HC Deb 17 June 1969 vol 785 cc413-22

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

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

My hon. Friend will doubtless recall the reply that he gave to my Question on 10th March in connection with the priority which should be given to the Chapel-en-le-Frith bypass. He said: I regret that I cannot say when we are likely to be able to accept the scheme for preparation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 958.] In answer to a supplementary question, my hon. Friend said that it had to take its turn in the pool. My question tonight is: what turn will it take in the pool? The impression is gaining currency that the Chapel scheme is being bypassed. My hon. Friend should know that locally, his reply to me on 10th March last, generated both anger and incomprehension.

I want to set the scene very briefly. This scheme was first proposed as far back as 1934. It is said locally that but for the intervention of the Second World War the bypass would have been built many years ago. The road was trunked about 10 years ago. The scheme proposes to bypass several communities, and I will list them briefly. They are Chapel-en-le-Frith, Tunstead Milton, Whaley Bridge and, finally, Furness Vale. The scheme will affect an estimated population of 10,500.

When I tell my hon. Friend that the traffic surveys reveal that the bypassable traffic is estimated at about 71.4 per cent. he will realise the benefits which such a scheme would provide to the local communities. He should also know—I hope that his local officials have drawn his attention to it—the extent to which this section of the road is sub-standard.

First, the carriageway. In the centre of Chapel, with a population of about 5,000, at some points the carriageway is no more than 18 ft. 8 in. wide. At other points it is 21 ft. My hon. Friend will know of the traffic densities, and I am sure he will agree that ideally this should be a three-lane highway, yet we have a carriageway of no more than 18 ft. 8 in.

Then there are the pathways. I would inquire whether my hon. Friend is cognisant of all the facts. Does he realise that at certain points the pathway is no more than 1 ft. 11 in.? This compares with his Ministry's standard of 5 ft. in rural areas and 9 ft. in urban areas. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider the problem which many of my constituents are faced with every day when they go and collect their children from school.

I have made inquiries, and I am told that there are hardly any prams on the market which are under 2 ft. in width, so that mothers in my constituency are required to traverse quite a long stretch of pathway which is not even the width of the pram.

I would also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there are two schools—a junior school and a primary school—which abut this road.

As my hon. Friend will know, there has been, over a period of years, a considerable loss of life and injury on this particular stretch of road. The figures for 1967 show that there were four fatal injuries, 14 serious injuries and 19 slight injuries.

I regret that there is no record of the loss of amenity caused by diesel fumes, or of the number of occasions when clothing has been damaged by projections from passing lorries, or when shopping baskets have been knocked out of shoppers' hands. I should also like to remind my hon. Friend of the sub-standard visibility on this section of the road, and that there are a number of sub-standard junctions.

I am sure that he will tell me, and, of course, I take the point, that he has no choice but to spend money where it is likely to show most benefit. But my hon. Friend must know that the first year rate of return on this road is 31 per cent., and that schemes are considered viable by his Department with a 15 per cent. rate of return. Therefore, the rate of return on this road is double that considered viable by his Department.

Why, then, has this scheme not been considered? Why is it given such low priority? I am advised by the county highway authority that certain schemes have been approved by his Department with a somewhat lower rate of return than 31 per cent. In preparing for this debate, I consulted the Road Research Laboratory's Technical Paper No. 75, Economic Assessment of Road Improvement Schemes. From this I learned, and I quote, that it is not at present possible to allow quantitatively for changes in amenity. The paper also says: Therefore, in assessing the economic return from a road improvement the only benefits considered are those accruing directly to traffic. That may be so, but the case on traffic grounds has been made out. I think the figure of 31 per cent. is stark and to the point. If my hon. Friend tells me that 10,500 people do not matter, I can only put in a strong dissent. I think that the well-being and convenience of these people does matter, and that my hon. Friend should give very serious attention to that well-being and convenience.

I understand his problems, and having read the technical paper, I understand the techniques employed to determine the priorities given to road improvement schemes. My hon. Friend should pay attention to the well-being of so many constituents who would benefit from such a scheme. The economic case has been made out. I hope that the fact that the well-being of so many people is involved will tip the balance and that my hon. Friend will announce that priority is to be given to the scheme.

11.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown)

My hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) has vividly described the traffic problems of his constituents in Chapel-en-le-Frith and the nearby towns. He has also previously on a number of occasions drawn attention to the difficulties experienced on this section of the trunk road A.6.

I should like to make clear that the main function of this section is as part of a radial route of the South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire conurbation. The industrial traffic it carries derives mainly from the very large limestone and basalt quarries which the High Peak area contains.

It is one of the principal sources of roadstone and of limestone for the steel and chemical industries and of concrete aggregate for the densely populated industrial area of South Lancashire and North Cheshire. Much of the cement supply for this area comes from works in the Hope Valley and cement from this source to South Lancashire and other areas is almost wholly carried by road, via A.625 and A.6 through Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge.

In addition, supplies of coal from the North Midland Coalfield travel to South Lancashire by way of A.623 and A.6. The number of goods vehicles generally has certainly increased in recent years. As well as this industrial traffic, muting and general business traffic and there is also a considerable amount of holiday traffic as this is the main route between the industrial North West and the Peak Park.

The A.6 through Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge was not designed to take industrial traffic or its present quantity of traffic at all. As we know, and as has been described by my hon. Friend, most of it is narrow, with sharp curves and, of course, gradients which add to the difficulties and where the road runs through the shopping areas the carriageway is in places less than 20 ft. wide and the footpaths are indeed very narrow.

My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties of mothers with prams. This clearly causes frustration and difficulty for local people, but as regards accidents I must refer to my hon. Friend's statement in a supplementary question on 10th March that there had been five fatalities on this length of road in the previous six months. I am thankful to be able to say that the fatal accident rate was much less than this. In 1967 there were four fatalities, in 1968, one, and so far this year there has also been one. I sincerely hope there will be no more in the remaining part of this year.

It has been suggested that traffic through Chapel-en-le-Frith has increased as a result of the construction of the M.6 and M.1. There is, however, little evidence of this and in any case the completion of the Midlands link motorway between Birmingham and the M.1 will provide a much more attractive alternative route.

It is true that a bypass of Chapel-en-le-Frith has been proposed and considered on a number of occasions, but it is not the case, as my hon. Friend has claimed, that but for the Second World War a byass would have been built by 1939.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson

May I qualify that. I understand from the county surveyor that the scheme was being considered for the pool in 1939.

Mr. Brown

This is true. A line for a bypass was suggested in the early 1930s, but no detailed design work had been done on it.

Possible solutions to the traffic problems in this area have been given and are at present receiving careful examination. The position in and around Chapel-en-le-Frith has to be looked at from two angles. First, the case for a bypass of Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge has to be weighed against the claims for road improvements from other parts of the country. Resources, unfortunately, are not unlimited and this bypass has simply not achieved a high enough priority in competition with other proposed schemes. As my hon. Friend knows, we have re-examined its case at intervals. The result, I am sorry to say, remains the same.

My hon. Friend has suggested that the economic rate of return of a bypass would be about 31 per cent. That, as he said, is a high figure. But it has only recently been put to my Department and the basis on which it has been calculated will be examined. I can, however, say that our first reaction, based on all the information already available to us, is that it looks unlikely to be acceptable for our purposes. It is, I understand, based on a traffic count taken in 1967, not on the comprehensive information available to us from the 1965 national traffic census.

So its comparability with the figures generally used for the determination of our priorities may well be doubtful. It also apparently fails to allow for the traffic that would be diverted on to the comprehensively improved routes that we envisage between Sheffield and Manchester or Stoke and Derby, which I shall mention in more detail in a moment.

Similarly, the figure of 71.4 per cent. which my hon. Friend quoted for the volume of traffic which might wish to use the bypass instead of going through Chapel-en-le-Frith cannot be accepted without examination. An up-to-date indication of the 1969 traffic pattern in this area will become available from the national census starting in August this year. Four census points in the vicinity of Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge will be included.

I should also make it clear that the economic rate of return is by no means the only factor to be taken into account in assessing road priorities. A very important factor in this case is that the route goes through the Peak District National Park. The effect of any individual road scheme on the rest of the National Park must be taken into consideration before we reach firm decisions. This is the other angle from which a Chapel-en-le-Frith bypass must be considered.

In April, 1968, the then Minister announced details of a number of project feasibility studies which, she said, might produce schemes costing over £200 million for inclusion in the trunk road preparation pool. Such studies were required on areas where traffic movements were so complex that detailed surveys were needed to identify likely solutions.

One of the major studies announced was designed to examine trans-Pennine link routes south of the line of the M.62. It was accepted that all east-west routes across the Pennines south of the M.62 were in urgent need of improvement or relief. The trans-Pennine feasibility study aimed to investigate what relief could be given to the various roads through the Peak District National Park by the construction of high standard routes north and south of the Park—that is between Sheffield and Manchester and between Derby and Stoke.

That section of the study examining possible routes between Sheffield and Manchester is now being carried out by the divisional road engineer in Leeds with the West Riding County Council as agent authority. The study will determine which schemes are practicable and which appear to offer the best value for money. Local authorities are being closely consulted and their views will be taken into account when recommendations are being made to the Minister. Valuable information was collected on an earlier study of trans-Pennine traffic movements carried out under the agency of the West Riding County Council.

The study is complex, but a final report is expected around the end of the year. When it has been examined, the Minister will decide what particular scheme should be added to his preparation pool. The scheme will then be developed through the various design stages to a point at which its relative cost and benefits can be more accurately assessed with a view to its inclusion in the firm road programme. The choice of year in which work will finally start will depend on the financial situation at the time and the priority which the scheme merits in competition with others throughout the country which have reached an equivalent stage of preparation.

It is too early at present for me to express any opinion on the possible effect of the study on the roads of the Peak District, but since the object of the survey is to relieve, as far as possible, congestion on the east-west routes through the Park—in other words, to attract traffic, particularly heavy traffic, away from the Park—while it is unlikely to produce a recommendation for the wholesale improvement of any routes within the boundaries of the Park, such as the roads leading to and through Chapel-en-le-Frith, its recommendations should certainly result in relief for those roads.

We are, therefore, by no means oblivious to the needs of the Peak District's towns and villages, nor are we unmindful of the difficulties which now exist in the streets of these communities. But we think it right to deal with the problem by reducing traffic flows as far as this is feasible, instead of undertaking costly improvements which might well attract further traffic into the area and so defeat our aim.

As evidence of our concern, I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the brief which has been provided for those carrying out the project feasibility study we have specifically asked that attention be given to assessing the degree of relief from traffic congestion and the size of the residual traffic flow on the A.623—the Baslow-Chapel-en-le-Frith road, and on the A.625—the Sheffield-Chapel-en-le-Frith road. This request has been made because of the existing volume of traffic using these routes—a volume which we hope to see considerably reduced by the new Sheffield-Manchester link.

We can certainly expect the feasibility study report to indicate what the effect of the construction of this new link will be and to provide any guidance that may be necessary on what ought to be done to provide for the flows which will continue to use these principal roads and the A.6 through Chapel-en-le-Frith.

The north-south trunk route through Chapel-en-le-Frith has not been identified as a strategic inter-urban route proposed for comprehensive improvement in the Minister's recent Green Paper "Roads for the Future". This does not mean however that there is no prospect of improvements ultimately being carried out at Chapel-en-le-Frith, either in the shape of a bypass or some other appropriate scheme.

As the Green Paper points out, around one-quarter of the money spent on trunk roads in future will continue to be invested in individual improvements to trunk roads other than those identified as major inter-urban links. In money terms this represents the spending of an estimated £600 million on non-strategy trunk routes during the period to which the Green Paper relates—a period which cannot be exactly defined, but which will extend into the early 1980s.

In the meantime, we intend to carry out local improvements and traffic management measures on the existing road. We have in mind the construction of an overtaking length of road west of Tunstead Milton at an estimated cost of £90,000 and the improvement of the junction at Horwich End, Whaley Bridge. The waiting restriction brought into force in Chapel-en-le-Frith about six months ago, although it aroused local objections, has lessened congestion there.

My hon. Friend asks for an indication that we will be altering priorities. I have demonstrated that although I can- not give such an indication we will take cognisance of what he has said. Certainly, I am not saying that 10,500 people do not matter; far from it. We give consideration to all that has been said and, as and when we can find a place in the programme for this project, we will.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson

Before my hon. Friend sits down, would he mind answering one simple question? I gather that he has questioned the basis of the inquiry undertaken by Derbyshire County Council, indicating that there is a 31 per cent. rate of return. I think that the cost of the O & D census was £500. Would he sanction the expenditure of that sort of sum on an inquiry to satisfy him statistically and establish the real economic rate of return?

Mr. Brown

I have said already to my hon. Friend that the figures which my Department has had put to it recently will now be checked against the figures which we got in the 1965 traffic census. When the new relationship is known, certainly if we learn anything further, I shall write to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.