The M12 was one of the most self-contained motorway proposals in the Ringway plans, notable for its relatively late arrival in the programme, its extremely fast development from concept to publication of orders, and the fact that it was thought to be justifiable and worthwhile regardless of the rest of the motorway programme – it was not, in other words, dependent on any of the other roads in order to be useful.

There were other M12 proposals in later years, some of which overlap with, and piggyback on, this project. However, this page covers only the original and the principal M12 project, which was the motorway to relieve the A12 proposed between the M11 at Woodford and the A12 Brentwood Bypass.

Genesis in Radial Route 7

The concept of a bypass around the north of Newbury Park and Romford, avoiding Eastern Avenue, was not new. It had first been proposed by Abercrombie in the Greater London Plan of 1944, where it formed part of his Radial Route 7 (RR7).

The full extent of RR7 was from the “B” Ring Road in the vicinity of Hackney to Brentwood and then onward, vaguely, to Ipswich. Between the “B” and “D” Ring Roads it was to be an Arterial Road; beyond its junction with the “D” Ring (junction D7) near Whalebone Lane it would be a full Express Arterial Road – Abercrombie’s version of a motorway. Its route would carry it out of London via Victoria Park, through Leyton and Snaresbrook to Woodford, and then through mostly open ground around the north of Gants Hill and Romford towards Brentwood.

Abercrombie proposed many new roads in his plans, and routinely seemed to recommend construction of new alignments in preference to anything that already existed – his aim in many areas was wholesale redevelopment, or at least redevelopment on so widespread a scale that the urban area would be entirely restructured, even if the work was done in a way that retained whichever buildings or neighbourhoods were considered valuable.

However, even given the extraordinary willingness of the plan to raze the existing urban fabric and begin again, Radial Route 7 stands out for its total dismissal of the existing infrastructure.

Between Woodford and Brentwood, the existing main road from London towards Chelmsford had already been bypassed, wholesale, with a brand new road: Eastern Avenue had been built and opened in the 1920s to provide an entirely new route avoiding the successive town centres of Ilford, Chadwell Heath and Romford that lined the old road. But by 1944 – less than two decades later, when Eastern Avenue was still effectively a brand new and purpose built Arterial Road – Abercrombie surveyed the route and declared it beyond salvation, recommending the construction of an entirely new road to bypass it again.

The issue was not unique to Eastern Avenue but it was still remarkable. The Arterial Roads built across London in the 1920s and 30s suffered terribly from frontage development – opportunistic building of houses facing the roads from which there was, at the time, no legal recourse. By 1944 Eastern Avenue was effectively urbanised, lined for the majority of its length with semi-detached houses and shops, all serviced by footpaths and driveways that led directly on to the main road. It was difficult for the Ministry of Transport to justify maintaining it as a derestricted road, and Abercrombie saw no way to rebuild it in order to produce an Arterial Road, much less an Express Arterial.

The precise fate of RR7 in the years that followed has not been uncovered in detail, but it is safe to assume that, during the extreme difficulty that the London County Council faced in implementing Abercrombie’s plan in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and the scaling back of ambitions for the road network to a point where existing streets were substituted for his new roads, the idea of constructing an entirely new RR7 to replace Eastern Avenue would have been considered far too lavish a use of limited resources and would have been put on hold or abandoned entirely.

Certainly, by the early 1960s, attention was entirely focussed on Eastern Avenue.

The Gants Hill problem

By the late 1950s Eastern Avenue between Redbridge and Brentwood was the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, who appeared to be contemplating an on-line upgrade. There are scant details from this era but the overall impression is of a comprehensive improvement of the existing route that would have produced a result similar to the modern A3 Kingston Bypass, a fast dual carriageway squeezed in between 1930s suburban houses whose front gardens would be eaten up by its parallel service roads.

An inspection of Eastern Avenue today – which was never improved to such a standard and is still broadly similar to the road that existed at that time – will show that, for most of the way, such an upgrade would have been feasible within the available space, including grade separation of junctions. The exception is at Gants Hill, a small roundabout where the present A1400 Woodford Avenue meets Eastern Avenue, along with several local roads. The tube station of the same name is located in the middle of the roundabout, in what must have seemed, in the 1930s, to be an ingenious act of transport integration.

The junction was not just significant because of Woodford Avenue – though this major road, forming a link to the North Circular, did bring a substantial volume of traffic – but also because of its constrained nature. It was by far the most congested junction on the route, but also the most hemmed-in and therefore the most difficult to improve. The 1965 route study (below) included the following data on traffic counts and delay, the latter being measured as “vehicle-seconds of delay per day during peak hours”.

Location	Flow (vehicles/day)	Veh-secs delay/day during peak hours
Pettits Lane/A12	53,200	311,000
Havering Road	60,600	514,000
Mawneys Road/A12	62,400	162,000
Whalebone Road [sic]/A12	58,200	836,000
Hainault Road/A12	57,600	825,000
Aldborough Road/A12	59,200	231,000
Ley Street/A12	59,300	346,000
Gants Hill/A4061	15,300	150,000
Gants Hill/A12	47,900	1,023,000
Longwood Gardens/A406	40,400	186,000

Without being able to solve the situation at Gants Hill, it would not be worthwhile improving the rest of Eastern Avenue, and so this one junction was the focus of considerable attention.

In 1961, a proposal was made that it might be a suitable location for an experimental “Carbridge” – a temporary flyover structure that could be quickly erected and then re-used elsewhere once a suitable permanent scheme had been built. However, in July of that year, a civil servant called JDW Jeffery put an end to the idea, writing: “I understand that a recommendation has been made upwards some time ago that we should no longer give any consideration to temporary flyovers and I also understand this recommendation is likely to be accepted.”³ There was evidently a u-turn, since the following year the temporary Camp Hill flyover was built, but the recommendation was the end of such aspirations at Gants Hill.

Within the next three years a solution was devised that the Ministry described, internally at least, as “ingenious”⁴, although there are also mentions of it in 1963 that express some doubt⁵. It was for a two-level flyover structure in a Y-shape. One level would carry eastbound vehicles from both Woodford Avenue and Redbridge, merging them together towards Eastern Avenue to the east. The other level would carry westbound vehicles, splitting into two streams towards Redbridge and Woodford Avenue. The design allowed the structure to be narrow enough to fit between the carriageways of the surface-level roads, and to pass over the top of the existing roundabout while leaving the tube station undisturbed, but would have been extremely high and bulky in appearance. Artist’s impressions were produced in which it is clearly an impressive scheme but not a beautiful one⁶.

The flyover project was added to the trunk road preparation pool, and was pencilled in for a start in 1968/69 with a price tag of £4m⁷. By 1964, the plan clearly had enough momentum to have been submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission, then a routine part of developing a public works scheme. It was rejected⁸.

The aftermath of this rejection saw a brief flurry of attempts to generate an alternative scheme, most of which could charitably be described as unlikely to succeed. One, attempting to find a way that the double deck flyover might be built, suggested buying up all the buildings facing it and then selling them off again once it had been completed, so that everyone living alongside it would have chosen to be there having already seen it. Another was to buy all the surrounding buildings and demolish them to surround it with empty space – rather making a nonsense of its space-saving design. One person suggested demolishing the whole shopping district⁹.

A second series of ideas, which appear to date from August 1964, were produced in an attempt to resolve the junction’s problems without building the double-deck flyover. They included the construction of an underground one-way loop for eastbound traffic to the north of the junction; an underground route for Woodford Avenue around the north, joining the A12 further east; a single-level flyover carrying Eastern Avenue over the roundabout; a one-way westbound route formed at ground level around the north; and an extremely unlikely concept for an elevated roundabout that would surround Gants Hill roundabout and all the buildings adjoining it, to which only Eastern Avenue and Woodford Avenue would have access. Notes from the meeting at which these ideas were generated suggest that Essex County Council (then still responsible for the surrounding area, though not for much longer) were pressing very urgently for an improvement to be made¹⁰.

The hopelessness of these ideas must have been apparent even to the people creating them, since the end result of these discussions appears to have been a decision to commission a study. A draft submission was written, explaining the project and the issues it presented, and requesting that the Minister approve funding for consultants to investigate.

1965 studies

Whether that initial submission was ever made is unclear, but the Ministry of Transport then spent several months conducting its own investigation into its options. At some stage that investigation cast the net wider than the existing Eastern Avenue corridor and alighted upon RR7 again, which continued to be protected in Essex’s County Development Plan.

RR7 had not really been abandoned by the Ministry and part of it was very much an active proposal. The length between Hackney and Woodford – which would relieve the A106 through Leyton and Wanstead – had continued to be discussed. Then, in 1964, the Ministry had made a public announcement that it was abandoning the long-planned route of the M11 up the Lea Valley in favour of the Roding Valley. From that date, therefore, the inner portion of RR7 would be part of the new M11, commencing at Hackney Wick¹¹.

The outer portion of RR7, from Woodford to Brentwood and beyond, was effectively amputated by this plan and now stood alone. But the difficulty at Gants Hill brought it back into the limelight.

The Ministry’s own estimates suggested that “comprehensive improvement” at Gants Hill – a euphemistic term that often meant total reconstruction of a whole area, something that was presumably now thought to be the only way to resolve the traffic problem without blighting the existing homes and shops – was a virtually intractable problem.

The £4m double deck flyover scheme, still at that time in the preparation pool, was not feasible on grounds of amenity; a suitable solution might cost double that, while improvement of Eastern Avenue right through from Gants Hill to Gallows Corner would total £17m. Meanwhile, they estimated, construction of a motorway on the line of RR7 would cost just £8m and had only positive impacts on those living beside Eastern Avenue¹². At this point in time sketch plans showed that the MOT’s illustrative concept was for a motorway from Redbridge to Gallows Corner, with a spur branching off it to join the A12 at the western end of the Brentwood Bypass.

On 8 October 1965, the GLC were given advance notice that the Ministry was about to make a public announcement of a shift in policy. Writing to PF Stott at the GLC, civil servant PG Lyth from the MOT’s London Highways Division said that RR7 was a “possible solution” to the problem¹³.

Four days later, a press release was issued announcing that Brian Colquhoun and Partners had been appointed to investigate the route and produce a study into the construction of a motorway on the RR7 line¹⁴.

Route plans and consultation

The consultants’ work entailed all the usual things for a motorway project of this era, beginning with soil surveys and other similar investigations in order to select and confirm a suitable route. The result of all of these was to retain pretty much the alignment outlined by the MOT in 1965 and originally selected by Abercrombie in 1944.

There were also changes to their brief; Colquhoun were instructed to coordinate their work with WS Atkins, who were designing the M11 between Hackney and Harlow including Woodford Interchange where the M12 would terminate. In 1967, the brief was expanded to include improvement of a length of A127 as well¹⁵.

Work evidently progressed with some speed. On 10 February 1969, Colquhoun accepted an invitation from the Ministry for further work, this time to draw up line and side road orders for the project and to produce plans indicating the land that would be required at 1:2500 and 1:500 scale. While it was not made explicit in correspondence, this commission strongly implied that detailed design work, including junction design, was either under way or imminent¹⁶.

Abercrombie’s terminology persisted in referring to the project until the spring of 1969.

“It has recently been agreed with URPB¹⁷ and GPH¹⁸ Divisions that the Radial Route Seven trunk road scheme between the M.11 at South Woodford and the western end of the Brentwood By-pass will in future be described as the M.12 Motorway.”

Memorandum from London Highways Division, 7 March 1969¹⁹

The proposals were evidently fleshed out at this time and detailed plans were produced, though none have yet come to light. Some draft plans were forwarded to the GLC for comment, however, and their detailed observations survive – principally concerning the detail of environmental treatment and the interfaces with the local road network²⁰.

Nature of proposals

In 1970, Brian Colquhoun and Partners completed their economic study of the M12, which provided the necessary evidence for building it. Again, no plans survive from this era, but the written descriptions in the report shed some light on the road that was being planned at this time.

The concept was for a dual two-lane motorway with space to add a third lane later on – though, by 1972, designs of this sort were being discouraged. It was calculated that, in its initial configuration, it would open with a 70mph limit, but that it may need to be restricted to 50 in its “final layout”, once the third lane had been added and traffic levels were reaching the highest levels predicted. This was seemingly because the road was designed to urban motorway standards, but its outer suburban location permitted considerably better forward visibility than was usual on an urban motorway. This, it was calculated, would make 70mph safe when the road formation still contained empty space and traffic levels were low²¹.

Some consideration was given to a dual four-lane formation at some point in the future, though that would be beyond the design year. Additional traffic could also be expected if Maplin Airport were to be built, since the M12 would form the main route there from London – though the airport had come too late to be included in the consultants’ brief, and so was not considered in the report²².

Allusions to the layout of the M12’s interchanges can be found here and there. It can be inferred that the junctions at Fairlop and Whalebone Lane would have been two-bridge roundabout interchanges, and that Noak Hill would have been another two-bridge roundabout connected only to a short spur road leading to the south²³.

There are also references to Whalebone Lane interchange being designed to allow for a possible “third level”, to be added at a later date to carry a “possible orbital route”. This implies that it would have involved a larger roundabout with flared approaches to the north and south, producing a layout something like Thornham Interchange in Lancashire. Whalebone Lane itself had been Abercrombie’s route for the “D” Ring, which had since been abandoned by the Ministry, but did form the northern part of the aspirations for a “Dagenham Corridor” which would have formed a more local orbital role in this part of North East London.

In economic terms, the M12 performed well when put through the standard tests. The consultants estimated a 21% rate of return in its first year of operation, representing extremely good value for money. Indeed, the case for it was so strong that the consultants felt quite certain that it was completely justified in isolation of the wider planned network.

“If no other addition were to be made to the Greater London Primary Road Network other than those defined in the Study network [i.e. the M12 and connected proposals], this development could be justified in its own right even after restraint had been applied to the network to eliminate unacceptable overload.

Report on M12 Motorway: Traffic Study and Economic Appraisal, Brian Colquhoun and Partners²⁴

The report also forecast that Eastern Avenue itself would receive only relatively short-lived relief. With through traffic removed, local journeys would increase and Gants Hill – the central problem that the Ministry found to be impossible to resolve – would become a problem again some twenty years or so down the line. There are hints, tucked away in the discussion that followed, that the Ministry took the rather unneighbourly view that this was not an issue since the road would have been detrunked, and Gants Hill would therefore be the GLC’s problem to solve.

Delay due to GLDP Inquiry

Following completion of the report, progress slowed, since the GLDP Inquiry was under way and the M12 came within its scope. However, there was clearly still some development work happening, since the Department of the Environment published revised standards for calculating the cross-section (width) of a proposed road from its forecast traffic loading, and in April 1972 a draft report was prepared to amend designs for the M12 to meet those new standards.

The change meant that roads would typically be designed to a narrower cross-section for the same volume of traffic. The report recommended that the M12 would be designed to urban dual three-lane motorway standards west of Fairlop; rural dual three-lane motorway from Fairlop to Noak Hill; and rural two-lane motorway east of there. In other words, in its ultimate configuration the route would not have four lanes at any point, and would no longer even have three lanes throughout.

The report also noted that use of “GLC standards” – presumably an even more economical design standard – would allow a further cost saving by building the whole route as dual two-lane, with the proviso that it would eventually need to be widened and that the western end would be marginally overloaded. This was not recommended²⁵.

The conclusion to the story is not terribly satisfying. In January 1972, detailed plans had been produced and the Ministry’s Eastern Road Construction Unit had line and side road orders ready to publish. The only reason the scheme had not gone further was because it had to await the conclusion of the GLDP Inquiry.

The Inquiry’s recommendations, of course, were notably critical of the plans for motorways in and around London. While Layfield and his panel did not specifically rule against the M12, the project only made it into the published version of the Greater London Development Plan as a route “under consideration”. It was dropped soon afterwards.

One change that was evidently made as mitigation for the cancellation of the M12 was the redesigning of Theydon Interchange, where the M11 and M25 meet, to incorporate sliproads between the south and east. These were omitted from the original designs for the junction²⁶, produced when the M12 was a live project, since they would have been made redundant by it. Their addition to the design, some time between 1973 and the start of construction circa 1975, provide a rough window within which the M12 evidently ceased to be “under consideration” any more.

References

1. At the time Woodford Avenue was classified A406, despite not formally being part of the North Circular, for complex reasons to do with classification and the history of the North Circular that we won’t go in to here. It is now the A1400. ↩︎
2. From “Report on M12 Motorway: Traffic Study and Economic Appraisal” at MT 106/454 ↩︎
3. MT 95/568 ↩︎
4. HLG 131/284 ↩︎
5. ibid. ↩︎
6. Artist’s impressions and plan showing their vantage points at both HLG 131/284 and HLG 136/195 ↩︎
7. MT 106/280 ↩︎
8. The rejection letter from July 1964, and the disappointed memoranda it left in its wake, are at HLG 131/284 ↩︎
9. HLG 131/284 ↩︎
10. HLG 136/195 ↩︎
11. MT 106/283 ↩︎
12. MT 106/280 ↩︎
13. Document 3 at MT 106/281 ↩︎
14. MT 106/281 ↩︎
15. MT 106/280 ↩︎
16. ibid. ↩︎
17. “URPB” was the Urban Roads Planning Branch of the Ministry of Transport. ↩︎
18. “GPH” referred to the General Planning Highways branch of the Ministry of Transport. ↩︎
19. Unnumbered minute between documents 59 and 60, MT 106/280 ↩︎
20. Docs 85 and 85A, MT 106/280 ↩︎
21. MT 106/454 ↩︎
22. ibid. ↩︎
23. Doc 6, MT 106/454 ↩︎
24. MT 106/454 ↩︎
25. ibid. ↩︎
26. T 319/2655 ↩︎