§ 4.10 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Cliffe (Shoreditch and Finsbury)Because of the time factor. I shall endeavour to avoid repeating what I said in connection with the subject which I shall discuss today on 27th July when the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, as it then was. was before the House. The Council, through the Bill, sought powers to acquire and redevelop St. Luke's Printing Works as an annexe of Covent Garden Market.
If I may be permitted to digress for a few moments, I should like to recall that the House on 9th December debated traffic congestion. In the course of the debate hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House stated that traffic conditions were becoming more serious in all parts of the country. In my view, it was conceded in that debate that the conditions in Central London were far more serious than in any other part of London or of the country. Indeed, it was suggested that unless the Minister did something quite dramatic and spectacular there was the likelihood that the resulting conditions would bring the movement of traffic in Central London to a complete standstill.
It is clear, therefore, that we must not do anything to increase the volume of traffic in Central London. The Government will probably regard this as a piece of unnecessary advice, but this is precisely what would be the result of following the recommendations in Cmnd. 880 on Horticulture. Paragraph 25 of that White Paper contains a statement to the effect that an annexe to Covent Garden is to 1739 be set up at the junction of Old Street and City Road, one of the busiest intersections in Central London. The House may gather some idea of what this means when I say that the traffic census of 1938 showed that nearly 35,000 vehicles per day passed over that intersection, and by day was meant the twelve hours which are considered to be the basic period during which traffic would be at a fairly high peak.
I should like to quote from a survey which was carried out by the Road Research Department of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It says:
The survey includes all main traffic routes in an area bounded roughly by Edgware Road, King's Cross, Shoreditch Church, Tower Bridge, the Elephant and Castle, the Oval, Vauxhall Bridge and Hyde Park Corner.The Report claims that surveys were carried out on 230 junctions in Central London.I submit that that is a fairly comprehensive scientific survey. It also stated that vehicles using the length of Old Street between the junction of Old Street, and City Road travel at an average speed of 5.6 m.p.h., and those using the Moorgate approach to the junction move at an average of 6.7 m.p.h. These speeds are regarded as the worst in Central London. This traffic comes largely from London Docks and the east—west roads from Bethnal Green, Hackney, Shore-ditch, the Oval, through Vauxhall and on to the West End of London. Conditions at present are appalling throughout the working day. It is quite clear that the only reason why the traffic does not substantially increase at this junction is simply that saturation point has been reached.
In view of this state of affairs, a scheme, the estimated cost of which is£2 million, has been approved and is due to commence in 1960–61. This scheme simply is to construct a roundabout, and, of course, it is welcome, but it is well overdue. We in Shoreditch and Finsbury have for some years been trying to convince the London County Council and the Ministry of Transport of the need for improving the junction of City Road and Old Street to allow an easier flow of traffic. Indeed, at one time we were of the opinion that if nothing were done traffic would simply pile 1740 up in the area and there would be little or no movement. The scheme will probably meet the immediate need once the improvements are completed. Whether it will be adequate, in view of prevailing conditions, in five or six years' time, it is difficult to say.
I should like to consider what the policy on Covent Garden means to this intersection. Recently, I led a deputation from Shoreditch and Finsbury to the L.C.C. to protest against this proposal in respect of the St. Luke's Printing Works. During our discussions with the L.C.C., it was stated that 500 market vehicles from Covent Garden wait at this intersection at any one time. This figure was given to me by the L.C.C., which acts as agent for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. These vehicles come through Old Street from the London Docks and from Covent Garden market itself.
The dock traffic has to travel across some of the worst congested areas in London. At Gardiner's Corner, during the same twelve-hour period which I have mentioned, there are 34,000 vehicles a day. It is almost impossible to get through Commercial Street and Spitalfields Market between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. because of the enormous amount of market traffic and buses. Police are on duty almost every hundred yards to ensure a flow of traffic at a speed probably of no more than two or three miles an hour. Traffic has to go through Spitalfields Market and Commercial Street, and then to Bishopsgate and Shoreditch High Street, where there is a railway goods yard. Goods traffic from there is almost continuous because the depot deals with parcels as well as heavy goods.
There is a constant flow of heavy traffic in the Bethnal Green Road, which is one of the gateways to the south-west, and is considered to be one of the worst junctions in London. Great Eastern Street, Old Street and Pitfield Street run into the main artery road, the A.5. Recently, the Shoreditch Borough Council, in conjunction with the police, installed light control signals. Despite the fact that they have tried to effect certain improvements to allow an easier flow of traffic, one or two policemen, certainly at least one, have to be on duty throughout the day to avoid the possibility of traffic dislocation. 1741 The traffic from Covent Garden Market to Old Street—when the House discusses as frequently as any other subject the problems of traffic, it is of some importance to appreciate just what we are having to consider at the moment—will have to travel through Kingsway and Southampton Row with nearly 45,000 vehicles per day, through St. Giles's Circus with nearly 39,000 vehicles per day and Theobalds Road with 37,500 vehicles per day. These figures cover a twelve-hour period, and that means that some 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles are crossing those junctions at any given hour within that period. Both Shore-ditch and Finsbury have made strong protests to the London County Council, urging it to abandon this insane proposal before it goes beyond the point of no return.
I beg the Government to think again before they commit themselves to the expenditure of more than£1¼million of public money for the purchase of the Old Street site. So far I have not heard a single impartial observer justify the site. Indeed, all I have got from the London County Council is an agreement that traffic conditions will be aggravated but an assurance that the approved roundabout is to be speeded up and that something further will be done to improve traffic conditions at Spitalfields Market.
I would ask the Minister what is the point of spending millions of pounds in trying to solve the problem of congestion in Central London if we are to convert the St. Luke's Printing Works as an annexe to Covent Garden in an area where we know it must inevitably cause the kind of congestion that we are trying to avoid and which we are discussing every day. As the number of vehicles increases, further problems will have to be solved. Surely we do not want to create further difficulties after our experience gained in the past?
I have dealt with the traffic problems because I know that we are all particularly concerned. It is estimated that next April there will be some 500,000 extra vehicles—cars, lorries and vans of all descriptions—on the roads, and I think London will have its fair percentage. In the light of conditions as they exist today, it is of some importance for hon. Members to appreciate to what 1742 extent this is likely to aggravate the situation.
Apart from the traffic situation, there are other considerations in Shoreditch and Finsbury which we cannot afford to overlook and which are more disturbing to the people of my constituency than those which I have already outlined. On the south side of Old Street and immediately opposite the proposed market site there are two schools, St. Luke's Church of England Parochial School and St. Joseph's School, which are attended by hundreds of children between the ages of 5 and 15. The staff at St. Luke's primary school say that it is almost impossible to teach in the infant and junior schools because of traffic anxiety and noise nuisance. There is only a very small playground, and the children have to travel to Coram's Fields for their games. Both schools are scheduled for modernisation and extension. St. Joseph's is a Roman Catholic school and will attract children from all parts of the borough. Many of these children will have to cross Old Street.
In Bath Street on the west side of the St. Luke's Printing Works we have the Moorfields Primary School which is due to be modernised and extended by the London County Council. Finsbury Borough Council is now in the process of completing its Galloway Street housing scheme, which is immediately opposite and which will house 200 families and include a library and old people's dwellings.
What is even more important is that the Moorfield Eye Hospital is adjacent to this site and has a daily attendance of about 750 out-patients. In addition, there are always 200 in-patients. It is of paramount importance in the treatment of those patients that they should not make any involuntary movement and the results of a sudden noise may cause further injury to their eyes. Noise will inevitably reach its highest peak during the night and may seriously jeopardise the treatment of patients. In addition, an extension is being built to accommodate 200 members of the staff who now have to travel by coach from Kensington. If the scheme is allowed to go forward, it will be impossible for the nursing staff to get the rest they so well deserve. Those who have cars will appreciate the amount of 1743 noise made by a large vehicle making a right angle turn into Bath Street and slowing down and changing into the lowest gear to get into Baldwin Street. That means that there will be a screaming noise of gears day and night.
The people of Shoreditch and Finsbury are now coming to appreciate what is happening. Within a few hours of letters having gone from the Shoreditch and Finsbury Councils, no fewer than 85 letters were received from a cross-section of the community, without exception expressing indignation and concern at this proposal. Those with large commercial undertakings are already finding it difficult to conduct their own businesses and the proposal will add to those difficulties.
I beg the Minister to reconsider the proposed use of St. Luke's Printing Works and I urge that the four-year temporary period for the use of the Caledonian Market be taken up to provide time to find a more suitable site. This is of some importance when one considers the present conditions in Central London. Unless we do something about the problem, we shall have reason to regret it in the not too distant future.
I believe that the only reason for the present proposal is that there has been far too much pressure from the trade itself, from Covent Garden Market. I believe that the trade has been laying down conditions about where it will and where it will not go, despite the fact that it is responsible for the conditions.
The behaviour of London County Council has been scandalous. The Finsbury Council was never informed about what was going on. In a major scheme of this kind, the local authority concerned has a right at least to be told something about it and to be asked for observations and whether the scheme is likely to have the serious effects which we now know are very possible. The objections and protests from the locality are growing in momentum and I assure the Minister that Shoreditch and Finsbury will continue this fight not only for their own safety and convenience, but because they believe that to do so is in the interests of London as a whole.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)May I make one observation? I hope that, whatever the Minister says in reply 1744 to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe), there will in no circumstances be any departure from the solemn assurance given in the House that the Caledonian Market site, in Islington, will not be used as an annexe for Covent Garden Market.
It was on that basis, as the Minister knows, that in July of this year the House assented to both the London County Council's General Powers Bill and the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, and I hope that he will be able to say that there will be no departure from that solemn assurance.
§ 4.31 p.m.
§ Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)We are very anxious, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) should have an opportunity to initiate his debate. As you said, you designate subjects for debate on the Adjournment, and I think that we should see that, as far as possible, the hon. Member, who has waited patiently all day, has his opportunity.
We are discussing the Horticulture Bill in Standing Committee, and about that part of the White Paper there is general agreement, but I must say that there is a good deal of concern about the other part. I would beg the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider generally the question of wholesale marketing in the light of the proposals which the Government have made. We do not regard them as either adequate or realistic. I hope that, in spite of the Government having expressed their views, they will reconsider these matters before we consider the second Bill on horticulture, which we shall have before the House this Session.
§ 4.32 p.m.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secertary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber)Like the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I am very anxious that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and other hon. Members waiting to speak on the important subject that he wishes to raise shall have an opportunity to do so. Therefore, I propose to take only a few minutes in replying to this important debate. That is 1745 not because I am in any way suggesting that it is not worthy of longer discussion.
On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), we have not changed our view in any way on that point. I will, therefore, say no more on that.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, who with his customary brevity, got to the root of the matter, will not, I am sure, expect me to comment on the points which he made. We shall have ample opportunity for doing that in the future. I have noted the concern that he has expressed, but he will realise that we have a very difficult problem. We have had some criticism but we should have even more if we did not face the problem
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) spoke with great sincerity and conviction. I understand his point of view, but he has not given ine much time in which to reply and I hope that he will forgive me if I deal with only a few of the points which he raised.
The Government's proposals for Covent Garden were announced in the White Paper on Horticulture and the provision of a storage annexe somewhere reasonably near to Covent Garden for the storage of bulk produce and empty containers is a most important, indeed a vital, part of our proposals. It is a prerequisite of any plans for getting rid of the appalling congestion and fire risk in the market area —a problem which everyone has so far fought shy of tackling. It is also the key to the next stage of our plans for modernising and improving this important national horticultural market.
In our search for an annexe, we all realised that there would not be an ideal site. We knew that, whatever site we were considering, it would almost certainly be regarded as unsuitable by local residents, whether in Shoreditch, Finsbury or anywhere else. The problem that we have to face is that unless there is a site for a storage annexe all the plans we have for improving Covent Garden which, by common consent, are not only desirable, but urgent and essential, cannot even be started. In the general interest, therefore, we must ask for the acceptance by some neighbour- 1746 hood of an annexe which perhaps they would rather not have.
We have heard that Islington is not keen to have it, but that is a little further away than Shoreditch and Finsbury. To whatever place we go we shall have the same problem. It is not so much that we were frightened away from one to the other, but that the other site was definitely more desirable. After the most thorough search it was agreed that St. Luke's was the best site available. Indeed, it was the only one available, or likely to be available in the foreseeable future, that could be used with any measure of success. It is large enough, and it is also reasonably near to the market.
The hon. Member has mentioned the objections to having the annexe in this spot, but he will realise that the premises are available, in any case, for private development or letting, and that under the planning law they could be put to commercial or industrial uses. some of which would be open to all or most of the objections raised by the hon. Member, Moreover, in private use there would be no power to require provision for parking and loading within the site, unless planning permission for new development had to be obtained.
The authority's storage building will he specially designed, and the whole site will be specially planned to allow the vehicles using it to move freely and he parked on the site itself. There should be no need for parking on the roadway. The hon. Member said that we must not Increase the traffic in Central London. In fact, we shall not being doing that. We shall be diversifying some of the traffic which is now congesting Covent Garden, and it must also be remembered —and this is a fact which he has underlined himself—that much of this traffic will not occur during the normal hours, when other traffic is congesting the streets. We should be able to spread this traffic and get rid of the present delays in Covent Garden. Much of the traffic will then be able to disperse before the hours when other traffic comes along.
The authority will consult all the local authorities concerned, including the London County Council, when it is planning the control of the traffic on the site and, in particular, the entrances and exits. We recognise that even a small 1747 increase in traffic can be a serious matter on a busy route, and for this reason we attach great importance to the fact that the London County Council, as the statutory road improvement authority, is already considering early improvements to the route between St. Luke's and Covent Garden. I would only mention, in passing—although the hon. Member went into some detail—that the Council has plans for the Old Street-City Road junction which will greatly increase its capacity to deal with traffic. It has also said that it will be prepared to consider improvements to other road junctions. By no means all the traffic using the Old Street route will be new traffic; market vehicles are already using it on their way to Covent Garden. We must not over-paint the picture.
The building will be properly designed for storage. It will be the responsibility of the authority to see that the London County Council's fire regulations are fully observed. I am confident, therefore, that there will be little or no risk of fire.
The St. Luke's neighbourhood is an area of mixed development, and the proposed use accords with the London Development Plan. The Minister saw a delegation from the Council yesterday and discussed the whole matter fully. The Minister assured the delegation—and I can repeat that assurance—that as little disturbance as possible will be caused. Every attempt will be made to minimise noise, and we shall fully consult the local authorities concerned on this and on the question of traffic and parking facilities.
We attach great importance to this development. We want to be good neighbours with the hon. Member if he will allow us to be so, and if he will accept this scheme in that spirit he will find that the picture is not nearly so bad as he has painted it. I am sorry that I have had such a short time to deal with the matter, but I wanted to give my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) time to raise his subject.