HC Deb 27 July 1972 vol 841 cc2205-18

10.38 p.m.

Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)

I beg to move, That the Royston-Alconbury Trunk Road (Huntingdon and God Manchester By-Pass) Compulsory Purchase Order (No. CE 4), dated 5th June 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be annulled. This compulsory purchase order results from a decision that the Huntingdon and Godmanchester bypass should be on a north-south route running between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, which are within the same borough, and linking the A604 from Cambridge with the Al south of Alconbury Hill rather than on an east-west route south of Godmanchester and clear of the borough and linking the A604 with the Al at what is known as Brampton Hut.

Although I disagree strongly with the decision to choose the north-south route, I am not disputing it tonight. But I am using this occasion, as I understand that as a private Member I am entitled to do, to draw attention to defects which have appeared in the decision-making process in the hope that such defects may be rectified in future in the development of our major roads programme. I have been assured by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that by using my right to raise the matter in this way I shall not be delaying the building of our bypass at Huntingdon, which is much needed and for which I have been pressing Ministers by correspondence and Questions in this House for no fewer than 17 years.

The defects which have appeared can be summarised in this way. First, lack of clear, detailed and early information to the public, including those whose land is to be taken, about the proposed development. Secondly, lack of liaison between the public authorities concerned—in this case the Eastern Road Construction Unit, the East Anglian Regional Hospital Board and the local authorities. Thirdly, lack of adequate evidence at the public inquiry, thus placing the Inspector who held it—I think he made the best of a very difficult job—as well as the objectors at a disadvantage.

Although this matter has such a long history, I will endeavour briefly to illustrate my case by referring only to the major matters which, in my opinion, constitute defects which have emerged leaving various less important matters for study by the Department and, I hope, the Council on Tribunals in the light of the two courteous and closely reasoned but critical reports made by the Inspector. There is, however, one major matter to which I shall not refer, because it is now being considered by "the Ombudsman", the Parliamentary Commissioner, at my request, which was raised by an objector whose land is affected.

In 1964 the north-south line was chosen by the local authorities as the best line for an ordinary relief bypass with mainly local implications—a bypass which would have one carriageway in each direction and would be built at ground levels. In the circumstances, I and many others reluctantly supported it on the understanding that it was of that character.

I am making no party point in this matter, nor any complaint against any specific Minister of either Government. Indeed, I received enormous help in this matter from the former Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), who is now the Minister for Aerospace. But when the draft Order was made in January, 1970, it was not for many months made clear that it was to be quite different from the proposals originally put forward by the local authorities. It was to become an elevated dual carriageway with two lanes in each direction, to be built at motorway standards, at high levels, with embankments over three commons and with high bridges over the road bridge which crosses the railway at Huntingdon station and over the river Great Ouse—a very different proposition indeed. Although it followed the same line, it was different in character from that which had been approved by the local authorities six years before.

The objectors, when the draft order was laid in January, 1970, had great difficulty in finding out about the details of the new scheme because the plans deposited merely showed the line of the road, and the road construction unit for some time maintained that details could not be given until various surveys had been completed.

The plan, which I have described as being envisaged by the draft order, involved building an embankment, believe it or not, close to Huntingdon Hospital, with all the disturbance during two years of construction and forever after that that would cause to the hospital, especially as the embankment when built would be at about the level of the first floor of the hospital where most of the wards are.

But it was not until I alerted the regional hospital board—and the road construction unit also did so—in May, 1971, that the board was aware that the bypass would come close to the hospital, with all the disturbance during and after construction. Eventually, when the hospital board had been alerted it entered an objection, and indeed the secretary of the board appeared on behalf of the board at the inquiry in order to pursue that objection. But that failure to notify the hospital board showed, I fear, a deplorable lack of liaison between public authorities.

When, early last summer, the nature of the proposed motorway-bypass at last became apparent, I asked the county and borough councils—that is to say, the Huntingdon and Peterborough County Council and the Huntingdon and God-manchester Borough Council—to reconsider the matter, and they kindly did so. But after much discussion they decided by majorities to support the proposed original line rather than an east-west alternative which I had suggested, and which I still believe most of my constituents who really applied their minds to the matter would have preferred.

Many councillors, before and during the discussions which took place, were clearly not aware of the essential facts of the matter or of the change of plan. Indeed, some councillors said, as their reason for still approving the north-south route, "We have had the inquiry, so let us get on with completing the bypass", but in fact no inquiry had ever been held. I think it is rather sad that nobody present at that meeting of the county council, where this view was expressed by several members, corrected that mis- taken impression, although I understand that representatives of the road construction unit were present.

The inquiry was first held from 30th November until 3rd December 1971. After those three days of hearing the inspector was not satisfied with the evidence produced in support of the proposed line, and he adjourned the inquiry for "a comprehensive reappraisal" by the road construction unit "both from the traffic and the environmental standpoint".

At paragraph 9.10 the inspector said: In short, the Department's decision as to the line of the by-pass may have been, and probably was, entirely right at the time it was taken in 1964 in relation to the local and national needs then ruling. There are strong pointers to the possibility that the Department might come up with an entirely different solution to the local and national problem if it were to examine the matter afresh in the circumstances as they exist today and as they are likely to develop in the next 10 or 20 years. I suggest it is not too late for a fresh study of this kind to be put in hand; and that this should be done before work is started on the construction of the by-pass on the lines indicated in the made Orders. So the inspector adjourned the inquiry.

Some further somewhat meagre information was then produced about traffic flows. But there was no fresh study of the kind which obviously the inspector was entitled to ask for. At the adjourned hearing in March, 1972, he was still unable to accept an important part of the evidence of the road construction unit.

In his final report, with its recommendation, the inspector expressed the hope that before a decision was made by the Secretary of State, further thought should be given to influences on future traffic patterns. But this was not done, as is shown by the Answer to a Question of mine on 5th July, which indicated that the decision of the Secretary of State took into account all the evidence given at the inquiry and the views expressed by the inspector. But there was no suggestion of further thought having been given to the important question of future traffic patterns.

In the final report the inspector said in short: Those whose environment is adversely affected by developments proposed by Government Departments are entitled to the fullest explanations and assurances as to the effect of and the necessity for the developments in pursuance of declared Government policies. The whole tenor of both the inspector's reports was to the effect that those explanations and assurances had not been given.

As to declared Government policies, here too there was something lacking. The choice between the north-south and the east-west route turned largely upon the question whether the A604 would become a major east-west highway. We know that it is to have dual carriageways anyway from Cambridge to God Manchester, but the question of the extension of dual carriageways westward to make a link with the A1 and to carry on past Brampton Hut to Thrapston is still unresolved, although it is of vital importance. In a Question on 14th June I asked my hon. Friend whether there was any possibility of that happening. But my hon. Friend, perhaps wisely—I do not know—declined to give an assurance either way.

If we are not careful—that is, if the A604 were to be extended westward as a dual carriageway, which would be a very sensible action—we shall end up with both an east-west route and a north-south route and Huntingdon will have two bypasses. Already, although it is not quite like Birmingham, we are beginning to have a feeling of a Spaghetti-like pattern for our road system at Huntingdon.

It was important for the inspector to know whether the A604 or the A45, just to its south, or both of those roads would become a major east-west highway, but the inspector was not told at the inquiry which of those things would happen.

Those are some of the defects which have appeared. They are plain enough. How can they be rectified? I trust that my hon. Friend will join me in asking the Council on Tribunals to consider them and to consider both the inspector's reports in this case.

I hope that my hon. Friend, whose appointment to his important office was so greatly welcomed, having seen enough of what is going on, will decide that the time has come to review the procedures. I do not think that legislation is necessary. The point is to ensure that those who have the duty to carry out the statutory responsibilities do so in a way which gives satisfaction to all concerned, so as to ensure a better process of information, better consultation, and less treading on people's toes. When my hon. Friend has considered the matter, he may well feel that a manual of instruction, a road developer's "bible", would meet the case.

10.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for raising this subject tonight and for the moderate way in which he has presented his case, a case with which he has been particularly concerned for a long time and which he has assiduously pursued, not only with myself, but with a number of my predecessors, both in the Department of the Environment and in the Ministry of Transport.

I assure my right hon. and learned Friend at the outset that his having raised this matter tonight will in no way delay the start of this road. Although he has disagreed with this line and has pursued an alternative line, he has taken the view that his constituents and the town of Huntingdon and God Manchester and the villages to the north need some relief.

It was in June, 1967, that a draft line was published. At that time it was well advertised in the local Press. Ten objections were received. At that time all inquiries about the route were answered as far as possible. I cannot understand my right hon. and learned Friend's claim about the embankment. I accept that final and firm details were not and, indeed, could not in the light of various surveys and engineering investigations that were taking place have been given until a later date.

I am informed that a letter was sent—and indeed I have seen it—by officials of the then Ministry of Transport to my right hon. Friend's political agent in 1969, in which he was told about the probable height of the embankment opposite his house. Local residents, who were also very concerned that their property was to be affected, were also written to at about the same time and were offered a meeting with officers of the Department. But they did not wish to take advantage of that offer at that time. After some of the objections had been resolved, the then Minister of Transport confirmed the line order in December, 1969.

In August, 1970, draft proposals for side roads and junctions were published. Seventeen objections were received, most of which referred rather to the line of the bypass than to the side roads themselves. The line passes close to some exclusive properties on Mill Common and some of the residents became anxious about the adverse effect upon the amenity of their properties. Several objectors asked about the height of the embankment and were told figures as precisely as possible, though I understand that it was difficult to give final figures. This, indeed, has proved to be right. As a result of my right hon. Friend's own representations, the height of the embankment has been reduced on a significant part of the route.

After considering objections the Secretary of State on 8th October, 1971, confirmed the Side Roads Orders without modification. It was on14th July, 1971, that officers of the RCU spoke to, and answered questions from, the county highway committee. I am told that it was specifically said that there had been no public inquiry and that this point was understood. Subsequently the county council agreed by 37 votes to 19 on 27th July, 1971, that the north-south route should be the one it would support.

In October, 1971, the draft compulsory purchase order was published. It was at about this time my right hon. Friend took up the point about the line of the bypass passing close to Huntingdon Hospital and that the road would be at first floor level. Unfortunately, the building of the new Huntingdon Hospital, which has been promised for a long time, has been delayed. The hospital will eventually move to Hinchingbrooke Park and originally it was thought that the hospital would have moved by the time the road was open. However, it now looks as if the present hospital building will not be vacated for several years, though I note that the right hon. Gentleman is urging the authorities to speed up the procees.

My right hon. Friend criticised the lack of consultation, but I would point out that local hospital authorities were treated in the same way as everyone else, in that the draft line was published for objection and comment—which was considerable locally—in June, 1967. It would have been open to them at that time, in view of the sort of publicity there was at the time, to have made their objections. There is no reason why they should not have been aware of what was going on, in the same way as other residents were aware. Perhaps it can be said in retrospect that publicity at the time was not all that could be desired, but we have moved on in recent years, a point I shall come to later.

The public inquiry began in November, 1971, and the inspector made it clear at the inquiry that he would take into account points about the line of the bypass as well as about the compulsory purchase order itself. The inspector in his report said that he was not satisfied that the case had been proved for a north-south bypass, and he was particularly concerned, on the evidence of the figures, whether the traffic was north-south or east-west. It is fair to say that when the inquiry was reopened the inspector finally said that, notwithstanding certain differences between different witnesses, he was satisfied with the final traffic flow figures which showed a preponderance of traffic travelling in a north-south direction.

I do not think the need for a bypass of Huntington and God Manchester has been disputed by anyone over a long period of time. As long ago as 1951 a route with a north-south alignment was included in the county development plan because traffic figures then indicated that this was the correct alignment. Since then there has been a whole series of traffic studies by the county, the Department's consulting engineers, private individuals and, early this year, by Huntingdon County Council and the consultants jointly, as well as recommendations from the inspector. All these have indicated the need for a north-south alignment, rather than an east-west alignment.

Further traffic studies were taken in detail on two separate days which were early closing days, but the point was to find not the volume of traffic visiting the town, but which traffic was going through the town and wished to avoid it, and which traffic was not through traffic. The studies confirmed earlier studies that about three times as much traffic wished to go north-south as east-west.

My right hon. Friend has criticised the Department and has called in aid the inspector to support his criticism that it has not tried to anticipate traffic over the next 10 or 20 years, and has not taken into account the whole highway strategy, but has looked at this area in isolation. There may have been genuine misunderstanding here. In the inspector's second report in paragraph 2.04 it said that an officer of the RCU, Mr. Benney, had tried to deal with the point in some detail and referred to the A604.

Especial attention was paid to the volume of northbound traffic that would divert to M11 from parallel existing north-south routes and traffic generated by the Felixstowe and other docks was included. This is very important for a reason I shall explain.

Such traffic would join the Huntingdon-God Manchester By-Pass for the north via A.604, Girton to Godmanchester. Announcements are made after a great deal of work and investigation by the Department. The A45, which is an important element of the Midlands—East Coast docks road network, is being extensively improved even now. The A45 improvements from Cambridge to Ipswich will almost certainly be dual carriageway the whole way. Already work has commenced or is about to on the New market, Stow market, Claydon, Bury St. Edmunds and Cambridge bypasses. I recently announced the Ipswich Southern Bypass. All these bypasses and I hope the majority, if not all, of the intervening road sections will be of high-quality dual carriageway standard. It was made very clear when I was investigating the Ipswich southern bypass, one of the first road schemes on which I had to take a decision, that the growth of traffic and the growth of freight for the docks at Ipswich and Felixstowe would be considerable over the years.

That is why the A45 is so important. The route of the A45 from Cambridge to St. Neots is being studied with a view to seeing what needs to be done to improve it, although it is not a bad road at the moment. But it is not dual carriageway for most of its way. What is also being examined, as was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is a high-quality major trunk road from Northampton to the A1. I cannot say what part of the A1 it will eventually be decided that that road will strike, but this is an important factor for traffic from the Midlands to the East Coast ports. Therefore it follows that the A45 will play a most important part in all this.

I have gone into detail about the A45 because I wish to give my right hon. and learned Friend firm assurances. I have studied the papers of my immediate predecessor on the Huntingdon bypass. I like he was very conscious of the need to relate this scheme to other schemes, one being the startegic route from the East Coast ports to the Midlands and elsewhere.

I do not wish to criticise anyone who gave evidence at the public inquiry and I say it with respect, but to talk about a trans-Pennine route and so on is getting into the realms of what might or might not happen. All road forecasting and traffic forecasting can only be an estimate. It might be argued that the former Ministry of Transport under the Goverments of both parties and even the present Department of the Environment have tended to be pessimisitic in their forecasts and that already the existing dual carriageways on the M1 are beginning to prove inadequate and that proposals should be made for doubling their capacity. I accept that it is an imprecise art to try to get realistic and accurate forecasts of the whole road systetm.

But certainly there is no doubt that my predecessors and I and the Department and my officers take very carefully into account—and I am sorry if this appeared to be not appreciated by the inspector—the effects not only of this but of all other such schemes which might be involved and which might have any bearing at all.

My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned having a code of practice, or a guide or something of the sort, and said he felt that that would be extremely helpful for those who had to attend public inquiries. He went so far as to say that he thought this was a matter not of legislation but of good practice. It is fair to say, and I concede this to my right hon. and learned Friend, that a number of the problems he mentioned arise because of the time scale of the proposals, and in saying that I make no criticism of the previous Administration. We have all moved a long way in the past few years towards increasing public participation in making sensible proposals.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development said when we discussed the Highways Act last year, it is extremely important that we should increase, and substantially increase, publicity so that local people and bodies and organisations such as hospitals and local firms are well aware of and have a chance to question and criticise road proposals well in advance of a public inquiry or whatever it may be. The Department has now produced a couple of very helpful pamphlets, one dealing with compulsory purchase by the State of property that may be needed for road schemes and the other dealing with an individual's rights and explaining how he may be involved, how he may object to proposals, to whom he should write, the procedure for a public inquiry and so on.

We have gone to a good deal of trouble to ensure that people who will be affected will have these leaflets as a first shot, as it were, to advise them of their rights. I must stress that the leaflets have been out for only six or seven months. In addition in any major scheme, certainly of the kind that we have been discussing tonight, we hold exihibitions at which we produce models, maps, photographs and other descriptive material for the general public to see. It is now also usual to hold public meetings and certainly to invite people living nearby who may be affected by any proposals, or who believe that they might be, to come to a public meeting, not in protest—this does not replace the public inquiry—but to put questions about the facts and to get answers given as clearly and as helpfully as possible.

A great deal of work is now going on with exhibitions and public meetings. One occurred last week in another part of the country where we went to a great deal of trouble to see that officers from the Department were available to answer questions from people who might be affected.

We realise that we have to do very much better than any party or Government has yet done about telling people what is going on and I am especially concerned about the procedures of the public inquiries themselves. Perhaps a child's guide should be provided for people attending a public inquiry. On the whole, the inspectors handle the inquiries very well and informally and there should be no reason why anybody should be worried about attending a public inquiry and giving evidence and making his views known. But technical terms and phrases are used and there is a certain procedure. So it might be helpful when considering revision of some of the leaflets to include a code to help people attending public inquiries to understand their rights and how they can make their representations known. As my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, they do not have to attend in person but can send their submissions by letter or in some other way.

I think I have said enough to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we treat the subject seriously. We have made progress, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development who has achieved a great deal in this. I feel that we could improve on what we have, but whether a code or manual is necessary I do not know.

One element of public inquiries must, I hope, be flexibility and there must be informality. They are not courts of law as such, and it might be that if one had a code of highway practice to help the public it would either be so general that it would defeat my right hon. and learned Friend's object or would introduce an undesirable degree of rigidity into the proceedings.

We are stepping up all sorts of publicity and are discussing methods of taking this a stage further. I have some ideas to discuss which may be fruitful. In addition we are expecting shortly the Urban Motorways Committee's report, and my right hon. Friend is looking at the compensation code and the impact of road building and acquisition of property for road construction generally.

I hope I have said enough to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we are well aware of the problems. I appreciate that he sticks to his view that his proposal for the bypass was the right one. When I answered him in the House recently and said that I could not guarantee that no east—west bypass would ever be built this was carefully considered and I could not give a guarantee that no road was ever to be built because things can change. But as things are, we have no doubt that the great preponderance of traffic will be north—south for the foreseeable future.

We have no doubt that something must be done to relieve the congestion in Huntingdon and Godmanchester and to the north of those towns where there are terrible traffic problems and, having looked at them most carefully, we believe that this is the best solution.

We will look carefully at the points he has made on publicity and future standards, but I hope I have said enough to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we take the subject very seriously.

On the route we are discussing, the solution was made better in a number of significant ways by the zeal of my right hon. and learned Friend by his representations.

11.19 p.m.

Sir David Renton

In my brief reply, before I withdraw my Motion, may I say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the great care he has taken to consider the matters which I had put before the House.

His reply fortifies me in having raised the matter. I realise that I have been an awful nuisance to the Department in this case, but it is clear that already a good many improvements are taking place and I should like to wish my hon. Friend well in improving the procedures.

There is one question of fact on which he is in dispute with me. I attended, as a member of the public, the Road and Bridges Committee meeting and I do not remember a member of the road construction unit being present. I do not remember any question of whether there had been an inquiry previously being raised. That question was raised at the crucial meeting of the county council and was undoubtedly an important factor affecting the minds of some of the members there. They voted under a misapprehension. Of that, there seems to be no doubt.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Adjournment

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

Back to