|
Report
to:
|
Cabinet
|
|
Date of
meeting:
|
4 March 2025
|
|
By:
|
Director
of Communities, Economy and Transport
|
|
Title:
|
Exceat
Bridge replacement options
|
|
Purpose:
|
To
seek approval to change the scope of the Exceat Bridge Replacement
Project.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS. Cabinet is
recommended to
(1)
Consider the
affordability and options for replacing Exceat
Bridge;
(2)
Agree to
discontinue the proposals for an offline two lane replacement
bridge (‘Option A’) and to instead proceed with the
replacement of Exceat bridge in the location of the existing bridge
(‘Option B’), subject to confirmation from the South
Downs National Park Authority that this falls within permitted
development, in accordance with the details set out in Appendix 1
of this report; and
(3)
Delegate Authority
to the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport
to:
a)
agree the
withdrawal of:
i.
the East Sussex
County Council (Exceat Bridge Replacement- A259 Eastbourne Road)
Compulsory Purchase Order 2023 (the CPO);
ii.
the East Sussex
County Council (Exceat Bridge Replacement- A259 Eastbourne Road)
(Classified Road) (Side Roads) Order 2023 (the Side Roads Order);
and / or
iii.
the East Sussex
County Council (Exceat Bridge Replacement- A259 Eastbourne Road)
Bridge Scheme 2023 (the Bridge Scheme);
b)
notify the
Department for Transport accordingly; and
c)
take any other
actions necessary to give effect to the withdrawal of the above
Orders.
1.
Background
1.1
Exceat Bridge spans
the Cuckmere River on the A259 and is part of the Major Road
Network. It is a key corridor between Eastbourne and Brighton, with
an average annual daily traffic count of 11,500 vehicles with
morning and evening peaks of nearly 1,000 vehicles per hour. The
bridge has historically been a pinch point between Seaford and
Eastbourne and given its strategic importance as a transport
corridor and its overall condition, it was considered for a
Levelling Up Fund bid. In 2021, East Sussex
County Council (ESCC) was awarded £7.957m of Levelling Up
Funding (LUF) towards the then estimated total cost of
£10,590,517 for the replacement of Exceat
Bridge.
Cost increases and delays
1.2 Since 2021, project costs
have increased considerably and the project was significantly
delayed following design changes requested during pre-planning
engagement with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA).
The process to achieve planning permission from the SDNPA (as the
local planning authority) took considerably longer than initially
anticipated. In addition, increased construction costs and
inflation, as well as unexpected difficulties in securing third
party land and rights required for the project (resulting in the
need to seek a Compulsory Purchase Order) have all contributed to
the anticipated costs of the project rising considerably.
1.3 Each of these factors have
impacted the affordability of the Exceat Bridge replacement
project. Whilst the Council’s preferred option remains an
offline two-lane replacement bridge (‘Option A’), this
is now considered unaffordable as it will not be possible to meet
the estimated funding gap of £10.667m in the capital
programme. Consequently, a value engineering exercise has recently
been undertaken with expert support from the Department for
Transport (DfT) consultants (the Delivery Associates Network commissioned by Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government) to see if costs
could be reduced.
1.4
The Council’s highways contractor, Balfour Beatty Living
Places (BBLP) have considered potential areas of savings that were
identified and the outcome of these has provided a high-level
estimated construction cost of £13,504,558. This is based on
shortening the programme by closing the road to undertake the
works, retaining the existing bridge for pedestrians and removing
viewing platforms from the new bridge to make the structure
narrower. To achieve all of these would require re-engaging with
SDNPA as it would be a change from the design on which the planning
approval is based, and this would cost more money and time. The
reduced cost estimate does not include costs to date and the
ongoing land negotiations and unfortunately this does not bring the
overall cost for Option A down enough to be within the
budget.
1.5
Additional funding sources considered have included borrowing; the
introduction of toll charges; and use of potential future Lane
Rental income. However, none of these are viable.
1.6 Concurrently with the value
engineering exercise, the Council has explored alternate options
with BBLP. As a result of this work, a proposal to replace the
existing bridge within its current position under permitted
development rights (subject to discussion and confirmation by
SDNPA) (‘Option B’) has been developed.
1.7
The change in scope to the project is also dependent on approval
from the Government. A Project Amendment Request (PAR), based on
proceeding with Option B, was submitted to Government on 11
February 2025. Additional information about engagement with
relevant stakeholders in regard to the change is set out in
Appendix 2, which includes ‘frequently asked questions’
relating to the bridge replacement project.
Spend so
far
1.8 £4,613,891
has been spent on the project to the end of quarter three 2024/25,
and (subject to any costs incurred to date in quarter 4) there is
£6,187,626 remaining of the budget summarised below:
|
Source
|
Total allocation
|
Spend to date
|
Remaining
|
|
Levelling Up Fund (LUF) funding
|
£7,957,517
|
£2,900,619
|
£5,056,898
|
|
LUF Capacity and capability funding
|
£211,000
|
£0
|
£211,000
|
|
National Productivity Investment Funding
(NPIF)
|
£2,133,000
|
£1,213,272
|
£919,728
|
|
East Sussex County Council (ESCC) Capital
Funding (borrowing)
|
£500,000
|
£500,000
|
£0
|
|
Total
|
£10,761,148
|
£4,613,891
|
£6,187,626
|
The table below breaks down total spend to
date by year:
|
|
Pre- 2021/22 (pre LUF)
|
2021/22
|
2022/23
|
2023/24
|
2024/25 to Q3
|
Total to Q3 2024/25
|
|
|
£
|
£
|
£
|
£
|
£
|
£
|
|
Preliminary Design and Planning
|
1,713,272
|
303,703
|
441,341
|
6,317
|
15,448
|
2,480,080
|
|
Detailed
Design
|
-
|
155,402
|
1,075,291
|
416,046
|
133,255
|
1,779,994
|
|
Legal
Fees
|
-
|
6
|
28,570
|
65,501
|
30,222
|
124,299
|
|
Land
Acquisition and Compensation costs
|
-
|
-
|
20,865
|
122,680
|
36,117
|
179,661
|
|
Project Management
|
|
|
|
|
3,555
|
3,555
|
|
Enabling
works
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
17,690
|
24,825
|
42,515
|
|
Monitoring
and evaluation
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3,786
|
-
|
3,786
|
|
Spend
Total
|
1,713,272
|
459,111
|
1,566,067
|
632,020
|
243,421
|
4,613,891
|
1.9 ESCC
has received £4,542,567.14 of LUF funding to date, as well as
£211,000 Capacity and Capability funding. This would almost
certainly need to be paid back if the Government do not agree to
the change in project scope. Of this £2,900,619 has been
spent so far on the project. The NPIF funding would not need to be
paid back.
1.10 The current
deadline for spend of the LUF is March 2025 and therefore an
extension to March 2026 will need to be sought. However, it is not
guaranteed that Government will agree the PAR. The project cannot
progress until the PAR process has been completed.
1.11 The risk of costs
overrunning the above for any option will sit with the Council.
However, a robust quantified risk assessment has been carried out
(for Option B) to mitigate this.
Compulsory Purchase Order
1.12 In order to
secure the land assembly due to issues in acquiring the land by
agreement, Cabinet agreed on 18 July 2023 for the Council to make a
Compulsory Purchase Order, a Side Roads Order and a Bridge Scheme.
Consequently, on 3 October 2023, the Council in accordance with its
statutory powers under the Highways Act 1980 made the East Sussex
County Council (Exceat Bridge Replacement- A259 Eastbourne Road)
Compulsory Purchase Order 2023 (the CPO). At the same time, ESCC
made two separate orders under the Highways Act 1980, namely the
East Sussex County Council (Exceat Bridge Replacement- A259
Eastbourne Road) (Classified Road) (Side Roads) Order 2023 (the
Side Roads Order) and the East Sussex County Council (Exceat Bridge
Replacement- A259 Eastbourne Road) Bridge Scheme 2023 (the Bridge
Scheme).
1.13 Although the CPO,
the Side Roads Order and the Bridge Scheme (together the Orders)
have been made by the Council, they do not become effective unless
and until they are confirmed by the Secretary of State. In view of
the objections submitted with the DfT against the Orders, the DfT
has arranged a public inquiry to commence on 13 May 2025, which
will run for several days, following which a decision on the Orders
will be reached.
1.14 If, due to changing
financial circumstances, Cabinet agree not to proceed with the
original scheme (Option A) and to pursue Option B instead, this
will remove the justification for the Orders in the Council’s
Statement of Case. Accordingly, Cabinet is recommended to delegate
authority to the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport to
agree to the withdrawal of any or all the Orders, to notify the DfT
accordingly, and to take any other actions necessary to give effect
to the withdrawal of the Orders.
1.15 If any or all of
the Orders are withdrawn, the Council cannot rule out the
possibility of the landowners affected by the CPO making a
financial claim for any loss or costs they have incurred. However,
the Council will be able to manage and minimise those costs if the
decision to withdraw is actioned imminently.
2. Supporting
information
2.1 The
Project Team have kept LUF representatives from the DfT informed
and they are understanding of the issues the project has faced. As
set out above, a PAR has been submitted to the Government based on
Option B. However, their decision has not yet been received.
2.2 To take the project
forward, there are 3 potential options:
Option A: Continue with current
proposed new bridge with planning approval;
Option B: Replace the existing bridge like for like in the same
location (under permitted development rights which are subject to
confirmation from SDNPA);
Option C: Refurbish the existing bridge (at ESCC cost).
2.3 Details of each option are
set out in the table below, including risks and benefits. Further
information on the proposal for Option B is set out in Appendix
1.
Impact of road closures
2.4
Cabinet should note that Options B and C will require extensive
road closures for up to 22 weeks, which will cause major disruption
to the A259 coast road. The shortest alternative route is
through the villages of Litlington, Lullington and Alfriston. These
narrow lanes are not suitable for an official diversion which would
be via the A27. However, a diversion route can only be advisory and
drivers are likely to take shortcuts through the villages causing
unacceptable levels of traffic.
2.5
From Seaford (Sheep Pen Lane) to Eastbourne (Upperton Road) via
Exceat Bridge is 7.6 miles, which takes approximately 14 to 26
minutes at rush hour on a weekday. The diversion route via the A27
would be 21.3 miles, which takes approximately 35 to 75 minutes
during rush hour. (Source: Google Maps).
Figure 1: Route via Exceat Bridge
Figure 2: Diversion route
Traffic on the
A259
2.6 The
A259 is part of the major road network averaging an annual
daily traffic count of 11,500 vehicles with morning and evening
peaks of nearly 1,000 vehicles per hour. Around 1,000 people
work in Eastbourne from Seaford, Newhaven and Peacehaven, with
around 800 travelling to work by car. Additionally, around 1,300
people from Eastbourne work in Brighton. It is heavily
used by HGVs travelling between Eastbourne, Newhaven and
Seaford.
2.7 There
are 9 bus routes across the bridge. Brighton and Hove buses run up
to 6 buses per hour. This would have a significant impact on
people commuting between Newhaven, Eastbourne, Seaford and coastal
communities, children travelling to school and visitors to the
National Park.
Potential
Mitigations
2.8 It
may be possible to install a temporary footbridge to the south of
the bridge using existing bailey bridge footings. This would mean
that foot traffic could continue to cross the river during the road
closure. Although it appears this may be within scope of permitted
development, this relies on being able to evidence the bridge is
removable and will likely require approval from the SDNPA, which
could mean additional time to the programme.
2.9 If it
is possible to install a footbridge then buses may be able to
operate either side of the bridge with passengers walking over the
bridge to continue their journey. Although it may not be possible
for buses to turn around.
3. Conclusion
and reasons for recommendations
3.1
Regrettably, the original proposal to build a replacement bridge,
Option A, is no longer viable under the current financial position
of the Council. Option C is not a long-term solution given the age
and condition of the bridge, the need to repay LUF funding already
spent, and the need for further funding to replace it in the
future.
3.2
Although the preference would always be to complete the original
proposal for an offline two-lane replacement bridge, this is not
now possible. Cabinet is therefore recommended to agree to
discontinue Option A and to proceed with the alternative proposal
of Option B, namely the replacement of the existing bridge with a
single lane bridge and footway in the same location. In addition,
Cabinet is recommended to delegate authority to the Director of
Communities, Economy and Transport to agree to the withdrawal of
the Orders associated with Options A, notify the DfT accordingly
and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to the
withdrawal of the Orders.
RUPERT CLUBB
Director Communities
Economy and Transport
Contact Officer: Karl Taylor
Tel. No: 01273 482207
Email: karl.taylor@eastsussex.gov.uk
LOCAL MEMBERS
Councillors Adeniji, Lambert, MacCleary,
Stephen Shing, Denis, Bennett, Osborne, Collier, Robinson, Holt,
Swansborough, Shuttleworth, Wright, Ungar, Belsey, di Cara, Tutt
and Rodohan
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
None
