| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on securing this debate so early in the life of this Parliament. He has been a tireless advocate for his constituents in the matter and I welcome his raising it in the House, because it gives me the opportunity to explain more fully how the legislation dealing with the adverse effects of roads on the environment works.
There is no doubt that traffic noise is an exceedingly contentious issue, not least when defining what is a serious nuisance, because the perception of noise may vary from person to person and from place to place.
I recognise that people living near the M20 feel that they suffer the adverse effects of the traffic without receiving much benefit from the motorway. I must point out, however, that it plays a vital role in giving access to the single European market. The right hon. Gentleman detailed the precise importance of that stretch of our national road network; I believe that the effect of that access on our trade has benefited the nation. The efficient distribution of goods and other services brought about by that direct link to the continental motorway network has had a dramatic effect on society. Although we have had arguments to the contrary from the right hon. Gentleman, most of those effects have been essentially beneficial.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that the discretionary powers provided by the Highways Act 1980 to mitigate the adverse effect of roads on their surroundings have not been used to their fullest extent. It is important to understand the basis of the legislation and the principles of equity and consistency which underpin the way in which discretion has been exercised.
The fundamental principle originally established under the Land Compensation Act 1973 is that a public body that carries out development under statutory powers should provide compensation for the indirect effects of that development on adjacent land interests.
In addition to providing for financial compensation, that Act also gave the Secretary of State for Transport the power to make regulations imposing a duty or conferring a power on responsible authorities to insulate buildings against noise caused, or expected to be caused, by the works associated with road construction or improvement. That power was implemented in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973. Further provisions contained in the Land Compensation Act included the power for
responsible authorities to carry out additional measures to mitigate against the adverse effects of the construction, improvement, existence or use of the public works.
The provision for compensation was limited to public works completed on or after 17 October 1969. The same operative date was contained in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973. It was not considered appropriate to specify a retrospective date limiting the power to provide other mitigation measures, because it was intended to cover deserving cases in which properties were affected by roads that had been completed before the specified date, which limited the exercise of the other powers.
It took several years for retrospective cases to be dealt with under the Noise Insulation Regulations. It was not until 1979, under the previous Labour Government, that the power to provide other forms of mitigation was activated. It was made clear at that time that the policy of providing noise barriers alongside existing highways was restricted to roads opened prior to 17 October 1969.
In each case, the decision to provide a noise barrier was subject to the requirement that that would provide a significant degree of relief to a substantial number of properties. It also had to be feasible to erect a barrier within the existing highway boundary as there was no provision for acquiring extra land.
Subsequently, the power to provide measures to mitigate the adverse effects of highway construction was included in the Highways Act 1980. In applying that power to new road construction, it was extended to include a power to acquire additional land on which to construct such measures. That has allowed a much wider view to be taken of mitigating environmental impacts, but the effectiveness of mitigation has always been measured against the number of properties that would otherwise need to be insulated under the Noise Insulation Regulations.
That power has been exercised only in very particular circumstances to provide an additional noise barrier alongside roads built since 17 October 1969. For example, additional noise barriers were placed on the A27 Havant-Chichester route, which was opened in 1988. That was possible because the Noise Insulation Regulations had been revised in that year and specifically provided an allowance for differences between road surfaces. The change meant that a significant number of properties became eligible for statutory noise insulation and it was considered appropriate to provide additional noise barriers instead.
In other cases, barriers have been erected after the road was opened only when the cost has been met by a third party. That has usually been as a consequence of a planning condition attached to residential development. Noise barriers have been provided at the expense of the developer to protect properties, which would otherwise not have been permitted.
This is quite a complicated matter and I have described the provisions of the legislation at some length. In summary, the exercise of discretion to provide noise barriers relates to roads built or improved after October 1969--where a developer or other interested party is prepared to cover all costs--and roads that have not been improved since October 1969 where it can be shown that barriers would provide a significant benefit to a sufficient number of properties suffering unduly from traffic noise.
I understand the argument presented by the right hon. Gentleman that the effects of increased traffic on the section of the M20 to which he referred make his constituents a special case. I am sure that he would acknowledge, however, that there are many sites around the country that are similarly affected by increased traffic noise, both from motorways and within towns.
To consider all those deserving cases equitably would involve substantial costs, even within the existing legislation. There is the issue of whether the public purse should provide benefits in kind to owners of property who either bought at a price reflecting its location relative to the motorway or received compensation when the motorway was first built, to offset the anticipated effect on the value of the property.
When a trunk road is planned to be constructed or improved, an assessment of its environmental impacts and the potential benefits of various types of mitigation takes into account the volume of traffic expected to be using it 15 years after the scheme is first open to the public. I acknowledge that one of the most important concerns discussed at the public inquiry into the proposals to widen the M20 between junctions 3 and 5 was the impact of traffic noise on the surrounding area.
I am aware that the inspector strongly supported the use of porous asphalt, as well as the proposed noise barriers, to reduce the adverse effects. But those measures were discussed in relation to the longer-term effect of the widening proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman was scathing in his criticism of the proposals to widen the M20 and their subsequent withdrawal. However, the draft statutory orders for the acquisition of a small amount of land, mainly needed to provide for additional mitigation measures, were not confirmed. That allowed the local planning authority the freedom to permit development on the land, and released previously blighted properties back on to the market.
I understand the intense disappointment that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents must have felt having been offered some prospect of relief by those widening proposals from the apparently inexorable increase in noise from traffic on the section of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5.
I have to say that the purpose of the mitigation then on offer was essentially to offset the anticipated effect of the widening. However, the assessment of noise impacts arising from the proposals used the updated method of assessing noise levels, which takes account of the type of road surface. It is likely that the original concrete surface and the subsequent surface dressing would probably not have been as quiet as they now can be with the use of modern construction methods.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the seemingly inexorable increase in road traffic. The Government are committed to developing an integrated transport policy, and the upward trend in traffic growth will be re-examined. For the moment, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to be patient until the appropriate maintenance programme for that section of the M20 is decided. I have taken careful note of his question and I will certainly ask my officials to respond to it as speedily as possible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |