PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK (Hansard, 21 March 1974)

§ Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Healey)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter which is of importance not only 1468 to Sheffield, part of which I have the honour to represent, but nationally. One of the greatest acts of the post-war Labour Government between 1945 and 1951 was the creation of national parks, specifically designed to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of certain areas and to permit the enjoyment of that beauty by the general public. Those were the principles underlying a great piece of legislation which was passed for the preservation of scenic beauty and the enjoyment thereof by the people of the country.

I was appalled, therefore, to learn not long ago of the proposal to drive a motorway through the Peak District National Park, linking South Yorkshire to South Lancashire and, specifically, Sheffield with Manchester. In August 1972 the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the Secretary of State had decided to include in the trunk road preparation pool a scheme for a major new route between Manchester and Sheffield. The announcement stated that, of several alternative routes considered, that which lay in a corridor from Hyde bypass in the west along the south side of the Longdendale Valley to join the M1 near Chapeltown was preferable from several points of view but especially from the environmental aspect.

I have had the pleasure of travelling through the Peak District National Park on hundreds of occasions, either north to south or east to west, and spending time in various parts of it. I have an immense admiration and liking for the Pennine Hills which are included in it.

I also take the view that the Peak District National Park is of enormous value to Sheffield, which must be the only industrial city in this country, and possibly in the world, which contains within its borders sections of a national park.

The existence of the Peak District National Park on the doorstep, or in the back garden, of Sheffield is of great advantage to the city, in so far as it may be able to attract tourists and people going to conferences, as well as captains of industry and others who may wish to promote commercial ventures in the city.

The national park is of enormous value to the people of Sheffield. It is for them a splendid natural playground in which they can enjoy recreation of many kinds.

1469 The route proposed for the motorway has not been designated in detail. I am pleased to say that that stage has not been reached. But in accordance with the statement made in 1972, to which I have referred, it will follow a line along the Longdendale Valley across some beautiful wild moorland, along the north slopes of Bleaklow, across the gorge of the Etherow River—in other words cutting through the Pennines and across the Pennine Way, which is a great walkway from Edale to Scotland, with all the consequences that go with the construction of a motorway in a hilly district.

The Pennines are not mountains by continental standards, but they form one of the major ranges of hills in England, The consequence of the proposal must be the carving out of high embankments, deep cuttings, high viaducts, culverts for mountain streams, interchanges, slip roads, maintenance depots, sodium lights, fog lights, sign gantries and the whole general apparatus of a motorway.

In addition, apart from the physical construction of this monstrosity, there will be noises and fumes from heavy lorries climbing up to 1,500 ft. at the highest point, grinding away to get over the hills. With them will be the fast-moving cars racing down the gradients on the other side once they have got over the slope. The British Road Federation has the impudence to describe this as something which will melt unobtrustively into the landscape.

In my judgment, this exercise is wholly unnecessary. Just 11 miles north of the proposed route there is already the M62, a gigantic engineering undertaking, outside the national park although cutting across the Pennines. The M62 links industrial Yorkshire and industrial Lancashire and forms a very important road connection between the M1 and the M6. It seems an extraordinary proposition that we have to cut across the Pennines motorways at 11-mile intervals to provide adequate road transport between industrial Lancashire and industrial Yorkshire.

Apart from the M62, almost along the line of the proposed motorway exists the Woodhead railway, electrified and specially designed to carry freight between Sheffield and Manchester, between Yorkshire and Lancashire, which is grossly under-used. It is estimated that the 1470 volume of traffic on the line represents about one-quarter of what is possible. If necessary, there could be up to 200 trains a day each way on the line carrying freight to a total tonnage of about 480,000. This would be equivalent to 24,000 20-ton lorries per day. One can imagine the volume of traffic that would mean, even if it were feasible, on a motorway across the Pennines, but the Wood-head railway is grossly under-used, was designed for freight purposes and does not consume one drop of the valuable oil which is also a charge on our balance of payments.

Another argument urged in favour of the new motorway route is that business men must rush across to the international airport at Ringway. But there is yet another railway line across the Pennines—the Hope Valley line, which can transport business men rapidly and in comfort and safety in one hour from the centre of Sheffield to the centre of Manchester. Even defenders of the proposed new motorway have to admit that a person will take 50 minutes to drive from one end to the other. Thus, for the sake of saving 10 minutes of travelling in what could be highly dangerous conditions, we are told that enormous sums must be spent on driving this new motorway across from Sheffield to Manchester.

I do not wish to sound totally negative. I understand that there are com mercial and industrial interests in Sheffield, and no doubt in Manchester, which genuinely feel that some substantial improvement in east-west road links in that part of the country is a necessity. That case should be examined with great care in the light of the M62, the Woodhead railway line and the Hope Valley railway line, which already exist, and of the ordinary roads across the Pennines.

Even if the case is substantial, it would be feasible to link the M1 and the M62 from junction 37 near Barnsley on the M1 to junction 23 near Huddersfield on the M62. This would provide a very good road route from Sheffield to Manchester which would be only 48 miles long, as compared with the 40 miles of the proposed Longdendale Valley scheme. About 30 miles would be existing motorway and it would not cost a penny extra. That distance would comprise 10 miles from Sheffield to Barnsley 1471 and 20 miles along the M62 from Huddersfield to Manchester. The line of route would be outside the Peak District National Park, and the saving to the taxpayer—an argument which should appeal to the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce—would be at least £40 million at present values and probably vastly more by the time we got round to doing the job.

My main theme is not concerned with the detailed questions, the mechanics, the nuts and bolts of distances, transportation systems, roads from here to there, viaducts, culverts and so on. What I am primarily concerned with, and why I regard the matter as being of outstanding national as well as local importance, is the principle of preserving at all costs what remains of the natural beauty of our country and particularly of defending the concept of the national parks. If the scheme were allowed, it would create a catastrophic precedent for similar schemes to be proposed or conceived in other areas of the country where a national park or area of outstanding beauty happened to lie across the line where a commercial interest, a road federation or a set of lorry drivers wanted to drive their juggernauts from A to B with no hindrance.

Once we drive even one short motorway through a national park, the dam is breached and a catastrophic precedent is created. Such an act would be a crime for which we should never be forgiven by our children or our children's children.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for this opportunity to hear the arguments for and against the Sheffield-Manchester road, and particularly for the very feeling way in which he expressed them.

I can reassure my hon. Friend at the outset. I should like to make it absolutely clear that no decisions have been taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be in a position to decide whether any proposals he might put forward for a new road between Manchester and Sheffield should appropriately take the form of a motorway until he has considered a detailed report which is now being prepared by the Department. The 1472 report will include an assessment of the volume of traffic which any new road would have to carry and of the standard of road which would have to be built to meet the predicted traffic demand.

The Government have inherited an ongoing programme of road construction. Its aims are to promote economic growth and to secure environmental improvements by linking major centres of population and the major ports and airports to each other and to the less prosperous regions, and by diverting long-distance traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles, from a large number of towns and villages, including historic towns, generally to improve amenity.

We shall be examining that policy and the road construction programme that goes with it to ensure that it reflects an order of priorities with which we agree, and with which I think my hon. Friend would agree. There are options open to us. Apart from the total level of expenditure that should be devoted to the road programme, greater priority could be given to the construction of a network of routes to which heavy lorries could be confined for the lengthier part of their journeys. That would mean the construction of a network of roads rather than a series of not necessarily linked roads.

But because it now takes an average of at least 10 years to complete a major road project, the overall network must be planned well ahead if we are not to end up with a large number of unrelated routes. About half the 3,500-mile programme covered by the statement by the then Secretary of State in June 1971 has already been built. We are trying to plan altogether in this on-going road programme, so that the new roads will not become disconnected but will follow the pattern. It is against this background that the particular case for and against the Sheffield-Manchester route has to be seen.

The existing roads between the industrial areas of South Lancashire and South Yorkshire, as my hon. Friend said, cross very difficult country, particularly in the Pennines. They are few in number, generally of bad alignment, and have long sections of steep gradient. They are also subject to considerable traffic congestion, and journeys on them can be 1473 both long and arduous. I do not believe that anyone would dispute that the existing direct road links are very poor and inadequate. There is, however, a wide range of strongly-held views about what should be done to improve the communications.

There is much movement of goods vehicles and private cars between South Yorkshire and Sheffield, and South Lancashire and Manchester. But also a good deal of prospective movement is at present suppressed or diverted to other fairly indirect routes because the direct routes are slow and difficult. The most direct routes pass across the Peak District and cut through the National Park. They are generally heavily loaded, have long steep gradients, can be blocked by snow in winter, and are tortuous and difficult to improve.

The M62 mentioned by my hon. Friend, from north of Manchester to south of Leeds, is providing a good cross-Pennine route for traffic, but although it will take a substantial volume of traffic from adjacent existing roads, it is inconveniently far north to meet demand for movement between the South Yorkshire and South Lancashire conurbations and industrial areas.

If nothing is done, it seems likely that the present routes through the Peak Park will continue to attract heavy traffic, including a high proportion of heavy vehicles which, particularly because of the poor standard of the roads, are frequently slow moving and delay other traffic. The result would be a complex of poor and overloaded routes which would intrude into the character of the Peak District as a National Park, delay traffic and arguably restrict the full development of the areas they link.

It was against this background that a major feasibility study was initiated by the Minister of Transport at the end of 1968. As is known, three main corridors were looked at: first, Longdendale Valley; secondly, North Derbyshire along one of three routes—Edale, Hope or Tideswell; and thirdly, Flockton or Holmfirth routes connecting the Ml to the M62. As a result of the work done, the then Secretary of State for the Environment decided that the most preferable route was likely to be that along the 1474 Longdendale Valley and that the construction of the route there would encourage through traffic to use a single road designed to carry it and greatly relieve other roads in the Peak District National Park.

It should be made clear that the decision to admit the scheme, in August 1972, to the Preparation Pool did not represent a decision to build. It simply authorised the preparation of detailed plans in the Longdendale corridor, in consultation with the statutory authorities, including the Peak Park Board, to draft order stage. At that point there would be full opportunity for public debate, including I feel sure a public inquiry into where the route should be built. It will be appreciated, I am sure, that no informed public debate can really take place in the absence of fairly detailed proposals.

In addition, I can confirm that it is the firm intention to ask the public to make their views known on feasible alternative routes in this corridor before the Secretary of State decides on a preferred line to be worked up for publication under the statutory procedure. In deciding what are the feasible alternatives which should be put to the public, the Secretary of State will take full account of all the environmental, engineering and financial considerations and the views of the Peak Park Planning Board, the Countryside Commission and local planning and highway and other statutory authorities. In fact, these authorities have already been asked for their views on various alignments in the Longdendale corridor from which a choice of feasible alternatives for a completely new road might be made.

My hon. Friend mentioned railways, and I should like to comment on that subject. Among the alternatives put forward, there is a strong body of opinion favouring transferring as much freight traffic as possible to the local rail routes. Certainly we accept that we must constantly seek ways of attracting more and more traffic to this mode of transport, and over the past two years there has been a considerable shift of freight to railways, particularly to this line. However, I suggest that it is realistic to realise that generally the lorry remains the dominant mode of transport.

1475 For example, in 1972 customers spent 18 times as much on road freight transport as on rail. The value in cost terms of goods travelling by road was £5,250 million compared with £290 million for rail. Those are the figures we are discussing. Passenger traffic car travel accounts for four times as much movement—measured as passenger miles—as all forms of public transport, and within public transport bus and coach travel accounts for about 60 per cent. more travel than rail. Eighty-five per cent. of the freight tonnage, 65 per cent. of the freight-ton miles and 91 per cent. passenger car miles are moved or completed by road.

We want to move as much traffic as possible to rail, but even if we were to increase the freight carried by the railways by 50 per cent.—that is a very high figure in terms of a transfer to the railway—it would reduce the total road traffic levels measured into passenger car unit miles by less than only 2 per cent. That is the equivalent of less than six months' normal growth in road traffic. Over the last five years the average increase in total traffic has been 4.6 per cent. per year.

With regard to the Manchester-Sheffield route, there are limitations to what can be done because of the problems of providing depot space in the very congested major urban areas at both ends. I am sure that my hon. Friend is at least as aware of the problem in a place such as Sheffield—perhaps more so than I am. Because of the variety of destinations to which goods have to be delivered, certain depots have to be provided and they are most expensive in terms of land.

For example, I understand the area between Manchester and Sheffield within the National Park produces considerable quantities of crushed rope for use in construction. This item is delivered to a variety of sites for which there is never likely to be any real access. Steps have already been taken to ensure that the particular interests of those concerned with the National Park are taken into account.

A joint working party, including the Department's representatives, the local highway authorities, the Peak Park Planning Board, the Countryside Commission and others, has held its second 1476 meeting in Matlock today. At its first meeting on 29th January, the group made a general review of outstanding issues and traffic problems in the Peak Park and set in hand the review of existing survey data, which is essential as the basis of sound traffic management.

It is important that time should not be wasted but that practical policies should be framed as quickly as possible, relying as far as possible on existing information rather than waiting for elaborate new studies.

Existing measures taken by the local authorities show that a way can be found to handle leisure traffic properly. New ground must be broken in the area of unnecessary goods traffic in the park. The problem cannot be dealt with in absolute terms. The park is in the centre of a highly industrialised zone and is slightly different from other areas in that it provides raw material vital to the urban activities of the zone.

We must decide on the correct measures to divert road traffic loads from within the park. It is not an easy step from agreement in principle to the transfer of bulk loads from road to rail to finding the right practical approach, and in these difficult times the cost cannot be ignored. I can assure my hon. Friend that this work will be firmly pursued.

Already the Department has given undertakings about the sending of information of proposed road improvements, on roads for which the Department is responsible, to the Derbyshire County Council and the Peak Park Planning Board in such a way as to help to reduce the possibility of a clash of interests.

It has been suggested that it would be premature to advance the consideration of specific road proposals in the national parks until results are known of the overall study of transportation problems and policies within the parks which my Department is setting un with the affected local authorities. There is, however, no reason why the working of the trunk road scheme, as I have outlined in this statement, should not proceed concurrently with the study of transportation matters with exchanges of information as practical.

We have to work out the details of the scheme to allow for full public debate, 1477 and the sooner the period of uncertainty about the form of the trunk road proposals is ended the better.

Time does not allow me to go into matters as thoroughly as I would like. My hon. Friend will understand that he can write to me or we can have a discussion about this later.

I am aware that this is a particularly sensitive road scheme. It involves a number of fundamental issues on which there will be strong feelings one way or the other. This has already been impressed upon me and on the Department by a number of representations which we have already received, and of course obviously from the debate and the way my hon. Friend expressed himself tonight.

Some representations expressed outright opposition to the principle of new major road works in national parks, and others, stressing the social and economic benefits of improved communication between the two industrial areas, urged early construction of the scheme.

Given that situation, I am most conscious of the need to ensure that no final 1478 decision on the scheme is taken one way or another without the most detailed considerations of all implications, and without all the interested, elected and representative bodies and the public having had a full opportunity to advance their views. I hope that what I have said reassures the House and my hon. Friends that appropriate arrangements are being made to ensure that these conditions are satisfied.

In conclusion, I should like to say to my hon. Friend that, coming from that part of the world, I am only too conscious of the conflict in Scotland—particularly in the West of Scotland—between the needs of industrial development and the need to preserve as much of our natural inheritance as we can. I hope that, with these assurances, my hon. Friend will accept that we are trying to blend as far as possible industrial and environmental needs.