Critical Transport Infrastructure: Surrey Heath

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Friday 16th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

There is very little that gives me more pleasure on a Friday afternoon than to talk about critical transport infrastructure in Surrey Heath. I am grateful to the House for allowing this Adjournment debate, and to the Minister for responding this afternoon.

If a person were to look at a map of the United Kingdom, they would perhaps think that Surrey Heath ought to be a well-connected place. We have the M3 on our doorstep—indeed, it runs right through the middle of the constituency. We have London nearby, we have thriving businesses, and we have the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, over which I sometimes argue with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). However, try getting across Lightwater at rush hour, catching a train from Camberley or reaching hospital without a car, and a different picture emerges. At the last census, 56% of Surrey Heath households had two or more cars or vans, compared with 35% across England and Wales. We are in the top 10% most car-dependent constituencies in the country. I would contend that that does not reflect choice; rather, it reflects how little choice people have. Residential housing has dramatically expanded, public services have been rationalised, and the transport connecting them has barely kept up.

There are so many issues that I want to raise today, but in the interests of time, I am going to restrict myself to just three. The first is the ongoing daily nightmare that is junction 3 of the M3 and the A322 at the aforementioned Lightwater. Anyone tuning in to a morning traffic report on BBC Radio 2 or LBC will be all too familiar with the name of Lightwater—it features with depressing regularity. For those Members who do not know, the A322 provides a vital link between Bracknell and Guildford. Businesses and commuters depend on it, and when junction 3 seizes up, the costs are felt across the entire corridor. People are late for work, deliveries are delayed and engines idle, polluting the air and wasting fuel. Productive time disappears in queues. The corridor connects two major centres of employment, yet we seem remarkably willing to accept its regular failure as an unavoidable fact of life.

Then, there are the consequences for the villages around junction 3. Drivers divert through neighbouring communities, and roads outside people’s homes become rat runs. Residents describe speeding, dangerous manoeuvres and difficulty crossing the road. I know that this is not unique to Surrey Heath, but there have been serious accidents—including fatal ones—and there are continuing concerns about safety. This is an issue that Surrey county council has neglected for years, but on the topic of highways funding, it has long raised a legitimate concern. Surrey carries significant through traffic, much of it originating outside the county, yet road maintenance funding has historically been based on road length and physical assets, rather than how heavily roads are actually used.

It is reasonable to ask whether a county carrying such an enormous volume of traffic receives a fair allocation to maintain its roads, and I join Surrey county council in asking that question, but the problems at junction 3 and the A322 go well beyond routine maintenance. Years of inadequate investment have left a problem too large for a local roads authority to resolve from its own resources. The A322 is a strategically important economic corridor that is bound up with one of the busiest parts of our motorway network, so I hope the Minister will resist the temptation to tell me that the A322 is simply a local problem requiring a local solution.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I see the Minister shaking his head, and I am encouraged by that visual sign. We already know who maintains the A322, but the heart of the problem is the way in which the A322 interacts with the M3. If Surrey county council and National Highways cannot tackle that challenge between themselves, the Government will be required to step in to help broker a solution.

In March last year, Ministers confirmed that National Highways had completed an initial study of junction 3 and was progressing further feasibility work on both short-term improvements and larger-scale interventions. That work was intended to shape investment decisions under the now-published third road investment strategy. I would welcome an update on what has happened to that work, and what prospect there is of securing funding for the improvements that are needed.

My first request of the Department, though, is to bring National Highways, Surrey county council, the incoming West Surrey council, Bracknell Forest council and any other interested local stakeholder, plus Surrey police, together for an urgent strategic review of the whole corridor. That review must examine the economic costs of congestion, road safety, the consequences for residential communities and the demands of future development. I hope that it will also identify practical improvements that can be delivered quickly, alongside properly costed proposals for larger works.

Residents have campaigned for improvements to this junction for decades. Indeed, my predecessor as MP—Michael Gove, who is now a noble Lord—clearly recognised its importance, having spent many years being photographed beside it. However, the people of Lightwater have had enough of photo opportunities, and they have certainly had enough of me standing beside that same junction; instead, they want investment. They deserve to know what can be done, what it will cost and when decisions might be made.

I also want to raise the issue of current and future interactions of new housing targets on public infrastructure. That brings me to rail connectivity in Surrey Heath. Camberley, our principal market town, is only 30 miles from central London. It is considered to be at the heart of the home counties commuter belt, yet there are only two direct morning trains to Waterloo, each taking 73 minutes. Every other service requires at least one change. From Farnborough, Waterloo can be reached in only 37 minutes, and from Woking, which is not too far away, it can be reached in just 27 minutes. Even Winchester has trains that reach London in under an hour, despite being double the distance from London Waterloo. It is little wonder that so many residents begin their rail journeys by driving further away from their nearest train station.

After two years of pressing South Western Railway, I recently received the Wessex suburban journey time study—it is a thrilling and exciting read, and I recommend it to all present. It suggests potential time savings of just six minutes from Camberley, seven minutes from Bagshot and nine minutes from Frimley, yet passengers would depart later and arrive at Waterloo at precisely the same time under the new plans. We need the study to be developed into costed options for faster, direct services, including the infrastructure investment required to make a meaningful difference.

Rail is only one part of the picture; buses are another part. When I asked my local residents about the issues they would like me to raise today, the frequency, reliability and extent of bus services was near the top of their list. They want reliable buses that genuinely serve their communities and connect to other transport nodes, such as local railway stations, but that are timed so that they can fit into the lived reality of the school day, for example, rather than a transport planner’s interpretation of it. When bus services cannot be trusted or simply do not fit into people’s lives, they invariably turn to their cars, adding to congestion and the troubles in our local road network, undermining the economic case for the bus services that remain. That is not a desirable position to be in.

Those pressures will only grow if new housing is not matched by better transport. The Government’s revised housing methodology has more than doubled Surrey Heath’s annual housing requirement. I understand why we need to build: young people want to live near their families, and businesses need workers who can afford to live locally. I am not opposed to development at all in principle, but I am concerned by the lack of matching ambition for the infrastructure on which those homes will depend. The ongoing development at Mindenhurst, an extension of the village of Deepcut, is a case in point.

Based on the old Army barracks, Mindenhurst is a development of 1,200 properties, with a new school, pubs, sports facilities, a refurbished church, and local shops and amenities. It is genuinely an example of development done well. There is much to commend in its design and the quality of its implementation, but it has invariably had a very significant impact on the transport infrastructure beyond the confines of its own site, adding significant additional traffic to an already challenged and congested road network. There are proposals for another 950 houses in nearby Normandy, which will compound those impacts.

At the moment, these schemes are assessed separately in planning terms, but the residents and future residents use the same roads and junctions. Section 106 agreements and community infrastructure levy money from developers have an important part to play in upgrading transport infrastructure, but the money knocks off only the roughest edges of the impact that a single development will have. It is a sticking plaster for an infrastructural patient that increasingly requires major surgery.

Even if we added together every section 106 agreement and every pound of CIL money, it still could not address decades of under-investment in transport infrastructure. That requires serious public investment and strategic planning at both regional and national levels. That is also why the Government must be careful when implementing their new housing requirements, because in many places our infrastructure is already years, if not decades, behind where it needs to be now. Yet we are planning substantial new development, including in areas with limited public transport where many additional journeys will inevitably be made by car. That will create significant pressures. I worry about what that means for public confidence in development itself. Residents see another planning application and ask a simple question: how will the roads, schools and buses cope? Even those who recognise the need for new homes can become frustrated when the supporting infrastructure always seems to be promised for tomorrow rather than delivered today. I hear that repeatedly in Surrey Heath, and I suspect that many Members across the House hear the same.

Buses and housing growth must be planned together. We need to be more ambitious and co-ordinated in planning for growth. At a time when Surrey is undergoing local government reorganisation, we lack both a local plan and the broader spatial strategy that opens our communities up to speculative development. West Surrey council will begin operating next April. That creates an opportunity to plan across a wider area. However, it will inherit a significant debt and cannot reasonably be expected to shoulder the investment burden alone.

My second request is therefore for the Minister to work with the incoming council, National Highways, rail and bus operators, and schools to develop a shared infrastructure delivery plan. Above all, residents deserve clarity. They should be able to see who is responsible, where the funding will come from and when improvements may be delivered. Where strategic infrastructure lies beyond the means of local authorities, there must be a meaningful role for central Government in funding and helping to co-ordinate it.

Turning to Frimley Park hospital—an issue I have raised in the Chamber before, not always with the utmost of success—I strongly support a new modern hospital to replace buildings affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. However, I have serious reservations about the hospital trust’s preferred site at Frimley Fuel Allotments, particularly about access for patients, staff and ambulances. That concern is shared by local residents, the South East Coast ambulance service, the blood transfusion service and even clinicians at the hospital itself.

The surrounding roads already serve six schools, and residents and school leaders have jointly raised concerns about the proposal. The area is constrained by single-lane bridges, difficult access routes and limited public transport. When we add ambulance movements, shift changes, out-patient appointments and years of construction traffic, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the local road network can cope. Before a final decision is made on the site selection, we need clear and convincing evidence that access can be maintained safely and reliably, particularly at the busiest times of day when pupils are in schools.

Last year, health officials advised me that the necessary transport works had not been either fully costed or budgeted for and might in fact end up depending on the new hospital programme’s contingency fund to receive the funding they need. I find that deeply troubling, because we know what contingency funds are for: unforeseen consequences that happen during the building process, not things that can be entirely foreseen at the start of it. Surely the cost and the practicality of getting people to a hospital are fundamental considerations in deciding where to build it.

My third request to the Minister, which I recognise may stray beyond his brief in the Department for Transport, is to work with health colleagues to secure a fully costed and funded hospital access plan before any planning permission is submitted or, potentially, questioned. That must cover ambulance access, public transport, parking, the effects on schools and residential roads, and construction traffic.

I also want to know what happens if satisfactory access cannot be delivered. In that case, the proposed location of the hospital must surely be reconsidered. The trust’s public engagement exercise for the new hospital recently closed, leaving many residents with the impression that the most important question of all—the hospital’s location—had effectively been decided before they were even consulted. I do not think we should end up in that position.

In Whitehall, the issues I have raised today—a motorway junction, railway timetables, buses, new housing and a hospital—may look like separate matters, but for people in Surrey Heath they are part of the same working week and the same struggle to get around. The Government want more homes and a more productive economy, and so do I, but we need to get much better at co-ordinating the investment that makes both possible.

I hope the Minister will respond to my three requests: an urgent strategic review of junction 3 and the A322 corridor with National Highways fully involved, a shared infrastructure delivery plan for West Surrey backed by proper Government funding and Government co-ordination, and a fully costed and funded hospital access plan before any planning application. For each, I would welcome a clear indication of who will take responsibility, what happens next and where we can expect progress.

As I said right at the start, Surrey Heath looks well connected on a map. My constituents ought to be able to feel that connection when they leave their front doors in the morning and when they return at the end of a hard working day.