Agenda item

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.

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 Homes England included in the latest Addenda in which they made it clear they were open to rescoping projects.

Councillor Duncan Enright, Cabinet Member for Travel & Development Strategy, responded that the existing infrastructure in the Didcot area was inadequate.  The high traffic levels could not be reduced without this route.   The project had the support of Didcot Town Council and the District Councils.  It will be possible to reduce the embedded carbon and the roads will be highly capable for active travel and buses.  The County Council had built a very strong relationship with Homes England and through them could access the Department of Transport and the Treasury.  He would not rest until there was an exemplar scheme in place.

Councillor Calum Millar addressed the financial concerns.  He was pleased to say that officers had succeeded in securing an increase in the funding envelope as well as an extension of the period in which funds will be made available.  He noted that 25% of the cost was already allocated to contingency and risk.  OCC will retain the option to stop the project at key decision points to manage financial risk without any clawback of funds by Homes England.  He was content that measures had been taken to reduce the risk and was happy to support the project.  He asked the Leader to respond to the Homes England letter reflecting the concerns expressed in this debate and to emphasise that £30m really was the limit on what the Council can provide.

Councillor Pete Sudbury outlined why he would abstain on the vote while accepting collective Cabinet responsibility.  Climate change was accelerating and the UK’s own climate committee had said that we were falling ever further behind on emissions.  He was concerned that the evidence base for the project involved studies of towns and cities at least three times the size of Didcot that did not have the same problems.  Modal shift was much harder in semi-rural areas with lower concentrations of population.  Cultural norms that lie behind travel patterns were hard to shift.  It will only happen if we ruthlessly prioritise the modes we want people to use.

Councillor Tim Bearder outlined why he could not support the scheme.  He stated that all of the other policies of the Council were aimed at radically reducing motor traffic but yet this project was creating a whole new network of roads.  The project was already £70m over budget before construction even started.  It was believed that construction costs of other projects had increased by up to 25%.  It was built on a car-dependent model which could facilitate further road building and the Council could not stop Highways England from stepping in.  A paradigm shift was needed and this was not it.

The Chair concluded the discussion stating that she was confident that the work done by officers, Cabinet Members and the Cabinet Advisory Group had resulted in a scheme very different from that approved by the previous administration.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Enright and seconded by Councillor Millar.  The proposal was passed with 8 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED to:

a)                  Approve the amendments to the Grant Determination Agreement (GDA)

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

c)                  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.