HC Deb 22 July 1969 vol 787 cc353-4W
Mr. Costain

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now announce the sites for the Channel Tunnel termini.

Mr. Marsh

In 1968, after preliminary consultations with the South East Economic Planning Council, my Department invited the Kent County Council to seek the views of local authorities, statutory undertakers and other interested authorities, and of the public generally. This consultation took place on two main assumptions. The first was that three separate terminals would be required: a ferry terminal for roll-on, roll-off traffic; a railway passenger interchange station; and a railway freight yard. The second was that as the tunnel portal would probably have to be in the area of Sugar Loaf Hill north of Folkestone, and the tunnel railway would join the existing railway a short distance east of the passenger station, two alternative groups of sites appeared to be available:

  1. (a) ferry terminal at Cheriton; passenger station near Saltwood; freight yard at Stanford (Westenhanger) or Sellindge or Sevington (the "Cheriton package "); or
  2. (b) ferry terminal at Sellindge; passenger station at Mersham; freight yard at Sevington (the "Sellindge package ").

Having considered many letters from the public and from interested organisations the Kent County Council expressed a preference for the "Cheriton package", with the freight yard at Stanford (Westenhanger).

I have decided that planning should go forward on the basis that the ferry terminal would be at Cheriton and the passenger station near Saltwood. These choices reflect the County Council's preference. For the freight yard I accept their view that Sellindge would be the least favourable site, but I prefer to retain the option of siting it at Stanford (Westenhanger) or Sevington until requirements are more precisely known.

In reaching my decisions I have been influenced by the superiority of the "Cheriton package" in terms of resource costs, commercial and railway operating considerations, employment implications and general amenity.

I acknowledge the need for the design and appearance of the terminals, including the landscaping, to be of the highest standard; and I intend that there should at all stages be close liaison with the Kent County Council on planning questions raised by the development of the terminals.

It will not be possible for some time to specify precisely the land that would be required for the terminals, but in rejecting now the "Sellindge package" and the Sellindge site for the freight yard I have sought to remove as much uncertainty as possible. No land will be acquired compulsorily unless and until the British and French Governments decide that the Channel Tunnel should be built. No such decision will be taken without the approval of Parliament.