A534, FARNDON—HOLT (Hansard, 9 March 1977)

§ Mr. John Cockcroft (Nantwich)

I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the many others who are present for staying tonight, for a second time, to debate the important question that lies before us, which for many of my constituents is a major problem. It is a major problem not only to people within the constituency of Nantwich but to many people in Cheshire and, indeed, in Wales.

The A534 road passes through the two villages of Farndon, in Cheshire, and Holt, in Wales. They are roughly midway between Broxton and Wrexham. The River Dee divides the two villages, which are linked by a sandstone bridge built in 1598 the mid-fourteenth century—as long ago as that. It is listed as an ancient monument of both historic and architectural interest and is in a conservation area. On this basis the Department of the Environment should surely bear some responsibility for the preservation of this ancient, indeed unique, bridge.

The road, the A534, is the shortest route for traffic leaving the M6 motorway for the Wrexham industrial estate. The town of Wrexham is designated as a development area, and the industrial estate there is rapidly expanding. Clwyd, of course, benefits from this growth, in particular in the form of the growth of revenue from rates. But most of any road bypassing Holt and Farndon across the Dee would inevitably pass through Cheshire, were such a bypass to be built.

The background to the present situation is that a bypass was first sought as long ago as 1937. Since then the need for action has become steadily greater. In a famous phrase of a one-time Prince of Wales, something must be done. A factor in the predicament of 1977 is the closure of the railhead to the Wrexham industrial estate.

Over the years there has been a monumental exchange of correspondence concerning this matter, at every conceivable level. I said "over the years". One might say "over many long, weary years." For instance, on 11th December 1973 a letter was sent to the then Secretary of State for the Environment—I am well aware that this was under a Conservative Government—requesting a weight and width limit on the bridge as a temporary measure in view of the serious damage being done by large and heavy vehicles. In the end a width restriction was introduced, but no weight limit was introduced at the same time.

There was correspondence between my predecessor as Member for Nantwich, a former Deputy Speaker, Sir Robert Grant-Ferris, and Cheshire County Council, which led to an assurance at that time that an application for inclusion of the scheme (Holt-Farndon by-pass) in a firm programme will be made in the next few weeks. As a former Prime Minister once said, a week can, indeed, be a long time in politics.

At that time, some three years ago, a petition with some 1,200 signatures was 1599 sent to the Department of the Environment asking for action. In July 1975 the then Secretary of State for the Environment was approached directly. But all such representations have met with the response that the allocation of money within the county is a matter for the county council of Cheshire to decide. This is where the problem arises, because the banks of the Dee wash not only different counties but also different countries. That is a topical point at this would-be devolutionary time.

On a mileage basis Cheshire will supply two-thirds of the total cost of an eventual bypass, if it comes to pass, and Clwyd one-third. The Welsh counties receive a relatively higher level of the transport supplementary grant, while Cheshire understandably feels that it faces far more disadvantages than advantages from the expansion of the trading estate at Wrexham. The industrial estate there continues to grow, and Cheshire has no control over that expansion.

The fabric of the medieval bridge is constantly damaged by heavy vehicles passing over it. There is now a width restriction of 9½ ft. on the bridge, but in November 1976 a lorry wider than that width attempted to cross the bridge and got jammed. It could be removed only by extensively damaging the walls on either side of the bridge. Three months later there was a similar incident. There have been many incidents of heavy lorries causing extensive damage to the bridge in recent years.

Some lorries have to mount the extremely narrow footpath on the bridge in order to cross it. That is also true of Farndon village itself, which lies a short distance away from the bridge. In the village there is a particularly sharp corner, and heavy lorries have to mount the pavement in order to turn it. Other vehicles are unexpectedly forced to reverse in the narrow main street, so causing traffic chaos. The bridge is so narrow, and has such a narrow footpath, that a pedestrian has to walk sideways, or stop walking at all, when a lorry is passing over the bridge. A cyclist or a push-chair with a baby in it can be forced into the middle of the bridge for lack of a footpath.

On account of the steep inclines on either side of the bridge, the pollution created by heavy lorries grinding up the 1600 hill in low gear is enormous and is certainly a dangerous hazard to many people living in the area. Some people have been made quite ill, admittedly temporarily, by exhaust fumes from the lorries. Some parents of young children who go from home to school across the bridge, have to meet their children rather than let them cross the bridge on their own.

A survey in December last year showed that about 900 large lorries passed over the bridge during a 12-hour period between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. As the volume of traffic grows, vibrations from lorries causes more broken window panes and permanent damage to the structure of the buildings. Some of these are also of architectural and historic interest.

Traffic at night often makes sleep almost impossible for people who live near the bridge. The effects of even larger trucks from the Continent crossing the bridge are an increasing worry. Peaceful demonstrations and deputations to County Hall have produced nothing constructive, although there is, and has been, overwhelming support from those most concerned. Vague intimations of a weight restriction, while a bypass is being considered, seem in the event to dissolve.

It is claimed that a weight restriction cannot be imposed on the bridge because it forms part of an " A " road. Moreover, the foundations of the bridge are structurally sound. That must be admitted. But this totally disregards the present and possibly permanent destruction of village life, certainly in Farndon and possibly in the other village on the other side of the Dee as well.

In December 1976 a new bypass south of Chester was opened. Surely, as a first move, it is now feasible to enforce a weight restriction with regard to the bridge, because heavy vehicles now have a more suitable alternative route to take.

Can we not at least have a weight restriction now, and some constructive assurances about the longer-term future, which would correct the situation? Is not this a special case for treatment?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) for his graphic exposition of a situation, about which no one can be 1601 complacent. I thought that he was particularly eloquent about the problems of pollution and safety connected with the bridge over the River Dee.

I appreciate that traffic problems exist in the twin villages of Holt and Farndon and that in the main these are caused by the bridge over the River Dee. The bridge is old—in fact, it is an ancient monument—and it has a narrow carriageway.

I should make it clear at this stage that the A534 road, which runs through the two villages and goes across the bridge, is not part of a trunk route and is not therefore a road for which the Secretary of State for Transport is the highway authority. The A534 is a principal road, and the highway authorities are the county councils of Cheshire and Clwyd. It is important that everyone should be quite clear on that point. Indeed, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is clear about that matter.

Both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport recognise the need to provide adequate communications for the industrial areas in Clwyd. They see it as their joint function to provide a satisfactory primary road network from which the local highway authorities can develop their own road system.

To the north of Wrexham the primary trunk route is the A483, which takes traffic, via the recently-completed Chester Southerly Bypass, to Merseyside, Manchester and the North of England via the M6 and the M62. Substantial improvements to the A483 from the Chester Bypass to the Welsh border are in course of preparation. Improvements to the same road in Wales are also planned. I expect this route to be fully effective by the mid–1980s. The extension of the M56 to join the dual carriageway leading, via Queensferry, to Shotton is high on my Department's priority list.

To the south of Wrexham the A483 joins the A5, giving links through Shrewsbury to the Midlands and the South. The attractions of the route will be considerably enhanced when the M54 link from Telford to the M6 is completed in the early 1980s. Improvements to the A5 towards the Welsh border are under consideration, as are improvements on the 1602 same road in Wales towards Wrexham. I expect these to get under way in the mid–1980s.

I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the strategic trunk road network in this area is being steadily and systematically improved. Clwyd is not disadvantaged in its connection to the main motorway system compared with other areas. That is the picture concerning trunk routes.

As I have already explained, the A534 is not a road for which the Secretaries of State are the highway authority. That, of course, limits the contribution which I am able to make to the resolution of the problem outlined by the hon. Gentleman. I shall, however, sketch in some of the background to the Hol-tFarndon problem and, hopefully, suggest a way in which the authorities themselves might reach a solution to the problem. I shall also comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about imposing a weight restriction on the bridge in the short term.

I understand that most of the heavy vehicles which use the A534 through Holt and Farndon originate from the industrial area to the east of Wrexham and travel towards the Midlands and South of England. Apart from the trunk road system, to which I have already referred, there are two secondary local roads—the A534 to Crewe, which we are discussing, and the A525 to Whitchurch and thence to the West Midlands. Just as the River Dee crossing creates a bottleneck at Holt-Farndon, so also does the crossing on the A525 at Bangor-on-Dee.

There have been proposals for many years for improving the Dee crossings at Bangor and at Holt-Farndon. The first one to be achieved will be at Bangor, where I understand that the Clwyd County Council expects to start construction this year. A new bridge over the Dee at Bangor will certainly make this route more attractive to traffic heading for Whitchurch and the strategic trunk road network to the east and south. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will realise that some reduction in traffic at Holt-Farndon should flow from that improvement.

The former Cheshire and Denbighshire County Councils were discussing the possibilities of providing a bypass of Holt 1603 and Farndon as long ago as 1968. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that it has even more antiquated antecedents than that. In April 1970 the then Minister of Transport announced the inclusion of the scheme in a preparation list for principal roads. The approval in principle allowed the two counties jointly to go ahead with detailed preparation of a scheme.

A firm proposal for a new single carriageway proposal was eventually submitted to the Department in February 1974. The desirability of the scheme is not at issue. The difficulty here, as in so many cases, is the phasing of this construction in a period when funds are particularly acute.

Here we come to the heart of the problem. The nature of the bypass straddling two counties and two countries, if we consider Wales and England to be separate countries, is not a matter on which one county can have complete responsibility. There is always in such a situation a tendency for the two authorities to give different priorities to a particular scheme. This is what is happening here.

The fact is that Clwyd rates its scheme higher in priority terms than does Cheshire, and also Clwyd has more money to back its preferences. Cheshire has less money available for this activity, and Cheshire has a number of pressing town centre problems to which it must pay attention in addition to a scheme such as this. Again, as it happens, Cheshire also has to fund two-thirds of the total cost and can argue that it is receiving less of the total benefit in the sense that it is operating as a transit area for traffic coming from Wrexham to the rest of England.

Under the TPP—the transport and planning programmes system—the plans are made not just for one year but for the following four years—five years in all. As a result of the priorities chosen, Cheshire cannot give this scheme any priority for the next five years. It means that under the present system of priorities there is unlikely to be a start until 1982 or 1983 or later. In such a situation, one has to leave local authorities to make up their minds about priorities. They know the 1604 situation best, and I think that we cannot intervene too much at central Government level to force on them different priorities from those they would naturally choose.

However, in the same way as the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales must reach a sensible accommodation between themselves on trunk routes crossing the border, local authorities with responsibilities for principal roads must take the same approach on principal roads. The only constructive suggestion I can make is that the two counties should jointly consider whether they can reach agreement and achieve an earlier start to the construction by pooling their resources and possibly making some adjustments of funds. Such an agreement is, of course, a matter entirely within their discretion. I would urge it upon them.

I have also considered whether the A534 should be included in the national trunk road network but have again come to the decision that the area is well served by the present network and will be much better served when the various improvement schemes have been introduced. Even if the road were to be made part of the trunk road network, it is doubtful whether such an action would improve the prospects of an early construction of the bridge at Holt-Farndon. Money for the trunk road system is scarce and there were further enforced cuts in December and earlier in July. The bypass would still be in competition with other schemes for funds.

I believe that the best way forward is for the two authorities to consider meeting to see whether they can sort out these widely disparate priorities between the two. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might forward his case by approaching the authorities in that way.

The hon. Member's other suggestion was that in the interim period there should be a weight limit. He said that it would be unusual to have a weight limit on a bridge on a road that is as important as this and carries such traffic. I undertake to look into that suggestion, without commitment, to see whether it is appropriate to the situation. I cannot give the hon. Member a full answer 1605 tonight, but I shall write to him after asking my officials to look into it to see whether we can meet his proposal. I am not sure of the detailed facts, but the hon. Member has made the sugges- 1606 tion in a positive manner and I should like to see whether I can meet it.