§ LORD AMULREEMy 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 what area of Wimbledon Common will be taken to enable the Kingston Bypass to be widened at Robin Hood Gate; what is the cost of this scheme and what is held to be its purpose.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, it will be necessary to acquire approximately four acres of Wimbledon Common. The scheme, which is the last of a series of improvements of the A.3 trunk road in Greater London, will alleviate the severe congestion which occurs, particularly in peak hours, at the Robin Hood Gate junction and along Roehampton Vale. The latest estimated cost of the improvement is £6,000,000.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask one or two supplementary questions? May I take it that the consent of the Conservators was received before work was started? Furthermore, what piece of land is to be given back to the Conservators of the Common to replace that which is being proposed for the new road? Thirdly, supposing that the traffic down West Hill were to increase because of the new roadwork there, will it be necessary to widen West Hill? If so, what effect will that have on the Royal Hospital and Home for Incurables on the South Side of West Hill, with which I have been associated for a very long time?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, the noble Lord may not know that we have to consult the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators to determine suitable areas of exchange land. We are not allowed to take land from Wimbledon Common without giving some back, and the Conservators are perfectly happy that we are going to give them back a suitable amount of four acres. With regard to the supplementary question about West Hill, I think that is beyond the scope of this Question. If I am right, West Hill is quite a long way East-North-East of this junction. This flyover improvement will not be much more than just over a mile long. The Department of the Environment is involved because the A.3 is a trunk road. We are not, of course, involved further East because that is G.L.C. land and so 411 we would not be involved in the preplanning. I think the short answer is that the hospital will not be affected.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has been imperfectly advised on this? This is not the first part of the Common to be taken away from the Conservators, and they are not perfectly happy about these exchanges. Can the noble Lord say whether they have agreed to any exchange of land in this case? Can he give me an assurance that they have agreed? Secondly, may I ask whether the noble Lord is satisfied that incursions into common land, and the cost this time of £6 million, really are justified by the transfer of the traffic jam just a mile and a half further up the road, for that is all that is happening?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I must confess that I am slightly surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, tells me that we have taken common land away from Wimbledon without replacing it, because my information is that under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 we are bound by law to supply land back. I am further assured that in this case Mr. Quixley, who is the ranger, the professional agent responsible, and the Conservators are perfectly happy. With regard to the further supplementary question about common land and whether this action is justified, I think we must get clear that this is not just a matter of speeding traffic in and out of London; it is speeding traffic in and out of London combined with taking it away from the local traffic. I think, my Lords, that that is the important point. Local traffic will have a better deal, and local residents will not have to go through the mill of passing traffic. Furthermore, equestrians, pedestrians and mothers with prams going from Richmond Park to Wimbledon Common will in future have an underpass. The underpass will be available for horses and pedestrians, and there will also be a footpath for pedestrians.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he misunderstood what I said in the first place? I did not say that there had been no transferance. I said that the Conservators were not 412 perfectly happy with the transfers. Can he tell rue that there has been an agreement as to the precise land which is to be transferred in this case? Secondly, does the Minister realise that although one appreciates the difficulty of pushing perambulaters across the A.3 by Robin Hood Gate, it is now almost impossible to get across West Hill?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I think I have pointed out that West Hill is out of the scope of the Question. I must repeat that the Conservators are happy to take our word that we are going to give them back four acres for common land. I cannot say at the moment that we have exactly earmarked which four acres. We have certainly earmarked 2½ acres. The remaining 1½ acres are still slightly under negotiation and your Lordships cannot expect me to say anything further.