§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Harper].
§ 11.49 p.m.
§ Sir Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)The subject which I wish to raise on the Adjournment is that of through traffic using narrow residential roads in Wembley. I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for being here to reply to my remarks.
This is not the first time that I have raised this problem in the House. The first occasion was on 2nd March, 1960, when the debate was replied to by the then Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I am happy to say that two of the problems which I raised then have since 1048 been solved, but the third has not. That is the problem of Carlyon Road and Longley Avenue, on the Abbey Estate, Wembley, which are being used as a through road between Ealing Road and the North Circular Road, thus avoiding the junction of Ealing Road with the North Circular Road at Hanger Hill. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that I had some correspondence with the former Minister of State on this subject in July and August this year.
The protests at the use of this route by through traffic began 10 years ago, when Wembley Borough Council received two petitions from the residents. The traffic started, I think, because of the delays caused at the junction of Hanger Lane with Western Avenue when the underpass was being built. I raised the matter in the House on 2nd March, 1960, and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said that the problem would 1049 be looked at again when the Hanger Lane underpass had been completed.
Later that year, another petition was presented. In September 1960, the Wembley Council decided to make representations to the Ministry of Trans port to ban through traffic. Between 1962 and 1964 various applications were made by the Council for weight restrictions to be imposed on these roads, but each time they were refused by the Ministry.
In November 1965, the Brent Council asked for approval to close Queensbury Road, one of the roads on the estate, to prevent Longley Avenue being used as a through road. Therefore, it was quite wrong for the former Minister of State to say, as he did in the fourth paragraph of his letter of 20th August this year, that Brent Borough Council saw no reason to impose weight restrictions. The facts are quite the contrary.
There is also the problem of the narrowness not only of Longley Avenue, which is only 20–22 ft. wide, but of Carlyon Road where it passes under the arch of the bridge carrying the Piccadilly line over it. There is great danger for pedestrians on the narrow footpath at that point and concern is felt by the Brent Borough Council. The council could make a footpath through the next arch, but I understand that that would be costly. I shall be grateful if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can comment on that, even if not tonight.
I gather that in the evenings cars sometimes wait bumper-to-bumper in Carlyon Road travelling north-westwards trying to get out into Ealing Road, where there are no traffic signals. Personally, I would rather wait at a junction with traffic signals than endure the awful agony of trying to push out into a continuous stream where there are no signals. Some people, however, think otherwise.
This year, something happened which, it was hoped, would improve the situation, namely, the installation of traffic signals at the junction of Heather Park Drive and the North Circular Road. This, it was hoped, would make it easier to use this route than go through the Abbey Estate and, therefore, would take some traffic away from the Abbey Estate. Some people, I understand, think that it 1050 has made a difference and that there is less traffic. Others think that there has been no change and no effect.
I would like to point out that whereas the installation of those traffic lights, making the route Ealing Road—Lyon Park Avenue—Heather Park Drive easier than before—obviously, it helps traffic from high up in Ealing Road—it would have no effect on traffic coming from Bridgewater Road, as anybody can tell by looking at a map. I am sorry that one cannot display a map in this Chamber to make arguments like this more realistic.
Then there is the question of weight regulations which I have already mentioned. I obtained from the Greater London Council orders containing all the weight restrictions which have been imposed, both under the G.L.C. and its predecessors, in recent years. They must run into several hundreds, and are quite heavy to carry about. There are two for nearby roads in Ealing, Clevelys Crescent and Lytham Grove, which are in the apex between the Abbey Estate and the North Circular Road-Ealing Road junction. They are in S.I. 825 of 1960. I am wondering whether similar weight restrictions could be imposed for roads in the Abbey Estate.
I ask the Minister what plans he has for improving the capacity of the junctions of the North Circular Road with Western Avenue and the North Circular Road with Ealing Road—they are close together—which I think are the cause of the trouble.
I have heard reports of a new scheme for traffic signals at the junction of Abbeydale Road with the North Circular Road and Iveagh Avenue in the Borough of Ealing, on the Nirth Circular Road, which would provide almost a crossing, may be a slight T junction, from Ealing, on the south side of the North Circular, to the north side, and take more traffic through the Abbey Estate. I hope that this is not correct. If it is I hope there will be weight limits on heavy lorries—unless they are visiting the Esate: I agree that there are some factories on the Estate and that they may need lorries to carry their goods in and out. However, I hope something may be done to spread the load and that it will not all be using Longley Avenue. There are seven roads 1051 in parallel with Longley Avenue and they might take some of the load. I hope that if this scheme is being thought of, consideration will be given to the people who live in the narrow roads on this Estate as well as to the through traffic.
I turn now to two other roads where a similar problem is being experienced, namely, Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road, which are being used as slip roads between Bridgewater Road and Manor Farm Road. Burnside Crescent is rather like Longley Avenue, about 20 ft. wide. There are always some cars parked in it, because most of the houses have no garages, and it is wholly unsuitable for through traffic. I gather that a few months ago a coach driver tried to drive his coach through it and took twenty minutes to get through. Clifford Road is not so narrow, but it is residential road and not intended for through traffic.
There are no traffic signals at the junction with Bridgewater Road and Manor Farm Road, and I wonder whether the Minister would approve the installation of traffic signals there, operated in conjunction with the existing signals at Bridgewater Road—Ealing Road junction. I would ask him to couple with the possible widening of the road "Cross Now" signals for pedestrians. Such signals should be on the north side of the junction. That would help pedestrians going to their shopping area and to Alperton Station from Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road and Manor Farm Road. If the junctions could be improved traffic would be attracted away from Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road, and possibly those two roads could be partially blocked to deter through traffic altogether, as has been done in other parts of Brent, both in Wembley and Willesden.
The third problem I wish to raise is somewhat different and affects three roads named Fernbank Road, Rosebank Road and Maybank Avenue. They form a "Y" and are used by traffic wishing to dodge the traffic lights at the junction of Green-ford Road and Harrow Road, and this causes these roads to be used as a race track. I received complaints about this earlier this year.
1052 None of these roads is quite as narrow as those I mentioned previously, but they are lined with parked cars, like so many suburban residential streets the houses in which were built without garages. Speeding in these roads is dangerous at any time, but particularly when children are about. I appreciate that this problem exists in varying degrees in almost every city, including Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It occurs where I live in St. Johns Wood, although the streets are somewhat wider and are therefore not as dangerous.
But in Wembley the roads are extremely narrow and that is why I have raised this problem tonight. I would be grateful for any advice and help that the Minister can give to relieve this problem in the Borough of Wembley.
§ 12.1 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown)I thank the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) for raising this matter in such concise terms. He will not expect me at this time to give him a fully detailed reply, although I assure him that if I do not reply to some of the points he raised now, I will correspond with him about them.
As the hon. Gentleman said—although he raised the issue on a constituency basis—this matter is not confined to South Wembley or Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West. Every hon. Member who represents an urban area could have used his powerful advocacy simply by substituting different street names.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the previous occasion on which he raised this matter. At that time the main difficulty was being caused by the construction of the Hanger Lane underpass in Western Avenue. This underpass has now been completed and extensive investigations have been made of traffic problems in the vicinity. Some of these problems will be mitigated by programmed improvement schemes along the North Circular Road. These will allow for greater freedom of movement for through traffic and include the improvement of the junctions at Iveagh Avenue and Twyford Abbey Road and the widening of the Hanger Lane Railway Bridge.
However, the continuing problem to which he referred is one to which there is no comprehensive and satisfactory 1053 answer. I would be wrong—indeed, I would be stating a deliberate untruth—to suggest that there was a complete and satisfactory answer to this problem. On the one hand I can sympathise with the man who resides in what was a quiet residential street but which has become used by drivers as an alternative to a busy traffic route. On the other, I can sympathise with the driver—often I am in this position—who, frustrated by delay due to congestion of his normal routes, seeks and finds an alternative route which avoids the congestion.
Such a case is well illustrated by Clifford Road and Burnside Crescent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The driver who wants to get from Bridgewater Road to the Western Avenue by the main route may be held up by the traffic lights at the junction with Ealing Road and then by the congested junctions of Hanger Lane with the North Circular Road and of Hanger Lane with Western Avenue. A glance at the map will show how to avoid these junctions, and some drivers who have done their homework by looking at their maps may have concluded that Manor Farm Drive and Alperton Lane provide not only a shorter route but probably a quicker one as well. This is an example of a voluntary diversion, as are the other roads quoted by the hon. Gentleman. But it is an undeniable fact that the traffic light dodger will find the easiest course on which to drive, and how we get over this is a matter of making major improvements to our through routes.
There are often occasions when a diversion from a main traffic route to an alternative route traversing residential streets is enforced by the highway or traffic authority or by the police. This may occur in an emergency, or to relieve the traffic on the through route when road works are in progress. A diversion may also be a feature of a traffic management scheme the purpose of which is to relieve congestion on the route by one way circulation of traffic.
The question is simply one of making the best use that is possible of our existing public roads—because they are public roads—roads which the public have the right to use. Because the public has this right, it cannot be taken away unless there be very good and compelling reasons. The highway authority I am 1054 sure, would feel itself entitled to do so if the diversion route were patently unsuitable for use by large volumes of additional traffic. But this is a matter for decision by the local highway authority and, in Greater London, by the Greater London Council as traffic authority.
Powers are available enabling these authorities to take whichever remedy they consider to be correct in the circumstances. Here I will make one point which may give some comfort to the hon. Member and his constituents for whom he speaks. These traffic regulation powers are derived from Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, an Act which consolidated earlier powers. It has always been clear that these powers could be used to promote the safety and the flow of traffic. But—and it is an important but—it has been doubtful whether they could properly be used for amenity purposes.
Let us be clear about the reasons which prompted the hon. Member to speak tonight as he has spoken before on similar lines. He and his constituents who live in residential streets are most certainly concerned that these streets are safe and convenient, both for those who live in them and for the trades people who deliver goods to the residents. But, above all, they wish to be able to enjoy the amenity of living in a street which does not suffer from the noise and fumes and general disturbance and discomfort caused by the passage of through traffic, in other words, they are chiefly concerned with a loss of amenity.
As I have said, there have been doubts whether powers to regulate traffic could properly be used in the interest of amenity. We have recently removed that doubt. We took the opportunity of including in the Transport Act, 1968, a provision which makes it quite clear that the purpose for which a local highway or traffic authority—in this case the Greater London Council—will be able to impose a restriction on a road include preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs. We anticipate that this provision will come into force in the early Spring of 1969.
It will then be for the Greater London Council—no doubt prompted by local highway authorities—to consider whether the power should be used in particular 1055 cases. The cases which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned may well receive the consideration for which he is hoping. We must recognise, however, that the power must be used with discretion. A regulation will quickly fall into discredit if it is not enforced. When the hon. Gentleman raised this issue in 1960, his colleague in the then Government mentioned this precise point.
Exceptions to the regulations may be necessary to enable drivers of heavy vehicles to go about their legitimate duties in the restricted roads, e.g. for deliveries of coal, fuel oil, etc. More over, the banning of heavy vehicles from one road may only divert them to other roads or routes where the difficulties may be still more acute. Thus the new powers must not be considered as a cure-all but merely a tool that can be used in suitable cases.
I have a warning here for the hon. Gentleman. Although some of constituents are clearly suffering discomfort, if the Council were to make a snap decision about a solution, more of them might be inconvenienced than the number that would be helped.
We sympathise with those whose enjoyment of the quiet surroundings of a house in a residential road is marred when that road is used as a through route. We have shown our concern by promoting the extension of the powers to impose restrictions for amenity purposes. We are pressing on with our road improvement and construction programmes but, until such time as the improvements can be carried out in particular areas it may not be practicable in many cases to ban non-local traffic from residential roads. This is a matter for careful judgment by the traffic and highway authorities.
The hon. Member mentioned the junction of Iveagh Avenue with the North Circular Road. Traffic lights are to be installed here to provide for the safe movement of traffic from the trunk road to the Park Royal Industrial Estate. We expect this scheme to start in February next year. The improvement at the junction of Hanger Lane, the North Circular and Twyford Abbey Road will improve the signal-controlled junction of Hanger Lane with the North Circular Road and 1056 prevent north-bound traffic on the trunk road turning right into Twyford Abbey to get to the Park Royal Industrial Estate. This will follow the installation of the traffic signals at Iveagh Avenue.
The widening of Hanger Lane railway bridge will provide two extra lanes in the trunk road, one in each direction, between the two signal controlled junctions North Circular—Western Avenue and North Circular—Hanger Lane. This also is expected to start next year.
Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road lie to the west in Bridgewater Road, the A.4005, just north of the junction with Ealing Road, the A.4089. Together with Manor Farm Road and Alperton Lane they form a convenient route between Bridgewater Road and Western Avenue, so avoiding three junctions, namely Bridgewater Road—Ealing Road, Hanger Lane—North Circular and North Circular—Western Avenue.
The main through route via Ealing Road and Hanger Lane will be improved by the schemes that I have mentioned and by the improved traffic control signals which the G.L.C. propose to instal at the Bridgewater Road—Ealing Road junction. The scheme to which I have just referred is expected to start in 1969.
Maybank Avenue, Fernbank Avenue and Rosebank Avenue form a bypass between the Harrow Road—A.404—and Greenford Road—A.4127—avoiding, of course, the staggered junction of Green-ford Road and Sudbury Hill. This junction has recently been improved by traffic lights, to which the Ministry contributed £19,425 of the cost of £25,900.
I am told that the London Borough of Brent doubts whether this improvement will result in any decrease in the flow of traffic on the residential roads to which I have referred, but I am certain that when the powers to which I earlier referred come into effect early in the new year, the Brent Council will be looking at the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and will probably prompt the G.L.C. to put forward some scheme.
§ The debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
§ Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting at a quarter past Twelve o'clock till Ten o'clock this day.