Decision details

To Retain the Footbridges on Junction 18* - SEPT18/CAB/35

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Growth, Planning, Housing and Economic Development

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

In a previous CMDN reference was made that the bridges would be demolished. Subject to a Cross Party Working Group recommendation and Cabinet approval, it is the intention that these bridges will remain and that we will reassign the proportion of the overall budget allocated to demolish the footbridges to instead make significant repairs to the bridge structures.

Decision:

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED to reassign the proportion of the overall budget allocated to demolish the footbridges to instead make significant repairs to the bridge structures at junction 18, rather than removing or replacing them as previously intended.

 

Reasons for the decision:

The Cross Party Working Group had investigated the task set and had determined, on the basis of information considered, that it was technically and financially feasible to reassign the proportion of the overall budget allocated to demolish the footbridges to instead make significant repairs to the bridge at Junction 18 (Rhubarb Bridge).

Alternative options considered:

Do not repair the bridges: The Council had funding to repair the bridge as part of the National Productivity Investment Fund. The Scheme and budget was included in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. If the bridge was not repaired now then further funding will be needed in the near future in order to keep the bridge operational. In addition, if the Council did not spend the c.£1m on the repairs then it was likely there would be an underspend on the National Productivity Investment Fund which would have implications as the Council had a signed agreement with DfT to spend £5.5m on the entire scheme.

 

Demolish the footbridge: Following public consultation, the majority of people wanted to keep or replace the footbridge so repairing it was the preferred option because it was technically and financially feasible.

 

Replace it with a new bridge: This would be far more expensive and following the review it was more cost effective to repair the existing structure.

Interests and Nature of Interests Declared:

None.

Background Documents:

Report author: Lewis Banks

Publication date: 24/09/2018

Date of decision: 24/09/2018

Decided at meeting: 24/09/2018 - Cabinet

Effective from: 28/09/2018

Accompanying Documents: