HC Deb 20 May 1993 vol 225 cc472-8

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

10.12 pm
Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing)

Some years ago, I had the distinction of running in the athletic race immediately after Sir Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile. I felt a sense of anti-climax, and, following the vote on the Maastricht treaty, I have the same feeling tonight in raising the A27 in Worthing. To many of my constituents, the immediate and perhaps even the long-term impact of what is proposed for the A27 in the Worthing area may be of much greater importance than the Maastricht treaty.

What should be done about the A27 has been a matter of great controversy for 15 or 20 years, and I have raised the matter with a succession of Ministers in Adjournment debates. I have forgotten to how many Ministers I have had to explain the problem, but I am delighted to see the Minister in his place this evening because he has been kind enough to visit Worthing and examine the situation for himself.

I have argued throughout for a real bypass for Worthing, not what the Government have proposed—a preferred route, which is a throughpass, not a bypass, and which cuts the town in two.

Therefore, it is important that, as the matter comes to a climax with a public inquiry, specific issues should be raised, and I am happy to have the chance to do so this evening. There is still much uncertainty about precisely when the public inquiry is likely to take place. If I achieve nothing else, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could give some information on that issue, which is of great interest to my constituents.

Everywhere along the south coast, apart from Worthing, even quite small villages have or are about to have bypasses. It is wrong that the same should not be true of Worthing. A statement issued not long ago—greeted enthusiastically by my constituents who detected a change of Government attitude—stated that the Government's policy was to take traffic away from towns. The Government's preferred route certainly does not do that.

When the original proposal of 12 years ago or more was dropped, it became apparent that if something was not done, developments of the A27 either side of Worthing would eventually meet in the middle, and there would be no possibility of a bypass. It therefore became necessary to reopen the issue. At that time, the relevant Minister, now Lady Chalker, was kind enough to give a clear undertaking that a complete study would be made, not only of the preferred route, but of alternative routes which would be genuine bypasses.

We are in an unusual position—it may be unprecedented. Work has been carried out on the preferred route. In addition, a detailed survey has been conducted into the economics and other aspects of both the preferred route and the bypass. Therefore, the public inquiry and the examiner will be able to look in detail at both proposals. Many of my constituents were concerned that the public inquiry would be able only to say yes or no to the preferred route.

Therefore, I am happy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that that is not the position. In a letter that I received a few days ago, he said: I am satisfied that the Department was right to look at the preferred route, and the alternative blue and red routes, before draft orders were published. The full traffic, environmental and economic assessment of these routes will be available at the public inquiry to enable the issues to be fully debated, and these alternatives, together with any other alternatives which may be proposed, will be considered by the Inspector. The letter continues—this is the crucial passage: I can confirm that the Inspector will be able to make recommendations either to make the draft orders before the inquiry, modified if necessary, or to reject them. In the latter case, he may also recommend that new draft orders are prepared for one of the alternative routes. It is important that the inspector should have the option of recommending new draft orders on the basis of a bypass.

The recent exhibitions setting out the various alternatives were not entirely unbiased, and concentrated on the preferred route rather than the alternatives. The videos run at those exhibitions clearly showed that the damage to the downs done by the preferred route would be significant, particularly in those regions where the downs are most accessible to my constituents. That fact must be clearly brought out.

Time and again we have had new and specific inquiries into the issues. It has become apparent that the first inquiry suggested that the preferred route would be much more economic in cost-benefit terms than the bypass—I refer to the route north, not south, of Cissbury ring. I cannot find many people in favour of the bypass that passes south of Cissbury ring. It has become apparent that the economics have begun to converge. If one also takes into account the need to run a dual carriageway through Findon valley, the economics may favour a bypass rather than the preferred route.

I stress that one of the important elements in assessing the preferred route has been the cost of delays which occur where the road is built and which I understand may last for two years or more. I draw the Minister's attention to the Worthing Herald of Friday 30 April. The headline is "Road Chaos in Town" and above it is the lin Fire-fighters face potentially fatal delays in traffic mayhem". That is the result of minor changes at the Offington roundabout, which will be the epicentre of the chaos that is likely to be caused by the preferred route. If we proceed with the preferred route rather than the bypass, that will be the shape of things to come. Massive delays have already been caused, some lasting for more than an hour over a matter of only a few hundred yards. I believe that the study of the preferred route has grossly underestimated the costs.

I wish to concentrate on a particular point rather than the general case which I have already expounded at some length. I am very worried about the impact of this whole affair on my constituents—for example, in terms of the valuations placed on properties bought under blight notice. If the value is disputed, the individual can reject it only by going to the Lands Tribunal, which is a very expensive business. If the matter is not resolved in the individual's favour, he will have to bear very heavy costs which are likely to far outweigh any improvement in the terms that he might get. Such a bias against being able to appeal against false valuations is very unfortunate.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)

Although my right hon. Friend's constituents and my constituents have very different views on the route, which we do not have time to discuss in detail this evening, perhaps my right hon. Friend will accept that we agree on one issue, which is that public money should be spent on compensating the affected constituents rather than on remunerating lawyers for interminable public inquiries.

Sir Terence Higgins

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is also worried about his constituents who will be affected by the road, that compensation is important. Although we improved the matter in 1991, compensation is still inadequate.

In a sense, what I am about to say goes against the main case that I am making, but what worries me in particular is the way in which the Department has declined to buy property which is just off the proposed preferred route. Clearly, as properties are bought, the number of protesters against the preferred route may diminish, but I nevertheless believe that the Department has adopted a very harsh attitude to the buying of property very near the preferred route from people who wish to move for many reasons, ranging from medical problems, a change of job or even a divorce.

The Minister has tended to say that the Department will consider only properties that are within 100 m of the centre line of the road which, in some cases, may be four lanes or more wide. That is far too close. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the figure of 100 m was reached, because, in view of the noise and chaos likely to be caused by the road works, such property is likely to be seriously affected even during construction.

Frankly, it is wholly unrealistic for my hon. Friend to say, as he has in his many letters to me about several cases that I have raised with him, that if people live more than 100 m from the centre of a four-lane road, their enjoyment of their home will not be significantly affected. I do not think that that argument can be sustained, and I feel that my hon. Friend the Minister should take a more sympathetic attitude.

Of course, the number of such cases is now diminishing; as I said earlier, a decision is likely within the next 18 months or two years, and, if the project goes ahead, the road will not be built for a further two or two and a half years.

Let me select an example at random. In a letter, my hon. Friend the Minister has stated: The decision on whether the enjoyment of a property is seriously affected by a road scheme is a matter entirely for the Department's discretion based on the facts of each case. As you know, as a guideline we have said that we would normally expect qualifying properties to be within about 100 metres from the centre line of the proposed road. In my view, that gives far too much discretion—with no right of appeal—to people who may have important reasons for feeling that they must sell their properties, and are clearly unable to do so in the present circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a more sympathetic line on the outstanding cases than the line that he has adopted in the past.

My hon. Friend has suggested that certain people—in particular, members of the the British Legion—can be moved to temporary accommodation while the road is being built. That does not take account of the type of person, or the age groups, involved in this case.

I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us more about the timing, and, more particularly, about the basis on which he adopted the 100 m criterion—which, as I have said, I consider entirely wrong. I also hope that he will take a more sympathetic attitude. People who would like to remain in their homes because they believe, as I do, that the bypass will eventually be built and that the preferred route will not go ahead feel that they are being driven out of their homes, because many of the rented properties have been occupied by people who have proved extremely unsatisfactory and unpleasant tenants. They feel that they are being driven out for the reason that I have mentioned: I believe that there will eventually be a bypass, and I shall continue to do everything I can to bring that about.

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

It is a great honour to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). I am delighted that he has secured this debate: he has been an admirable debater and fighter for his constituency, and this is the third Adjournment debate that he has secured on the subject of the bypass.

My right hon. Friend mentioned his athletic ability. He has also shown great endurance in his campaign. I know that, in his youth, he was a well-known sprinter; it is interesting to note that, as he has entered middle age, he has turned into a runner of marathons. However, he has always been determined to represent his constituents, and has put their views unflinchingly.

I understand the problems faced by many of my right hon. Friend's constituents. Difficulty, uncertainty and discussion are always involved when a road is planned to run through a community, or close to where people live. None the less, I believe that our procedures for road building offer the public considerable opportunities to present their views: in that respect, I think that we are one of the most generous countries in the world.

As we know, a road programme must first be subjected to public consultation, as this has been. Draft orders are then published and exhibited, and the next stage is a public inquiry. Throughout those procedures, my officials and I —and my predecessor as Minister have tried to be as helpful as possible; I know that my right hon. Friend accepts that. I have always been grateful for the courtesy with which he has pressed his point, despite his having done so with great vigour.

My right hon. Friend asked about the public inquiry, and I am glad to be able to announce that it will start at 10 am on Tuesday 28 September at the Assembly hall, Stoke Abbott road, Worthing, and will move to the Ardington hotel, Steyne Gardens, on Tuesday 19 October. The inquiry will be conducted by Mr. P. J. Leveridge, an independent inspector appointed by the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, on the nomination of the Lord Chancellor. The public inquiry will give everyone in Worthing and outside the chance to argue a case, and I know that my right hon. Friend has a formidable array of facts, figures and calculations to put to the inquiry.

We all accept the need to improve the A27. It is an important major route along the south coast to Chichester and beyond. The road will become a dual carriageway and be brought up to modern standards. It is not the need for the road that is at issue, but the route that it is to take. I know that my right hon. Friend wants an alternative to the north but, as he knows, such a route would not be without difficulty, as it would go through the downs, and it, too, would be opposed by many people, not least by my hon.

Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). We must all agree that, if nothing were done, conditions in Worthing would deteriorate even further, and would become intolerable.

My right hon. Friend knows the route well, so there is no need for me to describe it in detail. He can present his case to the public inquiry, but I assure him that we shall take great care to design the road as sympathetically as possible. The scheme involves two tunnels, which is pretty remarkable. The first, a bored tunnel through Lancing ring, will be about 580 m long. The other, of similar length, will be a cut-and-cover tunnel where the route passes through the north of Worthing, in the High Salvington area. The tunnels will provide significant benefits for the environment of the new road.

Furthermore, we shall use porous asphalt to build the road. That is a remarkable new surface that seems to halve traffic noise, and we now want to use it, whenever suitable, where roads go through towns and other places where people live. We shall also erect extensive amenity barriers and earth mounding. I know that it is important to maintain access to the downs for the people of Worthing, and we intend to do that, too, as far as possible.

My right hon. Friend talked about his worries about disruption during the construction of the road. I know that that is a continuing concern, which he has raised on several occasions, and I can tell him that extensive traffic management measures will be employed to minimise disruption to traffic. The provision of a temporary highway to the north of the existing A27 Arundel road while a tunnel through High Salvington is constructed will ensure that traffic continues to flow through the area. We shall also ensure that access in the area is maintained at all times.

Sir Terence Higgins

My hon. Friend mentioned that idea in a letter, and I was puzzled, because the only route that could be taken north of the A27 in the area that he mentioned passes bang through the middle of a cemetery.

Mr. Carlisle

I understand that such an alternative can be provided, and if my right hon. Friend and I can get together with a map of Worthing, I should like to point it out to him. Obviously we shall consult local people.

During construction we shall impose strict controls on the contractor to ensure that noise levels agreed with the local environmental health officer are adhered to. There will also be measures to suppress dust wherever that is necessary. We shall make a considerable effort to look after the scheme during construction. We are also keen to maintain proper pedestrian facilities. We are discussing with all the local authorities the provision of adequate pedestrian facilities, particularly in the Offington corner area.

The provision of a tunnel through the High Salvington area will improve access to the north and south of the A27, as the new local road above the tunnel will be much easier to cross than the existing road. As traffic increases on the existing road, it becomes more difficult to cross. So it is to be welcomed that in that area of Worthing, through traffic, which is the vast majority, will be taken through the area in a tunnel.

My right hon. Friend has always been concerned about the effect of the road on individuals. Indeed, the way in which it would affect his constituents has been the main thrust of his letters to me. He has always sought to put their case and to get proper recognition of their problems. I salute his efforts in that respect.

I appreciate that, understandably, he wants generous compensation to be paid, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham supports him in that desire. We are constrained by legislation, and the provisions that we make for compensation have been increased substantially in recent years. It may be helpful if I take my right hon. Friend through what is available and answer some of his questions.

There is, first, statutory blight. If a property is to be physically affected by, or is required for, a scheme, the owner can serve a blight notice and have his house purchased at full market value plus 10 per cent. My right hon. Friend was more concerned about those who were or were not favoured by the new discretionary purchase arrangements which came into operation in 1991. There was at that time a considerable extension of our powers and help that we could give to people affected by road schemes.

It is a discretion, and of course someone must always exercise it. It is our duty to exercise it not only with the good of the public in mind but with proper provision for the public purse. So we must seek to find a balance, which is what we have tried to do. Before it can be applied, it must be shown that there is a serious effort on the property, and noise is generally taken as the most common nuisance factor. So in making a decision we look first at the question of noise.

My right hon. Friend questioned whether we should go beyond 100 m. We take 100 m as a guideline because we believe that, within that area, a house is most severely affected. Beyond 100 m, a house becomes increasingly better protected from a new road. But we still examine cases beyond 100 m. If they meet the more rigorous criteria that we apply beyond 100 m, we are happy to use our discretionary powers, and we do so on certain occasions. So we have some discretion.

Beyond the statutory blight and discretionary powers, we have our section 246 powers which come into effect while the works are in progress and for a year after they have been completed. They are also blight-related, and the powers, and compensation that we can give, take effect when the works begin. If matters were absolutely intolerable for any of my right hon. Friend's constituents while the works were in progress, we would examine those provisions to see whether they would apply.

There is then compensation after the work has been done. If, for a year after the work has been completed, it is believed that the value of the property has declined, the owner can apply for compensation for loss of value. That would, of course, apply after the road had been built.

Finally, noise insulation measures will apply, and my right hon. Friend's constituents can seek them in the ordinary way.

Our aim is to apply this range of measures as sympathetically as possible; to try to do that efficiently and fairly to meet all genuine claims—always on the understanding that we do so with integrity. I know that we will not always be able to please my right hon. Friend or his constituents, but we will do our level best to deal with each case as expeditiously and carefully as possible.

Lastly, my right hon. Friend asked about the timetable for the road. If all goes well with the statutory procedures, we may be able to start building in the autumn of 1995, and construction would take about two years. It is an ambitious programme, and technically difficult—with two bridges and the route through parts of Worthing, if the public inquiry allows that.

This is a much-needed road. I know full well that my right hon. Friend will put his case for his constituency at the public inquiry with great intelligence, integrity and perception. Who knows what his advocacy might achieve? Meanwhile, I thank him, and I hope that he will keep in touch with me about all the difficult aspects of this road over the next few months.

Question pu0t and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.