.2.20. Where the hard shoulders have been converted into a running lane, dedicated EAs with ERTs will be constructed to provide a safe area for vehicles to stop in an emergency without interrupting the flow of traffic. The EAs will be 4.6m wide and extend for 100m. Barrier setback will increase from 1.2m at 30m from the start of the EA to 1.6m at the end of the area. An illustration of a typical EA layout is provided in Plate 2-2. 2.2.21. The drainage proposal for the EA’s includes attenuation and pollution control measures. Plate 2-23 Illustrative drawing of an EA

Source: IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways 2.2.22. Ten EAs will be installed within the Proposed Scheme limits, four on the northbound carriageway and six on the southbound carriageway. The EAs would be located as shown in Table 2-1 below.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 2-1 Proposed EA locations

Northbound carriageway Southbound carriageway

EA Reference Chainage location EA Reference Chainage location EA - E22A1 44050 - 44150 EA - E25B2 54900- 54800 EA - E22A2 46040 - 46140 EA - E25B1 52820- 52720 EA - E23A1 49260 - 49360 EA - E24B1 50950- 50850 EA - E25A1 53385 - 53485 EA - E23B1 48850- 48750 - - EA - E22B2 46200- 46100 - - EA - E22B1 44873- 44773 2.2.23. To enhance the conspicuousness of an EA to motorway users these areas are to be provided with an orange coloured surface (see Plate 2-3). Plate 2-3: Indicative Emergency Area

2.2.24. Consideration will be given to the provision of maintenance hard standing areas at the upstream end of EA’s prior to DF4. This arrangement will reduce the requirement for temporary traffic management (lane closures) during maintenance. Signs, gantries and roadside devices 2.2.25. Operation of the SM will be controlled via light-emitting diode (LED) signals, which will be mounted on overhead portal or cantilever gantries, or pole mounted in the verge. The location of proposed gantries is provided in Table 2-2 below. 2.2.26. There are four main types of LED signals, which are described below: • AMI (Advance Motorway Indicators) are used to display VMSL for each lane using programmable high resolution LEDs. • MS4 (Message Sign Mark 4) are a type of variable message sign used to provide driver information in the form of text and pictograms. • MS3 (Message Sign Mark 3) are deployed in advance of strategic junctions and provide information to the travelling public in the form of text messages; and

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

ROTTM (Remote-Operated Temporary Traffic Management) pole mounted signs in the verge, deployed at set intervals to facilitate maintenance service provider access to the network. Table 2-2 Gantry and signing provision M6 J21A to J26

Gantry Carriage- History way Southbound Northbound Gantry southbound (New/ Chainage Type gantry gantry Reference (SB) / retained/ equipment equipment northbound existing (NB) foundations reused)

J21a G21-15 39,761 SB New MS4 Infill VMS - SB off slip New MS4 - G21-15a 39,761 Infill VMS for M62 New Super - G21-16 40,101 SB Final ADS Cantilever New Conditioning G21-17 40,368 NB MS4 - VMS NB off slip New Conditioning G21-17a 40,335 MS4 -- for M62 VMS Retained Existing signal M62 NB on Super G21-17b - and ADS slip to M6 Cantilever gantry G21-18 40,604 NB New Cantilever - ¾ mile ADS New Final ADS and G21-19 40,677 SB/NB Superspan Blank boom 1/3 mile ADS Existing VMS Infill VMS G21-20 40,968 NB foundation to cantilever - be reused Existing Cantilever Infill VMS NB on slip G21-20a 40,968 foundation to - from M62 be reused New 1/3 & 2/3 - G21-21 41,212 SB Superspan mile ADS New Gateway - G21-22 41,515 SB Superspan gantry New Gateway G21-23 41,462 NB Superspan - gantry & ¼ mile ADS New Super Final ADS & G21-25 41,863 NB - Cantilever AMI G21-26 42,269 SB New Cantilever 1 mile ADS -- Existing VMS Infill VMS G21-27 42,343 NB foundation to cantilever - be reused Existing VMS - G22-1 42,585 SB foundation to cantilever Infill VMS be reused New Super - G22-3 42,930 SB Final ADS Cantilever New Gateway G22-4 43,130 NB/SB Superspan Blank boom gantry G22-4a 43,274 SB New MS4 Infill VMS - G22-5 43,459 SB New MS3 VMS MS3 - G22-6 43,719 SB New Cantilever ½ mile ADS -

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-8 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Gantry Carriage- History way Southbound Northbound Gantry southbound (New/ Chainage Type gantry gantry Reference (SB) / retained/ equipment equipment northbound existing (NB) foundations reused) G22-7 43,860 NB New MS4 - Infill VMS Existing - VMS G22-8 44,191 SB foundation to Infill VMS cantilever be reused G22-9 44,587 SB New Cantilever 1 mile ADS - G22-10 44,465 NB New MS4 - Infill VMS G22-11 44,888 SB New MS4 Infill VMS - Existing Infill VMS G22-12 45,069 NB foundation to VMS - be reused cantilever G22-13 45,673 NB New Cantilever - 2/3 mile ADS Existing - G22-14 45,534 SB foundation to VMS Infill VMS be reused cantilever Existing Infill VMS G22-15 45,885 NB foundation to VMS - be reused cantilever G22-16 46,265 NB New Cantilever - 1/3 mile ADS New Gateway Infill VMS G22-17 46,485 NB/SB Superspan gantry New Super Final ADS G22-18 46,800 NB - Cantilever Existing Infill VMS foundation to G22-20 47,185 NB VMS - be reused cantilever

Existing - G23-1 47,565 SB foundation to VMS Infill VMS be reused cantilever New Super - G23-2 47,923 SB Final ADS Cantilever New Gateway G23-3 48,292 NB/SB Superspan Infill VMS gantry G23-4 48,705 SB New Cantilever ½ mile ADS -- Existing - G23-5 48,930 SB foundation to VMS Infill VMS be reused cantilever G23-6 49,525 SB New Cantilever 1 mile ADS - Existing Infill VMS VMS G23-7 49,244 NB foundation to cantilever be reused G23-8 49,414 NB New Cantilever - 1 mile ADS Existing -- G23-9 49,707 SB foundation to VMS Infill VMS be reused cantilever G23-10 49,720 NB New MS4 - Infill VMS J24 New Super - G24-1 50,060 SB Final ADS Cantilever

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-9 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Gantry Carriage- History way Southbound Northbound Gantry southbound (New/ Chainage Type gantry gantry Reference (SB) / retained/ equipment equipment northbound existing (NB) foundations reused) G24-1a 50,223 SB New MS4 Infill VMS - New Gateway G24-2 50,463 NB/SB Superspan Blank boom gantry & 1/3 mile ADS New Gateway Final ADS & gantry & ½ AMI G24-3a/b 50,907 NB/SB Superspan mile exit ADS J25 Existing Infill VMS G25-1 51,457 NB foundation to VMS - be reused cantilever G25-3 51,750 SB New Cantilever 1 mile ADS - Existing - G25-4 52,052 SB foundation to VMS Infill VMS be reused cantilever G25-5 51,974 NB New MS4 - Infill VMS Existing Infill VMS G25-6 52,665 NB foundation to VMS - be reused cantilever G25-7 52,849 SB New MS4 Infill VMS - G25-8 53,298 NB New MS4 - Infill VMS Existing - G25-9 53,640 SB foundation to VMS Infill VMS be reused cantilever Existing Infill VMS G25-10 53,929 NB foundation to VMS - be reused cantilever G25-11 54,388 NB New Cantilever - 2/3 mile ADS G25-11a 54,388 SB New MS4 Infill VMS - Existing Infill VMS G25-12 54,739 NB foundation to VMS - be reused cantilever G25-13 55,003 SB New MS4 Infill VMS G25-13 55,003 NB New Cantilever 1/3 mile ADS New Gateway Final ADS G25-14 55,500 NB/SB Superspan gantry Existing Infill VMS foundation to G25-15 55,875 NB VMS - be reused cantilever Existing - G25-16 55,956 SB foundation to VMS Infill VMS be reused cantilever J26

2.2.27. The roadside devices to be included as part of the Proposed Scheme are detailed in Table 2-31 Roadside devices below. Plate 2-4 illustrates typical views of a Superspan Gantry, MS3/ MS4 Cantilevers, Directional Signs and AMI signage.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-10 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 2-31 Roadside devices

Roadside device New Existing AMI (gantry mounted) 51 0 AMI (post mounted) 10 0 MS4 46 0 MS3 1 0 ERT 19 Numerous HADECS enforcement cameras (ENF) (live sites) 4 0 HADECS enforcement cameras (ENF) (non-live sites) 4 0 MIDAS outstation 58 3 MIDAS Radar sites 57 0 Pan, tilt and zoom (PTZ) CCTV camera 35 1 Remotely operated temporary traffic management signs (ROTTMS) 40 0 National Traffic Information Services (NTIS) radar site 6 0

Plate 2-4 Typical views of a Superspan Gantry, MS3/ MS4 Cantilevers, Directional Signs and AMI signage

Superspan Gantry with AMI and MS4

Superspan Cantilever Gantry with Advanced MS4 Cantilever Directional Sign (ADS)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-11 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

MS3 Cantilever Source: representations taken from M62 J10 to J12 Federated Model (HE549341-ACM-GEN-M62_SW_ZZ_ZZ-m3-IM- 0001). Lighting

Existing lighting provision 2.2.28. The M6 between Junction 21a / M62 J10 interchange through to J26 is currently lit. 2.2.29. Existing carriageway lighting covers the full extent of the scheme, via either a central reserve or verge lighting arrangement predominantly consisting of lighting points with a mounting height no greater than 12m incorporating a high-pressure sodium light source, except on the mainline between J21a and 22, were 15m lighting columns are installed. The existing installation incorporates a high-pressure sodium light source. 2.2.30. All Junction slips are lit through their full extents.

Proposed lighting 2.2.31. Proposed lighting will be as follows: • The existing sections of the motorway and slip roads that are currently lit (as detailed above) will remain lit. • Existing lighting will be removed and replaced with modern LED lighting with a mounting height no greater than the existing lighting. 2.2.32. Where existing road lighting infrastructure (lighting columns, network cabling, duct infrastructure and feeder pillars) need to be replaced due to SM intervention the design has been progressed on the basis that no existing equipment can be retained due to limited information in respect to the age and condition of the existing asset. 2.2.33. Replacement lighting columns in the central reserve will be located on top of the RCB, where installed.

Obtrusive light 2.2.34. To minimise obtrusive light the design is based on luminaire tilt angles of zero degrees. This, coupled with the use flat glass LED luminaires, will ensure the designed installation will emit no light above the horizontal. DMRB Volume 8, Section 3 (TD34/07) requires that lighting normally comply with the G6 rating, however, to do so would severely limit the number of compliant LED luminaires that could be specified. A G6 rating compliant design would not be sufficiently optimised and would result in more lighting columns and luminaires being necessary, with greater energy consumption and maintenance requirements. A request for Departure from Standard will

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-12 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

be submitted to Highways England with the intention of relaxing the glare rating requirement. Highways England recognises that the G6 requirement is not the most suitable measure of glare for LED luminaires and it is likely that the departure will be granted.

Demolition and new structures 2.2.35. No new structures other than gantries and retaining walls, are currently required within the Proposed Scheme. Three residential properties and associated land at Martinscroft are being purchased by agreement as essential air quality mitigation and will require demolition (refer to Plate 1-1 or Figure 2-1 to view location).

Works to structures

Overbridges 2.2.36. The proposed works to the overbridges are outlined in Table 2-4. Table 2-42Proposed Works to Overbridges

Structure Name Structure Number Chainage Works to Structure Central reservation column Sandsfield South 10/M62/ES/29.40//7 40435 encapsulation Central reservation column Sandsfield North 10/M62/WN/20.40//8 40470 encapsulation Coppice Pit M6//307.6// 40630 Pier strengthening Replace brick facing & Pier Southworth Hall M6//307.4// 41485 Strengthening Mouth South - J22 Pier strengthening 22/M6//309.30// 42375 A579 Mouth North - J22 Pier strengthening 22/M6//309.40// 42475 A579 Pier Strengthening Parkside Road – A573 M6//310.10// 43190 Brick abutments and wing walls concrete encapsulation Pier strengthening A58 Road / 24/M6//316.40 49485 Ashton Brick abutments and wing walls concrete encapsulation Protect pier with precast concrete Ashton Home Farm M6//316.80 49943 high containment barrier Protect pier with precast concrete Low Bank Road M6//317.10// 50193 high containment barrier Central reservation column North Ashton Railway M6//317.40// 50525 encapsulation Pier strengthening B5207 - Downhall M6//318.10// 51238 Green Road Brick abutments and wing walls concrete encapsulation Drummers Lane / M6//318.90// 52000 Pier strengthening Brocstedes Road A571 Pemberton Road M6//320.50// 53586 Pier strengthening s / Slacky Brow Pier strengthening Southworth Hall M6//308.4// 41485 Brick abutments and wing walls concrete encapsulation

Underbridges 2.2.37. The proposed works to underbridges are outlined in Table 2-5 below.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-13 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 2-53 Proposed Works to Underbridges

Structure Name Structure Number Chainage Works to Structure Realignment of highway and narrowing of central reserve. Railway M6//311.30// 44420 Removal and reinstatement of existing raised verges to provide drainage. RCB works to Central Reserve Realignment of highway and narrowing of central reserve. Parapet strengthening with noise A572 Southworth M6//311.6// 44655 attenuation Road/Water Tower Removal and reinstatement of existing raised verges to provide drainage. RCB works to Central Reserve Realignment of highway and narrowing of central reserve. Mere Hough Railway M6//311.60// 44725 Removal and reinstatement of existing raised verges to provide drainage. RCB works to central reservation Realignment of highway and narrowing of central reserve. Removal and reinstatement of existing Rob Lane M6//312.60// 45720 raised verges to provide drainage. RCB works to central reservation Additional duct capacity for ROTTM RCB works to central reservation to Lodge Lane Viaduct 23/M6//314.20// 47340 accommodate lighting Realignment of highway and narrowing of central reserve. Townfield End Railway M6//315.30// 48440 RCB works to central reservation Additional duct capacity for ROTTM Realignment of highway and narrowing Brocstedes (for J25) 25/M6//318.60 51770 RCB works to Central Reserve Winstanley Park Replacement of the longitudinal joint M6//322.60// 55750 Railway Realignment of highway and narrowing King Coppice M6//318.80// 46913 RCB works to Central Reserve A599 Penny Lane / Parapet strengthening / RCB works to M6//314.70// 47840 Beeches central reservation Realignment of highway and narrowing of central reserve. Townfield End Railway M6//315.30// 48440 RCB works to central reservation Additional duct capacity for ROTTM Realignment of highway and narrowing Brocstedes (for J25) 25/M6//318.60 51770 RCB works to Central Reserve Hall Lane / Atherton RCB works to Central Reserve M6//322.30// 55478 Farm Installation of technology and lighting Sandyforth subway MP319.8 52946 ducts, drainage and kerb units and re- surfacing Installation of technology and lighting Edgewood Hall MP323.0 56190 ducts, drainage and kerb units and re- surfacing

Communication cabling and ducting 2.2.38. Longitudinal ducting will be required to replace existing cables buried in the ground along the Proposed Scheme where the carriageway arrangement will be changed. Typically, the

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-14 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

longitudinal ducts will only be provided in one verge a minimum 1.5 m from the edge of the existing carriageway. Local ducts will be required to connect to cabinets near the gantries and other communications equipment and for power supply connections between the electricity feeder pillars (normally placed at various locations at the motorway fence line) and the communications equipment. 2.2.39. The installation of new ducts will require localised vegetation clearance from the hard shoulder, but the width and installation method will be varied where it is important to maintain screening. 2.2.40. Cross Carriageway Ducts (CCDs) will also be provided, some terminating in the central reserve others spanning the carriageway, and efforts have been made to locate these to minimise associated vegetation clearance at launch and receiver pit locations. Currently all new CCDs have been assumed but once surveys have been concluded and ducts proved there may be opportunities to re-use existing CCDs, thereby minimising any impacts further. The detailed design will be developed in PCF Stage 5 to confirm vegetation clearance and retention.

Environmental barriers 2.2.41. There are two existing environmental barriers located north and south of the Proposed Scheme extents. Details are provided below: · 2.5 metre barrier to N/B carriageway south of J21a (approx. chainage 39000 – 39090) · 2.5 metre barrier to N/B carriageway just north of J26 (approx. chainage 56250 – 56630) 2.2.42. One new environmental barrier is proposed as detailed in Table 2-6 below. Further information is provided in Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration. The location of the new environmental barrier is shown on Figure 2-1 Scheme Overview (Volume 2: Figures). Table 2-6 Proposed noise barriers

Barrier ID Required as Carriageway Chainage location mitigation/ enhancement

NNB7-B Mitigation Southbound 48700-49260

Abnormal load bays 2.2.43. Rob Lane has an existing abnormal load facility on the northbound and southbound carriageways at approximate Chainage 46150 and is approximately 215m in length, however it has been determined that the ALB on the southbound carriageway cannot operate safely due to ALR intervention. A new facility will be located between the diverge and merge slip roads (Ch 46,220 to 46,000).

Site clearance 2.2.44. The Proposed Scheme would permanently remove approximately 4.4ha from the soft estate with an additional 14.4ha temporarily used during construction. Demolition will also be required for three geographically remote residential properties at Martinscroft. 2.2.45. The Proposed Scheme would require temporary land-take for compound areas, material storage and temporary breakdown vehicles. Selection of compound sites remain matters for the Delivery Partner and thus the actual temporary land-taken will be reported within the CEMP following environmental surveys and assessments. 2.2.46. Following the removal of topsoil, soil stabilisation and installation of drainage some levelling may be required. All existing material would stay on site with imported material being required for hardstanding areas such as a car park, material compounds and office foundations. 2.2.47. Temporary sites would be required for the duration of the construction period and would be returned to its previous state upon completion of the main works. 2.2.48. Further information relating to site clearance and construction compounds can be found in Section 2.4.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-15 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 2.3. Rectification of outfalls and culverts 2.3.1. Six Priority Outfalls have been identified as experiencing an increase in pollution loading arising from a ≥20% increase in traffic, so to avoid a significant effect treatment measures would be introduced for outfalls discharging to the following waterbodies: • Cockshot Brook (located within Spittle Brook catchment) • Millingford Brook and catchment • Spittle Brook catchment 2.3.2. It has been confirmed that these measures can be delivered without compromising other engineering or environmental objectives and do not require land take beyond the scheme boundary. 2.3.3. The Proposed Scheme contributes to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive through installation of: • New carrier drains and attenuation for verge drainage as required so that existing peak rate of runoff to watercourse is not increased; 2.3.4. As the Proposed Scheme turns the current hard shoulder into Lane 1, existing surface water drainage outlet arrangements are to be upgraded to ensure enough capacity to remove the highway surface water runoff resulting from a 1 in 5 year return period rainfall event. 2.3.5. From the Drainage Strategy, in accordance with IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways, additional design provisions will mitigate the risk of the additional paved areas that arise from SM schemes with the use of oversized pipes and flow control devices online within the drainage network. Listed below are the details of five flood hot spots which have been identified from HADDMs. In areas identified as flood hotspots, the existing surface water collection system will be replaced with surface water channels; this together with repairs to any broken sub-surface assets may rectify the problem of flooding. Further investigations and solutions such online storage will be required at detailed design stage to assess the issues and comply with standards. Table 2 7: Details of Flooding Hotspots17

From (Chainage) To (Chainage) Flooding Risk

J21a, Ch. 40500 Ch. 41600 High Risk

Ch. 44950 Ch. 45850 Very High Risk

Ch. 48400 CH. 49700 Very High Risk

Ch. 49800 Ch. 53200 High Risk

Ch. 54000 Ch. 56000 High Risk

2.4. Scheme construction 2.4.1. It is envisaged that the main SM-ALR works would be undertaken as a single section under traffic management, with the central reserve work being undertaken first. Some total and partial closures will be required for the removal of existing gantries and the erection of the new superspan or cantilever gantries. Proposed diversion routes are displayed on Figure 8-2 - Scheme Construction – Diversion Routes. Motorway closures and use of diversion routes may be subject to change due to specific construction methodologies and windows which cannot be fully determined at this stage. The demolition of the properties at Martinscroft would be undertaken via off network access and will not require traffic management on the live motorway network. 2.4.2. Overnight lane closures will be required for the removal of equipment and any sign faces on the

17 Preliminary Drainage Strategy Package 5 – M6 J21a-26 Report Number: HE549339-ACM-HDG-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP- CD-0002 P03 S3, September 2017

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-16 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

existing gantries and their subsequent replacement later in the construction sequence. 2.4.3. It is also envisaged that all construction works on the M6 mainline carriageway will be undertaken within the existing highway boundary. Haul routes for materials and equipment will be routed along the existing motorway carriageways. The new gantries and EAs will be installed from the hard shoulder. New cables will be installed within the highway road verge to connect the new signage and in a few locations new cables will be installed from the verge to the fence line to connect into the electricity grid. 2.4.4. The actual construction methods and equipment, locations of compounds and access routes will be developed by the Delivery Partner. The key activities are expected to be: • Replace steel VRS in the central reservation with RCB with associated hardening of the reserve and any drainage, modifications. In lit areas replacement central reserve lighting columns will be installed on top of the RCB. • Convert the hard shoulder of both carriageways into a running lane and resurface with TWC/ low noise surfacing. • Resurface lane 1 and 4 of both carriageways with TWC. • Install traffic signs and signals, some located in the verge on stand post foundations and others on new gantries. • Improve slip road arrangements and install retaining systems for minor verge and slip road widening. • Install all supplementary SM-ALR infrastructure with any associated earthworks or retaining systems including, PTZ CCTV mast, Radar MIDAS masts, EAV masts, chamber cluster and cabinets. • Install ROTTM signs at designated fixed taper points. • Install a surface water channel/ linear drainage in the verge and associated drainage works. The main attenuation tanks for ERAs are generally located immediately adjacent to or beneath the EA footprint. • Install ‘remote’, buried surface water attenuation and Pollution Control Devices (PCDs). • Installation of noise barriers at top of cuttings. • Install VRS in the verge to protect gantries and other apparatus; • Install vortex separators. • Install power supplies at the highway boundary. • Relocation of ALB on the southbound carriageway and associated signage, VRS, drainage and road markings. 2.4.5. Temporary works will include compound areas housing the contractor’s facilities and material storage. The Proposed Scheme is envisaged to involve the following general work and sequencing: · Site mobilisation and site clearance: Establishment of temporary fencing, utility relocations and establishment of construction compound site(s) and access and vegetation clearing and stripping, stockpiling and management of topsoil and unsuitable material. · Main works: Establishing the ground levels and undertaking ground works including drainage systems and installing the gantries and rigid concrete barrier construction. Resurfacing of the existing surface and other pavement works. · Landscaping and decommissioning: Vegetation planting, installation of safety barriers, fencing, pavement marking and removal of site compound and site tidy up. 2.4.6. All works on site will be undertaken in compliance with a CEMP which will be based on the OEMP.

Construction compound 2.4.7. The Delivery Partner would require mobilisation time to establish site offices and services ahead of the start of construction.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-17 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

2.4.8. The location of the construction compound will be outside of the highway boundary and will be assessed for environmental effects separately by the Delivery Partner to support any licences or consents that may be required such as for protected species. The CEMP would demonstrate how the construction compounds would be located and operated in such a manner so as not to give rise to potentially significant environmental effects.

Site clearance 2.4.9. An approximate total area of 18.8ha is to be cleared. Indicative temporary and permanent works footprints presented in Table 2-8 (the required the vegetation clearance areas are currently considered to be a worst-case scenario, based on an assumed temporary and permanent footprint for SM-ALR infrastructure). 2.4.10. Clearance works are not unlike the maintenance activity when managing landscaped area, with most of the greenery and branches being chipped on site and left on the verge slopes. Larger branches or trunks of trees are removed from site and taken to a timber yard of the Delivery Partner’s choice. 2.4.11. Detailed requirements for site clearance will be developed through PCF Stage 5 (Construction Preparation), where PCF product, the ‘Evaluation of Change Register’ will record changes to the design and assumptions assessed at PCF Stage 3. The change register will include an evaluation of the effects of these changes on the outcomes of the assessment and mitigation defined at PCF Stage 3 (as detailed within this EAR and accompanying OEMP) and outline any further actions to be undertaken. A worst-case scenario has been adopted within this assessment in relation to site clearance, and therefore it is not expected that any changes to site clearance requirements at PCF Stage 5 would give rise to significant environmental effects. Other than site clearance as described below, it is assumed that vegetation will be retained in all other areas. Table 2-8 Site clearance assumptions

Component Assumption It is assumed that the temporary working area and permanent footprint at gantries and MS4 sites would be 40m x 9m when in cutting and 40m x up to the highway boundary when on embankments. This is to accommodate temporary working areas such as Gantry and piling platforms for plant (where stands of key screening vegetation for retention are MS4 sites identified adjacent to site these have been captured within the design and where appropriate requirements for alternative retaining solutions included). When at grade, the temporary working area will typically be 20m long x 6m wide. It is assumed that the temporary working areas at EA sites would be 120m x 9m when in cutting; 120m x up to the highway boundary when on embankments. Where retention of existing essential screening vegetation is required then this has been EA sites considered within the design with requirements for alternative retaining solutions. The permanent footprint at EA sites would be 120m x 7m when in cutting; 120m x up to the highway boundary when on embankments. When at grade, the temporary working area will typically be 110m x7m. It is assumed that the temporary working areas at camera sites would be 20m x 9m when in cutting; 20m x up to the highway boundary when on embankments. Where retention of existing essential screening vegetation is required then this has been CCTV sites considered within the design with requirements for alternative retaining solutions. The permanent footprint at these sites would be 20m x 7m when in cutting; 20m x up to the highway boundary when on embankments. When at grade the temporary working area will typically be 20m x5m. It is assumed that the temporary working area for Cross Carriageway Duct launch pits would be 10m x 15m on the launch side and 10m x 15m on the opposite side whether CCD sites in cutting or on embankment. The permanent footprint would only be of the chamber build out. It has been assumed that a 4m strip along the entire length of the Proposed scheme Longitudinal from the edge of the white line marking along both carriageways would be cleared to cables and install longitudinal cables and ROTTM. The cables would be buried so would have no ROTTM permanent footprint. It is assumed that the temporary working areas at side fire radar sites would be 17m x 10m when in cutting; 17m up to the highway boundary when on embankments. The MIDAS Side permanent footprint at these sites would be 17m x 8m when in cutting; 17m x up to Fire Radar the highway boundary when on embankments. When at grade the temporary working area and permanent footprint would be the

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-18 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Component Assumption same size as the side fire site dimension. (Radar - Typically 8m mast at 6m setback located with two cabinets, although radar unit on mast / column can be remote from cabinets) It is assumed that the temporary working area for electrical interface cabinets (based Electrical on two cabinets + two chambers) would be 15m x 8m when in cutting; 17m x up to the Interface motorway boundary when on embankment. The permanent footprint would be 15m x cabinet 6m when in cutting; 15m x up to motorway boundary when on embankment. When at grade the temporary working area will typically be 17m x 5m. External It is assumed that the temporary working area for EAVs (+ B chamber) would be 15m Aspect x 9m when in cutting; 15m x up to the motorway boundary when on embankment. The Verification permanent footprint would be 15m x 7m when in cutting; 15m x up to motorway (EAV) Camera boundary when on embankment. The visual operational working area of the EAV units and Chamber requires that all other infrastructure and vegetation is to be removed or relocated from site a specified area. Abnormal load Rob lane – temporary working area, assume double size of permanent footprint. bay Permanent footprint 200m x 10m. There are eight locations were vortex separators are required, temporary site clearance for installation is as listed below: Network 3 – 10m x 20m Network 4.0 – 10m x highway boundary Network 5 – 13m to highway boundary Vortex Network 6 – 10m x 10m separators Network 7 – 13m to highway boundary Network 8.2 – 10m x 10m Network 8.3 – 10m x highway boundary. Network 8.4 – 10m x 10m As vortex separators are situated below ground there is no permanent loss of soft estate.

Demolition and removals 2.4.12. The EIA Directive requires consideration of the demolition phase, where relevant. There is no requirement to demolish any bridges as part of the Proposed Scheme. Three residential properties at Martinscroft require demolition as essential air quality mitigation, these properties are isolated and there are no other properties located within 100m. The environmental effects of demolition works are identified and controlled via the OEMP. 2.4.13. SMP schemes will generally require the removal of gantries and signs typically involving the separation of electronic components for specialist recycling and the removal of steel components again for recycling. Above ground foundations would be removed to just below ground level with the soil been re-seeded as appropriate. Over a 10-20-year period it is envisaged that a programme of gantry and sign removal would take place as in-car communications become established. A similar removal strategy is currently envisaged. 2.4.14. As part of the Proposed Scheme, lanes 1 and 4 would be resurfaced with the other lanes potentially being resurfaced where the residual life is less than 5 years. Within a 5 to 12-year period the current road surface would be replaced using conventional techniques. 2.4.15. Lighting columns have a 25-30-year design life with testing typically commencing after 15 years. A decision to replace existing columns will be taken according to their residual life and whether there is a need to reposition the lighting. In such instances the columns would be removed for recycling. 2.4.16. SON luminaire lamps require replacement every three years. It is anticipated that LED lighting is likely to be introduced as part of the SMP scheme thereby removing the need such frequent replacements since LED lights typically require replacing every 25 years. As a result, this would reduce the quantities of hazardous materials to be disposed via specialist recycling companies as well as use less energy.

Temporary removal of existing environmental barriers 2.4.17. There is no requirement temporarily remove any environmental barriers.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-19 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Construction materials, recycling and waste 2.4.18. For information relating to materials, recycling and waste refer to Section 4.2.

Construction traffic management 2.4.19. It is currently anticipated that the Proposed Scheme would be constructed under a 50mph enforceable speed limit with traffic management between J21A and J26, extending beyond the junctions to the scheme extent. The existing six lane motorway capacity would be maintained during the daytime; reducing outside of peak periods. 2.4.20. Junction and motorway closures would be required for the installation of gantries but this will be for short periods of time only. In order to avoid adverse noise effects, for each night-time period where motorway traffic is diverted onto the local road network (due to construction works) BS5228-1 would be adhered to, in that the frequency of night-time closures would not exceed either 10 closures in any 15 consecutive days, or 40 closures in any six months period.

Timing of construction works 2.4.21. At the time of writing, advanced construction of the Proposed Scheme is scheduled to commence in Spring 2021 and is expected to take approximately two years to construct, including commissioning. 2.4.22. The working hours and permissible noise levels for construction will be determined based on an assessment of the expected impacts of certain types of construction work and the proximity of noise sensitive area. Works to replace signs and signals on existing gantries, to lift new gantries into place and for the resurfacing of the carriageway will require lane of full carriageway closures and are likely to be undertaken at night. 2.4.23. The Delivery Partner will determine the hours of construction for the Proposed Scheme, which are likely to include both daytime and night time and weekend working and agree these with the Local Authority. Works are to be programmed so as that the requirement for working outside normal working hours is minimised and so noisy works are undertaken during the daytime where possible. 2.4.24. The exact number of night time motorway closures required during the construction programme is currently unknown (to be developed by the Delivery Partner during PCF Stage 5) and has been estimated and is discussed in section 8.5 of this EAR. A qualitative assessment has been made of the potential for diversion route noise impacts by undertaking property counts of the number of potentially affected receptors within 50m of each diversion route (see Figure 8-2). In order to ensure no significant effects occur as a result of the use of diversion routes during motorway closures due to construction works, the Delivery Partner will ensure that the frequency of occurrence does not exceed the criteria given BS5228-1 (See Section 2.4.20 above). Based on the estimates provided in section 8.5 for the number of single carriageway and full motorway closures, the frequency of closures would not exceed the criteria and therefore would not generate a significant effect.

Construction Environmental Management Plan 2.4.25. All works on site and within the Contractor’s construction compound(s) would be undertaken in compliance with a CEMP to be developed by the Delivery Partner. The CEMP will address the risk based and spatially focused environmental management clauses presented in the Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC) as recorded in the OEMP. 2.4.26. Where advanced works are to be undertaken, such as for vegetation clearance, then an initial CEMP will be prepared specifically focusing upon those operations. 2.4.27. Method statements prepared by the Delivery Partner to support the CEMP will demonstrate alignment with the OEMP requirements and thus specify a risk-based approach to how the works are to be undertaken. Consequently, where noise barriers are to be removed, it will not be appropriate to rely upon generic method statements. Instead, they should be shown to be applicable to the circumstances of the Proposed Scheme and specifically those red risk areas and actions defined in the OEMP.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-20 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 2.5. Forecast traffic characteristics

Other transport schemes 2.5.1. Apart from the Proposed Scheme the following other Highways England schemes are anticipated to be delivered in accordance with the relevant Road Investment Strategy (where the certainty is that ascribed during the development of the original Uncertainty Log in early 2017, expect where otherwise noted, and anticipated opening date is that at the time the log was created): • M62 Junctions 10-12: Smart Motorway - anticipated open to traffic 2020 (Reasonably Foreseeable (now near certain given progression past SGAR5)). • M56 Junctions 6-8: Smart Motorway - anticipated open to traffic 2021 (Reasonably Foreseeable (now more than likely given progression past SGAR3)). • M60 Junctions 24-27 & Junctions 1-4: Smart Motorways - anticipated open to traffic 2020 (Reasonably Foreseeable (now not being taken forward)). • M62 Junctions 20-25: Smart Motorway - anticipated open to traffic 2023 (Reasonably Foreseeable). • Manchester Multi Modal Strategy (M60 J8 – M62 J20) - opened to traffic 2018 (Near Certain). • Mottram Moor Link Road - anticipated open to traffic 2022 (Reasonably Foreseeable). • M6 Junction 22 upgrade - anticipated open to traffic 2020 (Reasonably Foreseeable (now in RIS3 pipeline)). • M6 Junction 19 Improvements - anticipated open to traffic 2021 (Reasonably Foreseeable). • M60 Simister Island Interchange - anticipated open to traffic 2023 (Reasonably Foreseeable). • A556 to Bowdon - opened to traffic 2017 (Near Certain). • M6 Junctions 16-19: Smart Motorways - opened to traffic 2019 (Near Certain). 2.5.2. The following non-Highways England schemes are expected to be delivered (where the certainty is that ascribed during the development of the original Uncertainty Log in early 2017and anticipated opening date is that at the time the log was created): • A6 Manchester Airport Relief Road - opened to traffic 2018 (Near Certain). • A59 Penwortham Bypass - opened to traffic 2019 (More Than Likely). • A582 South Ribble Widening - anticipated open to traffic 2023 (More Than Likely). • Denton Link Road - opened to traffic 2017 (Near Certain). • M58 Junction Improvement – was anticipated open to traffic in 2019, now expected in 2020 (More Than Likely). • Eastern Bypass - anticipated open to traffic 2021 (Near Certain). • Poynton Relief Road – was anticipated open to traffic in 2017, now expected in 2021 (More Than Likely). 2.5.3. Traffic modelling for the Proposed Scheme has taken account of all the above schemes as part of the baseline forecasting for the SMP scheme. The M60 J24-4 was previously part of the SM scheme package within the North-West but is no longer being taken forward by HE. As the M60 J24-4 Scheme does not notably change traffic flows within the M6 study area and does not affect the other NW SMP schemes (i.e. M6 J21a-26, M62 J10-12 and M56 J6-8), it remains within the traffic modelling used to avoid the need for redeveloping and rerunning traffic model assignments.

Land use development proposals 2.5.4. Major development sites have been captured through a review of the Local Planning Authority’s Planning Register and other sources over the period August 2014 to August 2019 using the criteria described in Chapter 10.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-21 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Traffic modelling 2.5.5. Traffic modelling has been undertaken to support the development, design, environmental assessment and business cases for the delivery of the North West schemes. Arup has used the Trans Pennine South Regional Transport Model (TPSRTM) as the basis for development of a single local traffic model to be used to assess the M6, M62 and M56 schemes. Mott MacDonald has then utilised the Transport for Greater Manchester Model (TfGM Model) for the M60 as it is more geographically appropriate. Given the proximity of the four schemes (i.e. M6, M62, M56 and M60) to each other the traffic modelling teams have worked closely to generate consistent traffic outputs which have formed the basis for cumulative environmental assessments. 2.5.6. Development of the traffic model commenced in late 2016. In the interim, the SMP M62 J10-12 scheme has progressed through SGAR5, the SMP M56 J6-8 scheme is scheduled to go through SGAR5 in late January 2020, and the SMP M60 J24-4 scheme is not currently being taken forward as an SMP scheme. The SMP M6 J21a-26 scheme is due to go through SGAR3 and SGAR5 during 2020. 2.5.7. The traffic modelling has utilised a base year of 2015 and derived forecasts for the opening year 2020 and design year 2035 for situations with and without the Proposed Scheme. 2.5.8. The Proposed Scheme is envisaged to generate an increase in traffic (one-way AADT) of up to 16.0% at Junction 23 to Junction 22 compared to the ‘do minimum’ scenario. The increases in AADT for light vehicles are due to an additional 33% of capacity (i.e. an extra lane), which attracts trips to use the scheme section. 2.5.9. The percentage of HGVs is envisaged to increase by up to 7.3% in the northbound direction and up to 6.4% in the southbound direction due to the additional capacity drawing heavy vehicles to use this scheme section as an alternative route. 2.5.10. Based on one-way AADT there is 1 link along the motorway that is forecast to experience an increase in traffic volume in the region of 20%. This is the M6 J21A (through the junction) southbound with an increase of 19.4% in AADT traffic volume. 2.5.11. In terms of a change in movements at junctions, the following junctions involve an increase in excess of 10% in the AADT flows: • J21A – additional traffic attracted to the scheme section as a result of additional capacity • J22 – additional traffic attracted to the scheme section as a result of additional capacity • J23 – additional traffic attracted to the scheme section as a result of additional capacity • J25 – additional traffic attracted to the scheme section as a result of additional capacity • J26 – additional traffic attracted to the scheme section as a result of additional capacity

Reliability of traffic model 2.5.12. The Traffic Reliability Area (TRA) is the area of the model in which reliable traffic flows can be provided. It is based on the Affected Road Network (ARN) and excludes the area within the M60 surrounding Manchester.

Land use setting and land take 2.5.13. The Proposed Scheme size is approximately 300 hectares, including slip roads and mainline from chainage 39600 to chainage 59000 and land at Martinscroft, purchased by agreement as essential air quality mitigation. 2.5.14. The Proposed Scheme can be delivered pursuant to Part 9 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and Highways England would not need to obtain express planning permission for the works.

Proposed operation and long-term management 2.5.15. ALR will operate continuously from the Proposed Scheme opening date, with temporary traffic management delivered by use of the ROTTMS introduced as appropriate for routine and emergency maintenance. 2.5.16. In accordance with IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways, EAs will be provided on the mainline to provide a place of safety in case of emergency, with the existing hard shoulder being retained on

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-22 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

junction slip roads. The average distance between each safe stopping place would be less than 2.5km, in accordance with the requirements of IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways. 2.5.17. During periods of heavy traffic flow, VMSL would automatically be set to regulate traffic flow. 2.5.18. Mandatory speed limits would also be displayed to protect localised queuing. Speed limits and lane closures can also be set manually by the Regional Control Centre (RCC) to control traffic during incidents. When none of the above conditions are present the VMSL would not be active and the national speed limit would apply. 2.5.19. The existing motorway maintenance regime and procedures would continue, albeit with the control of lane closures to improve the safety of Highways England operational staff.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 1-23 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 3. Alternatives considered

3.1. Programme level alternatives 3.1.1. In October 2007, following the success of a Hard Shoulder running trial on the M42, the Transport Secretary announced that a comprehensive review of the roads build programme was to be undertaken. As part of this announcement the Managed Motorways concept was born, recognising that an innovative mix of road widening, opening the Hard Shoulder, and junction improvements was required to provide cost effective and sustainable solutions to highways congestion. 3.1.2. The DfT Command paper ‘Roads – Delivering Choice and Reliability’ considered the latest roads build programme and initiated a nationwide study into whether alternatives to widening through the Dynamic Use of Hard Shoulder (DHS) and other innovative regimes could provide workable and cost-effective solutions. Using Managed Motorways DHS design guidance developed by the Highways Agency, an initial 29 schemes were identified for review encompassing over 400km of motorway network. 3.1.3. The development of proposals led to the announcement of a programme to fund improvements to national strategic roads in England in July 2008, the most recent of which is the Roads Investment Strategy through to 202018. 3.1.4. For each scheme, an Options Identification Report was to be produced, considering how to best address the specific local problems, be that through DHS, traditional widening or alternative solutions. Experience from these schemes suggested that there was scope to further reduce both the capital and operating costs, whilst continuing to meet the congestion and safety objectives. This led to the introduction of the ALR design, described in IAN 161/15.

3.2. Scheme-specific alternatives 3.2.1. A number of alternatives such as extending the scheme extents and the requirement for capacity of each link etc were considered as part of DF1. A number of findings were carried through for further development. As the SMP schemes are single option schemes that are generally entirely within the existing Highways England road estate, there are minimal scheme-specific design alternatives available for consideration and hence a number of options have been discounted. Such alternatives relate primarily to the locations of gantries, EAs, communications equipment and noise barriers. A number of the gantry locations and EA locations, along with other scheme elements proposed in the DF1 and DF2 have been amended as part of the DF3, these changes have been proposed for various reasons, primarily operational, safety or environmental. For example, Gantries, EAs and cabinet sites have been located to reduce potentially significant landscape and visual effects where feasible in terms of engineering and safety constraints. 3.2.2. Environmental review sessions between all cross programme leads were held regularly to feedback early comments on environmental assessments and to avoid or reduce the potential effects relating to particular aspects of the scheme design. Comments on the design were provided by all disciplines and where possible infrastructure was relocated.

18 Road Investment Strategy (2014): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408514/ris-for-2015- 16-road-period-web-version.pdf

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 3-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 4. Environmental impact assessment methodology

4.1. Screening 4.1.1. Screening is an initial step in the environmental assessment process, for identifying potentially significant residual environmental effects. The process for screening a project is set out in IAN125/15: Environmental Assessment Update. Screening draws upon the current understanding of the Proposed Scheme and receiving environment, and informs a decision whether the Proposed Scheme is considered a ‘Relevant’ or ‘EIA Development’ under the EIA regulations (please refer to section 1.2 for a description of the Proposed Scheme Screening determination). Screening thus determines whether an EAR is required where significant residual environmental effects are unlikely or whether a statutory EIAR is required, where significant effects are likely. A determination of whether significant residual environmental effects are anticipated is made via the scoping process, which concluded that there was a low to high risk of potential significant residual environmental effects as a result of the Proposed Scheme.

4.2. Scoping 4.2.1. A Scoping exercise for the Proposed Scheme was undertaken in line with established guidance19 at DF1. This report concluded that there were unlikely to be significant environmental effects20. It identified potential impacts and detailed information to be gathered to gain further certainty regarding potential environmental effects and defined the scope of any further assessment identified as required. Scoping conclusions are detailed in Table 4-1 below.

19 DMRB, Volume 11, Section 2 (Part 4): http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/section2/ha20408.pdf 20 Highways England 2017: M6 J21A to 26 Smart Motorway Scoping Report, https://hebim.withbc.com/bc/bc.cgi/d1108934/M6%20J21a%20to%2026%20Scoping%20Report%2017072017.pdf

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 4-14 Scoping Conclusions

Scoped in / out of EAR Environmental Topic Management Construction Operation Plan

Air quality Out In In Noise and vibration In In In Biodiversity In In In Cultural heritage In In In Landscape character In In In Landscape and visual effects In In In Road drainage and the water Out In In environment Geology and soils Out Out In Materials & waste Out Out In Population and Health In (assessed via the Out Out cumulative effects assessment.)

Cumulative environmental effects In In Out

Climate change Out Out Out

Major accidents & disasters Out Out Out

Heat and radiation Out Out Out

Demolition In Out Out

Land take Out Out Out

4.2.2. The assessment of the proposed scheme has been undertaken on the DF3 scheme design. Topics scoped into the EAR have been subject to further assessment, the result of which is described in Chapters 5 to 10 of this report. The following topics were scoped into the assessment. 4.2.3. Landscape character – the scoping report identified three landscape character areas ( Park (LCA WFE2), Garswood Park (LCA WFE1); and Billinge & Orrell Ridge (LCA 2A)) that were considered to have potential for adverse effects, in terms of assessment and mitigation and thus were scoped into the assessment. 4.2.4. Visual amenity - several high sensitivity visual receptors were identified during the scoping exercise and thus visual amenity is scoped into the assessment. 4.2.5. Cultural heritage - the setting of four heritage assets that are within 300m of the motorway require assessment as there is potential for effects upon their setting. 4.2.6. Biodiversity - the potential for impacts upon biodiversity are associated with, temporary and permanent habitat loss with potential impact upon protected species and priority habitat, Nitrogen deposition upon Internationally designated Sites and SSSI, hydrological pathways to Internationally Designated Sites and SSSI; and disturbance to protected species during construction. 4.2.7. Air quality - potential for adverse effects on nearby properties, AQMAs, ecological designated sites and potential for adverse effects on other sites within 200m of the air quality ARN during operation of the scheme were identified. The implications of the scheme upon both local and regional air quality effects will be undertaken. 4.2.8. Construction noise and vibration - there is potential for significant temporary impacts to nearby receptors in relation to noise and vibration impacts from construction activities, including those at

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

night-time, along with the use of diversion routes for night-time closures, should they be required. 4.2.9. Operational noise - while operational noise impacts are not expected to be significant, consideration has been given to whether existing noise barriers merit enhancement or where candidate new noise barriers/ or alternative mitigation are to be considered. Operational airborne vibration could occur at dwellings within 40m from each of the scheme carriageways 4.2.10. Road drainage and the water environment - the change in pollutant loading caused by the proposed scheme is dependent upon the change in traffic volume. Where an increase in traffic of more than 20% occurs then the potential for effects upon main river catchments is to be assessed. It is currently assumed that the scheme would not give rise to a loss of flood plain storage but this aspect would be scoped in to provide confirmation. 4.2.11. The cultural heritage assessment of effects will be assessed and reported within Chapter 7: Landscape, visual and cultural heritage effects, since the potential for change due to SMP schemes is generally limited to that of a change to the setting of a heritage asset. For some schemes, there is a risk that construction activities could affect buried archaeology, although this is not the case for this Proposed Scheme (refer to Section 4.2.16 for further details). 4.2.12. Topics scoped out are excluded from further environmental assessment, although they have been considered to determine whether the Environmental Management Plan needs to include measures to ensure the absence of significant impacts. The reasoning behind the decision to scope topics out is outlined below by topic and described in the Scoping Report. 4.2.13. Due to progression of the scheme design and field-based surveys, the scoping decisions have been re-confirmed within this EAR with some resulting changes to the scope of this EAR. The following text provides justification.

Air quality – construction 4.2.14. In principle there is the potential for effects on receptors within 200m of construction sites and haulage routes associated with the Proposed Scheme. In practice construction impacts have been scoped out of the EAR, as any effects would be temporary, and under appropriate standard EMP mitigation measures it is considered likely that there would be no significant effects on air quality during the construction phase. On that basis, assessment of construction was scoped out of further assessment. 4.2.15. It is expected to take less than two years to construct the Proposed Scheme. Diversion routes used during construction are only used infrequently and certainly less than a period of a continuous six months, thus traffic management measures (diversion) and the effect of the additional construction vehicles do not require assessment21.

Cultural heritage 4.2.16. During construction of the original motorway shallow archaeological remains would have been removed or truncated. A review of the EnVIS database (accessed in 2017) at the scoping stage concluded that there were no recorded remains surviving under the motorway that could be affected by the Proposed Scheme. In addition, any previously unrecorded remains would have been disturbed during the construction of the motorway. Consequently, no non-designated assets will survive within the highway boundary. 4.2.17. There is the potential for impacts from compounds set up on buried archaeological remains, however, mitigation through archaeological recording or use of non-invasive construction methods could reduce any potential impact. Hence measures are included within the OEMP to cover the unlikely event of discovery of unknown archaeological remains during the construction phase 4.2.18. Experience from SMP schemes is that they do not give rise to a perceptible increase in operational noise and so it is unlikely that the acoustic setting of historic assets would be adversely affected. Nevertheless, during construction there may be short periods while noise levels are elevated. Should such potential instances be identified then appropriate management responses would be specified in the OEMP such that no significant effects would arise. 4.2.19. An assessment of the construction and operational effects upon the setting of designated cultural

21 DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (HA207/07)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

heritage assets is provided in Chapter 7.

Road drainage and the water environment – construction 4.2.20. Given the construction works, standard pollution prevention measures and best practice employed during construction, as detailed in the OEMP result in a low likelihood of a significant effect. • Temporary construction works within the floodplain of local watercourses is anticipated, but these will be minor as no key infrastructure is proposed within the flood zones of local watercourses. • New gantry bases will be constructed within fluvial flood zone areas within the highway boundary. However, combining the reuse of gantry foundations, and the removal of gantries, overall the loss of floodplain storage is very minimal and concluded not to be significant, both during construction and operation. The discrete areas are considered not to result in significant impact on any flood conveyance routes. • No motorway embankments will need to be built-out to within flood zones to accommodate additional infrastructure. • In the event current drainage capacity is lost it will be replaced through drainage improvements provided, in accordance with Interim Advice Note 161/15, such that discharges will be at existing established rates (up to the 1:100-year rainfall event). Hence additional drainage capacity will be provided such that flood risk effects are scoped out of further assessment. 4.2.21. As described in section 2.3.1 and 9.9.3 of the EAR, works would be undertaken to mitigate six Priority Outfalls. These works would also contribute to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive. 4.2.22. Opportunities to provide water quality enhancement have been investigated for consideration for delivery in the future (not as part of the Proposed Scheme) and these are discussed in section 9.9.4 in Chapter 9 of the EAR. Materials and waste Construction materials 4.2.23. The Proposed Scheme does not require any land beyond the highway boundary for the extraction of materials nor does it sterilise mineral resources. Further, the scheme does not involve the removal of peat from within its soft estate. 4.2.24. A decision on whether to scope in material resources to the assessment has been based on Highways England’s Interim Advice Note IAN 153/11, and further informed by more recent guidance, and is based on considering the following: 1) is the project likely to recover/reuse little on site material thereby requiring materials to be imported to site? 2) is the project likely to use little/no recycled/secondary materials thereby requiring the majority of materials used on the project to comprise primary materials? 3) the project is likely to sterilise (substantially constrain/prevent existing and potential future use of) mineral sites or peat resources? 4) would the project generate large quantities of waste relative to regional landfill capacity? 5) will the project have an effect on the ability of waste infrastructure within the region to continue to accommodate waste from other sources? 4.2.25. The proposed scheme is envisaged to require the following main types of material for construction: concrete, asphalt and bituminous materials, various aggregates, cement, steel. The source of these materials is not known but it is likely that they would be predominantly sourced from the region (provided there are sources of production within the region) and thus no significant effects are considered to arise. 4.2.26. Materials would be sourced from existing quarries, batching plants or factories for which separate planning consent would be in place. 4.2.27. There is a reasonable likelihood that construction of the Proposed Scheme would recover material on site where practicable and use secondary and/or recycled aggregate. The project will target the use of at least 30% recycled or secondary aggregate for those applications where their

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

use is technically feasible. The Proposed Scheme will not sterilise any mineral sites or peat workings. No significant effects on materials are therefore considered to arise. Standard mitigation measures are included in the OEMP with respect to procurement of sustainably sourced and recycled/ secondary materials. These are described in more detail in paragraph 4.2.34 below. 4.2.28. The movement of materials from their origin to the Proposed Scheme would be predominantly via the motorway/ strategic road network. Some materials may be sourced from local rail served depots. The volume of movements associated with the Proposed Scheme construction would be a small proportion of HGV movements on the motorway/ strategic road network.

Waste 4.2.29. The proposed SMP would generate various types of waste associated with the construction and demolition activities. These would include: • Site clearance waste • Redundant equipment • Pavement scalping’s • Surplus excavated material from foundations and retaining walls • Concrete and brick rubble localised demolition works e.g. gantry foundations • Domestic/office waste from site workforce • Small quantities of hazardous waste including chemicals, coatings and vehicle maintenance • Steel VRS 4.2.30. The regional recycled aggregate content target for the North West is 30% for the period up to 2020. In the absence of targets for construction in later years, no change in the target has been assumed. In 2018 (the latest year for which data is published by the Environment Agency) there was a total of approximately 36 million cubic metres of non-hazardous and inert landfill capacity in the North West region. The Environment Agency’s Waste Data Interrogator returns for 2018 indicate that a total of 8.2 million tonnes of construction waste was managed in the North West region in that year. 4.2.31. Although the quantities of waste are not known at this time, the potential quantities of waste have been estimated at a high level based on data from other SMP schemes. The proportion of waste that would be recycled is expected to be greater than the 70% target set in the European Union Waste Framework Directive for recycling of construction waste (excluding excavated clean soils), since most of the waste generated by the proposed SMP comprises materials which can be readily recycled, such as steel, asphalt pavement and concrete. 4.2.32. Based on data from the M1 J28-35a SMP project, waste generation rates were: · Bulk waste (excavated material, asphalt and concrete) – 18,700 tonnes per km, all of which was diverted from landfill. · Other construction waste – 300 tonnes per km, 95% of which was diverted from landfill. 4.2.33. Based on a length of 16.4 km for the Proposed M6 J21A to 26 SM Scheme, the potential quantities of waste have been estimated as follows: · Bulk waste (excavated material, asphalt and concrete) – approximately 300,000 tonnes, a large proportion of which is expected to be diverted from landfill. · Other construction waste – approximately 5,000 tonnes, 95% of which can be diverted from landfill. Assuming a very conservative overall recycling rate of 70% (which is likely to be exceeded in practice), this would equate to approximately 92,000 tonnes of waste requiring disposal. When considering the small fraction of waste that is likely to require disposal, and the available landfill disposal capacity in the North West region of 36 million cubic metres, the impact of project wastes on this disposal capacity is expected to be negligible. The overall quantity of waste generated (305,000 tonnes) is small in comparison with the annual total of more than 8 million tonnes of construction waste which was managed in the region in 2018. Significant effects on waste infrastructure are therefore not expected.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

4.2.34. Standard construction practices will be undertaken by the Delivery Partner in managing waste and materials; a number of mitigation measures are included within the OEMP, some of which are summarised below: • The Delivery Partner is required to implement a Resource Efficiency Management Plan covering the selection and procurement of materials prior to and during construction, including where practicable using sustainably sourced materials; recycled or secondary materials; and minimising the use of materials that have the potential to harm human health or the environment. • In line with best practice the Delivery Partner will implement Material Management Plan (MMP) and Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) with the general focus on minimising material usage and waste disposal, and maximising use of recycled materials. The reuse of site-won materials will be maximised through the further development and delivery of the Outline MMP. 4.2.35. The topic of waste and materials has been scoped out of further assessment. Geology and soils 4.2.36. Regarding soils, geology and contamination, ground disturbance within the highway boundary will have already occurred during construction of the motorway. Furthermore, the Proposed Scheme lies within the existing highway boundary, as such, there are not expected to be any significant effects on surrounding land use, land value or soil. 4.2.37. The motorway is constructed on predominantly made ground associated with current and former road surfaces and supporting layers of imported and man-made materials. While there is potential for contaminated materials from use and maintenance of the motorway, such quantities will be small in relation to capacity of appropriate disposal sites such that no significant impact is expected. There is however the possibility that geotechnical investigations might identify substantive areas of existing contamination where measures would be required to ensure that no pathways for contamination were created. It is nevertheless unlikely that a significant impact would result given the controls available via the design and the OMEP. 4.2.38. The location of construction site compounds is unknown at the time of writing. Should construction site compounds, or construction activities, be located outside of the highway boundary, mitigation of adverse impacts from soils, geology and contamination, including the siting of compounds should be considered through good construction practices as recorded in the OEMP. 4.2.39. The topic of soils and geology has been scoped out of further assessment as no significant effects upon mineral extraction, productive soils, land contamination or waste disposal are envisaged. Population and Health 4.2.40. There are no significant adverse operational effects upon noise as a result of the Proposed Scheme also following the implementation of mitigation (removal of three residential properties at Martinscroft), there would also be no significant adverse operational effects upon air quality. As such, these key environmental determinants of health would not contribute to an adverse effect upon population and health. 4.2.41. Temporary construction activities have the potential to give rise to localised sleep disturbance of nearby residents, but such effects are of insufficient duration to contribute towards an adverse health outcome for most of the population. As some residents may have existing health conditions that increase their sensitivity to construction disturbance, an elevated level of engagement with residents will ensure that adequate notification of the works as well as mitigation measures are in place to avoid contributing to an adverse health outcome for a small number of residents. 4.2.42. In terms of the works that may adversely affect levels of stress, the removal of screening vegetation or the introduction of a new source of visual intrusion (new gantry or sign) may give rise to heightened anxiety. Indeed, the removal of screening vegetation may lead to a perception that noise levels have been made worse, again on a highly localised basis. While efforts will be taken to retain screening vegetation, some loss is inevitable. In those situations, an elevated level of engagement with residents will ensure that adequate notification of the works as well as mitigation measures where practicable, are in place to avoid contributing to an adverse health outcome for a few residents.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

4.2.43. The SMP scheme does not involve any substantive change to the design of junctions and hence there would be no physical effect on the movement of non-motorised users. Increased motorway traffic, however, may affect the ability of the non-motorised users to cross the slip roads, potentially increasing severance. 4.2.44. The scheme does not involve the demolition of structures used by non-motorised users and thus no adverse effect would result affecting the ability of people to exercise or impose increased risks to personal safety. 4.2.45. While a variety of health outcomes both beneficial and adverse result from climate change, uncertainties of how such change would interact locally with the baseline health profile of wards neighbouring the scheme, is subject to many uncertainties that prevents a meaningful assessment at the opening year or at the design year. 4.2.46. For the above reasons, no health effects assessment has been necessary. 4.2.47. Due to the general scale and nature of SMP schemes (construction works maintained within the highway boundary (with exception to para 4.2.48 below) and discrete locations of main works) the potential impact to people and communities is considered to be low. The Proposed Scheme does not involve any substantive change to the design of junctions and hence there would be no physical effect on the movement of non-motorised users. 4.2.48. The Proposed Scheme requires the permanent removal of three residential properties within the air quality mitigation area at Martinscroft, as described within the Scheme Description. The Warrington Emerging Local Plan22 policy W1 aims deliver a minimum of 18,900 new homes between 2017 and 2037. The majority of new homes will be delivered within the existing main urban area of Warrington, the existing inset settlements and other sites identified in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Following a review of the emerging local plan, there are no housing allocations within the area of Martinscroft. The loss of 3 properties at Martinscroft, will be insignificant in comparison to the emerging local plan provisions. 4.2.49. For the purpose of this assessment, the study area is defined as 200m from the proposed scheme boundary as specified in HA207/07. The application of a study area greater than 200m was not deemed appropriate in this instance as the sole issue under consideration is the loss of properties rather than matters such as community severance which are not relevant to this scheme. There are a number of dwellings in the study area, principally located in the main settlement of Winstanley, Bryn, Garswood, Ashton-In-Makerfield, Haydock and Newton-le Willows. There are approximately 2903 residential properties within the study area. Projections estimate there are 318,000 households in the local authority areas for Wigan, Warrington and St Helens in 2020 (ONS Household Projections, 2016). Martinscroft lies within the Warrington authority area. 4.2.50. The properties and associated land at Moss Brow Cottages, Martinscroft which is approximately 6517.301 m2 have been purchased by agreement by Highways England for the purpose of air quality mitigation. The area is shown on Figure 2.1, Sheet 1 of 13. 4.2.51. Using professional judgement, the impact has been assessed according to the criteria set out in HA 205/08. The magnitude of impact for this loss, which includes the residential properties, garden and parking, will be major adverse, however this effect is considered small scale in the context of the number of residential dwellings as a whole in the core study area. As discussed above, there are 2,900 residential properties within the study area, however the loss of 3 residential properties at Martinscroft equates to 0.10% which is insignificant. Furthermore, within the local authority within which the properties lie the household projections in mid 2001 was 284,000, this is set to increase to 345,000 households by 204123. Therefore, the magnitude of impact on residential dwellings as a whole is predicted to be negligible, resulting in slight adverse effects. 4.2.52. These three properties are isolated and separated by the motorway from the rest of Martinscroft, and therefore the removal of these properties would have very limited impact to the local townscape. Currently, it is not anticipated that there would be any significant effects upon the

22 Warrington Borough Council (2019). Warrington Proposed Submission Version Local Plan 2017-2037. Available at: https://www.warrington.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/proposed_submission_version_local_plan_v4.pdf (Last Accessed: 23.07.2020) 23 Office for National Statistics (2016). Household projections in England: 2016-based. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/2016basedhouseholdpr ojectionsinengland/2016basedhouseholdprojectionsinengland (Last Accessed: 16.07.2020)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

local community during the demolition of these properties. Any local impacts such as noise and dust associated with the removal of the properties would be mitigated by the application of standard mitigation measures detailed in the OEMP. To reflect the dynamic nature of scheme design, this scoping position would be kept under review. Climate change Greenhouse gas (GHG) impact assessment 4.2.53. Assessment and reporting of GHG emissions associated with a project is considered in the following stages: • Construction (of the scheme): i.e. material supply, transport, manufacturing and construction process. • Operation: Road user carbon - use of the asset or vehicle emissions; and Maintenance - emissions associated with maintenance/refurbishment • Opportunities to minimise production/use of GHG emissions i.e. the potential for GHG reduction of emissions through reuse and recycling during the construction of the scheme. 4.2.54. The UK Government has currently passed into law the carbon budgets up to 2032:

· 3rd carbon budget (2018 to 2022) 2,544 MtCO2e

· 4th carbon budget (2023 to 2027) 1,950 MtCO2e

· 5th carbon budget (2028 to 2032) 1,725 MtCO2e 4.2.55. Further details can be found in the following sections. Construction 4.2.56. Given that construction information is not currently available for the DF3 design which the EAR assessment is based on, a qualitative statement has been made in relation to the impact of the SMP scheme on climate change during construction. The GHG emissions from the construction of the SMP scheme will be from the embodied carbon within construction materials and products, waste disposal, the transportation of waste, materials and workers, and energy and fuel use for plant machinery and equipment. 4.2.57. A construction GHG emissions benchmark has been created based on various other Highways England road schemes assessed by AECOM, normalised by road length, which gives a range of 19,090 tCO2e to 35,900 tCO2e per km of road. As construction is due to begin in Spring 2021 and take two years, this spans both the third and fourth carbon budgets as outlined in 4.2.54. Using the benchmark range above, applying to the scheme length of 16.4 km and assuming that half of construction emissions will occur in the third carbon budget and half in the fourth, this equates to between 0.006% and 0.012% of the third carbon budget and 0.008% and 0.015% of the fourth carbon budget. It is acknowledged that this benchmark only includes schemes which require the construction of brand-new roads, hence as this is an SMP, the GHG emissions during construction are likely to be significantly lower (construction works are minimal for SMP’s in comparison to build of a new road). 4.2.58. Although there will be GHG emissions from the construction phase of the Proposed Scheme, it is anticipated that these will not be significant or impact the UK meeting its carbon budgets. Operation 4.2.59. The change in GHG emissions is influenced by the extent to which existing traffic adopts the SMP route in preference to others that may involve a longer distance or slower speed in addition to any induced traffic. The GHG emissions are thus a consequence of the overall change across the affected road network. A comparison of operational road user GHG emissions between the DM and DS scenarios for the SMP scheme opening year (2020 – at the time the assessment was undertaken) and the design year (2035) are presented in Table 4-2.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-8 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 4-2: Comparison of road user emissions – ‘DM’ versus ‘DS’ scenarios

Reporting category Year of Scheme opening (tCO2) Design year (tCO2)

Do-something (DS) 5,861,445 6,562,181 Do-minimum (DM) 5,815,228 6,490,353 Variation (DS-DM) 46,217 71,828

4.2.60. Table 4-2 indicates that in the year of Proposed Scheme opening, GHG emissions would be approximately 46,217 tCO2 higher than the DM scenario, whilst for the design year (2035), GHG emissions with the Proposed Scheme would be approximately 71,828 tCO2 higher than the DM scenario. 4.2.61. Emissions from the operation of the Proposed Scheme will fall into the third, fourth, fifth (as outlined in 4.2.54) and subsequent future budgets once set through to 2050. Table 4-3 presents the net tCO2e associated with Proposed Scheme operation during each of these carbon budget periods. These have been derived using annual GHG data from the WebTAG model used for the Air Quality assessment and present the difference in GHG emissions between the DM and DS scenarios, i.e. the net increase in GHG emissions. For example, for the third carbon budget, this includes the combined annual net GHG emissions from the opening year up to and including 2022. Table 4-3 Carbon emissions for operation of the Proposed Scheme

Project Stage Estimated total Net CO2 Scheme Net GHG emissions per relevant carbon emissions GHG emissions carbon budget (tCO2e) (tCO2e) (tCO2e) rd 3 2018 4th 2023 – 5th 2028 (DS Scenario) (DS - DM) 2022 2027 (1950 -2032 (2544 MtCO2e) (1725 MtCO2e) MtCO2e)

Operation Opening year (2020): Opening year 143,774 273,772 316,458 5,861,445 (2020): 46,217

Design year (2035): Design year (2035): 6,562,181 71,828

4.2.62. The National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN)24 states that it is very unlikely that the impacts of a road project would, in isolation, affect the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction plans. This can be seen in Table 4-3 above when compared to the UK carbon budgets, as these equate to 0.0006% and 0.00018% of the respective carbon budgets. 4.2.63. It is therefore anticipated that GHG emissions from the operation of the Proposed Scheme will not be significant and will not impact the UK meeting its carbon budgets. Climate Change Resilience Weather conditions 4.2.64. The Proposed Scheme and the nearest Met Office Weather Station (Woodford) is located within the administrative region. Observations for this region25 identify over the period 1981 to 2010 are summarised in Table 4-4.

24 Department for Transport (2014) National Policy Statement for National Networks 25 https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/regional-climates/

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-9 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 4-4 Historic Climate Data

Climatic Factor Month Figure

Average annual maximum daily temperature (oC) - 13.2 Warmest month on average (oC) July 20.2 Coldest month on average (oC) December 0.6 Mean annual rainfall levels (mm) - 867.1 Wettest month on average (mm) October 98.8 Driest month on average (mm) February 51.5 Vulnerability of the project to climate change 4.2.65. It is predicted that climate change will increase the frequency and severity of some types of extreme weather events in England. The UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18 )26 generally show that warmer, drier summers are more likely along with warmer, wetter winters. 4.2.66. UKCP18 provides probabilistic climate change projections for pre-defined 20-year periods for annual, seasonal and monthly changes to mean climatic conditions over land areas. For the purpose of the assessment, UKCP18 probabilistic projections for pre-defined 20-year periods for the following average climate variables have been obtained and will be further analysed: • mean annual temperature • mean summer temperature • mean winter temperature • maximum summer temperature • minimum winter temperature • mean annual precipitation • mean summer precipitation • mean winter precipitation 4.2.67. Projected temperature and precipitation variables are presented in Table 4-5 and Table 4-6, respectively. UKCP18 probabilistic projections have been analysed for the North West England region. These figures are expressed as temperature and precipitation anomalies in relation to the 1981-2000 baseline. 4.2.68. UKCP18 uses a range of possible scenarios, classified as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), to inform differing future emission trends. These RCPs “… specify the concentrations of greenhouse gases that will result in total radiative forcing increasing by a target amount by 2100, relative to preindustrial levels.” RCP8.5 has been used for the purposes of this assessment as a worst-case scenario. 4.2.69. As the design life of the scheme is at least 60 years, this assessment has considered a scenario that reflects a high level of GHG emissions at the 10%, 50% and 90% probability levels up to 2079 to assess the impact of climate change over the lifetime of the scheme.

26 UK Climate Projections UKCP18 http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/22530

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-10 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 4-5 Projected Changes in Temperature variables (°C)

Climate Variable Time Period

2020-2039 2040-2059 2060-2079

Mean annual air +1.0 +1.7 +2.6 temperature anomaly at 1.5 m (°C) (+0.4 to +1.6) (+0.8 to +2.6) (+1.4 to +3.9)

Mean summer air +1.0 +1.8 +3.0 temperature anomaly at 1.5 m (°C) (+0.2 to +1.8) (+0.6 to +2.6) (+1.2 to +4.9)

Mean winter air +0.9 +1.6 +2.4 temperature anomaly at 1.5 m (°C) (+0.1 to +1.8) (+0.5 to +2.8) (+0.8 to +4.1)

Maximum summer air +1.2 +2.2 +3.3 temperature anomaly (+0.1 to +2.3) (+0.7 to +3.8) (+1.2 to 5.5) at 1.5 m (°C)

Minimum winter air +0.8 +1.5 +2.3 temperature anomaly at 1.5 m (°C) (+0.0 to +1.8) (+0.3 to +2.9) (+0.6 to +4.3)

Table 4-6 Projected Changes in Precipitation Variables (%)

Climate Variable Time Period

2020-2039 2040-2059 2060-2079

Annual precipitation +2 +2 +3 rate anomaly (%) (-2 to +8) (-3 to +9) (-3 to +10)

Summer precipitation -6 -15 -23 rate anomaly (%) (-19 to +8) (-32 to +0) (-44 to -3)

Winter precipitation +4 +7 +13 rate anomaly (%) (-6 to +13) (-5 to +21) (-3 to +33)

4.2.70. Given the relatively short duration of construction works associated with SMP schemes, the implications of increasing temperatures and rainfall intensity described in Table 4.5 and 4.6 above are matters for those responsible for maintenance of the motorway. 4.2.71. The historic climatic conditions insofar as awareness of flooding of carriageways are considered during the design of the drainage regime for the Proposed Scheme is in accordance with IAN 161/15 and makes a 20% allowance for climate change for the additional impermeable area in the attenuation capacity of the drainage system. 4.2.72. Vegetation stress due to drought conditions is anticipated to be a risk to SMP schemes given the reduced width of soft estate, steepened slopes and potential damage to root systems. As the motorway soft estate is a stressful location for trees, species are selected that can withstand such conditions. Consequently, it is considered that they can accommodate climate change. 4.2.73. For the above reasons, climate change has been scoped out. Major accidents and disasters 4.2.74. SMP schemes like any major transport corridor are potentially vulnerable to the major man-made events such as road, aviation, industrial accidents, and terrorist incidents. In terms of natural

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-11 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

hazards – those of relevance to a motorway relate to extreme adverse weather leading to unsafe driving conditions .Such events may lead to the spillage of fuel or other hazardous materials potentially affecting water quality. 4.2.75. The Proposed Scheme has been designed to address safety considerations and will deliver an elevated level of motorway surveillance capable of managing flow, speed and access enhancing the response time to incidences. Additionally, it also makes provision for pollution control devices to contain and manage accidental spillages. 4.2.76. Given the low probability of a significant impact arising from a low probability major event, no measures are proposed to deal with major accidents or disasters and thus they are scoped out of the assessment. Heat and radiation 4.2.77. As described in Section 2 and due to its scale and nature, there will be not be any significant sources of heat or radiation either during construction or operation of the road. The consideration of heat and radiation emissions has therefore been scoped out of the assessment. Demolition 4.2.78. Section 2.4.12 sets out the type of demolition and removal operations for the Proposed Scheme. Based on the works, it is not envisaged that demolition/removal operations would give rise to significant impacts that would be not controlled via the CEMP as part of the OEMP and hence demolition impacts have been scoped out of the assessment. Land take effects 4.2.79. All works are to be undertaken under permitted development rights. The majority of works will be undertaken within the soft estate with exception to land located at Martinscroft which will be purchased by agreement as essential air quality mitigation, and as such is considered at part of the Proposed Scheme. 4.2.80. The provision of construction compounds would be delivered under permitted development rights with candidate sites being subject to a high-level assessment. During the process of selecting construction compound sites the Delivery Partner would establish whether adverse effects are likely and detail management measures within the CEMP.

4.3. Methodology 4.3.1. Assessment methods follow DMRB Volume 11 guidance and other relevant best practice guidance. Specific methodologies for each topic are defined in each topic section (Chapters 5 to 10). 4.3.2. The structure of each specialist topic chapter broadly follows the structure for non-statutory EIA in DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 6 (HD 48/08), as follows: • Introduction • Study area • Methodology • Baseline conditions • Sensitivity of resource • Assumptions and limitations • Design and mitigation measures • Potential construction effects • Potential operational effects • Further mitigation and enhancement • Residual effects • Summary 4.3.3. Impacts may be adverse/ negative or beneficial/ positive or neutral, direct, indirect, secondary or

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-12 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

cumulative, temporary or permanent, short, medium or long term. 4.3.4. The baseline and modelled/ predicted future scenario years vary between topics depending on methodology, these are set out in each topic section as relevant. 4.3.5. Impacts are defined as a physical or measurable change to the environment that is attributable to the Proposed Scheme. Effects are defined as the result of an impact on a particular receptor or resource. For the purposes of this report, both terms are used in an interchangeable way, with the key focus on significance. Study area 4.3.6. Each environmental topic has set a study area for the assessment of the potential impacts of the Proposed Scheme according to the requirements of the applied methodology. The study area for each topic assessment is defined and described in the relevant chapter of Chapters 5 to 10. Future baseline conditions 4.3.7. For the assessment of environmental effects, the baseline needs to reflect the conditions that would exist in the absence of the Proposed Scheme. The soft estate and wider environment within which the proposed scheme resides is expected to experience little change from its current state. Future baseline conditions are set out in each topic chapter of this report. 4.3.8. In the case of acoustics and air quality, alongside the current situation, the opening year do minimum situations are presented. In the case of acoustics, the assessment goes further to detail the do minimum for the design year (opening year +15 years). Details of other infrastructure projects have been identified and captured in the Transport Modelling Uncertainty Log. 4.3.9. Land use developments that have the potential to generate additional traffic have been considered within the uncertainty log for the traffic model. Only those classified with a likelihood of ‘Near certain’ or “More than likely’ as of early 2017 have been included. 4.3.10. Development proposals with consent and located within 1km of the scheme have been considered to determine whether they would either introduce new receptors for visual, air quality or noise. Online local planning authority websites were reviewed in January 2020. It is also possible that development could introduce screening that reduces the impact of the proposed scheme. The location of such development is considered in Chapter 10 and can be viewed in Figure 10.1. 4.3.11. Beyond the potential for change in land use, other change is associated with the natural growth of the vegetation and the ongoing management of wider environment by others. No significant change is anticipated in the year preceding the start of construction, the opening or assessment year. 4.3.12. The ‘future baseline’ i.e. changes that would occur in the absence of the Scheme have been identified in Chapter 5 to 9, providing consideration of trends as appropriate. Design and mitigation measures 4.3.13. The general approach to impact avoidance and mitigation used in this report is based on the first premise of good design being the avoidance of impacts and in this regard a SMP is no different to any other. However, the importance of road safety and the associated design rules can restrict the flexibility in locating some of the works. 4.3.14. Where necessary mitigation has been built into the Proposed Scheme designs from the outset and has resulted in a lower environmental impact as a result. This includes where the gantries and EAs have been moved to avoid sensitive features, as outlined in Chapter 3. 4.3.15. Mitigation that represents actions that will require further activity in order to achieve the anticipated outcome is identified within the individual topic sections. Examples include replacement planting where possible to ensure that screening value would be reinstated when mitigation planting matures and standard good practice measures, for example, considerate contractors’ practices that manage activities which have potential nuisance effects. This mitigation has been documented in the OEMP. 4.3.16. In addition to the mitigation measures above which focus on avoiding or reducing significant effects, topic assessments have also identified further mitigation measures and environmental enhancements. These are presented under the ‘Further mitigation heading’ in the topic sections.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-13 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

4.3.17. The residual effects assessment considers all of these mitigation and enhancement measures and provides a conclusion on likely significant effects. The assessment takes into account potential risks associated with change in effectiveness over time, such as growth of planting, the establishment of new habitats or the change in noise generated from older road surfaces. 4.3.18. Any variation to the general above approach is identified within the topic assessments. Assessment of effects 4.3.19. Policy and guidance relevant to each specific environmental topic are identified within the following topic Chapters of this EAR. 4.3.20. In accordance with the DMRB, the assessment focus on the likely potential significant environmental effects arising from the permanent and temporary, direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, positive and negative impacts of the Proposed Scheme. Monitoring 4.3.21. The environmental assessment of SMP schemes that are delivered without recourse to the DCO process, conclude that significant effects are not expected due to the deployment of standard construction management or operational practices. Also, measures identified during the design and assessment and recorded in the OEMP are intended to avoid significant adverse effects. 4.3.22. Some situations may arise where there is uncertainty in the outcome or the effectiveness of a mitigation measure for which it may be appropriate to consider the adoption of targeted monitoring to enable corrective measures to be taken and demonstrate effectiveness for the benefit of other schemes. In this context, the OEMP has identified that there are situations where monitoring of the mitigation measure and/or its effectiveness is required as detailed below: 4.3.23. Biodiversity – the Delivery Partner will undertake targeted pre-construction surveys along the Scheme. If necessary, a programme of monitoring surveys for badgers (if found to be present), bats, great crested newts and Schedule 9 invasive plant species will be included to ensure that, should the construction programme change, these species will continue to be taken into account throughout the works. Any requirement for a protected species mitigation licence (European Protected Species Mitigation Licence required for great crested newt confirmed) will require monitoring to ensure no adverse impacts are encountered. 4.3.24. Road drainage and the water environment - to ensure the quality of the water environment does not deteriorate during construction the Delivery Partner will prepare and implement a surface water and/or groundwater monitoring plan, 4.3.25. Landscape and visual - the Delivery Partner will undertake appropriate inspection, monitoring and maintenance of landscaping and planting provided as part of the Scheme to facilitate the effective establishment of vegetation and record the effectiveness of landscaping proposals. In order to ensure the replacement tree and shrub areas establish as intended the Delivery Partner is required to maintain this planting for a three year period from the date of completion of the works. As part of this requirement the Delivery Partner will be responsible for rectifying all planting defects during this period. The Delivery Partner will ensure that adequate biosecurity measures are in place and for arboricultural surveys to take place for example at pinch point locations and/or locations where trees with tree preservations orders are present. 4.3.26. Noise and vibration - the Delivery Partner will undertake and report noise and vibration monitoring as is necessary to ensure and demonstrate compliance with all noise and vibration commitments and any Section 61 consent(s). Regular onsite observation monitoring and checks/audits will be undertaken to ensure that BPM is being employed at all times. 4.3.27. Air quality – the Delivery Partner will develop and submit method statements, monitoring and reporting protocols that demonstrate to Highways England that no significant impact will result from their construction works (dust, idling vehicles). Traffic forecasting 4.3.28. The Appraisal Summary Report sets out the approach taken towards traffic forecasting, but insofar as the environmental assessment is concerned speed pivoting is applied only to links within ARN only (worst case of Opening or Design Year) and within 200m of ARN. In addition, those links outside the Traffic Model Reliability area (TRA) are not assessed. 4.3.29. As link speeds vary within the traffic model (i.e. mid-link speeds can often be different from

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-14 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

speeds approaching the junction), so both noise and air quality forecasts are based on average speed links inclusive of junction delay. 4.3.30. Where the speed of traffic changes bands of less than 5kph, then the Speed Band of the scenario with the greatest difference is used, for example: • Base Year (BY) = 20.3kph, Do Minimum (DM) = 19.6kph, Do Something (DS) = 21kph. Speed band of the DS would be taken for all. • BY = 19.2kph, DM = 19.5kph, DS = 22.5kph. Speed band of the DS would be taken for all. 4.3.31. A base year of 2015 traffic model has been used for the environmental assessments. 4.3.32. Calculation of 18 hr AAWT speeds: is taken from an average of 18hr AAWT speeds, and others such as morning peak speeds, i.e. they take no account of flow weighting. Significance criteria 4.3.33. The significance of the identified environmental impacts score is determined by considering the changes with and without construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. Volume 11 Section 2, Part 5 of the DMRB (specifically Tables 2.1 and 2.2) provides advice on typical descriptors of environmental value, magnitude of change and significance of effects. This has formed the basis for assessment in this EAR together with specific advice contained within DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 and IAN 125/09, where appropriate. 4.3.34. Within the EAR certain impacts would be avoided because of management actions undertaken prior and during construction. Such commitments and actions are documented in the OEMP with enough spatial precision to be delivered by the organisation constructing the Proposed Scheme. The OEMP would also clearly identify the structures and processes that would be used to manage and control these aspects. Such actions also form part of the Works Instructions as necessary. 4.3.35. Effects, whether beneficial or adverse, are expressed in terms of their significance. Significance is derived through consideration of the sensitivity of a receptor (sometimes referred to as its value or importance) and the magnitude of the effect, as defined by the amount of change from the baseline. Therefore, the significance of an effect is influenced by both variables. Significance of effect for each potential impact has been assigned following consideration of the effectiveness of the design and committed mitigation measures, in accordance with Highway England requirements. As far as practicable, mitigation has been incorporated into (and assessed as part of) the Proposed Scheme design. 4.3.36. Further details of the topic specific significance criteria used in this EAR are discussed in chapters 5 to 9. Cumulative effects 4.3.37. Two types of cumulative effects have been considered within this EAR: • Combined effects are those caused only by the Proposed Scheme which arise when an individual receptor or group of receptors would experience multiple effects because of the Proposed Scheme; for example, an individual property experiencing combined noise, air quality and visual amenity effects. These are also referred to as intra-project effects; and • Cumulative effects are those caused by the Proposed Scheme acting with other relevant schemes. These are also referred to as inter-project effects. Assumptions and limitations 4.3.38. This EAR is based on assumed construction and design information, which is subject to change and development. More detailed design information and construction methods will be developed as the Proposed Scheme progresses forwards. Subsequent design change will be assessed using the Evaluation of Change Register to ensure that no significant effects arise from the Proposed Scheme 4.3.39. The traffic models have been built on the best available data (including a rich mobile phone data set used in the development of the TPSRTM), tailored to the specific requirements of the traffic networks and supported by additional data collection, such as new traffic surveys and targeted detailed investigations of key areas, including scheme links, junctions and locations associated with significant congestion.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-15 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

4.3.40. Information presented within the EAR, is based on readily available online databases and mapping data. Site surveys have been undertaken in a targeted way, which was considered to be proportionate to the Proposed Scheme. 4.3.41. For health and safety reasons, ecology walkover surveys that focused on the soft estate (motorway verge) were carried out as a combination of views from accessible third party land, views from footpaths/motorway bridges and online aerial imagery, avoiding access from the live carriageway. Due to access restrictions surveys of a few limited locations have not been completed for all target areas, these areas will be surveyed in advance of construction via inclusion on the OEMP. Considering the age of the habitats present and the details of the Proposed Scheme, this does not provide a limitation to the assessment, as rare or uncommon habitats are not expected to be present within the footprint of the Proposed Scheme. 4.3.42. Further ecological survey work will be required going forward, including targeted pre-works checks for the presence of badger, Schedule 9 invasive plants and bat roosting habitats will be undertaken at DF4/DF5 and prior to any vegetation clearance/pre-construction works, to inform mitigation and the OEMP/CEMP. Great crested newt population size class estimation surveys will be carried out on seven ponds with confirmed great crested newt presence in 2020, providing that they are holding water and can be surveyed appropriately. Further information can be found in Chapter 6. 4.3.43. Topic specific assumptions and limitations are identified in Chapters 5 to 9. 4.3.44. Site clearance assumptions used to inform this assessment are detailed in Section 2.4.

4.4. Stakeholder consultation 4.4.1. At DF3, stakeholder engagement was undertaken with: • Highways England Operations Directorate (including the Asset Development team and the Traffic Officer Service) • Warrington, St Helens and Wigan Councils • Transport for Greater Manchester and the Greater Manchester Highways Group • All emergency services • Network Rail • Adjacent landowners have been contacted to seek permission to access their land for non- intrusive site visits, such as GCN surveys 4.4.2. Effective stakeholder engagement will be undertaken as it is a key aspect of mitigating construction impacts including use of diversion routes. Sections 8.7.26 to 8.7.29 explain the levels of engagement required and the circumstances/locations in which elevated engagement is needed. 4.4.3. Going forward, parish council level engagement will be undertaken at design stages DF4 & DF5. Highways England will also host public information events later in the Proposed Scheme to allow interested organisations and members of the general public to learn more about and comment on the proposals. 4.4.4. This EAR will be made available to the relevant local authorities and statutory environmental organisations (Natural England, English Heritage and Environment Agency).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 4-16 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP 5. Air Quality

Key features for this topic: Highways England is proposing to upgrade the M6 between Junction 21a and Junction 26 to a Smart Motorway – All Lane Running (SM-ALR), which permanently converts the existing hard shoulder into an extra lane to provide additional capacity. This scheme is one of four North West SMP Schemes (M6 J21a- 26, M62 J10-12, M56 J6-8 and M60 J24-4) which were all planned to be open within 18 months of each other and hence, to present a robust environmental assessment, these four schemes were assessed as one cumulative worst-case for air quality. This report focuses on the cumulative worst-case effect on the study area for the M6 Junction 21a to 26 Scheme. This report sets out the findings of the air quality assessment work during the operational phase of the M6 J21a to 26 Scheme, operating at the National Speed Limit.

The air quality constraints and key findings of this assessment include: · The air quality study area consists of, 7 Air Quality Management Areas, 654 representative sensitive human receptors, 6 nationally/internationally designated ecological sites, and 32 compliance receptors;

· The proposed Scheme without mitigation may be considered significant for air quality as there was predicted to be three large changes in nitrogen dioxide concentrations at one location - Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft;

· At Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft, the proposed mitigation solution is to remove the receptors through property purchase by agreement; and · The assessment of the scheme with mitigation confirms that the M6 J21a – 26 Scheme can progress without significant air quality impacts.

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1. As described in Chapter 1 of this EAR, Highways England is proposing to upgrade the M6 between Junctions 21a and Junction 26 to a Smart Motorway – All Lane Running (SM-ALR), which permanently converts the existing hard shoulder into an extra lane to provide additional capacity. This scheme is one of four North West SMP Schemes (M6 J21a-26, M62 J10-12, M56 J6-8 and M60 J24-4) which were all planned to be open within 18 months of each other. 5.1.2. Therefore, the air quality assessment utilises the cumulative Do-Something (DS) traffic flow predictions which includes all four North West SMP Schemes consistent with the previous North West SMP Schemes assessments. This is because these air quality predictions are representative of the future situation with the implementation of the Tranche 4 North West Smart Motorways Programme compared to the situation without all of the schemes (Do-Minimum (DM)). Further details on the traffic interactions of the North West SMP Schemes is provided in Appendix B.6. The appendices can be found in Volume 3 of this EAR. 5.1.3. This report sets out the findings of the air quality assessment work for the operational phase of the M6 J21a to 26 Scheme, operating at the National Speed Limit (NSL) of 70mph. The air quality assessment considers a study area of the roads affected by the M6 J21a-26 Scheme only and is illustrated in Figure 5.1 in Volume 2 of this EAR. 5.1.4. It should be noted that the assessment for the ‘with scheme’ scenario presents a worst case for air quality effects as the opening year for the M6 Junction 21a to 26 Scheme, rather than being 2020, is now expected to be 2023 when further air quality improvements are expected.

5.2. Assessment Approach 5.2.1. A detailed assessment has been undertaken to establish the potential effects of the M6 J21a to 26, at NSL on local air quality. A regional assessment has also been carried out. This report describes the assessment and the operational effects.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

5.2.2. Construction impacts for Proposed Scheme was scoped out in the Scoping Report and so are not considered further in this assessment. See section 4.2 for further information. 5.2.3. The assessment includes: · The determination of the air quality assessment study area i.e. the affected road network (ARN); · The determination of existing baseline conditions and constraints; and · The estimation and consideration of effects on local air quality (human and ecological receptors) and regional emissions during the operational phase. 5.2.4. The local air quality assessment has focused on the impacts of the air pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as the air quality criteria for this pollutant are those most likely to be exceeded in the air quality assessment study area. The regional assessment of emissions considers oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter (PM10). The scope of the assessment is in line with that set out in the Scoping Report. 5.2.5. Table 5.1 below details the professional competency of the Topic Lead for this Chapter – Air Quality. This information is provided to fulfil the requirement of EU Directive 2014/52/EU. Table 5.1: Professional Competency Air Quality

Grade and Expertise and Name Company Professional Qualification · M4 Junction 3 to 12 SMART Motorway: was the Lead Air Quality Specialist for the scheme, which has been granted a DCO. Technical Director · M6 Junctions 10A to 13 Managed Motorway: led – Air Quality; a team of air quality specialists in the delivery of air Environment and quality services for the Scheme which included 24km Ground Smart Motorway. Engineering · Ph.D. Environmental Sciences (AECOM) · B.Sc. (Hons) Environmental and Resource Geology · Member of the Institute of Air Quality Management · Member of the Institution of Environmental Science

5.3. Study area 5.3.1. The air quality study area for the M6 J21a-26 has been defined on the basis of anticipated changes in traffic conditions (flow, speed and composition) as a result of the area affected by the M6 J21a-26 Scheme in the assessment year (2020). 5.3.2. The ARN is shown for the Scheme in Figure 5.1 The key changes in traffic along the M6 Scheme corridor with and without the scheme are set out below in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Summary of annual average daily traffic flows between the DM and DS

Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow (AADT) Road Difference in AADT 2020 DM 2020 DS between DM and DS M6 J21a to J22 118,850 140,712 +21,862 M6 J22 to J23 116,488 140,200 +23,712 M6 J23 to J24 108,150 126,332 +18,182 M6 J24 to J25 129,940 150,804 +20,864 M6 J25 to J26 102,839 119,935 +17,096

5.3.3. The air quality study area has been determined in accordance with traffic change criteria set out in the DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (HA207/07) which defines affected road networks (ARN) for local (paragraph 3.12) air quality assessments. 5.3.4. The ARN for the purposes of a local air quality assessment is defined as those roads within a

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

defined ‘traffic reliability area’ (i.e. the area of the traffic model considered to provide reliable estimates of traffic when the base traffic model is compared to observed traffic) that meet any of the traffic change criteria (based on the two-way flow on all roads), whereby: · Road alignment will change by 5m or more; or · Daily traffic flows will change by 1,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) or more; or · Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows will change by 200 AADT or more; or · Daily average speed will change by 10 kilometres per hour (km/hr) or more; or · Peak hour speed will change by 20km/hr or more. 5.3.5. The air quality study area has been defined, based on the ARN, for those links which have relevant receptors within 200m of either side of road carriageways. This distance of 200m from roads is industry best practice guidance specified in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (HA207/07), which has been derived from calculations using atmospheric dispersion modelling of dispersion profiles that have been reviewed in a series of field measurements1. In practice, any air quality assessment is undertaken by identifying where there are relevant receptors adjacent to the ARN and including all road sources within 200m of that receptor, whether in the ARN or not. 5.3.6. For the purposes of the regional air quality assessment the study area has been defined as all road links within the ‘traffic reliability area’.

5.4. Methodology 5.4.1. Relevant air quality legislation, policy and guidance, including relevant Air Quality Strategy (AQS) objectives, are provided in Table B-1 Appendix B.1. 5.4.2. Potential effects on air quality have been assessed following principles in relevant guidance which was available at the time assessments commenced, outlined in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (HA207/07), associated IANs and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance (LAQM.TG(16)). Relevant guidance documents used for the air quality assessment are listed below: · HA207/07 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, May 2007;

· IAN 170/12 v3 Updated air quality advice on the assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections for users for the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality, November 2013; · IAN 174/13 Updated advice for evaluating significant local air quality effects for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality (HA207/07), June 2013; · IAN 175/13 Updated advice on risk assessment related to compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality and on the production of Scheme Air Quality Action Plans for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality (HA207/07), June 2013; · IAN 185/15 Updated traffic, air quality and noise advice on the assessment of link speeds and generation of vehicle data into ‘speed-bands’ for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality and Volume 11, January 2015;

· Note on HA’s Interim Alternative Long Term Annual Projection Factors (LTTE6) for Annual Mean NO2 and NOx Concentrations between 2008 and 2030, draft, October 2013; and · Defra's Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance (LAQM.TG(16))2, where appropriate. 5.4.3. In addition to the above core guidance documents, the information provided in Major Projects’ Instructions has also been considered, including: · MPI-28-082014: Highways England Major Projects’ Instructions – Determining the correct base year traffic model to support air quality assessments (August 2014); and

1 HA207/07 DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1, May 2007 Paragraph C3.1 http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/ 2 http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/LAQM-TG16-April-16-v1.pdf

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

· MPI-29-082014: Highways England Major Projects’ Instructions – ‘One-Team’ delivery approach for Traffic and Environmental Teams (August 2014). 5.4.4. Since the completion of the majority of the assessment work for the Scheme a new air quality guidance document has been issued by Highways England. This document is LA105 Air Quality. A review of the new guidance has been carried out and two elements of this guidance were identified to have the potential to change the outcomes of the assessment in terms of the overall significance of air quality effects. The two elements were: · Speed banding; and · Compliance risk assessment. 5.4.5. On this basis the air quality assessment was updated to align with the guidance set out in LA105 for these two elements. In parallel to updating the air quality assessment for these two guidance changes the air quality predictions have also been updated using the latest Defra tools available at the time the assessment was completed and UK Air Pollution Information System (APIS) information. Operational Air Quality Assessment 5.4.6. A detailed assessment has been carried out for local air quality, which takes into account diurnal changes in traffic flows using the dispersion modelling software (Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System (ADMS)-Roads v4) to determine potential impacts on NO2 concentrations at human health receptors, and NOx concentrations at designated ecological sites in the expected opening year. A simple level of assessment has been undertaken for regional emissions of NOx, PM10 and CO2 for the opening and design years. 5.4.7. The assured traffic data available for the North West SMP Schemes is for an assessment year of 2020, which aligns with the year used in the traffic and economics assessments, and thus this assessment is based on an assessment year of 2020. In practice as delivery programmes have developed this is a conservative year of assessment and the M6 J21a-26 expected to have at the earliest a year of operation in 2023. Air quality predictions using this approach are expected to over-estimate predicted pollutant concentrations and changes in pollutant concentrations. This approach is likely to overestimate pollutant concentrations for the scheme because the assessment will not include further improvements that are expected to take place in background concentrations and vehicle emission rates between 2020 and 2023. In order to provide an understanding of the level of overestimation, pollutant concentrations have been projected forward using Highways England LTTE6 projection methodology to the anticipated scheme opening year of 2023. 5.4.8. The following scenarios have been considered within the local air quality assessment: · Base year (2015); · Projected base year (2020); · Opening year DM (2020); and · Opening year DS (2020). 5.4.9. The following additional scenarios have also been considered within the regional air quality assessment: · Design year DM (2035); and · Design year DS (2035). Baseline Information and Data Sources 5.4.10. Information on existing baseline air quality conditions within the North West area was obtained from the following sources: · The Council (CC), Council (CEC), Cheshire West and Council (CWaCC) Knowsley Council (KC), Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), Liverpool City Council (LCC), Sefton Council (SC), South Ribble Borough Council (SRBC), St Helens Council (SHC), Warrington Borough Council (WBC), and West Borough Council’s (WLBC), Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) review and assessment reports;

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

· Diffusion tube surveys and continuous air quality monitoring stations (CMS) operated by relevant local authorities, in addition to diffusion tube surveys managed by or for Highways England; · Air pollutant background concentrations, monitoring data, emissions data and Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) modelling data acquired from Defra’s UK Air Quality Information Resource (UK-AIR) website (http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk); and · Designated ecological site information from the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website (www.magic.gov.uk) and Natural England and critical load data for identified designated ecological habitats and background nitrogen deposition rates from the UK APIS website (www.apis.ac.uk). 5.4.11. A summary of existing air quality conditions is based on information collected as part of the SMP Advanced Environmental Desk Studies process, supplemented with more recent air quality monitoring data where available, and data from the wider study area from the ARN. Baseline air quality is discussed further in Section 5.6 and in Appendix B.2.

5.4.12. Analysis of measured trends in annual mean NO2 has been undertaken using the Finnish Meteorological Institute MAKESENS (v1) spreadsheet using the annual mean time series data for relevant CMS. The analysis identifies if and where there are statistically significant trends in measured annual mean NO2, informing the selection of suitable long-term trend factors. Further details are presented in Appendix B.2. Constraints Mapping 5.4.13. Constraints maps for the air quality study area are shown in Appendix B.7 – Figures 5.2 and 5.3. The figures show sensitive receptors within the study area; boundaries of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs); measured annual mean NO2 concentrations for comparison to the AQS objective; exceedances of the annual mean NO2 EU limit value in 2020 from Defra’s PCM model; and the locations of designated sites containing features sensitive to air pollution. Traffic Data 5.4.14. The traffic data used was derived from the Trans Pennine South Local Traffic Model (TPSLTM), provided by Arup. 5.4.15. Extensive engagement has been undertaken between the air quality and traffic modelling teams. This has included inclusion of the air quality team in traffic model calibration/validation meetings and inclusion of traffic representatives in air quality meetings. Close collaboration has also been undertaken to iteratively agree speed banding approaches. 5.4.16. Further details on traffic data are provided in Appendix B.6. Local Air Quality Assessment

5.4.17. A summary of the inputs required for dispersion modelling is provided below, with further details presented in Appendix B.3. 5.4.18. A detailed model for the local air quality assessment used information on road link emission rates, road alignment and width, and local meteorological data (using Manchester Airport 2015 data) to estimate local air pollutant concentrations. 5.4.19. The dispersion model was set up based on the following key inputs and assumptions: · Road sources were modelled using the ADMS Road source representation tool; · Ordnance Survey Master Map topography base mapping was used to define the road geometry; · A single centreline was entered in the model for modelled roads, with the exception of links which have a centreline included for each carriageway directions; and · Road widths have been manually measured through the measurement tool in Google Earth and using Master Map in GIS. 5.4.20. Traffic conditions vary throughout the course of a day and therefore four specific time periods were modelled to capture diurnal effects. This included a morning peak period (AM) (7am to 10am), an inter peak period (IP) (10 am to 4pm), an evening peak period (PM) (4pm to 7pm) and

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

an off-peak period (OP) (7pm to 7am). The emissions from these periods were included in ADMS-Roads and a ‘fac’ file was used to switch these periods on and off as required. The traffic data provided and modelling approaches used follow MPI 29-082014 in its approach. Further details of the emission rate estimation approach are shown in Appendix B.3. 5.4.21. Estimates of the contribution from road traffic emissions to annual mean concentrations of NOx were provided by the model at discrete receptors, which were combined with estimates of background concentrations, to derive total annual mean NO2 concentrations.

5.4.22. The modelled road NOx and background NO2, based on Defra background maps with a 2017 reference year were converted to total annual mean NO2 for comparison with the UK AQS objective using the Defra NOx to NO2 tool, version 7.1.1, November 2019, which includes years 2015 and 2016. Background NO2 concentrations for the base year 2015 are calculated by adjusting respective 2017 concentrations using Defra adjustment factors. 5.4.23. In order to avoid double counting the contribution from modelled emission sources, the in-square contributions within Defra background maps from motorways, primary A roads and trunk roads were removed from the total background NO2 concentration, using the NO2 Adjustment for NOx Sector Removal Tool v7.0, May 2019.

5.4.24. The potential for exceedances of the 1-hour NO2 UK AQS objective to occur was assessed 3 based on whether annual mean NO2 concentrations were greater than 60 µg/m , in accordance with Defra LAQM.TG(16).

5.4.25. The consequence of the conclusions of Defra’s advice on long term NO2 trends is that there is a gap between projected vehicle emission reductions and the estimated annual rate of improvement in annual mean NO2 within Defra’s previously published technical guidance and observed trends. Air quality assessments following Defra LAQM.TG(16) guidance may be overly optimistic in some cases. IAN 170/12v3 therefore requires that steps are taken to adjust the estimated total NO2 concentrations from modelling, termed “gap analysis”, in order to better reflect future trends. The assessment uses the Highways England LTTE6 projection factors based on analysis of monitoring data trend analysis as presented in Appendix B.2. 5.4.26. An additional scenario (projected base year) is required to enable the gap analysis to be completed. The projected base year scenario is modelled using the base year traffic data with the opening year vehicle emission factors and opening year background concentrations. Total NO2 concentrations for the projected base year are calculated as described above. The results for the opening year are then adjusted using gap analysis to represent the observed long-term trend profile.

5.4.27. Modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations and impacts have been evaluated with regard to compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality in accordance with IAN 175/13 and updated guidance LA105. Compliance 5.4.28. Defra prepare a model called the Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model to inform reporting of compliance with EU limit values to the European Commission (EC). The road links within the PCM model are shown on Figure 5.2. 5.4.29. In order to demonstrate whether the scheme causes a change in compliance with respect to the Air Quality Directive modelling is undertaken for qualifying features representative of worst-case exposure, within 15m of each identified PCM model link within the study area. 5.4.30. Qualifying features for this purpose are identified as sensitive receptors or public footpaths which run parallel to the relevant road link which are not within 25m of a major road junction. Each qualifying feature is required to be represented at its nearest location to the relevant road link and at 4m from the relevant road link. 5.4.31. Compliance with the Directive is achieved where: · There are no modelled exceedances of the air quality thresholds for any PCM link; or · There are modelled exceedances of the air quality thresholds for any PCM link, but the change in annual mean NO2 concentrations between the do minimum and do something is 3 less than or equal to +/-0.4 µg/m ; and · The project does not materially impact on measures within local air quality or national plans for the achievement of compliance

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

5.4.32. Results processing of PCM compliance data will not include the LTTE6 projection step. This approach is taken to be consistent with that of the PCM model. A total of 26 qualifying features have been identified in the study area for this scheme. Receptors

5.4.33. Receptors that are potentially sensitive to changes in NOx and NO2 concentrations are defined in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (HA207/07) as representative sensitive human health receptors and designated ecological sites (containing habitats sensitive to NOx) located within 200m of the ARN. The assessment considers impacts at residential properties, schools and hospitals, and ecological receptors including the following types of designated sites: Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar sites. Receptors assessed are those located within 200m of the ARN (not all receptors within 200m were modelled, as parts of the study area are densely populated urban areas). 5.4.34. The receptors selected included those located closest to the ARN together with those within 200 metres of the ARN which were considered likely to experience the highest ambient NO2 concentrations. In addition, relevant monitoring locations have been included in the air quality model for use in air quality model verification. 5.4.35. A total of 654 discrete illustrative human health receptors were included in the air quality model for the scheme. In addition, 26 qualifying features were included for the compliance assessment. 5.4.36. There are six designated ecological sites identified within the study area, Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI, Red Moss SSSI, Holcroft Moss SSSI/Manchester Mosses SAC, Woolston Eyes SSSI, Oakhanger Moss/Midland Mere and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI. Transects of receptor points from the closest point within the designated site to the ARN up to 200m were included in the air quality assessment. Further details of the designated ecological site, including habitat types and applicable critical loads are provided in the Appendix B.1. 5.4.37. The assessed human health receptors are listed in Table B-16 in Appendix B.5 and the designated ecological site transects are listed in Table B-8 in Appendix B.3. Modelled human health receptors, ecological modelled receptors and PCM compliance receptors are shown on Figure 5.2. 5.4.38. All results for the M6 J21a to 26 scheme air quality assessment are provided in Appendix B.5. Verification 5.4.39. Model verification is the process by which uncertainties in the modelling are investigated and, wherever possible, minimised. The verification step involves comparison of model estimated pollutant concentrations with monitored values that are representative of the base year model (which for this assessment is 2015). Verification was undertaken in accordance with Defra’s Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(16). Details of the verification process are provided in Appendix B.4 and the location of monitoring sites used for model verification are shown in Figure 5.3. 5.4.40. The key findings of the M6 J21a to 26 scheme verification process are summarised below. · Monitoring sites were used to compare modelled results with measured 2015 annual mean NO2 concentrations from within the study area; · The air quality model was found to both underestimate and overestimate compared with monitoring data and adjustment by domain was required to account for localised conditions that could not be represented in the air quality model; · Eleven model domains were defined within the study area. Separate model adjustment factors were derived for these domains;

· For the domains, the adjusted total NO2 concentrations were considered to have acceptable model performance in accordance with Defra LAQM.TG(16). The model performance statistics are presented in Appendix B.4; and · The model results for human health, ecological receptors and PCM receptors in each model domain were adjusted where necessary using the model adjustment factors derived for the base year scenario and also in the opening year with and without the scheme.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

Regional Air Quality Assessment 5.4.41. A regional air quality assessment was undertaken in accordance with DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (HA207/07). Emission calculations were undertaken using emission rates derived from LA105 on speed banding, consistent with the local assessment. The pollutants included in this assessment were NOx, PM10 and CO2. 5.4.42. The worst-case scenario modelled was: the existing base year of 2015; the opening year (2020) DM and DS; and the design year (2035) DM and DS. Assumptions and Limitations 5.4.43. Any air quality model has inherent areas of uncertainty, including: · The traffic data used in the air quality model; · The appropriateness of vehicle emissions data; · Simplifications in model algorithms and empirical relationships that are used to simulate complex physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere; · The appropriateness of background concentrations; and · The appropriateness of meteorological data. 5.4.44. Uncertainty associated with traffic data has been minimised by using validated traffic models (as discussed in Appendix B.6), with active engagement between traffic and air quality teams so that uncertainty was discussed and controlled by agreement, not just in straight traffic model output but in post-processed traffic data (as used in air quality assessments). 5.4.45. The base year traffic data used in the air quality assessment was for 2015. A review of traffic conditions for 2019 in comparison to 2015 traffic conditions has been undertaken by the traffic team. This comparison has confirmed that a 2015 baseline year is still suitable for use. 5.4.46. The Croft Interchange (J10) metering pilot scheme has not been included in either the transport modelling or the air quality modelling. The pilot study does not include additional capacity along the scheme route and so notable changes in traffic volumes would not be expected. Therefore, significant differences in predicted air quality would not be expected if this pilot scheme had been included. 5.4.47. Uncertainties associated with vehicle emissions data have been minimised by using the speed- band emission factors described within LA 105, which is based on version 9.0 of Defra’s Emissions Factors Toolkit (EFT). Speed bands are assigned on a link by link basis as informed by the pivoted speeds provided by the appointed traffic consultant. 5.4.48. The use of the latest version of the Defra background concentrations and tools available when the assessment was undertaken has also minimised the uncertainty associated with the air quality predictions presented. 5.4.49. Uncertainties associated with model algorithms and empirical relationships have been minimised by using algorithms and relationships that have been independently validated and judged as fit for purpose. 5.4.50. Another uncertainty is with using historical meteorological data to estimate future concentrations. The key limiting assumption is that conditions in the future will be the same as in the past; however, in reality no two years are the same. In line with best practice, the base year meteorology (as used in the model verification and adjustment process) has been used in future year modelling to allow any adjustments to be applied in future cases. 5.4.51. Model verification has been carried out to minimise, where possible, uncertainties in the modelling and adjustment of the model output has been undertaken to account for local factors unable to be represented in the modelling. It was demonstrated that post adjustment the modelled and monitored results at verification locations showed good agreement, which leads to confidence in the results. 5.4.52. Assumptions regarding the traffic data have been set out in the “Traffic Data” section with additional details provided in Appendix B.6.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-8 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

Magnitude of Impact Classification 5.4.53. Descriptors for magnitude of change (impact) and consequent significance of effect due to changes in ambient concentrations of NO2 are provided in Highways England’s IAN 174/13. These criteria have been used in the assessment of annual mean concentrations of NO2. 5.4.54. The changes in magnitude, which are based on an assumed measure of uncertainty (MoU) of 10%, may be described as small, medium, large or imperceptible, depending on the change in concentration relative to the air quality criterion as follows: · A change in concentration less than or equal to 1% of the relevant air quality criterion is considered to be ‘imperceptible’; · A change in concentration greater than 1% and less than 5% of the relevant air quality criterion is considered to be ‘small’; · A change in concentration greater than 5% and less than 10% of the relevant air quality criterion is considered to be ‘medium’; and · A change in concentration greater than 10% of the relevant air quality criterion is considered to be ‘large’.

5.4.55. Table 5.3 presents magnitude of change criteria for annual mean NO2 concentrations. According to IAN 174/13, only those receptors that are predicted to exceed relevant air quality thresholds 3 (i.e. annual mean NO2 objective of 40 µg/m ) need to be considered when determining significance. 5.4.56. There is no guidance on classification of magnitude of impact or significance of effect for the regional air quality assessment.

Table 5.3 Magnitude of Change Criteria for Local Air Quality

Magnitude of change in Value of change in annual mean NO2 concentration Greater than full measure of uncertainty (MoU) value of 10% of the air quality Large (>4 µg/m3) objective (4 µg/m3) Greater than half of the MoU (2 µg/m3), but less than the full MoU (4 µg/m3) of Medium (>2 to 4 µg/m3) 10% of the air quality objective. More than 1% of the objective (0.4 µg/m3) and less than half of the MoU i.e. Small (>0.4 to 2 µg/m3) 5% (2 µg/m3). The full MoU is 10% of the air quality objective (4 µg/m3). Imperceptible (≤0.4 Less than or equal to 1% of objective (0.4 µg/m3). µg/m3)

Significance of Effect Classification

5.4.57. In order to assess the significance of effects for annual mean NO2, the number of receptors that fall within the ‘small’, ‘medium’, and large magnitude of change categories is calculated and compared to the guidelines presented in Table 5.3 (an imperceptible magnitude of change need not be considered further with regards to significance of effects). 5.4.58. As outlined in IAN 174/13, significant air quality effects are only identified for receptors where air quality thresholds are exceeded in either the without Proposed Scheme and/or with Proposed Scheme scenarios. 5.4.59. Where the difference in concentrations are less than 1% of the AQS Objectives (for example, 3 less than 0.4 µg/m for annual mean NO2) then the change at these receptors is considered to be ‘imperceptible’ and can be scoped out of the judgement on significance. 5.4.60. As outlined in IAN 174/13, for the determination of significance for NOx effects on designated ecological sites, where the difference in concentration is less than 0.4 µg/m3 for annual average NOx, then the change at these receptors is considered to be ‘imperceptible’ and can be scoped out of the judgement on significance. 5.4.61. A selection of illustrative discrete receptors have been included at worst placed locations adjacent to the ARN, within the study area. Where potential exceedances of the annual mean NO2 AQS objective were modelled to occur, additional receptors have been included in the surrounding area to identify the total number of receptors affected.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-9 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

5.4.62. Commentary on compliance with the EU Air Quality Directive in accordance with IAN 175/13, has been provided where Defra PCM model links coincide with ARN links to aid the assessment of significance of effect. 5.4.63. Highways England has developed a framework, as set out in IAN 174/13, to provide guidance on the number of receptors for each of the magnitude of change categories that might result in a significant effect. These are guideline values to be used to inform professional judgement on significant effects if the Proposed Scheme shows exceedances. The guideline bands are intended to help provide consistency across all Highways England schemes. The significance categories and guideline property numbers are summarised in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: Guideline to Number of Receptors Constituting a Significant Effect for Air Quality

Number of receptors with:

Magnitude of change in Improvement of an air quality Worsening of air quality objective concentration objective already above objective or already above objective or the removal of an existing creation of a new exceedance exceedance

Large (>4µg/m3) 1 to 10 1 to 10 Medium (>2 to 4µg/m3) 10 to 30 10 to 30 Small (>0.4 to 2µg/m3) 30 to 60 30 to 60

5.5. Baseline conditions 5.5.1. The baseline air quality conditions within the study area are summarised below. Local Air Quality Management 5.5.2. The study area includes SHC, WBC, WLBC, and WC. In common with many other authorities across the UK, the councils have shown that the UK AQS objective most likely to be exceeded is for annual mean NO2, due to road traffic emissions. 5.5.3. The local authorities in the study area have designated a number of AQMAs, seven of which are within 200m of the ARN, and therefore could potentially be affected. Within Greater Manchester the Greater Manchester AQMA encompasses the northern part of the scheme from 1 km south of junction 24 up to junction 27 of the M6, as well as parts of Leigh, declared for annual mean NO2. 5.5.4. There are two AQMAs within 200m of the ARN in St Helens Council, a section of the M6, within the unitary boundary, comprises the M6 AQMA (No. 1), declared for annual mean NO2. In addition, High Street AQMA (No.2) at Newton-le-Willows, between the junctions with Ashton Road and Church Street, measuring 30m from the centre of the road declared for annual mean NO2 5.5.5. Warrington Borough Council has two AQMAs within 200m of the ARN, Warrington AQMA No.1 encompasses the extent of the M6, from the boundary with St Helen’s to the Boundary with Cheshire East. Warrington AQMA No.4 covers the town centre ring road and several adjacent link roads. Both of these AQMAs have been declared for annual mean NO2. 5.5.6. There are two AQMAs within 200m of the ARN within Cheshire East Council, Chester Road AQMA which covers the A556 between M6 junction 19 and the A56 Road, declared for annual mean NO2. AQMA No. 6 () includes a number of properties to the east of M6 junction 17 is declared for annual mean NO2. 5.5.7. Further details of each of these AQMAs are given in Table B-2 in Appendix B.2, the locations of which are shown in Figure 5.2. DEFRA Mapping

Pollution Climate Mapping

5.5.8. Further information on locations where the annual mean NO2 EU limit value is exceeded is available from Defra’s PCM model. This model provides projected roadside concentrations of pollutants, including annual mean NO2 and NOx in the years 2017-2030 inclusive, based on a 2017 base year.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-10 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

5.5.9. As described in the methodology section, PCM compliance of the scheme will be assessed as described in LA105. A total of 26 qualifying features for PCM compliance assessment have been identified in the study area. Background Mapping 5.5.10. As discussed above, estimates of current and future year background pollutant concentrations in the UK are available on the Defra UK-Air website. These background estimates, which are based on a combination of measured and modelled data, are available for each one-kilometre grid square throughout the UK for a base year of 2017, which is the basis for the future estimates up to 2030. These background estimates include contributions from all source sectors, such as road transport, industry, and domestic and commercial heating systems.

5.5.11. Background NO2 concentrations for the base year 2015 are calculated by adjusting respective 2017 concentrations using Defra adjustment factors, as described in section 5.4 of this chapter. Each grid square within the study area indicates that background NO2 concentrations are all below the relevant UK AQS objective.

5.5.12. For the study area, the difference between mapped Defra background NO2 concentrations for 2015 and those measured at six local background CMS sites was between -23 and -7 %. There was generally good agreement between measured and mapped background data therefore, with the Defra background maps tending to slightly under-estimate. On this basis, the Defra background maps were used unadjusted. Air Quality Monitoring Local Authority Monitoring 5.5.13. Air quality monitoring data from passive diffusion tubes operated by the relevant local authorities (see section 5.6.8) have been used in the assessment, including in the characterisation of baseline conditions and, where relevant, in model verification. 5.5.14. The locations of air quality monitoring data collection in 2015 (the modelled base year) are presented in Tables B-3 and B-5 in Appendix B.3 and are shown Figure 5.2. 5.5.15. In 2015, 7 of the 30 local authority measurements within the study area measured exceedances of the annual mean NO2 UK AQS objective, including St Helens site AN2 and Warrington site DT6 which were used within the model verification. St Helens site AN2 is a roadside continuous monitoring site located approximately 3m from Southworth Road and 10m from the M6. Warrington site DT6 is a roadside diffusion tube site located approximately 8m from the M6 at J21, Martinscroft. The remaining two sites which exceed the AQS objective but are not used in the verification include St Helens T10 and St Helens T7, located at 160 Southworth Road. The locations of the local authorities monitoring sites which measured exceedances of the annual mean NO2 AQS objective are shown in Figure 5.2. 5.5.16. Trend analysis of data from continuous monitoring sites was undertaken to determine the most suitable future year projections to use in the local air quality assessment. Trend analysis indicated that there is a downward trend in annual mean NO2 concentrations adjacent to the M6. As such, the Highways England IAN 170/12v3 LTTE6 future year projections are likely to be the most appropriate for the assessment. Further details on trend analysis are provided in Appendix B.2. Highways England Monitoring

5.5.17. Highways England have undertaken a NO2 diffusion tube surveys in the study area between 2013 and 2016 to inform the assessment. 5.5.18. The measured period means for this survey has been calculated and then annualised in accordance with the methodology within LAQM.TG(16) to provide 2015 annual means for use in verification.

5.5.19. The annualised and bias adjusted NO2 concentrations for 2015 are provided in Table B-6 in Appendix B.2. The results indicate that of the 95 measurement locations within the study area there were exceedances of the annual mean AQS objective in 2015 at 32 roadside sites. The locations of the HE survey diffusion tubes are shown in Figure 5.2.

5.5.20. Additional Highways England air quality monitoring using NO2 diffusion tubes has also been undertaken at Newton-le-Willows along Southworth Road (A572) between 2nd May 2018 and 30th October 2018. This data was collected between 160 and 170 Southworth Road at four locations.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-11 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

This data is presented in Table B-6 in Appendix B.2. The location of the diffusion tubes is shown on Figure 5.2. Ecological Designations 5.5.21. There are six nationally designated ecological sites within the M6 J21a-26 air quality study area which contains habitats sensitive to NOx and nitrogen deposition, including; · Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI; · Red Moss SSSI; · Holcroft Moss SSSI/Manchester Mosses SAC · Woolston Eyes SSSI · Oakhanger Moss SSSI/Midland Mere and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar; and · Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI 5.5.22. The critical loads for nitrogen deposition along with background nitrogen deposition and NOx at the designated ecological site are shown in Table B-7 in Appendix B.2. These show that at Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI the average background deposition already exceeds the upper and lower bands of the critical load, whereas at the other five sites, the background deposition rate exceeds the falls between the two bands. The annual average NOx concentration is below the vegetation objective of 30 µg/m3 at all the sites in 2015. Sensitivity of resource 5.5.23. Receptors that are potentially sensitive to changes in annual mean air pollutant concentrations are defined in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (HA207/07) as residential properties, schools, hospitals and designated species or habitats within a designated ecological site located within 200m of the Proposed Scheme ARN or construction sites. The assessment considers the impacts of the proposed scheme at such defined receptors; these locations can all be considered to be of potentially high sensitivity.

5.6. Design and mitigation measures Construction 5.6.1. The OEMP details measures that will be implemented during the construction phase to reduce potential air quality impacts associated with construction activities. The OEMP will form the basis for the Delivery Partner’s CEMP. 5.6.2. In summary these include: · Management of dust generation through application of standard appropriate mitigation measures - including those described in Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction to be detailed in working method statements; and · The Delivery Partner will develop and submit method statements, monitoring and reporting protocols that demonstrate to Highways England that no significant impact will result from their construction works (for example, monitoring of dust from construction activities, seeding, covering or fencing of stock piles to prevent wind whipping, damping down of haul routes etc.). Operational 5.6.3. The scheme design, and operating regime is modelled at NSL for the M6 J21a-26. Any further mitigation measures are discussed in later sections of this document.

5.7. Potential operational effects Local Air Quality Assessment 5.7.1. The estimated concentrations from explicitly modelled road sources at receptors have been combined with background concentrations and compared with relevant air quality thresholds to determine whether there are likely to be any exceedances of the annual mean NO2 AQS

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-12 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

objective.

5.7.2. The annual mean NO2 concentrations for all modelled receptors for each of the scenarios presented and described in detail in Appendix B.5, Table B-16 and shown on Figure 5.3. Where an annual mean concentration is above 40 µg/m3 and there is a greater than imperceptible change in pollutant concentrations the predicted scenario concentration is shown after the receptor name along with colour coding indicating the scale of change (i.e. small, medium or large). Otherwise, where locations are just colour coded, with no numerical value after the name, annual mean concentrations are below 40 µg/m3.

5.7.3. This section describes only those locations with a qualifying change in NO2 concentration (i.e. small, medium or large change) in air quality at a location predicted to be above the NO2 annual average air quality objective. It is these receptors which contribute to the overall evaluation of significance. These receptors are presented in Table 5.5, listed north to south through the study area. A full set of results and discussion is presented in Appendix B.5. Table 5.5: Receptors Contributing to Overall Evaluation of Significance

Annual mean NO2 concentrations 2020 LTTE6 Receptor ID and Location 2020 LTTE6 NO2 Change 2020 LTTE6 2020 DS 2015 Base NO2 Criteria DM LTTE6 Change R10 96.4 79.9 85.0 5.0 Large R13 100.5 83.3 88.7 5.3 Large R14 109.8 91.1 97.1 6.0 Large R16 54.2 49.1 48.0 -1.1 Small R42 51.9 43.8 46.8 2.9 Medium R43 49.1 41.5 44.2 2.7 Medium R50 51.1 42.9 46.2 3.3 Medium R53 46.0 38.6 41.4 2.7 Medium R162 52.2 43.8 44.7 0.9 Small R173 51.6 43.2 44.0 0.8 Small R184 50.6 42.5 43.2 0.7 Small R195 57.5 48.5 49.2 0.7 Small R203 51.1 43.0 43.6 0.6 Small R205 55.6 46.9 47.5 0.6 Small R215 48.4 40.7 41.2 0.5 Small R251 47.1 39.5 40.3 0.8 Small R259 46.8 39.2 41.0 1.7 Small R496 54.7 45.8 46.8 1.0 Small R498 60.4 50.5 51.7 1.2 Small R500 46.7 39.5 42.0 2.5 Medium R501 55.5 46.8 50.1 3.3 Medium R527 48.1 39.9 41.4 1.5 Small R529 50.7 42.0 43.5 1.5 Small R531 69.3 58.7 59.7 1.1 Small R532 66.4 56.1 57.1 0.9 Small R546 43.4 41.0 38.0 -2.9 Medium R553 47.7 40.9 42.0 1.0 Small R570 51.4 42.7 45.9 3.2 Medium R585 50.5 39.7 41.7 2.0 Small R588 50.3 39.6 41.6 2.0 Small R589 50.3 39.6 41.5 1.8 Small R591 52.0 40.9 42.9 2.0 Small

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-13 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

Annual mean NO2 concentrations 2020 LTTE6 Receptor ID and Location 2020 LTTE6 NO2 Change 2020 LTTE6 2020 DS 2015 Base NO2 Criteria DM LTTE6 Change R606 48.2 40.3 42.6 2.2 Medium R609 45.7 38.2 40.1 1.9 Small R621 52.6 44.3 45.1 0.9 Small R623 42.7 40.1 37.3 -2.8 Medium

5.7.4. The modelling results show that estimated concentrations exceed the NO2 annual mean AQS objective of 40 µg/m3 at 35 receptors in the opening year (2020) without the scheme and 42 receptors in the opening year with the DS scenario. Three large increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations are predicted. Of the remaining receptors predicted to experience an exceedance of the annual mean AQS objective in the opening year, seven are predicted to experience an imperceptible change, 22 are predicted to experience a small increase, and eight are predicted to experience a medium increase, one is predicted to experience a small decrease and two are expected to experience a medium decrease. 5.7.5. These receptors are discussed in turn below.

Orrell

3 5.7.6. A small change in annual mean NO2 concentration of 1.7 µg/m is predicted at a receptor along Spring Road, Orrell (R259). This is due to traffic flow increases on the M6 adjacent to this receptor in the DS scenario.

5.7.7. Small changes in annual mean NO2 concentrations are predicted at 12 receptors located along Orrell Road, A577 (R162, R173, R184, R195, R203, R205, R215, R251, R496, R498, R531 and R532), with changes ranging from 0.5 – 1.2 µg/m3 at these receptors predicted. This is due to traffic flow increases on the M6 (7,300 AADT) and Orrell Road (800 AADT) with the scenario.

3 5.7.8. In addition, small changes in annual mean NO2 concentrations of 1.5 µg/m are also predicted at each of two receptors along Parkside Crescent in Orrell (R527 and R529). This is due to traffic flow increases on the M6 (7,300 AADT) adjacent to these receptors.

Downall Green Road, Bryn 5.7.9. Six receptors on Downall Green Road, Bryn (R42, R43, R50, R53, R500 and R501) are predicted 3 to experience a medium increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations of 2.5 – 3.3 µg/m predicted. At these locations, receptors are adjacent to the M6 hence the receptors are therefore closer to the carriageway in the DS scenario. In addition, traffic flows along the M6 are predicted to increase at this location (20,900 AADT), this not entirely offset by the reduction in congestion due to the scheme.

Ashton-in-Makerfield

3 5.7.10. Four small increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations, ranging from 1.8 - 2.0 µg/m are predicted at receptors closest to the M6 on Firwood Grove (R585 and R588) and Ashwood Avenue (R589 and R591), Ashton-in-Makerfield. At this location, receptors are adjacent to the M6 within the scheme, receptors are therefore closer to the carriageway in the DS scenario. In addition, traffic flows along the M6 are predicted to increase (18,200 AADT) at this location, this not entirely offset by the improvements in congestion on the northbound carriageway.

Winwick Lane

5.7.11. Two small changes in annual mean NO2 are predicted at two locations near M6 junction 22 on Winwick lane (R621 and R553), with concentrations predicted to increase by 0.9 -1.0 µg/m3in the DS scenario. These predicted changes in annual mean NO2 are primarily due to flow changes on the M6 (22,200 AADT) and the southbound off slip (400 AADT). This is partially offset by improvements in congestion on the southbound carriageway in the AM peak period.

Sandsfields Cottages 3 5.7.12. One medium change in annual mean NO2 of 3.2 µg/m is predicted at Sandsfields Cottages

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-14 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

(R570) in the DS scenario. At this location, the proposed road alignment for the slip road changes, bringing it closer to the receptor location. Increases in concentration at this receptor are due to increases in traffic flows on both the M6 (15,200 AADT) with some offset due to a decrease in traffic flows on the slip road (1,100 AADT) and improvements in congestion on the southbound carriageway and off slip.

Martinscroft 3 5.7.13. One small change in annual mean NO2 of 1.9 µg/m is predicted at R609 in Martinscroft in the DS scenario. At this location, traffic flow on the nearby northbound M6 on slip (900 AADT) and M6 (11,000 AADT) south bound drive this change, despite lower flows on the M6 northbound.

3 5.7.14. One medium change in annual mean NO2 of 1.9 µg/m is predicted at R606 in the DS scenario. This location is adjacent to R609, the reason for the increase at R606 is the same as that for R609. 5.7.15. The maximum concentration in the opening year in the study area was estimated to be 91.1 µg/m3 at receptor R14 in the Do-Minimum scenario and 97.1 µg/m3 in the DS scenario. Receptor R14 is located at Martinscroft, approximately 7 meters east of the M6 between J21 and J21A.

5.7.16. Three large increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations are predicted at R10, R13 and R14. Annual mean concentrations here are 79.9 – 91.1 µg/m3 in the Do-Minimum with predicted 3 increases of 5.0 - 6.0 µg/m in the DS scenario. This change in annual mean NO2 is due to traffic flow increases on the M6 (18,100 AADT) adjacent to this receptor with the scenario, although this is partially offset by an improvement in congestion on the northbound carriageway in the PM peak period. 5.7.17. As concentrations are predicted to be above 60 µg/m3 in both the DM and DS scenarios in 2020, 3 it is predicted that the hourly mean NO2 objective (200 µg/m ) is likely to be exceeded.

Leigh 3 5.7.18. One small change in annual mean NO2 of -1.1 µg/m is predicted in Leigh (R16) in the DS scenario. At this location, there is a decrease in traffic flows along the A572 (900 AADT). This results in a decrease in concentration at this receptor.

Birchwood 3 5.7.19. Two medium changes in annual mean NO2 of -2.8 to -2.9 µg/m is predicted in Birchwood (R546 and R623)in the DS scenario. These receptors are located adjacent to the M62 scheme, therefore closer to the westbound carriageway in the DS scenario. Despite this and the predicted increased flows (22,100 AADT), the predicted changes to traffic behaviour reflected in the speed banding in the AM, IP and PM, which change from heavy congestion to light congestion in each incidence, are ultimately predicted to reduce concentrations of pollutants at these receptors.

Projected Results for 2023 5.7.20. As discussed in the introduction section of this document the scheme will not be opening in 2020 but in 2023. Therefore, the results have been projected to 2023 using the LTTE6 projection factors and are presented in Table B-17 in Appendix B.5. For the receptors contributing to the overall evaluation of significance with the 2020 scheme assessment year the results are presented in Table 5.6 below. This has been carried out to represent predicted results of the scenario for the year when the scheme is anticipated to open.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-15 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 5.6: 2023 Projected Results

Annual mean NO2 concentrations 2023 LTTE6 NO2 Receptor ID and Location 2023 LTTE6 Change Criteria 2023 LTTE6 DM 2023 DS LTTE6 NO2 Change R10 74.2 78.9 4.7 Large R13 77.3 82.3 5.0 Large R14 84.6 90.1 5.6 Large R16 45.6 44.5 -1.1 Small R42 40.7 43.4 2.7 Medium R43 38.5 41.0 2.5 Medium R50 39.8 42.8 3.0 Medium R53* 35.9 38.4 2.5 Medium R162 40.6 41.5 0.9 Small R173 40.1 40.8 0.7 Small R184 39.4 40.1 0.7 Small R195 45.0 45.6 0.6 Small R203 39.9 40.4 0.6 Small R205 43.6 44.1 0.5 Small R215 37.8 38.2 0.4 Imperceptible R251* 36.6 37.4 0.7 Small R259* 36.4 38.0 1.6 Small R496 42.5 43.5 0.9 Small R498 46.9 48.0 1.1 Small R500* 36.7 39.0 2.3 Medium R501 43.5 46.5 3.0 Medium R527* 37.0 38.4 1.4 Small R529 39.0 40.4 1.4 Small R531 54.4 55.4 1.0 Small R532 52.1 53.0 0.9 Small R546* 38.0 35.3 -2.7 Medium R553* 38.0 38.9 1.0 Small R570 39.7 42.6 3.0 Medium R585* 36.9 38.7 1.9 Small R588* 36.7 38.6 1.8 Small R589* 36.8 38.5 1.7 Small R591* 38.0 39.8 1.8 Small R606* 37.4 39.5 2.1 Medium R609* 35.5 37.3 1.8 Small R621 41.1 41.9 0.8 Small R623* 37.2 34.6 -2.6 Medium * Denotes locations where the predicted annual mean concentrations are below the objective

5.7.21. The modelling results show that estimated concentrations exceed the NO2 annual mean AQS objective of 40 µg/m3 at 15 receptors in the 2023 DM scenario and 21 receptors in the DS scenario. Three large increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations are predicted. Of the remaining receptors predicted to experience an exceedance of the annual mean AQS objective in the opening year, 12 are predicted to experience a small increase, a five are predicted to experience a medium increase, one is expected to experience a small decrease.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-16 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

Designated Ecological Sites 5.7.22. A summary of air quality predictions at designated ecological sites is provided in Table 5.7. Table 5.7: Designated Ecosystems Results Summary

Closest point to road Distance from road where Ecological Site Max. DS Max. NOX Max. DS Max. Ndep NOX conc. <30 Distance 3 NOX Conc. Change Ndep (kg N change (kg µg/m (m) (m) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) ha-1 yr-1) N ha-1 yr-1) Red Scar and 40 59.9 0.4 42.3 +<0.1 170 Tun Brook Woods SSSI Red Moss SSSI 0 80.5 -1.8 26.0 -<0.1 65 Holcroft Moss 19 65.3 5.6 21.4 0.3 134 SSSI/Mancheste r Mosses SAC Woolston Eyes 0 98.4 2.4 23.9 0.1 120 SSSI 1 Woolston Eyes 0 149.0 8.4 25.7 0.3 >200 SSSI 2 Oakhanger 124 22.6 0.1 45.6 +<0.1 All transects Moss/Midland within site* Mere and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar Stanley Bank 137 19.5 +<0.1 30.9 +<0.1 All transects Meadow SSSI within site*

3 * NOX concentrations at all transect points within this site are predicted to be below 30 µg/m .

5.7.23. The full annual mean NOx concentrations and nitrogen deposition results for all modelled ecological receptors are presented in detail in Appendix B.5 Table B-18. 5.7.24. At three of the sites, Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI, Oakhanger Moss/Midland Mere and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar and Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI the maximum increase in annual mean NOx is imperceptible (≤0.4 µg/m3) and therefore not significant. 5.7.25. At Woolston Eyes SSSI and Holcroft Moss SSSI/Manchester Mosses SAC the maximum increase in annual mean NOx concentrations is greater than 0.4 µg/m3, whilst the improvement at Red Moss SSSI is greater than 0.4 µg/m3. Additional discussion of the air quality predictions for these designated ecosystem sites is presented in Chapter 6: Ecology and Nature Conservation. Overall no significant effects are identified. Compliance Risk Assessment 5.7.26. A summary of the PCM compliance assessment is provided in Table 5.8. Table 5.8: PCM compliance Results Summary

3 Modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations in this study (µg/m ) Receptor ID 2020 DM 2020 DS 2020 NO2 Change PCM_R7 30.3 30.4 0.1 PCM_R8 25.8 25.8 -0.1 PCM_R9 27.4 27.8 0.4 PCM_R10 30.7 31.1 0.4 PCM_R11 27.3 27.6 0.3 PCM_R12 26.1 26.5 0.3 PCM_R13 30.4 31.5 1.1 PCM_R14 25.4 26.8 1.4 PCM_R15 21.4 22.4 1.0

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-17 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

3 Modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations in this study (µg/m ) Receptor ID 2020 DM 2020 DS 2020 NO2 Change PCM_R16 30.0 31.3 1.3 PCM_R17 36.4 33.4 -3.0 PCM_R18 26.7 25.2 -1.5 PCM_R19 32.8 30.3 -2.5 PCM_R20 28.0 30.8 2.8 PCM_R21 24.4 25.0 0.6 PCM_R22 24.2 24.9 0.7 PCM_R23 19.7 20.9 1.2 PCM_R24 31.1 31.7 0.6 PCM_R25 35.1 35.9 0.7 PCM_R26 35.1 35.7 0.6 PCM_R27 34.5 35.2 0.6 PCM_R28 33.3 33.7 0.4 PCM_R29 35.2 35.8 0.6 PCM_R30 42.4 45.0 2.6 PCM_R31 19.8 19.5 -0.3 PCM_R32 17.4 17.2 -0.2 5.7.27. Receptor PCM_R30, which is a footpath located in the southern area of Ashton-in-Makerfield to the east of the M6, is predicted to experience an increase of more than 0.4 µg/m3 at a concentration above 40 µg/m3 with the scheme in the assessment year of 2020. 5.7.28. However, as discussed in the introduction section of this document, the scheme will not be opening in 2020 but in 2023. Therefore, an additional local assessment of this point was carried out using 2023 emission rates and 2023 Defra background concentrations. This 2023 assessment indicates that the annual mean concentration at this receptor would reduce to 35 µg/m3 in 2023 and would therefore not exceed the limit value. 5.7.29. The scheme is therefore not a risk to the UK’s ability to comply with the Air Quality Directive. Regional Air Quality Assessment

5.7.30. Total emissions from roads within the TRA have been estimated for NOx, PM10 and CO2 in 2015 (the base year), and with and without the worst-case scenarios in 2020 (the opening year) and 2035 (the design year). In addition, the number of vehicle kilometres travelled is given for each scenario. 5.7.31. The results are presented in Table B-21 in Appendix B.5. Emissions are shown for the base year 2015 and the DM and DS scenarios in 2020 and 2035. 5.7.32. In the opening year (2020) there is a predicted increase in all pollutant emissions of between 0.6- 1.2%. This is due to the predicted increase in vehicle kilometres travelled with the DS scenario of 0.9% compared to the DM scenario. 5.7.33. In the design year (2035) there is a predicted increase in all pollutant emissions of between 1.0- 1.7%. This is due to the predicted increase in vehicle kilometres travelled with the DS scenario of 1.5% compared to the DM scenario. Summary 5.7.34. Table 5.9 presents the number of receptors with a perceptible change in air quality above the objective value without mitigation. Table 5.10 presents the overall evaluation of significance for the scheme for air quality.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-18 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 5.9: Number of Receptors with Perceptible Changes in Air Quality above the Objective Value without Mitigation

Number of receptors with:

Magnitude of change in Improvement of an air quality Worsening of air quality objective concentration objective already above objective or already above objective or the removal of an existing creation of a new exceedance exceedance

Large (>4µg/m3) 3 (3) 0 (0) Medium (>2 to 4µg/m3) 8 (7) 1 (0) Small (>0.4 to 2µg/m3) 22 (12) 2 (1)

Note: Numbers in brackets are the number of receptors for the 2023 projected results. Table 5.10: Overall Evaluation of Local Air Quality Significance

Key Criteria Questions Yes/No Is there a risk that Yes. environmental standards will It has been estimated that there will be exceedances of the annual mean be breached? NO2 UK AQS objective both with and without the scheme. One location (at Martinscroft R10, R13, and R14) has also been predicted to have potential exceedances of the short-term objective for NO2. Based on the anticipated opening year of 2023 there are no projected exceedances of the EU limit value at qualifying features along PCM links. Will there be a large change Yes.

in environmental conditions? There are three large changes in annual mean NO2 concentrations at receptors to the east of the M6 at Martinscroft (R10, R13, and R14). Will the effect continue for a Yes.

long time? There are three large changes in annual mean NO2 concentrations at receptors to the east of the M6 at Martinscroft (R10, R13, and R14). Additionally, as concentrations at this location are predicted to be well above the objective value poor air quality is likely to persist for a long duration. Will many people be Yes. affected? For the small and medium changes in air quality predicted many people are not expected to be affected. However, for the large predicted changes at Martinscroft (R10, R13, and R14) as three properties are affected this can be considered to be many people for this magnitude of change. Is there a risk that No. designated sites, areas, or This is discussed in the Ecology and Nature Conservation chapter features will be affected? (Chapter 6). No significant effects identified. Will it be difficult to avoid or Yes. reduce or repair or The effect will be difficult to mitigate because the change in compensate for the effect? concentration is so large and air quality at the Martinscroft location (R10, R13, and R14) is well above the objective. The ability to mitigate the effect through alterations to the operating regime of the scheme e.g. speed control, is also limited because this location is not located along the scheme route but is sited to the south of the scheme. On balance is the overall Yes. effect significant? As the majority of questions have been answered with a yes and specifically due to the predicted effects at the Martinscroft location (R10, R13, and R14) the scheme is considered to be significant for air quality. 5.7.35. In summary, without mitigation the scheme is considered to have significant adverse effects for air quality. Mitigation is considered in the following sections for the properties located to the east of the M6 at Martinscroft (R10, R13, and R14).

5.8. Mitigation measures 5.8.1. The air quality assessment undertaken for the M6 J21a- 26 Scheme predicted that the creation of

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-19 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

additional capacity and traffic throughput, operating at the national speed limit, will result in large adverse significant air quality impacts at three receptors located to the east of the M6 at Martinscroft (R10, R13, and R14). These are 3No. terraced properties at Martinscroft, approximately 2.5 km to the south of the scheme between M6 junctions 21and 21a. 5.8.2. Whilst assessments have considered cumulative interactions with other SM projects (M62 J10- 12, M56 J6-8, M60 J24-4) it has been clearly established that the adverse effects predicted are primarily attributable to the specific improvements on the M6 corridor. 5.8.3. Mitigation interventions have been investigated and this has identified the following intervention strategies to address the significant adverse air quality effects. These include: · The operation of a full time 60mph speed control between J21a and 26 for either 12 or 24 hours a day along the full length of the scheme; and · The purchase by agreement of the 3No. terraced properties at Martinscroft and subsequent removal of these as residential receptors. 5.8.4. Mitigation interventions, ranging from physical interventions (e.g. barriers), to operational regime change and scheme modifications have been investigated and for this location, currently, the strategies summarised above remain the only viable, demonstrable options to address the air quality challenges.

Speed Control mitigation 5.8.5. A review of the predicted changes in traffic flows along this section of the M6 with 12 hours of 60mph speed limits along the scheme compared to the unmitigated scheme (i.e. scheme operating at NSL). 5.8.6. A reduction of 211 vehicles per day is predicted at this location. This change is well below the magnitude of change in traffic that would trigger an assessment of the change in air quality as set out in DMRB HA207/07. Therefore, this would not be sufficient to remove the large adverse effect at these receptors. 5.8.7. Similarly, a review of the predicted changes in traffic flows along this section of the M6 with 24 hours of 60mph speed limits along the scheme compared to the unmitigated scheme. A reduction of 233 vehicles per day is predicted at this location, which would also not be sufficient to remove the large adverse effect at these receptors.

Property Purchase 5.8.8. At Martinscroft specifically, due to its location to the south of the Scheme area, operational interventions such as speed control cannot be applied as set out above. Other operational and regime change alternatives have also been considered and again, at this time, no viable, demonstrable intervention is currently available to address the challenges at Martinscroft. Similarly, physical interventions such as air quality barriers have also been investigated and due to the specific characteristics of the site; its proximity to an adjacent overbridge curtailing an effective length of barrier from being installed; and the minimal distance between the receptors and running lanes into which a barrier could be introduced, it has been concluded that a barrier would not be a viable alternative at this location. This is principally due to the site constraints which would prevent the installation of a sufficient length of barrier thereby minimising effectiveness, other buildability challenges arising from lack of space to construct a barrier and proximity of the barrier to the receptor considered likely to create a significant adverse visual intrusion impact. 5.8.9. Obtaining 3No. properties at Martinscroft in addition to addressing the air quality issues at this location also presents a number of additional benefits for the delivery of the Scheme and for future Highways England planned interventions on the network, these specifically include: · The potential option to utilise the site as a satellite construction compound for recovery and other support services. · The removal of the receptors from the existing 3No. terraced properties in close proximity to the highway boundary at this location will also support delivery of the planned RIS 2 Smart Motorways Scheme between J19-21a which are likely to be affected by adverse changes in air quality in the future situation. Air quality matters associated with the J19-21a Scheme will be subject to a separate air quality assessment and EAR as the Scheme progresses.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-20 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

5.8.10. The land holding associated with Martinscroft has now become part of the M6 J21a-26 scheme and all environmental implications of the purchase and removal of the 3No. terraced properties as residential receptors, has been fully considered in the EAR.

Summary 5.8.11. Overall the M6 J21a – 26 Scheme is not considered significant in terms of air quality with the purchase of the three properties (R10, R13, and R14) at Martinscroft. Further details are presented in Section 5.10 below.

5.9. Residual effects

Construction impacts 5.9.1. No significant residual effects are expected to occur as a consequence of the proposed M6 J21a- 26 Scheme construction assuming that appropriate standard mitigation measures as captured in the OEMP to prevent and control dust emissions are implemented and maintained by the Delivery Partner.

Operational impacts 5.9.2. This air quality assessment identifies that with the implementation of the mitigation listed in Section 5.8, the Scheme can be progressed by Highways England as it does not generate significant air quality effects.

5.10. Summary 5.10.1. This section presents the numbers of properties with perceptible changes in air quality above the objective value for the M6 J21a – 26 Scheme, with mitigation (Table 5.11). Table 5.12 presents the overall evaluation of significance for air quality with mitigation. Table 5.11: Number of Receptors with Perceptible Changes in Air Quality above the Objective Value with Mitigation

Number of receptors with:

Magnitude of change in Improvement of an air quality Worsening of air quality objective concentration objective already above objective or already above objective or the removal of an existing creation of a new exceedance exceedance

Large (>4µg/m3) 0 (0) 0 (0) Medium (>2 to 4µg/m3) 8 (7) 1 (0) Small (>0.4 to 2µg/m3) 22 (12) 2 (1)

Note: Numbers in brackets are the number of receptors for the 2023 projected results. Table 5.12: Overall Evaluation of Local Air Quality Significance with Mitigation

Key Criteria Questions Yes/No Is there a risk that Yes. environmental standards will It has been estimated that there will be exceedances of the annual mean be breached? NO2 UK AQS objective both with and without the scheme. Based on the anticipated opening year of 2023 there are no projected exceedances of the EU limit value at qualifying features along PCM links. Will there be a large change No. in environmental conditions? There are no predicted large changes in the estimated annual mean NO2, with the implementation of mitigation for Martinscroft (R10, R13, and R14). Will the effect continue for a No. long time? There are no predicted large changes in the estimated annual mean NO2, with the implementation of mitigation for Martinscroft (R10, R13, and R14).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-21 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21a-26 AECOM-WSP

Key Criteria Questions Yes/No Will many people be No.

affected? There are no large increases in annual mean NO2 concentration, with the implementation of mitigation for Martinscroft (R10, R13, and R14). Is there a risk that No. designated sites, areas, or This is discussed in the Ecology and Nature Conservation chapter features will be affected? (Chapter 6). No significant effects identified. Will it be difficult to avoid or No. reduce or repair or There are no overall significant air quality effects with the implementation compensate for the effect? of mitigation at the Martinscroft location (R10, R13, and R14). On balance is the overall No. effect significant? The scheme is not significant as the majority of questions have been answered with a no and no compliance risk has been identified. 5.10.2. The findings of the air quality assessment indicate that the M6 J21a – 26 Scheme, with the implementation of mitigation is consistent with relevant planning policy and is not significant for air quality and the Scheme can be progressed.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 5-22 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 6. Biodiversity

Key features for this topic: · No significant effects are anticipated on any internationally, nationally or locally designated sites and non-statutory designated sites as a result of the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. · No significant effects on the favourable conservation status of notable and legally protected species are anticipated as a result of the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. · Construction will involve temporary loss of habitats within the Proposed Scheme, which will have temporary effects on resource availability for notable and legally protected species, but this is not considered to be significant on the favourable conservation status of these species. However, mitigation in the form of habitat creation and compensation will be required. · There will be permanent loss of habitat beneath the footprint of new infrastructure. A total of approximately 4.4ha of permanent habitat loss with an additional area of 14.4ha of temporary loss due to vegetation clearance during construction is predicted based on worst case assumptions. This loss is considered to result in a neutral or slight adverse effect, in the context of the total soft estate area (300ha) for the Proposed Scheme. · Mitigation and compensation measures will be required in relation to notable and legally protected species, such as appropriate timing of site clearance and enabling works. This is detailed in the OEMP and will be specified in the CEMP at DF5.

Introduction

6.1.1. This Chapter summarises the findings of an ecological impact assessment undertaken for the Proposed Scheme. It considers the potential impacts to relevant ecological features identified from desk study and field surveys, outlines recommended mitigation measures and concludes by identifying any potential significant residual effects during construction and operation. The ecological features comprise designated sites, notable habitats, and notable and legally protected species recorded within or near to the proposed works.

6.1.2. Highways England is committed to achieving biodiversity gains, as set out in the Biodiversity Plan, which may be achieved through careful consideration of impacts and opportunities during the environmental assessment process for schemes of this type1. Section 6.7.6 outlines how this scheme will address the biodiversity objective outlines in RIS1.

6.1.3. This Chapter is supported by: · Figure 6-1 Ecological Constraints Plan, Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results, Figure 6-3 Preliminary Bat Roost Appraisal, Figure 6-4 Statutory and Non Statutory Designated Sites, Figure 6-5 Affected Road Network (ARN) and European and National Statutory Designated Sites within 200m, and Figure 6-6 Otter and Water Vole Survey. The above Figures can be found in Volume 2: Figures) · Appendix C.1, Volume 3: Appendices: M6 Junction 21A to 26 Smart Motorway: Habitat Regulations Assessment (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-LE-0001), referred to as the HRA within this Chapter · M6 Junction 21A to 26 Smart Motorway: Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD- M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001), referred to as the Protected Species Report within this Chapter.

1 Highways England (2015) Our plan to protect and increase biodiversity

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

6.1.4. Table 6-1 below details the professional competency of the topic lead for this. This information is provided to fulfil the requirement of EU Directive 2014/52/EU.

Table 6-1 Professional Competency Biodiversity

Grade and Expertise and Name Company Professional Qualification

· Birmingham, 2013-2017 – member of large team which carried out a range of ecological surveys along the northern route. acted as the bat species lead as part of the HS2 Enabling Works Contract and was responsible for approving survey method guidelines, co- ordinating surveyors, approving data sets/spreadsheets and providing technical support. · Connection, National Grid, 2016-2018 – was responsible for designing ecological surveys and reviewing technical reports for a large overhead power line project. acted as one of the ecology project managers. The primary objectives were to establish key technical issues, risks and gaps in scope and existing knowledge, including critical appraisal of quality and validity of data, stakeholder perspectives and Associate Director, requirements, a scope of future ecological work (including Ecology (AECOM) required survey and reporting standards) based on a critical analysis of what is essential to assess the likely significant effects on ecological receptors and a register of items (risks and opportunities) to be addressed, assigning owners and timescales and identifying interactions with project team, client and stakeholders. · A38 and A46, Highways England 2016-2018 – member of survey team undertaking a wide range of ecological surveys and reviewing technical reports. · Manchester Airport, 2015-2019 – lead ecologist on several developments in and surrounding Manchester Airport. · BSc (Hons) Geography · MSc Biodiversity and Conservation

Study area

6.2.1. The Scoping Report details the initial study area for consideration of ecological impacts. As the design of the Proposed Scheme has progressed this has been refined (Table 6.2) taking into account the presence and location of ecological features and their potential zone of influence (ZoI) in relation to the Proposed Scheme. As defined in the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment, the ZoI for a project is the “The ‘zone of influence’ for a project is the area over which ecological features may be affected by biophysical changes as a result of the proposed project and associated activities. This is likely to extend beyond the project site, for example where there are ecological or hydrological links beyond the site boundaries.”” (CIEEM, 20192). The potential ZoI can therefore differ for each ecological feature. The ZoI has been determined using best practice, guidance and professional judgement/experience. 6.2.2. In line with the air quality approach (described in Chapter 5) this section has considered potential impacts to designated ecological sites (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), candidate SACs (cSAC), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), potential SPAs (pSPAs), Ramsar, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within the proximity of the Scheme affected road network (ARN).

6.2.3. The ZoI is 200m from the ARN. The ARN in relation to designated ecological sites is shown on Figure 6-5 Affected Road Network and European and National Designated Sites within 200m.

2 CIEEM (2019) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine version 1.1. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 6-2 Study Area and Zone of Influence for Each Ecological Feature

Ecological Study Area (from Proposed Scheme) Zone of Influence (from Proposed Feature Scheme)

European · Within 2km · Within 200m of Proposed Scheme designated sites · Within river catchment for European · Within 200m of the ARN in relation to designated sites hydrologically cumulative air quality impacts, this connected to the Proposed Scheme relates to operational effects only · Within 30km for sites designated for · Within river catchment for sites bats hydrologically connected to the Proposed Scheme · Within 30km of European sites designated for bats3 Other Statutory · Within 2km · Within 200m of Proposed Scheme designated sites · Within river catchment for sites · Within 200m of the ARN (SSSIs only) in hydrologically connected to the relation to cumulative air quality Proposed Scheme impacts, this relates to operational effects only · Within river catchment for sites hydrologically connected to the Proposed Scheme Non-statutory · Within 500 m · Within 50m of the Proposed Scheme designated sites and notable habitats Notable and · Within 1km · For great crested newts (Triturus legally protected cristatus), the ZoI includes ponds and species ditches within 500m of the Proposed Scheme between J26 and J21A and ponds and ditches within 250m of the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area (please refer to the Protected Species Report (HE549339- ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG- 0001) for further explanation relating to the ZoI). · For roosting bats, the ZoI is the Proposed Scheme · For otter (Lutra lutra) and water vole (Arvicola amphibius), the ZoI includes watercourses which pass beneath or adjacent to the Proposed Scheme (to a maximum distance of 100m), where works are proposed within 8m of the watercourse banks · For badger (Meles meles), the ZoI is the Proposed Scheme · Please refer to the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD- M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001) for further explanation relating to the ZoI used for great crested newts, bats, badger, otter and water vole · The ZoI for the ecological walkover surveys was up to 50m from the Proposed Scheme, where access was possible. The walkover surveys included an assessment of the habitat potential to support nesting birds, reptiles and notable species such as

3 DMRB, Volume 11, Section 4, Part 1 Environmental Assessment, HD44/09 Assessment of Implications (of highways and/or road projects) on European Sites (including Appropriate Assessment)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Ecological Study Area (from Proposed Scheme) Zone of Influence (from Proposed Feature Scheme) plants, invertebrates, common toad (Bufo bufo) and hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)

6.2.4. The Proposed Scheme footprint for this assessment has been taken as the M6 (and associated soft estate) between J21A (Croft Interchange) and J26 (Orrell Interchange) and the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area, as this is the extent of habitat clearance required for the Proposed Scheme.

Methodology

6.3.1. The scope of this assessment is in accordance with the Scoping Report, although this has been refined as the Proposed Scheme design has developed and further ecological data has been gathered. In accordance with the IAN 125/15: Environmental Assessment Update, a detailed assessment has been carried out for this EAR.

Desk study

6.3.2. A desk study was undertaken to obtain existing ecological information about statutory and non- statutory designated sites, notable habitats and notable and/or legally protected species present within the study area.

6.3.3. Legally protected and notable species data and information regarding non-statutory sites designated for nature conservation was requested from the following organisations: · Greater Manchester Local Record Centre · rECOrd - the Local Biological Records Centre serving Cheshire · Merseyside Biobank – the Local Biological Records Centre serving Merseyside

6.3.4. Information was also obtained from the Highways England Environmental Information System (EnvIS) database (accessed in August 2018). 6.3.5. Information relating to statutory European and national sites designated for nature conservation was obtained from the following sources: · The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website (www.magic.defra.gov.uk) · Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) website (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/) · UK Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website (www.apis.ac.uk)

Field survey 6.3.6. The general approach to detailed survey work for habitats and notable or legally protected species has been proportional and appropriate to the risk of significant effects and of legal offences in relation to protected species and habitats. 6.3.7. Due to the localised and largely temporary nature of the construction disturbance associated with the Proposed Scheme, detailed surveys have been scoped in only where it is deemed necessary to fully assess the impacts of the Proposed Scheme (such as habitat loss/fragmentation) or to identify specific mitigation requirements, as defined in Section 6.7. 6.3.8. Where safe access allowed (or where areas of the soft estate could be viewed with permission from third party land owners), ecological walkover surveys were undertaken in 2017 and 2018. An ecological walkover survey of the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area was undertaken on 18th October 2019. The surveys recorded brief habitat descriptions and included an assessment of the potential of each habitat to support notable and legally protected species. The presence of any visible Schedule 9 invasive plant species within the Proposed Scheme was also recorded. The ecological walkover surveys included land up to 50m from the motorway soft estate at proposed major infrastructure locations, where permanent habitat loss is required (new gantries, EAs, and ALBs). Habitats throughout the Proposed Scheme, where temporary habitat

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

loss/disturbance will occur, were also recorded (where visible from accessible third party land) and their potential to support notable and legally protected species was noted. The soft estate and the motorway itself were not accessed during any of the ecology surveys for safety reasons. 6.3.9. As all works will be contained within the highway boundary, a maximum distance of 50m from the edge of the soft estate was considered to be sufficient. The JNCC guidelines (2010)4 states that 50m is an appropriate survey area when recording habitats and the potential for protected/notable species to be present and was therefore adopted for the ecological walkover surveys. The ecological walkover surveys were used to target specific areas in relation to badgers, Schedule 9 invasive plants species and trees with bat roost suitability. Whereby areas will be identified as requiring further, more detailed surveys for these species prior to any vegetation clearance or construction activities.

6.3.10. Evidence of protected species or notable species and/or habitats with potential to support legally protected species were mapped and are shown on Figure 6-1 Ecological Constraints. Where access was possible, and where habitats could be viewed from adjacent third party land, the investigations undertaken in respect of notable and legally protected species were as follows: · Assessment of suitable habitats for all species of nesting birds (this did not include dedicated nesting bird surveys). · Assessment of habitat potential for badgers and where possible, a search for signs of badger activity including setts, tracks, hairs, foraging holes and latrines following (Harris, Cresswell & Jefferies 19895 and Roper, 20106). · Assessment of habitat potential for reptiles and amphibians, in particular great crested newts. · Assessment of the suitability of watercourses which pass beneath or adjacent to the Proposed Scheme for water vole and otter, if works are proposed within 8m (determined using professional judgement/experience and best practice for water voles as defined by Strachan et al.7 and Dean et al.8) of the banks. · Assessment of habitat which could support roosting, foraging and commuting bats within the ZoI of the Proposed Scheme using the bat survey guidelines9 (due to access restrictions, detailed assessments of trees located within the soft estate could not be undertaken). · Assessment of habitat potential for other notable species (such as plants, invertebrates and other mammal species).

6.3.11. The ecological walkover surveys also involved a search for non-native invasive plant species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The locations of these are shown on Figure 6-1 Ecological Constraints Plans.

6.3.12. Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys (presence/absence) and population size class assessment surveys were carried out on ponds/ditches located within 500m of the motorway soft estate in 2017, 2018 and 2019, where appropriate and accessible. Detailed survey methods are provided in the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001). The locations of ponds and ditches included in the great crested newt surveys are shown on Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results.

6.3.13. In 2017 a preliminary bat roost appraisal of 25 structures (bridges) within the Proposed Scheme where works are proposed was undertaken. One overbridge and two underbridges were scoped out from the assessments following a desk based review using online aerial photographs and mapping10. In 2018 a preliminary bat roost appraisal was undertaken on three residential buildings (collectively referred to as Moss Brow Cottages), located within the proposed

4 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit. 5 Harris S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. (1989) Surveying Badgers. The Mammal Society. 6 Roper, T (2010) A Survey of British Natural History- Badger. New Naturalist Library, HarperCollins 7 Strachan R. Moorhouse T. and Gelling M. (2011) Water Vole Conservation Handbook, 3rd Edition 8 Dean M., Strachan R., Gow D., Andrews R. (2016)., The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series). Eds Fiona Mathews and Paul Chanin. The Mammal Society, London. 9 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat surveys for professional ecologists good practice guidelines 3rd Edition. The Bat Conservation Trust, London 10 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area. Structures and buildings identified as having low suitability for roosting bats were subject to a dusk emergence and/or a dawn re-entry survey in 2018. In 2019, a preliminary bat roost appraisal was undertaken on a further two structures that were identified as requiring treatment works. No further dusk emergence/dawn re-entry surveys were required. Detailed survey methods, together with any specific limitations to the methodologies are provided in the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD- M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001) and surveyed structures and buildings are shown on Figure 6-3 Preliminary Bat Roost Appraisal.

6.3.14. A combined otter and water vole survey was undertaken on an unnamed watercourse (stream) which flows underneath the M6 at chainage 49300 on 22nd May 2018, as the construction of an EA is proposed north of this watercourse, within the soft estate. The watercourse was surveyed as a precaution as there was potential at the time for works to be undertaken within 8m of its banks, however this will be avoided. The survey was repeated on 3rd August 2018 to capture any potential seasonal variations in habitat suitability. On 27th August 2019 a combined otter and water vole survey was carried out on an additional watercourse which flows underneath the M6; Millingford/Newton Brook. Proposed works close to Millingford/Newton Brook could include the installation of a hydrodynamic vortex separator chamber within the northbound soft estate. Detailed survey methods are provided in the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD- M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001) and the surveyed watercourses are shown on Figure 6-6 Otter and Water Vole Survey.

Assessment methodology 6.3.15. The ecological assessment was undertaken in accordance with the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 4 Ecology and Nature Conservation11; IAN 130/1012; Ecology and Nature Conservation - Criteria for Impact Assessment, DMRB, Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 (HA205/08) Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) guidelines13. 6.3.16. This section describes the method of ecological assessment to determine residual effects on ecological features and whether an effect would be significant. The method of assessment comprises the following key stages: · Establishing the baseline conditions through desk study and field survey data. · Assessment of nature conservation value of each ecological feature. · Identification of embedded and essential mitigation measures to avoid and reduce potentially significant impacts on the favourable conservation status and/or integrity of ecological features. · Identification and characterisation of potential impacts on the favourable conservation status and/or conservation objectives of ecological features during construction and operational phases. This takes into account factors such as likelihood, reversibility, duration, timing and frequency. · Determination of any significant residual effects after mitigation is taken into account during construction and operation.

6.3.17. The DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5, HA205/08 states that the significance of the effect is formulated as a function of the feature or resource environmental values (or sensitivity) and the magnitude of project impact (change)”. This process includes the following stages and is described further in the sections below: · assigning a nature conservation and biodiversity value · assigning a magnitude of impact · assigning a significance level

11 Highways England. (1993) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Ecology & Nature Conservation Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 4, UK. 12 Highways England (2010) DMRB Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment 13CIEEM (2019) Guidelines for preliminary ecological appraisal.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Nature conservation valuation 6.3.18. To determine importance, ecological features have been valued following the framework provided in IAN 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation - Criteria for Impact Assessment (see Table 6-3). Valuing ecological features requires professional judgement and information available on the distribution and status of the features. For the purpose of this assessment, the value of each ecological feature has been based on available information from the results of the desk study and field surveys. No stakeholder engagement has been undertaken. Where field surveys are incomplete at the time of assessment professional judgement has been applied in relation to resource valuation using known baseline data and a worst-case scenario approach. Table 6-3 Resource Valuation, adapted from IAN 130/10

Examples of resource valuation based on geographical context

International or European Value

· International or European designated sites14, or sites that meet the published selection criteria for International or European designated sites but are not themselves designated as such; · Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at an at International or European level where loss of the population would adversely affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale; where the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale; or where the species is at a critical phase of its life-cycle at this scale.

National (UK/ England)

· Nationally designated sites including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves (NNR) and sites that meet published criteria for nationally designated sites but are not themselves designated as such; · Notable areas of key/priority habitats (including ancient woodland) where considered to be of national importance and not already otherwise designated or listed as habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006). · Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at International, European or National level where loss would adversely affect the conservation status or distribution at National level; where the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or where the species is at a critical phase of its life-cycle at this scale.

Regional (North-West of England)

· Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at International, European or National level where loss of these species would adversely affect the conservation status or distribution at Regional level; where the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale; or where the species is at a critical phase of its life-cycle at this scale. · Notable areas of key/priority habitats identified in the Regional Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (Greater Manchester BAP and Cheshire BAP); notable areas of key/priority habitat identified as being of Regional value in the appropriate Natural Area Profile (or equivalent); areas that have been identified by regional plans or strategies as areas for restoration or re-creation of priority habitats; and notable areas of key/priority habitat listed within the Highways Agency’s BAP.

County (Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside)

· Local Wildlife Sites (LWS); Sites of Biological Interest (SBI) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) designated in the county context; or sites that meet the published selection criteria for these designated sites but are not themselves designated as such; · Notable habitats and habitats where considered to be of County importance (and not already designated); · Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at International, European or National level where loss would adversely affect the conservation status or distribution at County level; where the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale; or where the species is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale.

14 This includes: Sites or Community Importance, Special Protection Areas, potential Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, candidate Special Areas of Conservation, Wetlands of International Importance, Biogenetic Reserves, World Heritage Sites (designated for their nature conservation value) and Biosphere Reserves.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Local (Immediate local area)

· Designated sites including LNRs designated in the local context; · Areas of habitat; or populations/ communities of species considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the local context (such as veteran trees), including features of value for migration, dispersal or genetic exchange.

Scheme (land within the Proposed Scheme extent which falls within the Highway England boundary)

· Notable habitats or species considered of value within the context of the Proposed Scheme only, such a small ponds, scrub or populations of notable species widespread in the local area.

Characterisation of impacts 6.3.19. This assessment takes into account both on-site impacts and those that may occur to adjacent and more distant ecological features. Impacts may be adverse or beneficial to the feature, permanent or temporary, and can occur through several mechanisms, including: · direct loss of habitats (including temporary loss of wildlife habitats during construction or small-scale permanent loss of habitats within the soft estate to accommodate proposed infrastructure such as new EAs, gantries, ALBs and other equipment) · fragmentation or isolation (dividing habitats or wildlife corridors within the soft estate) · changes to the local hydrology, water quality and/or air quality (pollution during construction and operation affecting the water environment and adjacent habitats) · direct mortality or injury to wildlife through construction activities and traffic accidents · disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli 6.3.20. In order to characterise potential impacts on the important ecological features, the following parameters have been used: · extent – the area over which an impact occurs (for example size of habitat or territory lost) · duration – the time for which an impact is expected to last (for example, is the impact permanent or temporary, or occur over the life-cycle of feature) · reversibility – whether an impact can be reversed, whether this is planned or not · timing and frequency – whether impacts occur during critical life stages or seasons

Magnitude of impact

6.3.21. The magnitude of ecology and nature conservation impact relates to the degree of change the Proposed Scheme would cause. Factors that have been taken into consideration are described in 6.3.19 and 6.3.20. Mitigation that could reduce adverse impacts has been noted (refer to Design and Mitigation Measures in Section 6.7). Definitions of magnitude of impact ratings are defined in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 Magnitude of Impact Ecology and Nature Conservation15

Magnitude Typical Criteria Descriptions of Impact

Adverse - Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe damage to key characteristics, features or elements. Major Beneficial - Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive restoration or enhancement; major improvement of attribute quality. Adverse - Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss Moderate of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements. Beneficial - Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements;

15 Magnitude of Impact Ecology and Nature Conservation Criteria derived from DMRB Volume 11 Section 2, Part 5 – HA 205/08.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-8 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Magnitude Typical Criteria Descriptions of Impact

improvement of attribute quality.

Adverse - Some measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements. Minor Beneficial - Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring. Adverse - Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements. Negligible Beneficial - Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features or elements. No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact in No change either direction.

Categorising the significance of effects 6.3.22. The determination of the significance of effects takes into account any mitigation or compensation provided as identified in Section 6.8. 6.3.23. The effect, which can be beneficial as well as adverse, on an individual important ecological feature is categorised as ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’ at the level at which the feature is valued. A significant effect would constitute impacts on the structure and functions of designated sites, notable habitats, or ecosystems; or the conservation status of habitats and species at an appropriate geographic scale. Therefore, an effect can be significant at Local, County, Regional, National or International levels dependant on its value. Overall residual effects for each important ecological feature are categorised on a five point scale in line with IAN 130/10: Ecology and Nature Conservation - Criteria for Impact Assessment (see Table 6-5). For the purposes of this impact assessment an effect is considered to be significant if it falls into the moderate category or above. Table 6-5 Significance of Effects (IAN 130/10)

Significance Category Typical Descriptors of Effect

An effect on one or more feature(s) of international, European, UK or national Very large value.

Large An effect on one or more feature(s) of regional value.

Moderate An effect on one or more feature(s) of county value.

An effect on one or more feature(s) of local value or features within the survey Slight area.

Neutral No significant effects on important nature conservation features.

6.3.24. The overall significance of effect categories detailed within the DMRB combines the appraisal of the resource valuation (Table 6-3 Resource Valuation, adapted from IAN 130/104) with the appraisal of the impact magnitude (Table 6-4 Magnitude of Impact Ecology and Nature Conservation) and is presented in Table 6-6 Significance of Ecology and Nature Conservation Categories). Changes and effects can be either beneficial or adverse. 6.3.25. Table 6-6 has been used as a guide to assist the professional judgement of the ecology and nature conservation assessor in deciding the significance of effects on ecological features. Moderate, large or very large effects are considered significant. However, the overall effect of the Proposed Scheme can be insignificant despite localised effects of significance.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-9 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 6-6 Significance of Ecology and Nature Conservation Categories16

Resource Valuation Magnitude of Potential International Within the County Impact /National Regional (High) Local (Low) Proposed Scheme (Medium) (Very High) (Negligible)

Very large Very large or Moderate or Slight or Slight Major Large Large Moderate Very Large or Large or Moderate Slight Neutral or Slight Moderate Large Moderate Large or Moderate or Slight Slight or Neutral Neutral or Slight Minor Moderate Slight Slight Slight Neutral or Slight Neutral or Slight Neutral Negligible

Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral No change

Assessment methodology - air quality impacts to ecological sites

6.3.26. The ecological sites considered in this chapter are those which are located within 200 meters of the affected road network (ARN). The ARN is the scheme plus roads with qualifying changes in traffic including changes in daily traffic, speed and heavy duty vehicles. The criteria are set out in full in Section 5.3 of the air quality chapter. The designated sites identified within the ARN are described in the Section 6.4 Baseline conditions, sub-section Designated Sites.

6.3.27. The air quality modelling predictions utilised to consider potential effects on ecological sites within this ARN are based on changes in traffic from all four SM Schemes combined. This provides the cumulative worst-case changes in oxides of nitrogen and nitrogen deposition. This has been done by comparing a situation with no north-west SM Schemes (Do Minimum) to one with all north-west SM Schemes (Do Something). The details of the traffic data utilised in the air quality assessment to provide information to the Scheme ecologists is also set out in Section 5.1 of the air quality chapter.

6.3.28. The manner in which air quality calculations are undertaken to comply with the DMRB means that they inherently calculate an ‘in combination’ scenario. This is the ‘Do Something’ (DS) scenario, which includes the Proposed Scheme and the other North West SMP Schemes, existing traffic and all forecast traffic growth by the assessment year, attributable to plans and projects such as relevant local authority local plans and housing/employment proposals. The Do Minimum (DM) scenario is identical to the DS except that it excludes the Proposed Scheme traffic and traffic associated with the other North West SMP Schemes. The difference between DS and DM therefore shows the cumulative effect of the Proposed Scheme and other North West SMP Schemes while the difference between DS and baseline shows the ‘in combination’ effect.

6.3.29. Interim Advice Note 174/1317 defines the magnitude of change and the consequent significance of effects on features due to changes in ambient concentrations of NO2.

6.3.30. The changes in magnitude, which are based on an assumed measure of uncertainty (MoU) of 10%, may be described as small, medium, large or imperceptible, depending on the change in concentration relative to the air quality criterion as follows: · A change in concentration less than or equal to 1% of the relevant air quality criterion is considered to be ‘imperceptible’. · A change in concentration greater than 1% and less than 5% of the relevant air quality criterion is considered to be ‘small’.

16 Significance of Ecology and Nature Conservation derived from IAN135/10 and HA 205/08 17 The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Interim Advice Note 174/13 Updated advice for evaluating significant local air quality effects for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality (HA207/07)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-10 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· A change in concentration greater than 5% and less than 10% of the relevant air quality criterion is considered to be ‘medium’. · A change in concentration greater than 10% of the relevant air quality criterion is considered to be ‘large’.

Baseline conditions

Context 6.4.1. The northern extent of the Proposed Scheme (J26) lies on the outskirts of Wigan. Urban areas including Ashton-in-Makerfield and Newton-le-Willows are located close to the Proposed Scheme, between J22 and 25. The southern extent of the Proposed Scheme (J21A) is located immediately north of Warrington. The Scheme also includes the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area, just north of J21. 6.4.2. The surrounding landscape is largely agricultural, comprising of improved grassland and arable fields, with areas of woodland and hedgerows. 6.4.3. The Proposed Scheme overview can be viewed on Figure 2-1 Scheme overview (located in Volume 2: Figures).

Designated sites

Designated sites – within the Proposed Scheme study area

6.4.4. One European statutory designated site, Manchester Mosses SAC, is located within the study area. The Annex I habitat that is a primary selection of this site is degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration and the site contains the last remaining fragments of raised bog system in an area once formed largely of peat. Holcroft Moss SSSI forms part of the Manchester Mosses SAC and is the only known unexploited area of raised bog remaining in Cheshire. Manchester Mosses SAC is located approximately 1.5km north-east of the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area. The Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area not been included in the study area buffer for the HRA assessment due to the limited nature of works planned at this location (proposed building demolition) and distance from the ARN. Holcroft Moss SSSI is located almost 4km from the Proposed Scheme main works (therefore out with the study area) but is located within 200m of the ARN (the B5212). Holcroft Moss SSSI is therefore taken forward in this assessment due to potential operational effects resulting from changes in air quality.

6.4.5. Risley Moss SSSI and Local Nature Reserve (LNR) forms part of the Manchester Mosses SAC and lies approximately 1.5km north-east of the of the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area. The SSSI and LNR comprise open mossland with purple moor-grass (Molinia caerulea) and heather (Calluna vulgaris), woodland and grassland habitats. The variety of open water habitats supports a range of dragonflies and breeding birds. Risley Moss SSSI and LNR is not hydrologically linked to the Proposed Scheme, nor is it within 200m of the ARN. For these reasons, no effects are anticipated and Risley Moss SSSI and LNR is not considered further in this chapter.

6.4.6. Ravenhead Brickworks SSSI is located approximately 428m west of the Proposed Scheme, North-west of J26. The SSSI is a nationally important geological site and is outside of the ZoI of the Proposed Scheme. The SSSI is not hydrologically linked to the Proposed Scheme and is not within 200m of the ARN. For these reasons, no effects on Ravenhead Brickworks SSSI are anticipated and this SSSI will not therefore be considered further in this chapter. 6.4.7. Greenslate Water Meadows LNR is approximately 480m west of the Proposed Scheme, south- west of J26 and is hydrologically connected to the Scheme. As this LNR is outside of the ZoI and is upstream of the Proposed Scheme, no significant effects on this LNR are anticipated. Greenslate Water Meadows LNR will not therefore be considered further in this chapter.

6.4.8. Highfield Moss SSSI is approximately 825m east of the Proposed Scheme at its closest point, between J22 and J23. The SSSI contains an area of peat with mixed valley mire communities, acidic marshy grassland and unimproved acidic grassland. It is designated as the best remaining example of raised mire in Greater Manchester and Merseyside. The SSSI is not hydrologically linked to the Proposed Scheme and given its distance, an assessment of nitrogen deposition is

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-11 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

not necessary. In addition, Highfield Moss SSSI is not within 200m of the ARN. Highfield Moss SSSI will not therefore be considered further in this chapter as no significant effects are anticipated.

6.4.9. Woolston Eyes SSSI is located approximately 950m south of the Proposed Scheme (proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area) at its closest point but, is located within 200m of the ARN. Woolston Eyes SSSI is designated for its nesting bird assemblage of lowland open waters and their margins (including nationally important numbers of black-necked grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), gadwall (Anas strepera) and pochard (Aythya farina), and for wintering wildfowl. This SSSI will be considered within this chapter. 6.4.10. Three Sisters LNR is located approximately 1.14km south-east of the Proposed Scheme at J25 and contains areas of grassland and open water. The Wigan Flashes LNR lies approximately 1.18km east of the Proposed Scheme, between J25 and J26 at its closest point. The Wigan Flashes LNR contains a range of habitats including open water and reedbeds and supports wildlife including water vole and birds. Three Sisters LNR and The Wigan Flashes LNR are both outside of the ZoI, and are not hydrologically linked to the Proposed Scheme; therefore no significant effects on these LNRs are anticipated. These sites will not be considered further in this Chapter.

6.4.11. Bryn Marsh and Ince Moss SSSI is located approximately 1.29km east of the Proposed Scheme at its closest point, north-east of J25. The SSSI contains wetland habitats and supports the best example of swamp and tall fen vegetation in Greater Manchester and Merseyside as well as important populations of dragonflies and breeding birds. The SSSI is hydrologically linked to the Proposed Scheme via the and Liverpool Canal. The distance between the SSSI and the Proposed Scheme via the canal is approximately 8.5km in length and the flow of the water in the canal is likely to be minimal. Pollution prevention measures will be adhered to during construction of the Proposed Scheme and due to the distance of the Proposed Scheme and the SSSI, no effects on the SSSI are anticipated. In addition, the SSSI is not located within 200m of the ARN. Bryn Marsh and Ince Moss SSSI will not be considered further in this EAR as no significant effects are anticipated.

6.4.12. There are nine local non-statutory designated sites within the study area, but are outside of the ZoI:

· Fox Covert, including Cowhey Dam Local Wildlife Site (LWS) · Wicken Hedge LWS · Haydock Cross LWS · Kilbruck Lane Grassland LWS · Skitters Wood Site of Biological Importance (SBI) · Moss Wood SBI · Willow Park LWS · Rixton Moss LWS · Woolston Moss LWS

6.4.13. The Proposed Scheme is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the local sites listed above (shown on Figure 6-4 Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites) as they are outside of the ZoI and therefore they are not considered further in this chapter. 6.4.14. Eight non-statutory locally designated sites lie within the ZoI of the Proposed Scheme. These are listed in Table 6-7 Non-statutory designated sites within the ZoI of the Proposed Scheme below.

6.4.15. All statutory and non-statutory designated sites within the ZoI of the Proposed Scheme are shown on the Figure 6-4 Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-12 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 6-7 Non-statutory designated sites within the ZoI of the Proposed Scheme

Site Name and Brief Description Provided by Records Centre Approximate Designation Distance from Proposed Scheme (m)

Houghton Green Field excavated in the 1960's by the present owner for spoil used Directly adjacent Pool Local Wildlife in the construction of the M6. Now a steep sided hollow, 14 metres to the south-west Site (LWS) deep, that until recently was pumped dry except in winter. Since (between Chainage pumping ceased it has become a large waterbody, around 3 40600 and 41400). hectares in area and 5 metres deep, surrounded by grazed improved grassland. It now attracts significant and increasing numbers of wildfowl and waders.

Species present include: coot (Fulica atra), pochard (Aythya farina), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), little grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis), great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria), wigeon (Anas penelope), gadwall (Anas strepera), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), pintail (Anas acuta), garganey (Anas querquedula), shoveler (Anas clypeata), ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), dunlin (Calidris alpine), snipe (Gallinago gallinago), redshank (Tringa tetanus), common sandpiper (Common sandpiper).

Newton Lake and A large lake within Willow Park with associated swamp habitats Directly adjacent to Southern and a sandstone outcrop on the eastern shore. The woodland the south-west Woodland LWS contains one of two known rookery sites within St. Helens. (Chainage 45250).

Castle Hill LWS A sandstone hill which is an ancient motte site. The site is Directly adjacent to predominantly grassland with many orchids. At the foot of the hill a the north-east swamp area has developed which is dominated by reed canary- (Between Chainage grass (Phalaris arundinacea). 45250 and 45750.

Ellams Brook LWS A stretch of Ellams Brook that has provided habitat for water voles Crosses M6– (Arvicola amphibius). (Chainage 46800).

Plantation Copse A small mixed deciduous copse with ponds and rough grassland. Directly adjacent to and Ponds LWS The site contains a number of nationally, regionally and locally the west. (Between important habitats and plants. The ponds and surrounding habitats Chainage 48450 provide habitat for great crested newts. and 484550). Glead Wood & Broadleaved woodland site including streams and a pond. The Directly adjacent Tan Pit Slip Site of semi-natural areas are predominantly oak. Ground flora species to the north-east Biological Interest include bluebell, lesser celandine (Ranunculus ficaria) and wood (Between Chainage (SBI) avens (Geum urbanum). Rhododendron is present. 52750 and 53000). There are areas of wet woodland along Hawkley Brook. Indian balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) is present. The site also provides a wildlife corridor across open arable fields. Winstanley Hall A composite site, part of which is bisected by the M6. Directly adjacent to Woods SBI The woodland includes examples of mature woodland and recent the east and west replanting, with substantial amounts of oak (Quercus sp.) (between Chainage woodland. Acidic ground flora of creeping soft-grass (Holcus 54900 and 55250). mollis) and bracken (Pteridium sp) with local ferns, bluebells (Hyacinthoides sp) and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia) in scattered damp places. Many woodland birds including thrushes, tits, finches, warblers, tawny owl (Strix aluco) and great spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos major). Many of the woods are inaccessible and free from disturbance, providing breeding sites for many species.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-13 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Site Name and Brief Description Provided by Records Centre Approximate Designation Distance from Proposed Scheme (m)

Orrell Brickworks The post industrial site supports a range of habitats including 50m west at its SBI species-rich grassland, marsh, scrub and tall ruderal vegetation. closest point – There is also rich bryophyte flora. Of particular note is the (Chainage 55700). presence of tree moss (Climacium dendroides); the only post 1950 record for this species in Greater Manchester. Also of note are girdled webcap mushroom (Cortinarius trivialis) and downy milk cap (Lactarius pubescens), which are not common within Wigan. Common spotted (Dactylorhiza fuchsia), northern marsh (Dactylorhiza purpurella) and early marsh (Dactylorhiza incarnate) orchids are present. Birds including willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus), bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla), yellowhammer (Emberiza citronella), skylark (Alauda arvensis) and linnet (Carduelis cannabina). The site is also valuable for butterflies and moths, including meadow brown (Maniola jurtina), large skipper (Ochlodes Sylvanus) common blue (Polyommatus icarus), 5 spot burnet moths (Zygaena lonicerae) and 6 spot (Zygaena filipendulae).

Designated sites within the Zol of the ARN

6.4.16. There are two European statutory designated sites, and six nationally designated sites within the ZoI (200m of the ARN) included within the cumulative air quality assessment. These ecologically designated sites comprise: · Manchester Mosses SAC/ Holcroft Moss SSSI (located approximately 3.9km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI (located approximately 3.4km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar/ Oakhanger Moss SSSI (located approximately 39km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Woolston Eyes SSSI (located approximately 3km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI (located approximately 26km from proposed M6 main scheme works) · Red Moss SSSI (located approximately 10km from proposed M6 main scheme works).

6.4.17. The locations of the above designated sites are shown on Figure 6-5 Affected Road Network (ARN) and European and National Designated Sites within 200m.

6.4.18. Descriptions of the Manchester Mosses SAC (Holcroft Moss SSSI) and Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar site (Oakhanger Moss SSSI) are provided in the HRA (Chapter 6), which can be viewed in Appendix C.1.Table 6-8 below provides a brief description of each nationally designated ecological site included within the ARN study area (that is not included in the HRA).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-14 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 6-8 Designated sites within the ZoI of the ARN

Site name and Brief description Approximate designation location

Woolston Eyes Woolston Eyes SSSI is designated for its nesting bird assemblage Woolston Eyes SSSI of lowland open waters and their margins (including nationally SSSI is located east important numbers of black-necked grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), and west of the M6 gadwall (Anas strepera) and pochard (Aythya farina), and for J21 wintering wildfowl. The following species also contribute to the Refer to Figure 6-5 assemblage: little grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis), great crested Affected Road grebe (Podiceps cristatus), mute swan (Cygnus olor), shelduck Network (ARN) and (Tadorna tadorna), teal (Anas crecca), shoveler (Anas clypeata), European and tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), water rail (Rallus aquaticus), cuckoo National Designated (Cuculus canorus), kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), grasshopper warbler Sites within 200m. (Locustella naevia), sedge warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus), reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) and reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus). Woolston Eyes SSSI consists of four large lagoons used for depositing dredgings from the . Recently used lagoons contain large expanses of open water and mud, whilst older lagoons are dry and at various stages of colonisation by vegetation. The site is still operational with the lagoons being used for deposition of dredgings in a rotation of approximately 15 years, maintaining the range of wetland habitats across the site. The condition of this site is currently favourable (last assessment undertaken by Natural England, dated 07/12/2010)18. Stanley Bank The site contains an extensive area of damp unimproved neutral Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI grassland, a rare habitat in Merseyside, which is dissected by Meadow SSSI is more acidic south-west–north-east orientated valleys. There is a located within 200m general scattering of trees and shrubs and some larger blocks of of ARN (M62 J10 to scrub within the meadow and the site includes semi-natural alder J12). Refer to Figure woodland, oak woodland and willow scrub on the valley slopes 6-5 Affected Road bounding the eastern and southern edges of the meadow. Network (ARN) and The meadow is species-rich and several plants occur which are European and restricted in distribution in Merseyside, such as bristle club-rush National Designated Sites within 200m. (Isolepis setacea), adder’s-tongue (Ophioglossum vulgatum), yellow-wort (Blackstonia perfoliate), common yellow-sedge (Carex demissa), squarestalked St John’s-wort (Hypericum tetrapterum), and the particularly uncommon spiked sedge (Carex spicata). The site is also notable for the large colonies of common spotted- orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsia), southern marsh-orchid (D. praetermissa) and their hybrids which occur. The northern slopes of the Black Brook valley support predominantly alder woodland. The small section of Stanley Bank Wood included within the site comprises pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). The diversity of habitats present supports a wide range of insect and bird life. Breeding birds include willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus), reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), yellow hammer (Emberiza citronella) and redpoll (Carduelis flammea). Red Scar and Tun Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods (including also Boilton and Nab Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods Woods) are situated east of Preston between Ribbleton and Brook Woods SSSI SSSI Grimsargh on the steep escarpment of the and in the is located within ravine of its tributary the Tun Brook. They contain particularly 200m of ARN (M6 extensive examples of western valley ash-wych elm wood and J21A-26). Refer to valley alderwoods on neutral-alkaline soils, which are typical of Figure 6-5 Affected woodlands in the Ribble and Hodder valleys on soils derived from Road Network glacial drift. They constitute one of the largest areas of deciduous (ARN) and woodland in Lancashire and provide a valuable refuge for wildlife European and close to the urban areas of Preston. The condition of this site as a National Designated whole (which is made up of units 1-4) is currently favourable, last Sites within 200m.

18 Natural England (December 2010) Woolston Eyes SSSI Condition Assessment https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/ReportUnitCondition.aspx?SiteCode=S1000106&ReportTitle=Woolston Eyes SSSI

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-15 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Site name and Brief description Approximate designation location

assessment of unit 1, which lies within 200m of the ARN, dated 29/03/2016 Natural England)19. Red Moss SSSI Lowland raised mire formerly occupied extensive areas of land in Red Moss SSSI is Greater Manchester and Merseyside, particularly on the floodplain located within 200m terraces of the , but is now rare both locally, of ARN (M6 J21A- nationally and in Europe. There are no undamaged lowland raised 26). Refer to Figure mires in Greater Manchester and Merseyside and Red Moss 6-5 Affected Road represents one of the few remaining examples of mire habitat Network (ARN) and bearing this type of semi-natural vegetation in these counties. European and The special interest lies in the presence of vegetation with peat National Designated formation capability, and that the hydrology, or conditions Sites within 200m. necessary to support this vegetation, has not been irreparably damaged. Although this type of vegetation does not occupy a large proportion of the peatland, the lawns and hummocks of Sphagnum mosses, together with cotton grasses, are more extensive than on any other peatland in Greater Manchester and Merseyside. Red Moss has the highest recorded number of Sphagnum species for comparable sites in Greater Manchester and Merseyside. The ditches and pools of the Moss provide breeding sites for dragonflies including the common hawker Aeschna juncea and the locally scarce black darter Sympetrum danae. The SSSI is comprised of four units. Unit 1 lies within 200m of the ARN. The condition of unit 1 is currently Unfavourable – Recovering (last assessment dated 19/06/201920).

Notable habitats

6.4.19. There are no areas of ancient woodland located within the study area.

6.4.20. The following Habitats of Principal Importance21 have been identified within and/or adjacent to the Proposed Scheme:

· Approximately 20.6ha of Priority habitat deciduous woodland (as shown on the magic website22) – see Figure 6-1 Ecological Constraints Plan.

· hedgerows (adjacent to sections of the Proposed Scheme boundary)

· ponds (outside of the Proposed Scheme only)

Other habitats

6.4.21. The targeted ecology walkover surveys identified the following additional habitats within the Proposed Scheme: · Semi-natural broadleaved woodland - this habitat is uncommon within the soft estate and almost exclusively occurred as extension of adjoined woodland through self-seeding. · Broadleaved plantation - common within the soft estate and often present as landscape planting used for visual or screening purposes. Typical species within these plantations included include alder (Alnus glutinosa), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinose), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), oak (Quercus sp.), field maple (Acer campestre) and hazel (Corylus avellana).

19 Natural England (March 2016) Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI Condition Assessment https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/ReportUnitCondition.aspx?SiteCode=S1001907&ReportTitle=Red%20Scar%20and%20T un%20Brook%20Woods%20SSSI 20 Natural England (June 2015) Red Moss SSSI Condition Assessment https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/ReportUnitCondition.aspx?SiteCode=S1006538&ReportTitle=Red%20Moss%20SSSI 21 Habitat of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in England notified under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 and as listed in the England Biodiversity List. 22 https://magic.defra.gov.uk

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-16 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· Scattered trees - numerous throughout the soft estate with the majority likely to be self- sown. Commonly occurring species reflected those present within the broadleaved semi- natural and plantation woodlands. · Dense continuous and scattered scrub - dense stands of native shrubs less than 5m in height. Most often this habitat referred to stands of bramble (Rubus fruticosus L agg.). · Tall ruderals - Stands of tall ruderal species were common within the soft estate. Species typically recorded within this habitat type included common nettle (Urtica dioica), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium). · Poor semi-improved neutral grassland - dominant habitat type within the soft estate. Species included; perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne), crested-dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus), fog (Holcus lanatus), smooth meadow grass (Poa pratensis), false-oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius). · Semi-improved neutral grassland - infrequent throughout the soft estate and distinguished from improved and poor semi-improved habitats by a wider variety of herbs and grasses.

Notable species

6.4.22. The following notable and legally protected species23 were recorded, from desk study, within the study area (up to 1km from the Proposed Scheme boundary):

· Invertebrate species notable for their conservation concern status, including (but not limited to) cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae), wall butterfly (Lasiommata megera), centre-barred sallow moth (Atethmia centrago), brown hawker dragonfly (Aeshna grandis), emperor dragonfly (Anax imperator), ringlet butterfly (Aphantopus hyperantus), large tortoiseshell butterfly (Nymphalis polychloros) and broad-bodied chaser dragonfly (Libellula depressa). · Amphibians, including great crested newt, common toad (Bufo bufo) and common frog (Rana temporaria). · Reptile species, including common lizard (Zootoca vivipara). · Breeding and foraging bird species notable for their conservation concern status including, but not limited to; redwing (Turdus iliacus), dunnock (Prunella modularis), corn bunting (Emberiza calandra), yellowhammer (Emberiza citronella), merlin (Falco columbarius), bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) and marsh tit (Poecile palustris) · Bat species, including records of Daubenton's (Myotis daubentonii), noctule (Nyctalus noctula), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus) · Badger. · Water vole. · Otter. · Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). · Notable plants including bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta). · Plants listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) and Rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.).

6.4.23. Surveys undertaken to date in respect of great crested newts, bats, otter and water vole are summarised below. Full details of these surveys are provided in the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001) and Figure 6-1 Ecological Constraints Plan; Figure 6.2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results; Figure 6.3 Preliminary Bat Roost Appraisal;

23 23 Notable invertebrates are taken as principal species for the conservation of biodiversity listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; species included in local biodiversity action plans, species considered notable for their conservation concern (for example, IUCN Red Data Books, bird species are taken as those listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); any bird species listed as Red, Amber of Green status in the Birds of Conservation Concern 3 (RSPB, 2009); and species considered rare in the UK or in local counties.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-17 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

and Figure 6.6 Otter and Water Vole Survey. Further surveys for bats (detailed tree inspections), badger and great crested newt (population size estimation surveys only) will be undertaken in DF4/DF5. These surveys will be undertaken by the delivery partner to inform the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and any species licencing requirements.

6.4.24. No other notable or legally protected species surveys have been undertaken to inform this EAR.

Badger

6.4.25. To date, evidence of badger in the form of two latrines has been recorded just outside of the soft estate. A third latrine was recorded in a golf course, approximately 35m west of the Proposed Scheme. Refer to Figure 3 Badger Activity provided in the M6 Junction 21A to 26 Smart Motorway: Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001) to view locations. No badger setts have been recorded during the ecological walkover surveys. There are habitats present within the Proposed Scheme which are suitable to support this species.

Bats

6.4.26. The following structures/buildings were considered to have low suitability to support roosting bats: · Coppice Pit, Chainage 40630 – overbridge · Parkside Road, Chainage 43190 – overbridge · Mere Hough Railway, Chainage 44725 – underbridge · Rob Lane, 45720 – Chainage - underbridge · Ashton Home Farm, Chainage 49943 – overbridge · Low Bank Road, Chainage 50193 – overbridge · North Ashton Railway, Chainage 50525 – overbridge · B5207 – Downhall Green Road, Chainage 51238 – overbridge · Drummers Lane/Brocstedes Road, Chainage 52000 – overbridge · Winstanley Park Railway, Chainage 55750 – underbridge · Southworth Hall Road, Chainage 41485 – overbridge · Moss Brow Cottages, 36525 – row of three residential properties

6.4.27. The locations of these structures and buildings are shown on Figure 6-3 Preliminary Roost Appraisal.

6.4.28. Dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys were undertaken on these eleven structures with low bat roost suitability between 13th June and 2nd August 2018. None of the structures/buildings were found to support a bat roost.

6.4.29. Further information relating to the methods and results can be found within the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001).

6.4.30. Trees that are situated within the Proposed Scheme require assessment for their suitability to support roosting bats. Detailed survey work within the soft-estate was not possible in 2018 due to reasons of safety- as explained in Assumptions and Limitations (section 6.6).

6.4.31. Trees located within and adjacent to the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area were assessed for their suitability to support roosting bats in October 2019, none of these trees had bat roost suitability

6.4.32. The majority of the habitats present within the Proposed Scheme provide limited foraging and commuting habitat for bats (scrub, grassland and lack of linear features). Habitats of value (in particular woodland) are small in size, generally lack connectivity to the wider landscape and are largely restricted to young, recently planted trees. The motorway itself also presents a barrier to

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-18 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

movement across the landscape. There will be only very minor permanent loss of woodland considered to be of value to bats, therefore no activity transect surveys within the Proposed Scheme are proposed or required.

Birds

6.4.33. The habitats within the Proposed Scheme are highly likely to support a low density of common breeding bird species. The majority of habitat loss will be temporary and phased. As such dedicated breeding bird surveys are not required.

Great crested newts 6.4.34. There are no aquatic habitats present within the Proposed Scheme suitable to support breeding great crested newt. The terrestrial habitats within the Proposed Scheme may support foraging, sheltering and dispersing great crested newts where these habitats are within 500m (with terrestrial habitat connectivity) of ponds/ditches used by this species to breed. 6.4.35. 179 ponds/ditches have been identified within 500m of the Proposed Scheme (refer to Appendix A-2, Table A-2-1 of the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP- EG-0001). 6.4.36. Following the initial scoping assessments, a total of 104 ponds/ditches were scoped in for great crested newt HSI assessments and eDNA survey (presence/absence), if suitable. The locations of the ponds/ditches that were scoped in are shown on Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results. 6.4.37. Between 16th May - 30th June 2017 and 18th April - 30th June 2018, HSI and eDNA surveys were conducted on 15 ponds/ditches with potential habitat suitable for great crested newts. A positive eDNA result for great crested newt was returned for seven of the ponds/ditches (5-GCN-65a, 5- GCN-134, 5-GCN-135, 5-GCN-161, 5-GCN-162, 5-GCN-164, 5-GCN-165). 6.4.38. The seven ponds/ditches with positive eDNA results were subject to population size class assessment surveys, using conventional survey methods, between April and June 2018. 6.4.39. The population size classes were primarily small, with five of the seven ponds surveyed returning peak counts of 10 or fewer (5-GCN-161, 5-GCN-162, 5-GCN-164, 5-GCN-165, 5-GCN-135). A peak count of 15 was recorded in pond 5-GCN-134, indicating a medium population. Ponds 5- GCN-161, 5-GCN-162, 5-GCN-165, 5-GCN-164, 5-GCN-135 and 5-GCN-134 are located within 500m of each other (with no major barriers to dispersal between them) and it is therefore likely that great crested newts move between these ponds/ditches, forming a meta-population. The population size class for all ponds surveyed (excluding 5-GCN-65a) is therefore considered to be medium, when aggregating the peak counts recorded in these ponds. Great crested newt eggs were found in ponds 5-GCN-134, 5-GCN-161, 5-GCN-162 and 5-GCN-165, confirming that these ponds are used for breeding. Eggs were not found in 5-GCN-65a, 5-GCN-164 and 5-GCN-135 indicating that great crested newts were not breeding within these ponds/waterbodies in 2018. 6.4.40. Pond 5-GCN-65a was subject to five surveys only. On the sixth visit the waterbody was found to be no longer present. During the five surveys a peak count of 1 was recorded, indicating the presence of a small great crested newt population. The former location of 5-GCN-65a was revisited in 2019 and the waterbody remained absent. The likelihood of great crested newts being present within the Proposed Scheme, within 500m of its former location, is very low and therefore no great crested newt mitigation is recommended within 500m of 5-GCN-65a. This waterbody has therefore been removed from Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results and is not considered further within this chapter. 6.4.41. Between 30th May and 28th June 2019, repeat eDNA surveys were conducted on the following eight ponds and ditches; 5-GCN-110, 5-GCN-134, 5-GCN-135, 5-GCN-142, 5-GCN-145, 5-GCN- 152, 5-GCN-162 and 5-GCN-165. In 2019, eDNA surveys were also undertaken on four additional ponds/ditches that were not subject to an eDNA survey in either 2017 or 2018; 5-GCN- 103a, 5-GCN-120, 5-GCN-120a and 5-GCN-136. 6.4.42. In 2019, a positive result for the presence of great crested newt eDNA was returned for five of the ponds/ditches (5-GCN-134, 5-GCN-135, 5-GCN-136, 5-GCN-162, 5-GCN-165). The results are shown on Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results. 6.4.43. It was not possible to undertake great crested newt presence/absence surveys on ponds 5-GCN- 116, 5-GCN-117 and 5-GCN-118 for health and safety reasons, due to unstable

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-19 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

ground/boggy/marshy conditions. Based on the results of the habitat suitability assessment however, and the surveyors professional judgement, these ponds do have potential to provide suitable breeding habitat for great crested newts. 6.4.44. For full details of the great crested newt surveys undertaken in 2017, 2018 and 2019 please refer to the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001).

Otter and water vole

6.4.45. In 2018, the desk study identified one watercourse (this watercourse is unnamed), where there was potential for works within 8m of the watercourse banks (chainage 49300). The location of this unnamed watercourse is shown on Figure 6-6 Otter and Water Vole Survey.

6.4.46. A 100m section of the unnamed watercourse was subject to an otter and water vole survey on 22nd May 2018 and was repeated on 3rd August 2018 to capture any potential seasonal variations in habitat suitability. The watercourse is culverted underneath and immediately east of the M6 and is unsuitable for otter or water vole. As such, the survey was confined to the west of the motorway.

6.4.47. No otter or water vole field signs were recorded during the two surveys that were undertaken in May and August 2018, indicating the likely absence of these species. The habitats present are sub-optimal for both water vole and otter. Furthermore, the proposed works to the north of this watercourse, including the construction of an EA, are greater than 8m from the watercourse banks.

6.4.48. In 2019, one additional watercourse, Millingford/Newton Brook was identified where works may be required close to the banks, but not within 8m. Proposed works close to Millingford/Newton Brook could include the installation of a hydrodynamic vortex separator chamber within the northbound soft estate. This watercourse was therefore subject to an otter and water vole survey on 27th August 2019.

6.4.49. It was not safe to access the banks and channel of Millingford/Newton Brook during the survey; therefore, the presence/likely absence of water vole and otter could not be determined. The small section of Millingford Brook that was visible during the survey was assessed as sub-optimal for water vole and is unlikely to support this species. No potential otter holts were recorded, however the watercourse could be used for commuting purposes by otters.

6.4.50. For full details of the methods and results please refer to the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-EG-0001).

Reptiles

6.4.51. Reptile presence/absence surveys have not been conducted. Reptile presence has been assumed based on desk study records and the habitats recorded during the ecology site walkovers and may be present in low numbers throughout the Proposed Scheme.

Terrestrial invertebrates

6.4.52. The structure and nature of the habitats (i.e. species poor grassland, scattered/dense scrub and tall ruderals) within the Proposed Scheme are considered unlikely to provide the diversity required to support a diverse terrestrial invertebrate community containing notable or rare species. Therefore, no surveys have been conducted and terrestrial invertebrates are not considered further in this chapter.

White clawed crayfish 6.4.53. No in channel works or works affecting the banks of any watercourses within the Proposed Scheme are anticipated. Provided that measures to reduce pollution and run-off are implemented then no surveys for white clawed crayfish are required. Therefore, this species will not be considered further in the chapter.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-20 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Other notable species 6.4.54. There is potential for presence of hedgehog and common toad which are listed as Species of Principal Importance under Section 41 of the National Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Planning Authorities have a legal duty under Section 40 of the same Act to consider such species when determining planning applications to be present within and adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. No specific surveys were conducted for these species as they would be safeguarded through mitigation implemented for other protected species including great crested newts and reptiles, such as ecological watching briefs, hand searches and phased vegetation clearance. No significant effects on common toad and hedgehog are therefore anticipated and they are not considered further in this chapter.

Invasive plant species 6.4.55. To date, Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera), Japanese knotweed, Japanese rose (Rosa rugose), rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) and montbretia (Crocosmia x Crocosmiiflora) has been recorded within, or immediately adjacent to the Proposed Scheme during the ecological walkover surveys. These have been mapped and are shown on Figure 6-1 Ecological Constraints in Volume 2 of the EAR.

Future baseline 6.4.56. Relative to the current baseline, the values of ecological features present (presented in Table 6- 9) are not expected to change significantly over the 2-year indicative construction period between 2021 and 2023. 6.4.57. Management of the remaining habitats within the Proposed Scheme are unlikely to change over this period, resulting in no significant degradation or improvement of habitat condition.

Value of feature

6.5.1. The nature conservation value of the ecological features is described in Table 6-9. Where features require consideration to avoid risks of legal offence, any mitigation required will be included in the construction phase environmental management procedures, as described in Section 6.7.

Table 6-9 Rationale and Valuation of Ecological Features

Features Valuation Rationale Manchester Mosses SACand International SAC covered by an international Midland Meres and Mosses designation. Phase 2 Ramsar.

Holcroft Moss SSSI, National SSSI covered by a national designation. Woolston Eyes SSSI, Oakhanger Moss SSSI, Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI, Red Moss SSSI LWSs and SBIs within the County LWS and SBIs are designated by the ZoI of the Proposed Scheme Local Planning Authority as areas of - Houghton Green Pool nature conservation importance. LWS, Winstanley Hall Woods SBI, Glead Wood & Tan Pit Slip SBI, Castle Hill LWS, Plantation Copse and ponds, Haydock LWS, Newton Lake and Southern Woodland LWS, Ellams Brook LWS, Orrell Brickworks SBI Notable habitats within the Local The following habitats present within or adjacent to the Proposed Scheme are

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-21 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Features Valuation Rationale Proposed Scheme considered notable as they are Habitats of Principal Importance: · Priority broadleaved deciduous woodland; · Hedgerows · Ponds; and · Semi-improved grassland. Other habitats Proposed Habitats within the Proposed Scheme Scheme include: · Broadleaved semi-natural and plantation woodland · Scattered trees · Scrub (dense continuous and scattered) · Tall ruderal · Poor semi-improved neutral grassland. Great crested newts County Great crested newt is protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and is a Species of Principal Importance (s41 NERC Act 2006). A species action plan has been included in the local BAPs for Greater Manchester, Cheshire and North Merseyside. Great crested newt are considered to be common but declining in Greater Manchester and are believed to breed in all districts, with widespread distribution in Cheshire and present but with unknown status in North Merseyside. Plantation Copse and ponds, Haydock LWS is known to support great crested newt and is located immediately adjacent to the Proposed Scheme, north of J23. Surveys undertaken in 2017, 2018 and 2019 identified the presence of great crested newts in seven ponds located within 250m of the Proposed Scheme. Reptiles (widespread Local Protected under the Wildlife and species) Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). No detailed information is currently available on the presence/absence of reptile species within or adjacent to the motorway soft estate. Potentially suitable habitat for widespread reptile species exists within areas of grassland, scrub and woodland edge within and adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. Otter and Water vole Local Otter is protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Water vole receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). There are watercourses which pass under and adjacent to the Scheme, however no works are required within 8m of the banks of any watercourse. Nesting birds Proposed All nesting birds are protected under Scheme Section 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). There are habitats within and adjacent to the Proposed Scheme that are suitable for

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-22 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Features Valuation Rationale common species of nesting bird species. Bats Local Bats are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Trees located within the Proposed Scheme may potentially have features suitable for roosting bats. In the context of the Proposed Scheme any populations of bat species present are likely to have Local value. Surveys undertaken in 2018 on structures and buildings with low bat roost suitability located within the Proposed Scheme did not identify any roosts. Badger Proposed Badgers receive protection under the Scheme Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Suitable habitat exists along the length of the Proposed Scheme, in the form of woodland, grassland and scrub. Evidence of badger, in the form of two latrines, was identified adjacent to the Proposed Scheme during the ecological site walkovers. Schedule 9 invasive plant Negligible Presence of Himalayan balsam, Japanese species knotweed rhododendron, montbretia (Crocosmia x Crocosmiiflora) and Japanese rose (Rosa rugosa), species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Assumptions and limitations

6.6.1. The following assumptions and limitations have been taken into account during this assessment: · Information obtained during the desk study is dependent upon people and organisations having made and submitted records for the area of interest. As such, a lack of records for a particular species does not necessarily mean that the species does not occur in the survey area. Likewise, the presence of records for particular species does not automatically mean that these still occur within the study area or are relevant in the context of the Proposed Scheme. · The ecology walkover surveys that focussed on the motorway soft estate were carried out as a combination of views from accessible third party land, views from footpaths/motorway bridges and online aerial and Street View imagery. The targeted ecological walkover survey methodology applied is considered to be appropriate as it has informed the identification of any potential significant residual effects on ecological features during construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. Considering the age of the habitats present and the details of the Proposed Scheme, this does not provide a limitation to the assessment, as rare or uncommon habitats are not expected to be present within the footprint of the Proposed Scheme. · For reasons of safety, the soft estate itself was not accessed. Therefore, complete coverage to determine the presence of badgers and Schedule 9 invasive plant species was not possible. Targeted pre-works checks for the presence of badger and Schedule 9 invasive plants will be undertaken at DF4/DF5 and prior to any vegetation clearance/pre-construction works, to inform mitigation and the CEMP. · For potential bat roosts, trees located within the Proposed Scheme were viewed from adjacent land, with the exception of the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area. Detailed preliminary roost appraisals will therefore be undertaken at DF4/DF5. Where bat roost potential is identified further surveys will be required to inform mitigation and the CEMP.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-23 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· Reptile presence/absence surveys have not been conducted. Reptile presence has been assumed based on desk study records and the habitats recorded during the ecology site walkovers and may be present in low numbers throughout the Proposed Scheme. Areas of the soft estate with habitat suitable for reptiles is shown on Figure 6-1 Ecological Constraints Plan. · 5-GCN-116, 5-GCN-117 and 5-GCN-118 form an area of open standing water which is fringed by swamp habitat comprising extensive stands of common reedmace (Typha latifolia) (Refer to Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results for their locations). Consequently, eDNA surveys or conventional presence/absence surveys could not be undertaken as the open water was inaccessible due to unstable ground immediately surrounding the ponds. A great crested newt habitat suitability assessment could be undertaken, at a safe distance, and the area of standing open water was identified as having the potential to support breeding great crested newts. As a precaution it has been assumed that 5-GCN-116, 5-GCN-117 and 5-GCN-118 could support great crested newts and appropriate mitigation would be required, which is further discussed in section 6.8.

· Pond 5-GCN-33a was not identified during the initial scoping exercise undertaken in 2016. It was identified during ecological walkover surveys undertaken in October 2017. It was therefore not possible to carry out an eDNA survey on this pond as October is outside of the appropriate survey window. Amphibian proof fencing was present around the field in which pond 5-GCN-33a was situated when it was revisited in March 2018, indicating that great crested newts have been present in the pond or within 500m of its location. The pond was situated within an active construction site and was therefore inaccessible. When revisited again in June 2019 this pond was no longer present. Limitations relating to this pond are discussed further in the Protected Species Report (HE549339-ACM-EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ- RP-EG-0001).

· 5-GCN-65a was subject to only five of the required six survey visits, using conventional great crested newt survey methods. On the sixth visit the waterbody (a concrete wheel wash) was no longer present and therefore could not be surveyed. All five surveys were undertaken during the optimal survey window (between mid-April and mid-May) and the number of great crested newts recorded did not vary, therefore it was possible to provide a population size class estimation based on the five surveys that were undertaken. It was not possible to set bottle traps in 5-GCN-65a as the waterbody was a concrete wheel wash with ledges along its edges, which prevented the installation of traps. Refuge searches were undertaken on two of the survey occasions (on 17th April and 14th May 2018) and no great crested newts were recorded on both occasions. · When revisited in 2019 this waterbody remained absent and therefore no further surveys could be undertaken on this waterbody, it has therefore been removed from Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results. · Population size class estimation surveys, using conventional great crested newt survey methods, have not been undertaken on pond 5-GCN-136 to date. Pond 5-GCN-136 was initially surveyed in 2017 and was found to be dry; therefore, it was not possible or necessary to undertake further surveys on this pond to determine great crested newt presence/absence. This pond was revisited in June 2019 and, following a prolonged period of rain, was holding water at the time of the survey. An eDNA survey was therefore undertaken on the pond and a positive result was returned. It was not possible to undertake population estimation surveys on pond 5-GCN-136 following the eDNA survey, as three of the required six surveys must be undertaken between mid-April and mid-May and the GCN survey window for 2019 had passed. Population size class estimation surveys will be carried out on this pond in 2020, providing that it is holding water and can be surveyed appropriately. · 5-GCN-119 was scoped out in 2017 as it was previously covered with abundant Lemna sp, it was not appropriate to carry out an eDNA survey and the pond was assessed as unsuitable for great crested newt. When visited in June 2019 the water around the edge of the pond was shallow. Soft mud present around the edge of the pond made it unsafe to access the perimeter of the pond in order to take water samples. An HSI survey was undertaken on this pond, which indicated that the pond does offer suitable habitat for great crested newt. However, the water level appeared shallow, with no suitable emergent vegetation suitable

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-24 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

for egg laying, therefore this pond is considered unlikely to support a viable great crested newt breeding population. Great crested newt absence was confirmed in ponds 5-GCN-120 and 5-GCN-120a (formed as one pond) through eDNA survey in 2019, which are located within 10m of pond 5-GCN-119 indicating that great crested newts are unlikely to be present in the immediate area. · The results of the survey work to date have allowed an evaluation of ecological features within the ZoI to be made, together with an assessment of the significance of any effects of the Proposed Scheme and the requirements for mitigation measures. Where surveys are incomplete, professional judgement has been used and a worst-case scenario adopted. Therefore, it is considered that there will be no worsening of the significance of effect ratings determined within this chapter. Further surveys will be carried out at DF4/DF5. This assessment will be updated, as necessary, on completion of these surveys, and any impacts on the assessment will be considered and recorded through the Evaluation of Change Register during PCF Stage 5. Once the protected species surveys are complete the results will be used to inform mitigation in the CEMP. It is anticipated that all potential impacts on ecological features can be mitigated for through the application of standard mitigation measures, in line with best practice guidelines. · In considering habitat loss within the soft estate and potential impacts to protected species, the site clearance for infrastructure and working space assumptions detailed in Table 6-6 have been adopted. Ultimately the requirement for site clearance will be defined by location and type of site-specific retaining solutions which could not be finally confirmed at PCF Stage 3. Total areas of each habitat type to be lost within the Proposed Scheme cannot be quantified as detailed Phase 1 habitat Surveys have not be undertaken and were not required to inform this assessment.

Design and mitigation measures

6.7.1. Standard good practices, such as the CIRIA Environmental Good Practice on Site Guidelines, will be implemented during the construction phase to minimise harm to ecological features and avoid impacts on the favourable conservation status of species and habitats. These measures are detailed in the OEMP (which will progress into the CEMP at SGAR 5) which has been produced to provide guidance to the Principal Contractor in preparing their environmental management processes. Where protected species are known as present, or could be present, construction in these areas will not commence before the necessary mitigation is in place. Further detail can be found in the OEMP but such measures will include: · Standard measures to prevent potential pollution risks (water, dust, noise). The requirements relating to these topics are expanded upon in the relevant chapters of this assessment. · Throughout the development of the detailed design in Stages 4 and 5 there will be continuous feedback within the design team so as to avoid or reduce the potential effects relating to particular aspects of the scheme design, such measures will include, where possible, refinements to the location of proposed infrastructure in order to avoid habitat loss. The same approach has been applied throughout Stage 3. Vegetation clearance will be minimised to the least extent possible to facilitate construction and provide adequate and safe movement of people and equipment during works. Where vegetation clearance is required, connective canopy/ scrub habitat would be retained where possible to minimise habitat fragmentation, reducing the severance impact of vegetation removal by maintaining the feature intact as long as possible. Consideration will be given to filling gaps with brash or similar when work is not being undertaken so that it can continue to function as a wildlife corridor. · Where protected species are identified through survey, as appropriate, protected species mitigation licences will be obtained from Natural England in advance of works and license requirements satisfied. · As ponds 5-GCN-116, 5-GCN-117 and 5-GCN-118 are located between 8m and 56m of the Proposed Scheme, it is recommended that works within 500m of these ponds are undertaken in accordance with a non-licensed Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement (RAMMS), under an ecological watching brief. Reasonable avoidance measures can include destructive hand searching and appropriate timings of works to

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-25 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

avoid the great crested newt hibernation period. The level of mitigation required will be re- addressed if the ecological watching brief identifies great crested newts within this area and Natural England would be notified. · Protection of notable species (clearance) - all clearance will be carried out at appropriate times of the year to minimise risks to notable and legally protected species (bats, nesting birds, great crested newts, common reptiles, common toad, hedgehog and badger) by avoiding the most sensitive times of year (such as breeding and hibernation). This clearance will be carried out under a written method statement such as a Precautionary Method of Working or protected species licence method statement (as required). Detailed measures for each species will be included in the CEMP and supporting method statements. · Protection of notable species (habitat availability) - Vegetation will be removed only where essential to construct the Proposed Scheme and to allow for sight lines and safety requirements. Retained habitats outside of the construction footprint will be protected during construction to ensure that this habitat can support the notable species displaced by construction. Habitats will be replanted (including native tree and shrub planting to create woodlands, copses and shelterbelts), or will be left to recolonise naturally to ensure development of suitable habitats following construction. Habitats cleared within the great crested newt licence area must be replaced on a like for like basis (or enhanced where possible) following construction to ensure compliance with the conditions of the great crested newt licence. · Protection of foraging animals (lighting) - avoid/ minimise night time working during construction when bats are active (May to October). If night time work is required, any site illumination will be fully directional to minimise light-spill into adjacent habitat and impacts to disturbance of foraging bats or other animals such as great crested newts, badgers and species using adjacent watercourses. · All excavations left open overnight will include measures to prevent mammals becoming trapped (ramped sides or wooden planks). All excavations will be checked for the presence of animals prior to infilling. · Update species survey - a programme of monitoring surveys for badgers (if found to be present), bats and great crested newts will be included to ensure that, should the construction programme change, these species will continue to be taken into account throughout the works. · Appropriate storage of materials, equipment and machinery. Vehicles will be kept off retained habitats in the soft estate and inside the construction working areas, this will be agreed on site with the ECoW on site . · Tree protection measures considered necessary, as specified in chapter 7, will be detailed in the CEMP to prevent damage to tree roots and stems during works · Any Schedule 9 invasive plant species would be subject to controlled avoidance under a written method statement, to prevent further spread of these species. Where this is not possible, a Method Statement and Management Plan will be in place to ensure that any Schedule 9 invasive plant species are removed/managed in compliance with legislation.

Protected species implications

6.7.2. The OEMP (which will progress into the CEMP at SGAR 5) includes specific measures to be carried out to ensure that works do not result in an offence with regard to legally protected species. As described above, all habitat clearance will be carried out under a clear method statement, such as a non-licensed RAMMS or under a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence (EPSML). This will include toolbox Talks for site contractors, ecological watching briefs where required and hand searches for species by an ecologist prior to clearance. As described above, the OEMP includes appropriate timing of habitat clearance to avoid the most sensitive times of year for protected species.

6.7.3. In addition to the measures described within the OEMP above, in habitats suitable for great crested newts and reptiles habitat manipulation by phased habitat clearance would be undertaken, followed by destructive searches. In areas where great crested newts are confirmed as being present up to 500m from the working area, exclusion fencing and capture by pitfall trapping is anticipated to be required under an EPSML prior to works, as well as restoration of the

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-26 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

area post construction. Habitats located within the great crested newt mitigation licence area will be replaced on a like for like basis as a minimum and enhanced where possible (e.g. replacement of ruderal habitat with semi-improved grassland) to improve the suitability of the terrestrial habitat in this area for great crested newt.

6.7.4. Targeted pre-construction checks for the presence of badgers are required and will take place at DF4/DF5. The surveys will target areas of the soft estate that could not be viewed in detail from adjacent land due to access restrictions/the presence of dense vegetation or where potentially suitably habitat which could support badger has been identified. Should the presence of one or multiple badger setts be identified then appropriate mitigation measures will be taken to ensure no disturbance (above existing levels) to badgers and/or their setts occurs during construction. Any badger setts found within 30m of working areas would be fenced off and disturbance avoided. Works within 30m of entrances would be carried out under a method statement. If disturbance cannot be avoided, works will take place under a Natural England development licence for badgers.

6.7.5. Detailed preliminary bat roost appraisal surveys of trees located within the Proposed Scheme (with the exception of the proposed Martinscroft Air Quality Mitigation Area) are required and will take place at DF4/DF5. Further dusk emergence and/or dawn re-entry surveys will be undertaken on any trees with moderate or high bat roost potential if they cannot be retained and protected during the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. Should a bat roost or roosts be identified, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that no disturbance to bats takes place. If impacts cannot be avoided, works will take place under an EPSML.

No net loss commitment

6.7.6. The Road Investment Strategy (RIS) for the 2015/16 to 2019/20 Road Period includes an objective to halt ‘net loss’ of biodiversity across the RIS Schemes. It also includes that ‘in the long term, the Company [Highways England] should deliver a net gain across its broader range of works’.

6.7.7. Construction of the Proposed Scheme will involve a permanent loss of habitats beneath the footprint of new infrastructure which cannot be compensated for via a like for like total area within the boundary of the Proposed Scheme. A total of 4.4ha of permanent habitat loss with an additional area of 14.4ha being subject to vegetation clearance is predicted based on worst case assumptions. The temporary loss of habitats within the Proposed Scheme will have temporary effects on resource availability for notable and legally protected species. These temporary effects are not considered to be significant with respect to the favourable conservation status of these species.

6.7.8. The Proposed Scheme will include mitigation and compensation measures to ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity, such as appropriate timing of site clearance and enabling works and measures to restore and enhance existing habitats. This is detailed in the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), which will be adopted and refined in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP will be prepared prior to construction commencing and will apply throughout the construction period. Compensation measures will involve appropriate re- planting of temporarily cleared habitats, or measures to promote natural re-colonisation. Retained habitats will be enhanced to increase their carrying capacity for these species. This will include the creation of log/debris piles to provide sheltering, hibernating and foraging opportunities. As the design progresses, areas will be identified to integrate species rich or wildflower grass mixes to increase biodiversity and visual amenity throughout the corridor. These measures will benefit other notable species such as a range of invertebrate species, common reptiles and toads. By carrying out this work, greater floristic and structural diversity in the soft-estate habitats is anticipated and there will be no net loss of biodiversity as part of the Proposed Scheme.

Potential construction effects

6.8.1. The potential impacts on ecological features and potential for significant effects are characterised here with the mitigation described in Section 6.7 above. The process followed to determine significance (assigning resource valuation, magnitude of impact and categorising a significance of effect rating) for ecological features is provided in Table 6-6 in accordance with the criteria

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-27 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

defined in Table 6-3 Resource Valuation, adapted from IAN 130/103, Table 6-4 Magnitude of Impact Ecology and Nature Conservation and Table 6.5.

6.8.2. Potential diversion routes for the Proposed Scheme during construction are known and are presented Table 8-20 Summary of Planned Diversion Routes, within Chapter 8 Noise and Vibration. However, the nature of SMP construction is that these may / will only be used periodically in accordance with the Delivery Partners method of construction and traffic management strategies. Total closure of the carriageway will only take place at night. When diversion routes are used they are likely to increase disturbance from noise and lights along the diversion route itself due to increase volume of traffic. However, the frequency of use of diversion routes is small, and significant impacts are not anticipated and are therefore not considered further in this assessment.

Designated sites

6.8.3. Construction of the Proposed Scheme will not have any significant effect on the conservation objectives of any European or National statutory designated sites, please refer to Sections 6.13- 6.4.8 and the HRA in Appendix C.1.

6.8.4. Construction of the Proposed Scheme will not have any significant effect on the structure and function of LWSs and SBIs which lie adjacent to the Proposed Scheme boundary (refer to Figure 6-4 Statutory and Non Statutory Designated Sites). There will be no loss of habitat within any LWS or SBI. Works will be restricted to the soft estate immediately adjacent to the carriageway and not within the boundary of the LWSs or SBIs. Major earthworks adjacent to these designated sites will be avoided and a buffer zone of no works (clearly marked and signed)will be put in place supported by standard pollution prevention measures. The buffer zone will be informed by site specific requirements at PCF Stage 5. Where required, trees located within local designated sites which border the Proposed Scheme (as shown on Figure 6-4 Statutory and Non Statutory Designated Sites) will be protected according to British Standard BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction to prevent damage to tree roots and stems during works.

6.8.5. As a precaution, it is recommended that works in proximity to Houghton Green Pool LWS are carried out between late September and February (inclusive) to avoid potential disturbance to Schedule 1 bird species that may be nesting close to the waterbody. Birds using Houghton Green Pool LWS will however be habituated to the current motorway traffic noise and as the works will be contained within the soft estate, the risk of disturbance is considered to be low.

6.8.6. No significant effects are anticipated on the LWSs or SBIs.

Notable habitats

6.8.7. No watercourses, ditches or ponds would be modified during the works and no changes in water quality envisaged with the pollution prevention measures implemented.

6.8.8. Where possible, the loss of Priority Habitat woodland identified will be reduced. There is likely to be a small amount of priority woodland loss (approximately 0.27 ha in total) at the following chainage locations for the installation of EAs and road widening; · 41460 · between 45950- 46000 · between 46025-46250 · between 46275-46300 · between 48780-48850 · between 49250- 49350 · between 49975-50025

6.8.9. Small areas of non-priority woodland are also likely to be lost. Areas of woodland that are temporarily lost will be replanted on a “like for like” basis. The small areas of woodland that will be permanently lost should also be replaced elsewhere within the boundary of the Proposed Scheme as described in paragraph 6.8.12.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-28 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

6.8.10. Areas of semi-improved neutral grassland may be temporarily lost within the Proposed Scheme during construction. In view of the nature of the proposed works it is anticipated that the area of semi-improved neutral grassland to be permanently lost during construction will be very limited and it will be possible to re-instate this habitat post construction.

6.8.11. Lengths of hedgerow may be temporarily lost within the soft estate. However, the short lengths of hedgerow will be replanted post construction.

6.8.12. There will be a slight adverse (non-significant) effect on priority woodland, semi-improved neutral grassland and hedgerows during construction, prior to mitigation. There will be a neutral residual effect on these notable habitats following implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above and also in paragraph 6.7.8, such as replacement planting of woodland, hedgerows and semi-improved grassland habitats in areas where temporary clearance is required. For example, semi-improved grassland will be reinstated within the great crested newt EPSML area to replace tall ruderal habitat that is removed during construction, offering habitat of greater value to crested newt and other amphibian species. Example areas proposed for woodland planting include between chainages 55450-55225 (northbound), which will tie in with woodland adjacent to the proposed Scheme and between 50270-50200 (southbound). The planting plans will be refined as the design progresses at DF4/DF5.

Other habitats

6.8.13. Construction impacts will not result in a significant effect on the structure and function of habitats within the Proposed Scheme. There will be temporary clearance of habitats within the soft estate to facilitate construction of the Proposed Scheme. This temporary habitat loss will be phased and is reversible. Habitats will either be re-planted or left to recolonise naturally. This will be informed by protected species requirements (great crested newts, reptiles, badgers and bats).

6.8.14. There will be permanent loss of habitats beneath the footprint of new infrastructure which cannot be compensated for within the boundary of the Proposed Scheme. A total of 4.4ha of permanent habitat loss with an additional area of 14.4ha being subject to vegetation clearance is predicted based on worst case assumptions (see section 2.4). This loss is considered to result in a neutral or slight adverse effect, in the context of the total area (300ha) for the Proposed Scheme.

6.8.15. Planting plans in areas where temporary clearance is required will be designed by the Delivery Partner and where feasible will enhance the floristic and structural diversity of the habitats lost during construction, which on maturity will provide a greater area of valuable habitat than that lost. This will include incorporating species rich or wildflower grass mixes to increase biodiversity where possible. An example of habitat enhancement will include the replacement of tall ruderal habitat cleared within the great crested newt EPSML area with semi-improved grassland on completion of the works, which is of greater value to great crested newt and other amphibian species.

6.8.16. Habitat clearance will create temporary gaps in the continuity of habitats within the boundary of the Highways England land along the soft-estate. However, habitat connectivity is retained through habitats adjacent to the Proposed Scheme and in the wider landscape.

6.8.17. Standard pollution prevention measures24 will be put in place to protect retained habitats during construction. This will include silt barriers where necessary.

6.8.18. There will be a temporary negligible or minor adverse (non-significant) impact on habitats through habitat loss during construction, prior to mitigation. Most of the habitat loss will be temporary and providing that where possible habitats are re-instated or left to colonise naturally, there will be neutral residual effects on habitats within the soft estate long term.

Legally protected species and notable species

Great crested newts

24 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pollution-prevention-for-businesses

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-29 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

6.8.19. The Proposed Scheme will not result in the loss of any ponds/ditches used by breeding great crested newt; however, there is likely to be temporary and permanent (small scale) loss of terrestrial habitat.

6.8.20. There will be temporary loss of terrestrial habitat for great created newts throughout the Proposed Scheme, and small scale permanent loss of habitat beneath the footprint of new infrastructure. However, taking into account the location of the construction works and extensive habitat available to this species in the wider landscape, this temporary loss is highly unlikely to have any significant effect on any of the great crested newt populations.

6.8.21. During surveys undertaken in 2017, 2018 and 2019 great crested newts were confirmed to be present in seven ponds located within 500m of the Proposed Scheme (5-GCN-161, 5-GCN-162, 5-GCN-165, 5-GCN-164, 5-GCN-136, 5-GCN-135 and 5-GCN-134). The locations of these ponds are provided on Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Results Plans.

6.8.22. An EPSML from Natural England is anticipated to be required in advance of works within 500m of ponds/ditches confirmed as supporting breeding great crested newt, as shown on Figure 6-2 Great Crested Newt Survey Results.

6.8.23. To minimise the risk of killing and injury to individual great crested newts, habitat clearance will be carried out under an EPSML, where necessary, due to proximity of breeding ponds/ditches and size of population. A capture programme (again under an EPSML) will be put in place to move individual great crested newts from the construction footprint where necessary. Details of the mitigation are provided below (and detailed within the OEMP): · Vegetation removal will include staged habitat degradation to encourage great crested newt to vacate habitats and move outside of the Proposed Scheme. · Up to 500m from ponds or ditches which support great crested newts (the distance great crested newts will typically travel up to from a breeding pond), an exclusion, trapping and translocation exercise will be undertaken. Pit fall traps will be used to clear great crested newt from the Proposed Scheme for the required duration dependent on the metapopulation size under an ecological watching brief. · Maintenance of the great created newt fence and habitat around the great created newt fencing would be undertaken throughout construction to ensure that the integrity of the fencing remains for the duration of the works, as stipulated by the named ecologist on the licence or accredited agents. This would include restrictions of storage of material close to the fence which could cause damage. · Hand searches and watching briefs would be undertaken by an ecological clerk of works during vegetation removal and working in key habitats within the great created newt mitigation areas.

6.8.24. As discussed in the assumptions and limitations (Section 6.6), it was not possible to undertake great crested newt presence/absence surveys on ponds 5-GCN-116, 5-GCN-117 and 5-GCN- 118 for health and safety reasons and therefore the presence/absence of great crested newt is unconfirmed. As 5-GCN-116, 5-GCN-117 and 5-GCN-118 have potential to support great crested newts and are located between 8m and 56m of the Proposed Scheme, it is recommended that works within 500m of these ponds are undertaken in accordance with a non-licensed RAMMS, under an ecological watching brief . Reasonable avoidance measures can include destructive hand searching and appropriate timings of works to avoid the great crested newt hibernation period.

6.8.25. The majority of habitat loss will be temporary and reversible. Habitats will be replanted or left to naturally recolonise/regenerate. During construction, retained habitats will be enhanced with log/brash piles to provide additional shelter for great crested newts displaced by the construction works.

6.8.26. There will be a slight adverse effect (non-significant) on great crested newt during construction due to the temporary loss and damage of terrestrial habitat, reducing available habitat resources. However, suitable habitat out with the proposed Scheme boundary will remain accessible to great crested newt. There will be minor disturbance of a temporary nature to individual great crested newts as they are translocated out of the working area. Provided that appropriate mitigation

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-30 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

measures are put in place, construction of the Proposed Scheme will not effect the favourable conservation status of great crested newts.

Reptiles (common lizard, grass snake and slow worm)

6.8.27. As proposed within the OEMP, to minimise the risk of killing and injury to individual reptiles, clearance of habitats that are suitable to support common reptile species will be carried out under a written method statement such as a non-licensed RAMMS. Areas of the Proposed Scheme that are potentially suitable for reptiles are shown on Figure 6-1 Ecological Constraints Plan.

6.8.28. Retained habitats suitable for reptile species outside the construction working areas, within the Proposed Scheme boundary, will be protected and where appropriate, enhanced with log/brash piles to ensure that this habitat can support the low numbers of reptiles anticipated to be displaced by construction.

6.8.29. Mitigation measures are outlined within the OEMP and will include the following which will be developed further during the detailed design stage: · Habitat manipulation and natural refugia removal under an ecological watching brief, at appropriate times of year when reptiles are not inactive, to temporarily exclude reptiles from the working area. · Ecological toolbox talks will be provided to site contractors prior to commencement of construction works to ensure they are aware of the reptile species that may potentially be present and how works are likely to impact upon the species. · Following works and where practicable “open areas” will be created within suitable habitat to create basking opportunities for reptiles. Open areas can be created by removing small areas of scrub from south facing banks. These open areas should not be isolated or large in nature.

6.8.30. Provided that appropriate mitigation measures are put in place, construction of the Proposed Scheme will not result in a significant adverse effect on the favourable conservation status of reptiles in the local area.

Otter and Water vole

6.8.31. The proposed works close to Millingford/Newton Brook and the unnamed watercourse are confined to land inside the highway boundary and greater than 8m from the watercourse banks. Construction noise disturbance will be temporary and standard best practice measures will be implemented to reduce pollution and run off, to protect all watercourses within and adjacent to the Proposed Scheme, thus protecting habitat that may be used by otter or water vole further downstream of the scheme. Night time working close to the watercourse will be avoided as far as possible. If artificial lighting is required this will be task specific, directional and will not shine onto the watercourses.

6.8.32. Construction of the Proposed Scheme is therefore anticipated to have a neutral effect on otter and water vole.

Nesting birds

6.8.33. To ensure compliance with legislation protecting nesting birds, removal of any vegetation that might be used by nesting birds should ideally be carried out outside the nesting season (generally taken to be March to August inclusive). If this is not possible, then an appropriately experienced ecologist should check the areas for nests immediately prior to removal. If nests are found, they must be retained and remain undisturbed until an ecologist has confirmed that the young have fledged.

6.8.34. Vegetation clearance associated with construction of the Proposed Scheme will result in temporary minor loss of nesting and foraging habitat; and construction will result in temporary disturbance (noise and night time lighting) of retained and adjacent foraging and nesting habitat and may displace birds from the immediate area. Vegetation temporarily lost to facilitate construction will be replanted or left to naturally recolonise.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-31 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

6.8.35. Provided that vegetation clearance is undertaken outside of the nesting bird season or is supervised by a suitably experienced ecologist/ornithologist (standard measures detailed in OEMP to prevent damage and disturbance of nesting birds), then the temporary and permanent effects during construction will not have a significant adverse effect on the favourable conservation status of the local populations of nesting birds, including species notable for their conservation concern.

Bats

6.8.36. No bat roosts were confirmed in structures/buildings within the Proposed Scheme in 2018.

6.8.37. Detailed preliminary bat roost appraisal surveys of trees located within the Proposed Scheme will be undertaken during DF4/DF5. Preliminary bat roost appraisal surveys can be undertaken at any time of year. Further dusk-emergence and/or dawn re-entry surveys will be undertaken on any trees with moderate or high bat roost suitability if they cannot be retained and protected during the construction works. Dusk emergence/dawn re-entry surveys can be undertaken between May and September. At least one of the surveys must be undertaken between May and August.

6.8.38. If the Proposed Scheme were to result in the loss of, or disturbance to, a roost or roosts then an EPSML will be required. As far as practicable, sensitive work timings will be avoided and any roost site would be maintained in-situ. Works affecting roosting bats will be avoided during winter (sensitive hibernation period) and summer (when bats are breeding). If the loss of the roost is unavoidable the mitigation will be on “like for like” basis. Like for like mitigation will be developed in accordance with requirements of the relevant protected species licence. For example but not limited to, should a tree with a confirmed roost be lost then the roost would be replaced by installation of a bat box or roosting features on a tree or structure which is located as close as possible to the existing roost site. Any required mitigation would ensure that the favourable conservation status of that species was maintained. Works affecting roosting bats will be avoided during winter (sensitive hibernation period) and summer (when bats are breeding).

6.8.39. Vegetation clearance may reduce the overall availability of habitat where roosting bats can forage. However, it is predicted that the majority of foraging activity is at the highway boundary along the edge of the soft-estate. Throughout the Proposed Scheme, effort has been made to retain a strip of vegetation along the highways boundary fence line to retain a corridor of habitat for foraging and commuting bats. In addition to this, there is a large amount of suitable alternative foraging habitat around hedgerows, woodlands, fields and waterbodies in the wider landscape surrounding the Proposed Scheme. Habitat temporarily lost during construction will form a very small proportion of the foraging habitat available to bats within the local area.

6.8.40. Appropriate, directed lighting used during any night time construction works will minimise light spill into surrounding habitats, including those underbridges used by commuting bats, and reduce any temporary impacts on bat foraging/commuting routes within and adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. Where possible, a buffer strip of vegetation will be retained at the highways boundary fence to prevent light spill and minimise potential short-term/temporary interruption of bat foraging/commuting routes within and adjacent to the Proposed Scheme due to night-time construction lighting.

6.8.41. Provided that appropriate mitigation measures are put in place, construction of the Proposed Scheme will not result in a significant adverse effect on the favourable conservation status of bats.

Badger

6.8.42. Pre-construction checks for the presence of badgers are required and will take place during DF4/DF5. Should the presence of a badger sett be identified within the Proposed Scheme then appropriate mitigation will be implemented as described below and detailed within the OEMP.

6.8.43. If pre-construction checks identify one or multiple badger setts within the Proposed Scheme, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure no disturbance (above existing levels) to badgers and/or their setts occurs during construction. Any badger setts found within 30m of working areas would be fenced off and disturbance avoided. Works within 30m of entrances would be carried out under a method statement.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-32 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

6.8.44. If disturbance is unavoidable, then the works would be carried out under a Natural England Development licence following a method statement and under an ecological watching brief during July to November inclusive. If necessary, closure of sett entrance would only be undertaken under Natural England Development licence by an ecologist in accordance with the licenced methodology and would require fitting exclusion fencing and a one way exclusion gate and a minimum exclusion period of 21 days (again between July and November).

6.8.45. Other precautionary mitigation measures that will be undertaken, as stated in the OEMP include avoiding the use of lighting, generators (and other noisy equipment) at night where possible, particularly in the vicinity of sensitive habitats. Excavations will be covered overnight (where practicable) or appropriate escape ramps for mammals (including badger) will be provided (where practicable) in the form of a sloped face to the excavation or a scaffold plank or similar.

6.8.46. Subject to appropriate mitigation, as detailed above, construction of the Proposed Scheme would not have a significant adverse effect on badgers.

Invasive plant species

6.8.47. Construction operations have the potential to cause the spread of non-native invasive plant species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). A Schedule 9 invasive plant species Method Statement and Management Plan will be implemented to prevent the spread of invasive species outside of the Proposed Scheme and therefore no significant effects are anticipated.

Potential operational effects

6.9.1. The process followed to determine potential operational effects significance (assigning resource valuation, magnitude of impact and categorising a significance of effect rating) for ecological features is provided in Table 6-10 in accordance with the criteria defined in Table 6-3, Table 6-4 and Table 6-5.

Designated Sites

6.9.2. Following the completion of an HRA Stage 1 Screening Assessment (Appendix C.1), no significant effects on the conservation objectives of Manchester Mosses SAC (Holcroft Moss SSSI) or the Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar site (Oakhanger Moss SSSI) are anticipated in relation to air or water quality during operation of the Proposed Scheme, either alone or in-combination with the other proposed North-West SM Schemes.

6.9.3. Whilst no hydrological (surface and groundwater) links are present between Manchester Mosses SAC (Holcroft Moss SSSI) or Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar site (Oakhanger Moss SSSI) and the Proposed Scheme, likely significant effects in relation to air quality were considered for these sites

6.9.4. Manchester Mosses SAC (Holcroft Moss SSSI) is located 140m west of the B5212 (refer to Figure 4-1 of the HRA located in Appendix C.1) which is part of the ARN. The HRA reports a forecasted small reduction in traffic, meaning that no deterioration in air quality would arise along this route due to the Proposed Scheme. Moreover, the closest area of susceptible bog habitat is approximately 204m from the ARN (at the B5212) and therefore out of the zone of influence of nitrogen deposition from the ARN. This SAC is also located adjacent to the M62 where another of the North-West SM Schemes is progressing as previously assessed in the M62 J10-12 HRA (HE549341-ACM-EBD-M62-SW-ZZ-ZZ-RP-EG-0001)25. That HRA considered all North-west SMP Schemes in combination and identified that no significant effects were likely. Moreover, when the role of the M6 scheme is specifically examined, the Proposed Scheme is forecast to have a negligible effect on annual average daily traffic movements on this stretch of the M62, resulting in a neutral contribution to the overall ‘in combination’ effect of the NW SM schemes together. For these reasons it is concluded that no likely significant effect will arise alone or in combination with the other schemes.

25 Highways England (2018). M62 Junctions 10 to 12 Smart Motorway: Habitat Regulations Assessment (HE549341-ACM-EBD-M62- SW-ZZ-ZZ-RP-EG-0001).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-33 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

6.9.5. The Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar (Oakhanger Moss SSSI) is within 200m of the ARN (refer to Figure 4-1 of the HRA located in Appendix C.1). This showed that the critical level of NOx will not be exceeded, with or without the combined schemes and therefore it can be confidently concluded that there will be no significant likely effects upon the Ramsar. In addition to this, a change of less than 0.4µg/m3 of NOx is considered to be an imperceptible change in accordance with the DMRB. Since NOx is the only source of nitrogen from the NW schemes, a conclusion of no likely significant effect ‘in combination’ can be reached.

6.9.6. There will be no physical works undertaken in proximity to any of the European designated sites identified above, and hence there are no potential impact pathways created from construction phase activities.

6.9.7. In addition to Oakhanger Moss SSSI and Holcroft Moss SSSI as detailed above, there are four other national designated ecological sites within 200m of the ARN which contain habitats sensitive to NOx and nitrogen deposition; Red Moss SSSI, Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI, Stanley Bank Meadowand Woolston Eyes SSSI. . Refer to Figure 6-4 Statutory and non- statutory designated sites to view locations.

6.9.8. Red Moss SSSI is located adjacent to the ARN at its closest location. The annual mean NOx UK AQS objective of 30µg/m3 for the protection of vegetation is achieved in the opening year (2020) at locations further than 65m back from the ARN with or without the core cumulative worst case scenario, within the Red Moss SSSI site. The maximum change in annual mean NOx concentrations at this designated ecological site, within 200m of the ARN, is -1.8 µg/m3, at the transect location closest to the road centreline in the core cumulative worst case scenario. This results in a slight reduction in nitrogen deposition rates; therefore, no significant effects are anticipated.

6.9.9. Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI is 40m from the ARN at its closest location. The total NOx concentrations (in 2015 and 2020) are well above the critical level so NOx will contribute to nitrogen deposition at this site. However, as the North-West SMP Schemes will make an imperceptible contribution to NOx concentrations (0.4 micrograms) no significant effects are anticipated.

6.9.10. Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI is 137m from the ARN at its closest location. As the North-West SMP Schemes will make an imperceptible contribution to NOx concentrations (<0.1 micrograms which is below 0.4 micrograms and therefore imperceptible) no significant effects are anticipated.

6.9.11. The interest features of Woolston Eyes SSSI, although within 200m of the ARN, are not deemed to be air quality (nitrogen) sensitive and their supporting habitats are considered to be primarily phosphate-limited, as with most freshwater bodies. As such, phosphate availability controls the growth of macrophytes and algae rather than nitrogen availability. The North-West SM schemes will not affect phosphate availability within any component waterbodies. Within this context, and in the absence of critical loads on the APIS website which are suitable for the habitats at the SSSI26, it is concluded that no adverse effect would arise. No significant effects are anticipated to any of the National designated ecological sites during the operation of the Proposed Scheme, nor would the sites be physically impacted during construction.

6.9.12. Operation of the Proposed Scheme will not have any significant effect on Houghton Green Pool LWS, Winstanley Hall Woods SBI, Glead Wood &Tar Pit Slip SBI, Castle Hill LWS, Plantation Copse and Ponds LWS, Newton Lake and Southern Woodland LWS and Ellams Brook LWS which all lie adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. This is because the habitats present are not sensitive to nitrogen. Maintenance works would be restricted to the strip of soft estate immediately adjacent to the carriageway and not within, the boundary of the adjacent LWS and SBI.

Notable habitats

6.9.13. No significant effects on notable habitats are anticipated as a result of the operation of the Proposed Scheme as notable habitats will be replaced “like for like” following completion of the

26 Although the Site Relevant Critical Load page on APIS for this SSSI provides critical loads for shoveler and teal, these are for habitats (neutral meadow and saltmarsh) that are not present within 200m of the ARN.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-34 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

construction phase. Potential pollution risks are managed through the existing and new drainage network.

Great crested newts

6.9.14. No significant effects on the conservation status of great crested newts are anticipated as a result of the operation of the Proposed Scheme. Operation of the Proposed Scheme may have minor impacts on terrestrial habitat immediately adjacent to the carriageway through surface water run off (for example, through salt deposition during winter), but it is noted that this is a standard motorway activity and is already impacting on this resource. It should also be noted that this will be small scale and will not affect the wide availability of terrestrial habitat available for this species within and outside of the Proposed Scheme.

Reptiles

6.9.15. No significant effect on the conservation status of reptiles is anticipated as a result of the operation of the Proposed Scheme. A short-medium term benefit from a more open habitat may enable reptiles to colonise the soft estate in greater numbers until scrub becomes established such that no long term operational benefit is anticipated.

Otter and Water vole

6.9.16. No significant effect on the conservation status of otter or water vole is anticipated as a result of the operation of the Proposed Scheme.

6.9.17. The installation of a hydrodynamic vortex separator close to Millingford/Newton Brook is designed to improve water quality, therefore potentially enhancing the suitability of the watercourse in the long term for the species using it.

Nesting birds

6.9.18. No significant effect on the conservation status of nesting birds is anticipated as a result of the operation of the Proposed Scheme. There will be minor permanent loss of nesting habitat for passerine birds immediately adjacent to the carriageway in locations where proposed infrastructure such as new gantries, EAs and ALB are constructed. However, these impacts are not considered to be significant to the favourable conservation status of the bird community in the local context.

Bats

6.9.19. Operation of the Proposed Scheme will not have a significant effect on the conservation status of bats as abundant habitat will remain accessible to bats and potential and confirmed roost sites will be retained where possible. In addition, mitigation provided (if required) will comply with that which is required for an EPSML. This could require the provision of artificial roost sites.

Badger

6.9.20. Operation of the Proposed Scheme will not have a significant effect on the conservation status of this species. There will be minor permanent loss of habitat available for badgers immediately adjacent to the carriageway in locations where proposed infrastructure such as gantries, EAs and ALB are constructed. Abundant suitable habitat will however remain accessible to badgers.

Invasive plant species

6.9.21. Operation of the Proposed Scheme is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the status of invasive plant species present within the Proposed Scheme boundary. Appropriate ongoing management of Schedule 9 invasive plant species, with an aim to prevent further spread of non- native invasive plant species within the highway boundary and into neighbouring land could result in a positive effect. A Schedule 9 invasive plant species Method Statement and Management Plan will be prepared and implemented by the Delivery Partner at DF5.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-35 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP Enhancement measures

Habitats

6.10.1. To aid natural colonisation and ensure higher quality habitat is achieved, areas not permanently used as hard standing would be re-planted with grassland, scrub and woodland habitats in a manner commensurate with not affecting road safety. This would provide greater structural diversity and more foraging opportunities. Scalloped edging would encourage greater insolation and the development of a more floristically interesting herbaceous layer providing habitat for pollinating insects contributing to the National Pollinator Strategy27. Grassland species mixes, appropriate to functional design requirements will be specified at PCF Stage 5 as part of the detailed design process along with detailed planting strategies. Areas will be identified to integrate species rich or wildflower grass mixes with the aim to increase biodiversity .

6.10.2. Opportunities to deliver environmental objectives through landscape integration and enhanced biodiversity value through design is outlined in Section 7.6.6.

Notable species

6.10.3. As part of the mitigation and compensation measures proposed for notable species such as amphibians, reptiles, hedgehogs and terrestrial invertebrates, increased sheltering, hibernating and breeding opportunities will be created in retained habitats throughout the Proposed Scheme, such as log / brash piles.

Residual effects

6.11.1. No significant effects on designated sites, notable habitats or protected/notable species are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Scheme.

Summary

6.12.1. A summary of impacts and residual effects is provided in Table 6-10.

27 Defra (2014) The National Pollinator Strategy: for bees and other pollinators in England. Available from: www.gov.uk/government/publications.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-36 Table 6-10 Summary of impacts and residual effects

Baseline Impact

Ecological Feature Value Potential effect Potential effect Mitigation (Embedded/ Essential) Magnitude Significance (construction) (operation) of Impact of Effect

Manchester Mosses International No impacts No impacts None required. No change Neutral SAC identified. Outside identified. (during (during of ZoI. construction construction and and operation) operation) Midland Meres and International No impacts No impacts None required. No change Neutral Mosses Phase 2 identified. Outside identified. (during (during Ramsar of ZoI. construction construction and and operation) operation) Holcroft Moss SSSI National No impacts No impacts None required. No change Neutral Woolston Eyes SSSI identified. Outside identified. (during (during of ZoI. Oakhanger Moss construction construction SSSI and and operation) operation) Red Scar and Tun Brook Woods SSSI Red Moss SSSI Stanley Bank Meadow SSSI Houghton Green County Temporary No impacts Implementation of pollution control measures as Negligible Slight adverse Pool LWS, disturbance to identified part of the OEMP/CEMP during during Winstanley Hall species present Ensure no works are carried out within any local construction. construction. Woods SBI, Glead during construction. designated site and maintain a buffer of no Neutral during Wood & Tan Pit Slip Pollution from fuel works (clearly marked and signed). No change operation. SBI, Castle Hill LWS, spillage, materials Minimise habitat removal within the soft estate during Plantation Copse and wash off or dust bordering these sites to retain a buffer of operation. Ponds LWS, Newton resulting in loss of vegetation. Avoid works at sensitive times. Lake and Southern habitat quality. Woodland LWS, Ellams Brook LWS, Orrell Brickworks SBI

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-37 Baseline Impact

Ecological Feature Value Potential effect Potential effect Mitigation (Embedded/ Essential) Magnitude Significance (construction) (operation) of Impact of Effect

Notable habitats Local Temporary loss of No impacts Minimise vegetation clearance and maintain Negligible Slight adverse woodland habitat, identified. buffer habitat where notable habitats are (during (during semi-improved adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. construction construction) grassland and short Implementation of pollution control measures as and Neutral during lengths of hedgerow part of the OEMP/CEMP. operation) operation during construction. Areas of notable habitat (i.e. woodland, Pollution from fuel hedgerows and semi-improved grassland) will spillage or materials wash off and dust be replaced on a like for like basis and resulting in loss of enhanced where practicable. habitat quality. Some areas of habitat e.g. scrub, may for example be left to recolonise, rather than be replanted. Habitat reinstatement will include diverse native / local species mixes to increase floristic and structural diversity in comparison to habitats removed where possible. Other habitats Proposed Temporary loss of No impacts Allow habitats to recolonise naturally. Negligible Neutral Scheme habitat to facilitate identified. Minimise vegetation clearance and maintain (during (during construction. buffer habitat where notable habitats are construction construction Small scale adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. and and operation) permanent loss of Implementation of pollution control measures as operation) habitat during part of the OEMP/CEMP. construction. Habitat reinstatement will include diverse native / Pollution from fuel local species mixes to increase floristic and spillage or material structural diversity in comparison to habitats wash off and dust removed were feasible. resulting in loss of quality of retained habitat.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-38 Baseline Impact

Ecological Feature Value Potential effect Potential effect Mitigation (Embedded/ Essential) Magnitude Significance (construction) (operation) of Impact of Effect

Great crested newts County Temporary loss and Minor impact on Standard measures in OEMP/CEMP to include: Negligible Slight adverse damage of terrestrial habitat · Pre-construction monitoring surveys for this (during (during terrestrial habitat immediately species where necessary; construction construction reducing available adjacent to the and and operation) habitat resource. carriageway · Prevention of injury and mortality of individuals during construction; operation) Potential pollution of from surface aquatic habitats. water run-off · Enhancement of retained habitats to and salt spray. accommodate individuals displaced by Killing, injuring or disturbance of construction; individual animals Minor · Implementation of pollution control measures; during works. permanent loss and of habitat under · Habitat reinstatement and enhancement Disturbance of footprints of new individual animals infrastructure. works. during trapping and Construction will take place under an EPSML or translocation period. RAMMS where necessary.

Otter and Water vole Loss Potential pollution of Installation of · Implementation of pollution control measures Negligible Neutral watercourses. hydrodynamic as part of the OEMP/CEMP; and (during (during vortex separator · Appropriate, directed lighting during night time construction construction close to Potential for construction works. and and operation) disturbance due to Millingford/Newt operation) night time on Brook may construction enhance lighting. enhancing the suitability of the watercourse in the long term. Potential positive effect.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-39 Baseline Impact

Ecological Feature Value Potential effect Potential effect Mitigation (Embedded/ Essential) Magnitude Significance (construction) (operation) of Impact of Effect

Reptiles Local Loss and damage Short term Standard measures in OEMP/CEMP to include: Negligible Neutral of terrestrial habitat benefit from · Prevention of injury and mortality of (during (proposed resulting in more open individuals during construction; construction mitigation reduction of habitats provided is · Enhancement of retained habitats to and resource availability following operation) deemed and killing, injuring clearance. accommodate individuals displaced by adequate to or disturbance of Temporary until construction; reduce individuals during scrub/woodland · Implementation of pollution control measures; adverse works. recolonises. and impacts to · Habitat reinstatement and enhancement common works. species of reptiles to Neutral during construction and operation) Common nesting Proposed Temporary loss of Minor loss of Standard measures detailed in OEMP/CEMP to Negligible Neutral birds Scheme foraging and nesting habitat prevent damage and disturbance of nesting (during (during nesting habitat. due to birds. construction construction Small scale displacement Habitat re-planted or left to naturally recolonise. and and operation) permanent loss of from habitat operation) foraging and close to live nesting habitat. traffic.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-40 Baseline Impact

Ecological Feature Value Potential effect Potential effect Mitigation (Embedded/ Essential) Magnitude Significance (construction) (operation) of Impact of Effect

Bats Local Vegetation No impacts Standard measures in OEMP/CEMP to include: Negligible Neutral clearance resulting identified. · Surveys for this species where necessary; (during (proposed in temporary minor mitigation is Retention of trees with features suitable for construction loss of resources, · deemed roosting bats where possible; and such as potential operation) adequate to roost sites, · Appropriate, directed lighting during night time reduce commuting and construction works; adverse foraging habitats. · Retention of strip of vegetation along impacts to Disturbance to highways boundary fenceline where possible roosting and roosts (if present) to prevent light spill onto surrounding land and foraging bats and retain continuity of potential to Neutral during foraging/commuting commuting/foraging habitat; and habitat due to noise, construction · Construction will take place under EPSMLs vibrations and night- and operation) where necessary. time lighting during construction and due to presence of personnel.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-41 Baseline Impact

Ecological Feature Value Potential effect Potential effect Mitigation (Embedded/ Essential) Magnitude Significance (construction) (operation) of Impact of Effect

Badger Proposed Disturbance/destruc Minor Pre-construction checks for the presence of Negligible Neutral Scheme tion of a badger permanent loss badgers are required. Should the presence of a (during (during sett. of habitat. badger sett be identified within the Proposed construction construction Disturbance to Scheme then appropriate mitigation will be and and operation) commuting/foraging implemented as described below and detailed operation) badgers. within the OEMP/CEMP. Temporary loss of If pre-construction checks identify one or commuting/foraging multiple badger setts within the Proposed habitat. Scheme, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure no disturbance (above existing levels) to Small scale badgers and/or their setts occurs during loss/fragmentation construction. Any badger setts found within 30m of habitat. of working areas would be fenced off and disturbance avoided. Works within 30m of entrances would be carried out under a method statement. If disturbance is unavoidable, then the works would be carried out under a Natural England Development licence following a method statement and under an ecological watching brief during July to November inclusive. If necessary, closure of sett entrance would only be undertaken under Natural England Development licence by an ecologist in accordance with the licenced methodology and would require fitting exclusion fencing and a one way exclusion gate and a minimum exclusion period of 21 days (again between July and November). Schedule 9 invasive Negligible Construction No impacts. Preparation and implementation of a Schedule 9 Negligible Neutral plant species operations have the invasive plant species Method Statement and (during (during potential to cause Management Plan. construction construction the spread of non- and and operation) native invasive plant operation) species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 6-42 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 7. Landscape, Visual and Cultural Heritage Effects

Key features for this topic: Landscape and Visual · The majority of visual effects during construction will be in the order of slight adverse, with one location of moderate adverse (Viewpoint PSVR17), but this is not considered to be significant due to the temporary nature of the impact and existing appreciation of the motorway. · There are no significant effects in the opening year during operation. · There are no significant effects in year 15 during operation with 27 slight adverse effects and 20 neutral effects on viewpoints. · The recreational assets of twelve PRoWs will not be subject to significant residual effects. · There will be no significant effects on any locally or nationally significant landscapes; · No local landscape character areas are susceptible to a significant effect. · Overall, the residual landscape and visual effects are considered not to be significant. Heritage · No World Heritage Sites, Registered Battlefields, Registered Historic Park and Garden or listed buildings will be affected. · There will be no significant effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets.

7.1. Introduction 7.1.1. This section considers the three related sub-topics. Heritage, landscape and visual effects are associated with both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Scheme (see Section 4.2 Scoping). 7.1.2. This section provides an assessment of the Proposed Scheme to address landscape, visual and heritage receptors which would be susceptible to change mainly as a result of any vegetation clearance and the opening of views. 7.1.3. The Proposed Scheme extends from M6 J21A to J26 (Chainage 39600 - 56000) and includes a geographically remote site that includes three properties (one structure) at Martinscroft, off Nicol Avenue to the south of J21a which have been purchased by agreement for essential air quality mitigation. 7.1.4. The location of construction compound(s) and layout areas are currently unknown and would be subject to separate planning applications and would be sited, designed and operated so as not to result in significant adverse effects and are therefore not considered further in this assessment. 7.1.5. The assessment is based on the design information from DF2 as it has been developed to support input into the DF3 design, incorporating mitigation recommended by this assessment; 7.1.6. This section provides a non-statutory landscape and visual assessment to address the following key landscape and visual receptors: · The landscape setting of four potentially susceptible landscape character areas (see Table 7- 10). · Views from residential receptors most likely to be susceptible to a change in view as a result of the proposed scheme. In particular those on the peripheries of Croft, Newton-le-Willows, Haydock, Ashton-in-Makerfield, and West Orrell. · Views from scattered, isolated residential properties present within the rural areas surrounding the urban areas and particularly those in close proximity to the highway boundary.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· Views from public rights of way (PRoW) that run in close proximity to and cross the Proposed Scheme. · Potential impacts on the setting of designated cultural heritage assets identified for further assessment within the cultural heritage section of the Scoping Report. 7.1.7. Table 7-1 below details the professional competency of the Topic Lead for this Chapter – Landscape and Visual Effects. This information is provided to fulfil the requirement of EU Directive 2014/52/EU. Table 7-1 Professional Competency Landscape and Visual

Grade and Expertise and Name Company Professional Qualification

· A31 Magherafelt By-pass 2010 – 2016 – Responsible for authoring the assessment, attendance at public consultation exhibitions and preparation of detailed design, supporting the client during the Tender Period. · Highways England Smart Motorways Programme (Birmingham Box, North West (M6/M62 and M1 ) – 2009 – 2017 – Responsible for authoring the Environmental Assessment Report, preparation of the ROD/NOD and provided on-site support during the Associate Director construction phase, including attendance at the supporting – Landscape public exhibitions, liaison with local residents and joint (WSP) working with the local community. · A9 Dualling Tomatin Moy – Transport Scotland 2015-2017 – Prepared the Landscape and View from the Road Assessment Chapter for the section of the A9 dualling programme.

· BA (Hons) Landscape Architecture · Grad (Dip) Landscape Architecture · Chartered Member Landscape Institute

· A1 Motorway Dishforth to Barton 2004 – Present – Production of EIA chapter, input to design, Scheduled Monument consent applications, development and management of mitigation strategies for the route and production of a proof of evidence for the public inquiry. · M54-M6 Link 2016 – present – Assessment of options for a new link between the road and the M56. Impacts on a historic park, listed buildings and archaeological sites. Consultation has been undertaken with Historic England and Technical Director – the County Archaeologist. The project will progress to full Archaeology assessment once a preferred route has been announced. (AECOM) · A6 Manchester Airport Relief Road 2014 – 2017 – Project Archaeologist, managing archaeological aspects of the scheme, including production of the Written Scheme of Investigation for the fieldwork element. Consultation with GMAAS and other stakeholders.

· BSc (Hons) Archaeology · MA Scientific Methods in Archaeology · Member of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 7.2. Scoping

7.2.1. This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the conclusions of the Scoping Report1. The Scoping Report1 concluded that the Proposed Scheme would have the potential to cause significant effects on visual receptors, landscape character and the setting of cultural heritage assets. Highly sensitive receptors may have views of parts of the Proposed Scheme because of the loss of existing mature vegetation during construction and the new highway infrastructure including new and upgraded gantries, new running lanes, remotely operated temporary traffic management sign (ROTTM signs) and Emergency Areas. 7.2.2. Receptors identified within the Scoping Report1 were reviewed and through detailed review of the scheme, supported by site surveys, additional receptors were identified as likely to be impacted by the Proposed Scheme to ensure a representative range of visual effects within the assessment (see Table 7-2). The viewpoints that are considered to be of high sensitivity and where the view is potentially susceptible to change are presented in Table 7-12 and on Figure 7.1. Table 7-2 Change to Potentially Susceptible Receptors Recorded in Scoping Report

Additional to Id Location Observation Scoping Report

Individual property New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR1 adjacent to the infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional M6, off Millhouse clearance likely. Lane Properties along New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR2 Millhouse Lane, infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Croft clearance likely. Southworth Hall Farm, New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR3 Southworth Lane infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional (A572), Newton clearance likely. le Willows Southworth Lane New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR4 (A572), Newton infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional le Willows clearance likely. Winwick Link New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR5 Road, Newton le infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Willows clearance likely. Winwick Lane, New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR6 Newton le infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Willows clearance likely. Parkside Road, New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR7 Hermitage infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Green clearance likely. Parkside Farm, New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR8 Parkside Road, infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional A573 clearance likely. Southworth Road (A572), New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR10 Newton le infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Willows clearance likely.

Rob Lane & Castle Hill, New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR12 Newton le infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Willows clearance likely.

1 M6 J21a – 26 Environmental Scoping Report July 2017

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Additional to Id Location Observation Scoping Report

Ashton Road office blocks New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR14 (A49), Newton le infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Willows clearance likely.

The Parks, Ashton in New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR16 Makerfield infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional clearance likely.

Willowfield Grove and Old New views to existing and proposed motorway Hall Drive, PSVR17 infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Ashton in clearance likely. Makerfield

Woodfield Crescent , New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR18 Ashton in infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Makerfield clearance likely.

Houghwood Grange, Ashton New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR20 in Makerfield infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional clearance likely.

Skitters Grove, New views to existing and proposed motorway Ashton in PSVR21 infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Makerfield clearance likely.

Clough Grove New views to existing and proposed motorway and Lea Croft, PSVR23 infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Bryn clearance likely.

Windy Arbour Farm, Ashton New views to existing and proposed motorway Road & Billinge PSVR29 infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Lodge, clearance likely. Winstanley Road, Billinge Hill House Farm, New views to existing and proposed motorway off A571 PSVR30 infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Pemberton Road clearance likely.

Winstanley New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR31 Road, Orrell infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional clearance likely. Welburn Close, New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR33 Orrell infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional clearance likely. Parkside Crescent and New views to existing and proposed motorway PSVR34 East mount, infrastructure and traffic as a result of vegetation Additional Orrell clearance likely.

Moss Farm, Marshall’s Farm Potential change of view for receptors to the east due PSVR35 and properties to demolition of three adjoining properties immediately Additional off Brook Lane, adjacent to the M6 corridor. Birchwood

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Additional to Id Location Observation Scoping Report

PRoW follows Moss Avenue, Nicol Avenue and behind a row of cottages adjacent to the Potential change of view for public footpath to the east motorway before PRoW12 due to demolition of three adjoining properties Additional broadly running immediately adjacent to the M6 corridor. parallel to the motorway towards Junction 21 to the south east. (south bound side) 7.2.3. Within the Scoping Report, designated heritage assets between 300m and 1km were assessed for exceptional sensitivity such as long-range historic views during the scoping study; however, none were identified and therefore have been scoped out from further assessment. Non- designated heritage assets have been scoped out of this study as part of the scoping exercise (reported within the Scoping Report) due to the limited protection of their historic view and setting, and the nature of the works within an existing context of operational motorway.

7.3. Methodology

7.3.1. This section summarises the following: · The study area · Landscape and visual effects methodology - Baseline information and data sources; - Sensitivity criteria - Magnitude of impact criteria - Significance of effect categories · Heritage methodology: - Baseline information and data sources - Valuing heritage asset receptors - Magnitude of impacts - Significance of effects Study area Landscape and Visual 7.3.2. The study area for the landscape and visual assessment is based on a 1km buffer from the Proposed Scheme extents along the motorway (J21A to J26), and a localised study area for the three residential properties (one structure) located at Martinscroft. Landscape effects would largely be limited to the immediate setting within the highway boundary, and visual effects beyond this 1km distance are considered not to be significant. This is due to a combination of distance, intervening screening landform, vegetation or other existing developments given the context that all works take place within an established operational motorway corridor with existing infrastructure e.g. gantries, signs and CCTV. Cultural Heritage 7.3.3. The assessment of effects on the setting of designated heritage assets is restricted to scheduled monuments, Conservation Areas and listed buildings listed within Table 7-5 of the Scoping Report and presented in Appendix D.2 of this EAR. This included sites within a 300m buffer of the route (J21A to J26), in line with Section 5 of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3 Part 2 (HA 208/07). There is also a localised study area for the three residential properties (one structure) located at Martinscroft. Although not designated, the buildings were constructed in the mid-19th century and

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

were considered for assessment due to their potential to contain surviving historic fabric (i.e. building material used when the structure was built, as opposed to material used when repairs/extensions/alterations are made). 7.3.4. Further to this, archaeological sites were scoped out as proposed construction works are within areas, which have previously been disturbed. Landscape and visual effects methodology 7.3.5. Given that this assessment is looking at minor alterations to a section of existing, established motorway corridor and the scheme is anticipated not to give rise to significant effects, the assessment has been carried out in accordance with a Simple Assessment, as set out within IAN 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment. The assessment also takes account of Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) 3rd Edition (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2013). 7.3.6. Data sources used in this assessment include:

· Ordnance Survey – 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 scale maps · Google Earth and Street View · National Heritage List for information on nationally designated heritage assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens) · Constraints data was obtained from Wigan, St Helen’s and Warrington Councils 7.3.7. Site visits were made in July 2017 and September 2019 to carry out the landscape and visual assessment from publicly accessible areas. Consideration of visual effects during winter months and in the absence of leaf cover has been based on professional judgement. 7.3.8. Table 7-3 informs consideration of the sensitivity of key landscape receptors and key representative viewpoints identified and mapped on Figure 7.1.

Table 7-3 Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Criteria 2

Visual – typical criteria Sensitivity Landscape - typical criteria descriptors descriptors

Landscapes which by nature of their character would be unable to accommodate change of the Residential properties. type proposed. Typically, these would be: · Of high quality with distinctive elements and Users of Public Rights of Way features making a positive contribution to or other recreational trails (e.g. character and sense of place. National Trails, footpaths, bridleways etc.). High · Likely to be designated, but the aspects which underpin such value may also be present outside Users of recreational facilities designated areas, especially at the local scale. where the purpose of that recreation is enjoyment of the · Areas of special recognised value through use, countryside (e.g. Country perception or historic and cultural associations. Parks, National Trust or other · Likely to contain features and elements that are access land etc.) rare and could not be replaced.

2 Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Criteria derived from IAN 135/10.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Visual – typical criteria Sensitivity Landscape - typical criteria descriptors descriptors

Landscapes which by nature of their character would be able to partly accommodate change of the type proposed. Typically, these would be: · Comprised of commonplace elements and Outdoor workers. features creating generally unremarkable character but with some sense of place. Users of scenic roads, railways or waterways or users of Moderate · Locally designated, or their value may be designated tourist routes. expressed through non-statutory local publications. Schools and other institutional buildings, and their outdoor · Containing some features of value through use, areas. perception or historic and cultural associations. · Likely to contain some features and elements that could not be replaced.

Landscapes which by nature of their character would be able to accommodate change of the type proposed. Typically, these would be: Indoor workers. 1. Comprised of some features and elements that Users of main roads (e.g. trunk are discordant, derelict or in decline, resulting in roads) or passengers in public indistinct character with little or no sense of place. transport on main arterial Low 2. Not designated. routes. 3. Containing few, if any, features of value through Users of recreational facilities use, perception or historic and cultural where the purpose of that associations. recreation is not related to the view (e.g. sports facilities). 4. Likely to contain few, if any, features and elements that could not be replaced.

7.3.9. The magnitude of landscape impact relates to the degree of change the Proposed Scheme would cause. Factors that have been taken into consideration include the scale, duration and nature of potential changes. Mitigation that could reduce adverse effects has been noted (refer to Design and Mitigation Measures under Section 7.6). Definitions of magnitude impact ratings applied within this assessment are defined in Table 7-4

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 7-4 Magnitude of Impact Landscape Criteria3

Magnitude Typical Criteria Descriptions

Adverse - total loss or large scale damage to existing character or distinctive features and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic conspicuous features and elements. Major Beneficial - large scale improvement of character by the restoration of features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic and conspicuous features and elements, or by the addition of new distinctive features. Adverse - Partial loss or noticeable damage to existing character or distinctive features and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic noticeable features and elements. Moderate Beneficial - Partial or noticeable improvement of character by the restoration of existing features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic and noticeable features and elements, or by the addition of new characteristic features. Adverse - Slight loss or damage to existing character or features and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic features and elements. Minor Beneficial - Slight improvement of character by the restoration of existing features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic features and elements, or by the addition of new characteristic elements. Adverse - Barely noticeable loss or damage to existing character or features and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic features and elements. Negligible Beneficial - Barely noticeable improvement of character by the restoration of existing features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic features and elements, or by the addition of new characteristic elements.

No change No noticeable loss, damage or alteration to character or features or elements.

7.3.10. The scale, type and duration of impact which the Proposed Scheme would bring to key representative viewpoints have been assessed in outline terms in accordance with a Simple Assessment. The criteria defined in Table 7-5 have been used to define the magnitude of visual impact within this assessment. Table 7-5 Magnitude of Impact Visual Criteria4

Magnitude of Typical Criteria descriptors Impact

Major The project, or a part of it, would become the dominant feature or focal point of the view.

Moderate The project, or a part of it, would form a noticeable feature or element of the view which is readily apparent to the receptor.

Minor The Proposed Scheme, or a part of it, would be perceptible but not alter the overall balance of features and elements that comprise the existing view.

Negligible Only a very small part of the Proposed Scheme would be discernible, or it is at such a distance that it would form a barely noticeable feature or element of the view.

No change No part of the Proposed Scheme, or work or activity associated with it, is discernible.

7.3.11. The significance of landscape and visual impact has been determined through combining the sensitivity of the landscape and viewpoints with the magnitude of change with respect to landscape and visual impacts. Assessment of effects has been undertaken by assessing the sensitivity of the landscape resource, against the anticipated magnitude of impact to establish the significance of residual effect that is likely to result from the Proposed Scheme. This is informed

3 Magnitude of Impact Landscape Criteria derived from IAN135/10.

4 Magnitude of Impact Visual Criteria derived from IAN135/10.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-8 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

by the use of a matrix (see Table 7-6) that balances the importance of a resource against the magnitude of impact, taking into account any mitigation measures proposed. 7.3.12. No night-time surveys or assessment have been undertaken as there have been no significant changes to the lighting regime along the scheme length, and as a result lighting will be highly unlikely to give rise to a significant adverse effect. Where changes to lighting do occur, this would comprise modern lighting standards with improved directional lamps avoiding light spill beyond the road corridor and is likely to result in a betterment to the existing lighting design. 7.3.13. In accordance with a Simple Assessment, and to make the assessment proportionate to the Proposed Scheme proposals, visual effects have been considered in broad terms. Key representative viewpoints have been assessed to illustrate the visual effects from a range of visual receptors surrounding the Proposed Scheme supported by schedules for the key representative viewpoints to record and illustrate the visual effects. 7.3.14. Table 7-6 has been used as a guide to assist the professional judgement of the landscape assessor in deciding the significance of landscape and visual impacts on identified viewpoints. Moderate, large or very large effects are considered significant. However, the overall effect of the scheme can be insignificant, despite localised effects of significance. Table 7-6 Significance of Landscape and Visual Effect Categories5

Landscape/ Magnitude of impact Visual No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major Sensitivity Slight or Moderate or Large or Very High Neutral Slight Moderate Large Large Neutral or Moderate Neutral Slight Moderate Moderate or Large Slight Neutral or Neutral or Low Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate Slight Slight 7.3.15. A Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) has been scoped out of this assessment due to the scattered nature of the proposed infrastructure and the localised effects which they may give rise and be limited to. 7.3.16. The character of the landscape within 1km of the scheme has been studied at the local scale. Local landscape character areas (LCA) have been identified from the following landscape character assessments: · Wigan Council (2009) A Landscape Character Assessment6 · St. Helen’s Council (2006) Landscape Character Assessment7 · Warrington Borough Council (2007) Landscape Character Assessment 8 Heritage methodology 7.3.17. Data sources used in this assessment include: · Ordnance Survey - 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 scale maps · Google Earth and Street View · National Heritage List for information on nationally designated heritage assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens); National Heritage List for heritage designations, including World Heritage Sites, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas, Registered Battlefields and Registered Parks and Gardens9 7.3.18. Up to date Conservation Area designations have been reviewed, these include:

5 Significance of Landscape and Visual Effect Categories derived from IAN135/10. 6 https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Docs/PDF/Resident/Planning-and-Building-Control/LandscapeCharacterAssessment.pdf 7 https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/5011/sthelens-landscape-character-assessment-final-report-january-2006.pdf 8 https://www.warrington.gov.uk/downloads/file/8633/landscape_character_assessment_2007 9 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/data-downloads

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-9 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· Willow Park Conservation Area 7.3.19. The assessment methodology uses guidance set out in DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, (HA 208/07). The value and magnitude of impact on heritage assets will be judged in accordance with the factors described in in Annexes 5, 6 and 7. 7.3.20. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines significance of heritage assets as “The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest.” (Annex 2 Glossary). In addition, the NPPF sets out criteria which should be considered when assessing the significance of heritage assets, which include archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic values. These criteria have therefore been used in the assessment of significance for each affected asset. This information, in conjunction with professional judgement, is used to assess the significance of heritage assets. 7.3.21. The criteria outlined in Table 7-7 have been used to define the value of potentially affected assets in line with Tables 5.1 (Annex 5), 6.1 (Annex 6) and 7.1 (Annex 7) in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3 Part 2. Table 7-7 Determination of the Value of Heritage Assets

Historic Landscape Value Archaeological Assets Historic Buildings Character

Very High · World Heritage Sites · Structures inscribed as of · World Heritage Sites (including nominated universal importance as inscribed for their historic sites). World Heritage Sites. landscape qualities. · Assets of · Other buildings of · Historic landscapes of acknowledged recognised international international value, international importance. whether designated or not. importance. · Extremely well preserved · Assets that can historic landscapes with contribute significantly exceptional coherence, to acknowledged time-depth, or other critical international research factor(s). objectives.

High · Scheduled Monuments · Scheduled Monuments · Designated historic (including proposed with standing remains. landscapes of outstanding sites). interest. · Grade I and Grade II* · Undesignated assets Listed Buildings. · Undesignated landscapes of schedulable quality of outstanding interest. · Other listed buildings that and importance. can be shown to have · Undesignated landscapes · Assets that can exceptional qualities in of high quality and contribute significantly their fabric or historical importance, and of to acknowledged associations not demonstrable national national research adequately reflected in the value. objectives. listing grade. · Well preserved historic · Conservation areas landscapes, exhibiting containing very important considerable coherence, buildings. time-depth or other critical factor(s). · Undesignated structures of clear national importance

Medium · Designated or · Grade II Listed Buildings. · Designated special historic undesignated assets landscapes. · Historic (unlisted) buildings that contribute to that can be shown to have · Undesignated historic regional research exceptional qualities in landscapes that would objectives. their fabric or historical justify special historic associations. landscape designation, landscapes of regional · Conservation areas containing buildings that value. contribute significantly to · Averagely well-preserved its historic character. historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, · Historic Townscape or built-up areas with time-depth or other critical factor(s). important historic integrity

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-10 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Historic Landscape Value Archaeological Assets Historic Buildings Character in their buildings or built settings (e.g. including street furniture etc.).

Low · Designated and · ‘Locally Listed’ buildings. · Robust undesignated undesignated assets of historic landscapes. · Historic (unlisted) buildings local importance. of modest quality in their · Historic landscapes with · Assets compromised fabric or historical importance to local interest by poor preservation association. groups. and/or poor survival of · Historic Townscape or · Historic landscapes whose contextual built-up areas of limited value is limited by poor associations. historic integrity in their preservation and/or poor · Assets of limited value, buildings or built settings survival of contextual but with potential to (e.g. including street associations. contribute to local furniture etc.). research objectives.

Negligible · Assets with very little · Buildings of no · Landscapes with little or or no surviving architectural or historical no significant historical archaeological interest. note; buildings of an interest. intrusive character.

Unknown · The importance of the · Buildings with some · Not applicable. resource has not been hidden (i.e. inaccessible) ascertained. potential for historic significance.

7.3.22. The criteria outlined in Table 7-8 have been used to define the magnitude of impact to potentially affected assets in line with Table 5.3 (Annex 5), Table 6.3 (Annex 6) and Table 7.3 (Annex 7) in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3 Part 2. Table 7-8 Determination of the Magnitude of an Impact

Archaeological Magnitude Historic Buildings Historic Landscape Character Assets

Major · Change to most or · Change to key · Change to most or all key historic all key historic building landscape elements, parcels or archaeological elements, such that components; extreme visual effects; materials, such the resource is gross change of noise or change to that the resource totally altered. sound quality; fundamental changes is totally altered. to use or access; resulting in total · Comprehensive change to historic landscape · Comprehensive changes to the character unit. changes to setting. setting.

Moderate · Changes to many · Change to many · Changes to many key historic key archaeological key historic building landscape elements, parcels or materials, such elements, such that components, visual change to many that the resource the resource is key aspects of the historic is clearly modified. significantly landscape, noticeable differences in modified. noise or sound quality, considerable · Considerable changes to use or access; resulting changes to setting · Changes to the in moderate changes to historic that affect the setting of an historic landscape character. character of the building, such that it asset. is significantly modified.

Minor · Changes to key · Change to key · Changes to few key historic archaeological historic building landscape elements, parcels or materials, such elements, such that components, slight visual changes that the asset is the asset is slightly to few key aspects of historic slightly altered. different. landscape, limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight · Slight changes to · Change to setting of changes to use or access: resulting setting. an historic building,

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-11 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Archaeological Magnitude Historic Buildings Historic Landscape Character Assets such that it is in limited changes to historic noticeably changed. landscape character.

Negligible · Very minor · Slight changes to · Very minor changes to key historic changes to historic buildings landscape elements, parcels or archaeological elements or setting components, virtually unchanged materials or that hardly affect it. visual effects, very slight changes in setting. noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character

No Change · No change. · No change to fabric · No change to elements, parcels or or setting. components; no visual or audible changes; no changes arising from in amenity or community factors.

7.3.23. Assessment of residual effects will be undertaken by first assessing the magnitude of impact without reference to the value of the feature. The findings of this assessment will then be cross- referenced with the value rating of the feature to establish the significance of residual effect that is likely to result from the proposed scheme. This is calculated by the use of a matrix (see Table 7-9) that balances the importance of a feature against the magnitude of impact, taking into account any mitigation measures proposed. 7.3.24. Where a choice of two impact significance descriptors is available, only one should be chosen. This allows for professional judgement and discrimination in assessing impacts. This approach is based on the author’s professional judgement and is in line with DMRB methodology. Table 7-9 Matrix for Determination of Significance of Effect10

Moderate/ Large/ Very Very High Neutral Slight Very Large Large Large Moderate/ Moderate/ Large/ Very High Neutral Slight Slight Large Large Neutral/ Moderate/ Medium Neutral Slight Moderate Slight Large VALUE Neutral/ Neutral/ Slight/Moderat Low Neutral Slight Slight Slight e Neutral/ Neutral/ Negligible Neutral Neutral Slight Slight Slight

No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major

MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT

7.3.25. Guidance from Historic England, Good Practice Note 3 The Setting of Heritage Assets11, has also been utilised in this assessment.

7.4. Baseline conditions 7.4.1. Landscape and heritage constraints are illustrated on Figure 7-1. Landscape character overview 7.4.2. The landscape within the study area is not covered by any defined local or national designations but is located within Green Belt that stretches between urban edge of Warrington in the south, to the urban edge of Wigan in the north. 7.4.3. The topography of the study area is influenced in the south by the River Mersey, defined by a low lying and gently undulating landscape. The central and northern part of the study area falls within

10 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume II, Section 3, Part 2, 2007 11 Historic England. (2015). Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning; Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-12 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

the Lancashire Coal Measures where the landscape is gently rolling in a series of hills and valleys. 7.4.4. The rural landscape in the south is characterised by open agriculture with large scale and regular field patterns, divided by drainage ditches and fragmented remnant hedgerows. There are also occasional pockets of mossland, particularly to the south and east of the M6. The openness is reinforced by the noticeable lack of hedgerow trees, woodland groups / shelterbelts and presence of large scale fields within the landscape. In the central and northern part, the landscape is more elevated. This landscape comprises a mix of large scale arable farmland, with woodland set in the valleys, these are often associated with the remnants of former managed estates such as Garswood Park and Haydock Park. 7.4.5. At the southern end of the scheme at J21, there are the scattered rural settlements of Winwick and Croft with scattered farmsteads and individual properties along the local rural road network. Warrington lies to the south of junction 21a with Birchwood and Woolston adjacent to the motorway, and mosslands extending to the east. Three residential properties (one structure) located at Martinscroft have been purchased by agreement for essential air quality mitigation. These properties, off Nicol Avenue to the south of J21A lie within Landscape Character Type 2:Mosslands Landscape, which is an area identified within ‘Warrington: A Landscape Character Assessment 2007’. However due to the relatively minor and short duration of works (demolition of properties only) this landscape character area has not been assessed within this report as it is not considered to be potentially subject to change. 7.4.6. In the central and northern extents of the scheme there are scattered former industrial settlements at Newton-le-Willows, Haydock, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Garswood and Orrell which comprise extensive post war suburban housing, and form defined boundaries with the wider rural landscape. The rural landscape contains scattered farmsteads and settlements. Major transport links including the M6, M62, A579, , A580 and M58 cross this landscape. 7.4.7. Of the 16 LCAs identified by Wigan Council, St. Helen’s Council, and Warrington Borough Council, four areas (LCA 2A (Wigan MBC), LCA WFE1 and, LCA WFE2 (St Helens MBC) and LCA 1C (Warrington BC)), identified within the Scoping Report, are considered to be potentially susceptible to change as a result of the Proposed Scheme. This is due to a number of reasons, including, as a result of the existing motorway corridor being predominantly on embankment through the identified LCA, the scale of the LCA and its value, the prominence of the existing motorway in the landscape and the potential sensitivity to visually intrusive gantries or the existing corridor being exposed in the landscape through a lack of roadside vegetation. The characteristics of these areas, a description of the soft estate within these areas and the landscape condition, value and importance of the LCA are summarised in Table 7-10. Refer to Chapter 10 Assessment of Cumulative Effects for identified development proposals that may result in potentially significant cumulative effects on landscape character.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-13 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 7-10 Summary of Landscape Character Areas

LCA Description Soft Estate Value

Warrington BC: · The M6 passes through the LCA between J21a · Belts of vegetation Good LCA 1C: Winwick, and J22. associated with condition. Culcheth, Haughton Green Moderate · These areas typify undulating enclosed farmland Glazebrook, and Pool, otherwise on value and of with a medium to large-scale field pattern. Rixton Undulating an open verge. local Enclosed Farmland · The area stretches in an arc from the River importance This section of the Mersey in the south, through Glazebrook to · M6 is lit. Culcheth in the north and finally wrapping around Winwick in the west. · M6 varies between being exposed on embankment to being set within cutting to south of J22. Generally, it is a notable element within an open landscape, particularly north of J21a.

LCA WFE2: · The M6 traverses this LCA on embankment to · Tree planting is Good Haydock Park (St the south of Junction 23. present on the condition. Helens MBC) lower embankment Moderate · Area falls within Green Belt. slopes, which helps value and of · This estate landscape is fragmented by the M6 to integrate the local and A580. motorway and importance · The LCA is typically flat and comprises large traffic with the local scale geometric regular arable fields with a strong landscape. woodland structure. · This section of the · Haydock Racecourse, sits within the north part of M6 is lit. this LCA.

LCA WFE1: · The M6 traverses the eastern edge of the LCA in · Tree planting within Good Garswood Park (St a combination of shallow cutting and low the soft estate and condition. Helens MBC) embankment to the south of Junction 24. within the LCA Moderate helps to integrate value and of · Area falls within Green Belt. the motorway and local · This estate landscape (now a private golf course) traffic with the local importance is typically enclosed due to its undulating landscape. landform and mature woodland blocks. · This section of the M6 is lit.

LCA 2A: Billinge & · The M6 traverses this LCA in a combination of · Tree planting within Good Orrell Ridge (Wigan shallow cutting and on embankment between the soft estate condition. MBC) Junction 25 and Junction 26, including helps to integrate Moderate Winstanley Park. the motorway and value and of traffic with the local local · Area falls within Green Belt. landscape. importance · The landscape is characterised by a steadily This section of the rising undulating slope incised by steep valleys. · M6 is lit. The LCA has a notable south easterly aspect. · Typically large open arable fields interspersed plantation woodlands which form part of the estate-designed landscapes which link with the wooded stream valleys. Visual amenity overview 7.4.8. The scheme is bordered by suburban small scale residential estates at the edge of the settlements at: · West Orrell (north of J26); · Ashton-in-Makerfield (south-east of J25); · Newton-le-Willows (south-west of J23); and · Warrington (south of J21a). 7.4.9. There are scattered, isolated residential properties present within the rural areas surrounding the urban areas.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-14 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

7.4.10. The study area contains a low concentration of Public Rights of Way (PRoW). There are no National Trails, National Cycle Networks, country parks, or areas of Open Access Land within the study area. 7.4.11. Through the fragmented, open landscape of the central and northern extents of the study area the increasingly undulating nature of the topography, the wooded valleys and wooded estates along with the soft estate vegetation helps to screen and filter views to the motorway and traffic. In the southern extents of the study area where the topography is gently undulating, the motorway is typically in cutting. The viewpoints which are considered to be of high sensitivity and where the view is potentially susceptible to change are presented in Table 7-11 under Key Representative Viewpoints. 7.4.12. Refer to Chapter 10 Assessment of Cumulative Effects for identified development proposals that may result in potentially significant cumulative visual effects on identified viewpoints. Heritage assets 7.4.13. The following designated heritage assets are identified within Appendix D.2 of the EAR. For the location of the heritage assets refer to Table 7-11 below. Effects of the setting of heritage assets will be considered within this section. · Castle Hill motte and bailey and bowl barrow – Scheduled Monument · St Oswald’s Well - Scheduled Monument and a Grade II listed building · Winstanley Hall - Grade II* listed building · Myddleton Hall - Grade II* listed building · Stocks at Windy Arbour - Grade II listed building · Woodhead Farmhouse and Barn at Woodhead Farm - Grade II listed building · Old Mill Farmhouse and Barn Grade II listed building · Myddleton Hall Farmhouse - Grade II listed building · Dean School Cottage - Grade II listed building · Home Farmhouse - Grade II listed building · Milestone 1392445, Fearnhead Lane - Grade II listed building · Willow Park Conservation Area – Conservation Area 7.4.14. There are no Registered Parks & Gardens within the study area. 7.4.15. Those assets identified within the Scoping Report as potentially being affected are considered within this assessment. All other assets were considered at the Scoping stage to remain unaffected. One additional asset was considered due to its proximity to J24. This is Home Farmhouse, a Grade II listed building. In addition, the buildings at Martinscroft, although not designated, were constructed in the mid-19th century and were considered for assessment due to their potential to contain surviving historic fabric (see paragraph 7.3.3). 7.4.16. Non-designated heritage assets have been scoped out of this study. A review of the EnvIS database (accessed in 2017) at the scoping stage concluded that there were no recorded buried remains surviving under the motorway that could be affected by the Proposed Scheme. In addition, any previously unrecorded remains would have been disturbed during the construction of the motorway. Consequently, no non-designated assets will survive within the highway boundary. 7.4.17. There are 12 heritage assets within 300m of the motorway (see Table 7-11). While the soft estate and intervening vegetation minimises visual intrusion, motorway traffic noise potentially remains an audible element. 7.4.18. At Martinscroft an assessment has been made of the three residential properties which comprises one structure known as Moss Brow. This included review of historic mapping and a visual inspection of the exterior of the building. Nos. 1-3 Moss Brow comprise a single rectangular block constructed of brick laid to Scottish bond, with a gabled extension to the north- east elevation of Nos. 1 and 2. The building has a slate roof with three integral brick chimney stacks. The windows and doors throughout are modern replacements. Nos. 2 and 3 Moss Brow have applied roughcast render, whereas No. 1 Moss retains its original bare brick construction. Lean-to porches have been added to the north-east elevation of No. 2 and the south-west

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-15 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

elevation of No. 3. Moss Brow is a non-designated heritage asset dating to between 1847 and 1869. It is considered to be of no more than negligible value. Further detail on the asset is provided in Appendix D.3.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-16 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 7-11 Summary of Heritage Assets

Mitigation/ Heritage Nearest Distance Name Receptor Description Grid Ref Existing Setting Enhancement Sensitivity Asset carriageway (m) Potential

The motte comprises a slightly oval mound of sandy earth raised upon sandstone bedrock. There are faint traces of an encircling ditch on the Castle Hill motte's south-west side. The Agricultural land to the Existing planting motte and associated bailey has been obscured SJ 59606 Scheduled north of the M6, which around the Southbound 63m High bailey and by earthmoving during construction of 96177 Monument cuts across the bailey of monument screens bowl barrow the M6. Situated on a commanding the castle. it from the road. site at the north-east corner of an elevated platform within the elbow formed by the deep-cut valley of the River Dene.

Scheduled Stone well chamber supposedly on Monument/ St Oswald’s SJ 60742 Agricultural land to the Additional planting the spot where St Oswald was killed Northbound 300m High Well 94099 Grade II south-west of the M6. not required. at the Battle of Maserfelth. Listed Building

Winstanley Hall and associated Barns The hall is and Stables. Winstanley Hall was built sufficiently Winstanley c. 1573 with extensions and SD 54518 Grade II* The hall is set within its screened by Southbound 500m High Hall alterations in the 1800s. It includes 03107 Listed park. existing vegetation Tudor, Jacobean and Victorian within the park. building styles.

Hall built in 1658; altered internally early C19 and later. Small brown bricks with sandstone plinth and The hall is dressings. Of 2 storeys and 5 bays. sufficiently Myddleton SJ 61995 Grade II* The setting of the hall is Hall and 2 cross wings with slightly screened by Northbound 218m High Hall 92973 Listed its landscaped grounds. lower right wing. Roofs of artificial existing vegetation stone slates. Surrounded by gardens within the park. and the boundaries of this are formed by high tree lines on all sides.

Stocks at Stocks. C18, built of stone. The SD 54408 Grade II The stocks are located No mitigation Windy Northbound 172m Medium stocks comprise two posts with 01887 Listed along Winstanley Road. required. Arbour shaped heads, mortices to inner faces

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-17 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Heritage Nearest Distance Name Receptor Description Grid Ref Existing Setting Enhancement Sensitivity Asset carriageway (m) Potential

and two timber forest boards. C20 bench to rear, with ends swept forward.

Farmhouse. Probably late C18. Brick Not required as with stone dressings with slate roof. there is no impact Woodhead SJ 60768 Grade II Largely in an area of Three storeys, with four bays, with the upon the Northbound 190m Medium Farmhouse 94235 Listed agricultural fields. end bay recessed and of 2 storeys agricultural setting with flag roof. of the farm.

Not required as Barn. Probably C18. Brick with stone Barn at there is no impact dressings, slate roof. Later wing to SJ 60768 Grade II Largely in an area of Woodhead upon the Northbound 190m Medium south of east side. 5 bays. Diamond- 94235 Listed agricultural fields. Farm agricultural setting pattern ventilation holes. of the farm.

Not required as Old Mill Farm. Late C18. Brick with Old Mill there is no impact stone slate roofs, the house pebble- SD 56156 Grade II Agricultural with an Farmhouse upon the Northbound 290m Medium dashed. 2 storeys, 2 bays, with 3-bay 00232 Listed abundance of open land. and Barn agricultural setting barn to left. of the farm.

Myddleton Hall Farmhouse, also Not required as known as Delph Farm. Farmhouse, Myddleton there is no impact 1656, extended probably C18 and SJ 61956 Grade II Largely in an area of Hall upon the Northbound 235m Medium altered mid-C19 and (to minor extent) 92893 Listed agricultural fields. Farmhouse agricultural setting mid-C20. Brown brick with flush stone of the farm. quoins and stone-slate roof.

School, now house. Dated 1677, with Woodland to the north, Existing planting C20 extension to rear. Stone with Dean School SJ 59195 Grade II and east, and agricultural around the building stone slate roof. Weathering over Southbound 230m Medium Cottage 96604 Listed land to the south and screens it from the ground floor and C20 boxed eaves west. road. and barge boards.

SJ 56887 House. Built c.1692 with C19 99152 alterations. Roughcast brick with slate Located within a The building is Home Grade II roof, brick exposed to rear. 2 storeys, residential area within screened by Southbound 115m Medium Farmhouse Listed 3 bays, with one-storey C20 Ashton-in-Makerfield. existing planting. extension to returns.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-18 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Heritage Nearest Distance Name Receptor Description Grid Ref Existing Setting Enhancement Sensitivity Asset carriageway (m) Potential

Milestone, late C19, whitewashed Milestone The milestone is stone. Triangular, downward sloping 1392445, SJ 63723 Grade II Located along Fearnhead screened by top. Incised lettering reads Northbound 300m Medium Fearnhead 90943 Listed Lane in a residential area. existing buildings 'TOWNSHIP OF POULTON WITH Lane and planting. FEARNHEAD'

The Conservation Area, which straddles the motorway, occupies an elevated but mostly flat area of land and is adjoined by High Street Conservation area to the south-west. The town was a small market town until the late 18th to early 19th centuries which served the local area Willow Park, and was on the coaching route from Rural in nature within the Conservation London to Scotland. The Northbound SJ 59394 Conservation park and located on the Area Conservation Area retains its village None required. and 1m Medium 95766 Area edge of Newton-le- (Newton-le- character with buildings grouped at Southbound Willows. Willows) the back of pavements or behind small front gardens. The Conservation Area also contains the scheduled Castle Motte and Bailey castle to the north as this is linked to the historic origins of the town, although these links have been mostly lost due to the construction of the M6.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-19 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Existing vegetation 7.4.19. The southern section of motorway runs through low lying gently undulating landscape characterised by open agriculture with occasional pockets of mossland. The rural landscape is characterised by open agriculture with large scale regular field patterns bounded by drainage ditches and remnant hedgerows. The openness of the landscape is reinforced by the lack of hedgerow trees and woodland belts. The central and northern section of the motorway the landscape is more elevated and comprises of a mix of large-scale arable farmland and woodland set within valleys, which are associated with the remnants of former country estates. The motorway passes closely to Warrington, Birchwood and Woolston and the major transport links of M6, M62, A579, West Coast Main Line, A580 and M58. 7.4.20. The existing highway vegetation comprises largely even-aged densely spaced broadleaved trees and shrubs that are likely to have been planted following the construction of this section of the network, and which have subsequently colonised broader areas of the soft verge. The height and density of this planting is largely dependent on the type and depth of earthworks, i.e. where space allows there are more tree species; and where narrower, shorter shrub mixes are found. There are occasional areas along the length of the Proposed Scheme where the motorway is at grade and/or where there is little or no planting and the result is occasional views into the motorway corridor, particularly when abutting more rural areas of landscape sections along the corridor. 7.4.21. There are scattered pockets of woodland vegetation adjacent to the motorway corridor, together with the large area of woodland associated with Winstanley Park which have the effect of providing screening. Typically, adjacent to housing estates there are belts of trees and shrubs providing an adequate screening function.

7.4.22. As a result of the maturity and extent of vegetation along the motorway, views towards traffic and infrastructure along it are frequently screened from adjacent visual receptors and in these locations, vegetation is meeting the current environmental objectives. Mitigation and enhancement proposals, taking into consideration of Highways England Licence and RIS environmental objectives, are documented in Section 7.6, within the OEMP, and will be outlined in the CEMP at DF5.

7.4.23. No areas of ancient woodland have been identified within 300m of the Proposed Scheme.

7.4.24. The following area Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) lie within the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme and within the boundary of St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council and are identified and addressed within the OEMP under clauses LC-G002, LC-G015 and LC-G017 (refer to Figure 7.1 for all TPO locations): · 46800-46950 NB · 46750-46800 SB · 48450-48700 NB · 49150-49450 NB

7.4.25. The following area Tree Preservation Orders lie within the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme and within the boundary of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council and are identified and addressed within the OEMP under clauses LC-G002, LC-G005, LC-G015 and LC-G017 (refer to Figure 7.1 for all TPO locations): · 48700-48775 SB · 49250-49325 SB Key representative viewpoints 7.4.26. Key viewpoints have been selected to represent receptors or groups of receptors with the potential for visual effects as a result of the Proposed Scheme. These were reviewed and refined on site to account for accessibility and to incorporate assessment of a range of visual receptors that will potentially be susceptible to a change in view as a result of the Proposed Scheme.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-20 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

7.4.27. All of the key representative residential viewpoints are highly sensitive. Key representative viewpoint locations are illustrated on Figure 7-1 and are described in Table 7-12 below. Full details of each viewpoint are found in Appendix D.1 Visual Effects Schedule. Photographs of the existing view from a selection of the key representative viewpoints are provided in Figure 7-2.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-21 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 7-12 Visual Receptors Potentially Sensitive to Visual Intrusion

Mitigation/ Length of No. of Existing Nearest Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement carriageway Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound • Short-range open views to the motorway at grade. Individual property • Views take in traffic, light columns, the PSVR1 adjacent to the M6, 1 LCA 1C No Low S 20 100 High highway boundary fence, a gantry with off Millhouse Lane signs and junction overbridge with a backdrop of trees beyond the motorway. • Upper floor views across field and down onto open section of M6 with traffic, columns and an existing gantry visible. Properties along PSVR2 8 LCA 1D • Views take in traffic, light columns, the No Low S 300 100 High Millhouse Lane, Croft highway boundary fence, a gantry with signs and junction overbridge with a backdrop of trees beyond the motorway.

Southworth Hall • Upper floor views above adjacent field Farm, Southworth boundary hedge towards traffic, signs and PSVR3 Lane (A572), Newton 1 LCA 1A light columns. No Low S 250 300 High le Willows • Views are towards an open section of the M6 at grade.

• Short-range views to the motorway on Southworth Lane embankment. (A572), Newton le • Views are filtered by the adjacent soft PSVR4 2 LCA 1C No Moderate N 200 200 High Willows estate vegetation. • Upper floor views between gaps in vegetation

• Two properties with distant views to top of vehicles and columns over adjacent fields. Winwick Link Road, • Views are mid distant and filtered by the PSVR5 2 LCA 1C No High N 400 100 High Newton le Willows adjacent soft estate vegetation. • Upper floor views between gaps in vegetation

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-22 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound

• Two properties with views north west towards top of vehicles and columns over Winwick Lane, PSVR6 2 LCA 1C cutting slopes. No High S 100 300 High Newton le Willows • Views interrupted by intervening hedgerows and farm buildings.

• Views north across open field to roadside Parkside Road, vegetation, columns and top of traffic. PSVR7 1 LCA 1C No Moderate N 150 200 High Hermitage Green • Views to motorway interrupted by existing roadside vegetation.

• Mid-range open views south from upper floor to the motorway in slight cutting. Parkside Farm, • Views are intervened by managed PSVR8 Parkside Road, A573 1 LCA AM4 No Moderate S 300 300 High hedgerows on field boundaries. • Top floor views to columns and top of HGVs beyond open cutting slopes.

• Short-range views to the motorway on Southworth Road over bridge and embankment. (A572), Newton Le • Views are narrow and filtered by the PSVR9 Willows 4 LCA SS1 No Low N 50 150 High adjacent soft estate vegetation. • Existing views to bridge, columns and traffic.

Southworth Road • Filtered views north to top of traffic in (A572), Newton le winter only. PSVR10 3 LCA WFE2 No High S 50 100 High Willows • Views onto tall embankment and belt of woodland either side of over bridge.

Mere Road, Newton • Mid-range views east from the rear of PSVR11 3 LCA WFE 2 No High N 100 200 High le Willows properties at the northern end of Mere

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-23 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound Road to the motorway on low embankment. • Views of traffic are filtered by the adjacent soft estate vegetation with a narrow broken belt of shrubs and trees. • Mid-range acute views north to the top of traffic above low intervening verge Rob Lane & Castle vegetation from the front of properties on PSVR12 Hill, Newton le 10 LCA SS1 Rob Lane. More direct views from those No High N 250 300 High Willows along Castle Hill. • Views of traffic are only partially filtered by a broken belt of shrubs along the verge.

• Mid-range open views east from the rear of properties towards the motorway on low Ashton Road (A49), PSVR13 24 LCA SS1 embankment / at grade. No High N 250 300 High Newton le Willows • Views to top of traffic above a belt of low roadside vegetation on a narrow verge.

• Mid-range open views east from the rear of two office blocks towards the motorway Ashton Road office on low embankment with a narrow belt of PSVR14 blocks (A49), Newton 2 LCA SS1 trees partially screening views of traffic. No Moderate N 150 200 Moderate le Willows • Filtered views to traffic and appreciation of columns and signs above roadside vegetation on a narrow verge. • Adjacent views from Park Cottages adjacent to the motorway on a tall embankment with mature trees largely screening views to traffic. Park Cottages & TRU • Short range views from the Rehab centre PSVR15 Rehab Centre, 3 LCA WFE2 directly towards the motorway embankment No Moderate S 20 50 / 200 High Newton le Willows and over bridge structure with a belt of mature trees and shrubs screening views to traffic. • Views are heavily filtered by the adjacent soft estate vegetation for both properties.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-24 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound

The Parks, Ashton in • Adjacent filtered views to the motorway on Makerfield embankment from 3 office blocks. PSVR16 3 Urban No Moderate S 20 200 Moderate • Views are filtered by a narrow belt of trees Ch.48400 on embankment.

• Adjacent direct views to the motorway on low embankment. Willowfield Grove and • Views to traffic from the rear of the large PSVR17 Old Hall Drive, 5 Urban No High N 20 150 High detached properties are filtered by the Ashton in Makerfield adjacent belt of trees within the M6 soft estate.

• Short range views from the side and gable ends of properties to the motorway on low embankment. Woodfield Crescent , PSVR18 10 Urban • Views are currently screened by a wide No High N 30 150 High Ashton in Makerfield belt of trees within the adjacent soft estate vegetation, and intervening vegetation located outside the highway boundary. • Short range direct views varying from the side, front and gable ends of properties towards the motorway on low embankment. • Views are currently screened by a wide Satinwood Close, belt of trees within the adjacent soft estate Firwood Grove & PSVR19 10 Urban vegetation, and intervening vegetation No High N 50 400 High Ashwood Avenue, located outside the highway boundary. Ashton in Makerfield • 3 properties on Satinwood Close would be more susceptible to changes on the motorway with a narrow section of highway planting. • Adjacent views to the off slip at grade Houghwood Grange, while the motorway is in cutting beyond Ashton in Makerfield scattered soft estate vegetation. PSVR20 8 Urban No High S 10 200 High • Views are filtered by the adjacent soft Ch.49500-49900 estate vegetation for most properties while one has open views to the off slip.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-25 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound • Short range views to the motorway at grade for 2 properties. • Adjacent views above a boundary fence, Skitters Grove, across a footpath and belt of hawthorn Ashton in Makerfield towards M6 and traffic for one property. PSVR21 3 LCA BRS1 No Low N 20 150 High Views heavily filtered by the soft estate Ch.50100 vegetation and mature trees within the garden. • Views are filtered by the adjacent soft estate vegetation. • Short range views south west across playing fields towards the motorway at Bispham Drive & grade with a scattered belt of trees within poulton Drive, Bryn the soft estate. PSVR22 9 Urban No High S 100 200 High • Views to traffic are filtered by the soft Ch.50300-50600 estate vegetation but there is an appreciation of columns and filtered winter views to traffic. • Short range views to the soft estate vegetation on cutting slopes. Clough Grove and • Views to motorway well screened by PSVR23 58 Urban No High S 50 600 High Lea Croft, Bryn planting on cutting slopes and in winter some appreciation of traffic though filtered by the adjacent soft estate vegetation.

• Short range views to the soft estate vegetation on cutting slopes. No views to Downall Green Road. traffic or existing gantry. Church well PSVR24 3 Urban No High N 40 100 High B5207, Bryn screened by a boundary conifer hedge. • Views to motorway filtered by the adjacent soft estate vegetation.

• Short range views to the soft estate vegetation on cutting slopes. No views to Downall Green Road. PSVR25 3 Urban traffic or existing gantry. No High N 40 100 High B5207, North Ashton • Views to motorway filtered by the adjacent soft estate vegetation.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-26 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound • Short range views south west to the motorway at grade and on low embankment. Narrow belt of shrubs on slip Drummer’s Fields road and dense belt of trees along the M6 PSVR26 Farm, Drummers 1 Urban No High S 200 400 High verge to the east. Lane • Views are well screened by boundary planting and views through trees are towards the on slip. • Short-range views to the soft estate vegetation on top of cutting slopes. • Views west to motorway are screened by a belt of hawthorn at the top of the cutting Brocstedes Road, slopes either side of the Drummers Lane PSVR27 2 Urban No High S 40 300 High Drummers Lane over bridge. • Views west for one bungalow are more open to the motorway as it comes out of cutting for J25 and with less vergeside vegetation.

• Short range view to the motorway on embankment. Sandy Forth Farm, PSVR28 1 Urban • Views are mostly screened or filtered by No High N 70 150 High Ashton Road intervening farm buildings and the soft estate vegetation.

• Short range views to the motorway in Windy Arbour Farm, cutting. Ashton Road & • Open views although traffic screened by Billinge Lodge, cutting slopes. PSVR29 Winstanley Road, 2 Urban No High N 100 200 High • Open views from upper floors of Billinge Billinge Lodge although traffic mostly screened by cutting slopes. Taller elements visible from Ch.53400 - 53600 rear and side of property.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-27 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound • Mid-range / distant views to the south and Hill House Farm, off east towards motorway in cutting. Views A571 Pemberton screened by deep cutting to south west. PSVR30 Road 1 Urban • Open views although traffic mostly No High S 200 300 High screened by cutting slopes until further Ch.53400 south. Taller elements visible from front of property.

• Short range view towards the motorway in Winstanley Road, cutting from the rear of properties. Orrell • Views are heavily filtered by the adjacent PSVR31 1 Urban No High N 50 100 High belt of woodland in the soft estate but may Ch.54220-55200 have some filtered winter appreciation of traffic.

• Mid-range elevated views form the rear of properties to the motorway on embankment. Winstanley Road, PSVR32 18 Urban • Views are slightly filtered by the soft No High N 200 200 High Orrell estate vegetation but roadside planting is low and broken and traffic and columns are clearly visible. • Mid-range view towards the motorway at grade. Distant views only to Junction 26 off Welburn Close, Orrell slip with slight awareness of columns on PSVR33 5 Urban the mainline beyond. No High N 300 300 High Ch.55900 • Views are generally open and interrupted by local topography and cutting slopes of north bound off slip road.

• Short range view towards the motorway at Parkside Crescent grade with an appreciation of columns but and East mount, not to traffic. PSVR34 Orrell 10 Urban Yes Moderate N 50 250 High • Views are filtered by the adjacent soft estate vegetation and from upper floors Ch.56300 above existing environmental barrier.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-28 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound • Mid-range views towards the motorway at Moss Farm, grade with an intermittent but open Marshall’s Farm and Type2: appreciation of traffic and infrastructure. PSVR35 properties off Brook 3 Mossland • Views are partially obstructed by No Moderate S <10 150 High Lane Landscape intervening vegetation alongside Moss Avenue and an immature block of woodland in an adjacent field. PRoW runs parallel to the motorway between Southworth • Short to mid-range open views to the PRoW1 Lane and footbridge N/A LCA 1C No Low S 30 300 High motorway at grade. over motorway just north of Junction 21a (South bound side). PRoW runs parallel and along the motorway boundary to the south of • Typically, short range filtered views to the PRoW2 Southworth Lane N/A LCA 1C No High N 230 500 High motorway in shallow cutting and at grade. connecting with the Houghton Green Pool LNR. (North bound side) PRoW runs parallel and along the motorway boundary to the south of • Short range open views to the motorway PRoW3 N/A LCA 1C No High N 40 800 High Junction 22, for in shallow cutting and at grade. approximately. 2km to Southworth Lane. (North bound side) • Short to mid-range open views to the PRoW runs between motorway in cutting. Junction 22 to PRoW4 Parkside Road N/A LCA 1C No High N 50 500 High (A5730 (North bound side)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-29 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound PRoW runs parallel • Short range open view to the motorway in and along the cutting. motorway boundary for approximately PRoW5 N/A LCA WFE2 No High N 30 300 High 300m, located approximately 1.5km south of Junction 23 (North bound side). PRoW runs parallel • Short range views to the motorway on and along the embankment. motorway boundary • Views are filtered by the adjacent soft PRoW6 for approximately N/A LCA IF2 estate vegetation. No High N 30 200 High 150m, located 500m north of Junction 23 (North bound side). PRoW passes over • Short range views to the soft estate the motorway vegetation on shallow cutting slope. between Millfield • Limited filtering of views by the adjacent Lane and Chelwood soft estate vegetation. PRoW7 N/A LCA IF2 No Low Both Sides 20 150 High Park, located approximately 1km south of Junction 24 (Both sides). PRoW runs parallel • Short range open views to the motorway and along the on low embankment. motorway boundary • Views are filtered by the adjacent soft between Spindle estate vegetation. PRoW8 N/A LCA BRS1 No High N 40 200 High Hillock and Woodedge for 150m, north of Junction 24 (North bound side). PRoW runs parallel • Short range open views to the motorway and along the in shallow cutting motorway boundary between Downall PRoW9 N/A LCA 2A No High N 20 250 High Road, and Spindle Hillock for 350m, north of Junction 24 (North bound side)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-30 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Mitigation/ Nearest Length of No. of Existing Distance ID Location LCA Existing View Enhancement Exposure Sensitivity Receptors Barrier carriageway (m) Potential N = Northbound (est.) (m) S = Southbound PRoW runs parallel • Short range/adjacent views to the J25 and along the onslip. motorway boundary • Views are filtered by the soft estate. to the south of PRoW10 N/A LCA 2A No Moderate S 300 400 High Drummers Lane connecting with Sougher's Lane. (South bound side) • Short range views to the motorway on PRoW follows Hall embankment and on structure. Lane and passes • Views are filtered by the soft estate and PRoW11 under the motorway N/A LCA 2A adjacent intervening vegetation located No Low Under 40 300 High approximately 600m outside of the highway boundary. south of Junction 26.

PRoW follows Moss Avenue, Nicol Avenue and behind a • Short range views to the motorway row of cottages including an open length of verge. adjacent to the Type2: • Views to the motorway from Moss Avenue motorway before PRoW12 N/A Mossland are screened or filtered by an intervening No Moderate S 50 300 High broadly running Landscape belt of vegetation alongside the local road parallel to the and a block of immature woodland in the motorway towards adjacent field. Junction 21 to the south east. (south bound side)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-31 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Sensitivity of resource 7.4.28. The sensitivity of key landscape and visual receptors has been assessed in accordance with Table 7-3 and the outcomes are presented in Table 7-13 below. Table 7-13 Sensitivity of Key Landscape and Visual Receptors

Landscape/Visual Sensitivity Justification Resource

LCA 1C: Winwick, Moderate The landscape setting of the character area is considered to be of Culcheth, moderate sensitivity because of its ability to partly accommodate Glazebrook, and change of the type proposed. Rixton Undulating Enclosed Farmland

LCA WFE2: Haydock Moderate The landscape setting of the character area is considered to be of Park (St Helens moderate sensitivity because of its ability to partly accommodate MBC) change of the type proposed. LCA WFE1: Moderate The landscape setting of the character area is considered to be of moderate sensitivity because of its ability to partly accommodate Garswood Park (St change of the type proposed. Helens MBC) LCA 2A: Billinge & Moderate The landscape setting of the character area is considered to be of Orrell Ridge (Wigan moderate sensitivity because of its ability to partly accommodate MBC) change of the type proposed. Key Representative High Residential properties and; Viewpoints High Public Rights of Way. Setting of Heritage High The landscape setting of Scheduled Monuments is considered to Assets (Scheduled be of high sensitivity largely because this is a national Monuments) designation. Setting of Heritage Moderate The landscape setting of Conservation Areas is considered to be Assets (Conservation of moderate sensitivity largely because this is a local designation. Areas and Grade II listed buildings) The landscape setting of Grade II listed buildings is considered to be of moderate sensitivity. Whilst this is a national designation, the landscape setting of Grade II listed buildings is not generally considered to be as highly sensitive as the landscape setting of Grade II* or Grade I listed buildings. 7.4.29. The value of affected listed buildings and scheduled monuments has been assessed in accordance with Table 7-7 and can be seen in Table 7-14. Table 7-14 Value of Heritage Assets

Heritage Asset Value Justification

An essential part of the significance of this asset is the dominating position these types of castle took over the surrounding landscape. The landscape of Castle Hill has been significantly altered by the construction of the M6 which cuts across the bailey. Despite the altered nature of its Castle Hill motte and landscape, the strategic and defensive nature of the motte’s bailey and bowl High location can still be appreciated, as can its role in the political barrow (Scheduled administrative landscape of the area. However, the asset is monument) no longer the dominant feature in the landscape, as was originally intended with its construction. It is also of archaeological significance for the information contained within the monument, and it retains some historic significance, associated with the defence of the area. St Oswald’s Well The significance of this scheduled monument lies in its (Scheduled distinction as a holy well, its archaeological potential and its High Monument/Grade II historic associations. The setting of the well has not been Listed Building) significantly altered over time and does not contribute to its

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-32 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Heritage Asset Value Justification

significance, other than in relation to it being on the supposed site of the death of St Oswald. The significance of Winstanley Hall is derived from its historic and architectural interest as a reasonably well preserved Winstanley Hall example of a 16th century grand house and park. The park High (Grade II*) forms the setting of the hall, and while affected by modern development, what remains positively contributes to the significance of the asset. The Hall dates to the 17th century and holds historic interest, related to the Gilbert and Greenhall distillers and brewers Myddleton Hall who lived in the house. The hall has architectural and artistic High (Grade II*) interest in its surviving features. The setting of the Hall comprises its landscaped grounds, which contribute to its significance. The 18th century stocks have archaeological and historic interest, illustrating aspects of social and judicial history. The Stocks at Windy Medium setting of the stocks is on the periphery of the settlement and Arbour (Grade II) only contributes to its significance in relation to its position within the village. Woodhead Farm and Barn are of historic and architectural interest and contribute to the understanding of agricultural Woodhead activities and building techniques of the period. The farm has Farmhouse (Grade II) been considerably altered over time with some buildings and Barn at Medium being demolished. The setting of the farmhouse is relatively Woodhead Farm unchanged, remaining largely in an area of agricultural fields (Grade II) which positively contribute to its significance. However, only the relationship of the farm to the agricultural land contributes to its significance. Old Mill Farmhouse and Barn are of architectural and historic interest. Historic maps reveal the changes the surrounding landscape has undergone overtime, although the setting Old Mill Farmhouse Medium remains agricultural with an abundance of open land which and Barn (Grade II) positively contributes to its setting. Only the relationship of the farm to the agricultural land contributes to its significance. As a 17th century farmhouse probably extended in the 18th century and altered again in the 19th century, its significance is predominantly architectural and historic, due to the information these contribute to the understanding of Myddleton Hall Medium agricultural activities and building techniques of the period. Farmhouse (Grade II) The setting comprises the adjacent Myddleton Hall and agricultural land, which positively contribute to its significance, but only in the relationship between the farm and the agricultural land. Originally a school and now a house, Dean School Cottage’s significance lies in its historic interest and the information the Dean School Cottage building can yield of the social history of the education in the Medium (Grade II) local community. It also retains some architectural significance. The cottage’s setting is remote amongst woodland and open agricultural land. Dating to the 17th century, with 19th century alterations, its significance lies in its architectural and historic interest in Home Farmhouse relation to past domestic activity within a rural agricultural Medium (Grade II) context. The setting of the asset is a modern housing estate, which does not contribute to its significance. The relationship between agricultural land has been lost. A 19th century triangular milestone. Its significance lies in its Milestone 1392445, reminder of the area’s transport history. The setting of the Fearnhead Lane Medium asset comprises its demarcated distance along a route, and (Grade II) this, along with its roadside location, are the only parts of its setting that contribute to its significance.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-33 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Heritage Asset Value Justification

This is located at the eastern end of Newton-Le-Willows. The area was developed during the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. The conservation area comprises two character areas: Willow Park; Newton Station and Leigh Willow Park Medium Arms. The former is cut by the M6 and includes the Conservation Area scheduled monument ‘Castle Hill motte and bailey and bowl barrow’. The area forms its own setting, the small village character of which positively contributes to its significance. It is predominantly inward looking, with limited outward views.

Future baseline

Landscape and visual 7.4.30. The motorway passes through land controlled by planning policies and land allocations contained within the Local Plans of Warrington, Wigan and St Helens Borough Councils. The plans determine the future development of what will be built to support future economic growth and what areas will be protected from development. The policies and land allocations support Government the overall vision for the future of each Borough. New development such as housing will be subjected to planning approval. The visual impact of the Proposed Scheme upon any future development within 1km of the highway corridor will be assessed on an individual basis during the planning process to ascertain any appropriate measures needed to mitigate any significant impacts of the Proposed Scheme on the new development. 7.4.31. No incidents of ash dieback were recorded during the surveys. Ash dieback is a disease of ash and affects trees of all ages and is widely distributed throughout the UK and the spread may be exacerbated by the movement of vehicles along major roads as the fungal disease can be dispersed by being blown along the road. The disease causes leaf loss and significant crown dieback. Ash is a common species within the highway boundary in this area and present within the highway planting, many are self-seeded. As the ash dies back, the affected trees alongside the motorway are likely to be inappropriate given their stature and become prone to dropping limbs or become unstable so will require removal. In the future, there is a risk that the effects of ash dieback could change the landscape within the highway corridor dramatically and reduce the effectiveness of the function the planting serves within the highway corridor. The potential negative impact of the loss of screening could make the Proposed Scheme more visible from the surrounding landscape.

Cultural heritage 7.4.32. Any future development (outside the scope of this scheme) affecting the identified heritage assets within 300m of the Proposed Scheme will be assessed on an individual basis during the planning process to ascertain appropriate measures needed to mitigate any identified impacts.

7.5. Assumptions and limitations 7.5.1. The following assumptions and limitations are applicable for the assessment of landscape, visual and heritage effects during construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme: · Visual effects have been considered from key representative viewpoints so that the assessment is proportionate to the scale of the proposals. However due to the nature of the predominantly rural landscape surrounding the scheme there are many viewpoints that represent individual properties or farmsteads. Whilst not every visual receptor has been assessed on an individual basis, this recognised method illustrates a range of visual effects from a variety of highly sensitive viewpoints surrounding the Proposed Scheme. · Visual effects have been assessed from publicly accessible vantage points at key representative viewpoints. In some cases, notably individual private properties, close access to the viewpoint was not possible. In these cases, the existing view and likely visual effects were determined from views towards the viewpoint from footpaths, footbridges and nearby local roads combined with professional judgement and use of aerial photography. All site assessment work has been undertaken at ground level and on foot, therefore views from upper floors have not been fully assessed and have been based on professional judgement.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-34 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· Site clearance assumptions are based on the indicative areas required for infrastructure and working space detailed in Table 2-8 and are considered a worst-case scenario (detailed vegetation clearance requirements will be developed during PCF Stage 5). In visually sensitive locations working methods will be specified in relation to site specific tree protection or remediation requirements. · This assessment has been provided on the basis that replacement native tree and shrub planting will be implemented in areas cleared for construction and where sight lines, available space and safety requirements allow. This has been reflected in the assessment and professional judgement has been used to identify assumed extents of reinstated planting. · The site survey work in relation to the motorway was undertaken in July 2017, at a time when deciduous vegetation was in leaf coverage. The programme for delivery of the assessment did not allow for surveys during a winter period, therefore professional judgement has been used to assess the likely winter effects when not in leaf. A further site survey was undertaken in October 2019 to assess the likely visual impacts in relation to the three number properties (one structure) site as an air quality mitigation area at Martinscroft. · A tree survey has not been undertaken, therefore, the locations of trees that would be saved on the edge of vegetation clearance areas would be more accurately identified once the works areas are marked out or through site consultation with an engineer to physically show the line of the works extents. This way an arboriculturalist, or other appropriately qualified professional, can determine whether trees outside of the works footprint can be retained or require felling due to the threat of wind throw or because of tree root severance. This approach will be implemented in accordance with the OEMP. · At this stage we currently anticipate that no trees subject to an area or individual TPO would require removal, subject to appropriate excavations techniques being adopted (refer to para 7.6.3) 7.5.2. The above assumptions and limitations have focussed on worst case scenarios and professional judgement has been used to determine winter impacts and effects. As worst-case scenarios have been used, it is considered that there will be no worsening of the significance of effect ratings determined within this chapter.

7.6. Design and mitigation measures 7.6.1. The Proposed Scheme involves limited interventions to an established motorway corridor that constitutes a part of the existing landscape character. Where vegetation is cleared to facilitate construction, planting will be provided to replace that removed, except where this would compromise the safe operation of the highway e.g. sightlines for CCTV, forward visibility for motorists. Due to the localised works within the soft estate, the perception would be that, with assumed mitigation planting in place and maturing, the majority of the vegetation along both carriageways would be comparable to the present situation and would continue to achieve integration.

Landscape and visual 7.6.2. The following measures are embedded into the DF3 design and have formed an integral part of the assessment: · Gantries, EAs and cabinet sites have been located to reduce potentially significant landscape and visual effects where feasible in terms of engineering and safety constraints. · Soft landscape earthwork solutions for retaining options have been prioritised and existing areas of hard standing used for the EAs where available. 7.6.3. The following mitigation principles will be applied to detailed design and construction and carried forward to the EMP: · Vegetation will be removed only where essential to construct the Proposed Scheme and to allow for sight lines and safety requirements. Where the extent of proposed vegetation removal in a particular location will result in a sensitive impact this will be mitigated by the proposed landscape design proposals at the detailed design stage.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-35 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· As far as practical, individual trees within / adjacent to or on the boundary of areas identified for vegetation clearance will be retained at sensitive locations. These include bordering Tree Protection Orders (TPOs) areas identified by St Helens Borough Council at chainages: 46750-46800SB, 46800-46950NB, 48450-48700NB and 49150-49450NB and by Wigan Borough Council at chainages: 48700-48775SB and 49250-49325SB (OEMP clause LC- G002). Furthermore, through the detailed design process clearance up to the highway boundary will be avoided, and where there is a requirement to maintain key screening vegetation, the scheme design will retain and protect a reasonable belt of vegetation. · Where vegetation clearance borders TPOs areas, a precautionary approach to vegetation clearance and excavations will be adopted. This will include the establishment of tree root protection areas and where appropriate sensitive excavation techniques (e.g. hand digging or air excavation) in order to maintain as far as practicable, the majority of the existing root zone. · During the construction period, a temporary screen fence is to be erected at one location (between approximately ch.48730 and 49250. Refer to receptor PSVR17 mitigation in Table 7-12); the fencing to comprise 2m heras type with plastic sheeting attached to the fence, the fence can be moved temporarily to accommodate construction activity, to be reinstated during periods of inactivity. · A 7.5m vegetation clearance exclusion zone for receptor PSVR17 (refer to Table 7-12) in relation to the construction of EA E23B1. Vegetation within this zone to be protected and retained in accordance with the OEMP (LC-G002 & LC-G003) and series 3000 specification. · Screen planting will be reinstated where existing screening vegetation is lost as a result of clearance to accommodate equipment and structures. Screening value will be reinstated when mitigation planting matures. Locations where reinstatement is to be undertaken include: Ch.48700-49250SB, 47850-48500SB and 55300-55600NB · Proposed planting will be of locally indigenous native plants to reflect the local character and of a similar species mix to that removed. · The planting strategy will aim to create a ‘sense of place’ by using plants which reflect the local landscape character and reinforce traditional features and patterns that offer habitat enhancement. · Vegetation removal will be avoided where feasible in order to accommodate the installation of the 2m high noise barrier (NNB7-B) between Ch.48700 to 49260. · Where practical, opportunities to soften the appearance of the above noise barrier (NNB7-B) through planting will be considered and developed through detailed design and/or through the retention of existing vegetation. · Use of native tree and shrub planting to create woodlands, copses and shelterbelts to screen structures, traffic and lighting and help integrate the Proposed Scheme into the existing landscape pattern. · Use of planting on the highway boundary, where appropriate, to link into existing field boundary planting to provide screening and integration into the local pattern, as well as connection of existing wildlife corridors, in locations where other planting is not proposed.

Cultural heritage 7.6.4. No specific heritage mitigation is required as no significant effects are anticipated. However, in the unlikely event that archaeological remains are found during construction, works will be stopped to allow for appropriate recording and reporting and any relevant mitigation measures determined in consultation with the local authority archaeologists and/ or Historic England.

7.7. Enhancement opportunities 7.7.1. The Proposed Scheme involves limited interventions to an established motorway corridor that constitutes a part of the existing landscape character. Due to the localised works within the soft estate, the majority of the vegetation along both carriageways would be similar to the present situation following a 15-year time period post clearance to achieve integration.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-36 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Landscape and visual 7.7.2. There is scope to deliver enhanced landscape integration, nature conservation, visual screening or improvement in the setting to a heritage asset in support of Highways England’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS)1: Improving green infrastructure. 7.7.3. In delivering landscape integration, opportunities will be explored to physically integrate the scheduled monument within the surrounding landscape and be reflective of, or enhance, its character. This could include areas within LCA WFE2: Haydock Park, and LCA WFE1: Garswood Park, by: · Selecting plants and designing features which respond to local vegetation patterns and connect with vegetation outside of the motorway soft estate. · Softening the appearance of the motorway infrastructure in views in areas where its infrastructure is dominant in the landscape. Infrastructure located near to Winstanley Road on the northbound side of the M6 and near to Garswood between Ch.49450 to Ch.51150NB will be considered for integration through planting. · Create a ‘sense of place’ by using plants which reflect the local landscape character and reinforce traditional features and patterns that offer habitat enhancement. · Enhance/improve the existing species mix/habitat typology in otherwise poor quality areas to improve biodiversity and connectivity along the route taking the opportunity to tie into the local landscape through which the motorway passes, particularly adjacent woodlands, scrub and field boundary hedgerows. For example, existing highway vegetation alongside Bryn between Ch.50200 to 50950 will be considered for improvement.

Biodiversity 7.7.4. In protecting and enhancing the biodiversity value of the soft estate the Design Team will: · Integrate ecological, landscape, geotechnical and engineering considerations to minimise the loss of habitats, biodiversity and impact on protected species · Identify areas or if a site wide approach could be adopted in order to integrate species rich or wildflower grass mixes to increase biodiversity and visual amenity throughout the corridor · Maximise the environmental functions that the landscape can provide through planting design. For example, providing planting with an improved screening function to that currently provided by existing highway vegetation whilst also improving connectivity on the southbound side of the M6 through Ashton-in-Makerfield. · Integrate the landscape within the soft estate with neighbouring habitats and landscape features. For example, connecting with existing woodland belts within the highways estate adjacent to Bryn between Ch.50200 to 50950. 7.7.5. The above measures would work towards a no net biodiversity loss.

Cultural heritage 7.7.6. No specific cultural heritage enhancements opportunities have been proposed.

7.8. Potential construction effects

7.8.1. This section considers construction effects on the landscape, visual amenity and heritage. The impacts are generally of short term duration, except for tree removal, where the impact would be medium to long term.

Landscape effects

7.8.2. An awareness of temporary construction plant, new ALR equipment such as signs and gantries, and vegetation clearance within the highway boundary will slightly exacerbate the prominence of the M6 within the broader landscape of the study area during construction. However, the character, setting and perception of the landscape will not markedly change as a result of construction activities. Loss of existing mature vegetation will not substantially alter the surrounding pattern, or

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-37 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

value of the landscape. At a local level, areas of removed vegetation will result in views being opened up for properties and footpath users and slightly change the local character and perception of the corridor.

7.8.3. Despite the motorway within the study area being marginally more prominent within the landscape, the character, setting and perception of Winstanley, Garswood and Haydock Park will not be significantly affected as a result of construction activities. This is due to both the existing awareness of traffic, gantries and other infrastructure and the lack of publicly accessible land within the Parks within close proximity to the scheme and the minor alterations it would be subject to.

7.8.4. Vegetation loss would be restricted to that which is essential for the implementation of the Proposed Scheme and is generally around 4m from the existing verge edge. As the majority of vegetation is set back from the verge edge, loss within the 4m would be limited. In addition, some vegetation clearance beyond the identified 4m buffer will be required to facilitate construction, including reprofiling of slopes. However, this is not anticipated to result in the wholesale loss of significant blocks of vegetation that contribute to landscape character.

7.8.5. Where gantries and Emergency Areas are proposed and for sight line and bank regrading purposes, greater clearance would be required (as stated in the clearance area assumptions in Table 2-8). Loss of existing vegetation within the highway boundary will, together with the introduction of new infrastructure, contribute towards a negligible magnitude of impact to the setting and perception of the four local character areas identified within the study area (LCA 2A, LCA WFE1, LCA WFE2 and LCA 1C) during construction activities. The affected area will be a small proportion of the total vegetation cover within the soft estate. This would be subject to further assessment if the Proposed Scheme changes materially.

7.8.6. The character, setting and perception of the landscape will not markedly change as a result of construction activities. 7.8.7. During construction the magnitude of impact of the Proposed Scheme on the four local character areas identified within the study area (LCA 2A, LCA WFE1, LCA WFE2 and LCA 1C) will be Negligible adverse and the significance of effects no more than Slight adverse.

Visual effects 7.8.8. Appendix D.1 Table D-1 provides a schedule of visual effects from key representative viewpoints (illustrated on Figure 7-2) at different timescales including during construction. 7.8.9. During construction there would be no visual effects of large adverse significance from 47 key representative viewpoints 7.8.10. Visual effects of moderate adverse significance would arise for one key representative viewpoint (PSVR17. Refer to Appendix D.1 Table D.1). This is as a result of construction of an EA (E23-B1) and: · their close proximity to the Proposed Scheme, where construction activity would be visible as a result of clearance of mature highway vegetation opening views; and · views onto traffic will be opened up for the term of the construction until the proposed noise barrier (NNB7-B) is installed, at which point low level traffic will be screened. 7.8.11. However, the use of a temporary screen fence would mitigate views from PSVR17 to low level traffic and low-level construction activity during the construction period and until the proposed barrier (NNB7-B) has been installed. The temporary nature of the works and the use of a temporary screen fence combined with the limited number of receptors impacted has been considered, as a result the nature of the moderate adverse effect outlined above would not be significant because of: · partial screening of construction from intervening retained vegetation; · where some elements of construction is partially concealed in cutting; and · where construction is seen within the context of the existing motorway. 7.8.12. One of the viewpoints noted above (PSVR17 – Willowfield Grove), with a moderate adverse construction effect is subject to a mitigation measure of a 7.5m vegetation clearance exclusion zone. As part of this assessment it has been assumed that existing vegetation, including mature trees, within this zone will be protected and retained and offer a level of screening towards

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-38 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

construction activities which include significant clearance of woodland over a length of approximately 150m in order to accommodate the construction of an EA (E23-B1), from the rear of the residential properties. Elevated stakeholder engagement may be required at this location, as referenced within the OEMP. 7.8.13. In summary, for 43 of the 47 representative viewpoints assessed the significance of visual effect during construction will be slight adverse, for one viewpoint the significance of effect will be moderate adverse (see para 7.8.12 above) and the effects on the remaining three viewpoints will be of neutral significance. More detail of the views experienced from individual viewpoints can be found within the visual effects schedule (Refer to Appendix D.1 Table D.1) but in general the reasons for a low effect rating are either attributed to: · the nature of the view (e.g. from a top floor gable window) · no or only partial or obstructed views of construction activity would be available due to intervening screening elements · existing views of the M6 and other detracting visual features are available, and the Proposed Scheme will be viewed within this context 7.8.14. When taking account of the findings of the assessment on visual effects and proposed mitigation measures it has been concluded that there would be no significant visual effects anticipated during construction.

Lighting effects - Construction 7.8.15. Lighting during construction will be set within the context of existing lighting along significant lengths of the corridor and on surrounding main roads, lighting within urban areas and headlights of traffic on the M6. Given the existing extent of light spill and the temporary duration of lighting during construction, the effects of lighting on both the landscape and visual receptors will be not be significant.

Heritage assets 7.8.16. The proposed works would not cause any significant effects on the setting of any of the heritage assets during construction. This is because the setting of the heritage assets that contributes to their significance will not be affected by the proposals. Generally, there is sufficient distance between the heritage assets assessed and the Proposed Scheme (see Table 7-11 for distances from the motorway), while intervening buildings and mature vegetation screen these receptors from the motorway corridor. 7.8.17. Whilst the value of the Scheduled Monument is considered as high, its setting has already been affected by the construction of the motorway. While the asset was originally designed to be a dominant feature on the landscape, and to have far reaching views, these aspects of the asset’s significance have been lost due to modern development. However, a gantry is proposed in close proximity to the asset and therefore the magnitude of impact is considered to be no more than negligible, resulting in a significance of effect is Slight Adverse. The Willow Park Conservation Area is of medium value, and will experience a magnitude of effect of Negligible, resulting in a significance of effect of Neutral. There is another scheduled monument of high value, St Oswald’s Well, also designated as a Grade II listed building. There are two Grade II* listed buildings, both halls, of high value. The remaining Grade II listed buildings are of medium value. All of these assets have a magnitude of impact of no change. This results in a significance of effect of Neutral. 7.8.18. Moss Brow is a non-designated heritage asset of negligible value. Its demolition will result in total loss of its heritage value. This is a major magnitude of impact, resulting in a slight adverse significance of effect. The building’s current state precludes the use of conventional photographic building recording as a technique to gain further understanding of the building. Any such investigation would require the removal of the roughcast render that is currently disguising evidence of the building’s past development. Such an intervention is, however, not considered to be proportionate to the building’s heritage value, nor would the potential knowledge gain be of such value as to warrant that level of intervention and subsequent recording. Therefore, no further work is recommended in relation to this building.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-39 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 7.9. Potential operational effects

7.9.1. The operational effects of the Proposed Scheme upon landscape, visual amenity, lighting and heritage are presented in terms of the effects in the winter of the opening year (year 1) and the design year (year 15).

Landscape and visual effects - Year 1

Year 1

7.9.2. The operational landscape and visual amenity effects in winter Year 1 following Proposed Scheme completion, has been assessed as a ‘reasonable worst case’ scenario since the vegetation would not be in leaf and planting would be immature and ineffective in contributing to the landscape fabric and as visual screening.

Landscape effects

7.9.3. Following vegetation loss within the highway boundary and before mitigation planting matures the additional infrastructure will slightly increase the prominence of the motorway within the landscape. Areas of removed vegetation will be replaced with mitigation planting where feasible, although full replacement will not be possible in order to satisfy footprint, sight line and safety requirements. 7.9.4. The character, setting and perception of Winstanley, Garswood and Haydock Parks will not be significantly affected as a result of the Proposed Scheme in the opening year. This is due to both the existing awareness of traffic, gantries and other infrastructure and the lack of publicly accessible land within the Parks within close proximity to the Proposed Scheme.

7.9.5. The motorway corridor already has a strong influence on its surrounding environment and the effects associated with minor alterations to a motorway in the context of a broader landscape will not be significant. This is due to the existing awareness of traffic, gantries and other infrastructure, combined with the relative lack of publicly accessible land in close proximity to the Proposed Scheme. Therefore, the magnitude of impact on the four relevant character areas (LCA 2A, LCA WFE1, LCA WFE2 and LCA 1C) identified by local councils will be negligible and the significance of effects no more than slight adverse.

Visual effects

7.9.6. Appendix D.1, Table D.1 provides a schedule of visual effects from key representative viewpoints (illustrated on Figure 7.1) during operation in winter Year 1. At this time construction activities, would have ceased and working areas and verges reinstated.

7.9.7. There will remain increased visibility of the M6 21A - 26 corridor as a result of loss of vegetation and an increase in traffic visible at closer proximity due to all lane running. 7.9.8. There will be one key viewpoint (receptor number PSVR17 – Willowfield Grove) subject to a vegetation clearance exclusion zone (para 7.6.3) during construction and as part of this assessment it has been assumed that vegetation within this zone will be retained. The effect for this receptor will be slight adverse at Year 1 of operation due to the visual screening provided by both retained vegetation and the new 2m high noise barrier (NNB7-B). 7.9.9. From 37 of the 47 representative viewpoints assessed the significance of visual effect during operation will be slight adverse while the remaining ten will be neutral. More detail of the views experienced from individual viewpoints can be found within the schedule but in general the reasons for low effect ratings are attributable to: · the nature of the view (e.g. from a top floor gable window) · no or only glimpsed views of construction activity would be available due to intervening screening elements · existing views of the M6 and other detracting visual features are available and the Proposed Scheme will be viewed within this context

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-40 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

7.9.10. There will be no visual effects of moderate adverse significance during operation in winter Year 1 for residential receptors or for users of public rights of way and therefore no significant effects at Year 1 of operation.

Lighting effects – Year 1 and 15 7.9.11. Lighting effects during operation will be the same at Year 1 and Year 15 and are reported here only to avoid repetition. 7.9.12. There will be no change to the extent of lighting or the heights of columns and unlit areas through the scheme will remain unlit. The type of light source will change to LED directional lamps and would represent an improvement over the existing light source in terms of light spill and glare. The alteration to the type of light source and location of individual columns with the existing extents of a lit corridor result in no significant impact on landscape and visual receptors due to the lighting proposals.

Landscape and visual effects - Year 15 7.9.13. By summer, (15 years following implementation of mitigation planting) the planting will be mature and effective in contributing to the wider landscape fabric and provide visual screening.

Landscape effects 7.9.14. In the longer term, mitigation planting will mature and the majority of gaps created by initial clearance during construction will have closed up. Despite there being changes to the location and extent of some tree and shrub vegetation overall, the general landscape character and function of the highway planting/ screening within verges will be reinstated and there will be no net loss overall. 7.9.15. Despite the motorway and associated infrastructure becoming marginally more prominent within the landscape once mitigation planting has established, the character, setting and perception of Winstanley, Garswood and Haydock Park will not be significantly affected as a result of the proposed scheme by Year 15. This is due to both the existing awareness of traffic, gantries and other infrastructure and the lack of publicly accessible land within the Parks within close proximity to the scheme and the minor alterations it will be subject to. 7.9.16. The motorway corridor already has a strong influence on its surrounding environment and the effects associated with minor alterations to an existing motorway in the context of a broader landscape will not be significant. This is due to both the existing awareness of traffic, gantries and other infrastructure and the lack of publicly accessible land within close proximity to the Proposed Scheme. Following completion of the Proposed Scheme when mitigation planting has matured, the magnitude of impact on the four relevant character areas identified by local councils will be no change and the significance of effects neutral.

Visual effects 7.9.17. Appendix D.1, Table D.1 provides a schedule of visual effects from key representative viewpoints (illustrated on Figure 7.1) during operation in summer Year 15. 7.9.18. In the longer term, replacement planting will mature and the majority of gaps created by initial clearance during construction will have closed up and much of the views towards infrastructure and traffic softened by planting. 7.9.19. The effects in Year 15 will remain broadly similar to those in Year 1. From 29 of the 47 key representative viewpoints assessed, the predicted visual effect in Year 15 will be slight adverse. While many impacts will reduce in magnitude as mitigation planting matures and softens views towards new elements introduced within the view, there will remain a perceptible change. The predicted visual effect on the remaining 18 viewpoints in Year 15 will be neutral. 7.9.20. Residential receptor PSVR17 is predicted to remain as a slight adverse effect from Year 1 of operation as a result of the mitigation measure of a vegetation clearance exclusion zone, screening of low level traffic as a result of the proposed noise barrier (NNB7-B) and established mitigation planting by Year 15. 7.9.21. Therefore, there would be no significant visual effects at Year 15 of operation.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-41 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Heritage assets 7.9.22. Appendix D.2, Table D.2 details the effects on heritage assets. The Proposed Scheme would not cause any significant adverse effects on the setting of any of the heritage assets assessed during operation. This is because the setting of the heritage assets that contributes to significance will not be affected by the proposals. 7.9.23. Generally, there is sufficient distance between the heritage assets assessed and the Proposed Scheme, while intervening buildings and mature vegetation screen these receptors from the motorway corridor. 7.9.24. However, due to their close proximity, two assets will be affected by the operation of the Proposed Scheme. These are the scheduled Castle Hill motte and bailey and bowl barrow, and the Willow Park Conservation Area. 7.9.25. Castle Hill is a scheduled monument and is of high value. While the asset was originally designed to be a dominant feature on the landscape, and to have far reaching views, these aspects of the asset’s significance have been lost due to modern development. However, a gantry is proposed in close proximity to the asset, resulting in a minor negative magnitude of impact. This results in a significance of effect of slight adverse. 7.9.26. Willow Park Conservation Area extends across the M6 and while a new gantry is proposed in this area, it is not considered to have more than a negligible magnitude of impact. On an asset of medium value, this results in a neutral significance of effect. 7.9.27. All other heritage assets will remain unaffected and have a neutral effect.

7.10. Residual effects

Landscape effects 7.10.1. The existing scheme corridor has a strong influence on its surrounding environment and the effects associated with additional infrastructure such as gantries, signs, EAs and CCTV/Radar masts will slightly increase the awareness of the scheme corridor as a feature through the landscape, immediately following construction. However, in the long term and as mitigation planting matures, the majority of gaps created by initial clearance works during construction will have closed up after 15 years. With mitigation planting having matured, there will be no material changes to the way in which the four relevant character areas identified by local councils are perceived, and the significance of effects on landscape character will be neutral.

Visual effects 7.10.2. Where views will be possible, visual effects in the long term from the 47 identified viewpoints will be limited, this will be due to the Proposed Scheme being set within the context of an existing motorway corridor with associated infrastructure, traffic and extensive existing highway vegetation which historically was designed to provide screening and integration for the surrounding landscape and nearby settlements. 7.10.3. Whilst there will be residual visual effects once mitigation planting has established of slight adverse from 29 viewpoints, these effects are very much localised to the edge of housing estates adjacent to the corridor, scattered individual properties and farmsteads and brief views from public rights of way. The remaining 18 viewpoints experience a neutral residual effect. The overall residual visual effect for the scheme will not be significant, the effects having been identified as being of no greater than slight adverse.

Lighting effects 7.10.4. Whilst there will be minor changes to the existing lighting layout there will be no change to the extent of lighting along the corridor, or the height of columns. The type of light source will change however, to modern LED directional lamps and the location of individual columns will move within the extents of an existing lit corridor. This is not anticipated to have a significant effect on any of the identified viewpoints who have an existing appreciation of the currently lit sections of motorway. Therefore, there will be no residual adverse effects as a result of the lighting proposals.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-42 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Heritage assets 7.10.5. The Proposed Scheme will not have any significant effects on the setting of any of the surrounding cultural heritage features assessed. 7.10.6. As there are no significant effects, no mitigation measures are required for heritage assets, and consequently the residual effects upon those assets will remain unchanged. The effects are neutral for all assets except for the scheduled motte and bailey castle, which will be subject to a slight adverse effect.

7.11. Summary

7.11.1. There would be no permanent significant residual landscape and visual amenity effects, or significant residual effects on the setting of heritage assets.

7.11.2. During construction, there will be one moderate adverse localised effect and there will be 44 slight adverse localised effects on key representative visual receptors. This reduces to 37 locations at Year 1 of operation and 29 locations following establishment of mitigation at Year 15, with effects on the remaining viewpoints assessed as being neutral.

7.11.3. When the Proposed Scheme is considered as a whole, it is concluded that the overall visual effect will not be significant and in the long term a residual neutral effect would result for landscape and visual amenity.

7.11.4. During construction there will be effects of slight adverse significance on the four LCAs; this reduces to effects of neutral significance during operation Years 1 and 15 due to replacement planting maturing and mostly closing introduced gaps created during construction.

7.11.5. The construction phase would result in impacts of minor adverse magnitude, with effects of slight adverse significance on the Motte and Bailey Castle Scheduled Monument. There would also be a negligible magnitude, with effects of neutral on one Conservation Area. 7.11.6. The operation phase would not result in any further impacts on cultural heritage. 7.11.7. Overall in the long term, the Proposed Scheme will have a residual effect of neutral significance in terms of landscape and visual amenity and a residual effect of neutral significance on heritage assets. There will be no permanent significant residual landscape and visual amenity effects, or significant residual effects on the setting of heritage assets.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 7-43 8. Noise and Vibration Key features for this topic: · This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with requirements for a detailed assessment provided in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11). · No significant effects are anticipated along the scheme from operational noise. · Of the 20 Noise Important Areas within the defined study area, 19 will experience negligible changes in noise levels and 1 will experience a minor decrease in noise levels with the scheme in operation. · One new noise barrier is included as part of the scheme to mitigate a potential significant effect. The barrier is 2 metres high and 562 metres in length, located to the east of the scheme south of Junction 24 at Ashton-in-Makerfield. · Noise insulation to four properties in Newton-le-Willows will be required to mitigate an operational effect. · In the short term, all except 7 sensitive receptors experience negligible noise increases or negligible/minor decreases in noise levels. The 7 sensitive receptors would experience minor noise increases, ranging from 1.0 to 1.6 dB. Of these 7 properties, two are located to the east of the Proposed Scheme and two are located to the west of the Proposed Scheme, where it passes over the A572. The remaining 3 properties are isolated properties adjacent to the M62 WB to M6 NB Link Road – Junction 21a. · In the long term, 1314 sensitive receptors experience negligible noise increases and 9982 sensitive receptors experience no change or negligible noise decreases, compared to 1192 sensitive receptors experiencing negligible noise increases and 10,104 sensitive receptors experiencing no change or negligible noise decreases if the scheme did not go ahead. · There is a need to address stakeholder concerns over the perception of noise where vegetation removal would expose residents to views of traffic and thereby potentially contributing to a perception of increased noise levels. Example locations requiring extensive vegetation clearance and which will therefore require a high level of stakeholder engagement are:- - Properties to the east and west of the scheme between Junction 21a and Junction 22 - Properties on the A573 west of the scheme - Properties on the A572 east and west of the scheme - Properties adjacent to the southbound on-slip at Junction 23 - Properties adjacent to the scheme in Ashton-in-Makerfield between south of Junction 24 to Junction 25 - Properties to the east and west of the scheme just north of Junction 25 - Properties on Winstanley Road, Longshaw adjacent to the scheme. · Chapter 7: Landscape, Visual and Cultural Heritage Effects describes the locations where placement of temporary visual screens while the vegetation becomes established is envisaged to assist in addressing the perception of traffic noise. · Construction noise from night-time piling is predicted to result in short-term adverse impacts at up to 702 residential properties. Noise levels are predicted to exceed the night-time noise thresholds where percussive piling for retaining wall construction takes place within 158m of properties. Areas with the highest population concentrations near to retaining wall works are in Ashton-in-Makerfield and Bryn. · Construction vibration from night-time piling is predicted to result in short-term adverse impacts at up to 134 residential properties. Vibration levels are predicted to exceed vibration thresholds where percussive piling for retaining wall construction takes place within 100m of properties. Areas with the highest population concentrations near to retaining wall works are in Ashton-in- Makerfield and Bryn. · Construction mitigation measures including following best practice, avoiding night-time working, and programming of activities will be implemented to ensure that duration thresholds are not exceeded and noise and vibration levels are minimised. With mitigation in place, significant construction noise and vibration effects are not predicted to occur. · The proposed scheme meets the three aims of the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-1 Introduction 8.1.1. This section sets out the findings of the noise and vibration assessment for both the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. It builds on the findings and recommendations of the Scoping Report and incorporates relevant new information and specific changes to Highways England guidance since the Scoping Report was produced. 8.1.2. The chapter provides: · A summary of the assessment methodology including a description of the noise calculation area; · a review of existing and future baseline conditions; · an assessment of construction noise and vibration; · an assessment of operational noise; · details of mitigation (where required) and measures to address the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)1; and · measures to manage temporary construction noise and vibration. 8.1.3. The supporting appendices are: · Appendix E.1 – Regulatory and policy framework · Appendix E.2 – Committed developments included in the traffic model · Appendix E.3 – Noise and vibration calculation and assessment assumptions · Appendix E.4 – Analysis of noise mitigation, rectification and enhancement measures · Appendix E.5 – Further information regarding the assessment of properties within NIA 8195 8.1.4. The following figures support this chapter: · Figure 8-1: Scheme Study Area for Noise and Vibration Showing Sensitive Receptors · Figure 8-2: Scheme Construction – Diversion Routes · Figure 8-3: Change in Road Traffic Noise Levels (Do Minimum 2035 minus Do Minimum 2020) · Figure 8-4: Change in Road Traffic Noise Levels (Do Something 2020 minus Do Minimum 2020) · Figure 8-5: Change in Road Traffic Noise Levels (Do Something 2035 minus Do Minimum 2020)

Professional competency 8.1.5. Table 8-1 below details the professional competency of the Topic Lead for this Chapter – Noise and Vibration Effects. This information is provided to fulfil the requirement of EU Directive 2014/52/EU. Table 8-1 Professional Competency – Noise and Vibration

Grade and Expertise and Name Company Professional Qualification

· M4 Smart Motorway Junctions 3 to 12 – provision of all acoustic inputs for the proposed smart motorway Associate – Noise between junctions 3 and 12. Appearance at public and Vibration exhibitions and expert witness at DCO Examination. (AECOM) · M3 Smart Motorway Junctions 2 to 4a – provision of all acoustic inputs for the proposed smart motorway

1 Defra, 2010: Noise Policy Statement for England, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69533/pb13750-noise- policy.pdf

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-2 Grade and Expertise and Name Company Professional Qualification

between junctions 2 and 4a. Appearance at public exhibitions and provision of responses to representations. · York Street Interchange – detailed noise modelling and assessment for a grade separated junction in in accordance with DMRB methodology. Expert witness at Public Inquiry. · M1 Upgrade Junctions 10 to 13 – preparation of the Environmental Statement relating to noise and vibration for the proposed upgrade of the between junctions 10 and 13. Appearance at public exhibitions and provision of responses to representations. · BSc (Hons) Mechanical Engineering · MSc Applied Acoustics · Member Institute of Acoustics (MIOA)

Scoping 8.2.1. This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the assessment methodology presented in the Environmental Scoping Report except for the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) values for construction vibration. 8.2.2. The Environmental Scoping Report, defined LOAEL as a Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) below 10mm/s and the SOAEL as a PPV above 10mm/s. In this EAR, the LOAEL has been defined as a PPV below 1mm/s and the SOAEL as greater than or equal to 1mm/s in line with the guidance presented in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration. 8.2.3. There has been no change to the number of candidate noise barriers assessed from that presented in the Scoping Report. 8.2.4. Topics scoped out of the assessment are: · Operational ground-borne vibration: Older roads that experience a high traffic flow may have an uneven surface that is addressed by re-surfacing by the Proposed Scheme reducing the level of road traffic ground-borne vibration. Furthermore, the DMRB HD 213/11 states “no evidence has been found to support the theory that traffic induced vibrations are a source of significant damage to buildings. Such vibrations are unlikely to be important when considering disturbance from new roads and an assessment will only be necessary in exceptional circumstances”. Consequently, operational ground-borne vibration is considered unlikely to be significant and has therefore been excluded from this assessment. · Construction traffic noise: Apart from movements to and from construction compounds, construction traffic would primarily be using the motorway to access works. Given the volume of traffic using the motorway, any increase in noise level as a result of construction related traffic is considered unlikely to be significant and so construction traffic noise has been excluded from this assessment. · Demolition of three properties at Martinscroft (Air Quality Mitigation Area): Three terraced dwellings within the air quality mitigation area off Nicol Avenue, Martinscroft, are being demolished as part of the Proposed Scheme. The closest noise sensitive receptors are 330m to the north and it is concluded that no significant construction noise and vibration effect will result from the demolition works.

Methodology

Study area 8.3.1. The study areas for the noise and vibration assessment are presented below.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-3 Construction noise 8.3.2. The area in which construction is considered to be a nuisance is generally more localised than where the impacts of the road project are likely to be a cause of concern once it has opened to traffic. The impact of construction nuisance in one form or another diminishes rapidly with distance. 8.3.3. The study area for construction noise covers the area within a 300 m study area of proposed construction activities. Significant adverse impacts would not be expected beyond this distance. Additionally, the study area for impacts due to diversion routes includes an area within 50m of those routes, and is in line with the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11).

Construction vibration 8.3.4. Vibration usually affects a smaller area than noise. The study area for construction vibration covers the area within 100 m from potential piling works, which would give rise to the highest levels of vibration as part of the construction. This is on the basis of the worst-case predicted vibration levels from percussive piling. There are not expected to be any other significant sources of construction vibration associated with the construction of the Proposed Scheme.

Operational noise 8.3.5. The objective of a detailed operational assessment is to understand the impact on the noise and vibration climate both with and without the Proposed Scheme, referred to as the Do Something (DS) and Do Minimum (DM) scenarios respectively. These scenarios are required to be assessed for the proposed opening and design year, or future assessment year (used here to describe the 15th year after opening). 8.3.6. In accordance with DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11), the noise assessment has identified all road links where there could be changes in noise levels, as a result of the Proposed Scheme of:

· at least 1dB LA10,18h in the short term, or

· at least 3dB LA10,18h in the long term (subject to a minimum change of 1dB between the DM and DS scenarios in the design year) 8.3.7. These road links which fall within the criteria specified above are termed “affected routes”. 8.3.8. To determine the detailed noise modelling study area, all affected routes within a 1km study area around the Proposed Scheme were taken into account. A 600m buffer was defined around the Proposed Scheme (the M6 main carriageway and Junctions 21a to 26) and the carriageway edge of the identified affected roads. However, due to affected road links, the study area is extended around Junction 21a, where the M6 meets the M62, and to the north of this junction. 8.3.9. Figure 8-1 shows the Proposed Scheme and surrounding area, with the study area and sensitive receptors identified.

Legislation, policy and guidance 8.3.10. The assessment has been undertaken in a manner that reflects the current policy and regulatory framework (see Appendix E.1) and in accordance with the guidance in Table 8-2. Table 8-2 Assessment methodology for each noise and vibration topic

Topic Methodology BS 5228 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Construction noise and vibration Noise, British Standards Institution and Part 2: Vibration, British Standards Institution2 DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11)3 Operational road traffic noise and Operational supported by Design Guide enhancements to airborne vibration. reflect the characteristics of SMP schemes

2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/227/pdfs/uksi_20150227_en.pdf 3 http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/section3/hd21311.pdf

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-4 Topic Methodology DoT’s Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN)4 applied to the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11) detailed assessment supplemented by the SMP Design Guide advice5 Interim Advice Note (IAN) 185/156 .

8.3.11. The SMP Design Guide best practice guidance on the delivery of noise barriers, construction noise, noise surveys and noise assessment has been followed.

Baseline information and data sources 8.3.12. The following data sources have been examined to determine the baseline acoustic environment: · The location of Defra noise Important Areas (NIA) taken from Government Open Data. · Location of existing noise barriers within the motorway boundary using the Environmental Information System (EnvIS) and imagery from Google Earth Pro. · Receptor locations and associated sensitivities from OS AddressBase Premium associated with the OS MasterMap database - Licence to Highways England. · The location of Emergency Diversion Routes as provided by Highways England. · A visual inspection of the condition of existing noise barriers. · An understanding of the existing highway pavement regime from data recorded in Highways England pavement database (HAPMS). 8.3.13. Given the absence of unusual conditions, baseline conditions were established by computer noise modelling of the baseline noise levels from road noise sources in the calculation area for the future opening and design years as well as information from Defra’s Noise Action Planning Important Areas Round 2 England for noise important areas (NIAs).

Traffic data and forecasting scenarios 8.3.14. The operational road traffic noise impact assessment of the Proposed Scheme uses traffic data for the calculation area in its entirety. All the traffic data used within the noise model falls within the Traffic Reliability Area, as approved by Arup the traffic modelling consultants and confirmed by the HE Transport Planning Group. 8.3.15. The assessment of operational road traffic noise impacts involved a comparison of the predicted noise levels using the proprietary software SoundPLAN v7.4 to facilitate the following comparisons: · Short-term (difference in noise levels between Do Something 2020 and Do Minimum 2020). · Long-term Do Minimum (difference in noise levels between Do Minimum 2035 and Do Minimum 2020). · Long-term Do Something (difference in noise levels between Do Something 2035 and Do Minimum 2020). 8.3.16. The opening year for the Proposed Scheme is now likely to be 2023 rather than 2020. The consequences of this slightly later opening year (and associated future assessment year) will not be significant as the small increases in traffic flow (for both opening year and future assessment year) over that 3 year period will not result in a different outcome for the noise and vibration assessment reported here. 8.3.17. The traffic noise predictions are based on speed banded 18 hour AAWT data in the noise model with Method 3 of the TRL report ‘Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping’ being used for estimating night time noise. This is based on the 18-hour LA10,18h predicted noise levels and the type of road (i.e. different calculations are applied for motorway and non-motorway roads). 8.3.18. Extensive engagement has been undertaken between the acoustics, air quality and traffic

4 Department of Transport (1988). Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN). Welsh Office; HMSO. 5 https://smpbim.withbc.com/bc/bc.cgi/0/429658?op=ui#oid=60112&cid=0&if=bc 6 http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian185.pdf

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-5 modelling teams. The focus of this engagement was twofold. Firstly, to resolve any perceived inconsistencies in the data following the sense check carried out by the acoustics and air quality teams and secondly to decide on correct speed banding where there were changes in speed banding between Do Minimum and Do Something resulting from small changes in pivoted speed.

Construction noise and vibration 8.3.19. The assessment of construction noise considered the following: · Directional drilling and piling: Locations where a risk of disturbance being caused to nearby receptors have been identified. · Construction compounds and recovery vehicle areas: The location of construction compounds and recovery vehicle areas are determined at DF5/DF6, however, the potential for local sensitive receptors to experience significant disturbance has been considered. · Pavement works: As works to the pavement involve noisy operations frequently undertaken at night, there is potential for sensitive receptors to experience significant disturbance. · Vegetation clearance: Areas where vegetation clearance may cause disturbance to local residents have been considered. · Traffic management options during construction: the Delivery Partner may use a contraflow, narrow lanes and speed limits to control traffic flow during construction, these measures can reduce noise levels. There is the potential for a step change in noise to occur when the traffic restrictions are lifted when the scheme opens. The transition from construction phase to when the scheme is open has been considered. · Diverted motorway traffic: The environmental sensitivity of the planned diversions has been considered to identify those locations where HGV traffic could give rise to disturbance. The traffic management strategy is subject to further refinement as the scheme progresses into detailed design and liaison with stakeholders.

Construction noise assessment 8.3.20. The effects of construction noise are temporary and defined by the intrusion that construction noise causes in the existing noise environment of the area. Table 8-3 (Adapted from Table E.1 in BS 5228-1:2009 Annex E) shows the noise level thresholds for LOAEL and SOAEL for construction noise adopted for SMP projects. 8.3.21. The thresholds indicate potential significant effects as a result of the level of noise. However, the duration of the impact, character of the area, numbers of receptors affected and existing ambient noise environment also need to be taken into account in determining the significance of the effect. It is also noted that where the existing ambient noise level is already above the SOAEL, threshold levels may be permitted to be higher. Table 8-3 Construction noise thresholds at residential dwellings

Period Time Noise level, dB LAeq,T

LOAEL SOAEL

Day-time weekday, 07:00 – 19:00 70 75 Saturdays, Sundays

Evening and night-time 19:00 – 07:00 50 55

Note: If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the SOAEL given in the table, then a potential significant effect is indicated if the total LAeq, T noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to site noise. The LOAEL and SOAEL levels have been adapted from Table E.1 in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 - Part 1 Noise, Annex using professional judgement.

Source: Adapted from BS 5228-1 Table E.1 8.3.22. Potential construction noise levels were predicted using typical road construction equipment in accordance with the guidance in BS 5228-1 (see assumptions in Appendix E.3). The prediction method used was that in BS 5228-1 in Annex F. 8.3.23. Where a construction noise level exceeds the relevant SOAEL, a significant effect occurs if a duration threshold is also exceeded, either a period of 10 or more days in any 15 consecutive

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-6 days or a total of 40 days in any 6 month period. Mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure no significant effects occur, either by reducing the level below the SOAEL and/or reducing the duration below the time threshold.

Construction vibration assessment 8.3.24. Table 8-4 shows the levels where vibration can cause cosmetic damage to structures. For this assessment the lowest vibration level with the potential to give rise to cosmetic damage has been used as a threshold for significant adverse effects in terms of damage to buildings (15 mm/s). It should be noted that in most cases cosmetic damage would not be caused at these levels and much higher levels of vibration are required to cause structural damage. Table 8-4 Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage

Type of building Peak component particle velocity in frequency range of predominant pulse

4Hz to 15Hz 15Hz and above Reinforced or framed structures. 50mm/s at 4Hz and above 50mm/s at 4Hz and above Industrial and heavy commercial buildings. Unreinforced or light framed structures. 15mm/s at 4Hz increasing 20mm/s at 15Hz increasing Residential or light commercial buildings. to 20mm/s at 15Hz to 50mm/s at 40Hz and above 8.3.25. Some adverse effects on human receptors may occur at lower levels of vibration. Table 8-5 shows potential adverse effect under the BS 5228-2 criteria on human response to vibration. The vibration levels are shown in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). For this assessment, the onset of potential adverse effect, the LOAEL, has been taken to be 0.3mm/s and the SOAEL has been defined at 1.0mm/s for construction vibration using the PPV levels and human response to vibration descriptions in BS 5228-2 and professional judgement. The thresholds indicate where there could be a potential significant effect as a result of the level of vibration; however, the duration of the impact and numbers of receptors affected also need to be taken into account in determining significance. Table 8-5 Construction vibration impact criteria for human receptors (annoyance)7

Peak Particle Velocity Level Description >= 10mms-1 Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this level. 1.0 to < 10mms-1 It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation has been given to residents. < 1mms-1 Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments. 8.3.26. The potential construction vibration levels were predicted using typical piling equipment in accordance with the guidance in BS 5228-2 (see assumptions in Appendix E.3). The prediction method used was that in BS 5228-2 Table E.1.

Operational road traffic noise assessment 8.3.27. The assessment of operational road traffic noise impacts of the Proposed Scheme follows the detailed methodology in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11), which in turn references the calculation methodology produced by the Department of Transport’s and Welsh Office’s Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN). 8.3.28. The effects of operational noise are permanent. Table 8-6 shows the values adopted for the daytime and night-time SOAEL and LOAEL in this section. Both the LA10,18h façade noise level and LAeq,16h free-field noise level are shown due to the different parameters used in different sources. Conversion from LA10,18h to LAeq,16h uses the relationship as set out in Transport Analysis Guidance TAG unit A3 – environmental impact appraisal; (LAeq,16h = LA10,18h – 2dB) with a further subtraction of 2.5dB for conversion from façade to free-field. Values of 67.5dB LA10,18h would be rounded up to 68dB LA10,18h for the purposes of the Noise Insulation Regulations and hence an

7 BS 5228-2 Table B.1.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-7 additional 0.5dB has been allowed for in the conversion for both the LOAEL and the SOAEL. Table 8-6 SOAEL and LOAEL for long-term road traffic noise during day and night-time

Parameter Value for daytime Value for night-time

68dB LA10,18h (façade) SOAEL 55dB Lnight,outside (free-field) 63dB LAeq,16h (free-field)

55dB LA10,18h (façade) LOAEL 40dB Lnight,outside (free-field) 50dB LAeq,16h (free-field)

Sources: Night-noise guidelines for Europe, WHO, 20098 for night-time values. Noise Insulation Regulations9 Relevant Noise Level for daytime SOAEL. Guidelines for community noise, WHO, 199910 for daytime LOAEL (from the 50dB LAeq,16h(7-23),outdoors for the onset of moderate community annoyance). 8.3.29. The thresholds indicate where there could be a potential significant effect as a result of the level of noise. However, the character of the area, numbers of receptors affected and the existing acoustic climate also need to be taken into account in determining significance. 8.3.30. The proprietary software SoundPLAN v7.4 was used to predict noise levels at residential properties and other potentially sensitive receptor locations within the study area. The following scenarios were modelled: · Opening year (2020), DM scenario (i.e. without Proposed scheme). · Opening year (2020), DS scenario (i.e. with Proposed scheme). · Design year (2035), DM scenario. · Design year (2035), DS scenario. 8.3.31. The assessment of noise impacts involved a comparison of the predicted noise levels resulting from the Proposed Scheme for the following scenarios: · Long term DM (difference in noise levels between DM2035 and DM2020). · Short term DS (difference in noise levels between DS2020 and DM2020). · Long term DS (difference in noise levels between DS2035 and DM2020). 8.3.32. Noise levels were calculated to all facades of residential properties within the calculation study area, and to all facades of sensitive non-residential properties. Non-dwelling receptors in the study area include schools, health facilities, playgrounds and care homes among others (refer to Appendix E.3 for further details on the noise model assumptions). In accordance with HD 213/11, noise level predictions were undertaken at 1.5m above ground for single storey receptors and at 4m above ground for two storeys. 8.3.33. In line with DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11), this section defines the magnitude of impact based on a comparison of the increase or decrease in noise levels between scenarios. The magnitudes of noise impacts associated with road traffic noise are presented in Table 8-7 (short term) and Table 8-8 (long term). Changes in noise level can be either an increase (adverse) or a decrease (beneficial). Table 8-7 Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the short term

Noise change LA10,18h (dB) Magnitude of impact

0 No change

0.1 – 0.9 Negligible

1 – 2.9 Minor

3 – 4.9 Moderate

5 + Major

8 World Health Organization (2009). “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe” 9 Statutory Instrument, 1975, No. 1763. Building and Buildings. The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. As amended by Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 2000. Building and Buildings. The Noise Insulation (Amendment) Regulations 1988 10 World Health Organization, 1999. “Guidelines for Community Noise”.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-8 Source: DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11) Table 3.1.

Table 8-8 Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the long term

Noise change LA10,18h (dB) Magnitude of impact

0 No change 0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 3 – 4.9 Minor 5 – 9.9 Moderate 10 + Major Source: DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11) Table 3.2. 8.3.34. The introduction of guidance set out within policy documents including the NPPF and the NPSE has increased the focus on consideration of absolute noise levels as well as the change in noise levels due to a road scheme. The DMRB considers the change in noise level when determining the magnitude of impact of a road scheme and references the NPSE as part of the Legislative Framework. A greater consideration of absolute noise levels is given (and has been addressed within this assessment), including an acknowledgement that where existing traffic noise levels are high (above the SOAEL as defined Table 8-6), even small changes in traffic noise levels on scheme opening (1dB or more), may be considered significant.

Night time assessment 8.3.35. In accordance with DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11), this section also presents a night-time noise assessment through comparison the DM and DS in the design year (2035) against the DM in the year of opening (2020). Method 3 of the TRL report “Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping” provides a formula for estimating night-time noise levels based on the 18 hour daytime predicted noise levels and the type of road. Different corrections are provided for “motorway” and “non-motorway” type roads. 8.3.36. The night-time assessment was undertaken for receptors where traffic noise levels are predicted to exceed 55dB Lnight,outside in any scenario as required by DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HD213/11).

Mitigation, rectification and enhancement 8.3.37. In this section, mitigation refers to measures aimed to avoid or minimise the adverse effects as a result of the Proposed Scheme. 8.3.38. Rectification is the reduction in noise levels within NIAs to rectify an existing noise problem. 8.3.39. Enhancement is not focused upon NIAs but other areas not identified as requiring an existing high noise level to be rectified. 8.3.40. To mitigate potentially significant effects, one noise barrier is required to the south bound carriageway and will be delivered as part of the Proposed Scheme. The barrier is 2 metres high and 562 metres in length, located to the east of the scheme south of Junction 24 to provide mitigation for properties close to the Proposed Scheme in Ashton-in-Makerfield. 8.3.41. The barrier details are provided in Table 8-9 where the required noise barrier is denoted by NNB7-B. Table 8-9 Proposed Mitigation Barrier (operation) – included in the scheme design

Barrier I.D. Barrier Details Location Aim

NNB7-B Length: 562 m Southbound To mitigate potentially Height: 2m Chainage: 48700-49260 significant effects. Type: Reflective

8.3.42. No mitigation or rectification measures have been identified for consideration by the Local Highway Authority. 8.3.43. Details of potential noise barriers to provide rectification (and which are not part of the Proposed Scheme) are provided in Section 8.7.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-9 Noise Insulation Regulations (mitigation) 8.3.44. The policy of Highways England is to exercise its powers under the Noise Insulation Regulations (NIR)1975 (as amended 1988) and hence a residential property must meet the following four primary conditions to qualify for insulation: · Be within 300m of the Proposed Scheme;

· Show a relevant noise level of at least 68dB LA10,18h (façade); · Show a noise increase between the relevant noise level and the prevailing noise level of at least 1dB(A); and · The contribution to the increase in the relevant noise level from the Proposed Scheme must be at least 1dB(A). 8.3.45. The prevailing noise level is the noise level caused by traffic using any highway immediately before works for the alteration of a highway are begun. However, due to the relatively short duration of the construction works for a SM scheme, informed by information provided by the Proposed Scheme Construction Advisor, the prevailing noise level is here estimated to be equal to the noise level in the DM opening year scenario. Table 8-10 shows the parameters used to determine eligibility under the NIR and Table 8-11 shows the Noise Insulation Regulations eligibility conditions. Table 8-10 Noise levels predicted for the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988)

NIR definition Parameter used in this section

Prevailing noise level (PNL) LA10,18h DM opening year 2020

Relevant noise level (RNL) LA10,18h DS future year 2035

Maximum noise level from altered highways LA10,18h DS future year 2035 from the Proposed Scheme within 15 years (L’A)

Maximum noise level from all other highways LA10,18h DS future year 2035 from all the roads outside within 15 years (L’B) the Proposed Scheme

Source: Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988). For the acronyms, CRTN, Department of Transport, 1988, Annex 1.

Table 8-11 Criteria to define whether a property qualifies for insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988)

Provision Criteria NIR 7(1) Distance < 300m from the nearest point of the carriageway to alter.

NIR 2(1)/4(1) RNL ≥ 68dB LA10,18h façade (with 67.5dB rounded up). NIR 3(2)a/4(2)b RNL – PNL ≥ +1dB(A) NIR 3(2)b/4(2)b RNL – L’B ≥ +1dB(A)

Source: Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988). For the acronyms see CRTN, Department of Transport, 1988, Annex 1.

Cost-benefit analysis of rectification and enhancement measures 8.3.46. A value-for-money score has been used to determine whether each proposed rectification or enhancement measure is sustainable in line with government policy. The value-for-money score is the ratio of the benefits (present value benefits) to the costs (present value costs) of an enhancement or rectification measure. A value-for-money score of greater than one indicates that the benefits outweigh the costs and represents a sustainable solution. Further detail on the cost- benefit methodology and background including limitations can be found in Appendix E.4.

Assumptions and limitations 8.3.47. Assumptions and limitations have been identified during the assessment which are discussed further within this section. The uncertainty associated with each limitation has been reduced as much as possible. The assessment is considered robust for the purposes of identifying significant

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-10 effects.

Construction noise 8.3.48. Construction methods and scheduling will not be confirmed until all relevant surveys are completed; engineering and environmental constraints are accounted for; a Delivery Partner has been appointed and the construction equipment is defined. The methods and scheduling will also be subject to change during the construction period to deal with situations arising on site. This assessment is undertaken based on typical construction road activities and noise levels reported in BS 5228-1 Annexes C and D. These risks will be taken into account in the development of the methodology and programme to avoid significant impacts during construction. 8.3.49. Where construction activities have been identified with the potential for significant effects, these are documented in the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) with appropriate mitigation actions. The appointed Delivery Partner adopts the OEMP clauses in their Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), the CEMP is used to manage works during the construction period. 8.3.50. Appendix E.3 provides details of the construction noise assumptions and the source of the elements used in the construction noise calculations. Table 8-12 shows each of the construction elements and the level of uncertainty related to each of them. Table 8-12 Uncertainty in relation to the construction noise assessment

Parameter Description Level of Comment/Actions to Resolve uncertainty

Road traffic No traffic data has been used in Medium Qualitative assessment has been diversions assessing the temporary road traffic made of the potential for diversion noise effects of diversions during route noise impacts. the works. Property counts of the number of Number of night-time motorway potentially affected receptors within closures during the construction 50m of each diversion route have been programme is estimated. made in order to assess likely impacts. It is assumed that the existing emergency diversion routes used by the Area 10 Asset Support Contract team will be used during construction. Construction Construction stages have been High The OEMP will be refined and utilised stages based on previous SMP scheme in the preparation of the CEMP. During experience with confirmation from the construction stages the CEMP will the engineering team. be updated as necessary. Construction Standard construction methods Medium The OEMP will be refined and utilised plant and using plant and equipment details in the preparation of the CEMP. During methods based on previous SM scheme the construction stages the CEMP will experience. be updated as necessary. Construction The timings and durations have not High The OEMP will be refined and utilised timings and yet been defined for individual in the preparation of the CEMP. During duration works locations. The assessment the construction stages the CEMP will presented assumes a worst-case of be updated as necessary. night-time construction works. Noise Sensitive receptors identified Low Receptor addresses will be updated in sensitive through OS Addressbase data. response to new information. receptors

8.3.51. At this stage, the construction noise assessment considers the potential noise levels at different distance bands, without taking into account the actual topography or existing screening, such as intervening buildings. Furthermore, the SOAEL presented in Table 8-3 has been adopted for all sensitive receptors, irrespective of the ambient noise levels within the construction noise Calculation Area. This approach is considered proportionate, given that the exact number and type of construction plant, and location and duration of the works is not known. As such, the construction noise assessment should be viewed as indicative of potential magnitude of impact.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-11 Construction vibration 8.3.52. The construction of retaining walls for gantries, emergency areas (EA), CCTV and electrical interface (EI) cabinets and stopped vehicle detection systems (SVD) have the potential to require percussive piling. For the purposes of a worst-case appraisal of potential vibration impacts, it has been assumed that percussive piling will be used to install gantries and EA retaining walls. Where possible, lower vibration piling methods will be used where there are particular sensitivities in the surrounding area. Table 8-13 below provides a summary of uncertainty relating to the construction vibration assessment. 8.3.53. At this stage, it is not confirmed where lower impact methods can be utilised. When alternative piling techniques are identified as appropriate, this information will be recorded in the OEMP with appropriate actions for the Delivery Partner. Table 8-13 Uncertainty in relation to the construction vibration assessment

Parameter Description Level of Comment/Actions to Resolve uncertainty

Piling Piling methods have yet to be High The CEMP will set out a determined. The assessment methodology for managing potential presented assumes a worst-case of impacts due to piling. percussive piling at night-time.

Operational noise 8.3.54. Appendix E.3 provides details of the operational noise model assumptions and the source of the elements used in the operational road traffic noise model. Table 8-14 below provides a summary of uncertainty relating to the operational noise assessment. Table 8-14 Uncertainty in relation to the operational road traffic noise assessment

Parameter Description Level of Comment/Actions to uncertainty Resolve

Height and Environmental Information System (EnvIS) Low None extent of and imagery from Google Earth Pro existing environmental barriers Condition and There are only two existing noise barriers Low / Detailed barrier condition performance of within the study area. The first is to the Medium surveys to be undertaken at existing north bound carriageway, just to the north DF4. environmental of Junction 26 and in large part is clearly barriers visible from the carriageway. The second is to the boundary with Poulton Park Golf Club just south of Junction 21a and in large part is clearly visible from the carriageway. A visual survey from the carriageway has been undertaken to ascertain the integrity of the existing environmental barriers within the study area. This was considered sufficient at this stage, given that access from the non- motorway side of the barriers was not available and the safety issues involved with access from the motorway side. Motorway As described in Appendix E.3, the Low None pavement in Highways England Pavement opening year Management System (HAPMS) has been scenarios interrogated to define the lane by lane surfacing for the DM opening year. This has been employed to derive carriageway surface noise corrections for the DM opening year. Where the whole carriageway is existing LNS, a surface correction of -2.5 dB has been employed. For those chainages where the lanes of

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-12 Parameter Description Level of Comment/Actions to uncertainty Resolve

the carriageway are mixed surfacing, the procedure provided in the SMP Design Guidance has been employed to derive a surface correction for the carriageway. The DM opening year lane by lane surfacing has been revised to account for the resurfacing of lanes 1 and 4 with low noise surfacing for the DS opening year. This has been employed to derive carriageway surface noise corrections for the DS opening year, using the procedure in the SMP Design Guidance, for inclusion in the noise modelling work.

Motorway It is anticipated that all lanes of the Low None pavement in motorway would be resurfaced with a low future year noise surface for DM and DS for the scenarios design year. Therefore a correction factor of -3.5db has been applied in the model for each carriageway for both these scenarios. Traffic data The traffic model, and thus the noise Low None assessment, is based on an opening year of 2020. The opening year for the Proposed Scheme is now likely to be 2023 rather than 2020. Advice from the traffic modelling function is that traffic growth over this 3 year period will be substantially less than 5%, which is negligible in noise terms (an approximate increase in traffic flow of 25% is required for a 1 dB increase in noise level, as referenced in the scoping section of HD213/11). Thus, the consequences of this slightly later opening year (and associated future assessment year) will not be significant as these small increases in traffic flow (for both opening year and future assessment year) over that 3 year period will not result in a different outcome for the noise and vibration assessment. The noise and vibration assessment is based on the assumption that all four North West SMP Schemes (M6 J21a to 26, M62 J10 to 12, M56 J6 to 8, M60 J24 to 4) will be open within 18 months of each other. The operational traffic data employed in the noise and vibration assessment provides for this assumption and the resultant noise and vibration assessment is therefore a cumulative assessment for the four North West SMP Schemes.

Stakeholder engagement 8.3.55. No stakeholder engagement has been conducted to date.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-13 Baseline conditions

Noise sensitive receptors 8.4.1. There are 11296 dwellings and 34 sensitive non-residential receptors within the Detailed Calculation Area for the Proposed Scheme. The sensitive non-residential receptors comprise 2 medical facilities, 9 schools, 2 further education establishments, 5 nurseries, 8 community facilities and 8 places of worship. All receptors are shown in Figure 8-1. 8.4.2. The residential properties are distributed throughout the scheme corridor, as follows: · J21 to J21a Birchwood – large residential area located to the east of the scheme just south of J21a Fearnhead / Houghton Green - large residential area located to the west of the scheme just south of J21a · J22 to J23 Newton-le-Willows – large number of residential properties located to the west of the scheme, with a small number of properties located in close proximity to the scheme · J23 to J24 Ashton-in-Makerfield - large number of residential properties located to the east of the scheme, with a significant number of properties in close proximity to the scheme · J24 to J25 Ashton-in-Makerfield - large number of residential properties located to the east of the scheme, with a significant number of properties in close proximity to the scheme Garswood – large residential area located to the west of the scheme · J25 to J26 Winstanley - large residential area located to the east of the scheme Longshaw / Far Moor - large residential areas located to the west of the scheme · J26 to J27 Orrell.- large residential areas located to the west of the scheme Pemberton - large residential areas located to the east of the scheme 8.4.3. There are also individual properties or small groups of residential properties located within the scheme corridor along its length. 8.4.4. The sensitive non-residential receptors are located in the larger residential areas within the scheme corridor along its length.

Noise Important Areas 8.4.5. Table 8-15 shows the number of residential properties contained within NIAs (road only) within the 1km buffer. These NIAs are shown in Figure 8-1. Table 8-15 Count of residential properties within road noise important areas

Noise Noise Making Location No. of Important Area Authority residential (ID number) properties

7115 HE M6 NB 1

7114 HE M6 NB – M62 WB SLIP 15 10797 HE M62 EB AND WB 8

7112 HE M62 WB – M6 NB SLIP 2

7111 HE M6 SB 1

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-14 Noise Noise Making Location No. of Important Area Authority residential (ID number) properties

7110 HE M6 NB 1

7088 Warrington A49 (WINWICK LINK ROAD) 76 10740 Warrington A579 1

8195 HE M6 NB AND SB 12

7087 HE M6 NB 5 10748 St Helens A49 88

7079 HE M6 J23 SB ONSLIP 2

8191 HE M6 NB AND SB 416

10745 Wigan A58 16 8190 HE M6 NB AND SB 365

6988 HE M6 NB AND SB 3

6994 HE M6 NB 2

6993 HE M6 NB 5

10661 HE and Wigan M6, M58 AND A577 1782 6919 HE M6 NB AND SB 256

Existing environmental barriers 8.4.6. There are two existing noise barriers located north and south of the Proposed Scheme extents, as follows: · 2.5 metre barrier to N/B carriageway south of J21a (approx. chainage 39000 – 39090 · 2.5 metre barrier to N/B carriageway to the north of J26 (approx. chainage 56250 – 56630) 8.4.7. A limited visual survey has been undertaken to ascertain the integrity of the existing environmental barriers within the study area, which found the barriers in relatively good condition.

Existing pavement conditions 8.4.8. The existing pavement conditions vary along the length of the scheme, with sections of mixed surfacing across lanes and significant sections where all lanes of the carriageway are surfaced with LNS. These sections where the whole carriageway is surfaced with LNS are: · Northbound - Chainage 41480 – 41900 - Chainage 42430 – 48070 - Chainage 48450 – 51370 - Chainage 53240 – 53520 · Southbound - Chainage 41850 – 42480 - Chainage 42900 – 45680 - Chainage 47350 – 54120

Future baseline conditions 8.4.9. A search was undertaken of the Planning Register in January 2020 for the neighbouring Local Planning Authorities for submitted or consented development proposals and other sources that meet the following criteria:

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-15 · Employment developments (B1, B2 and B8 only) within 1km of the Proposed Scheme. · Residential: 200 + dwellings within 1km of the Proposed Scheme. · Residential: 10 + dwellings within 300m of the Proposed Scheme. · Major Minerals and Waste applications within 1km of the Proposed Scheme. · Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects within 1km of the Proposed Scheme. · Transport infrastructure proposals within 1km of the Proposed Scheme (trunk roads or motorways only). 8.4.10. Those developments with consent within 300m of the Proposed Scheme have been reviewed to identify additional receptors or other factors that alter baseline conditions such as screening of residential areas by commercial buildings. The developments beyond 300m are captured within the traffic modelling uncertainty log where they have a valid planning consent. 8.4.11. Developments identified as part of the future baseline (i.e. currently under construction or committed) are included in Chapter 2, Section 2.5 of the EAR.

Potential construction effects 8.5.1. The noise and vibration effects of construction activities upon nearby sensitive receptors have been considered in terms of the general operations, retaining walls and motorway closures. 8.5.2. The following activities have been considered as part of the construction phase assessment to ensure that appropriate design and management activities are in place to avoid unnecessary adverse impacts: · Central reserve phase, including the replacement of existing structures and the construction of the central reserve barrier RCB. · Verge phase, including vegetation clearance, demolitions, gantry foundation construction, EA construction, retaining wall and barrier construction. · Resurfacing works, including removal of existing surface and laying of new surface. · Drainage works. · Road marking works. · Signage works. · Construction of works compound. 8.5.3. At the time of the assessment it was not anticipated that any bridge demolitions would be required as part of the Proposed Scheme. 8.5.4. An assessment of the construction noise impacts at up to 300m from the works has been undertaken for the above activities. The calculated noise levels are shown in Table 8-16. A schedule of the equipment used during the assessment is provided in Appendix E.3. 8.5.5. The calculations do not take into account screening, where there is a barrier (e.g. topographic feature, building, earth bund, acoustic screen, plant and equipment, materials) between noise source and receiver, plant noise will be attenuated. BS 5228-1 states a reduction of 5 dB is assumed where the top of plant is just visible to the receiver, and 10 dB where the barrier completely hides the source(s) from the receiver. A high topographic feature or a specifically designed and positioned barrier could provide greater attenuation.

8.5.6. The noise levels in excess of the night-time SOAEL threshold level (55 dB Lnight,outside) are highlighted in orange in Table 8-16. It is noted that receptors close to the M6 currently experience road traffic noise above the SOAEL. For example, baseline noise surveys were completed at 16 locations distributed along the length of the Proposed Scheme corridor, at 14 locations noise levels exceeded the night-time SOAEL.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-16 Table 8-16 Indicative construction noise levels – road works

Noise level dB LAeq,8h for night-time from construction noise at various distances (m) from Phase Activity the works

10m 20m 50m 100m 200m 300m

Central Removal of reserve existing phase structures and 78 72 62 55 47 43 installation of (night-time) RCB.

Demolition, clearance and Verge stripping out of 83 77 68 60 53 49 phase noise barriers (if required) Gantry installation (most at (assumes 80 74 65 57 50 45 night-time) percussive piling required) EA construction (assumes 79 73 63 56 48 44 percussive piling required)

Resurfacing Removal of 85 79 69 62 54 50 works existing surface

Laying new (night-time) 79 71 62 54 47 43 surface

Drainage works Drainage works 79 73 63 56 48 44 (night-time) Road marking Road marking 75 69 59 52 44 40 works works (night-time) Signage works Signage works 80 74 64 57 49 45 (night-time)

8.5.7. A significant effect due to construction noise occurs where works exceed the SOAEL for 10 out of 15 consecutive days or a total number of days exceeding 40 in any six consecutive months, as defined in BS 5228-1. 8.5.8. With the exception of construction of retaining walls, which will have longer works durations, see paragraph 8.5.10, the activities listed in Table 8-16 would be short, taking place either in a specific geographic location (e.g. gantry installation) or transient in the case of linear activities (resurfacing/ road markings for example). The activities are very unlikely to exceed the continuous works durations defined above and give rise to significant effects. For this reason, these activities have not been considered further in this assessment. The adverse impacts of temporary high noise levels would be managed and reduced to the lowest levels/durations possible as set out in the OEMP and summarised in Section 8.7 below.

Construction noise effects - retaining walls 8.5.9. The Proposed Scheme has 49 locations where new retaining walls are required in association with the installation of highway assets, including EAs, gantries, CCTV and verge widening. The Proposed Scheme has 10 new EAs and 44 new gantries. Of these, 5 EAs and 24 gantries

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-17 potentially require piled retaining walls. At this stage, the construction method for retaining walls is not confirmed, percussive piling is potentially required to construct them. 8.5.10. Retaining wall piling works are expected to take between one and two weeks to complete. Under difficult ground conditions the duration may increase to three weeks, but it is likely that less time is spent piling and more time on supporting activities. Where works are continuous, the duration threshold of 10 days out of 15 consecutive days may be exceeded, resulting in a significant adverse effect. 8.5.11. The locations of retaining walls proposed at the time of this assessment are mapped on Figure 2.1 Scheme Overview in Volume 2, for example, the retaining wall for ‘ERA E24B1’ is on sheet 9 of 13, they are also shown on the General Arrangement drawings in Appendix A, Volume 3. Each of the potential retaining wall locations is listed in Table 8-17 below, together with the numbers of properties within relevant distance bands, and the number exceeding the night-time SOAEL. It is not anticipated that noise levels will exceed the night-time SOAEL of 55 dB Lnight,outside at distances beyond 158m (using the construction scenario presented in Table 8-16 above). Table 8-17 Sensitive receptor distance bands – Retaining Walls

No. of Noise Sensitive Properties within Number of Ref Distance Bands dwellings exceeding retaining wall Locality <20m 20m to 50m to 100m to 200m to Night-time (RW)) 50m 100m 200m 300m SOAEL

RW_R001 - 0 0 1 0 5 Winwick/Croft 1 Gantry G21-23 RW_R002 - 0 0 0 0 1 Winwick/Croft 0 Gantry G21-25 RW_R003 - 0 0 0 2 1 Winwick/Croft 0 Gantry G21-26 RW_R004 - 0 0 0 2 1 Winwick 0 Gantry G22-3 RW_R005 - 0 0 0 2 1 Winwick 0 Gantry G22-4 RW_R006 - 0 0 0 0 1 Winwick/St Helens 0 Gantry G22-4a RW_R007 - 0 0 0 0 1 Winwick/St Helens 0 Gantry G22-5 RW_R008 - 0 0 0 0 0 Winwick/St Helens 0 Gantry G22-6 RW_R009 - 0 0 0 0 0 Winwick/St Helens 0 Gantry G22-7 RW_R010 - 0 0 0 0 9 Newton-le-Willows 0 Gantry G22-13 RW_R011 - ERA 0 0 0 0 0 Newton-le-Willows 0 E22A2 RW_R012 - 0 0 0 0 0 Newton-le-Willows 0 Gantry G22-16 RW_R013 - 0 0 4 32 115 Ashton-in-Makerfield 17 Gantry G23-8 RW_R014 - 0 0 8 68 154 Ashton-in-Makerfield 37 Gantry G23-6 RW_R015 - 0 0 0 72 89 Ashton-in-Makerfield 35 Gantry G23-10 RW_R016 - 0 0 0 51 141 Ashton-in-Makerfield 22 Gantry G24-1a

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-18 No. of Noise Sensitive Properties within Number of Ref Distance Bands dwellings exceeding retaining wall Locality <20m 20m to 50m to 100m to 200m to Night-time (RW)) 50m 100m 200m 300m SOAEL

RW_R017 - 0 0 0 49 129 Ashton-in-Makerfield 18 Gantry G24-2 RW_R018 - ERA 0 2 29 174 227 Ashton-in-Makerfield 112 E24B1 RW_R019 - 0 0 2 124 222 Ashton-in-Makerfield 57 Gantry G24-3a RW_R020 - 0 2 28 145 223 Ashton-in-Makerfield 102 Gantry G24-3b RW_R021 - 0 0 1 2 0 Ashton-in- 3 Gantry G25-5 Makerfield/Wigan RW_R022 - ERA 0 0 0 0 0 Orrell 0 E25B1 RW_R023 - 0 0 0 0 2 Orrell/Wigan 0 Gantry G25-8 RW_R024 - ERA 0 0 0 1 4 Orrell/Wigan 0 E25A1 RW_R025 - 0 0 0 2 1 Orrell/Wigan 1 Gantry G25-11 RW_R026 - 0 0 0 2 1 Orrell/Wigan 1 Gantry G25-11a RW_R027 - ERA 0 0 0 3 3 Orrell/Wigan 0 E25B2 RW_R028 - 0 0 2 2 15 Orrell/Wigan 3 Gantry G25-13 RW_R029 - 0 0 0 3 9 Orrell/Wigan 3 Gantry G25-13a RW_R030 - 0 0 0 0 0 Birchwood/Warrington 0 Verge Widening RW_R031 - 0 0 0 0 1 Winwick/Croft 0 Verge Widening RW_R032 - 0 0 0 0 0 Winwick/Croft 0 CCTV RW_R033 - 0 0 0 2 1 Winwick 0 CCTV RW_R034 - 0 0 7 56 142 Ashton-in-Makerfield 28 Verge Widening RW_R035 - EAV 0 0 0 1 1 Winwick/Croft 0

RW_R036 - EAV 0 0 0 0 4 Newton-le-Willows 0

RW_R037 - EAV 0 0 0 104 188 Ashton-in-Makerfield 46

RW_R038 - EAV 0 2 18 96 200 Ashton-in-Makerfield 66 RW_R039 - 0 0 0 0 1 Winwick/Croft 0 General Highway RW_R040 - 0 0 0 2 1 Winwick 2 General Highway RW_R041 - 0 0 17 165 219 Ashton-in-Makerfield 99 General Highway

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-19 No. of Noise Sensitive Properties within Number of Ref Distance Bands dwellings exceeding retaining wall Locality <20m 20m to 50m to 100m to 200m to Night-time (RW)) 50m 100m 200m 300m SOAEL

RW_R042 - 0 0 9 50 164 Ashton-in-Makerfield 32 General Highway RW_R043 - 0 0 2 40 123 Ashton-in-Makerfield 15 CCTV RW_R044 - 0 0 0 0 2 Ashton-in- 0 CCTV Makerfield/Wigan RW_R045 - 0 0 0 0 0 Orrell 0 CCTV RW_R046 - 0 0 0 1 3 Orrell/Wigan 1 CCTV RW_R047 - 0 0 0 0 0 Orrell/Wigan 0 CCTV RW_R048 - 0 0 0 2 3 Orrell/Wigan 1 CCTV RW_R049 - 0 0 0 0 1 Newton-le-Willows 0 CCTV Total 0 6 128 1255 2409 N/A 702

Note that all distances are to property facades and therefore gardens may be in closer proximity to the works.

8.5.12. There are 702 noise sensitive receptors within 158m of proposed retaining walls. Retaining wall construction potentially requires piling which could result in noise levels in excess of the SOAEL during the night-time. Noise levels of this magnitude are potentially significant depending on the duration of the activity and the existing acoustic climate at the sensitive receptors. 8.5.13. The existing acoustic climate at noise sensitive receptors near to the proposed retaining wall locations is likely to be dominated by road traffic noise emanating from the M6. The operational noise model predicts that noise levels at receptors close to the M6 are currently exposed to ambient noise levels in excess of the operational SOAEL of 55 dB Lnight,outside at night whilst noise levels as a result of piling for retaining walls would be in the order of 77 dB at 20m, 67 dB at 50m, 60 dB at 100m and 52 dB at 200m. 8.5.14. In order to reduce potential significant adverse effects at these 702 noise sensitive receptors, alternative quieter methods of piling such as rotary bored piling or hydraulic ‘press-in’ piling, will be implemented where ground conditions permit. Where this is not viable, alternative mitigation measures will be used, such as the use of temporary site hoardings or piling shrouds. The duration of piling works will be programmed to ensure duration thresholds are not exceeded (see paragraph 8.3.2323). With these mitigation measures in place, no significant adverse construction noise effects would be expected as a result of the Proposed Scheme. Mitigation measures are set out in the OEMP and summarised in Section 8.7.

Construction compound and vehicle recovery areas 8.5.15. The location of the site compound(s) has not been yet been identified for the construction of the Proposed Scheme and will be developed separately by the Delivery Partner. However, as the construction and operation of the site compound have the potential to give rise to adverse impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, noise levels during the construction and operation of the compound have been predicted at various distances as presented in Table 8-18. 8.5.16. Site compound construction is assumed to take place during the daytime and operated during both the daytime and the night-time periods. Noise levels equal to or greater than day-time SOAEL (75 dB LAeq,12h) for site clearance and compound construction and those equal to or greater than the night-time SOAEL (55 dB Lnight,outside) for the compound operation are highlighted in orange in Table 8-18 below.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-20 Table 8-18 Indicative construction noise levels – compound

Noise level dB LAeq,12h at distance (m) from compound Activity 10m 20m 50m 100m 200m 300m

Compound - Site 81 75 66 58 51 46 clearance Compound - 85 79 69 62 54 50 construction Compound - 60 54 45 37 30 25 Operation

8.5.17. The site compound location is not yet known, it should be sited as far away from sensitive receptors as possible, it is recommended that it is at least 30m from nearby sensitive receptors to mitigate potential effects. The site compound construction should be assessed as part of the CEMP. 8.5.18. Vehicle recovery areas are typically located in areas of open ground, often remote from the scheme. Activities at vehicle recovery areas have the potential to cause annoyance to residents, especially at night. These areas will be sited as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. 8.5.19. Given the nature of the activities carried out at the recovery areas, noise levels should be comparable to the compound operational noise levels. Consequently, a minimum distance to the nearest sensitive receptor of 50 metres should be maintained to provide acceptable night-time noise levels. In the unlikely event that this minimum stand-off distance is not possible, mitigation measures may be required, for example installation of temporary noise barriers.

Construction vibration effects 8.5.20. Percussive piling may be used during the installation of gantries and noise barriers, as well as during the construction of EAs or other structures such as retaining walls at gantry, CCTV and EI cabinet locations. Locations where extended periods of percussive piling will be used are outlined in Table 8-17 above. Table 8-19 below shows the expected vibration levels at different distance bands from all locations where percussive piling may be required (EAs, gantry foundations and retaining walls). The vibration levels were calculated in accordance with the formula in BS 5228-2 Table E.1. 8.5.21. The local ground type has not been confirmed at the present time; however, for the purpose of this assessment the factor (Kp) for the type of soil was taken as 1.5, in line with the descriptions in BS 5228 2 Table E.2. Vibration levels above the SOAEL (1mm/s) are anticipated at a distance of 91m from any piing activities, assuming worst-case conditions.

Table 8-19 Indicative construction vibration levels – percussive piling

Vibration level PPV (mm/s) at distance (m) Activity <10m 10 to <20m 20 to <50m 50 to <100m

PPV from Percussive piling 18.4 18.4 to 7.5 7.5 to 2.3 2.3 to 0.9 8.5.22. There are no residential properties that lie within 20m of a percussive piling location, there are four properties within the 50m distance band, these are located on Leacroft and Downall Green Road, Bryn. These properties may experience vibration levels of between 2.3 mm/s and 7.5 mm/s. There are 128 properties that lie between 50m and 100m of a percussive piling location, these are located on Leacroft, Chantry Walk, Clough Grove, Pasture Close and Downall Green Road, Bryn. Vibration levels between 0.9mm/s and 2.3mm/s are predicted. Note, some properties are accounted for more than once in the Table 8-18 because they are near to more than one retaining wall location 8.5.23. Vibration levels above the SOAEL are predicted at properties within 91m of a percussive piling location. There are 106 properties within 91m of a percussive piling location where vibration levels above the SOAEL may be experienced and would be considered to be significant. 8.5.24. The adverse vibration effects of piling activities will be minimised as set out in the OEMP and

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-21 summarised in Section 8.7 below.

Motorway closures 8.5.25. Full motorway or carriageway closures will be avoided as far as practical by use of traffic management, however, it is likely that overnight closures will be required for the removal of existing gantries and the installation of superspan or cantilever gantries. Partial closures may also be required for other construction activities. Full motorway closures will require temporary diversion routes on the local road network. Required motorway closures and use of diversion routes may be subject to change and will be developed with the Delivery Partner during PCF Stage 5. 8.5.26. Information relating to the existing emergency diversion routes has been provided by the Area 10 Asset Support Contract team. At this stage, the diversion routes are not confirmed. 8.5.27. During any potential night-time closures for construction works, road traffic re-routed onto a diversion route would causing an uplift in traffic volumes using these roads. All potential diversion routes pass through residential areas. 8.5.28. For noise sensitive receptors near to the diversion routes, night-time noise levels would likely be increased whilst motorway closures are in place; although it is difficult to predict what the level of noise change will be. Given the relatively large volumes of road traffic that normally uses the motorway at night, it is considered that when the diversion routes are in use, adverse impacts are likely to occur at noise sensitive receptors near to the routes; however, a single occurrence is unlikely to result in a significant adverse effect. 8.5.29. BS5228-1 provides guidance on frequency of noisy activities that would lead to noise insulation, or reasonable costs thereof, being offered to property owners. BS 5228-1 states the following: “Noise insulation, or the reasonable costs thereof, will be offered by the developer or promoter to owners, where applied for by owners or occupiers, subject to meeting the other requirements of the proposed scheme, where the construction of the development causes, or is expected to cause, a measured or predicted airborne construction noise level that exceeds either of the following at property lawfully occupied as a permanent dwelling:

· The noise insulation trigger levels presented in Table E.2 (of BS 5228-1) for the corresponding times of day; · A noise level 5 dB or more above the existing pre-constriction ambient noise level for the corresponding times of day; whichever is the higher; and for a period of 10 or more days of working in any 15 consecutive days or for a total number of days exceeding 40 in any 6 consecutive months.”

8.5.30. For each night-time period where motorway traffic is diverted onto the local road network (due to construction works), an adverse effect would be deemed to occur, constituting one exceedance of the noise insulation trigger levels. It is considered that a significant adverse effect would occur if the frequency of night-time closures exceeds either 10 closures in any 15 consecutive days, or 40 closures in any six months period. 8.5.31. A summary of the diversion routes, including length and a description of the route is presented in Table 8-20 below, and the routes are presented in Figure 8-2 in Volume 2. A high-level qualitative assessment has also been undertaken to identify high and medium noise risks: · Medium risk – areas with a medium or low concentration of receptors within 50m of the diversion route or signalised junction. · High risk – areas with a high concentration of receptors within 50m of the diversion route or signalised junction.

Table 8-20 Summary of planned diversion routes

Junction Route Approx. Receptor Route description Likely adverse closure name length of count temporary noise diversion within effects route 50m Junction 21a M6-J21- 7.1km 40 J21a to 22 takes the M62 Increase in traffic northbound J22-NB Westbound to J9. Then noise at dwellings take the A49 Winwick Link on the southern

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-22 Junction Route Approx. Receptor Route description Likely adverse closure name length of count temporary noise diversion within effects route 50m Road northbound to rejoin side of Winwick. the M6 at J22. Junction 22 M6-J22- 8.9km 88 J22 to 23 takes the A579 Increase in traffic northbound J23-NB Winwick Lane northbound noise may occur at to Lanehead village. Then dwellings on Lane right onto Newton Rd and Head and Park left onto Church Ln and Road, Golborne. finally left again onto the A580 East Lancs Rd Westbound, rejoining the M6 at J23. Junction 23 M6-J23- 7.4km 283 J23 to 24 takes the A580 Increase in traffic northbound J24-NB East Lancs Rd westbound noise at dwellings in to the junction with the A58 the north of New Liverpool Rd. Then right Boston adjacent to onto A58 northbound to the East Lancs Rd. rejoin M6 northbound at The route includes J24. one care home, Ashton Cross, Tithebarn Road. Junction 24 M6-J24- 28.3km 433 The diversion route around Increase in traffic northbound J25-NB a closure between J24 to noise may occur at J25 involves going off at dwellings adjacent J23 onto the A580 East to the A580 corridor Lancs Rd westbound to the from New Boston Rainford Rd junction at through to Windle Windle, then taking the Island and to a A570 Rainford Rd north to lesser extent those the M58 at jJ3. The route near the A570 on St then follows the M58 Helens Rd and Eastbound to join the M6 Rainford Rd. at junction 26. Junction 25 M6-J25- 9.8km 1342 For J25 to J26 the Increase in traffic northbound J26-NB diversion route takes the noise at a large A49 Warrington Rd number of dwellings northbound through Marus adjacent to the Bridge and Goose Green route on both to reach the junction with Warrington Road the A577 Ormskirk Road. and Ormskirk Road, Then left onto the A577 the latter being an westbound to rejoin M6 urban single northbound at J26. carriageway with terraced dwellings very close to the carriageway edge. The route includes two care homes, Appleby Cross, Ellesmere Road, and Alexandra Court, Howard Street. Junction 26 M6-J26- 28.2km 269 For J26 to J25 closure the Increase in traffic southbound J25-SB diversion route takes traffic noise at dwellings down to J23. The route is adjacent to the on the M58 westbound to A580 corridor from J3 then the A570 Rainford Windle Island Road southbound to the through to New A580 East Lancs Rd Boston and also junction at Windle. Then those near the A570 the A580 is taken on Rainford Rd and eastbound to rejoin the M6 St Helens Rd. at J23. Junction 25 M6-J25- 28.2km 269 For J25 to J24 closure the Increase in traffic route is as above, with noise at dwellings

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-23 Junction Route Approx. Receptor Route description Likely adverse closure name length of count temporary noise diversion within effects route 50m southbound J24-SB traffic being taken off at adjacent to the J26 to rejoin at J23. A580 corridor from Windle Island through to New Boston and also those near the A570 on Rainford Rd and St Helens Rd. Junction 24 M6-J24- 7.7km 250 For J24 to J23, traffic is Increase in traffic southbound J23-SB taken off at J24 onto the noise at dwellings A58 Liverpool Road on the north of New southbound to the A580 Boston adjacent to East Lancs Rd junction. the East Lancs Rd. The A580 is then followed The route includes eastbound to rejoin the M6 one care home, at J23. Ashton Cross, Tithebarn Road. Junction 23 M6-J23- 8.4 90 For J23 to J22, traffic is to Increase in traffic southbound J22-SB Km be diverted onto the A580 noise may occur at East Lancs Rd Eastbound dwellings on Lane to Lanehead, then south Head and Park on the A579 Winwick Lane Road, Golborne. to rejoin the M6 at J2. Junction 22 M6-J22- 7.7km 31 For J22 to J21a, the Increase in traffic southbound J21a-SB southbound diversion route noise at dwellings mirrors the J21a to J22 on the southern northbound route using the side of Winwick. A49 Winwick Road southbound and then onto the M62 Eastbound at J9 to rejoin the M6 at J21a.

8.5.32. Table 8-21 summarises the assumed potential carriageway closures associated with gantry installation works. Table 8-21 Summary of potential carriageway closures Motorway No. new C’way New No. cantilever No. new Potential closures closure superspan MS4 gantry cantilever of carriageway(s) gantries removals gantries Single Both

NB 2 2 2 4 J21a to J22 4 2 SB 2 2 2 4

NB 2 2 3 5 J22 to J23 2 1 SB 3 * 2 3 6

NB 1 0 1 2 J23 to J24 1 1 SB 0 0 3 2

NB 0 1 0 1 J24 to J25 2 1 SB 1 1 1 3

J25 to J26 1 NB 2 0 2 2 1

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-24 Motorway No. new C’way New No. cantilever No. new Potential closures closure superspan MS4 gantry cantilever of carriageway(s) gantries removals gantries Single Both

SB 3 0 1 3

Total potential number of closures 32 6

*including one New MS3 installation Assumptions: · Two MS4 installations per off-peak carriageway closure. · Two cantilever gantries installed per single direction carriageway closure. · One cantilever gantry removal per single direction carriageway closure. · Two full span gantry installations per night require both direction carriageway closure.

8.5.33. The contractor will be required to adhere to no more than 10 closures in any 15 consecutive days or 40 closures in any six months period to ensure no significant effects. Based in the estimates provided in Table 8-21, a significant effect is not expected to arise. Potential operational effects 8.6.1. Façade noise levels have been calculated to all residential properties and sensitive non- residential properties in the 600 metres detailed study area for the following scenarios: · Do Minimum 2020 (DM2020) (i.e. without Proposed Scheme) · Do Minimum 2035 (DM2035) (i.e. without Proposed Scheme) · Do Something 2020 (DS2020) (i.e. with Proposed Scheme) · Do Something 2035 (DS2035) (i.e. with Proposed Scheme) 8.6.2. Additionally, noise level contours at a height of 4m above ground level have been calculated for the same four scenarios. 8.6.3. As stated previously, the opening year for the Proposed Scheme is now likely to be 2023 rather than 2020. The consequences of this slightly later opening year (and associated future assessment year) will not be significant as the small increases in traffic flow (for both opening year and future assessment year) over that 3 year period will not result in a different outcome for the noise and vibration assessment reported here.

Long Term Do Minimum Noise Level Changes (DM2020 to DM2035) 8.6.4. The long-term changes in traffic noise levels if the Proposed Scheme did not go ahead (do minimum scenario) are presented in Table 8-22. A total of 11296 residential properties are located within the 600 metres detailed study area. Of those properties, 3595 exceed the DMRB criterion of greater than or equal to 55 dB Lnight,outside at one or more façades, in one or more scenarios, for inclusion in the night time traffic noise assessment. All changes are based on the façade with the worst-case change. Table 8-22 Long-term traffic noise changes (DM2020 to DM2035)

Daytime Night-time

Change in noise level Number of Number of residential Number of other residential properties sensitive receptors properties

0.1 – 2.9 1192 9 698 Increase in 3 – 4.9 0 0 0 noise level, LA10,18h 5 – 9.9 0 0 0 >=10 0 0 0

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-25 Daytime Night-time

Change in noise level Number of Number of residential Number of other residential properties sensitive receptors properties

No change = 0 124 4 47 0.1 – 2.9 9980 21 2852 Decrease in 3 – 4.9 0 0 0 noise level, LA10,18h 5 – 9.9 0 0 0 >=10 0 0 0

8.6.5. For the daytime period, 1192 dwellings experience noise increases, all of which are negligible. Of those noise increases 308 are ≥ 1 dB, ranging from 1 to 1.8 dB. The 308 dwellings experiencing noise increases of ≥ 1 dB are not on the Proposed Scheme, but on other roads which experience increases in traffic from 2020 to 2035. These roads are;- · Myddleton Lane, Winwick · Ashton Road, Newton Le Willows · Downall Green Road, Garswood · Winstanley Road, Longshaw 8.6.6. The majority of dwellings (over 89% of the total) experience no change or negligible decreases in noise levels for the daytime period.

8.6.7. Nine non-residential sensitive receptors experience noise increases, all negligible, ranging from 0.1 to 0.9 dB. The remaining 25 non-residential sensitive receptors experience no change or negligible noise decreases.

8.6.8. The long-term changes in LA10,18h road traffic noise levels (DM2020 to DM2035), , are shown in Figure 8-3. Generally, there are negligible noise decreases within the detailed study area. Whilst traffic flows are expected to increase between 2020 and 2035, resulting in corresponding increases in noise levels, these noise increases are offset by the effects of the assumed low noise surface across all lanes of both carriageways in 2035.

8.6.9. For the night-time period, 698 residential properties experience noise increases, all of which are negligible. Of those noise increases 57 are ≥ 1 dB, ranging from 1 to 1.4 dB. The 57 residential properties experiencing noise increases of ≥ 1 dB are not on the Proposed Scheme, but on other roads which experience increases in traffic from 2020 to 2035.

8.6.10. The majority of residential properties (over 80% of the total) experience no change or negligible decreases in noise levels for the night-time period.

8.6.11. Given the negligible noise level changes presented in Table 8-22, illustrated in Figure 8-3 which also shows the negligible noise decreases in the NIAs along the Proposed Scheme, it is concluded that the noise changes resulting from traffic growth between 2020 and 2035 are not significant.

Short Term Do Something Noise Level Changes (DM2020 to DS2020) 8.6.12. The short-term changes in traffic noise levels with the Proposed Scheme in place are presented in Table 8-23. Table 8-23 Short-term traffic noise changes (DM2020 to DS2020)

Number of other sensitive Change in noise level Number of residential properties receptors

0.1 - 0.9 4785 14 1 - 2.9 7 0

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-26 Number of other sensitive Change in noise level Number of residential properties receptors

Increase in 3 - 4.9 0 0 noise level, LA10,18h >=5 0 0 No change = 0 2969 9 0.1 - 0.9 3507 11 Decrease in 1 - 2.9 27 0 noise level, LA10,18h 3 - 4.9 1 0 >=5 0 0

8.6.13. A total of 4785 residential properties experience a negligible increase in noise level (within the 0.1 to 0.9 dB range). 7 residential properties experience a minor increase, ranging from 1.0 to 1.6 dB. Of these 7 properties, two are located to the east of the Proposed Scheme and two are located to the west of the Proposed Scheme, where it passes over the A572. The remaining 3 properties are isolated properties adjacent to the M62 WB to M6 NB Link Road – Junction 21a. 8.6.14. The majority of the remaining residential properties experience no change or negligible decreases in noise levels, along with 27 properties which experience minor noise decreases and 1 property which experiences a moderate noise decrease (it is noted that the DMRB approach considers the façade of each property with the least beneficial change in noise level). 8.6.15. A total of 14 non-residential sensitive receptors experience noise increases, all negligible. The remaining 20 non-residential sensitive receptors experience no change or negligible noise decreases.

8.6.16. The short-term changes in LA10,18h road traffic noise levels (DM2020 to DS2020), , are shown in Figure 8-4. The location of the proposed new noise barrier is also shown (south of Junction 24 on the southbound carriageway, to provide mitigation for properties close to the Proposed Scheme in Ashton-in-Makerfield). Generally, there is a combination of negligible noise increases and negligible noise decreases within the detailed study area. This is a result of the interaction of changes in traffic flows, changes in road alignment and changes in road surface noise correction values (lane 1 and lane 4 with new low noise surfacing for opening year). The effects of the noise barrier to the south bound carriageway are evident, with minor or moderate noise decreases to the facades facing the Proposed Scheme for 44 properties. 8.6.17. There are negligible noise changes in all but two of the NIAs along the Proposed Scheme. Part of Noise Important Area 8191 at Ashton-in-Makerfield experiences minor / moderate noise decreases as a result of the proposed noise barrier. 8.6.18. Noise Important Area NIA 8195 experiences minor noise increases to four properties within it. This NIA is located where the Proposed Scheme passes over the A572. The four properties are shown in the plate 8-1 below, with two properties to the east (reference numbers 19848 and 19923) of the motorway on Southworth Road and two properties to the west (reference numbers 15174 and 12632) of the motorway on Waterworks Drive. 8.6.19. With reference to paragraph 8.3.34, whilst the noise level increases are at the very bottom of the minor range (1.0 to 1.6 dB), the noise levels are above the SOAEL. Consequently, given the location of these receptors on the Scheme, it is concluded that these minor noise increases may result in a significant adverse effect and mitigation is required.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-27 Plate 8-1 Four properties within NIA 8195 where the scheme passes over the A572 8.6.20. The calculated façade noise levels to these four properties, with and without the Scheme in operation, are provided in Appendix E.5 Table, E-7. Those facades experiencing noise level increases of 1 dB or greater as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Scheme are highlighted. 8.6.21. The provision of short stretches of 1.5 metres high noise barrier to the north bound and south bound carriageways (chainage 44612 - 44680) across the bridge over Southworth Road would reduce these minor noise increases to negligible noise changes. The calculated façade noise levels to the four properties with these barriers in place, with and without the Scheme in operation, are provided in Appendix E.5 Table, E-8. As can be seen, no facades would experience noise level increases of 1 dB or above. 8.6.22. These 1.5 metre barriers to the north and south bound carriageways are not in the Proposed Scheme design. Given the potential design and maintenance constraints of mounting barriers on the bridge structure (along with the associated cost) and the small number of properties to be mitigated (2 properties to the east of the motorway and 2 properties to the west of the motorway), the preferred option would be to provide mitigation in the form of noise insulation to these four properties. This insulation package for these properties is a requirement and will be secured as part of the delivery of the scheme and is also referred to in the OEMP. 8.6.23. This insulation package will serve to reduce the sensitivity of these four properties to external noise level changes and, consequently, it is concluded that the noise level increases at the very bottom of the minor range (1.0 to 1.6 dB) are not significant. 8.6.24. 3 properties adjacent to the M62 WB - M6 NB link road on the east side of Junction 21a experience minor noise increases in the short term resulting from increased traffic flows on this link as a result of the Scheme. These properties are shown in plate 8-2 below. The reason for this traffic flow increase is;- · As a result of the Scheme the M62 and M6 are now more attractive to users. 8.6.25. With reference to paragraph 8.3.34, whilst the noise level increases to these 3 properties are at the very bottom of the minor range (1.3 dB to 1.5 dB), the noise levels are above the SOAEL. Consequently, these minor noise increases may result in a significant adverse effect. 8.6.26. However, other factors require consideration in determining the significance of noise level increases at these off-scheme receptors;- · the noise level increases will not change the acoustic character of the noise climate at these receptors · there will not be any physical changes to adjacent roads that would result in the noise level increases being more acutely perceived · the long term impact (DM2020 to DS2035) is lower than the short term impact, with noise level increases varying from 0 to 0.7 dB 8.6.27. Taking these other factors into consideration and given the noise level increases are at the bottom of the minor range, it is concluded that these minor noise increases will not result in a

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-28 significant adverse effect.

Plate 8-2 Properties adjacent to the M62 WB - M6 NB link road 8.6.28. Overall, it is concluded that, with the provision of the proposed mitigation, the noise level changes resulting from the Proposed Scheme in the short term are not significant.

Long Term Do Something Noise Level Changes (DM2020 to DS2035) 8.6.29. The long-term changes in traffic noise levels with the Proposed Scheme in operation are presented in Table 8-24. A total of 11296 residential properties are located within the detailed study area. Of those properties, 3597 meet the DMRB criterion of greater than or equal to 55 dB Lnight,outside at one or more façades, in one or more scenarios, for inclusion in the night time traffic noise assessment. Table 8-24 Long-term traffic noise changes (DM2020 to DS2035)

Daytime Night-time Change in noise level Number of residential Number of other Number of residential properties sensitive receptors properties

0.1 - 2.9 1314 9 619 Increase in 3 - 4.9 0 0 0 noise level, LA10,18h 5 - 9.9 0 0 0 >=10 0 0 0 No change = 0 625 3 173 0.1 - 2.9 9356 22 2804 Decrease in 3 - 4.9 1 0 1 noise level, LA10,18h 5 - 9.9 0 0 0 >=10 0 0 0

8.6.30. For the daytime period, 1314 residential properties experience noise increases, all of which are negligible. Of those noise increases 198 are ≥ 1 dB, ranging from 1 to 2 dB. Of these 198 properties, two are located to the east of the Proposed Scheme and 1 is located to the west of the Proposed Scheme, where it passes over the A572. The remaining 195 properties are not on the Proposed Scheme, but on other roads which experience increases in traffic from 2020 to 2035, both with and without the Proposed Scheme. These roads are;- · Myddleton Lane, Winwick

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-29 · Ashton Road, Newton Le Willows · Downall Green Road, Garswood · Individual properties on the A571 to Chadwick Green 8.6.31. The differences between the noise levels at these 195 properties (DS2035 minus DM2035) range from -0.1 to +0.8 dB, a negligible difference.

8.6.32. The vast majority of residential properties (88% of the total) experience no change or negligible decreases in noise levels for the daytime period, along with 1 property which experiences a minor noise decrease (it is noted that the DMRB approach considers the façade of each property with the least beneficial change in noise level).

8.6.33. A total of 9 non-residential sensitive receptors experience noise increases, all negligible. The remaining 25 non-residential sensitive receptors experience no change or negligible noise decreases.

8.6.34. The long-term changes in LA10,18h road traffic noise levels (DM2020 to DS2035), , are shown in Figure 8-5. The location of the proposed new noise barrier is also shown. Generally, there are negligible noise decreases within the detailed study area. Whilst traffic flows are expected to increase as a result of the Proposed Scheme and due to natural growth over time between 2020 and 2035, resulting in corresponding increases in noise levels, these noise increases are offset by the effects of the assumed low noise surface across all lanes of both carriageways in 2035. The effects of the proposed noise barrier to the south bound carriageway are evident, with minor noise decreases to the facades facing the Proposed Scheme for 44 properties.

8.6.35. For the night-time period, 619 residential properties experience noise increases, all of which are negligible. Of those noise increases 80 are ≥ 1 dB, ranging from 1 to 1.4 dB. Of these 80 properties, two are located to the east of the Proposed Scheme, where it passes over the A572. The remaining 78 properties are not on the Proposed Scheme, but on other roads which experience increases in traffic from 2020 to 2035, both with and without the Proposed Scheme. These roads are;- · Myddleton Lane, Winwick · Ashton Road, Newton Le Willows 8.6.36. The differences between the noise levels at these 78 properties (DS2035 minus DM2035) range from -0.1 to +0.6 dB, a negligible difference.

8.6.37. 83% of residential properties experience no change or negligible decreases in noise levels for the night-time period, along with 1 property which experiences a minor noise decrease. 8.6.38. There are negligible noise changes in all but one of the NIAs along the Proposed Scheme. Part of Noise Important Area 8191 at Ashton-in-Makerfield experiences minor noise decreases as a result of the noise barrier. 8.6.39. Noise Important Area NIA 8195 experiences negligible noise increases (ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 dB) to three properties within it. This NIA is located where the Proposed Scheme passes over the A572. The three properties are shown in plate 8-1, with two properties to the east (reference numbers 19848 and 19923) of the motorway on Southworth Road and one property to the west (reference number 15174) of the motorway on Waterworks Drive. 8.6.40. The calculated façade noise levels to these three properties, with and without the Scheme in operation, are provided in Appendix E.5 Table, E-7. Those facades experiencing noise level increases of 1 dB or greater as a result of the Proposed Scheme are highlighted. 8.6.41. The provision of short stretches of 1.5 metres high noise barrier to the north bound and south bound carriageways (chainage 44612 - 44680) across the bridge over Southworth Road would reduce these long term noise increases to below 1 dB. The calculated façade noise levels to the three properties with these barriers in place, with and without the Scheme in operation, are provided in Appendix E.5 Table, E-8. As can be seen, no facades would experience noise level increases of 1 dB or above. 8.6.42. These 1.5 metre barriers to the north and south bound carriageways are not in the Proposed Scheme design as the preferred option would be to provide mitigation in the form of noise insulation, as discussed in paragraph 8.6.22. This insulation package for these properties is a requirement and will be secured as part of the delivery of the scheme and is also referred to in

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-30 the OEMP. 8.6.43. Overall, it is concluded that the noise level changes resulting from the Proposed Scheme in the long term are not significant. 8.6.44. Table 8-25 provides the worst-case change in traffic noise annoyance for the DM and DS scenarios (2020 to 2035). Table 8-25 Traffic noise annoyance changes

DM DS

Change in annoyance level Number of residential properties Number of residential properties >0 - <10% 1192 3048 10 - <20% 0 1373 Increase in 20 - <30% 0 40 annoyance level 30 - <40% 0 0 >=40% 0 0 No change =0% 124 2905 >0 - <10% 9980 3929 10 - <20% 0 1 Decrease in 20 - <30% 0 0 annoyance level 30 - <40% 0 0 >=40% 0 0

8.6.45. As the change in annoyance is based on the worst-case in the first 15 years after scheme opening, the short term changes dominate the DS annoyance changes, as only lanes 1 and 4 of each carriageway are assumed to be provided with low noise surfacing on opening, whilst in the long term all four lanes of each carriageway will be provided with low noise surfacing. 8.6.46. For the DM scenario, 10.5% of residential properties experience increases in annoyance, compared to approximately 39.5% of residential properties for the DS scenario. However, in the long term with the Proposed Scheme in operation, the situation is not dissimilar to that without the Proposed Scheme, as can be seen by comparison of the numbers of residential properties experiencing noise level changes presented in Table 8-22 and Table 8-24. Consequently, it is concluded that the effects of the Proposed Scheme are not significant. 8.6.47. Table 8-26 provides the worst-case change in traffic airborne vibration annoyance for the DM and DS scenarios (2020 to 2035). Table 8-26 Traffic airborne vibration annoyance changes

Number of residential properties Change in annoyance level DM DS >0 - <10% 163 163 10 - <20% 0 0 Increase in 20 - <30% 0 0 annoyance level 30 - <40% 0 0 >=40% 0 0 No change =0 % 3 7 >0 - <10% 264 260 10 - <20% 0 0 Decrease in 20 - <30% 0 0 annoyance level 30 - <40% 0 0 >=40% 0 0

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-31 8.6.48. There are 430 residential properties within the 40m study area for airborne vibration annoyance. The changes in annoyance for the DM and DS scenarios are not dissimilar and it is concluded that the effects of the Proposed Scheme are not significant.

Affected routes outside 1km scheme buffer 8.6.49. All road links within the traffic model where there could be changes in noise levels, as a result of the Proposed Scheme, of:

· at least 1dB LA10,18h in the short term, or

· at least 3dB LA10,18h in the long term (subject to a minimum change of 1dB between the DM and DS scenarios in the design year) have been identified. 8.6.50. These road links which fall within the criteria specified above are termed “affected routes”. 8.6.51. The affect routes within the 1km scheme buffer are employed to define the detailed study area and are included in the detailed noise calculations. For affected routes outside the 1km buffer, the approach is different and is based on estimating the change in Basic Noise Level (BNL) and the number of receptors within 50 metres for each of the affected routes. 8.6.52. Affected routes outside the 1km study area are presented in Table 8-27, with the numbers of residential receptors and non-residential sensitive receptors within 50m shown, along with the Basic Noise Levels for the DM and DS scenarios (the Basic Noise Level is defined as the noise level at a reference distance of 10 metres from the nearside carriageway edge). Table 8-27 Affected routes outside 1km scheme buffer

Number of Receptors Basic Noise Level (dB LA10,18h) I.D. within 50 metres

(Location) Residenti Non- DM DS DM DS al residential 2020 2020 2035 2035

86025_86012 A574 Warrington Road from 88 5 69.1 68.0 69.9 69.3 Glaziers Lane to Common Lane B5207 85858_85865 2 0 70.6 69.5 71.3 70.8 M6 Jct 21 Southbound entry slip 85882_85884 A57 from B5212 (Glazebrook 36 0 67.9 66.8 69.0 67.9 Lane) to Warburton Bridge Road 85861_86992 B5210 from Chesford Grange Industrial Estate Roundabout to 3 0 68.7 67.3 69.6 68.7 Northbound Roundabout at M6 Jct 21 86606_85800 A50 Orford Road from A57 to 219 2 56.2 57.7 54.8 55.2 A574 Birchwood Way 86025_80608 156 9 66.9 65.3 67.3 66.1 B5207 Lane Head to Culcheth 85978_85820 A43 Road / Networn 57 1 65.7 62.0 66.1 63.3 Road to Winwick 85871_87173 A574 Birchwood Park Avenue to 6 1 64.4 63.2 65.2 64.7 Birchwood Way

8.6.53. Route 86606_85800 is predicted to experience minor noise increases in the short term and negligible noise increases in the long term and the significance of effect is assessed as Slight Adverse.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-32 Design, mitigation and rectification measures 8.7.1. The Proposed Scheme has been designed to provide improvements to health and quality of life where feasible and where the interventions provide value-for-money. 8.7.2. To mitigate potentially significant effects:- · The resurfacing of lane 1 and lane 4 of both carriageways with low noise surfacing for scheme opening is included as part of the design. · One noise barrier to the south bound carriageway is included as part of the design. The barrier is 2 metres high and 562 metres in length, located to the east of the scheme south of Junction 24 to provide mitigation for properties close to the Proposed Scheme in Ashton in Makerfield. · Provision of noise insulation to four properties (2 either side of the M6 where it passes over the A572 in Newton-le-Willows).

Delivery of Noise Policy Statement for England 8.7.3. The three aims of the NPSE are: · Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life. · Mitigate and minimise other adverse impacts on health and quality of life. · Contribute to improvements to health and quality of life, where possible. 8.7.4. To assess whether the Proposed Scheme meets the aims of the NPSE, an examination of the numbers of people in the study area above the SOAEL and LOAEL, with and without the Proposed Scheme, has been carried out. 8.7.5. Table 8-28 and Table 8-29 show the comparisons between the numbers of people (considering an average of 2.3 people per household) above and below the operational SOAEL and LOAEL for daytime and night-time respectively. The numbers are based on the façade of each building with the highest noise level. Table 8-28 Daytime NPSE significance summary

Noise level Scenario

DM 2020 DM 2035 DS 2020 DS 2035

L ≥ SOAEL 2841 2670 2657 2613 LOAEL ≤ L < SOAEL 23099 23076 23269 23306 L < LOAEL 41 235 55 62 L = external noise level to household 8.7.6. For daytime, on scheme opening, it is predicted that there will be a reduction of 184 people exposed to noise levels at or above the SOAEL. This is a consequence of the provision of one new noise barrier and resurfacing of lane 1 and lane 4 of both carriageways with low noise surfacing. In the long term it is predicted that there will be a further reduction of 44 people exposed to noise levels at or above the SOAEL, as a consequence of resurfacing all lanes of both carriageways with low noise surfacing, providing a total reduction of 228 people. This compares to a reduction of 171 people between DM2020 and DM2035. Table 8-29 Night-time NPSE significance summary

Noise level Scenario

DM 2020 DM 2035 DS 2020 DS 2035

L ≥ SOAEL 9504 6771 9511 7675 LOAEL ≤ L < SOAEL 16477 19210 16470 18306 L < LOAEL 0 0 0 0 L = external noise level to household

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-33 8.7.7. For night-time, on scheme opening, it is predicted that there will be an increase of 7 people exposed to noise levels at or above the SOAEL. In the long term it is predicted that there will be a decrease of 1829 people exposed to noise levels at or above the SOAEL, as a consequence of resurfacing all lanes of both carriageways with low noise surfacing. This compares to a decrease of 2733 people between DM2020 and DM2035. 8.7.8. It is noted that night-time traffic flows were derived by factoring a constrained model (daytime) for an unconstrained situation (night). Consequently, the night-time noise levels will have been over predicted for the Scheme in operation, resulting in a worst-case assessment. In reality, the Scheme will provide a betterment of the results presented here. 8.7.9. There are predicted to be 398 people at or above the SOAEL for DS2035 who would not be at or above the SOAEL for DM2035. However, all of these 398 people are at or above the SOAEL for DM2020 and the differences between the DM2035 and DS2035 noise levels are negligible. 8.7.10. Overall, it is concluded that the Proposed Scheme has a positive effect on people living near to the M6 between J21a and J26, reducing the number of people exposed to noise levels above the SOAEL by 228 for the daytime period and by 1829 for the night-time period in the long term. 8.7.11. Aim 1 (to avoid) of the NPSE has been addressed by providing low noise surfacing over lanes 1 and 4 of both carriageways. In addition, one new noise barrier has been provided as part of the Proposed Scheme and noise insulation has been specified for 4 properties adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. 8.7.12. In addressing Aim 1, the Proposed Scheme would result in a long term reduction in the number of people exposed to noise levels above SOAEL for both daytime and night-time, when compared to the Do Minimum situation in the opening year. 8.7.13. In the case of Aim 2 (to mitigate and minimise), the provision of low noise surfacing, one new noise barrier and insulation to 4 properties will result in no significant effects along the Proposed Scheme. Also, 5 noise barriers which would provide rectification to the noise climate have been identified for consideration (these 5 noise barriers are not included as part of the Proposed Scheme) and could possibly be delivered in the future. 8.7.14. As for delivery against Aim 3 (contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life), there were no further measures which were not listed against the Aim 2. 8.7.15. Consequently, it is concluded that the Proposed Scheme meets the aims of the NPSE.

Management of operational noise 8.7.16. Whilst it has been concluded that the noise level changes resulting from the Proposed Scheme are not significant, there is a need to address stakeholder concerns over the perception of noise where vegetation removal would expose residents to views of traffic and thereby potentially contributing to a perception of increased noise levels. Chapter 7: Landscape, Visual and Cultural Heritage Effects describes the locations where placement of temporary visual screens while the vegetation becomes established is envisaged to assist in addressing the perception of traffic noise. 8.7.17. With respect to candidate noise barriers identified to provide rectification of existing high noise levels, a Value for Money assessment has been undertaken employing the February 2017 SMP Value for Money (VfM) worksheet. Further detail on the cost-benefit methodology can be found in Appendix E.4. 8.7.18. In selecting those barriers with a positive Value for Money outcome, consideration has been given to the landscape impact and the number of receptors receiving a beneficial reduction to below night-time SOAEL values amongst other factors. Where multiple barrier heights are viable and where a marginal difference in their Value for Money exists, then the difference in costs and benefits are considered along with any other non-monetised implications. 8.7.19. A total of 15 candidate noise barriers identified in the Scoping Report were examined to determine whether they represented value for money. Of these, five barriers were deemed to be suitable candidates to provide rectification to the noise climate in the future. All of these barriers are detailed in Appendix E.4. 8.7.20. These five barriers, detailed in Table 8.30, are rectification which could provide improvements in the noise climate at residential areas along the Proposed Scheme. However, these barriers are not provided as part of the Proposed Scheme and are not included in the assessment of operational noise effects. Candidate barriers are detailed in Appendix E.4.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-34 Table 8-30 Proposed Noise Barriers - Subject to Additional Funds

Barrier Barrier Details Location Noise Important Value for Money I.D. Area (VfM) Ratio

Length: 746m Southbound VfM = 6.90 NNB7 Height: 3m IA 8191 Chainage: 48700-49450 Type: reflective

Length: 724m Southbound Height: 4m Chainage: 49480-50190 VfM = 2.40 NNB8 IA 8191 Type: combination reflective/absorptive

Southbound Length: 322m Chainage: 50225-50545 VfM = 2.44 NNB10 Height: 4m IA 8191 / IA 8190 Type: absorptive

Southbound Length: 898m NNB11 / Chainage: 50570-51435 VfM = 2.32 Height: 4m IA 8190 11A Type: absorptive

8.7.21. No mitigation or rectification measures have been identified for consideration by the Local Highway Authority, minor noise level increases resulting from the Proposed Scheme not being within NIAs.

Noise and vibration generating activities 8.7.22. The construction of retaining walls potentially requires percussive piling. Piling operations require preparatory works, including vegetation clearance and piling mat construction which also generate noise. 8.7.23. Where possible, lower vibration piling methods and construction techniques will be employed. Alternative piling techniques can mitigate noise and vibration by reducing the number of piles and/or preparatory works. Other mitigation measures could include temporary noise barriers or the offer to residents of alternative accommodation during peak disruption. 8.7.24. The location of emergency areas, gantries and other structures is a function of road safety design, and the available piling techniques are controlled by the ground conditions in an area. These limitations override the Proposed Scheme design to avoid residential areas or locations which require percussive piling. 8.7.25. To avoid potential significant adverse effects, the Delivery Partner would look to enhance the initial method statement for the above works by considering: · Use of alternative quieter piling methods (e.g. rotary bored or hydraulic press-in) where ground conditions permit and use of temporary noise barriers and piling shrouds. · Agreement of noise/vibration control limits for the undertaking of significantly noisy or vibration-causing operations near to sensitive locations with local Environmental Health officers. · Managing the timing and duration of working such that noise sensitive receptors are not exposed to noise levels in excess of the SOAEL for more than 10 days in any 15 consecutive day periods. · Engage with the local community to arrive at the preferred working method; to ensure they are aware of the works to be undertaken; are notified well in advance of the works commencing and are kept informed of the progress of the works. 8.7.26. Vegetation clearance involving the use of chain saws and other power tools may occasionally occur at night causing disturbance to nearby residents. The Delivery Partner would provide timely advanced notification to nearby residents of the works at those affected locations. 8.7.27. Locations which have the potential to require significant vegetation clearance, and cause disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors have been identified:

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-35 · North of M6 Junction 21A, 240m long (chainage 40480-40720); · Southworth Lane overpass, 160m (chainage 41400-41560); · M6 Junction 22 (chainage 42350 SB); · South of Parkside Road (A573) overpass, 240m long (chainage 42900-43140); · South of Southworth Road underpass, Newton-le-Willows, 100m long (chainage 44550- 44650); · South of underpass off Ashton Road, Newton-le-Willows, 230m long (chainage 46690- 46920); · Ashton-in-Makerfield, 2,750m long (chainage 48700-51450); · Brocstedes Road overpass, 200m long (chainage 51950-52150); · Adjacent to Winstanley College, Wigan, 50m long (chainage 55000-55050). 8.7.28. These locations will require enhanced stakeholder engagement (Red level), as outlined in Table 8-31.

Diversion routes 8.7.29. So that significant effects do not occur at receptors adjacent to diversion routes during motorway closures, the Delivery Partner will ensure that the duration threshold criteria are not exceeded. The following measures will be implemented to minimise the need for and mitigate the impact of night-time closures: · Use of contraflows to minimise the need for diversion routes. · Use of narrow lanes to minimise the need for diversion routes. · Advanced notification to communities on proposed diversion routes. · Advertising of full motorway closures in advance. · Implementation of both the northern and southern diversion routes simultaneously or in a rotational fashion, which will act to split traffic volumes into different geographical areas, lessening the number of occurrences in any given geographical area. · Use of any alternative diversion routes, with the agreement of the local authority, so the number of occurrences is split between different geographic areas. · Identify an alternative route for some or all of the closures (in the event of an emergency). · Liaison with local highway authorities regarding planned motorway closures in order to ensure that they do not coincide with planned maintenance works on the diversion route. · Liaison with local highway authorities to ensure that traffic light timing at signal controlled junctions are optimised to lessen the amount of queuing traffic by allowing diverted motorway traffic to pass through the diversion route quicker. · Visual inspection of the diversion route prior to the start of works to identify locations where localised pavement resurfacing would be beneficial. · Reduce the need for closures by increasing the construction work undertaken per closure.

Stakeholder engagement 8.7.30. The extent to which construction noise gives rise to disturbance is a function of the nature of the works, the proximity to noise sensitive receptors and the awareness of the receptors. Hence, a key mitigation measure is to provide enhanced engagement with local residents near to noise generating works. Table 8-31 sets out the stakeholder engagement levels, beyond Public Information Exhibitions for SMP schemes. 8.7.31. In those areas identified as red level engagement areas, an acoustic performance envelope is specified in the OEMP with required stakeholder engagement activities to ensure that no significant effects occur. 8.7.32. Noise and vibration monitoring locations and limits will then be identified in the CEMP, to enable the Delivery Partner to monitor and amend working practices where there is a risk of noise or vibration significance limits being breached (in combined level and duration).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-36 Table 8-31 Levels of additional stakeholder engagement

Engagement Area Definition Stakeholder Engagement Activities Level Red Level · Locations where sensitive · Highways England to host specific local receptors are within approx. 100m engagement meetings; of motorway boundary fence · Delivery Partner to gather residents’ during the following operations: views and other stakeholders in advance · Night-time vegetation clearance; of deciding on working method; · Percussive piling activities; · Delivery Partner to maintain awareness · Demolition of structures; of local residents of intrusive work · Temporary removal of existing activities timetable using multiple noise barriers; media11; · Deep reconstruction of pavement; · Notice to be provided to local residents · Construction compounds fourteen days in advance of the intrusive works commencing; · Notice to be provided to local residents fourteen days in advance of changes to traffic management activities where a >3dB change in noise levels at receptors would occur; · Notice to be provided to local residents fourteen days in advance of commencement of all lane running; · A temporary telephone hotline to manager of intrusive works is to be available for the duration of those works; · Feedback from residents to be sought on completion of intrusive works.

Amber Level Locations where sensitive receptors Delivery Partner to maintain awareness of are within approx. 50m of motorway local residents of intrusive work activities boundary fence during of the timetable using multiple media12; following operations: Notice to be provided to local residents Night time diverted motorway traffic; fourteen days in advance of the intrusive Re-surfacing works; works commencing; Hydraulic piling activities; Notice to be provided to local residents Night time works with potential to fourteen days in advance of changes to cause annoyance; traffic management activities where a >3dB change in noise levels at receptors would Recovery compounds occur; Construction of central reserve Notice to be provided to local residents RCB. fourteen days in advance of commencement of all lane running; A local resident’s hotline to be provided to stakeholder engagement manager in addition to publicising the Highways England customer support number; Feedback from residents to be sought on completion of works.

Green Level Locations within night time SOAEL · Notice to be provided to local residents envelop during the construction fourteen days in advance of changes to works. traffic management activities where a >3dB change in noise levels at receptors would occur;

11 The Delivery Partner is to respect the equalities and diversity principles in engagement with local residents. 12 The Delivery Partner is to respect the equalities and diversity principles in engagement with local residents.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-37 Engagement Area Definition Stakeholder Engagement Activities Level · Notice to be provided to local residents fourteen days in advance of commencement of all lane running; · Local resident’s hotline to be provided to stakeholder engagement manager.

Residual effects 8.8.1. The Proposed Scheme is not expected to give rise to significant residual effects during either the construction or operational phases. Construction impacts due to noise and vibration will be temporary and limited to the construction phase and managed through mitigation measures such as the use of quieter piling methods and restrictions on works durations, as detailed in the OEMP. 8.8.2. Mitigation to the noise environment will be obtained through the inclusion of one new noise barrier ; provision of low noise road surfacing on lanes 1 and 4 in the opening year and on all running lanes for the future assessment year; and provision of noise insulation to four properties (2 either side of the M6 where it passes over the A572 in Newton-le-Willows).

Summary

Construction noise and vibration 8.9.1. Table 8-32 summarises the temporary effects on noise and vibration of the Proposed Scheme during its construction phase. Table 8-32 Summary table of temporary effects on noise and vibration during construction

Potential Proposed mitigation, enhancement or monitoring Residual environmental effects measures impact Construction noise: The CEMP to manage construction noise will include the Non-significant · Significant following (also see the OEMP for detail of clauses including adverse adverse effects NV-G001 to NV-G004): effects. during daytime. · Use of best practicable means under S72 of CoPA 1974. · Significant · Good practice under BS 5228-1. adverse effects · Undertaking noisy works during the daytime where during evening feasible. time. · Use of lower noise equipment and methods where · Significant possible/necessary. adverse effects at · Limitation of high noise level durations in the vicinity of night. individual sensitive receptors · Advanced communication of the works to local environmental health departments and to the affected properties. · Limit the number of planned motorway/carriageway closures to remain within BS 5228-1 thresholds by using both eastern and western diversion routes, and consideration of other diversion routes where practicable; · Use narrow lanes or similar to avoid motorway/carriageway closures; · Where diversions are required, Delivery Partner to liaise with the local authorities to ensure closures don’t coincide with any planned maintenance works on the diversion route, and to ensure traffic signal timings are optimised to allow motorway traffic to pass through the diversion route as quickly as possible. Any closures should also be advertised well in advance of the works; · In the event that noise levels and durations cannot be kept below significance triggers, noise insulation or temporary

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-38 Potential Proposed mitigation, enhancement or monitoring Residual environmental effects measures impact re-housing may be considered as a last resort. Construction vibration: The CEMP to manage construction vibration will include the Non-significant · Adverse effects following (also see the OEMP for detail of clauses, including adverse at properties NV-G001 to NV-G004 and NV-R003): effects. within approx. 20 · Use of best practicable means under S72 of CoPA 1974. to 100m from · Good practice under BS 5228-2. piling works. · Advanced communication of the works to local environmental health departments and to the affected properties. 8.9.2. Construction activities at night, without mitigation, may lead to significant adverse effects. However, management of construction activities with the measures outlined above and in section 8.7 and in the OEMP, will result in non-significant adverse effects.

Operational noise 8.9.3. Table 8-33 summarises the permanent effects on noise of the Proposed Scheme during its operational phase. Table 8-33 Summary table of permanent effect on noise during operation

Potential environmental Proposed mitigation Residual effects impact

Operational road traffic One new noise barrier: Beneficial noise: effect · NNB7-B: 2 metres high, chainage 48700 – 49260 · Overall negligible effect. · Noise insulation to 4 properties on the Scheme · A small number of dwellings with noise increases between 1 and 2 dB. · 4 properties (2 either side of the M6 where it passes over the A572) require noise insulation.

8.9.4. Overall, with the mitigation described in Table 8-33 it is concluded that the Proposed Scheme has a neutral / positive effect on people living near to the M6 between J21a and J26, reducing the number of people exposed to noise levels above the SOAEL by 228 for the daytime period and by 1829 for the night-time period in the long term. These noise level reductions are illustrated in Figure 8-4: Change in Road Traffic Noise Levels (Do Something 2020 minus Do Minimum 2020) and Figure 8-5: Change in Road Traffic Noise Levels (Do Something 2035 minus Do Minimum 2020). Consequently, the implementation of the Proposed Scheme will not result in significant adverse noise effects. 8.9.5. In terms of addressing the Noise Policy Statement for England, Aim 1 (to avoid) has been addressed by providing low noise surfacing over lanes 1 and 4 of both carriageways. In addition, one new noise barrier has been provided as part of the Proposed Scheme. 8.9.6. In addressing Aim 1, the Proposed Scheme would result in a reduction in the number of people exposed to noise levels above SOAEL for both daytime and night-time in the long term, when compared to the Do Minimum situation in the opening year. 8.9.7. In the case of Aim 2 (to mitigate and minimise), the provision of low noise surfacing and one new noise barrier will result in negligible noise changes and no significant effects along the Proposed Scheme. Also, 5 noise barriers which would provide rectification to the noise climate have been identified (these 5 noise barriers are not included as part of the Proposed Scheme) and could possibly be delivered in the future. 8.9.8. As for delivery against Aim 3 (contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life), there were no further measures which were not listed against the Aim 2. 8.9.9. Consequently, it is concluded that the Proposed Scheme meets the aims of the NPSE.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 8-39 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 9. Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Key features for this topic: · The study area includes fifteen rivers within the North West River Basin Management Plan area, contained within the Douglas and Lower Mersey watercourse management catchments. All watercourses have either a moderate or good status for ecological and chemical classifications for Water Framework Directive objectives; · The closest groundwater abstraction is located 300m from the motorway for golf course use. No potential changes in groundwater recharge are expected; · J21a to J24 is underlain by Principal Aquifer There is one groundwater source protection zone (SPZ) between J21a to J24. The assessment has concluded there are no significant effects on groundwater; · Flood Zone 2 and 3 are crossed at isolated locations between J21a to J26. Within Flood Zone 2 and 3 in the area of J21A there will be the addition of four gantry bases (full span G21-19, cantilever G21- 18, cantilever G21-16, and removal of gantries at Ch40250 and Ch40475). Overall, the very small area occupied by the additional gantry bases in relation to the whole area of Flood Zone 3 in this area (estimated at 43 ha) is not considered significant in terms of storage capability or flood flow conveyance (estimated at less than 0.009% of the total Flood Zone 3 area). Therefore, there would be no increase in flood risk due to insignificant impact on floodplain storage; · During the assessment and preliminary investigations undertaken to inform the drainage design it was established that a total of fifteen motorway drainage catchments with associated outfalls are present between junctions 21a and 26. There are also 53 priority culverts. · During operation the addition of impermeable central reserve and EA’s will increase hardstanding, and road runoff. However, its effect is considered to be neutral as design and mitigation features are included in accordance with IAN 161/15 to ensure no increase in increasing discharge rate. None of the EAs are within Environment Agency fluvial flood zones. Therefore, there will be a neutral effect on surface water flow and flood risk in the area, and no residual effects on groundwater. · The Proposed Scheme will result in traffic increasing by over 20% at junction 21a and along the mainline carriageway between junctions 22 and 23 (shown by the light blue line in Plate 9.1). Quantitative assessment of outfalls on those networks within the ‘plus 20%’ areas have been carried out. Treatment in the form of Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators will be installed on six networks and therefore the proposed scheme will have no significant effect. · The Proposed Scheme will have a neutral effect on surface water, flood risk and groundwater resources during construction and operation.

9.1. Introduction The Proposed Scheme will deliver SM-ALR and as described in Chapter 2, physical design elements include the provision of 10 EA’s, and paved central reserves, with an associated increase in impermeable area and the accompanying drainage features. All construction activities will be carried out within the Highways England highway boundary. Additional features include the construction of overhead gantries, and associated cabinets and drainage works. SM Schemes do not usually significantly alter major road or drainage assets and therefore the impact on watercourses, floodplains, and water features from such activities is generally neutral. Potential impacts are presented in IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways. This states that design provisions are required to mitigate the additional runoff from the new of paved areas that arise from SM schemes, specifically from EAs and hardened central reservation areas. The Proposed Scheme generates predicted increase in traffic on some links within the motorway

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

and link roads over 20%. These links are M6 J22 to Croft J21a (slip road), M6 J21a several slip roads, and M6 J23-J22. The 20% increase in traffic threshold is specified in the Scoping Report as a trigger for a more detailed assessment, therefore, the assessment of the impact of this SM scheme on water quality and flood risk has been scoped in. The four North West SMP Schemes (M6 J21a-26, M62 J10-12, M56 J6-8 and M60 J24-4) were all planned to be open within 18 months of each other and hence, to present a robust environmental assessment, these four schemes were initially assessed as one cumulative scheme. This initial assessment work was done by using forecast opening year traffic flows which include the cumulative traffic associated with all four North West SMP Schemes with a common 2020 opening year. Although the Proposed Scheme opening year has been delayed (now expected 2022), the above scenario is still appropriate, as the four schemes will still open within a short timescale of each other. Hence, the 2020 opening year provides a worst-case traffic scenario. used in this assessment as it is deemed to be the worst case where all four schemes are opened within a short timescale. Table 9-1 details the professional competency of the Topic Lead for this Chapter – Road Drainage and the Water Environment. This information is provided to fulfil the requirement of EU Directive 2014/52/EU. Table 9-1 Professional Competency Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Grade and Name Expertise and Professional Qualification Company · Preparation of M1 J10-13 Road Drainage and Water Environment Assessments (2006-2007) · Preparation of HS2 Phase 1 Surface Water Resources Assessment (2013-2015) Senior Environmental · Preparation of A5-M1 Road Drainage and Water Environment Scientist Assessments (2006-2009) (AECOM) · MSc Environmental Science · BSc (Hons) Geology · Chartered Environmentalist · MIEMA

9.2. Study area As part of the assessment process, a 500 m study area has been defined from the centre line of the Motorway. A 500m study area is deemed appropriate using professional judgement based on the scale and nature of the works associated with SM, specifically given that the works are contained within the Highways England estate. This also accords, with the study area defined in the Scoping Report. Additionally, there are no works proposed to watercourses or existing outfall structures as part of the Proposed Scheme. Within this chapter, the known surface water features, the extent of flooding and current groundwater features in the study area have been identified. Water features located outside the study area, but immediately within its surrounds have been included where it appears there is hydraulic connectivity to the features within the study area. Professional judgement has been applied to identify the extent to which such features are included.

9.3. Methodology At the time this assessment was undertaken, the most developed and robust method available for determining the significance of potential effects on the water environment for a road improvement scheme is provided in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD45/09). Under this approach, the importance of the receptor (Table 9.2) and the magnitude of impact (Table 9.3) are determined independently from each other and are then used to determine the overall significance of effects (see Table 9.4). Where significant adverse effects are predicted, mitigation will be identified (please note standard mitigation measures will be adopted throughout the Proposed Scheme as summarised in Section 9.6 and detailed within the CEMP).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 9-2 Criteria to determine receptor importance1,2

Type of Receptor Importance Groundwater Surface Water Flood Risk EC Designated Salmonid/ Principal aquifer Cyprinid fishery providing a regionally WFD Class ‘High’ Floodplain or defence important resource or Site protected/designated protecting more than 100 Very High supporting site under EC or UK habitat residential properties protected under EC and legislation (SAC, SPA, SSSI, from flooding UK habitat legislation WPZ, Ramsar site, salmonid SPZ*1 water)/Species protected by EC legislation Principal aquifer Floodplain or defence providing locally WFD Class ‘Good’ protecting important resource or Major Cyprinid Fishery High between 1 and 100 supporting river Species protected under EC residential properties or ecosystem or UK habitat legislation industrial premises from SPZ2 flooding Aquifer providing water for agricultural or Floodplain or defence industrial use with limited protecting 10 or fewer Medium WFD Class ‘Moderate’ connection to surface industrial properties from water flooding SPZ3 Floodplain with limited constraints and a low Low Unproductive strata WFD Class ‘Poor’ probability of flooding of residential and industrial properties

The magnitude of effect will be determined based on the criteria in Table 9.3 considering the likelihood of the effect occurring. The likelihood of an effect occurring is based on a scale of certain, likely or unlikely.

1 Note: Professional judgement is applied when assigning an importance category to all water features. The WFD status of a watercourse is not an overriding factor and in many instances it may be appropriate to upgrade a watercourse which is currently at poor or moderate status to a category of higher importance to reflect its overall value in terms of other attributes and WFD targets for the watercourse. Likewise, just because a watercourse may currently be below Good Ecological Status (GES), this does not mean that a poorer quality discharge can be emitted. All controlled waters are protected from pollution under the Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended) and future WFD targets also need to be considered. 2 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Road Drainage and the Water Environment HD45/09

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 9-3 Criteria to determine magnitude of effect3

Impact Criteria Description and Examples

Major Adverse Results in a loss Surface water: Failure of both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants in the Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool of attribute and/or (HAWRAT) (Method A, Annex I) and compliance failure with Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) values (Method B) quality and Calculated risk of pollution from a spillage greater than 2% annually (Spillage Risk Assessment, Method D, Annex I) integrity of the Loss or extensive change to a fishery attribute Loss or extensive change to a designated Nature Conservation Site Pollution of portable source of abstraction Deterioration of a water body leading to a failure to meet Good Ecological Status / Potential (GES / GEP) and reduction in Class Groundwater: Loss of, or extensive change to, an aquifer Potential high risk of pollution to groundwater from routine runoff – risk score greater than 250 (Groundwater Assessment, Method C, Annex I) Calculated risk of pollution from spillages greater than 2% annually (Spillage Risk Assessment, Method D, Annex I) Loss of, or extensive change to, groundwater supported designated wetlands Flood Risk: Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) greater than 100 mm (Hydrological Assessment of Design Floods and Hydraulic Assessment, Methods E and F, Annex I) Moderate Results in effect Surface Water: Failure of both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants in HAWRAT (Method A, Annex I) but compliance with EQS Adverse on integrity of values (Method B) Calculated risk of pollution from spillages greater than 1% annually and <2% annually; attribute, or loss of Contribution of a significant proportion in the effluent in the receiving river but insufficient to change its water quality status; part of attribute Partial loss in productivity of a fishery. Groundwater: Partial loss or change to an aquifer; Potential medium risk of pollution to groundwater from routine runoff – risk score 150-250; Calculated risk of pollution from spillages greater than 1% annually and <2% annually; Partial loss of the integrity of groundwater supported designated wetlands. Flood Risk: Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) greater than 50 mm. Minor Adverse Results in some Surface Water: Failure of either soluble or sediment-bound pollutants in HAWRAT measurable Calculated risk of pollution from spillages greater than 0.5% annually and <1% annually change in Measurable changes in attribute but of limited size and / or proportion attribute’s quality or vulnerability Groundwater: Potential low risk of pollution to groundwater from routine runoff – risk score <150 Calculated risk of pollution from spillages greater than 0.5% annually and <1% annually Minor effects on groundwater supported wetlands Flood Risk: Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) greater than 10mm Negligible Results in effect The Proposed Scheme is unlikely to affect the integrity of the water environment. on attribute, but of

3 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Road Drainage and the Water Environment HD45/09

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Impact Criteria Description and Examples

insufficient Surface Water: No risk identified by HAWRAT (Pass both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants) magnitude to Risk of pollution from spillages <0.5% affect the use or No effect on WFD classification integrity Groundwater: No measurable impact upon an aquifer and risk of pollution from spillages <0.5% Flood Risk: Negligible change in peak flood level (1% annual probability) <+/- 10 mm Minor Results in some Surface Water: HAWRAT assessment of either soluble or sediment-bound pollutants becomes Pass from an existing site where the Beneficial beneficial effect baseline was a Fail condition on attribute or a Calculated reduction in existing spillage risk by 50% or more (when existing spillage risk is <1% annually) reduced risk of Groundwater: Calculated reduction in existing spillage risk by 50% or more to an aquifer (when existing spillage risk <1% annually) negative effect occurring Flood Risk: Reduction in peak flood level (1% annual probability) greater than 10 mm Moderate Results in Surface Water: HAWRAT assessment of both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants becomes Pass from an existing site where the beneficial moderate baseline was a Fail condition improvement of Calculated reduction in existing spillage by 50% or more (when existing spillage risk greater than 1% annually) attribute quality Groundwater: Calculated reduction in existing spillage risk by 50% or more (when existing spillage risk is greater than 1% annually) Flood Risk: Reduction in peak flood level (1% annual probability) greater than 50 mm Major Results in major Surface Water: Removal of existing polluting discharge, or removing the likelihood of polluting discharges occurring to a watercourse beneficial improvement of Groundwater: Removal of existing polluting discharge to aquifer or removing the likelihood of polluting discharges occurring, attribute quality recharge of an aquifer Flood Risk: Reduction in peak flood level (1% annual probability) greater than 100 mm

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

The significance of effects will be determined using the matrix presented in Table 9.4. Table 9-4 Matrix to determine significance of effect4,

Importance Magnitude of Impact of Attribute Negligible Minor Moderate Major Very High Neutral Moderate/Large Large/ Very Large Very Large Neutral Slight/Moderate Moderate/Large Large/ High Very Large Medium Neutral Slight Moderate Large Low Neutral Neutral Slight Slight/Moderate

From Table 9.3, a Moderate Adverse effect would be a failure of both the soluble and sediment bound pollutants, but compliance with Environmental Quality Standard (EQS). A Minor Adverse effect would be failure of either soluble or sediment-bound pollutants, and compliance with EQS. For the overall level of significance typical examples of potential beneficial / adverse effects are described in further detail within Table A 4.6 within HD45/09.

Water Quality – Drainage Outfalls - Assessment Methodology The Scoping Report (Highways England, July 2017) states that the need for a more detailed water quality assessment will be triggered if forecast traffic flow increases above 20% on an individual link. Reviews of the Do Minimum and Do Something 2020 traffic data shows that there are links where traffic is predicted to increase by over 20% with the proposed scheme in place. Plate 9.1 below highlights which links of the Proposed Scheme are predicted to increase by over 20%. Plate 9.1 Schematic Plan Showing where the traffic two-way AADT is predicted to increase above 20% comparing Do Minimum and Do Something (indicated by light blue line)

J23 a

J21a

Note: the dark blue lines indicate the Do Minimum (road network and areas of motorway without the 20% increase) in traffic. The light blue lines show sections where there is predicted to be a 20% increase in AADT comparing Do Minimum and Do Something. The quantity of road derived pollution within the drainage runoff correlates to the volume of traffic

4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Road Drainage and the Water Environment HD45/09

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

using a particular stretch of road. The traffic bands within the Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool (HAWRAT) assessment are as follows: · 10,000-<50,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) · 50,000 – 100,000 AADT · greater than 100,000 AADT For the locations where traffic is predicted to increase by greater than 20% comparing the Do- minimum and Do-something scenarios, the HD45/09 quantitative assessment process has been used. Within the area of J21a all outfalls have been assessed in order to be able to calculate cumulative impacts for outfalls which lie within 1km distance. Where the two-way AADT is predicted to increase by over 20%, or one way in the case of slip roads, the outfalls receiving drainage from these sections are scoped in for further assessment of the potential impact on water quality. However, if the traffic flow is less than the AADT of 10,000 vehicles cut off, the assessment has not been carried due to the quantitative assessment process not being relevant for those roads with low flows. Where the change in traffic flow is not above 20%, it is considered there would be a negligible impact on the receiving watercourses. This would result in a neutral effect on water quality of the receiving watercourses as a result of the SM scheme. The following sections of roads have predicted change in two-way AADT greater than 20%, or one way in the case of slip roads: · M6 J22 to Croft J21a [55.6% increase on slip road part of catchment, 18.2% on mainline]; · M6 J21a several slip roads [31.4% to 62% increase, but lower traffic flows than mainline]; and · M6 J23-22 (M6 Motorway between J23 and 22) [21.4% increase through J22 and 20.4% increase on mainline]. The location of links showing an increase in traffic of over 20% are shown above in Plate 9.1. These include the areas of road which outfall to the two Priority Outfalls which are currently classified as Very High Priority Outfalls on HADDMS, based on desk study assessment. These are located to the east of Newton-le-Willows and are discharging to Millingford Brook. The HAWRAT quantitative assessment method uses a traffic flow band AADT together with information about the impermeable and permeable area contributing to the road drainage outfall, and information about the receiving watercourse. A larger contributing surface area combined with high daily traffic would contribute to a higher concentration of pollutants within the runoff water. For watercourses where more than one outfall discharges into the same reach, the combined effects will be more significant. In these circumstances, the outfalls are aggregated for the purpose of a cumulative assessment. For assessment of discharge locations within 100m the assessment of the potential for sedimentation and acute dissolved metals is undertaken. For outfalls within 1 km into the same watercourse, only the assessment of dissolved metals is undertaken. Cumulative assessments have been carried out for the following networks: Network 4.0 and 4.1 (Cockshot Brook) Network 5 and 6 (Millingford Brook) and Networks 16 and 17 (Smithy Brook). Once the HAWRAT and spillage risk results have been calculated, the ‘Overall Risk Status’ of the selected priority outfalls is calculated according to the criteria described on ‘HADDMS Priority Registers Priority Outfalls Verification User Guide’. The criteria used are as follows:

· A – Very High Risk, failure of spillage risk or Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) status;

· B – High Risk, spillage risk and EQS status pass the criteria but soluble pollutants and sediments fail;

· C – Moderate Risk, spillage risk and EQS status pass the criteria but soluble pollutants or sediments fail;

· D – Low Risk (however this category is not used in the verification process); and

· X – Represents where the risk has been addressed, either through actions taken (i.e. remedial) or through assessment that shows the risk is minimal.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Spillage Risk Assessment Methodology An increase in traffic flows of greater than 20% in some links have the potential to result in an increased spillage risk. Method D within DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD45/09) provides an indication of the risk of a spillage causing a pollution impact on receiving water. The risk is defined as the probability that there will be a spillage of pollutant and that the pollutant will reach and impact the water body to such an extent that either a Category 1 or 2 incident – a serious pollution incident – occurs. To determine the risk the lengths of road, the AADT traffic flow, and percentage of Heavy Goods Vehicles within that AADT are used to calculate the probabilities of an accident leading to a serious pollution incident. When considering the risk of spillages from a highway and potential pollution to the receiving environment, the following factors must be considered:

· The calculated spillage risk return period must not be greater than 1 in 100 years.

· The calculated spillage risk return period must not be greater than 1 in 200 years where spillage could affect: protected areas for conservation, important drinking water supplies or important commercial activities.

· Spillage risk from existing outfalls must not be increased.

9.4. Baseline conditions

Surface Water features The water quality and ecological status of the watercourses recorded in the Highways Agency Drainage Data Management System (HADDMS)5 and EA’s Catchment Data Explorer (http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/) are presented in Table 9.5 and Figure 9-1 ‘Surface and Groundwater Constraints’ in Volume 2 of the EAR. These are, from south to north:

· Spittle Brook

· Cross Brook

· Brook (flows north to south-west, west of J21a). It is part of Mersey (Bolin confluence to Howley Weir) WFD waterbody (flows outside the scheme);

· Dig Lane Brook (flows west of M6 south of J21a), tributary to Spittle Brook WFD waterbody

· Cockshot Burn, Cross Brook, Croft Heath Brook and Springfield Brook flow north to south- west, crossing M6 in J21a. They are part of Spittle Brook WFD waterbody (flows south of J21a)

· Oswalds Brook (also part of WFD Millingford (Newton) Brook, flows east to west in the west side of M6, north of J22) (not crossed by the Scheme)

· Millingford Brook east of Newton-Le-Willows, upstream of lake system

· Newton Brook, east of M6 at Newton-le-Willows, upstream of lake system

· Ellams Brook, tributary to Millingford Brook (flows west to east, crossing M6 between J23 and J22)

· Dean Brook, tributary to Millingford Brook (flows west to east of M6, north of J23)

· Tributary to Millingford Brook in the area of Firwood Grove (flows south to north-east in the east of M6, south of J24)

5 Highways England Drainage Data Management System, accessed November 2017, http://www.haddms.com/

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-8 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· Down Brook (crosses M6 northwest to southeast, north of J24)

· Tributary to Park Brook

· Hawkley Brook, tributary to Poolstock Brook, north of J25

· Smithy Brook (crosses M6 west to east, in J26) Of the above watercourses, Down Brook, Firwood Grove area tributary, Dean Brook near J23, Ellams Brook and Oswalds Brook are all part of the WFD waterbody Millingford (Newton) Brook, which flows north to south of the Proposed Scheme and crosses the M6 in the Newton-le-Willows area, between J23 and J22. The WFD makes provision for the maintenance and improvement of the ‘ecological and chemical status’ of the water environment, which includes rivers, lakes, wetlands, groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters. Chemical status is determined from compliance with environmental standards for chemicals that are classed as ‘priority hazardous substances’. The ecological status of a surface waterbody is measured through a range of biological quality elements, supported by measurements of physico-chemistry, hydromorphology and compliance with environmental standards for chemicals that are classed as ‘specific pollutants’. The aim is for designated waterbodies to achieve ‘good overall status’. Certain surface waterbodies may be designated as artificial/ heavily modified and will have less stringent targets to meet, however, these will still need to demonstrate ‘good overall potential’. The EA’s Catchment Data Explorer website (http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/) includes information on the WFD catchment areas and designated watercourses within the study area. The study area is contained within the catchment areas for Douglas and Lower Mersey, with the catchment boundary trending approximately west to east in the Ashton-in-Makerfield area south of J25. The WFD designated watercourses and their current status is shown in Table 9.5 below. Table 9-5 WFD Water quality and ecological status of watercourse catchments

Study Area Watercourse & ID Status type 2016 Objectives Watercourse Cycle Moderate by Overall Water Body Moderate Padgate Mersey (Bolin confluence to 2015 Brook, Howley Weir), Part of Glaze Moderate by Ecological Moderate (Figure 9-1 Operational Catchment 2015 Map 1 of 15) GB112069061012 Good by Chemical Good 2015 Cross Brook Good by Moderate Cockshot Spittle Brook, part of Glaze Overall Water Body 2027 Burn Operational Catchment Good by Ecological Moderate Springfield GB112069061020 2027 Brook Croft Heath Good by Brook Chemical Good (Figure 9-1 2015 Map 1 of 15) Good by Overall Water Body Moderate Millingford 2027 (Newton) Millingford (Newton) Brook, part Good by Brook of Sankey Operational Ecological Moderate 2027 (Figure 9-1 Catchment GB112069061220 Good by Map 6 of 15) Chemical Good 2015 Good by Dean Brook, Overall Water Body Moderate Douglas 2027 Douglas-Lower, Part of Douglas Lower, west Good by Operational Catchment Ecological Moderate of J26 2027 GB112070064820 (Figure 9-1 Good by Chemical Good Map 8 of 15) 2015 Hawkley Good by Overall Water Body Moderate Brook 2027

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-9 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Study Area Watercourse & ID Status type 2016 Objectives Watercourse Cycle (Figure 9-1 Hawkley Brook, Tributary to Good by Ecological Moderate Map 12 of Poolstock Brook, part of Douglas 2027 15) Operational Catchment Good by GB112070061610 Chemical Good 2015

Good by Overall Water Body Moderate Smithy Brook 2027 Smithy Brook, part of Douglas Good by (Figure 9-1 Operational Catchment Ecological Moderate Map 15 of 2027 GB112070061600 15) Good by Chemical Good 2015

Other Water Features The area between J21a to J26 is underlain by sedimentary loamy and clayey deposits with variable drainage associated with glacial till deposits. Most of the scheme is characterized by impeded drainage although there are some zones naturally wet (west of J26). Small patches between J24 and J21a are sandy, freely draining to the groundwaters. The area around J21a is characterized by naturally wet sandy and loamy soils. From the Ordnance Survey mapping, the following ponds, reservoirs, SSSIs and Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) are located along the Proposed Scheme, from north to south. These are labelled on Figure 9-1 Maps 1 to 15. Houghton Green Pool (Map 2 of 15) is located in the north-west side of J21a. This is located at its closest just 30 m west of the M62 – M6 northbound slip road; and there is a Golf Course to the east of the M6 south of J21a (Map 1 of 15). This contains a number of small ponds, connected by small streams. Upstream of the Millington (Newton) Brook crossing there are two ponds shown located to 30 m the east and upstream of the M6 (Map 6 of 15). It is not known if these are in hydraulic continuity with the brook itself. Dean Dam, whose waters drain to Millingford Brook, is located south of J23, approximately 1 km north of M6 crossing with A572, 500 m east of M6., Upstream of this is Cowhey Dam (Map 7 of 15), located 400 m east of the M6. Further downstream on Millingford Brook is Newton Lake. This is located 500 m north of M6 crossing with A573, part of the Millingford Brook system. This lake is just 10 m downstream of the M6 crossing by Millington (Newton) Brook. The M6 discharge road runoff into Newton-le-Willows Lake (Map 6 of 15). Approximately 500 m south of J24, there is a pond approximately 170 m east of the M6 within a residential area (not in hydraulic continuity with any road drainage outfalls), and two small ponds within Ashton Golf Course 250 m west of the M6 (not in hydraulic continuity with road outfalls, and upstream of the motorway) (Map 9 of 15). Just south of this area there is a pond approximately 170 m west of the M6 in the Haydock Cross Industrial Estate (Map 8 of 15). Further south, between J26 and J25, in the east side of M6 is Winstanley Park (Map 14 of 15). Within this park there are a number of small ponds, the nearest of which is 300 m to the east. From the mapping, and the location of the Priority Outfalls, it is assumed these are not in hydraulic continuity with the road drainage outfalls. West of the M6 in this area, close to Windy Arbour Farm, there is a water reservoir, 250 m west of the M6 (Map 13 of 15). South of the M6 as the motorway approaches J25, there are ponds 75m south of the M6 within former opencast workings (Map 12 of 15). At a distance of 1 km south-west of J26 is Orrell water Park (Map 14 of 15), which is an area with a chain of four small and two big ponds. These ponds are online with Smithy Brook (Map 15 of 15), which flows north through this area before turning to the northeast and being culverted through J26. Although this is outside of the study area, this area is highlighted as it is a Local Nature Reserve (Greenslate Water Meadows). Highfield Moss SSSI is located approximately 800 m north east of the M6 in the area southeast of Golborne, south of Newton Road. This is located outside of the 500 m buffer study area and not shown on Figure 9-1. Highfield Moss SSSI straddles the catchment boundary between Spittal Brook and Millingford (Newton) Brook and is located at the head of the catchment of Spittal Brook. It is upstream of the Scheme and therefore there are no hydrological links from the

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-10 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Scheme to the Highfield Moss SSSI. The area between J21a and J22 is considered a groundwater nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ) according to Magic Map (https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx) information, while the rest of the scheme is included in a designated surface water NVZ.

Geology The underlying solid geology for the study area consists of various sandstone, pebble bed formations and mudstone. From north to south these are; Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation, Ravenhead Rock Pemberton Rock and Pennine Middle Coal Measures Formation located north of J23/24. South of J24 to J21a the solid geology mainly consists of the Chester Pebble Beds Formation. North of J22 there is an area where Kinnerton Sandstone Formation, Manchester Marls Formation, Collyhurst Sandstone Formation and some Middle Coal Measures outcrop south of a north-south trending fault line. The overlying drift geology consists of mainly of glaciogenic and glaciofluvial origin Till deposits (Devenensian), with an area to the northeast of J21a, and south of J26, comprising Shirdley Hill Sand formation deposits of Aeolian origin.

Hydrogeology The underlying bedrock geology is designated as Secondary A aquifer from J26 to J24. South of J24 the underlying bedrock is considered Principal Aquifer A groundwater source protection zone (SPZ) exists below J24 to J21A. This is shown on Figure 9-1 ‘Surface and Groundwater Constraints’ and is shown on Figure 9-1 Maps 1 to 10. The Principal Aquifer is overlain by areas of unproductive aquifer, secondary A aquifer in the region of watercourses, and areas with no superficial deposits. For context a borehole formed in 1997 south of J22 (BGS Ref SJ69SW1305) encounters 2.5m of made ground before encountering weathered sandstone material. Another formed north of Southworth Road (NGS Ref SJ59NE285) encountered 6.2m of made ground before encountering weathered sandstone material. The WFD also makes provision for the maintenance and improvement of the groundwater environment. The overall status for groundwater has a quantitative and a chemical component. The SM scheme is situated within three WFD Groundwater Bodies:

• From J21 to J24, the groundwaters are included in Lower Mersey Basin and North Merseyside Permo-Triassic Sandstone Aquifers waterbody (ID, GB41201G101700). The 2016 assessment overall status is Poor, with an objective for Good by 2027. The quantitative and chemical status is classified as Poor. The limiting factors to achieving a higher status are ‘saline intrusion’ for the quality, and for chemical the limiting factors are ‘chemical dependent surface water body status’, ‘chemical drinking water protected area’ and ‘saline intrusion’.

• The zone from J24 to J25 is part of Sankey and Glaze Carboniferous Aquifers waterbody (ID, GB41202G100100). The 2016 assessment overall status is Poor, with an objective for Good by 2027. The quantitative status is classified as Good while the chemical status is considered Poor. The limiting factors to achieve a higher status are the ‘chemical dependent surface water body status’ and the ‘general chemical test’.

• The area from J25 to J26 belongs to Douglas, Darwen and Calder Carboniferous Aquifers waterbody (ID, GB41202G100300). The 2016 assessment overall status is Poor, with an objective for Good by 2027. The quantitative status is classified as Good while the chemical status is considered Poor. The limiting factor to achieve a higher status is the ‘chemical dependent surface water body status’. Information on aquifer vulnerability has been obtained from data within Groundwater Vulnerability layers within HADDMS. North of the Proposed Scheme, from J24 to J26, the underlying aquifer status is classified as minor aquifer, with predominantly high vulnerability and some areas with low vulnerability. South of J24 the underlying aquifer status is classified as major aquifer, with much of the route being high vulnerability major aquifer, and some zones along the motorway with intermediate-low vulnerability. There are four private groundwater abstractions within the study area. A medium size groundwater abstraction point is located south of J21a and is 350m south-east from the

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-11 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

motorway (Figure 9-1 Map 1 of 15). This is located at Birchwood Golf Club, west of the area of Risley. One is located close to Mill Lane 1km west of the M6 at the Croft Interchange (M6 - J21A / M62 - J10 interchange), shown as for water supply for direct spray irrigation. A small ground water abstraction point for golf course use is located on east of motorway between J22-23 at Haydock Park Golf Club and is 300m north from the motorway (Figure 9-1 Map 6 of 15). A medium ground water abstraction point is located on north side of J23 and is 490m away from the M6 at Haydock Park golf course for agricultural irrigation (Map 8 of 15). Abstraction is from the underlying sandstone aquifer for all abstractions. The conclusions of the assessment in relation to groundwater are discussed in paragraph 9.7.25 below.

Sensitive Receptors As part of the M6 Junction 21A to 26 Habitat Regulations Assessment (Doc Ref HE549339-ACM- EBD-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-LE-0001), located in Appendix C.1, a review of possible hydrological links to European Designated Sites was undertaken to assess if there was any potential pathways for adverse effects during construction and/ or operation of the Proposed Scheme. No hydrological links were identified.

Existing drainage arrangements The Preliminary Drainage Strategy (HE549339-ACM-HDG-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-CD002 P01)6 includes information on the current drainage system in this area and outlines the Preliminary Drainage Strategy. There are no notable attenuation ponds for the drainage in this area, with a total of 15 outfalls and drainage catchments being identified in the updated drainage model. The drainage collection systems vary along the length of the Proposed Scheme. The predominant systems are kerb and gully, with combined kerb drains at the outer edge of the motorway with filter and carrier drains located within the central reserve. Concrete channels and slot drains are also utilised in the central reserve in some areas. Approximately 3.28 km of the central reserve is already impermeable, but the majority is soft verge. Discharges will be controlled in order that existing discharge rates are maintained. At the outset of the assessment, original data obtained from the HADDMS website, showed that within the Proposed Scheme extents the M6 had a total of 40 Priority Outfalls and 53 Priority Culverts. The former status of the Priority Outfalls is shown in Table 9.6 below. The location of these are shown on Figure 9-1. The majority of the outfalls were shown on HADDMS to be located in the area of J21a. Assessment at Priority Outfalls have now been undertaken to establish which networks may pose a potential environmental risk. Priority culverts have been classified according to number of flood events and flood severity; the majority of the priority culverts are located in the area of J21a. None of the priority culverts are high risk or greater. Table 9-6 Original Data for Priority Outfalls and Culverts Obtained from HADDMS

A (Very B C D X (Risk Undetermined High) (High) (Moderate) (Low) Addressed) Outfall Overall 2 12 11 12 0 3 Status

Culverts 4 46 3 0

Information obtained from the HADDMS Priority Registers information for outfalls, noted that the majority of the outfalls had had baseline assessment carried out on behalf of Highways England. The exceptions were: one where baseline assessment is complete but field work is incomplete (SJ5896_3390a, known as Network 8 in this assessment, located 500 m south of J23 outfalling to Ellams brook, Figure 9-1, Map 7 of 15) and three more where no assessment has been carried out: SJ5698_2642f (west of Ashton-in-Makerfield Figure 9-1, Map 9 of 15 – outfall appears not to be taking motorway drainage), SJ5699_6256b (outfall into Down Brook, Figure 9-1 Map 10 of 15, outfalling as part of Network 12 in this assessment) and SD5303_8046l (west of Winstanley Park, Figure 9-1, Map 14 of 15, outfalls as part of combined Network 15/16.0/16.1). Information has been supplied on the drainage catchments for the main line of the M6 between junctions 21a and 26. This information was used to inform a verification exercise to review the original data obtained from HADDMS. It was established that a number of the outfalls recorded as Priority Outfalls in the original data were not receiving drainage from the motorway

6 Smart Motorways Programme, Preliminary Drainage Strategy, Package 5 – M6 J21A- J26, Highways England, September 2017

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-12 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

carriageway. Therefore the following are confirmed as the drainage catchments for this proposed scheme:

· Network 3 – Chainage circa 39700 to 40625

· Network 4 – Chainage 40625 to 44580

· Network 5 - Chainage 44580 to 45250

· Network 6 – Chainage 45250 to 45710

· Network 7 – Chainage 45710 to 46610

· Network 8 – Chainage 46610 to 47835

· Network 9 – Chainage 47835 to 48430

· Network 10 – Chainage 48430 to 49115

· Network 11 – Chainage 49115 to 49295

· Network 12 – Chainage 49295 to 51750

· Network 13 – Chainage 51750 to 52595

· Network 14 - Chainage 52595 to 53850

· Network 15 – Chainage 53850 to 55190

· Network 16 – Chainage 55190 to 55730

· Network 17 – Chainage 55730 to 56400 The location of the Networks and their associated outfalls is shown on Figures 9.1 (Sheets 1 to 15) and Figure 9-2 (Sheets 1 to 15). The outfalls listed above have been assessed using the HAWRAT approach in the assessment of operational effects and the findings are reported in section 9.8 below.

Value of resource The importance of the water resources within the study area can be determined with reference to the criteria presented within Table 9-2 which is consistent with Annex IV Table A4.3 of the DMRB. Table 9-7 includes the importance of the resources, together with a justification for that assessment. Table 9-7 importance of Receptors Receptors WFD Objective 2015/2027 Importance Medium – as the watercourse is heavily modified, and currently designated as moderate under the 2015 WFD cycle. Mersey (Bolin High - Areas of Fluvial Flood Zone 2 and 3 associated confluence to Moderate by 2015 with Padgate Brook. This catchment is located south of Howley Weir) the Scheme, downstream of Spittal Brook and J21a. Receptor importance considered to be High as there are residential houses in Flood Zone 2/3 in Woolston

Medium – as the watercourse is heavily modified, and currently designated as moderate under the 2015 WFD cycle. Good by 2027 Spittle Brook and High - Areas of Fluvial Flood Zone 2 and 3 contained tributaries within the area of J21A, associated with the location of multiple watercourses and Houghton Green Pool. Receptor importance considered to be High as residential houses downstream on Cockshot Brook within FZ 2/3. Millingford Medium – as the watercourse is heavily modified, and (Newton) Brook Good by 2027 currently designated as moderate under the 2015 WFD and tributaries cycle.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-13 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Medium – Down Brook, Receptor importance considered to be medium for Down Brook as residential properties shown within fluvial flood zone approximately 1.1km downstream on Down Brook in the centre of Ashton-in-Makerfield.

Low – Newton Brook, Receptor importance considered to be Low for Newton Brook as no residential properties within its fluvial flood zone 4km downstream as far as its confluence with Sankey Brook

Medium – as the watercourse is heavily modified, and currently met its WFD objective of Moderate by 2015. Low – Medium, Receptor importance considered to be Smithy Brook Good by 2027 Low – medium as there are residential properties within and tributaries flood zone 2/3 approximately 3km downstream of the Scheme at J26.

Medium – as the watercourse is heavily modified, and currently designated as moderate under the 2015 WFD cycle. Low - No areas of flood zone in the area of J26 for this catchment, nearest FZ for this catchment is 1km north of M58 and 2km northwest of the Scheme at M6 J26. Douglas-Lower Good by 2027 Dean Brook is considered to a low importance receptor due to its fluvial flood zone being within agricultural area only as far as its confluence with the River Douglas approximately 3.3 km north of the M58.

Lower Mersey Basin and North Merseyside Currently Poor, Good by High due to the aquifer supporting SPZ protected Permo-Triassic 2027 abstractions Sandstone Aquifers

Sankey and Glaze Currently Poor, Good by Carboniferous Medium – due to the aquifer current WFD status 2027 Aquifers waterbody

Darwen and Calder Currently Poor, Good by Medium – due to the aquifer current WFD status Carboniferous 2027 Aquifers

9.5. Assumptions and limitations The Drainage Strategy Report includes the following assumptions7:

· Where the drainage survey lacked information, information on the connectivity of drainage was based on HADDMS data;

· Run off from adjacent land will remain unchanged – therefore existing drainage networks will only require modelling up to the outfalls.

· It is assumed that all attenuation and flow control devices can be located in the surface water networks within the highway boundary.

7 Report Number: MP0164-ACM-HDG-ZZ-RP-CD-0002 P01 SO (Highways England, September 2017

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-14 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

· There will be no additional outfalls and existing outfalls will continue to discharge at existing established rates. This assessment has been produced on the basis of existing baseline information. Quantitative assessment work has been undertaken using the HD45/09 methodology using impermeable /permeable areas as calculated by the drainage team, and Q95 flows as calculated using LoFlows software. Groundwater levels noted in paragraph 9.4.18 are not representative of groundwater conditions along the length of the Scheme. The level of details such as the depth of the piles and/or depth to the aquifer is not available at DF3 stage to enable a more refined assessment of piling locations. During Stage 5 (DF5) a Ground Investigation Report and Geotechnical Design Report will be produced and used to inform the detailed design of the geotechnical solutions including piling.

9.6. Design and mitigation measures The following are design measures included to minimise potential risk to the water resources environment:

· The design includes the provision of ten EA’s and paving of additional areas of central reserve from J21a to 26, some areas of central reserve are already paved. From the drainage strategy, in accordance with IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways, additional design provisions will mitigate the risk of the additional paved areas that arise from SM schemes with the use of oversize pipes and flow control devices online within the drainage network.

· In accordance with IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways, Pollution Control Devices (PCDs) will also be constructed at each EA to contain emergency spillages.

· In accordance with IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways, there will be no additional outfalls and existing outfalls will continue to discharge at existing established rates. The design will be for a 1:5 year return period (inclusive of 20% to allow for climate change) for any additional water arising as a result of new paved area only. The methodology within IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways, does not include for a 40% sensitivity test.

· All construction works will take place within the framework of an EMP. This will be based on the measures included in the CEMP which will incorporated into the CEMP to be prepared and implemented by the Delivery Partner and will aim to minimise where practicable the risk to the water environment during the construction phase.

· None of the EA’s within the proposed M6 J21a – J26 SM are located within Environment Agency fluvial flood zones.

· The scale of the proposed works is included within the existing highway boundary.

· There are no works to culverts as part of the Proposed Scheme.

· One abnormal load bay (ALB) is currently located within the Highways England boundary near Rob Lane. This is to be located 65 m north near the HE Northwest Regional Control Centre. This will be drained and attenuated via the existing Highways England network, with no new discharge outfalls as a result.

· The works will not result in a change to any catchment boundaries.

· The drainage strategy states that where the drainage survey has indicated defects of a functional level, where impacted by the SM scheme these drainage pipes will be replaced in order to ensure no flooding of the system ensues. The strategy also states that all existing outfalls will be maintained – and therefore, no new outfalls will be created.

· The drainage strategy outlines how attenuation will be incorporated within the design: “Due to the hardening of the central reserve, inclusion of EAs and the requirement to ‘not increase flooding’ it is likely that oversized pipes will be required for attenuation throughout

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-15 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

the length of the scheme. The limited space available within the verge is likely to mean that the majority of attenuation is provided on-line and would therefore be a replacement of existing drainage”.

· Additionally, in accordance with IAN 161/15: Smart Motorways, and the NPPF flood risk should not be increased for rainfall events up to a 1 in 100 year Annual Exceedance Policy. This is to be achieved by ensuring no increase in discharge rates at each outfall. To achieve this any increase in impermeable area as a result of paving the central reserve and EAs will need to be attenuated prior to the outfall with sufficient storage to cater for a 1 in 100 year Annual Exceedance Policy.

· The attenuation is likely to be achieved by creating online storage in oversized pipes, restricting the flows to existing discharge rates using a vortex flow control device or orifice plate.

· On the outfalls where it is determined that mitigation is required (i.e. Networks 3, 4.0, 5, 6, 7 and 8), Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators (HVSs) will be installed within the soft estate. The following are examples of mitigation measures included within the OEMP to minimise potential risk to the water resources environment: · To ensure the quality of the water environment does not deteriorate during construction the Delivery Partner will prepare and implement a surface water and / or groundwater monitoring plan, particularly in relation to works that could affect aquifers, or drilling works. · Methodologies for works will take into account standard best practices and relevant Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) for the protection of the environment. · Suitable construction site drainage systems, with appropriately sized treatment facilities such as settlement or detention basins, will be provided. · The Environment Agency will be informed of all pollution incidents and action will be taken accordingly. · The Delivery Partner will take note of advice and recommendations within the CIRIA document C741 (2015,4th edition), Environmental Good Practice on Site guide, and C532 (2001) Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites. · It is not expected that piling would mobilise any contaminant and would not cause pathways for hydrocarbons and thus the designer shall liaise with HE and the Environment Agency to confirm the adequacy of the high-level risk assessment and proposed mode of construction. Piling Risk Assessments are only required where known contaminants exist. The need for these will be decided on a case by case basis although no such locations have been identified at this stage (DF3).

9.7. Potential construction effects

Effects on Surface Water Quality - Construction The following are potential effects on surface water quality during construction: · the spillage or deposition of stored materials, including soil, oil, fuel or other construction chemicals · disturbance of silt, leading to the release of sediment · contamination by spillage or release of materials being used in construction such as wet cement or concrete, oils or other construction chemicals During construction, any controlled waters crossed by the SM scheme would potentially be at risk, this includes ditches, streams or ponds in close proximity to construction compounds. Geotechnical interventions including earthworks such as regrades of existing motorway embankment within the soft estate will be required to accommodate additional infrastructure, for example at locations 39750 (in the area of Croft Interchange), 40650 (north of Croft Interchange),

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-16 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

46800 (south of J23), 49300 (south of J24) and 50960 (south of J25). Where these activities are close to existing watercourse crossing locations there is the potential for direct impact from runoff on the watercourses. Additionally, works to construct gantries require excavation activities within the soft estate, which has the potential for impact from runoff to the watercourses. The location of the Networks and their Priority Risk Status is shown on Figure 9-2 Maps 1 to 15. No major works have been identified within 8m of a watercourse at PCF Stage 3. In the unlikely event of works within 8m of a watercourse being required at future design or construction stages to secure approval it may be necessary to provide mitigation or compensation measures. These would be accommodated within the Highways England boundary. At the time of assessment, it is therefore considered unlikely that a WFD compliance assessment to support any consent or approvals from the Environment Agency or Lead Local Flood Authority will be required for works near watercourses. The discrete location of the gantries would mean no impact to any flood flow pathways in the event of a flooding incident. Therefore, the removal, reuse, and construction of gantries within areas of Flood zone 3 is not considered significant during construction. The following named watercourses are crossed by the M6 (from south to north) and are shown on Figure 9-1 Sheets 1 to 15:

· Springfield Brook

· Dig heath Brook

· Croft Heath Brook

· Cross Brook

· Cockshot Burn

· Millingford (Newton) Brook

· Ellams Brook

· Dean Brook

· Firwood Grove tributary

· Down brook

· Park Brook

· Smithy Brook In order to ascertain the potential risk to the surface water receptors from surface water runoff, it is important to determine the distance between the construction works and the surface watercourses. Table 9-8 below displays the location of the EA’s works, and the distance to the prospective surface water discharge outfall locations. The gantry works locations are represented within Table 9-9. Table 9-8 Location of EA works

Distance to Emergency Area Nearest watercourse Chainage outfall Catchment Name* crossing point location Ch40650, Spittle Brook E22A1 (NB01), Ch 44050-44150 Outfall at Ch40650 3.4 km (Outfall into Cockshot Burn) Outfalls at Ch45250, Ch 45250, Millingford E22B1 (SB06), Ch 44760-44860 upstream of Lake 390m (Newton) Brook system Outfall at Ch45750, Ch45750, E22A2 (NB02), Ch 46020-46120 roadside ditch 150 m 130m to outfall As above to Newton Brook point

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-17 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Distance to Emergency Area Nearest watercourse Chainage outfall Catchment Name* crossing point location Ch45750, Millingford Outfalls at Ch45750, 350m to outfall (Newton) Brook E22B2 (SB05), Ch 46100-46200 roadside ditch 150m point (Outfall into ditch to Newton Brook next to Rob Lane) Within Millingford Dean Brook (part of (Newton Brook E23B1 (SB04), Ch 48750-48850 Outfalls to Ch48725 Millingford Newton Catchment, Brook catchment) south to Dean Brook at 47650 Ch50000, Millingford Outfalls at Ch 50000, 650m (Newton) Brook E23A1 (NB03), Ch 49250-49350 into Down Brook, (Outfall into Down north of J24 Brook) Ch50000, Millingford Outfalls at Ch50000, 850m (Newton) Brook E24B1 (SB03), Ch 50850-50950 Down Brook north of (Outfall into Down J24 Brook) Outfall to Ch52780, Ch51800, 930 Pool Stock Brook E25B1 (SB02), Ch 52730-52830 tributary to Hawk m (Tributary to Brook Hawkley Brook) Outfall to Ch52780, to Ch51800, 1.58 Pool Stock Brook E25A1 (NB04), Ch 53380-53480 tributary to Park km (Tributary to Brook Hawkley Brook Ch56000, Outfall to Ch 55700 to E25B2 (SB01), Ch 54800-54900 1.1km to the Smithy Brook Smithy Brook north *A denotes northbound, and B denotes southbound

Table 9-9 Location of gantry works

Drainage Network Outfall Distance to Gantry Name (from north Chainage / watercourse Chainage outfall to south) catchment Location location

G21-15 Network 1 - As As above 770m to Ch39770 G21-15a proposed above south

Network 1 - As As above 1100m to G21-16 proposed Ch40100 above south As above 1325m to G21-17a proposed Ch40325 Network 1 south As above 1360m to G21-17 proposed Ch40360 Network 1 south Network 1 Ch39000, Dig Lane brook, 1600m to G21-18 proposed Ch40600 tributary to south Spittle Brook Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to G21-19 proposed Ch40680 30m to south Cockshot Burn Network 11 G21-20 Ch40650, 310m to Ch40960 Outfall to G21-20a existing gantry south foundation Cockshot Burn Ch40650, 560m to G21-21 proposed Ch41210 Network 11 Outfall to south

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-18 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Drainage Network Outfall Distance to Gantry Name (from north Chainage / watercourse Chainage outfall to south) catchment Location location Cockshot Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 810m to G21-23 Ch41460 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 875m to G21-22 proposed Ch41525 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 1200m to G21-25 proposed Ch41850 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 1625m to G21-26 proposed Ch42275 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, G21-27 existing gantry Outfall to 1700m to Ch42350 foundation Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, G22-1 existing gantry Outfall to 1950m to Ch42600 foundation Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 2280m to G22-3 proposed Ch42930 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 2490m to G22-4 proposed Ch43140 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 2640m to G22-4A proposed Ch43290 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 2810m to G22-5 proposed Ch43460 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 3075m to G22-6 proposed Ch43725 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 3200m to G22-7 proposed Ch43850 Cockshot south Burn Network 11 Ch40650, G22-8 existing gantry Outfall to 3550m to Ch44200 foundation Cockshot south Burn Ch45250 660 m to G22-9 proposed Ch44590 Network 12 north Network 11 Ch40650, Outfall to 3810m to G22-10 proposed Ch44460 Cockshot south Burn As above 350 m to G22-11 proposed Ch44900 Network 12 north Ch45250, G22-12 existing gantry Network 12 200m to Ch45050 Millingford foundation north (Newton)

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-19 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Drainage Network Outfall Distance to Gantry Name (from north Chainage / watercourse Chainage outfall to south) catchment Location location Brook u/s of Lakes Network 13 Ch45260, Millingford G22-14 existing gantry 290m to Ch45550 (Newton) foundation south Brook u/s of Lakes G22-13 proposed Ch45675 Network 3 Ch45760 85m to north Network 3 Ch45760, to ditch G22-15 existing gantry near Robs 140m to Ch45900 foundation Lane – south Newton Brook Network 3 Ch45760, to ditch near Robs 490m to G22-16 proposed Ch46250 Lane – south Newton Brook Network 3 Ch45760, to ditch near Robs 740m to G22-17 proposed Ch46500 Lane – south Newton Brook Network 4 Ch46775, G22-18 proposed Ch46800 Ellam’s 25m to south Brook G22-20 existing gantry Network 5 415m to Ch47190 foundation As above south Ch46775, G23-1 existing gantry Network 5 795m to Ch47570 Ellam’s foundation south Brook Network 14 Ch47700, Deans 230m to G23-2 proposed Ch47930 brook north southeast of J23 Network 14 Ch47700, Deans 600m to G23-3 proposed Ch48300 brook north southeast of J23 Network 6 Ch49300 Tributary to 410m to G23-4 proposed Ch48710 Millingford north Brook Network 7 Ch 49300 G23-5 existing gantry tributary to 650m to Ch48950 foundation Millingford north Brook Ch50000, G23-7 existing gantry Network 8 750m to Ch49250 Down foundation north Brook Ch50000, Network 8 575m to G23-8 proposed Ch49425 Down north Brook Network 8 Ch50000, G23-6 proposed Ch49525 475m to north Down Brook G23-9 existing gantry Network 8 Ch50000, Ch49700 300m to north foundation Down Brook Network 8 Ch50000, G23-10 proposed Ch49725 275m to north Down Brook Network 8 Ch50000, G24-1A proposed Ch50220 220m to south Down Brook

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-20 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Drainage Network Outfall Distance to Gantry Name (from north Chainage / watercourse Chainage outfall to south) catchment Location location Network 8 Ch50000, G24-1 proposed Ch50060 60m to south Down Brook Network 8 Ch50000, 460 m to G24-2 proposed Ch50460 Down Brook south Network 8 Ch50000, G24-3b proposed Ch50970 970m to south Down Brook G25-1 existing gantry Network 8 Ch50000, 1450m to Ch51450 foundation Down Brook south Network 8 Ch50000, 1750m to G25-3 proposed Ch51750 Down Brook south Network 9 Ch51830, G25-4 existing gantry 220m to Ch52050 tributary to foundation southeast Park Brook Network 9 Ch51830, 145m to G25-5 proposed Ch51975 tributary to southeast Park Brook Network 15 / Ch52775, G25-6 existing gantry Ch52675 Hawkley Brook - Hawkley 100m to west foundation Ch52775 Brook Network 15 / Ch52775, G25-7 proposed Ch52875 Hawkley Brook Hawkley 100m to east Brook Ch52775, Network 15 / 525m to G25-8 proposed Ch53300 Hawkley Hawkley Brook southeast Brook Network 15 / Ch52775, G25-9 existing gantry 875m to Ch53650 Hawkley Brook Hawkley foundation southeast Brook G25-10 existing gantry Network 16 / 2.075km to Ch53925 foundation Smithy Brook Ch55720 north Network 16/ Smithy 1.6 km to G25-11A proposed Ch54400 Brook Ch 56000 Ch55720 north Network 16/ Smithy 1.6 km to G25-11 proposed Ch54400 Brook– Ch 56000 Ch55720 north G25-12 existing gantry Network 16/ Smithy 1.25 km to Ch54750 foundation Brook Ch56000 Ch55720 north Network 16/ Smithy G25-13 proposed Ch55000 1 km to north Brook Ch56000 Ch55720 Network 16/ Smithy G25-14 proposed Ch55500 500m to north Brook Ch56000 Ch55720 Network 16 / G25-15 – existing gantry Outfall 280m Ch55875 Smithy Brook foundation Ch55720 to north Ch56000 Note: Red Text highlights where gantries are located within 100m of discharge location Using professional judgement, it is considered that the risk of impact to surface water quality will be greatest at locations where there are more significant areas of excavation works within 100m of the surface water crossing points, and where the drainage from that area is directed to that water crossing points. In some construction areas, the drainage from an area of excavation is not directed to the most local watercourse crossing point, but to an outfall a greater distance away. In these cases, the distance travelled for runoff is greater with more opportunity for suspended sediments to settle out. Therefore, it is the distance to outfall location which is used to highlight which construction locations may represent a higher risk to surface water, and it is considered that those locations within 100m of the outfall have less travel time to settle out suspended solids. Gantries and EA’s including any associated geotechnical works (such as slope regrades or retaining walls) are considered to be major point sources of potential risk. As shown in Tables 9-8 and 9-9 above, the majority of the gantry and EA construction locations are not within 100 m of

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-21 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

the outfall locations. However, six gantry locations are within 100 m of the road drainage outfall point into a watercourse. These are G21-19, G22-13, G22-18, G24-1, G25-6 and G25-7 (existing foundation) and are highlighted in red text. Of these five are proposed, and one is an existing gantry foundation. The location of the proposed gantries within 100m of the watercourse discharge location are considered to be more sensitive. Emergency area E23A1, Ch49250-49350, is shown as being located in the area of a watercourse, close to Firwood Grove. There are no fluvial flood risk zones associated with this watercourse, and the watercourse is contained within a culvert over 600m long through this area. The drainage from this EA is directed to Downs Brook at Ch50000, some 650m north of the EA. The construction works will also include the installation of HVSs on Networks 3, 4.0, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the purpose of mitigation for operational effects. For Network 8 there are three locations where HVSs will be constructed, known as 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4. The construction works are outlined in Table 9-10 below: Table 9-10 Location of hydrodynamic vortex separator construction works

Distance from Network Chainage Working assumptions watercourse outfall location

HVS, 10m wide x 20 m long working 3 Ch39750 33m area, with proposed manholes

Works may involve deep excavation and sheet piling. Clearance zone from the edge of the hard shoulder to the highway boundary. Pumping may be necessary. Assumption is that works 4 Ch40650 will be confined to within the highway 53m boundary.. Working area to be minimised to ensure minimal excavation area required. Dewatering may be necessary Assume a 13m corridor working area centred on the HVS 5 Ch45250 Working area to be minimised to 32m ensure minimal excavation area required for the HVS 10m by 10m working area to install 6 Ch45250 16m HVS

7 Ch45800 13m working area, to install HVS 132m

10m by 10m working area for 8.2 Ch46975 No stream nearby installation of HVS

10m by 10m working area for 8.3 Ch47600 No stream nearby installation of HVS

10m by 10m working area for 8.4 Ch47450 No stream nearby installation of HVS

The construction of the HVS for Network 4 is in an area where it may be a requirement to dewater the excavation that would be formed for the chamber to hold the HVS. The works to excavate and dewater would be controlled by the measures outlined within Section 9.6.2 above. This will include use of best practice, and obtaining any consents required for potential dewatering and discharge of water from the excavation. Best practice measures are included within CIRIA documents referenced within the REAC. As stated within paragraph 9.6.2, and within the OEMP, it is stated that the Delivery Partner will follow appropriate advice and recommendations within the CIRIA document C741 (2015, 4th edition), Environmental Good Practice on Site guide, and C532 (2001) Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites. Based on the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above, and contained within the

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-22 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

OEMP, it is considered that the magnitude of risk of impact to surface water quality is negligible. Other works include the installation of cameras and loop detectors, with the associated wires and cable installations. These works are considered to be less extensive and represent less of a risk of impact to surface water quality than works to construct EA’s and gantries. Based on the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above, and contained within the OEMP, it is considered the magnitude of impact to surface water quality is negligible. The construction will also include the demolition of three properties as part of the Martinscroft mitigation area. These activities will take place using best practice measures, and implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above and contained within the OEMP. Therefore it is considered the magnitude of impact to surface water quality is negligible. Using Table 9-4, a neutral magnitude of impact is considered to result in a neutral effect on the surface watercourses within the study area as a result of the construction of the SM scheme.

Effects on Surface Water Flow Scheme construction has the potential to change the flow regime of watercourses or drains. This could be due to blockages or the receipt of additional pumped discharges. Any watercourses (including drainage ditches and streams already within culverts) crossed by the SM Scheme could potentially be at risk. The construction activities taking place within the Scheme boundary will be controlled by the CEMP. Best practice procedures and methodologies will ensure material from within the highway boundary during works will not result in a blockage of local culverts / watercourses. Examples are given in Section 9.6 Design and mitigation measures. There are no works to culverts as part of the Proposed Scheme. None of the EAs are located within known fluvial floodplains, therefore the magnitude of impact of the construction of EAs on surface water flow is considered to be negligible. The relatively small size of construction areas required for gantries within the highway boundary, and cameras/loop detectors and cable installations are considered to result in a negligible magnitude of impact on surface water flow. The CEMP will ensure runoff containing suspended solids will be minimised and not result in sedimentation within the receiving drainage channels and watercourses. The Proposed Scheme is considered to have a negligible effect on potential for pluvial flooding. The impact of construction is considered to result in a neutral effect on the surface water flow within the study area as a result of the construction of the SM scheme.

Effects on groundwater quality and flow Scheme construction is taking place within the highway boundary, with significant excavation being limited to that required for EA construction, gantry foundations and HVSs. The construction associated with installation of the HVS requires locally extensive excavation. The locations are provided on Figure 9-1. The construction of the HVS for Network 4, which is in an inner SPZ (SPZ1) area (see Figure 9-1 Map 2 of 15), may require deep excavation. This may potentially require dewatering and sheet piling to create a coffer dam for safe construction. The works to excavate and dewater would be controlled by the measures outlined within Section 9.6 above. This will include use of best practice, and obtaining any consents required for potential dewatering of the excavation. Detailed methodologies to protect groundwater resources within this area will be developed and included within the CEMP. Within areas of excavation there is a potential for increased risk to groundwater resources from any spills/ leaks of fuel / oil. Additionally, there is the potential for land to be potentially contaminated from previous spillages or from the constituents of the made ground. The geology and soils aspect of the assessment was scoped out due to effects being “effects are limited to geotechnical construction issues, rather than compromising geological or soil resources”8. The potential risk of this will be included within the CEMP; with procedures in place should any such material be encountered during excavations. The risk of creating a potential pathway during piling would be managed through the CEMP process. As noted within the OEMP, and noted in paragraph 9.6.2, it is not expected that piling would mobilise any contaminant and would not cause pathways for hydrocarbons. Piling Risk Assessment are only required where known contaminants exist. The need for these will be decided on a case by case basis during PCF Stage 5 by liaison with HE and the Environment Agency.

8 Highways England, July 2017, M6 Junction 21a to 26 Environmental Scoping Report

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-23 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Using Table 9-4, a negligible magnitude of impact results in a neutral effect on the groundwater flow and quality within the study area as a result of the construction of the SM scheme.

9.8. Potential operational effects The operational SM scheme will have the following effects: · increase in traffic flow as a result of the Proposed Scheme, with some one-way links (i.e. slip roads), and two way links showing an increased in traffic of greater than 20% (using the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) criteria) · increase of impermeable area leading to an increase in surface runoff rate · no increase in flood risk due to insignificant impact on floodplain storage (see paragraph 9.8.2 below) · no potential changes in groundwater recharge Table 9-11 presents a summary of the HAWRAT and spillage risk assessments for all networks. Figure 9-2 also presents the overall risk status for each outfall (see para 9.3.12) assigned prior to the consideration of the bioavailable EQSs which are discussed below in 9.8.15 to 9.8.17 and the implementation of mitigation as discussed in more detail in paragraph 9.8.18 and section 9.9 below.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-24 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 9-11 HAWRAT Results for M6 J21a to J26

Method D Spillage Method A Step 2 Tier 1 Risk Surface Water Magnitude of M-BAT Risk M-BAT Risk Impact from Ratio for Ratio for Table A.4 Annual Annual Annual Annual HD45/09 Average Average Return Outfall Sediment Chronic Impact Average Average Risk Soluble Soluble dissolved Cu dissolved Zn Period Cu# Zn (Without Acute Acute 1 µg/l, and 10.9 µg/l, and mitigation) Impact Impact +20% traffic +20% traffic Copper Zinc area ++ area ++

Deposition Settlement EQS 10/28 EQS 7.8 Accumulating? Extensive? Index Needed % µg/l # µg/l ##

Alert n/a as not > 1 n/a as < 10.9 3* Pass Pass No downstream n/a n/a 0.22 1.17 0.0014 699 Negligible µg/l µg/l Structure

Fail – try Tier 2 for Major adverse velocity: n/a as < 10.9 4.0* Fail Fail Yes 1042 91% 2.04 10.15 0.27 0.0063 159 (plus 20% traffic and alert µg/l area) downstream structure

4.0 (sensitivity Fail – try analysis using Tier 2 for a further Moderate velocity: n/a as < 10.9 downstream Fail Fail Yes 265 63 1.15 5.85 0.25 As above As above adverse (plus and alert µg/l assessment 20% traffic area) downstream point on structure Spittle Brook)

Fail – try Tier 2 for velocity and n/a as not > 1 n/a as < 10.9 4.1 Pass Pass Yes 105 5% 0.33 1.73 0.0012 803 Minor adverse alert µg/l µg/l downstream structure

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-25 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Method D Spillage Method A Step 2 Tier 1 Risk Surface Water Magnitude of M-BAT Risk M-BAT Risk Impact from Ratio for Ratio for Table A.4 Annual Annual Annual Annual HD45/09 Average Average Return Outfall Sediment Chronic Impact Average Average Risk Soluble Soluble dissolved Cu dissolved Zn Period Cu# Zn (Without Acute Acute 1 µg/l, and 10.9 µg/l, and mitigation) Impact Impact +20% traffic +20% traffic Copper Zinc area ++ area ++

Deposition Settlement EQS 10/28 EQS 7.8 Accumulating? Extensive? Index Needed % µg/l # µg/l ##

0.0010~ Alert No, Alert (from n/a as not > 1 n/a as < 10.9 downstream 5* Pass Pass Yes downstream 32 n/a 0.12 0.63 Version 1, 960~ µg/l µg/l structure (plus Structure no need to 20% traffic area) repeat)

0.0007~ (from Alert No, Alert n/a as not > 1 n/a as < 10.9 Version downstream 6* Pass Pass Yes downstream 22 n/a 0.08 0.43 1381~ µg/l µg/l 1.0 no structure (plus structure need to 20% traffic area) repeat)

Fail – try tier 2 for Minor adverse velocity and n/a as not > 1 n/a as < 10.9 7* Pass Pass Yes 286 65% 0.73 3.79 0.0015 665 (plus 20% traffic alert µg/l µg/l area) downstream structure

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-26 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Method D Spillage Method A Step 2 Tier 1 Risk Surface Water Magnitude of M-BAT Risk M-BAT Risk Impact from Ratio for Ratio for Table A.4 Annual Annual Annual Annual HD45/09 Average Average Return Outfall Sediment Chronic Impact Average Average Risk Soluble Soluble dissolved Cu dissolved Zn Period Cu# Zn (Without Acute Acute 1 µg/l, and 10.9 µg/l, and mitigation) Impact Impact +20% traffic +20% traffic Copper Zinc area ++ area ++

Deposition Settlement EQS 10/28 EQS 7.8 Accumulating? Extensive? Index Needed % µg/l # µg/l ##

Fail – try tier Moderate n/a as < 10.9 8* Fail Pass Yes 2 for 531 82% 1.14 5.81 0.21 0.0045 220 adverse (plus µg/l velocity 20% traffic area)

Fail – try tier 2 for n/a as not over n/a as not over velocity and 9 Pass Pass Yes 155 36% 0.4 2.1 20% traffic 20% traffic 0.0007~ 1374~ Minor adverse alert increase area increase area downstream structure

n/a as not over n/a as not over 10 Pass Pass No No n/a n/a 0.32 1.65 20% traffic 20% traffic 0.0008~ 1189~ Negligible increase area increase area

11 (was n/a as not over n/a as not over SJ5698_9193 Pass Pass No No n/a n/a 0.08 0.41 20% traffic 20% traffic 0.0002~ 4133~ Negligible a) increase area increase area

Fail – try tier 2 for n/a as not over n/a as not over velocity and Moderate 12 Fail Pass Yes 404 76% 1.09 5.57 20% traffic 20% traffic 0.0037~ 271~ alert adverse increase area increase area downstream structure

No, but n/a as not over n/a as not over Alert 13 Fail Pass No 0.13 No 0.89 4.59 20% traffic 20% traffic 0.0009 1133 Minor adverse downstream increase area increase area structure

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-27 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Method D Spillage Method A Step 2 Tier 1 Risk Surface Water Magnitude of M-BAT Risk M-BAT Risk Impact from Ratio for Ratio for Table A.4 Annual Annual Annual Annual HD45/09 Average Average Return Outfall Sediment Chronic Impact Average Average Risk Soluble Soluble dissolved Cu dissolved Zn Period Cu# Zn (Without Acute Acute 1 µg/l, and 10.9 µg/l, and mitigation) Impact Impact +20% traffic +20% traffic Copper Zinc area ++ area ++

Deposition Settlement EQS 10/28 EQS 7.8 Accumulating? Extensive? Index Needed % µg/l # µg/l ##

Fail – try tier n/a as not over n/a as not over Moderate 14 Fail Pass Yes 2 for 414 76% 1.06 5.41 20% traffic 20% traffic 0.0014 734 adverse velocity increase area increase area

Fail – try tier n/a as not over n/a as not over 15/16.0/16.1 Moderate Fail Pass Yes 2 for 403 76% 0.80 4.11 20% traffic 20% traffic 0.0020 507 (combined) adverse velocity increase area increase area

Fail – try tier n/a as not over n/a as not over 17 Pass Pass Yes 2 for 203 51% 0.44 2.31 20% traffic 20% traffic 0.0008 1212 Minor adverse velocity increase area increase area

Cumulative Assessment

Fail – try tier 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, n/a as not over n/a as < 10.9 Pass Pass Yes 2 for 174 43% 0.43 2.25 n/a n/a Minor Adverse 3.2** 1 ug/l µg/l velocity

Fail – try tier n/a as < 10.9 4.0 and 4.1** Fail Fail Yes 2 for 1147 92% 2.17 10.79 0.27 n/a n/a Major Adverse µg/l velocity

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-28 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Method D Spillage Method A Step 2 Tier 1 Risk Surface Water Magnitude of M-BAT Risk M-BAT Risk Impact from Ratio for Ratio for Table A.4 Annual Annual Annual Annual HD45/09 Average Average Return Outfall Sediment Chronic Impact Average Average Risk Soluble Soluble dissolved Cu dissolved Zn Period Cu# Zn (Without Acute Acute 1 µg/l, and 10.9 µg/l, and mitigation) Impact Impact +20% traffic +20% traffic Copper Zinc area ++ area ++

Deposition Settlement EQS 10/28 EQS 7.8 Accumulating? Extensive? Index Needed % µg/l # µg/l ##

4. and 4.1 (sensitivity analysis for outfall 4.0 Fail – try tier n/a as < 10.9 Moderate using a further Fail Fail Yes 2 for 625 1.23 6.26 0.25 As above As above µg/l Adverse downstream velocity assessment point on Spittle Brook)

No, but Alert n/a as not over n/a as < 10.9 5.0 and 6.0** Pass Pass Yes 55 n/a 0.20 1.03 n/a n/a Negligible downstream 1 ug/l µg/l structure

2, 2.1, 3.0, n/a as not > 1 n/a as < 10.9 Pass Pass n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.45 2.36 n/a n/a Negligible 3.1, 3.2*** µg/l µg/l

n/a as not > 1 n/a as < 10.9 5, 6, 7*** Pass Pass n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.38 1.98 n/a n/a Negligible µg/l µg/l

River Fails n/a as not over n/a as not over Toxicity 16 / 17*** Pass n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.2 6.11 20% traffic 20% traffic n/a n/a Minor Adverse Test. Try increase area increase area Mitigatio n

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-29 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Notes:

# Annual Average Cu value is selected from Table 4, according to water hardness band, 10 µg/L for 100-200 mg CaCO3/L (Spittle Brook and tributaries Cross Brook and Cockshot Brook) and 28 µg/L for greater than 200 mg CaCO3/L (Newton/ Millingford and Smithy Brook). These values align with Table A1.1 in HD45/09. ## Annual Average Zn value is aligned with Table A1.1 of HD45/09. * Networks where traffic increase is >20% ** Cumulative assessment for outfalls within 100 m flowing to the same watercourse; *** Cumulative assessment for outfalls between 100-1000 m flowing to the same watercourse Return Period: the acceptable return period is 100 or greater, which means the potential for an accident is statistically predicted to be greater than 1 in 100 years. Deposition index: within HAWRAT, the deposition index relates to the potential for accumulation of sediment within the receiving water body at an outfall. A number of greater than 100 is deemed to need mitigation. ++ A risk characterisation ratio of 1 or more would be a fail in M-BAT

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-30 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

The implementation of the Proposed Scheme is not predicted to move sections of the road network from within a lower AADT traffic band to the next higher AADT traffic band e.g. 50,000 – 100,000 AADT to greater than 100,000 AADT. All sections of mainline carriageway between junction are greater than 100,000 AADT for the DM scenario, and the plus 20% increase in AADT, DS, scenario would not make the assessment change from the current positions. However, some of the previously assessed Very High Priority Outfalls have passed the assessment due to the larger dilution factor available within the receiving watercourse, for example networks 5 and 6 which outfall into Millingford (Newton) Brook. However, these are located upstream of a lake system. Current advice within HD45/09 is that discharges must not be made into lakes (Para 5.19, HD45/09). The earlier HADDMS asset references (e.g. SJ6292_4010c) were not used in the later assessment due their being many assets which do not receive motorway drainage. The HAWRAT assessment took place using the latter drainage assessment references to Networks, as shown on Figure 9.2. As highlighted within the Priority Outfalls Interim Guidance (Annex E5.22), mitigation is required for those outfalls within an area where traffic is predicted to increase by over 20%. Plate 9.2 highlights that were partial mitigation is possible, the EAR result is a ‘no significant effect’ from the Scheme. Below are the assessment results within the areas where traffic is predicted to increase above 20% using the 2020 opening year where mitigation will be installed, and are summarised as follows:

· Network 3.0: passes the HAWRAT and spillage risk assessment, but is highlighted due to the road drainage being directed into a culvert (Warning due to downstream structure).

· Network 4.0, within Cockshot Brook in Spittle Brook catchment: routine road drainage discharge is failing for the acute soluble copper and zinc concentrations, and for sediment chronic impact (Moderate Adverse).

· Network 5: passes the HAWRAT and spillage risk assessment, but is highlighted due to the road drainage being directed into a lake system (Warning due to downstream lake).

· Network 6; passes the HAWRAT and spillage risk assessment, but is highlighted due to the road drainage being directed into a lake system (Warning due to downstream lake).

· Network 7 : failing for sediment chronic impact (Minor Adverse).

· Network 8: failing sediment chronic impact (Moderate Adverse). Using Table 9-3, criteria to determine magnitude of effect, a failure of both the soluble and sediment bound pollutants, but compliance with EQS is defined as a Moderate Adverse effect. Also, failure of either soluble or sediment-bound pollutants, and compliance with EQS is defined as Minor Adverse impact. For Network 4.0, a sensitivity analysis was carried out for this network for the input parameter Q95, as is recommended within HD45/09. Determination of Q95 flows (i.e. the flow predicted to be exceeded 95% of the time) has been calculated by a desk-based exercise using catchment data and Wallingford Hydrosolutions Ltd LowFlows software. These are estimates of the Q95 low, and do not take into account of the increasingly proportional variability between natural flow and artificial influences, such as abstractions, discharges and storage changes as the river flow diminishes. Using the Q95 in an assessment also assumes that during a rainfall event which results in discharge no flow is added to the receiving watercourse. For this reason, using an assessment point approximately 1km downstream results in a moderate adverse impact for Network 4.0. The importance of the receiving watercourses has been assessed as medium, as shown in Table 9-7. Using Table 9-4, Matrix to determine significance of effect, a Moderate adverse effect on a medium importance receptor (Cockshot Burn, which is located within the Spittle Brook catchment, and is classified as part of the Spittle Brook WFD watercourse), results in a Moderate adverse effect.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-31 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

The Minor adverse effect on a medium importance receptors (Cockshot Burn, which is located within the Spittle Brook catchment, and is classified as part of the Spittle Brook WFD watercourse, Millingford (Newton) Brook), and Ellams Brook) results in a Slight Adverse effect. There are numerous mitigation approaches available to resolve such issues. The indicative efficiency of various treatment systems in terms of sediment removal, treatment of dissolved metals and hydrocarbons is described in the DMRB’s HD33/16 Geotechnics and Drainage, and HA103/06 Vegetated Drainage Systems for Highway Runoff. Further detail on treatment options is given in CIRIA C753 ‘The SuDS Manual’. A key consideration in the identification of mitigation measures has been the need for mitigation to be delivered within the highway boundary, which limits the range of suitable options available. Using the flow chart in the Priority Outfalls Interim Guidance Version (Annex 5.22), included as Plate 9.2 overleaf, if the mitigation measure is delivered within the soft estate at an acceptable cost and without significant adverse effects on other environmental resources, then the conclusion of “No significant effect” can be reached. Assessments were undertaken to determine whether a range of SudS solutions and treatment trains could be accommodated within the highway boundary. Such measures considered included wet attenuation ponds, and linear swales. These concluded that due to space and topography SuDS solutions were not feasible; HVSs were therefore chosen as the most suitable mitigation option. Since HD45/09 was published, the EQS for copper and zinc have been revised by the WFD (Standards and Classification) Directions (England and Wales) 2015 and are the following: 1 µg/l for copper (bioavailable); and 10.9 µg/l for zinc (bioavailable plus Ambient Background Concentration (ug/l) dissolved). A sensitivity test using the Environment Agency’s Metals – Bioavailability Assessment Tool (M- BAT) tool has been undertaken to enable consideration of the dissolved copper and zinc results from the HD45/09 HAWRAT assessment in the context of the bioavailable EQS described above. The test was carried out for outfalls 4.0 (individually and cumulatively with 4.1) and 8.0 as these outfalls warranted further investigation as the total dissolved concentrations calculated using HAWRAT were higher than 1 µg/l copper and/or 10.9 µg/l zinc. These outfalls are also located within sections of the M6 which would be subject to a greater than 20% increase in traffic in the Do-something scenario compared to the Do-Minimum scenario. The sensitivity test has been informed by historical background water quality data available from the EA’s Catchment Data Explorer for the following parameters: in-river dissolved copper/ zinc, pH, water hardness, and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). DOC essentially chelates / adsorbs the copper to make it less bioavailable. The M-BAT assessment derives a risk characterisation ratio; a ratio of 1 or more is defined as a fail. The M-BAT results for outfalls 4.0, cumulative 4.0 & 4.1 and 8.0 are presented in Table 9-11 below. All the outfalls assessed for copper and zinc using M-BAT derived a ratio of less than 1, the highest being 0.27, hence these would pass the M-BAT assessment. Further details of the sensitivity test are provided in Appendix F.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-32 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Plate 9.2 Extract of Flow Chart from Priority Outfalls Interim Guidance (Annex E5.22)9

HVS’s decrease the amount of sediment-bound pollutant being discharged, although they do not

9 Note that the HAWRAT assessment reported in this chapter has been carried out prior to the release of HEWRAT.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-33 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

mitigate for dissolved metals. Installation of HVSs is deemed to deliver treatment within the soft estate, without adverse effect on other environmental resources . The HVS will be installed in various parts of the drainage catchment of the networks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 (see Figure 9.2) where significant effects have been shown within the HAWRAT assessment procedure. The mitigation measures and residual effects associated with the outfalls are summarised in Table 9-13. There are no surface water abstraction points located within the proposed study area. Therefore, the SM scheme would have a neutral effect on surface water abstractions in the area.

Spillage Risk The outfalls assessed under HAWRAT listed above have been assessed in terms of spillage risk. The spillage risk is calculated as acceptable for the outfalls and no extra mitigation is required for spillage risk. These results are presented within Table 9-11. Therefore, taking this assessment into account, it is considered the construction of the SM Proposed Scheme will result in a negligible adverse impact on spillage risk, and result in a neutral effect on spillage risk.

Effects on Surface Water Flow and Flood Risk The proposed scheme will include extra impermeable area from the construction of emergency areas, and new central reserve pavement. The Proposed Scheme will not increase the existing discharge rates. The drainage is being designed taking into account the climate change allowances stated in IAN 161/15 with regards to the Proposed Scheme. Flood plains associated with four watercourses were identified along the SM scheme between J26 – J21a. However, emergency areas are not located within the fluvial floodplains. Therefore, any increase in embankment angle will not result in the loss of any floodplain capacity. One emergency area, E23A1, will be constructed in an area where a watercourse is culverted beneath the road and embankment, therefore, will not result in construction within an area at risk of fluvial flooding. The drainage from this area of works will discharge to Down’s Brook, 650m, to the north. Although no major infrastructure such as EA's are proposed within areas at risk of fluvial flooding (Flood Zone 2 and 3), there will be new gantries within locations at risk of fluvial flooding (Flood Zones 2 and 3) as follows:

· within the J26 area, there will be the re-use of one gantry foundation (G25-16) and therefore will not impact the flood zone area

· at Down Brook (located between J24 and J25) there will be one new gantry (G24-1) balanced by the removal of one gantry

· within the Croft Interchange area (M6 - J21A / M62 - J10 interchange) there are four proposed new gantry bases (full span G21-19, cantilever G21-18, and cantilever G21-16), together with the removal of two gantries (at Ch10250 and Ch40475) and reuse of four gantries (cantilever: G21-20, G21-20a, G21-17, and G21-17a) The location of the infrastructure has been set according to safety considerations, and the scope for movement of the locations is very limited. However, the combined area of the new gantries is under 0.01 % of part of fluvial Flood Zone 3 in the area of Croft Interchange J21a. The area of Flood Zone 3 was used for the estimation of area as this is the event with potentially the highest frequency, and in the area of J21A, the area of Flood Zone 2 mirrors that of Flood Zone 3 (with the exception of an area of Flood Zone 2 which extends westwards from the area of Houghton Green Pool). The related volume within the area of floodplain storage is therefore considered to be insignificant. The potential impacts on surface water quality and flow is outlined in Table 9-12.

Effects on Groundwater Quality The runoff from the operational road is being directed to surface watercourses. There are no road drainage outfalls which outfall to ground. Therefore, it is considered that the groundwater quality will not be impacted by the SM scheme, and the effect will be negligible magnitude of effect, with a resultant neutral effect on groundwater quality, as outlined in Table 9-12 below.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-34 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 9-12 Road Drainage and Water Environment Potential Impact Table

Potential Impact Feature Attribute Quality Importance Mitigation Magnitude Significance

Contamination of Surface Watercourse Biodiversity / Moderate Medium The following mitigation as outlined within the Negligible Neutral surface water from catchment areas and their Conveyance of OEMP which will be refined and adopted in the Suspended Solids tributaries: Douglas-Lower, flow / Water CEMP: during construction Smithy Brook, Millingford Quality Clause W-G001 (Delivery Partner will prepare Brook, Spittle Brook and and implement a surface water and/or Mersey groundwater monitoring plan). Clause WG-004 (Delivery Partner to consult with the Environment Agency regarding the measures to be implemented to contain and manage surface water run-off). Effects on surface Surface Watercourse Conveyance of Areas of Flood Zone Medium The following mitigation as outlined within the Negligible Neutral water flow from high catchment areas and their flow 2/3 within study area OEMP which will be refined and adopted in the suspended sediment tributaries: Douglas-Lower, and crossed by the CEMP: runoff/change in Smithy Brook, Millingford Scheme. Much of Clause W-A002 (flood risk as far as reasonably flooding potential Brook, Spittle Brook and scheme located within practicable will be managed safely throughout during construction Mersey fluvial Flood Zone 1 the construction and implementation period) Clause W-G006 (Delivery Partner taking into consideration the requirements to avoid any increase in flood risk) Contamination of Principal Aquifer, with some Water supply Currently Poor, High The following mitigation as outlined within the Negligible Neutral groundwater from areas supporting objective of Good by OEMP which will be refined and adopted in the accidental spillages / abstractions with a Source 2027 CEMP: fuels during Protection Zone. construction Clause W-G002 (Delivery Partner will comply with current pollution control requirements such as “The Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001” Clause W-G003 (Delivery Partner will provide suitable construction site drainage system with appropriately sized treatment facilities such as settlement or detention basins) Pollution of surface Surface Watercourse Conveyance of Watercourses are Medium Standard DMRB drainage design, and standard Negligible Neutral water from routine catchment areas and their Flow / Water moderate under the PPG would also apply road runoff during tributaries: Douglas-Lower, Quality current WFD cycle of operation – no Smithy Brook, Millingford assessment, with the increase in traffic over Brook, Spittle Brook and aim of Good by 2027 20% Mersey

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-35 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Potential Impact Feature Attribute Quality Importance Mitigation Magnitude Significance

Pollution of surface Surface Watercourse Conveyance of Watercourses are Medium Installation of Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators Minor Slight (not water from routine catchment areas and their Flow / Water moderate under the on networks 3,4,5,6,7,8 significant) road runoff during tributaries: Millingford Brook Quality current WFD cycle of operation –increase in catchment, and Cockshot assessment, with the traffic over 20% Brook within the Spittle Brook aim of Good by 2027 Pollution of surface Surface Watercourse Conveyance of Watercourses are Medium Standard DMRB drainage design, and standard Negligible Neutral water from spillage catchment areas and their Flow / Water moderate under the PPG would also apply risk during operation tributaries: Douglas-Lower, Quality current WFD cycle of Smithy Brook, Millingford assessment, with the Brook, Spittle Brook and aim of Good by 2027 Mersey Pollution of surface Surface Watercourse Conveyance of Watercourses are Medium None required Negligible Neutral water from spillage catchment areas and their Flow / Water moderate under the risk during operation tributaries: Douglas-Lower, Quality current WFD cycle of – increase in traffic Smithy Brook, Millingford assessment, with the over 20% Brook, Spittle Brook and aim of Good by 2027 Mersey Pollution of Surface Watercourse Water supply Currently Poor, High Standard DMRB drainage design, and standard Negligible Neutral groundwater from catchment areas and their objective of Good by PPG would also apply routine runoff during tributaries: Douglas-Lower, 2027 operation Smithy Brook, Millingford Brook, Spittle Brook and Mersey Increased risk of Surface Watercourse Conveyance of Areas of Flood Zone Medium Attenuation of flow according to IAN 161/15: Negligible Neutral fluvial/surface water catchment areas and their flow 2/3 within study area maintain existing rates flooding from increase tributaries: Douglas-Lower, and crossed by the impermeable area Smithy Brook, Millingford Scheme. Much of within emergency Brook, Spittle Brook and scheme located within areas/central Mersey fluvial Flood Zone 1 reservation

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-36 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

9.9. Residual effects There are considered to be no residual effects in relation to flood risk and impact to groundwater resources. From the Scoping Report, and HD45/09, an increase of traffic greater than 20% two way AADT is considered to trigger further assessment due to a potential for impact to water resources. For surface water resources there is an increase in traffic of greater than 20% on some links as shown in Plate 9.1. An assessment of routine road drainage was undertaken using HAWRAT analysis. Networks where significant effects were found, which were also within an area where traffic increases by 20% in the opening year 2020, will require mitigation. The networks will have HVS installed within their drainage network as shown in Table 9-13 below. Table 9-13: Summary of Networks requiring mitigation

Residual Catchment Potential effect Mitigation Measure effect Passes the HAWRAT and spillage risk assessment, but is highlighted HVS with total design flow of 143.4 l/s Network 3 due to the road drainage being Negligible and peak flow of 384.2 l/s directed into a culvert (Negligible: Warning) Routine road drainage discharge failing for acute soluble copper and HVS with total design flow of 345.2 l/s Minor Network 4.0 zinc concentrations, and for and peak flow of 504 l/s Adverse sediment chronic impact (Moderate Adverse) Passes the HAWRAT and spillage risk assessment, but is highlighted HVS with total design flow of 187.6 l/s Network 5 due to the road drainage being Negligible and peak flow of 325.5 l/s directed into a lake system (Negligible: Warning) Passes the HAWRAT and spillage risk assessment, but is highlighted HVS with total design flow of 142.6 l/s Network 6 due to the road drainage being Negligible and peak flow of 216.2 l/s directed into a lake system (Negligible: Warning) Failing for sediment chronic impact HVS with total design flow of 190 l/s Minor Network 7 (Minor Adverse) and peak flow of 388.6 l/s Adverse

HVS with total design flow of 112.6 l/s Network 8.2 and peak flow of 218.8 l/s Failing for sediment chronic impact Network (Moderate Adverse) HVS with total design flow of 55.9 l/s Minor 8.3 and peak flow of 107.7 l/s Adverse Network HVS with total design flow of 73.1 l/s 8.4 and peak flow of 113.7 l/s

Note: Paragraph 9.8.14 provides further background on other treatment measures that were considered. Networks outside of the areas where traffic increases by 20%, are drainage networks which can be considered in the future for improvement under designated funds as outlined in Annex Ref 5.22. These would be the Networks north of J23, Network 12, 14, 15/16.0/16.1 (combined) which show potential moderate adverse impact, and Network 13 and 17 which show potential minor adverse impact. The proposed installation of HVS onto Networks 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 is considered to be, as shown in Plate 9.2, delivering treatment within the soft estate, without adverse effect on other environmental resources. With the proposed installation of HVSs at the locations shown on Figure 9.2, it is concluded that the Proposed Scheme would have no significant effect.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-37 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 9.10. Summary The assessment confirms that the Proposed Scheme will have a neutral effect on surface water and groundwater resources during construction. Construction activities will be controlled within a CEMP based on the CEMP (Doc Ref HE549339-ACM-VES-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RQ-LE-0001). During operation, the provision of additional impermeable area will not increase the discharge rate to the watercourses. The operational Proposed Scheme results in an increase in traffic of greater than 20% in some links of the traffic model (details given in paragraph 9.3.9). As a result of the HAWRAT assessment HVSs will be installed on 6 networks (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). In accordance with Priority Outfalls Interim Guidance (annex E5.22) (see Plate 9.2), the proposed installation of HVSs within the soft estate is considered to be delivering treatment, without adverse effect on other environmental resources. Therefore, the conclusion of no significant effects from the Proposed Scheme can be reached.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 9-38 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 10. Assessment of Cumulative Effects

10.1. Introduction 10.1.1. There are two types of cumulative effects covered in this section: 10.1.2. Those effects caused only by the Proposed Scheme and arise when an individual receptor or group of receptors would experience multiple effects as a result of the Proposed Scheme; for example, an individual property experiencing combined noise, air quality and visual amenity effects. These are termed intra-project cumulative effects. Those effects caused by a combination of the Proposed Scheme with other relevant schemes. These are termed inter- project cumulative effects. 10.1.3. In both cases, cumulative effects may be of greater significance than the individual significance of any of the identified non-cumulative effects. The intra-project effects assessment focuses on key sensitive receptors, including properties and communities. 10.1.4. In accordance with DMRB Volume 11 and IAN 125/15: Environmental Assessment Update, this assessment focuses on potential significant effects. 10.1.5. Based on the scoping exercise, potentially significant noise, air quality (operational only), landscape, visual, cultural heritage, road drainage, water environment and biodiversity, effects resulting from the Proposed Scheme are likely, this cumulative assessment therefore focuses on these topics. The scoping report concluded that no cumulative effects are anticipated upon local designated sites, acoustics, visual receptors or the aquatic environment these topics have therefore been scoped out of this cumulative assessment. 10.1.6. Table 10-1 below details the professional competency of the Topic Lead for this Chapter – Cumulative Effects. This information is provided to fulfil the requirement of EU Directive 2014/52/EU.

Table 10-1 Professional Competence Assessment of Cumulative Effects

Name Grade and Expertise and Professional Qualifications Company · Management and preparation of input to the Environmental Input Assessment (EIA) which accompanied the Transport and Works Act Order for the City Centre Extension Tram Scheme (2013-2014). · Co-ordination of environmental inputs into the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road detailed design and providing support to the Principal contractor through construction. Including the preparation of Environmental environmental assessments to accompany planning applications Consultant for design changes (2013-date). (AECOM) · Preparation of the A1 Widening, Leeming to Barton, Environmental Assessment Reports to support the A1 Leeming to Barton Improvement - Draft Supplementary Orders (2013). · Preparation of the cumulative effects chapter of the Environmental Assessment Report of the SMP M62 scheme. · BSc (Hons) Environmental Analysis · IEMA Practitioner · Seconded into Transport for London (TfL) to assist with the Development Consent Order (DCO) examination period of Principal Silvertown Tunnel. Environmental Assisted with the preparation of the Additional Provision (AP) 4 Consultant and Supplementary Environment Statement (SES) 3 for High Speed Rail 2 (HS2). (AECOM) · Preparation of the supplementary Environmental Appraisal Report (EAR) and CEMP for the A1 Widening, Leeming to Barton scheme. · BSc (Hons) Ecology · IEEM Full member

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 10.2. Methodology Intra-project cumulative effects 10.2.1. The potential cumulative effects of different aspects of the Proposed Scheme have been determined by identifying individual receptors, or categories of receptors, subject to multiple environmental effects under more than one specialist topic. 10.2.2. The intra-project cumulative study area has been dictated by the study areas adopted for the specialist topics with the potential to interact. These are as detailed in the respective assessment chapters. For all potential interactions, the smaller study area has been adopted as the study area for potential intra-project cumulative environmental effects as; possible interactions will not exist outside the scope of one interacting aspect. 10.2.3. There is also the potential for an individual reCuceptor, or groups of receptors, to be affected by adverse effects under one topic and beneficial effects under another, sometimes as a result of the same feature of the Proposed Scheme. In such cases, it is necessary to determine the balance between the two. 10.2.4. The following steps have been undertaken in the assessment of intra-project cumulative effects: · Identification of the potential for interaction between predicted impacts (before mitigation) both at a local and overall scheme level as reported in the assessment chapters (Chapters 5 to 9) to result in significant cumulative effects. Where neutral or slight (adverse/beneficial) residual effects are concluded in interacting topic area assessments, the potential for these to result in significant cumulative environmental effects were ruled out as the likelihood of these resulting in significant cumulative environmental effects is low. This is because neutral or slight effects are considered to be barely perceptible to an environmental receptor, and therefore have an extremely low potential of being additive. However, professional judgement will be applied to check that two or more slight effects do not have potential to accumulate, resulting in a significant effect; · Identification of the spatial distribution of impacts and areas of impact interaction as a result of the Proposed Scheme; and · Confirmation of the study area, extent of receptors / resources and baseline conditions with potential to result in significant multiple cumulative environmental effects (two or more interactions). Inter-project cumulative effects 10.2.5. The first step in identifying inter-project effects is the identification of other relevant projects using a selection criteria methodology. The criteria focused on identifying developments within 1 km of the Proposed Scheme, which reflects the widest study adopted for the specialist topics (this being the landscape and visual study area of 1 km from the Proposed Scheme). 10.2.6. Diversion routes have not been considered within this cumulative assessment as these will only be used periodically, with total closures of the carriageway only taking place at night. Assessment of the diversion routes has been scoped out of the air quality assessment as they are not expected to be an issue, the Biodiversity assessment states that the frequency of use of diversion routes is small, and significant impacts are not anticipated and are therefore not considered further. A high-level appraisal of the potential for local disturbance arising from the use of diversion routes at night has been provided in the noise assessment and concludes that temporary noise impacts are likely to occur at residential properties along the diversion routes, however, with measures in place to minimise the need for diversions no significant effects are anticipated. 10.2.7. The full set of criteria employed to identify other relevant projects were as follows1: · Schemes between August 2014 and January 2020. · Employment developments (B1, B2 and B8 only): with an area exceeding 3 hectares (ha)

1 The criteria to identify relevant projects was adopted from the Scoping Report where it was applied in the identification of major planning applications to both inform the traffic modelling process and identify a subset of the development proposals for the purpose of identifying new receptors and the potential for cumulative effects. This criteria was developed in conjunction with Highways England Transport Planning Group (TPG) and adopts a pragmatic approach to capturing land use change relevant to the modelling of traffic movements on the motorway network. In the Scoping Report 10km was used for the radius of the search, but as stated in Section 10.2.5 of this report, this was reduced to 1km to reflect the widest search radius for the specialist topics covered in the EAR.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

and located within 1 km of the Proposed Scheme. · Residential: any site area within 1 km of the Proposed Scheme; · Major Minerals and Waste applications within 1 km of the Proposed Scheme; · Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects within 1 km of the Proposed Scheme; and · Transport infrastructure proposals within 1 km of the Proposed Scheme (trunk roads or motorways only). 10.2.8. The criteria above cover the two types of development projects recommended for assessment by DMRB, Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 (HA205/08), which are: · Trunk road and motorway projects that have been confirmed (have gone through the relevant statutory process). It should be noted that in the main these projects have been taken account of in the traffic model. As a result of this, the air quality, noise and part of the road drainage and water environment assessments are inherently cumulative; and · Development projects with valid planning permissions, for which a formal EIA is a requirement or for which non-statutory environmental effects assessment has been undertaken. 10.2.9. Relevant projects were identified by searching Local Planning Authority Planning Registers and gathering information on the following: · Planning permissions yet to be implemented. · Planning with planning permission in place and which are under construction; and · Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project applications at the pre application stage onwards. This is due to the Planning Act process making these developments reasonably foreseeable. It is likely due to construction timescales that cumulative effects will be limited to the operational phase. 10.2.10. Whilst information has been gathered from local authority websites, no consultation with local authorities has taken place to confirm this development schedule. It is assumed therefore that the planning information on the council’s website are up to date. 10.2.11. Local authority websites and collated relevant projects as described in Appendix G were last reviewed in January 2020. 10.2.12. The following steps have been undertaken in the assessment of inter-project cumulative effects: · Information gathering on road schemes and developments in the planning system in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme based on the criteria outlined in Paragraph 10.2.8 and Paragraph 10.2.9. · Identification of potential interaction between the Proposed Scheme and other development projects (for example, the development project has the potential to affect an environmental receptor also affected by the Proposed Scheme). · Establishment of a potential pathway by which that impact could travel from the source to the receptor exists, if any. For example, a line of sight to a viewpoint, a distance across which noise could be heard, or effects on a population of a protected species. 10.2.13. For a cumulative effect to be identified there would need to be an identified pathway between the impact source (one of the development projects) and a receptor (one of the receptors or groups of receptors identified in this report as affected by the Proposed Scheme). This is referred to as the ‘source-pathway-receptor’ model. 10.2.14. Any identified cumulative effects are further defined as construction or operation phase effects or short or long-term effects (based on whether they would remain after construction) and beneficial or adverse. The DMRB, Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 (HA205/08) sets out a specific methodology for the assessment of the significance of cumulative effects. Following this, the significance of cumulative effects is categorised as set out in Table 10-2.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 10-2 Significance of Cumulative Effects

Significance Effect Not significant Effects that are beyond current forecasting ability or within the ability of the affected resource to adapt to the change. Minor Effects that are locally significant. Moderate Effects that are unlikely to become issues upon which project design should be selected, but where future work may be necessary to improve current performance. Major Effects that may become key decision-making issues. Severe Effects that the decision-maker must take into account as the receptor/ resource is irretrievably compromised.

Limitations & Assumptions 10.2.15. The criteria selection utilised does not limit the number of residential units within a development planning application to be considered in this assessment. 10.2.16. To inform this assessment, online Local Planning Authorities (LPA) portals were searched utilising the criteria specified in 10.2.7 as this was considered the most reliable and appropriate source of information. 10.2.17. It was considered that consultation with local authorities was not necessary as no significant effects have been identified in the cumulative assessment.

10.3. Baseline conditions 10.3.1. Following the approach described above, the following developments have been identified. Further information can be found in Appendix G. The Development Projects are illustrated on Figure 10-1. Trunk Road and Motorway Projects

· M62 Junctions 10-12: Smart Motorway · M6 Junction 22 Upgrade · M56 J24-4 SM Scheme · M60 J24-4 SM Scheme 10.3.2. This scheme is one of four North West SMP Schemes (M6 J21a-26, M62 J10-12, M56 J6-8 and M60 J24-4) which were all planned to be open within 18 months of each other and hence, to present a robust environmental assessment, these four schemes were assessed as one cumulative worst case for air quality. It should be noted that the assessment for the ‘with scheme’ scenario presents a worst case for air quality effects as the opening year for the M6 Junction 21a to 26 Scheme, rather than being 2020, is now expected to be 2023 when further air quality improvements are expected. This report focuses on the cumulative worst case effect on the study area for the M6 Junction 21a to 26 Scheme. 10.3.3. Further details relating to traffic forecast and the ARN used are provided in the air quality chapter (Chapter 5) and noise and vibration chapter (Chapter 8). Examples of projects which were incorporated into the traffic model and scoped out of Cumulative Assessment are presented below, for more information please see Appendix G. Development Projects

· Langtree Regeneration, Winwick Road, Commercial P/2018/0048/OUP · Orrell and Winstanley Community Sports Club (Major) Application A/16/82933/MAJOR · Former Ashton Town Hall (Major) Application A/16/82988/MAJOR · Landgate (Residential) Application A/17/84450/MAJOR · The New Fleece Hostel (Residential) Application A/17/84844/ MAJOR · Pemberton Link Road (Transport) Application A/17/84615/MAJOR

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

10.3.4. The traffic model takes account of large-scale developments in the wider region around the Proposed Scheme in terms of the volumes of traffic that they are expected to generate and any expected change in the pattern of traffic flows on the highway network. Whilst not every other project is explicitly modelled in the “do minimum”, they are captured in the uncertainty log of each model. In which, the current status of the projects is recognised as being hypothetical or reasonably foreseeable, for example, dependent upon their position in the process of receiving consent. The traffic model also includes other trunk road and motorway projects and development projects at a distance greater than 1 km (for example the M56 J6-8 SM Scheme and M60 J24-4 SM Scheme). 10.3.5. The Uncertainty Log, used to produce land use assumptions to model the SMP M6 J21a-26 scheme, was originally developed in early 2017. Subsequently between then and the time the data was gathered for this assessment a number of planning applications adjacent to the SMP M6 J21a-26 scheme had been submitted, some of which are deemed sizeable enough to warrant further consideration in terms of the impact on the SMP M6 J21a-26 scheme. In relation to these proposals, the proposed M58 Link Road linking Wigan to the M6 J26 has been approved, whilst the planning applications for the following 5 major developments were awaiting planning decisions to determine whether they will be approved or declined: · Wigan: Symmetry Park (A/18/85947/MAJES) · St Helens: Haydock Point (P/2017/0254/OUP) · St Helens: Parkside without Parkside Link Road (P/2018/0048/OUP) · St Helens and Warrington: Parkside Link Road (P/2018/0249/FUL and 2018/32514) · Warrington: Eddie Stobbart NDC (2019/34739) · Warrington: Six-56 (2019/34799) 10.3.6. The proposed M58 Link Road is forecast to result in a circa 1-2% reduction in peak hour traffic demands on the M6 J25-26 mainline link in either direction. 10.3.7. Given the time since the Uncertainty Log was originally developed, a review of the Uncertainty Log assumptions has been undertaken in reference to the M6 J21a to 26 SMP scheme by the traffic modelling team. A Technical Note was produced (which has been summarised in the paragraphs below) and signed off by TPG. 10.3.8. The combined impact of the developments (without the forecast impact of the M58 Link Road) are forecast to represent circa 3.5-5.5% of peak hour M6 inter junction mainline link flows between J21a to 26 in either direction. If added to the traffic model, it is unlikely that the result would be to see this level of increase - some of this demand is expected to be affected by the variable demand model such that it would not feature on the M6, in turn, the highway model may reassign some of the demand to more appropriate routes in terms of travel costs. Nevertheless, this additional level of traffic is well within the observed (weekdays in neutral periods) day to day variability on the M6 in either peak period. 10.3.9. It was not deemed proportionate to update the traffic modelling for the M6 J21a-26 SMP scheme to account for these proposed developments. Therefore, the current land use assumptions used as a predicate for the SMP M6 M62 M56 traffic model demands are considered to be appropriate for current appraisal requirements for the M6 J21a to 26 SMP scheme.

10.4. Impact assessment Intra-project Cumulative Effects 10.4.1. In assessing the potential for intra-project cumulative effects, each topic has been reviewed in terms of the sensitive receptors it identifies and the likely effects. Table 10-3 provides details on the potential key interactions identified and reported in Chapter 5 – 9.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-5 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 10-3 Potential for Intra-Project Cumulative Effects

Subject Area Air Quality Cultural Heritage Landscape and Visual Biodiversity Noise and Vibration Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Air Quality Chapter 5 – No - No potential for No – Construction phase No – Construction phase No – Construction phase air No - No potential for Air Quality cumulative effects air quality effects scoped air quality effects scoped quality effects were scoped impact on same Construction expected. Construction out of the assessment. out of the assessment. out of the assessment. receptors or resources. phase air quality Therefore, no cumulative effects scoped out of effect on amenity. the assessment.

Air Quality Chapter 5 – No - No potential for Yes – Operation phase Yes – Operation phase Yes – Operation phase No - No potential for Air Quality cumulative effects worsening in air quality worsening in air quality worsening in air quality impact on same Operation expected. (increase in NO2 (NO2 deposition) and (increase in NO2 receptors or resources. concentrations) and visual effects on statutory concentrations) and effects may result in a designated sites increases in traffic-related cumulative effect on (Manchester Mosses SAC, noise resulting in potential receptors. Midland Meres and cumulative effects on Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar). receptors. Rixton Clay Pits SAC (which includes Rixton Clay Pits SSSI) was scoped out due to the distance from the Proposed Scheme and the interest features (great crested newts) not being deemed to be air quality sensitive. Cultural Chapter 7 – Yes – Adverse impacts on No – No potential for No –No lived-in built assets No - No potential for Heritage Landscape, Visual and settings and visual cumulative effects on have been identified as impact on same Cultural Heritage impacts. same receptors. sensitive receptors in the receptors or resources. Construction Effects Designated heritage assessment of cultural assets between 300 m heritage effects relevant to and 1 km were assessed noise and vibration. for exceptional sensitivity such as long-range historic views during the scoping study; however, none were identified and therefore have been scoped out from further assessment.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-6 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Subject Area Air Quality Cultural Heritage Landscape and Visual Biodiversity Noise and Vibration Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Cultural Chapter 7 – Yes – Adverse impacts on No – No potential for No – No shared receptors. No - No potential for Heritage Landscape, Visual and settings and visual cumulative effects on No lived-in cultural heritage impact on same Cultural Heritage impacts. Designated same receptors. built assets within the study receptors or resources. Operation Effects heritage assets between area where noise and 300 m and 1 km were vibration have been assessed for exceptional assessed as noise & sensitivity such as long- vibration sensitive receptors . range historic views during the scoping study; however, none were identified and therefore have been scoped out from further assessment. Landscape Chapter 7 Landscape, Yes - Loss of habitat and Yes - Increase in noise and No - No potential for Effects Visual and Cultural visual screening. adverse visual impacts on impact on same Heritage Effects same receptors has the receptors or resources. Construction potential to result in cumulative effects Landscape Chapter 7 Landscape, Yes - Loss of habitat and Yes - Increase in noise and No - No potential for Effects Visual and Cultural visual screening. adverse visual impacts on impact on same Heritage Effects same receptors has the receptors or resources. Operation potential to result in cumulative effects Biodiversity Chapter 6 – Biodiversity No - No potential for impact No –. There are no on same receptors or hydrological links Construction resources. The disturbance present between of ecological receptors due Manchester Mosses to an increase in noise & SAC (which includes vibration is assessed in Holcroft Moss SSSI) Chapter 6 – Biodiversity and and the Proposed is therefore not considered Scheme. Rixton Clay as a cumulative effect. Pits SAC (which includes Rixton Clay Pits SSSI) was scoped out due to the distance from the Proposed Scheme and having no hydrological connectivity.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-7 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Subject Area Air Quality Cultural Heritage Landscape and Visual Biodiversity Noise and Vibration Road Drainage and the Water Environment

Biodiversity Chapter 6 – Biodiversity No potential for impact on No –. There are no same receptors or hydrological links Operation resources. present between Manchester Mosses SAC (which includes Holcroft Moss SSSI) and the Proposed Scheme. Rixton Clay Pits SAC (which includes Rixton Clay Pits SSSI) was scoped out due to the distance from the Proposed Scheme and having no hydrological connectivity. Noise and Chapter 8 – Noise and Chapter 9 - Road Vibration Vibration Drainage and the Water Environment

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-8 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Landscape and Visual, Air Quality and Noise and Vibration 10.4.2. Construction phase air quality effects were scoped out of the assessment as effects can be controlled with standard good practice mitigation measures. The construction noise assessment concluded non-significant adverse effects once mitigation measures were implemented. The landscape and visual assessment in the main predicted construction effects of slight adverse with the exception of PSVR17 (Willowfield Grove and Old Hall Drive, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Urban edge residential properties located approximately 500m south of Junction 24 (South bound side)) and PSVR24 (Downall Green Road. B5207, Bryn, Urban edge residential properties located on the boundary of motorway (South bound side)) which would experience moderate adverse effects during the construction phase. This would be due to a significant length of vegetation needing to be cleared to accommodate the EA (PSVR17) and noise barrier (PSVR17 and PSVR24) opening views to construction activities. The use of temporary screen fences during construction at these locations until the new barrier is installed would limit views onto traffic. It is therefore considered that given the existing adjacent appreciation of the motorway this would not result in a significant impact. Despite these moderate adverse effect on the whole during construction significant cumulative effects resulting from a deterioration in air quality (increased PM10 and dust deposition), increased noise from construction, the loss of vegetation, presence of construction vehicles and on-going construction activities are not expected. 10.4.3. A review of areas predicted to experience operational air quality, noise and landscape and visual effects was undertaken. The cumulative effects assessment has focused on air quality and noise changes in the opening year. The cumulative effects assessment has focused on visual effects in year 15 from the opening year to capture the residual effects following the growth of mitigation planting along the scheme. The local air quality assessments have demonstrated that some receptors would be subject to localised deterioration in air quality due to imperceptible to large increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations (discussed further in section 10.4.9). The noise assessment has demonstrated negligible to minor increases (less than 1.6 dB) in traffic-related noise in the short term of are predicted and residual visual effects of no greater than slight adverse are predicted at some receptors. Provided that appropriate mitigation is in place in relation to air quality, noise and landscape and visual as outlined within the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), where required, then the Proposed Scheme will not result in any significant adverse effects. 10.4.4. Mitigation to the noise environment will be obtained through the inclusion of one new noise barrier (chainage 48700 – 49260). The inclusion of the barrier will require some loss of vegetation effecting the receptors represented by PSVR17, PSVR18 and PSVR19, however the new barrier will screen lower views to traffic from properties and will not represent a significant change. At PSVR17 the installation of the noise barrier would screen lower level views to traffic from the properties, thereby offering a benefit over the existing filtered views to traffic currently experienced. Therefore, no significant cumulative effects will be experienced. 10.4.5. The noise assessment predicted a minor increase in noise levels at seven properties in the short term. Two are located to the east and two are located to the west of the Proposed Scheme where the Proposed Scheme passes over the A572. The remainder of the seven properties are not on the scheme, but adjacent to the M62 WB to M6 NB Link Road at the Croft Interchange. The properties are located near to the M62/ M6 Croft interchange represented by receptor PSVR2 in the landscape and visual assessment. Negligible adverse visual effects are predicted at PSVR2 at Year 1 and Year 15 due to a mid-distance view of gantries and minor clearance works which will be softened with the establishment of planting. Annual mean concentrations of NO2 at PSVR2 are predicted to experience Negligible effects as concentrations are below the annual mean objective of 40µg/m3 . Significant cumulative effects are unlikely at these locations due to the predicted increases in noise levels at these receptors, no predicted increase in NO2 concentrations and the limited changes (increase in mid distance views and removal of vegetation respectively) to views in the context of the existing view of the motorway corridor. 10.4.6. In the noise assessment the two receptors located immediately west of the A572 would be exposed to a minor increase in noise effects during the operational phase. The receptor closest to the A572 correlates to receptor R35 in the air quality chapter. Annual mean NO2 concentrations at R35 is predicted to experience a small increase of 1.3 µg/m3. In the air quality chapter, a small magnitude of change concentration is between 0.4 to 2µg/m3 and a medium magnitude of change is between 2 to 4µg/m3.This increased concentration will remain below the 40µg/m3 annual mean concentration and is therefore not significant. For the neighbouring property discussions with the air quality specialists have confirmed, although this receptor has not been assessed, there would be a small increase in annual mean NO2, at concentrations well

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-9 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

below the objective value. The neighbouring property was not assessed as the receptor R35 is representative of the receptors on Waterworks Drive and as this location was not significant for air quality no additional receptor points were required for air quality assessment. In the landscape and visual chapter these two receptors fall under receptor PSVR9. Minor adverse effects are predicted at PSVR9 at Year 1 due to an increase in short-range views to the motorway. The existing M6 and associated traffic are visually detracting, and it is not considered that activity will cause a significant deterioration in view from the property. There is the potential for an adverse cumulative effect for the two receptors located west of A572 due to the combined exposure of a small increase in NO2 concentrations, Minor visual effect and a minor increase in operational noise levels. These receptors were taken through to the intra-project cumulative assessment, as discussed in Section 10.4.12.

10.4.7. Annual mean NO2 concentrations for four receptors located east of the A572 are predicted to experience a medium increase of 2.1-3.7 µg/m3. In the air quality chapter these receptors are labelled: R37, R38, R39 and R528. In the landscape and visual chapter these receptors fall under receptor PSVR10. Although this receptor would experience a medium increase in NO2 concentration (+2 µg/m3), this increased concentration will remain below the 40µg/m3 annual mean concentration. . Minor visual effects are predicted at PSVR10 at Year 1 due to an increase in mid distance views of the proposed EA and associated road infrastructure. However, this will be within the existing view of the motorway corridor. In the noise assessment the two receptors located immediately east of the A572 would be exposed to a minor increase in noise levels during the operational phase. These receptors correlate to receptors R35 and R528 in the air quality chapter. There is the potential for an adverse cumulative effect for the four receptors located east of A572 due to the combined exposure of a medium increase in NO2 concentrations and Minor visual effects, with two of the four receptors being additionally exposed to a minor increase in operational noise levels. These receptors were taken through to the intra-project cumulative assessment, as discussed in Section 10.4.12. 10.4.8. During the operational phase of the Proposed Scheme, large increases in pollutant concentrations are predicted off Nicol Avenue at Martinscroft Moss (+5.0 -6.0 µg/m3). Annual mean concentrations will remain above 60 µg/m3 at three receptors off Nichol Avenue at 3 Martinscroft Moss, therefore it is anticipated that the hourly mean NO2 objective (200 µg/m ) may be exceeded at these three receptors, with and without the core scenario in operation. There these three residential properties are being purchased by agreement as essential air quality mitigation and will be demolished. These properties lie within Landscape Character Type 2: Mosslands Landscape, which is an area identified within ‘Warrington: A Landscape Character Assessment 2007’. However due to the relatively minor and short duration of works required to demolish the properties this landscape character area has not been assessed within the landscape assessment as it is not considered to be potentially subject to change. Works associated with the demolition of the properties adjacent to the M6, on the southbound side, will result in the loss of a small area of mature shelter belt planting and removal of a row of three residential brick terraces, which are currently well contained by mature highway vegetation and the shelter belt. This change is considered negligible within the broader context of the existing motorway corridor and will result in a Negligible impact on local field pattern, tranquillity, cultural association and landcover. Overall, during operation there will be no impact on the wider fabric of the urban fringe through which this section of the M6 runs and as a result no residual effect on the local landscape or townscape character. Therefore, no intra-project cumulative effects are anticipated at these receptors. 10.4.9. During the operational phase (in the opening year) there would be 22 receptors which would experience a small increase in NO2 pollutant concentrations which would exceed the annual mean concentration of 40 µg/m3 (R162, R173, R184, R195, R203, R205, R215, R251, R259, R496, R498, R527, R529, R531, R532, R553, R585, R588, R591, R609, R621). Eight receptors 3 would experience a medium increase (+2 µg/m ) in NO2 pollutant concentrations which would exceed the 40 µg/m3 threshold (R42, R43, R50, R53, R500, R501, R570, R606). 10.4.10. Minor adverse visual effects are also predicted at receptors located at Millhouse Lane (PSVR1), Newton-le-Willows (PSVR4), Hermitage Green (PSVR7), Parkside Road (PSVR8), Southworth Road (PSVR9 and PSVR10), Ashton Road (PSVR13), Ashton-in-Makerfield (PSVR16, PSVR18, PSVR19, PSVR21), and Winstanley Road (PSVR32). Moderate visual effects are also predicted at PSVR17 in Ashton-in-Makerfield. Receptors exposed to a minor and moderate visual effect were cross referenced against the air quality chapter. The results of this initial assessment are provided in Appendix G TableG-2. Receptors PSVR8and PSVR32 were not assessed in the air quality assessment and were therefore not taken forward. In total 31 receptors are exposed to a Minor visual effect and a small increase in NO2 concentrations. It is considered significant

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-10 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

cumulative effects are unlikely at these receptors as the Minor visual effect and small increases in NO2 concentrations are unlikely to combine to result in cumulative effects. The exception being 3 those receptors where the small increase in NO2 concentrations exceeds the 40µg/m annual mean concentration. These receptors have been taken forward to the intra-project cumulative effects assessment as it is considered these receptors have the potential to result in a cumulative effect.

10.4.11. Receptors exposed to a Minor visual effect and a medium increase in N02 concentrations were taken forward to the intra-project effects assessment. Consideration was given to whether there would be any additive effects of greater significance than each of the effects when considered alone. Each receptor with potentially an intra-project cumulative effect was described in further detail. Given that the sources of effects are very different in some cases, a quantitative assessment was not possible, and it was necessary to apply professional judgement in determining the level of significance. 10.4.12. Table 10-4 below provides the outcomes of the Intra-Project Cumulative assessment. Of these 12 receptors, the four receptors exposed to a minor increase in noise levels are included in the assessment (as discussed in section 10.4.6 and 10.4.7).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-11 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Table 10-4: Intra-Project Cumulative Effects Assessment

Receptor ID Significance Intra-Project Assessment Landscape Air Quality Noise Landscape Air Quality Noise and Visual and Visual

PSVR1 R570 N/A Minor Medium N/A Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a medium increase in NO2 Adverse Increase concentrations (+3.2µg/m3) and would exceed the annual mean concentration objective (40µg/m3)in 2020. In 2023 when the scheme is anticipated to first open a similar change of +3.0µg/m3 is expected but with improvements in air quality, whilst exceeding the air quality objective, the total predicted concentration is close to the objective. This is not overall a significant impact when the effect is considered as part of the overall changes in air quality with the scheme. Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience short term adjacent views to works associated with cabling. There will be no clearance on the open verge, however. The existing M6 and associated traffic are visually detracting, and it is not considered that activity will cause a significant deterioration in view from the property. This receptor will experience Minor adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to No Change (Not Significant) after 15 years. As the visual impact at this receptor would have no change in the long term and the NO2 concentration is close to the objective, it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR9 R35 No receptor Minor Small Minor Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a small increase in NO2 ID in the Adverse Increase Increase concentrations (+1.2µg/m3) and will remain below the annual mean noise concentration objective (40µg/m3). Therefore, no significant effect is chapter. This anticipated. receptor is Noise: This property has been identified in the noise assessment as the closest having a minor increase in external noise levels. For EIA purposes this property to minor increase is assessed as Significant. However, to mitigate this minor the A572 in increase in noise levels, noise insulation is proposed at this property. the west. Following mitigation, the internal noise effects for this receptor would be

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-12 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Receptor ID Significance Intra-Project Assessment Landscape Air Quality Noise Landscape Air Quality Noise and Visual and Visual below the minor increase described within the noise assessment and the residual effects would be less than Minor (Not significant). Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience increased short- range views to the motorway on over bridge and embankment. The existing M6 and associated traffic are visually detracting, and it is not considered that activity will cause a significant deterioration in view from the property. This receptor will experience Minor adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to No Change (Not Significant) after 15 years. As the visual impact at this receptor would have no change in the long 3 term, NO2 concentrations would not exceed the 40µg/m annual mean concentration and the noise impact would be mitigated against it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR9 Not No receptor Minor Small Minor Air Quality: Discussion with air quality specialists have confirmed this assessed in ID in the Adverse Increase Increase receptor would experience a small increase in annual mean nitrogen AQ noise dioxide, at concentrations well below the annual mean concentration chapter. chapter. This objective (40µg/m3). Therefore, no significant effect is anticipated. Discussion receptor is Noise: This property has been identified in the noise assessment as with air the having a minor increase in external noise levels. For EIA purposes this quality neighbouring minor increase is assessed as Significant. However, to mitigate this minor specialists property to increase in noise levels, noise insulation is proposed at this property. on this the closest Following mitigation, the internal noise effects for this receptor would be receptor. property to below the minor increase described within the noise assessment and the the A572 in residual effects would be less than Minor (Not significant). the west. Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience increased short- range views to the motorway on over bridge and embankment. The existing M6 and associated traffic are visually detracting, and it is not considered that activity will cause a significant deterioration in view from the property. This receptor will experience Minor adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to No Change (Not Significant) after 15 years.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-13 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Receptor ID Significance Intra-Project Assessment Landscape Air Quality Noise Landscape Air Quality Noise and Visual and Visual

As the visual impact at this receptor would have no change in the long 3 term, NO2 concentrations would not exceed the 40µg/m annual mean concentration and the noise impact would be mitigated against it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR10 R528 No receptor Minor Medium Minor Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a medium increase in NO2 ID in the Increase Increase Increase concentrations (+3.7µg/m3) and will remain below the annual mean noise concentration objective (40µg/m3). Therefore, no significant effect is chapter. This anticipated. receptor is Noise: This property has been identified in the noise assessment as one the having a minor increase in external noise levels. This minor increase is receptors assessed as Significant. However, to mitigate this minor increase in noise identified levels, noise insulation is proposed at this property. Following mitigation, located east the internal noise effects for this receptor would be below the minor of the A572 increase described within the noise assessment and the residual effects would be less than Minor (Not significant). Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience an increase in mid distance views of the proposed Emergency Area (EA) to the north (EA22B1) and associated road infrastructure. This will be seen within the existing view of the motorway corridor. This receptor will experience slight adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to Negligible adverse (Not Significant) after 15 years.

As the visual impact at this receptor is Negligible in the long and the NO2 concentrations would not exceed the 40µg/m3 annual mean concentration, it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR10 R37 No receptor Minor Medium Minor Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a medium increase in NO2 ID in the Increase Increase Increase concentrations (+3.4µg/m3) and will remain below the annual mean noise

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-14 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Receptor ID Significance Intra-Project Assessment Landscape Air Quality Noise Landscape Air Quality Noise and Visual and Visual chapter. This concentration objective (40µg/m3). Therefore, no significant effect is receptor is anticipated. one the Noise: This property has been identified in the noise assessment as receptors having a minor increase in external noise levels. This minor increase is identified assessed as Significant. However, to mitigate this minor increase in noise located east levels, noise insulation is proposed at this property. Following mitigation, of the A572 the internal noise effects for this receptor would be below the minor increase described within the noise assessment and the residual effects would be less than Minor (Not significant). Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience an increase in mid distance views of the proposed Emergency Area (EA) to the north (EA22B1) and associated road infrastructure. This will be seen within the existing view of the motorway corridor. This receptor will experience slight adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to Negligible adverse (Not Significant) after 15 years. As the visual impact at this receptor is Negligible in the long term and the 3 and the NO2 concentrations would not exceed the 40µg/m annual mean concentration, it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR10 R38 N/A Minor Medium N/A Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a medium increase in NO2 Increase Increase concentrations (+2.6µg/m3) and will remain below the annual mean concentration objective (40µg/m3). Therefore, no significant effect is anticipated. Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience an increase in mid distance views of the proposed Emergency Area (EA) to the north (EA22B1) and associated road infrastructure. This will be seen within the existing view of the motorway corridor. This receptor will experience slight adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to Negligible adverse (Not Significant) after 15 years.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-15 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Receptor ID Significance Intra-Project Assessment Landscape Air Quality Noise Landscape Air Quality Noise and Visual and Visual As the visual impact at this receptor is Negligible in the long term and the 3 NO2 concentrations would not exceed the 40µg/m annual mean concentration, it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR10 R39 N/A Minor Medium N/A Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a medium increase in NO2 Increase Increase concentrations (+2.3µg/m3) and will remain below the annual mean concentration objective (40µg/m3). In 2023 when the scheme is anticipated to first open a similar change of +3.0µg/m3 is expected but with improvements in air quality, whilst exceeding the air quality objective, the total predicted concentration is close to the objective. This is not overall a significant impact when the effect is considered as part of the overall changes in air quality with the scheme. Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience an increase in mid distance views of the proposed Emergency Area (EA) to the north (EA22B1) and associated road infrastructure. This will be seen within the existing view of the motorway corridor. This receptor will experience a Minor effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to Negligible adverse (Not Significant) after 15 years. As the visual impact at this receptor is Negligible in the long term and the NO2 concentration is close to the objective, it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR19 R591 N/A Minor Small N/A Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a small increase in NO2 Adverse Increase concentrations (+2.1µg/m3) and would exceed the annual mean concentration objective (40µg/m3) in 2020. In 2023 when the scheme is anticipated to first open a similar change of +3.0µg/m3 is expected but with improvements in air quality, whilst exceeding the air quality objective, the total predicted concentration is close to the objective. This is not overall a significant impact when the effect is considered as part of the overall changes in air quality with the scheme.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-16 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Receptor ID Significance Intra-Project Assessment Landscape Air Quality Noise Landscape Air Quality Noise and Visual and Visual Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience views to a new environmental barrier and vegetation clearance to accommodate the barrier. Views to lower level traffic will be screened by the barrier and will not represent a significant change in the long term while established mitigation planting will reinstate the belt of woodland and form an effective screen in conjunction with the barrier. This receptor will experience slight adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to Negligible adverse (Not Significant) after 15 years. As the visual impact at this receptor is Negligible in the long term and the NO2 concentration is close to the objective, it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR19 R589 N/A Minor Small N/A Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a small increase in NO2 Adverse Increase concentrations (+1.8µg/m3) and would exceed the annual mean concentration objective (40µg/m3) in 2020. In 2023 when the scheme is anticipated to first open a similar change of +3.0µg/m3 is expected but with improvements in air quality, whilst exceeding the air quality objective, the total predicted concentration is close to the objective. This is not overall a significant impact when the effect is considered as part of the overall changes in air quality with the scheme. Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience views to a new environmental barrier and vegetation clearance to accommodate the barrier. Views to lower level traffic will be screened by the barrier and will not represent a significant change in the long term while established mitigation planting will reinstate the belt of woodland and form an effective screen in conjunction with the barrier. This receptor will experience slight adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to Negligible adverse (Not Significant) after 15 years. As the visual impact at this receptor is Negligible in the long term and the NO2 concentration is close to the objective, it is considered there would be

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-17 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Receptor ID Significance Intra-Project Assessment Landscape Air Quality Noise Landscape Air Quality Noise and Visual and Visual no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR19 R588 N/A Minor Small N/A Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a small increase in NO2 Adverse Increase concentrations (+2µg/m3) and would exceed the annual mean concentration objective (40µg/m3) in 2020. In 2023 when the scheme is anticipated to first open a similar change of +3.0µg/m3 is expected but with improvements in air quality, whilst exceeding the air quality objective, the total predicted concentration is close to the objective. This is not overall a significant impact when the effect is considered as part of the overall changes in air quality with the scheme. Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience views to a new environmental barrier and vegetation clearance to accommodate the barrier. Views to lower level traffic will be screened by the barrier and will not represent a significant change in the long term while established mitigation planting will reinstate the belt of woodland and form an effective screen in conjunction with the barrier. This receptor will experience slight adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to Negligible adverse (Not Significant) after 15 years. As the visual impact at this receptor is Negligible in the long term and the NO2 concentration is close to the objective, it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

PSVR19 R585 N/A Minor Small N/A Air Quality: This receptor would be exposed to a small increase in NO2 Adverse Increase concentrations (+2µg/m3) and would exceed the annual mean concentration objective (40µg/m3) in 2020. In 2023 when the scheme is anticipated to first open a similar change of +3.0µg/m3 is expected but with improvements in air quality, whilst exceeding the air quality objective, the total predicted concentration is close to the objective. This is not overall a significant impact when the effect is considered as part of the overall changes in air quality with the scheme.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-18 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Receptor ID Significance Intra-Project Assessment Landscape Air Quality Noise Landscape Air Quality Noise and Visual and Visual Landscape and Visual: This receptor will experience views to a new environmental barrier and vegetation clearance to accommodate the barrier. Views to lower level traffic will be screened by the barrier and will not represent a significant change in the long term while established mitigation planting will reinstate the belt of woodland and form an effective screen in conjunction with the barrier. This receptor will experience slight adverse effect although the impact will decrease from Minor adverse (Not Significant) in the first year to Negligible adverse (Not Significant) after 15 years. As the visual impact at this receptor is Negligible in the long term and the NO2 concentration is close to the objective, it is considered there would be no intra-project cumulative effect. The effects at this receptor would not be greater than the effects described in each of the discipline chapters.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-19 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Cultural Heritage and Landscape and Visual 10.4.13. Interactions would potentially occur in relation to the landscape character, visual effects and the setting of cultural heritage assets. Two Scheduled Monuments, ten Listed Buildings and a Conservation Area have been identified within the visual context of the motorway and Proposed Scheme infrastructure locations. These have been assessed as visual receptors where appropriate i.e. residential property that is also a listed building or a representative view as a visitor to a location. The Proposed Scheme would not result in any significant adverse visual effects or effects on the setting of heritage assets. 10.4.14. The receptor location representing Windy Arbour will experience slight adverse visual effects during construction and during operation at winter year 1. Effects will reduce to neutral by year 15 of the operation. All other heritage assess were either further away that receptors assessed therefore likely to have lower magnitude effects or are not represented by a receptor location. The Scheduled Monument of the Castle Hill motte and bailey and bowl barrow is predicated to experience slight adverse effects on its setting during the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme and the listed buildings will experience neutral effects on their setting. 10.4.15. In line with the methodology outlined above, and the predicted effects, it is concluded that there are no potential significant cumulative effects. Biodiversity, Landscape and Visual and Road Drainage and the Water Environment 10.4.16. Interactions would potentially occur during the construction phase of the Proposed Scheme. During construction, cumulative effects could arise due to the loss of vegetation effecting habitats, notable species, landscape character areas and views. The majority of the vegetation loss will be temporary and reversible due to mitigation planting with some small-scale permanent loss beneath the footprint of new infrastructure or due to the requirement for sightlines/ safety. There would be slight adverse effects on notable habitats during construction due to temporary loss of woodland habitat, semi-improved grassland and short lengths of hedgerow and great crested newt habitat due to the temporary and permanent loss of habitat. 10.4.17. The loss of habitat within the highway boundary will not have a significant effect on the surrounding landscape pattern, or value of the nearby amenity landscape but will slightly change the local character and perception of the corridor resulting in effects of no more than slight adverse in the short term and in the longer term when mitigation planting matures neutral effects on landscape character. 10.4.18. Where vegetation is cleared to facilitate construction, mitigation planting will be provided to replace those areas lost, where feasible. Replacement in full will not be possible in all locations due to the permanent footprint of the infrastructure and where this would compromise the safe operation of the highway (e.g. sightlines for CCTV, forward visibility for motorists). Due to the localised works within the soft estate, the perception would be that, with assumed mitigation planting in place and when maturing, the perception and majority of the vegetation along both carriageways would be comparable to the present situation and would continue to achieve integration. Proposed planting will be of locally indigenous native plants and of a similar species composition to that removed and will be informed by protected species requirements. Mitigation planting will be designed to enhance the floristic and structural diversity of the habitats lost and will link into existing planting. 10.4.19. No watercourses, ditches or ponds would be modified during the works and effects on the water environment during construction are predicted to be neutral. The majority of effects during operation are predicted to be neutral. With the implementation of mitigation in the form of Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators to be installed on several outfalls including those to Cockshot Brook/Spittle Brook WFD, the Proposed Scheme will result in no adverse residual effect on surface watercourses. As the only operation effects predicted for ecological receptors are on great created newts (slight adverse) which has not been identified as being present in Cockshot Burn there is no shared receptor and therefore no cumulative effect. 10.4.20. Two European Sites have been identified within the study area of the Proposed Scheme including Manchester Mosses SAC and Midland Meres and Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar. On review of the Proposed Scheme’s study area, the European Site’s qualifying interest features, conservation objectives and potential threats to site integrity, air quality was the only potential impact pathway was identified. As described in the Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) the assessment concluded there are no likely significant effects on any of the identified European Sites due to the construction or operation of the M6 SM-ALR scheme.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-20 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

10.4.21. Highfield Moss SSSI is approximately 825m east of the Proposed Scheme at its closest point. The SSSI contains an area of peat with mixed valley mire communities, acidic marshy grassland and unimproved acidic grassland. It is designated as the best remaining example of raised mire in Greater Manchester and Merseyside. The SSSI is not hydrologically linked to the Proposed Scheme and given its distance, an assessment of nitrogen deposition is not considered necessary. In addition, Highfield Moss SSSI is not within 200m of an ARN. 10.4.22. In line with the methodology outlined above, the potential for significant cumulative effects has been ruled out due to the neutral/ slight adverse individual effects experienced by the identified shared receptors. Inter-project Cumulative Effects 10.4.23. Each of the relevant developments (identified in Paragraph 10.3.1) has been reviewed to establish potential interactions (such as spatial or temporal over-lap) which are likely to result in significant cumulative effects (see Appendix G). Following this review process, Appendix G details developments that have been scoped out of further assessment. 10.4.24. The following developments have been scoped out of the non-traffic related cumulative assessment: · M56 J6-8 SM Scheme · M62 J10-12 SM Scheme · M6 Junction 22 Upgrade 10.4.25. The following developments has been scoped out of the heritage and water cumulative assessment: · Orrell and Winstanley Community Sports Club (Major) Application A/16/82933/MAJOR · Symmetry Park (Major Application) A/18/85947/MAJES 10.4.26. The following development has been scoped out of the heritage environment cumulative assessment: · Landgate (Residential) Application A/17/84450/MAJOR · Pemberton Link Road (Transport) Application A/17/84615/MAJOR · Haydock Point Outline Planning Application P/2017/0254/OUP 10.4.27. An assessment of each relevant development scoped into the assessment (identified following the review) against each environmental topic is presented below (Paragraph 10.4.28 - 10.4.86.

Traffic Related Environmental Assessments 10.4.28. As discussed in Paragraph 10.3.5 to 10.3.10 the traffic model takes account of developments in the wider region around the Proposed Scheme. The traffic model takes account of other Proposed Schemes in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme and other road schemes as well as including growth factors to account for the future presence and operation of a number of committed developments within the study area. As a result of this, the air quality, noise, road drainage and ecological assessment (in relation to NO2 deposition) of statutory designated sites assessments are inherently cumulative assessments. 10.4.29. The air quality assessment concludes that overall, with mitigation in place including the purchasing of three residential properties on Nicol Avenue at Martinscroft, the effects associated with the M6 J21A to 26 will not be significant for air quality and no compliance risks have been identified. 10.4.30. In line with the air quality approach the Biodiversity assessment has considered impacts to designated sites within the proximity of the ARN. The following sites were included in the assessment: Manchester Mosses SAC, Rixton Clay Pits SAC, Holcroft Moss SSSI, Rixton Clay Pits SSSI, Oakhanger Moss SSSI and Flood Brook Clough SSSI,. The ZoI for these sites is 200m from the ARN. It was concluded that there will be no air quality cumulative effects on any of these statutory designated sites during operation of the Proposed Schemes.

Non Traffic Related Environmental Assessments Orrell and Winstanley Community Sports Club

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-21 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

10.4.31. An application has been granted for the creation of a new cricket ground, 2 rugby pitches and practice area with new car parking, main entrances and changing/club house facilities. The site covers an area of approximately 5 hectares (ha) bordered by Winstanley Rd and the M6 to the east, the M58 to the north and B5206 to the east. The applications assessments were limited to a flood risk assessment, phase 1 habitat assessment and an acoustic report it is therefore inferred that significant effects on other topics are not anticipated. 10.4.32. Based on the location of this Proposed Development, the potential for construction phase cumulative effects exists if parts of this development are undertaken at the same time as the construction of the Proposed Scheme. However, the M6 assessment scoped out construction phase air quality effects as these can be controlled with standard good practice mitigation measures. Provided that appropriate mitigation is in place as outlined within the air quality clauses within the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), the Proposed Scheme will not result in any significant adverse effects. The construction noise assessment concluded non- significant adverse effects once mitigation measures were implemented and the landscape and visual assessment predicted residual effects of no greater than slight adverse during the construction phase. 10.4.33. There will be no direct or indirect impacts to Orrell Brickworks and Winstanley Hall Woods SBI as a result of the development proposals and no temporary disturbance effects to species in Winstanley Hall Woods is predicted due to the Proposed Scheme therefore no cumulative effects will occur on the SBIs. The operational noise assessment for the Proposed Scheme predicted a negligible decrease in noise at 8 non-residential sensitive receptors in the short term. The acoustic assessment for the sports club concluded that the internal noise level would be within ‘good standard’ target criteria for living rooms and bedrooms as described in BS 8233 and an assessment of potential noise levels in the context of BS 4142 would suggest ‘an indication of the source having a low impact’ in terms of likelihood of complaint. Therefore, no cumulative noise effects will occur. 10.4.34. The viewpoints representing sensitive receptors near to the Proposed Development predicted slight adverse effects due to vegetation clearance for new gantries. Cumulative effects are not anticipated due to the location of the receptors situated between the Proposed Development and the motorway therefore both will not be present in a view. Landgate

10.4.35. Permission has been granted for a proposed residential development of 157 dwellings comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached two storey houses together with associated roads and landscaping on land at Landgate, Ashton-in-Makerfield. The site is approximately 7.7 ha in area and is located to the east of Wigan Road at Bryn located on the northern outskirts of Ashton-in-Makerfield. The site is currently agricultural land. 10.4.36. There is the potential for construction phase cumulative effects exists if this development is undertaken at the same time as the construction of the Proposed Scheme. However, due to the distance from the Proposed Scheme and the M6 assessment having not predicted any significant effects, no construction phase significant cumulative effects are anticipated. 10.4.37. There is also a potential for cumulative landscape, visual, water environment and ecological operational effects. The viewpoints representing sensitive receptors nearest to the Proposed Development predicted neutral to slight adverse effects due to vegetation clearance to accommodate a proposed noise barrier and cabling works. Cumulative effects are not anticipated due to the distance and intervening land uses between the Proposed Scheme and this development. The Proposed Development is also situated on a site which is at a lower level to surrounding development and is therefore not considered that the proposals would result in unacceptable visual effect. 10.4.38. Surface water run-off rates will be less than or equal to the equivalent greenfield run-off rates applicable to the area in which the development is located. The development includes an attenuation pond between the developed part of the site and an existing pond which will mitigate any potential for harm to water quality in the pond. The proposals were accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which concludes that the development is not at risk of flooding from external sources and will not increase flood risk associated with the development. A sustainable drainage system is proposed utilising existing drainage ditches at the site. Therefore, no cumulative effects on the water environmental are anticipated.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-22 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

10.4.39. The site has low potential to support protected or priority species other than nesting/foraging birds and commuting bats, and has limited potential to support wintering birds. This combined with the distance from the Proposed Scheme no cumulative ecological effects are anticipated. Pemberton Link Road 10.4.40. Planning consent for the construction of a new road which will link Wigan and the M6/ junction has been granted. This new road will also provide an alternative route to the A577 which is severely congested at peak times. The proposed new road is to be known as the M58 Link Road (incorporating Pemberton Link Road). The Site covers an area of approximately 11.2ha and will consist of a single carriageway approximately 2.3km in length. The Scheme will involve upgrading and widening an existing road, Leopold Street, (approximately 0.9km in length), and constructing new road (approximately 1.4km in length). The proposed alignment within both the M58 and the Pemberton Sections will be approximately 7.3m wide to enable the provision of a 3.65m wide lane in each direction. The Scheme has a design speed limit of 30mph. 10.4.41. It was anticipated in the planning submission that construction of the scheme would be phased over a 12 month period following planning approval. 10.4.42. Based on the location of this Proposed Development, the potential for construction phase cumulative effects exists if construction coincides with the construction of the Proposed Scheme. However, the M6 assessment scoped out construction phase air quality effects as these can be controlled with standard good practice mitigation measures. Construction air quality effects from the Pemberton Link Road were considered not significant following mitigation. 10.4.43. The M6 SM construction noise assessment concluded non-significant adverse effects once mitigation measures were implemented. The Pemberton Link Road assessment considered construction noise and vibration effects to have the potential to be significant at specific receptors however as these receptors are more than 300 m for the M6 SM scheme these are not shared receptors and cumulative effects are not anticipated. 10.4.44. The M6 SM landscape assessment predicted residual effects of no greater than slight adverse during the construction phase. Minor adverse, not significant, effects on the existing landscape character of the Pemberton Link Road study area during the construction phase. Permanent and temporary visual effects on visual receptors were predicted. Five of the visual receptors assessed are within 1km of the M6 SM scheme. One receptor is assessed as having moderate adverse effects due to construction works being a noticeable feature of the view which is immediately apparent to the receptor. Two receptors are predicted to experience major adverse effects due to the works being a dominate feature of the view (including demolition of a nearby property) in which other elements in the view become subordinate. As the nearest receptor assessed as part of the M6 SM scheme predicted neutral effects during construction no cumulative effects are anticipated. 10.4.45. In the main neutral effects are predicted on ecological receptors due to the M6 SM scheme, with the exception of non-statutory designated sites, notable habitats and great crested newts which were predicted to experience slight adverse effects due to temporary disturbance to species/ temporary loss of habitat and pollution resulting in a loss of habitat quality. The Pemberton Link Road ecological assessment generally concluded negligible effects on ecological receptors with the exception of bats which were predicted to experience slight adverse effect as no effects on bats during construction were predicted by the M6 SM scheme no cumulative effects are anticipated. 10.4.46. Following the implementation of mitigation measures, no likely significant effects have been identified (neutral or slight adverse effects predicted) as a result of the construction of the Pemberton Link Road. The M6 SM scheme assessment confirms that the Proposed Scheme will have a neutral effect on surface water and groundwater resources during construction. Therefore, no cumulative effects are anticipated. 10.4.47. Therefore, during construction there is no significant cumulative noise, air quality, biodiversity, road drainage and water environment, heritage or landscape are anticipated. 10.4.48. Shared receptors have been identified in the air quality assessment of the Pemberton Link road and the M6 SM scheme. Of these the worst case effected receptors by the Pemberton Link road are located on Parkside crescent north of junction 26. Small increases of NO2 concentrations were predicted to occur at these locations. The M6 SM assessment also predicted small increases in NO2 concentrations at these locations. These may combine to result in a larger increase in concentration. Although the M67 SM traffic model did not specifically account for the link road it should be recognised that factors to account for the future presence and operation of

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-23 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

a number of committed developments within the study area are included therefore the resulting increase can be deemed worst case and unlikely to result in significant effects. 10.4.49. The Pemberton Link Road will introduce new features into the landscape which is expected to result in a medium magnitude of change in landscape character. When assessed against the relatively low sensitivity of the Local LCA, it is likely to result in a minor adverse effect on the existing character of the area during the operational phase at year 1. The new planting, when established, would help reduce effects on much of the LCA but effects would remain minor adverse in year 15 and beyond. Permanent and temporary visual effects on visual receptors were predicted. Five of the visual receptors assessed are within 1km of the M6 SM scheme. One receptor is assessed as having moderate adverse effect in year 1 reducing to minor when mitigation planting matures due to the proposed alignment and new street lighting will be a noticeable feature of the view. Two receptors are predicted to experience major adverse effects in year 1 reducing to moderate adverse in year 15. These effects are due to the proposed alignment being clearly visible and the new acoustic fencing and retaining wall blocking views. As the nearest receptor assessed as part of the M6 SM scheme predicted neutral effects during construction no cumulative effects are anticipated. 10.4.50. The Pemberton Link Road ecological assessment concluded negligible effects on ecological receptors during operation therefore no significance cumulative effects are anticipated. 10.4.51. The M6 SM operation noise assessment concluded non-significant adverse effects. The operational road traffic noise assessment predicted an overall negligible effect with a small number of dwellings with noise increases between 1 and 2 dB. 10.4.52. There are 2 NIAs with the potential for cumulative effects from the Pemberton Link Road development and the M6 SMP Scheme;- · NIA 10661 – Orrell Road (A577) · NIA 6987 – Warrington Road (A49) 10.4.53. NIA 10661 and NIA 6987 will experience negligible noise changes (not significant) as a result of the implementation of the M6 SMP Scheme. 10.4.54. The traffic flows employed for the M6 SMP Scheme included those generated by the Pemberton Link Road. Consequently, the cumulative effects to receptors in NIAs 10661 and 6987 resulting from concurrent operation of the M6 scheme and the Pemberton Link Road scheme will not be significant. 10.4.55. The Pemberton Link Road assessment predicted Major impacts are predicted for 175 residential properties. In the short term, moderate adverse impacts effects are predicted at 119 properties. These are generally in a zone close to the alignment of the Scheme just outside the region where major impacts occur. In the long term major adverse impacts are predicted for 58 sensitive receptors and moderate impacts are predicted for 251 properties. Of those NSR experiencing a moderate or major impact, none experience a noise level which exceeds Significant observable adverse effect level (SOAEL), therefore no receptors should be regarded as experiencing a significant effect as a result of implementation of the Scheme. Significant adverse effects where SOAEL is exceeded during the night-time as a result of implementation of the Scheme have been identified for 84 residential NSR. These receptors include properties south of Leopold Street and properties on the north–eastern periphery of the Blundell’s Wood development. Due to the overall negligible effect of the M6 SM scheme significant cumulative effects are considered unlikely. Symmetry Park 10.4.56. A hybrid application to develop a proposed logistics centre to the north of the M6 Junction 25 slip road, comprising the demolition of existing buildings and reprofiling of the site to facilitate employment floorspace and associated transport infrastructure 10.4.57. Based on the location of this Proposed Development, the potential for construction phase cumulative effects exists if it is built at the same time as the Proposed Scheme. 10.4.58. Fugitive dust emissions from construction works associated with the proposed M6 scheme were considered not significant with appropriate mitigation. Potential impacts associated with construction vehicle emissions were also considered not significant.

10.4.59. The M6 scheme operational phase assessment predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations above or very close to the objective in the opening year, 2020 of the M6 scheme, at some

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-24 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

receptors in this location. The opening year of the Symmetry Park scheme is anticipated to be 2026.

10.4.60. On Downall Green Road five receptors were predicted to experience annual mean NO2 concentrations above 40 μg/m3 in 2020 with the scheme in place, with small to medium increases. However, in the Symmetry Park assessment, with an opening year of 2026, annual mean concentrations are predicted to be below the objective value, therefore significant cumulative effects are not anticipated. 10.4.61. On Liverpool Road receptors in both assessments are predicted to experience concentrations below the objective value in 2020 and 2026 respectively, therefore significant cumulative effects are not anticipated. 10.4.62. The viewpoint representing sensitive receptors near to the Proposed SM scheme (PSVR26 and PSVR27) predicted slight adverse effects due to views to new infrastructure. Cumulative effects are not anticipated as a result of Symmetry Park, which would not be viewed in context of the motorway or change views to the Proposed Development. There would be no new landscape and visual significant cumulative effect. 10.4.63. The M6 Scheme may have a slight adverse effect on faunal species within the Broadleaved Woodland Glead Wood & Tan Pit SBI during construction due to temporary disturbance impacts (noise/lighting). However, with the implementation of suitable mitigation, such as pollution prevention measures, there will be no direct impacts on the SBI. The Symmetry Park assessment states that with appropriate mitigation wildlife (such as nesting birds), will not be disturbed during construction. No potential effects on this SBI have been identified during the operational phases of the M6 or Symmetry Park Scheme. Therefore, no cumulative effects anticipated. 10.4.64. The Symmetry Park assessment has concluded that noise and vibration effects during the construction phase to surrounding sensitive receptors will be negligible / minor prior to mitigation. Consequently, the cumulative effects to shared receptors resulting from concurrent construction of the M6 scheme and the Symmetry Park scheme will not be significant. 10.4.65. The Symmetry Park assessment has concluded that there will be no significant effects resulting from development generated traffic in the short and long term. The M6 SMP assessment concludes that there will be negligible noise reductions to receptors in this location as a result of the operation of the M6 SMP scheme. Consequently, the cumulative effects to shared receptors resulting from concurrent operation of the M6 scheme and Symmetry Park scheme will not be significant. It is assumed that site noise from the Symmetry Park scheme (fixed plant / vehicle operations) will be suitably controlled to meet any agreed criteria. 10.4.66. There are 2 NIAs with the potential for cumulative effects from the Symmetry Park development and the M6 SMP Scheme;- · NIA 10661 – Orrell Road (A577) · NIA 6987 – Warrington Road (A49) 10.4.67. NIA 10661 and NIA 6987 will experience negligible noise changes (not significant) as a result of the implementation of the M6 SMP Scheme. 10.4.68. The noise assessment for the Symmetry Park development concluded that development generated traffic would not result in significant adverse effects on the surrounding road network. 10.4.69. Consequently, the cumulative effects to receptors in NIAs 10661 and 6987 resulting from concurrent operation of the M6 scheme and the Symmetry Park scheme will not be significant. Haydock Point 10.4.70. An outline planning application with all matters other than access reserved for the development of the site for up to 167,225m2 of commercial floor space, ancillary office and associated site facilities floor space, car parking, landscaping, site profiling, transport, drainage and utilities infrastructure. 10.4.71. Based on the location of this Proposed Development, the potential for construction phase cumulative effects exists if it is built at the same time as the Proposed Scheme. 10.4.72. Fugitive dust emissions from construction works associated with the proposed M6 scheme were considered not significant with appropriate mitigation. Potential impacts associated with construction vehicle emissions were also considered not significant.

10.4.73. All shared receptors are predicted to experience concentrations well below the annual mean NO2 3 and PM10 objectives of 40 μg/m in 2020 (opening year for the M6 scheme) as well as 2022

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-25 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

(opening year for the Haydock Point scheme) with and without the schemes operational. Potential cumulative impacts are considered unlikely to occur when the M6 Scheme and the Parkside Road Scheme are considered together. Significant cumulative effects are therefore not anticipated 10.4.74. It is assumed that the construction and operation of the site will take place using best practice in line with current legislation protecting controlled water waters. Therefore, it is considered there would be no cumulative impact to water resources during construction or operation. Development would need to ensure compliance with NPPF with regards to ensuring no adverse impacts to flooding potential to the site, and from the site. 10.4.75. The viewpoint representing sensitive receptors near to the Proposed SM scheme (PSVR15) predicted slight adverse effects due to vegetation clearance and opening of new views. Cumulative effects are not anticipated as a result of Haydock Point to the north of the viewpoint which would not be viewed in context of the motorway or change views to the Proposed Development. There would be no new significant landscape and visual cumulative effect. 10.4.76. The only shared ecological receptor is Ellam’s Brook however Haydock Point ES concluded no potential adverse impacts during construction or operation with the implementation of standard mitigation measures during construction. No potential for cumulative effects. 10.4.77. The Haydock Point assessment concluded that noise and vibration impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors will be unlikely. Consequently, the cumulative effects to shared receptors resulting from concurrent construction of the M6 scheme and the Haydock Point scheme will not be significant. 10.4.78. The Haydock Point assessment has concluded that there will be no significant effects resulting from development generated traffic. The Proposed SM scheme assessment concludes that there will be negligible noise changes to receptors in this location as a result of the operation of the M6 SMP scheme. Consequently, the cumulative effects to shared receptors resulting from concurrent operation of the M6 scheme and Haydock Point scheme will not be significant. 10.4.79. It is assumed that site noise from the Haydock Point scheme (fixed plant / vehicle operations) will be suitably controlled to meet any agreed criteria. Winwick Road 10.4.80. An outline planning application (all matters reserved except for access) for the construction of up to 92,900 m2 of employment floorspace and associated servicing, transport infrastructure and environmental mitigation. 10.4.81. Based on the location of this Proposed Development, the potential for construction phase cumulative effects exists if it is built at the same time as the Proposed Scheme. 10.4.82. Fugitive dust emissions from construction works associated with the proposed M6 scheme were considered not significant with appropriate mitigation. Potential impacts associated with construction vehicle emissions were also considered not significant.

10.4.83. On Rectory Close the highest annual mean NO2 concentration with the M6 Scheme operational was 35.6 μg/m3. In the Winwick Road assessment increases of 0.7 µg/m3 were predicted with the Winwick Road scheme at receptors on Rectory Close, with an operational concentration of 40.5 µg/m3, which is a small increase. The maximum increase predicted with the M6 scheme in place is 0.4 µg/m3. If the maximum increases occurred at the same receptor, this would be on overall increase of up to 1.1 µg/m3, which is also a small increase. As small increases above the objective were predicted with the Winwick Road scheme and the scheme overall is not significant, it is therefore considered that the potential small cumulative increases here would not be significant. 10.4.84. All other shared receptors are predicted to experience concentrations well below the annual mean NO2 and PM10 objectives in both the Winwick Road assessment and the M6 assessment, therefore significant cumulative effects are not anticipated at these receptors. 10.4.85. It is assumed that the construction and operation of the site will take place using best practice in line with current legislation protecting controlled water waters. Therefore, it is considered there would be no cumulative impact to water resources during construction or operation. Development would need to ensure compliance with NPPF with regards to ensuring no adverse impacts to flooding potential to the site, and from the site. 10.4.86. The viewpoint representing sensitive receptors near to the Proposed Development (PSVR7 and PSVR8) predicted slight adverse effects due to vegetation clearance and views to new

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-26 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

infrastructure. Cumulative effects are not anticipated as a result of Winwick Road, which is unlikely to substantially change the context of the view to the Proposed Development. There would be no new significant landscape and visual cumulative effect. 10.4.87. There are no cumulative effects predicted. Although Woodhead Farmhouse and Barn and St Oswald’s Well are a shared receptor of both schemes, there are no effects caused by the M6 SM scheme. 10.4.88. The M6 Scheme will result in the loss of small areas of Priority Broadleaved Woodland during construction. There will be slight adverse non-significant effects on Priority Broadleaved Woodland during construction prior the implementation of mitigation measures. Habitats will be replaced on a like for like basis and enhanced where practicable. During operation the effect will be neutral, once the habitat has established. 10.4.89. The Winwick Road development concluded broadleaved woodland could potentially be significantly impacted by development during construction without mitigation. It was assessed that through the implementation of mitigation measures, effects will be negligible/not significant. It is considered a slight adverse effect (not significant) from the M6 scheme and a negligible effect (not significant) from the Winwick Road development would not result in cumulative effects. Therefore, no cumulative effects on woodland habitat are anticipated. 10.4.90. Newton Brook is a shared watercourse receptor, however no potential adverse impacts during construction or operation with the implementation of standard mitigation measures during construction. No potential for cumulative effects. 10.4.91. The Proposed SM scheme will have a negligible effect on birds during construction and operation. Habitat loss will be staged and replaced post construction. The Winwick Road assessment concluded that with proposed mitigation measures there will be no significant impacts during construction (apart from loss of grassland) and no significant impacts during the operational phase. Therefore, no ecological cumulative effects anticipated.

10.4.92. The Winwick Road assessment has concluded that noise and vibration effects during the construction phase to surrounding sensitive receptors will be minor at worst (at Pride Close). Given the significantly larger distance from the M6 to these receptors, it is considered that construction works on the M6 SMP scheme will not add significantly to these noise and vibration impacts. Consequently, the cumulative effects to shared receptors resulting from concurrent construction of the M6 scheme and the Winwick Road scheme will not be significant.

10.4.93. The Winwick Road assessment has concluded that noise and vibration effects during the operational phase to surrounding sensitive receptors at Pride Close will be minor as a worst-case scenario. The M6 SMP assessment concludes that there will be negligible noise reductions to receptors in this location as a result of the operation of the M6 SMP scheme. Consequently, the cumulative effects to shared receptors resulting from concurrent operation of the M6 scheme and Winwick Road scheme will not be significant. It is assumed that site noise from the Winwick Road scheme (fixed plant / vehicle operations) will be suitably controlled to meet any agreed criteria.

10.4.94. There are 4 NIAs with the potential for cumulative effects from the Winwick Road development and the M6 SMP Scheme;- · NIA 7087 – on the M6 to the north of Southworth Road (A572) · NIA 8195 – on the M6 where it crosses over Southworth Road (A572) · NIA 10748 – High Street, Newton Le Willows · NIA 7088 – Winwick Link Road, to the west of M6 J22 10.4.95. NIA 8195 is specifically addressed in the M6 SMP assessment, where it is concluded that, with mitigation in place, there will be no significant adverse effects. NIA 7087 and NIA 7088 will experience negligible noise changes (not significant) as a result of the implementation of the M6 SMP Scheme. NIA 10748 will experience minor noise decreases (not significant) as a result of the implementation of the M6 SMP Scheme. 10.4.96. The noise assessment for the Winwick Road development concluded that development generated traffic would not result in significant adverse effects on the surrounding road network. 10.4.97. Consequently, the cumulative effects to receptors in NIAs 7087, 8195, 10748 and 7088 resulting from concurrent operation of the M6 scheme and the Winwick Road scheme will not be significant.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-27 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Parkside Link Road 10.4.98. Parkside Link Road will comprise of a new 3.3km of single and dual carriageway road extending from the A49 Winwick Road to Junction 22 on the M6 motorway. It will also include the re- alignment of Parkside Road and other associated works. 10.4.99. Based on the location of this Proposed Development, the potential for construction phase cumulative effects exists if it is built at the same time as the Proposed Scheme. The ES details that the main works would occur in 2020, so it is likely that cumulative construction effects may arise. 10.4.100. Fugitive dust emissions from construction works associated with the proposed M6 scheme were considered not significant with appropriate mitigation. Potential impacts associated with construction vehicle emissions were also considered not significant. 10.4.101. When the M6 Scheme and Parkside Road scheme are considered cumulatively, there is no potential for significant cumulative impacts to occur. 10.4.102. In the Parkside assessment, receptors located at Park Cottages and Elm Road are predicted to have annual mean concentrations above the objective value for NO2 in the opening year. In the M6 assessment these receptors are predicted to experience concentrations below the annual 3 mean NO2 objective of 40 μg/m in 2020 with the M6 scheme operational in the assessment for the Scheme. Beneficial effects are predicted at these receptors in the Parkside assessment. The combined effects of this scheme with the M6 Scheme is therefore not anticipated to be significant. 10.4.103. All other shared receptors are predicted to experience concentrations well below the annual mean NO2 and PM10 objectives in both the Parkside assessment and the M6 assessment, therefore significant cumulative effects are not anticipated at these receptors. 10.4.104. It is assumed that the construction and operation of the site will take place using best practice in line with current legislation protecting controlled water waters. Therefore, it is considered there would be no cumulative impact to water resources during construction or operation. Development would need to ensure compliance with NPPF with regards to ensuring no adverse impacts to flooding potential to the site, and from the site 10.4.105. The viewpoint representing sensitive receptors near to the Proposed SM scheme (PSVR7 and PSVR8) predicted slight adverse effects due to vegetation clearance and views to new infrastructure. Cumulative effects are not anticipated as a result of Parkside Road, which is not expected to substantially change the context of the view to the Proposed SM scheme. There would be no new significant landscape and visual cumulative effect as a result. 10.4.106. There are no cumulative effects predicted for cultural heritage. Although Woodhead Farmhouse and Barn are a shared receptor of both schemes, there are no effects caused by the M6 SM scheme. 10.4.107. No potential for cumulative effects on great crested newts the Parkside Road development site is over 2km south of the closest great crested newt mitigation area within the M6 SM Scheme.

10.4.108. The Parkside road assessment concluded that most of the potential effects to wildlife during construction will be avoided through mitigation methods. Predicted beneficial effects in the long term (10+ years post construction) as replacement planting establishes. The Proposed SM scheme will have a negligible effect on birds during construction and operation. Habitat loss will be staged and replaced post construction. Therefore, no cumulative effects anticipated. 10.4.109. The Parkside Road assessment has concluded that noise and vibration effects to sensitive receptors on Winwick Lane during the construction phase may be significant during some demolition and road construction works. Given the relatively larger distance from the M6 to these receptors, it is considered that construction works on the M6 scheme will not add significantly to these noise and vibration impacts. Consequently, the cumulative effects to shared receptors resulting from concurrent construction of the M6 scheme and the Parkside Road scheme will not be significant. 10.4.110. The Parkside Road assessment has concluded that there will be no significant effects resulting from the operation of the scheme. The M6 SMP assessment concludes that there will be negligible noise reductions to receptors in this location as a result of the operation of the M6 SMP scheme. Consequently, the cumulative effects to shared receptors resulting from concurrent operation of the M6 scheme and Parkside Road scheme will not be significant.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-28 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

10.4.111. There are 4 NIAs with the potential for cumulative effects from the Winwick Road development and the M6 SMP Scheme;- · NIA 7087 – on the M6 to the north of Southworth Road (A572) · NIA 8195 – on the M6 where it crosses over Southworth Road (A572) · NIA 10748 – High Street, Newton Le Willows · NIA 7088 – Winwick Link Road, to the west of M6 J22 10.4.112. NIA 8195 is specifically addressed in the M6 SMP assessment, where it is concluded that, with mitigation in place, there will be no significant adverse effects. NIA 7087 and NIA 7088 will experience negligible noise changes (not significant) as a result of the implementation of the M6 SMP Scheme. NIA 10748 will experience minor noise decreases (not significant) as a result of the implementation of the M6 SMP Scheme. 10.4.113. The noise assessment for the Winwick Road development concluded that development generated traffic would not result in significant adverse effects on the surrounding road network. 10.4.114. Consequently, the cumulative effects to receptors in NIAs 7087, 8195, 10748 and 7088 resulting from concurrent operation of the M6 scheme and the Winwick Road scheme will not be significant.

10.5. Summary 10.5.1. The cumulative effects assessment considered two types of cumulative effects: · Intra-project cumulative effects: Those caused only by the Proposed Scheme, and arise when an individual receptor or group of receptors would experience multiple effects as a result of the Proposed Scheme; for example, an individual property experiencing combined noise, air quality and visual amenity effects. · Inter-project cumulative effects: Those caused by a combination of the Proposed Scheme with other relevant schemes. Intra-project Cumulative Effects 10.5.2. Whilst the topic assessments have in many cases considered the same receptors, it is considered that there would be no combined effects that would be significant prior to the application of mitigation measures as specified in the OEMP. During construction, it is considered that mitigation measures would be sufficient to mitigate any single effects in relation to air quality, noise, Biodiversity and visual amenity to such a level that no significant combined effects would arise. During operation, whilst it is acknowledged that there would be localised Minor effects on visual amenity, negligible to minor increases in traffic-related noise in the short term and imperceptible to major increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations, which will be mitigated these combined would result in no significant cumulative effects. Inter-project Cumulative Effects 10.5.3. The traffic model takes account of developments in the wider region around the Proposed Scheme as a result of this, the air quality, noise and road drainage assessments are inherently cumulative assessments. 10.5.4. Other relevant projects were identified using a selection criteria methodology including scale, distance from the Proposed Scheme and development type. A review has been undertaken of each identified development to determine the potential for interactions which may result in significant cumulative effects. It is considered that there would be no significant cumulative effects.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 10-29 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 11. Environmental management

11.1. Overview 11.1.1. This section sets out arrangements for environmental assessment and management going forwards. 11.1.2. Environmental management will be implemented in line with DMRB Volume 11 and IAN 183/14 Environmental Management Plans. 11.1.3. As part of this EAR, an EMP has been produced as a separate document. The EMP is based on a Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC). The EMP sets out environmental commitments and actions to be taken forwards as part of the detailed design, construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. 11.1.4. The EMP, which is currently in outline form, will be developed into a Construction EMP (CEMP) prepared in collaboration with the Delivery Partner as more information becomes available and there is more certainty in terms of the Proposed Scheme layout, construction methods and programme. Towards the end of the construction period the CEMP will be refined into a Handover EMP (HEMP), which will contain essential environmental information needed by the body responsible for the future maintenance and operation of the asset 11.1.5. The purpose of an EMP is to manage the environmental effects of the project. Over the lifetime of the project the EMP will be built upon to manage the environmental effects of the project during the construction and maintenance and operation phases of the Proposed Scheme. The EMP will be a live document, and would be updated as required over the life of the project should the scheme, predicted effects or legislation change. Throughout the construction, maintenance and operation phases the EMP will be used to: · Act as a continuous link and main reference document for environmental issues between the design, construction and the maintenance and operation stages of a project. · Demonstrate how construction activities and supporting design will properly integrate the requirements of environmental legislation, policy, good practice and those of the environmental regulatory authorities and third parties. · Record the objectives, commitments and mitigation measures to be implemented together with programme and date of achievement. · Identify the key staff structures and responsibilities associated with the delivery of the project and environmental control and communication and training requirements as necessary. · Describe the contractor’s proposals for ensuring that the requirements of the environmental design are achieved, or are in the process of being achieved, during the Contract Period. · Act as a vehicle for transferring key environmental information at handover to the body responsible for operational management. This will include details of the asset, short and long term management requirements and any monitoring or other environmental commitments. · Provide a review, monitoring and audit mechanism to determine effectiveness of and compliance with environmental control measures and how any necessary corrective action will take place. 11.1.6. The identification of environmental actions and population of a REAC is critical to the success of an EMP and subsequently the environmental performance of a project. 11.1.7. In relation to the Proposed Scheme the sources of information from which environmental actions have been identified include the EAR, the Scoping Report and associated additional ecological surveys, landscape and visual surveys and air quality and noise assessments. 11.1.8. Environmental commitments and actions have been included within the EMP. At this stage it is only possible to indicate in outline the persons responsible and the timings associated with these. When the CEMP is prepared further commitments and actions will be added and more specific responsibilities attributed and timings identified.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 11-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

11.1.9. The REAC does not cover any further surveys that may be required as part of the Proposed Scheme. The REAC does not cover embedded measures that are part of the design; for example, relocation of gantries and EAs or noise barriers.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 11-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 12. References

Base year (2015) traffic flows and journey times are taken from the Trans Pennine South Regional Transport Model (TPSRTM) Bat Conservation Trust website. http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/threats_to_bats.html. Accessed various dates in 2019. Biggs et al. (2014). Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). British Standards Institution (1993), BS 7385-2: 1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings – Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground borne vibration, UK. British Standards Institution (2003), BS 7445: 2003 Description and measurement of environmental noise, UK. British Standards Institution (2014), BS 5228:2009 + A1:2014 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites, UK. Chanin, P. (2003). Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10. English Nature, Peterborough. CIEEM. (2019). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (version 1.1). Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. Collins, J. (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Dean M., Strachan R., Gow D., Andrews R. (2016). The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series). Eds Fiona Mathews and Paul Chanin. The Mammal Society, London. Department for Communities and Local Government (2014), Planning Practice Guidance - Noise (PPG-N), UK. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2002). Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC), European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, London. 2014/52/EU Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2010). Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE), London. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2014). The National Pollinator Strategy: for bees and other pollinators in England. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2018). Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance (LAQM TG16), London. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2019). MAGIC. http://magic.defra.gov.uk/. Accessed 19th December 2019. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2019). UK Air Quality Information Resource. . Accessed 19th December 2019. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2019). Clean Air Strategy 2019, London. Department for Transport. (1988). Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), London. Department for Transport. (2014). Road Investment Strategy & Strategic Business Plan, London. Department for Transport. (2014). National Policy Statement for National Networks, London. DMRB Volume 11, Section 4, Part 1 (HD 44/09). Environmental assessment. Assessment of implications on European Sites. Assessment of implications (of highways and/or roads projects) on European Sites (including appropriate assessment).

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 12-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD45/09). (2009) Road Drainage and the Water Environment. DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 (HA 205/08). Environmental assessment. Environmental impact assessment. Assessment and management of environmental effects. Ecology Services Ltd. (2013). Haydock Green, Haydock, Amphibian Survey Report and Outline Method Statement, Morley Estates. Edgar, P., Foster, J. and Baker, J. (2010). Reptile Habitat Management Handbook. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Bournemouth. English Nature. (2001). Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2011). EIA Directive (2014/52/EU). Froglife website. http://www.froglife.org/info-advice/amphibians-and-reptiles/common-toad-2/. Accessed October 2018. Harris S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. (1989). Surveying Badgers. The Mammal Society. Highways England. (1993) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Ecology & Nature Conservation Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 4, UK. Highways England. (2007). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB): Cultural Heritage (HA 208/07), Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 2, UK. Highways England. (2007). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (HA 207/07), Vol. 11, Section 1- 3, Part 1, UK. Highways England. (2008). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB): Scoping of Environmental Impact Assessments Volume 11, Section 2, Part 4, HA204/08, UK.

Highways England (2011), Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7, HD 213/11 Revision 1 Noise and Vibration, UK. Highways England. (2008). DMRB Interim Advice Note 170/12 v3: Updated air quality advice on the assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections for users of DMRB, Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 1, UK. Highways England. (2008). DMRB Interim Advice Note 175/13: Updated air quality advice on risk assessment related to compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality and on the production of Scheme Air Quality Action Plans, UK. Highways England. (2010). DMRB Interim Advice Note 130/10: Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment, UK. Highways England. (2013). DMRB Interim Advice Note 174/13: Updated advice for evaluating significant local air quality effects for users of DMRB, Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality (HA207/07), UK. Highways England. (2014). DMRB Interim Advice Note 183/14: Environmental Management Plans, UK. Highways England. (2010). DMRB Interim Advice Note 135/10: Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment, UK. Highways England. (2015). DMRB Interim Advice Note 125/15: Environmental Assessment Update, UK. Highways England. (2015). DMRB Interim Advice Note 126/15: Environmental Assessment Screening and Determination, UK.

Highways England. (2015). DMRB Interim Advice Note 161/15: Smart Motorways, UK.

Highways England (2015), DMRB Interim Advice Note 185/15 Updated traffic, air quality and noise advice on the assessment of link speeds and generation of vehicle data into ‘speed-bands’ for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality and Volume 11, Section 3. Part 7 Noise, UK. Highways England. (2015). Highways England Delivery Plan 2015-2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-delivery-plan-2015-2020. Accessed 20th July 2016. Highways England. (2015). Our plan to protect and increase biodiversity.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 12-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Highways England. (2017). M6 J21A to 26 Smart Motorway Scoping Report. https://hebim.withbc.com/bc/bc.cgi/d1108934/M6%20J21a%20to%2026%20Scoping%20Report%20170720 17.pdf Highways England License: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431389/strategic-highways- licence.pdf

Historic England. (2015). Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning; Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. Infrastructure Act (2015). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/7/pdfs/ukpga_20150007_en.pdf

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit. Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd Edition), London. M6 Junctions 21A-26. Environmental Scoping Report (July 2017). HA544673-AMAR-EBD-SWI-RP-YE- 000005. Highways England (2018). M6 Junctions 21a-26 Smart Motorway Scheme – Draft Outline Business Case (SGAR 3), Sept 2018 (Table 3.1 - Existing traffic flows (2015)).Natural England. (2016). European Site Conservation Objectives: Draft Supplementary Advice on Conserving and Restoring Site Features. Manchester Mosses Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Site code: UK0030200. Natural England (2016) Great Crested Newt Method Statement for EPS License Applications. https://www/gov/uk/government/publications/great-crested-newts-apply-for-a-mitigation-licence Natural England great crested newt mitigation license method statement template. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-crested-newts-apply-for-a-mitigation-licence. Natural Environment Research Council. (2006). NERC Act Section 41: Species of Principle Importance, UK. Oldman, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. J. S., and Jeffcote, M. (2000). Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155. Highways England (2017). Preliminary Drainage Strategy Package 5 – M6 J21a-26 Report Number: HE549339-ACM-HDG-M6_SW_ZZ_ZZ-RP-CD-0002 P03 S3, September 2017 Roper, T. (2010). A Survey of British Natural History- Badger. New Naturalist Library, HarperCollins. Statutory Instrument (1975, 1988). The Noise Insulation Regulations (1975) (as amended 1988), UK. Strachan R. Moorhouse T. and Gelling M. (2011). Water Vole Conservation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The mammal society website. http://www.mammal.org.uk/. Accessed October 2018. The Met Office website. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/regional-climates/ The Met Office website. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/collaboration/ukcp/index The Wildlife Trusts website. http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/hedgehogs. Accessed October 2018. Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) (2000). Report 429 (2000), Ground borne vibration caused by mechanised construction works, UK. Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) (2002). Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping, UK. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. (2017). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/571/contents/made UK Centre for Hydrology and Ecology. (2019). APIS. http://www.apis.ac.uk. Accessed 19th December 2020 WebTAG. (2019). Transport Analysis Guidance: WebTAG. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis- guidance-webtag. Accessed 1st September 2019.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 12-3 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

World Health Organization (1999), Guidelines for Community Noise.

World Health Organization (2009), Night Noise Guidelines for Europe.

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 12-4 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP 13. Abbreviations

Abbreviation Full Term ALB Abnormal Load Bay AADT Annual Average Weekly Traffic AAWT Annual Average Daily Traffic ADMS Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System ADS Advanced Directional Signs ALB Abnormal Loading Bay ALC Agricultural Land Classification ALR All Lane Running AMIs Advanced Motorway Indicators AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty APIS Air Pollution Information System AQMA Air Quality Management Area AQS Air Quality Strategy ARN Affected Road Network BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BCT's The Bat Conservation Trust's BY Base Year CCD Cross Carriageway Duct CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management CMS Continuous Monitoring Stations

CO2 Carbon Dioxide cSAC Candidate Special Area of Conservation DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DF Design Freeze DfT Department for Transport DHS Dynamic Hard Shoulder DM Do Minimum DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DS Do Something EA Emergency Area EAR Environmental Assessment Report eDna Environmental DNA EC European Community EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environment Management Plan EMS Enhanced Messaging Signs EnvIS Environmental Information System EPS European Protected Species EPSML European Protected Species Mitigation Licence ERT Emergency Roadside Telephone GCN Great Crested Newt

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 13-1 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Abbreviation Full Term GHG Greenhouse Gas GLVIA Guidelines for Landscapes and Visual Impact Assessment HA Hectares HADDMS Highways Agency Drainage Data Management System HAWRAT Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool HE Highways England HER Historic Environment Record HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HMWB Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies HRA Habitat Regulations Assessment HSI Habitat Suitability Index IAN Interim Advice Note JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee kgN/ha/yr kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year KM Kilometre LAQM.TG Defra's Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LCA Landscape Character Areas LED Light Emitting Diode LNR Local Nature Reserve

LTTE6 Long Term Annual Projection Factors M Metre MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside MIDAS Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling MoU Measure of Uncertainty MS3 Message Sign Mark 3 MS4 Message Sign Mark 4 NCA National Character Area NERC The Natural Environment and Rural Communities NIAs Noise Important Areas NNR National Nature Reserves

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPSNN National Policy Statement for National Networks NSL National Speed Limit NVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zone OEMP Outline Environmental Management Plan OS Ordinance Survey PCF Project Control Framework PCM Pollution Climate Mapping

PM10 Particulate Matter smaller than 10µm PRoW Public Right of Way pSPAs Potential Special Protection Area PSVR Potentially Susceptible Visual Receptor

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 13-2 Smart Motorways Programme M6 J21A-26 AECOM-WSP

Abbreviation Full Term RAMMS Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement RCB Reinforced Concrete Barrier RCC Regional Control Centre RCP Representative Concentration Pathways RIS Road Investment Strategy ROTTMS Remote Operated Temporary Traffic Management Signs SAC Special Areas of Conservation SBI Site of Biological Interest SMP Smart Motorways Programme SPA Special Protection Area SPZ Source Protection Zone SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest TfGM Transport for Greater Manchester TJR Trough Junction Running TPO Tree Preservation Order TPSRTM Trans Pennine South Regional Transport Model TRA Traffic Reliability Area TWC Thin Wearing Course UKCP18 Climate Projections 2018 VMSL Variable Mandatory Speed Limits VRS Vehicle Restraint System WFD Water Framework Directive WPZ Water Protection Zone ZoI Zone of Influence

Environmental Assessment Report | Version 12.0 | November 2020 13-3