Letter: Can Ash Road Bridge Money Be Spent In Time?

Published on: 25 Mar, 2023
Updated on: 24 Mar, 2023

Ash level crossing

From: Bibhas Neogi

In response to: Borough Council Votes to Proceed with an Extra £5.6m Funding for Ash Road Bridge

Ms Sue Wyeth-Price of Ash Green Residents Association pointed out: “that the £23 million of central government funds have to be used before March 31 next year or handed back”.

The job is out to tender but not yet awarded. There is no way this money could be spent by the current deadline. So what would be the position if Homes England wanted GBC to hand back £23 million?

Network Rail’s safety concern was: “only for pedestrians not for vehicles”. But there is no further news about the footbridge design and who will be paying for it.

Cllr Nagaty said: “GGG raised concerns over the increased cost and the fact that GBC had not secured contractors’ quotes that could be presented with the report nor firm agreements for procurement of all the required land. As with many projects today, the costs continue to escalate and the contingency may well be exceeded.”

That there are no firm agreements for procurement of all the required land should be as much as a warning as red lights at a level crossing. I can’t imagine the appointed contractor starting the job unless all land-ownership issues have been sorted. Yet Cllr Rigg said “we were pleased to have virtually unanimous council support and can now take forward the project into the construction phase”.

Cllr Rigg’s intentions are commendable but the scheme is too late and the fact that the budget has grown from £12 million to £44 million should start bells ringing loudly to add to the red lights that something is drastically wrong.

Cllr Nagaty also said: “This is yet another inherited project that expects GBC to bear costs that really are the responsibility of SCC or others. The Local Plan has resulted in GBC taking the lead on too many projects for which they are ill-equipped and take up so much officer and councillor time.”

I do not think GBC has got experience of handling bridge projects like this. In my view, the design consultant has produced an overly expensive scheme with an alignment that could have been more or less a straight line over the railway if another roundabout were introduced at the southern end instead of a longer semi-circular alignment. Was the alignment dictated by constraints of land availability? I believe with approach lengths to the bridge on retaining walls tied together rather than earth embankments as designed, scheme costs, imported fill material and land take could have been much reduced.

Importing massive volumes of earth through local roads would be environmentally damaging. Such a design would fit within a bigger road scheme in the middle of a green field site where earthworks could be balanced for cut and fill but not as a one-off design within a semi-rural area. Was there any scrutiny of the appropriateness of the design?

GBC is now faced with the dilemma of an inordinately expensive bridge similar to Walnut Tree Bridge in Guildford.

Editor’s response: It is understood that GBC believe they can meet the delivery timetable and that Homes England wants the project to proceed. Whether that will allow any flexibility on the spending deadline is not known.

Responses to Letter: Can Ash Road Bridge Money Be Spent In Time?

George Potter Reply

March 25, 2023 at 11:54 am

The short answer to Mr Neogi is yes.

The bridge is expected to be completed by the end of 2024, but Homes England funding will be spent first to pay for construction costs, meaning it should all be spent by the deadline.

Homes England’s primary concern is obviously that they do not want to spend money funding a bridge which will not be completed. If they are convinced the bridge is going to be completed then they are going to be much less concerned, which is why there have been a lot of discussions between GBC and Homes England to ensure that all parties involved are happy with the new plan, timetable and budget for the project.

George Potter is the Lib Dem borough councillor for Burpham
Bibhas Neogi Reply

March 26, 2023 at 10:05 am

I admire Cllr Potter’s optimism. However, the following questions need answers:

1. Was there a constraint that prevented a shorter route rather than the designed semi-circular one?
2. In the event of failure to procure all necessary land in time leading to a delay in a possible start date and expected spend likely to fall well short of £23m by 31st March 2024, what would GBC propose to do – not start the project?
3. Scheme cost has risen from £12m to £44m – is it not unusual even considering increased costs and inflation? Was the original estimate totally wrong?
4. Did GBC get any independent advice in assessing that the chosen alignment and the design using embankments for the approaches are both appropriate for the site?
5. As far as Network Rail is concerned, the safety issue is with pedestrians jumping the red signals at the level crossing, yet there is no design for a new footbridge and who would pay for it? Would GBC become involved with yet another job not really theirs?
6. Has the environmental detriment to the local roads been considered when thousands of lorry trips are made bringing in the materials for the embankments?
7. And finally, is GBC equipped to scrutinise value for money from their consultants? Is it spending ratepayers’ money wisely?
- Ben Paton Reply
  
  March 26, 2023 at 1:18 pm
  
  I admire Mr Neogi’s optimism in expecting an answer.
  
  The motto of local politicians seems to be “Oft in error, never in doubt”.
- George Potter Reply
  
  March 27, 2023 at 10:51 am
  
  I will say that it’s a real shame that so many of these questions are quite obviously the result of misinformation spread by the leader of GGG (Cllr Ramsey Nagaty) in his quotes in the relevant article, and the uncritical acceptance of the allegations made by the public speaker against the bridge.
  
  It’s also a real shame that these questions are being answered by myself rather than, for instance, the R4GV portfolio-holder responsible (Cllr John Rigg).
  
  Nonetheless, here are the answers, as best as I can provide them:
  
  1. Was there a constraint that prevented a shorter route rather than the designed semi-circular one?
  
  No idea. I presume so, but the design has been in place for years and the rationale behind it will undoubtedly be detailed in the planning application which was approved in 2021. What I do know is that the bridge was designed to take account of land ownership and the requirements of County Highways.
  
  2. In the event of failure to procure all necessary land in time leading to a delay in a possible start date and expected spend likely to fall well short of £23 million by March 31 2024, what would GBC propose to do – not start the project?
  
  As far as I am aware there are no land procurement issues. Issues around procuring land were alleged by the public speaker, and were parroted by Cllr Nagaty, but there is nothing in the reports (including the confidential papers) to substantiate these allegations. By contrast, if there were land procurement issues then this would have had to be flagged as a key project risk in council documents, as well as to Homes England who then would not have signed off on the revised timetable.
  
  3. Scheme cost has risen from £12 million to £44 million – is it not unusual even considering increased costs and inflation? Was the original estimate totally wrong?
  
  No it hasn’t. Two very different numbers are being conflated here. The original total estimated cost *to the council* was £12 million. The current estimated *overall expenditure* has increased to £44.5 million. However, as discussed, Homes England were always providing £23 million of funding, not to mention the developer contributions, so it should be obvious that the original budget was never £12 million.
  
  The actual potential increase in cost to GBC (not guaranteed, just the potential increase) is £5.6 million. This is obviously a substantial amount but it absolutely does not represent the almost four-fold increase which the question suggests.
  
  4. Did GBC get any independent advice in assessing that the chosen alignment and the design using embankments for the approaches are both appropriate for the site?
  
  Yes. And, beyond the independent advice procured, there is also the simple fact that Surrey Highways, who are external to the project, had to sign off on the design in order for the bridge to obtain planning approval.
  
  5. As far as Network Rail is concerned, the safety issue is with pedestrians jumping the red signals at the level crossing, yet there is no design for a new footbridge and who would pay for it? Would GBC become involved with yet another job not really theirs?
  
  £0.5 million of the revised budget is to pay for the design of the footbridge. GBC’s expectation is that Network Rail would pay for it, but negotiations around that are ongoing. If Network Rail refused to pay then GBC councillors would have to decide whether or not to shoulder the bill.
  
  6. Has the environmental detriment to the local roads been considered when thousands of lorry trips are made bringing in the materials for the embankments?
  
  Yes. In the same way it would be for any construction project.
  
  7. And finally, is GBC equipped to scrutinise value for money from their consultants? Is it spending ratepayers’ money wisely?
  
  Yes. I cannot talk about confidential details of commercial arrangements, but robust examination of the budget estimates have been done using “Monte Carlo modelling”, and the nature of the procurement contract means that whichever company is contracted to build the bridge will have strong financial incentives to try to reduce costs, but no financial incentives for inflating costs.
  
  As to whether this represents wise spending of local people’s money then the answer really is both yes and no. It was quite unwise for the last Conservative administration to take on this huge project, which properly should be the responsibility of Surrey Highways, but given where we were in 2019, and where we are now, it is far wiser and less costly to go ahead with completing the bridge in line with the new budget than to scrap it and be left saddled with millions of debt and nothing to show for it.
  
  I will add that I find Mr Neogi’s questions completely reasonable and understandable, but it really is a shame that they have arisen simply because of media reporting which uncritically quotes allegations rather than attempting to substantiate them, and because of a portfolio holder whose personal motto appears to be “never explain, never apologise” when it comes to the major projects he is in charge of.
  
  George Potter is the Lib Dem borough councillor for Burpham.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

March 28, 2023 at 3:24 pm

I raised the questions but they were not directly in response to Cllr Potter’s comments. They were meant for the council’s technical department and those responsible for overseeing the project. I thank Cllr Potter though for coming forward with his answers.

I have watched the webcast and strangely not all the conflicting items were challenged or clarified by the councillors present during the debate. I did not know that the £12 million was GBC’s contribution and not the initial estimate of the whole cost.

I support the project, as the bridge would reduce congestion.

I am a retired chartered engineer. I have worked in the Department for Transport for 37 years, part of which was as head of structures of the Highways Agency SE Office. My area covered all structures of the motorways and trunk roads in the counties of Kent, Surrey, East & West Sussex, Hampshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. My responsibilities were to oversee maintenance, repair and strengthening, where needed, of some 5,000 structures through our agents (then, all county councils) and approve or appraise technical proposals for strengthening and proposed designs for new structures in bypasses and widening schemes.

Part of the approval process was to appraise the justification for the proposed structural form and method of construction, the options examined and their comparative costs used in deriving at the recommended option. Does GBC operate an appraisal procedure of their consultants’ proposals or do they simply accept their recommendations?

Cllr Potter obviously has inside information about estimated costs and independent scrutiny done by GBC and by Surrey Highways but without access to any publicly available documents, I am unable to view their conclusions.

I did scan the various documents in the planning application but did not find any giving the justification for the chosen alignment other than avoiding a near 180-degree turn. It would have been required if a straighter route over the railway to the north were to be adopted. About two years ago in The Dragon I explained how, by relocating the southern roundabout a little eastwards, this could have been achieved safely. There was no response from either the designer or the county officers. I also raised the appropriateness of the use of earth embankments but there were no comments.

It would be interesting to know if any tenderer has submitted a cheaper alternative together with their compliant tender.

The design of the footbridge needs further consideration. The length of the ramps together with the length of the footbridge would be about 270 metres. This is not a small structure. The walk over such a bridge would take some 3.5 minutes – about the same as the waiting time when the level crossing is closed but this would be for every single use.

Alternatively, after the bridge comes into operation, the level crossing could remain closed during the time between the first and the last trains together with a footbridge with steps/stairs and lifts. Such an arrangement would deal with the safety issues and at the same time this cheaper footbridge with lifts connecting the platforms could be installed by Network Rail within its boundaries and wholly paid for by them.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

April 10, 2023 at 12:59 pm

I believe the higher cost of this bridge is partly as a result of opting for a poorer design.

Two tears ago I raised the issue of the semi-circular alignment and the use of earth embankment approaches in my comments in the letter https://guildford-dragon.com/letter-moving-a-roundabout-could-solve-problems-of-ash-level-crossing-project/

The lengths of the approaches could have been reduced by virtue of a straighter alignment and using a three-span bridge perhaps together with reinforced earth or tied retaining walls to form the approaches.

This would have been a quicker method of construction compared with full lengths of earth embankments. The embankments need time to settle before the road surface that could be laid in order to avoid undulations and cracks. The remedial would then be to overlay the tarmac causing disruptions and extra cost.

This was two years ago but there were no responses from GBC or SCC that are supposed to have appraised the design according to Cllr Potter. I believe SCC do not have a great deal of experience in designing bridges either.