I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that is of increasing concern to my constituents. I refer to what is to happen to Chiswick when it is hit by the tidal wave of traffic from the new extension of the M3 motorway from Lightwater to Sunbury Cross due to open next spring. The great fear in Chiswick is that the A316-Burlington Lane and the Great Chertsey Road—will virtually become a motorway as so-called improvements are carried out during the next few years to accommodate the flow of traffic to and from the M3.

The subject of motorways has been the dominating issue in Chiswick in recent years. The case against Chiswick being ruined by motorways was effectively put to the panel of inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan by such groups as the Chiswick Motorways Liaison Committee, the Grove Park Group and Chiswick House Area Residents' Association. The aguments that they and others put forward were accepted by the Layfield Panel. The panel recommended that the southern section of Ringway 2 should be struck out of the plan, and on page 430 of its report the panel said: We cannot, however, endorse the Plan's proposals to carry the M3 on by means of the A305 and A316 to a junction with the M4 The evidence shows that this continuation would cause quite unacceptable environmental problems in the Chiswick areas which already receive a very heavy load of traffic. The introduction of yet another primary principal road into an area which is already severely affected by the M4/A4 and the North Circular Road would be insupportable. Those views of the Layfield Panel were accepted in turn by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the statement which he made shortly afterwards, but we now find that there still remains a great threat to Chiswick from the M3.

The subject of the M3 extension was raised in the House by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—who I am glad to see sitting in his place tonight—on 25th July. He was primarly concerned with the situation that would result in Twickenham rather than the situation that would result in Chiswick. In his reply to that debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said: The traffic flow on the A316 in 1971 was 22,000 vehicles per 16-hour day. Our assessment of the maximum likely flow when the M3 has been opened is 37,000 vehicles per 16-hour day. The traffic management measures to which I have referred should reduce this volume, but to an extent which cannot yet be estimated. Completion of the A305 stage 2 improvement would increase the A316 flow to 45,000 vehicles per 16-hour day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 1703.] Frankly, those figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted on that occasion have been viewed with scepticism in Chiswick. The traffic capacity of the M3 and A305 is far higher and the A316 is the route that most traffic will take between central London and the M3. Even the British Road Federation, in a statement which it put out in connection with this debate tonight, concedes that The increased traffic resulting from M3 will intensify the use of rat runs and traffic management measures, such as one-way streets, prohibitions and blocking off street ends, to control this unsuitable use of roads and streets, may have to be considered. Then there is the additional factor that huge traffic jams will build up from the increased flow of traffic at Hogarth roundabout in Chiswick. At the moment there is a single-lane temporary flyover taking traffic from the A316 on to the A4 towards central London. The balance of traffic at Hogarth roundabout is very fine at present. The Chiswick Motorways Liaison Committee estimates that even as few as another 100 cars an hour could cause serious delays both for traffic using the flyover and for traffic circulating at ground level.

The problems that Chiswick faces from this M3 extension are different from those which Twickenham faces. The hon. Member for Twickenham in his debate was most concerned that the so-called improvements to the roundabouts on the A316, which the Greater London Council is planning, should go ahead as quickly as possible. I understand that these improvements would involve reducing the diameter of the roundabouts to make traffic flow more easily and speedily through that route. But the more the traffic is speeded up through Twickenham, inevitably the worse the situation will be in Chiswick at the Hogarth roundabout. To that extent there is an inevitable conflict of interest between Chiswick and Twickenham residents, but it is most important that both sets of objections from both areas should be met.

I believe that the Department of the Environment and the Greater London Council are taking too relaxed a view of the situation that will result in Chiswick when the M3 extension opens. The effects of this tidal wave of traffic can only be curbed if the Department of the Environment and the GLC between them embark on a drastic programme of traffic management.

In my view, the following measures are necessary. First, the tapering of the M3 from three lanes to two lanes at Sunbury Cross should be made a permanent and not a temporary feature, as the Under-Secretary has stated it should be at the moment.

Second, it is essential that the roundabouts on the A316 should be improved only if at the same time linked traffic lights are introduced along the A316 between Twickenham and Chiswick to control the increased flow of traffic and stop it building up at the Hogarth roundabout.

Third, it is important that the A316 should not be designated as a heavy goods vehicle route. Heavy goods vehicles bound for central London should come off the M3 at Lightwater and use the A30 and the A4, and similarly in the other direction going from central London to the M3.

Fourth, Burlington Lane should not be made into a clearway. There is great alarm in that part of Chiswick at the moment at the proposal that it should be made into a clearway, of which the GLC recently gave notice in local newspapers. If it is made into a clearway it will become virtually a motorway. There will be an increased flow of traffic as a result of its being made into a clearway and this would make the traffic jams at the Hogarth roundabout even worse.

The parking of cars on one side of Burlington Lane where the houses are opposite Chiswick House grounds provides some sort of protection barrier to the people living there, and those houses are very close to the road. Therefore, I urge the GLC to drop that proposal for Burlington Lane.

Of the points I have mentioned, some are for the Department of the Environment, some are for the GLC, and others are for both of them. I hope that what I have said will be studied very carefully by all concerned with the decisions that have to be taken.

The damage to Chiswick that would follow from a Y-junction of two primary roads coming into being at the Hogarth roundabout—damage that was fully understood by the Layfield panel of inquiry and accepted by the Government as well—is a matter that the people of Chiswick are not prepared to sit back and see happen just because the Department of the Environment and the GLC fail to introduce sufficiently effective schemes of traffic management.