HC Deb 11 May 1973 vol 856 cc979-90

4.5 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie (Enfield, East)

First, as an ex-junior Minister, I would point out to the Under-Secretary of State that I am sorry to raise this matter on the Adjournment at four o'clock on a Friday afternoon.

There is nothing political about this matter. I simply require information which the Department is loth to give in any other way. I should not like anyone to think that I am against the road in question, or motorways in general. This is an industrial country and our industrial efficiency depends partly on a first-class transport service, which we cannot have without good roads.

In 1970 and 1971 I received, presumably with other hon. Members interested in the matter, all the relevant information, including the inspector's report and the Secretary of State's decision on the question of the section of road from the A1 to the A111 and the A111 to the A10. The order was made in September 1971. The information was made public, but very little happened until 1972, when pressure began to build up among not only the residents but the manufacturers in the district. The traffic seemed to be increasing, and lorries were pouring into Enfield from the A1 and Ml seeking a quick way through to the manufacturing area, down across the River Lea, up the Lea Valley Road and thence to the Dartford Tunnel and the docks.

Matters became, and still are, quite critical. There have been many serious accidents in residential areas. In the meantime, the people of the east side of the A10 have begun to sit up and take notice. That is where my interest mainly lies, although naturally I am interested in the road service because I represent the manufacturing side of the borough of Enfield.

It was argued that if this section of road was finished first it would transfer to my constituency the congestion suffered by the constituents of the hon. Members for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson). That is right to a certain extent, but not altogether, because we have the A10 and other good roads going east to the Lea Valley Road. The Minister made that point in a letter to me, and I think that he was to a certain extent right.

I received representations and put them to the Minister. I have had correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State about what was happening with regard to the section from the A111 to the A10. He mentioned the problem of congestion in East Enfield. He sent me a letter on 11th August 1972 in which he said: You also mentioned Ringway 3 from the A1 to the A10. The route of this was, of course, confirmed after a public inquiry. So, all along, hon. Members and the general public assumed that this route was definitely fixed.

At about this time a public meeting was called in eastern Enfield—attended by nearly 400 people—to protest, and to hear whether I could give them any information about this road. At about this time the hon. Member for Enfield, West had a letter from the Minister's Department which said: In view of the representations the Department decided to hold any public inquiry into the A111—A10 compulsory purchase order immediately after the inquiry into the line order for the A10—Ml sections. Of that letter I have a copy, kindly sent to me by the hon. Member for Enfield, West. It seemed to me that there must be some delay on the A111—A10 section and an inquiry into how the other section was affected.

I telephoned the Department to ask the simple question: was the line of the A111 to the A10 fixed, or could it still be moved? The answer I got over the telephone was that there was no intention of altering it.

An hon. Member should make clear to his constituents what he thinks is happening, and I asked for a memorandum. I had almost to drag it out, like trying to drag out a sore tooth, but I finally got it before the meeting. The memorandum said: The intention of Ringway 3 is to provide an orbital route around London and if it is to serve its purpose efficiently it must be as close to the centres of population as possible. Those of us who know this know that it had to come close, and that it would be as close as possible. The memorandum later said: Undoubtedly some people"— it was referring to an inquiry on the next section— will put forward alternative routes, and these will, of course, be considered by the Secretary of State or at a public inquiry". This is where I come to the point about information. The hon. Members for Enfield, West and Southgate will probably press the Minister to state what is happening about the sections that I have been discussing, but what I want to know is whether it is fixed. All the information that I have indicates that it is fixed. If that is so, the start of the other section is fixed, too.

The Minister well knows that the gap —not a very wide gap—to the north-east side of my constituency is also fixed and the bit south of Waltham Abbey can hardly be moved, because one cannot move a 6-lane motorway so easily as a country road, or make right-angled or left-angled bends in it. So that must be fixed. That is the information I want from the Minister.

As the Minister knows, the gap that was left—the Holmesdale gap—down to the Hertford road and past the Co-op playing field, was to have a road. That has been known for the best part of 30 years. If it comes there it must go south of Waltham Abbey, and cannot be moved all that much. I do not want to discuss the other side of the question, but from what the Minister has told me I cannot think that he would consider moving it up to the Turnford Gap. If he does that, the road must take a very steep curve southward, and will still be in the Epping constituency, irrespective of which gap it goes through. One of the deputations which came to see me had this line drawn through the middle of my farm, and it did not endear the idea to me very much, although I would have, if necessary, to put up with it.

I want to know whether that point is fixed. If so, we should be told, so that our constituents will know what is happening and can make their objections on a proper basis, and not on the basis of a line which could be moved, because then the whole thing would be just a farce.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry (Southgate)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) on having chosen this subject for debate. My constituents are very much affected by the absence of this road. Lorry traffic is getting heavier and not lighter. Lorries are coming from the A1 and the Ml, and heading down towards the docks through residential areas in Southgate, Hadley Wood and Cockfosters. They go through Chase Side, which is a large shopping area totally unsuited for lorries, to the roundabout by Southgate underground station, where they meet the traffic coming up from the North Circular Road. They then go down Hedge Lane via The Bourne and Bourne Hill, which is a residential area. The road has quite a steep slope, and lorries going down the hill tend to go too fast. Going up the hill they have to engage in a low gear and make a lot of noise, which affects the amenities of those who live in the area.

My hope was that the route had been fixed. I have correspondence about it which dates back to the time when I was a candidate, in 1963. I see that there are still problems arising on the part of the road between the A1 and A10 which affects me, and I hope the Minister will announce when the work is to start.

I appreciate that the road will not go through my constituency and my constituents will not suffer from the inconveniences which arise when a motorway is being built. That means we appreciate all the more that the right route must be fixed, but I ask the Minister to fix it fairly soon.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson (Enfield, West)

It is rare that we have in the Chamber three minds with but a single thought. That single thought has been voiced extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie).

Almost immediately after I became the Member for Enfield, West, a constituent forwarded to me a letter he had received from the late Iain Macleod in 1970 in which he said that after years of pressure the good news was that in about a year's time work on the D ring road would begin and that it would be completed in two or three years' time. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavi-stock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), after a long correspondence, wrote to me in September 1971 confirming that the line of the road was fixed, that there were one or two small snags but that work would go ahead almost immediately.

I was disappointed to recieve a letter from the present Minister's private office in March this year saying that, although the first section of the road—the A1 to the A111—would begin this year, for which I am extremely grateful, the work on the rest of the link to the A10 would be deferred pending a final decision on the line of the A10—M11.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), came to Potters Barr recently to open the show house of an ambitious scheme for the modernisation of pre-war council houses. He was impressed with the scheme and made a moving speech. Although he had an amplifier which was blazing out everything he said, the noise of the traffic was such that one could scarcely hear a word of what he was saying. Without meaning to, we gave him a graphic illustration of the need for the road.

Serious problems will arise for the people living on the line of route of the section which has been deferred and for those who live in the middle of Enfield town. My constituent, Mr. Townsend, who lives in Cecil Road, is a regular correspondent of mine. He reports to me every time there is an accident in the road in which he lives. I usually receive from him a letter a week. It can be only a matter of time before someone is killed by a heavy lorry shedding its load in the middle of Enfield town.

The need for the new road is extremely pressing. People who thought that the problem was settled and that they would see physical progress in the course of this year are disappointed at being told that the construction of the road is to be deferred. I hope that this afternoon we shall have the answer to the question which has been put. There is a particular point which I should make on behalf of constituents in Potters Bar. I have been in touch with my hon. Friend's Department about the problem of noise coming from the road, and in particular the problem of noise which might affect residents in Dove Lane, Potters Bar. It happens that there is a highly qualified engineer, Mr. Cockerton, living in that road who has come forward with evidence that the calculations on which certain decisions were made might not stand up in the light of additional scientific information about noise now available.

I have been in touch with the Minister's office and he promised that when the official decision was taken he would let me know whether there had been any modification to take into account the new information. I should be grateful if he will comment on that this afternoon.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping)

I also am grateful to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) for raising this subject. It is seldom that these conveniences are offered to an hon. Member by, so to speak, his own constituent.

I must confess that I am the nigger in the woodpile. It is largely as a result of representations from myself and my constituents that the road has been delayed. I hope that the plans will be announced as soon as possible. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to Department for the fact that a second look has been taken at the original proposed route for the road which goes through my constituency and which affects the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) and Southgate (Mr. Berry). I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is concerned to get the route right, and to protect the village of Upshire and Epping Forest. Above all, he is concerned to look after the people of Walt-ham Abbey, who stand to be adversely affected by the route originally proposed.

I shall not take any more of my hon. Friend's time. I leave him with the thought that I want the road in question but am grateful to him for taking time to get the route right.

4.23 p.m.

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

First, I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) for giving me the courtesy of letting me know some of the matters which he would raise. I shall deal straight away with two of the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson). Following, the report made by the Urban Motorways Committee, and when the Land Compensation Bill becomes enacted in the near future—as I hope it will— all the aspects dealing with noise and environment will be applied to this route. Studies have been going on in the light of the Urban Motorways Report and the White Paper—"Development and Compensation—Putting People First"—which was published last year.

Ringway 3 was conceived about 25 years ago as an orbital route. It had the purpose of removing through traffic from the suburbs and the centre of London. Sections of the route have been protected on county development plans and town maps for many years. It has become an integral part of the broad planning strategy of the area and of the national strategic road network.

In recent years the concept of the road has broadened. It now has the additional function of giving access to the ports in East Anglia. For that reason, the part of Ringway 3 between the Ml and the A12 was included in the list of accelerated schemes announced by my right hon. Friend in 1972.

The Layfield Panel on the Greater London Development Plan, which reported to my right hon. Friend earlier this year, recommended that certain lengths of Ring-way 3 should be deleted but not the section eastwards from the A1 to the Dartford Tunnel. The panel recognised that a large part of the north orbital road already existed and that planning and statutory procedures, and the steps which followed them, are proceeding on the section of Ringway 3 eastwards from the A1.

Between the A1 and the M11, Ring-way 3 has been planned in three sections. First, is the section from the A1 to the A111. The second section is from the A111 to the A10 and the third from the A10 to the M11. The routes for the sections between the A1 and the A10 were published in February 1969. They were the subject of a planning inquiry in October and November 1969. They were established by order in August 1971. That is the legal position and that is the position that fixes those routes.

The compulsory purchase order for the section from the A1 to the A111 was published in draft in April 1972. A public inquiry was held in July 1972. The order was confirmed in October 1972. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West that construction work on that section is due to start almost immediately. The contractors, Messrs. Balfour Beatty & Company tendered for nearly £5 million. We hope that the scheme will be completed in October 1974.

The draft compulsory purchase order for the section from the A111 to the A10 was published in July 1972, but among the objections received were some from people living to the east of the A10 in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Enfield, East, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), who objected on the ground that fixing the line of the new road up to the A10 would prejudice the line of the extension eastwards to the M11.

In view of these representations, which in effect were about the line of the route between the A10 and the M11, the Secretary of State decided to hold the inquiry into the A111-A10 compulsory purchase order immediately after the inquiry into the line order for the section for the A10 to the M11. I hope that both these inquiries will take place at the beginning of next year.

The date upon which work will commence on the section of Ringway 3 between the A111 and the A10 will therefore depend on the outcome of these inquiries. There will undoubtedly be inquiries for the line order. Subject to all the procedures of the compulsory purchase order inquiry and the line order inquiry, I expect work on the section from the A111 to the A10 to begin towards the end of next year.

The section of Ringway 3 between the A10 and the M11 is intended to be built as a motorway and will be known as the M16. Subject to all the statutory procedures—and again inquiries will no doubt be necessary—I expect construction of that section to start in 1976. Parts of a possible line were projected on development plans 25 years ago, and these plans have been available for public inspection at offices of local councils.

In July 1972 plans showing a "preferred" line for the road were sent in confidence to other Government departments and to the local authorities which would be affected by the scheme with a request for their comments. Consultations on an informal basis had preceded this. Unfortunately the Department's confidence was not respected by one of the local authorities. In consequence of this the Department's proposals were leaked to the Press. This resulted in a great deal of correspondence both to the Department and to newspapers.

This premature disclosure of the Department's plans undoubtedly caused a degree of alarm and distress, and incomplete information resulted in many people, especially in the Waltham Cross area, having a great deal of anxiety and experiencing difficulty in selling their houses.

Since then the Department's Eastern Road Construction Unit has been engaged in further consultations with the local authorities concerned about the line of the route. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries and I are taking a close personal interest in this, and I can assure hon. Members that the Secretary of State will publish his proposals for it as soon as he is able to do so—I hope this summer.

The Secretary of State announced last year a review of the procedures by which those with an interest are consulted before the publication of new road proposals. His consultation paper, "Participation in Road Planning", setting out his proposals for extending and improving the opportunities for the public to participate in the planning of road schemes, was published at the end of March. As a matter of interest the consultative period expires today.

Associated with this are two experimental exhibitions, one at Kings Sutton for the M40 and the other at Chelmsford for the local bypass. They are designed to assist in providing earlier public participation in the consideration of alternative routes. These consultation procedures will not be completed before the Department chooses the alternative to be worked out for statutory consultation.

The section of Ringway 3 between the A10 and M11 is one of a number of schemes which already have gone beyond this stage. To implement the new pro- cedure in these cases would defer the advantages to be gained by the public from completed schemes and prolong the uncertainty of those whose property was affected. Furthermore, as I have said already, this scheme forms part of the urgently needed improvement of access to the ports, which are anxious that matters should be proceeded with as quickly as possible, with the further objective of securing a reduction in the amount of heavy traffic which at present unnecessarily passes into and through the built-up areas of London.

Although the form of public participation outlined in the consultation paper will not be applied to this case of the line between the A10 and the M11, a public exhibition of the Department's proposals will be held when formal publication takes place.

The Highways Act stipulates a period for objections of not less than six weeks, and I expect that there will be a public inquiry held before an independent inspector. The Secretary of State will in no way be committed by his decision to publish a particular line for the road and will consider all objections, counter-objections and representations, together with the inspector's recommendations, before deciding whether to confirm his proposals, to modify them, or possibly even to abandon them or seek an alternative solution.

I am aware that there have been allegations of piecemeal planning because Ringway 3 has been planned in sections. In fact, all road planning is carried out under the umbrella of a corporate strategy, but inevitably some sections of a route make more rapid progress than others. The proposals for the section of Ringway 3 between the A10 and the M11 and for the section between the M11 and the A12 will, however, be published at the same time, and we cannot proceed with the section from the A111 to the A10 until the compulsory purchase order inquiry has taken place.

The Secretary of State's decision on the inspector's report will then have to be made. I assure the House that the views of all objectors—not just owners of property, but some of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman and of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping—will be fully taken into account. In other words, there is likely to be the public inquiry into the new line from the A10 through to the M11 followed by the compulsory purchase order inquiry into the line from the A111 to the A10.

Mr. Mackie

I was disappointed about an earlier point on this matter. I understood that the public inquiry into the new line and the compulsory purchase inquiry would be this year. The hon. Gentleman has just said that that will now be next year. Why the delay?

Mr. Speed

I will explain the delay. This is germane to what I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West. I hope that it will be this year, but I believe it is likely to be early next year. We believe that it is right to have the compulsory purchase order inquiry after the inquiry into the new line. We are having a long, hard look not least into the line of the report of the urban motorway committee and the White Paper which I have mentioned, so we are later in publishing this line than we would otherwise have been. This is an earnest of our intention to get the line right.

There are fundamental environmental problems in this area, so I am determined that before we publish the line we should get it right. We can then go to the public inquiry with a line which makes sense in both environmental and traffic terms. It is because we believe that the compulsory purchase order inquiry, which is germane to this matter on the earlier line which has been fixed, should take place after the main inquiry that there is a delay on both schemes.

We recognise the need for the early construction of these roads. This point has been stressed. I appreciate the prob- lems of people living in Southgate and Enfield and of the lorry drivers who have to work their way through completely inadequate streets to get to the ports. When my brother used to live on the Ridgeway in Enfield I stayed with him many times, sleeping in the front room of his flat, so I have personal experience of the problems.

We must get rid of the congestion as quickly as possible. We recognise the important need that justice must be seen to be done and that the legitimate fears of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping are properly considered and taken into account.

No solution is perfect. I am aware that this means that on the second and third stages there will be delays, but the first stage, as I announced, is to go ahead in the near future. I hope that the delays will not be too long, but we must give everyone concerned an opportunity to make their views known. The line is fixed, but the compulsory purchase order has not yet been passed. Until it has been passed and approved by my right hon. Friend it is not possible to proceed with the construction of the road. Therefore, we are giving a further opportunity to people who claim that everything is signed, sealed and delivered to see that that is not the situation.

I assure hon. Members who have spoken in this debate that we shall try, first, to get the best environmental solution, and, secondly, when that solution has been arrived at, to take it through to its final conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.