| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.47 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on securing yet another debate on this important matter for his constituency, and on his diligence in pursuing his constituents' interests. I also understand the frustration that he has expressed on their behalf about the continuing uncertainty of a scheme that has been long in gestation.
My hon. Friend mentioned the review of the roads programme that I had to conduct last year in the light of the reduction in the budget for trunk road building. He will know, however, that, at the end of that review, the scheme he mentioned was one of the high-priority schemes that
remain firmly in the main programme. None the less, we are reviewing it as previously proposed, to see whether there is a way of carrying out the widening more cost-effectively, thus saving precious capital resources and enabling the reduced funding to stretch over more miles of the trunk road and motorway network.
When I previously reported to the House on the scheme, draft orders for the works were on deposit, and the Highways Agency was receiving objections and representations. However, the estimated cost of the published scheme is nearly £500 million, so, although it would produce a good economic return in terms of the tests we apply, it would also use up a significant part of the annual budget.
The current review will therefore establish whether some reduction in scale, and thus in costs, can be achieved. That work is now in hand, and it is also taking into account the many detailed points made to the agency during the consultation process. The statutory procedures in respect of the published scheme have been suspended while the review is taking place. I hope later this year to be able to announce the results of the review, and to set out the way forward.
For the moment, I can tell the House that, in carrying out the review, it will remain the aim to meet the operational objectives of the published scheme. Nor will we compromise on the level of environmental mitigation which was substantial under the previous scheme. Although I am looking for financial savings, I am not looking for them at the expense of either noise or environmental mitigation. That is one of the assurances that I know my hon. Friend wished to hear.
The agency examines carefully the environmental impact of schemes and the measures needed to mitigate. A considerable advantage in building on the existing network is that it limits intrusion. That is, however, no reason why those living alongside existing routes should suffer as a consequence. The methods now being examined in the scheme review for achieving environmental mitigation may be different from those involved in the original scheme, but we shall aim to achieve the same result.
Noise levels adjacent to motorways are always a concern, and this scheme is no exception. The overall aim will remain the reduction of existing traffic noise by a significant amount for people living near the motorway. In Luton, barrier heights will vary depending on the local situation. The use of acoustically absorbent barriers where appropriate and justified will reduce reflected noise and offer significant benefits in the urban area. Where possible, barriers will be installed before the start of works to reduce the noise nuisance during construction as well.
The Highways Agency is also considering the use of quieter road surfacing to reduce noise intrusion. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that predictions for the relevant section of the road show that it has too high a proportion of heavy vehicles for the use of porous asphalt to be viable. However, research into noise-reducing road surfaces is continuing, and if a suitable material is available before a decision has to be taken on the type of surface to be used for the scheme, the Highways Agency will, of course, consider using whatever surfacing is of the requisite strength and has the maximum noise attenuation.
My hon. Friend referred to the blighting effect of the proposals on the ability of some of his constituents to sell their property. The Highways Agency has so far bought
27 properties in my hon. Friend's constituency, under the statutory blight legislation, where land will be needed for the scheme. The agency has also used the Secretary of State's discretionary powers to acquire a further 42 properties, but it had to turn down 17 other requests for purchase.
While the published proposals remain on the table, we shall continue to assess applications against them. However, 11 of the refusal cases have been reviewed against the new guidelines which were introduced on 19 July 1995 following the Colonel Owen judgment. They require the agency to consider diminution in the value of property as well as the predicted effects of noise and other physical factors when reaching a conclusion about whether enjoyment of the property will be seriously affected by either the construction or use of the road.
Mr. John Carlisle:
It is the diminution of value that is so important. My hon. Friend has referred to the cases of those affected whose properties have been purchased by the Highways Agency, and that is straightforward. It is the diminution of value of so many properties--I know the line is very fine--that is worrying my constituents. I am a little disturbed by the numbers that my hon. Friend has quoted. My experience is that the numbers are rather greater. Shall I encourage people who have come to me, but who may not have come to my hon. Friend, to go to the agency?
Mr. Watts:
It is difficult for me to give guidance on that point. Certainly the guidelines are published and available. Any of my hon. Friend's constituents who feel that they might qualify under the guidelines should make an application.
The difference between the new and the old guidelines is that, under the old, a physical effect had to be proven to qualify for discretionary purchase. Under the new guidelines, both diminution in value and physical effects can trigger entitlement to be assessed for discretionary purchase, although the guidelines explain that, usually, discretion will be exercised only where both diminution in value and some physical effects are to be found.
None the less, of the cases that have been reviewed, five have been accepted under the new guidelines that were excluded under the old, and four of those are in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know of at least one other case where an apparently anomalous decision is now being re-examined yet again, and I undertake to my hon. Friend that I will look further at the other specific cases that he mentioned in his speech.
Purchase is not the only remedy. The provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 also give owners the right to claim compensation for any depreciation in the value of their property as a result of the physical effects of the road once it comes into use. That becomes payable one year after a road has opened.
My hon. Friend urged me to say more about the timetable, and I understand the unease about continuing uncertainty while the review of the scheme is under way. As he mentioned, some dates have been given in the past, but giving them can often raise false hopes or false fears. It is indeed unfortunate that a letter was sent to one of my hon. Friend's constituents giving a date for which there was absolutely no basis. Following the review of the road programme, the agency is still
working on what is called the cascading of projects, to make recommendations to me about the years in which they should be implemented.
As I said, I expect to make a further announcement later this year about this scheme. Progress beyond that will depend on the statutory procedures that need to be followed and availability of funding.
This is a very important scheme--as my hon. Friend said, this is one of the most heavily trafficked parts of the motorway network--and we shall make all the progress we can. The scheme is very much needed, and we shall aim to meet those needs without any undue delay.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |