HC Deb 30 March 2004 vol 419 cc419-26WH

4 pm

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con):

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents in Leicestershire, particularly in light of the Government's stated intentions to reduce motorway noise. One only needs to visit Enderby in my constituency, for instance, or the surrounding areas of Whetstone, Narborough, Littlethorpe and Cosby to appreciate the full extent of the noise that my constituents suffer on a daily basis and have suffered for nearly 40 years.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

4.10 pm

On resuming—

Mr. Robathan:

Having been so rudely interrupted, I am delighted to return to the subject of motorway noise in Leicestershire on behalf of my constituents. As I was saying, one has only to visit the motorway area near Enderby to appreciate the full extent of the noise that my constituents suffer daily. It is often impossible to stand outside their houses and hold a normal conversation. My constituents cannot sit in their gardens in the summer; they cannot open their windows; and they cannot sleep at night. There is an endless roar, which gets a little quieter between 1.30 and 4.30 in the morning, but then starts up again and wakes them. Last October I visited Cumberwell drive in Enderby, where an official from the Highways Agency had come to hear the grievances of a large group of residents, the most voluble of whom were Mrs. Bingham and Mr. Akiens. I urge the Minister to visit Enderby because he would then understand the unacceptable level of noise.

The M1, as I am sure you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was the first motorway in this country. It was opened to Lutterworth in 1962 and the stretch through Enderby was opened in, I believe, 1964. It bisects my constituency and south Leicestershire from the junction of the M1 and the M6 up to the Leicester Forest East service station. The noise problem affects people from Lutterworth all the way to Thorpe Astley and Braunstone. My house is about two miles from the motorway, but I can hear it clearly, although I am not arguing on my own behalf.

My constituents have suffered from the noise generated by the M1 for 40 years, but it is getting worse. Many people have bought their houses next to the motorway during those 40 years, but the M1 used to be relatively empty. A famous postcard, entitled "The most boring sight in Britain" and published in 1963, showed the M1 near Newport Pagnell with one car on it. That is no longer the case. As the Minister knows, traffic has increased dramatically during the last 40 years and especially during the last decade.

Last year, the Highways Agency told me that it plans to resurface the M1 between junctions 20 and 21 this coming summer. Resurfacing can reduce noise dramatically. I am not an authority on decibels, but I am told that resurfacing can reduce the noise impact by up to 50 per cent. The Minister may tell me that I am wrong, but such a reduction would obviously be welcomed by my constituents. However, on 29 October, the agency told me that it was postponing the work for four years. That is unacceptable. The agency is a creature of the Government, and that is why I called for this debate and asked the Minister to come here today. My constituents do not want to be fobbed off any longer by the agency or the Government. Today, I seek clarification of the reasons for the delay in the work.

I asked the Minister a simple oral question on 6 January but failed to receive an answer, so I hope that I shall receive straightforward explanations and answers to my questions today. In a written reply to a question, numbered 140803, in which I had asked how many road resurfacing projects had been delayed due to value management work, the Minister stated: The re-phasing of projects is not the result of value management work, but arises from a reappraisal of factors that influence the appropriate timing of works to be undertaken, in the light of better information."—[Official Report, 5 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 52W.] Yet I received a letter dated 29 October last year from Richard Bennett, who is a board director of the Highways Agency, in which he stated that confirmation of the work was subject to the outcome of further value management work. That is the process that the agency uses to assist us when deciding programming priorities.

Mr. Bennett's remarks directly contradict those of the Minister, and when the hon. Gentleman speaks I would be grateful if he clarified whether he stands by his remarks. I repeat the question from 6 January, "Who is right: the Minister or the Highways Agency?"

The Minister also stated in a letter on 10 February: Increased costs meant that a reassessment of the work's value for money was necessary". Yet, despite my requests no details about what exactly caused the rise in costs have been forthcoming. In a written answer to me, the Minister stated: Final cost details for resurfacing of the M1 between Junctions 20 and 21 will not be available until current investigations by the Highways Agency are completed. That suggests that there has been no accurate and detailed costing for the work. Is the Minister saying that there has been a sudden increase in prices? If so, where is the evidence for it? The Government's response seems entirely illogical. In the same set of written answers, the Minister told my constituents that priority will be given to those cases in which the actual noise levels exceed those predicted by at least three decibels".—[Official Report, 24 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 340W.] The Highways Agency finds roadside noise levels in Enderby of 86 dB, which is about 6 dB over its own acceptable limit. The Minister might be interested to know that as I trawled through the Secretary of State's announcement of April last year, as the Minister suggested I do, I stumbled on one particular gem. It stated that only since 1973 have the adverse noise effects of road proposals on the surrounding environment and possible ways of minimising these effects been more comprehensively taken into consideration before the road is built. In other words, according to the Secretary of State's paper, the effects of noise were not considered when the stretch of motorway between junctions 20 and 21 was built, and no serious sound reduction measures have ever been taken. Meanwhile, my constituents in Enderby, Narborough, Whetstone, Cosby, Littlethorpe, Lutterworth and Thorpe Astley continue to suffer. They have not benefited from noise reduction surveys or strategies since the road was built 40 years ago.

The noise is now worse than ever, and as the programme has been put back four years my constituents are condemned to another four years in the same situation. The Secretary of State's statement was, as the Minister suggested to me, a veritable treasure trove of information. Although the Minister told me that better value for money would be obtained by undertaking more work than simply resurfacing and that priority is given to road surfaces that are broken up", the Secretary of State pointed to the need to prioritise work thatwould not normally need to be resurfaced within the plan period". In other words, that is work that would need to be undertaken for reasons other than simple maintenance—for reasons such as noise reduction, for instance.

The Highways Agency's own consultants, WS Atkins, open their noise survey paper, dated 22 September, by stating: Following the Government's Transport White Paper in 1998, a budget has been allocated to deal with specific noise problems on existing trunk roads and motorways. Will the Minister contradict the remarks of the agency and the Secretary of State or will he accept that there is money ring-fenced for noise reduction separate from the needs of maintenance? In light of those facts the justification for postponing the work is simply not reasonable.

The agency website states that the Government's two criteria for priority are that the road must have been opened before 1988—the stretch of road under discussion opened before 1969 and has remain untouched—and that noise levels immediately adjacent to the road must be at least 80 dB. As I have said, the agency found levels to be some 6 dB higher at 86 dB. The M1 between junctions 20 and 21 must surely fulfil those criteria and should surely be at the top of the list of motorway stretches to be resurfaced.

In the consultancy paper to which I referred, WS Atkins considered options for reducing the noise, particularly between Enderby and Cosby. They found 160 houses that were affected by noise levels of 68 dB or more. I recollect that the Department of Transport even bought some houses in Roy close in the early 1990s because of the impact of traffic. The report considers erecting noise barriers in particular, and the costs of such noise screening are not horrendous. I urge the Minister to consider implementing noise screening along that stretch of the motorway as soon as possible—as happened, for example, in Luton, by junction 11, which I pass often. The conditions there are comparable. The Atkins report found that a quieter road surface—a thin-wearing course—would reduce noise to all houses by approximately 3 dB. Decibels are a logarithmic unit of measurement, which, with my O-level maths, I am not sure that I understand, but I listened to a reduction of 3 dB on my computer less than an hour ago, and the effect was marked. I should like the road surfacing to be done now, and acoustic screening to be installed this year.

In his letter to me of 10 February, the Minister told me that the process for timetabling road improvements was "subject to continued review". This was reviewed, to the detriment of my constituents, in October. I hope that the Minister will say that he will review again the M1 from junctions 20 to 21, because the case for resurfacing the M1 this summer is overwhelming. My constituents are suffering now and have been suffering for 40 years: another wait of four years would be intolerable. The Government have promised quieter road surfaces and, in the 10-year plan, they claimed that reducing noise from motorways and other trunk roads is an important priority". Furthermore, paragraph 3 of the road projects section of the Highways Agency's website says: Consider the length of time people have endured traffic noise. No one can have endured noise longer than those living next to the M1 because the M1 was the first motorway. Having had their expectations raised, my constituents demand that those promises be fulfilled and I look forward to the Minister giving them a satisfactory response.

4.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson):

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing this debate, and giving us a firm opportunity to focus on the Government's policy on quieter roads. In answer to an oral question in January, I told him that, were it not for this Government having such a policy—one did not exist before 1997—and had the money not been put in place, this debate would not have gone ahead at all. I remind him that we have made the policy a priority. He will appreciate that there are many other demanding priorities around the country which have been identified by hon. Members from both sides of the House who want roads attended to, but we have given that commitment.

Mr. Robathan:

The Minister is absolutely right that the Government have made this policy a priority, and I remember being cheered up when I read about it in the 1998 transport White Paper. However, he will admit that quieter road surfaces, such as whisper concrete, were already being tested and installed before 1997.

Mr. Jamieson:

Yes, indeed, but this debate could not have taken place if it were not for the Government's policy. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, particularly in his part of the midlands, of recent growth in the area, a downside of which is added traffic volume and noise. Leicester and much of the midlands are thriving under this Government's economic policies. I am delighted that unemployment has fallen and employment is rising, and whenever I go there I find new enterprise coming into the area, but that generates traffic and movement of people. He asked me to visit Enderby, and if I have the opportunity to pop in when I am visiting, I would be delighted to do so and perhaps have a cup of tea with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robathan:

The Minister is very welcome—I will even pay for the tea.

Mr. Jamieson:

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome.

The hon. Gentleman was at pains to ensure that our approach is consistent and equitable, which I believe it is. Before I go into the detail of the situation on the M1 in Leicestershire, in which he is particularly interested, I want to say more about the Government's quieter roads programme.

The strategic road network helps to support a healthy economy by providing the backbone for the effective distribution of goods and services and the easy movement of people. However, it is not without its disadvantages. People who live close to major roads sometimes experience the effects of increased noise, and the expansion of the road network inevitably disturbs the local environment. A balance that satisfies our economic and environmental needs has to be struck, and much can be done to minimise any negative impact on the environment. I often say that the Highways Agency is the second largest planter of trees in this country after the Forestry Commission. In our guidance to the agency, we take environmental matters seriously.

The Government have recently addressed public concerns about road traffic noise and are dedicating funds to noise mitigation. We accept that traffic noise is a concern for many people, and in the White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", published in July 1998, we gave the commitment: In future, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used for those areas where noise is a particular concern. In March 1999, we announced sift criteria to identify the most serious and pressing cases and a ring-fenced budget of £5 million a year to deal with the most serious instances requiring practical and cost-effective noise-mitigation measures.

The hon. Gentleman referred to those criteria, but for the sake of clarity it would help to have them on the record. First, trunk roads must have opened before June 1988, although priority attention is given to locations affected by roads that have remained unaltered since October 1969, the qualifying date for the introduction of noise mitigation measures. Secondly, current—that is, 1998—noise levels immediately adjacent to the road must be at least 80 dB. If the hon. Gentleman wants a small lesson in logarithms and decibels, I will assist him for a small consideration.

It may be useful to point out that the M6 Preston bypass between junctions 30 and 32 was the first motorway. It opened in the late 1950s, although that was probably before the hon. Gentleman was born. The third criteria is that in the case of roads opened or altered after October 1969, noise levels must be at least 3 dB greater than predicted for the design when the road was planned. The aim is to address people's disappointment that noise levels mentioned during the planning process were different from those experienced when the road was eventually opened. The hon. Gentleman will know that in November 1999, a list appeared inHansard under cover of a letter from the chief executive of the Highways Agency, showing the most serious and pressing cases to be studied to ascertain the most practical and cost-effective solutions. That became familiarly known as theHansard list, and by the time of the Government's 10-year plan, published in July 2000, the agency had been set the target of installing quieter surfaces on more than 60 per cent. of the trunk road and motorway network, including all concrete stretches, by 2010–11. That will benefit approximately 3 million people living within a third of a mile of such roads. Indeed, I believe that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have already benefited from resurfacing work on the M69 which has reduced noise. He looks curious, but if he ever takes that route, he will be able to see for himself how his constituents have already benefited from the Government's road noise reduction policy.

That policy over the period of the 10-year plan can be summarised as follows: a noise mitigation programme costing £5 million a year to address sites that meet theHansard list criteria; resurfacing all concrete roads with quieter materials; and resurfacing black-top roads with quieter materials when normal maintenance is required. About 5 per cent. of the trunk road network at 70 different locations is constructed with a concrete surface. Clearly, given the scale of the problem, work cannot be completed overnight. Attempting to do so would not be practical because it would create a great deal of disruption on the network, so we shall phase in the work over 10 years. Concrete roads tend to be very robust, and often need resurfacing not because of deterioration but to ameliorate the effects of noise.

As part of the development of our road maintenance programme, the process of value management is applied to all major road renewal schemes to ensure that renewal schemes are technically robust and meet set standards. Proposed schemes are examined collectively to establish relative merits and priorities, and set criteria are used to assess schemes. The criteria for the prioritisation of resurfacing flexible trunk roads are related to the condition of the surface and include surface crack intensity, assessment of levels of rutting, unevenness, skid resistance, general wear and tear of surface material and the frequency of accidents associated with the road condition. Those criteria are used to determine the programme for resurfacing. The aim is to maintain the trunk road network using the principle of minimising whole-life costs, taking into account disruption to the road user and the need to keep the road in a safe and serviceable condition.

Turning to the condition of the M1 in Leicestershire, I fully understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about noise from the M1. I accept that noise from roads is deeply intrusive to people who live near them, which is why we have developed a policy for tackling the noise from roads. In particular, I understand the specific concerns in the Narborough, Cosby and Enderby communities to the south of Leicester. That section of M1 was not identified as a specific site in the list published inHansard in 1999, and therefore does not take as high a priority as those listed or other lengths of motorway and trunk road that have concrete carriageways. To ensure that the most worthy sites are treated first, a nationwide ranking system has been developed. The section of road in question has what engineers call a flexible surface—a black-top surface—which means that it is not as noisy as roads with a concrete surface. Inevitably, therefore, the M1 in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be given less priority in noise mitigation measures. Nevertheless, we have agreed that the Highways Agency should carry out noise surveys at particular locations where local people have expressed significant concern, and a number of locations in Leicestershire fall into that category.

A survey covering the communities of Narborough, Enderby and Cosby has been completed, and it indicates, as the hon. Gentleman said, that 190 houses are exposed to noise levels greater than 68 dB. That has enabled the agency to rank those sites against other locations in the country in order of severity. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the three sites are not the most severely affected by noise. They are ranked in the order Narborough, Enderby and Cosby, but because they are close to each other it is likely that they will all benefit at the same time when resurfacing work is undertaken on that section of the M1. When considering noise mitigation measures the rankings are used to prioritise the programming of works.

The agency is also undertaking a survey at Kirby Muxloe in Leicestershire, near junction 21A of the M1. That survey is in its final stages and we expect a report shortly. However, it is not only the desire to reduce noise from busy roads that gives rise to the need to provide a new surface; the condition of the road network is constantly monitored to ensure that maintenance is undertaken at a time that gives maximum value for money.

A process of continuous value management—some difficulty may have arisen in the understanding of the term—is carried out to prioritise the work to be done with the funds available. Depending on the deterioration of a particular stretch of road, it may move up and down the list of priorities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do no less than that—to prioritise one road over another if it was deteriorating more rapidly.

The agency identified most of the motorway between junctions 20 and 21 as needing to be resurfaced within the next few years. The section is too long for the whole of it to be treated at once; hence the works are likely to be split into four phases. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the works were originally programmed to start in 2004 and to be completed over three years, starting with the section adjacent to junction 21. However, after being subjected to the process of continuous value management that I mentioned earlier, the works were reprogrammed, and they will be undertaken between 2005–06 and 2007–08. Depending on the condition of the road and further examination, the works will take place earlier or later in that period, so there will not necessarily be a delay of three years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that a programme of work that takes place in 2005–06 is not that far away.

I realise that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that the work has moved out of this part of the programme. However, if he has listened to some of the other debates held on such matters, and if he were to see some of the correspondence that I have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House, he would agree that it is fair to prioritise the works on the criteria set out.

I hope that what I have said has reassured the hon. Gentleman that the agency carefully and stringently analyses each road scheme in accordance with a list of priorities. I will ask agency officials to ensure that they keep him informed on the detailed in-year programme as it develops for the M1 in Leicestershire.

Although mitigating noise from trunk roads and motorways is a complex subject, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are doing all that they can to ensure that we have a fair system, which will benefit the greatest number of people over the next few years. We try to be as fair as possible but it is inevitable that those further back in the process are impatient to see the work closest to their homes completed.

I undertake to ensure that the agency keeps the hon. Gentleman informed, because I realise that the issue is important to people living in that area. I hope that he will recognise that we have put a substantial amount of extra money into the programme, and that we are tackling the list of works based on current priorities. The debate has been useful, and I hope that my explanation has been helpful. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for further explanation, I shall be delighted to correspond with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Five o'clock.