HC Deb 11 February 1971 vol 811 cc1048-58

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

4.14 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock)

I am most grateful for this opportunity of raising a matter of great concern to my constituents. The A5 runs right through the Cannock Division, and it would be true to say that along this entire length it is in need of improvement. However, I want to concentrate my remarks on that stretch between the Gailey roundabout and the Shropshire border; not only because this is the longest and probably the most dangerous stretch, but also because it is, for other reasons, very much in the news at the moment.

The stretch of road in question is some nine miles in length from the intersection of the A5 and the M6 to the border with Shropshire just beyond the village of Weston-under-Lizzard. For the whole of this length the road is narrow and it is regularly congested. It is used by a great volume of heavy traffic and, as one of the main highways to Wales, is also used every year by tens of thousands of holiday makers. It presents problems dangers and frustrations to both residents and drivers. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said in a letter to me on 23rd September last: …there is no doubt that the existing length of A5 … is inadequate for the traffic now using it. There are various particularly hazardous spots, of which possibly the worst is the village of Weston-under-Lizzard; a village whose peace is continually shattered, and whose residents walk in fear as traffic thunders along the narrow road and frequently runs on to the pavements on either side. This village needs a bypass, and although the need has been talked of for over forty years virtually nothing has been done to ease things, until the recent erection of some totally insignificant and absolutely ineffective "No Overtaking" signs.

Here we have, therefore, a stretch of busy road manifestly in need of improving. Never has there been a better opportunity to effect the necessary improvements, for the Secretary of State is about to decide on the route of the proposed link between Telford new town and the M6.

I want to make most of my remarks in this context, and to concentrate on deploying the argument that a widened and improved A5 would adequately serve Telford's needs in this respect. I contend that to build a six-lane motorway between the new town and the M6 is unnecessary and undesirable, and that the A5, which runs from the M6 to the heart of Telford, is fully capable of improvement to a good dual carriageway standard.

Feeling within my constituency is overwhelmingly in favour of this solution, and I know that the same sentiments are shared by those in adjoining constituencies. That is why I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) here. I hope that they will have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

The area with which we are concerned can be roughly defined on the map as a triangle, formed by the A5 in the north, the A449 in the east and the A41 and A464 in the south-west. The country within the triangle is good farmland, and there also is a considerable acreage of attractive woodland. Within the area there are several places of great interest, including, in my constituency, the beautiful village of Brewood, with its fine church, Weston Park and Chilling-ton, with its great house and lovely park—the home of the Giffard family for the last 800 years.

Just beyond the boundaries of my constituency we have the exquisite church of Tong and the country around Boscobel, famous for its associations with Charles II. This triangle is of great importance to the area as a whole, not only for its intrinsic merit but also because it pre- vents the sprawl of urban development from Wolverhampton and the Black Country. It has been designated as green belt and it has, for some time, been impossible to obtain planning permission save for agricultural buildings or for infilling within the villages. This is the area that is under threat.

Three possible motorway routes have been investigated; one going through the centre of the area near Brewood, another passing inside the southern boundary of the triangle encroaching on valuable gravel deposits at Hilton and threatening some fine farms, and the third going north of the A.5 but causing equal damage from the amenity and agricultural point of view, creating enormous problems of severance and sterilisation.

Not only would the countryside be irreparably damaged by the building of a motorway; not only would many acres of valuable agricultural land be lost for ever, but a decision to go ahead would make nonsense of the Department's declared policy on green belts—a policy of which the implications do not seem to have been clearly thought out.

On 15th January my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development told me that he was satisfied that there was adequate examination of the possibilities of improving existing roads in green belt areas. He went on to say that where traffic volumes are high and the widening of the existing road would involve destruction of a large number of properties an entirely new road may be preferable on both economic and environmental grounds. He also told me on 28th January, in reply to a further question, that the Department has no plans to revise the green belt policy. If these answers really mean what they say there is an excellent case for the widening and improving of the A.5. It would not involve the destruction of large numbers of properties; it would not encroach upon the green belt.

But there are many other things that the Department has not fully considered. I am told that a motorway takes up 22½ acres of land per mile, at a cost of up to £1,600,000, but apparently the cost of putting 225 acres of agricultural land out of use for ever has never been seriously calculated; and when we express concern about some of the areas of beauty and fine buildings that might be threatened we are told that it is impossible to say how many listed buildings have been destroyed, or how many landscaped parks have been encroached upon, during motorway construction since 1960.

It appears that the road construction unit has been prejudiced against the A.5 from the start. It was only after great public pressure that it considered investigating it, and there is a strong local suspicion that there was more anxiety to emphasise the difficulties rather than discover the merits.

It is said that a motorway is essential, and that the A.5 cannot be converted into one. It is said that the alignment of the A.5 is sub-standard for a major road; that the present frontages would have to have access on to the road; that junctions with other roads would have to take the form of ground level roundabouts. But none of these objections really hold water.

The case for a six-lane motorway is certainly not substantiated by the Department's investigations. I am told, for instance, that during August last year a 24-hour count showed that 10,780 vehicles used the stretch in question on an average week day. This was enough to make the A5 pretty unbearable, but it is considerably below the figure of 26,000 vehicles which I am told used the M6 at a similar time. And the Department does not even know where all these A5 vehicles were going. It asserts that 80 per cent. were bound for Telford and points west—not a very staggering revelation! But apparently it was impossible to tell how many had Telford as their destination and how many were bound for Wales, or even how much was holiday traffic—in August!

These figures hardly indicate that there has been the sort of detailed investigation necessary to establish the need for a six-lane motorway, and I presume we are talking of a six-lane rather than a four-lane motorway because if we are not there really seems little point in having the argument when by common consent the A5 is capable of being dualled.

I wish to deal with the other objections briefly. Nowhere in this stretch is the existing gradient too steep, and although there would indeed be problems, particularly where the road passes under the Shropshire Union Canal, none of these is incapable of solution, and indeed in 1966 I understand a scheme for dualling the AS was prepared at the request of the then Ministry of Transport.

With a little ingenuity the access for almost all frontages could be reversed and there are very few buildings along the side of the A5 between Gailey and Weston. With a little ingenuity, too, many of the existing road junctions could be closed and there need be no more than three roundabouts with perhaps an underpass at Ivestsey Bank—and I know from an Answer which I was given on 4th February that the construction of underpasses and bridges is calmly contemplated. It might, too, be worthwhile mentioning that the local land owners concerned have made it perfectly plain that they will do all they can to help if the A5 route is chosen.

It would be easy to speak for a very long time on this issue, for it is of enormous importance to my constituents. I hope that what I have said will have helped to reinforce the case which local opinion generally believes to be unanswerable—that as a matter of priority and common sense the A5 should be widened and improved to dual carriageway standard and that, if it is, Telford will be provided with an adequate link with the M6.

And, of course, although this is a local issue, there are wider implications. If we really mean what we say when we talk about the importance of conservation and of maintaining a decent environment, of preserving the balance between transport needs and amenity values, it is surely a nonsense anywhere at any time to take a decision which would cause unnecessary destruction of beauty and loss of agricultural land when there is an alternative solution which would cause neither, and solve many existing problems into the bargain.

4.23 a.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Brierley Hill)

I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly in this debate. I should like to underline the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) made and to endorse the need for improving the A5. We all agree that this is a very bad stretch of road and that if it were improved and made a dual carriageway it would provide an adequate link between Telford and the M6. I stress that there is grave disquiet in South Staffordshire at the prospect of having a six-lane motorway running through the countryside because it would be a threat to people's homes and to good farmland. We feel that the need for a motorway has not yet been proved.

I have always found my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State extremely helpful and diligent with any problem that I have put to him since he became a Minister. I hope that he will earn the undying gratitude of people in South Staffordshire by giving an assurance that there will be no motorway in this part of the country but that instead the A5 will be improved, which would save a great deal of public money and would involve much less inconvenience for the people who live in the area.

4.25 a.m.

Dr. Anthony Trafford (The Wrekin)

I, too, am very grateful for the opportunity to express the concern of my constituents about the problem of communications between Telford and the M6. It is a question either of widening the A5 or considering the prospect of a motorway.

There are two significant points that I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will answer. First, I hope that he will expand on the need for the motorway at all. On the evidence that has been made public and presented to us, there seems to be no conclusive case that it is necessary, and there is nothing to suggest that dualling the A5 would not meet the case adequately.

Second, if my hon. Friend chose in favour of a motorway he would also cause serious damage to the village of Shifnal, especially in view of the proposed movement of the intersection in the area known as Knowle Bank. This would have the effect of boxing in the village and narrowing the very valuable area of green belt lying between the village and the eastern boundary of Telford new town.

Many of my constituents are very concerned about this question, and have expressed the same views as have already been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery). They all recognise the need for good road communications, but they are concerned about the form that these may take.

4.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine)

I am immensely impressed by the diligence and care with which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) has presented his case on the numerous occasions on which he has made representations to me in one form or another. My hon. Friend's work on behalf of his constituents, and that of my hon. Friends the Members for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) and Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), is a remarkable tribute to the diligence with which they have approached the matter. I have found their interest of great help to me in familiarising myself with many of the issues that I shall have to consider in making recommendations to my right hon. Friends the Minister for Local Government and Development and the Secretary of State. I know that my hon. Friends appreciate the difficulty I find myself in in coming here at all this evening, because of the need to take a balanced view of the whole matter before any decisions are published.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock asked that I should carefully consider first the particular problems on the A5 in the section from the Gailey roundabout to the Shropshire border, and give him a definite assurance that it would certainly be our aim to maintain and improve this road to cope with the traffic that it is to carry. Before we can make decisions about the sort of traffic that we think it will carry we must make a decision on the wider issue, which is the route of the M54 link from the M6 to Telford new town. The western end of this route has been fixed, with the five-mile stretch of the Wellington by-pass. That leaves us with the options that are available to extend the M54 across country eastwards. I accept at once the definition of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock when he described the triangle.

I believe that there are four options for consideration before the Secretary of State publishes a line for the route. First, there is the one mentioned by my hon. Friends, which is to improve the existing route of the A5. The second possibility is to provide a new route running approximately along the route of the A5. The third alternative is that there should be a new route roughly through the centre of the triangle. The fourth route is known locally as the southern route. These are the four possibilities which I understand to exist. I am expecting shortly to receive a submission from the Midland Road Construction Unit, when it will put its suggestions as to which it thinks is the route which the Secretary of State should publish, taking all factors into consideration.

I am sure that it is not necessary to reassure my hon. Friends, but I have no hesitation in doing so, that the submission is one which the Secretary of State himself has to consider. It is up to him to make up his mind, bearing in mind all the evidence, which route he will publish. I have paid sincere tribute to the work of my hon. Friends in this matter but I question equally sincerely the assumptions that the homework is not done or that certain factors are not taken into account or that there is a prejudice on the part of those whose job it is to undertake this work. I know from my experience that that is not so.

The people involved have a very difficult job. They know from the start that it will never be possible to find a solution that satisfies everyone. Indeed, the only certainty in the sort of work which such a project demands on a considerable scale is that it will be surrounded by controversy. But it is my experience of the last few months that there is absolute attention to detail and determination to take into account all the factors by those who plan and propose the new routes. It is very impressive to see this in action.

I do not pretend that the solution published will be widely acceptable. I do not believe that one is fortunate enough to find such routes. One has to find routes which are acceptable, taking into account all the factors, to as many people as one can hope to satisfy. But I am convinced that a great deal of care and attention, particularly in the case of amenity and environmental factors, is applied to the job and to the immense amount of detailed work which follows the investigation to produce the facts and figures on which recommendations are made.

When the Secretary of State has made up his mind which route he should publish, that is not the end of the matter. It is not as though some arbitrary decision is taken which never has to be tested. Whatever route is published, there is a statutory procedure providing for a public inquiry. At that inquiry all the evidence that the Department has produced is open to public debate and may be subjected to the most detailed scrutiny. I have no doubt that if this particular choice were to lead to a public inquiry my hon. Friends would want to take some part in ensuring that any of the assumptions made stood up to detailed investigation.

One of the important points my hon. Friends the Members for Brierley Hill and the Wrekin made was that they were questioning the need for a new motorway along the route of the M54 at all, and that is a legitimate question. It is one which my right hon. Friend will ask. In advising him in the first place, I shall ask it in order to establish the facts and figures. Unless we were satisfied that there is a case we would not publish a route at all.

If there is publication of a route, it will be done because those responsible for investigating it and because the Ministers responsible in the last resort are all convinced by the arguments that will be received and for no other reason. We appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and that it will be necessary for us to justify the over all need for the expenditure of the substantial sums involved on a route of this sort. I hope my hon. Friends accept my assurance that we share their anxiety and that it is no part of our objective to publish routes which do not stand up to the detailed scrutiny which all of them get and which this one will also get.

Although I cannot in any way comment on the observations of my hon. Friends, because to do so would be to get involved in public discussion of matters which at this stage are essentially for consideration by the Department, I assure them that we shall shortly have a submission which will enable Ministers to take the decisions which have to be made, and we shall want to take them with expedition. I cannot add to what I have said tonight and in correspondence with my hon. Friends. All the factors which they have brought to our attention will be carefully borne in mind. We appreciate that we have to deal with any objections which they raise or satisfy them, and that will be our intention. However, I ask them to forgive me if on this occasion I do no more than assure them that we shall do everything in our power to balance economic necessities with the important environmental considerations which they have mentioned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Five o'clock a.m.