§ Mr. Andrew SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment has been made of the impact of the Newbury bypass on habitats of protected species;. [8410]
498W(2) what are the comparative costs of construction in respect of (a) the Newbury bypass and (b) upgrading the existing route of the A34 in accordance with route option CA4; and what assessment has been made of the relative environmental impact of each option. [8409]
§ Mr. WattsI have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Smith, dated 16 January 1996:
As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the A34 Newbury Bypass.We have surveyed carefully the route of the Bypass and we have relocated (in close liaison with English Nature) protected species where necessary. For example, all major trees were surveyed for the presence of bats; those found were caught, their roots removed and the bats then released into woodland away from the route, where bat boxes had been erected. Badgers have been relocated to new artificial setts and dormice have been moved to new sites. Our ecological consultants will keep watch during the works to ensure the safety of protected species in liaison, as necessary, with English Nature.Route option CA4 was an objectors alternative route put forward at the 1988 Public Inquiry; the comparative costs of the two schemes are those given to that Inquiry. These are £38.8M for route option CA4 and £46.6M for the western bypass. I should add that the Inspector at that Inquiry concluded that route CA4 would be ineffective in traffic terms and that the proposed western route would be very much better value for money that any of the alternatives put forward to the Inquiry.The comparative environmental impacts of the proposed route and alternative CA4 were discussed at the Public Inquiry in 1988. The Inspector concluded that central route options would not relieve Newbury of significant amounts of through traffic; there would be upheaval and disruption during construction and serious problems would remain at junctions. He found that CA4 in particular would have severe and insurmountable operational difficulties. And, at the end, central routes would leave Newbury with structures out of keeping with a country market town and there would be higher levels of pollution. The Inspector found all central routes unacceptable and the Secretaries of State accepted that.Our Study Report last year looked again among other issues at central route options, but concluded that nothing had changed since 1988 which had made the Inspector's criticism less valid or which had altered the balance he had found in favour of the western bypass.
§ Mr. ByersTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the compulsory purchase order was made to acquire land on which the Newbury bypass is to be built; and when compensation will start being paid to those affected by the order. [9522]
§ Mr. WattsI have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 16 January 1996:
As you know, John Watts has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Newbury Bypass.The Compulsory Purchase Order for the scheme was made on 4 October 1993. Some compensation has already been paid, further payments will follow when negotiations with landowners are finalised.