§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. John Evans.]
§ 1.55 a.m.
§ Mr. Terry Walker (Kingswood)I make no apology for raising this debate on the Bristol East loop road, even though it is nearly 2 o'clock in the morning after a very long and eventful day.
There have been 12 years of indecision, first by the former Gloucestershire county council and now by Avon county council, over the final route of the Bristol East fringe loop road from Downend to Hanham, which has caused and is still causing tremendous problems in my constituency. These years of indecision must now be ended. That is why the matter is now very urgent.
The first priority of the loop road was to provide direct access to the M4 and M5 for Bristol East and Bristol South-East by way of the M32 at Downend. When this was not provided when the motorway was first constructed, it put a tremendous burden on the present road structure in the Kingswood constituency which was totally inadequate for this volume of traffic and was never meant to take it. The roads in the villages of Downend and Mangotsfield have been completely overrun with traffic, much of which is very heavy lorries and juggernauts. The refusal by the Department of Transport to allow another intersection to the M4 at Pucklechurch direct to the Pucklechurch trading estate has meant that heavy traffic going to this trading estate comes off the motorway on to the M32 and has to go through the densely populated roads of Downend and Mangotsfield before going by way of Shortwood village to Pucklechurch.
Mangotsfield village has become a very dangerous place, because these heavy lorries sweep through the village at all times of day and night, and some 2,000 children walk to and from two comprehensive schools and two junior schools along these minor roads daily. We have had demonstrations by residents about the imminent dangers to life and limb. In addition, there are the 873 noise and pollution caused by this volume of traffic., and even the surfaces of the roads seem to be impaired by it. There are many uneven patches on these surfaces, and in some places they are, dangerous.
I know that the Department of Transport has always set its face against further consideration of providing an intersection at Pucklechurch. It probably has very good reasons for doing so, but I wish that the matter could be reconsidered. I fully recognise that it may not be practicable but it would be a great help to my constituents if the intersection were provided and much of the heavy traffic that now goes to the Pucklechurch trading estate did not have to come to my constituency at all. That would result in a more peaceful existence for the residents of Downend and Mangotsfield.
The principle of the loop road was established way back in 1965. I understand that the Avon county transport programme has now at long last been lodged with the Department but that the final line of the road in some places has not yet been established. Can the Minister confirm this? Has Avon indicated to him when this will be done? I understand that the Avon county council has accepted the loop road as the only solution to the problems of traffic movements to the east of Bristol and to removing all heavy through traffic from Downend, Mangotsfield, Warmley, Oldland Common and Hanham. Yet still there is this reticence about the final line, which in some places is unclear to my constituents whose homes may well be affected, as well as the very presence of the road eventually obstructing the way of life of ordinary people.
The clouds of planning blight which first hovered over homes in the Bromley Heath and Downend areas when Gloucestershire county council announced the first plans for the loop road in 1965 have now spread right across the constituency to areas of Warmley and Hanham. It has proved difficult for people living anywhere near the proposed road line to dispose of their homes when they have wanted to move. It has also proved almost impossible for would-be house purchasers to raise mortgages. Even home owners wanting to improve their property have been refused improvement grants because of the proposed road.
874 As the Member of Parliament for the area, I have taken up numerous individual problems of owners affected by these proposals. In one instance, a Downend man was granted planning consent by the Kingswood district council, the planning authority, to extend his home, but was then refused an improvement grant to carry out the work because his home could—only "could "—be affected by one of the various lines that the road might eventually take.
The people affected in this way need to know whether their homes will be affected. Successive local authorities have been prepared to leave them in no-man's land, not knowing what the future holds for them and their families. It is high time that all this was cleared up and that people were told, one way or another, what is to happen to their property.
Further, will my hon. Friend request the Avon county council to look at the westerly end of the road, to announce the route of the first section of the proposed road and to submit a detailed planning application to the Kingswood district council by not later than 31st January 1979? I say this because that would give ample time in which to deal with objections which may be lodged by local residents in accordance with their democratic rights and allow time for purchase of land for the road. It is important that we have an early decision on that planning application.
Also, when my hon. Friend speaks to Avon county council will he make sure that its proposed programme for the second section is brought forward to avoid delays? It is important that the sections coincide with each other to avoid delay in completion and to avoid traffic bottlenecks. I shall say more about that shortly.
The section of the road at Warmley between the A420 and the A431 will, I understand, be constructed by the developers of the 400 acres at Longwell Green. That has been confirmed to me in a letter from the Avon county council. The fear locally is that if the western section is completed up to the A431 and there is then a delay in proceeding further, that will bring all the traffic across to Hanham and there will be nowhere else for it to go other than on the existing 875 roads, which are very overcrowded at present.
Hanham, where I live, has suffered enough. Many houses in Memorial Road were acquired and demolished eight to ten years ago. The land has been left in a disgraceful state. Much of it is overgrown and covered with rubbish. Twice a year I have to write to the Avon county council, as owners of the land, to ask for the weeds to be cut down and the rubbish to be cleared.
These houses were acquired on the assumption that the road would be going through Memorial Road at Hanham. We are now told that the road will not be going that way at all. That has proved to be a colossal waste of money. I understand that some of these houses are now being offered to the housing authority and that the land is up for grabs. The "Corridor of Opportunity" across Stone-hill to a bridge over the Avon Valley is the way now preferred by the Avon county council.
The people of Hanham deserve to be told the truth about these proposals. First, how many homes will be affected by this section from the A431 to the river?
Secondly, will the road be sited near homes which have recently been built in the area, will those houses need to be insulated against noise and pollution, and if so, who will pay?
Thirdly, and perhaps more important, will the bridge which will have to be constructed over the picturesque Avon Valley be built so as to avoid spoiling Hencliffe Woods, an area of natural beauty? Does my hon. Friend envisage any problems about the bridge construction? The worry is that not only will the beauty of the area be ruined by the road but that the bridge will create a traffic bottleneck in Hanham and make matters worse for all the long-suffering people who live there.
The Kingswood district council has written to the Department of Transport at Gaunts House, Bristol saying that over the last two years national funds for major road schemes have been under-spent by approximately £65 million, particularly in the counties of Avon and Dorset. The council asked whether any 876 of those funds could be reallocated to finance the road at Kingswood. That road is urgently required, and early completion would solve many of the traffic problems in the area.
I know that the Minister will pay attention to that letter. I felt that I should mention it, as the local authority is trying hard to come to grips with this matter. Indeed, it felt that it should write to the Department on 11th December to support the views which I have expressed this evening.
There have also been reports in the local paper—as yet I have not been able to substantiate them—that the Avon county council has requested my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to approve the advancement of the programme by one year. Will the Minister confirm whether that is so? If it is, is there any chance of that happening? Will he also indicate when the Department of Transport will be able to give approval to the Avon county transport programme which was submitted on 31st July this year?
For all the reasons which I have advanced, there is a need for early completion of the Bristol East loop road. In a growing area such as Kingswood, which is trying hard to attract industry to the area, it will be invaluable. To the residents, who for a number of years have suffered traffic problems, pollution and lived under the threat of the road, it will be a godsend.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to do all that he can to make sure that a speedy solution to the problems of my long-suffering constituents is undertaken at once. The people who live locally and the Kingswood district council believe that this can be achieved only by the early completion of the Bristol East fringe loop road.
§ 2.10 a.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) has been able to raise this subject on the Adjournment again. He has already raised it once—in December 1975. I know how important it is for his constituents in Kings-wood and Mangotsfield, and I also know how assiduous he has been in represent- 877 ing his constituents' interests in this matter.
In the earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear that this scheme was essentially the concern of the responsible highway authority, which in this case is the Avon county council. I must say at the outset that the position in this respect remains unchanged. It is for the county council, and not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to determine the future highway network within the framework of the county's transport policies and programmes and the priority to be given to new construction.
However, the question of an additional junction on the M4 at Pucklechurch is a matter for my Department. In fact, am not aware that the Department has refused to consider a request for an additional junction. To my knowledge, no such request has been made. I am doubtful whether the traffic demand would justify it, because there are interchanges three miles either side of the one that he proposes. But if the county council puts a case to us we shall certainly give it urgent consideration, for clearly an interchange would facilitate access to and from the motorway. I think that was the point that my hon. Friend was making, and I give him the assurance: that we would consider this urgently if the case were put to us. However, I am sure he will accept that it would not diminish the need for the Bristol East loop road in any way whatever. I therefore turn to discuss that matter.
My hon. Friend will recall that I wrote to him after our meeting in July to let him know that the county had included in its 1979–80 transport policy and programme submission a five-year programme which makes provision, for the first time, for the construction of sections of the eastern loop road, although I understand that this description has been dropped in favour of a new scheme title—the Avon ring road. That will be a matter of some amusement to my hon. Friend, but none the less I understand that that is the position.
This covers the loop road scheme now programmed and also the old Bromley Heath link road scheme shown separately in the previous year's transport policy and programme, when provision was made for 878 land acquisition in the 1980s. I can, therefore, also answer a further question which my hon. Friend put, namely, whether the scheme has, in effect, been advanced by one year? The answer is "Yes ". By the inclusion in the 1979–80 programme in the way I have described, the scheme has been advanced by one year. The decision letter indicating our view about this will be going to the county council in the next few days.
I do not want to anticipate our general view of the county's overall transport proposals, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have agreed to the proposal relating to the loop road, although we have also pointed out that, as it is now planned, there is some danger of a bunching effect towards the end of the five-year programme, which the council will have to watch carefully. None the less, in principle we are sympathetic to what the council wishes to do.
In the previous debate my hon. Friend outlined the history of these road proposals, and he mentioned them again on this occasion. I do not want to rehash the whole issue, but it might be useful if I give a resume of the more recent background.
In 1972 the local authorities concerned, together with the Department, British Rail and the Bristol Omnibus Company jointly appointed consultants to undertake the land use transportation study. In 1974 Avon county council became responsible for the study and a number of road schemes, including the Bristol ring road, were deferred pending the outcome of the study. All the recommended options of the study team included the construction of the east fringe loop road and the Hanham bridge over the Avon and approaches from A31 and A4. The report also identified those road proposals which could be abandoned in the context of the strategies proposed. The county council subsequently decided not to proceed with a number of schemes including the Bristol ring road but, instead, projected a corridor for the east fringe loop road. Public consultation exercises were held by the county in 1975 on the location of the corridor, and the outcome is the scheme for the Avon ring road, as it is now called, included in the county council's transport policies and programmes for the next five years.
879 There are three schemes in the programme. The first is the section from A417A Bromley Heath to A432 Badminton Road and the county council hopes to start construction in 1982–83. The second section runs from A432 Badminton Road to A420 Kingswood, which is currently planned to start in 1983–84, and the third section from the A431 Hanham to A4 at Brislington, including a crossing of the River Avon, has not yet been given a planned start year although the county council hopes to start acquisition of the land needed for this scheme in 1982–83. The county hopes that the missing link between the A420 at Kings-wood and the A431 at Hanham will be provided as part of private development. and the construction of that link will be dependent on progress made with the development.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions. First, he asked whether the line had been fixed. The answer is that it has not. However, he will be aware that the corridor in which the road is to run is pretty well clear. It is a narrow corridor, and it is possible to tell within 100 yards roughly where the road will eventually lie.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether I could exert pressure on the county council to agree to the fixing of the first section of the road, namely the Bromley Heath link, by 31st January 1979. I have no authority to seek to get the county council to agree to that fixing. However, it should be possible for the county council to fix that finally by the spring of next year. That will not be as early as my hon. Friend wishes, but that indicates that final decisions are imminent. A certain amount of further consultation has to take place, and the county council will have the statutory obligation to consult the Kingswood district council.
It is not necessary for the Avon council to obtain detailed planning permission from the district council. It can, in effect, give itself planning permission to go ahead. There is no obstacle to planning permission for the Avon council.
My hon. Friend asked me whether I could request the county council to bring forward the second section of the road following on the first section that we have 880 discussed. It is for Avon council to determine its priorities. It must be allowed to exercise its local option. I well understand the priorities of my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend urged that the construction of the separate sections should be as close in time as is possible. That is always a problem when constructing roads of this sort. There is a particular problem with the section south of the A431 that runs towards Hanham where my hon. Friend lives. It might not be quite as disastrous as my hon. Friend fears, because the county council will take a close look at possible traffic management schemes before that final piece of the road is put into place. I am sure that that will mitigate some of the problems. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to construct the sections consecutively so that as little traffic as possible is allowed to flow through roads which are unsuitable for them.
My hon. Friend asked how many homes would be affected. I do not have the answer. But the present route, which goes mainly through open country, is less devastating than the original proposal. My hon. Friend also asked about insulation. The road will go near some new homes, and insulation will be a matter for the county council. It will pay for insulation under present legislation. There are limits on insulation. The proximity to the road must be taken into account. That leads to hard feelings among those who are too far away to qualify for insulation.
I agree that it is important to have careful landscaping at Hencliffe Woods. I hope that that will be taken into account.
My hon. Friend referred to a letter from the Kingswood district council to the Department about the understanding that underspending could be diverted. Unfortunately, underspending in one year cannot be transferred to the next year. Each year is a separate watertight compartment. But substantially more money will be available for local roads, partly because a little more money is available. We are not cutting public expenditure to the extent that we were cutting it two or three years ago. We suspect that as our trunk road programme declines room will be made for such schemes. More money should be available, at the appropriate 881 time, for this scheme. In the next financial year money will not be available for that scheme. We are still at the initial planning stage. The prospects for increased spending on local schemes are good for the next two or three years.
I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do all that I can to speed the solution of 882 these long-standing problems in Kingswood, about which he and his constituents are so anxious. This is the type of local scheme which I wish to encourage.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Two o'clock.