Issue - meetings

Cabinet Member: Travel & Development Strategy

Forward Plan Ref: 2022/045

Contact: Hannah Battye, Head of Infrastructure Delivery, 07808 573 932

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CA17).

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 1 containing exempt information under the above paragraph is attached.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

1.    Approve the amendments to the Grant Determination Agreement (GDA)

2.    Seek an additional letter of comfort from Homes England and Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).

3.    Authorise the signing of the Grant Determination Agreement by the Director for Transport and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Director of Law & Governance, Director of Finance, Cabinet Member for Travel and Development Strategy and Cabinet Member for Finance.

Recommendation agreed

Cabinet had before it a report outlining the renegotiated position and options considered as requested by the meeting of Cabinet in March.

Before considering the report the Chair agreed to hear the following speakers:

Richard Harding emphasised that reducing car traffic was an important part of all local and central government policies in order to reduce carbon emissions.  Studies had shown that by-pass schemes generally result in more traffic than predicted and ultimately fail to even reduce traffic in the town centres.  He believed that this plan would induce more traffic and result in demands to link to the M40.  He asked that the scheme be paused while the administration considered how to transition to a low carbon future.

Gregory O’Broin, Chair of Appleford Parish Council and the Neighbouring Parish Council Joint Committee, stated that all five Parish Councils in the Joint Committee strongly opposed this road.  HIF was a solution from an earlier decade.   It was not necessary to deliver housing and there were alternative infrastructures available.  The HIF scheme was not designed to promote sustainable modes of travel and it will not improve air quality or reduce CO2 emissions.  He asked Cabinet to pause and consider alternatives.

Chris Hancock stated that the current estimated cost of £294m for this road was the highest expenditure of 31 future HIF1 schemes in the UK and one of the most expensive per new home realized.  It could be anticipated that the three bridges could approach 1/3 of the total scheme cost whereas redesigned bridges to a reduced scale to support a dedicated busway with lightweight cycleway/footpath bridges alongside could be constructed at less cost and with much less risk.

Councillor Robin Bennett, Berinsfield & Garsington, recognised that this was a legacy project.  He supported the letter to Highways England making clear opposition to any kind of East-West expressway.  However, this project risked locking in car dependency.  It was not fully funded requiring borrowing by the Council which was already under all kinds of funding pressures.  He would not be minded to proceed as the government had not given sufficient assurance.

Councillor Charlie Hicks stated that there was a high risk of this project becoming a financial black hole.  Inflation at current rates was likely to add £30m to the costs.  Policies on transport were changing and new roads would shortly be consigned to the history books.  These houses were for future generations and each generation drives less.  There were alternatives in rail and active travel and providing more facilities locally and he asked Cabinet to explore those.

Councillor Ian Middleton suggested that Cabinet call the government’s bluff on this project and let them build the roads if that’s what they want.  It was a most controversial project and the Council will be held responsible.  It was at odds with everything the administration stood for.  The government was calling for more climate friendly development so there was an opportunity to pause this project and examine alternatives.

The Chair noted the letter from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86