M1-A1 Link Road (Hansard, 21 March 1983)

§ Mr. Reg Prentice (Daventry)

I wish to raise a matter of deep concern to some thousands of people in my constituency who resent the proposal to build a new trunk road through unspoilt countryside from the junction of the M1 and M6 eastwards towards Kettering and beyond. I shall refer to that as the green route, the title by which it has been known for some years.

My constituents accept—and so do I—that there is a need for the improvement of east-west road communications in the midlands, especially for industrial traffic from the midlands to the east coast ports. They believed, however—and so do I—that an alternative strategy based on improving existing roads could have been carried out by now and that the case for such a strategy is better informed and better argued than anything that we have yet heard from the Department of Transport.

If the green route is so important in solving transport problems in the midlands, we are puzzled that the proposal has been hanging about for 10 years or more and will apparently take another five years to complete. If the Department of Transport ever had a strong case for the new route, it should have been built by now. If the case is only marginal, based on the balance of argument, the Department should drop the proposal in deference to the overwhelming views of people in the area.

On 25 November, the Government published draft schemes for the work, followed by a three-month period for formal objections which elapsed some weeks ago. To my knowledge, the objectors included Daventry district council, 32 parish councils, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and a large number of other organisations and individuals. The reasons that they give are numerous, but I shall emphasise just three for the purpose of the debate.

First, there is the environmental objection. A beautiful area of quiet villages would be seriously damaged if a major road were driven through it. There would be major damage to villages on or very close to the route and lesser, but significant, damage to dozens of other villages within a few miles north or south of it.

Secondly, there would be a great loss of farming land. In reply to a parliamentary question on 2 December, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State stated: In all, 108 farms would be affected in some way."—[Official Report, 2 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 280.] Thirdly, there are serious objections by the Society for the Preservation of the Field of the Battle of Naseby, by other historical societies and by individual historians, many of whom have written to me and, I believe, to other hon. Members, Indeed, several of my hon. Friends have expressed anxiety about this, and the matter has also been raised in another place.

If the road went north rather than south of the village of Naseby, as it almost certainly will if it is built at all, it will affect the battlefield to some extent. In a recent letter, the chairman of the preservation society points out that the battle included fierce fighting adjacent to and within the village, so any road to the north of the village would affect the battlefield area. Those of us who are interested in history that has such a direct bearing on Parliament should be worried about that aspect.

699 What is the alternative? I mentioned in passing that it is based on the improvement of existing roads. Naturally, there have been different versions as the subject has been discussed for several years. I shall not burden the House with too much detail, but the strategy has had two prongs—a northern one and a southern one.

The southern prong is the improvement of the A45 route which, to a considerable extent, has already taken place as a result of the initiative of the Northamptonshire county council. Further improvements are planned. Therefore, it could shortly enter the route that is proposed by the Department of Transport at or around the village of Thruxton.

The northern prong involves the improvement of the A427 which passes through the southern part of Leicestershire. Leicestershire county council could and, I believe, should have improved that road some time ago. The villages along that road need bypasses. The Department could still choose that option, and, if the county council will not co-operate, the Department could declare the road a trunk road and do the work itself.

As I said, there is more than one version of the strategy. I should especially like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to and ask for her comments on, if she can give any, the proposals that were recently put to her by county councillor Bill Morton who was the chairman of the highways committee of Northamptonshire county council while it was under Conservative control. In some ways, his proposal is a compromise between what the Department has advanced and the alternative strategy. It relies on the A427 as far as Market Harborough and then the A6 to the vicinity of Kettering. It would also involve a different route to the west of Catthorpe. That is probably the best option.

My reason for raising the debate is to object to the green route as it stands. I do not regard myself as a sufficient authority on the subject to go into too much detail, but I believe that the Morton proposal is probably better than previous alternatives and it goes further to meet the Department's legitimate case. The Department should study it in depth to see whether it can settle along those lines.

The advantage of the alternative strategy, whether the Morton version or the earlier one, falls under four headings. First, it would avoid the objections to the green route which I have already listed. Secondly, it would be cheaper. In reply to another question on 2 December, comparing the cost of the Department's proposals with that of the alternative strategy, my hon. Friend said that the alternative strategy would be £20 million cheaper. That is more than the gap admitted by the Department when I corresponded with it a few years ago. The gap has widened because the A45 is developing anyway, irrespective of whether the green route goes ahead. For that reason, the gap could widen further still.

Thirdly, it seems likely that the alternative strategy could be achieved more rapidly and thus provide quicker assistance for motorists and industry in the midlands. Fourthly—this is very important—it would be more acceptable to public opinion.

Judging from conversations and correspondence with my hon. Friend, I imagine that she may tell us that the green route would be better for traffic management, because traffic coming eastwards from the west midlands, perhaps along the M6, would cover the route more quickly. It would cut some minutes off the journey 700 compared with the alternative strategy. However, with the Morton plan, any such difference would be minimal. Even if there is a slight saving in time, traffic management is only one factor in making the decision. It must he weighed in the balance together with the environmental and other factors that I have mentioned.

My hon. Friend may also say that people will always object and that, if the Government had listened to every environmental objection to every new road, no major new road would have been built in Britain. That may be true, but each case must be argued on its merits. When there are serious environmental and other objections from those who live in the area affected, the onus of proof is on the Department to try to convince them that there is an overwhelming case for building the road. In this case, the Department has not begun to convince my constituents. If my hon. Friend persists with her present plan, and the matter must go to a public inquiry, it will be fought hard and with high-level advice. Daventry district council is employing an expert consultant, as is MALRAC, the action committee opposed to the road. The inquiry will be a long and expensive business. If the alternative strategy were followed, there might be some objections, but there would be much less controversy and any inquiry would be more rapid and much less expensive. My hon. Friend should try to avoid such an expensive and long-winded process. She could lift the threat from the community that is affected by the plans. I appeal to her to charge course now.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)

I welcome the opportunity provided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) to discuss this important and much-needed scheme. Although there is clearly real concern about the route that the link road should take, few would disagree that such a link is necessary. For too long now, the absence of a direct, high-quality east-west route for the growing volume of traffic between the midlands and the rapidly expanding east coast ports has left a serious gap in the country's road network. To the west of the M1, the M6 and the M45 give good road access to the industrial west midlands and the north-west, while east of the A1 the A14 now bypasses Huntingdon, and the A604 and A45 have been progressively improved, as my right hon. Friend said, to provide a dual carriageway route all the way to Ipswich. With the completion of the Ipswich western bypass, about which I hope to make an announcement soon, this high-standard road will continue to the ports of Felixstowe and Ipswich and will help access to the port of Harwich.

However, there is a gap between the M6 and the A1. There is at present no direct east-west road, and the existing routes are unsuitable for heavy lorries. Industrialists in the west midlands are convinced that a new road is essential for the future prosperity of the area. The east coast port authorities and many other authorities in east Anglia are equally convinced that continued growth depends on completion of the link. The residents of numerous towns and villages currently suffering from the effects of east-west traffic are pressing hard for action to relieve their problems.

From what my right hon. Friend said tonight, I think that our disagreement, such as it is at the moment, is over that section from the M1 across to just somewhere to the 701 west of Kettering. He was not seeking to oppose the rest of the green route going eastwards from that point over to Brampton. Therefore, I shall concentrate on the western sector of the M1-A1 link.

In addition to providing the direct access right across to the ports, there is the important need to improve access to Corby, and so encourage the industrial regeneration of the town. To a lesser degree, the same considerations apply also to Kettering. It is this section from the M6, therefore, upon which we need to concentrate our minds. I have so far heard of up to 10 alternative strategies. Many minor variants are being suggested, and that is why the public inquiry, which will have to be held, is needed to resolve the route, to hear the objections and to hear the views of people in the area who need to use the route.

Today, we have heard from my right hon. Friend of what I shall call the Morton route. It is a variant on the A427 route. The Morton route would go from the last junction along the M6, up the A426 and across the A427 to the north of Market Harborough and then down the A6 road and cut across to the north-west of Desborough and Rothwell, joining the Kettering road and the original green route to go round the south of Kettering.

This presents an alternative route, but the right place to argue this is the public inquiry, where the Department of Transport route and all the alternatives will be heard. My right hon. Friend has reminded us firmly that it is his conviction that the route that we have recently published in draft statutory orders is wrong. I know that that view is shared by many people who think that instead of building a new road between the M1 and Kettering, we should adopt the alternative strategy, or one of them, based largely on improvements to existing roads.

My right hon. Friend has spoken of the effect that the published route would have on the countryside and the amount of farm land that would be taken. He has also argued that the alternative strategy would be cheaper. I shall return to that point in relation to the Morton route. He has also referred to the possible encroachment of the Department's route on the battlefield at Naseby.

I appreciate the anxieties on all these issues and I take note of the concern expressed not only in the House tonight but in the letters received, particularly about the allegedly damaging effect of the Department's proposals. However, that is only one side of the story because, whatever the route, there are advantages and disadvantages that can be argued. Any of the alternative strategies will have disadvantages—as my right hon. Friend will know—as will any option suggested as an alternative to the link road scheme.

As far as I can be sure at the moment, and as I have been advised, the route suggested by Cllr. Morton suggests that the Kettering northern by-pass must also be included. When we look at that route and Cllr. Morton's suggestion that dualling should take place along the whole of the route, we see that the land take across that sector would be rather larger than the land take of the current green route from the M6 across to Kettering, presupposing that both routes have dual carriageways. It is also slightly longer. The costs, I estimate, will be about 10 per cent. more than those of the green route. Whatever is argued at the public inquiry, my right hon. Friend should be aware that according to the present view of what is known of the Morton route, it is not likely to be cheaper. The original 702 alternative proposals put forward by MALRAC and others which would have used the A 427, although not to the same standard, and the A 45 may have been cheaper but would not have fulfilled the traffic needs across from the M1 to the A1.

The Morton route, along with the other alternative routes, will be studied most carefully and scrutinised in great detail. We should not believe, however, that the creation of a new route to enable traffic from the west midlands and, indeed, the north-west to reach the east coast ports can be accomplished on the cheap. It has to be done properly to be effective.

The Department's green route—the completion of a direct through route—could be achieved, even with a public inquiry and assuming it were to be recommended by the inspector and accepted by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport, ahead of the time that the Morton route, or any alternative, could be achieved.

The preparation of the green route is much further advanced than either of the other two routes, however desirable my right hon. Friend states these routes to be. We would have to consider particularly the effect of the Morton route or the other alternatives for all those living near the busy A427 route. With the green route solution we estimate that 75 per cent. of the heavy vehicles would be removed from that road. With the Morton alternative or any of the others there would be a great increase of traffic in the area, although, as my right hon. Friend says, not through those villages. I do not think that the Morton route envisages that. It is designed to go around many of them. However, we have to consider the best and quickest means of improving access to Corby and to Kettering as well as to the east coast ports. The reason why we have alighted on the green corridor is well known. It was the Department's preference seven years ago. Each time that we have carried out full-scale reassessment of the route and compared it with the alternative strategies, with the exception so far of the Morton strategy, we have confirmed that the green route is the better route.

I wish to mention the landscape value of the country through which the link road would run. I do not think that the effect would be as devastating as my right hon. Friend fears. Certainly, everything practicable would be done to minimise the harm to the landscape in designing the new road. Advice has been taken from the Landscape Advisory Committee, which has twice visited the route. The effect of new roads on agricultural land is always regrettable, but, even though the published route would take 680 acres of agricultural land, the Morton alternatives would take about 401 acres in the area most concerned. The original alternative strategies would have taken over 325 acres of farm land. The taking of 325 acres of farm land would provide for only a single-carriageway scheme. It did not include the Kettering northern bypass. My figure of 401 acres for the Morton scheme also did not include the Kettering northern bypass which, if I remember rightly is another seven kilometres. The Government have made a deliberate effort to redesign the route to follow existing farm boundaries and to minimise disruption to farming in the area. We are already engaged in many discussions with the farmers affected and with the National Farmers Union.

I have made some reference to costs, and obviously more work needs to be done on the Morton alternative. It is about 10 per cent. more expensive than the green route.

703 The Government have carefully considered the question of the link road to the battlefield of Naseby. Hon. Members will recall that, when the preferred corridor for the link road was announced in 1975, the route to the south of Naseby was selected on the other side of Naseby village from the battlefield. At that time, the historical significance of the area proved to be the deciding factor. Detailed studies subsequently revealed that ground conditions were such that to route the link road south of Naseby on stable ground would mean its passing closer to the village of Naseby than the public had been led to believe at the time of public consultation. The information provided by the studies altered the balance of the many factors involved in selecting the route—the claims of the battlefield, the way the works would fit into the landscape, the effect on local residents, and economic considerations. Despite the adverse reaction to the change to a northern route, I have no doubt that in the circumstances it was right to review the 1975 decisions. That reassessment showed that a northern route would be shorter, cheaper and further away from Naseby. Furthermore, our study of the works of professional historians suggested that although a northern route would certainly cross an area where some fighting took place—the baggage area as I believe it is called—it would not affect the main battle area.

We concluded in the light of the environmental and economic considerations that it was right to propose a northern route in place of the southern route originally adopted.

But, because of the strong local and national interest in the battlefield issue, my Department will work up to the same standard plans of the best southern route for consideration alongside the published northern route so that the issue can be fully debated at the public inquiry later this year.

There are many points to be considered in this debate. My right hon. Friend has proved to me, above all, the need for a public inquiry. I know that views which are contrary to those of the Department, and different from any of the routes that have so far been put forward, will have a 704 thorough hearing at an inquiry. The outcome of such an inquiry can never be foreseen, especially with a scheme of this size containing many difficult issues, such as the effect on the battlefield of Naseby, ranging far beyond the area immediately affected.

Not until my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Environment and Transport have jointly considered the report and recommendations of the independent inspector, and taken into account all of the objections and representations received, will they decide whether the schemes and orders for the link road should be made with or without modification.

I have made a careful note of the points made by my right hon. Friend in the debate and of all the submissions sent to the Department. Where further action is necessary, I shall see that it is taken. The debate has been most useful. It has brought into the debate the Morton alternative. I am quite sure that the Official Report of the debate will form a vital part of the evidence before the independent inspector conducting the public inquiry.

Whenever a new road is needed because of the change in our trading patterns, and because our trade has turned so much more towards Europe, we shall always face the difficulty of taking roads through areas previously unaccustomed to traffic. Whether it is the dualling or improvement of an existing carriageway or the building of a new carriageway, I assure my right hon. Friend that the need to make it fit in with the environment without disrupting the landscape and to minimise the take of agricultural land is just as much in the Government's mind as the economic considerations of the road's viability.

I thank my right hon. Friend for examining the issue tonight. I know that we shall exchange more information as the months go by. Eventually, public consultation and discussion will take place at the public inquiry which a route of this importance must surely have.