All (WORTHING)

HC Deb 21 June 1977 vol 933 cc1590-602

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

We come at long last to the most important matter that we have to consider—the problems created in Worthing by the A27 proposals of the Department of Transport. I imagine that there has never been an occasion when the longest day of the year has coincided with the longest night of the year. There is also likely to be a photo-finish, since I am less than an hour from achieving the doubtful distinction of having waited longer for an Adjournment debate than anyone in the history of this House. I express my appreciation to the Minister, who shares that doubtful distinction with me, and to his officials.

The matter that I intend to discuss is of the greatest concern to my constituents, collectively—in terms of the environment of the town, which is particularly important because of its status as a holiday and retirement area—particularly, because of its many amenities, and individually, because many of my constituents may be affected by the proposals for a new or enlarged road. Therefore, I should like to summarise the history of the affair. During the five years or more that this matter has been of concern in my constituency, it has been difficult to avoid the impression that officials in the Department have not made successive Ministers fully aware of the history.

The matter first arose five years or more ago, when a proposal was made that the A27 should be improved or should become a motorway. The expressions ''A27" and "M27" are in this sense interchangeable. As a result, a great deal of concern was expressed in the town. Indeed, it was so great that a petition containing almost 9,000 signatures was collected in a very short time. That petition read: We, the residents of Worthing, strongly oppose the proposal to route the M27 motorway through this Borough. Worthing, because it is a residential town and a holiday resort, depends for its existence on the amenities and environment it has built and preserved. It is particularly important, therefore, that in this instance the declared policy of the Secretary of State for the Environment to avoid routeing trunk roads through towns should be followed". As a result of that I approached the then Ministers concerned and asked them to ensure that a feasibility study was carried out on an alternative route which would avoid the town completely, and that an opportunity should be given to people in the area to make a choice between that and a route that went through the town. I had a clear assurance on that matter. Therefore, I was greatly astonished to find that when the consultation documents were eventually put forward in an elaborate, glossy brochure and questionnaire, they contained no such route.

I wrote in the strongest terms to the then Minister pointing out that the Department clearly understood that there would be such a genuine choice and that, in my view, in the light of earlier undertakings, the failure to produce a feasibility study and to give my constituents a genuine choice could only be regarded as a gross breach of faith. I still take that view, because no such choice has yet been given. My constituents have been presented with Hobson's choice in this matter.

We now move on a stage further. As a result of the consultation exercise initiated by the Minister, a public meeting, initiated by the mayor of the day and attended by more than 1,000 people, took place at which again utmost concern was expressed about the proposal for the various routes which would go through the town.

Within a matter of weeks an even larger petition containing about 15,000 signatures was presented. That petition was to the effect that the residents of Worthing strongly oppose the Department of the Environment's proposals for the future route of the A27(T) through the Borough of Worthing. It repeated the point about the residential and holiday status of the town and its amenities and urged that the declared policy of the Secretary of State for the Environment to avoid routeing trunk roads through towns, should be followed. As the Secretary of State you said at a local government conference in Eastbourne that 'driving trunk roads through urban areas, if it ever made sense, does not make sense any more and it should stop'. We support this view. Those were the terms of the petition that I presented to the Minister, but there has been considerable procrastination for a very long time.

I had the privilege of discussing the matter with the previous Minister for Transport before he was succeeded by the present Secretary of State. I am glad to say that he undertook to carry out a feasibility study of a route that went round the town. We still have not had that route put to public consultation. That is wrong. I believe that the matter should be rectified.

The Under-Secretary will know that I put down a Question for what would have been tomorrow had we ever reached it. That Question has fallen, so I do not know the details of the answers to the questionnaire. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the full results of that survey. Of course, it meant that if my constituents wanted a route which avoided the town, they had, so to speak, in American terminology, to put in a "write-in candidate". I would be interested to know to what extent that actually happened in the consultation exercise.

As a result of the public meeting and other consultations the Worthing Borough Council spelled out its objections to the routes, one of which is the one finally selected by the Minister. In a letter to the Secretary of State, the council said: With regard to the routes indicated on the consultaive document, the Council totally rejects both the blue and red routes for the following reasons:

1. (a) Both routes require the demolition of a considerable amount of good quality property.
1593
2. (b) In addition, a wide band of property would suffer considerable loss of visual amenity and exposure to traffic noise.
3. (c) It is considered most undesirable to locate a by-pass route passing through the urban area of Worthing, since the route would be used by traffic having no need to visit Worthing at all.
4. (d) The construction of a major route crossing the town would cause problems of severance, in particular, affecting the community of High Salvington and restricting access to the Downs.
5. (e) The construction of a major grade separated junction at Offington Corner with associated link roads would necessitate considerable property demolition, would severely affect the cemetery, and would be visually most obstrusive at this location."

The council added that the route would have a serious effect on the golf courses, which are amongst the finest in the country. These are tremendously weighty reasons why the Minister should not select the route that he has selected.

That being so, I should like to turn to the more specific points, as against the history of the matter. It seems to me that the delay, which has now come to an end, has, alas, been terminated by a wrong decision. I entirely share the view, which is almost unanimous in my constituency, that the Minister's decision to select the announced routes is incorrect.

In a letter of 31st May, the Minister selected the blue and orange routes. In that letter he put forward a number of reasons why he believed that that was the right pair of routes—one to the east and the other to the west.

I must stress as strongly as I can that there is a widespread feeling that the need for such a road has not been proven. The Minister's predecessor kindly provided me with the traffic forecasts for that route. I was astonished to find, in answer to a Question the other day, that the decision was based not on new forecasts but on old predictions that have been overtaken by events.

We have experienced a period of economic stagnation since these forecasts were made. They took no account of the structure of the area's population, or of the fact that many people in the area live on fixed incomes, are elderly, and do not drive cars. No account wase taken of those circumstances in the calculations on which the need for the road has been based.

The proposal is that the project should not be begun until the mid-1980s, or beyond, because of economic stagnation. The right decision would be to forget about it for at least five years and then to reappraise the situation in the light of circumstances at that time. If that cannot be done, the right decision must be to select the yellow route, which was not a proposal that was subsequently put forward by the council. It was proposed from the start as the route that would avoid the town completely.

I know that the argument is that that route would not divert as much traffic from the town. But the idea that heavy traffic and juggernauts, which cause so much trouble to residential areas, would come off the motorway and deliberately drive through Worthing to take a short cut, is inconsistent with the experience of traffic flows in other parts of the country.

I believe that the bypass solution is the right one. That is borne out not only by those in Worthing but, as I have found particularly in the last few days, by those who have concern for amenity otherwise, and the environmental groups, for example, that might have concern for the situation in respect of the South Downs. No one in my constituency, least of all myself, wishes to see the Downs in any way adversely affected, although there has been a great deal of change in traffic engineering, which in many ways enables for example, the new A24 to be far better, environmentally, going over the Downs than the old road was.

I believe that the points made by, for example, the Friends of the Earth group, who are among those concerned with environmental issues, and a number of other groups that have written to me even within the last few days, have emphasised the fact that the road that has been selected would mean an unnecessary and unjustifiable destruction of the Downs and a waste of public money, as the orange route that has been selected would duplicate the existing dual carriageway and cut off the town from access to the Downs, quite apart from wiping out large areas of golf courses which themselves are a great amenity.

I hope that the Minister will say this evening that he will give a genuine choice to my constituents and that he will reconsider the matter, even though I understand that that would mean that the uncertainty would continue even longer, and there has already been a great deal of procrastination.

That having been said, there is some uncertainty anyway, because the Minister has not made a firm decision with regard to some other sectors of the route, as he pointed out in his latest Press statement. I believe, therefore, that the matter needs to be reappraised either by dropping it entirely for five years or so or, at any rate, by choosing a route that enables the town to be avoided completely.

In his latest letter announcing his decision, the Minister pointed out that we do not have the money. I believe that in a matter such as this, which affects so many people and the entire area, the right thing to do is to wait until one has sufficient money to do the job properly. What the Minister is really doing by his present decision is making the wrong long-run decision for short-run reasons. I do not believe that that is the right basis for decision-taking.

Perhaps I may finally mention one or two further points. It is very important that we should be clear about the situation in three respects. First, I hope that we can have an assurance about the results of the existing survey. Secondly, there is the question of blight. Given that the Minister has now announced a preferred route, may we be told that he is prepared to accept claims now from those who have considered their property to be blighted, or shall we have to wait for a later stage?

Finally, if the Minister decides to go ahead despite all the arguments, which are cogent and overwhelming, will he ensure that if a public inquiry is to be held—as it must be in these circumstances, if the Minister decides to go ahead and tries to press the wrong decision—that it will be held without delay? It would be quite intolerable if further procrastination over another period of years were to take place and leave the matter hanging in the air, as it is at present. If the Minister cannot make the right decision, we must at least be able to pursue the matter in public without delay.

I believe—I should like an assurance about this, too—not only that such a public inquiry should not be unduly delayed but that the Minister will give people a choice, so that they can put forward the arguments for the route that avoids the town completely and dispute whether any change is needed at all. That should be possible at any public inquiry that is to take place

I hope that I am being over-pessimistic about the matter. We have both waited a long time for this debate. I hope that the Minister has been able to read his brief several times and to see the flaws that appeared in it initially, and that he will be able to reach a rational decision so that there will be no need for a public inquiry and we can get the right decision on a matter of tremendous concern.

I have not enumerated all the amenity societies and groups of people in my constituency who are concerned about this matter, but the borough council has consistently expressed the gravest concern, on the lines that I have sought to summarise in what has inevitably been a very short speech, coming at the end of a very long day. I hope that the reply from the Minister will contain answers to the specific points that I have made.

9.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has secured the opportunity to debate the problems created by the proposal to improve the A27 trunk road through his constituency.

I know of the concern that the hon. Gentleman feels on behalf of his constituents about that proposal. I also know from bulky correspondence of the efforts that the hon. Gentleman has put into this matter over the years with successive Ministers and Secretaries of State for Transport. I can assure him that the problems that he has mentioned have also exercised the Department, and it is right that they should have a full airing. I shall try to be forthcoming in the short time available.

I am afraid that there is a basic dilemma. A degree of uncertainty is inevitable if we are to continue to take account of the public's views at the stage of development of proposals at which basic; decisions can be influenced, and yet this must cause anxiety to those people whose homes or businesses may be affected by one or other of the alternatives. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to this. I think that it would perhaps be helpful if I give a fairly full account of the development of our proposals for Worthing so that I can cover both the problems of those who live in Worthing and the need to improve the A27.

The section of the trunk road with which we are concerned is the only significant length of the M27-A27 South Coast trunk road from west of Southampton to Lewes, east of Brighton, which is not already constructed to a high standard or scheduled for improvement. Through the residential area of North Worthing it is generally of single carriageway standard, and here traffic conditions are exacerbated by the fact that the trunk road and the A24 principal road share a common length for a short stretch.

In 1972 the Department commissioned consultants, to examine the future road needs in Worthing, and, if a need for improvement were established, to recommend feasible lines for the improvement of the trunk road. They concluded that the existing road will not provide an adequate route for the expected increase in traffic. Furthermore, their traffic surveys demonstrated that any route for the A27 which is to cater for the traffic using the trunk road and adequately to serve the needs of the town of Worthing would have to pass either through the built-up areas which extend from the coast to the lower slopes of the South Downs, or fairly close to the town and outside that area—which inevitably involves intrusion into the Downs themselves.

This conclusion arises from the fact that such a large proportion of traffic using this part of the A27 has an origin or destination in the town or its environs and so could not be attracted to use any bypass that is a substantial diversion away from the town, for example on the other side of the downs. The forecasts which underlie that survey remain those on which we base our decisions.

The Department accepted the consultants' broad conclusions, and these formed the basis of the public consultation exercise which took place in November 1975. I am sure that the hon. Member for Worthing will recall clearly the alternative routes presented for com- ment. They included options avoiding the residential areas entirely, and options for improvement along the general line of the existing road, through the north of the town.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman met my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), who was then Minister for Transport, in April 1976 to discuss the issues. The Department agreed at that meeting to ask its consultants to examine a further alternative route advocated by the borough council—the so-called yellow route—which ran almost entirely outside the Borough boundary.

The consultants did indeed make such a study, but they concluded that this route would attract much less traffic away from the existing trunk road. It would also have been more expensive to construct and in their opinion more environmentally damaging.

These views were conveyed in June 1976 to all the local authorities involved in the public consultation so that the Department could consider its views on all the possible routes put forward, including this further alternative. It was not until December 1976 that the Department received all the local authorities' views. The last, and one of the most important responses—that from the local highway authority—was unfortunately of little assistance in deciding on the best option to pursue further, since the county council felt unable to express any preference between the options for the western end of the town, as opposed to the borough council which has strong views indeed.

As the hon. Member is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1st June his decision following the consultation. It covered conclusions taken only after the most careful consideration. We know that whatever decision was made, because of the basic dilemmas involved, it would be unwelcome to someone. It could not have been otherwise, bearing in mind the conflicting factors which had been evident in the responses to the consultation. But I cannot accept that the route selected ignores the wishes of the public, as has been suggested.

The public's response was an important consideration in determining the choice of route and was in particular the factor which led my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide that his choice of route for the western half of the improvement should be qualified and that there should be a further round of public consultations about the standard of road for part of this section of the route.

The hon. Member will understand that in a sense these are not referenda—one is taking a qualitative view as well as a quantitative one.

We ignored the eastern routes and thought of the western routes. The green route was considered the best choice by 39 per cent, of residents; the blue route was advocated by 27 per cent; and the red route was considered the best choice by 14 per cent. This brings out the dilemma between towns and Downs, if I may put it like that. The green route, which was at the top of the best choices, was also at the top of the worst choices. It was considered the worst choice by 36 per cent. The blue route was considered the worst choice by 27 per cent., and the red route was thought to be the worst choice by 23 per cent. Of the eastern routes, the orange route was considered the best by 57 per cent, and the purple route by 23 per cent. Obviously there was very little controversy here compared with the western route.

These are the results of the consultation exercise. I do not think that one could reasonably say that the public's wishes have been ignored in this matter, and clearly we face a choice between the green, which was considered the best and the worse, and the blue, which was thought to be the second best and the second worst.

Public response was an important consideration in determining the choice of route and led the Secretary of State to decide that the choice for the western route should be qualified and that further public consultation about the standard of the road should be sought. People were offered a "do nothing" solution, which obviously has attractions for the hon. Member, and a more elaborate solution.

We are at the earliest stage for this road scheme. The non-statutory consultation process which has been conducted is additional to the various safeguards to which the people concerned are entitled by law. The aim so far has been to decide on an option that can be examined in detail. As soon as the pre- ferred route can be worked up to the point where it can be clearly defined, a draft order will be published. If there are objections at that stage, an inquiry may be held, and only after that will a decision be made whether to proceed. Thus the present position is that there is prima facie evidence that a problem will arise and that detailed planning should be undertaken as to how it might be obviated.

That is the best statement that I can make on the present position. We shall proceed as fast as we can on the public inquiry. I understand that the Government's consultation process faced a genuine dilemma in the degree of consultation with those who will suffer blight—and this is a major cause for concern for the hon. Member. We shall proceed as fast as we can on this matter.

The hon. Member asked about the "write-in" views. There was a considerable "write-in" vote for no route at all. I have not the precise figures for a yellow route or the more northerly route, but they were not significant.

The problem of blight was a cause of major concern to the hon. Gentleman. We shall never get a preferred route for the eastern section from those whose homes are physically affected by the route. They will be in a position to serve blight notices on the Department and the normal statutory procedures will arise in the case of the sections of the road where we have decided to have further public consultation and to give further opportunity for views to be aired. There will inevitably be further delay, but this is an unavoidable consequence of giving people further consultation. A discretionary power remains available to the Department and we shall consider sympathetically any particular cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

The statutory blight procedure will operate only in the case of the preferred route that was announced in the Press statement last week.

Mr. Higgins

Will it operate from now?

Mr. Horam

Yes, from now. The blight problem has been considerably diminished by the removal of the threat from properties on alternative routes that have been discarded. In addition, those living on the parts of the preferred route in which there will not be more detailed discussions can serve blight notices on my Department in respect of the acquisition of their properties along the route, provided that they meet the statutory requirement of being a physical entity—house and garden—on the course of the preferred route.

If any individual is dissatisfied with the price paid for his property and assessed by the District Valuer, he may go to the Lands Tribunal on a right of appeal. That is a further safeguard.

I have tried to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked as well as I can in the short time available to me. We are still at a fairly early stage in the planning of this major road and we have to go through all the statutory processes, including a full public inquiry. I have not the slightest doubt that there will be a public inquiry—it would be amazing if there were not. All the basic questions about traffic forecasts can be considered there and we shall consider them as we bring the project up to the public inquiry. In addition, the whole case for the road can be raised at the inquiry.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening.