Agenda item

To receive an update on the Ashchurch bridge project; to accept the funding conditions of Homes England and to authorise the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the S151 Officer and Borough Solicitor, to enter into the appropriate agreements to deliver the project.

1.      That the progress to date be NOTED.

2.      That the funding conditions of Homes England be ACCEPTED, as appended to the report, and the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the S151 Officer and Borough Solicitor, be authorised to agree and enter into the Grant Delivery Agreement and associated documentation, subject to minor amendments, accordingly.

3.      That the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the S151 Officer and Borough Solicitor, be AUTHORISED to enter into appropriate agreements with contractors, including Gloucestershire County Council, to support the delivery of the project.

4.      That the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the S151 Officer and Borough Solicitor, be AUTHORISED to negotiate and enter into agreements with third party landowners in order to progress the project.

9.1             The report of the Deputy Chief Executive, circulated at Pages No. 51-59, updated Members on the status of the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) funding for the railway bridge project at Ashchurch and sought agreement to enter into appropriate agreements to deliver the project. The Committee was asked to note the progress to date; to accept the funding conditions of Homes England as appended to the report, and authorise the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the S151 Officer and Borough Solicitor, to agree and enter into the Grant Delivery Agreement and associated documentation, subject to minor amendments, accordingly; to authorise the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the S151 Officer and Borough Solicitor, to enter into appropriate agreements with contractors, including Gloucestershire County Council, to support the delivery of the project; and to authorise the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the S151 Officer and Borough Solicitor, to negotiate and enter into agreements with third party landowners in order to progress the project.

9.2             Members were advised that a pot of funding had been made available as part of the government’s drive to bring forward development schemes. The Council had applied for marginal liability funding to unlock sites that were not able to come forward due to marginal needs; in the case of Tewkesbury Borough Council money had been received for a bridge over the railway line in the Ashchurch area and the report set out the culmination of some of that work and asked Members to agree to enter into conditions with Homes England to bring that funding forward. The Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that, in order to progress the project, and due to its expertise in delivering projects of this scale and its knowledge of the statutory obligations regarding highways and bridges, the Council proposed to enter into an agreement with the County Council to support the delivery; this was considered to be an expedient approach given the fact that having the right expertise to deliver the project was critical to its success.

9.3             The conditions attached to the funding were listed within the Appendix to the report and the project would be split into two distinct phases; the first being delivery of the bridge and the second the delivery of development. One part needed to come first and it was considered far more desirable to put the infrastructure in place before the development although Officers would look to dovetail the phases wherever possible e.g. conversations had commenced with landowners in the area with a view to bringing forward residential development as close as possible to phase 1.The other key element, aside from the phasing, was the transport modelling to understand the implications of the bridge, road and infrastructure etc. There was currently some high-level indicative modelling available, but detailed work would be required to check that information and local Members would be involved with those discussions from the outset.

9.4             A Member noted that the heading of the map indicated it was the ‘Tewkesbury Northern Relief’ and he questioned in what way the bridge would provide relief to Tewkesbury. In response, the Member was advised that the map had been submitted as part of the short-term access strategy plan which was looking at relieving issues on the A46 and was therefore linked to that programme rather than having any relevance to the current bridge project. In addition, the Deputy Chief Executive explained that it was clearly an aspiration of the Council to improve the A46 and there were a number of pieces of work ongoing to improve it as a trading corridor. There was an element of further support for long term enhancements through projects like this. The detailed piece of work would look at all sorts of options and modelling. There were a number of potential re-routes for the A46 but none had yet been approved. A different route for the A46 through to the M5 would radically change the existing road through the potential garden town if it was something that happened in the future, and this may be welcomed by Officers dependent upon where the M5 junction was located.

9.5             A local Member expressed the view that the road from Aston Cross to Aston Fields Lane was currently used as a ‘rat run’ into Northway. As this was a problem already she feared the situation would only deteriorate for residents of Ashchurch and Northway in the future. In response, the Chief Executive explained that the bridge and the road were part of the release of phase 1 of the development area and would not support housing to the south of the A46. He suggested that there was a lot of detailed work to be undertaken before any solutions were known and it was very difficult to answer detailed questions at the start of such a complicated project – essentially the funding had been provided for the bridge with a view to it releasing an area above the Ministry of Defence (MoD) site for development; however, if the Council did not sign up to the conditions set out by Homes England the funding would not be provided to the Council and the detailed work to ascertain whether the project could be viable would not take place or would have to take place at the Council’s own cost. A Member expressed concern that Councillors had not yet been advised of the responses to the consultation on the Ashchurch Concept Masterplan and she felt this information would be necessary before any firm decisions could be made. The Member also expressed concern about the number of houses long-term which were planned for the area as a consequence of the garden town bid. In response, the Chief Executive explained that 10,000 for the area had been included in the bid following consultation with the J9 Area Member Reference Panel which had discussed using the larger number to persuade the government to support the work and consider moving the A46 more favourably. All Members of the J9 Area Member Reference Group had been supportive of the numbers discussed and of the bid in general.

9.6             A Member expressed the view that he supported the report which would enable the Council to gain the money it needed to build a necessary bridge; he felt it offered an opportunity to alleviate the problems with the existing level crossing going straight into the heart of Northway. The local Member was of the view that the bridge, as previously identified to her, would only serve to make existing problems worse and increase issues elsewhere in the area rather than offering any mitigation. In response, a Member confirmed that the concept of the garden town was that a twenty-first century town would be built to meet twenty-first century needs with the infrastructure being provided before the development which he felt was extremely important. Another Member agreed with that view and felt it was impossible to second guess every outcome but there was a need to try and make planning easier rather than letting developers take control

9.7             It was suggested that an amendment be made to recommendation 2 which stated ‘…to agree and enter into the Grant Delivery Agreement and associated documentation subject to minor amendments, accordingly’. Accordingly, it was proposed, seconded and