South Wye Transport Package Compulsory Purchase Order & Side Roads Order South Wye Transport Package A4194 Southern Link Road

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "South Wye Transport Package Compulsory Purchase Order & Side Roads Order South Wye Transport Package A4194 Southern Link Road"

Erick Allison
5 years ago
Views:

1 South Wye Transport Package Compulsory Purchase Order 2018 & Side Roads Order 2018 South Wye Transport Package A4194 Southern Link Road Submission by E Morawiecka for Here for Hereford November 2018 REBUTTAL EVIDENCE Department for Transport Ref : NATTRAN/WM/LAO/157 Page 1 of 10

Submission by E Morawiecka for Here for Hereford South Wye Transport Package Compulsory Purchase Order 2018 Department for Transport Ref : NATTRAN/WM/LAO/157 REBUTTAL EVIDENCE 1.

2 Submission by E Morawiecka for Here for Hereford South Wye Transport Package Compulsory Purchase Order 2018 Department for Transport Ref : NATTRAN/WM/LAO/157 REBUTTAL EVIDENCE 1. The Southern Link Road is not a Standalone Road project but one phase of a new route for the A49 Trunk Road around Hereford. Compulsory purchase of this land for the second phase of the Hereford Bypass would be contrary to Section 239 of the Highways Act The rebuttal dated 26 th October 2018 para references Amy Hallam para 4.2 and 4.3. which refer to proposals by the Secretary of State to develop a trunk road to the East of Hereford. This would appear to be confirming the intention that the Secretary of State was considering, with the Highways Agency to develop an alternative route for the A49 Trunk Road. This does not rebut my evidence but instead confirms the INTENTION of the larger road project, of which the Southern Link Road is just a phase. 2. The rebuttal para says that the SLR is not proposed to be a trunk road. In addition to the original evidence from the Local Majors Transport Bid, please see the presentation by Herefordshire Council to the DfT on 13 th October which indicates that Herefordshire Council are proposing the SLR as a trunk road. 1 Herefordshire Council presentation to DfT October (Part of larger FOI pdf response) Page 2 of 10

3 3. The opening case for Herefordshire Council para 18 says that the Council has made clear over the years that achieving an ambitious level of growth at Hereford could only be done if new transport infrastructure, including a relief road, could be delivered. Para 28 then goes on to confirm that this is not a standalone road project but a part of a larger road scheme, the Hereford Relief Road (HRR aka bypass ). 4. During the process of consultation the SLR has repeatedly been presented as a stand lone road scheme when the INTENTION is that this is to be part of a larger road project, the Hereford Bypass. 5. There is no compelling case in the public interest that the Southern Link Road is the best way to achieve the objectives of the South Wye Transport Package (SWTP) and provides BEST value for money when compared to alternatives. 6. Para 3.2 of the rebuttal changes the wording and removes the phrase BEST value for money and refers instead to a lower test of value for money. Route SC2 was chosen purely on the basis of cost estimates and not on the basis that it delivers the HIGHEST risk adjusted net present value. On this basis the route selection would appear to be contrary to the Treasury Green Book Decision Guidelines (para 6.3 and 6.4). Other options, or different combination of options, may deliver better value for money than this standalone road project, particularly in a capital rationing situation. 7. The rebuttal provides no information to allay the concerns of the Hereford and South Herefordshire MP, Jesse Norman (currently Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport) that this road scheme offers best value for tax payers. 8. The references to the proofs of evidence of Marc Thomas; Dr Mark Webb and Martyn Brooks in the rebuttal fail to provide any option appraisal information that the costs and benefits of the standalone Southern Link Road from the A49 to the A465 (with no ATMs) provides BEST value to the taxpayer when assessed in accordance with the Treasury Green Book process. 9. Para makes reference to the adopted Herefordshire Council Core Strategy Local Plan with the SLR a part of the Hereford Relief Road (HRR) which was examined in public by a Planning Inspector. The reference to the Core Strategy Local Plan and the Hereford Relief Road needs contextualising with cross reference to what the Inspector wrote within her report. 2 2 Report to Herefordshire Council by Christine Thorby MRTPI IHBC 29 th September Page 3 of 10

4 10. Para 54 states the HRR is not identified in the Council s Local Transport Plan [C46a] as planned infrastructure, the funding is not secure and it is not part of Highways England (HE) Road Investment Strategy for (Statement of Common Ground between the Council and HE). The route has not been modelled or identified in detail and there is a high degree of uncertainty about whether the HRR is viable and can be achieved within the plan period. 11. Again at para 63 The HRR is mentioned, but I have dealt with the uncertainty of its delivery in the previous section of this report. Notwithstanding this, inclusion of the HRR in the policy would not be unsound as it remains a valid aim of the Council to bring this forward when possible as a means of improving the local transport network. 12. The Inspector noted the concerns raised at the Examination in Public and that the Council s initial draft of the Core Strategy failed to promote sustainable transport saying at para 91 the submission Plan policy HD3 relating to movement failed to emphasise the importance of achieving and promoting sustainable transport to help address demand. Main Modification (MM016) adds text to the Hereford movement section to ensure that the focus of the policy, in line with the NPPF, is to facilitate sustainable transport... MM016 deals with the uncertainty of delivery linking the policy to SS3 which deals with the relationship between critical infrastructure. 13. The Inspector required the Core Strategy to include a new appendix 3, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, to assist with monitoring and delivery of the plan. 14. The relationship between the HRR and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan is very important as this is crucial to the viability of these road schemes and the plan as a whole. The Inspector highlighted the role that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan was a live document and how it worked alongside the CIL/S106 funds. (CD 13 Infrastructure Delivery Plan Sept 2014 page 3). 15. Please note that Infrastructure Delivery Plan appears to have not been updated in the last 4 years, contrary to the recommendations of the Planning Inspector. 16. The Core strategy at para 6.15 A list of prioritised infrastructure projects, which the council have committed to, will be advertised on the council s website in the form of a Regulation 123 list. This list will have been verified in terms of achievability and phasing of delivery through a separate evidence base dealing with Economic Viability, which will ensure that a balance is struck between the required infrastructure projects and the ability of the strategic sites to be delivered by the development industry. 17. To date, no Regulation 123 list has ever been published by Herefordshire Council. Page 4 of 10

5 18. No CIL policy (referred to as necessary for the funding of key infrastructure required by the Local Plan) has been introduced. This means that the private sector funding of 5.8million identified in the SOC for the SWTP (page 23) has not come forward and increases the direct costs to the public, who are now funding the entire cost of the road scheme. 19. The Core strategy required Annual Monitoring Reports (Section 6) to track the delivery of the plan against the Core strategy, and enable the Infrastructure delivery plan to be a living document but again, these have not been achieved. 20. The Southern Link Road is not needed to improve access to the HEZ or new developments in Hereford. 21. Rebuttal para refers to the Local development Order in place for the HEZ saying During consultation on the LDO, Highways England requested that a cap on the amount of traffic to be generated by the HEZ that would affect the Strategic Road Network be imposed (in effect limiting the amount of development that could be implemented) until the required infrastructure is in place. This is factually incorrect. 22. Letter from the Highways Agency 3 7 th April 2014 makes it clear that the cap was requested by Herefordshire Council not by them. The cap does not prevent development at the Enterprise Zone as this it just a mechanism so that any development proposal that generates excessive traffic movements will be required to submit a formal planning application, the same way as any other new development would be required to do. 23. Rebuttal para refers to Active Travel Measures (ATMs) being part of the SWTP. A full scheme of Active Travel Measures formed no part of the planning application, despite assurances from Herefordshire Council that they would. 24. The scheme being considered by the Public Inquiry has no developed scheme of ATMs. Only the benefit of the road on its own vs its cost can be considered and whether this is the BEST option to achieve the objectives of the SWTP. 25. The references in the rebuttal to Martyn Brooks evidence confirm the evidence I submitted, that the SLR on its own fails to achieve the objectives of the SWTP scheme. 26. Para 5.11 (M Brooks) officers be authorised to progress further analysis and detailed design to confirm a preferred package of Active Travel Measures to be delivered with the SLR for approval. 3 Highways Agency letter to E Morawiecka 7 th April 2014 Page 5 of 10

6 27. Para 5.12 (M Brooks) Despite the Active Travel Measures being an integral part of the SWTP, they do not form part of the Scheme for which the Compulsory Purchase Order is being sought. This is rather surprising because the ATMs in the SOC (page 17) will require the compulsory purchase of garden space at the front of houses in two places along the Belmont Road. 28. The Clehonger Link road section is not part of the SOC and the costs are not included in the BCR calculations of the scheme. 29. Rebuttal Paras to confirms that this section of road is part of the scheme but is not included in the Strategic Outline Business Case. Para supports the objection in that The Full Business Case which is being developed for submission to DfT, subject to the making and confirmation of the Orders, will include a BCR for the consented scheme. Being developed and will include means that as at today, there is no BCR for the Clehonger Link road section. 30. The rebuttal provides no evidence to support the justification of the CPOs/SROs for this section of road. 31. No Full Business case nor an Outline Business Case (identified as Phase 2 in the DfT The Transport Business Cases 4 ) are available for the Public Inquiry. For clarification para 2 of the DfT Guidance states To ensure ministers receive the right information on which to draw their conclusions, all investment decisions are required to follow the same highlevel process. 32. The omission of an Outline Business Case means there is no evidence that the Clehonger Link meets the criteria for confirmation of the CPOs in that it is compellingly in the public interest. With no BCR or net present value there is no objective assessment or evidence that the benefits of the Clehonger Link outweigh the full costs of this section of road and so these CPOs/SROs do not meet the criteria for confirmation on the basis of evidence available to the Inquiry. 33. There has been no Agricultural Impact Assessment in accordance with the DMRB and the loss of the highest grade agricultural land has not been properly assessed against the need to protect nationally scarce natural resources. 34. The rebuttal fails to provide evidence that an Agricultural Impact Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with DMRB (vol 11 s 3 pt 6 para 9.3). This requires a full and detailed Agricultural Impact Assessment if a road scheme results in the loss of 20 Ha or more of best and most versatile (BMV) land and DEFRA are to be asked to comment on 4 Dept for Transport The Transport Business Cases January 2013 Page 6 of 10

7 the impact. No evidence has been provided showing communication with DEFRA on the loss of a significant quantity of BMV land from agricultural production. 35. Marc Thomas evidence para highlights that the loss of this agricultural land from production is a major adverse. His comment that the effect will be a moderate adverse once mitigation is taken into account is not supported by any objective evidence. 36. Only a Strategic Outline Case has been Provided to support the CPOs. 37. R Ball evidence para 5.8 makes reference to the BCR of 3.55, when he is aware that this calculation excludes the Clehonger Link section which currently has no BCR of its own. The rebuttal provides no evidence to counter our objection that the benefits of the scheme are overstated and that the costs are understated and that the BCR quoted does not apply to the stand alone road scheme being considered. 38. Please find further evidence that the BCR presented in the SOBC is overstated, in the form of an answer to an EIR request in This letter confirms the objections already expressed and in particular: The benefit arising from bringing forward housing development is significantly overstated as the letter states The level of development included in the SATURN model for the different years would have been specified on a pro-rata basis. E.g. if the opening year of the SLR was assumed to be 2017 then 25% of the core strategy development would have been included in the 2017 version (DM and DS) of the SATURN model (25% comes from = 20 years = 5 years. 5/20=25%). The Core Strategy Housing trajectory Para 3.39 In respect of the housing target for Herefordshire the expectation is that the highest rate of housing completions will be towards the latter end of the plan period. A detailed trajectory is set out in Appendix 4 of the Core strategy which shows that the 1,000 homes forecast for Lower Bullingham, Hereford are actually phased by individual years but if done on a 5 year total as 0%; 44.5%; 45.5% and 10%, reducing the value of the benefits recognised. The reality is that this urban extension has not yet been submitted as a planning application and so even if the SLR was required to bring forward at least 1,000 new homes the benefits would need to be discounted further. There is no clear link between the additional 2,000 homes which is claimed this scheme will bring forward and the Core Strategy housing trajectory, but clarification by the Council would be very welcome Please see below the table of costs for the SLR copied from the EIR request and compared with another Council road project, the Hereford City Link Road completed in Dec 2017 at a cost of 34.16nillion. The costs of the City Link Road at 5 Herefordshire Council EIR Review letter 29 th March 2016 Page 7 of 10

8 the CPO public inquiry were confirmed at 27million, so the final road construction exceeded this budget by 26.5%. This comparison helps to indicate how the costs included in the SLR BCR have been significantly understated, in particular: The average construction cost/km is 12.64million/km lower for the SLR, despite the huge movements of waste and fill, and the haulage track No allowance has been made for waste costs (The waste removal for the City Link Road was a separate cost decision made in July 2018 at a value of 128,000 after the scheme opened) Professional fees on the City Link Road amounted to over 5.7million. The highest figure possibly covering this cost in the SLR costs are the prelims; work for statutory bodies; and prep and supervision = 2.343million (3 x 780,924). Our proof of evidence (para 96) shows that the costs of the scheme to date is already over million which must relate in the main to professional fees so the road costs must already be exceeding the budget by million (+114% overspend). SLR Project City Link Rd Length of road 3.6kms 0.850km Construction Costs 7,809,236 12,592,000 Average construction cost/km 2,169,232 14,814,118 Land Costs 3,161,046 14,873,000 Land Inflation Allowance 648,014 Professional Fees 5,715,000 Work for Statutory Bodies 780,924 Preliminaries 780,924 Preparation & Supervision 780,924 Total before Optimism Bias 13,961,068 Optimism Bias 5,857,743 Inflation Allowance 480,000 Total 19,818,810 Risk Adjustment 9,910(?) 500,000 Risk Adjusted Total 20,122,000 34,160, Rebuttal paras and refer to a Full Business Case being developed with the DfT but this is not presented, even in draft form, for consideration by the Public Inquiry. No evidence has been provided to rebut our objection that the BCR for the SLR is now significantly lower than predicted in the SOC and makes no mention that under DfT Page 8 of 10

9 Guidance The Transport Business Cases 2013 there is a clear 3 stage process which goes from a very high level Strategic Case (SOBC), through a better review of costs/benefits (The Outline Business Case) where all the potential options are sifted, to the final production of a Full Business Case. 38. In the DfT guidance para 1.19 In summary, the Outline Business Case: is used continually to align the progress of the project towards achieving ministers objectives; confirms the strategic fit and the case for change; sets out a detailed assessment of the options to find the preferred solution; refines the investment/intervention proposal; and provides details of the project's overall balance of benefits and costs against objectives 39. This process, if followed, would highlight major variances from the original costings and whether the scheme options being developed continue to provide the best value for money and meet the scheme objectives. By omitting the Outline Business Case, many options such as implementing 20mph schemes in residential areas; developing travel plans and safe routes to school, etc are not being developed and progressed, whilst 5million of tax payers money has been spent on a road scheme for which there is currently no BCR. 40. Rebuttal para says that the evidence the Council has provided clearly goes beyond the SOBC. We agree that additional information has come forward since the SOBC, such as the inclusion of the Clehonger Link to the road scheme. Like the evidence we have provided, this all needs to be brought together in an outline business case to provide detailed, objective and empirical information to confirm that the stand alone road scheme justifies the denial of individuals ownership of their land and the right to enjoy it. 41. Herefordshire Council is unable to provide robust evidence that the SLR is within budget and that sufficient resources will be available to complete the CPO and the Scheme 42. Rebuttal para claims that the total funding of 3.843m represents grant payments not loans. No grant draw-down forms totalling this amount have been provided by the council to support their rebuttal. 43. The documentation we have provided to the Inquiry clearly shows that the money is repayable to the Marches LEP by 31 st March The Marches LEP have made it clear that they are not providing additional funding for the scheme. Funding is only being provided by the DfT and Herefordshire Council. It should be noted that the DfT were not a signatory to the loan documents despite the reference to them. Page 9 of 10

10 44. As per para above, the professional fees would appear already to be 114% over budget. This is a similar cost overrun Herefordshire Council experienced on its Blueschool House project (see proof of evidence para 103). 45. No rebuttal evidence has been provided to show that the SLR Road scheme is within budget. This evidence should be available if Herefordshire Council are following both the SWAP recommendations and the processes and guidance of the DfT, tracking project costs against the SOBC cost profile and highlighting and acting on any variances from budget. Page 10 of 10

REPORT FROM: Director of Community & Planning OPEN PARAGRAPH NO:

REPORT TO: Full Council AGENDA ITEM: 13 DATE OF MEETING: 3 rd July 2014 CATEGORY: REPORT FROM: Director of Community & Planning OPEN PARAGRAPH NO: MEMBERS CONTACT POINT: Nicola Sworowski x5983 nicola.sworowski@south-derbys.gov.uk