Traffic (Residential Areas) (Hansard, 8 December 1992)

§ Mrs. Judith Chaplin (Newbury)

We have just heard a petition for a bypass, and I wish to raise a problem that has arisen after a bypass has been built. I welcome the opportunity to raise the problem in the House.

We all want to reduce the congestion on our roads. The Confederation of Business Industry constantly points out the enormous damage that congested roads cause to industry and business. We need to have traffic moving freely around the country and between the industrial areas and ports of this country.

Every time a new road is built, or a road is increased in width, the people who live nearby are affected. Sometimes those people can be compensated financially. At other times they will have insulation through grants from the highway authority. When new roads are built, there will be screens, banking, trees and all manner of methods to reduce the nuisance that new roads cause to those who live near them.

The problem arises because the measures apply only when there are new roads or when additional carriageways are added to existing roads. There must be some alteration to the location, the width or the level of the carriageway. The public can be compensated only if the increased traffic cannot reasonably be foreseen. Therefore, when it is simply an increase in traffic, none of the compensatory measures apply, but even if the existing roads have the same level of noise as a new road, compensation would be justified.

That exact problem has arisen on a road in my constituency. The A34 goes from the north to the south of the constituency. In 1966 a bypass was built around the village of East Ilsley. The residents welcomed the bypass because it brought relief to the village. The village has narrow streets, and the villagers were delighted that the heavy traffic was removed from its centre.

Since that time, the traffic travelling along the A34 bypass beside the village has increased enormously. It has increased especially since the A34 was named as one of the Euroroutes in 1975. I know that the Government do not recognise Euroroutes and do not wish to do all the signing that would be necessary for them; one accepts that that is a sensible decision. However, there is no doubt that the naming of the A34 as a Euroroute means that lorries are directed to use such routes.

Furthermore, there has been a tremendous step change recently because the A34 has become the main link between the south coast ports and the midlands. The A34 also links with the extension of the M40, so it is an excellent way of getting from the south coast of England to the midlands. That extension has enormously increased the traffic on the A34. It has not simply meant that the number of vehicles going by has increased greatly; the tonnage of the vehicles has also increased. Many large lorries now pass along the A34.

The Department of Transport recognises the importance of the A34. I hope that the Newbury bypass will be included in the Department's plans shortly. The Minister should take this opportunity to reassure me that he recognises the enormous importance of the A34 to this area. At present the road beside Newbury is heavily used. 821 Indeed, there are always long queues on it. On the days when there are races at Newbury racecourse the traffic virtually comes to a halt. It can take literally hours to get from the M4 to Newbury. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that it is vital that nothing stops the bypass being built as soon as possible.

The Department recognises the importance of the road because the junction of the A34 with the M4 is to be altered so that the A34 goes straight through and there is no roundabout stopping the flow of traffic. The altered junction will be near another village in my constituency, Chieveley. As the route will be changed, the residents will receive the full protection that can be given to those who live near new roads. But those who live slightly further up the road feel, not unnaturally, that they are being unfairly treated in this case.

We all recognise that the road will be busy. The inevitable consequence of the present level of traffic on the road is that the noise in the village has increased immensely. I understand from the useful booklet published by the Department of the Environment about insulation against traffic noise that the highway authority normally compensates people living near new roads or where roads have been extended if the noise is above 68 decibels, taking an average over a certain period. When measures were taken for the houses nearest to the road in East Ilsley, measurements of 73 and 78 decibels were recorded—well above that which would normally qualify for compensation if the road was new.

I was in the village at 10 o'clock on Sunday morning. The noise was substantial even then—a time which is the most peaceful of the week and the day. Obviously, on a normal working day the noise would be substantially higher.

In other Government Departments we are doing so much to protect the environment. We endlessly introduce legislation to reduce noise for people who live near the source of many types of noise. Yet the people living by the A34 are unprotected. Another booklet entitled "Bothered by noise?" tells people how to complain about noises such as horns of cars or reversing alarms of lorries, all of which are controlled.

A consultative document has been published about sources of noise such as clay pigeon shooting and war games and the number of days on which such activities may be pursued in an area. People recognise that noise is a genuine nuisance and that it destroys the environment. Therefore, the Government have a duty to do something about it. People in the village in my constituency do not suffer from intermittent noise on some days of the year: they suffer from continuous noise throughout the year from the heavy traffic on the road.

I know that if I suggest that people should receive compensation for the increased noise or that the Department should do something to ameliorate the noise, the immediate response will be that the cost is too high. I will be told that if the Department accepted that increased traffic could lead to compensation, it would set a precedent which would cause difficulties in other areas. However, that is not true, because an objective measure could be used above which compensation would be paid.

For example, the Government could say that compensation would be paid if the road was a Euroroute. 822 Or an objective level of the number of vehicles travelling along the road, the tonnage of the vehicles or the level of noise could be set above which compensation could be paid. Several objective measures could be used above which either compensation could be paid or help could be given with insulation or other measures. One could state that above those levels the highway authority should provide grants to insulate houses that are most affected. Of course, that would mean legislation and I am realistic enough to know that that is unlikely in the immediate future. However, the Department should show that it is determined to lessen the impact, which has been substantial because of the change in the way in which the road is used.

An earth bank is not possible because of the siting of the road and the village, but I understand that the Department is considering other measures. It has issued guidance on the way in which barriers are made. Acoustic fences could be used, and I understand that it is experimenting with pervious macadam, which lessens the noise.

I urge the Minister to reconsider the problem caused by the road as it passes the village, and to find out whether anything can be done to lessen its impact. Work will be done on the road when the junction is altered and when the Newbury bypass is built. I hope that at the same time he will consider whether it is possible to take measures to improve the lives of the people in the village. It is a shame for a charming village and the lives of its inhabitants to be destroyed because of constant noise.

§ The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle)

It is a pleasure for me to answer this debate, even at this late hour, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) on raising this important subject. I do not want to embarrass her, but since she came to the House she has often come to me with the problems of her constituency, which she pursues with great force and tenacity. I respect her efforts on behalf of her constituents.

My hon. Friend is right to say that traffic has increased continually during the past few years. That is the result of growing economic activity, of people's desire to have cars and of development decisions. It also reflects our belief that people should have choice in their means of travel. It is certainly true that more than 90 per cent. of passenger journeys and more than 90 per cent. of overland freight trips are by road and so whatever we do to improve to rail transport—we are anxious to move more goods on to rail—we would still need a substantial road programme. All our predictions show that growth will continue. The White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", predicts an increase in total traffic of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025 compared with 1988.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we shall continue to face the problem. We believe that the trend in growth will be faster for inter-urban traffic than for traffic on urban roads. It is significant that, although trunk roads—the major roads across the country—form little more than 4 per cent. of the total road mileage in Great Britain, they carry 31 per cent. of all traffic, including 54 per cent. of heavy goods vehicle traffic.

Like my hon. Friend, I am anxious that we should do everything possible to reduce congestion because it is bad 823 for the economy and for the environment—it leads to increased air pollution, for example. We are determined to do everything possible to relieve congestion and to protect the environment.

My hon. Friend was mostly concerned about noise, but because air pollution is important for communities near roads, it is worth recording that we are making substantial progress in restraining such pollution.

Tight new emission standards for cars and lorries are coming in over the next few years, and from the beginning of 1993 most new cars will need catalytic converters. They should reduce harmful emissions by about 80 per cent. The MOT emissions check was introduced for cars in November 1991, and since 1 September there has been a metered smoke test in the annual test for heavy diesels. A similar test for light vans and diesel cars will be included for the first time in the MOT test from 1 January next. So, as my hon. Friend will see, we are doing much to combat pollution.

Another effective way of dealing with congestion and helping communities is by a substantial bypass programme. If we can build bypasses, we remove traffic from town centres and villages. That is of huge benefit to those communities. Under our roads programme, we have completed about 400 improvement schemes since 1979, including more than 150 bypasses. This year we expect to complete another 32 schemes, of which 11 will be bypasses. So a substantial number of roads are bypasses.

My hon. Friend referred to her wish for a Newbury bypass. I also share that wish. I hope that in the coming year we shall be able to make good progress with that scheme, and I urge her to keep in close contact with me about it. We know how hard pressed that community is and we want to relieve Newbury of traffic.

I wish to go in some detail into the provisions for compensation because my hon. Friend argued a close brief and mentioned precisely some of the mitigation measures and the compensation we have paid. It is worth reviewing those measures. An important aspect of the entry of a scheme into the roads programme is that it brings into play the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973. In those circumstances, when, as a highway authority, we are acting as a developer in providing a new road or significantly altering an existing one, the Act imposes statutory obligations and gives us powers which enable us to provide traffic noise mitigation measures, and to pay compensation for depreciation in the value of properties arising from physical factors, including noise intrusion emanating from a new or altered road.

Under the Act, where a new road is first opened to public traffic or where a new carriageway is added to an existing road, the highway authority is required to offer insulation to occupiers of eligible properties if the noise level on a facade of the property rises above a specified level.

My hon. Friend explained in some detail the levels of noise that must be reached, and I shall not restate those, although it must be said that the levels are clearly thought out, that we apply them in a scientific way and that we do whatever we can to mitigate noise. Sometimes we do not provide insulation, for example, if we believe that a noise barrier would he more effective. Since coming to my present post, I have been struck by the nuisance that noise creates. I have already dealt with several debates on the 824 subject, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are in no way complacent about the problem of noise. We are determined to do all we can to reduce it.

The question of noise from different forms of road surface is particularly difficult. The perception is that the noise from concrete surfaces is higher than that from black-top. Because that perception is clear, a substantial review was followed by my announcement on 28 July of a three-pronged attack on the source of noise from road surfaces.

The first development will mean that motorways with a heavy traffic load and trunk roads carrying more than 75,000 vehicles a day will generally be constructed with black-top rather than concrete. We shall consider roads carrying less than that volume scheme by scheme to achieve the best result.

The second and most exciting development will be that, in urban and other noise-sensitive areas, porous asphalt will be used where conditions are suitable and where the benefits outweigh the higher cost. I hope to make considerable progress in the next few months with that new material.

Thirdly, we are continuing our research and next year we shall include a trial on a scheme in Derbyshire of a new concrete called "whisper concrete", which has been developed successfully in some European countries. We want to see how it does here. So we are not complacent and will try to make new roads quieter.

My hon. Friend specifically spoke of the hard-pressed community of East Ilsley. I am sorry that none of those measures will help that community and I shall seek to explain why, but first I shall put the A34 in context. It is a strategic route between the industrial west midlands and the south coast ports which has been progressively developed to a high standard. From the Oxford area northwards, the route comprises the M40 extension that was opened early last year. From Winchester southwards, linking the M27, it is the M3, the last section of which is now being built. Between Oxford and Winchester, the majority of the A34 will have been improved under a series of schemes to which the noise mitigation provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 have been applied wherever relevant. That includes the East Ilsley-Chilton improvement, the remaining A34 schemes still in preparation, the Newbury bypass and the A34-M4 junction 13, which is the Chieveley scheme. All those will be treated in accordance with the Act.

As my hon. Friend explained, the main exception is the East Ilsley bypass itself, which was completed a couple of years before the 1969 cut-off date to which the retrospective provisions of the Act apply.

The traffic flow on the A34 in the East Ilsley area is in the order of 35,000 vehicles a day, which is appropriate for the standard of road. Therefore, we do not believe that there is excessive traffic on that road at present. Although it has increased and can be expected to increase further, the A34 is no different from many other roads throughout the country.

On noise mitigation, the key factor is that the length of A34 in question is an existing road for which we have no improvement proposals. As my hon. Friend said, if that road were improved, it would be a different matter and provisions would apply to the road's improvement or redesign.

My hon. Friend mentioned Euroroutes. The A34 was designated as a Euroroute some time ago in the European 825 agreement on main international traffic arteries, which the United Kingdom has not yet ratified. My hon. Friend will understand that designation has little significance in the context of noise intrusion and confers no entitlement to special noise measures or treatment.

The legislation does not take into account traffic levels more than 15 years after the opening of a road or review the noise mitigation measures provided as a consequence of traffic growth that is greater than that estimated when a scheme was prepared. We do not provide any relief from roads such as the East Ilsley bypass, opened before 17 October 1969. The obligations placed on us relate only to where a new road is provided or an existing one significantly altered.

I have every sympathy with those who have suffered an intensification of traffic noise as a result of increased traffic volumes. However, in the absence of legislation requiring us to restrict noise intrusion to prescribed levels along existing unaltered roads, we could not justify the substantial costs involved in meeting, on an equitable basis, the many requests that we receive for protection.

I know that that response will not be of much comfort to my hon. Friend, who wants to change the position. However, I must emphasise that the costs of doing so would be substantial. We believe that, on trunk roads alone, the cost would be more than £2 billion throughout 826 the country. That would mean the postponement of many bypasses that my right hon. and hon. Friends desire to be built around their communities, the delaying of many much-needed schemes to reduce congestion, and the imposition of an intolerable burden on our road building programme. I do not believe that the Government would be justified in delaying so many road schemes and bypasses.

I am sorry that I cannot help my hon. Friend further this evening. I admire the tenacity with which she presses her case. I am always willing to consider such matters again to see whether there is any way in which I can help the community that is exceptionally hard pressed. However, I have to do so without opening the flood gates. If my hon. Friend would like to continue the discussion with me and my Department, she is more than welcome to do so, and I look forward to many future discussions with her.

I have described the growth in traffic and what we are doing to reduce noise in new schemes, such as the new techniques, the noise barriers and the new surfaces. I have described the detailed legislation and tried to explain why, in this case, I cannot bend to her arguments, although I sympathise with them. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important topic to the attention of the House.