| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.45 pm
Dame Peggy Fenner (Medway): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for letting me have a short time to speak, after his comprehensive history of this notorious and disappointing transport matter. He explained how important the road is to our constituents in the Medway towns. That shows how interdependent we are in our road structure, which is vital industrially.
My hon. Friend mentioned what is happening in Chatham Maritime, where we hope to use dockyard land to bring back more prosperity to the Medway towns. We lost so many job opportunities when the Government closed the naval dockyard and base that the bypass is essential for redevelopment. He described at length the indefensible delay of the public inquiry and the issue of the final report. I do not want to repeat the elegant and eloquent words with which he regaled the House.
I have three questions and my constituents want answers. I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister plenty of time to answer, but I know, being the good friend that he is, that he will ensure that I receive answers by letter if he does not have time to answer my questions now.
The orders have been signed, albeit only on 18 January. The annexe describing transport supplementary grant issue for this year has been produced. Halfway down the list is the project that is numbered 5533 and named Wainscott northern bypass. The document, with immense optimism, gives the start year as 1994-95. My hon. Friend the Minister will learn what a miserable start we have had. The project is marked with an asterisk, of which the document states:
To my constituents, that means that the money has been allocated and will start in 1996-97. My hon. Friend the Minister has dedicated the public money to the scheme. It is named and identified in the list. With the help that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has sought, will my hon. Friend the Minister insist that the project starts this year, in 1996?
My second question is whether this is the first time that the Department of Transport has adopted the doctrine that the Highways Agency is responsible for deciding priority. If so, why? Surely it is rotten, bad housekeeping to give an allocation of public funds with no assurance of compliance with the projects listed.
My third question relates to my constituents, who are extremely worried because they believe that the planning consents that cover the northern Wainscott bypass will expire early in 1997. Will the Minister tell them what, hypothetically, would be the problem?
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris):
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Medway(Dame P. Fenner) for raising the topic of the Medway towns northern relief road. It is a road scheme that has particular importance for my Department, even though it has been built by Kent county council, and when completed, will be part of its road network.
The scheme has three sections--Wainscott northern, the Medway tunnel and the Gillingham northern link.I shall say a brief word about each and how they interrelate.
Following on from the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, the key objective of the Wainscott scheme is to provide greatly improved access to the Isle of Grain, and to allow for the expansion and development of that area, while at the same time taking heavy goods traffic away from unsuitable residential roads in the Wainscott area. As my hon. Friend said, it is valuable piece of infrastructure.
The Medway towns northern relief road heads south from the junction with the A228 to the western end of the new tunnel under the River Medway. The tunnel is, of course, a considerable engineering feat. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham referred to my former boss, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk(Mr. MacGregor). I recall him walking through the tunnel, and, if I remember correctly, my hon. Friends were with him. The tunnel is an extraordinary technical achievement. It is an immersed tube, 725 m long. The tunnel scheme also includes a link to a new roundabout on Anthonys way on the western side. To the east, the grade separated interchange at Pembroke road provides access to the Chatham Maritime development, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Medway referred. That is a key development, especially in the unfolding context of the Thames Gateway. That junction was financed by English Partnerships, the developer of Chatham Maritime. The developer contribution to the cost of the Medway tunnel is currently about £25 million.
Chatham Maritime is a flagship of the Government's Thames Gateway initiative, and it is starting to develop. Earlier this year, the Halifax building society took a 25-year lease on Royal Sovereign house, which will be its new administrative centre for the south-east. Time (Open Systems) Ltd., a financial software specialist, has decided to locate its new national headquarters at Chatham Maritime.
Moving further east, away from the tunnel, we reach the particular interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, the Gillingham northern link. That will provide a dual carriageway connection from the tunnel to the A2. A short distance to the east of the A2 junction, the A278 runs south to join the M2 at junction 4.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham knows well, the Gillingham scheme is important in giving access to the new development at Chatham Maritime and to industrial areas along the B2004. It will provide environmental, road safety and community benefits by removing traffic from residential streets such as Woodlands road and Barnsole road and, like the rest of the Medway towns northern relief road, the Gillingham scheme will play an important role in congestion relief.
The junction with the A2 is at a roundabout that already serves the Gillingham business park, which is one of north Kent's success stories. Since development began at the old Army barracks, nearly 3,000 jobs have been created throughout the retail, office, warehouse and manufacturing sectors. Companies such as Lloyds bank, B and Q, Rover Fairways and Mercury Interactive have all moved to Gillingham business park. It has more Japanese companies as tenants than any United Kingdom business park.
Scope for modest expansion remains, however, and when the Gillingham northern link is completed, it will improve access to the business park for potential customers and for employees in the Medway towns conurbation. It will be an important link between Gillingham business park and the Chatham Maritime development.
The project is substantial, and my hon. Friends will understand when I emphasise that it is very expensive. The latest cost estimates that we have were provided in the county council's last transport policies and programme submission, dated July 1995. In addition to the£25 million that was provided by the developers, Wainscott northern bypass is currently estimated to cost£59.4 million, the Medway tunnel £59.9 million and Gillingham northern link £42.4 million--a total of£187 million, of which £162 million is being sought from the Department of Transport budget for capital expenditure by local authorities.
It may be helpful if I place that sum in context. When we reviewed the trunk road programme in November, the estimated cost of proposals to widen the M25 between the M3 and the M40--the busiest section of motorway in the country--was about £137 million, compared with the £162 million that I mentioned. In our entire main trunk road programme, only two schemes are more expensive than the Medway towns northern relief road, and the largest individual scheme that was accepted for transport supplementary grant this year was only £11 million.
The scheme is not cheap; it is a very large proportion of the budget that is available throughout the country for such schemes--but I shall now make a very positive statement. We remain committed to funding in full the Medway towns northern relief road, and to doing so in the shortest time that our resources allow.
I understand the disappointments that my hon. Friends have felt, and I pay a genuine tribute to their significant, sustained efforts to bring pressure to bear on myself and my colleagues, to ensure that there is no undue delay beyond that which is inevitable.
My hon. Friends know of the two problems. The problem with the statutory orders is as great as the problem with funding. We warn local authorities, when securing orders, that it can be a lengthy and complex process, and the Gillingham and Wainscott schemes have been among the most difficult that my Department has had to handle.
In the case of the Gillingham scheme, the public inquiry was held in June 1993 and the inspector's report was received by September 1994. An interim decision was made by April 1995, which required the county to make modifications to the proposed orders, and after that was done, the orders were confirmed in September 1995.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Medway knows, substantial modifications were required to the Wainscott scheme as a result of the February 1995 interim decision letter, and the decision letter finally confirming the orders was, as she said, issued as recently as January 1996.
Those difficulties are now history, and I understand why the tremendously long time during which the new road was held up by bureaucracy might have caused frustration, but my hon. Friends will understand that the Secretary of State acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when he decides on orders, and both he and the inspector must be able to show that they thoroughly examined all the technical issues. I am afraid that our legal advice, for example, on the reference to substantial modifications was that that was the position that the Secretary of State for Transport was obliged to make clear, and he did so simply because that was the obligation placed on him.
I have no time left to answer most of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Medway asked, but I undertake to answer them in writing as soon as possible. I confirm again that we are committed to the scheme going ahead, and to its being funded in full within our Department's resources.
Question put and agreed to.
"An asterisk after a reference number denotes a scheme accepted for TSG in this settlement".
Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |