Cardiff Bay Barrage (Hansard, 20 January 1992)

§ Mr. David Hunt

The Select Committee which considered the private Bill requested in May 1990 that a further year's work on groundwater modelling be undertaken by Hydrotechnica. It required a three-month consultation exercise to be carried out, following which I would make my decision. The Committee specified that I should allow public funds to be put towards the construction of the barrage only if I was satisfied that all the relevant economic, technical and safety criteria could be met. When the private Bill fell in April 1991, I announced that I would none the less continue to honour the commitment to that Committee.

The further year's work ended in August 1991, and the consultation period began on 25 September that year. Copies of the report, together with the response of Cardiff Bay development corporation, were laid before the House. The start of consultation was announced by means of a public notice in the press and received widespread media coverage. People and organisations who had taken a particular interest in the subject were also notified individually. The consultation period ended on 31 December, but I have also taken account of the few representations which came in after this date.

In view of the complexities of the issues concerned, I commissioned Mr. Roy Stoner, director of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at the university of Southampton, to act as my independent expert adviser. A copy of his advice is attached to this letter. Mr. Stoner has read the Hydrotechnica report, the development corporations's response and all of the submissions received as part of the consultation exercise.

I received some 140 responses to the consultation exercise, of which 89 were "pro-forma" letters expressing general concerns about groundwater, with particular reference to the writers' houses. A large number of the other representations also expressed fairly general concerns about groundwater and the protected property 78W line. A small number of submissions discussed the issues in depth, and these were analysed individually in Mr. Stoner's report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. I have considered most carefully all the evidence in the report from Hydrotechnica, the development corporation's response and representations during the three-month consultation period.

Taking each of the criteria set by the Select Committee in turn, I shall deal first with safety. Having considered all of the evidence, I have no reason to think that the predicted groundwater levels, even in what Hydrotechnica predict to be the "extreme case", will present any risk to safety when considered together with the proposed remedial measures.

Some respondents referred to the separate issue of river flooding in their submissions. I note in this context that the National Rivers Authority, the body with statutory responsibility, has commented: during events equivalent to design events for the flood defences, the barrage will not reduce the levels of protection provided and may create a worthwhile improvement".

On the technical criterion, I am satisfied that the remedial measures for buildings envisaged by the development corporation, together with the additional drainage recommended for certain sensitive areas, are technically feasible. However, I noted with interest the suggestion by Mr. Stoner that the possibility of de-watering wells should be investigated. In view of the prospect of reducing the disruption to householders, I have asked the corporation to commission a study of this proposal. I am also grateful to Mr. Stoner for his suggestion that the protected property line should be extended in two areas. I am disposed to accept his recommendation.

Finally, on the economic criterion, I note that the costs of remedial works should the "extreme case" materialise would be some £9 million greater than the costs for the "most likely" case included in the financial memorandum. I have therefore re-considered the economic appraisal on the basis of the "extreme case" figures. The result shows only a marginal reduction of the return on the barrage. I also note that de-watering wells, if practicable, could considerably reduce costs, but I have not relied on this in making my decision.

I am therefore satisfied that all of the criteria relating to groundwater—safety, technical and economic—can be met. Subject, therefore, to parliamentary approval for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, I propose to make public funding available for the construction of the barrage.