(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the replacement of the A5036 Park Lane footbridge.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. Let me say to the Minister that if he were in my position and this matter affected his constituency, he would do exactly what I am doing today; namely, proselytising for an issue that is of deep concern to my constituents.
The A5036 is the main road leading down to the port of Liverpool. It is a very busy road, with tens of thousands of vehicles going to and fro, 24 hours a day, amounting to about 40,000 vehicles a day. That is an awful lot of vehicles. At a particular point in the cycle, at around 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon, there may be something like 2,500 or 2,600 vehicles going to and fro along a stretch of about 2.5 miles. There are various junctions along that stretch and one of the main ones, which is very busy in terms of interaction with pedestrians, is the Park Lane junction with Dunnings Bridge Road, which is part of the A5036.
On the corners of that junction, we have a church, a primary school, a hotel, a social services centre and some football pitches. For as long as anyone can remember, we have had a footbridge that takes people safely from one side to the other of that major road with those thousands of vehicles, 13% of which are heavy goods vehicles. However, over the years, as such infrastructure goes, the footbridge became less robust and needed to be repaired and renewed. There was an acceptance, as far back as 2017 or perhaps earlier, that the footbridge needed to be replaced and brought up to date to meet modern standards with respect to health and safety and to accessibility for disabled people using motorised units and so on.
National Highways—it was Highways England at the time—acknowledged that really needed to be done, and it came up with three options: a “do nothing” option, a “do minimum” option and a “do something” option. I will not go into them all but, in effect, the preferred option was to provide a new footbridge. Some of the land nearby would have to be purchased, possibly via compulsory purchase, and an application went in for that. Some would be purchased from the local authority, some from a private owner and some from Our Lady of Walsingham Church—the school is directly attached to the church; the road runs directly parallel to the school and the church—and that, in effect, was agreed.
As early as 18 October 2017, a public consultation was held at Our Lady of Walsingham School, and it was agreed that the preferred solution should be option B: to replace the footbridge with a modern structure, as I described. That appears to have been what was agreed. National Highways went off and, in 2022, deposited some documents in public in relation to the compulsory purchase of the land. So as late as August or September 2022, which is less than a year ago, everything was on track. There had been some delays—surprise, surprise—because of covid. However, I and everybody in the area—the thousands of people who use the footbridge every day, including hundreds of children—were quite happy that there was going to be a replacement footbridge.
In October 2022, a lorry crashed into the bridge, which had to be closed after becoming even more dangerous and even less functional. The footbridge, which for decades—as I said, as long as anyone can remember—had been on a very busy junction for pedestrian-vehicle interaction, disappeared. There is now an opportunity: the bridge has been knocked down, so that cost has already been taken into account. Let us push on and get our new bridge. Job done—everybody will be happy. I will be happy, the school will be happy, the church will be happy, the hotel will be happy and, more importantly, the residents will be happy and their children even happier, because they will not have to cross a busy road, which is three lanes wide at points. In a way, it is serendipity that the bridge was crashed into.
Having agreed that we were going to have a new bridge, National Highways decided, after the bridge had been damaged and knocked down—potentially because of costs, but I am not absolutely sure, because the cost of replacing the bridge had already been set out in its “Statement of Reasons” report of 28 September 2021, which I have before me—that it was going to rethink whether there was an alternative method of people getting across the very busy road.
I understand that National Highways is not saying that it will not replace the footbridge, but there is a terrible suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that that is the case. I am sure the Minister will appreciate—he would appreciate it if it were in his constituency, although I am not pointing my finger at him—that people are thinking, “What’s so different now, given the massive use of the bridge?” Other junctions are less challenging, but the accident rate along that stretch of road is not the best. I could talk about the figures, but I hope the Minister will take me at my word that there have been accidents along that route for a whole variety of reasons, so everyone was perplexed by the step back from replacing the bridge.
One of the suggestions as part of the options appraisal was for a pelican crossing-type thing. Everyone was a bit concerned that, on a road of that width, that would not be practical and that it would be psychologically challenging for many people, especially children and parents with prams going to the school or coming back from church. From what I can tell from the documentation, although I am happy to be corrected, the assessment was that such a crossing would have a deleterious effect on the traffic flow—in effect, we would have a junction going four ways—given the significant number of people who need to use the junction to go to school and so forth, so a bridge would be required. That is what the options appraisal said: “Let’s have the bridge, because the alternative—a pelican crossing-type scheme—would impact the free flow of traffic.” In effect, that is what the report said. Again, the case for a new bridge is fairly compelling.
Then, lo and behold, National Highways decided that it would pull away from that and begin another consultation process, which apparently may take until the end of the year. No one has been consulted in any substantive way—I think some letters have gone out—but people have not changed their minds. It is quite clear that people locally do not want a pelican crossing across a major road.
Another piece of context is that, as the Minister knows, National Highways has consulted about a potential new road through Rimrose Valley, which would effectively replace the A5036. It is a bit more complicated than that, but in effect it would be an alternative. There is massive opposition to that, but there is obviously a recognition that the A5036 needs work doing to it in one way or another to make it more accessible to traffic, safer for pedestrians and so on, to the extent that National Highways wants to build an alternative road, which would cost the best part of £300 million and maybe £350 million, according to the latest estimates. That shows that National Highways recognises that something needs to be done.
There are all sorts of arguments about the alternatives to that, but that is not for today. Today’s debate is about a bridge across an existing very busy road—one of the busiest out there, I suspect—in an area that is full of people who would use it. For the life of me I do not know why National Highways cannot just acknowledge that it has done an assessment and an analysis, it has come up with options, and it has finalised an option—a new bridge. No one can comprehend why we are in this situation. I find it very difficult to explain why there has been a step back. I suspect that if we had not had covid, the bridge would most probably be there.
Everybody is very worried. The junction appears pretty safe, but why? Because it had a footbridge, which everybody used. People very rarely cross the road, because it is a potentially very dangerous junction. I push and push that point because the number of accidents around the junction is fairly minimal. There may be collisions between cars, but collisions with people are pretty rare. That speaks volumes—it is because people used the footbridge.
There is a compelling case for the footbridge, but now we are told that it may not be built—it will go to consultation—because it is more expensive than set out in the 2021 document, which stated:
“The approximately £3.5m scheme has been allocated £1.8m funding from the Designated Funds (Integration) and £1.7m from the Capital Structures Renewals budgets for delivery of the Works.”
It seems to me that that figure has clearly gone up. I do not know what it is now; perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me. It may have gone from £3.5 million to £4 million or £4.5 million—I do not know.
However—I say this with the best intentions—I cannot be too concerned with that at this stage. We had a bridge for decades. It was safe, people felt safe, and it gave access both ways across the main road to the school and all the other facilities. It is the best way to ensure the flow of traffic, given that 40,000 vehicles a day go through the junction and, at peak time—about 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon—about 2,500 vehicles whip back and forth across it. That is an awful lot. I did some calculations: 2,500 or 2,600 vehicles in an hour is virtually one every second. That is a vast number of vehicles going to and fro.
That is why I am quite exercised about the bridge. I cannot understand why we cannot get on with it. Everybody accepts that there should be one. People were settled that there was going to be a new footbridge. People are concerned about their children. I do not say that to frighten anyone; that is the reality. People felt safe with the bridge that had been there for so long. The new bridge has been assessed, and that was National Highways’ own plan. As far as I am aware, it has bought the land, but if it has not done so, it is available because it has gone through the process and the land is still owned by the local authority, the church and a private owner.
There is no opposition to the proposal; quite the opposite. Will the Minister please take this back to National Highways and tell it that we have had all the assessments, options appraisals and consultations we need? Do we really have to go through this again? Do we have to wait yet again, for another six, 12 or 18 months, for a decision to be made? Everyone—me, my constituents, the school, the church—will push and push, and we will not stop until the bridge is built. I hope the Minister gets the anxiety, tension and concern of residents, who want to get this matter sorted out. Everybody will be happy if we can move it on. If we do not, the unhappiness and resentment will persist. I ask the Minister to intervene and move this matter on as soon as possible for the sake of my constituents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for securing this debate on the replacement of the A5036 Park Lane footbridge. He is absolutely right that if it were in my constituency, I would be doing exactly the same as him. I have been doing this with the A689 in my constituency; we are looking at road safety measures at Crook and various other places where we have speeding issues. He is obviously doing his job as a constituency MP absolutely to the letter.
I will make a couple of general points before I address the issues the hon. Gentleman raised. Good transport connections are key to ensuring that road users use our transport network safely. They play a crucial role in supporting productivity, innovation and economic growth across the country. We have provided a series of devolution deals to mayoral combined authorities to ensure that transport connectivity maximises economic growth and supports thriving communities. The Government are fully committed to delivering our vision of levelling up the British economy, strengthening the bonds of our cities and unlocking England’s economic potential, particularly through the northern powerhouse, while ensuring that the Liverpool city region and the north of England play a key role in a resurgent economy.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the A5036 is an urban two-lane dual carriageway that widens out into three lanes at the current signal control junction at Park Lane and Park Lane West. It is the main access road to the port of Liverpool. We have had many discussions and debates about its potential. To the west of the junction, there was a pedestrian footbridge, which was the only crossing facility over the A5036 in the vicinity of the junction. As he said, it was at the heart of the community. National Highways was considering options for its removal as part of a broader look at structures that have been on our roads for decades and perhaps need upgrading or replacing. As he knows, the bridge was struck in October 2022 by an HGV, which resulted in its demolition, as it was deemed unsafe to try to patch it up.
Following that incident, the first priority of National Highways was to ensure that crossings could still be maintained on the road, so it installed a temporary, signal-controlled crossing for access to the west of the junction, next to the existing bus stops. National Highways has now completed the replacement of this initial crossing solution, with a signal-controlled toucan crossing for cyclists and pedestrians that has enabled the removal of the traffic management measures and temporary speed limits. That is a temporary solution, but because of the volume of traffic on the road, including the number of HGVs, it has been constructed to a permanent standard. However, National Highways accepts that the current arrangements have resulted in most pedestrians taking a detour from their usual routes in order to use the new crossing.
As I said, prior to the incident, National Highways had been considering options for replacing the bridge, which was far from ideal as it was accessed by a stepped ramp that provided really poor accessibility for vulnerable users, wheelchair users, motorised wheelchair users, mums with buggies taking the kids to school and other users. In considering the permanent options, National Highways has a duty to ensure that it invests money to deliver schemes that are safe and offer value for money. However, I can assure everyone that across all its activities, National Highways’ top priority, which it takes very seriously, is ensuring public safety.
As the scale of the works to replace the bridge has become clearer, the cost estimates have increased substantially, particularly when we reflect on the modern standards for access. National Highways is completing a review to assess the various options for providing a crossing point that will ensure that users can cross the road at this location safely. Junction improvements that provide signalised crossing points or a bridge are under consideration, but the full cost for those and the difference between the two will be outlined in the near future. I have had a word with National Highways and it will communicate the outcome of the review to local stakeholders within the next few months—I hope that it will be well before the end of the year—and it will also confirm timescales for the construction of any permanent solution.
Following that review, when the options with the costings have been put forward, I will be very happy to meet the hon. Member and National Highways, after they have had a preliminary meeting, to talk about any issues—if he is not happy with the solutions that National Highways comes forward with. I recognise that the outcome of the review will affect the community in Bootle, but it is right that we strive to reach a proper, long-term solution that is safe and delivers value for money. We will continue to work with National Highways to reach a solution and as it looks to communicate that in due course.
Question put and agreed to.