GBC Denies Misleading Government Agency Over Ash Road Bridge Funding

Published on: 19 Jul, 2024
Updated on: 20 Jul, 2024

The Ash road bridge still under construction. It is expected to be opened in December, according to a workman on-site.

By Martin Giles & David Reading

Guildford Borough Council has denied intentionally misleading a Government agency about the funding of the controversial Ash road bridge.

The bridge was deemed necessary to facilitate further housing developments in Ash. GBC had obtained funding from Homes England, a government agency whose role is to facilitate, through funding, provision of affordable housing.

The agency expected GBC to receive compensatory “Section 106” payments from developers, under the agency’s additional funding agreement with GBC, to be used on “further housing schemes”.

But council papers, released following a Freedom of Information request by local resident John Ferns, show the council knew that was not legally permissible as Section 106 contributions must only be used for the purpose specified.

The released council report states: “Homes England expects the actual Section 106 contributions to be recycled into further housing schemes in the locality. This would, in our legal adviser’s view, be likely to be unlawful, as the contributions should be used for the purpose for which they are secured – i.e. towards Ash road bridge.

“For that reason the obligation has been carefully drafted, so that it is expressed as requiring ‘a sum equal to’ the recovered funds to be recycled. As discussed and considered in March 2021, it is understood that the Council intends to satisfy this obligation by using the Section 106 contributions towards Ash road bridge and then matching those with HRA funds which will be recycled into further housing schemes (as intended in any event).

“Homes England, however, believe the actual Section 106 contributions will be used towards those schemes and there is a risk that if they understand that is not being done, they seek to terminate the Funding Agreement.”

Council officers were clear in their warning in March 2023 that there was a risk that Homes England might discover the truth. But the Executive accepted the risk and recommended that the full council should agree to proceed, which it voted to do later the very same day, March 16, 2023 (ie during the previous administration), having been given access to the report.

Having been sent a copy of the released report, a Homes England spokesperson said: “We are in dialogue with the Council regarding this project and its ongoing delivery.”

Mr Ferns told The Dragon: “I have been an avid observer of GBC for over six years. The misrepresentations that have been made about the enthusiasm of residents for the bridge have angered me, as have the repeated assurances that there would be no development without the infrastructure improvements (doctors/school places etc) being in place.

“My curiosity was heightened when I received a partial release of the confidential papers. Two of the three documents were heavily redacted and the fourth was still being withheld.

Ash Road Bridge: Detailed Analysis Shows ‘Long-Term Cost Could Soar’

“My further request to GBC for a review of their decision not to fully release everything was denied, and it was only through the intervention of the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) that these papers have now seen the light of day.

“I was am shocked by what has been revealed. We now have a bridge that nobody wants, and 1,750 homes with no compensatory infrastructure improvements or benefits. The bridge will cost residents annually £1,256 million in interest/repayment and £50k maintenance charges for the next 50 years. It is enough to make us want to declare UDI and join forces with our neighbours in Hampshire.”

In 2023 the Ash road bridge was expected to cost £44.5 million (subsequently adjusted to £44 million). Almost £24 million had, or was expected to, come from Homes England and £5 million to come from Surrey County Council. GBC expected between £2.6 million and £7.4 million in Section 106 contributions. The remainder, between approximately £7 and £13 million (figures vary in different parts of the GBC papers), to be borrowed by GBC.

Interest charges on money borrowed would put an additional burden, estimated in the report as an additional £500,000 in interest payments per annum, on GBC’s already stretched finances. And if Homes England do withdraw their grant funding that would also have to be found by the council.

Yet a further risk for GBC is that development sites are running out in Ash and without those further developments, expected by Homes England, the five-year land supply, required under the National Planning Policy Framework, will be impacted, making refusal of planning applications elsewhere very difficult.

A spokesperson for GBC commented: “Guildford Borough Council (GBC) has not misled Homes England in relation to this matter and is making good progress with delivery of the bridge, having now drawn down all the funding from Homes England.

“The grant funding agreement was carefully drafted to enable GBC to meet its recycling and recovery obligations without potentially having to act unlawfully.

“GBC continues to seek and collect s106 contributions towards the bridge from developers and remains committed to recycling equivalent sums into the delivery of housing in the borough, in line with the requirements of the grant funding agreement. Representatives from Homes England visited the site on 17 July 2024 and were pleased with the progress.”