§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
2.30 pmMr. James Coachman (Gillingham)May I first say how pleased I am to have been granted a debate, at the first time of asking, on a subject that is of crucial importance to the future prosperity of my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Medway is in her place today and will wish to speak later in this debate. Had he been able to rearrange his day, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent would have sought to reinforce the dismay that I intend to express at the deferment of the Gillingham northern link and the Wainscott northern bypass, two legs of the Medway towns northern relief road.
The Royal Navy withdrew from the royal naval base and dockyard, Chatham in March 1984. A part of the closed dockyard was almost immediately disposed of to the then Medway Ports Authority, which formed a subsidiary, Chatham Dock Company, to operate a commercial port with roll on/roll off ferries. One of the port's first tenants was the Norfolk Line/Kent Line and we were immediately faced with some 300 large lorry movements each day and through the night through narrow residential roads and streets in Gillingham more suited to traffic of an era pre-dating the motor car.
The result was a nightmare for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends. The deep bitterness at the Government's closure of Chatham dockyard was compounded by the realisation that any redevelopment of the 500 acres of the dockyard site was likely to involve a replacement of the Navy's previous mainly waterborne servicing of the naval base with road transport, including large lorries. There was a substantial outcry from those affected and from Gillingham borough council.
There was at that time an embryonic plan to build a northern relief road, but to say that it had not even reached the back burner, let alone been accorded any priority by Kent county council, would be to understate its then insignificance. I became something of a lone voice crying in the wilderness for Kent county council to start working up the scheme and to accord it some priority in seeking funding approval, but there was little enthusiasm at county hall, as was evidenced at a meeting in December 1983.
By the time the Navy left, English Industrial Estates, later English Estates, and now English Partnerships, had been engaged to prepare a strategic plan for the redevelopment, management and re-use of the large part of this vital site which had been in the Royal Navy's hands for more than 450 years. Excluded from the land handed over to English Partnerships were the area taken by the dock company and the largest concentration of ancient monuments in Europe collectively known as the Chatham historic dockyard, the management and exploitation, of which was entrusted to a distinguished trust.
Early in English Partnerships' tenure, it became evident that good road communications would be crucial to the successful redevelopment of what would become known 1292 as Chatham Maritime. The Medway towns northern relief road gradually became, with much prompting from me and my hon. Friends, a more and more desirable project.
The dockyard closure, with the loss of several other major employers during the early 1980s recession, raised unemployment to nearly 20 per cent. The designation of 60 acres of Chatham Maritime as an addition to the north-west Kent enterprise zone in February 1986 helped to increase interest in the development, but still the poor road communications hampered English Partnerships in its efforts to market the site.
At about that time, in January 1986, the county council issued a feasibility study for the third element of the relief road—the new third crossing of the Medway. Out of three options, an immersed tube tunnel was preferred, after consultation, to a high or low-level bridge, notwithstanding the additional cost. By July 1987, the county had issued a consultation paper for all three elements with an estimated total cost, including the tunnel option, of about £70 million.
By August 1988, so urgent was it considered to make a start on that vital scheme that the ancient and perhaps unique Rochester Bridge Trust sought to promote a private Bill to construct a new road tunnel under the Medway using novel funding from English Estates—as it then was—Kent county council, Rochester-upon-Medway city council, Gillingham borough council and the trust itself. The trust was ultimately to own the new crossing as it has owned crossings since mediaeval times.
The Bill made slow progress through the House and, although lodged in November 1988, did not achieve Royal Assent until July 1990. In the event, the mixture of public and private funding for the tunnel fell in May 1991 as an unintended victim of section 48 of the Local Government Act 1989, which had been designed to prevent creative accounting by spendthrift councils.
Good news, however, arrived at Christmas 1991 when Kent county council achieved transport supplementary grant—TSG—for the tunnel. Tenders had been received pending the outcome of the failed exotic funding proposal. It is worth noting that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, then the Secretary of State for Transport, expressed the hope, in a letter dated 5 May 1991, that the northern relief road would come about, although he was less than forthcoming about where the money—by now more than £100 million—would come from. However, as I said, Kent county council included the scheme as top priority in the transport policies and programme—TPP—bid for 1992–93 and the tunnel element of the scheme achieved TSG. The feeder roads, as they were called by my right hon. and learned Friend, were given credit approvals, but without TSG. Kent received—for the first time—a huge settlement in that year and the Medway towns northern relief road appeared to be on its way.
There was token expenditure on the tunnel in 1992–93, but by 1993–94 the major construction had begun in earnest and proceeded apace. Three enormous concrete sections of the tube were cast. The 1993–94 settlement, however, had not brought TSG for the Gillingham link road and the Wainscott northern bypass and, between March and July 1993, the Secretary of State's inspector conducted public inquiries into the two roads and the orders attaching thereto. Those inquiries were to prove fateful and may be the reason why we are here today. 1293 I shall have more to say later on the way in which the inquiries were conducted, and especially about the reporting.
By mid-1993, English Partnerships was becoming anxious about progress on the two roads and was hopeful that the decisions from the two inquiries might be made by the end of that year. It pressed very hard. By now, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) had become Secretary of State for Transport and I was urged to try to progress TSG for the following year, 1994–95, in the confident expectation that construction would start in that year. Kent county council duly submitted the two schemes in its TPP submission as a
resubmission for future commitment and TSG".On 15 December 1993, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—then a Minister—wrote to me with the details of the TSG and supplementary credit approval settlement for 1994–95. In another huge settlement for Kent, both Gillingham northern link and Wainscott northern bypass had been approved for TSG in the sums of almost £40 million and nearly £56 million respectively, with substantial tranches for a start on both in 1994–95. With the Medway tunnel—now estimated at £57 million—the Medway towns northern relief road, with a price tag of £152 million, was the largest non-trunk road scheme in the country.A start for both roads in the summer of 1994 was confidently expected by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. My hon. Friends the Members for Medway and for Mid-Kent and I, with the various councils, the Rochester Bridge Trust and English Partnerships, enjoyed our Christmas turkey for 1993, quietly confident that it had all been worth while. All the pain and frustration was at an end.
Or was it? We had all forgotten what I might call the buggeration factor—1994 came and went, but answer came there none from the inspector. Rumours abounded that he had gone sick, or worse. At the urging of English Partnerships, my hon. Friends and I were in regular contact with Ministers. One major relief came at Christmas 1994, when the schemes—by now totalling £157 million—were still included in the TSG settlement for 1995–96 in view of the expectation of substantial expenditure in that year. That was just as well, for by now the Medway tunnel was beginning to take shape and the prospect of its opening before the bypass roads was viewed with mixed feelings. It was realised that traffic might use the tunnel as an alternative route to London, causing worse problems than we already had.
Finally, the Secretary of State's decision on the Gillingham northern link was received on 12 April 1995. With minor adjustments, the county council could proceed with that element. Preliminary works were started, but still there was no word on Wainscott, despite my hon. Friends and my constant badgering of our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is to answer today's debate.
There was some correspondence between the county council and the Department on the side road orders and other minor issues and at least some of the delay seems to accrue from tardiness in the council's providing information, but there also appears to have been a process of "decelerated progress" at a technical level in the Department.
1294 It was not until 8 January 1996—three weeks ago—that the affirmative decision on the side road order and compulsory purchase for Wainscott northern bypass was announced, 34 months after the public inquiry began. By now, however, catastrophe had struck. Christmas 1995 had brought a much less generous TSG settlement nationally and, although Kent received by far the largest settlement of £36 million and a £81 million total spending allocation, it was about £30 million short of its needs.
Worse though, was the news that, having been embarrassed by its inability to spend its previous allocation because of the interminable delays in the Secretary of State's decision on the Gillingham northern link and Wainscott northern bypass, the county had taken the decision during 1995 to proceed with the provision of dual carriageway for the Thanet way, A299, and a scheme on the A256 at Whitfield.
Furthermore, the 1996–97 TSG settlement—unusually given to Kent as a block grant, as opposed to being scheme specific—was so much less than needed that it would barely cover the contractual commitments on the two alternative schemes. I am told that only £8 million of the block grant of TSG is uncommitted and, although that might allow letting of the contracts on Wainscott and/or the Gillingham northern link and a token start being made on site during 1996–97, without the assurance that a sufficient TSG settlement for subsequent years will be available the county is unenthusiastic about putting itself at risk of having to abort contracts once committed.
What is more, the county has three other approved smaller schemes on which it could commit the uncommitted £8 million. It is holding its decisions, pending the outcome of discussions of what might be done to progress with confidence the Medway towns relief road; this debate is a part of that exploration.
So what is to be done? English Partnerships has committed £150 million—including its contribution to the tunnel—to the development and attracted a similar sum from the private sector; if one includes the remaining cost of the tunnel, about £300 million or more has been invested in the redevelopment of the former dockyard.
Despite some notable coups, such as the letting to the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute of the former naval barracks and the letting of a superb headquarters building to the Colonial and Mutual insurance company, the marketing of some splendid new buildings is still bedevilled by the uncertainty about road communications.
The proposed widening of the poorly built M2 between junctions 1 and 4 raises the spectre of more traffic being diverted through the towns over Rochester bridge, which already carries some 50,000 vehicle movements a day. Memories of the legendary solid traffic jams from Strood to Rainham on the old A2—Watling street in the charabanc days before the M2 was built—come flooding back. We are regularly reminded of such horrors when the two-lane M2 is blocked by an accident. The historic dockyard is not receiving a just number of potential visitors because of poor access.
I am told that the county council remains committed to this important road scheme, and I believe that. It is investigating the possibility of obtaining alternative loan finance, but loans mean repayment and repayment ultimately means transport supplementary grant. Thus it is that I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister to seek 1295 most urgently a way forward to give Kent county council the necessary confidence to let the contracts for Gillingham northern link and Wainscott northern bypass this year, sure in the knowledge that the TSG income stream will continue to the successful conclusion of the contracts. The hopes and fears for a prosperous future for 250,000 people in Gillingham, Rochester and Chatham rest with him.
§ Dame Peggy Fenner (Medway)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for letting me have a short time to speak, after his comprehensive history of this notorious and disappointing transport matter. He explained how important the road is to our constituents in the Medway towns. That shows how interdependent we are in our road structure, which is vital industrially.
My hon. Friend mentioned what is happening in Chatham Maritime, where we hope to use dockyard land to bring back more prosperity to the Medway towns. We lost so many job opportunities when the Government closed the naval dockyard and base that the bypass is essential for redevelopment. He described at length the indefensible delay of the public inquiry and the issue of the final report. I do not want to repeat the elegant and eloquent words with which he regaled the House.
I have three questions and my constituents want answers. I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister plenty of time to answer, but I know, being the good friend that he is, that he will ensure that I receive answers by letter if he does not have time to answer my questions now.
The orders have been signed, albeit only on 18 January. The annexe describing transport supplementary grant issue for this year has been produced. Halfway down the list is the project that is numbered 5533 and named Wainscott northern bypass. The document, with immense optimism, gives the start year as 1994–95. My hon. Friend the Minister will learn what a miserable start we have had. The project is marked with an asterisk, of which the document states:
An asterisk after a reference number denotes a scheme accepted for TSG in this settlement".To my constituents, that means that the money has been allocated and will start in 1996–97. My hon. Friend the Minister has dedicated the public money to the scheme. It is named and identified in the list. With the help that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has sought, will my hon. Friend the Minister insist that the project starts this year, in 1996?My second question is whether this is the first time that the Department of Transport has adopted the doctrine that the Highways Agency is responsible for deciding priority. If so, why? Surely it is rotten, bad housekeeping to give an allocation of public funds with no assurance of compliance with the projects listed.
My third question relates to my constituents, who are extremely worried because they believe that the planning consents that cover the northern Wainscott bypass will expire early in 1997. Will the Minister tell them what, hypothetically, would be the problem?
I introduced my brief remarks by commenting on the importance of the road, industrially and environmentally, to our quarter of a million constituents. May I ask the 1296 Minister to look seriously at the protection of the living environment for the thousands of people in my constituency whose houses are pounded night and day by heavy lorries and other traffic through Brompton Farm road, Rede Court road, Hollywood lane and countless other areas in my constituency? That will continue until the new tunnel is in use. Will my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the procedures are completed, ensure that money is provided, and instruct that the road shall be built?
§ The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) for raising the topic of the Medway towns northern relief road. It is a road scheme that has particular importance for my Department, even though it has been built by Kent county council, and when completed, will be part of its road network.
The scheme has three sections—Wainscott northern, the Medway tunnel and the Gillingham northern link. I shall say a brief word about each and how they interrelate.
Following on from the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, the key objective of the Wainscott scheme is to provide greatly improved access to the Isle of Grain, and to allow for the expansion and development of that area, while at the same time taking heavy goods traffic away from unsuitable residential roads in the Wainscott area. As my hon. Friend said, it is valuable piece of infrastructure.
The Medway towns northern relief road heads south from the junction with the A228 to the western end of the new tunnel under the River Medway. The tunnel is, of course, a considerable engineering feat. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham referred to my former boss, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I recall him walking through the tunnel, and, if I remember correctly, my hon. Friends were with him. The tunnel is an extraordinary technical achievement. It is an immersed tube, 725 m long. The tunnel scheme also includes a link to a new roundabout on Anthonys way on the western side. To the east, the grade separated interchange at Pembroke road provides access to the Chatham Maritime development, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Medway referred. That is a key development, especially in the unfolding context of the Thames Gateway. That junction was financed by English Partnerships, the developer of Chatham Maritime. The developer contribution to the cost of the Medway tunnel is currently about£25 million.
Chatham Maritime is a flagship of the Government's Thames Gateway initiative, and it is starting to develop. Earlier this year, the Halifax building society took a 25-year lease on Royal Sovereign house, which will be its new administrative centre for the south-east. Time (Open Systems) Ltd., a financial software specialist, has decided to locate its new national headquarters at Chatham Maritime.
Moving further east, away from the tunnel, we reach the particular interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, the Gillingham northern link. That will provide a dual carriageway connection from the tunnel to the A2. A short distance to the east of the A2 junction, the A278 runs south to join the M2 at junction 4.
1297 As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham knows well, the Gillingham scheme is important in giving access to the new development at Chatham Maritime and to industrial areas along the B2004. It will provide environmental, road safety and community benefits by removing traffic from residential streets such as Woodlands road and Barnsole road and, like the rest of the Medway towns northern relief road, the Gillingham scheme will play an important role in congestion relief.
The junction with the A2 is at a roundabout that already serves the Gillingham business park, which is one of north Kent's success stories. Since development began at the old Army barracks, nearly 3,000 jobs have been created throughout the retail, office, warehouse and manufacturing sectors. Companies such as Lloyds bank, B and Q, Rover Fairways and Mercury Interactive have all moved to Gillingham business park. It has more Japanese companies as tenants than any United Kingdom business park.
Scope for modest expansion remains, however, and when the Gillingham northern link is completed, it will improve access to the business park for potential customers and for employees in the Medway towns conurbation. It will be an important link between Gillingham business park and the Chatham Maritime development.
The project is substantial, and my hon. Friends will understand when I emphasise that it is very expensive. The latest cost estimates that we have were provided in the county council's last transport policies and programme submission, dated July 1995. In addition to the £25 million that was provided by the developers, Wainscott northern bypass is currently estimated to cost £59.4 million, the Medway tunnel £59.9 million and Gillingham northern link £42.4 million—a total of £187 million, of which £162 million is being sought from the Department of Transport budget for capital expenditure by local authorities.
It may be helpful if I place that sum in context. When we reviewed the trunk road programme in November, the estimated cost of proposals to widen the M25 between the M3 and the M40—the busiest section of motorway in the country—was about £137 million, compared with the £162 million that I mentioned. In our entire main trunk road programme, only two schemes are more expensive than the Medway towns northern relief road, and the largest individual scheme that was accepted for transport supplementary grant this year was only£11 million.
1298 The scheme is not cheap; it is a very large proportion of the budget that is available throughout the country for such schemes—but I shall now make a very positive statement. We remain committed to funding in full the Medway towns northern relief road, and to doing so in the shortest time that our resources allow.
I understand the disappointments that my hon. Friends have felt, and I pay a genuine tribute to their significant, sustained efforts to bring pressure to bear on myself and my colleagues, to ensure that there is no undue delay beyond that which is inevitable.
My hon. Friends know of the two problems. The problem with the statutory orders is as great as the problem with funding. We warn local authorities, when securing orders, that it can be a lengthy and complex process, and the Gillingham and Wainscott schemes have been among the most difficult that my Department has had to handle.
In the case of the Gillingham scheme, the public inquiry was held in June 1993 and the inspector's report was received by September 1994. An interim decision was made by April 1995, which required the county to make modifications to the proposed orders, and after that was done, the orders were confirmed in September 1995.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Medway knows, substantial modifications were required to the Wainscott scheme as a result of the February 1995 interim decision letter, and the decision letter finally confirming the orders was, as she said, issued as recently as January 1996.
Those difficulties are now history, and I understand why the tremendously long time during which the new road was held up by bureaucracy might have caused frustration, but my hon. Friends will understand that the Secretary of State acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when he decides on orders, and both he and the inspector must be able to show that they thoroughly examined all the technical issues. I am afraid that our legal advice, for example, on the reference to substantial modifications was that that was the position that the Secretary of State for Transport was obliged to make clear, and he did so simply because that was the obligation placed on him.
I have no time left to answer most of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Medway asked, but I undertake to answer them in writing as soon as possible. I confirm again that we are committed to the scheme going ahead, and to its being funded in full within our Department's resources.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.