Archived decisions

Contact: Terry Williams, ext 7046 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That the increased project costs, as detailed in section 8 of this report, be noted.

(ii) That the Executive Member for Environment recommends the virement of £992,000 to this project which is made up of £450,000 Developers' Contributions and £542,000 On-Street Parking Surplus, as set out in paragraph 9.1.

2. Reason

2.1 This decision supports Aims 2 and 3 of the Corporate Strategy by enhancing the local environment of Winchester City Centre and enhancing the viability of Winchester's business community. The original project appraisal was approved by the former Environment Committee on 25 June 2001 for a planned start in the 2001/02 Capital Programme. Due to a series of legal challenges in the High Court by objectors to the scheme, the start has been delayed. On 14 May 2003 the Court of Appeal overturned a previous High Court Judgement ruling in favour of the County Council. This judgement cleared the way for the scheme to proceed. Works started on 23 June 2003.

2.2 Since the works have started additional costs have become apparent, including substantial security costs. These are detailed in section 8 of this report. The additional £542,000 funding from the County Council's On-Street Parking Reserve is an appropriate use of these funds as they can only be spent on measures for parking. The £450,000 of additional funding from Developer Contributions is also an appropriate use of these funds as they have either been collected for use on Winchester Movement and Access Plan (WMAP) capital schemes and/or for extending Winchester's Park-and-Ride.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to approve the funding. The planning permission for the extension of the Park-and-Ride scheme was due to expire in October 2003. If a substantive start had not been made by this date the planning permission would have lapsed. Also, it would not be appropriate to delay the completion of the scheme at this stage until other suitable funding becomes available.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Introduction

7.1 Following approval of the project appraisal on 25 June 2001 by the former Environment Committee, several legal challenges were made by objectors to the scheme, delaying the planned start of the works. On 14 May 2003 the Court of Appeal overturned a previous High Court Judgement ruling in favour of the County Council. One of the judges, Lord Justice Brooke, noted that the respondent's solicitors seemed content to prolong the failed challenges for as long as possible so that planning consent for the extension would expire before legal proceedings were finished. The judgement cleared the way for the scheme to proceed. Works started on 23 June 2003 on the 6.5 acre site. As the planning permission was due to expire in October 2003, implementation of the scheme was progressed as quickly as possible to ensure that a substantive start was made before the planning permission lapsed.

7.2 At the start of the works it was apparent that there had been increases in costs due to the extra site surveys and studies associated with the legal challenges.

7.3 As the works continue, objectors to the scheme have caused additional costs to be incurred in relation to site security and the general management of the project. Funding for these additional security costs can be found from within the On-Street Parking Surplus and Developer Contributions. This report seeks to outline the changes in the costs and seeks approval for the virement of £992,000 for this project.

8. Project Cost Comparisons

8.1 The attached appendix shows the current estimated costs of the project compared to the estimates in the original project appraisal. The current cost estimate for the outturn cost of the project is now some £3.566 million, which is £1.104 million higher than the original project appraisal value. Of the £3.566 million £2,555,898 has already been spent, leaving £1,009,491 still to be spent.

8.2 The major elements of these additional costs are:

(i) £400,000 for security personnel;

(ii) £40,000 for security fencing;

(iii) £90,000 for legal fees associated with court proceedings (legal actions are still ongoing and the final cost at this stage is unknown);

(iv) £6,000 for watching briefs for Archaeology and Ecology;

(v) £83,000 for additional studies and surveys required during the legal challenges;

(vi) £80,000 additional fees for retendering the main civil works, the Amenity Building and for managing the security aspects on the site; and

(vii) £60,000 for additional works costs for disruption during the contracts (eg double handling of topsoil and subsoil, etc).

8.3 In total the costs identified in paragraph 8.2 above amount to £759,000 of the £1.104 million projected cost increase over the original project appraisal, and all are a direct consequence of the protestors' actions and legal challenges.

8.4 In addition to the costs identified in paragraph 8.2, and as a requirement of the planning conditions, it was necessary to purchase land for mitigation purposes. In the original project appraisal an allowance had been made for the purchase of 22 acres of mitigation land at Magdalene Hill and the land at Bar End required for the scheme. The landowners at Magdalene Hill requested that the County Council purchase their whole Landholding. The County Council was pleased to do this for sound estate management reasons. Hence a total of 55 acres was acquired, 22 acres forming the mitigation site and funded as part of this scheme and the remaining 33 acres funded by Policy and Resources (Advantageous Land Purchases). An additional £22,000 was spent on fencing and the costs of acquisition of the various plots of land, which was not allowed for in the original project appraisal.

8.5 Some work is also required to convert the Magdalene Hill mitigation site to chalk downland. This will primarily be stripping off some of the topsoil and undertaking seeding of the whole site. The exact scope and therefore cost of these works is yet to be established but is estimated to be a further £80,000 of works. A commuted payment of £6,000 per annum for 21 years is also to be made to Butterfly Conservation for the future management of the Magdalene Hill site. This commuted payment will be funded through the revenue budget.

8.6 Approximately £28,000 overspend is attributable to unforeseen conditions during the civil works, eg excessive quantities of topsoil on the site.

8.7 Due to the complexity of the scheme and the extensive consultation required, an additional £214,000 is required for fees.

Original Scheme Cost £2,462,000

Security (Personnel and Fence) - 8.2 (i) and (ii) £440,000

Legal Fees Related to Court Proceedings - 8.2 (iii) £90,000

Other Costs Related to Protestors Actions £230,000

8.2 (iv to vii)

__________________________________________________________

£759,000

Additional Land Purchase Costs - 8.4 and 8.5 £102,000

(including Works, Fencing and Acquisition)

Unforeseen Conditions - 8.6 £28,000

Additional Fees (due to complexity of scheme) - 8.7 £214,000

__________________________________________________________

£344,000

_________

Total Estimated Scheme Cost £3,566,000

9. Funding

9.1 The Park-and-Ride scheme was originally allocated £650,000 Supplementary Credit Approval funding, £1,800,000 from the On-Street Parking Surplus and £350,000 Developer and Highways Agency Contributions. An additional £542,000 from the On-Street Parking Surplus has become available. There is also a further £450,000 of external funding (from Developer Contributions) which can be utilised to cover the overspend on this scheme. The additional £542,000 funding from the County Council's On-Street Parking Reserve is an appropriate use of these funds as they can only be spent on measures for parking. The £450,000 of additional funding from Developer Contributions is also an appropriate use of these funds as they have either been collected for use on WMAP capital schemes and/or for extending Winchester's Park-and-Ride. It should be noted that the overspend on the Park-and-Ride scheme has not had a knock-on effect on the delivery of any of the Capital Programme.

Supplementary Credit Approval £650,000

On-Street Parking Surplus £1,800,000

Developer and Highways Agency Contributions £350,000

__________________________________________________

Original Total Funding £2,800,000

On-Street Parking Surplus £542,000

External Funding (Developer Contributions) £450,000

__________________________________________________

Additional Available Funding £992,000

__________________________________________________

Total Available Funding £3,792,000

9.2 This leaves £226,000 in addition to the total estimated scheme cost as contingency for settlement of final accounts of contracts and eviction costs.

10. Conclusions

10.1 Of the £1.104 million overspend, £759,000 is a direct consequence of the protestors' actions. The remaining £344,000 is due to the additional works required to convert the mitigation land to chalk downland, fencing works, land acquisition costs, unforeseen conditions and additional fees due to the complexity of the scheme.

10.2 There are sufficient funds available within the On-Street Parking Surplus and Developer Contributions to cover the additional spend. This has not affected the delivery of any of the Capital Programme.

8465/TPW