HC Deb 18 May 1995 vol 260 cc348-9W
Mr. Chidgey

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 345, what is the definition adopted by his Department of noise levels being unreasonably high at adjacent properties to a motorway; and what consideration is given to the expected increase in noise levels due to the future growth in traffic. [24458]

Mr. Watts

This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995: The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the definition adopted of noise levels being unreasonable adjacent to motorways and what allowance is made for traffic growth. The level of traffic noise which is taken to be unreasonable is that prescribed by the Noise Insulation Regulations, namely a level which is predicted to exceed 68 db(A) at the facade of a residential property, of which an increase of at least 1db(A) is attributable to traffic on the new or improved road. Future growth of traffic, both on the new road and associated roads in the area, is taken into account by basing predicted noise levels on the most adverse combination anticipated within 15 years of the new road or improvement being open to traffic.

Mr. Chidgey

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 344, for what reasons only motorways which had a start of works prior to April and which are still under construction are considered for the provision of acoustic fencing. [24459]

Mr. John Watts

This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995: As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons only motorways which had a start of works prior to April and that are still under construction are considered for acoustic fencing. The provision of acoustic fencing is considered for all new motorway and motorway widening schemes as the noise mitigation part of a package of environmental measures. But how much is provided in any one year depends on when the particular scheme starts and the contractors programme of work on that scheme. Thus in answering your previous question, we could only give details of fencing for schemes which had started and therefore had a known contractors works programme. Information for schemes which are due to start this year will become available when the contractors submit their programme and I shall write to you again.

Mr. Chidgey

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 346, how he allows for the cost of compensation for loss in property values under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in making a cost benefit analysis of proposals for acoustic fencing and other noise mitigation measures for motorways in the absence of specific figures. [24400]

Mr. Watts

This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 18 May 1995: The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning how costs of compensation for loss in property values under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 are taken into account in cost benefit analysis of proposals for acoustic fencing. Composite estimates of the likely amount of compensation payable are provided by the District Valuer at various stage of development of a road proposal. Estimates of the element of compensation attributable to loss in property value under Part I of the Land Compensation Act take into account the mitigating effect of any protective measures included in the options or alternatives which the District Valuer is asked to consider.