§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
10.42 pm§ Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)I am very glad to have this opportunity of referring to the development of the A27 in the Worthing area and particularly the situation with regard to the preferred route which is being announced by the Government, a route which has been described by my constituents as a throughpass, not a bypass, and to put to the Minister the overwhelming case for having a real bypass. We have just had presented to the House several petitions. A petition of no fewer than 24,000 signatures was subscribed to by my constituents, arguing that the town should have a real bypass. That reflected the strength of public opinion on the issue.
The Minister and I are more fortunate this evening than we were when I raised the matter with his predecessor two years ago. On that occasion, we sat in the House all night considering the Consolidated Fund Bill before the matter came up at about 7.45 in the morning. I am glad to see the Minister in his place. On the previous occasion I pointed out that I had raised the matter with no fewer than 15 Ministers over the years. My hon. Friend the Minister must regard himself as the 16th.
I must say two things. First, I wonder whether I should provide a video to the relevant Ministers so that we could play back the arguments to them. Secondly, the constant succession of Ministers on the issue makes it very difficult to sustain the argument at a ministerial level. There is some danger of a "Yes, Minister" approach being adopted. The Minister has constantly changed but the bureaucrats, who throughout have been in favour of the preferred route, which I personally regard as highly objectionable, have managed to sustain their argument. One of my hon. Friend's many predecessors did, however, agree that a full traffic, environmental and economic assessment should be carried out before the public inquiry. I very much welcome that. It has been agreed that it will cover both the preferred route and the alternative route of a bypass. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me the likely timetable for the public inquiry.
A monitoring group has been set up, composed largely of members of the borough council, to consider the assessment of the alternative routes in conjunction with the Department. However, the members of the monitoring group have recently expressed their concern to me at the fact that, at a meeting on 16 July, they had considerable difficulty getting any information from the Department of Transport about exactly what was going on. There were rumours that additional land had been blighted and that blight notices had been issued, but no public statement to that effect has been made. Despite the complete confidentiality with which the monitoring group has been operating, it was denied any information.
There are rumours that a much more elaborate scheme on the preferred route is now being developed by Acer Consultants, who are charged with the responsibility of developing the detailed plans. Those rumours are now well founded. It seems that the expense of such a development on the preferred route will be very much greater than that which was originally envisaged. I believe that, in any case, the economics may be in favour of a bypass. That is increasingly apparent from the traffic surveys that have 1272 been conducted. If that is so, my hon. Friend needs to spell out exactly what is now in mind, because it may be quite different from the plan for the preferred route that was outlined at the time of the original consultation exercise when my constituents were asked to express a view on the various alternatives. I hope that that can be borne in mind. I must stress that some doubts have recently been cast on the validity of that consultation. It is suggested that some of the junction improvements at Patching were already in the programme and that some of the alternatives that were put out for public consultation were not really available.
But be that as it may, as my hon. Friend well knows, because he has been sympathetic in receiving my representations on these matters, I am concerned about the situation that has developed in relation to the preferred route. Once the preferred route is announced, a number of people become affected, including those whose properties are not actually on the line of the preferred route and who are not, therefore, entitled under legislation to the blight notices that would enable them to sell if they wished to do so.
Clearly, however, the value of their property is seriously affected. It has become virtually impossible for them to sell because the announcement of the preferred route is well known. They suffer from a great many other inconveniences. It is true that legislation that the House has considered this Session will do something to help those who have blighted properties, but I have been concerned at the difficulty that many of my constituents—not those off the route, because they will be in a hopeless position for many years, but those on the route—have encountered in terms of getting adequate compensation. I have had much correspondence with successive Ministers on that point. There have been considerable problems with valuations.
However, what is really worrying about the A27 issue is that my constituents are increasingly convinced that they are being harassed to sell their properties so that most of them will have done so before the public inquiry. That has happened in several ways. Some of the letters state, "Although you have applied for a blight notice, you still have not come up with a specific proposal and must realise that the valuation that we have given you may not continue to be applicable," and so on. Such letters are clearly designed to encourage people to sell, whereas they are entitled to a blight notice and to remain in their homes until such time as they wish to exercise that blight notice.
Other people feel that the way in which the matter has been handled is designed to get them out of their homes. When, some 10 years ago, the Department bought the properties—the decision was subsequently reversed, and they were resold—no such problems arose. Some of the current difficulties have arisen because of unsuitable tenants. Properties have been let at uneconomic rents; that, too, did not happen before and I understand that it is no longer happening, but it has led to serious problems. People have felt very intimidated when disturbances have been created outside their homes and in some cases the police have been called in. I have visited the constituents who have been affected by these problems and they are clearly causing concern.
The Department used to manage the properties itself, but recently it has contracted the work to the North British Housing Association. Most of the cases involving unsatisfactory tenants have been under the auspices of the association, although in some instances the borough council was originally in charge. The association's 1273 management of the properties appears not to have been adequate in other respects: some of the properties have been badly damaged. In one instance there was widespread flooding for a long time, as a result of which the adjoining house—they are semi-detached—has also been damaged. Clearly, the managers have been negligent.
My impression is that the pressure is on people to receive a blight notice, sell out and leave their homes, although they may wish to remain because they feel that in due course a sensible decision will be reached, a bypass will be built and there will be no need for them to leave.
Car repairs and enormous heaps of rubbish present further problems; I shall not go into the details, as my hon. Friend is familiar with them. Moreover, some houses that should have been looked after—they are, after all, the taxpayers' property now—have been boarded up. The general level of maintenance has declined, which has adversely affected both those living on the line of route who have decided to remain although they have received blight notices, and those in the adjoining area who have not even been given the option of receiving such a notice.
The situation has caused serious emotional problems. It also suggests that the money spent by the Government in purchasing the properties, and on repairing them when they have not been properly maintained, is imposing an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. The experiment of employing outside organisations to look after the properties—for I gather that it is an experiment—has resulted in considerable suffering for individual constituents.
The basic feeling is that the aim is to clear the decks in advance of the public inquiry. If it is true that the preferred-route option will be much more expensive than previous options and that the cost to the Treasury will be much greater than was originally thought, the arguments for a proper bypass are surely overwhelming. It is not just a question of the traffic going from east to west. It is also a question of the traffic from the north going west or east and of the traffic from the east and west going north. That traffic need not come near the town. If the preferred route is sustained, it will continue to come to the main roundabout and go through a built-up area.
The Government's declared policy for many years has been to take traffic away from built-up areas and to provide bypasses. Everywhere along the south coast apart from Worthing has a proper bypass. Even small towns and villages have one. It is the only place where, instead of a bypass, we get a throughpass, which goes through a built-up area and many of the amenities. That is a serious matter, particularly for a town that relies considerably on tourism.
I pay tribute to the sympathetic approach of my hon. Friend in dealing with some of the personal problems that I have mentioned. I hope that he will carefully consider whether the time has now come to reconsider the preferred route. At the least, there must be a full assessment of the preferred route and the bypass route—the right one should go north of the Cissbury ring, not south of it—so that the public inquiry has a clear choice between the two routes.
One must see the position on the ground, both to understand the case for the bypass and to appreciate the immediate problems facing my constituents. I have raised this matter on several previous occasions and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so now. The plight of individual constituents on or near the route concerned has deteriorated substantially. I hope that we shall now make 1274 real progress in getting away from the preferred route and on to a bypass. If my hon. Friend would spare time to come in person, it could be a clear sign of the Government's concern to ameliorate the problems of traffic through Worthing in the short term for individuals and in the long term for my constituents.
§ The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope)It has become an almost regular annual event for my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) to raise in the House the concerns which he and many of his constituents have about the proposed improvement to the A27 between Worthing and Lancing.
It was on 21 July 1989 that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), the then Minister for Roads and Traffic, announced the preferred route and in so doing stated that the task of selecting the right scheme for improving this section of the A27 had been extremely difficult. He recognised that the decision to choose a route through part of north Worthing would cause great concern to many people. My hon. Friend's prognosis has been more than borne out by subsequent events. In the debate on the summer Adjournment on 23 July last year, my right hon. Friend drew attention to some of the key issues which were then uppermost in the minds of his constituents.
Tonight, just over one year later, my right hon. Friend has drawn attention to the revisions to the detail of the preferred route which have resulted in some additional houses being blighted; to the problems which there have been with the management by the North British Housing Association of the properties which have been acquired on the route of the proposed road; and to the problems resulting from the length of time which has been taken to bring this scheme from the preferred route announcement to the stage where draft orders are published. I should try to deal with each of those issues in turn, but first let me say that I am looking forward to visiting my right hon. Friend's constituency to examine this further on the ground. I hope to visit shortly.
I will not trouble the House with the complex history of this scheme, which predates the announcement in July 1989 of the preferred route. Before making that announcement, four possible options were examined in detail. The routes were identified as the yellow or outer Findon route, the blue or Findon Gap route, the green or inner route with Lancing bypass, and the purple or inner route with an on-line at Lancing. The outer Findon route was rejected because it would involve a very long detour through the downs and would not attract sufficient traffic out of Worthing to justify the environmental impact on the downs and the estimated costs of construction. The purple route was rejected as having the severest impact upon people's homes. It would have involved the demolition of more than 200 properties and would also have been very expensive.
My right hon. Friend, together with Worthing borough council, has always been in favour of a full bypass option around Worthing to relieve homes in north Worthing. It is his view that, with suitable environmental protection measures such as the provision of tunnels, the bypass to the north would not have had an unacceptable impact upon the downs. The blue route option, however, which my right hon. Friend prefers, would still leave heavy traffic 1275 flows on the existing road, so that conditions of people living alongside it would not be significantly improved and there would be a serious impact upon the south downs area of outstanding natural beauty which could not be sufficiently ameliorated to justify the loss of amenity involved.
For that reason, the green route was adopted as the preferred route, although I recognise that by adopting that route the Government could not achieve their normal preference for a full bypass solution. A full bypass, however, is not always the best solution and there are many examples up and down the country where a full bypass has to be rejected after making a balanced judgment on the different conflicting issues.
We recognise that the green route is strongly opposed, although it also fair to say that those who sent written responses to the Department following consultation were almost evenly split between those who favoured the green route—some 51 per cent.—and those who supported other alternatives. But because of the opposition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced that a public inquiry will be held to consider all the issues involved, including the various alternative options. To facilitate that process, the consultants who have been appointed to undertake the detailed design of the scheme, Acer Consultants Ltd., are currently in the process of undertaking a full traffic, environmental and economic analysis of both the green and the blue routes.
A ground investigation, due to begin on 29 July, will also cover both routes. West Sussex county council, Worthing borough council and Adur and Arun district councils are represented on a monitoring group to oversee the preparation of these assessments. The aim of that local authority monitoring group is to reach agreement on matters of fact, such as traffic data, so that the inquiry inspector can concentrate on considering the arguments for and against the preferred option, compared with alternatives that may be put forward.
Work on the detailed design of the preferred route is currently under way with a view to publishing draft orders for the scheme in the spring next year. The traffic, environmental and economic assessment of both the blue and the green routes will be published at the same time. The public inquiry will take place about six months later, which I hope will allow sufficient time for all the parties concerned to study and comment on the assessment results.
§ Mr. HigginsIn my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, he referred to revision of the plan for the preferred route. There have been widespread rumours that that proposal has been radically changed, but the public have no knowledge of that change. If it is radically changed, that would alter the position of the earlier consultation, which was carried out on the basis of a relatively—although still appalling—junction at the point where the A24 and the A27 meet. If that is changed on a larger scale, as seems to be indicated by the fact that more properties that have become blighted now have to be purchased, the whole consultation must be reconsidered.
§ Mr. ChopeI intend to deal with my hon. Friend's point, but first may I finish dealing with the issue relating to the public inquiry.
1276 If, in the meantime, the assessment results were to indicate a better route than our preferred green option, I assure my right hon. Friend that the Department would reconsider its position before a public inquiry. Obviously, that would be the prudent and sensible thing to do.
Detailed design work on the scheme is currently under way and, in that connection, Acer Consultants have refined the scheme that was put forward by the previous consultants, Howard Humphries. In doing so, a small number of additional properties have been identified as possibly being affected by the scheme. I assure my right hon. Friend that the preferred route has not been changed, but that minor adjustments have been made to it as detailed design work has continued. The centre line of the preferred route has remained the same, but detailed design work made it clear that the route would impinge upon properties that it had been thought it would not affect.
Although it is not possible to give a final number of properties likely to be required for the scheme, it seems that about 127 could be affected. However, that is by no means certain and in any event not all 127, or whatever the final number, will have to be demolished. The Department is willing to acquire properties even when only part of the holding may be affected by the route. That is the background to the recent letters that the Department sent to some eight property owners—and this is probably the basis of the rumours to which my right hon. Friend referred—who had originally made blight applications which were rejected. They have now received letters from the Department inviting them to submit fresh blight applications because it is quite clear on closer consideration that their properties may be blighted as a result of this route.
I emphasise that that is not being done by the Department to try to harass those occupants into giving their properties to the Department. It is to try to be fair to them. I emphasise, as did my right hon. Friend, that a blight application can be accepted without any commitment on the part of the vendor to sell the property to the Department before the result of the public inquiry.
I strongly emphasise that there is no prejudging of the issue. Some people say that their properties are blighted and that they cannot be expected to live with the uncertainty until the outcome of the public inquiry. In the interim, they seek some redress. Others quite understandably say that they have been living in these houses for many years and have no intention of giving them up. Whether the properties are blighted or not, the occupants hope that when the inspector has considered all the evidence he will conclude that the Department's preferred route is wrong and that the route promoted by my right hon. Friend or a similar one should ultimately be accepted.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to the failings of the North British Housing Association in the management of some of the properties for which it is responsible along the line of the proposed road. The background to that is that, as a result of a scrutiny by the Department, it was thought that it would be more efficient for the management of properties acquired by the Department pending the detailed consideration of road schemes by an inquiry, to be in the hands of a housing association or some other specialist agent rather than in the hands of the Department. The Department sensibly responded to that scrutiny by inviting tenders for the management of our properties in various areas, including those in Worthing.
1277 I have shared with my right hon. Friend my concerns on this matter, and I am pleased to say that there has been a significant improvement in the performance of the North British Housing Association. During the past three to four months, it has reduced the wholly unacceptable backlog of empty properties awaiting tenants. At present, of the 90 properties in the Department's ownership, only nine are empty. Two of those are being relet, three are in the process of being brought back into a habitable state before letting, and four have been acquired only very recently. The Department has also accepted blight notices in respect of a further 13 properties, although we do not think that all those will actually have to be acquired by the Department in the immediate future.
My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, without the need to proceed through the courts, the housing association has already obtained vacant possession of two of the three properties in which we had identified serious breaches of our tenancy agreements which had given rise to complaints from neighbouring residents—art issue that my right hon. Friend has raised with me at more than one meeting.
A court hearing in respect of the remaining property has been fixed for 14 August. When reletting property or placing new tenants, the housing association has been asked to pay particular attention to the selection of suitable families to avoid this type of problem in the future.
The North British Housing Association was given three months from 1 June to 1 September this year in which to demonstrate that it could improve its performance beyond 1278 that which it had achieved before. There is already some evidence of an improvement, but as my right hon. Friend has made clear in this debate, it is not possible yet to describe the situation as ideal. I assure my right hon. Friend that the performance of the North British Housing Association will be critically examined at the end of that three-month review period on 1 September. In the meantime, the housing association has indicated its willingness, in conjunction with the Department, to meet representatives of local opinion to discuss matters of common concern, and I understand that that offer remains open.
Everyone is agreed that the A27 between Worthing and Lancing is in desperate need of improvement. Many other parts of the A27 and A259 have been or are already being improved as part of the Government strategy to provide a high-quality route between Southampton and Dover. I fully understand the frustration caused by the delay in progressing the scheme. But I hope that in this short debate I have been able to allay the concerns of my right hon. Friend and his constituents about the objectivity with which this issue is being addressed so that when the public inquiry comes, the inspector is as far as possible able to draw conclusions from an agreed set of facts. In the meantime, I look forward to meeting my right hon. Friend in his constituency very shortly and to discussing any other issues arising in more detail.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.