M1 (Widening) (Hansard, 16 April 1996)

§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for sparing time, once again, to discuss the intended widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 12. I make no apology for once again bringing the subject before the House. Indeed, the remarks that I make may be somewhat harsh—although in no way do they reflect on my hon. Friend the Minister; we have been very great friends and I think that we will remain so for some considerable time—but certain things need to be said at this stage that have not been said before.
In 1989 the Government published a White Paper on roads. It proposed that the M1 should be widened in one of its busiest spots. The road carries 120,000 vehicles a day, 20 per cent. of which are heavy vehicles. Indeed, I believe that the figure is now even higher. It is one of the main arterial roads in Britain. Since 1989, there have been at least six Ministers with responsibility for roads and traffic, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—that sounds a long time ago—and ending with the present incumbent, who has been in the job for some time.
I have had at least four Adjournment debates and have raised the subject on the Floor of the House through questions or in speeches on numerous other occasions. I have taken to my hon. Friend and some of his predecessors a number of delegations of pressure groups, residents and constituents from my part of the world. There have been numerous public meetings. There was a public exhibition in November 1992. There are literally mountains of correspondence from my constituents—quite understandably, as the issue affects a great many people. There have been many long hours of discussions both in the constituency, in the Department and in and around my office over a long period.
Unfortunately, despite all the visits and the representations that I have made on behalf of my constituents, more than six and a half years since the proposal to widen the road, we now face another period of uncertainty. Quite frankly, that has made my constituents frustrated, which is natural, and angry.
In the time available, I should like to read to my hon. Friend the Minister and the House from a letter that I recently received from Mr. John Neil, secretary of the M1 Action Group Luton. He has been doing that job ever since the road improvement was first proposed and has been a tower of strength to residents in the part of Luton that will be affected. Talking about residents in the part of the town affected, he says: The same residents exposed daily to the ever increasing noise levels and air pollution emanating from the Motorway, have only ever sought from the D.O.T immediate means to bring about some relief to their ongoing suffering. To that end, they have acted as very responsible citizens, with a great deal of tolerance and patience. No demonstrations; no acts of violence or resorting to any other unlawful act. They quite properly called upon their elected Member of Parliament to express their concern over the dreadful conditions under which they are now forced to live. Notwithstanding the efforts of all those involved over the past few years, many residents today entertain feelings of despair since so little has been achieved. It is not difficult to understand such emotions.
622 It should not be difficult for the House to understand that people who live in the proximity of such a main road, along which some 120,000 vehicles thunder every day, are bound to feel some anger and frustration at the apparent inactivity. Some of these people were living in the area in the late 1950s before the motorway was built.
I shall not go over too much old ground but, with the House's permission, I shall quickly draw to my hon. Friend's attention three matters that are extremely important to this case. The first relates to the Budget and public expenditure plans of last November, the second to the programme, and the third to the compensation available to my constituents in many and varied ways.
My hon. Friend will know that in November, on the basis of the budgetary programme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced some pruning of the roads programme. Many people thought that that was a sensible move. The £365 million project—the widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 15—was also to include part of the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright), who is in his place and whose presence I welcome. The announcement of the delay in that project served to add further uncertainty to an already very difficult situation.
I fully appreciate the need to try to save money, and I would be the first to say that if savings can be made they should be made. However, what bothers my constituents is not only the timing, to which I shall refer later, but the question whether the savings, which my hon. Friend is still considering, should be made on the very worthwhile projects proposed to mitigate the noise and nuisance suffered by my constituents. I refer, for example, to the provision of noise barriers, not just when the road is completed but while the work is being carried out. My hon. Friend has in the past been very helpful in this respect. Such barriers must be of the most modern and up-to-date construction and they must do all that can be done to reduce the terrible burden—and it is a terrible burden—of noise that permeates the affected part of the town. In fact, the noise is getting worse. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me that no budgetary constraints will apply to those proposals.
I must also mention the worthwhile environmental measures. Those of us affected by the widening were pleased to see that in the original plans that were issued as long ago as 1992, such measures included areas of dense planting and mounding or barriers and "visual screening", which were to be part of the new, widened road. I hope that any savings will not be made at the expense of the environmental protection that would be given by such planting and other schemes. It is essential that such elements of the mitigation of noise and nuisance are retained.
In my Adjournment debate last year, we discussed porous asphalt—a subject that I know is dear to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South. When the road is built, we must make absolutely sure that, if possible, porous asphalt or its equivalent is used, and that tyre noise, which often causes the majority of noise and nuisance, is mitigated by the best modern techniques. If my hon. Friend has to make budgetary cuts, as I know he will, I hope that he does not sacrifice any of the three measures to which I have referred.
The second element that I must bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention is the basis of the programme itself. I remind him that the original plans envisaged work 623 on widening of the road commencing in January 1997, or at least in some part of next year. The original plans were made a little time ago. Now, none of us has any idea when the widening will take place, if indeed it will take place. My hon. Friend may well comment on that.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, a letter was recently sent to one of my constituents from Mr. Steven Ryan, a schemes administration official at the Highways Agency, which has probably caused more problems than almost anything else in recent weeks. Part of the letter says: We do not anticipate commencing construction until 2002 at the earliest. Due to the complexity of the scheme, we expect construction to last five years. In other words, construction will continue into 2007, yet it was originally thought that the work would start in 1997. If that letter is correct—I know that my hon. Friend has written to me privately about it—it will fill my constituents with utter dismay. If it is correct, I would rather that he told me tonight that the widening of the M1 will not proceed. But if the road is to go ahead—and, frankly, I support it—it must be done as quickly as possible. Such letters cause utter dismay among my constituents and further frustration. How long must we wait until we get more definite news on the road?
The third element that I should like to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, which is partly the responsibility of the local valuer and, I think, partly the responsibility of his Department, is the compensation, if any, that is available to constituents who are affected—not necessarily those who have been affected by properties being purchased because they are about to be knocked down or would be so close to the road that it would be intolerable to live in them, but for those who have been affected by the proposals' impact on house prices.
Again, it is worth reminding the House of the type of suffering that some of my constituents have experienced. I shall quote from a letter that I received only recently from a Mr. and Mrs. Smithson of 175 High street, Leagrave. They have been greatly affected by the widening of the road, and their letter goes to the heart of some of my constituents' problems. Mrs. Smithson says: Our intention has always been to move nearer to our relations when we retired. My husband was made redundant in October 95 from Luton Council and he will be 65 in January 97. We now know it is time we moved. The only reason we lived in Luton was because of my husband's job. I regret that because I think that it is a very fine place to live, as I know that hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South would agree. The letter continues: We now have the property on the market with two estate agents. Messrs Alexander for 10 months and now with Connells. We have lowered the price but to no avail as any prospective purchasers that have been to view the property do not wish to proceed when, as we are legally bound to, we inform them of the M1 widening. We can understand this, as like ourselves, they do not wish to have the noise, pollution and disturbance of the M1 widening. That is typical of many scores of people up and down the side of the road. As one who enjoys the privilege of living just outside a village in peace and quiet, who gets cross when gliders fly over his property, I can understand that those people are suffering an intolerable nuisance. 624 That intolerable nuisance is made even worse by the fact that they unable to move not only because there has been a recession in house prices—that is of course reflected in the price of new properties that they would like to buy—but because, naturally, no one is prepared to buy their properties due to the uncertainty surrounding the M1 widening.
I must ask my hon. Friend: what happens now? So many people are affected in that way—stuck in houses from which, for genuine reasons such as retirement, they want to move, yet they cannot do so because house prices have fallen so far that they cannot afford to go. What happened to the Colonel Owen case, after which we hoped that more help would be given to people in that position?
May I cite one more of my constituents, a Mr. Pemberton, who is a single oldish man—bless him—who for some time has been trying to understand a system under which before 1991 the house next door to his, No. 87, was compulsorily purchased because it was said that it would not be fit to live in when the M1 was widened, whereas after 1991 he was told that new designs had been developed so that his house, No. 85, would not be affected so badly as to be compulsorily purchased.
I have done my best, but I have found it extremely difficult to explain to Mr. Pemberton that that system is fair. Frankly, it is not fair. I am pleased to have received correspondence from the Highways Agency dated 29 March saying that the Team has now been disbanded"— perhaps my hon. Friend will help me to understand exactly what that means—and that Mr. Pemberton's case will be re-examined by the motorway operations division.
My constituents' patience is running out. After so long—it is nearly seven years since the idea was first put into the Department's head—they have had enough. I do not think that they will be lying all over the M1, or will take militant action—thank heavens—but, rightly, they are asking me, "Where do we go from here?"
I must have from my hon. Friend, if he can give them, some sort of definite programme, and some form of further protection for those on whom the nuisance and the noise is inflicted. I must also have some assurance that further sympathetic consideration will be given to those whose house prices have been badly affected. If that happens, my patience will not run out, but unless we receive satisfactory answers in the weeks and months ahead I shall soon be on my feet again, pressing my hon. Friend on this subject.

§ The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on securing yet another debate on this important matter for his constituency, and on his diligence in pursuing his constituents' interests. I also understand the frustration that he has expressed on their behalf about the continuing uncertainty of a scheme that has been long in gestation.
My hon. Friend mentioned the review of the roads programme that I had to conduct last year in the light of the reduction in the budget for trunk road building. He will know, however, that, at the end of that review, the scheme he mentioned was one of the high-priority schemes that 625 remain firmly in the main programme. None the less, we are reviewing it as previously proposed, to see whether there is a way of carrying out the widening more cost-effectively, thus saving precious capital resources and enabling the reduced funding to stretch over more miles of the trunk road and motorway network.
When I previously reported to the House on the scheme, draft orders for the works were on deposit, and the Highways Agency was receiving objections and representations. However, the estimated cost of the published scheme is nearly £500 million, so, although it would produce a good economic return in terms of the tests we apply, it would also use up a significant part of the annual budget.
The current review will therefore establish whether some reduction in scale, and thus in costs, can be achieved. That work is now in hand, and it is also taking into account the many detailed points made to the agency during the consultation process. The statutory procedures in respect of the published scheme have been suspended while the review is taking place. I hope later this year to be able to announce the results of the review, and to set out the way forward.
For the moment, I can tell the House that, in carrying out the review, it will remain the aim to meet the operational objectives of the published scheme. Nor will we compromise on the level of environmental mitigation which was substantial under the previous scheme. Although I am looking for financial savings, I am not looking for them at the expense of either noise or environmental mitigation. That is one of the assurances that I know my hon. Friend wished to hear.
The agency examines carefully the environmental impact of schemes and the measures needed to mitigate. A considerable advantage in building on the existing network is that it limits intrusion. That is, however, no reason why those living alongside existing routes should suffer as a consequence. The methods now being examined in the scheme review for achieving environmental mitigation may be different from those involved in the original scheme, but we shall aim to achieve the same result.
Noise levels adjacent to motorways are always a concern, and this scheme is no exception. The overall aim will remain the reduction of existing traffic noise by a significant amount for people living near the motorway. In Luton, barrier heights will vary depending on the local situation. The use of acoustically absorbent barriers where appropriate and justified will reduce reflected noise and offer significant benefits in the urban area. Where possible, barriers will be installed before the start of works to reduce the noise nuisance during construction as well.
The Highways Agency is also considering the use of quieter road surfacing to reduce noise intrusion. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that predictions for the relevant section of the road show that it has too high a proportion of heavy vehicles for the use of porous asphalt to be viable. However, research into noise-reducing road surfaces is continuing, and if a suitable material is available before a decision has to be taken on the type of surface to be used for the scheme, the Highways Agency will, of course, consider using whatever surfacing is of the requisite strength and has the maximum noise attenuation.
My hon. Friend referred to the blighting effect of the proposals on the ability of some of his constituents to sell their property. The Highways Agency has so far bought 626 27 properties in my hon. Friend's constituency, under the statutory blight legislation, where land will be needed for the scheme. The agency has also used the Secretary of State's discretionary powers to acquire a further 42 properties, but it had to turn down 17 other requests for purchase.
While the published proposals remain on the table, we shall continue to assess applications against them. However, 11 of the refusal cases have been reviewed against the new guidelines which were introduced on 19 July 1995 following the Colonel Owen judgment. They require the agency to consider diminution in the value of property as well as the predicted effects of noise and other physical factors when reaching a conclusion about whether enjoyment of the property will be seriously affected by either the construction or use of the road.

§ Mr. John Carlisle
It is the diminution of value that is so important. My hon. Friend has referred to the cases of those affected whose properties have been purchased by the Highways Agency, and that is straightforward. It is the diminution of value of so many properties—I know the line is very fine—that is worrying my constituents. I am a little disturbed by the numbers that my hon. Friend has quoted. My experience is that the numbers are rather greater. Shall I encourage people who have come to me, but who may not have come to my hon. Friend, to go to the agency?

§ Mr. Watts
It is difficult for me to give guidance on that point. Certainly the guidelines are published and available. Any of my hon. Friend's constituents who feel that they might qualify under the guidelines should make an application.
The difference between the new and the old guidelines is that, under the old, a physical effect had to be proven to qualify for discretionary purchase. Under the new guidelines, both diminution in value and physical effects can trigger entitlement to be assessed for discretionary purchase, although the guidelines explain that, usually, discretion will be exercised only where both diminution in value and some physical effects are to be found.
None the less, of the cases that have been reviewed, five have been accepted under the new guidelines that were excluded under the old, and four of those are in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know of at least one other case where an apparently anomalous decision is now being re-examined yet again, and I undertake to my hon. Friend that I will look further at the other specific cases that he mentioned in his speech.
Purchase is not the only remedy. The provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 also give owners the right to claim compensation for any depreciation in the value of their property as a result of the physical effects of the road once it comes into use. That becomes payable one year after a road has opened.
My hon. Friend urged me to say more about the timetable, and I understand the unease about continuing uncertainty while the review of the scheme is under way. As he mentioned, some dates have been given in the past, but giving them can often raise false hopes or false fears. It is indeed unfortunate that a letter was sent to one of my hon. Friend's constituents giving a date for which there was absolutely no basis. Following the review of the road programme, the agency is still 627 working on what is called the cascading of projects, to make recommendations to me about the years in which they should be implemented.
As I said, I expect to make a further announcement later this year about this scheme. Progress beyond that will depend on the statutory procedures that need to be followed and availability of funding.
628 This is a very important scheme—as my hon. Friend said, this is one of the most heavily trafficked parts of the motorway network—and we shall make all the progress we can. The scheme is very much needed, and we shall aim to meet those needs without any undue delay.