§ 2.39 p.m.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will avoid the unnecessary destruction of Levens Park, Westmorland, by adopting the alternative route for the proposed spur to the M.6 motorway which has been considered by the Minister of Transport and found acceptable on engineering grounds.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD)My Lords, before my right honourable friend established the route of the proposed spur road last autumn, he considered very carefully an alternative route designed to avoid Levens Park. This other route, though feasible from an engineering point 143 of view, was rejected mainly on the grounds that it would have been more damaging to amenity than the established route. It would be about 20 feet higher where it crossed the river and would be visible over a much wider area of the Park. Other factors were that it would have involved the demolition of property and cost about £125,000 more. The established route goes through the Park at a low level where the ground falls away towards the River Kent, and will not be visible from the main part of the avenue of oak trees. Moreover, it is nearly a mile away from Levens Hall and its gardens. By diverting traffic from the present A.6 trunk route severing the Hall and the gardens from the Park, it would be beneficial to the amenity of the Hall and its surroundings.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, I wonder whether he could not give us a little more information. We have seen in the Press that the Minister himself has visited Levens Park during the last day or two. Can the noble Lord tell us whether the Minister is considering the whole position, or is his Answer intended to signify that the original official route has been confirmed?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the position of my right honourable friend is that after careful thought this has become the established route. We have gone through the normal procedures, but the House may wish to know that the owner of the property has recently placed an alternative proposition before my right honourable friend. This is being considered, but I am bound to point out that there are some objectionable features to it. However, it will be considered.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, which is a slight improvement on what I gathered from his first Answer. I hope he will bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the great mass of informed opinion—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
§ LORD CHORLEYWill the noble Lord bring to the attention of his right 144 honourable friend—I hope he will—the fact that the great mass of informed opinion on this matter is in disagreement with the proposed route? It is important that the Minister should know this, and I hope that this view will be impressed upon him.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, as my noble friend is aware, my right honourable friend went specially to see this Park and to see the proposals. I will certainly see that the point of view expressed by my noble friend is drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend, although I question whether my noble friend is right when he refers to "the mass of informed opinion". I know that that is a phrase frequently used by Members of your Lordships' House, but we have taken advice from consultants on amenities and in fact they have approved the Government view of this matter.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the people in the district will be grateful to the Minister for having taken the trouble to visit this area? I would also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that this trouble did not start during the period of office of this Minister or even this Government, but is unfortunately an example of the arrogant way in which Ministry of Transport officials have been conducting their business in that area. Is he further aware that this is not an isolated instance? There is no need for the noble Lord to smile. I would also ask whether he is aware that only a few miles further North there was a similar controversial case which ended in a public inquiry, where the scandals both before and after were such that the Member of Parliament referred it to the Ombudsman, who has accepted it.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I smiled because the noble Lord clearly was using a Question to attack officials in the Ministry of Transport, and doing it in such a way that it would be wrong, certainly if I were to keep within the rules of the House, for me to answer him. That is the reason I smiled.