| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is describing a dire situation on the A27 in his constituency and in mine. According to the Minister's own recent written answer, however, the level of traffic in West Sussex over the next 10 years is predicted to increase by as much as 23 per cent. An increase of a quarter in the congestion that we already have can only lead to those roads being completely gridlocked in the next few years.
Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
There is an impact in terms of local pollution and an environmental impact as traffic is pushed away from the A27, rat-running through the South Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. However, I want the Minister to focus on one particular impact of the failure to upgrade the road—the economic impact on the whole region.
The Minister will know, as an MP for a costal community in Kent, that while the economy of the south-east is strong, and the economy of West Sussex has traditionally performed well, there are significant areas of deprivation along the south coast, and pockets of long-term unemployment. Poor transport links continue to hamper economic growth and investment in those areas and along the whole south coast. It is estimated, on the basis of figures compiled by Sussex Enterprise and British Chambers of Commerce, that problems with transport infrastructure cost Sussex businesses an average of £29,000 a year. Cumulatively, that is an annual cost of £2 billion to the Sussex economy. The South East England Development Agency highlights the fact that one of the main issues facing the south-east is regeneration. It states:
"Major transport projects of regional significance for regeneration of the coastal South East include the comprehensive improvement of the A27, especially deliverable solutions for Worthing and Arundel."
The Government's house building plans will also be affected by inadequate transport infrastructure. The South East England regional assembly has proposed that West Sussex should provide 58,000 new homes over the next two decades. The Deputy Prime Minister could impose larger numbers still. As West Sussex county council points out, however,
"any further development would depend on infrastructure capacity being available, especially on the A27."
That infrastructure is not available at the moment.
The unhappy history of the Arundel bypass is that broad agreement on it was reached between all parties before the current Government took office. The Department for Transport, the local community, the environmental lobby, the county council and the district council all signed up to what is known as the pink-blue route, seen as minimising damage to the environment. That was for a bypass of just four miles, then costing £23.1 million, which was in the main roads programme. In the Government's 1998 roads review, however, the bypass was de-prioritised. Then, in 2002, the south coast multi-modal study recognised that there was a case for the bypass, and that it should go ahead. It recommended that, along with improvements to Chichester bypass, and consideration of Worthing and Lancing bypasses. Again, however, in 2003, the Secretary of State rejected those on environmental grounds. Since then, successive Ministers told my predecessor that the Government accepted the case for dealing with congestion at Arundel, and that proposals would be brought forward, modified to deal with the environmental objections. Those, however, have been subject to constant delays.
Most recently, the Minister informed me in September that the Highways Agency was working with the county council to find less environmentally damaging options. He also said that as part of the spending review, he would seek regional advice from SEERA's regional transport board on the priority of any emerging schemes. That means that even if the Minister decided to go ahead on the basis of the regional advice, there would not be a consultation until later this year. The timetable has slipped again.
Peter Bottomley: I think I can speak for the other Members whose constituencies are on the A27. We all know that Arundel should be dealt with first. Worthing is important but probably comes second, along with Chichester. If that saves consultation, it probably saves a year.
Nick Herbert: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition that Arundel should come first, but I think that all the upgrades are important for the economic health of the region.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): What about Chichester?
Nick Herbert: I should of course mention the need for improvement at Chichester. There is already a dual carriageway there, but it needs to be upgraded.
As the Minister will know, all the regional bodies agree. The South East England Development Agency strongly supports the bypass. It points out that road investment in the south-east per capita is lower than investment in any other UK region. SEERA also supports the bypass. Indeed, it strongly condemned the Secretary of State's rejection of the A27 improvements, which it said was "perverse" and risked turning coastal Sussex into
The county council is strongly in favour of the bypass. West Sussex Economic Partnership, representing the local business community, is also in favour of it,
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1208
believing that congestion on the A27 is one of the main barriers to economic regeneration of the coast. Sussex Enterprise supports the upgrades. Last year a poll of its members and other local businesses found that one fifth of businesses would have to consider relocating outside Sussex unless the transport infrastructure, particularly the A27, improved soon. The RAC Foundation has condemned the Government's rejection of the A27 improvements, and says that it believes strongly that the decisions should be reconsidered.
Let me deal briefly with some of the objections to the bypass. I do not believe that they stand. The first relates to the environmental impact. The original bypass route was not seen as a threat to the environment. Indeed, the Secretary of State's own decision on the preferred route noted that it was supported by English Nature, Sussex Wildlife Trust, the Arun branch of Friends of the Earth and the Sussex branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
I recognise that road building is unpopular with those who are directly affected, but I hope that the Government's reticence and reluctance to support a scheme is not being influenced by protesters who began to build tree houses as a decision on the bypass seemed imminent. Decisions on these matters must be made democratically, not as a result of direct action by Swampy's friends. I myself would be anxious to ensure that a bypass did not result in the building of new housing between it and Arundel, thus changing the character of the town irrevocably, but I am assured that that could not happen, as the land concerned would be on the flood plain of the River Arun.
There is also the question of whether the bypass would go through the national park, depending on where the park's southern boundary would be, and indeed on whether such a park is created. I can tell the Minister that the bypass would run not through the downs, but below them. The council points out that the land south of Arundel is not naturally beautiful, as statutorily defined. Indeed, the preferred route does not even run through an area of outstanding natural beauty. The real impact on the national park would occur if traffic continued to be forced up through it and the downland villages. That would constitute an impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty, whether or not the park came into being.
There is also concern about the visual impact of a bridge crossing the River Arun. France seems to deal with problems of this kind very well, as anyone who has driven over the stunning Millau viaduct over the River Tarn will know. It would be perfectly possible to design a bridge that would complement the stunning view of Arundel and its castle and cathedral, which can be seen from the river bank.
I mentioned that the Minister had written to me saying that he was taking regional advice. I am concerned about the ranking of the schemes in relation to the regional transport board. The Government have been responsible for the fact that an Arundel scheme has not been developed. The board has told Arundel town council that the fact that a solution to the problems at Arundel has yet to be agreed on, together with the potential timing of any work, explains the relatively low current ranking of Arundel's bypass. We are in a Catch-22 situation. The Minister will not move until he has regional advice, while the region will not give the scheme
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1209
priority until the proposals are presented. Fortunately, the merits of the bypass are being recognised at the regional level and the sub-regional report submitted to SEERA last week highlights the need to improve the A27.
In conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister how many times we have to make the case for a bypass and for improvements to the A27. Frankly, the economic case is unarguable and I believe that there is also a strong environmental case. We have been waiting 20 years since the bypass was first agreed by the Government. It has strong local support. Of course, there are some exceptions, but most people back it. In a MORI poll commissioned by the South East England Regional Agency last year, 82 per cent. of residents cited traffic levels in the region as an area of major concern—on a par with crime as a key issue. About 72 per cent. indicated a preference for bypasses that would draw traffic around towns. If the Minister is unmoved by the local case, the impact on the regional economy should surely be of concern to him. Now is the time to end the delay and give the go-ahead to improvements to the A27 at Arundel and also at Chichester and Worthing.
10.15 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |