§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
2.52 pm§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)I appreciate this opportunity to raise a matter that concerns not only my constituents in the borough of Gravesham but those of my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), who is here, for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
The channel tunnel high-speed rail link has been a blight on the lives of far too many of my constituents for five years. Every imaginable route has crossed my constituency—originally on stilts past the village of Istead Rise, it has swung from Culverstone in the south to the current route which skirts Northfleet and Gravesend in the north.
We are now in the final stage of the consultation period on the announced route, and I shall highlight today the principal matters that remain of concern to my constituents. First, Pepper Hill. The announcement of Union Railways last March showed the link passing through a tunnel beneath 90 houses at Pepper Hill, Northfleet. It claimed in the environmental appraisal of its reference case that there would be no noise impact on Northfleet and Gravesend other than to Hazells, a local farming community, due to the Waterloo spur junction.
In respect of irradiated noise, Union Railways claimed:
No dwellings are predicted to be affected at Pepper Hill, assuming a mitigated track design,It went on:around 10 dwellings above the tunnel at Pepper Hill…would be at risk of settlement. This would be of low moderate concern.I must tell the House that it is of major concern. I do not believe its claims about noise or vibration. That is why on 24 March of this year I called for an assessment of the impact of vibration and noise on the houses, both during construction and in operation of the link. It was not until 6 May that the then chairman of Union Railways confirmed that he would commission a geological survey of the tunnel area beneath Pepper Hill.Inexplicably, it was not until September that drilling for samples for the survey started. I was told that the final factual report on the laboratory tests of samples and detailed geological descriptions would be available only on 29 November. That is why I called for a time extension to consider final representations on the Pepper Hill route options. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his confirmation earlier this month that he would receive representations on those routes from Gravesham borough council and myself by 31 December and that those would be taken into consideration. I trust that he will confirm that again today.
As both the A2 rail action group and I cannot interpret geological data as to the impact of noise and vibration, I called last March on the Gravesham borough council to appoint experts on our behalf. The then Conservative administration of the council rapidly and efficiently undertook to do so. Sadly, Gravesham borough council now has a Labour administration. I have called on it to honour the undertaking of its Conservative predecessor. I stress that it must finally appoint the specialist consultants to assess the steady flow of geological data that has already been sent to it. It must be ready with its well-researched representations before 31 December.
1154 All that would be academic if we could achieve a better tunnel route option. Tunnel route 226, beneath the National Grid Company electricity substation, would avoid tunnelling beneath any houses. I was alarmed that Union Railways developed and then dropped that option. To use its words, it parked it. I called on the chief executive of the National Grid Company to give his maximum co-operation to a study of the option. He has undertaken that and Union Railways has now unparked the option.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has confirmed to me that the National Grid Company is undertaking a study of the sensitivity of the existing equipment with something more modern and the relocation of the switching station. That report is due at the end of October. I ask my right hon. Friend today to reconfirm that timetable and call on the National Grid Company to keep to it.
Much of the electricity switchgear at the substation is 60 years old and serves much of west Kent. Surely it is due for replacement by ultra-modern and less bulky equipment. Surely new facilities will be required for the proposed Ebbsfleet international and domestic stations and associated developments, for Blue Water park and for the rail link itself. It cannot and must not be beyond those various authorities to find a compatible outcome that would allow the tunnel to pass below the current site.
That route option is clearly preferable. The current option—beneath the houses—would be an unacceptable imposition on the residents. The only remaining option —on a high viaduct around Pepper Hill—would cause noise, to the detriment both of Northfleet and Istead Rise and would be even more unacceptable.
I shall deal now with the elevations—the vertical alignment of the remainder of the A2 route past Gravesend and Northfleet. That is conditioned by the requirement for freight working of the rail link. I am not convinced that freight working is necessary. From the opening of the channel tunnel until the high-speed rail link is open for traffic, all trains from the channel tunnel will travel on existing routes through Tonbridge and Borough Green. British Rail has spent £1,200 million of Government funds to ensure that they can do so adequately.
The Tonbridge route in particular is especially suitable for freight, which does not need to go at high speeds arid can travel around London to the west along existing lines to the remainder of the country. When the high-speed rail link is ready, passenger traffic will come off these two lines in rolling stock built for passengers and high-value cargo such as that carried by airliners. That rolling stock can manage gradients of up to one in 40. The freight should, therefore, stay on the existing lines. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that carefully, because if the rail link is confined to high-speed trains, with corresponding power units and rolling stock, scope opens up for route engineering which would bring considerable environmental advantages.
Current plans provide for freight loops at Singlewell, parallel to Old Watling street and Hever Court road. Indeed, railway buffs such as our late good friend the previous Member for Christchurch, Mr. Robert Adley, will know those as sidings. If slow-moving freight trains stick to the southerly route, those freight loops would not be required and the link could cross the A227 Wrotham road at a far lower vertical alignment.
I should still like Union Railways to consider the possibility of the railway going under that road or of, at the very least, lowering the alignment of the crossing—if 1155 necessary, by realigning the A227 to the bottom of the dry valley. A lower alignment with appropriate sound-mitigating measures would help residents by the Tollgate, notably at Templar drive, which overlooks the site, and at Istead Rise, which is up the valley.
The environmental impact at eastern Gravesham is also a matter for concern. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his decision, taken nearly a year ago, to reject the Union Railways board reference case, which would have taken the link through the Luddesdown valleys and close to the historic village of Cobham. He was right to insist on following the A2-M2 corridor at that point.
Nevertheless, the detailed route that was announced has caused concern at Scalers hill and Cobham hall, which are of historic interest, and for Ashenbank wood, which is of environmental value. I appreciate the improvements which have since been made by Union Railways to move the link northwards at that point, but close attention is required for further environmental protection.
Bearing in mind the need to extend the time for representations by Gravesham borough council and myself until 31 December, the detailed announcement cannot be made until the House returns in January. Can my right hon. Friend give a hint as to the timing of the announcement and of the hybrid Bill arrangements?
The announcement will clearly trigger the safeguarding prodedures and with them the right of householders to serve blight notices. Although Union Railways originally told us that it would sympathetically consider hardship cases, not one of the small number of cases that I forwarded to it led to purchase. That has not been very helpful.
I have read the "Property purchase and compensation policy" paper of my right hon. Friend's Department. I have considerable misgivings. In particular, I note that it states:
Blight notices would not be accepted for properties within safeguard zones over bored tunnels, except where there are surface works such as ventilation shafts.If that policy were applied to a Union Railways tunnel beneath houses at Pepper Hill, it would be unacceptable, especially if the geological survey shows that potential vibration and/or noise would occur. Residents bought the houses there without such perils and they should be adequately compensated for any detriment.I also note the rights of householders to compensation for environmental intrusion under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. However, it is unreasonable that that legislation can only be invoked 12 months after the use of the railway. There are years of real property blight until then and my right hon. Friend must consider the subject of compensation again.
Lastly, I turn to the prospect of a station in the Ebbsfleet valley, for international and domestic traffic. I welcome it wholeheartedly. It would bring thousands of jobs to the area in association with related development. It would improve the lot of our long-suffering commuters, reducing travel time to work in London from 50 minutes to 19, in enhanced comfort. It would bring about new roads, a Northfleet town bypass and a new junction with the A2, and it would inevitably bring improved house prices to thousands of local home owners.
The only drawback for which a solution must be found is the impact on archaelogical Roman remains and the environment of the ancient Ebbsfleet river. There are other 1156 developments that blend in with urban canals, and I am sure that the planners can find a sensitive solution to the problem.
As for the road enhancement, I trust that for the process of planning the rail link my right hon. Friend is in close contact with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to ensure that the plans are compatible with any future developments and land requirements of the A2 road. My constituents cannot go through such upheaval twice.
I support the Ebbsfleet station proposal, which the Conservative Gravesham borough council welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and his Conservative borough council support it. I am sure that the new Labour Gravesham borough council will do a U-turn and support it once the dinosaurs in the Northfleet Labour party have been overcome.
Blue Circle Properties, the principal landowner in the area, is working up a project known as Euro-city which it claims will provide 34,000 jobs through associated developments such as plans for conference centres, an exhibition centre, hotels, and commercial and retail development. That would crown the plans of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers at the Department of the Environment to develop the east Thames corridor, which would restore the derelict districts left behind by decades of chalk quarrying and other industries. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will strongly support Ebbsfleet's bid to become the site of the international station.
There is no doubt that the House wants the rail link—all parties want it. I hope that all hon. Members will remember that it involves a massive impact on the environment of the residents of the garden of England, the county of Kent. I hope that the House and the Government will insist on adequate and sensitive environmental protection for my constituents and those of hon. Members who represent other constituencies in Kent.
§ 3.6 pm
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), not only on the clarity with which he presented his case, but on his careful attention to the interests of all his constituents over many years. As the Minister for Public Transport, I have had dealings with my hon. Friend and others, and I know that he pays close attention to his constituents' needs. I am sure that he will continue to do so, and I congratulate him on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) has also expressed a number of concerns over the years, particularly about those who live in Borstal and Strood. I congratulate her on the close attention that she pays to the problems that will result from the construction of the link. I can give an assurance that we shall listen carefully to any representations made and seek to achieve the almost impossible: to balance the cost of the overall project against the environmental protection required, not just by law, but by common sense, if planning permission is to be obtained.
The debate is timely because Union Railways has today submitted its report to the Government on the options for refining further the rail link route and the options for intermediate stations. I congratulate Mr. John Armitt, particularly his predecessor Mr. John Prideaux, who worked for a considerable period and bore a large brunt of 1157 the initial preparatory work. I also congratulate the staff of Union Railways and British Railways for the thoroughness with which they performed their task. They have not pleased everyone; there have been problems, which will continue. I want to record my thanks for the work of Union Railways and British Railways.
It is also appropriate that we should be debating the issue now because earlier today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport at long last announced the formal approval for the Jubilee line. I understand that the chief executive of London Underground has placed the first orders, which is good news for London and the country. Thousands of jobs will be created by a major transport project which is now under way.
The Government's aim is to reach decisions on the channel tunnel rail link route and stations at the end of the year or soon afterwards. My hon. Friend would not wish to pin me down to a certain day, but I am outlining our target. That will be with a view to safeguarding the route and, parliamentary timetable permitting, introducing a hybrid Bill as soon as possible thereafter. It may be helpful for those wishing to submit their views to my Department if I take this opportunity to explain what needs to be addressed now, and what other matters—generally of detail—can be left for later discussion.
What we need to decide in the next couple of months or so is the land that needs to be safeguarded and then incorporated into the Bill, together with the railway works. The Bill has to specify a single route within reasonable limits of deviation, so we must make a choice between the local route variations that have been identified by Union Railways during the public consultation process. We must specify the arrangements for the terminal, and select an intermediate station, or possibly stations. The Bill cannot present a multiple choice. We must also decide on the maximum extent of other possible land requirements for construction purposes and additional facilities.
The comments that we have sought from local authorities by 12 November should be directed at the basic choice of route, the provision of tunnels and major mitigation measures such as cuttings and the choice of stations. Comments will also be useful on other strategic issues such as commuting, freight, and regeneration, in particular where those affect the land requirements and railway works for the project. Comments from anyone else with a direct interest on strategic issues—I am well aware of the controversy still surrounding many aspects of the preferred route—will also be welcome by 12 November or very soon afterwards. Those should be sent direct to my Department.
It is important to realise that consultation will continue beyond 12 November on a whole range of more detailed matters. Those will include the finer details of route design within the safeguarded area and the selection of mitigation measures such as screens, walls, bunds, planting and track support within tunnels to reduce problems of re-radiated noise. Citing the example of Pepper Hill, information that becomes available from further site investigation will also be taken into account. Consultation will also continue on the details of the construction process, such as construction methods and their impact and mitigation; any honing down of the space requirements within the specified construction sites; and the transport and disposal of surplus spoil. I expect consultation on all those matters of detail to continue until the Bill is introduced and, indeed, afterwards as well.
1158 My hon. Friend has called for a time extension beyond 12 November to allow for final representations on Pepper Hill. Union Railways has in the last couple of days delivered to Gravesham borough council and my hon. Friend a summary of the results from the boreholes drilled recently at Pepper Hill. More detailed information including laboratory work will follow later, and then an interpretation study will need to be commissioned. As I have said, that information can be taken into account later, beyond the deadline of 12 November. I do not wish to extend the consultation period further in general, because that will delay safeguarding and, as a consequence, access to voluntary purchase for those affected. Therefore, I should still like to receive comments by 12 November. However, if some are received later we shall endeavour to take them into account if at all possible, and I am happy to repeat my undertaking to my hon. Friend that I shall discuss with him his views on the particular issue of geological investigations at Pepper Hill before any decisions on safeguarding are taken. I hope that that is a clear undertaking and consistent with what I have said previously.
The rail link in Gravesham will have some unavoidable environmental impact, but there is also the potential for substantial benefits. The challenge is to ensure that the impacts are successfully mitigated and that the most is made of the benefits.
The logic of making use of the existing M2-A2 transport corridor rather than creating a fresh corridor is inescapable, but I recognise that there are environmental concerns along the route in Gravesham, such as at Pepper Hill. Union Railways has studied suggested variations to the project so that proper comparisons can be made. For example, several options have been identified at Pepper Hill, including the one that my hon. Friend refers to a tunnel route 226. In terms of that option, I understand that National Grid's report on the implications of tunnelling beneath its switching station is expected to be delivered to Union Railways later today. This work should enable the Government—with the benefit of comments from hon. Members, local authorities and others—to make a choice on what should be safeguarded and go into the Bill. As I have said, consultation can continue on construction and mitigation. I also appreciate that the impact on Ashenbank wood and Cobham park causes concern because those are sensitive areas. Union Railways has looked at the options for minimising impacts and the Government will consider those, taking account of the comments received from local authorities and others.
I appreciate the points my hon. Friend makes about Ebbsfleet station. The possible station—domestic, international or both—at Ebbsfleet, on the boundary between Gravesham and Dartford, would be of considerable benefit to the area. It would, indeed, foster regeneration. There could also be considerable benefits to commuters from a new station, both in terms of extra capacity and faster journey times. Those are all factors which we shall bear in mind when coming to a decision on the station or stations to be provided on the rail link. I should add that commuters using the north Kent line will also benefit, whether or not Ebbsfleet is selected for a station, as that line will have a connection on to the new rail link.
For the purposes of a complete record of what has occurred during the past few months, I should mention that I have visited the site at Rainham, which is an alternative 1159 site for servicing the traffic that will come from the M25 to access the rail link for international traffic. Of course that, too, has advantages as well as disadvantages.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other issues in his speech. First, on freight and the rail link, Union Railways has designed the line primarily as a high-speed passenger railway. It has made only those changes to an optimum high-speed passenger alignment that would serve to keep open the option of using the rail link for freight should demand warrant it. The possible provision of passing loops is part of that. However, it has to be said that present forecasts do not suggest that freight traffic will expand beyond that which the existing rail network would be able to accommodate. My hon. Friend mentioned the crossing of the A227 Wrotham road. I understand that Union Railways has, in fact, looked at two options that would either lower or eliminate the proposed viaduct over the Wrotham road at Tollgate, and both are commented on in its report.
Secondly, on compensation, I appreciate the concern about the exclusion of properties over tunnels from the statutory blight provisions, but the practical evidence of underground railways in use is that their impacts are not sufficiently serious to justify purchase. That is the evidence before the Department. The impacts may, however, qualify for compensation for any loss of value under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. There is no reason to treat the rail link any differently from past and current schemes such as the Jubilee line extension and crossrail. To purchase homes over tunnels—apart from being unjustified on environmental impact grounds—would add to the cost of already expensive tunnels to such an extent that probably few would ever be built in urban areas for this or any other project. That would perversely force schemes on to the surface, resulting in increased demolitions. As my hon. Friend said, compensation under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 can be claimed 12 months after the start of use of the railway. That is because time is needed to assess the actual impact of the railway once it is operational. However, exacting design aims have been set for the rail link, not only for noise but for all other areas of potential environmental impacts such as vibration. Our policy paper on compensation explains that the thinking on that is that it is better to limit the environmental intrusion at source, as far as is reasonably practicable, by putting the railway in a cutting or providing mitigation in the form of screens and landscaping, rather than to rely simply on compensation. On the question of surface 1160 sections of the route, property seriously affected during construction and operation of the rail link, not just that actually required permanently or temporarily, may also be included within the zone safeguarded once the final route has been announced.
We are consulting on the noise regulations. I have written directly to many hon. Members and placed copies in the Library. I hope that, in due course, the House will consider the proposed noise regulations concerning the construction and use of the rail link.
As to interaction with the A2, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham that I am in close touch with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic—in fact, I spoke to him a few minutes before this debate began—about the relationship between the plans for the rail link and possible improvements to the A2. My hon. Friend the Minister and I jointly chaired a meeting with representatives of north Kent local authorities in July to discuss that very issue and the relationship between the rail link and the M2 widening. Union Railways' planners are of course in close contact with my Department's road planners.
I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham and for Medway that the roads and traffic department within the Department of Transport and my own officials will work not only closely together but with the Department of the Environment. Gone are the days when one could talk about transport planning in isolation from land use planning, let alone plan rail projects without examining the implications for roads. We are now in much safer waters in the planning of major new road and rail projects, which are properly co-ordinated from their inception.
I accept that there are important environmental considerations in my hon. Friend's constituency, which he has drawn to my attention over several years. As I mentioned, I have visited his constituency on a number of occasions, and I look forward to doing so again—and to visiting the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway. Union Railways has examined the issues with some care and I look forward to reading its report. We shall reach decisions on the route and stations, taking full account of comments received, as soon as possible. It is important to stress that consultation will continue on matters of finer detail. This is just the beginning of what will be a long process of detailed consideration of the rail link for planning purposes, but at least the process has begun.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Three o'clock.