From CCC Website :-
Councillors are set to consider options for the future of a Whittlesey transport project at a meeting of the Economy and Environment Committee taking place in the town next week.
The need for a scheme to replace the current level crossing was identified in the 2001 Local Transport Plan and is needed to allow for housing and job growth within the town as well as reducing journey times for those that use the route. In peak periods the level crossing barrier can be down for between 12 and 23 minutes per hour, resulting in significant delays to traffic.
Options outlined to the committee are also being discussed with local residents at a public event on Monday (12 August) being held at the Whittlesey Christian Church on Broad Street.
Given delays and price increases that have been experienced with the current contractor Kier, the recommendation of the report is to go ahead with the project along the current route but to re-procure the contract using the design that has been developed over the last two years. The report notes that although this will mean the project is delivered later than originally planned, it will be significantly quicker than if other route options for the road are considered and will allow the market to be tested to ensure the price to build the scheme is competitive.
Cambridgeshire County Council’s Chair of the Economy and Environment Committee, Councillor Ian Bates said “We’ll be looking at all the options put forward in the report. We know this scheme is vital for the local community and the residents of Peterborough and we’ve worked tirelessly over the last 20 years to move it forward and secure Government funding. The public consultation in 2014 showed us that 95% of respondents supported the scheme and 58% preferred the route we chose to take on. The problems along the route aren’t going away and we’re fully committed to ensuring the future of the project is carefully considered and that we agree the best way forward, considering both time and the use of tax payers money.”
Correspondents to this website today:-
1/
Looks like it will be “flannel “ as usual
They say consultation of residents took place 30th Oct – 15th Dec 2014
827 responses were received 95% wanted a bridge 58% wanted the most expensive option (route chosen) unfortunately residents were apathetic and didn’t “turn up” or perhaps a more robust consultation could have taken place there were 16,058 residents in 2011 census
Early 1990’s CCC took the decision Star Pit could be excavated until 2042 for clay so should have been fully aware of the ground conditions. Plus of course Skanska and Mott Baker very early on ( wonder how early) provided consultants reports (also wonder if there were others) explaining ground conditions were poor standard piling methods not suitable and ground would require “making up” all of which would escalate costs.
Why were these reports ignored? A robust project management team would have graded the project at amber I would have thought definitely not green.
Then looking at Cambs times report the £4 million was paid for Churchfield is excessive for this area I do not know current values per acre for commercial land..
Anyway these are the questions I will be asking at “exhibition” if I am lucky enough to actually speak to someone.
I still await my letter from MP S Barclay and will share when in receipt of it.
(A)
2/
With such a low turnout for consultation project teams and cc committee should have advised the public of the great financial risks associated with the chosen scheme very early on.
What were their specific reasons for carrying on with this project knowing the risks involved.
The land purchase actually went through very late on in the process why buy the land When they knew of the other risks.
(B)
3/
Can I remind everyone that the most expensive option was the one being heavily promoted by the town Council, led by Cllr David Mason.
The cheaper options would have had fewer problems, less land would have had to be acquired, less road would be needed, no large roundabouts would be needed; all of which could have kept the cost down.
And I’m sure provision could have been made for the few cyclists who wish to cross the bypass without needing to build massive roundabouts. Having to make very costly provision for a few cyclists but delaying thousands of motorists is like building much needed houses because a newt! (sorry)
As the decision to take the current option was only based on a small majority, I think we should have another referendum, now we know all the facts.
(S)
4/
I like your thinking on the referendum comparison! Has anyone noticed that the drawings don’t actually show any connection with Star pit, there is a spur off the bridge where the railway is crossed and it lands on terra firma on the South side, if that was architecturally sound, star pit could be as unstable as you like with crocodiles living in the bottom (now there’s a thought).
Also, am I correct in thinking that the potentially asbestos strewn area is West of the proposed development (assuming this is a real thing). I understand that only a small proportion of the population expressed their opinions (5%) the old adage is that decisions are made by those that turn up!
(E)
5/
The full written report they anticipate 800 tons approx 35 large lorry loads with a strong possibility of more.
I have been told by somebody else the majority of the asbestos came from the site that is now Queensgate shopping centre !
Mr Mason did encourage the locals to support the current proposed scheme but I and others on the livery yard were also encouraged to select that proposal.
(L)
Disclaimer.
The maximum length of a Letter to RG’s Web-Blog is 500 words.
Letters to RG’s Web-Blog may be edited for length and clarity.
RG’s Web-Blog I may not publish more than two letters per writer per month.
RG’s Web-Blog will only print letters that address a specific issue theme or article.
I will not print material that is:
Potentially libelous.
Libel is any unsubstantiated or untrue statement that damages someone else’s reputation. You can disagree with someone, but you can’t claim they did something damaging unless you can prove it.
Discriminatory on any grounds
This includes discrimination based on age, ability, gender, sexual orientation, religion or culture.
Obscene.
This includes any statement that is vulgar, profane or offensive.
Threatening.
This includes personal attacks, intimidation, bullying or threat of harm against a person or organization
