| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West): I very much support what my hon. Friend says, on two counts. First, I represent the borough of Bournemouth, and the economies and prosperity of Bournemouth and Poole are intimately related, so the project would greatly benefit the borough of Bournemouth, which thoroughly supports what my hon. Friend says. Secondly, I declare an interest, as I live on the quay at Poole and can confirm what my hon. Friend says about the congestion and the damage that the lifting bridge does to the environment of those who live there.
Mr. Syms: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I note that my hon. Friends with Dorset constituencies are sitting all around me. South-east Dorset as an economic unit needs decent infrastructure, and my hon. Friends' support today is much appreciated. I note that I also have the support of one or two hon. Friends who do not come from Dorset, but the New Forest is not terribly far away.
The public and traffic can be held up for hours. Recently, the bridge was closed for three days for essential maintenance. One lady wrote agonisingly to the local newspaper saying that it had taken her an hour and three quarters to go three quarters of a mile. That cannot continue.
A Poole harbour crossing would provide a direct, uninterrupted link between the port and the A350 dual carriageway, and would therefore resolve the specific problems that I have highlighted.
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset):
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I wish to speak specifically about the A350, which, when it leaves Poole and heads north, linking up with Bristol, the midlands and south Wales, becomes no more than a country lane. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the A350 and the improvement schemes for bypasses are in the Dorset county structure plan as soon as possible?
Mr. Syms:
I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem with Dorset is where to start improving the infrastructure. I am starting at Poole bridge because it is of most concern to my constituents. All my hon. Friends will have issues that they need to raise. East Dorset district council contacted my hon. Friend today on that issue, because it has great concerns about the A350.
My eighth point concerns the unique role of Poole harbour and regional trunk road priorities. The key point about the bridge is that it would not only accommodate more traffic but would facilitate urban redevelopment in the Hamworthy island. It would allow the port to expand, yet it would improve the quality of life for people who live in the centre of Poole. It therefore meets the criteria for sustainable development.
It would lead Poole to develop in a much better and more strategic way, hitting two objectives. First, it would allow the port to expand, and would allow the sensible development of mixed use, as well as greater jobs and prosperity. Secondly, it would allow people within the town to have a better quality of life by reducing traffic. In terms of pollution and the volume of traffic that people must put up with, we could facilitate that balancing act, which it is always difficult to achieve with a major scheme.
The bridge is not only a priority but a vision for the people of Poole. If, after the review, they can have a guarantee of when it will be built--even if it is a little way off--they can strategically plan. Poole borough council, the harbour authorities and all the local authorities can sit down and have a thorough look at Hamworthy, the quay and the old town area to see how they can improve and strategically plan the borough. That would be far better than the alternative. If the bridge is not built, there will be gridlock, and people will be opposed to development. We will set residents against those who want to prosper in our port.
I am particularly pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is replying to the debate, because not long ago she was down at the headquarters of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. People there were pleased that, in spite of the change of responsibilities from Opposition spokesman to Government, you still insisted on going ahead with your visit. I feel confident that they mentioned the bridge and traffic in Poole.
When one of the Doorkeepers heard that I had the debate, he said, "I think Glenda is going for the Steve Norris trophy for replying to the most debates." I am not sure whether you have the trophy already, but you are notching up a fair old total. I look forward to your reply, as the matter is of great concern to the people of my constituency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and to the Minister for allowing me to make a short contribution to the debate.
I endorse my hon. Friend's comments in support of the proposed Poole harbour bridge. My constituency in North Poole offers visitors access to Poole harbour. We would undoubtedly benefit from the improved quality of life in the town if the bridge were built. The proposed replacement crossing would directly relieve the traffic flow, both private and commercial, through the south-western corner of my constituency to the port and the ferries.
I am concerned that, unless road links are developed in conjunction with the crossing, it could well become a bridge to nowhere. In Mid-Dorset we already suffer terrible traffic jams on the roads to the town of Poole. If Poole continues to prosper and grow as a result of the improved access that the new bridge would provide, we could end up with gridlock, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out.
Poole is a major gateway between the continent and the north and west of England, Wales and Ireland. The current port facilities could handle twice the present trade. However, to cope with existing traffic and realise the full potential of the port, existing road links must be dramatically improved. That means that not only the earliest provision of the harbour crossing, but the extension of the A31 link and the upgrading of the A350 north, are essential.
The initial scheme for Poole harbour included the extension of the A31--the existing Dorset way, as it is known--across open country at Canford heath to Wimborne bypass. It would effectively become the Poole bridge link. The scheme must not proceed without it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson):
I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on obtaining the Adjournment debate, and commend him for his generosity in permitting interventions from the hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser). As the hon.
I well remember my visit to the constituency of the hon. Member for Poole. It was a great pleasure for me. The site of the proposed bridge was pointed out to me, and many of the difficulties that he described in the House this evening were raised with me on that day.
I appreciate that the matter is particularly important, not only for the hon. Gentleman's local community and constituents, but for all the hon. Members who have spoken tonight, and for those who have not but who are sitting on the Opposition Benches. I well understand their desire for an early decision about the scheme.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have embarked not only on a roads review, but on a fundamental review of transport policy. The Government's main objectives are a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. In his own way, the hon. Gentleman highlighted those issues in his own constituency. He made some telling points about the importance of transport in achieving the Government's aims and the desires of people in his part of the world.
However, the backdrop to our review is a candid recognition that we must have a shift in direction. Revised national road traffic forecasts published last month show that traffic will increase by nearly 40 per cent. over the next 20 years. If current policies are not adjusted, congestion will worsen, the impact on the environment will be more severe, and those who do not have access to private transport will find it even more difficult to get around.
We must develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of the contribution that each mode can make; which ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair, and is seen to be fair; and takes into account from the outset considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy. Above all, an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One encouraging aspect of what is undoubtedly an ambitious task is the degree of consensus about the need for change.
We cannot achieve that change in isolation. It is a feature of the policy development work that is now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, transport professionals and users, and trade unions. That is the context for the roads review: examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy. Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and, thirdly, to provide new infrastructure.
Making best use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost, in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. Technologies old and new can help us to make better use of our roads network. Several measures can also bring safety benefits, and we will need to ensure that they are given proper priority. However, we must be realistic about the various options that we can deliver.
At a local level, many authorities are seeking to combine those measures by means of transport packages, so that mobility is maintained but any damaging consequences of such mobility are reduced. The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, but major new construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a very difficult option, financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we shall not proceed with major new trunk road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative. Even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. Volume two of our consultation document, "What role for Trunk Roads?"--to which the hon. Member for Poole referred--sets out, region by region, the perceived traffic problems and details of the roads programme that we inherited from our predecessors.
The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is seen as prima facie evidence that there is a transport problem. We are seeking from our regional consultations a view on whether these are the most important problems or whether others deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review: first, a firm, short-term investment programme; and, secondly, a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems from which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
It may help to look at how the consultations have been taken forward in the region in which the Poole harbour crossing scheme is located. The Government office for the south-west held two day-long seminars over the autumn under the umbrella of the integrated transport consultations.
The first, in Bristol on 16 September, addressed the main themes in the consultative document, "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy". The second seminar, in Taunton on 30 October, concentrated on the roads review and sought to establish the views of those in the south west about investment priorities. The views expressed at the seminars will be taken into account, together with the written and other representations that we have received--including those from the hon. Gentleman and the very strong local support for the Poole harbour crossing scheme.
I recognise the importance of the proposed new Poole harbour crossing at Holes bay in terms of the relief that it would provide for the problems associated with the existing lifting bridge. However, we cannot allow a decision on the scheme to be determined by that factor alone. I note that the hon. Gentleman considers that there is a more pressing case for the second harbour crossing ahead of the associated proposal to connect Poole harbour with the existing A31 trunk road via a new trunk road link. Both the new bridge and the link to the A31 must be judged on their relative merits, and in the context of the roads review. Should the new crossing not go ahead, we would need to consider alternatives with the Highways Agency and local authorities.
Developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society is an enormous challenge. Through the work now under way on trunk roads, we wish to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future investment in the road network--whether measures to make better use of the existing network, means of control, or to provide new infrastructure--which is fair
and is seen to be fair; which allows a proper opportunity for all concerned to make their contribution; and which looks at transport problems squarely in the context of an integrated strategy.
10.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |