§ 2.50 p.m.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when the West Cross Route is to be extended from Shepherd's Bush to the Thames Embankment; and when the bridge designed to carry it across the Thames is to be built.]
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, progress with work on the Greater London Council's proposed new dual two-lane road from Holland Park Avenue to the Thames Embankment depends on the outcome of procedures publicly advertised by the Greater London Council in July and August relating to amendment of the Initial Development Plan, Orders under the Highways Act 1959 and compulsory purchase orders. The proposals make no provision for a new bridge across the Thames, but improvements are planned to the northern access to Wandsworth Bridge together with improvements and widening of Battersea Bridge. There is a separate proposal in the Greater London Development Plan, for a new crossing as part of the primary road network proposed in that Plan. This is under separate inquiry, which will precede the inquiry into the amendment to the Initial Development Plan.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that somewhat 656 confusing Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that if the West Cross Route is continued to the Thames Embankment under the present plan and no new bridge is built across the Thames until the second plan, there may be a gap of as much as ten years between the completion of the road to the Thames Embankment and the building of the bridge? Is he therefore aware that traffic using this road will have one of two alternatives; it can drive straight into the Thames or it can turn along the Thames Embankment, thereby destroying completely the environment of one of the most historic and beautiful parts of the London riverside.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I pointed out in my original Answer that we were going to widen the access to the Wandsworth Bridge and also widen the actual road lanes on Battersea Bridge, so the point which the noble Lord has put to me is not totally accurate. However, these are precisely the points that the inspector at the inquiry will be taking note of and about which lie will advise my right honourable friend.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the proposals regarding Battersea Bridge are completely insane? Is he aware that it will mean that the traffic coming down the new road will first have to turn left and then right over Battersea Bridge, at present a prohibited turning, and that for this purpose the whole of Whistler's Reach will be destroyed in order to bring about this insane result? Does he further realise, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rightly pointed out, that if this new road is brought to the Embankment before the new bridge is built in the proper place, which is not the site of Battersea Bridge, irreparable damage will be done, not merely to Chelsea, but also to London and its riverside generally?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, all these are very valid points, and that is why my right honourable friend has asked for an inquiry and appointed an inspector.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, why are the Government taking this one matter by separate inquiry before the inquiry into the overall London road strategy of the 657 Greater London Development Plan? Is it because they know that if the West Cross Route were considered against the overall background it would show up for the nonsense it is?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I think that is a bit unfair. The Layfield inquiry is a quasi-judicial inquiry which will be debating matters of general strategy and principles affecting every part of the environment. The second inquiry is a much more localised issue. It is not right that people dealing with the planning of the whole should get involved in a local issue.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, would it not be better strategy if they built the bridge first?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, if the inspector on the second inquiry were to find that irreparable damage was being done to the area of the West Cross Route, he would he in a position to say that he did not think anything ought to be done until a bridge was built. But until all interested parties have had the opportunity to give evidence, I think it a bit premature to make firm declarations about what will or will not happen.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, will the Minister inquire of his Department the cost of the proposed alterations to Battersea Bridge; and will he thereafter tell the House whether that does not amount to several millions—more, perhaps, than would be the cost of the new bridge which was promised very long ago and which was postponed solely on the ground of expense?
§ Loan MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I will certainly make inquiries and let the noble Lord know.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I can understand the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, especially in view of the forthcoming inquiry. May I ask whether he is aware that a plan does exist for a bridge to be built across the Thames at a cost much lower than would be involved in making the alterations to Battersea Bridge and the approaches to it under the present G.L.C. plan? Will he make sure that it is brought to the attention of the Minister concerned that in the view of everyone who has 658 studied this matter it is essential that the road and the bridge are built simultaneously?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will be taking note of what noble Lords have said to-day and I am quite certain from what I have heard that the evidence on this point will be substantial.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, are the Government aware that in other European capitals, notably Amsterdam, and Paris I should say, far greater care seems to be taken to see that road improvements and demolitions do not damage the amenities or unfavourably affect the general artistic conception of the town?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONYes, my Lords.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, is it not the case that the West Cross Route is about two miles long and is a major urban motorway? is it not the case also that it is part of the proposed inner ring road or inner motorway box in the Greater London Plan? If that is a local detail, is not any other two-mile stretch of the inner motorway box a local detail which could he picked off piecemeal by those not concerned with the overall strategy?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, obviously it has to he the same route, as it is mostly over the railway concerned. But there is a local traffic congestion there which has to be relieved; hence it must be looked at in the more immediate context of a local inquiry, and a more immediate solution sought. The greater strategy is a much longer-term solution.