§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
12.44 am§ Mr. Tom Arnold (Hazel Grove)I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the proposed line of route of A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass — the so-called "blue route".
I should say at once to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I am absolutely delighted that the Government are going ahead with the construction of this road. It represents the end of a battle that has lasted for many years and has involved the efforts of a great many people. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and her predecessor for agreeing that the road should go ahead.
There has been considerable growth in the whole Stockport area in recent years. This has been especially apparent in terms of traffic congestion in certain parts of the borough. As my hon. Friend knows, conditions in parts of my constituency and especially in the village of Hazel Grove have become intolerable in recent years. I was therefore very pleased that my hon. Friend's predecessor, now my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, was able to come and see the situation for himself, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), when he was Secretary of State for Transport. Everyone agreed that something had to be done, and I am delighted that funds have now been found to enable this expensive scheme to go ahead.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will say something about the cost, as I am anxious to make it clear to some of my constituents that this is a very important scheme and one that the Government treat very seriously. I believe that about 18 months ago the estimated cost was about £36 million. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that that remains the position today.
The cost of the project reflects the complexity of what is proposed. It is an urban motorway which will involve quite a lot of work in terms of side orders for roads and linking historic communities so that the present shape of the district is both enchanced and preserved with the minimum dislocation.
Having campaigned for the road for well over 10 years, embracing a period before I was a Member of Parliment or parliamentary candidate for Hazel Grove, I strongly believe that it will improve the quality of life on the eastern side of the borough. Whatever dislocation may be caused while it is being constructed, I believe that at the end of the day it will alleviate traffic congestion and make life a great deal more pleasant for a large number of people.
In raising the subject today I make it clear to those who have criticised the whole project that whereas they are entitled to voice their objections, I am equally entitled to say that I believe that the construction of the road should go ahead. Although there are problems for certain specific areas, with which I shall deal in a moment, I believe that the basic principle is correct and I am delighted that the long campaign has reached the point at which it has been decided that construction of the road is to go ahead.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State some detailed questions about what happens next. I believe that as things now stand she hopes to introduce the draft orders some time in 1984, with a view to holding a public inquiry in 1985. I understand, however, that she has also 294 mentioned the possibility of a second public inquiry, in 1986, to deal with the compulsory purchase of land. As I am sure she will be the first to realise, while there is uncertaintly about her intentions as to the precise timetable to be followed, it is in the nature of things that rumour abounds. I should therefore be very grateful if she would take this opportunity to state specifically what her intentions are with regard to the timetable, so that my constituents will know with some certainty how matters are likely to proceed.
That is important, as a number of difficult issues have yet to be resolved. I am anxious to help constituents who will be affected by the construction of the road to meet their problems to the extent that that is possible. In this context, I thank my hon. Friend for her efforts so far to deal with all the correspondence that I have sent her. She has been wholly admirable, in terms both of fairness and of the detailed work that she has undertaken in replying to the many letters that I have sent to her on this subject. I fear that I shall have further letters to send to my hon. Friend because the construction of a road involves much work and, naturally, causes anxiety to those immediately affected.
I shall deal with one or two matters that are causing some anxiety. My hon. Friend wrote to me recently about the position of E. Simpson Ltd. in Hazel Grove. I hope that that company will avail itself of the opportunities which my hon. Friend has provided for it to enter into the widest possible consultations with officials of her Department to try to meet its specific problems.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has revised the original proposals and come forward with a scheme for a roundabout to be situated further south than had originally been envisaged, thereby recognising that more homes would have been affected by the original scheme than will be affected by the new scheme. I understand that the roundabout has given rise to some controversy. I know that my hon. Friend must review the position yet again. I hope that she will consider that the views of my constituents who have written to me and approached her are of considerable importance in determining the outcome of the problem.
Moving further north, I wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the continuing uncertainty in the minds of some people about the situation in the vicinity of BeanLeach Road and the BosdeFold estate. It is important that the BosdeFold estate should continue to have proper links with Hazel Grove. Some anxiety has been registered locally about the siting of the roundabout and proper access. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance, either now or later, that the position of my constituents, who historically regard themselves as living in Hazel Grove —albeit separated from the village by several acres of green fields—will remain unaffected and that they will be able to gain access to local shopping centres and the village.
Again moving further north, I come to the vexed issue of the north end of the road in the vicinity of Bredbury. I declare an interest in this matter, in that I live on the Stockport road in west Bredbury, not far from where the motorway will end. I have witnessed some of the problems which were, I understand, the subject of a public meeting last week attended by local councillors and officials representing the interests both of the local authority and of the Department.
295 I shall deal in turn with the problems of Kay avenue and Osborne street. I understand that the policy is not to allow cul-de-sacs to exceed 250 metres. The proposal is to open up Kay avenue, which is a cul-de-sac, to through traffic to provide access for emergency vehicles to that estate. I recognise fully that access of that type is essential. I hope that, in turn, my hon. Friend recognises that Kay avenue is a quiet residential street and that the local residents are anxious that it should not become a road for through traffic. I hope that it will be possible to arrive at a solution whereby additional access is available to Kay avenue, but is reserved strictly for the use of emergency vehicles, and is designed to meet the specification of a rather large footpath, which would nevertheless allow emergency vehicles to proceed along it. I hope my hon. Friend will understand the serious anxieties of local residents and accept that there is a real problem that needs to be solved.
I have some sympathy with the view of local residents that it would be a great pity to divide the community of Bredbury by closing Osborne street to through traffic. I understand that earlier plans called either for the motorway to pass over Osborne street on stilts, or for the construction of a tunnel, so that the full length of the street could be preserved intact.
Osborne street is not only residential, but provides educational and shopping facilities. I know that local residents are very anxious that the sense of community should be preserved. I hope that my hon. Friend will look again, if that is possible, at the line of route and the precise arrangements for the vicinity of Osborne street, and judge whether it is possible to keep the road open to traffic to meet the wishes of local residents.
A number of local residents have said to me, "Well, now you have a problem with the road, what will you do about it?" That question has been asked by the Bredbury Labour party, among others. I have absolutely no problem with the road. I am delighted that it is going ahead, because its construction is sorely needed. I am glad that the Government have found it possible to include the very expensive programme in the main public expenditure on roads for the latter years of the decade.
That does not mean that I do not want to do everything that I can to help those of my constituents who face problems. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares that feeling. Indeed, to judge from the sympathetic manner with which she has so far approached the problems connected with the road, I have some confidence that she will deal with them seriously.
I hope that my hon. Friend will use this opportunity tonight to state her intentions on the specific timetable and give some sign of how she intends to meet the serious problems that have arisen in deciding on the line of the route.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend for affording me the opportunity to raise what are, for my constituents, very serious matters.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) has sought to raise this matter, because it provides a good opportunity to explain the current position of the scheme. It would be fair to say that it is attracting as much interest as any road 296 proposal in the north-west. We have had a heavy postbag that has raised all sorts of questions—some of which have nothing to do with the scheme.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of and the priority to be given to the bypass, which must be a full bypass. While my hon. Friend was speaking I took the opportunity to study the difficult engineering problems that the narrow area between the various areas of habitation presents for a proper bypass.
Because of my travels through Hazel Grove and Stockport, I am well aware of the importance of the scheme. I know about the serious congestion on the roads, especially at junctions through the main shopping area of Hazel Grove and during prime times when there is a great deal of traffic. I hope that the Government's recent White Paper conveyed the urgency with which we view the need for relief. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has given such a warm welcome to our plans, even though he rightly has questions and concerns about them. My hon. Friend knows that we did not want to suspend preparation of the scheme in 1980, but we had to do so for financial reasons. At that time people in both Hazel Grove and Stockport left us in no doubt about their view that we should restart the scheme quickly.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), now the Minister for Health, was impressed by the case put forward when he visited Stockport and Hazel Grove, and in 1981 we announced in our White Paper the resumption of preparation of this road. Shortly afterwards, we appointed consulting engineers.
It is now about 38 years, or even longer, since talk of a bypass for Stockport and Hazel Grove began. I am quite sure that we must get on with it as quickly as possible. I want to make a start as soon as the main design work and the statutory procedures permit.
My hon. Friend asked me about the dates. I hope that, following further discussions over the next month or so, we will be able to work towards the publication of the draft line and side roads orders later in 1984 and to hold a public inquiry in 1985. It may then be necessary to hold a further public inquiry into the compulsory purchase orders for the land when those draft CPOs are published in 1986. We hope that construction will commence in 1987. That is the likely timetable.
We could be lucky. We always hope, for the sake of those who are to benefit from such roads, that we will not come across any impediments and that we shall be able to go through all the procedures very swiftly. However, the plans for the road involve many people. The public inquiry system should be fully used to make sure that we have the best route, and we should consider the needs of all who are affected. We seek to give the local people a full and effective bypass.
I have been asked to consider not building the southern section of the A6(M) between the A6 and the A523, because it could lead to extra traffic on the A523 through Poynton. I understand the worries of the people of Poynton. The recent White Paper announced an urgent study into what could be done to overcome their traffic problems, including a possible Poynton bypass. In my view, however, there are strong arguments for building the full road quickly. Roughly half the traffic on the A6 and Hazel Grove is travelling to or from the A523, and an A6(M) which does not link to the A523 would produce far fewer benefits and far less relief for the Hazel Grove and Stockport area.
297 I should explain why, after so much time, we suggested some changes to the blue route. I can understand that any potential change to the blue route, which has been protected since public consultation in 1973, will worry some people. The changes have not been suggested for change's sake. They are designed to try to take up, and give a better solution to, the natural worries expressed by people in the area. We can see clearly, if we look at a map, that the new route is slightly further away from most of the habitations which would have been affected by the original blue route.
Following public consultation, the original blue route was protected, but that protection was based only on preliminary design information. It is not unusual for adjustments to be made when more detailed design information becomes available. Furthermore, design standards change over a period and we would always hope for a better proposal — for example, a proposal that would help at the Bredbury end of the road. At Bredbury the area of land through which the road could go is very narrow. Since 1973 we have dropped altogether the Bredbury bypass at the northern end of the road, and I think that the new proposals for dealing with the northern end of the route will be far better.
Many people have said that it should not take 10 years to complete the design. Progress has been hampered to some extent because much of the design work depended on the completion of long and complicated traffic studies involving other road proposals. We were also committed to a detailed examination of the alternative route in the Offerton area, which had been suggested by the Offerton community council. We decided that the blue route would be better in that area because the environmental effect would be less damaging and the route permitted a less expensive connection back to the A6 at Stepping Hill. There was also the regrettable but unavoidable need to suspend preparation for a year.
Over the past few months we have had a good deal of reaction to suggestions for changes in the blue route. I announced on 2 August that we still considered the blue route to be right in principle, and that we would provide a link back to the A6 at Stepping Hill to ensure that the bypass gives as much relief to Hazel Grove as possible. I mentioned that we were proposing a few modifications to the 1973 alignment. I specified those at the southern end of the route where it would join the A523 in the vicinity of Hazel Grove golf course, and near the crossing of the river Goyt.
I have said in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I am prepared to consider the schemes as a whole, but I do not want to hold up the process because we want the best deal to give the A6(M) a chance to go forward in the timescale that I have already outlined.
A great deal of anxiety has been expressed about the Brookside garden centre. I understand it, and I am shortly to discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield before we reach a final decision. That should not impede progress in any way.
My hon. Friend who has so rightly raised this matter in debate tonight also wrote to me about the change near Hazel Grove golf course. I know that many people in Bredbury are anxious about the impact in the Osborne street-Prestbury drive districts. I shall write to my hon. Friend in some detail about Osborne street and the link between the two sections of Bredbury.
298 I shall also say a word in a few moments about Kay avenue. The sooner we give the details about each of the crunch points on this scheme to the people involved, the sooner we shall start to make progress. Many matters vary from household to household. I do not want to mislead anyone by making a sweeping statement about a certain junction, because the result may not be the same for all the nearby households. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I would prefer to deal by letter with some of the points that he has mentioned so that we can give the best possible information to his constituents.
I shall make another announcement once we have taken a decision on the study, and we shall have plans showing the modifications which will be available for people to inspect. I would advise anyone who is anxious, for example those involved in property transactions at the moment, about the scheme, to get in touch with our northwest regional office at Sunley building, Piccadilly plaza, Manchester. That office will give as much detail as possible. It would plainly be wiser if people can wait until we have settled some of the final details.
My hon. Friend asked me about E. Simpson Limited of Buxton road, Hazel Grove. Although I have recently written to my hon. Friend about this firm, I understand and share his concern about the effect of our proposals on the business. There are environmental, cost and other problems about moving the road further from the factory. We must explore every avenue to ensure that the problems which our proposals pose for the firm are overcome. I have told my officials to give Simpsons all the help they can.
My hon. Friend mentioned the problems of Kay avenue. I understand the anxiety that is felt, because we have to make certain preparations for access from Stockport road into the housing estate to the south of Stockport road. The fear is that if we were to use Kay avenue for emergency vehicles, it might become a rat run through residential streets. That I understand.
We are not going to have a vehicular link across the motorway between Vernon road and Kingsway-Osborne street, and therefore our present proposal is that we provide an additional access for emergency use. That would need to be Kay avenue, but I see no reason why it should be more than that.
Our plans are not yet settled, but I will ensure that the second access could not be used in other than very exceptional circumstances, because that is important to the area.
I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind if I put on record the reasons for the change that has attracted the most comment and some support. It concerns the relocation of the A523 junction at the southern end. We proposed it because it would give a shorter and generally more effective route for the traffic flow and because we believed that the original junction position would make access to the Brookside garden centre difficult and possibly dangerous. The move would also take the new road further from houses in Darley road. We knew that there would be disadvantages as one extra property—North lodge — would have to be demolished, many mature trees would have to go and the road would be closer to houses in Towers road. We have not closed our minds about the junction. I wanted to comment on it because getting it right is essential to the timetabling of the route. We must act on the additional study that I have had done so that the scheme can run smoothly on our timetable.
299 Many people have asked about the junction south of Hazel grove. We proposed in the announcement of 2 August to move that junction north into the field and to provide new link roads back to the A6 as the original proposal for a junction with the A6, hard by the railway, would have involved a much more complex and expensive layout.
I have already mentioned the realignment near the Hazel Grove golf course. The link that we added to the A6 at Stepping hill is to ensure that our proposals provide the most effective bypass. Our objective in designing that link will be to keep the effect on property to a minimum. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall make plans available locally as soon as possible. He asked about the cost of the scheme. The White Paper gave the cost, excluding land 300 acquisition, as nearly £26 million at November 1982 prices. It is quite a bypass. It is an important road for my hon. Friend's constituents.
There are some questions that I am not able to answer now. However, we must strike the right balance between the environmental and the economic factors. We shall take as few houses as possible, but the area needs the road. There are several dilemmas that we have yet to resolve. In trying to strike the best available balance between all the many competing demands with regard to the road, I am sure that we must get on with it for the sake of my hon. Friend's constituents.
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at fourteen minutes past One o'clock.