Motorways (Sevenoaks and Swanley) (Hansard, 20 January 1982)

§ Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks)

I am grateful for this opportunity of debating the subject of motorways in the Sevenoaks and Swanley area. I am aware that there is presently a High Court case on the matter, which requires that I be a little circumspect in the subjects that I cover under this general heading. I want to deal with five points. Two are specific and parochial to my constituency, and three have a wider relevance than to simply the Sevenoaks area.

I want, first, to talk about the M25 Sevenoaks Swanley link of the London orbital motorway. I have always supported the proposal for the completion of the motorway by that link, and I continue to do so, because I am not convinced that there is any alternative if we are to achieve a real improvement in the quality of life in the villages of Otford and Eynsford which are on the A225, currently carrying a considerable amount of heavy traffic.

The obvious disadvantages of taking the M25 through an area of outstanding natural beauty are outweighed by the valuable contribution that it will make to the quality of life in those two villages. For the greatest good for the greatest number, that link should be completed. There is a difficulty in this country in that we are perhaps too often concerned with maintaining the countryside. It is important that we should be concerned, but we are perhaps over-concerned about that compared with our appalling lack of concern for the quality of life in towns and villages. It is often forgotten that changed farming use can have, certainly visually, almost as dramatic an effect on the countyside as the advent of a motorway, without any of the corresponding environmental benefits.

The cost of continual delay in the completion of the motorway is great. The M25 around London is about 10 years behind its original schedule. On the most optimistic view, it is unlikely that the road will be completed before the end of the decade, although it was originally hoped to complete it by now. Only an uncomplimentary comparison can be drawn between our progress and that of the French on their Paris peripherique, which was built about 20 years ago, and on the additional orbital roads built since then. I support the Secretary of State's continuing moves to achieve the link.

I turn to the proposed slip roads from the M26 at Otford and the alternative to them. It is very helpful that my hon. and learned Friend should have a particularly clear and intimate knowledge of the area. As he knows, there is an alternative to the link roads at Otford, which could be incorporated in an existing interchange at Chevening. There is continuing concern among several of my constituents about the present proposals. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend understands that opposition to the proposals for slip roads at Otford comes mainly, not surprisingly, from the residents of Otford.

In correspondence, meetings and discussions with me, the residents have made it clear that their concern is deep and continuing and they have put their views to the Secretary of State. I share much of their concern. In developing our motorway system and the intersections 391 between motorways and other major roads, it is vital to take a long-term view of a road system adequate for the year 2,000 and of a possible Channel tunnel.

My constituency is in a part of Kent that faces extreme and never-ending traffic pressure. It is vital to keep heavy through traffic on the motorway and major roads. Surely, interchanges should be made directly between major roads so that there is no risk of drawing traffic on to comparatively minor roads. The proposals for the slip roads at Otford will encourage traffic to come off the major roads onto minor roads. Entries into and exits from motorways generate traffic. In this case, they would also generate pressure to give up green-belt land for industrial and, probably, warehouse development.

In support of that contention, I shall refer to an article in the Financial Times, which clearly brought out the likely effect of the M25 in raising land values on territory adjacent to it. I accept that point. There must be continuing industrial and commercial development if future jobs in Britain are to be secured. However, in producing a road network, we must all be aware of what will flow from that. In the long-term view, it is important to keep heavy traffic on the motorways and major roads.

Local opinion manifested by the county and district planning authorities has so far supported the view of having slip-roads at Otford. However, in the light of a considerable number of my constituents' views, I must ask the Minister to hold a public inquiry into the proposal, which would also give an opportunity for the further consideration of my suggested alternative.

I appreciate that the alternative of an interchange as part of the existing interchange at Chevening would be more costly, but, taking a long-term view, such costs could be justified. By an innovative approach to ways of achieving the interchange, it might not need to be as expensive as originally thought. It is a matter of strategic importance, not only to Sevenoaks but also to the wider areas of West Kent, East Surrey and the outer suburbs of South East London.

My three remaining points have a relevance wider than Sevenoaks. First, I shall put to the Minister the importance of achieving more effective traffic management schemes. An example of that is where the M20 and M26 signposting has discouraged traffic from using the A225 and encouraged through traffic to use the existing motorways. That is only a signposted system and is not mandatory. However, evidence shows that, to an extent, traffic has been prepared to follow that signposted route.

I have experienced great difficulty in getting the local authority and the police to produce mandatory traffic management schemes which would keep heavy lorries off roads which are not built for them and, particularly, out of Sevenoaks High Street where there are now alternative routes. My support for the proposal to increase lorry weights is dependent on my being assured by the Secretary of State that there is scope for the Government to bring in much firmer measures to achieve mandatory traffic management schemes which could take care of the problem. There are examples in my constituency where that would achieve a major benefit.

Great progress has been made in recent years on the landscaping of motorways but noise from them is still an appalling environmental pollutant. I wish to know what research and effective action is being taken in that field. 392 In my constituency, I am aware of a silent valley now filled with endless noise. It is not a hum but a persistent roar. I understand that tyres rather than engines cause a geat deal of the noise. What action can be taken and what action is being taken to deal with these problems nationally as well as locally?

Finally, I direct attention to the possibly unnecessary use of land in the take-up of land for the development of motorways. I make a comparison with Canada, a country where we would all accept that land is at less of a premium than it is in Britain. Yet from my own knowledge I know that intersections of motorways in Canada have a much smaller land take due to much tighter curves being used which require slower speeds from motorists. Are slower speeds to negotiate tighter turns wrong? What criteria are used in the construction of motorways in Britain and why have we taken the view that less sharp curves allowing greater speeds are necessarily the right approach? I use the example of the existing Chevening interchange, which appears to be very wasteful in the use of land.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) has had a number of conversations with me, both formally and informally, about the roads in his constituency and he has discovered that I have the good fortune of knowing quite well some of the more attractive parts of his constituency. My wife's family come from Sidcup and, as a result, I know Sevenoaks quite well, including the area to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Recently my brother-in-law took our respective families on a picnic outing near Polhill. When we had all settled down as two families to enjoy a picnic in a pleasant valley near Polhill, he told me that we were picknicking on the site of the proposed Swanley-Sevenoaks road with which he knew that I was concerned and which the Government are proposing to build. He brought me face to face with the dilemmas that confront the area. We are proposing to build a road that will have substantial environmental advantages, especially for the villages in the Darent valley but which will be built through an area of outstanding natural beauty.

As my hon. Friend said, the proposed road is part of the Government's scheme to build the M25 motorway as an orbital road around London. That is the Government's highest priority in the trunk road programme because of the great benefits that we see accruing to the economy and the environment. We are making good progress with the construction of the M25. The entire section from the A1 to the Dartford tunnel is now complete or under construction. When finished, the orbital route will, in effect, provide a giant bypass for the capital and will take a great deal of heavy traffic out of many communities on the fringe of London. It will speed up journeys for heavy traffic between industrial centres from Tilbury and the south coast ports and thereby give a boost to the revival of our industrial economy.

In the Government's opinion, the Swanley-Sevenoaks section is a vital link in the M25 orbital route. It represents good value for the taxpayers' money. I know that there is strong opposition to it and that that is largely inspired by the attractive nature of the countryside through which it has to run.

393 There are those who suggest that as an alternative it would be satisfactory to leave traffic to find its way between Swanley and Sevenoaks taking the more round-about route via the M20 and the M26. We have considered that suggestion with care, but we cannot accept it. Some traffic—largely the traffic that did not know the area—would use the route but at considerable extra cost in terms of time spent and the running expenses of vehicles. Most of those who knew the area would try to avoid the roundabout route, and a great deal of traffic would continue to cut through on the unsuitable though much more direct connecting roads, such as the A225, which go up the middle of the Darent Valley and run through the attractive villages of Eynsford, Shoreham and Otford.

Those who are against the Swanley-Sevenoaks road are worried about the possible consequences to the environment. I concede, as my hon. Friend did, that it is difficult to fit a motorway into an area of such outstanding beauty, but I believe that the plans we put forward succeed in keeping the damage to that part of the Darent Valley to the acceptable minimum. The Darent Valley is affected, but as the inspector wrote in his report of the 1978 inquiry: Because the preferred route runs along the Western fringe of the Darent Valley, the impact on the valley is less than at first appears, and the impact on Polhill can be exaggerated. Ministers taking decisions took those environmental problems very seriously and took a great deal of time over the landscaping that could be done to absorb the road into the top of the hill alongside the valley. I assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that everything possible will be done to lessen the damage by landscaping and planting, and concealing the road and its traffic as far as possible from the centre of the Darent Valley.

However, in the end we have been driven, as the inspector was driven, to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend, who I am sure is voicing the opinion of the majority of his constituents, that the unfortunate effects on part of the Darent Valley are outweighed by the considerable environmental benefits that the new motorway will bring to nearby communities including the town of Sevenoaks. The existing roads in the area such as the A225, A224 and the A227 will be relieved of much heavy traffic. Places such as Otford, Eynsford and Shoreham will become much pleasanter places to live in with less danger of accidents, less dirt, vibration and noise. About 1,300 properties fronting the existing roads will benefit from a significant reduction in noise once the heavy traffic can be taken on to the new road.

Therefore, we decided that there was a strong case for the new motorway. That case has been tested over a long process. In the mid-1970s there was a public consultation exercise, which showed overwhelming support by the public who responded for the route that we are still pursuing. There was a lengthy public inquiry from September 1978 to February 1979, conducted by a distinguished independent inspector, Sir George Dobry, who recommended that we should make the line orders for the road, having been satisfied on the evidence that he heard and exhaustively analysed in his report.

The Secretary of State accepted that report and made the necessary orders in January 1981. The objectors have challenged the basis on which the orders were made. There has recently been a High Court hearing into that challenge, which was heard only on Thursday and Friday last week. 394 Judgment has now been reserved. I expect that judgment will be delivered in the near future, which will enable us to know whether we can proceed.

Given that we have been driven by the evidence to believe that the road is to the public benefit, we hope for a successful outcome of the current High Court proceedings. If the outcome is successful, we shall press ahead to deal with the compulsory purchase order, which was published just before Christmas. That will almost certainly require a further inquiry into the objections that I am sure we will receive. We shall organise that further inquiry as soon as we reasonably can.

If funds are made available—as I am sure they will be, as the Government have no intention of diverting funds from the M25—and if we make reasonable progress in the statutory procedures, we hope that construction of the link can begin early in 1983. I hope that the construction will be completed and the road opened by late 1985.

Given that we have just had a High Court hearing and are awaiting judgment, I cannot go further on the merits of the case. I can only reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents that the difficult and sensitive road has been considered with considerable care by Ministers over a long public process. We have been driven to the same conclusion as him, that the public advantage lies heavily in the construction of the route. We shall await whether the courts uphold us and confirm that we have given all the rights that we should to those who challenge that view.

My hon. Friend went on to the separate question of the proposed slip roads that we are now intending to build on the existing M26 at Otford. That again is an announcement that we made last year. I appreciate the fact that it has aroused controversy. I listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend expounding at greater length the views that I know he holds that it may be an unwise decision. He shares his constituents' concern that it might be wiser to put the slip road at Chevening.

That is not a new feature of the road proposals for the area. It has a long history. It has been considered over some years. The decision not to put the slip roads at Chevening goes back to a public inquiry which was held in 1976, after which the then Secretaries of State decided that the high cost of the additional connections at Chevening were not justified by the low levels of traffic expected. If I may update the figures, to put in the alternative links at Chevening would cost about £5 million, whereas the proposals at Otford would cost about £1 million. It is five times as expensive to go to Chevening.

After the 1976 decision taken by our predecessors, a joint study was set up, conducted by the Department of Transport, Kent county council and Sevenoaks district council, to examine the case for additional connections at Chevening or at various alternative locations. As a result of the study, and with the agreement of the two local authorities, as well as the Government, it was concluded that there were greater benefits from putting in the links at Otford.

I have followed the concern that the announcement has aroused in the locality. It particularly concerns me when it is expressed by people who live in the villages along the A225, whom we are particularly trying to benefit by constructing the Swanley-Sevenoaks road. Again, the announcement and the publication of the draft orders only happened after careful consideration of the issues.

The aim of the new slip roads is to provide better access to traffic intending to go east from the northern side of 395 Sevenoaks and the industrial estates in particular. We believe that that traffic will be particularly served by the proposed links. We do not believe that the links will attract additional traffic of significance on to the A225 north of the link road. The bulk of the traffic coming from the north comes from areas such as Bromley and Orpington. Once we have built the Swanley-Sevenoaks links and the associated Badger's Mount link, they of course will provide the best routes on to the M26 from the urban areas.

The purpose of the links is to provide, with reasonable value for the taxpayer's money and with reasonable benefits to the environment, good connecting links to the M26 for the traffic, particularly from northern Sevenoaks and the industrial estates. That is the basis on which we put forward the proposals.

However, objections are coming in to the published orders. It is obvious that we have aroused a considerable division of opinion in the area. My hon. Friend supports his constituents in expressing concern and also asks for a public inquiry into the objections. I am happy to confirm that, assuming that the present level of objections, or anything like it, is maintained by the local residents, there will of course have to be a public inquiry under an independent inspector, at which all the issues can be fully debated. No final decision will be taken on the links until the public inquiry has been held, the inspector's report received and the Secretaries of State have had an opportunity to consider the whole matter in the light of the evidence and advice that they will get from the inspector.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked for more effective traffic management measures to be taken in his area and for the Government to do more to enable his county council and the police to initiate traffic management measures. It is 396 one of the main purposes of the Government's trunk road proposals that, when we build the modern purpose-built motorways for the heavy industrial traffic that an industrial country like this requires, it will make it easier for county councils to make orders to take the lorry traffic off the old, unsuitable rural roads which were never designed for it and where the heavy lorry is a menace going through villages and shopping centres.

Already local authorities have considerable power under the Dykes Act—a Private Member's Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) back, I believe, in 1973—to designate certain areas as banned to lorries above a given weight. There have also been proposals in the recent Armitage report for the wider use of lorry routes and the creation of lorry action areas. As I say, the county councils already have adequate legal powers, but it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and myself to issue fresh advice to local authorities to assist them to make more use of the powers that they have to designate lorry routes and to begin the process of consultation required to establish lorry action areas.

I hope that we can adduce useful advice to enable my hon. Friend and his constituents to put propositions in their locality to divert lorries away from unsuitable roads and to make it easier for the Kent county council, which is the highway authority and which must make decisions on local matters of routing, and so on, to make the best effective use of its powers.