Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Travel & Development Strategy

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/221

Contact: Timothy Mann, Senior Project Manager, Tel 07922 848408

 

Report by Director of Growth & Economy (CA13).

 

The information in this case is exempt in that it falls within the following prescribed categories:

 

3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

 

and since it is considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

Annex C containing exempt information under the above paragraph is attached.

 

To seek approval of the amendment to grant determination agreement (GDA) with Homes England and delegation to officers and to note:

 

-          progress made and changes to the scheme programme; and

-          requirement for CPO process to follow GDA changes.

 

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

 

a)            Authorise the Corporate Director Environment and Place, in consultation with the Director of Law & Governance, Director of Finance, Cabinet Member for Travel and Development Strategy and Cabinet Member for Finance to enter into an amended Grant Determination Agreement (GDA) with Homes England.

 

b)           Establish a Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) or similar working group of cross-party members to oversee the detailed design and development of HIF1.

 

c)            Authorise the development of a new Didcot area transport strategy and masterplan to meet the corporate priorities and agree to provide appropriate resources to support the development of the plan.

Cabinet was asked to approve of the amendment to the grant determination agreement (GDA) with Homes England and the delegation to officers and to note:

- progress made and changes to the scheme programme; and

- requirement for CPO process to follow GDA changes.

 

Before considering the report, the Chair had agreed to a number of requests to speak:

 

Councillor David Ruane, Leader, South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC), stated that he mainly wanted to address paragraph 17 of the report, the ‘Do Nothing’ Option which he maintained was not really an option.  He voted along with the rest of his cabinet to withdraw the Local Plan, knowing full well that this would mean the loss of the HIF funding and the end of this scheme.  However, following the intervention of the Secretary of State, South Oxfordshire now had an adopted Local Plan which contained housing sites which were dependent on the delivery of HIF1.

 

In North East Didcot much of the site had already been built.  According to traffic surveys 8,300 people already commuted from the Didcot area to Oxford for work. This road, and in particular the additional bridge over the Thames, was required to meet current need.  Arguments will be made that these journeys should be made in a more environmentally friendly way, by bus for example, but even buses needed a clear road to run reliably.

 

Councillor Ruane added that no Local Plan could withstand the loss of over 8,000 homes from its delivery schedule. In order to maintain housing delivery rates, other sites would have to come forward, sites determined by developers rather than by the council.  There were suggestions to ‘pause and review’ but the timescales on this project were such that to pause was to stop. The suggestion that one can pause and then go back to government with an alternative scheme which they will then finance was not realistic.

 

District Councillor Emily Smith, Leader, Vale of White Horse District Council, stated that she recognised the difficult situation the Cabinet found itself in with an inherited infrastructure scheme.  However, the HIF scheme was deeply entwined with other plans and commitments, including her main concern, the Vale Local Plan and its ability to demonstrate a 5 Year Housing Land Supply.

 

The Vale corporate plan was focused on climate action, healthy communities and providing homes that local people can afford to rent and buy. It was already hard to achieve these things within the national planning system but without being able to demonstrate a housing land supply, the council would again have its hands tied behind its back.

 

Councillor Smith was aware that the County Council had successfully secured some flexibility from government on the timeframe for delivery, which will allow the opportunity to rethink the design of the HIF infrastructure to identify ways of reducing the carbon impact and look again at ways to make this infrastructure more accessible for public transport and active travel.  She asked Cabinet to accept the officers’ recommendations and to redesign the scheme to make it as sustainable as possible.

 

District Councillor Sam Casey-Rerhaye, SODC, stated that she wished to address this issue in light of the Council administration’s principle: ‘a resilient local democracy, where decisions are devolved to the lowest possible level and residents are meaningfully involved in the decisions that affect their lives’.  With regard to the route options presented for the Thames bridge to A415, in early 2020 and a new single route option was presented for online consultation only during the first strict lockdown in 2020. A key consultee, the Europa school, did not know about it.  It was incredible that such a change in a massive road project should have never had a live exhibition.

 

Councillor Casey-Rerhaye added that the changes in administration in local councils was a result of this out-of-date vision of car-based growth, centrally determined, and its impact on local communities, nature and climate.  She asked Cabinet to pause and consult on alternative ways forward.

 

Katherine Foxhall, Chair of South & Vale Greens, gave examples where decisions had been reversed on road building in Wales, Herefordshire and Greenwich.  Locally, the Expressway had been cancelled and the OxCam Arc was being backpedalled.  Nationally and globally, the world had changed radically through COVID, ever bleaker warnings about the climate crisis and now the situation in Ukraine which had shown just how dangerous our fossil-fuel addiction was.

 

This decision might be relatively minor in the grand scheme of this process, but it all counted.  At the very least, the HIF1 scheme for Didcot needed to be paused, reviewed and reconceptualised, so that it proudly represented the start of a new, hopeful era for Oxfordshire.

 

District Councillor Jo Robb, SODC’s River Thames Champion, accepted the importance of connectivity for the current and future residents of Didcot but she had concerns about this project in its current form.  She had been working hard to stop sewage discharge into the river by Thames Water but nationally one of the most serious sources of river pollution has been road runoff.

 

This scheme would increase traffic volumes and have a major impact on water quality in the river and on the flood plain.  The proposed bridge will increase the impermeable area and impact an area of particularly high amenity.  She asked Cabinet to ensure that whatever scheme goes ahead enhances the amenity of the river, its setting, ecology and water quality.

 

Antonia Jenkinson, representing the Board of Didcot First, which fully supported the entire package of four schemes, which need to be taken together to deliver the integrated travel routes from the A34 through to Culham and beyond.  Culham was known in the international nuclear fusion community for its unique facilities, skills and scientific results.  The Canadian company – General Fusion - had chosen Culham for their new fusion reactor and in October, the government published its UK fusion strategy reinforcing its commitment and investment into fusion in the UK and setting out the importance of the Culham site.

 

Future investment was predicated on the key infrastructure improvements which would be delivered by the Housing Infrastructure Fund.  The HIF infrastructure underpinned their ability to operate, attract and retain staff and to develop the fusion cluster and ancillary employment that this will bring.

 

Robin Jones, resident of the area affected, stated that we already emit obscene amounts of greenhouse gas which was inextricably tying us in to a near-certain future of runaway climate chaos unless we change the way we live now, creating ways of living which respected the biological limits of the planet immediately.

 

We needed re-localisation – meeting our core needs for food, energy and materials locally – and regenerative development which reduces our reliance on scant resources and meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs.  A late 20^th Century concrete ‘behemoth’ to induce energy inefficient transport was insufficient to the task.  He requested a pause and review in order to re-calibrate and re-prioritise.

 

Nigel Tipple, Chief Executive, Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (OxLEP), noted that this had been identified as a strategic transport corridor since 2012.  It would provide a critical connection between communities and employment at existing and proposed sites.  There were opportunities for alternatives to the car such as shuttle buses.  Its focus was on connectivity whether by public transport, cycling, walking or vehicle movement.

 

The sites being connected provided opportunities for about 20,000 new jobs as well as significant national investment in the development of sustainable energy generation.  OxLEP’s Board had allocated £14.4m to the Didcot Garden Town scheme and remained very supportive of this infrastructure project.

 

Greg O’Broin, Chair of Appleford Parish Council and the Neighbouring Parish Council Joint Committee which comprised 5 Parish Councils along the HIF1 route who all oppose it.  The scheme was defective and should be withdrawn to allow the new Advisory Group sufficient time to assess alternatives and consult with local communities.  He believed that the risks listed in Paragraph 17 of the report were simply scare tactics.   His Committee did not believe the HIF1 road was necessary to deliver the needed housing required.  The traffic analysis ignored "induced traffic", was based on outdated data and pre-Covid behaviours.

He advocated looking at better use of existing infrastructure and overseas examples for a modal shift to create a vibrant net-zero Oxfordshire with less traffic congestion and pollution.  He also invited the Council Leader and the new Cabinet Advisory Group to come to Appleford and meet the Neighbouring Parish Councils.

Rita Atkinson, Sutton Courtenay Parish Councillor, stated that the HIF1 proposal as currently presented will undermine many polices and plans, in particular the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan, and will seriously impact the ability to ensure significant reduction in carbon emissions. 

 

Her Parish Council first submitted a query on the inclusion of a junction between the new road and the B4016, located between Sutton Courtenay and Appleford, in July 2019 which had never been addressed.  They were seeking more detail on assumptions, data and information, used in the traffic modelling, that will enable them to make a judgment whether the inclusion of a junction will improve, or worsen traffic flow through Sutton Courtenay.  She asked Cabinet to keep in mind the huge impact this proposal will have on the wellbeing of the residents of Sutton Courtenay, Appleford and the wider area.

 

Councillor Charlie Hicks thanked Cabinet and officers for their incredibly hard work on this project and for the changes and recommendations in this paper - namely, commitments to a Cabinet Advisory Group and to an area-wide transport strategy approach.

 

He identified five remaining issues: the financial risk of up to £137m; the traffic modelling information on which the whole project was based was unreliable; road building did not solve the problems we want it to; the current road route even with a bus lane went against the administration’s policies on climate and transport; and the Council was left wide open to legal challenge on the basis of the current Environment Statement and for not having done a sufficient optioneering process.

 

Councillor Hicks urged Cabinet to follow the example set by Wales and Herefordshire, to pause and review and re-assess the options.

 

Councillor Freddie van Mierlo, Chalgrove & Watlington, stated that he wanted to speak specifically to item 17, d.  Nowhere was it stated that HIF1 was needed to deliver the Chalgrove airfield development.  This administration should not support the construction of an east-west corridor, effectively linking the A34 to the M40 - either by design, as appeared to be referred to in this paper, or by accident.

 

HIF, if it must go ahead in its current form, needed to be deliberately designed for local use only, and not encourage rat running or drive traffic in an eastward direction across rural South Oxfordshire.

 

Councillor van Mierlo noted that Chalgrove airfield was home to a company that was facilitating the defence of NATO skies from Russian aggression.  He asked officers and cabinet to question whether it was wise, at this time, to suggest we should be building homes, on an active airfield, rather than prioritizing strategic defence assets.

 

Councillor Richard Webber, Sutton Courtenay & Marcham, stated that he had been initially persuaded of the benefits of the HIF1 scheme but had become steadily more concerned that, even if the scheme as currently proposed were to deliver benefit, all such benefit would have been eroded within 5 to10 years and that was before induced demand was taken into account.

 

He had come to the conclusion that it would be better to suffer further pressure in the short term by delaying for a short period while alternative solutions were properly considered - those more in line with current 21st century thinking and with this administration’s stated ambitions.

 

Councillor Webber urged Cabinet to withdraw the application to prevent any further unnecessary and costly work by hard working and hard-pressed Parish Councils.

 

Councillor Robin Bennett, Berinsfield & Garsington, stated that he had initially been undecided on this scheme and then was persuaded by some of the arguments in favour.  However, he was no longer convinced.  The Council was going to have to borrow money to part-fund it and that meant funds coming off services for the most vulnerable people.

 

As a district councillor he had voted in favour of the Housing Infrastructure Fund but did not sign up to this specific type of infrastructure.  He believed that Cabinet could open up negotiations on this.  He said that he was tired of shepherding projects from the previous administration.  He was elected to oppose this project.

 

Councillor Bennett added that the government had recently said that certain schemes could be reconsidered in the interests of decarbonisation, including if they no longer complied with local policies.  Nobody was saying do nothing.  He would like to see a report that included more alternative options.

 

Councillor Ian Middleton stated that this project was at odds with the Fair Deal Alliance aspirations.  He asked if they wanted to be remembered for spending £300m on another road whilst saying they want to cut car journeys.   He believed that the administration cannot continue to be carried along by the inertia of poor decision making of the previous administration.

 

The contingency was probably going to be spent due to cost overruns.  Infrastructure projects always overrun and costs always spiral.  This will essentially stymie other important projects that the administration might want to see happen on its watch.

 

Councillor Middleton added that the project will create more problems than it could ever fix.  There was a need to unlock the housing in the south and so simply not providing the transport infrastructure is not an option but there were other options.  Light Rail in particular, which provided the same travel infrastructure in a genuinely sustainable way.

 

Councillor Sally Povolotsky, Hendreds & Harwell, stated that she was in support of the officers’ recommendations but with a word of caution.  Firstly, travel patterns between men and women were vastly different, and this modelling needed to be taken into account as well as the Transport Assessments in a post-Covid world.  However, modelling was just one part of design and people and place must come first.  Her division had been plagued by vast over development.  HIF1 had the capability of being an exemplar scheme for the country.  She did not see this as a road, but more a pathway to unlocking what was needed locally.

 

Councillor Povolotsky welcomed the CAG and engagement with all the affected parishes.  Rethinking the network, incentivising residents out of cars and into public or personal zero carbon transport was a key to the success of HIF1.  This was a chance to provide a streamlined route that was not focused on cars by design.

 

The risks of HIF1 underspend and timeline creep would come from the reliance we have on agency staff and the fragility of that dependability.  She hoped that the Major Infrastructure team would get the resources needed.  She asked Cabinet to vote in favour of the recommendations and prioritise the CAG urgently and Parish / Resident engagement.

 

Councillor Duncan Enright, Cabinet Member for Travel & Development Strategy, thanked all the contributors to the debate and responded to a number of points made:

 

·         Agreed that residents should be involved in the design of infrastructure

·         Must find a way of improving this scheme to meet our priorities

·         Designers were working on ways to ensure no run-off into waterways

·         The high-tech firms in places such as Culham will be important partners in ensuring a modal shift in travel

·         Providing more goods and services locally will be an important part of reducing fossil fuel use

·         The CAG will be happy to receive the input of Parish Councils

·         He was very aware of the financial risk in this scheme

·         Infrastructure development must be public transport and active transport led

·         This was a route for local use and will not form part of an east-west corridor

·         There was no need to pause the project because they can do something better now

·         This was not a case of bringing in a scheme from the previous administration – it will be completely rewritten

·         Light rail was not an option in terms of finances, timescale or the powers of this Council.

·         The existing infrastructure around Didcot was completely inadequate for today’s demands and the coming developments

·         Investment would be lost to the area if the infrastructure plans do not progress

 

He concluded by adding that it was up to the Council to make this an exemplar scheme providing for public transport and active travel and avoiding any induced traffic.  He urged Cabinet to approve the scheme with the conditions included in the amended recommendations.

 

Councillor Pete Sudbury, Cabinet Member for Climate Change Delivery & Environment, stated that the primary problem was the "Growth Deal" and the related South Oxfordshire Local Plan brought in by previous administrations at district and county level.  Failure to deliver some form of connectivity in the HIF-1 area may well cause an extreme collapse in Housing Land Supply.  Wallingford, Wheatley and Watlington would then be in the sights of unscrupulous developers and greedy landowners.

 

He was disappointed in the report’s narrow focus on a road with the potential for different lines to be painted on it.  He thanked Councillors Enright and Miller for reworking and greatly strengthening the recommendations with the negotiating points around financial de-risking and freedom to amend the design to reduce car use.

 

Councillor Sudbury wanted Members and officers to ask "what would we do?", rapidly examining all of the options at high level.  He also believed that the very significant criticisms of the environmental statement needed to be addressed.  This transport corridor should be used to close down current through routes, holding total traffic capacity down and improving residents' lives whilst smoothing traffic flow.

 

Councillor Tim Bearder, Cabinet Member for Highway Management, stated that he was astonished at the number and scale of poor decisions the previous administration had made.  He believed that this project was one of the worst of them.  Not only did it fly in the face of our climate aspirations, it committed this council to building a £300m network of major roads at full risk to the council.

 

The new Local Transport and Connectivity Plan, which was currently out for consultation, had a target by 2030, four years after we cut the ribbon on this massive £300m road network, to replace or remove 1 out of every 4 current car trips in Oxfordshire.  These were simply incompatible and unless that number could be operationalised before this scheme was given the go-ahead we should adopt the precautionary principle and start again.

 

The previous administration signed off on this scheme believing Government and local developers were going to pay for the whole thing.  The contract was so poorly written that the Council was now liable for any cost overrun.  It was already 26% over budget and that was before a spade had even hit the ground.

 

We have so far been told by Government that we will carry the full risk for any further overruns and that it had to be completed by 2026.  If we overrun the costs rocket to something like £137m!  The annual cost of borrowing just £29.9m outlined in this paper over 25 years was £1.8m each year. That was money that would have to be taken out of other critical services.

 

Councillor Bearder noted that the whole list of points in paragraph 17 only applied if you were suggesting doing nothing. He was suggesting doing something different - in line with National and OCC policies and also likely to be cheaper.  He wanted a sustainable alternative to a £300m network of major roads. He supported the amended recommendation to go back to the Treasury and ask them to allow us to pause and rethink the project to create an alternative that helps them, us and the environment.

 

Councillor Calum Miller, Cabinet Member for Finance, emphasised that it was important to get agreement from Homes England that there was flexibility to take the time to re-design infrastructure to reduce carbon impact and car dependency in line with this administration’s priorities and current government policy.

 

He highlighted the fact that the Council will be undertaking up to £30m of prudential borrowing to support costs of the scheme and the very tight timeline involved, noting that any overrun might leave the Council unable to take up the full £240m of funding from Homes England.  In light of that, there was a crucial need to retain and recruit officers to ensure that the work was completed within the timeline.

 

The Chair thanked all contributors to the discussion.  She cautioned about saying too much about any light rail option as this Council did not have the authority to say that it wanted light rail.  It was clear there was general agreement that nobody wanted a car-based scheme.  The amendments to the recommendations would provide an opportunity to revise this scheme in line with the priorities of the new administration and they will seek to make the necessary changes.  She stated that Cabinet would not sign this agreement unless there were assurances that the Council will not end up with a half-completed road and massive debt. 

 

The Chair put the amended recommendations and they were agreed,

 

RESOLVED to

 

a)            Authorise the Corporate Director Environment and Place, in consultation with the Director of Law & Governance, Director of Finance, Cabinet Member for Travel and Development Strategy and Cabinet Member for Finance to negotiate an amended Grant Determination Agreement (GDA) with Homes England. The amended GDA will need to include: 

·                     an extension to the availability period to 31st March 2026 and assurance that risks to the delivery timeframe caused by exceptional circumstances outside the Council's direct control will be mitigated 

·                     confirmation of an increase in funding to £239,816,437 

·                     confirmation that the Council has flexibility, subject to timescale and costs, to design and deliver infrastructure that will reduce the carbon impact and reduce the need to travel by car

 

b)           The draft of any amended GDA should be presented to Cabinet for consideration and potential approval. 

 

c)            Establish a Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) to oversee the detailed design and development of HIF1. 

 

d)           Instruct officers immediately to commence the development of designs for the scheme consistent with this Council's strategic priorities. 

 

e)            Authorise the development of a new Didcot area transport strategy and masterplan to meet the corporate priorities and agree to provide appropriate resources to support the development of the plan.