| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) not only on securing this debate, but on the measured and constructive way in which he has put forward his argument. Hon. Members are not always so constructive when they are making a plea in an Adjournment debate about the transport infrastructure in their constituency, but it is so much more helpful when they are, and so much easier to find a working solution. I, too, shall try to be constructive not only in this debate, but in any future meetings that the hon. Gentleman might wish to have with me to discuss this issue.
I should like to reciprocate the hon. Gentleman's constructive attitude immediately by giving him the key reassurance that he wanted, which is that the route on which we consulted is not necessarily the final route; it is not the only route. The purposes of the consultation were to identify possible alternatives to the route, to look for new ideas and to find the best way of delivering the scheme. I do not believe that there is any great dispute between us about the need for the scheme. The discussions that we need to have are about the route and about when the scheme will be delivered, but not about the need for it. It is important that we find the best route for the road in economic terms, and the one that causes the least environmental impact.
I repeat my assurance that I will ensure that alternatives are looked at, and I hope that, at the end of the consultation, we can come forward with suggestions with which the hon. Gentleman and his constituents can be comfortable. To be fair, the public consultation document to which he referred, of which I have a copy here, leaves something to be desired. It does not make it clear enough that alternative routes should be looked at as part of the consultation, or that new ideas could be put forward. That is a lesson that I will ensure the Highways Agency learns from this exercise and takes on board for future public consultations.
I should like to give the House some background information. The proposal to improve the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey was one of a range of recommendations made by the London to Ipswich multi-modal study. The study was set up to examine the future transport needs of the A12 corridor from the M25 to Ipswich, and the A120 corridor from Stansted to Harwich. For the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey, the Highways Agency commissioned Essex county council to identify potential lines of improvement and carry out a stage 1 assessment of them. That stage followed the Department for Transport's web-based transport analysis guidance—known as WebTAG—which ensures that the Highways
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1144
Agency undertakes a sufficient assessment to identify the environmental advantages, disadvantages and constraints associated with broadly defined route corridors.
In July 2003, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport asked the Highways Agency to carry out further detailed work on the scheme and to bring forward proposals for entry into the targeted programme of improvements. We also asked the Highways Agency to ensure that detailed design work was carried out to high environmental standards in order to minimise any adverse environmental impacts. In particular, the Secretary of State asked the agency to work closely with the statutory environmental bodies in addressing the potential environmental impacts of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that we would be working with those bodies, and I am happy to be able to give him that. Subject to the successful completion of all the necessary statutory procedures and to the availability of funds, the scheme could be delivered in the next 10 years.
The Highways Agency appointed Hyder Consulting to prepare a scheme for public consultation and entry into the targeted programme of improvements. The various lines that Essex county council had produced were refined to those shown in the public consultation document as the proposed southern route and the other options considered. These were then subjected to a stage 2 assessment. A technical appraisal report and an environmental assessment report were also produced. The assessment showed that the proposed southern route would be considerably more economically robust than the alternatives, and would have the least adverse effect environmentally, particularly with regard to the River Blackwater special landscape area. Public consultation on a proposed route for the improvement was carried out between February and June 2005. The alternative routes shown in the public consultation leaflet are neither as economically robust nor as environmentally sound as the proposed southern route. So, they could not be shown on an equal footing, which is why the consultation was carried out in the way it was.
One objective of the public consultation exercise was to invite suggestions for alternative routes, be they new lines or modifications of the options shown. Before a preferred route is announced, those alternative proposals will have been assessed using the same criteria and methods as the Highways Agency's original proposal. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that promise today. I will ensure that that assessment is carried out.
Mr. Newmark: There are only two assurances that I would like, on behalf of two particular communities. One is the A120 action group, which represents the Cressing area. I ask the Minister to consider the studies and reports that it has put together. With respect to the environment, I once again draw his attention to, in particular, any studies and works by the Blackwater Valley action group, due to the proposed impact on its area. Will he consider giving those two assurances?
Dr. Ladyman:
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman those two assurances. Indeed, the Highways Agency has proposed the southern route as the option for discussion precisely because—in its view and that of the analysis
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1145
that we have already done—it involves the least environmental impact on the River Blackwater special landscape area, to which he referred. I am happy to give him an absolute assurance that the representations made in the consultation will be thoroughly looked at and objectively considered before we finally come up with a route.As I have already acknowledged, the public consultation document did not satisfactorily set out the fact that the alternatives were there to be considered or that new ideas could be put forward. I will ensure that that lesson is relearned.
The hon. Gentleman also made some wider criticisms of the public consultation. I can tell him that about 26,000 copies of the public consultation document were distributed locally. The Highways Agency held exhibitions in four venues in early and mid-February, as well as a fifth at Feering, at the invitation of the parish council, towards the end of February. It also attended meetings arranged by other groups and councils, including Cressing, during the consultation period.
There was some confusion over the distribution of the consultation document. The Highways Agency received assurances from the organisation that was due to deliver it, but, despite those assurances, copies were not delivered as widely, thoroughly or early as the agency required. To deal with that, it made more copies of the document available at the consultation meetings and held such meetings not only at the venues that I have described, but at the request of a number of parish councils and other groups: Bradwell parish council, on two separate occasions in April and May; also in May, Sisted parish council Blackwater Valley action group, Braintree district council, Feering parish council and Cressing parish council; and in June, with the Braintree business forum. All had consultation meetings specially organised for them, to take account of their views. The visitors' books at the five main exhibitions recorded some 2,259 signatures, and 1,590 written responses were received from individuals, elected bodies and other groups such as the Blackwater and Cressing action groups.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government announced in December 2004, through their recent spending review, that routes on the strategic
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1146
road network would now fall into two categories: those of national importance, such as the M1 and the M25, and those of predominantly regional importance. The A120 has been classified as being of regional importance. That means that while decisions on all schemes and the commitment for funding remain with the Secretary of State, advice from the regions on the priority of schemes on trunk roads of regional significance will be sought alongside other regional transport proposals. We are waiting for the regional assembly's advice on how it wants to prioritise this scheme against others in the area.
Essentially, two pieces of work need to be taken into account—the results of the public consultation that we have been discussing and the regional prioritisation—before we will know exactly when the scheme will go ahead. Clearly, if the prioritisation is sufficiently high, the scheme will go ahead earlier than if it is given a lower priority. Notionally, at least, the scheme could be open in 2013. I know that that would bring significant economic advantages to the local community. Before we can get to that point and put the scheme into the targeted programme of improvements, we have to come up with a preferred route. We have seriously to consider the environmental impact of the route and to make sure that the scheme is economically robust. I repeat my assurance that we will do that.
I am keen to see considerable engagement with the local community, with the hon. Gentleman and with other elected Members who have an interest in the route. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman any time he feels the need in the next year or so, as we move forward on the scheme. I very much hope that we can come up with a route that will meet the needs of all his constituents and, at least, reassure them that appropriate weight has been given to their concerns. Last, but not least, I will be talking to the Highways Agency about the lessons to be learned from the consultation to ensure that it is done better in the future.
| Index | Home Page |