A120 (Braintree to Marks Tey)
Full text of Brooks' speech in the Adjournment Debate of the future of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey.
Mr. Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): I am delighted to have secured this debate, which I hope will address the concerns of my constituents. The future of the A120 was raised in this House on several occasions by my predecessor, but there is still a pressing need to revisit the subject. Before I set out some of the issues, however, I pay tribute to my constituent, Roger Pulfrey, who chaired the Cressing A120 action group until his untimely death a fortnight ago. I regret that he cannot hear the outcome of this debate and will not witness the resolution of a campaign to which he was so dedicated.
I have been grateful for the willingness of many local groups to make constructive contributions to the proposals affecting local transport, including the Cressing action group, the Blackwater Valley action group, the Hatfield Peverel traffic working party, the Braintree and Witham rail users association and the Kelvedon rail users association. In addition, I have met and spoken to hundreds of residents in Cressing, Tye Green, Coggeshall, Silver End, Kelevedon, Feering and Bradwell-I thank them all. I hope that by bringing this debate to the House I can introduce some of that constructive spirit and generate a consensus over the future of the project.
The substance of the debate concerns a section of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. In recent years, the A120 has been upgraded, section by section, to bring it up to the standards required of a road that links the M11 with the port of Harwich and forms part of the trans-European road network. Since 2004, the section of the A120 between Stansted and Braintree has been improved beyond recognition, and traffic has been diverted around Braintree on a bypass since 1989. However, problems resume along the section of A120 that runs from the end of the bypass at Braintree to the junction with the A12 at Marks Tey. Congestion and safety issues are associated with a road that is already operating beyond its designated capacity. Few, if any, of my constituents would dispute the need to make significant improvements to the section of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. The current situation causes havoc for motorists in Braintree, and the advantages of the improved sections of the road are lost once they reach that bottleneck.
I believe that only two objectives should be considered when evaluating the road scheme: how best to reduce traffic congestion in the area, and how best to safeguard the environment. That is particularly so in light of the technical appraisal report, which has identified a very low cost variance between any of the options considered so far.
Turning first to traffic, the problems are immediately apparent. Congestion begins at a roundabout that was constructed as part of the Braintree bypass and has since been dubbed "cholesterol corner" because of the subsequent concentration of several fast food outlets there. The irony of that name is not lost on those of us who identify the end of the bypass with the resumption of clogging. In fact, the bypass continues past Galleys corner, but the roundabout is the major sticking point.
The sheer number of cars using the A120 is only part of the problem. Indeed, the traffic model used to predict road usage is derived from the original Essex county council stage 1 report conducted in 2002 and does not take into account the new Stansted to Braintree section of the A120 opened in 2004. It is of greater concern that traffic coming from the area to the north of Braintree, using the A131, and from the east, using the A120, would have to negotiate three roundabouts in order to access the proposed road at a fourth junction which is to be constructed on open countryside near Tye Green. That seems to be transferring an existing problem instead of resolving it. It will not allow for a proper separation of local and through traffic, and it will make part of the Braintree bypass redundant.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I know how hard he works on behalf of his constituents. Does he share my concern that traffic flows are notoriously difficult to forecast and that nearly every agency involved in those forecasts usually gets them wrong?
Mr. Newmark: That is indeed the case. However, it is important not only to predict traffic flow but to consult local communities before such decisions are made.
Braintree district council's official response to the consultation was emphatic in its opposition to the construction of a new grade-separated junction at Tye Green. I am pleased to note that a letter to residents from the Highways Agency admits that at least proposals for a fully grade-separated junction at Galleys corner are now under consideration. However, other issues affecting traffic flow remain unresolved, particularly the decision not to present the option of an intermediate junction at Coggeshall between Braintree and Marks Tey. That has left many residents believing that the balance of the scheme is tipped in favour of the strategic interests of through traffic over the relief of local traffic congestion.
Residents are equally concerned about the impact of the scheme on the environment. The Highways Agency's proposal requires a land take of approximately 122 hectares, of which 108 hectares are grade 2 agricultural land. That is more than any other scheme under consideration. It will seriously undermine the economic efficiency of the area affected as well as leaving a large section of previously untouched rural land trapped between the old A120 and the new route. Ominously, for those affected, the environmental assessment report states that
"at this stage it has not been considered appropriate to conduct detailed assessments of individual farm holdings."
I ask the Minister at what stage such an assessment will take place.
The real fear that residents have is that the construction of the road would weaken planning restrictions in the area, resulting in the comprehensive urbanisation of the protected Blackwater valley. Large-scale engineering works will, in all likelihood, impinge on previously untouched areas of the valley. The Blackwater valley action group has rightly said:
"The effect of a major trunkroad spanning this valley would be devastating and irreversible."
It seems clear that the landscape and its wildlife are at risk from this new intrusion. Only recently a survey by the Essex wildlife trust has identified a specific threat to both rare bumblebees and otters, as well as a variety of other endangered bird life along the proposed route. Braintree district council's formal response to the consultation identified several environmental threats posed by the new scheme. Furthermore, the proposed new junction at Tye Green will break up a corridor of land that has been preserved as the boundary that is intended to prevent the merger of the two communities of Braintree and Tye Green.
For those who are not agitated by the impact that the proposal will have on bees and otters, there is another serious threat to contend with, and that is flooding. Villages in the area-especially Bradwell, where I live, and Coggleshall-were seriously flooded in 2001. The size of bridge spans that are needed to avoid the risk of flooding will increase to monstrous proportions, the true extent of which has not yet been adequately presented to the public or properly investigated. Many of my constituents seek reassurance that the lack of any overriding objections from DEFRA will not mean that the scheme, in whichever form it takes when it escapes from the drawing board, will have carte blanche with regard to the rural environment.
DEFRA's involvement in the process should not be regarded as an all-or-nothing affair, as many local residents believe it to be. I would like to have the Minister's assurance that the strategic interests at play will continue to be balanced with the environmental concerns of other Government agencies.
I turn to matters of consultation and presentation before I conclude. There is undoubtedly a need for this section of the A120 to be improved, and I am prepared to concede that the Highways Agency does not have any nefarious intentions towards my constituents. However, the fact remains that the way that the consultation process was handled in this instance has caused some difficulties which might have been avoidable, and I hope that it will be possible to learn some lessons for the future. Many residents have been under the impression, throughout the period of public consultation, that the agency was putting the cart before the horse and had already decided on a course of action. Better initial presentation might have prevented much of the distress that local people have subsequently experienced.
I recognise that the Highways Agency has tried hard to address the confusion by explaining that the proposed southern route was just that-a proposal and nothing more. However, the fine distinction between a proposal by the agency and the Secretary of State's "preferred route announcement" is lost on me as it is on the general public. Queries from residents were answered in correspondence, but only in a piecemeal fashion and after considerable delay in some instances. One resident waited from 9 May to 20 September 2005 to receive an answer to her queries about the consultation process, by which time the deadline had expired. The prevailing perception was that the consultation process was, in the words of one residents' action group,
"no different to having only one candidate to vote for or against in an election".
Members of Parliament might wish for such elections but they hardly create the right impression.
The perception was encouraged by problems with the consultation leaflet. The map key referred to "The Proposal" and "Options Considered", implying that the leaflet was a report of an investigation that was already done and dusted. The visual aids were no less forthright. As the Minister can see as I hold up the map, a bold black line represented the proposed scheme while the other viable options appeared as merely hazy suggestions. Those brave enough to wade into the 192-page technical appraisal report, let alone the 508-page environmental assessment report, would have found a welcome surprise in the following admission: "The deciding factor in the choice of junction at the A12 could be the collective views of local people. Furthermore, it is proposed that in the interests of clarity of presentation and to receive objective and focused feedback from local people, a single route should be put forward at Public Consultation".
In other words, it was recognised that the public might decide the outcome and that it would therefore be expedient to lead them in a safe direction in case they should want to make up their own minds. It was not so much a case of, "Follow the yellow brick road" as, "Follow the bold black line." That is a shame because the technical appraisal report acknowledged that no existing proposals should limit the development of new options. However, the one document to which residents had ready access-the consultation leaflet-was not as clear on that point as it might have been.
Even the distribution of the document left much to be desired. Last June, the Cressing action group presented the Highways Agency with the results of a questionnaire, which sought to establish whether residents had been given adequate notice of the consultation process. Eighty-one per cent. of respondents said that they had received a direct mailing about the consultation from the Highways Agency.
Those perceived shortcomings were compounded by the failure to hold exhibitions in either Cressing or Tye Green, although those communities were most closely affected by the proposed scheme. Those may appear to be small oversights but they have helped to create the impression among local residents that any consideration had already been completed before the consultation had even begun, and that they were not genuinely intended to make a meaningful contribution.
Even when lengthy and well informed submissions were made, such as the one that the Cressing action group produced-I have brought it with me and I hope that the Minister will take the time to review it thoroughly-timely responses have not been forthcoming from the Highways Agency.
We still await the formal consultation reports, which are not due to be ready until the summer. In the interim, residents have been left hanging. Will the Minister look into the way in which the consultation was conducted? I am sure that the delay in publishing the consultation outcome is indicative of the Highways Agency's desire to find the best possible solution to the area's transport needs. Attempts have been made to reassure individual residents that the concerns that they expressed in the consultation will be considered and acted upon.
I understand that several new options are under investigation as a result of responses to the consultation. I hope that the debate will provide more widespread comfort and that the Minister will add the weight of his reassurances in his reply. The people of Braintree, the county and the region need an improvement to the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. However, local people are entitled to be reassured that their views will be taken into account, that due consideration will be given to the environmental impact of all the proposed options and that there will be nothing clandestine about the important decision.
2.49 pm
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 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 that we have already done-it involves the least environmental impact on the River Blackwater special landscape area, which he referred to. 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 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.