| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Colney Hospital, Norfolk
Mr. Garrett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to call in the planning application for a new hospital at Colney, South Norfolk. [18381]
Sir Paul Beresford: I refer the to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 22 February, Official Report, column 279. As the adopted local plan makes specific provision for such a development, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State would wish to intervene.
Thoresby Colliery (Fatal Accident)
Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the director general of the Health and Safety Executive about the fatal accident at Thoresby colliery, Nottinghamshire, on Monday 4 March; and if he will make a statement. [19517]
Sir Paul Beresford: None. The Health and Safety Executive is conducting a full investigation into the accident.
Council Tax Relief (Wandsworth)
Ms Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was (a) the total sum, (b) the amount paid to the London borough of Wandsworth, (c) the percentage of the total paid to the London borough of Wandsworth and (d) the amount paid per dwelling in the London borough of Wandsworth, in traditional relief in respect of the council tax in each year from 1993-94 to 1995-96. [19494]
Sir Paul Beresford: The information requested is as follows:
(a) Total amount of transitional relief in England:
1993-94: £378,652,826
1994-95: £111,283,108
1995-96: £27,178,179 1
(b) Amount of transitional relief paid to London Borough of Wandsworth:
1993-94: £35,984,443
1994-95: £23,594,503
1995-96: £10,100,635 1
7 Mar 1996 : Column: 305
(c) Percentage of total amount of transitional relief paid to London Borough of Wandsworth:
1993-94: 9.5 per cent.
1994-95: 21.2 per cent.
1995-96: 37 per cent. 1
(d) Average amount paid per chargeable dwelling in London Borough of Wandsworth:
1993-94: £323.75
1994-95: £209.29
1995-96: £89.31
These figures are averages. The actual amount of transitional relief varied according to a household's council tax banding, its composition and its previous liability for community charge. 1 Information for 1995-96 is provisional and is subject to final grant claims to be made during 1996-97.
TRANSPORT
Central Railway
Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Central Railway plc has applied to him for directions under rule 12 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) Rules granting waivers from compliance with certain application requirements in respect of the Central Railway project. [20250]
Mr. Watts: Yes. Copies of the applications for rule 12 waiver directions, and of the supporting documentation provided by Central Railway plc, have been placed in the House of Commons Library. Members wishing to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concerning his decision whether to agree to issue any such directions should write to him by Friday 22 March.
HGV Drivers (Eyesight Tests)
Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has received from lorry drivers' representatives as to the (a) numbers and (b) proportion of HGV drivers who will be barred from driving as a result of changes to eye tests from 1 July. [19570]
Mr. Norris: I have recently received suggestions that very large numbers of drivers of large goods and passenger-carrying vehicles will lose their entitlement to drive these vehicles as a result of changes to regulations on eyesight standards. No supporting evidence for such estimates has been provided and in some cases they are clearly based on a misunderstanding of the scope of the changes. The 1994 consultation document on the changes included an estimate, based on analysis of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency records, that about 3,000 drivers would be affected by the proposed changes. This estimate was not challenged in the responses to consultation.
Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with HGV drivers' representatives concerning changes in eyesight tests. [19569]
7 Mar 1996 : Column: 306
Mr. Norris: The consultation document on the proposed changes to the regulations on eyesight requirements issued in October 1994 was sent to a wide range of organisations, including representatives of HGV drivers. None requested discussions at the time.
Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when new European regulations changing eyesight regulations for HGV drivers were agreed; how the United Kingdom representative voted; and what immediate publicity was undertaken. [19516]
Mr. Norris: The United Kingdom voted, in 1991, for adoption of the second EC directive on driving licences, 91/439/EEC, which sets minimum standards for health, driving test and licensing requirements across the EU to underpin road safety and in the interests of free movement of nationals of the member states. The Department subsequently, in October 1994, undertook an extensive consultation specifically on changes to the regulations on eyesight standards. A press notice was issued then as well as last October, when I announced the Government's decision.
Emergency Towing Study Team Report
Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 February, Official Report, column 581, what amendments he has made to the report of the emergency towing study team as originally delivered to him; and if he will make a statement. [18900]
Mr. Norris [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The report is an internal document, but it will be published and placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report was amended to remove commercially sensitive information which was provided to the study team in confidence, and material which was outside the terms of reference of the study.
Newbury Bypass
Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what evidence has been submitted to him since the start of construction of the Newbury bypass on new environmental damage; and if he will make a statement; [19065]
- (2) what representations he has received concerning the Newbury bypass since construction began; and if he will publish them with his response; [19066]
(3) what estimates he has made of the effect of completion of the Newbury bypass on (a) volumes of traffic on the A34, (b) volumes of traffic in Newbury itself and (c) journey times of traffic travelling (i) through Newbury and (ii) along the bypass; [19111]
(4) what has been the cost of (a) police and (b) security at the site of the proposed Newbury bypass since October 1995; and if he will make a statement. [19072]
Mr. Watts [holding answer 5 March 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 7 March 1996:
7 Mar 1996 : Column: 307
Note:
The flows given are Annual Average Daily Traffic for low and high growth.
7 Mar 1996 : Column: 308
As you know, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the Newbury Bypass.
The cost of security for the advance works contract incurred so far is £1,182,000. The cost of Policing the work is a matter for the Thames Valley Police force.
You ask for details of the effect of the Bypass on traffic flows on the A34, and on the rest of Newbury. On the A34 itself, the bypass provides substantial relief by allowing longer distance through traffic to avoid the town. The table below shows the benefits the bypass would bring to the A34 Inner Relief Road on which traffic flows would be reduced by about 40%. The figures for the residual local traffic remaining on the A34 after the bypass is open do not allow for the potential additional benefits to be provided by local traffic management measures.
Without bypass With bypass
Year Low growth High growth Low growth High growth
2000 57,000 63,000 35,000 39,000
2005 61,000 70,000 38,000 43,000
2010 65,000 78,000 40,000 48,000
There would be greater benefits to other sections of the A34 bypassed by the scheme, for example traffic along Tothill Straight will be reduced by up to 75%.
In addition to the general relief provided by the bypass there would be particular benefits from the substantial reductions (typically 65-70%) in heavy lorry traffic (estimated at up to 400 an hour at peak times) using the A34 through the town.
Traffic flows on other major routes through the town would also be affected by the bypass. The change in traffic patterns will of course depend on what traffic management measures are brought forward. For example, on the A343 substantial flow reductions of about 30% are forecast. There would be some increases on routes feeding the bypass, for example flows on the A4 on the west side of the town would increase slightly by up to 5%. However, in overall terms the net effect of the bypass would be to remove substantial volumes of traffic, particularly heavy lorry lorries, from the town.
As part of the traffic appraisal for Newbury Bypass, we have assessed the journey times of traffic travelling through Newbury and on the proposed bypass. The savings in travelling time have also been assessed as part of the economic evaluation of the scheme.
For through traffic using the bypass instead of the existing A34, COBA shows average peak period time savings of 15 minutes when the scheme opens. Currently, at the worst times, delays can be up to and over one hour. In the longer term, the savings would be significantly greater since congestion on the existing road would become much worse without the bypass. A major benefit to industrial and business road users will be the much improved journey time reliability provided by the bypass.
Since site clearance operations began, we have received about 700 written representations against the scheme, mostly from outside the area, and a small number from supporters. We have previously received nearly 20,000 expressions of support for the bypass. It would be inappropriate to publish these letters without the consent of the writers which could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The reply to the recent representations against the scheme has been broadly along the lines of the draft attached.
No evidence of new environmental damage has been submitted although it has been suggested that the Desmoulins' Whorl Snail, a non-priority annex II species in the Habitats Directive, may be present on the route. It has been established that these snails are present elsewhere in the Kennet and Lambourn valleys. We are liaising with English Nature and carrying out further surveys to determine whether the snails are in the area affected by the bypass and if so, what further mitigation measures are necessary.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |