A27

HL Deb 25 January 2005 vol 668 cc1210-25

7.29 p.m.

Lord Baker of Dorking asked Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to improve the A27 between Chichester and Eastbourne.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as it is not customary for somebody introducing a debate of this sort to speak at the end of it, may I thank those noble Lords who are going to speak in anticipation of what they will say?

I will not hold the Minister personally responsible for the apologies of delays and inaction which he will utter. I do not suppose that he knows this road. He is a spokesman for his department and the Highways Agency, and the fact that he does not know this road will mean that his chances of living to a ripe old age are greatly increased, as this is the most dangerous road in southern England of its type. In the last 10 years 21 people have been killed on this road and 103 seriously injured. There have been many other serious accidents involving light injuries.

It was only last year that I read in the local press of an accident in which the driver got three years in gaol. He was tailgating, came out, overtook dangerously and crashed into a taxicab, and the taxicab driver was killed. In the taxicab were four children with special educational needs. One boy had his pelvis broken, and a girl had serious back injuries. These gruesome details of accidents, alas, are all too common in our local newspaper, and it really is very distressing. This is a dangerous road, and the level of accidents is totally and utterly unacceptable.

We lived in this part of the world more than 30 years ago; we came back to live in it 10 years ago, and in that time, virtually nothing has been done of a significant nature to improve the road between Lewes and Eastbourne. This is the road I wish to concentrate on this evening.

There should be a dual carriageway between Lewes and Eastbourne. There was not one 30 years ago and there is not one now. Why is this road so dangerous? First, it is narrow, so drivers become impatient. That, I am afraid, is human nature, and you cannot change that. Secondly, it is hilly—there are lots of blind hills and curving bends. The junctions are dangerous for all the various villages. The Selmerston junction, when you come to the A27, is completely blind for 30 yards—it is on the crest of a hill. When you look the other side, cars are speeding up because they have about 200 yards of straight road, and to go out from that junction is to take your life in your hands. Two years ago, two girls were killed at that junction.

There are several dangerous junctions. The Middle Farm complex is a popular shopping centre and local farm. To turn out from that on to the A27 is highly dangerous. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, hoped to speak in this debate, but he has flu. He asked me to tell the House that he had an accident coming out of that turning. A car ran into him and caused over £4,000 worth of damage to his car.

Thirdly, the A27 is dangerous because it is very busy. Some 30,000 vehicles use it a day, rising by about 1,000 vehicles a year. It is the main coastal road along the south coast of our country—the main east-west road. The next east-west road is the M25,40 miles away. Over the years, this road has received various patchwork jobs, which were quite helpful in some respects.

In the 1970s, the Lewes bypass was built. I remember how many people opposed it then, but thank heavens it was built. In the 1980s, the Brighton bypass was built. That was strongly opposed, but it is blessing to all the residents in the area. Two years ago, the Eastbourne bypass was built. The gap in between lies between Lewes and Eastbourne.

This is a very beautiful part of the world, an area of outstanding natural beauty. That is why so many ex-parliamentarians go to live there. The residences of a former Labour Prime Minister and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer are very near to the road, and several people who will be speaking in the debate live close to it.

The first consideration in improving the road is safety. The second is commerce. This is a busy commercial road. At the Eastbourne end, the local Member of Parliament, Mr Waterson, told me the other day that he was very concerned at the number of businesses leaving Eastbourne because of the transport infrastructure. It is just not up to it. That view was reinforced when I spoke last week to the planning officer of the Wealden District Council. It is in receipt of conflicting advice from the Minister's department or, rather, the department he is answering for tonight— Mr Prescott's department. The housing part of Mr Prescott said to Wealden, "Please build 3,300 more houses and some light commercial development". The transport part of Mr Prescott said, "I am sorry, you can't do that because the transport infrastructure is inadequate". So there are two very conflicting views from the department. It is not a question just of two Jags but of two mouths. So what does Wealden do? It cannot build the houses because this road is utterly inadequate.

In 1996, there was a proposal for a dual carriageway. That was withdrawn, unfortunately just before the election in 1997. As a result, the Government asked the South Coast Corridor Multi-Modal study, which they set up, to examine this and make recommendations. It made three recommendations: there should be a bypass to Selmerston, a bypass to Wilmington and a dual carriageway over the railway crossing at Beddingham. We have had no news about the Selmerston and Wilmington bypasses for the past seven years, which is disgraceful.

As regards the Beddingham flyover, the proposal made by the study was for a dual carriageway over the railway. There was public consultation, and 58 per cent of local people approved of the dual carriageway. In a later survey, carried out only last year, that figure had risen to 95 per cent. So there is strong local support for a dual carriageway over the level crossing. Sure enough, the Government produced plans. Suddenly, they changed, and there was no dual carriageway but a most extraordinary road, with two lanes going one way and one lane the other way. I did not think we built roads like that in this day and age. There are two lanes going up the hill and one lane down. It might have been better to have two lanes down the hill and one lane up, but much better to have had four lanes.

My question to the Minister—and his officials had better start scribbling the answer—is who made the decision to change from four lanes to three? That is what we would like to know. Was there local pressure? It certainly did not come from the populace locally. Was it because of cost? The extra cost is £27 million. Hardly anything has been spent on this road in the past 40 years, and an extra £27 million would improve the crossing enormously.

Why is it important to improve the crossing? This is the main road to the port of Newhaven. Since the proposal was withdrawn, it is possible that the East Sussex incinerator will be sited at Newhaven. In that case, there will be a huge increase in traffic of dumper lorries, hour by hour, day by day and week by week, on this already congested road. This section of the road is already 25 per cent above the trigger in the Highways Agency for a dual carriageway.

Why did the number of lanes go from four to three? If the Minister says it was because of environmental considerations, let him consider that answer very carefully. The Highways Agency owns land and may make it a dual carriageway. I hope that the Minister will not give the reason as environmental considerations, because what is the difference between a three-lane road and a four-lane road, environmentally, over a level crossing? It must be marginal. I very much hope, even at this late hour, that there will be a change of heart and we will have a dual carriageway over the level crossing.

Similarly, I hope that we will have proposals for a dual carriageway bypassing Selmerston and one bypassing Wilmington, because that really needs doing. If the Minister says, as I am sure he will, that this will take some time, let him seek out what the public really think. From time to time, the Government have had a touching fondness for democracy and have introduced the practice of holding referendums. I suggest that he conducts a referendum of Wealden District Council, Lewes District Council and Eastbourne Borough Council and asks one simple question: should there be a motorway between Lewes and Eastbourne? Let us really test what local people think about this. I am fairly convinced that if a referendum was held, there would be a resounding "Yes" to the idea of a dual carriageway, because it would mean a safer road.

This is a very beautiful area, and there must be careful planning to ensure that the environment is not scarred. But people said that about the Brighton bypass. No one can say that the Brighton bypass scars the South Downs, no one can say that the Eastbourne bypass scars the plains to the north of Eastbourne, and no one can say that about the Lewes bypass, so I am sure that a solution can be found.

I wrote to the Minister in the Commons in July 2003. He said that proposals were pending, and would be issued fairly soon, on bypasses to Selmerston, Wilmington, Arundel and Worthing. I have not touched much on the road to the west, which runs from the end of the Brighton bypass to Chichester. It is really scandalous that nothing is done about that—that there is no bypass to Arundel or Worthing. In the summer months, the congestion on that road is quite intolerable.

My real purpose in holding this debate tonight is to focus ministerial interest on this road. There is no ministerial interest in this road whatever; there are no Labour Members of Parliament around. If this road had been in the north of England, in an area of unique outstanding beauty, we would have had a dual carriageway 40 years ago. It has lacked champions; it has a champion in Eastbourne but I am afraid that in Lewes it does not have a champion. The Member of Parliament for Lewes has been very consistent through his political life: he has resisted any major improvements to the road, saying that there should be safety measures. Safety measures? What does he mean—that people should drive at 20 miles per hour and that there should be chicanes on a road that takes 30,000 vehicles a day? That is unrealistic. The only realistic answer is to have a dual carriageway. I hope that the debate this evening will move that possibility a little bit further.

7.40 p.m.

Lord Rea

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for raising this matter. As he made clear, this is not merely a parochial Question. Like him, I declare an interest, since my cottage at Beddingham, which is sadly not a stately home, lies only a quarter of a mile south of the A27. In fact, within a mile of the 20-mile stretch of the road between Polegate and Brighton, as the noble Lord said, are the homes of 12 noble Lords, to my knowledge. The reason for that high Peer density is not far to seek: as the noble Lord pointed out, the landscape and the villages in it are uniquely attractive, and noble Lords have excellent taste. Two noble Lords, no longer in the House, own sizable chunks of that landscape.

However, noble Lords are not the only ones who cherish that stretch of countryside. The area is already classified as an area of outstanding natural beauty and, all being well, will shortly be upgraded to national park status. Every weekend trainloads, busloads and carloads of walkers come to enjoy the Downs, which are sometimes called the "lungs of London".

To declare another interest, I have been a member of the A27 Action Group for 10 years. It was set up originally to lobby against the major six-lane trunk road scheme parallel to the A27, linking the Channel ports to Honiton, there joining up with the M5. Together with the statutory environmental agencies we scotched that one, although the cost of the scheme and the possible change of government probably played a part. Since then the south coast multi-modal study mentioned by the noble Lord was carried out, with recommendations of dual carriageway throughout the A27 and several bypass schemes; but that was rejected in 2003.I regret, given its name, that the scheme did not recommend upgrading and modernising the south coast railway, so that freight, lorries and east-west road users could be attracted on to it, thus relieving some of the traffic on the road.

The Highways Agency, now back to the drawing board, is presently working on several schemes to cut bottlenecks at Chichester, Arundel, Worthing, Beddingham, Selmeston and Polegate. The Beddingham plan, as described by the noble Lord, is to build a bridge over the railway and enlarge the road from two to three lanes; that is the most advanced in time of those proposed improvements, with orders and an environmental statement expected shortly. But the public inquiry, due this year, may allow points such as those made by the noble Lord to be considered. I am sure that there will be other requests of Ministers to think again, too.

At present, along with other road users, I suffer the twice-daily heavy congestion into and out of Lewes. Paradoxically, though, I and others also find it very difficult to drive on to the A27 from my cottage or cross it, because of the speed of the relentless traffic at that point. Inevitably, as the noble Lord pointed out, there are many accidents at such junctions. I welcome the improvements proposed at the Beddingham railway crossing but fear that congestion will simply move up to the next roundabout.

There are some improvements, however, which could be made immediately and at low expense to smooth out traffic flow and improve safety. The first could be a speed limit not of 20 miles an hour but of 50 miles an hour on all single-carriageway parts of the road. That is in fact likely to speed up rather than slow down the overall traffic flow, apart from saving fuel and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. All access roads should work on the "left-on, left-off' principle, with sufficiently long lead-in access slip-roads to allow traffic time to speed up or slow down when joining or leaving the main road. There should be bridges or underpasses where appropriate for local traffic, and local lanes and byways should be retained. When road repairs are carried out, for environmental rather than safety reasons, the new surfaces should be made of sound-deadening material, which is now available, even at a slightly greater cost. Tyre noise, or "white noise", is disagreeable and greatly detracts from the enjoyment of the environment.

Purists in the A27 Action Group would like to leave things much as they are, apart from some safety improvements, so as to discourage further growth in road traffic. As a road user I do not share that view, but I hope that any improvements that are made will be, as the noble Lord said, done with sensitivity and with very good design. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that the original concept of a motorway-style six-lane trunk road parallel to the A27, linking the Channel ports to Honiton and beyond, has been firmly and finally abandoned. More freight and passengers could be carried on an improved rail link. Lorries and other through traffic should be encouraged to use the existing M20, M25 and M3 motorway system, which could be improved where necessary. It is actually only seven miles longer to Southampton from Dover using the motorways than it is going along the tortuous route of the A27.

7.47 p.m.

Baroness Fookes

My Lords, I warmly support my noble friend in his robust plea for an improved A27, particularly between the Pevensey area and Chichester—although, as he pointed out, he did not dwell greatly on that western part of the road. I do not pretend to his intensive knowledge of the area, but I am a regular user of the road, partly. I suppose that I should declare a non-financial interest as a deputy lieutenant for East Sussex, which takes me frequently into the Lewes area. I also have friends who live outside Arundel and beyond Chichester. So, I have occasion to go from my home in St Leonards along the A259 to where it links with the A27 and thereafter along the A27 for what at times seems its endless length.

It is something of a Cinderella road—though I would not pretend to know who might be the ugly sisters trying to prevent the Cinderella road going to the ball. Certainly it is a somewhat dangerous road; I fully agree there. The trouble is that, for a lot of its single-carriageway length, there is nowhere where it is safe to pass. That does not prevent other motorists passing, and I have seen some near misses— fortunately not accidents—when motorists have been tempted and have fallen for the temptation to pass where they cannot possibly see. That is made worse by the up-and-down nature of the road, which at times restricts the view considerably. There is a real issue of safety here. I hope very much that the Minister will take due account of that.

As regards planning one's timing to go from one place to another, it is virtually impossible to know how long it will take. I always avoid the rush hours because that adds greatly to the journey, but even then it takes very little—perhaps a single breakdown, a very minor accident or a few road works—completely to throw a timetable out.

Going from my home to Chichester, for example, you are very lucky to do it in two hours. It might easily take two and three quarter hours.

Lord Baker of Dorking

My Lords, that is the situation after seven years of Labour government. I am not reproaching my noble friend but the Government.

Baroness Fookes

My Lords, I am glad to hear that.

There is ample scope for making improvements. A dual carriageway from the Polegate area to Lewes would be excellent. I would particularly welcome anything that did away with motorists having to go over the level crossing. I dislike level crossings; I always did, even before several terrible accidents involving level crossings. It seems to me that, as traffic flows grow and one is crossing a level crossing which is widely used by trains, it becomes more and more worrying. Frankly, I am always relieved when I have got over from one side of the Beddingham crossing to the other.

I put in a plea for the more western part of the road, particularly round Worthing and Arundel. In places, the roads are not simply single carriageway, they seem to me to be virtually country lanes. That is extremely worrying as traffic increases, as has already been pointed out by other noble Lords.

All in all, there is a case for moving forward on the issue with considerable rapidity, bearing in mind the delays that have already occurred. It seems to me that the Polegate to Lewes stretch has not changed much since I was a girl, and that is a very long time ago. I will not say how long, but certainly one would have expected some progress to have been made in those intervening years. I grew up in East Sussex, and it is a beautiful county. One does not want to spoil or alter the beauties of the countryside. However, it seems to me that road engineers these days have become extremely sophisticated in their ability to construct roads sensitively. If they were given the go-ahead, they could do so in this instance. The question that I hope the Minister will be able to answer tonight is, "Shall we see this in our lifetime, or will it be done long after my noble friend and I are dead and buried?".

7.53 p.m.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this debate. It makes a change from speaking just on home affairs matters in your Lordships House. I need to qualify why I am doing so. But before I do so, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, for initiating the debate. I agree entirely with the analysis that he offered of the A27.

When I came to Britain I settled in Sussex, first in Brighton, where I served as a county councillor, then in Hay wards Heath and finally in Coldwaltham, which is situated in the foothills of the Sussex Downs. I know the county well and I frequently use the major roads comprising the A23, the A24 and A27. I therefore speak from a "user" perspective rather than from that of an expert on roads and transport.

Let me draw an analogy with prisons: the more you build, the more quickly you fill them. We have learnt through bitter experience that building better roads is important, but that alone does not solve traffic problems. There are so many other factors that we need to take into account and at the heart lies the need for a proper transport infrastructure for the country as a whole. We should add to that the need to protect the ecology and the environment of the area.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, identified the stretch of the A27 between Chichester and Eastbourne in relation to the debate. I know this area well. As a former member of the Sussex Police Authority, and as a Deputy Lieutenant of West Sussex, I frequently visit Chichester for meetings. In addition, I love the theatre and the cathedral of this beautiful city. My visitors always marvel at the beauty of the place. It is a joy to travel on the M27 from Southampton to Portsmouth but suddenly it turns into a nightmare when one finds the bottlenecks at various places on the Chichester bypass.

There are many reasons for that, but let me single out two. The city's roads were built during the time of the horse and cart and there are substantial pedestrian areas within Chichester. The other reason is that many of the large retail parks are situated near the bypass, generating additional traffic. Add to that the prospect of a football match taking place at Portsmouth or Southampton and you can imagine the traffic that is generated on that road. On race days at Goodwood and Fontwell the situation is just chaotic. There is an obvious need to ask whether the bypass, which was designed to relieve traffic congestion, can handle all this traffic or whether we need to go back to the drawing board.

The same could be said about the picturesque town of Arundel. The town simply cannot handle the traffic generated and the so-called "bypass" becomes a nightmare. The bypass cannot handle the traffic either. Again, it is a question of two factors: the local traffic and the through traffic generated by the bypass. The only saving grace is that while you are stuck in a traffic jam on the bypass at Arundel you can pass the time by looking at the beautiful castle until such time as the way ahead of you is clear. Some most beautiful places such as Chichester, Goodwood and Arundel cry out for a sensible approach to traffic congestion.

Yesterday we heard the announcement of hundreds of thousands of new homes in the south east of England. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what will be the impact on roads and local and through traffic in those areas.

A lack of public transport means more use of cars thus adding even more of a burden to our congested roads and, in this case, the A27.I was interested in the comment from the Campaign to Protect Rural England that: Sprawling estates, disconnected from jobs and services, which wasted land and generated more traffic should not be allowed". Does the Minister agree with that comment?

There is no single consensus of what is appropriate so far as dual carriageways and motorways are concerned. There is, however, no dispute that there are serious danger points on many parts of the A27 which ought to be rectified without delay. Let me give an example. I received an e-mail today from Diana Kiehl. She sums up vividly what ordinary people think about the A27, particularly as regards the point when it passes through her area of Worthing. The e-mail states: A long standing problem exists on the stretch of the A27 which passes through Worthing. A very heavy volume of traffic becomes very slow moving due to the dual carriageway becoming a single carriageway and speed reducing to 30 mph through this urban area. At peak times this problem is really bad". That story is repeated by almost all who use that stretch of the A27.

Lord Baker of Dorking

My Lords, will the noble Lord remind the House, and tell the Minister who is not familiar with this road, that when the road passes through Worthing it goes through a suburb? It is a major road in a suburb. This is the major east-west south coastal road going through a suburb comprising timber framed houses in north Worthing. There should certainly be a bypass north of Worthing. I hope that the Minister will address that point which was mentioned so eloquently by my noble friend.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I refer not only to the problem that he has identified but also to that of people who live in that area who have left their houses. Those houses are blighted as no one knows what will happen in relation to roads in that locality.

The journey that I have so far talked about takes us from Chichester to Shoreham and through the beautiful Sussex Downs to Lewes, which is another market town with narrow streets more akin to Victorian times than the present day. However, this is precious to the people of Lewes. Therefore, I decided to speak to my honourable friend Norman Baker VIP for Lewes. Over the years, he has campaigned constantly for improvements to the road, and he has helped to introduce a number of features to reduce accidents. However, he does not accept that dual carriageway roads are safer than single carriageway. He is worried that a dual carriageway would also increase overall traffic levels, as new roads always do. He is concerned that at the Lewes end there are serious capacity problems.

Overall, my honourable friend believes that arguments put forward for a dual carriageway, such as safety, congestion and economic development, are flawed. Those are his views. There is no proper consensus on what is appropriate and what is desirable. Different towns along the road pose different problems. If I were to talk to my colleagues in Eastbourne, they would completely disagree with my honourable friend in Lewes. We must accept that the A27 is a serious issue that deserves serious thought.

We must work to ease bottlenecks, which are choking some of the most beautiful places in Sussex. We must ensure that there are immediate improvements, so that accidents are minimised. We must consult local communities on the ecological and environmental impact of improvements. I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, that once the roads are in place people will appreciate what has been done for their benefit. The proposals for the south-east sprawl of new houses must spell out the impact on transport. Finally, we must take a holistic approach to transport infrastructure so that rural communities are not isolated.

8.2 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for his skilful and comprehensive introduction. I remind the House of my interest as the president of the Heavy Transport Association.

My noble friend presented his case far better than I could have done; and I do not propose to argue for or against it. That does not mean that it is not an appropriate question; far from it, because the same problems will arise up and down the country on many similar routes. Large numbers of primary routes have insufficient capacity and cause misery for the local population and, worse still, some stretches of routes have a consistently high accident rate. I say "consistently" because every year on each stretch a similar number of people are killed or seriously injured. The Minister should carefully examine the EuroRAP report that covers this point.

I am not saying that the Government are doing nothing; there is some good news. For instance, on the A45 Coventry ring road, in 1997–99 on that 20 kilometres there were 48 killed or seriously injured in accidents. By 2000–02, that had been reduced to just 14. That shows what can be done by extensive route action, in other words civil engineering works, just like the ones proposed by my noble friends.

The Highways Agency does a good job, but it will always be limited by government funding and the decisions of Ministers, as we have said this evening. Highways Agency officials have the ethos of reducing congestion and improving journey times and safety. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, identified the possibility of improving rail services, which is probably why his right honourable friend Mr Prescott set up the SRA, then scrapped it within a few years. The noble Lord is right, if local rail services can be improved, pressure on roads could be reduced. However, rail cannot meet the needs of short-distance freight associated with local business. Nor is it flexible enough for those supplying services that support industry and consumers.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, also suggested reducing the speed limit to 50mph to increase the flow rate. A few years ago, I would have suggested that his contribution would benefit from further research, but after the experience of the M25 with a 40mph speed limit at Heathrow, he may well be right. The Government will also have to consider whether the current 40mph speed limit for HGVs on single carriageways is appropriate. The Minister should consider whether 50mph might be more appropriate when the road is suitable.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others talked about AONBs and by implication SSSIs. This is a frequently encountered difficulty with new road construction schemes—it always seems that an SSSI is located just where the bypass is wanted. My noble friend Lord Baker described the dangers of this road. I am not familiar with it, but it seemed that as well as being dangerous it is a scenic route.

Noble Lords mentioned level crossings. While grade separated crossings on trunk routes are desirable because they eliminate choke points on primary routes, I am not sure that the RMT policy of replacing all level crossings on high speed lines is sensible. Many more lives would be saved by having grade separated junctions on all trunk roads.

My noble friend Lord Baker hopes that the Minister will offer a solution to the problems on the A27. For the reasons discussed tonight, I hope that he does not hold his breath.

Lord Baker of Dorking

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, with his great knowledge of the heavy vehicle industry, does he agree that a dual carriageway with properly engineered intersections is inherently a safer road than a single track, curving, hilly road such as the A27?

Earl Attlee

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Furthermore, pollution from heavy goods vehicles would be drastically reduced, because with an awkward single carriageway, the vehicles must work much harder.

8.7 p.m.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for introducing this interesting and very specific debate, and for the considerable interest that it has generated in all parts of the House on the question of this road. Although I would not call myself familiar with the A27, I know it well enough and am well aware of the features to which he has drawn attention. It is a classic road where improvements made to limited sections of it only throw into sharper contrast the problems where improvements have not been effected.

Let me disabuse the noble Lord of one notion. I do not have the statistics immediately to hand, but I very much doubt that the A27 is the most dangerous road in southern England. I understand the passion with which he puts his point of view and agree entirely that safety is a very important issue with regard to roads. However, on reflection he will recognise that we need to improve a very large number of roads in terms of safety features.

The noble Lord made a comment about other parts of the country that might be represented by more Members from my party. Two years ago, the BBC identified in a major programme what it called the most dangerous road in the country. It has now been surpassed by another road in the north of England, but it was the road that linked Manchester to Sheffield north of the Snake Pass, the A635. It had a single carriageway in each direction with small numbers of passing points. I would like to enlighten the noble Lord on the reason why you have two lanes going uphill rather than down. It is more important to be able to pass slow-moving and very heavy vehicles going uphill, when their speed is necessarily reduced to a crawl, than when they are going downhill. That road was reckoned to be the most dangerous in England, and its statistics compare woefully with the A27. We must not exaggerate the point, but I congratulate the noble Lord on emphasising the safety factors. They are prominent in our consideration with regard to improvements of the road.

Let me begin with the good news first, if only because, on time-limited debates, I am always terrified that I have not reached the main message before my time has expired. We recognise the importance of the point made about the crossing over the railway line. That is why we are committed to a scheme that will start in 2006–07 to have a bridge over the railway line. I recognise that the noble Lord would like it wider and grander than it is to be, but it is to be a three-lane road over the railway line. It will massively reduce congestion, which queues up whenever trains go past on the level crossing. We hope that it will improve the railway service too, by clearing the issue so far as the road is concerned. It will also improve safety factors; we all know that there are inherent dangers attendant on crossings on the level between road and rail.

There has been strong pressure from the Health and Safety Executive for the removal of the level crossing, and also locally for both a dual carriageway and a single carriageway solution. It is true that our solution is a compromise. It is to have a three-lane carriageway with a westbound climbing lane for the new road. We have to balance competing demands for traffic movement against environmental sensitivities. The noble Lord was somewhat dismissive of those local sensitivities. He has the great advantage of speaking in this House, but other Members speak in the other place on the basis that they win support from their communities. He will know that at least one other Member takes a diametrically opposite view to his on the matter. He will forgive me if I give way to a certain democratic regard for the sentiments expressed by a Member of the other place representing his constituents, even though the eloquence of the noble Lord has been taken into account in weighing the balance.

Lord Baker of Dorking

My Lords, will the Minister give way?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, the noble Lord will take time away from my speech if he interrupts.

Lord Baker of Dorking

My Lords, does the Minister recall that I said that, when there was public consultation, 58 per cent of the local people wanted a dual carriageway over the level crossing? In another survey last year, that rose to 95 per cent. If he wants to talk about democracy, let us have a referendum in the local area to decide on that issue. I will not intervene again but, while he is talking about this road, who made the decision to reduce it from four lanes to three? Was it the Highways Agency or a Minister, and why? We have the width, and four lanes or three lanes are environmentally virtually the same.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is environmentally the same, but that is not the view of others. We have to take those issues into account. The road is three lanes rather than four to minimise the environmental effect. He may attest that he has substantial public opinion on his side, but we know the strength of local pressure groups and local opinion on environmental considerations. If one concern unites the nation at present, it is the desperate concern—although we need to improve transport by building better roads and improving roads that we have—about the extent to which we are obliged to concrete over our environment. Our country is awash with large numbers of people who hold that view.

We must strike a balance between environmental considerations and road building, particularly in an area such as this. As my noble friend Lord Rea indicated, not only is this an area of outstanding natural beauty; it will be a new national park if the current boundaries for the proposed South Downs national park are accepted. So, these are issues which we have to balance.

Our evolving strategy for the A27/A259 trunk road is principally based on decisions which we took following the multi-modal study, to which reference has been made by a number of noble Lords tonight. The study was commissioned by the Government to address the long-term requirements of transport, including road schemes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport asked the Highways Agency in partnership with local authorities and statutory environmental bodies to look into less environmentally damaging alternative road-based schemes to those recommended by the report. The first outcome of the partnership in West Sussex was a public consultation which we carried out into a package of transport proposals, including road-based and public transport proposals for the City of Chichester, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, also mentioned the problems around Chichester.

The public exhibition in November and December last year setting out the proposals was well attended by over 2,500 people. The Highways Agency has currently received 4,000 responses. When the consultation is completed at the end of February 2005 the Highways Agency will analyse the responses and report back to transport Ministers. I know that that is not the rather facile suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that there should be a referendum. The noble Lord knows only too well that referendums are conditioned by the nature of the question that is addressed. This is a proper consultation carried out in the framework of the development of roads and I think we shall have more insightful answers as a result of this exercise.

Other ongoing work following the multi-modal decision has been the major studies into the traffic issues at both Arundel and Worthing, which have been informed by extensive traffic modelling of the areas. It is generally agreed that there: is no simple solution to the problem of traffic congestion in these towns. As has been indicated in this debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in particular emphasised this—the route of the trunk road is through densely developed urban areas. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also made that point. In Arundel the road separates the old town centre, including the cathedral and the castle, from the more recent mainly residential development to the south of the town. At this location, approximately four out of five of the vehicles which the A27 is carrying are through traffic; that is, both their origin and destination are away from Arundel. On the other hand, the surrounding countryside is environmentally sensitive and borders the South Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. There are also other designated sites all round Arundel. The landscape would be seriously affected by an outer bypass of the town. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend reconsidered the issue of the proposal of a bypass for the town. Again, we have to balance these factors.

The Government have asked the Highways Agency, West Sussex and the statutory environmental bodies to look at new proposals for improving the trunk road at Arundel and Worthing. Members from West Sussex County Council met the Parliamentary Under-secretary of State for the Department of Transport in December and were strongly supportive of the joint working at Chichester. If we accept the options for consultation, the next step would be a public consultation to obtain the views of the public and other stakeholders in the region on the way forward for this area.

In East Sussex, complementing and including the major Southerham to Beddingham improvement scheme, the Highways Agency has been working in partnership with the county council and the statutory environment bodies to develop a strategy for the single carriageway length of the trunk road between Beddingham east of Lewes and Polegate, north of Eastbourne. That was the subject of a great deal of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. That study has now been completed and the Highways Agency will be reporting back to Ministers soon with the options for the way forward. If those are acceptable, the next stage will be a public consultation exercise.

There is no doubt that the A27 and the A259 are roads of regional importance. We shall therefore seek advice from regional partners on their priorities for trunk road schemes. They have considered these schemes alongside proposed transport investment by local authorities. However, I take the opportunity of disabusing any notion of the construction of a fresh motorway in this area. I think there was reference to the question of a motorway. Certainly, that is not a realistic proposition.

The Highways Agency has a three-year rolling programme of maintenance and smaller scale improvements to the trunk road. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will be pleased to hear that next month, the construction of a pedestrian footbridge in Worthing will begin as will partial signalisation of the Ashcombe roundabout near Lewes, sometimes referred to as the Kingston roundabout. The noble Lord, Lord, Baker, will know that from time to time the Labour Party Conference is held in Brighton so we all have the opportunity to discover the delights of the A27 and surrounding roads near Brighton and Lewes. I shall join the noble Lord in the delights of the A27 if he will come to some of my northern horrors too and recognise the real difficulties in priority of road expenditure in this country. We shall also consider the development of two existing traffic lights at two locations in Worthing to upgrade them to improve pedestrian safety in the town and one junction, which will have a right-hand turn facility to improve turning for larger vehicles.

I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Rea with regard to road noise. We are aware that the present surface on this quite fast road produces in many parts what he referred to as white noise generated by the concrete surface. We intend to tackle that. Work will begin next month on the first stage of the resurfacing of the A27 between Havant and Chichester with quieter road surfacing; so I bring a message about some improvement there. The cost of the scheme will be approximately £1 million in this financial year. The Highways Agency is currently considering a timetable for resurfacing the remainder of this section subject to the availability of funding.

Taken together the above proposals and agreed major road improvements, backed by quite significant investment, are an indication of the Government's policy of developing sustainable solutions to the transport problems of the south coast corridor. Ministers are aware of the myth which can surround the economies of certain coastal towns: that because in the past many compared favourably with other parts of the country they belong inevitably to the prosperous south-east with huge advantages over many other parts of the country. That is not the case. A number of town economies are suffering real deprivation and need a transport system which recognises that fact. We recognise that towns such as Hastings have had a more glorious past. Transport is an important factor. Road structure is of some importance.

We have been concerned to put in considerable investment into the region. The sum of £950 million was announced in December 2004 for investment in this southern region. There are many demands upon those resources but it is a reflection of a commitment of public expenditure on transport which other parties will do well to match. It is a reflection of our determination to ensure that the infrastructure for our economy in these terms is greatly improved.

That investment is not only an indication of the Government's policy of developing sustainable solutions to the transport problems of the south coast corridor but also a recognition of the interrelationship between economic development and transport. That is why we are also concerned to see the intensity of investment in all modes of transport—rail as well as road. Rail comes into the A27 equation; namely, the problem with the level crossing. Many level crossings up and down the country cause us concern. However, few roads of the significance of the A27 have a level crossing over such a significant railway line. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has the right to express impatience that the issue has not been tackled previously. However, he indicated to the House that he has been campaigning on the issue over many years, so more than one administration has been involved with regard to seeking a successful solution to the problem.

We have had a most interesting debate. I do not underestimate the difficulties surrounding this issue. One of the problems is the enormous disparity between the standards of certain stretches of the road some of which are high. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, indicated that the stretch which runs past Falmouth, from Lewes towards Brighton, is of a high standard. One cannot think of a sharper contrast in that the same designated road is at the centre of two quite substantial towns to the west as it meanders through Arundel and Chichester.

But it will also be recognised that we have real problems with widening and creating a significant development to that road. In other parts of the country, it may be that the land does not present such a challenge as in this part of the world. There is little room for manoeuvre around Worthing. The noble Lord will recognise that, unless we are prepared greatly to defile the countryside. Arundel, too, presents that problem. Chichester is also an extremely difficult town to negotiate in terms of road traffic. But I should tell the noble Lord that that is also the case in other parts of the country. Roads which find their ways across the Pennines also find it quite difficult to become triple and quadruple carriageways against a background where the sheer problems and costs of engineering in places such as that are so acute.

So, I wish to put the issue into context and tell the House that the noble Lord has performed an excellent service. He has done it on behalf, as I understand it, of a number of noble Lords who happen to live in the immediate vicinity. There is no harm in that, although I am not sure that we could produce the same force of argument for roads in other parts of the country as there has been for this part. Nevertheless, the noble Lord deployed his case with his customary skill and charm and he has identified the need for the improvements which we now have in train.

I do not have the slightest doubt that I have failed to reassure him on every single point he made regarding this road. But he will take some solace, I hope, in the recognition that along the length of the road we are effecting some improvements and, crucially, a major improvement for the benefit of road users' journey times. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for emphasising early in his remarks that the safety factor should equally be taken fully into account. Towards that end the construction of a bridge over the line of the present level crossing is an important contribution towards that end.