§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for having come here at this late hour to listen to my plea for the early commencement of a bypass in Market Harborough.
Market Harborough is a town of great antiquity and the village of Bowden, which comprises part of Market Harborough, was mentioned in the Domesday Book. The first record of a market being held in Market Harborough was as long ago as the year 1204, which was 769 years ago.
In that period, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the town has been transformed from a fairly sleepy little agricultural village to a bustling industrial area. It is true to say that the town has grown apace because it has recently been selected as the headquarters for the new district council that will come into existence next year and will comprise a number of adjacent rural and urban district councils.
Market Harborough—because of the wisdom of those who have governed the place, because of good luck, or for whatever reason—has been fortunate enough to preserve the valuable heritage of the past in some precious architecture of differing types. I shall not weary the House with a long list of the historic relics and antiquities that exist in the town. Suffice it to say that there are two notable edifices—the parish church, which goes back to 1300, and the old grammar school, which anybody who passes along the A6 cannot fail to notice because it still rests on the stilts on which it was placed in 1604. One can see it alongside the heavy traffic that rumbles by on the main A6 road.
The town, as well as growing considerably, has a sizeable industrial activity on its own account. Many large industrial companies manufacture in Market Harborough, and many firms manufacture various internationally-known articles of women's clothing, processed foods, batteries, electric vehicles and numerous other enterprises.
Apart from the bustle and activity generated by the people who live and 1693 work in Market Harborough, we must consider the fact that the town lies at the heart of an interchange between two great national traffic routes. We have the A6, beside which many of our ancient buildings rest and where much of our delightful Georgian architecture can be seen. The A6 runs through the square from Leicester and out to Kettering, and from the east to the west we have the road that serves the heavy industrial town of Corby and other eastern towns, and right through Market Harborough to Lutterworth on the A247.
One of the reasons prompting me to raise this matter tonight was the fact that since I last raised it by correspondence with the Minister I have become aware, from the reply that he gave to Questions that I tabled to him the other day, that he is not fully aware of the facts relating to the situation in Market Harborough.
It is the firm belief that any idea of bypassing Market Harborough has been pigeonholed by the Ministry for some time. I say that advisedly, because as long ago as the 1930s a scheme was produced. It was a very tentative scheme, but it reached the stage at which the local planning authority agreed upon a tentative route and controlled planning consents accordingly. But that tentative route was abandoned years ago and today no firm route exists for a bypass for Market Harborough. No tentative route has ever been prepared by the Department of the Environment for submission to the Leicestershire County Council or the Market Harborough council for its consideration, even on a consultation basis.
Perhaps that did not matter in the 1930s; perhaps it did not matter in the 1950s; but it matters greatly in the 1970s. The reason why it matters particularly today—and why the whole picture has been transformed—is that about a year ago—last autumn—the Ml-M6 link was opened, which markedly increased the east-west and west-east flow of traffic, particularly heavy goods traffic taking the route to the M1 and thence north-west on the M6 by the new link.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)To get the record right—the Ml-M6 link was opened in May last year.
§ Mr. FarrIt was opened in May last year. Nevertheless, the situation was transformed immediately. After the first few months, when people got used to the best way to make full use of this new route, the traffic built up.
The Minister has a very difficult and unenviable task. He has been pressed by many people to provide bypasses in many parts of the country, and the way in which he can best discharge his responsibility end without hope of reward from him, let me say that I recognise that he discharges it in an admirable manner—is to be fed by the relevant statistics of vehicle flow, and so on, by efficient staff on an up-to-date basis, and then he must make his personal analysis and come to a decision. I am convinced that that is what he has done all over the country. He has to take account of various other matters of great importance, such as the circular issued by my right hon. Friend the former Minister on 15th July 1971 containing the criteria relating to historic towns.
But the main need is to be in possession of up-to-date facts and figures before an up-to-date analysis can be made. It is because my hon. Friend has not these up-to-date figures that I am concerned to raise this matter tonight.
On 18th June I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment nine Questions relating to the Market Harborough bypass and various other matters. They took up nearly two pages of foolscap. In a brief, all-embracing reply of some 12 lines, my hon. Friend devoted five or six to saying:
The latest information on through traffic flows in the town is for June 1970…But the figure has been transformed since May of last year, when the M1–M6 link was opened. It is a hopeless task for the Minister to attempt to say what place Market Harborough should enjoy in the national bypass queue without up-to-date information taking account of the hugely increased flow of traffic resulting from the opening of the M1–M6 link.My hon. Friend should charge himself with the responsibility of gaining this up-to-date information now. If he had the figures, I should not be pressing him to let us have at least a pilot plan showing a tentative route that might be considered. I think that he will be so startled by the way in which the traffic 1695 flow has increased since June 1970, bearing in mind especially the significance of the opening of the M1–M6 link, that he will act forthwith, which is what I wish him to do.
I want the Market Harborough bypass added to the trunk road preparation pool now, with a view to early route agreement, land acquisition and commencement. We need a bypass running from the west of the town, bypassing the villages of Theddingworth, where another fatal accident occurred last month, and Lubenham, and bypassing Market Harborough to the north and east, thus taking the A427 west-to-east traffic and the A6 north-to-south traffic away from the town.
I emphasise that we are prepared to discuss any proposals in Market Harborough. Any sign of activity from my hon. Friend's Department will be seized upon with great pleasure.
I urge my hon. Friend to take this request seriously. I am not in the habit of making frivolous requests of any Minister in this House. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to a plea that I have couched in terms as moderate as I can command.
§ 11.43 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), first, for raising this important subject, which is of such great interest to his constituents. I thank him, too, for the way in which he has raised it. I take very seriously all that he has said, not only tonight but in his many Questions to me and my predecessor, and in the considerable number of letters that he has very properly written to my Department.
I am well aware of the traffic problems in Market Harborough, not only from the correspondence and from the summary of the situation that my hon. Friend has just given us, but also from personal experience. My hon. Friend may know that I look out from my bedroom window in Warwickshire on to the green fields of Leicestershire. I travel not infrequently through Market Harborough, mostly from west to east. In fact, I passed through it on my way to Kettering only three weeks ago. So I have some personal 1696 knowledge of the problems to which he has referred.
In many ways Market Harborough epitomises the problems of many towns of its size and character. It is a relatively small country town which, historically, has served a largely rural community. For this reason it is at the hub of a local road system, with little provision for internal or through traffic to avoid the town centre.
Thus, there is the classic urban traffic conflict. In addition, Market Harborough was included by the Council for British Archaeology in its list of towns of historic interest.
Two of the routes through the town are of more than local importance. First, the A6 trunk road runs north-south. This was formerly the main route from London to Leicester, Derby and the North-West of England. However, this important through traffic junction was largely removed with the completion of M1, first to Crick and then to Leicester and further north in 1964–65. In addition, the whole of the M1/M6 route from London to Carlisle has now been completed throughout for over a year. Timing is important. That is why I interrupted my hon. Friend. So the former strategic significance of the A6 route no longer exists. None the less, the road is still important for regional traffic between Kettering, Wellingborough and Leicester, and the A508 from Northampton joins this route in the town. As I have said, the A6 is a trunk road and, as such, the Secretary of State's responsibility—a responsibility which we fully recognise.
The other main route, which I know rather better, is the A427, running east-west through the town. This is a principal road—a county responsibility—used by traffic from the West Midlands conurbation and the M6 to Peterborough and the east.
Undoubtedly, the situation in Market Harborough would be worse—much worse—if the M1 had not been built. But this relief was afforded at a time when traffic generally was at a lower level than today and its existence is, I fear, no great consolation to those living, working or shopping in the town, who have to cope with the existing traffic. It was for this reason, because we recognised that on the face of it there was a problem, that 1697 Leicestershire County Council was asked last year to undertake a study into traffic in the town, and to make recommendations. The collection and processing of traffic data, even in a relatively small area such as this, takes time, and I am glad that my hon. Friend was prepared to wait till the report was completed before bringing the issues before the House. We have now had a little time—but only a little time—to look at and consider the report.
Before turning to the report and its proposals, I should like to mention one other major consideration—and I hope my hon. Friend will not think that I am in any way trying to delay further any decision, though I fear that might be the result. I refer to the inclusion in the Secretary of State's announcement of 23rd June 1971, about the trunk road strategy, that a feasibility study would be undertaken into the need for and possible route of a new link between the M1 near Northampton and the A1. This is an important study which has been accelerated and we now expect to be completed by the end of this year. But a major factor in including this proposal in the 1971 announcement was the clear need to relieve the existing cross-country routes between M1 and A1 in South Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire. These are principally the routes through Northampton and Bedford and the A427 through Market Harborough.
The report on traffic problems in Market Harborough was received by the Department at the end of April and I would like to thank Leicestershire County Council for preparing it for us. It has been studied and we have formed some preliminary—I stress "preliminary"—views. Briefly, the report explains how the main routes meet in the square in the centre of this historic town and how the conflicting traffic movements create congestion and delay.
Traffic on both the A6 and A427 routes has grown steadily in recent years. The latest figures taken in August 1972—this is information that I have received since I answered my hon. Friend—show traffic volumes on the A6 of 12,500 vehicles per day north of the town centre and 5,200 vehicles south of the town centre, and on the A427 of 5,700 vehicles 1698 west of the town centre and 7,000 east of the town centre. Most of this traffic is not by-passable. It has business in the town and the provision of bypasses would not help. This is a point I want to emphasise.
Very often people assume that the provision of a bypass is the answer to all traffic problems. In some cases—such as a small village on a busy main road—this can be so, but in most towns a bypass is at most a very partial solution. It will still leave all the town's own traffic and that from outside that has its destination there. If there is still a problem, this must be tackled in other ways—for example by inner relief roads or by measures of traffic restraint. I do not want to detract from the value of bypasses in any way. By getting through-traffic —especially heavy traffic—out of a town, the way is made clear for the town to solve its own residual problems without regard to the needs of through traffic. This is particularly important for historic towns such as Market Harborough. But none the less the extent of the residual problems must be borne in mind.
In this case, through traffic makes up about 25 per cent. of the total traffic in the town and the report considers that a new road around the north and east of the town, forming a bypass to both the A427—including Lubenham—and A6 routes would attract this proportion of total traffic, that is, about 8,500 vehicles per 12-hour day, which might be expected to grow to 13,000 vehicles by 1981 and 16,000 by 1991. An alternative mentioned in the report would be the provision of a north-south bypass of A6 only.
The report also considers the need for an inner relief road in the town. Such a scheme is certainly not a substitute for a bypass—it would aim to deal with the residual traffic problem that I mentioned a few moments ago. As such, I am sure that consideration of it must take place in the context of the draft district plan which was published about a year ago, and which must now await the preparation of the county structure plan and its approval by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend will know that the advantages and disadvantages of individual schemes cannot be the only factor in their selection for further work. My hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to 1699 the way in which my right hon. Friend and I try to assess and reach decisions in these matters. If resources were unlimited this might be so, but as it is we must compare schemes and choose those that will provide the best return, in the widest sense, including environmental and historical considerations as well as economic ones, and I stress that. At the present time my hon. Friend will appreciate the significance of that. We have to be especially critical of any proposal making a new commitment on road expenditure, for reasons that will be obvious to the House.
The fact is that the bypass proposals to which I have referred do not compare well with others already in preparation and it seems unlikely that we would be justified, under present circumstances, in providing anything on these lines until some time in the 1980s. But in saying that I should like to add two things, and they are important. First, our consideration of the report and the proposals is not yet complete, and I assure my hon. Friend that I am taking a close personal interest in our consideration of this. Secondly, before reaching a final view we must take into account the M1–A1 study to which I have referred. I know that any further delay will not please my hon. Friend, and will probably please his constituents even less, but I am sure that we would be most foolish to reach conclusions in this case without taking account of this other major study.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of by-passes for Theddingworth and Lubenham. Lubenham is included in the A427 bypass recommendation of the report. I was extremely sorry to hear of the fatal accident at Theddingworth, and I can tell my hon. Friend that a scheme for bypassing this village is in the principal road preparation list. Work on the scheme is the responsibility of Leicestershire County Council, and I understand that the county expects to submit its proposals to the Department for firm programming this autumn. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do my best to see that there is no undue delay in giving an answer to that firm programme as soon as we receive it.
I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to my hon. Friend, despite the intense pressure that he has put behind the case for the bypass scheme. I know how 1700 important it is to my hon. Friend and to his constituents but, as I have said, and I repeat, we have not yet reached final views.
§ Mr. FarrPeople in Market Harborough and the surrounding district are prepared to help and to wait for an analysis of a possible A1–M1 link. People would think it reasonable to wait for a few months for that, but may I have an undertaking that if we accept that we shall not be persuaded to accept a further postponement because an analysis might be made of a possible new east-west highway from the east coast ports?
§ Mr. SpeedI am about to make a suggestion which will help my hon. Friend here. We hope to receive the feasibility study on the A1–M1 link at the end of this year, and I have told my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that we hope to be able to make a public announcement about our intentions on the participation procedures or something of that sort in the spring of next year. So we are talking in finite terms, and this will have considerable impact on the road schemes in Market Harborough. But anything further for the east coast would not be germane and would be no reason for delay.
Even though the decision on the link could prove controversial, it is important to take the decision as soon as possible. Once we know the corridor for such a link, we and the counties can consider the likely effects on towns and traffic in the area. This will supplement the information we have in the Leicestershire report for Market Harborough.
My own view is that the Department and the counties concerned might commission the consultants who are doing the feasibility study and who will have all the information, to exploit that information by looking at the individual residual traffic problems for the local towns like St. Neots and, indeed, Market Harborough. This should not take a great deal of time. Then we would have something meaningful and worth while on which to base the final decision. Against that background, this is something which my hon. Friend and the local authorities would perhaps like to consider.
I am aware that this means further delays. I am certainly aware that I have 1701 not given my hon. Friend and his constituents the answer they want, but I hope to have convinced him that we are now working on much more up-to-date information and that the feasibility study will be immensely important not only to Market Harborough but to other parts of my hon. Friend's constituency and those of other hon. Members in the area. I hope that this suggestion will commend itself to hon. Members and the local authorities. It is one that we would want to pursue urgently if it does.
1702 With the final assurance that I am keeping in close touch with all these developments, the final analysis of the Leicestershire report and obviously the decisions that we will have to take on the link, I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that, although I cannot yet give the answer he wants, we are still bearing very much in mind his point of view and those of his constituents.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.