HL Deb 15 November 1979 vol 402 cc1391-403

3.33 p.m.

Lord MATS

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope that it will not be a contentious Bill, but there are one or two points which may cause your Lordships concern and I hope that I can, as briefly as possible, dispel those fears. As some of your Lordships know, Epping Forest, which is covered in Part II of the Bill, covers about 6,000 acres of the North-East of London. It is maintained by the Corporation of London as Conservators of the Forest, without expense to the public, under the powers contained in the Epping Forest Act 1878. That Act lays upon the Conservators two duties which are particularly pertinent in the present circumstances: first, to preserve as far as possible the natural aspects of the forest; and, secondly, not to sell, demise or otherwise alienate any part of the forest.

The Conservators take, and always have taken, these obligations very seriously. Nevertheless, they are only too well aware that they cannot completely ignore the fact that we are in the twentieth century so, when it is possible to do so without undue damage to the environment, they have endeavoured to meet the requirements of public bodies and others, primarily by means of a system of wayleaves. From time to time, however, very careful consideration has to be given to applications in connection with road improvements—and by that I mean mostly major road improvements—because of their effect upon the natural aspect of the forest, and also because of the 1878 Act, which contains specific powers to allow the Conservators to permit the dedication of forest land for such purposes.

Over the years, there have been a number of occasions when land has been dedicated in this way, although the areas involved have usually been small. Very approximately, since the Act was passed in 1878, the Conservators have in fact made available about 100 acres, and in return, because they are required to seek land in replacement, they have acquired back 175 acres, so that the forest has grown, not shrunk. However, where more substantial road improvements are in view, the Conservators advise the relative highway authority that the land cannot be made available without first seeking the sanction of Parliament to an appropriate variation in the 1878 Act.

On only one prior occasion has such an application been made, and that was in 1967, when the Minister of Transport put forward proposals for re-routing the North Circular Road at Walthamstow. The Conservators asked that the road should be built in a tunnel where it passed under the forest and they were told that that was not practical. They then decided that their powers of dedication were inadequate, and the matter was referred to Parliament. After this had been considered and a public inquiry held, it was agreed that the matter should proceed, anyway, to planning stage.

The Conservators have at all times been concerned about the orbital road, the M25, since its inception and, quite naturally, our first reaction was that we did not want the road to go through the forest or anywhere near it. But, eventually, we came to appreciate that there was no alternative route. By 1970, the Department of the Environment had, in fact, produced five alternative routes through the forest for that road. The Conservators would have preferred a route that went further to the North, but that was not possible. So, eventually, they decided that the most northern route was the one that would cause least damage to the forest. That was the route that passed through Bell Common. But the condition was that the whole length of that road where it passed through the forest should be in a tunnel. That was eventually agreed to and that is the position today. Part II of the Bill reflects these proposals.

In addition, the Conservators maintain their stand with regard to the road being in a tunnel, and they have given an assurance that the cricket ground at Bell Common will be restored, and also that suitable land will be provided in return for the land which is taken, so that the forest will not suffer. Apart from Bell Common, the motorway and the associated roads encroach upon the common of the forest in three places, but it is roadside verge land which is involved. They are little patches of land, not connected with the main body of the forest, and their absorption into the motorway will not in any way diminish the potentiality of the forest; and, once again, the Conservators will receive back land in place of that which is taken.

The Conservators' first interest is and always has been to preserve the forest in its perfect state, but they have decided that the arrangements which have been now put forward are the very best that can be devised. For that reason, they lend their support to the Government through the promotion of this Bill.

So much for Epping Forest. May I for a moment dwell on Billingsgate Market. This is referred to in paragraph 5 of the statement. Your Lordships can imagine that the Corporation is somewhat sad at the thought of the City losing this ancient market. However, one cannot build a new market and at the same time keep the present one operating. Therefore we accept that it must be moved from the City both in the interests of traffic and in the interests of producing a modern market. We are glad that the market is to be moved to the adjoining borough of Tower Hamlets, where access will be better for the users of the market. We hope that it will provide employment in an area which requires additional employment facilities. From the point of view of the City, it will also render the through route at the end of the underpass very much better for through traffic.

I believe that certain of your Lordships could be disturbed about the clause relating to the Museum of London. In that clause we are seeking permission to charge for special and exceptional exhibitions. It is not the City's intention to impose for the time being any charge for ordinary admission. However, without being able to charge for special and exceptional exhibitions, the limited funds at the disposal of the museum are such that unless we can do this there just will be no special exhibitions. I hope your Lordships will agree that that would be unfortunate and not in the interests of the public.

Lastly, may I deal with Tower Bridge. This is a straightforward matter. The proposals have the full support of the London Tourist Board. The object is to make available to the public the upper two storeys of the two towers and the high-level walkways between the towers. They will be able to see the old hydraulic engines which used to operate the bascules and they will have an excellent view from those high level walkways. In no way does this obstruct the footpaths of the bridge itself, or the roadway of the bridge. When the bridge is open, it does not affect the upper storeys but it does affect the bridge. Apart from that, these proposals will in no way cause any obstruction to the normal operation of Tower Bridge.

There is another clause relating to Spitalfields. For years now, Spitalfields Market has been operated on a weekly tenancy and I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is most inconvenient. It gives the market traders no security whatsoever. Under this heading, the Bill is seeking to give to the Corporation authority to let or license the occupation of a stall or a stand for periods up to 21 years.

Lastly, Clause 21 relates to the increase of fines for offences under Section 35 of the City of London Police Act, which deals with certain offences in thoroughfares, including furious driving, obstruction and the discharge of firearms. Having sat for 20 years on the Bench in the City I have never yet had to deal with a case of discharge of firearms or furious driving. I have dealt with traffic charges under different headings, but personally I do not think we could disagree that to ask for an increase from a £20 to a £50 fine for discharging firearms or driving furiously is exactly overcharging by present-day standards. It is, in fact, a modest adjustment.

That is all I can say to, I hope, explain and possibly clarify this Bill. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Mais.)

3.45 p.m.

Lord UNDERHILL

My Lords, I rise to deal with Part II of the Bill relating to Epping Forest. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mais, for the detailed explanation he has given of the position, therefore enabling me to cut down my remarks.

My interest is that I am one of those very fortunate persons who for practically all his life has been able to enjoy the amenities of Epping Forest. For over 30 years I lived in East London—in Leyton, in which some of the detached parts of the forest are to be seen. If one looks at those detached parts, one see what happens when roadways are constructed all round parts of the forest. I now live in Buckhurst Hill which is in the Epping Forest local authority area. That is the area in which most of the main parts of the forest are situated. Only this morning I passed what is known as Lopping Hall in Loughton, which was erected some 100 years ago as a public hall with funds which arose from the defence of certain interests in the forest.

I mention these personal matters because it is not just the interests of the people who reside on the fringe of the forest which are concerned. Epping Forest has been a valuable lung for thousands of people who live in East London. It has been a source of pleasure and recreation for all those people. The noble Lord, Lord Mais, referred to the Act of 1878 which established Epping Forest and gave powers to the Conservators. It arose because of public concern over the considerable encroachments which were being made on the forest. Those who know Epping Forest will appreciate that it is a forest of very distinctive charm.

I should like to pay my tribute to the Corporation of London and to the Conservators for the way in which they have cared for the forest. There is no criticism from me about their actions. It is because of their work that so much of the forest has been left in its natural state. Only last year there were widespread celebrations on the centenary of the establishment of the forest. A century ago the struggle was against illegal encroachment. Now the struggle appears to be against public bodies which seek to take parts of the forest for roads and other developments.

The Bill explains that the scheme is for some nine acres to be required permanently for the construction of a six-lane motorway and for 5½acres to be taken over temporarily in connection with road works. I readily appreciate that others will be vitally concerned with the construction of this motorway, believing that it will relieve their own areas of heavy traffic, particularly of juggernauts. It may be irrelevant to the Bill, but I must comment that surely a more sensible, integrated system of transport would mean that we could save a considerable sum of money on road works without having these massive vehicles conveying certain of our goods. While developments must take place—I recognise that developments may impinge upon the environment—we must ensure that nothing is done to damage one of our great heritages. Epping Forest is one such heritage.

Sir William Addison, who for over 20 years was closely concerned with the care and maintenance of the forest, has written in his book Portrait of Epping Forest: The threat to the forest in the 1970s comes not from a small number of privileged persons for the purposes of profit but from planning authorities in the name of progress". Sir William Addison has been a verderer in charge of the care of the forest for well over 20 years. He also wrote: The threat of roads must remain the major anxiety of the Conservators for many years to come". It is for that reason that I believe your Lordships should not allow a Bill of this kind to pass without the closest scrutiny. It may be said that only 14 acres are involved and that this is merely a nibble. Well, it seems that we have one nibble after another, and this seems to be a big bite.

I understand that there will be petitions against the Bill and I am sure your Lordships will agree that there are tens of thousands of people who take these things for granted. People in the vicinity and in East London take their forest for granted. Most people will not even be aware that a roadwork of this kind is contemplated until the upheaval starts.

I should like to make a few observations to your Lordships which I should be obliged if the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate will deal with. First, is it possible, even at this stage, to adjust the proposed route of this six-lane motorway affecting the forest so that encroachment may be avoided? If not, I hope it will be accepted that such encroachment will be avoided in future. Then, will the Minister confirm that this will be the last such road development to make a claim on the forest? That seems to be the view expressed in another place by the Committee which considered this matter, and I should appreciate the Minister's view upon that.

I have emphasised that the Conservators do a splendid job in caring for the forest and the rights of the public; but should the Minister be unable to give this undertaking for the future, it would be regrettable but I would hope that the Conservators, as good a job as they have done up to now, will have to decide that in future they will resist any such major road development of this kind.

I come to my last few points. First, what is the precise nature of the land which is to be handed over to the Conservators to replace the land which is to be given up permanently? If it is open land, will it be possible to develop that land as an integral part of the existing forest'? Will any woodlands which have been there for centuries be destroyed in the land to be taken over temporarily, and, if so, what steps can be taken to rectify that position?

In another place it was stated that it was very heavy lorry traffic that it was hoped would be diverted to the M25. What are the views of scientists and naturalists on the possible effects of noise and diesel fumes on the splendid wildlife which exists in the forest? In conclusion, my Lords, I appeal to your Lordships that in considering this matter, now and in Committee, the excellent objectives and the whole spirit of the 1878 Act are preserved and that this matter does not in any way mar the great characteristics of this fine forest.

3.53 p.m.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the Government's position on Part II of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Mais, said in introducing the Bill, this part is being promoted by the City of London to enable the Department of Transport to acquire land in Epping Forest needed to build part of the M25, the London orbital route.

This route has the highest priority in the Government's road building programme. It will serve three main functions. First, it will provide a convenient and safe way round Greater London for through traffic, particularly traffic from the Midlands and North going to the ports on the East Coast, on the English Channel and at Tilbury. It will also link Heathrow and Gatwick and provide a route from those airports to the M4, M40, and M1. Secondly, it will act as a general distributor, linking the radial routes that carry traffic into and out of London. Drivers will be able to reach places in London or find the most convenient access road without crossing the centre or using existing inadequate orbital routes. No doubt many of your Lordships who use the present orbital roads will appreciate this point. Thirdly, it will also bring substantial local relief to many congested roads in the towns and villages on the outskirts of London.

At present, 32 miles of the road are open to traffic. Indeed a 9-mile section between Godstone and Sevenoaks was opened by the Minister of Transport yesterday. A further 15 miles are under construction. On the remaining 72 miles the route has been fixed for just over half and the department are completing the remaining statutory procedures for the acquisition of land and the final design work. The section which passes through the northern tip of Epping Forest comes in this category. Planning is well advanced on the remaining 34 miles for which the route has not yet been fixed, and in fact a public inquiry is being held at the moment into the route of a 13-mile stretch between London Airport and Rickmansworth. Assuming that we can complete these remaining procedures satisfactorily, I expect that the whole road will be finished by the end of 1985.

The North-East quadrant of the road, which includes the section through the forest, will play a significant role in taking traffic from the M1 and the A1 to Tilbury and Channel ports. It should also benefit more local traffic moving round this North-Eastern sector of London. Without this section, increasing volumes of heavy traffic would continue to use routes through London and its suburbs, or, alternatively, through rural Essex and Hertfordshire, on totally unsuitable roads causing increasing delays for both through and local traffic. My Lords, that would be undesirable both for those who live in the area and those travelling through it. A transfer of traffic to a purpose-built road will lead to substantial environmental benefits for the London suburbs and the towns and villages of Essex and Hertfordshire.

The proposed route for the section between the A10 at Bulls Cross and the A 11 near Brentwood was published in 1973. Over 1,500 objections were received and a public inquiry was held in Epping between December 1974 and July 1975. The inquiry sat for 89 days. At the time, it was the longest inquiry ever held. All the objectors had a fair chance to put their views forward.

The inspector reported in May 1976. He took into account the department's forecast of the number of vehicles likely to use the road, the environmental effects and the effects on agriculture, green-belt land and the forest. He declared himself satisfied that the road was needed and that the environmental damage it would cause would be more than offset by the environmental benefits enjoyed by the wider community. The report is over 900 pages long. Although the size of the report and the length of the inquiry are not themselves conclusive evidence that nothing has been overlooked, I hope that your Lordships will accept that all the relevant factors were very carefully and thoroughly considered by the inspector. He recommended that the line orders should be made, as drafted, subject to some minor alterations.

The then Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment considered the inspector's report, and their decision was announced in a letter dated 28th September 1977. The line orders were made on 1st March 1978. Since then the Department of Transport has been going ahead with the remaining statutory procedures, of which this Bill forms part. Public inquiries were held into draft compulsory purchase orders for other parts of the A10 to M11 section while this Bill was being considered in another place. Perhaps I should add that anyone who is compelled to give up land will of course receive compensation based on the market value of their property.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has raised various points, such as whether, even at this late stage, it would be possible to adjust the route of the M25 to avoid the forest. I should explain that the route for this section has been under study since 1970, and I think it would be fair to claim that almost all possibilities have been raised at some time or other. The noble Lord also asked whether this development would be the last, and, if not, whether the Conservators would object to further development. I cannot speak for the Conservators, but, so far as the department is concerned, we have no plans for any other schemes in this part of the forest. I know that the Upshire Village Preservation Society have been concerned about the A121, Honey Lane, which will be linked to the motorway by an interchange, fearing that it will need to be widened. Honey Lane is not a trunk road, so Essex County Council are the highway authority. I understand they have said that they have no plans to widen it. We certainly have not.

The department are, however, studying some road schemes further South designed to relieve congestion in the Hackney and Barking areas. Some forest land may be affected, but none of these roads is on the same scale as the M25, and the land involved consists of long narrow strips alongside existing roads. We are consulting the local authorities concerned and the Conservators of Epping Forest. No decisions have been taken.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is also concerned about the A121, Honey Lane interchange. We accept that Honey Lane may suffer some increase in traffic but other forest roads will benefit. On balance the Honey Lane interchange will result in a reduction in the amount of traffic using forest roads and will bring a great deal of relief to Waltham Abbey. The interchange is better left in than out.

The route in the area of the forest is a compromise. A route further to the South would have been more direct, but although it would have been cheaper and more convenient for motorists, it would have passed through a broad part of the forest. A route further to the North than the current scheme designed to avoid the forest altogether would have been significantly longer and so would have taken more land, property and houses, would have cost more, and would have been less convenient for motorists.

The compromise route is designed to have the minimum impact on the forest. It touches forest land at four points, but with the exception of Bell Common these are all roadside verges. At the two principal points where these verges are crossed the motorway will be carried on bridges so that riders and walkers will be able to follow virtually their present paths. At Bell Common the road passes through about 500 yards of the forest. The department had originally proposed that the road should be constructed in a cut-and-cover tunnel for about half that length in order to preserve the continuity of the forest land. The inspector, however, supported the proposal put forward by the Conservators that the whole length should be in a tunnel. The Secretaries of State accepted that recommendation. The cost of the tunnel will be about £13 million. After construction the land on top of the tunnel will be returned to its current use, which is as a cricket ground. Clause 7 will lay on the department responsibility to provide the cricket club with equivalent facilities to those they now enjoy. In the meantime, while the road is being constructed, the cricket club will be using another ground and the department will be reimbursing them for the rental.

The department will, my Lords, be taking all measures it can to minimise the effect of the road on the forest and its wildlife. In addition to the tunnel at Bell Common, one of the accommodation bridges will be wider than normal in order to allow deer to travel between the forest and the Essex countryside. A culvert under the road will be provided for the same purpose. There will be chain-link fencing along the side of the road in order to prevent deer trying to cross it directly. Trees and shrubs will be planted alongside the road; this could involve planting up to a quarter of a million saplings. The department has been discussing with the Nature Conservancy Council what species should be used, and wherever practicable will follow their advice. In particular, and with the agreement of the Conservators, the department will use saplings taken from the Forest, but it may not be possible to obtain the quantity which will be needed from this source.

The amount of land involved in Part II of the Bill is 14½ acres out of the 6,000 acres which form the forest. The department will be buying and giving to the Conservators 14½ acres of land adjacent to the forest in exchange. Landowners have been approached, but no agreements have yet been reached, so I cannot give any details for fear of prejudicing future negotiations. The Conservators know what we are proposing and I understand that they are content. Five and a half acres of the land to be taken for the road is in fact required only temporarily, and will be returned to the Conservators when it has been built. Of the remaining nine acres which will be held permanently six acres will be open to the public, including the area over the cut-and-cover tunnel.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked how long it would be before the land acquired only temporarily was restored to its present state. I understand that the contractors will need the land for about two and a half years. When they have finished the department will landscape it, plant grass, shrubs and saplings, and return it to the Conservators. It should be back to normal in about five years' time.

My Lords, I hope the House will accept that the department has made every effort to find a route which does the least damage to the forest and has taken every reasonable step to minimise the effect of the route on it and its wildlife. This section of the M25 is urgently needed. If it were not built the damaging effect on the forest of the traffic seeking its way between the completed parts of the orbital road would be far worse than the impact of the road which is proposed. I regret that it is necessary to take land from the forest, but failure to complete the road would leave unsolved acute problems of congestion, noise, pollution and danger. My Lords, I would, therefore, ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Lord DENHAM

My Lords, I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House—and I regret any inconvenience to noble Lords who are interested in this particular Bill—if we now have the Statement which is being made in another place.