Liverpool Port Access: Rimrose Valley

Debate between Bill Esterson and Peter Dowd

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.