The European Commission has officially registered a complaint made by the Bingley Environmental Transport Association (BETA) that the Highways Agency did not carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment on the Bingley 'relief' road (BRR) proposal in accordance with European Directive EC 85/337 at the time of the 1997/98 Roads Review. The complaint will be considered in the light of Community law and, if upheld, the UK government could be in breach of the law if it proceeded with the construction of the BRR. The Directive was taken into UK law in 1988 (Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 1241).
This is the first challenge known to us of the Government's New Approach to Appraisal* for trunk roads used in the 1997/98 Roads Review. The complaint could have far reaching implications for the Government's pre-election announcement about further potentially damaging road schemes.
The A650 BRR is a short (5km) but highly expensive road (£23m already spent on 'advance works' and a further £60m to spend) on the north of Bradford. It is euphemistically named a 'relief' road rather than a bypass because it carves through the centre of Bingley within 80 metres of the existing A650 displacing traffic in the narrow Aire Valley gap nearer to and area of dense housing.
The BRR is a link in the decades old plan of the Government to form a M1-M6 Trans-Pennine trunk route. If completed, the BRR would also increase the likelihood of a dual carriageway being extended through the village of Saltaire which is actively seeking a World Heritage Site status. There would also be an increased likelihood of the M65 from Lancashire being extended into Airedale and Wharfedale. Extensive housing developments contained in the Unitary Development Plan of Bradford Council and which would lead to increased traffic in Airedale are contingent upon completion of the BRR.
The New Approach to Appraisal was used in the 1997/98 Roads Review to assess 147 road schemes as to whether there was a negative or positive the impact upon the six environmental criteria of noise, local air quality, landscape, biodiversity, heritage and water. The BRR was one of 37 road schemes approved. The Highways Agency and the associated publicity at the time of this approval gave great weight to the supposed environmental benefits of the scheme.
Even on the basis of the Highways Agency's own assessment, it remains a mystery how they came to this conclusion since the road was rated as having a negative impact upon the environment on four of the above six criteria, a neutral impact upon one criterion and rated (incorrectly) positive upon only one criterion.
Negative impacts were given for:
The BRR was assessed as having a neutral impact upon heritage because, arguably, the adverse impacts on the Three and Five Rise Locks area of the Leeds/Liverpool canal was considered to be offset by improvement to the settings of Listed Buildings on the Main Street.
The Highways Agency incorrectly assessed the BRR as having a positive effect upon local air quality. BETA is challenging the Highways Agency assessment of the local air quality in its complaint to the EC and considers that this should have been rated as 'negative'. Evidence has been submitted to support this view. The negative impact upon air quality would arise from a 64% increase in traffic through the narrow Aire Valley and through displacement of the traffic towards an area of high density housing. Air pollution is trapped by temperature inversions in the Valley at certain times of year.
The decision to re-insert the BRR into the Government's roads programme would seem to be politically motivated. It is, perhaps, no coincidence that the New Labour MP, Chris Leslie, is sitting in a marginal seat and has become strongly identified with this damaging road.
That acceptance of the BRR in the 1997/98 Roads Review is politically motivated is supported by the lack of economic justification for the proposal. A benefit-cost analysis of fourteen Yorkshire and Humber Region road proposals considered in the Roads Review put the BRR bottom fourteenth in terms of return to full cost in the low traffic growth scenario. Both on environmental and economic grounds the BRR should not have been accepted.
BETA has tried all available channels within the UK in order to have this road assessed in compliance with the European Environmental Directive. A recent European Court of Justice judgment suggests that any national legislation, which purports to implement a Directive, must be at least as clear and as precise as the relevant provisions of the Directive itself. The Highways Agency has not provided clear evidence to support the claim that the Bingley Relief Road would be environmentally beneficial to the people of Bingley, Airedale or Bradford in general.
Recent cases suggest that the Commission is increasingly prepared to take action over infringements of the Environmental Directive which has, up to now, been frequently infringed by member states (communication from the Commission on implementing Community environmental law (COM(96)0500 - C4-0591/96)). Article 171 (96/C 242/07) of the EC Treaty as amended by the Treaty on European Union stipulates that penalties may be imposed on a member state which has not complied with a judgement finding that it has failed to fulfill an obligation under the Treaty. Penalties can involve loss of development funds within the UK.
BETA has written to the Minister and the Highways Agency requesting that no further action towards letting the contract for the construction of the Bingley 'relief' road be taken while the Commission investigates the complaint,. To continue taking action to let the contract on this project would be taken as a clear disregard for European institutions and compliance with the European Directive and its associated British legislation enforced by Statutory Instrument 1241, 1988. It would also be a waste of public money and an act of gross irresponsibility.
The Highways Agency has declined our request. Even though they have written to BETA admitting "that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was not undertaken specifically for that Review" (i.e. the 1997/98 Roads Review: letter of 8 June 2000) they continue to claim that an adequate assessment has taken place. BETA has also written to the Leader and Chief Executive of the Bradford Metropolitan District Council requesting that all development plans contingent upon the completion of the BRR are put on hold pending the outcome of the complaint to the EC. No answer has yet been received.
BETA has also written to the Leader and Chief Executive of Bradford Metropolitan District Council requesting that the Council undertake no further work in connection with any developments that are contingent upon the Bingley 'relief' road is undertaken while the Commission investigates the complaint. No response to this request has yet been received.
Another negative effect of the BRR would be the loss of a well used public footpath (footpath 24) connecting the canalside walk with the SSSI South Bog and Beckfoot School. The canalside is popular with walkers and ramblers and is currently a haven of peace. This peace will be shattered by the BRR. There would also be increased severance for horse riders since there would be a bridleway crossing at only one point. The Highways Agency declined to include a bridleway crossing in the vicinity of Three Rise Locks on the grounds of cost.
The BRR would have a considerable negative impact upon the environment of the Leeds/Liverpool from the Five Rise locks to the Fisherman's pub. The negative impact from noise and air pollution would be especially damaging along a 200 metre stretch of the canal from Three Rise Locks through the centre of the town where the BRR carrying up to 43,000 vehicles per day would be separated from the towpath by only a two metre wall.
BETA suggests that all associations and groups with a concern for the environment should examine in detail the assessment of any road scheme that comes within its area of interest. The original Directive has now been amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC and taken into UK law by Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 369. The Amendment has added the requirement that the precautionary principle should apply to projects requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment and that preventive action should be taken as early as possible. Member states may lay down stricter but not less strict rules to protect the environment. It is also possible that other Directives may apply. Especial note should also be taken of the Habitats Directive.
Associations should not hesitate to submit a complaint to the European Commission if there appears to be any sound evidence that a road scheme infringes a European Directive. It is suggested that this should be done after complaining, in writing, through all relevant UK authorities, including Councillors, MPs and MEPs. There is an official form for complaining and, although there is no need to be constrained by this format, it is important that all the questions are answered. A complaint is made under a specific Directive, which should be carefully studied and is considered on legal points only in writing. This is why it is important to keep copies of all correspondence.
The BRR has become a cause celebre of incompetence by the Highways Agency and political deviousness by the Government. Whatever the outcome of this complaint for Bingley is, the ramifications are considerable for other road proposals in the country that are now on the horizon. It is vital that the Highways Agency be held more accountable for its actions and should not be allowed to ride roughshod over sound environmental legislation that is designed to protect human beings wanting a good environment to live in. This has become even more urgent in view of the Government's abandonment of any pretence of implementing the earlier much trumpeted Integrated Transport Policy and its reversion to pandering to the motorist.
*A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England: Understanding the New Approach to Appraisal, London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998.