Liverpool Port Access: Rimrose Valley

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd]

I agree. It is really important that we ensure that as much of our local habitat—our local green spaces—is maintained as possible. I am sure the Government recognise that, and as we go through the Committee stage for that Bill, those issues will be teased out and we will seek assurances from them about their intentions. It is crucial that we do that, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. All these matters, including transport issues and the environment, are inextricably linked.

Those areas cannot simply be relocated. A field cannot be picked up and moved somewhere else. It does not work like that, because it has taken centuries and maybe longer to get to that particular situation. Rimrose Valley is called that because Rimrose brook goes through it, and it has obviously been there for thousands of years.

Rimrose Valley also offers respite from the pollution generated by port traffic on the surrounding roads. Residents who have lived next to the port have a life expectancy of 12 years less than those who live just a mile away. South Sefton already experiences some of the worst air quality in the United Kingdom, and the road proposal would compound that and negatively impact on people’s health and wellbeing. It would shorten lives and affect children and older people disproportionately.

Rimrose Valley offers space to improve physical health, with ramblers, running clubs and football clubs all using the park and surrounding spaces regularly. It maintains a good level of fitness for people, which of course alleviates pressure on the NHS. That is another part of the inextricable link between all these issues. It offers a place to go to improve mental health. Many local doctors and support organisations now practise social prescribing as a free and natural alternative or supplement to medication, which also takes pressure off our NHS.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on such an important topic. Rimrose Valley is shared between our constituencies, and our constituents enjoy its value. He is talking about air quality and public health, and I remind him that 40,000 deaths per year are linked to poor air quality and subsequent breathing-relating illnesses. Does he agree that the Government’s own public health goals say that such issues should be tackled urgently, and that the Department for Transport, by pursuing this option of a polluting road, is at odds with the Government’s own stated policy objectives of saving lives through improving air quality?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We want to ensure that air quality is as good as it can possibly and practically be, given the set of circumstances. It is the role of us all, including the Government, to maintain that. I will touch on that later, but it is a very important point. I repeat that all these themes are inextricably linked.

Rimrose Valley was a lifeline for the thousands of people surrounding it during the covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown restrictions. It was a huge asset to the community during that time. Many homes around there do not have the luxury of a garden or a yard, so large public green spaces were essential. We all know that that is what the Victorians recognised—they certainly did in Liverpool, Birkenhead and such places. They built massive parks to ensure that people could get out, have a walk, enjoy themselves and get some respite from the places where they may have lived or the work that they may have done. There is a tradition in Britain of having large, open spaces, especially in some of the bigger cities, such as Liverpool.

Nearby communities were severed in two—I am reminiscing again—when another National Highways road, the A5036 trunk road, was built in the 1970s. Known as Princess Way, it is closer to the docks, and communities have never recovered from it. The proposed route would compound their misery, as the two roads would feed into that section of the road, splitting the community yet again. It is a case of history repeating itself, with absolutely no lessons learned or care for the potential damage caused. It is a “computer says no” approach to road planning.

The proven theory of induced demand shows that building more roads stimulates more traffic and does not necessarily tackle the underlying problems. To some extent, we have seen that locally with the bypass at Broom’s Cross, which alleviated congestion temporarily but is now another congested road at peak times. This is not about being anti-road or nimbyism; it is about ensuring that due diligence is undertaken when any project of this nature is proposed. I know that the Minister will be well aware of that, given the schemes in his own constituency.

Let us move on to the issue of the port of Liverpool, which is the elephant in the room—and it is a particularly large elephant. The port of Liverpool has been permitted an expansion, with little thought given to the infrastructure needed to support it. If there is to be an expansion, rightly or wrongly—I do not judge that at the moment; it is not for me to make that judgment—let us at least have the foresight to ensure that the environmental impact on communities is a significant factor in the design of any scheme that seeks to accommodate it. We do not want retrofitting, but if we are going to have a retrofit, it has to be proper and appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central has touched on, decades of activity have had a negative impact on surrounding communities, with increased air pollution from heavy goods vehicles and ships at the port. Additionally, the port generates noise and light pollution, which is a blight on citizens who live alongside the port. We have to mitigate that as much as possible.

Despite the port owner’s claims that it is neutral about the type of port access scheme or project, a freedom of information request submitted by campaigners reveals that the Peel Ports Group has “worked tirelessly” with National Highways in the lead-up to the project being announced. It has a vested interest. I am not criticising that, but it would perhaps be one of proposal’s bigger beneficiaries and, whether we like it or not, many people are asking how it can be right that a private company potentially gets to determine or have a massive say in how public money is spent. If there is to be a port expansion, let us make sure that an access project to the port is as environmentally friendly as practically possible. This is not about being anti-business; it is about balancing the needs of the various interested parties. That balance has not been met, and the environmental impact is being felt by the local community of thousands of people.

The road proposal conflicts with the Government’s own policies. Let us take the climate emergency as an example. The transport sector is the single biggest contributor to climate-wrecking CO₂ emissions in the UK. It is the only sector that has seen emissions go up, not down. CO₂ emissions stem from both the construction and subsequent use of roads. In my view and that of many other people, the project would be used to support port-related HGV traffic—the worst polluters on our roads—without a real assessment of alternatives that are as sustainable as they are practical.

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises this issue. She has spoken many times on transport issues and, to be frank, she really does now what she is talking about. I may come to that issue later, and I am pleased that she has highlighted it.

The issue of pollution flies in the face of the climate emergency declaration. It is apposite that my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central has noted the public health crisis in air quality. He referred to 40,000 deaths a year and related illnesses. Public Health England has said that that needs to be tackled. Protection of green spaces is seen as vital, and the Government’s own 25-year environment plan sets out targets, yet in certain situations National Highways is, in my view, ignoring those objectives.

On levelling up, the north receives on average about seven times less expenditure per capita than the south. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they need to reflect that in projects such as this and give the community the budget it needs to do the job. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) is making.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) have both pointed out the importance of levelling up and investing in transport across the nation. Given that this is a strategically important link, should not it be done with the longer term in mind, including climate objectives and ensuring that freight can travel as effectively as possible? That means providing alternatives to roads. The problem is that if we put more lorries on the roads, we will slow down delivery times and also deliver a less effective solution to the challenge of how we move goods around the country.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a perfectly fair analysis and assessment of the current situation. The mid-range cost of the proposal would be about £250 million. That is for just less than a 5 mile route, so it works out at about £50 million a mile. In relation to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South, the lower Thames reach crossing is now estimated to cost £8.2 billion, which works out at about £364 million per mile, including a tunnel. That is over seven times the per-mile cost that National Highways plans to spend on the Rimrose Valley road. However, the Rimrose Valley tunnel option was brushed aside as too expensive.

Turning to the conduct of National Highways, to date the organisation has told people that their homes would be safe, then issued the threat of compulsory purchase orders on homes and businesses. It withheld information on the environmental impact of the scheme from the public during the first consultation, thereby making an informed decision impossible. It has created divisions between communities in selecting the options it presented to the public. It ignored the outcome of its own public consultation, often in favour of the route that had the least support. In my view, and that of many other people, National Highways misled the public, claiming that a court ruled in favour of its preferred route, when actually it did not. It ignored the needs of those living alongside Princess Way—the road I referred to earlier, which is an extension of the A5036 and part of that corridor—with absolutely no mitigation. It ignored the Government and Sefton Council’s declaration of climate emergency by promoting yet another polluting road. It gave less than two weeks’ notice for public information events and sent newsletters to our schools, so that pupils could deliver National Highways’ messages. It also refused multiple freedom of information requests on dealing with private companies.

What about support for the proposal? The local authority, myself, and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, strongly opposed the scheme. Recently, Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram called for better alternatives to be explored—we have all called for that. The council had a judicial review in 2008 and has not ruled out further legal action.

Public opposition—the “Save Rimrose Valley” campaign—is backed by thousands of local citizens demanding a better outcome. The amount of people involved is remarkable. There are effectively festivals—thousands of people coming to Rimrose Valley—organised by Rimrose Valley Friends. I pay tribute to the hard work of those people. The campaign is backed other leading organisations, including Friends of the Earth, Wildlife Trusts, CPRE, the countryside charity, and Transport Action Network. The campaign is calling for the road proposal to be cancelled with immediate effect and for non-road sustainable solutions to the movement of goods in and out of the port of Liverpool, removing as many HGVs as possible from the existing road. That includes investment in rail freight, which goes to and from the port but is pretty negligible in the grand order of things. Of course, Network Rail has not even been missing in action; it has just been missing in this situation.

Pursuing the innovative solutions in the Sefton Council and Arup report is an option. It says not, “This, that or the other should happen,” but, “Here are the options; let’s properly explore those options.” Public health and wellbeing should be paramount in all local, regional and national transport and infrastructure decisions affecting our communities. I know the Minister acknowledges that.

The campaign calls for action to address the climate emergency, with all transport investment in Sefton contributing to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to help reach the Government’s own legal targets. The implementation of bold transport policies across Sefton and the wider city region, including proper investment in active travel and clean and affordable public transport, is called for.

The port of Liverpool is part of the make-up of the community. It exists. That cannot be ignored; it will not go away. It is a player alongside other players that are part of that Mersey Maritime group, as is the community. It is a symbiotic relationship and a partnership. It is not one telling the other what to do. I hope those players take part in that community and partnership effort on this project.

After all, the needs of people in the community are just as important as the needs of any company. Rimrose Valley, and other green spaces in our region, need to be protected from future developments that damage the integrity of our environment. The people of the communities along that corridor need to be assured that the price of port expansion will be paid. The people along the Church Road route, who have suffered for many years, need some succour—they need help and assistance. Building an alternative road in the valley is not the answer.

If that needs more mileage investment, so to speak—on the equivalent scale of the lower Thames reach, which I referred to before; Crossrail, which cost the best part of £260 million a mile; Crossrail 2, with a proposed £530 million a mile, although it might be more; the Stonehenge tunnel at £1.7 billion for just 2.5 miles, or £680 million a mile—so be it. I do not object to any of those projects. Other people might, but I do not. Those projects were important for those areas and they deserve that level of funding. My community is entitled, as is every other community, to a fair share of the transport budget.

In conclusion, we do not want a second-rate solution to a problem not of our community’s making. We want a first-class response to our real concerns, and I hope that the Minister, who I know takes these issues seriously, will give us that response.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Karl MᶜCartney)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg, particularly in the role I currently have the pleasure of fulfilling in responding to the points raised by my colleagues during the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for his kind words and comments. My phone is not on, but no news is good news, so he will be pleased to hear that I am still here as a Minister in the Government—we will wait and see what happens over the next 24 hours. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on securing the debate on the subject of Rimrose Valley and the port of Liverpool access, an issue he has toyed with since his leading role on the local council. I am sure he is fondly remembered by officers and councillors alike for his forthright endeavours, and by his constituents and those local residents, who I have noted are here today.

Good transport connections are the key to unlocking essential growth for cities, which is why I thank the hon. Member for Bootle for calling and opening this debate. I am sure that he and his colleagues will understand that I can neither condone nor support some of the claims and points that they have made. Transport links play a crucial role in supporting productivity, innovation and economic growth in cities, towns and communities, which is why we have provided a series of devolution deals to mayoral combined authorities to ensure that their transport connectivity maximises economic growth and supports thriving communities. The Government are fully committed to delivering our vision of levelling up the British economy and strengthening the bonds of our cities, aimed at unlocking the economic potential of the northern powerhouse, while ensuring that places such as the Liverpool city region and the north of England play a key role in a resurgent UK economy.

[Bill Esterson]

All the campaigns, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and I agree about the importance of transport and investment in it to unlock opportunity and to contribute to levelling up; the point we are making is about the nature of the transport, the infrastructure and other impacts. My hon. Friend and I have tried to engage with National Highways, to make the case for alternatives to this road solution, because of the HGV issue he and I raised earlier. In a letter to me, National Highways called my inquiries “vexatious”. Does the Minister agree that National Highways’ response—calling the elected representatives of the people of Sefton “vexatious” and refusing to engage on alternatives to a road—is wholly inappropriate and flies in the face of the policy that he has just set out?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I have heard and noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I will talk about the relationship—perhaps the non-relationship—with National Highways shortly. His intervention was longer than I expected, but I have taken on board all the points he made. I expect that in the future there will be ongoing dialogue with the Department and the hon. Gentleman and other local MPs.

Since 2010, more than £33 billion has been invested in transport infrastructure in the north, but our ambition is to go further and faster, regardless of recent pressures, especially as we focus relentlessly on the economic wellbeing of our cities, regions and nation, as that brings jobs, wealth and social mobility to all who wish to enjoy the fruits of their own labours. The integrated rail plan is the biggest ever single investment in Britain’s rail network—a £96 billion strategy of rail construction and upgrades for the midlands and the north to be delivered over the next 30 years. The IRP focuses on bringing communities in the north and midlands ever closer together, boosting inter-city connections and improving east-west links in particular. These are journeys people are most likely to make, and, as I learned on my recent visit to Immingham, these links are of the utmost importance to freight and access to the western port of Liverpool.

We have announced the first allocations from the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, regenerating towns and high streets and investing in the infrastructure that people need, including transport. As the hon. Member for Bootle undoubtedly knows, also included is £37.5 million for the Liverpool city region’s levelling up for recovery proposals, which will deliver a range of transport interventions to support connectivity and economic growth in and across Liverpool city centre, the maritime gateway in Sefton and over the water in Birkenhead, which as he rightly said is my place of birth—he and some of his constituents would probably call me a plastic scouser. This funding will enhance connectivity between employment centres such as Atlantic Park along the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road.

This Government are also spending over £24 billion between 2020 and 2025 on our strategic road network. The core principle of our road investment strategy is to create a road network that is safe, reliable and efficient for everyone, and that sets a long-term strategic vision. Our first priority is to fix existing strategic roads, ensuring that they are well designed, well maintained and well connected, and will serve all road users well into the future. Where existing roads are simply not up to the job the country asks them to perform, we will ask National Highways to look at the potential to develop wider realigned or, in a few cases, wholly new roads to keep people and goods moving.

Transport connectivity is not just a local and regional issue; it is important for the whole United Kingdom. Transport for the North itself recently noted the importance of the port of Liverpool, whose Liverpool2 deepwater container terminal reflects the aspiration of the region to increase its freight potential—an aspiration we have supported through its recent designation as a freeport. TfN also noted that areas of investment with significant freight benefits will include access to constrained ports—for example, the A5036 to the port of Liverpool.

The hon. Member for Bootle will be aware of our commitment to the improvement of the A5036 Princess Way, which is the critical link between the port of Liverpool and the motorway network. Solutions to address some of the challenges on the route are key to unlocking the potential of the port and the wider city region, including its ambitious freeport proposals. These improvements will provide better links and improve the resilience of the network while boosting business productivity and economic growth by providing a more reliable road network and improved local access. The objectives of the scheme go beyond port access; the scheme aims to improve journey times, reliability, quality and safety, to reduce the nuisance caused by noise and dust to those living alongside the existing route, and to reduce the severance of communities living alongside the existing route.

As the hon. Member for Bootle will know, the A5036 performs a number of important functions. It serves primarily, I am led to believe, as a local community and commuter route; it acts as a link for trips to and from Bootle, Maghull and Liverpool city centre; and it forms part of the strategic road network providing national routes to and from the port of Liverpool.

However, this scheme was included in the first road investment strategy and subsequent second road investment strategy because the route is among the worst nationally for congestion and unreliability, with high numbers of road traffic accidents that disproportionately affect vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. If nothing is done, these conditions will only worsen as traffic levels increase, with anticipated growth locally and through the port itself, which is critical to the economy of the north and the wider UK. For all those reasons, the A5036 Princess Way scheme in the port of Liverpool was developed. The scheme aims to build a new road between the M57 and M58 and the port of Liverpool to replace the current substandard route.

I acknowledge the strong views of the hon. Member for Bootle on the proposal for the new road through Rimrose Valley, but I reassure him that National Highways is aware that there is a range of opinions and concerns about its proposals for the A5036. I am reliably informed that it is committed to working with all stakeholders to achieve the right result for the city region and the country. The hon. Gentleman’s former colleagues should be mindful of that olive branch and the hand of friendship, or partnership working, which some in the north-west and the city of Liverpool are famous for.