HC Deb 23 December 1981 vol 15 cc1049-58 2.41 pm
Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)

Were I a man without great respect for our rules of order, I should ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order to wish you and all the Officers and servants of the House a very happy Christmas and successful 1982. However, as it is not in your gift, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow me to be out of order, I shall record that had you been able to permit it, I should have wished those people a very happy Christmas and successful 1982.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

The hon. Gentleman may be out of order, but I thank him very warmly for his wishes.

Mr. Brotherton

I am also grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have this opportunity at long last to raise the much-vexed question of the Louth bypass. The Minister, who has kindly come to reply to my observations, will be as aware as I am of the long history of this stretch—or non-stretch—of road.

Some years ago, an exhibition was mounted in Louth and many routes were put forward. Eventually—I use that word advisedly, because I had to write to the Minister again, again and, as he will agree, again—it was agreed that the yellow route should be the preferred route. We all rejoiced mightily at that, because planning blight had been removed from all the other routes. Alas, at the same time the Minister said that it would not be possible to give any date for the construction of the Louth bypass. As the Department agreed to the route, the need for a bypass has been established. The Department agrees that the town needs a bypass.

Paragraph 3 of the White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1980" states: We will give high priority to improving links to major ports like Hull, Immingham". Immingham is in my constituency and is only a stone's throw away from Louth. It is only 20 miles away by road. If more traffic is brought into Immingham, more traffic will automatically be brought down the A16 to Louth. The other day it was stated that Wisbech would be granted a bypass and that greatly astonished us in Lincolnshire.

That brings me to paragraphs 139 and 140 in the White Paper. The Minister will recall, as he was a Minister at the time, that his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport, who has now moved on to other pastures, published it. Paragraph 139 states: Among other schemes in the region"— that refers to the East Midlands— we attach great importance to removing through traffic from the historic city of Lincoln. Paragraph 140 mentions the A16 Stamford to Grimsby road, and goes on to state: On the last route, the recently-opened Boston Inner Relief Road provides valuable environmental relief to a conservation area in this historic town. I agree that we have many historic towns in Lincolnshire, the city of Lincoln and the town of Boston being two of them, but surely Louth is at least as historic as either of them.

The White Paper goes on in paragraphs 43 and 44 to talk about measuring the needs. It states: Since funds for building new roads are limited, we need the best methods of assessment to help decide what to build and what to do first. Is a new road needed? Should it be a new cross-country route, or … a series of bypasses? …These decisions are often difficult. …We will pay special attention to three factors: First, the way a scheme contributes to the economy. …"— I have already mentioned that the White Paper in paragraph 3 talks about sending more traffic to Immingham— Second, a scheme's environmental impact. …"— to which I shall come— Third, the way people feel about a scheme. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that people in Louth and the outlying districts feel strongly about the need for such a bypass.

As I have already said, Louth is an historic town. I do not know whether the Minister has been there, but anyone who has—I advise anyone who has not been there to visit it—knows that it is one of the most beautiful market towns in England. St. James' church has the tallest spire of any parish church in England. It is a church of unique beauty. We have a series of buildings and narrow roads that must be preserved at all costs.

But what is happening? St. James' church wobbles every time lorries trundle round the corner up Upgate towards Mercer Lane. People who live in the houses in the conservation area also tremble as lorries go past on the too narrow roads. The impact of traffic on the so-called main A16 is immense and has increased with the opening of the Humber bridge. Before the Minister tries in his reply to say that I was a great opponent of the Humber bridge, I point out that one reason why I opposed that bridge was that until we had decent road systems on the south bank of the Humber it was daft to build such a white elephant.

If one wishes to have a short-term palliative, the one thing that one cannot do in a conservation area is to widen the roads, because the road line must remain exactly the same. If the Minister were to say otherwise, he would be arguing that conservation areas mean nothing and that if he had the whim or the will he could destroy such areas.

I turn now to traffic. The so-called main A16 runs through my constituency—the town of Louth. Inside the town it is totally inadequate to deal with the ever-increasing weight of traffic that has been built up, not only by the Humber bridge, but by much use during the years. If the Minister or any Department of Transport official were to come to Louth to look at the A16, he would realise that the time is long overdue for a bypass to be built.

That is not our only problem about main road traffic. The Minister must be aware that Louth is the focal point of other roads such as the A153 and A157. There is an enormous weight of traffic that runs through the town, especially in the summer, to Mablethorpe, Skegness and the holiday resorts of the East Coast. Any road count in the town should—although it has not always been the case—take into account not only the Monday to Friday traffic, but the weekend traffic during the summer.

I wish to quote from a letter written to me in a fair, juvenile hand from someone who is obviously away at school or university: It will be awful to lose some of our older and more beautiful buildings, most of all St. James', which means so much to Louth and to all of us who live there. I must raise the question of safety. Is the Minister aware that at the traffic lights near St. James' church heavy lorries have to pass each other, but to do so one of them has to mount the pavement to let the other through? That cannot be good for the structure of the town or, more importantly, the lives of the people of Louth. That is another argument to prove the inability of the roads to cope with the traffic.

The A16 has been bypassed in many places, including Holton-le-Clay in my constituency and Spilsby to the south of my constituency. What do those two bypasses contribute to Louth? Obviously, they contribute a great build-up of traffic. It is patently ridiculous to bypass Holton-le-Clay and Spilsby, yet not to bypass Louth, with all its historic interest and beautiful buildings. I fear that the way in which the Department approaches the problem will eventually destroy the beautiful church of St. James.

I accept that the bypass will not be built in 1982. I seek an assurance from the Minister this afternoon that he will shortly give us a date when it will be built. It is all very well to say that the yellow route has been approved and we must do away with the planning blight on the red, the black and the blue, but those who live on the approved yellow route still suffer from planning blight. The Department and the Minister owe it to them to say when the bypass will be built, even if it is 1985, 1986 or 1987.

In the short term, I ask the Minister to consider a palliative, although it is no answer to the problem. Is it possible to reduce the weight or size of the vehicles passing through Louth? The measurements round St. James' church are terrifying. We would welcome the Minister if he came to Louth on any one of the 365 days of the year. We would show him the real extent of the problem. Is there nothing that can be done in the short term? We shall not be satisfied until, eventually, we have our own bypass.

There is no one point that makes the Louth bypass appear to be the most important item on the road building programme, but the combination of weight of traffic, environmental considerations, and the number of main roads that meet in the historic town—east to west traffic to the coastal resorts and traffic from the farms, industry and the Humber bridge—show an overwhelmingly sustained case for saying that Louth not only deserves, but demands, that a bypass be built.

I saw on the front page of The Times Business News today that EEC money is being given to provide roads in the much overfed and fat South-East of England. Will not the Minister think again of the provinces—of historic Lincolnshire, the county from which the greatness of England derived? Will he not give us a mere two or three miles of bypass to save one of the most historic towns in England? I assure the Minister that, I and my constituents will never cease to hound him and his successor until justice is done for the people of my constituency and the bypass is built.

2.55 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport I Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on having secured the very last debate of 1981. I am not surprised that he has chosen to raise the question of the Louth bypass, because, as he said, he has been hounding me on this matter in the most pleasant possible way on behalf of his constituents for as long as I have held my present post in the Department of Transport. I understand how strongly he feels about the bypass.

I appreciate that many people in Louth are desperately waiting for a bypass to take traffic around their town. The Government have the difficulty of deciding what order of priority must be followed in marshalling the queues, as it were, of towns waiting for bypasses. We have maintained the trunk road programme. It has not been cut back and we are delivering the roads that we planned to time. However, there will inevitably be some delay before every town and village that needs a bypass can be saved from the heavy traffic that is passing through them.

We tried to explain the background of our policy in the White Paper on roads, from which my hon. Friend quoted, and again, in our recent White Paper on lorries, people and the environment. In both those documents we stress the priority that we are giving to bypasses, and as a Government we are achieving a great deal. More than a third of the mileage driven by the heaviest lorries is now on the motorways. This proportion will increase as we complete the motorway network. Over half of the historic towns on trunk roads have been relieved of through traffic either by specific bypasses or by new routes, but the Government are keen to do still more.

In last year's review of the road programme the Government gave priority to schemes that would improve the environment in towns and villages. The schemes started during 1981, for example, will take traffic away from the heart of about 40 communities. About one quarter of the money that is being spent on new roads over the next two years will be on schemes that are specifically bypasses, but nearly every scheme in our programme will take traffic away from built-up areas. We announced in the White Paper on lorries that we are starting three new bypasses, in addition to the large programme already in hand. We are also giving increased priority to seven more.

Although we are giving priority to bypasses, this does not mean that we can press ahead immediately with every scheme. We have to examine the local situation, the possibilities of finding an acceptable route and, of course, the cost. We must compare the case for one bypass with other pressing cases before deciding how we shall marshal the queue.

My hon. Friend has eloquently described the conditions in Louth. I know the town quite well. I shall not reminisce in a Christmassy way but I grew up in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and so the road to Mablethorpe and Skegness is well known to me. The road always took me through Louth. I have not been there so often in recent years, but I am familiar with many attractive features of the town, including the quite striking church of St. James. Now that I take an interest in medieval church architecture I occasionally consult Pevsner, one of the great bibles, and I have discovered that he describes the church of St. James as one of the most majestic in England with the most perfect of perpendicular steeples.

Louth is an extremely attractive town, but, unfortunately, it has a medieval street plan through which modern day traffic passes. I do not seek to argue with my hon. Friend's description of conditions in the main town of his constituency. It is plain that the street pattern was never designed for the type of traffic that now goes through it. Conditions are undoubtedly very unpleasant for his constituents day by day.

Before the bypass can come, we must consider other possibilities for dealing with the problem. My hon. Friend has suggested that we should introduce weight and size restrictions on vehicles entering the town. I can speak only for the trunk road, because that is all that the Government are responsible for. Lincolnshire county council is the highway authority for most of the roads in Louth and I expect that it faces the same problems and similar considerations as the Government do when dealing with trunk road traffic.

There are two main reasons why I find it difficult to accept that a ban on heavy or large vehicles should be imposed. First, Louth is itself a destination for quite a few vehicles, including some of the larger ones. There will always have to be deliveries to supermarkets, other shops and industrial premises in the town.

Secondly, there is no nearby alternative route. The nearest remotely reasonable north-south routes are 10 miles away—the A1031 along the East Coast, and the A46 through Market Rasen to the west. Neither of those routes is any more suitable for traffic than the A16. I very much doubt whether those who live along them would appreciate having the heavy traffic diverted along them. It would also add a long detour to the journey if drivers had to use them.

Mr. Brotherton

Would it not be possible for the supermarkets and other organisations to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred to send smaller lorries?

Mr. Clarke

I am sure that they use them where possible, but it depends where they have to deliver to in Louth. But if the supermarkets in Louth are made to rely on smaller lorries for their deliveries than the rest of the supermarket chain, it could have a very undesirable effect on the price range of goods in the shops where my hon. Friend's constituents shop. It would be very difficult to impose on the town a particular penalty that stopped heavier vehicles going into the town.

The other problem, apart from the traffic that must go through the town, is that there is no readily available suitable route along which one could divert the present heavy through traffic until one has built a bypass.

Some things have been done for the town. The Department of Transport and Lincolnshire county council have introduced waiting restrictions to ensure that parked cars do not block traffic, but at present we do not think that there is anything more that we can do within the limitations of the existing road network.

That takes me to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend: that the only practical answer to the problems in Louth is to build a bypass. It is true that there have been preparations for a bypass for a few years now. The Department started looking for a possible route for one in 1975. By 1979 we had reached the stage of being able to show the public what the options were and to invite their opinions—the process of so-called public consultation. That showed that there was a very clear preference for the route known as the yellow route in the documents that we issued, which runs well away from Louth to the west. That was the route that eventually I picked as the preferred route.

Again, it is right to say that my hon. Friend wrote to me repeatedly asking that we should choose the preferred route after the public consultation. But the difficulty was that it was hard to justify giving high priority to the work, even on the selection of the route, when we had already put Louth in the category of schemes where work was temporarily suspended until we could put a definite date on the construction of the road.

When we drew up our first roads White Paper, we decided that we had to make a clear selection of priorities and to make sure that our efforts and the use of engineering skill and administrative time were not spread across the entire trunk road programme; that we should concentrate in the first place on those roads that were likely to be built in the near future and suspend for the time being work on a number of others that would have to wait a few years before their turn came. Louth was put into that category. That meant that it was very difficult to get on with the work, even of choosing the preferred route. At present it is difficult to get on with further work of preparing it.

What will happen is that work on the road will continue to be suspended until such time as we know that we shall have the resources to be able to construct it in a few years' time. Then we shall resume work, appoint engineers to design the road, and press on as quickly as possible to construction date.

My hon. Friend has pressed me to say when we expect that date to be and when we are able to build the scheme. I am afraid that we have concluded that Louth bypass is not one to which we can give priority at present, and it will have to wait a year or two, and it will have to depend upon the progress that we can make with the very many other bypass schemes in the road programmes before we are able to put a firm date on the construction of this bypass.

My hon. Friend quoted from the roads White Paper setting out the criteria that the Government have taken into account in deciding what roads should be given priority. The Government's first priority must be to ensure the recovery of the national economy. That means that we must be selective about the projects that we undertake and particualrly careful to make sure that we get value for money out of road schemes. We are tending to concentrate on those that show worthwhile economic benefits. It is worth building new roads only where both the economic and environmental benefits that they bring are greater than the cost.

At Louth, there are difficulties in making out an economic case for the bypass. Because we propose to follow a route that runs well away from the town, the bypass will be quite a lot longer as a route for traffic than the existing road. That means that the cost of building the road is relatively high for a town of this size, because it requires a long route to go round it. The savings to drivers in terms of time and fuel by avoiding the congested town centre are partially offset by the extra distance that they have to drive on the rather roundabout bypass. In the economic analysis that we apply to road schemes, the costs are pushed up and the economic benefits are pushed down. It is difficult to demonstrate that the Louth bypass gives as good value for money as many of the schemes to which we are now giving higher priority.

Mr. Brotherton

But what about Louth? What about St. James' church? What about the environment? What about keeping the middle of this historic town upright as opposed to falling down? Does not that come into the Ministry's considerations?

Mr. Clarke

That is the main case for the Louth bypass. I have demonstrated the difficulties of showing a good economic case. If economic criteria were to determine all road schemes, Louth would probably never get a bypass. It is in our programme. We have chosen a preferred route and eventually we intend to give Louth a bypass because of the environmental benefit that the road would bring. Even then, we have to compare the claims of Louth with the claims of other towns. Even the environmental benefits in Louth are not so great as those that can be achieved in some other cases.

Let me explain again to my hon. Friend some of the limitations on what can be achieved by building a bypass round Louth. The amount of through traffic on the A16 is not great. Many drivers on the A16 are going to or from Louth itself. We tested that out with vehicles censuses. For example, of the 6,000 vehicles that enter the town each day from the north, 3,400 are actually going to a destination in the town centre and would not use the bypass. Taking all the roads in the town, only a little over a quarter of the traffic on an average day will be removed. So, even with a bypass, there would still be some congestion in the town, although I agree that it would be reduced to a worthwhile extent. Against those modest environmental benefits, there are some environmental disadvantages. The bypass would certainly take up farmland, and for much of its length would he in the Lincolnshire wolds, part of which has been formally designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty.

I am spelling out to my hon. Friend the reasons why the bypass is in the list of schemes to be temporarily suspended and why, for the time being, we have decided not to press on with it at the same speed as the roads around Wisbech and the others that he quoted. The economic case for the bypass is far from good. There are environmental advantages, but it is not so easy in Louth to achieve the great advantages and environmental improvements that some of our other schemes can provide.

My hon. Friend pressed me to deal with the problem of east-west traffic as well as north-south traffic. The A157, which runs to Mablethorpe on the coast, is a county road for which Lincolnshire county council is primarily responsible. Our bypass, although intended to serve A16 traffic, will also provide an alternative for east-west traffic. Our experts have calculated that 87 per cent. of all the through traffic should use the bypass but, as I have said, unfortunately the through traffic is only a part of the problem.

I understand the local feeling and the disappointment that is being caused by the fact that we cannot press ahead immediately with the bypass. I hope that I have not added to it too much by spelling out the snags that we have encountered. As my hon. Friend has gone to the trouble of pressing for an Adjournment debate, he, like his constituents, obviously finds it difficult to understand why Louth is not getting the same attention as other towns in the programme. Therefore, it is only fair to spell out to him the difficulties and the reasons why Louth continues to wait its turn in the queue.

I hope that the time will come when we can afford to build the bypass. I emphasise that the building of it is merely suspended and awaiting the time when the funds are available and preparation work can be resumed, but at present there are more urgent schemes in other parts of the country, because they have even worse problems or because it is easier to build a bypass around other towns to produce more dramatic short-term improvements. I am afraid that it will be some time before we reach a stage in the road trunk road programme and in our economic recovery when we can find the resources to contemplate schemes like the Louth bypass.

I am sorry to end on a Scrooge-like and disappointing note. I have set out the snags and held out distant expectations for my hon. Friend's constituents. I have no doubt that he will persist and hound me and that I shall constantly be reminded of the problems of Louth in 1982, as I have been in 1981.

I end on a final and more cheery note in which I am in agreement with my hon. Friend. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the staff of the House, my hon. Friend and his constituents a very merry Christmas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Before I adjourn the House for the Christmas Recess, may I warmly reciprocate the good wishes that have been expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Three o'clock till Monday 18 January 1982, at half past Two o'clock, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 21 December.