HC Deb 25 March 1964 vol 692 cc616-26

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

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery (Reading)

Just about 24 hours ago I was on my feet from my place in the House. The House seems a little less full now than it was then, and I hope that what I say will be considerably less contentious.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the position of the routing of the motorway M.4 as it affects my constituency of Reading. I should like to make it plain from the outset that I do not wish to enter into any controversy or any discussion about the way in which it may affect a large number of other constituencies through the whole of Berkshire, Devizes and, indeed, a number of others, but I shall keep my remarks entirely to the position of Reading.

The first point which anybody ought to realise in discussing this matter is the extreme difficulty which the Ministry of Transport has in coming to its decision about the route which this shall take. The historical background has been considerable, and it is in some way because of this that it seems to me important that the position and the case for Reading should be made quite clear. The Reading and district traffic survey, which has been carried out by the local authority is in my hon. Friend's hands, and I am certain that he agrees with me that this is one of the first of the newer traffic surveys.

Going into the greatest possible detail, I am certain that it is possible to provide him with the sort of information required to reach the proper judgments and decisions affecting roads and their environment in any new plan which has to be brought forward. But he knows that in respect of the M.4 this proposal goes back for many years, and indeed until quite recently it was always believed that this road would go south of Reading.

Development and planning provisions were conditioned by the assumption that the M.4 would have to pass south of the town on a route included in the Berkshire County Council's development plan. Because of a provision to this effect in that development plan, earlier proposals for a southern loop within Reading were abandoned.

This earlier loop road was planned to link Oxford Road with Wokingham Road and London Road through areas which were either then underdeveloped or only just being developed. Since abandoning these earlier proposals, this route has been largely developed by housing, without any provision for the loop road; and no alternatives along these lines readily present themselves.

Statistics of particular importance about the traffic in Reading are that there is an estimated volume of 29,000 vehicles a day which would use the motor way if it were planned along the southern and link road. This figure would decrease to about 16,700 vehicles a day if the modified northern route was used. It is important to realise that through non-stop traffic, for which the motor way is primarily intended, amounts to about 10,000 vehicles a day. This is an average figure which obviously varies considerably and depends on the method of entry.

About half of these vehicles are carried on the A.4 and, naturally, in the peak holiday periods these figures are considerably increased. It is also interesting to note that about 90 per cent. of local traffic comes from points or goes to points in the area south of Reading—using the line of the railway track, the Great Western Railway, as the division between north and south.

I will outline the problems which are illustrated by this north and south route. Travelling north or south through Reading one must cross either one of two bridges over the Kennet, both of which are narrow and able only to take a single lane of traffic passing in opposite directions. One must go under the main London railway line at one of two places and then cross either Reading Bridge or Caversham Bridge. These are individual bottlenecks which create the greatest possible problem to north-south traffic.

The importance of this becomes obvious when it is realised that the whole of the industrial development affecting Reading is now taking place in the southern part of the town. That figure of 90 per cent. of the traffic is concerned specifically with the area south of Reading. If a motorway were placed north of Reading not only would this traffic have to use one or other of these two narrow points and crowd the centre of a thriving metropolis, but it would then have to pass through an area of residential development in Caversham, Caversham Heights and Emmer Green which, on all the evidence, is an area which is not easily developed for any sort of proper access for through traffic. Anybody who has seen the area of domestic homes in Caversham, and noted the problems of the hills, will realise that there would have to be the greatest demolition. Notwithstanding the problem of getting out on to Peppard Road, there are things which the local authority strongly recommends as being impracticable of development, whilst the Basingstoke Road, in the area of Reading, has been planned wide enough to take the necessary sort of traffic as that which would use the road which has been provisionally planned for many years south of Reading.

Perhaps I may now refer particularly to a considerable number of reports which have, in fact, inundated Berkshire and which, I imagine, must have reached the Minister's desk? They come from six preservation societies—the Chilterns and South Oxfordshire, the Tidmarsh Parish Meeting, the Mid-Thames Valley Association, the Berkshire Downs Villages Association, the Berkshire Preservation Society, and the Kennet Valley Preservation Society—and the only thing which I would point out is that five out of the six urge the southern route. The Kennet Valley Preservation Society urges the southern link road to the modified northern route after it has been around Reading.

The reason that I feel it is necessary to initiate this debate is the sort of things which have arisen from some of these reports and studies. I would mention here the most excellently produced report of Messrs. Rose and Rigby Childs, but they have given views about Reading which I think should be quoted. If I may use a quotation from page 27, they state: The line passing south of Reading may produce complications rather than a solution and on page 68 there is the statement that a route south of Reading may produce more complications.

But these two gentlemen neither saw fit to see the town clerk, the borough engineer, the planning officer, or myself before coming to any of these conclusions and this slightly worries me when I remember the sort of publicity that these reports have had. So far as Reading is concerned, there is a very real worry over the fact that there would be the greatest disruption if, in fact, traffic which goes through, and which is concerned with Reading, was routed on the northern side, How this would fit in, as has been said, particularly with the proposed development as the South-East Study, published last week, is difficult to see. Then, we shall have to have expansion for another 30,000 people—a balanced expansion of both office and industrial development—and for this the route should be on the southern side.

The bottlenecks which would be produced are worthy of study, but are more simple of solution if the route is on the southern side. If the Ministry decides that it is in everybody's best interests that the route must go to the north of Reading, I must ask the Minister to guarantee the provision of a link route from somewhere in the area of Calcot, to the west of Reading, going around the south of Reading and coming out somewhere in the Sonning or Twyford areas. My estimate of this is that it would be of an area of at least 10 miles, at an estimate, using the Minister's Road Technical Paper No. 50, of £425,000 a mile.

Any argument about economies and saving by using the modified northern route will entirely disappear if the Government have to make a contribution for a link south of Reading, which must be essential. If the route goes north of Reading the whole of the new central plan for the civic centre of Reading will have to be reconsidered and the present arrangements scrapped, as well as extensive and impossible road improvements.

I know that my hon. Friend will not give me the exact answer today, but may I urge him to consider most fully the position as it affects Reading, not only for the present but for the future, because it would be absurd to have to spend this millions of pounds and, at the same time, disrupt the whole of a town such as the Borough of Reading.

11.31 p.m.

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

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) has said, the routing of M.4 is a question which has aroused considerable interest, and I am glad that he has raised the subject tonight, because to some extent the hopes and fears of the protagonists of the various possible routes have obscured the principal factors which must influence my right hon. Friend when he comes to make a decision.

I think, therefore, that it may be useful to the House if I describe, first of all, the requirements which the route finally chosen has got to satisfy. As the House knows, M.4 is the London—South Wales motorway. Like the other roads in the main motorway network, it is primarily intended to provide a safe, fast route for long-distance traffic, in this case for vehicles travelling between London, Bristol and South Wales via the Severn Bridge. This primary requirement for long-distance traffic is a factor which must never be forgotten.

The position to date is that only two short lengths of this motorway have been completed so far—the by-passes of Slough and Maidenhead. By the beginning of next year, however, the connection between the eastern terminus of the road at Chiswick and the Slough bypass will be ready. At the same time, we hope also to have the entire length from the terminus at the western end of the Newport by-pass to Tormarton in Gloucestershire under construction. It is clear, however, that before these two lengths can pull their weight, they have got to be linked together, and it is over this link that controversy has arisen.

For some years, as my hon. Friend has told the House, a tentative route has existed and has in part been protected in the Berkshire and Wiltshire development plans. This route, nowadays commonly called the southern route, is really a linking together of pre-war by-pass schemes for towns, including Reading on the A.4 route to Bristol. But when, some three years ago, the position was reexamined it was found that the route would require considerable revision to bring it up to modern motorway standards. Particularly important was the fact that it seemed probable that there were other routes which would be better for long-distance traffic.

As a result, therefore, my right hon. Friend decided to have the whole route between Maidenhead and Tormarton reexamined, and consulting engineers were appointed in 1961 to carry out surveys and recommend a provisional line of route. These investigations added to the basic requirement of a route designed to serve long-distance traffic, the secondary need to serve major industrial towns lying between London and Bristol—that is, Swindon and my hon. Friend's constituency of Reading.

As a result of this inquiry, three basic routes emerged. First, there was the southern route, which I have already mentioned. The second, which became known as the northern route, crossed the Thames near Shiplake, ran across the southern extremities of the Chilterns and crossed the Thames again near South Stoke. It then ran through the Vale of the White Horse, passing north of Swindon and so on to Tormarton. Both these lines were about 79 miles long. The southern line did not serve Swindon, but the northern line through the Vale of the White Horse served both Swindon and, more distantly, my hon. Friend's constituency.

The third line, known as the direct line, also crossed the Thames at Ship-lake and near South Stoke, and served both Swindon and Reading. It was also substantially shorter, to an extent of seven miles or 10 per cent. A saving of this magnitude would obviously be quite important, not simply because it would cost less to build, but more particularly because the running costs for the long-distance traffic would be less, too. I must emphasise, however, that the economic argument is by no means the sole argument for the selection of a route, though obviously it is a very important factor.

Other factors which are taken into account are, for example, the effect of a particular route on amenities; and, unfortunately, as we know only too well, here all three possible basic routes run through very attractive and beautiful country and it is very difficult to say which is the most attractive and beautiful. This explains the number of preservation societies which have been active on this route, to which my hon. Friend has just drawn attention.

My right hon. Friend, of course, recognised the peculiar difficulties of the direct route, and so in May, 1962, before steps were taken to begin surveying in detail, he decided to consult informally with the major local authorities. This was not an attempt to get them to commit themselves in advance. It was simply to get their reactions.

In asking them for their reactions, my right hon. Friend indicated a broad preference for the shorter and more direct line. In answer to his query, three of the counties affected by this line—Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Berkshire—said that they saw no objection, but Oxfordshire was in favour of sticking to the southern route, and so was Reading, as my hon. Friend told the House, though Swindon, on the other hand, saw no objection to the direct route.

As a result of these consultations and other advice that my right hon. Friend received, the direct line was modified. This produced three advantages. In the first place, the second crossing of the Thames was brought further south to the neighbourhood of Purley, and as there are more trees in this area, it would make the crossing less obvious. Secondly, it brought the route nearer to Reading, and thirdly, except in the area between Great Shefford and Baydon, it avoided the high downland. Furthermore, the modified direct route line was, if anything, slightly shorter than the direct route itself.

It was this modified direct route which my right hon. Friend announced in January, 1963, as a basis for consideration. Of course, my right hon. Friend cannot take a final decision until he has published draft proposals, studied any objections to them, and, if necessary, held a public inquiry and considered anything that emerges from it.

Since the publication of the modified direct route, some survey work has been taking place on this line and also upon some alternatives. One of these alternatives which has only recently been suggested also runs south of Reading. But immediately west of Reading it swings north-westwards to join the modified direct route. This route, which the Reading report prefers, avoids the Thames crossings, but as it passes through a low-lying area it would have to run on an embankment with the existing roads carried over it on humpback bridges which would be difficult to fit into the landscape. Furthermore, this route is nearly three miles longer than the modified direct route.

So the present position is that these surveys are now being embodied in the full report which my right hon. Friend expects to receive very shortly from his consulting engineers. Naturally, until he has considered the report carefully and has consulted the local authorities and other interests, he cannot possibly reach a decision. But once he has made up his mind, the route chosen will be published for public appraisal and objection as laid down in the Highways Act, 1959. Then there may well be a public inquiry, and it is only after all this has been studied that my right hon. Friend will be able to make his final decision.

Since my right hon. Friend is still awaiting a full report, I am sure that the House and my hon. Friend will understand why I have been able to touch only superficially on some of the merits of the various schemes and why what I say in regard to the points raised by my hon. Friend will also to a certain extent be superficial.

One point which is sometimes made is that the extra cost of bridge structures over the Thames would make the cost of the modified direct route much the same as that of the modified southern route; but the bridges over the Thames, even with their associated viaducts, would not be so expensive as to counterbalance the cost of the greater number of smaller bridges which would be required on the other routes nor the need for embankments in areas of poor drainage.

Mr. Emery

rose—

Mr. Galbraith

I would like to finish. My hon. Friend asked a great many questions, and I am worried about the time. If I can finish in time, I shall be delighted to give way.

All our preliminary estimates show that the cost per mile of the various routes will be broadly similar, so that in respect of cost the advantage, such as it is, lies with the shortest route.

From these general considerations, I come now to my hon. Friend's constituency and the case which Reading has deployed in its report on the Reading and District Traffic Survey. As my hon. Friend probably knows, we have only recently received this report, and we are at present studying it very carefully. My right hon. Friend's consulting engineers have already been in touch with the borough engineer to clarify some sections of the report. What emerges in general from the report, I think, is that Reading, perhaps naturally, has a view of the function of the motorway diametrically opposed to that of my right hon. Friend.

The report makes clear that there is only a marginal difference in the amount of east-west through traffic which will transfer from the A.4 route to the motorway, whether the motorway goes north or south of the town. But Reading is anxious—this is something which has emerged from the traffic survey—to use the motorway as part of a relief ring road to keep north-south traffic out of the town. This is a proper and understandable desire on the part of Reading, but I am not sure that it is really a legitimate use of a main national route to the West, to use it over a short distance as a relief ring road for a particular town. If there are a lot of short-distance drivers entering and leaving the motorway, this will obviously cause unnecessary hazards to the long-distance traffic. This does not mean that a relief road may not be necessary, but we do not believe that it is the function of a long-distance motorway to be used for this purpose.

The report which Reading produced emphasises the difficulties which traffic attempting to gain access to a motorway junction north of the town would create. My hon. Friend has referred in particular to the capacity of the bridges over the Kennet and the Thames and to the problems which arise because of the railway bridges in the town. These potential difficulties have been recognised from the start. But our preliminary view is that traffic from the industrial areas in the south of Reading would use proposed junctions east and west of the town, so that the fear expressed in the report and by my hon. Friend tonight may well not come to pass. Certainly, some of the routes out of the town will have to be improved, but this is probably true whichever route is finally chosen.

My hon. Friend has referred to the possible attraction of traffic from the south to Reading if the line chosen for the M.4 passes north of the town. But is it not more likely—my hon. Friend with his local knowledge will be able to say whether he agrees—that such traffic, if it wishes to join the motorway, will prefer to use one of the junctions east or west of the town, depending on its destination? Moreover, some of this traffic, if travelling to London, may well prefer to join the projected Basingstoke motorway.

I emphasise again that the function of the M.4 is primarily to serve long-distance east-west traffic. I assure my hon. Friend that the report is being considered in this context. Even if the figures quoted for the cost of the relief road by my hon. Friend are correct, it is not true that the financial advantage of the modified direct route disappears. My hon. Friend has left out of consideration, I think, the extra cost to through traffic of the extra mileage he would impose on it for the benefit of Reading.

In conclusion, I stress once more that all I have said is no more than our preliminary reactions. The report was sent to us only on 4th March, and any new factors which emerge from it and which have a bearing on the routing of the M.4 will, I assure my hon. Friend, be taken fully into account. I hope that nothing I have said tonight will be construed by people outside the House as implying that my right hon. Friend has already made up his mind on the route to propose in a draft special road scheme. He has not yet received his consulting engineers' report. When he does, all the factors, the implications of economics, amenity, planning and agriculture must then be fully considered.

It is a most difficult decision that my right hon. Friend has to take, as, I think, my hon. Friend appreciates. I assure him, however, that the valuable points which he has raised tonight will certainly be amongst those which will be weighed carefully before the final decision is taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.