HC Deb 26 November 1974 vol 882 cc400-10

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Partie (Chertsey and Walton)

It seems a characteristic of most of our motorways that their conception dates back to pre-war days. The M25 orbital route is no exception, since it traces its lineage to 1936, which, the House may be surprised to learn, is, despite appearances, the year in which I was born. Some parts of the M25 are actually under construction, and others are in the final planning stages with the contracts let.

There is, however, one section into which the unsuspecting future motorist will tumble. This is a section which simply does not exist at all, the Chertsey to Wisley section. I prefer to call it the case of the phantom motorway. The story is a sorry one and in my view is an utter condemnation of British bureaucracy and a mockery of any pretence of an understanding between Government and governed.

The history of this matter is as follows. Public inquiries were held in June and July 1971. There was then an inordinate delay before a decision letter was produced by the Department of the Environment on 11th September 1973. That in itself must have been straining the time limit to the utmost. I want to quote two paragraphs from that decision letter. The first states: Various alternative routes through the premises of the British Aircraft Corporation at Weybridge had been proposed by objectors to the published route. The Department produced a version crossing the Corporation's runway which in the Inspector's opinion merited close study. The Inspector concluded that had it not been for the effect of this alternative on the activities of the Corporation dependent on the runway and on the employment given he would have found in favour of it. He, therefore, recommended the Secretary of State to obtain a confidential report on the future of the Weybridge Works before reaching a decision on the route. The second paragraph states: The Secretary of State recognises that there are a number of difficult issues both environmental and otherwise affecting both the published and the alternative routes on which he wishes to be better informed being reaching a decision. For this reason, he is having further studies carried out. Depending on the outcome of these studies it may be decided to publish revised proposals which would be open to objection in the usual way or, alternatively, to adhere to the present draft Scheme, with possible modifications. In either event, the Secretary of State will not reach a final decision on the route until an opportunity has been given for further public consultation and, if necessary, a reopening of the Inquiry. A further statement will be made when the Secretary of State is able to announce what course he proposes to pursue. All that was on 11th September 1973.

We then had the General Election of February 1974. I was then in the position of being able to put a Question at the end of March, in which I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he would make a statement concerning the designation of the route of the five-mile section of the M25 from Chertsey to Wisley. To that the Minister replied: My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as evaluation of the various options is complete."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 281.] That was a further six months after the decision letter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). who will seek to take part briefly in the debate, had a reply to a Question of his on 21st June in which he was told that the Department hoped to be able to announce the decision by the late summer. I know it is often said that Governments get rather remote from the public, but I hope that the Minister has been outside the House recently and had a look at the present climatic conditions. By no stretch of the imagination could we be described as being in the late summer. This is, therefore, on 26th November, stretching it a bit. We are now 14 months from the decision letter.

For three and a half years my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking have had their homes blighted. They have been in a state of complete uncertainty and anxiety, unable to plan for their future. This really has become something of a sick joke in the constituencies of my hon. Friend and myself.

There is a further refinement to this almost psychological torture of my constituents. We now do not even know what type of motorway it will be. It was originally conceived to be one of the four-lane jobs. I gather that it was to be the first one in the country. There was a statement in June this year about a possible reduction in the width of motorways, although I tabled a question following that, no further statements materialised as to whether this would be a three-lane motorway, a two-lane motorway or whatever else. Certainly, if the delays continue as they are at present, it will have dwindled away to a bridle path before long—which many people might welcome.

What happened at the original inquiry in 1971 was that the alternative route was obviously considered to be extremely good but, because it went through the British Aircraft Corporation airfield at Brooklands, the BAC, understandably, opposed the plan.

I have recently taken the precaution of corresponding with the British Aircraft Corporation to find out what its latest position is. I quote from a letter written to me by the Deputy Chairman of BAC, Mr. Allen Greenwood. The letter, which is dated 4th November, says: It certainly would be helpful to have this route finalised once and for all, and BAC would prefer that the original line was confirmed which, of course, would be the least disruptive to our activity at Weybridge and, according to the information we have, the least expensive and least bothersome to existing residents, etc., than any alternative line. As you must know, taking the M25 over the airfield also raises such questions as flood avoidance schemes by the Thames Conservancy Board. Were there to be another Public Inquiry we would almost certainly be an objector, although it is true that our present interest in the runway is very different from that which we had at the time of the last Inquiry and, indeed, arrangements have now been made whereby the responsibility for the whole of BAC's premises to the West of the River Wey has been transferred to BAC's shareholders. Depending on events"— that is a very good phrase— they might conceivably have a different view as far as their interest is concerned, although I would not expect this to be the case. I suspect that a deal has been made somewhere behind the scenes to delay the delineation of the route until the future of the British Aircraft Corporation at Weybridge can be clearly known.

It is ironic that both my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and I are keenly interested and involved in aviation and aerospace, he being a former Minister in that line of country, and we know quite a bit at first hand about the problem, not only of the industry but also of the British Aircraft Corporation at Weybridge. This serves only to heighten our suspicion that something has been going on. I am only voicing the suspicions that are uttered many times in constituencies when people say, "I think that the British Aircraft Corporation is in league with the Department of the Environment and that either the land will be used for housing or the BAC will get massive compensation".

The time has come for all these games to stop and for the Civil Service machine to stop playing games of its own with the lives of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. I should like an announcement to be made by the Minister tonight either confirming the original route or setting up a further inquiry. Will he please, after three and a half years, remove this uncertainty and tell my constituents exactly what they can look forward to and remove all their anxiety and apprehension?

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I want briefly to endorse the comments which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). I will not reiterate the case he made so strongly and admirably. I share his views that matters have reached the point where the delay has gone beyond a joke and has become unacceptable. The excuses we are given now have the character of waffle about them. The late summer has long since passed. So has the time for a decision.

I know full well that the decision in this case is a difficult one. The route, whichever way it goes, is bound to affect quite pleasant pieces of countryside as well as residential areas. If it goes along the route of the Wey, it will have the most unfortunate effect of running across one of the best cricket grounds in the county where my hon. Friend and I have more than once watched enthralling games of cricket. It will also run through some very pleasant meadows where, the Minister will find it difficult to believe, one of my constituents rears Highland cattle.

If the route goes the other way, it will have very harmful consequences for people who bought their properties in the expectation that the route would not come anywhere near them.

Ministers have to take difficult decisions, and they are paid to do so. I know that this decision has been waiting to be taken by a Minister for a year. The time has come when it must be taken one way or the other. It is a fact that the indecision is causing hardship to many of my constituents and to those of my hon. Friend, in particular to those who are unable to find buyers for houses they want to sell, especially when they are not covered by the statutory blight provisions.

This seems to me to be an inexcusable situation. I have told constituents who have complained to me that I believe they already have a strong case for laying before the Parliamentary Commissioner a complaint of maladministration against the Minister. Unless we get satisfaction tonight, I shall encourage my constituents to lay such a complaint.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) for providing this opportunity for me to explain the problems which have been facing us in the Department, under several Governments, in relation to this controversial section of the M25, and to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for expressing the difficulties which burden his constituents as a result of the present uncertainty about this section of the route. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for his mention of the British Aircraft Corporation's letter of 4th November, which I will have looked up and of which I will certainly take note.

In a lighter vein, perhaps I may say that I am conscious that summer has passed. I go home every weekend to Scotland, and I appreciate perhaps a little quicker than people in the South that summer has passed. As a Scotsman, I might be forgiven for saying that had one of the alternative routes passed through a golf course instead of a cricket ground I might take a slightly different attitude.

This is a particularly difficult route and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I give as much informations as I have available to me and undertake to write to them about any of the more specific points on which I am not sufficiently well informed. I hope that I am able to answer some of the points which have been raised, particularly the point of indignation which I thoroughly understand.

One of the problems in matters like this is that giving people the opportunity to make representations sometimes delays matters inordinately, and I am conscious that this matter goes back some time. Another problem is that the more difficult the route and the more difficult the area which it is proposed to cross, the longer it takes to reach a decision.

The South Orbital Motorway is important not only for its orbital function but as a link between the radial motorways M20, M23, M3 and M4, and for these reasons it is being accorded the highest priority. Hon. Members are understandably anxious to see progress made with fixing of the route of the Chertsey-Wisley section. Decisions have already been taken on the route for the remainder of the M25 between Egham in the west and Wrotham in the east and two sections, between Egham and Thorpe and between Reigate and Godstone, are already under construction.

Hon. Members who are much more familiar with this part of the country than I am, although I have been round the area a few times, will know better than I do the position on the ground.

The section with which hon. Members are now concerned, between Chertsey and Wisley, has presented difficulties which, as I shall explain, have made it necessary before any further decision can be made to carry out an intensive study not only of the route proposed by the Department but also of other alternatives which have been put forward.

I am very well aware that many people, particularly in the New Haw and Byfleet areas, will be vitally affected by whichever route is ultimately chosen, and they are, of course, impatient to learn the results of the investigations which they have been told are under way. It is of the first importance, however, that before any decision is taken the fullest possible information on all the complex factors which can affect the choice of the route should be available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

The recent history of the route begins with the publication of draft schemes in 1970 showing the route proposed by the Department for the Chertsey-Wisley section and of the adjacent section between Wisley and Leatherhead. These schemes were considered at a public inquiry which took place between June and September 1971. I think the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton said that there were two inquiries, but I think it was probably one extended or adjourned inquiry.

I need say no more at this time about the Wisley to Leatherhead section than that it was at the time highly controversial and many difficult issues were considered by the inspector in his long and comprehensive report. The consultations on two minor modifications on this section have now been completed and I hope shortly to be able to make a further statement.

On the Chertsey-Wisley section, however, the main issue at the inquiry arose from various proposals put forward during the inquiry for an alternative route which would have crossed the runway of the British Aircraft Corporation's airfield at Weybridge. In view of the hon. Member's remarks I shall certainly be asking searching questions tomorrow to find out about this rumour or belief to see whether there is something behind the suggestion that the Department and the BAC had some sort of arrangement with each other. I would doubt that very much, but I am interested sufficiently to ask specifically about it.

The advantages claimed for such a route were that it would avoid the damage which would be caused by the published route to residential properties in New Haw, Byfleet and West Byfleet. The inspector considered the issues very carefully and decided that The Department's version of a route crossing the BAC runway merits close study. On the debit side, it does serious damage to the market garden activities of Moated Farm; directly affects the development of 12 houses taking place on New Haw Road and other property on that road; has a detrimental effect on the Weymede Estate, whose amenities are already to be affected by flood prevention work planned by the Thames Conservancy; would demolish the White Hart at New Haw and would affect the amenities of the Wey Navigation at the crossing near New Haw Lock. The damage to these interests is admittedly less in total than the damage to the interests affected on the published line; but I think it is a relevant point that the latter had reason from the development plan to expect the trunk road to be constructed through or near to their properties … but the former had no such expectation. None the less were it not for the effect of the alternative route on the activities at the Weybridge Works that are dependent on the runway my conclusion would have been in favour of that route …". Having regard to the evidence given by the British Aircraft Corporation about its future plans or intentions in relation to activities dependent on the runway, and to the employment given by such activities, the inspector felt he had to find against the alternative route but called special attention to the arguments placed before him by the objectors and recommended that before a final decision was reached a confidential report on the future of the Weybridge works should be obtained. This might be part of the basis of the rumour, but I intend to ask about it.

After the most careful study of the inspector's report, the then Secretary of State announced on 11th September 1973 that, in recognition of the difficult issues, both environmental and otherwise, affecting both the published and alternative routes, he wished to be better informed before reaching a decision. For this reason he proposed to have further studies carried out. Depending on the outcome of these studies it might be decided to publish revised proposals which would be open to objection in the usual way or, alternatively, to adhere to the published scheme with possible modifications. In either event no final decision on the route would be reached until an opportunity had been given for further public consultation and, if necessary, a reopening of the inquiry. The then Secretary of State promised a further statement when he was able to announce what course it was proposed to pursue.

Since that time the most intensive investigation of the alternatives has been in progress. These studies have brought to light important revisions of some of the information, both environmental and technical, which was before the inspector when he made his recommendation. Having regard to this fresh information which is now available both in relation to the BAC route and the published route with a possible variation, and in fulfilment of the undertaking given by his predecessor that a final decision would not be reached until an opportunity had been given for further public consultation, my right hon. Friend has decided to reopen the inquiry in respect of the section of M25 between Chertsey and Wisley.

In preparation for the inquiry, plans and information about the alternatives will be put on display and an exhibition will be held which will give all concerned the opportunity to consider the fresh information now available and to make any further representations they may wish. After an appropriate period for the receipt of representations the inquiry will be reopened in the spring of next year, providing the opportunity for full explanation and discussion of the issues involved.

It is my right hon. Friend's wish that this will lead to clarification of all the factors bearing on the selection of the route and will pave the way for an early decision and the removal of the uncertainty which, as the hon. Members have made clear and which I agree exists, is at present causing much distress, blight and anxiety in the areas affected by the various possibilities at present in being.

Mr. Onslow

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and also for announcing a decision. The effect of what he is saying must be to prolong some uncertainty for a period that will run on until next summer. What is the situation with regard to the householders on the alternative routes? Will they be covered by the statutory blight provisions?

Mr. Carmichael

I am conscious of the difficulties, and the hon. Gentleman will realise from the announcement made today by my right hon. Friend about the Channel Tunnel that we are very concerned about planning blight. It is appalling that because the community decides to build a road people are put into difficulty. I lean over backwards to help as far as the statute will allow. I hope to say something about this, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can discuss the matter with me later or write to me about specific cases.

The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton has raised the question of the number of lanes to be provided on this section of the motorway. This question has been reviewed in the light of the general review of standards announced by my right hon. Friend on 17th June and it has been decided that the Chertsey-Wisley length will be constructed to dual three-lane standard. There is a good deal of information, and studies too, to show that the dual three-lane standard will be adequate for this road.

With regard to the question of planning blight raised by the hon. Member for Woking, the Department is prepared to purchase properties which come within the planning blight provisions. In cases where a valid claim for purchase of a property under these regulations is established, compensation is assessed by the district valuer on the basis of current market value—that is to say, the value which the property would be expected to realise if offered for sale on the open market and no new road proposals existed. Whatever route is finally fixed, full use will of course be made of the powers now available under the Land Compensation Act 1973 to mitigate the adverse effects of the motorway on its surroundings.

I agree that I have not covered all the points that have been raised, and the interpretation of blight is something that we can go into in individual cases. I am grateful to the hon. Member for explaining the problems that result from the present uncertainty and for giving me this opportunity to announce the reopening of the inquiry. The Department will shortly write to all those who have previously made representations or objections about these proposals and will as soon as possible give full publicity both to the arrangements for the making of representations and for the reopening of the inquiry.

I think both hon. Members realise that this is a particularly difficult problem. It has affected two different Governments, and we are aware of it. We are aware, too, of the sensitivity of the area. The road not only covers one section of the country but links up no fewer than four motorways. It is, therefore, an important national road as well as being something that affects individuals. We are doing everything possible to help. We are building a controversial road. We are trying to make as much allowance as possible for all the problems that arise, and we shall do the job expeditiously. It is an unenviable task, but I can assure hon. Members that we shall not waste time. I shall do everything possible to cut down what the hon. Member described as Civil Service bureaucracy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve o'clock.