Snowdonia National Park: Road Development (Hansard, 16 April 1991)

§ Lord Reay
Yes, my Lords. Plans for upgrading the A.5 follow the policy set out in the Welsh Office circular 182/77 and in the White Paper Roads in Wales Progress and Plans for the 1990's.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, although I cannot claim to find it satisfactory. Is he aware that the plans in question would inflict major and permanent damage in the Snowdonia National Park, in a most magnificent area of the Welsh mountains? Is he further aware that one of the consequences of the bypass will be felt for the whole 20 miles of the A.5 that passes through the national park in terms of the volume, the speed and the noise of heavy traffic? The bypass will conflict completely with one of the express purposes of a national park, which is to permit its quiet enjoyment by members of the public.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, at the outset I should point out that this is not a large scheme. It entails a stretch of road 1.4 miles long. It is only a three-lane road over one-third of its total length, contrary to impressions that some people may have. That section of the A.5 has a personal injury accident rate up to seven times higher than the national average for a single carriageway road. Unless measures are taken to improve that section of the road the accidents are likely to continue.

§ Lord Morris of Castle Morris
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the upgrading of the A.55, the north coast road, was intended to relieve the A.5 of through traffic? Would it not therefore be much more 1340 logical to delay work on the A.5 until the A.55, into which millions of pounds have been put, is complete, because if the one is successful the other is unnecessary?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, although it is of secondary importance to the A.55, the A.5 is and will continue to be an important route across the mainland of North Wales for tourist and commercial traffic from the Midlands and southern England using the shipping link to Ireland at Holyhead. Heavy commercial vehicles will also continue to need to use the A.5 to deliver goods within the Snowdonia National Park.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, although I appreciate the points the Minister has courageously made, is he aware that the upgrading of a trunk road in Snowdonia is against government policy as set out in the Sandford Report and the White Paper to which the Minister referred? In view of the feelings which are held within many organisations about: this proposal, will the Minister confirm that there will be a public inquiry before a final conclusion is reached?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, three routes have been the subject of a landscape advisory committee inspection. The report made by the landscape advisory committee stated that both the northern and the valley routes could not be made acceptable in landscape terms and recommended that they should be abandoned. The report also stated that if an improvement to the A.5 at Padog had to be carried out, the southern route —that is the preferred route—slightly modified, offered the least environmentally damaging solution.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, that is an interesting reply, but it does not deal with the point I made about a public inquiry. In view of the importance of this project, does not the Minister feel that a public inquiry is absolutely essential so that the different organisations and parties interested in the matter are given an opportunity to give evidence?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, following the recommendations of the landscape advisory committee, a variation of the southern route was the subject of a public consultation exercise in November. Prior to public consultation, discussions took place with the various authorities, including the county and district councils and the national parks authority. The situation now is that the department's consultants are evaluating the comments which were received during the public consultation, including all the points which were raised in letters to the department. When that report has been received and has been considered, a submission will be made to the Secretary of State and it will be up to him to decide whether to announce this as his preferred scheme.

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, I understand that the scheme will cost about £5.6 million. Will the Minister tell the House what part of the £5.6 million will be spent on minimising the impact of this project on the environment?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.

§ Lord Moran
My Lords, the Welsh Secretary said on 26th March that, The protection and improvement of our environmental heritage is a top priority with the Welsh Office".
He added that the proposals in the White Paper were only a beginning and, were the spur for us to drive on with existing measures".
How do the Government reconcile that statement with the action of the Welsh Office in this case which appears to be flatly contrary to paragraph 7.37 of the Government's White Paper? Would it not be a good plan for the Secretary of State for the Environment to invite the Welsh Office to read again the White Paper and the recently published and excellent report of the National Parks Review Panel under the chairmanship of Professor Ron Edwards, specifically the sections on traffic and transport and national development pressures which are relevant to this matter?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, policy follows the guidance which was given in the Welsh Office circular 182/77, as I have already said. Among other things the guidance requires full consultation with the national parks authorities and, subject to the reasonable needs of road safety and statutory obligations, requires environmental quality to be the prime criteria in planning road improvements. It also invites a determined search for alternatives which do not involve upgrading the existing route or new construction where there is a compelling need to resolve traffic problems in national parks. That guidance has been followed in this case.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, in his reply to my supplementary question the Minister referred only to the 2.2 kilometres double carriageway bypass alongside the Padog bends. Will he bear in mind the other point that I made, namely the effect of the whole length of the A.5 as it runs through the national park —for some 20 miles or so—in terms of the increased speed, volume and noise of the traffic, which conflicts with one of the basic purposes of the national parks?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I am happy to take that point on board. However, I pointed out that this is not a very grandiose scheme.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, it may not be a very grandiose scheme, but does not the noble Lord's Answer show complete lack of sensitivity to the feelings of those in most parts of Wales about this development? Will he ensure that the investigation into the scheme—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated, is not just a matter of a couple of kilometres but of the entire route—considers the route as a whole as was done for the A.470? This road is to go from Betws-y-coed to Pentrevoelas. Almost every metre of the A.470 road from Betws-y-coed to Blaenau-Ffestiniog was very carefully studied to make sure that the improvements to the safety of that road were carried out with concern and sensitivity for the totality of the route and for its surroundings. Is the 1342 Minister not aware that the attitude exemplified in his replies gives us no confidence that the Welsh Office is taking the matter as seriously as it should?

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that I or the department are unsympathetic. I am not at all unsympathetic. I realise that it is an important matter and that people are anxious about what might happen. I merely pointed to some of the other considerations which have to be borne in mind. I should add that if the scheme is proceeded with there will be a further opportunity for objections to be considered by an independent inspector at a public inquiry following publication of the draft statutory orders.