HL Deb 02 December 1971 vol 326 cc567-83

7.59 p.m.

LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the Minister for the Environment's welcome Written Answer on June 23 (House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, cols.288–292), they will ensure that bypass facilities for centres of population and historic towns are established and operative well before the projected interurban roads are completed. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstirred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I imagine it will be convenienet to your Lordships if from the Written Answer of the Minister for the Environment, which I have described as "welcome", as indeed it is, I quote the specific portion of the opening paragraph on which my Question is based. I refer to the Hansard of another place for June 23, at column 288, where Mr. Peter Walker said: I have now completed my review of interurban road needs and I am to-day adding £500 million worth of major schemes to the preparation pool of motorways and trunk roads. In selecting these schemes, which arc listed below, I have had in mind the totality of my responsibilities for the environment and in particular the following six aims". I propose to mention only the first, second and the last:

  1. "1. To achieve environmental improvements by diverting long-distance traffic, and particularly heavy goods vehicles, from a large num 568 ber of towns and villages, so as to relieve them of the noise, dirt and danger which they suffer at present;
  2. 2. To complete by the early 1980s a comprehensive network of strategic trunk routes to promote economic growth;"
The sixth aim is: to relieve as many historic towns as possible of through trunk traffic.

There is no need for me to enlarge on the importance of this declaration. I venture to quote from Professor Colin Buchanan's monumental Report, Traffic in Towns which some noble Lords may have studied. At page 197 it says: There is a great deal at stake: it is not a question of retaining a few old buildings, but of conserving, in the face of the onslaught of motor traffic, a major part of the heritage of the English-speaking world, of which this country is guardian. When he talks of the English-speaking world, I know that he includes my native Scotland. The paragraph to which I have referred is headed "Historic Towns". Although Professor Buchanan took Norwich as the basis of his study, the sentence that I have read to your Lordships is a generalisation as it applies to the whole problem that faces the country to-day.

I have one other quotation. On October 27, in an Oral Answer, the Minister for Local Government and Development said in the other place, after referring to contemplated expenditure, which was also mentioned by Mr. Peter Walker in my previous quotation: I shall look particularly for schemes which contribute towards overall transport planning—including improvement of public transport services—and produce environmental benefits such as the relief of historic towns. That was at column 1706, October 27, of Hansard in the other place.

The massive plans for motorways and other "high quality trunk routes" probably are an economc necessity, despite the consequential destruction of agricultural land. However, my anxiety, which may well be shared by other noble Lords, is that the integral by-pass roads may not be ready and available in time for the interurban routes. No one would be happier than I if the Minister could prove this anxiety to be unfounded. When I suggest that my view may be shared, my mind goes back to the brief debate yesterday on the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill which took place before the Rhodesian debate. It was a pity that that had to be sandwiched in between Questions and the Rhodesia Motion, because I should have liked to speak, but forbore because my Question was down for to-day. I agree strongly with what my noble friend Lord Mancroft said yesterday, and I am sorry, as I know he is, that he is unable to be here at this time.

Unlike main road developments, orbital highways require close integration with the special traffic problems of centres of population—cities and towns. This postulates co-ordination with urban local authorities perhaps at a time when the whole pattern of such authorities in England and Wales, and later in Scotland, may be altered by the Local Government Bill when it is enacted. Having these anxieties, I am also influenced by the city of Edinburgh, to which I refer only as an illustration of what I mean. The city has employed consultants to advise on its internal traffic and, in addition, the authorities have employed other consultants to advise on the traffic in South-East Scotland. Yet I have reason to believe that neither of these consultants leas evaluated the effect of a true orbital highway round the capital city on the traffic pattern of either area, or both—the city and the South-East of Scotland. This must affect the planning of trunk routes. A true by-pass is not just a relief road, but an "orbital highway". That is one of Professor Buchanan's phrases, and it is a good phrase to use, because so often there is confusion between "by-pass" and "ring road", and further confusion between "ring road" and "ring route". This is the excuse that I make for using this rather awful mouthful which, nevertheless, I think would be approved by my noble friend Lord Conesford. An orbital highway, a true by-pass, was part of the plan for Edinburgh 25 years ago. It was the plan which originally embodied the Forth Road Bridge, but it would seem that they have almost lost sight of the orbital highway. I quote this experience only to illustrate the difficulties which I am suggesting may confront the Department of the Environment, and I have no doubt that they are aware of them. But do they fully appreciate their magnitude?

My Question is designed to hold up a warning finger, as it were, that no time is to be lost in facing up to this problem. My noble friend who is to reply gave a very important forecast in winding up yesterday's short debate on the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill. Can he reassure the House that the by-pass plans —magnificent as they are, and to me surprisingly large—can be carried through in time? This is not the occasion to develop the various subsidiary problems such as road safety, public transport terminals and so on. Yesterday's short debate, and the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, tempts me to suggest that it is inevitable that oversized vehicles will have to be confined to certain classes of roads. If this comes about—and I feel certain it is bound to do so—until by-passes are complete, the economic value of the motorway system will be severely restricted.

In conclusion, I look forward to my noble friend's reply and hope that it will give the complete assurance which I seek. I should like to thank any other noble Lords who take part in this debate in which I have no right to reply. I only apologise that it comes after a marathon and at an hour which, even in this House, we may regard as late. My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.

8.10 p.m.

LORD CAWLEY

My Lords, I intend to speak about some of the difficulties that the authorities have in building bypasses on roads where one might imagine no such difficulty existed. I may be accused of being parochial, but I intend to speak shortly about a road that is little more than a winding lane and runs down the Welsh Borders, which is called euphemistically A.49 trunk road, because it connects four historic towns: Shrewsbury, Ludlow, Leominster and Hereford. I am going to speak in particular about the two middle towns, Ludlow and Leominster, which I think show some interesting features. Under the present scheme some £6 million has been allotted for improving the road between Shrewsbury and Hereford. But, strange to relate, no plans exist, at any rate none which have been crystallised, for the by-passing of Ludlow or Leominster. But £ 1,100,000 has been allotted to by-passing two small villages called Brimfield and Ashton, which lie between Leominster and Ludlow. One may imagine why.

I must now declare an interest because the Ashton by-pass passes through my property and that of the National Trust. But I will say that in my view the bypass will improve my property rather than damage it. Though agricultural land will be taken and woodland will be destroyed, there will be two excellent bypasses for two of my farms. As this road, the A.49, takes an immense amount of traffic that will be to my advantage. But it is very curious. Of course, there are never any traffic jams in either of these two villages, though obviously they are danger spots and ought to be by-passed.

When we look at Ludlow we see possibly the finest hill town in England. But the traffic roars up one side of the hill; it then roars down the other side; it then comes to Ludford Bridge, a medieval bridge on which two cars cannot pass in any circumstances. Not only can two cars not pass, but if one car is passing, pedestrians have to leap for shelter into the tops of the cut-waters with which the bridge is supplied. Your Lordships may ask why on earth are we not starting to spend some of this £6 million on bypassing Ludlow. The answer is quite simple. Nobody can make up his mind at all as to whether the by-pass shall go West or East of the town. It seems that this is one of the cases, just as at Oxford, where the Minister ought to step in and say: "Now this is where the bypass will go", regardless, because unless that happens Ludlow is going to be shaken to pieces—in particular the very fine, half-timbered building known as the Feathers Hotel, past which a great stream of lorries and other vehicles goes continuously.

Leominster is an entirely different problem. There the line of the by-pass is absolutely obvious: East of the town. It is flat; there is nothing on it. To put the by-pass there would not require, so far as I can tell, any acquisition of housing property at all. One may wonder why all this money is being spent on bypassing two small villages while nothing is being done about Leominster. The answer is a rather curious one. The Herefordshire County Council have been trying for about seven years to obtain an inner relief road in Leominster. They had a lot of trouble with property owners and so on, which was perfectly justified, and they have gone through a most lengthy procedure and really think they are getting somewhere. But what they say is, "Well, if we spend money on building a Leominster by-pass, what chance could we possibly have of getting an inner relief road? The Ministry would promptly say, 'You have your by-pass. What on earth are you talking about an inner relief road for?' and the negotiation of seven years for this very desirable, but not essential, relief road would be completely wasted." And, of course, people whose houses and property were likely to be taken to supply space for the inner relief road would be put in a completely uncertain position and go back to square one. A blight would be put on the property. So one can well see that the Herefordshire County Council do not want them to be put in this position; and they want their inner relief road but they also want the by-pass.

The second point on this is that of course to obtain a country by-pass round a village is very much easier, because one has to negotiate with possibly only one or two landowners. They usually realise that the road must come in any event and they give in. That is indeed what has happened with the National Trust and I myself at Ashton.

In the case of Ludlow, as I have said before, the Ministry ought to fix the route before the place is destroyed, and in the case of Leominster they ought to tell the Herefordshire County Council: "If you spend the money on the by-pass it will not prejudice your chances of an inner relief road at all." This is a matter that applies in Herefordshire, and I believe this sort of situation occurs all over the country. I should like to know what plans the Ministry have for dealing with this situation which exists in Herefordshire and elsewhere.

8.16 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for tabling this Question and I want to take advantage of his doing so by first of all drawing attention to the fact that the previous Government published a road programme. Also the present Government have published a road programme, and I think in point of fact both are very similar. I believe I am correct in saying that a statement has also been made that by-passes for historic towns would receive priority. Indeed, the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, refers to by-pass facilities for historic towns. I should be grateful if the Minister when he replies is able to confirm that by-passes for historic towns are to have priority. Furthermore, I ask him whether he can indicate which historic towns are included in the Government's programme, and whether he can give us a timetable for constructing those by-passes around those towns.

8.18 p.m.

LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, and following on what my noble friend has said, may I say that I hope the Government are going to give this problem their serious consideration because it has now become a really very serious problem to many historic towns in this country. As my noble friend has said, the previous Government issued a report, and another report is in existence. To take an example, Cheltenham, a beautiful town, a spa and Regency town, attracts tourists to the Cotswolds. It has now become the funnel from the motorway for 40-ton contraptions roaring through the area, including that beautiful road, the Sandford Road, at the side of Cheltenham College, so that the inhabitants of the town who really love the town and its history and facilities are now almost terrified. In some places people are almost terrified to cross the roads. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is no use just issuing reports and the Government saying, "We are going to give priority to historical towns". We simply cannot allow this country to sacrifice its towns to be used as funnels to take enormous amounts of traffic, which will get heavier when we go into the Common Market.

The local authorities discuss the position and make representations to the Government, but nothing is ever done. As the noble Lord has said, beautiful towns are simply being shaken to pieces. This must be the responsibility of the Government, and if we are to believe the reports in the Press the Government are trying to induce the local authorities to spend money in order to assist in the present situation, in which we have a million unemployed. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will indicate that the Government are taking this matter seriously, that they realise what is happening to many of the beautiful towns of this country, and that they will take action to prod the local authorities into action.

8.22 p.m.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, replies I should like to make one point in connection with the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, of which I thoroughly approve. He says in the Question that by-pass facilities for historic towns should be: established and operative well before the projected inter-urban roads are completed". I would prefer to see that worded rather differently: I would say the inter-urban roads shall not be opened until the orbital by-passes are completed".

LORD FERRIER

Hear, hear!

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

My Lords, that is the only point I wish to make in regard to this Question. However, although I am not certain whether this is the time to mention it I should like to refer to the bad accident that occurred in the fog earlier this week, which has made me wonder whether we should not give the police powers to shut these "autobahns" in foggy conditions, in order to stop such accidents occurring.

8.24 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TILE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD)

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for asking this Question, and it is not his fault that we are here discussing the matter, and I am answering it, at twenty-past eight at night, after a long two-day debate. The best thing for me to do is perhaps to reiterate and emphasise afresh some of the matters which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in the summer, rather than deal with one or two of the points concerning particular places which have been mentioned by noble Lords, and finally to complete my answer by dealing with this question of priority as between the inner relief road and by-passes.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, may I say that it is a pity that this discussion is being held to-day, but of course it was down for yesterday, and had it been taken then the noble Lord, Lord Clark, the noble Lord. Lord Aldington, and other noble Lords would have taken part.

LORD SANDFORD

Yes, my Lords, but I am afraid it would have been taken at one o'clock in the morning.

My Lords, the plans announced last summer by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State provide for a considerable programme of improvement to the country's trunk road system. In making his announcement, the Secretary of State laid stress on the fact that the schemes selected for admission to the trunk road preparation pool had been chosen, as my noble friend has reminded us, in the light of the totality of the responsibilities that he and all of us in the Department of the Environment bear towards the environment. Two of the six distinct aims in those proposals were, first, diversion of long distance traffic from towns and villages, and, second, the relief specifically of historic towns from trunk road through traffic. In selecting historic towns we use the list drawn up by the Council of British Archeology, which is broadly accepted in a number of circles as being as good a list as any. That list contains the names of 105 towns which are on trunk roads.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Granville, and in confirmation of the assurance given by my right honourable friend some months ago, I would confirm that 84 of the 105 towns will have been relieved of through traffic by the early 1980s. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not aware of anything going on in this field, but I can assure him that that is the fact. I can send to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, a list showing which towns are in what stages of being relieved. There are 84 of them, and I am sure neither he nor the House would want me to rehearse the list, although I have it here. However I will send the noble Lord a copy. In addition, many other towns and villages will benefit from the attraction of traffic from them on to the modern main strategic routes that form part of the new trunk road and motorway network.

Now that the schemes involve the actual trunk road preparation pool, it is possible to press ahead with the detailed design and evaluation. Noble Lords will appreciate that as the announcement was only made in the summer our preparatory work cannot yet have reached the stage when it is possible to say when all the new individual schemes, or series of schemes, will be completed, although as a general rule the worst sections of the routes will be dealt with first. It is as well to bear in mind that when using the word "worst" we are not speaking solely of congestion: one of the factors that has to be borne in mind is those sectors of the route which are a hazard to road safety. This accounts for instances where apparently there is no congestion, and if you are looking for that particular reason for improvement you may not find it. The reason may well be that it is a dangerous section of road which needs to be dealt with, for that reason.

As I was saying, although the worst sections of the route will be dealt with first, which will often involve by-passing congested towns and villages, it would be misleading if I were to give a complete assurance precisely in the terms asked for in the noble Lord's Question. Nor can I lay entirely at rest the noble Lord's anxieties in the way that he would like. The timetable and the priorities must depend on the particular circumstances of the individual scheme or schemes. Nevertheless, we are determined to carry through our policy of providing relief to many of our towns and villages, and particularly to the historic towns which can be listed and enumerated.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I wonder whether the list might be printed somewhere, because I think it would be of considerable interest to noble Lords.

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, what I will undertake to do is to see that it is included in the OFFICIAL REPORT, if that is possible. I do not see why that should not be done, but in any case I will certainly send a copy of the list to the noble Lord. As I have said, my Lords, the Government are very much concerned that as many as possible of our towns and villages, especially those of historic interest, should be relieved of through traffic and of traffic congestion, but it does not follow that this will always be achieved by the construction of an outer by-pass.

Before I go on—I hope not at too great a length, but it will have to be at some length—to elaborate the way in which we distinguish between the necessity for a by-pass or for an inner ring road, I might perhaps turn to one or two of the particular cities which have been mentioned. Although my noble friend's Question referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, whose responsibilities do not extend outside the boundaries of England, I suspected that my noble friend might introduce Edinburgh by way of example and I have taken advice on that city, although I cannot speak with any first-hand knowledge of it. The position as I am advised is that the responsibility for deciding whether there should be an outer by-pass for Edinburgh, and the priority of such a scheme over other schemes, rests in the first instance with the Edinburgh Corporation and not with the Government, and one of the reasons for this is that Edinburgh is the terminus of a number of trunk roads, notably the A.8 and the A.1.

The Corporation have in the past taken the view that the volume of traffic likely to use an outer by-pass would not be such as to justify the high priority of a by-pass scheme. Their evidence to this effect was accepted by the inquiry into the first quinquennial review of the City Development Plan. That was in 1967. Estimates that have been made by reliable and accepted methods of the likely volume of passenger traffic which would use such a by-pass do not support the contention that its justification could properly be considered apart from—I will return to this theme in a moment—the problem of traffic and transportation in Edinburgh generally. This is because so much of the traffic using the roads approaching Edinburgh is using them because the traffic has business in Edinburgh itself. Nevertheless, a line for at least part of such a by-pass is to be shown in the development plan, and if such a line is confirmed by the current studies being carried on at the moment, the Corporation will no doubt carry out the scheme if and when they consider it to be justified. It has been generally accepted that this project has to be considered in the context of the planning and transportation problems of Edinburgh as a whole. This is partly being done in the Edinburgh planning and transport study, and it is clear from the second interim report of the consultants that they have not felt precluded from considering the project in this context. Nevertheless, they have not yet completed their study, and until they have done so the priority of this scheme cannot properly be judged. So much for Edinburgh.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves Edinburgh, I apologise for persisting a little further, but I cannot get a definite answer, certainly not a negative answer, to the question I posed to the consultants, and I have written to the Press. It is this: have either of the consultants ever evaluated the effect of the through traffic upon the traffic of Edinburgh? I do not believe it has been done.

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, I cannot add to what I have just said, but clearly it is being evaluated at this moment, and it was evaluated so that evidence could be given at the first quinquennial review of the City Development Plan. If the noble Lord would like to enter into correspondence with me, I will try and add more to my reply. The noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, asked about Cheltenham. I think the next improvements to Cheltenham—and I agree that they are necessary—will come as a result of the comprehensive development of the A.40, but that is not to say that that is the only prospect of improvement, because other schemes are in preparation inside the town to improve the situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, asked about Ludlow and what he described as the winding lane from Ross-on-Wye to Nantwich, the A.49. This is a road which I know rather better because it has a number of historic towns on it, Ludlow, Hereford and Shrewsbury, all of which I studied for my own benefit earlier this year. The position is that the whole of the A.49 from Nantwich to Ross is included in the primary network for comprehensive improvement that was announced in June, but alas! the traffic flows on this road when compared with all other trunk roads over the country are not all that high—that is not to say that nothing should be done about it—and its comprehensive improvement cannot be expected to be complete before the early 1980s. Certain sections of the A.49 were already in preparation at the time of the June announcement, and these should be completed in advance of the whole route improvement.

The section between Brimfield and Aston is firmly programmed, and work is planned to start in about a year's time, and I am glad to know that this will help my noble friend. I would also say that preparation work is quite well advanced on the by-passes for Ludlow and Leominster, and I would entirely agree with the noble Lord that the sooner the congestion of the traffic in Ludlow can he cleared up the better many will feel who have the safeguarding of its marvellous buildings at heart. Preparation is well advanced on by-passes for both Ludlow and Leominster and work on them is expected to start in 1974.

Having dealt with those specific cases. I wonder whether I can go back and say a few general words about the whole subject of dealing with traffic congestion by by-passes, inner relief roads, or a combination of the two. In many cases a by-pass will provide the best solution; Ludlow is a case in point. But for other places it is an inner relief road, either instead of or in addition to a by-pass, that will be needed to provide the most effective answer. A very large number of towns and villages in England will be relieved by the development of the 3,500 miles of primary network which we plan to have in operation by the early 1980s. For instance, traffic now using the A4 from Marlborough can be expected to transfer to the M.4 which is going to be opened on December 22.

During the course of the last 18 months, I have travelled all over the country looking at the traffic problems of places like York and Ludlow and Cheltenham, and I have seen very clearly that there is no one easy answer. There are no universally applicable rules as to how to relieve traffic congestion; the solution depends on individual circumstances. A by-pass is almost always the popular solution, the one that local opinion goes for, but local opinion can very easily overestimate the proportion of traffic within a town which is through traffic, and in consequence popular opinion exaggerates the benefits which would be obtained by an outer by-pass. Origin and destination surveys, which we always have to carry out before embarking on expenditure, very often, more often than not, reveal that a very high proportion of the traffic creating congestion in a town centre is local traffic; that is to say, traffic coming to the town to do business there, to unload or take on loads.

Whether a by-pass would be an effective solution depends critically not so much on the total volume of traffic but on the percentage of through traffic as compared with locally generated traffic. If only a small percentage is through traffic a by-pass can very easily turn out to be an expensive delusion, and the congested roads of the town centre remain cluttered up with vehicles which have got to be there but which need to be managed once they get into the middle. Where the proportion of through traffic is high—that is to say, where there arc villages on major through routes—the normal solution will undoubtedly be a by-pass. For example, the A17/A47 route from Newark to Norwich is likely to by-pass Leadenham, Seaford, Hickington and other villages on the route, because none of the traffic on that trunk road, or very little of it, has any business to do in those small places. On the other hand, a well-designed internal relief road can serve a dual purpose: first, it can take through traffic out of the town centre; and because of the way in which our towns are developed it is generally the centre through which the main roads run and which at the same time it is most important for both environmental and historical reasons to conserve.

LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, it is perfectly true, as he says, that there may be only 14 per cent. of through traffic. But how is that 14 per cent. made up? It is worse in fact than all the rest put together so far as shaking and damaging these historic buildings is concerned, I hope that the noble Lord's Department will take this fully into consideration.

LORD SANDFORD

Yes, my Lords, certainly. In fact, I am just coming to it. I was talking about the inner ring road and the two purposes it served. It can also cater for a large element of local traffic, so offering greater over-all relief to the existing congested streets in and around the town centre. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that some, in fact quite a few, of these heavy lorries come there in order to service supermarkets and other stores in the town. What we have to do is not only to provide a by-pass to get them around the town if they have no business there, but also, if they have to come in, to bring them in through routes which do not cause environmental damage to the town, That means an inner relief road. It is no good asking them to unload on the by-pass; they have got to be brought to within reasonable range of where they want to be. Therefore, where the proportion of through traffic is small, or because of a planned new through route in the vicinity, the normal solution (much more normal than many local people think) will be an inner relief road. I fully agree that with larger towns, although through traffic, as a proportion of total traffic, may be small, it can still be very substantial and consist of very large vehicles, and in that case both a by-pass and an inner relief road may be justified. Of the historic towns, York and Chester are examples of cities which need both of these and are going to get them. At the moment York has a by- pass already being prepared and probably going to inquiry later this year, and the council in York are anxiously deliberating about the precise nature of their inner relief, but they are certainly going to get both.

For still larger towns and cities, an outer by-pass, even though theoretically required, may sometimes be impossible to build except on a route so circuitous as to defeat its own object. In these cases an intermediate route may be the best solution. This is the kind of problem which the Greater London Development Plan Inquiry is grappling with at the moment. The important point is that plans at each place must be carefully designed to meet each particular situation and be based on the precise form of traffic that is trying to serve the town and to go through the town.

This is a complex and technical problem, and it would be possible to go on for quite a long while on it. I hope I have judged the mood of the House right in feeling that that is about enough for the moment. In any case, I would sum up by saying that the approach has to be, and will be, comprehensive. There is no perfect solution to this problem. Con serving our town centres is a vitally important job for our Department to do. We have to do it. At the same time, we have to cater for people's natural wishes to travel about without unnecessary delay, for the necessity for goods to get into our town centres, and for the relief of congestion in any one part of the town. This whole business of relieving towns of traffic congestion is, at the end of the day, like politics, the art of the possible.

Following is the list of towns referred to in Lord Sand ford's reply:

Abingdon, Appleby, Arundel, Ashbourne, Ashby de la Zouch, Barnstaple, Bath, Belper, Beverley, Bideford, Boston, Brampton, Bridgewater, Bridport, Bury St. Edmunds, Buxton, Cambridge, Canterbury, Carlisle, Castle Donnington, Cheltenham, Chester, Cirencester, Colchester, Cockermouth, Dorchester (Dorset), Dorchester on Thames, Durham, East Dereham, Ely, Evesham, Exeter, Faversham, Gloucester, Godmanchester, Henley on Thames, Hereford, Hexham, Huntingdon, Kendal, King's Lynn, Lancaster, Launceston, Ledbury, Leominster, Lewes, Lichfield, Ludlow, Marlborough, Market Harborough, Morpeth, Newark on Trent, Newport (Essex), Newport (Shropshire), Northampton, Nottingham, Oxford, Painswick, Penrith, Peterborough, Rochester, Ross-on-Wye, St. Albans, St. Neots, Shrewsbury, Skipton, Southampton, Spalding, Stamford, Stratford-on-Avon. Swaffham, Tam-worth, Tarporley, Taunton, Tewkesbury, Thetford, Thirsk, Ware, Wimborne, Winchester, Witney, Worcester, Wymondham (Norfolk), York.