HC Deb 09 December 1977 vol 940 cc1949-58

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

4.0 p.m.

Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

I have asked for this Adjournment debate in order to voice the anxieties of my constituents brought on by various road proposals in Bournemouth.

Many residents there have had to learn to live with the effect of earlier schemes, some of which have completely divided communities, and they fear that unnecessarily grandiose developments will bring terrible distortion to other parts of the town.

Above all—this is the point that I wish to emphasise during my few remarks—there is the feeling, amounting almost to a sense of despair, that public inquiries are purely cosmetic and have little impact on the final shape of the scheme. It seems that no matter how many hearings are held, roads once planned become roads in reality.

I do not envy the planner his job; it is an extremely difficult one. He has to try to define trends in population growth, in private car usage and, in an area like Bournemouth, the likely tourist requirements. He must estimate the possible shape of communication needs for a period of a decade or more ahead. He has to be part seer and part statistician. But, happily, these days, the proposals, so far as they can be devised and put together, are brought forward in a single comprehensive form known as "the strategy document". That has been so in the case of South-East Dorset.

The strategy plan for South-East Dorset has been given wide publicity, and every effort. as I well know, has been made by those responsible to involve people to participate fully in the planning process. But I should tell the Minister that in spite of all these efforts on their part the doubts remain. Many are even questioning the reliability of the date on which the various proposals are based.

I remind the Minister of DOE Circular 98/74 which said: Few assumptions remain accurate for more than a very few years. If assumptions on trends are seriously wrong or if the structure of an area is seriously affected e.g. in shopping or transportation, the policies of the plan may need amendment. The various objections or criticisms against what was proposed and outlined in the strategy document have been summarised in a report on public consultation.

This report brings together many of the anxieties felt by local residents. Their worries refer, for example, to such matters as the separation of communities by new road proposals, residents being shut off from their own traditional shop ping areas, elderly people being subjected to longer journeys and more dangerous crossings over wider roads and, naturally, the loss of homes and the destruction of the environment. All these points emerge from the comments made in relation to a considerable number of areas in my constituency affected by these road proposals.

The areas concerned are the Kinson bypass scheme, the Talbot Woods and Wallisdown new road plans, and the Wessex Way link-up at Landsdowne Road, Springbourne and Gervis Road.

Invariably, the protests and criticisms which are summarised in the report on public consultation in relation to the structure plan have been put forward by organisations—by people forming themselves into action groups. They appear to be few in number, therefore. For example, in relation to Landsdowne and Gervis Road, the consultation document says in paragraph 2.70: "There is general agreement on the need for linking up the two sections of Wessex Way in this area, but seven people express some concern at the scale and cost of the proposal. A few people are worried that the proposal would force more traffic on to the existing Landsdowne Roundabout and Gervis Road. Two people say that a ground level roundabout only should be built, and three others oppose the dualling of St. Swithin's Road. If officials imagine that what I have just quoted really constitutes a true reflection of local feeling on the subject, they deceive themselves and are guilty of a gross error of judgment.

I know the protests from the residents—individual citizens—in all these affected areas, far exceeding the numbers mentioned in that document. I know that the residents are supported by the traders, who are supported by the hoteliers, who are supported by the Church—not necessarily in that order. I know, too, that they are all supported by the visitors, who constitute a not insignificant element in all the considerations that we have to give to these matters. I know also that all the councillors have spoken out strongly and find themselves in full agreement with the various people in the earlier category that I mentioned.

All these people tend to have their comments and their representations most effectively summarised for them by the action groups that are formed just for this purpose. Yet, looking at Gervis Road as a case in point, which illustrates more clearly what I am saying, despite all the protests that have been made, little appears to be planned in the way of improvements to what had been proposed originally.

There is some change, and I am grateful for the fact that there has been some progress on the way back to sanity. But it seems that the road is still to be a county distributor road, yet it never was such a thing in the first place.

We are told that the dualling is not to take place, and this has now been deleted, but the planned dualling was not in any case to have taken place before 1990. It is still to be a county distributor road, and therefore it will be used as a major highway. The traffic flow along that road is already influenced by the too-hasty erection of directional routing signs which have helped to divert an excess of traffic on to what should be a quiet residential road.

On behalf of my constituents I wrote to the county planning authority about this. I received a letter dated 19th August from Mr. Abel, the Chief Executive at Dorchester. He said: The two particular schemes, Stage IV and Stage V of the Town Centre By-Pass in Bournemouth are current proposals in the County Council's present policy and the need is confirmed following the Transportation Study. Account has been taken of the reduced forecasts of future traffic in the preparation of these scheme. These two proposals wil, of course, aid the reduction i ntraffic movement course, aid the reduction in traffic movement through Gervis Road by providing an improved highway network feeding both sides of Bournemouth Town Centre. With the limited additional road space that it will be possible to provide during the period of the Structure Plan, it is necessary to make the best use of the existing highway network and other transport facilities. In these circumstances, most of the existing principal traffic routes as designated in statutory Deveopment Plans or indicated as such in other Local Plans, will have to be retained. I ask the Minister to note the next sentence in particular— Many of these roads are fronted by residential development and the future inrease in traffic is, in general, bound to worsen the physical environment for the frontagers. He went on: Taking account of the fact that the increase in car ownership and increase in population will, in general, give rise to increase in traffic in the Study area in the future, it is not anticipated that Gervis Road will be significantly worse than anywhere else. Its designation as an existing County distributor simply reiterates its existing use for local traffic requiring access to the East Cliff and the eastern side of the Town Centre, and, therefore, there is no intent in the proposals that the character of this road should change as far as one can look ahead for the full period of the Structure Plan. There is also no intention of encouraging heavy traffic to use Gervis Road or to divert it on to this road and in fact one of the aims of the proposed road hierarchy in the Structure Plan is to encourage heavy vehicles to use the suggested primary route network with the assistance of advisory lorry signs. As mentioned above, it is hoped that there will be a reduction of traffic through this road. The letter says little. In so far as it does say anything, it warns residents that in the future this road is likely to have its status reconsidered, with the possibility of still heavier traffic use.

The other day I met members of the action group in Gervis Road and I talked to them about this matter in preparation for today's debate. While I was there—I am sure not by design—the traffic that passed was extremely heavy. It included a two-decker car transporter with cars on board. It was parked outside the house that I was visiting. I cannot give the House a full description of the area but I feel strongly about it, because it is a unique area. There are few enough places such as this left in the town. It is close to the sea, is tree-clad, has wide grass verges, and has always been a quiet area, taking both road transport and pedestrians from the town centre and areas further inland to the clifftops and the sea.

It is no place for heavy traffic of any kind. I cannot see the sense in incorporating this road in, for example, schemes to try to speed access to the town centre or to take traffic at a slightly faster rate away from the town centre. Why spoil beautiful parts of the town? Why, for example, plan to ruin some of the most beautiful parts of the Talbot Woods area? Why destroy the peace of the residents who have chosen that area for those very qualities?

I know that many hundreds of residents in all these areas feel strongly that they are no longer justified in having faith in the inquiry procedure. Roads may be deferred, but roads go on. People feel that plans are being made for the planners and not for the people. I do not want the Minister to give the county planners' answer; I can get that from the county planning office. I know what the planners have to say. I have written to them and met them.

I also hope that the Minister will not feel it necessary to read out a speech prepared in advance by his officials. What I should like most of all is contact with the hon. Gentleman and the knowledge of his feelings on this subject. I should like his own reply to the points that I have been trying to express on behalf of my constituents.

Will he help to save Gervis Road and other similar havens of beauty and quiet which may be threatened by road proposals? Most important, will he urge county planners generally, from now on, to heed the voice of the people?

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I think that you may also have some interest in this debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am only sorry that there are not more hon. Members in the Chamber to hear this debate, which is rather important, although it focuses on a particular area which is of concern to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir. J. Eden) because he represents it.

The right hon. Gentleman invited me to tear up my prepared script and to speak from the heart. In fact, I do not really have a prepared script but only some brief notes to outline the history of this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman may know my constituency because he has family connections with that part of the world. If so, he will know that what is generally known as the A1—although it is no longer that since I was able to designate the A1 to another place—goes through Gateshead. I am aware of the consequences of heavy traffic, particularly the sort of juggernauts that the right hon. Gentleman saw in Gervis Road, for my constituents. I know of the problems of sleeping at night when these vehicles roll through. Gateshead may not be considered to be as beautiful as Bournemouth, but the people living alongside the main road in my constituency experience just as many difficulties as the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I felt extremely strongly on this issue when I was a Back Bencher and feel the same way now that I am a Minister.

In looking at all these problems, I have sometimes felt that in the Department of Transport there is a kind of roads juggernaut which goes on untrammelled from Government to Government and Minister to Minister. It is the firm intention of my right hon. Friend and myself to impose our own priorities on planning and to look at schemes with a clear view as to their impact both socially and environmentally. We are concerned about the environmental impact of schemes, and in the White Paper we have set out our proposals for road planning, amongst other matters.

I was interested to hear about the problems concerning Gervis Road. I do not know the area, but I take it that the right hon. Gentleman knows it extremely well. I understand that it is a residential area of some beauty, and obviously of concern to the people who live there. Account should be taken of the effect of traffic on that area. The county planners must strike a balance between legitimately providing for traffic which wishes to go through the area, to the benefit of the area as a whole, and the peace of mind and quietness of those who live alongside such roads.

I should like to refer to the background to this situation. The right hon. Gentleman has been concerned about the matter for some time. I think that he had two Adjournment debates on this subject in 1975. It was pointed out to him in the first of those debates by my colleague who was then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and is now Minister of State, Department of Industry that the preparation of a structure plan for South-East Dorset called for a new transport study in the area. That study is now complete. The recommendations made by the study team were incorporated in a consultative document on the structure plan for South-East Dorset and issued by the Dorset County Council.

The right hon. Gentleman remarked on the way that document had been put out for public consultation during the last year. Only the trunk road in the Area—the A31 passing through Fern-down and Wimborne—is part of the responsibility of my Department. Strictly speaking, this is a matter very much between the county council, the district council and the people who live in that area.

I do not wish to evade the questions posed by the right hon. Gentleman, but he will know from his ministerial experience that it is not right for central Government to try to impose their wishes on local government, which clearly has a responsibility to plan properly and has undoubtedly gone to a great deal of trouble to do so in this area. We are now seeing the results. The right hon. Gentleman disagrees with some of the results. However, it is not proper for central Government to intervene more than to a degree in the proper considerations of local government.

The right hon. Gentleman is a representative of the Conservative Party in this House. I do not know the exact composition of the Dorset County Council, but it is certainly not Labour-controlled. Therefore, I feel even more debarred from taking part in a discussion—I will not say an argument—fundamentally between Conservative representatives here in the House of Commons, and others on the district council, which I imagine is not Labour-controlled, and on the county council.

Frankly, I am reluctant, for reasons that I think the right hon. Gentleman will accept, to go too much into the detail of this matter, because it is not the responsibility of my Department; it is the responsibility of the county council. Ultimately the county council must take the decision and stand or fall by it, and be popular or unpopular accordingly.

Having given an indication of my statutory position and personal views on the matter, I can say that there was a land use transportation study in 1967 which brought forward a large number of road schemes for the Bournemouth area.

In pursuing the idea of a structure plan for South-East Dorset it was decided that this scheme should be up. dated to take account of current conditions. Forecasts about the future are correct for only a certain length of time.

The situation changes rapidly, particularly in this area, as a consequence of population changes, the price of petrol, and so on. These proposals were looked at again, most scientifically, I am told, in the light of the current situation. The most modern techniques of market research were used and a mathematical model was established.

Also fed into the programme were the general priorities of the Government for providing for public transport as well as for road building. Another addition was the financial constraint, because the original 1967 plan had worked in vacuo, without any recognition of the cost of the schemes being put forward. A limit on the resources thought to be available was now set at £25 million.

As a result of the examination of the 1967 proposals, various changes have been made which, I think the right hon. Member will agree, were sensible. First, the county council will aim to maintain public transport services, providing travel standards similar to those existing at present and, where possible, improving those standards. Equally, traffic management measures will be implemented to give buses priority over private cars in areas where it is desirable to improve the reliability and speed of bus services. Third, new major road schemes will be limited to works aimed at reducing accidents, the improvement or protection of the environment and the need to make the best use of the existing major road network. In that context I should say that the Government are anxious to encourage the best use of existing road space before adding to it further, particularly in densely populated areas such as the right hon. Gentleman and I represent.

The county council will pursue a policy of constructing new highways to minimum standards. In other words, there will be no excessive or overgenerous provision for the private car in comparison with the standards adopted in 1967. This re-examination has led to a considerable reduction in the num- ber of road schemes put forward. I am told that 11 schemes have been dropped as a result. There has been a shift from road building, which would have done far greater damage to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, towards public transport and traffic management. That shift of balance will, I think, be in the general direction of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Sir J. Eden

Will the Minister be good enough to bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the point I have made about the dissatisfaction of residents over the planning procedures and public inquiries?

Mr. Horam

I am aware of the doubts which have been raised, although I do not feel that in this case they are necessarily the heart of the matter. As I understand it, schemes similar to that to which the right hon. Gentleman has objected have gone through the normal processes of consultation and public inquiry. I believe that that is the case with stages 4 and 5 of the Bournemouth town centre bypass, which are now close to being built.

Sir J. Eden

The feeling is that insufficient attention has been paid to the protests and criticisms of the residents.

Mr. Horam

If that is the case, it is something of which the county council. which is the responsible body in these matters, should be fully aware. I am happy that the right hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to make the point in the debate, because that will bring home to the county council just what public opinion is.

With regard—

The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Four o'clock.