HL Deb 20 February 1973 vol 339 cc108-22

7.32 p.m.

LORD HACKING rose to ask Her Majesty's Government upon the recent announcement (made on January 22) that the Secretary of State for the Environment has deferred his decision on the proposed A.41(M) motorway through the Parish of Northchurch in Hertfordshire, whether they intend, before the Secretary of State reaches his decision on this section of the proposed motorway, to consider all alternative routes between the proposed Kingshill and Tring East Interchanges, and if Her Majesty's Government so intend, whether they will:

  1. (i) hear full oral and/or written representations from all persons concerned with this section of the proposed motorway, particularly those from all objectors and counter-objectors at the A.41(M) Public Inquiry;
  2. (ii) pay full regard to the views expressed upon the published and alternative routes by all the elected bodies in the area and by all societies concerned with the conservation of the Chilterns;
  3. (iii) take full account of peoples and countryside; and
  4. (iv) give full effect to the principles set out in the White Paper "Development and Compensation Putting People First" (Command 5124) of October, 1972.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. It is perhaps not without significance that twice this week your Lordships are being asked to consider the problems of road-building and the environment, for, as your Lordships will know, there is a Question down for Thursday (of more moderate length than my Question) by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is asking your Lordships to consider the A.66 and its journey through the Lakeland National Park. I say that it is not without significance because it is my contention that there is at this time up and down the country a growing concern, as evidenced in the correspondence columns of The Times, especially on Saturday of last week—that is, on February 17—about the siting of motorways and improved roads, and indeed about the principles upon which they are sited. It is a concern which has been exhibited over the proposed M.3 passing so close to the City of Winchester; over the proposed M.40 through Otmoor and Beckley Park; over the proposed M.16 through the Lee Valley in Essex, and over many other motorway proposals.

This Question concerns about three miles of the proposed A41(M) as it passes through the parishes of North-church and, I should tell your Lordships, Wiggington as well (although that name does not appear on the Order Paper) in Hertfordshire. I put it to your Lordships in this way, that it is a great deal more than just a constituency problem, important though it is for the peoples—and there are 2,000 people in the North-church area and the Cow Roast—and concerned though the honourable Member for the constituency of Hemel Hempstead is. Indeed, it is a matter of some concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Northchurch—and I am delighted to see the noble Baroness on the Benches of your Lordships' House—for the noble Baroness has a little knowledge of the constituency stretching over some 50 years. Perhaps your Lordships would like to know, before I pass from mention of the constituency problem, that I have of course consulted the Member for the constituency, and he has been kind enough to tell me that he approves of the Question as I have drafted it and of the way it is framed. Indeed. I am even happier to tell your Lordships that the honourable Member for the constituency has said that he would try to come to the Bar of your Lordships' House, and at this moment I see him in fact standing there.

I believe that this Question raises more than just constituency problems, because it raises issues that are and should be fundamental to all current motorway and road-construction projects. That is indeed why I felt it necessary to set out the Question at such length—it has four sub-paragraphs—on your Lordships' Order Paper. At least, my Lords, that is my mitigation for the length of my Question. Before I go any further, I must deal with two matters. I must first disclose my personal interest in this matter; and, secondly, for the benefit of those noble Lords who are not acquainted with the village of Northchurch, I should like to introduce that village to your Lordships. Concerning my personal position, I lived in Northchurch from 1967 until September of last year, and during the time I was there I became actively concerned with the plight of the people of Northchurch and of the Cow Roast if the motorway was built on the line proposed by the Government. In becoming actively involved, I found myself a founder member of an action group appropriately called, your Lordships may think, NAG, standing for the Northchurch Action Group, and during the time I was in the Northchurch area I was chairman of that group. Since leaving the district, though not leaving the constituency, I have resigned from the chairmanship and from the executive committee of that action group, and I have only two connections now: first, I am honorary president and, secondly, I have an anxious desire that fairness should be done to the people of Northchurch.

I turn now briefly to introduce Northchurch to your Lordships. Indeed, in doing so I venture to suggest that every Member of your Lordships' House has been through Northchurch, although I dare say a little hurriedly. I venture to make this suggestion because the main electric train from Euston to the North runs through the valley, and indeed runs through the North part of the parish. Indeed, running through that same valley is the Grand Union Canal, and also Akerman Street, from the Roman town of Verulanium, now the A41 running from Watford. The village itself is placed just north-west of, and about one and a half miles from, the town of Berkhamsted, and in its centre is a 13th century cruciform church, built, interestingly enough, on the site of a Christian Saxon place of worship. On one side of the valley, the Bulbourne Valley—and I hope to paint this brief picture for your Lordships—the village is bordered by the Chiltern Hills, and on the other side by the canal and railway which lead up towards the far side of the hills stretching towards the Dunstable Downs.

The village of Northchurch, like the town of Berkhamsted, like the town of Tring and like other towns on the A41, found itself (a long time ago now) suffering from the increasing problem of everbuilding-up traffic. Indeed, it first came to the notice and action of the planners in the 1920s, when for the first time a by-pass was considered. Proposals were made in 1927 and 1928, in 1944 and in 1951, but no steps were taken to implement these proposals until the Department of the Environment published proposals in May of 1971 for a motorway, for the A41(M), which was to run on a 15-mile length from Watford through to Aston Clinton, just a mile or two short of the town of Aylesbury.

Just to give your Lordships a thumbnail sketch from the point of publication to the present time, I can tell your Lordships that immediately following publication of the A41(M) by the Department of the Environment in May of 1971 a great number of objections were lodged. The objections lodged to the whole length of the road were in excess of 100, and included one from the Northchurch Action Group. Perhaps I should tell your Lordships that the Northchurch Action Group, when lodging an objection, proposed at the same time that the road should take an alternative route between the two points mentioned on your Lordships' Order Paper; that is to say, through Kingshill and Tring East Interchanges. In other words, the motorway ought to take a different course between those fixed points on either side of the community.

Despite a convincing memorandum sent to the then-Ministry of Transport in October, 1969, the Department of the Environment selected an old by-pass loop road designed up to motorway standards as the line for the road passing North-church, for the proposed A41(M). Taking up that line, the proposal, which is still the proposal of the Department of the Environment, would take this motorway on the hillside (passing the houses which build up the Bulbourne Valley) at a length of 1,000 feet, to a height of 40 feet or 50 feet of embankment and 150 feet above the centre of the village, running alongside no fewer than thirty-seven houses, in a position which will overshadow the village of Northchurch as a whole. Hence it was at this stage, after the publication in May, 1971, that the N.A.G. objected to that line of the motorway and invited the Department of the Environment to consider another line running about half a mile to the South known as the Shooters Way line. In consequence of these objections, the Secretary of State convened a mammoth public inquiry which sat from November 10, 1971, to January 20, 1972, over thirty-nine working days. Thereafter there were site inspections towards the end of January and the beginning of February. The inspector reported on March 22, 1972, and on January 22 this year the Secretary of State announced his decision, which amounted to accepting the inspector's recommendations and confirming the published line along the whole length of the A41(M) except between these two points, the Kingshill and Tring East Interchanges, on which the Secretary of State has deferred his decision pending "any representations made to him".

I ask the Government this Question to establish, first, the extent of this further consideration. I ask it on behalf of all the people in the Northchurch area, whether or not they are affected adversely by the Shootersway line or the published line. Secondly, if the Government are prepared to give the answer "Yes" to the first part of my Question, I ask them the principles on which the Secretary of State will act. The second section of my Question carries with it those matters which I suggested were fundamental to motorway planning. So the first part of my Question is the extent of the further consideration and whether they are going to consider all the alternatives, and, secondly, the principles upon which the Secretary of State will act.

I can deal with the first part of my Question shortly because the Minister has been kind enough to indicate that the answer to the first part will be "Yes"; that the Government intend to consider all the routes between those two points. The interest in the first part of the Question only arises after a curious sequence of events. What happened was this. With the announcement of January 22 a notice was sent to the Press. In that Press notice the statement of the Government was put in this way: … the Secretary of State has accepted the inspector's recommendation that all alternative lines presented at the public inquiry including the Shooters Way route, be rejected. However, in the accompanying letter sent with the inspector's report, on behalf of the Secretary of State it was put in rather a different manner. On page 9 of this letter it says: The Secretary of State has noted the inspector's reasons and recommendations and hence is going to consider the matter further.

In the Press notice quite plainly the Shooters Way line was rejected. In the other letter it was put in a different way; namely, that the Secretary of State was deferring his decision on this section of the road and was considering and noting the inspector's reasons. What the inspector said was: I reject the Shooters Way alignment and I recommend the published alignment with certain suggested modifications on a stretch of road running behind St. Mary's Avenue.

Page 9 of that letter does not really make sense. It makes sense only if you read that first sentence of paragraph (f) on the basis that the Secretary has accepted the inspector's recommendations and is rejecting the Shooters Way alignment. Further examination reveals, to the relief and gratitude of the people of North-church, that the line at the top of (f) has been subsequently typed in and subsequently photostated over the original line. At a late stage, thankfully, the Government appeared to reconsider the position. If the Minister can throw any light on that point I would ask him to do so.

The second part of my Question is divided into four parts. The first subparagraph is seeking from the Government an assurance that full representations will be heard from all persons concerned—and one would expect the answer to be "Yes". Secondly, if full representations are being heard, I would seek to ask the Government the form of their further inquiry. There is an additional point attached to this first sub-paragraph and that additional point concerns time and cost. The expenditure by ordinary people is little appreciated (busy as they are) by road construction units when they are concerned with a motorway. I cannot tell your Lordships of the work of other persons involved in this section of the road because I have personal knowledge only of the work of the North-church Action Group, but I can tell you that a great deal of work was put in by ordinary citizens taking up their own free time. One drew maps of a size of 8-foot by 4-foot, with details of every house, working from an ordinary survey map 30 years old, marking the details of all the houses and of all the road improvements. Such details did not appear anywhere except in plans produced by the Department of the Environment. Persons of the Northchurch Action Group resisting the road were also involved in photographic and acoustic evidence. The vice-chairman of the Group counted every tree in the three-mile stretch of each road. Money had to be obtained and in six months no less than £3,170 was raised. All this took a great deal of time. There were raffle tickets to be sold; and the women sold cakes on a market stall to raise some £56. I have dealt with this subject in detail only to ask the Government to consider covering some of these costs for all the people on both sides of the road if this matter has to be opened again.

Secondly, in the second sub-paragraph, I ask the Government to pay full regard to the views of elected bodies and conservation societies. I put it quite simply in this case that every elected body, from the parish council through the rural and urban district councils to the county councils, favours the Shooters Way alignment. More than that, every conservation society in the area favoured it; that is to say, the Chiltern Society, the county branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and also the Chilterns Standing Conference. The point I would seek to make, and the reason why I ask the Government to have full regard to the views of these persons is not because I wish to bind the Government—I am not suggesting that Government freedom should be restricted—but to ask them to have full regard to this because, regrettably, when dealing with these matters the inspector did not, in my submission, have full regard. For example, he expressed the view concerning one society that if they had known the full facts they would have had second thoughts.

My Lords, I move on to sub-paragraph (iii), that full account should be taken of peoples and countryside. I do so because that is where, in my submission, the proceedings have gone wrong hitherto. That is why I ask the Government, in these new proceedings they are implementing, to put matters right. I do so because of the astounding stand taken by the Department of the Environment concerning this road, a concern which has nationwide and alarming consequences. They said that they feared that when their road builders build the motorway, will find that their planners will develop in and around the motorway. This was only argument. They presented it without detail. For example, they did not say what was to be done with the 510 acres.

One has a certain sympathy for the Department of the Environment. It would have been a little awkward to call an official to say that the left hand of planning did not know what the right hand of roadbuilding was doing. It would have been an awkward moment for Mr. Roadbuilder, giving evidence on the lines of the terrible problem of the Department—to have to say, "Only yesterday I was going over the hillside with my bulldozers and I found Mr. Planner on the far side building a new community."

I have taken some time already, but I beg the leave of your Lordships to enlarge on this point because it is of some importance. The concern about development was raised first at a public meeting convened by local citizens on July 12, 1971. Strangely enough, it was raised by a counter-objector. Thereafter it was consistently raised as part of the argument of the Department of the Environment whose main "marriage partners", it should be noted, were the old Ministries of Transport and of Housing and Local Government. I turn for example to the opening words of counsel for the Department of the Environment on November 10 at the public inquiry. Having agreed in principle that one should separate development from major routes, he went on to say: But in practice developers and planning authorities were prepared to accept development near to major routes. This was followed by the evidence of the chief engineer, who said: The planning authority will be under a continuing and increasing pressure to release land for development up to the new line.

Turning now to the planning authority, your Lordships may be asking: "If this has been said by the Department of the Environment, what is the planning authority saying? What is the county council says?" They are saying that this area through which both of these proposed lines are to travel is an area designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. They go further and say, "It is our policy not to develop an area of outstanding natural beauty, and if the Shooters Way alignment is chosen we do not intend to allow any planning, any development, up to that line. "More than that, my Lords, the prinicipal planning officer of the county council said, in reference to development, having expressed a preference for the Shooters Way route: The county council were concerned lest in the course of time development might be permitted close to the adopted line thereby making a development planned line—the Northchurch residential development situation all over again. While this would be primarily a matter for planning control, it would be of considerable assistance in resisting pressure for development if the Department of the Environment could give the highway authority support by refusal of residential development to the ban of 200 metres, 250 yards wide on either side of the new road. A standard of this nature would go a long way towards overcoming objections to the level of noise produced by traffic and ought to be applied to all major roads".

Here is the planning authority saying in simple terms to the Department of the Environment, "Will you help us? Will you support us when we oppose development of any kind in this area of outstanding natural beauty right into the Chilterns?". The Department of the Environment was not easily discouraged. When they chose to cross-examine the principal planning officer they put this point. They said to him: "If we, the Department of the Environment, or our successors in title allow appeals against your decision to disallow planning, you would have no power to stop development". And indeed put in those terms whilst protesting about an area of outstanding natural beauty the principal planning officer of the county council gave the answer. "Yes". Hence the counsel for the Department of the Environment, in his closing speech to the Inspector, put it in these terms: And the Department of the Environment agrees with the County Council that the line carries with it the danger of development up to the new line and there is at present no power to resist such development.

Your Lordships may think that that was indeed the full somersault. You will not be surprised to hear that when the Inspector was coming to consider the position he put it in these terms: If the fear of the planning authority means anything at all, and they must be speaking from experience, then I would have the greatest reluctance in supporting either of the alternative lines and so being a party to the despoliation of this part of the Chilterns which is regarded by many as part of our heritage. That opinion was cited with approval in the letter of January 22. In reference to that, my Lords, I simply say that this will not do, and I ask the Ministers, when they come to consider it again, that the left hand of planning may know what the right hand of road building is doing.

My Lords, I have already taken a long time in introducing this Question to your Lordships, and I intend now, briefly, to deal with the last part of my Question; that is the invitation to the Government to give full effect to their own White Paper Development and Compensation—Putting People First. This White Paper arose out of inter alia a Report by the Urban Motorways Committee which was, it is right to tell your Lordships, concerned principally with urban motorways, but the principles, in my submission, are equally applicable to rural motorways. Indeed, this White Paper starts off—and I hope to hear the Minister echoing these words: The Government are committed to enhancing the quality of life in Britain. It is certainly applicable also to this problem of rural motorways, not only because it is applicable in principle to the country but also—and the reference is made later on in the White Paper, though I will not refer your Lordships to the page—it stated that if the development has not gone too far, these principles should be considered. All I ask the Government to do in giving full effect to the White Paper is to be mindful of the principles in their own White Paper; mindful, for example, of one of the eight principles set out in paragraph 7: Noisy and unattractive public development must by better planning be separated from people and their homes.

That matter is somewhat enlarged upon at page 15, paragraph 68, in this manner: It is essential that there should be early and universal recognition of the importance of separating people and their homes from noisy and unattractive developments. Where this is not possible the design must minimise the harm. Have regard too, I ask the Government, to the principle 3 set out in paragraph 7: Damage to visual amenity by large scale public works must be minimised by good pleasing design. My Lords, be mindful, too, of the problem of people living close to projected roads whether they came with notice or without it; and I refer to page 3, paragraph 12, of this Report: Not only do these roads displace people living along the route, but they also affect sometimes severely the environment of those living alongside it by constructional nuisance, visual intrusion, traffic noise, severance of parts of existing amenities, and interference with access to shops, schools et cetera and generally by intrusion into the area and into the surrounding landscape. Close attention must therefore be given to the needs and conveniences of the householder as well as the motorist.

Finally, my Lords, I ask the Government to give credence to the promise set out at page 4 of paragraph 14 of the White Paper in these terms: To be effective, these changes need to be fully reflected in a new approach to individual schemes. The Committee emphasises that the design of the road and the necessary treatment of adjoining areas is a single planning task and should he handled as one operation bringing in all the necessary skills and taking account of the opinions of those affected. I hope that the Government will adopt this approach for trunk roads, including motorways, for which they are responsible: and they are responsible for the A41(M). I hope that by giving credence to that last section that I have read to your Lordships they will allow, their left hand to get to know their right hand.

8.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF GOWRIE

My Lords, I am always a little nervous in replying to questions concerning proposed roadways, because in such matters even gamekeepers may be poachers at heart. I have particular grounds for being so this evening in replying to a noble Lord who is not only a lawyer, as I am not, but also a local, until recently at least, of the part of the world under discussion. Nevertheless, in spite of this, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter—for "nagging" us if you will—for I believe that I shall be able to give the noble Lord and the House at any rate a small measure of satisfaction and reassurance.

The noble Lord has told us how the existing A41 through Kings Langley, Berkhamsted and Tring is heavily overloaded, and it was for this reason that proposals for a new road from Hunton Bridge, North of Watford to Tring, were published in 1971. There were a number of objections, and the Secretary of State decided that a public inquiry should be held. He has recently considered all the individual objections and representations, together with the report of the independent inspector who held the public inquiry, and decided that the majority of the routes should with various modifications, be confirmed.

The noble Lord's Question refers particularly to that part of the Berkhamsted By-Pass which passes through the Parish of Northchurch, and he has described it vividly to us. Here the Secretary of State had proposed a route which closely followed that shown on the Hertfordshire Development Plan and which has been safeguarded for many years. I want to make it clear that the inspector, in paragraph 95, point 12, of his report, found only a marginal difference between the published line and alternative lines from the point of view of traffic effectiveness, engineering and cost. This was agreed upon in principle by my right honourable friend's Department, both before and during the inquiry. However, one of the Department's major arguments against the alternatives was that by taking the road away from the development plan line and further into the area of outstanding natural beauty—further into the Chilterns, in short—it would be extremely difficult to prevent development from taking place up to any new boundary line—and the noble Lord himself mentioned the problem of creeping development. I must say to him that, in practice, we feel that it is extremely difficult to resist development over the long term between such boundaries as a town on the one side and a major road nearby on the other.

Counter objectors brought forward their arguments against the alternative routes and various representations were made. The inspector carefully considered these various points, and in addition took into account written objections and observations which have been made to the Secretary of State about the proposals. A particular gentleman, Brigadier Fenton, had written to the Secretary of State saying that, while he supported the published proposals in the vicinity of Northchurch and would strongly oppose the alternative known as Shooters Way route, he thought that a modification near Northchurch might be possible so that the road could be taken deeper into cutting and slightly further away from the housing estate. The inspector obviously thought that there was merit in this suggestion and suggested that the modification be investigated. Thus, after all the detailed objections and counter objections, all the professional representations and legal counsel, it was one individual who put forward the suggestion which seemed to the inspector to have most merit. My Lords, people count a great deal, individually as well as collectively. The Secretary of State carefully considered each and every objection, counter-objection and representation, taking into account the inspector's recommendations, and also decided that this modification appeared to have merit. He therefore announced that he was deferring consideration of the part of the route of the Berkhamsted By-pass West of Kingshill Interchange. That remains the position.

He did so because it seemed to him that the modification recommended by the inspector could, as I have said, contain considerable advantages. It puts the motorway deeper into cutting—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, perhaps underestimated the question of depth of cutting as an environmental benefit—taking it completely out of sight of most of the houses in Northchurch. The motorway would be further away from the houses, a number of existing attractive trees and shrubs would remain in place, and additional landscaping would of course be undertaken. It is possible that the motorway in this position could be blended successfully into the environment. But this modification will affect persons who were not affected by the published proposals, or will affect differently persons who were affected by those proposals, and in addition, under Section 15 of the Highways Act 1971, he is obliged to notify any person who appears to him likely to be affected by a proposed modification, where such modification is a substantial one, and to give that person an opportunity of making representations to him within such reasonable period as he may specify. It therefore appeared to the Secretary of State that it would not be right or proper for him to deal further with this possible modification until he had been able to obtain the views of the persons affected. Accordingly, he decided, in the exercise of the powers that I have mentioned, to defer consideration of the part of the motorway route between Kingshill Interchange and Tring so that the necessary consultations in connection with the modification could take place.

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that these consultations will be widespread, covering at least all persons living within 100 metres of the centre lines of the published route and of the proposed modification. I am talking, for example, of people living in "The Limit" caravan site, in Covert Close, in Granville Road, in Darrs Lane and so forth, all of which, incidentally, I had the pleasure of visiting the other day. In addition, the Secretary of State will request the comments not only of persons living in the immediate vicinity of the road, but of anyone who has an interest in what is proposed. This includes local authorities, statutory bodies, amenity societies, residents' organisations and any objectors and counter-objectors to the original or any alternative proposals. The Secretary of State feels that views can adequately be expressed in writing and that, accordingly, it is unnecessary to hear oral views at this stage.

My Lords, as I have explained, the Secretary of State has postponed consideration of this section of the route which is the subject of the noble Lord's Question. He will consider his final action in the light of all the objections and representations which were made before the public inquiry. He will take into account all the views which are expressed to him during the consultation period; he will bear in mind the recommendations of the independent inspector at the inquiry. He will of course also have regard to considerations of amenity and the preservation of the countryside, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking; and indeed, as I have suggested, the original published plan had these amenities very much in mind. In addition, I can say that he will of course give consideration to the requirements of local and national planning, including those of agriculture. I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider any alternative proposals for this section of the route.

The noble Lord raised the question of costs. I was not quite clear whether he was asking that the taxpayer should pay the costs of objections or resistance to any trunk road scheme. If that was the noble Lord's question, I shall have to take refuge in the Question as put down on the Order Paper and invite him to put it down as a separate Question, in which event I shall do my best to answer it. The noble Lord mentioned, too, the White Paper issued by Her Majesty's Government, Development and Compensation—Putting People First, which has been published since the public inquiry. The Land Compensation Bill, at present before a Select Committee in another place, will give effect to these proposals.

Aspects since covered in the White Paper and in the Report of the Urban Motorways Committee were raised in detail at the public inquiry. There was, for example, discussion about the noise levels, and the Department gave an undertaking to provide, where possible, acoustic screens or banks. I may say to the noble Lord that if the modified route is adopted—and of course until the consultation is over one would not know that—a deep cutting will be added to the acoustic screens as a noise barrier, and there will of course be the retention of trees. So I can assure the noble Lord that whatever route is ultimately chosen, and subject to the Bill reaching the Statute Book, the principles set out in the White Paper will be fully taken into account.

Finally, my Lords, I hope that I have answered the points put at length, eloquently and in detail by the noble Lord. Basically, the Secretary of State's ultimate decision will depend on the outcome of these consultations. If the noble Lord has any views on precisely who should be consulted about the proposed modification or on the way in which the consultations might be carried out, perhaps he would care to write to the Secretary of State, who, I can say, will welcome his views.