Agenda item

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director – Environment relating to the applications and orders required to be promoted in order to secure powers to promote the Mersey Gateway Project (the “Project”), and seeking authority for a number of important matters relating to the Project outlined within the report.

 

It was noted that the provision of a second crossing of the River Mersey had been a long-held aspiration of the Council. The traffic bottleneck caused by the Silver Jubilee Bridge (SJB) had long been acknowledged as a social and economic constraint. Halton Borough Council had therefore begun to advance proposals and work had been undertaken by and on behalf of the Council between 2000 and 2003 focused on comparing potential alternatives to address problems associated with congestion in Halton. Through this process, certain regional and local objectives had been identified and these were set out in the report for information.

 

For any scheme to be successful, the Council required it to fulfil as many of the outlined objectives as possible to fit its environment and to be economically viable. Throughout the process a range of alternatives had been considered and those alternatives that satisfied the objectives, fitted their environment and were economically viable had then been considered further until a preferred solution had been identified.

 

A number of strategic alternatives with the potential to solve congestion problems in Halton and achieve the Council’s objectives been considered throughout the development of the project. These included making better use of existing infrastructure and options for increasing transport capacity. The main topics of investigation were outlined for Members.

 

Following a thorough assessment of each strategic alternative, it was concluded that a fixed crossing to the east of the SJB represented the only realistic option of delivering improvements in congestion and achieving the identified scheme objectives.

 

A series of alternative fixed routes had then been considered to the east of the SJB, all of which avoided the more environmentally sensitive lower reaches of the estuary. This concluded that an option known as Route 3A lay naturally on the design line for through traffic and was economic in connecting effectively with the Expressway Network to the north and south of the river.

 

The discussions with the Department of Transport, leading up to Programme Entry confirmation being granted in 2006, covered options from the Project. It was confirmed that Mersey Gateway should be delivered as a toll road and a road user charger machine would also extend to the existing SJB in order to deliver the programme benefits within the limited funding agreed with Government. In developing the project, and as an expression of its ongoing corporate support for the project, Halton Borough Council had identified revised strategic objectives for the Mersey Gateway Project, which were outlined for the Board’s consideration. It could be seen from this that the Project would provide substantial transportation, environmental and regeneration benefits. Where the environmental statements submitted with the planning applications for certain parts of the projects revealed some adverse affects, these were few and – balanced against the benefits of the Project – were much more than outweighed by its positive aspects.

 

In light of this, a compelling case existed, in the public interest, for the promotion and delivery of the Project, including the acquisition of necessary land.

 

The consultation process undertaken so far was outlined for the Board’s consideration and it was advised that, in response to the aspirations of the Borough Council, the needs of the Highway and Transportation Network, and as a product of the consultation outlined, it had been possible to advance to a stage where a design for the Project could be identified. This then had certain additional characteristics in terms of other, ancillary aspects that were described in further detail within the report covering:

 

·               route description;

·               Area A – main toll plaza;

·               Area B – Ditton Junction to freightline;

·               Area C – freightline to St. Helens Canal;

·               Area D – Mersey Gateway Bridge;

·               Area E – Astmoor Viaduct;

·               Area F – Bridgewater Junction;

·               Area G – Central Expressway, Lodge Lane Junction and Weston Link Junction;

·               Area H – M56 Junction 12; and

·               Area I – Silver Jubilee Bridge and Widnes de-linking.

 

It could be seen that the works comprised in the Project were both extensive and complex and, in addition to authority to carry out these works, the Project comprised certain other elements that were not works; these also required statutory authority.

 

It was anticipated that the Project would be procured as a Design Build Finance and Operate (DBFO) scheme. This meant that an organisation, known as a concessionaire, would be responsible for the detailed design and construction of the scheme. The concessionaire would also have to obtain finance that allowed it to construct, operate and maintain the scheme for a defined period. They would repay the finance that they had raised over the period of the contract that they had agreed to, known as the concession period. For schemes of this nature the concession period was typically 30 – 40 years. Although the Department for Transport (DfT) was contributing funding for the project, the scheme would be funded mainly through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), which meant that the concessionaire would have to raise the money through private finance methods, such as a loan from a bank supported by PFI credit payments from the DfT.

 

The finance for the Project would rely on revenue recovered from users of the project through tolling and road user charging. To ensure robust revenue forecast and to ensure that the project would ease local congestion, it was proposed that tolls/charges be levied for use of both the new bridge and the SJB. The tolling/charging regimes would also provide a mechanism to manage demand so that freeflow traffic conditions were maintained on the new bridge. This was intended to achieve demonstrable service reliability and standards.

 

In order to obtain authority to carry out these works and to secure the additional powers described, the applications described within the report were needed and could be divided into two broad categories:

 

·               Main works – these were shown on the plan at Appendix 1 to the report edged in blue; and

·               Remote works, including SJB – these were shown on the plan at Appendix 1 edged in red.

 

Further information about statutory authority in relation to these works, and how it was to be sought, was outlined within the report.

 

Reason for Decision

 

The recommended decisions were required to support the delivery of Mersey Gateway.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Alternative options for securing the powers to construct, maintain and operate, including tolling, the Mersey Gateway Project had been assessed and rejected.

 

Implementation Date

 

The recommended decisions were required before the next phase of the statutory process took place in May 2008.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)       the contents of the report be noted;

 

(2)       full Council be recommended that, in accordance with the terms of Section 239 of the Local Government Act 1972, it should resolve to promote an order under the provisions of Section 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 authorising the construction of works that interfere with navigation and certain other matters explained elsewhere within the report;

 

(3)            consultation be commenced in relation to a Road User Charging Order under the provisions of Part 3 of the Transport Act 2000, imposing charges on motorists for the use of the Silver Jubilee Bridge; and

 

(4)       the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, be authorised to take such steps as are necessary and appropriate to give effect to the above.