National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction

Just off the M49 in Severnside is a junction that has never carried a single vehicle. It was built six years ago and cost the taxpayer £40 million, but in those six years not a car, van or lorry has used it. The national press has dubbed it the “ghost junction”. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this matter before the House today, because the future of the M49 Severnside junction is one of real consequence for my constituents in Thornbury and Yate. I am here because I want the junction to be fixed and so do my constituents. I hope the Minister listens and acts: doing something about this kind of issue is exactly how he can show people he is here to serve them and not himself. We are all quite fed up with ineptitude. First, some housekeeping. In a response to my letter, the Department referred to this as the Avonmouth junction. It is not in Avonmouth. The Avonmouth spur lies some three miles down the motorway. This junction sits in Severnside. I raise that because a botched junction whose supposed name is three miles adrift from where it stands tells us something about how far the responsible authorities are from the reality on the ground. I would be grateful if the Minister adopted the correct description in his own dealings, so that there is no confusion in the future. I would not want the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) to think that I am in any way moving the boundaries of our constituencies. Let me set out the background briefly. National Highways built this junction in 2020, at a cost of £40 million to the taxpayer. It was designed to connect the motorway to the Severnside enterprise area, one of the largest concentrations of industry and logistics in the west of England, and it was forecast to support some 14,000 jobs. Yet in the six years since, not a single vehicle has used it. There is a reason for that. Ever since it was built, the junction has stood unconnected to the local network, because the short stretch of road linking it to the estate had not been built, and no one would agree who was responsible for building it. In a letter to me, the Minister blamed a private developer for this. Questions could be raised around whether National Highways and the previous council Administration could have secured an enforceable agreement, but I will not rehearse that whole saga tonight. It is at last being resolved. South Gloucestershire council has taken the work on itself, with funding from the Department. Construction is under way. The council expects it to be finished by the end of this year. I want to put on record my recognition of the councillors and council officers who stepped in to deliver what others would not. They have done their part. However, that issue is not the reason I have sought this debate. We have now learned that the junction itself is defective. National Highways has admitted that it has identified defects at the junction that must be repaired before it can safely open to traffic. A junction built by National Highways, completed six years ago and signed off as finished, cannot safely carry traffic until National Highways repairs it—is the Minister as baffled as I am? National Highways has set out no programme for those repairs and no timetable for opening. The council has been told that there will be no further update until later this autumn, and the Roads Minister echoed that to me personally in response to my recent letter. To enlighten the Government, the traffic that the junction would have carried has not simply vanished. Instead, it runs through my constituency’s small country lanes—heavy goods vehicles, day and night, on roads that were never built to carry them. Residents in villages and isolated homes live with the noise and the lights of lorries passing at all hours. How can residents feel safe crossing their own roads? A parent with a pushchair should not have to weigh up whether it is safe to step out of their front door. Cyclists and runners have to tread carefully through what should be peaceful country lanes. When National Highways told me about the problem, it saw businesses as stakeholders, but not local residents. My constituents vehemently disagree. It is not just the smallest roads that are affected. Councillors and constituents alike tell me that the A403, the B4461 and others are facing misuse by HGVs. Horse riders, agricultural vehicles and families are finding it difficult to access those roads—if the Minister is looking for a way to apologise to my constituents for this debacle once it is fixed, he could do worse than providing permanent safety improvements on roads such as the A403. One constituent has told me that, over just 15 minutes, he recorded multiple HGVs seemingly over 7.5 tonnes using the B4461 despite environmental weight restrictions. This is a regular issue in Hallen, too. My constituents tell me that it is difficult to report those vehicles, because the short time they get to see them is not enough to grab the registration and other necessary details. They feel that the companies using the roads pay lip service, but never take concrete action. I am totally against those vehicles breaching the weight limit in this way, but I understand the motivation: they have no direct access to the motorway. The businesses of Severnside continue to wait. This is a major logistics centre, and its operators depend on efficient access to the motorway and the docks. Every year the junction stays shut is a year of longer routes and higher costs. The economic case for this junction was made years ago and accepted by the then Government, but the delivery has lagged behind. I need not explain to the Minister why getting this junction functional is so important to the economic aims of this Government. Further costs are falling on the council and local people. The council spent scarce funds on repairing the very roads that this delay will now be damaging. HGVs continue to blitz through country lanes, and newly repaired roads will only be subject to the same continuous pressure for longer. The council expected the roads to be used by local people, which is why they repaired them now. From the perspective of both local people and the public purse, it is utterly farcical just how much money and effort is being wasted due to the delays in opening the junction. The council will now have to find the money to mend those roads once again after traffic finally arrives on the junction—I need not explain why the funds are not there. This is public money spent once, and needed again, to repair damage caused by a failure that was not of the local authority’s making. This Government’s devolution agenda will be undermined if situations like this are not put right for local communities. National Highways is not a private developer the Minister can gesture towards; it is an organisation answerable to the Minister’s Department. When it builds a junction that does not work and then declines to say when it will put that right, I must ask the Minister to justify its approach. My constituents and I find that approach unacceptable. I understand that there may be legal issues and investigations that the Minister cannot reveal, but the lack of communication from the Department has been shocking. I want to raise one further concern, which I raise as a question, not as a claim. I understand that this junction used a novel construction technique, and that one other location where that technique has been used has been identified as defective. The House deserves to know whether these are isolated faults, or two instances of something more systemic in how these structures were built and signed off. If it is the latter, that is a far graver matter than one junction in Severnside, and the Minister would be wise to get ahead of it. He may recall that National Highways already has something of a record in my area, because we have a large amount of motorway infrastructure that was built in the 1960s, and we recently endured a three-year road closure when a bridge over the M4 had to be closed for safety reasons and completely replaced. We already have an ageing infrastructure; if we are adding new problems, that is worrying. I will close with a few questions, and I ask the Minister to answer each of them directly. First, will he require National Highways to publish a clear timetable for the repairs, rather than the open-ended promise of an update at some point this autumn? Secondly, will he tell the House what the defects actually are and when they were first identified, given that the junction was declared complete in 2019? Thirdly, will he commit to a firm date by which this junction will finally open to traffic? Fourthly, will he establish how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures? Fifthly, who is responsible? Will this Government do what is right and launch an investigation so that the public and all stakeholders can properly scrutinise those responsible? Sixthly, will he provide additional funding for the council to repair the roads again, once the junction is finally open? My constituents have waited six years. They have watched a £40 million junction sit empty above a motorway that they cannot access using the junction, and they have carried the traffic and the disturbance in the meantime. They are not asking for much; they are asking for a date and for someone, at last, to take responsibility. I hope the Minister can give both tonight.

May I echo the many happy returns to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I recall that in a previous life you gave many happy returns to me across the Dispatch Box on a very special birthday, of which we do not need to remind ourselves. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate and on highlighting an issue of real importance to her constituents and the wider Avonmouth and Severnside area. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on junction 1 of the M49. I apologise for the Department wrongly describing the junction in previous correspondence. It is correct to say that we are talking about junction 1 of the M49. I recognise the strength of local feeling articulated by the hon. Member. Residents, businesses, local representatives and road users understandably want the junction brought into use as soon as possible. The Government share that ambition. The purpose of the junction has always been clear: to improve access between the Avonmouth and Severnside enterprise area and the motorway network to support economic growth and reduce pressure on local roads. The Government want local communities, businesses and road users to realise the full benefits of this infrastructure. The Severnside enterprise area is one of the most significant employment and logistics locations in the south-west region. It is home to major industrial, warehousing, distribution, energy and port-related activity. Better access to the strategic road network has long been recognised as important for the area’s continued growth and for reducing the impact of traffic on surrounding local communities, as the hon. Member has mentioned. While I understand the frustration that the junction is not yet operational, the House should be clear about the complexity of the position. It reflects complex issues involving strategic road infrastructure, a local road connection needed to make the junction operational, developer arrangements and technical matters requiring further investigation and remediation before the junction can safely open to traffic. It is worth recalling that this scheme was delivered as part of a wider programme intended to unlock economic development in the Severnside area through direct connection with the junction at the Western Approach distribution park. That is essential if the benefits of the junction are to be realised. The strategic road junction and local link road to connect to the existing network were being progressed through different delivery arrangements. The link road connecting the junction to the existing road network was originally the responsibility of a private developer, but with planning permission sought by South Gloucestershire council. National Highways was consulted as a statutory consultee, but had no legal power to compel the developer to deliver the link road. Despite continued engagement, the developer was not willing to meet its commitment. When it became clear that the original developer arrangements for the link road would not deliver the necessary local connection, the Department, National Highways and South Gloucestershire council worked together to identify an alternative way forward. That work led to the current link road scheme being progressed by South Gloucestershire council. Rather than allowing the project to stall indefinitely, the Government have therefore engaged with our partners to enable the local link road to be constructed and to establish a practical, long-term solution that will bring the junction into use. That has included £10 million of Government funding. Of course, as we heard and the House will appreciate, completing the local road link road is not the only issue that must now be resolved. As part of monitoring and, more recently, detailed engineering investigations, National Highways has identified technical issues at the junction that require further assessment and remedial work before the junction can be safely opened to traffic. I recognise that that is disappointing for local communities and businesses. A junction visible from the motorway but not yet available for use is, of course, understandably frustrating. Local representatives, as the hon. Member has done, are right to seek clear answers about what has happened, what is being done and when the junction will open. Some may argue that the junction should simply be opened and any problems dealt with later, but that is not an approach the Government are prepared to take. Where technical concerns have been identified, they must be understood, addressed and assured, and the public would rightly expect Ministers and National Highways to act prudently and responsibly where engineering concerns have been raised. The House would expect no less in any constituency in the country. However, the hon. Member raises important questions, and I would like to take each in turn. First, she asks whether National Highways will publish a clear timetable for the repairs. I will continue to press National Highways for a clear remediation plan, including the technical solution, delivery route and a clear timetable. However, the technical matters do require careful assessment. Engagement is taking place with the contractor, and an appropriate solution is dependent on the shared understanding of the engineering evidence, and clarity on where responsibility and liability lie. Therefore, we can only confirm timescales once the ongoing technical and commercial discussions have concluded. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge those discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I have asked National Highways to update key stakeholders monthly and to publish the plans as soon as possible. Secondly, the hon. Member asks what the defects are and when they were first identified. Defects were visible on the junction in 2021, including loss of topsoil and surface cracking. Those came to light as part of the standard inspections that take place across the network. At that stage, they were not deemed significant and so National Highways put standard operating arrangements in place to monitor the structure. However, that ongoing monitoring identified the need to undertake detailed investigations, which were commissioned in 2025, resulting in the identification of geotechnical issues. The later investigations will allow the root cause of the defects to be better understood. This is ongoing and can only be confirmed once the engagement with the contractor has concluded. I have now discussed the matter with National Highways, and I have formed the view that the hon. Member should have been informed when the decision was taken to undertake detailed investigations, rather than have to wait for the outcome of the work. Thirdly, the hon. Member inquires whether I will commit to a firm date by which the junction will finally open to traffic. As she will probably appreciate from what I have said so far, it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for remedial works. Responsibility, liability and funding matters remain subject to ongoing technical and commercial discussions. Once those are concluded, National Highways will be able to develop detailed designs for the necessary remedial works and establish a delivery programme. It would not be possible or appropriate to announce arbitrary dates before those assessments are complete or before a deliverable programme has been confirmed. However, I recognise it is particularly frustrating that, after a long wait, the junction still sits empty. That is why I have emphasised to National Highways the importance of it looking at options to open the junction as soon as possible. Safety is of the utmost importance, but I also recognise that given the remediation will take some time, we need clarity on whether the junction can be opened in any capacity in the interim. I expect National Highways to provide a timely update on that review.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just like to clarify one point. He said that it would have been appropriate for me to be notified earlier. Probably more importantly, it would have been helpful for South Gloucestershire council, which is proceeding with the work, to have been aware of the work earlier. Will he take that point back to National Highways?

I am grateful for the intervention, and I absolutely will take that point. All stakeholders ought to be informed at the appropriate point, particularly when there are, as I say, connected works to do with that particular junction. The hon. Member asked how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures. I have been assured that National Highways is undertaking a significant quality incident investigation process to look at lessons learnt, and, once it has concluded, will embed those lessons to ensure that the same thing does not happen on other structures. I should emphasise that such occurrences are not frequent, and I believe that this is not a systemic issue, but of course we need to look into it to be assured of that, so I have asked National Highways to update the hon. Member and other key stakeholders on the outcomes of the lessons-learnt process as part of their regular ongoing engagement. The hon. Member’s fifth question was: who is responsible? Will the Government do what is right, and launch an investigation so that the public can scrutinise those responsible? Questions have understandably been raised about responsibility, liability and the funding of remedial works, and National Highways is continuing confidential commercial discussions with its principal contractor. As I have said, I will not prejudge the outcome of these discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that National Highways is pursuing the matter with the seriousness it requires. I know that as soon as these processes conclude, National Highways will provide a clear remediation plan setting out the technical solution, delivery route and programme, as well as, I hope, a clear answer on where responsibility lies. As I have said, National Highways is conducting a significant quality incident investigation to establish what went wrong, to identify lessons and to prevent recurrence, and I have asked it to share the lessons learnt following the conclusion of the investigation. Finally, there was the question of funding. As I have explained, the Government have already provided about £10 million to support the development of the link road, recognising its importance. I am sure the hon. Member will understand that there are limits to the funding we can provide, but we will commit ourselves to prioritising the technical issues that have been discussed this evening. The Government’s approach is clear. National Highways must identify the right engineering solution, agree an appropriate delivery route, protect taxpayers’ interests, and provide stakeholders with realistic, deliverable timescales. The public deserve certainty, but that certainty must be grounded in technical evidence, not speculation. Stakeholder engagement, which we have touched on this evening, is also important. Local communities and businesses need to understand why the junction has not opened, what is being done to resolve the issue, and how progress will be communicated. As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there will of course be limits to what I can say publicly while commercial discussions are ongoing, but commercial sensitivity must not become a reason for avoidable silence. I have asked National Highways to keep the hon. Member and key local representatives informed monthly, and updates should be provided when there is reliable information to share. If the hon. Member does not feel that she is being kept up to date, I ask her to let me know. There are also wider lessons to learn. The public do not distinguish between a motorway junction, a local link road, a developer obligation, a council-led connection, and a National Highways asset; they see one road, one promise, and one delayed outcome. We as a Government, and delivery bodies, must be clear about the need to manage infrastructure coherently, with clear accountabilities, dependencies and communications. The Department will therefore continue to work with National Highways and South Gloucestershire Council as a delivery partnership. South Gloucestershire Council is progressing the local link road, National Highways is responsible for the strategic road asset, and the Department’s role is to support the overall objective of bringing the infrastructure into beneficial use, while of course ensuring safety, value for money and effective governance. Let me return to the central point. Everyone involved in this matter wants the same outcome. Local communities want the junction open, businesses want better access to the strategic road network, local authorities want the economic and transport benefits to be realised, and, of course, the Government want all those things to happen. We remain committed to seeing the junction brought into operation and to ensuring that its benefits are realised for local communities, businesses and the wider regional economy, but we will do so in a way that protects road users, maintains public confidence, and reflects proper stewardship of public investment. Let me again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate, for the important points that she has raised, and for her continued campaign on behalf of her constituents. I assure her that I will continue to engage with her as we work to ensure that the junction is opened safely, and that the intended benefits are delivered for the communities and businesses that it was designed to serve. Question put and agreed to.