HC Deb 17 March 1964 vol 691 cc1337-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

10.16 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I am very happy to have this opportunity of raising two matters which concern my constituency, the first of which is also of wider and more general interest. These two matters, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, are the bridge at Bangor-on-Dee and, another subject which I should like to take the opportunity to mention and which I have previously raised in correspondence, the speed limit at the main road in Broughton in my constituency.

The bridge at Bangor-on-Dee, as the county archivist describes it, is one of the most famous and attractive bridges in the Welsh Marches". The parish is called in Welsh Bangor Isycoed, and it has an even older title, Bangor Monachorum. Here we had one of the very earliest ecclesiastical seminaries known in the country, and there was a famous disputation between the monks and St. Augustine. I do not wish to go into all that history, but simply to emphasise that this most charming bridge is of historic interest in itself and also adds interest and grace to its historic surroundings.

The precise date of the building of the bridge is unknown, but it is recorded in the survey of the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire as being of late fifteenth or early sixteenth century. It is thus of very considerable antiquity. It was betrayed in 1644 to the Parliamentary forces in the Civil War. It was repaired, as an ancient inscription on the bridge declares, in 1658. The name of Inigo Jones was associated with it, but I must be frank with the House and say that this may be only tradition. It is described in Pennant's famous "Tour of Wales" in the following words: The bridge is a beautiful light structure, and consists of five arches. The description of the bridge in the Royal Commission's Report is: This bridge of five arches spans the River Dee, connecting the village of Bangor with the parish of Sesswick in Denbighshire, and affording a passage for the high road to Wrexham and Ruabon. It is very narrow, the parapets being carried over the arches on each side so as to afford eight triangular shelters for foot passengers, and producing altogether a most pleasing effect. The bridge is indeed very narrow, and I would emphasise this by the description, given by the county archivist, who says that the triple arch-rings are built in three orders. The parapets are slightly less than 11 feet apart. This bridge, which is one of antiquity and beauty, was clearly never built for modern traffic. It was built for pedestrians and packhorses. It was never intended for the kind of traffic which I myself have seen with my own eyes and of which I have had particulars supplied to me by the county surveyor of Flintshire.

I should perhaps say that I have been asked by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones), to express his interest in the matter, though, as he has other duties in North Wales, he is not able to be here tonight. The bridge joins the two counties of Flintshire and Denbigshire. It is only right to say that both county councils are completely at one that some steps should be taken to secure the preservation from very severe damage to this bridge.

The bridge has suffered a series of accidents. One of the most serious occurred about three weeks ago, when 16 feet of parapet was knocked clean off the bridge into the water of the Dee. Part of the damage was to more modern concrete construction, but part of it was to original ancient sandstone. I went to see the damage. I have photographs here, and I see that the Parliamentary Secretary has also been supplied with photographs. Anyone who saw that damage would feel the distress that I felt.

Unfortunately, this is by no means the first or only accident. There are some very sinister cracks at one end of the bridge and there is some very ugly patching with concrete or cement where earlier accidents have taken place.

It was in 1955 that the Flintshire County Council first pressed the Ministry of Transport to agree to an alternative bridge and the short distance of road which would be necessary to connect the existing road with a new bridge. The scheme, which must be very well known to the Ministry by now, would have the other happy effect of by-passing the very charming village of Bangor. That would be an additional advantage.

There is no doubt that the county authorities have been asking that this scheme should be put into effect. Various traffic censuses have been taken from time to time. A rough check was made within the last couple of weeks when it became known that we were to have this discussion in the House. I have here the report of the Flintshire county surveyor, who made on one particular day a check of the heavy industrial traffic that goes over the bridge, which has a very sharp right angled turn at one end of it. Heavy lorries go to and from a nearby steelworks. The lorries carry scrap in one direction and ingots in the other. The load carried is 24 tons per vehicle.

Twelve such vehicles, making a double journey were counted on that day. There were another eight vehicles making similar double journeys carrying 24 tons. There were six 16-ton British Road Services vehicles, again making a double journey. There were milk factory lorries, fuel traffic and others. On one day there was a British Road Services articulated vehicle 30 feet long.

All these vehicles passed over that bridge on one day, and the surveyor says this: From this you will see that more than 100 lorries carrying loads over 16 tons, most of them carrying 24 tons, cross this bridge every day. This day was chosen purely fortuitously because it was known that we were to have this discussion and so that we should have some up-to-date information.

I can only repeat that it is quite plain to anybody that the bridge was never intended to carry this traffic, that actual damage has been done to the bridge, and that it is surely incumbent on us as civilised people, to preserve this artifact of older days which was beautifully designed and built and not allow this damage to continue.

The matter was brought to my attention in the first place by the Maelor Rural District Council which is most deeply concerned. There has been correspondence with the Ministry of Transport and with the Ministry of Public Building and Works, which is responsible for the structure of the bridge, because it is a scheduled ancient monument, and which has expressed its anxiety.

I have with me a letter dated 10th February from the Cardiff office of the Ministry of Public Building and Works. It stated: We have also been much concerned about the damage being sustained by the bridge for a considerable time and have previously made representations to the Ministry of Transport about the building of the new bypass to relieve traffic over the bridge. Unfortunately…our efforts…have…so far been unsuccessful. I also have a friendly and interesting letter from Lord Brecon, Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, who wrote: I have asked the Ministry…to keep me informed on this matter and I will write to you again as soon as I know the result of their latest approach. Another letter from the Minister of Transport stated that the Ministry had …every hope that the scheme will find a place in the programme quite soon. What I want from the Minister tonight is an interpretation of the phrase "quite soon". I hope that he will not give a long reply to this debate. All we need is the date because the matter has been agreed in principle. There seems to be no dispute in principle between any of the authorities concerned—the local authorities and the Ministry—and all we need, therefore, is the determination to show that we have got some sense of values in this matter and that this project, which would not require a vast expenditure but which would bring great advantage in many ways, should be proceeded with.

It should be made clear that the project would result in great advantage to traffic in the area. The bridge is extremely narrow with a bad approach, particularly at one end, and is a single track. Traffic must be held up because of the single track arrangement and in the summer, when there is a vast increase in the amount of traffic using the bridge, particularly long trailers and caravans as well as private cars, great difficulty is experienced. In addition, the local railway has been closed and there is really no alternative for traffic but to use this road.

There is a longer route which can be taken and a diversion notice for heavy vehicles has been erected, but anyone who knows the district will appreciate that to use this road and the bridge is so much more convenient that it is understandable that heavy lorries should ignore the diversion sign and go over the bridge, with the lamentable consequences I have described. I hope I have made a sufficiently strong case to receive a positive reply from the Minister. I trust that I will receive a definite but not long reply, for only a date is necessary.

Since the Minister need utter only a few words in reply, I will take this opportunity to refer to another difficulty, the section of road at Broughton, about which I have had correspondence with the Ministry for some time. I am concerned with a part of the road which is not fully built up on both sides but, as anyone who knows the district appreciates, it is dangerous to drive at speed on this section.

Without going into all the details—and realising that the Minister has, no doubt, been informed of them—I will only say that there is no continuous building on one side of the road, but there is on the other. The inhabitants on the side which is built up must cross the road frequently to go to bus stops, post office, the village institute and so on, and the latter is used by children and young people. When holiday traffic is about the road is much used and my appeal is strongly supported by the chief constable of Flintshire and the Flintshire county surveyor, who has stated in a letter: I, too, have received many representations about the desirability of having a speed limit on the section of road at Broughton which you mention and I have repeatedly put them forward to the Ministry. Indeed, I have argued the case until I felt that the muscular strength it gave to my jaw would last me the rest of my life'. Anyone who compares this part of the road with other roads in the county on which speed limits are fixed will agree that there is no reason why this road should be left without a speed limit. If the Minister will not agree to a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. he should at least agree to one of 40 m.p.h.—anything to sound a cautionary note to people who drive through, particularly if they do not know the area. Holiday makers, in particular, do not know the local circumstances and this, with other things, causes great difficulty.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Hendrie Oakshott (Bebington)

I wish strongly to support the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) about this bridge. It is one that t have known from boyhood. It is a very beautiful and ancient bridge. The hon. Lily has also drawn attention to the fact that the authorities concerned are agreed that there must be a replacement or an alternative for it. They have agreed where this alternative should be, the location of the access roads to it, and so forth. All that is wanted is the money to enable the work to be done.

I urge on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary most strongly that he should exert every effort to persuade whoever is responsible—the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his own Minister—to deal with the matter—not soon, as he has told the hon. Lady, but as a matter of urgency. If the traffic is allowed much longer to use the bridge in the way that it is, there will be nothing left of the bridge. The damage that has been done progressively is spoiling a very beautiful thing.

I do not suppose there are many Members who know the bridge. It is not far from where I live. The hon. Lady has mentioned her hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones). I am sure that he and his brother, the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), know it very well. It is a very striking example of ancient architecture. It is scheduled as an historical monument and it should be preserved. It is very narrow, as the hon. Lady said, for it was b lilt for the passage of pack horses. Today, it is like the eye of a needle, in view of the modern traffic which uses it and the wide loads that are carried.

I wonder how my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would feel if a beautiful bridge over the River Doon, in his own county, were threatened by damage of his sort. I am sure that he would take a very strong line about it. Let me issue an invitation to him. Will he forsake the beauties of Ayrshire for one week end and come to stay with me? Perhaps the hon. Lady would join us. We could meet at Bangor Bridge and let my hon. Friend see it for himself. I think that the hon. Lady and I between us could convince my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that this work ought to be carried out at a very early date.

10.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) for his very kind invitation. I do not know whether I speak for the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), but I expect that we would both, if we could manage it, like to take advantage of the invitation.

I do not know that I shall be able to give such a quick reply as the hon. Lady asked me to give. It is rare that ancient bridges and modern speed limits, which are scarcely related to each other, both find themselves discussed in the same debate, but I think that the thread that connects them is the modern inclination for rapid movement, which, in the hon. Lady's opinion, is too much for the good of this old bridge at Bangor and too quick for the safety of the street at Broughton.

What is the position? Let me deal, first, with the bridge. It is certainly a very ancient structure. The hon. Lady and I must have been doing our research out of the same book, because I agree with her that the bridge is reputed to have been designed by Inigo Jones and that it is known that it existed during the Civil War.

Mrs. White

The bridge is reputed to have been repaired by Inigo Jones. It was designed very much earlier.

Mr. Galbraith

If the hon. Lady is alluding to the mistake made in the Ordnance Survey Department, which says that the bridge was designed in 1063—

Mrs. White indicated dissent.

Mr. Galbraith

I see that she is not. At any rate, the bridge is built of red sandstone and has five spans and a total length of about 180 ft. It is quite long, but, unfortunately, it is only 10 ft. wide, which means that only one line of vehicles can pass over it and so it has to be controlled by traffic lights.

The narrowness of the bridge also presents some difficulty to pedestrians, but they can, I understand, if necessary take refuge in the wider sections over the piers of the bridge. There are also some acute bends at both ends of the bridge, and this from time to time encourages drivers of heavy vehicles to misjudge the entrance to the bridge, and as a result there have been, as the hon. Lady told us, numerous occasions when masonry has been dislodged and fallen into the river.

The hon. Lady referred to a recent instance of this unfortunate series of occurences, which not only entails great expense and also damage to a beautiful old structure but also creates, as I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate, a potential hazard for both vehicles and pedestrians. However, I am glad to say that up to date no cases are recorded of either vehicles or pedestrians falling into the water. It is masonry only, fortunately, which gets wet, but I understand that it is usually fished up and put back into place. Indeed, in spite of these various vicissitudes which the bridge has suffered, our forefathers built it well, and the structure of the bridge remains sound.

I do not want to argue with the hon. Lady about this, because she obviously knows a great deal more about it than I do, but I have here some photographs which I have just received and it seems to me from them that the part of the bridge which was badly damaged looks a more recent addition than the bulk of the bridge, not that I say that as any form of excuse, but I hope I am right because, if so, I agree with the hon. Lady that I do not like the idea of an old bridge being needlessly and wantonly damaged in this way.

The road which goes over the bridge is the A.525, and this, as the hon. Lady told us, carries a substantial amount of industrial traffic going between the Midlands and the industrial area of North Wales. I will certainly take into account the figures which the hon. Lady has given us. She is to that extent one ahead of me. My information is that there has not been any recent traffic census, but I understand that the present traffic figure amounts to between 3,000 and 4,500 vehicles a day, and as the traffic is limited to one lane only, considerable delays occur as a result.

Up to this stage, I do not think that there is really very much difference between the hon. Lady, my hon Friend and myself. We all agree that the situation is, clearly unsatisfactory. The only question is: what is to be done about it? The local authorities' proposal, as the hon. Lady told us, is for the construction of a new length of road and a new bridge. On the Flintshire side of the river it would make a staggered junction with the Overton Road and it would rejoin the existing road near Abbeygate. So, in addition to relieving the problem of the bridge, it would also provide a bypass for Bangor village.

The hon. Lady said that it would not cost a great deal altogether. In fact, the money involved would be £300,000. In principle, the scheme is entirely acceptable to us and it has been given a very high priority, as I expect the hon. Lady knows, by the two county councils concerned. It was among the schemes which were carefully considered for inclusion in the rolling programme of classified roads for schemes between 1965 and 1968, but in view of the tremendous number of competing schemes, all of which had a very strong claim, I am sorry to say that it was not then possible to include it in my right hon. Friend's programme.

As the hon. Lady will appreciate, my right hon. Friend has to consider the claims of a great many schemes throughout the country, and all of them are, unfortunately, like this bridge, of prime local significance, and people in the locality feel very strongly about them, and since they cannot all be dealt with at once, it is necessary to choose those which are of the greatest general importance.

The Minister's funds, though they have increased a great deal lately, are necessarily limited by all the other claims on the national purse, and in the road programme itself there are the other urgent claims of motorways and trunk road requirements which must be considered. In the field of local authority roads, even before the Buchanan Report was published, increasing weight was having to be given to the needs of the conurbations to ensure that this ever-increasing road traffic could be kept moving.

I know that all this sounds very depressing to the hon. Lady and to my hon. Friend, but in spite of this competition, I can assure them both that the rural areas will certainly not be overlooked in the allocation of funds. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister is expecting within a few months to announce the next extension of the rolling programme to include schemes for 1968ߝ69 I cannot, of course, make any promises, but this scheme will certainly be considered for inclusion in that programme, and the fact that the highway authorities attach such a high priority to its inclusion will have considerable weight.

That is as far as I can go tonight on the question of a replacement of the bridge by a new road——

Sir H. Oakshott rose——

Mr. Galbraith

No, I have not finished.

I have a proposition to make to the hon. Lady, which, I hope, she will accept in the spirit in which it is made

If the hon. Lady really wants to do something about this bridge—and I know what a persuasive and persistent advocate she is—there is no reason why heavy traffic should not be diverted from the bridge at Bangor so as to go through Overton. The hon. Lady has referred to the distances; I understand that it is 19 miles, as against 16 miles from Whitchurch to Wrexham. I know that signs already exist pointing out to lorries that they can use the road but, at the moment, the signs do not have any legal effect. It would be possible, however, for the county councils to make an order under Section 26 of the Traffic Act forbidding certain classes of vehicles to use the bridge.

The Minister would need to confirm such an order, but the primary responsibility for making it is with the county councils. The chief difficulty I envisage would probably be in enforcing the order and, of course, before making an order the councils must first consult the chief officer of police. So though the ultimate solution of a replacement lies with the Minister, I think that as far as an immediate palliative goes I can quite fairly say to the hon. Lady, "Over to you"—at least for the time being.

I have, in fact, got a small, narrow bridge rather like this—except that it is rather prettier, being a Scottish one—near my own home, and I am extremely sympathetic with the hon. Lady, perhaps because the entrances to this bridge are being knocked down in much the same way as she mentions, I therefore hope that she will take that action, and stimulate the local authorities to take legal powers to divert such traffic the few miles involved.

I want now to turn to the question of a speed limit at Broughton, in which I know the hon. Lady has interested herself before. The village is on the A.549, which is a Class I road. As to the conditions, nearly all the houses, the church and the school are to the south of the road, but a few buildings, including the Institute and the sub-post office, are on the north side of it. Very few houses have direct access on to the main road, the bulk being situated, in accordance with modern planning principles, on service roads or internal estate roads.

In 1961 the county council sought the Minister's agreement to the making of an order to impose a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. on the length of road from the junction with A.55, by the church, to just beyond the junction with A.5104. The Minister was unable to agree, because 30 or 40 m.p.h. speed limits are only appropriate to roads having most of the characteristics of a built-up area. At Broughton, the land is developed on only one side of the road, and only on a short length are the houses close to it. Vehicular accesses are few and well spaced.

These are not the conditions one normally associates with urban surroundings and, unless the conditions are such as one associates with rural surroundings, motorists will not obey a speed limit. The police records for the period 1956–61 show that there were only 45 accidents, of which only four were attributed to excessive speed. This accident record did not suggest to my right hon. Friend the need for a speed limit on a road which has so little of the appearance of being a built-up area would be right and proper. If, however, conditions have changed since then—and the hon. Lady has told us about her concern—although we have not had any further representations—and if the county council can demonstrate that a change is taking place, I can assure her that a renewed application for a speed limit would be most carefully considered and that, in that consideration, all that she has said tonight would be most particularly and closely kept in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.