Agenda item

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Economy, Infrastructure and Skills introduced the report, explaining that the Kepax Bridge was part of a suite of significant infrastructure projects. Other projects included the Southern Link Road, the Upton Roundabout, Parkway, Kidderminster Station and Hoobrook Link Road. It was recognised that there had been some criticism of the project but the bridge would improve walking and cycling routes and allow a bridge at the other end of the city to Diglis Bridge. The cost of the bridge had substantially increased but an estimated target price was now available, with the increase being due to increased steel prices and labour costs. The report detailed how the increased costs would be covered.

Other Members of Cabinet supported the bridge as it encouraged active travel, opened up the green spaces, and linked the town and countryside. The bridge would continue Worcestershire’s strong track record of investing in infrastructure, which in turn helped improve the lives of Worcestershire residents. It was pointed out that the Diglis Bridge and the Southern Link Road had previously had their critics but the benefits were realised once the projects had progressed.

A Member from outside the Cabinet pointed out that initially £1.5 million had been allocated, and then a further £2.5 million, along with £1million from the Getting Building Fund so a total of £5million and now a further £10.9million extra was proposed. She asked why the cost kept increasing. She also pointed out that when she had previously asked if money could be moved from the highways budget to help with a children’s home she had been told no, so it now seemed contradictory that money was being moved from capital programmes and the highways maintenance budget to help fund the bridge.  She felt certain issues should be considered: Government guidance said walking and cycling bridges should be 4 metres wide but Kepax would only be 3.5 metres; and also how would active travel be encouraged each side of the bridge. In response it was clarified that the initial amounts of money were never the full cost of the bridge but just the starting point, and Worcester City Council were not being asked for any additional funding. With regard to the width of the bridge it was felt that 3.5 metres was sufficient, as proved by Diglis Bridge which was not 4 metres, and to increase the width would further increase the cost. With regard to changes to the budget it was clarified that the money was remaining within the highways capital budget. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families said he had been supportive to the idea of moving money between budgets and it was still an ambition to do that.

Another Member explained that he was not against the bridge but had queries which had not been answered. The queries were that he was concerned over the rising costs and the fact that they could increase further; he wanted the best return for the capital employed. He was also concerned at the lack of connectivity to the west where there were no new cycle routes.

A further contribution from outside the Cabinet commented that the business case for the bridge originally said that the project was medium value for money and he wondered what it now was. There was concern that so much money would be spent on this project resulting in less being available for other projects to help with modal shift. The response was that in the cost benefit analysis the costs had risen but also the benefits. Modal shift would be helped as better access would be facilitated from the west to the north side of the city. Thousands of people were getting benefits from walking along the riverside so the bridge offered health as well as tourism benefits.

The Leader stated that as thousands of new homes were being built around Worcester, new infrastructure was needed and all cost increases would be challenged, but the queries were not a reason to delay the project as any further delay would increase costs further. The increase in capital money to this project did not mean a cut to road and pavement maintenance. It was known when the budget was set that there would be an increase to capital costs which was why a reserve had been included. It was not always possible to provide projects to budget but it was important to press forward with this project in order to grow the economy of Worcestershire sustainably.

RESOLVED that Cabinet:

a)       Requested that Council approves amendments to the Capital Programme necessary to progress the Kepax Bridge scheme, including the virement of funds previously allocated as part of the approved Capital Programme along with additional sources of funding from Worcester City Council and the Towns Fund; and,

b)      Authorised the Strategic Director of Economy and Infrastructure in consultation with the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Economy, Infrastructure and Skills to award construction contracts and enter into any other such agreements as are necessary to progress delivery of the Kepax Bridge scheme, within the approved funding envelope.