Agenda item

This report sets out a response to questions raised by a Member regarding works at Darnley Arches in Strood. 

Discussion:

Councillor Igwe was invited to address the committee as he had submitted the Member’s Item for consideration. He voiced his concern that not all of the questions he had raised had been answered in the report, for example there was no mention of the date when the council became aware it could not meet the original agreement, there was no indication in which year the £153,836 had been spent and no timescale for the future proposals.

The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture advised that the council had found out in October 2012 that Network Rail could not build the pedestrian subway due to the poor state of repair of the railway bridge and the council had only three months to arrange the relevant road closures to allow Network Rail to carry out the necessary urgent repair works. The monies received from Morrisons had been spent on studies carried out with regard to the construction of the subway and a feasibility study carried out in 2012 for pedestrian improvements to be made before 2014.  The council had issued joint statements with Network Rail to residents, traders and Ward Councillors regarding the road closure relating to the Network Rail bridge replacement.

A Member advised that Councillors representing the Strood area had been invited to a meeting with the Head of Capital Projects, Road Safety and Networks in the summer of 2012, where they were informed that Network Rail wished to replace the bridge at Darnley Arches and that this would be an opportunity for pedestrian improvements in that area.

The Member laid out the history of the planning application in 1998 and why the S106 monies had been requested as part of that application, following which a design for improvements was produced by an engineering contractor in 2006. In his opinion, since that time, the council had failed to be proactive about the improvements and had failed to pursue them once the monies had been received. The only thing that had happened since 2006 was that a recent survey of the bridge had shown it to be in a much worse state of repair than previously thought and Network Rail had brought forward their plans for repair due to health and safety concerns. Prior to this, the council had the opportunity during the previous six years to have plans in place in order to implement them when necessary and had missed this opportunity as the plans were not in place.

A Member added that he also thought this was a missed opportunity and asked why the matter had not been sufficiently escalated with Network Rail early enough to ensure it was embedded in their bridge re-structure works. He also asked what could be learnt from this and were the proposals in 2006 now outdated which meant that the proposal for a pedestrian subway should warrant re-investigation. He did not believe subways to be popular with the public, as they were being closed elsewhere in Medway and therefore it would not be money well spent. He also voiced concern that 20% of the monies allocated for these works had been spent on plans and designs with little to show for them.

Other Members of the committee added that they also had concern over the amount of money spent on design work and whether the council had received value for money. They also asked what guarantee officers could give that the work would be completed by August 2014, as there would be an implication on the budget if it was not, as the money would have to be paid back to Morrisons. They also asked who authorised the spend of £153,000, what did the council receive for this money and what were the ideas produced from this study.

The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture advised that in 2006 the plan was to build a pedestrian subway and a building had previously been bought at the location which would be demolished to make way for the entrance of the subway. Under the terms of a S106 agreement relating to the former Alloy Wheels site, additional land had been provided to the council to use as an alternative entrance to the subway. When the council knew Network Rail was intending to replace the rail bridge, it raised with Network Rail the potential to widen the bridge to improve pedestrian access. These negotiations were going well until the completed survey showed the bridge to be in a much worse state of repair than previously anticipated. Network Rail then advised the council that it needed to replace the bridge without delay and ended negotiations about pedestrian improvements, due to health and safety concerns. Unfortunately there was not time to design and include pedestrian improvements to be included in Network Rail’s works.

The Director agreed that this had been a missed opportunity but this was not due to the working relationship having broken down. It was simply that Network Rail had to act very quickly, and there was no time to design suitable pedestrian improvements to be incorporated into Network Rail’s repair schedule. He advised that he would send Members a breakdown of the costs in a Briefing Note but that officers already had a provisional estimate for a pedestrian subway of £1.6 million, which was more than the monies received from Morrisons. £153,000 was a lot of money but survey work and designs were often 10% of the cost for a scheme. The Assistant Director of Housing, Development and Transport was in the process of procuring a consultant to advise on the current options now available and the council would also apply for the additional funding where possible from other Department for Transport funding streams or through the Local Transport Plan. He assured Members that officers would advise the committee on how these monies would be spent.

A Member representing Strood advised that although she was also very disappointed that no improvements had been made after such a long time, there had been several opportunities for discussion about this matter and Members had received notice that there would have to be emergency works to the bridge due to technical reasons, which had been confirmed at this meeting. At a meeting with local businesses, Network Rail had listened to traders concerns and taken onboard a number of issues about the bridge. At no point during these consultations did Network Rail advise that they were not going ahead with pedestrian improvements.

The Assistant Director of Front Line Services added that throughout most of 2012, Network Rail’s plan had been to widen the carriageway under the bridge arch and install a wider pedestrian subway. The only reason this plan was not taken forward was due to technical reasons. When it had become clear that this was the case, there was a final attempt to go back to a subway solution from Northcote Road but there was not enough time remaining to achieve that. 

A Member suggested that the way forward, before any further monies were spent (particularly on consultants), was to hold another consultation as the area had changed dramatically during the past seven years when the previous consultation was held and the main flow of traffic had fundamentally changed.

Councillor Igwe advised that he only wished to put the situation right and achieve the answers to the lessons learnt from this longstanding issue and to move forward with a better way to spend the money available for the benefit of people in Strood.

Decision:

The committee agreed:

(a)         to refer the matter to the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services and the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, in consultation with the Ward Members, for further consideration with officers prior to the work outlined in paragraph 3.6 of the report;

(b)         to request a breakdown of the £153,836 spent on scoping and designing works in a Briefing Note.