| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. I regret
that there are so few hon. Members in the Chamber. We have been given an object lesson in a Member of Parliament's primary responsibility: the advocacy of his or her constituents' interests, and of constituency interests.
The hon. Gentleman's own advocacy in respect of the Salisbury bypass is, as he has already said, well known and I assure him that I have listened carefully to his speech and taken due note of the points that he made. I am sure that he will agree that this is a particularly sensitive scheme, which has attracted considerable opposition, but which also has its supporters. As he also pointed out, it falls to the new Government to decide whether the bypass should be given the go-ahead.
Following the 1993-94 public inquiry, we are still in the statutory decision-making phase of the proposed bypass scheme. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the scheme, as Ministers have yet to take a final decision; nor, I regret to say, can I indicate when a final decision might be announced. It might, however, help the House to understand why this case has taken so long without a decision being reached if I explain the steps that have already been taken.
It is true that the proposals for the bypass have been at the planning stage for a very long time. The proposed bypass entered the trunk road programme in 1984 and there followed feasibility studies to identify possible route options. As a former Roads Minister, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the prime importance of correct route selection if resultant harm to the natural and built environment--an issue which he touched on to great effect--is to be kept to a minimum. The outcome of the feasibility studies identified three possible routes and those were made the subject of a public consultation exercise held in 1988. The result of that consultation was strong public support for a route crossing the River Avon flood plain to the south of the city. In the light of that preference, the preferred route for a southern bypass was announced in 1989. Further design work for that route was then carried out, together with a full environmental impact assessment. The draft statutory orders for the bypass and an environmental statement assessing its impact were first published in 1991.
Objections to the published draft orders triggered the convening of a public inquiry, which lasted for a year, from April 1993 to April 1994. It was an exhaustive inquiry, which explored all aspects of the bypass proposals, including the need for the scheme and its impact on the environment. Twenty-four alternative proposals to the published route were considered, as well as many alternative junction arrangements.
The independent inspector, Sir Peter Buchanan, made his report on the inquiry to the then Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport in September 1995. Given the length of the inquiry, it is understandable that it should have taken him more than 12 months to write the report. Some 300 sources objected to the bypass, 20 of which were subsequently withdrawn; there were 280 pro forma objections and four petitions of objection; and some 40 sources registered support. Having weighed all the evidence put before him at the public inquiry, the inspector came to these overall conclusions: that there was a need for the A36 between the terminal points of the proposed bypass to be upgraded to modern trunk road standards; that
there was a need to remove A36 through traffic from Salisbury and from the Wylye valley villages to the north-west of the city; and that, despite its adverse impacts, the published route for the bypass--with certain modifications--would provide the best solution.
Having heard the arguments of the Department of Transport justifying the published bypass proposals, the expressions of support for the bypass, and the arguments put forward by objectors, the inspector had come down in favour of giving the go-ahead to the bypass. However, the inspector could not take into consideration developments after the public inquiry had closed and the further representations about the scheme that were subsequently received. Those had to be taken into consideration by the then Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport, alongside the inspector's report.
Three significant post-inquiry developments occurred in the case of the Salisbury bypass. First, in December 1994, the report "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic" by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment was published. In its response to that report, the then Government undertook that the effects of generated traffic would be considered in connection with all schemes at the planning stage, which included the Salisbury bypass. The economic benefits of the scheme were reassessed, taking into account new technical guidance on induced traffic issued by the Department. The report on that assessment was received in September 1996.
Secondly, in September 1995, English Nature notified its intention to designate East Harnham meadows as a site of special scientific interest. The site's designation was confirmed in February 1996. If the Salisbury bypass were to be built as proposed, it would mean taking just over one hectare of land from the south-eastern edge of the 17 hectare site. The hon. Gentleman referred to the parliamentary brief published today by the World Wide Fund for Nature, which claims that four hectares would be taken. I asked my officials, who repeated that they believe that claim to be inaccurate and that only one hectare would need to be taken. Although at the time of the inquiry the site had not been designated as an SSSI, the high ecological value of East Harnham meadows was acknowledged in the environmental statement and considered by the inspector in reaching his conclusions. Nevertheless, the subsequent notification of the site was a material change that had to be taken into account.
Thirdly, at the time of the inquiry, the intention to notify the River Avon system as an SSSI was known. Subsequently, however, English Nature, through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, advised the Secretary of State for the Environment that, in its opinion, parts of the River Avon and its tributaries qualified for consideration as a possible special area of conservation under the European Community habitats directive.
Having considered the inspector's report, the developments to which I have just referred and other post-inquiry developments and representations, the then Secretaries of State announced at the end of last October their views on the bypass. Those were set out in detail in an interim letter sent to all interested parties. At the same time, the inspector's report and the induced traffic assessment report were published.
Although they were minded to confirm the orders authorising construction of the bypass, before taking a final decision, the Secretaries of State instructed the
Highways Agency, in consultation with English Nature, to review the bypass route across the River Avon flood plain and investigate mitigation of its possible impact on the proposed River Avon special area of conservation. The main reason for that review was to see whether it would be possible to avoid the newly designated East Harnham meadows SSSI. The agency was also instructed to review, in consultation with the Countryside Commission, mitigation of the overall landscape impact of the bypass on the sensitive area south of Salisbury. The agency was given four months to report on those matters.
The Secretaries of State also afforded interested parties an opportunity to make further representations on two issues: the economic benefits of the scheme in the light of the report on the effects of induced traffic; and the adoption, as recommended by the inspector, of a modification to the bypass route to take it further away from housing on the southern outskirts of Salisbury. The Highways Agency review report, including reports to the agency by English Nature and the Countryside Commission, was published on 21 March. It identified two alternative route options for the bypass across the River Avon flood plain that avoided the need to take any land from the East Harnham meadows SSSI. Interested parties were invited to comment on the review report by 2 May.
We have now received more than 3,000 representations about the bypass since last October's announcement. Around 90 per cent. have arisen as a result of organised campaigns for or against the bypass. The remainder have addressed the specific issues on which interested parties were invited to comment, including the Highways Agency review report. No decision on the bypass will be taken until the comments on the agency's report and other representations received have been considered by Ministers. At the same time, we shall want to look at the bypass proposals in the context of our strategic review of the trunk road programme. We expect to make an announcement about that review shortly.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |