Letter: There Should Be a Development Moratorium in Ash Until the Bridge Funding Is Sorted

Published on: 5 Mar, 2022
Updated on: 4 Mar, 2022

From: Sue Wyeth-Price

In response to: Ash Road Bridge Costs Could Double – Council Still Has More Money to Find

The funding issues and delays with the bridge should come as no surprise to anyone as residents have raised this at GBC Executive meetings, planning meetings and in correspondence with both officers and councillors, including Cllr Rigg, for over three years now. Yet the attitude seems to be to press on regardless of the ever-escalating cost.

The article doesn’t cover some key questions:

• Why have the costs of the project increased by £11.49 million in the last year?
• Why does the council’s budget statement give a £5.89 million shortfall rather than the £11.48 million one as provided in evidence from GBC at the Ash Manor Inquiry?
• What are the additional costs for the four Compulsory Purchase Orders already approved/issued to provide the land required for drainage?
• How is GBC expecting to cover the shortfall?
• How did the scheme ever get permission in January 2021 without Network Rail approving the design?

Have the councillors ever really known what they were approving?

The cost of this project has nearly tripled since its inclusion in the Local Plan (then £15 million). By 2019, the costs of the whole scheme (footbridge and road bridge) were £22.8 million. By 2020/21 this had risen to £27.3 million and as of 2022, it is £38.79 million, which apparently does not include the cost of the four separate Compulsory Purchase Orders for the land this will require and is expected to increase.

The costs simply cannot be covered by the council without further borrowing. Even the planning inspector challenged the council on affordability.

The council cannot raise enough money in contributions from developers to cover the remaining costs. The remaining 409 homes planned for Ash and Tongham (as presented at the Ash Manor Inquiry) will only deliver £4.1 million at the current “bridge tax” of £10,000 per house.

In reality, much of the remaining land is not for sale, and a large amount is required for the bridge drainage, leaving space for only approximately 290 homes which will only realise £2.9 million.

To cover the full shortfall, 409 houses would need to contribute an unrealistic £28,000 per house. 290 homes would require £40,000 per house.

This is not what was presented to the councillors at the budget meeting in February. Whilst the costs are the same, the financial shortfalls are substantially different. The budget figures have somehow included unspecified contributions or grants totalling £32.9 million, making the shortfall look considerably less.

Now even Cllr Rigg acknowledges that SCC and Network Rail will not be funding the project, so where will the remainder come from?

The council can now only rely on reserves or borrowing to make up more than 25% of the costs. Alternative they could adopt the approach of shaving costs from the budget (cheaper materials? no landscaping? less drainage?)  Could this be a reason why Network Rail is not giving its approval?

And what is this all for? Cllr Rigg describes the crossing as “dangerous” which is simply not the case. Even Network Rail have demonstrated that the issue is with pedestrians, not motorised vehicles, which the council seems to prioritise. All that is required is the footbridge and that hasn’t been designed or costed yet, let alone submitted as an application and is now years behind schedule. All to save motorists five minutes off a car journey to Guildford.

We were promised the infrastructure before the houses, yet SCC is not planning on carrying out most of the remaining highway improvements until after the bridge is built, if that ever happens.

Surely the time has come to place a moratorium on any further planning approvals and stop any further work on the bridge until the design, costing and funding sources have been openly established, published for comment and approved by the councillors.

Share This Post