The Arterial Road Conferences were the event that kick-started London’s inter-war roadbuilding boom, and were responsible for giving us Western Avenue, the North Circular and many other routes that shaped London and still form the backbone of its highway network today.
The Conferences had their genesis in a series of existing ideas for road projects which the Board of Trade had produced. London’s various local authorities were keen to see these projects built, but there was no mechanism for new roads to be promoted or constructed, so a key achievement of the Conferences was to agree a plan for the whole metropolis and to find a means to get the roads built.
Board of Trade proposals
Following the report of the Royal Commission on London Traffic in 1906, the Board of Trade gained a London Traffic Branch (LTB) – later described by Buchanan as “tiny and badly staffed” – whose first act when convened was to dismiss the Royal Commission’s recommendations for new roads north-south and east-west across Central London1.
In general the LTB was approving of the rise of motor traffic. In 1908 they noted with satisfaction that there had been a sevenfold increase in motor car traffic in the space of just a few years; this, they said, was entirely beneficial, reducing the cost of maintenance and “the labour of cleansing” streets that had been used by horses.
In 1909, rising traffic levels led the Board of Trade to direct the LTB to “investigate the sufficiency or otherwise of the arterial roads leading into London”, and to make proposals for new roads that might be required. This work was primarly conducted by the Superintendent of the London Traffic Branch, Colonel RC Hellard.
Robert Charles Hellard was, by 1909, 58 years old and had recently retired from an extremely distinguished career. He had joined the military aged 21 as a Lieutenant, and then rose up the ranks, being promoted to Colonel in 1905; he then moved to the Ordnance Survey – at the time still closely aligned with the military – serving as its Director General between 1905 and 1908. On retiring from this role he joined the LTB.
Hellard’s work was not easy since there was no planning apparatus to work with. Before he could begin drawing up routes, he first had to produce updates to the existing 6″ maps of London; he later described how this made him aware just how quickly London was expanding and how rapidly potential routes for new roads were being lost.
He then commissioned surveys of all the existing main roads and made an analysis of London’s population from the latest census figures. Finally, a series of traffic censuses were commissioned. These were conducted in both winter and summer, and thereafter summer censuses were made annually, since traffic was heaviest in summer.
With this done, routes could be selected, but that process too was slow and laborious. Hellard’s main problem seemed to be railway crossings, but it was by no means the only one. He later wrote:
“The large number of railways round the fringe of the more densely populated portions of the Metropolitan area, however, proved the worst obstacles to the free choice of route. On the lower levels most of the railways are on embankments, many of them too low to pass under, yet high enough to make it almost impossible to cross over, while level crossings on main roads round Londkn must be considered impossible. On this account, and owing to the many junction lines and the wide areas devoted to railway sidings, the places where crossing is possible are comparatively few, and these constitute ruling points, which govern and limit the selection of route. Again, in some cases, the best line for a new road is already occupied by a railway, which it is obviously impossible to cross and re-cross, and yet to be restricted to one side or the other is distinctly prejudicial to the grade of the road. Many trial selections had to be made, and again and again a route which had promised well at its commencement had to be abandoned on account of some insurmountable obstacle encountered at some part of its course. A map gives no indication of the importance of buildings, and is therefore only a partial guide, all details have to be gone into on the ground itself, in order to find the line of least resistance, as a basis for discussion, prior to consultation with land owners and local authorities.”
Col RC Hellard, writing in 19132
By 1910, the London Traffic Branch’s annual report was able to hint at a series of proposals for new arterial roads. These were then published in 1910 and 1911.
Routes recommended by the London Traffic Branch
The following are the routes recommended by Hellard in 1910 and 1911, with some of his notes on them. The list is remarkable for comprising the majority of new roads that have been built in London between that date and now, and the rarity of any other new road proposal being made that was not foreseen by Hellard.
North East section
- Eastern Avenue, from Hackney Rd at Cambridge Heath Station to Black’s Bridge east of Romford. First section to be built from Red Bridge to Romford as this was in the open, urban section to be done later.
- New street from Angel to Hackney to connect to this new avenue.
- New street connecting Essex Road with Lea Bridge.
- North Circular from Edmonton to Red Bridge.
North section
- A new Cambridge Road, replacing the existing. No good approach from London was available so it should be approached by both Green Lanes and High Road Tottenham. This seems to by why the A10 Great Cambridge Road dissolves at The Roundway – traffic was supposed to be distributed both east and west from the end of the new road.
- No improvements to the Coventry or Great North Roads.
- North Circular Road to run from Edgware Road to Regents Park Road, and then follow the latter northwards to Christ Church Avenue, from where a new route would be built to Wood House Road, Friern Barnet Road and Bowes Road, then a new route to Edmonton.
North West section
“The open ground to the south of Wormwood Scrubbs, now temporarily occupied by exhibition buildings, comes nearer to the City than any other vacant space within the County of London, and presents an opportunity of forming a good western outlet which should on no account be lost.”
- Western Avenue from Silchester Road running 13 miles to rejoin Oxford Road west of Uxbridge.
- Continuation of this road from Silchester Road inwards to Harrow Road north of Paddington to join east-west route and complement the new street from Angel to Hackney Road (above).
- A branch from Western Avenue running 2.5 miles from Park Royal to Sudbury “would furnish a valuable alternative route to Harrow” – this is now known as Bridgewater Road.
- North Circular Road from Gunnersbury Road to Finchley.
- Consideration for a future route, with no alignment selected, to avoid the steep hill on Aylesbury Road approaching Rickmansworth.
South West section
- New main road in the gap between the Basingstoke and Portsmouth roads, leading from Chiswick to Richmond, Twickenham and Chertsey. This would relieve Richmond and its bridge, and “help to develop the district beyond”.
- Extension of the new road bypassing Brentford, already proposed by Middlesex County Council, to meet the Basingstoke Rd. Hellard suggested that two thirds of the traffic through Brentford was going to Basingstoke and not destined for the Bath Road.
- Longford and Colnbrook bypasses.
- Extension of Cromwell Road from Earls Court to meet the Brentford Bypass at Chiswick.
- Kingston Bypass and spur towards Raynes Park.
- Relief to Putney Bridge by constructing a new crossing at Hurlingham, approached by Coniger Road to the north and a new route to the junction of West Hill and Upper Richmond Road to the south, with branch to Garratt Lane. This amounts to a new river crossing roughly halfway between Putney and Wandsworth Bridges.
South section
- Croydon Bypass, which had already been proposed by the County Borough of Croydon. This would shorten the journey through Croydon by 600 yards.
- Sutton Bypass, either via Cheam or Carshalton.
- New road from Morden Road at Morden Hall to Rose Hill.
- Improvement at Epsom to avoid a dangerous turning at the railway bridge, “but the local authorities do not appreciate its importance”.
- South Circular Road made by “sundry connexions and widenings” from Clapham Common to Well Hall Road in Eltham, via Poynders Road, Streatham Place, Palace Road, Lancaster Road, Thurlow Park Road to Dulwich, then a new section from Dulwich Park to Lordship Lane.
- The difficulty of the above was realised and so an alternative outer route for the South Circular Road was also suggested via Putney Bridge Road, Garratt Lane, Tooting Broadway, Mitcham Road to Canterbury Road in Croydon, then a new road direct to St James’s Road, then another new road direct to Shirley and West Wickham, then Hayes Common, Orpington, Bexley.
South East section
In this area, Hellard wrote, “all the roads converge upon one point in New Cross, with the result that a section of the New Cross Road some 700 yards in length is practically the only outlet from London to the South East.”
- Eltham and Shooters Hill bypasses, though these “may not be necessary” as traffic was not increasing rapidly there.
- Bromley bypass, which was seen as the more desirable project.
- New road from Old Kent Road to Catford, from the former’s junction with Albany Street, crossing Peckham Road near the Rye, making for Catford Station, and rejoining Tonbridge Road two miles short of outskirts of Bromley. The exact line around Catford was largely subject to a valuation of property.
- South Circular Road from Forest Hill to Catford, Brownhill Road, then a new road to Eltham as now. New and difficult sections were needed to get from London Road to Stanstead Road at Forest Hill and across Catford, but Hellard advised the new road East of there was more important to build before the line became developed.
The proposals above are plotted very approximately on this map, with the exception of a couple whose route is unclear. The outer line for the South Circular is marked in grey.
Deputation to meet Prime Minister
While the London Traffic Branch – and indeed the Board of Trade – were powerless to actually build any new roads, they did have the capacity to promote their recommendations among government bodies at various levels, and by 1913 had built up enough of a head of steam to have a consensus that something needed to be done.
The first step in getting things moving was to get someone in a position of authority to push things forward. An approach was therefore made to the Government, and on Thursday 3 July 1913, a deputation visited Downing Street to meet with the Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith.
Delegates
The delegation was made up of representatives from numerous organisations.
For the Royal Institute of British Architects, Sir Aston Webb stated that “London finds itself without any official proposals for the roads out of it, and anything that is done is done independently of the final result”. He noted that in Liverpool landowners were happily giving up parts of their land for new roads, because of the development potential they created.
Leslie Vigers, representing the Surveyors Institution, stated that “we, from our experience about the country and around London, find a difficulty in getting everybody to work together. There is no authority in a sense to coordinate what has been done… We want some supreme authority.”
For the London Society, Raymond Unwin – advocate of Town Planning and Garden Cities, and critic of ribbon development – praised the new Town Planning Act as “one of the most beneficent pieces of legislation of our time”, but said that “owing to the great extent of Greater London, individual town planning authorities are, in reference to arterial roads, very much relatively in the same position to one another and to the central idea as the individual estates of ordinary towns were before the passing of the Town Planning Act.”
There was, he said, “no authority which can take for London a comprehensive view and secure in the interests of Greater London as a whole an adequate system of main roads.” The effect of this was illustrated by “the threatened crippling of the ends of the Croydon by-pass”,” and “the blocking by new reservoirs and deep clay-pits of two of the roads since the time Colonel Hellard selected them as possible for main roads, as examples of what is going on.”
On behalf of the Institute of Municipal and County Engineers, KJ Thomas said “we feel that, growing as traffic is now so rapidly, it is most important that provision should be made for the future, and it is only by making provision for the future now that we can hope to provide these extensive arterial roads which will be essential a few years hence.” He too was pushing for an overarching body to coordinate new roads: urging that “the government should see their way to provide us with some guiding authority to keep us going together and in harmony.”
Alderman W Thompson spoke on behalf of all London’s local authorities. They were, he said, forced to do planning work without knowing where arterial roads will go, because no authority existed to create them, and therefore town planning left new roads out altogether. He stated that “for street widening alone in 10 years something like 18 millions was spent by local authorities, all of which would have been avoided by laying down a line of roads in a number of our great towns.” The problem was exacerbated by the Ordnance Survey not updating its maps, the Census Office not publishing its data, and other government bodies like the Post Office erecting “ugly buildings” without any consultation.
“It is desirable”, he concluded, “that there should be a ring Strasse round London linking up all these beautiful parks which are now dotted about with no kind of connection, and there should be a ring Strasse which should enable the traffic to go round London without any extra expense. There is no authority to enable one to take a big view of it and say ‘This is a plan of London’. London is the only civilised city in the world which is in that position at the present time. There is no definite authority responsible for the area.”
Finally, speaking specifically for Ruislip-Northwood Urban District Council (though it’s not clear why they specifically got to make a case), Councillor FN Elgood complained that his Council couldn’t reserve the line of any proposed arterial road because there was no guarantee it would be continued through other boroughs, and if it is not, the council would suffer a great liability.
In conclusion, he stated that “we find therefore that the Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade has a scheme for arterial main roads, the Road Board have the money and powers, and the local authorities through town planning schemes can control the land over which the roads must pass” – and yet it was still impossible to get the roads built, because responsibility was so divided.
Not present, intriguingly, were any representatives from the Board of Trade or its London Traffic Branch, and Hellard himself was notable for his absence.3
Reception
At Downing Street the delegation was received, and heard, by:
- The Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, MP
- John Burns MP, President of the Local Government Board (LGB)
- J Herbert Lewis, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board
- Sir George S Gibb, Chairman of the Road Board
- Sir HC Monro, KCB, a member of the Local Government Board
- Mr M Bonham Carter, Private Secretary to the Prime Minister
- Mr FL Turner, Private Secretary to the President of the Local Government Board
The meeting appeared to serve its purpose. The delegation’s principal aim was, clearly, to get someone in Government to take responsibility for organising the various players so that they could begin formal planning work, and in this they succeeded. Asquith felt that the issues were “very serious” and wanted his government to provide whatever assistance was possible. He directed Burns to set up a Conference between all interested parties, and in doing so gave the project the backing it needed. At the conclusion of the meeting, he said:
“Gentlemen, I have revolved the matter in my mind, and so has my Right Hon. friend, and we have the advantage of the presence and advice of Sir George Gibb, than whom no one knows more about these matters.
“I would therefore venture to make that suggestion to you, and if it meets your wish, if you will put yourselves into communication with my Right Hon. friend at the Local Government Board, who will arrange I am sure without any unavoidable delay that such a Conference shall be held…I cannot help thinking that in that way you might at any rate tide over the immediate problem which lies before you.”
Herbert Asquith, MP, 3 July 19134
In addition, responding to the delegates’ repeated claim that some overarching body was required that could take responsibility for planning and construction of roads across London – since at this time there was no London-wide authority capable of such a thing – Asquith remarked that he was “very much impressed that there must be some authority” along those lines, but declined to commit to the creation of one. (None would exist until the Greater London Council in 1965.) In the absence of one, it would be down to the many local authorities to coordinate their efforts.
The Conferences
On 28 November 1913, the Local Government Board hosted the first Arterial Road Conference at Caxton Hall. This large venue was required since the aim was to bring together the London Traffic Branch, the Road Board, and London’s various local authorities. There were 117 of the latter, all sending delegates, and so the event was a large one.
By this time Burns had stepped down as President of the LGB, and his successor Herbert Samuel addressed the Conference.
“…our grandfathers and great-grandfathers failed in the necessary foresight to provide for what was to them the future and what to us is the present. It is true that they were confronted by new problems arising from an unprecedented growth of population. The fact remains that they treated us ill in not providing in advance for the proper development and amenities of our towns. We must not let posterity say of us that we also failed in foresight and that we too allowed evils to grow that could have been foreseen, without taking steps to check them.
“Surely if we English people pride ourselves on being practical, it is obvious that the duty devolves upon us to make provision beforehand to prevent, in this great area that is so rapidly developing around London, evils repeating themselves that have already arisen within the inner circle of London.”
Herbert Samuel, 28 November 19135
This single Conference was plainly too big to get anything much done, so an agreement was reached that there would be six “sectional” conferences the following year, each discussing only part of London, but all six to be coordinated and overseen by the LGB and LTB. The six areas aligned with the six sections used by Hellard’s 1910-1911 list of projects. These “sections” split up some boroughs and counties, so representatives of each authority were to attend all the conferences that affected them.
The Local Government Board hosted these six more manageable events at their own headquarters between 9 and 18 March 1914. All six Arterial Road Conferences (ARCs) were required to elect a ten-member subcommittee for their section that would continue to discuss the matter in more detail. In other words the primary purpose of the Conference was to thin out the number of people required to make decisions to manageable number. All six subcommittees included Hellard and Colonel Henry Maybury from the Road Board, and therefore had room for eight representatives of the local authorities.
Since there were 117 local authorities in total, and only 48 subcommittee positions, each committee member was therefore representing two or three local authority districts for the purposes of planning new roads.
Hellard opened each ARC by reminding delegates that road plans might not be necessary just yet, but that the main point was to reserve lines for new roads 100ft wide before the land for them became developed. He also made clear in his address that the ARCs were free to propose any new road they thought necessary, and were not bound by the proposals he had produced for the LTB. This was despite the fact that, at times, he was on the defensive – he referred in one speech to a remark that had been made at the first Conference in November 1913, that it was “very easy to draw lines on a map”.
In any case, his proposals from three years earlier were already in need of revision. He told the Conferences:
“As all these investigations were made on the ground either by me or my assistant, I can safely say that up to 1910 there were no serious engineering difficulties to be encountered on any of the routes selected. Development has of course proceeded since then and buildings have been erected here and there, which may add to the cost or even entail some deviation, but in most cases the lines are still open.
“…possible sites for roads are limited…once built over, enormous additional expense will be entailed in years to come to re-open the route. In most cases it becomes a question of ‘now or never,’ particularly in view of the development in prospect under the Town Planning Act.”
Colonel RC Hellard, March 19146
The proposed North Circular Road, for example, was jeopardised by a scheme called the Northern Junction Railway, which was before parliament at that time. It had a route almost identical to the North Circular in North West London.
While each sectional ARC was a separate event, all six had very common themes. At all, for example, delegates asked about finance for a programme of roadbuilding, and had to be reminded that – given the remit of the event – they should just consider roads without regard to funding them at this stage.
Much of the discussion revolved around areas already designated by various Councils as “town planning schemes” – specific designated areas that could be thought of as being zoned for development under the relatively new Town Planning Act. Within those areas many authorities had already proposed to lay out a system of main roads with connections to existing arteries. Herbert Samuel stated that “it is, I think, true to say that the laying out of arterial roads is necessary to a town planning scheme, and also, to a great extent, that town planning schemes are necessary to the provision of arterial roads. The two things are undoubtedly inextricably connected with one another, and that is why these Conferences, if they are to serve any useful purpose at all, must have an eye to both.”
The difficulties of building good roads at this time, even within a town planning scheme, were clear. Ruislip-Northwood Council had a huge town planning scheme covering some 5,843 acres, which included some roads 60ft wide providing north-south and east-west connections. (The scale of this project may explain their presence at the deputation to Downing Street in 1913.)
At the time, the Act called for roads to be 40ft wide, and required adjoining landowners to pay for street works on their half. Therefore, any increase in width went beyond the powers of the Act, and Councils did not have the power to make landowners pay for wider roads. Ruislip-Northwood Council said they would not charge more than for the width of 40ft streets and would make up the difference themselves on streets of 60ft width, but this plainly wasn’t a system that provided either the legal powers or the funding mechanism for the new roads now envisaged.
Outcome
In the main the ARCs, and the subcommittees they created, approved Hellard’s proposals – they were, after all, the only meaningful projects that could be worked with. The Conferences also settled on Hellard’s inner route for the South Circular Road.
They also succeeded in establishing six sectional subcommittees, representing the Road Board, the LTB and the 117 local authorities, who could now make broad planning decisions and establish routes for new roads that would be respected across planning boundaries.
However, the timing of the ARCs was deeply unfortunate. Despite the concerted effort being made to bring together all parties who could help to see the new roads realised, on 28 July 1914 the outbreak of war brought a stop to all such plans.
It would be nearly a decade before the Arterial Road plans were dusted off, by which time they would be under the control of the new Ministry of Transport – a central body that finally had the funding, power and authority to plan and build new roads.