MISS KATHLEEN MERRITT

HC Deb 28 February 1977 vol 927 cc151-62

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

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Michael Mates (Petersfield)

I am grateful for the opportunity of raising tonight with the Minister a matter which has been concerning me for some months and about which one of my constituents, Miss Kathleen Merritt, feels she has a real grievance.

Let me say at once that I am not seeking to make any party points nor to criticise decisions which I have no doubt have been taken in good faith. I am seeking justice for Miss Merritt, and I hope that at the end of my short remarks it will be plain to the Minister what he should do. To this end I have provided him with a copy of these notes so that he may be quite clear of the details of the case which I am making and the strength of my argument.

Miss Merritt lives at Bridge House in Petersfield in the centre of the town, fronting on the A272, which is the main east west road in the area going from Winchester to Midhurst and on through Sussex. Her house is same 50 yards west of the main A3 trunk road. Because of the constant problems of traffic passing through Petersfield, both from north to south on the A3 and east to west on the A272, it was decided to introduce a circulatory system to ease the flow of traffic. Incidentally, this was an admirably sensible decision which has been proved to work excellently in practice, and the Department is to be congratulated on the planning and execution of this work.

There is a narrow drive into Miss Merritt's house which is not ideal but which has served her well over the years. In order to drive into the drive, Miss Merrit, and anyone who visited her, had to pull slightly out into the carriageway in order to execute safely a left turn. As long as this was a two-way road, this was a perfectly safe and feasible manoeuvre.

As a result of the introduction of the circulatory system, the A272 has become a one-way road from west to east and has been divided into lanes with indicators to the traffic as to which lane to take. This has made the manoeuvre I have just described a different matter altogether, for if one pulls out into the road, albeit on making a left-hand turn indication, there is the possibility that traffic behind will come on the inside of the car and thus make a left turn potentially dangerous. In addition to this, where there once was a halt sign, there is now only a give-way sign, and thus the traffic is moving much faster than it ever did before.

As a result of these factors, Miss Merritt complained that her life had now become far more difficult and asked the Hampshire County Council, through her councillor, Major Hugh Rose, whether they would make a minor adjustment to her entrance in order to allow her to continue to enter and leave her property safely. This proposal was supported by the county surveyor of Hampshire and a request was sent to the regional controller of the Department of the Environment at Guildford.

In his letter of 10th September 1975 the county surveyor said The existing access is such that a driver has to pull out into the centre of the carriageway before turning into the drive. This operation was reasonably safe when the road carried two-way traffic but since the one-way system was introduced, following drivers—under the impression that the vehicle in front is pulling out to go round the system—overtake on the inside. This application was turned down, and the county surveyor felt so strongly about it that he wrote again on 2nd April 1976 requesting that the decision be reconsidered. This further request was denied, and the matter was brought to me. I visited the site and then the surveyor's department of the Hampshire County Council at his offices in Winchester. I discussed the matter with the county surveyor and his staff and examined the plans and implications involved.

I then wrote to the then Minister at the Department of the Environment, who declined to change the decision of his advisers in a letter to me of 8th July, saying amongst other things that these dangers arise entirely from the inadequate design of the entrance, for which, I am afraid, the Department cannot be held responsible. I found this argument unacceptable and wrote again, asking for it to be reconsidered, and I received a further reply on the 31st August which contained the remarks which have caused me to seek to raise this matter in the House. The Minister's predecessor said: But the Department would have no moral obligation—and certainly no legal obligation—to improve at public expense a private access, even if the difficulties of using that access had increased because of alterations to the flow of traffic which passes along the adjoining public highway. That the Department has no legal obligation to redress Miss Merritt's complaint is not in contention, but to say that the Department has no moral obligation to improve the access, even if the difficulties have been increased because of alterations to the flow of traffic over which she has no control, is to my mind a quite unacceptable principle upon which to govern.

It is also less than acceptable that on one occasion the Minister should write to me and say that the Department has no responsibility at all and then say that, if the Department has a responsibility, it is only a moral responsibility and, therefore, that the Department should not discharge it.

I have deliberately not mentioned cost up to now because I am concerned with the principle of this case and not the costs. Nevertheless, it is not insignificant to the force of the argument that we are talking about public expensiture of approximately £100.

So these are the facts; and I ask the Minister to bow to the overwhelming opinion that Miss Merritt's complaint should be heeded. Upon checking with the Hampshire county surveyor that I was going to quote him correctly he said to me, "Had it been my decision, whatever the legal situation, I am in no doubt that our members would have directed me to out matters right for Miss Merritt". Her county councillor is of the same opinion, as is the Chief Inspector of Police in Petersfield, Mr. Chandler, with whom I have also spoken. He has confirmed that it is his opinion that the dangers for those seeking to enter or leave Miss Merritt's property have increased because of the increased speed of the traffic flow and the fact that the circulatory system has turned the road outside her house into a one-way street. His urgent recommendation is that something should be done. For what it is worth, I have seen the site, too, and I am in full agreement with the expert opinions which have been expressed.

Therefore, I put it to the Minister that his Department has nothing to lose in reversing its previous decision—certainly not in creating a precedent, which is very often the fear of Ministers, because no one is suggesting that the Department has a legal obligation; certainly not in losing face or popularity, because this will be seen as a humane and understanding act of government. All those who have actually to do the job are keen to do it. They realise that, as local representatives of government, they have a moral obligation to do it.

It seems to me that a case such as this, based, as it is, on the good will of government rather than on the fine legalities, can be decided by the Minister in the interests of the good of the community as a whole and of my constituent in particular without any repercussions with the Government Department concerned.

9.31 p.m.

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

The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) has explained very clearly how strongly both he and his constituent, Miss Merritt, feel that she has suffered an injustice at the hands of my Department. He has already striven diligently on behalf of his constituent in correspondence with me and my predecessor—possibly my predecessors—and he was good enough to let me know the basis on which he proposed to argue his case tonight.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter in the way that he has because it gives me an opportunity not only to explain our attitude in the case which he raised but also to say something in a general context about the effect of an alteration in traffic patterns by an action of the highway authority, especially on those who live alongside the roads concerned.

I say straight away that these are very difficult problems. Even in the short time that I have been at the Deparment of Transport we have had more than one Adjournment debate on problems of compensation. They pose great and sometimes even tragic difficulties with the consequences for people's lives and property which can sometimes arise from decisions about roads which are taken in good faith and very often for the benefit of the majority of the community but which result in loss in one or two instances.

Before coming to the specific issue, however, I must set this in the context of the small country town of Petersfield, which lies astride a trunk road, that trunk road being one of the more important roads in the national system of routes for through traffic. There are many such towns throughout the country and in most cases the traffic problems of these towns will be solved finally only by the provision of bypasses, because the property destruction that would result from improving the existing roads through the towns to modern standards would literally be unthinkable.

Because of the priority demands of major projects on the limited resources available for trunk road construction, however, inevitably many of these bypasses are still many years from construction. Accordingly, it is sensible to undertake on the existing roads through the towns small schemes of comparatively limited cost with little or no property demolition which nevertheless can often make a considerable contribution to the relief of traffic problems and enable an existing road to serve its purpose as a route for local and through traffic until the town can be bypassed. Almost invariably, schemes such as this not only have an immediate value but continue to provide the relief of problems for local town traffic which otherwise would persist even when the through traffic has been removed.

Petersfield is one such small country town. Through it passes the A3 trunk road, the primary route from London to Portsmouth. The considerable volume of traffic on this road has to pass through the town, and doubtless many local people feel that the town is not blessed by having the A3 trunk road running through its major built-up area. Moreover, it must not be overlooked that the road is also carrying a fair amount of local traffic from the surrounding area which has business in the town.

Near the centre of the town, where the trunk road turns through 90 degrees from a north-south to an east-west direction, it is joined by the A272 principal road from the west. This junction was the cause of much traffic delay and congestion, particularly at peak periods, and in summer months traffic queues extended outside the town to the north and south, sometimes for a mile or more. The noise and fumes from the back-up of traffic in the town generally and particularly along College Street, the north-south section, must have been a cause of considerable annoyance and discomfort to the local residents. Fortuitously, lying about 150 yards to the east of the trunk road and running parallel to it adjacent to the Tilmore Brook was a stretch of waste land which provided a suitable route to enable a new section of trunk road to be constructed to carry southbound traffic. A one-way circulatory traffic system could thus be established to divert southbound traffic on to the new section of road diverted away from the A272 junction, northbound traffic continuing to use College Street and Station Road.

The relevant orders were made in 1973. Miss Merritt, on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, was not one of the objectors at that time. Subsequently, the intention was advertised to make a traffic regulation order to provide for one-way working in the appropriate lengths of College Street and Station Road, and objections from the public were invited. In fact there was only one objection—not by Miss Merritt—and after it had been carefully considered the traffic regulation order was made.

The contract for the scheme was let in July 1974 and the new length of trunk road was opened to traffic in 1975, when the one-way working system was also brought into operation. The hon. Gentleman has said that the decision to carry out the scheme was correct and that it is working excellently in practice. I thank him for his complimentary remarks on its planning and execution.

Station Road, in which Miss Merritt's house is situated, is the east-west section of the trunk road on the north side of the circulatory system. No part of Miss Merritt's property at Bridge House was acquired for the scheme and, while a slight widening on the opposite side of the road was carried out, there were no works at ail on the highway immediately fronting Bridge House.

The hon. Gentleman has claimed—this is the nub of the issue—that it has become more difficult and dangerous for a car to enter the driveway of Miss Merritt's house because of the change of use of the road. It is said that the car has to pull towards the centre of the road before making the turn and, because the road is now one-way, drivers following behind the car entering the drive assume that the car is moving across the road and try to pass on the nearside, thus making the turn-in a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. The hon. Gentleman has said that the access to the driveway was adequate—I think his words were "safe and feasible"—before the traffic pattern was changed and that my Department has a moral obligation to pay the £100 or so which is needed to alter the entrance to the driveway.

In support of his opinion about the difficulties in entering the driveway of Bridge House, the hon. Gentleman has quoted extensively from statements made by the county surveyor and his staff—some of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, including Councillor Rose, who I think is chairman of the transportation committee of the county. I met Councillor Rose and others at the annual meeting of the regional consultative committee.

I have considered the hon. Gentleman's arguments carefully one by one. His first argument is whether access is "safe and feasible", to use the hon. Gentleman's words.

Mr. Mates

Adequately.

Mr. Horam

Well, adequately safe and feasible. I think that the answer to that, honestly, must be "No". The access is parallel to the road and only 4 ft. from it. In other words, the footpath is approximately only 4 ft. wide and the access is about 9 ft. at the widest point. To get into that access, given the narrowness of the pavement, it was necessary even before the change to pull out slightly into the centre of the road to make the manoeuvre to turn leftwards into the narrow drive. That situation is the same now as it was then. Even before the change one could not say that there was a satisfactory situation.

Mr. Mates

I am not trying to suggest that my proposals would be ideal, but the Minister slightly misunderstood my point when I spoke about the situation being safer. In a two-way street with traffic coming the other way, if a vehicle pulls out into the middle of the road with its indicator on, the traffic behind will know what that vehicle is doing. At present with the one-way street there is a large volume of traffic that pulls out across the road to go round the circulatory system. It is a question not just of adequacy but of safety.

Mr. Horam

I understand that point and I was about to come to it. I was trying to establish that the physical circumstances of this manoeuvre have not changed in respect of the alignment of the road and the drive. The situation was not entirely satisfactory previously.

Has the situation been made more dangerous by the one-way system? The fact that it is a one-way system means that one can move out more than one would have been likely to do on a two-way system. If that is done in a sharp or abrupt way without sufficient cause, I can see that those following behind might be misled by the move into the centre and might attempt to go on the nearside.

I should like to stress two points. First, this seems to be a matter of driving behaviour. If a person is taking that road and pulls as much into the centre as is necessary and at the same time puts on a leftward indicator and does not forget to do that, I do not think that anybody behind would be misled into thinking that he was about to take a rightward turn. I concede that it is possible for a person to be misled if actions were taken in an abrupt manner if the person suddenly slewed to the right and put his indicator on and if that were not noticed by somebody on the inside lane. However, I submit that fundamentally the turning manoeuvre is the same, that the person concerned has more opportunity to undertake such a move properly now without oncoming traffic, and that if the move is carried out properly, it is not substantially more difficult or less safe than it was.

The second point is that we have removed the possible danger of oncoming traffic. If the manoeuvre—admittedly always difficult because of the nature of the drive—had been executed with oncoming traffic, it would have involved equal danger. That danger has now been removed.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the volume and speed of traffic. He said that the "Halt" sign just before Bridge House had been removed and replaced by a "Give Way" sign, and he suggested that in the nature of things a one-way system means that traffic will go faster than on a two-way system. I agree that the traffic will go slightly faster, but it is subject to a 30 m.p.h. limit. Therefore, the extent to which a vehicle can go very much faster is extremely limited, even though people from time to time do not keep entirely to the 30 m.p.h. limit.

I would say that the access to Bridge House has always been unsatisfactory, remains unsatisfactory, and should be improved, but I do not think that the situation has fundamentally altered as the result of a change in traffic patterns. I believe that it is difficult, even for experts, to make a total judgment as to the extent to which it may be a little more or a little less difficult. Perhaps access is a little more difficult but the traffic change has not totally altered the situation, which springs fundamentally from the nature of the access of Bridge House in relation to the road, which is the kind of access that would not have been permitted if, for example, a new house were now to be built there. On these grounds, as far as I can see—having the facts that have been made available to me and that the hon. Gentleman has put forward to me in correspondence—the situation has not fundamentally changed.

The hon. Gentleman also made the point that the Department, as a result of the changes in the system—and this is really a separate point—has a moral obligation to help in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman made that point strongly and generally. I am sorry if he felt misled by any discrepancies in the correspondence that he has had with the Department about any obligation—moral or legal—that the Department may or may not have.

Obviously, in a perfect world all the people who gained from a scheme of this kind should use the benefit that they gained to compensate fully those who have lost for what they have lost. But this is not a perfect world and we cannot do that. Just as we do not tax those who may have benefited from the scheme—and the hon. Gentleman concedes that the majority benefited from this scheme and that there has been benefit to the community—equally we have to limit the extent to which we can compensate those who may have lost. The hon. Gentleman himself said that this matter was beyond the Government and party points and had been established for some time, but the legal position is that we compensate only in circumstances in which we actually take land for the improvement in question.

While there may be an ultimate moral obligation on authorities that make improvements of this kind, in practice one cannot fully reflect that in the law. Indeed, if we had to meet that moral obligation we should have to penalise those who benefited from the change just as much as we were trying to compensate those people who lost.

Mr. Mates

That is a doubtful proposition. We are in Government to make things better for people. To say that we must tax them because those who have suffered must be compensated is a wide philosophical argument. That point is not as easily accepted as the Minister said. Perhaps the Minister will come to the point that it is not that the authorities and the experts do not feel that they should carry out this improvement, or that they do not want to do so, but that they are not being allowed to do so by the Minister's Department. Why cannot such a small decision be delegated to Hampshire County Council? Why cannot the county surveyor, having taken advice and being on the spot and intimately concerned with the whole matter in a way that the Department cannot be, be allowed to decide? He and everyone in the council wants to do it. The Minister has not yet covered the point that all expert opinion in Hampshire says that this entrance should be changed.

Mr. Horam

With respect, there is simply a difference of opinion whether the problem has resulted from the change in the system of traffic. There is a difference of opinion between my Department—it is the regional controller who has the say in this—and the Hampshire surveyor. They are qualified engineers and, as I know from my own officials, have seen it at first hand. One of my officials has been down today to look at it again.

It simply is the case that the Department officials do not agree with the county surveyor's opinion that the difficulty of access and the danger of the manoeuvre have been a consequence of the one-way system. On the contrary, they say that it is caused essentially by the unsatisfactory nature of the access that was unsatisfactory before and remains so and that there has been no significant worsening of the situation as a result of the one-way system. They say that this is a private improvement that we should like to see made but upon which we cannot justify public funds being spent.

It is obviously difficult to draw the line in this matter. I am sorry if I sound philosophical, but I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that we think deeply about these matters in the Department, because we have to. I understand his remarks about the way in which the problem has arisen and the general question of obligations, but on both counts I disagree, on the evidence that I have, that we could legitimately use public funds to compensate someone in the circumstances that he has recounted. With regret and unless further evidence comes forward, I have to take this line and resist the hon. Gentleman's claims for the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.