UK Parliament / Open data

High Speed 2

Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 25 March 2015. It occurred during Adjournment debate on High Speed 2.

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, they are similar to the Norfolk broads in terms of recreational amenity.

I was told at the start of the project that it would never be possible or economically viable to tunnel under the River Colne because that would cost in the region of £1 billion more than a viaduct—I remember that figure being given. By last month, we were told that, because the viaduct will cost so much, the true differential is a mere £185 million. In the great scheme of the £50 billion- plus we are talking about for this project, that seems to be something that the Government really ought to consider, given the damage to the environment not just for the local community and residents, but for all the other people who come to make use of this recreational area. That same point could be made about the tunnel

under the area of outstanding natural beauty, but I will focus on the Colne valley because of its importance not just to the local community, but to the residents.

I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Heathrow spur would effectively not go ahead. That removes a great deal of potential blight from my constituency and it is quite clear that it was not needed. However, parts of the bits of the junctions and other infrastructure still remain in the Bill, which worries me about the potential for blight. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that such potential for blight is removed from the Bill.

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
594 cc526-7WH 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Back to top