Transport: Glossop and High Peak

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Andrew Bingham

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

This is the second time that I have called a debate on the roads in and around Glossop, and I make no apology for debating the subject again in the Chamber. I have called a second debate tonight because of the events of recent weeks, when the inadequacy of these roads has created more misery for my constituents. Such is the strength of feeling about the matter among people who live in High Peak, particularly in Glossop, that there is now a petition on the parliamentary website created by my constituent David Saggerson. As we know, such petitions will trigger a debate if they receive 100,000 signatures. I did not want to wait for that so I am using the Adjournment debate mechanism to hold the debate that almost 3,000 people have already signed up for.

It was recently reported that the viewing figures for the BBC Parliament channel had hit an all-time high. If those figures were measured again tonight around Glossop, and perhaps also in Stalybridge and Hyde, I am sure they would be even greater. That is not because of my constituents’ desire to follow every word and deed of their Member of Parliament—I wish that were so—but it is testament to the desperate need felt in and around Glossop for a solution to the deplorable situation facing residents as they attempt to go about their everyday business. I feel sure that following tonight’s debate, the Minister’s and my own Twitter feeds will see a significant increase in traffic, as will my Facebook page.

In the time allowed, I cannot begin to convey the frustration felt by my residents about this issue, but I intend to try. From our previous conversations I know that the Minister is aware of the situation, but I shall add some background and context.

The Mottram-Tintwistle bypass has become almost as fabled as the Loch Ness monster. Governments of all colours have threatened and promised to deliver it and have conspicuously failed. When I was first elected in 2010, I was conscious of the need to promise my best efforts to deliver this badly needed and much delayed road. I and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) put aside our political differences and joined forces in an attempt to sort the issue out once and for all.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, which will be genuinely appreciated in our part of the world. I appreciate the opportunity we have had to work together constructively to make progress on the issue. In 2010, in a difficult financial climate, we were told that this was not a viable option, yet we have been able to make progress, for which I am extremely grateful, as are my constituents.

I also want briefly to thank the Minister. We have dealt with many roads Ministers over the years, but I have always found the current one attentive and genuinely serious about trying to help us. I know that he is planning to visit us very soon, which I appreciate.

The recent problems around Glossop are absolutely untenable, even for a part of the world that is used to congestion. The situation in Broadbottom, Mottram and Hollingworth was unbearable while the roadworks were taking place. The only answer is a bypass. There are two points that I hope the hon. Gentleman will address in his speech. First, the bypass must go around Hollingworth as well as Mottram; that is the comprehensive solution we need. Secondly, we need the consultation to begin as soon as possible.

[Andrew Bingham]

I completely agree. Politically, the hon. Gentleman and I are miles apart, but on this matter we are in total agreement, as we will continue to be.

In 2010 the hon. Gentleman and I gathered together the key organisations and commissioned our own study, which we managed to get funded, to produce evidence that would confirm what we both knew to be obvious, as did the people of Glossop, Stalybridge and Hyde, which is that the situation then, as now, was unacceptable. The roads are simply not up to the needs of our residents. In the ensuing time we have pursued the matter relentlessly, both together and independently. That culminated in a meeting I had with the Chancellor at No. 11 Downing Street, during which I impressed on him the seriousness of the problem and how we could not ignore it any longer as it was only going to get worse.

In late 2014 I was delighted that, following our work, the Government announced the building of the Mottram Moor link road and the A57 link road, which is known locally as the Glossop spur. It was not the full solution that I have campaigned for—I will refer to that later—but we were promised that a study would be done to examine extending it to deal with the problems faced at Tintwistle in my constituency and Hollingworth in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. On that point, I strongly argue that the scheme should indeed be extended, along the lines of the original Mottram and Tintwistle bypass plan put forward years ago, because we need that for those two small villages.

I realise that the Minister will not have the intimate knowledge of the area that I do. I could embark on a long description of the road networks, the junctions and the geography, but by happy coincidence he will visit High Peak tomorrow, and I look forward to showing him the situation at first hand. Seeing it for himself will demonstrate the problem far better than any description I could give tonight. I would like to thank him in advance for visiting High Peak. Tonight I want to try to impress upon him a sense of the difficulties being faced, the impact they are having on my constituents and the urgency of the issue. In order to do that, I need to relate some of the happenings of the past few weeks.

The town of Glossop and the surrounding area are home to over 30,000 people. Despite being in the east midlands, Glossop very much faces Manchester and the north-west, for employment, leisure and many other facets of life. Consequently, there is a huge volume of traffic that heads in and through Glossop as people travel to, from and between Greater Manchester and Sheffield. There are only two effective roads heading north from Glossop to Manchester, one of which relies on a single-track bridge that was never designed to carry significant amounts of traffic. The fact that it is even considered by motorists, let alone used, proves the point I am making about the existing roads.

However, due to the congestion on the main route out of town, that route north has become a well-used alternative—until earlier this month, when a burst water main washed away the road surface in the village of Charlesworth, forcing its closure. The consequences were catastrophic. I received many emails from constituents, some of whom were leaving home well before dawn just to get out of Glossop and get to work for 9 am, and they were facing similar travel times when trying to get home. Indeed, when I was trying to get to Stalybridge one Friday evening I was forced to take a detour of several miles to complete the journey.

The closure of what is, in effect, only a back road pretty much gridlocked Glossop, and indeed the whole area, for over a week. I was informed that the chaos was such that a child who had suffered a seizure in Glossop and who needed an urgent ambulance faced an unacceptable delay, purely because of the blocked roads, so this catastrophic situation could easily have turned into a tragedy.

A further complication that week was the cancellation of trains, which meant that more cars went on to roads that were already overburdened. However, I must stress that the Minister should not think that last week’s traffic problems were the cause of the problem; they were only the result of the contributory factors I have outlined, and they only exaggerated an already truly unacceptable situation.

Earlier this week, the M62 was blocked. Yet again, trans-Pennine traffic looking for an alternative route was forced on to the Woodhead Pass, which converges with the A57 just outside Glossop. The ensuing traffic chaos caused traffic jams going back huge distances, snaking through Tintwistle and several miles beyond.

I want to focus briefly on Tintwistle, which the Minister will visit tomorrow. A constituent, Vicky Mullis, who is a resident of Tintwistle, invited me to meet the village’s residents to talk about the problems it faces. As the Minister will see tomorrow, they feel their houses physically shake as heavy goods vehicles thunder past, literally a few feet from their front doors. Furthermore, when the traffic backs up, as it did earlier this week, cars resort to taking short cuts through the village to try to get in front of the other traffic—they are using the roads as a rat run. I am trying to convince Derbyshire County Council, as the highways authority for those roads, to take action. Thus far, it seems somewhat impervious to my protestations, but I will continue.

That is why I still fully support looking at extending the proposed scheme. The scheme does much for Glossop and for parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. However, it does nothing for Tintwistle, so the extension is as crucial as going ahead with the two link roads already in the programme.

There are more factors we can take into account when we consider the need for this solution. Significant planning consents have recently been granted in Glossop. That will increase the population and thereby increase traffic levels.

The imminent withdrawal of the 394 bus service from Glossop to Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport—I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) are trying to find ways to preserve the route—could move more constituents who have cars on to the roads. I could use more of the debate to talk about the 394 bus alone, because a lot of constituents are contacting me about it, and they are alarmed at the loss of that vital service. However, I want to return to the issue of traffic and to look at the economic consequences.

At the moment, a wide range of businesses operate in Glossop, covering various forms of industry, manufacturing and services, and we are always looking to attract more. However, the ongoing traffic difficulties are making it increasingly difficult to get businesses to open in Glossop. It is a thriving, fantastic town, and it is in a great position, but people are looking at it and thinking, “Hang on. How am I going to get my customers and clients in and out of the town?” They are now thinking twice about coming to Glossop and bringing in more jobs.

On top of that, I have spoken to companies based in Glossop that are really beginning to think that the traffic is suffocating the town. I fear that they we will not only not get new businesses in, but lose the businesses we already have, because they will move elsewhere as a result of the inaccessibility.

On a wider point about the economy, the A628 Woodhead Pass is a significant route connecting the east and the west of the country. I applaud the Chancellor for his work on the northern powerhouse, and it is a great initiative, but for it to work properly the two ends of the powerhouse—the east and the west, Sheffield and Manchester—need to link up. The route-based strategy on the M62, which was produced some time ago, already flags up the fact that the M62 is nearing capacity. That increases the significance of the A628 as a trans-Pennine route. If we look at other trans-Pennine routes, we see that there is the A69 in the north and then the M62; the next one down is the A628. All this congestion is therefore blocking a vital artery connecting the east and the west, and I have a welter of statistics and evidence to prove that. I know the Minister will have seen it, because some of it comes from studies carried out by his own Department.

I have tried to encapsulate the situation as best I can in the time allowed. Much will become clearer tomorrow when the Minister visits, but I do want to impress on him the seriousness of the situation.

I am delighted that the Government agreed to build this road. It was announced in December 2014. The Prime Minister himself, in an answer to me at Prime Minister’s Question Time, confirmed that a future Conservative Government would build the road. I was delighted with that. I have that copy of Hansard pinned on my office wall to remind me what we have promised, and I intend to deliver on that promise if we can. However, the delight and expectations that were raised in late 2014 are turning into frustration because the wait goes on. In Glossop, it is now not just the Government’s reputation that is at stake; I have made a commitment to my constituents, and I am determined to stick to it. I keep repeating this, but I cannot stress it enough: I cannot begin to describe the groundswell of public opinion on this matter.

Many people across Glossop will be watching this debate tonight. They will watch it later on YouTube or whatever medium they want to use. Two constituents, Robert McColl and his son Kallen, have travelled down here specially to be in the Public Gallery to listen to this, such is the desire of the people of Glossop to sort the problem out and sort it quickly. We know that one part of the road is going to be built—the two relief roads. That is great, because we need that extended scheme for the people of Tintwistle and of Hollingworth in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I urge the Minister—I have known him for years, and he is a man of honour and integrity—to give my constituents, and indeed me, some hope that this process can be conducted quickly and with urgency so that we can see spades in the ground as soon as possible.

It is now quarter past 5 on a Thursday evening. If this was live on the radio, there would be people sat on the A57 and the A628, and sat around Glossop, listening to it, saying, “Minister, let’s hear what we want to hear. We need this road, we’re sat in this traffic, we’re starving the town, we’re starving High Peak.” I do not exaggerate: this is the biggest single issue facing the Glossopdale area. If it is not resolved, it will have catastrophic effects on everybody. The people of Glossop and I are desperate—we cannot carry on like this any longer.

Future of Town Centres and High Streets

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Andrew Bingham

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing the debate. I warmly welcome his speech and the tone of it.

My constituency covers the towns of Hyde, Stalybridge and Mossley, as well as some smaller localities, all with their own high streets. The people in these towns care very much about the future of their town centres and high streets, and they are concerned about the decline that they have seen. I welcome the chance that we have today to discuss the Portas review.

Over the past year I have been working closely with local businesses, particularly in Stalybridge where the decline has been the fastest, to try to find ways of supporting our town centre. I welcome the support and inspiration that that report has provided. The review points to many of the concerns that have been highlighted by people I have spoken to in Stalybridge, such as fewer reasons to visit the high street and limited parking when they do. It presents a number of measures that could attract shoppers back to the high street in greater numbers. I want to say immediately that I support very many of the ideas contained in it.

Creating strong identities, providing greater strategic vision and ensuring that towns have a range of outlets and opening hours that match the needs of their customers are among the sensible measures that could be used to make a real difference. The acknowledgement that it is not just about retail is crucial. In addition, the review contains specific proposals, such as reclassifying the use category of betting shops, and suggesting measures that could rid our town centres of the blight of empty and derelict buildings—things that I very much support. However, it is important to recognise that a number of elements in the report would require significant investment, whether that is reduced business rates or free parking. It is difficult in the present climate to see where those resources might come from.

Today I want to share with the House some of the challenges faced by traders in my local towns. For those Members who have not yet been lucky enough to spend time in Stalybridge, I shall say a little about it. Stalybridge is a former mill town which has the Huddersfield narrow canal running through it. It has benefited in the past from regeneration to open up that canal and the area around Armentieres square. Many of the former mills have been transformed into loft-style apartments by companies such as Urban Splash. It has a population of over 20,000 with a range of incomes and housing, from social housing to properties currently on the market for more than £1 million, so it should be able to support a decent town centre.

In the past the focus has been on the night-time economy, leading some people to dub us “Staly Vegas”, but on its own the night-time economy is too limited a vision to sustain a thriving high street and town centre. Stalybridge has good transport links to Manchester and Leeds, and it could be an ideal choice for those seeking a leisurely cappuccino by the canal or an afternoon browsing in the shops.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency neighbours mine, agree that one of the problems is getting people into and out of town centres? I am sure that he does, as we are having a joint meeting on Friday to discuss roads. I have spent many hours on Mottram road trying to get into and out of Stalybridge. We have a joint problem with roads and access that is further cramping the town centres of Stalybridge and Glossop in my constituency?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with his comments. In this case it is not just about traffic going through Mottram and Hollingworth in my constituency, but about how we can open up the asset of the Peak District national park in his constituency, which would be very much to our benefit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you could spend a pleasant afternoon in Stalybridge, given its location and amenities, but unfortunately alongside our picturesque canal there is currently a burnt-out health club, which is an eyesore, and a once thriving pub that is now boarded up. Frankly, it looks a bit like a bomb site. There is an empty former police station and a former NHS clinic nearby, and an increasing number of shops on the high street are empty and shuttered up. As a result, few people now think of a visit to our town centre as an afternoon out.

Derelict buildings are a blot on our townscapes. Landlords are often reluctant to maintain their buildings or sell them, particularly if their value has fallen, and the powers to force those owners, who might not even live in this country, let alone the community, to take any action can be cumbersome and difficult to enforce. I have been working with my local authority to try to rectify the worst cases, particularly the burnt-out health club, but I recognise that it is very difficult, and that we are asking local authorities to incur significant liabilities at a difficult time, which they are not always in a position to do.

I am pleased that the Portas review recognises the detrimental impact that empty properties can have and calls for an exploration of further disincentives to prevent landlords from leaving units vacant. Removing empty property rate relief from landlords who fail to invest in their properties, or fining those who keep a significant proportion of their portfolios empty, are both measures that should be looked at. Dealing with derelict buildings would make a real difference in Stalybridge, and I would be keen for my town to pilot any scheme that would help. I suspect that I will not be the only Member making that request today. Indeed, this is such an important part of the review that I believe that it could have gone even further.

As has been mentioned, parking is a significant factor in the health of our town centres, particularly when supermarkets and out-of-town developments can offer free parking. The review’s solution is to suggest free parking schemes. Appealing as that might sound, we must recognise the reality that many local authorities are struggling for resources and, if they were simply forced down that route, might choose to sell off their car parks instead.

Our town centres could have a very strong future. The report recognises that retailers change but there is still a role for town centres if we get the offer right. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it today. I would like the Government to tell us how they will take forward and implement the report. I hope that it can be used as a springboard for communities such as mine to take a lead in designing their town centres in future.