| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole):
It is a great pleasure for me to have my first Adjournment debate on Poole harbour bridge. The subject will not excite the same passion as the Amsterdam treaty, except of course in Poole and Dorset, where the bridge is an important issue and there is great strength of feeling about the project, which forms part of the national roads programme.
It is very important that we get this bridge across Holes bay. The future development of Poole is strongly linked to the project. At the end of the term of office of the previous Government, a competition was held for the design of the bridge, and a design was picked in January. Opinions and morale soared with the prospect that the bridge would be built, but there is now concern about what the future and the national roads review may bring; so today I am presenting the case for the bridge to the Minister. I hope that she will listen to what I have to say, and take a full part in the discussions within the Department to make the case for this important bridge.
Poole is a vibrant town. In 1998, it will celebrate the 750th anniversary of the granting of its first charter to allow it to be independent and trade profitably. It is a successful town built around its natural harbour, which is the largest in Europe. It is strategically located on the south coast. It provides freight and passenger services to France, Spain and the channel islands.
Poole is home to many world-class companies. More than 1 million people visit the borough each year to enjoy the water-based leisure and sports facilities. It has a great deal to offer, but one of its main problems is infrastructure. It has grown tremendously in the past 25 years, and the strains are beginning to show.
There are eight main arguments for the bridge. The first is that the port is a major gateway to Europe. "What role for trunk roads in England Volume 2" acknowledges that the principal purpose of Poole harbour crossing and the A31 Poole link road is to link the port of Poole with the national trunk road network. The purpose of the harbour crossing is to relieve congestion on the approach roads to the port and congestion within the port caused by the frequent opening of the Poole lifting bridge.
Poole harbour commissioners, who run the port, have a turnover of more than £12 million a year. They employ 223 people. If one includes sub-contractors and others, about 500 people make their livelihood from the port. If one takes into account the multiplier effect, the port generates revenue for the town of about £50 million a year. The port is among the 15 busiest in the nation. In the south-west, it is second to Bristol, but it has great potential for improving its trade with Europe.
The port is a significant generator of traffic, with 180,000 heavy goods vehicle movements per annum, and 400,000 car movements. As the port has roll on/roll off ferries, the traffic tends to feed into the road system in short, sharp bursts. One of the most important things for people who arrive at a ferry destination is the ability to get out of the port rapidly. Unfortunately, in Poole that does not always happen. United Kingdom policy is to have our ports open and competitive. The shipping
industry is notoriously price-sensitive, and the continued prosperity of the port depends on its being able to offer a competitive service in terms of quality and price. Poole enjoys many advantages, but it needs the bridge.
Secondly, we need integrated transport and effective links to the ferry port. Public policy is moving towards the concept of integrated transport, and to achieve that it is essential that there is transfer between different forms of transport. The port is rail-connected, and the harbour commissioners would like to increase rail traffic, but we also need good road communications for the port to develop. It is essential that we get improved connections via the bridge across Holes bay, so that traffic can move speedily out and into the port.
Thirdly, a successful port is an environmentally friendly Poole harbour. Poole harbour commissioners run conservation policies to keep the harbour a delightful place that are financed via surplus income generated by the port, and the harbour area has many sites of special scientific interest. The benefits in terms of tourism are great, because the port authorities take good care of the harbour.
The fourth reason is sustainable economic development--that is, development on brown-field and not green-field sites. The previous Government did much towards sustainable development, and I understand that the current Government are continuing that commitment to get more housing and industry built on existing or former sites.
Our ability to continue to build on green fields is diminishing and, where possible, we should regenerate urban areas where there is surplus land. Sustainable development strategy involves balancing the need for development with environmental constraints on the use of land, which means encouraging regeneration of urban land and buildings. Such an approach is reflected in the housing Green Paper, "Where shall we live?", which suggests that up to 60 per cent. of the required dwellings might be sited on brown-field sites.
The fifth reason is the regeneration of Lower Hamworthy, which is the dock area of Poole. Over the years, many of the larger companies that surrounded the port have closed, and there are potentially 50 acres that could be developed in and around the port, but development would require people being able to get in and out relatively rapidly. We are therefore talking not only about a bridge, but about the possibility of a regeneration project involving Lower Hamworthy that could reflect on the entire borough of Poole.
Most regeneration schemes, especially those in docklands or Cardiff docks, involve water--people want to live next to water, and even where water is not present, developers put it in. Poole has a most beautiful environment and a vast amount of water and, if we could get the infrastructure right, the land would be of great value. A new bridge might encourage investment in a range of areas, including housing, leisure and port expansion.
The officers of Poole borough council have put considerable work into determining whether development could be undertaken in Lower Hamworthy. They have already spoken to many landowners, and there might be the prospect--I would not state it more strongly than that--that one could get some private sector contributions from the landowners towards the cost of a bridge. Bridges
are expensive items, and I do not suppose that such contributions would constitute a large proportion of the cost, but I am sure that, if we got close to having a bridge and had the certainty of investment in Lower Hamworthy, contributions would come in.
The sixth reason is an enhanced role for the town centre. Currently, all the traffic coming from the port goes through the town centre, and that causes jams and reduces the quality of life there. If the traffic were to go straight over Holes bay towards the A350, policies for the town centre could be more sensitively implemented--we could do more for cyclists and pedestrians, for example. In addition, there would be some potential for development in the town centre, the quay and Poole old town. The key point is that building the bridge would have knock-on effects in Lower Hamworthy, the quay and the centre of Poole.
Seventhly, the bridge presents a solution to the traffic problems caused by the existing lifting bridge. The bridge dates back to 1927, and, like any mechanical bridge, it needs more maintenance as time goes on: hence it has to be closed more and more frequently.
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 1924), dated 4th August 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th August, be approved.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Transport and Works (Descriptions of Works Interfering with Navigation) (Amendment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
Question agreed to.
That Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mr. John Horam, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Malcolm Savidge, Mr. Jonathan R. Shaw, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West), Mr. Paul Truswell and Joan Walley be members of the Environmental Audit Committee.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
12 Nov 1997 : Column 1008
10.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |