HC Deb 14 April 1986 vol 95 cc311-2W
Mr. Steel

asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the circulation of his Department's draft proposal to simplify the closing off and unadoption of roads which it thinks are too expensive to maintain;

(2) if he will make a statement on his Department's draft proposal to simplify the closing off and unadoption of roads which it thinks are too expensive to maintain;

(3) what account was taken of rural areas' requirements in the formulation of his Department's draft proposal to simplify the closing off and unadoption of roads which it thinks are too expensive to maintain.

Mr. Ridley

We are currently reviewing the provisions in the Highways Act 1980 for stopping up and diversion of highways. The Act and the review affect both England and Wales but not Scotland. The review is in response to complaints from local authorities and others that the provisions are inefficient, time-consuming and costly to use.

In April 1985 a consultative paper was circulated widely to interested organisations. The responses are being evaluated. It is proposed to replace the requirement on the highway authority to obtain a magistrate's court order before stopping up or diverting a highway with a power for it to make and confirm its own orders. Objections would be heard at a public inquiry before an inspector who would make recommendations to the authority whose decision could be challenged in the High Court. A current right of veto by district, parish or community councils would be replaced by a right to consultation.

The proposals extend to trunk roads, but not to motorways. We are concerned to facilitate disposal of unwanted pieces of trunk road verge and loops of highways made redundant by road re-alignment. The proposals include revised arrangements for footpaths and bridleways and also for the disposal of land after stopping up.

The general purpose of these proposals is to simplify and improve on the present procedures. It is not to enable highway authorities to divest themselves of their maintenance responsibilities and by doing so transfer that responsibility to others. The proposals are not considered to have any adverse implications for rural areas.