3rd Crossing Steering Group Minutes –June 12th2015

RS-G02S,Riverside, Lowestoft

Attendees:Peter Aldous MP,Cllr Mark Bee,Cllr Colin Law,Cllr Guy McGregor, Mike Dowdall, Chris Starkie, Simon Thick, Simon Amor, Dave Watson, James Reeder,Roger Arundale, Paul Moss, Nick Burfield,

Phil Harris,Gary Bellward

Apologies:Arthur Charvonia,Richard Perkins,Mark Hardingham, Karl Murphy

Item / Comments / Action
1. / Welcome and Introductions
PA welcomed all to the first ‘3rd Crossing Steering Group’ meeting and asked for introductions to be made around the table. PA reported that good working relationships established between the LEP and SCC, along with a positive feel being demonstrated by government has provided good foundations on which to drive the project forward.
2. / Feasibility Study
DW provided an update from the meeting between the DfT and SCC highlighting the desire to progress the project forward given the tight November deadline for a first draft. It was confirmed that the paper on methodology which was to be submitted to the LTB was acceptable subject to additional detail. CS echoed the comments stating that this is the opportunity and it must be taken as there will be no second chances in the short term.
SCC have opened dialog with Norfolk County Council regarding the current Postwick bridge installation to seek advice and ascertain best practice given some of the similarities of the 2 projects. DW confirmed that the project qualifies for the top infrastructure category and will therefore require the highest level of DfT approval. PA added that with a full programme in place for Highways England to deliver, it has provided an opportunity for the LTIP to drive the project forward at its own pace.
SA provided an overview of HE’s 5 year programme confirming a 3rd crossing over Lake Lothing is not currently included. DW highlighted the need to determine if the permission process can be fast streamed by the secretary of state. This will be integrated into the business case once the process is understood.
DW stated that funding works beyond the feasibility study would need to be identified from multiple sources. Additional studies and land acquisitions would require large sums of and a longer timeframe so therefore would come after the study has been submitted. It was confirmed that the £2million provided by the LEP will fund the feasibility study only.
3. / Timeframes
DW introduced a draft timeframe which was circulated prior to the meeting stating that a draft will be required by November with the final submission in January in time for review prior to the budget. This tight schedule is broken down into 5 separate cases which will make up the final report. These cases include:
-the rational, complete with options, explanation and evidence
-economic case, savings, travel times, development potential
-commercial case, project management
-funding case, costs, maintenance and operation
-governance
Immediate actions included the appointment of a project manager and the commencement of updated traffic modellingwhich must commence pre summer holidays. Any economic study will need to be of the highest standard to comply with DfT requirements. PM confirmed that the Mott MacDonald’s study undertaken for the flood scheme did not have any copyright issues and WDC was in full ownership of the data.
DW agreed to work up a more detailed programme for circulation. PM confirmed the support from the Economic Development and Regeneration team as required. JR welcomed the detail and emphasised the importance of engaging ahead of any work streams.Action: DW to produce detailed programme. / DW
4. / Communications
MB stated the need to get the public engaged at the earliest stage and that lessons could be learnt from the WSP event. Communications will need to demonstrate that all options are being considered as part of the feasibility study and that engagement across all stakeholders and political parties is occurring.Action: PH to establish an engagement strategy and involve the press.
PH commented that the last communication to the public pre election was to state that a bridge would be delivered by 2020. It is important to manage and publicise the necessary processes and the work streams required. Action: PH to create communications plan and circulate to partners.
The group agreed the need to get an update release as soon as possible stating that all options are back on the table. Action: PH to draft a press release and circulate to the group. / PH
PH
PH
5. / A.O.B
MD raised the point of potential planning issues as the project moves forward. It was agreed that respective planning authorities be engages to understand how key sites can be protected. Action: MD/PM to contact respective planning teams.
ST confirmed he would be the Network Rail contact for feeding in to the feasibility study.
SA stated HE welcomed the project overall stating that an additional crossing would allow for less reliance on the Bascule Bridge and open the door to less expensive maintenance schedules. HE have invested substantial funds in the past 5 years extending the life of the bridge by 15 to 20 years. / MD/PM

Summary of actions:

  1. DW to produce detailed work programme.
  2. PH to establish an engagement strategy involving the media.
  3. PH to create a communications plan and circulate to partners.
  4. PH to draft a press release to update the community on the latest since announcements pre election.
  5. MD/PM to contact respective planning colleagues to discuss potential planning issues.