Select committee inquiry
Transport Infrastructure in the South West inquiry
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“In December 2014, the Department for Transport introduced a new regime of 5-yearly road investment strategies to improve the management of England’s strategic road network. As part of the first Road Investment Strategy, the Department announced plans to upgrade the A303/A358 road corridor to the South West by 2029 to improve road connectivity. This includes the £1.7 billion (£1.9 billion including VAT) project to upgrade the road between Amesbury and Berwick Down and a tunnel (the Stonehenge tunnel) under the World Heritage Site. The NAO’s recent report found that the financial return on investment for the Stonehenge tunnel is low for road projects: offering a return of £1.15 for every £1 spent. In February 2019, we raised concerns about how HM Treasury and the Department planned to fund the Stonehenge tunnel project, following the decision not to sign future PFI/PF2 deals. We will be asking the Department and Highways England about the Stonehenge tunnel project, and other projects along the A303/A358 corridor, seeking answers on how they will be funded. The Committee will also be using this evidence session to raise a number of other issues with the Department. The Committee will be questioning officials on transport infrastructure in the South West and in particular will be asking for an update on the Great Western railway modernisation programme and intends to cover the A417 roundabout in the Cotswolds. The session will also provide an opportunity for Members to question the Department about its decision to award contracts to provide additional freight capacity on ferry services. The Committee has questioned the Department on this before in February but this will provide an opportunity to consider the matter in light of the out-of-court settlement with Eurotunnel and the NAO’s memorandum on the matter which was published earlier this month.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of 104th Report - Transport infrastructure in the South West ↗
After several failed attempts, the government believes that it now has a Stonehenge tunnel scheme that is affordable, deliverable and has the support of heritage and environmental bodies. However, decisions on how to fund the project are on the critical path for the planned opening date of 2026 and are now at the mercy of the much-awaited Spending Review. Delaying those decisions further will jeopardise the opening date.
The Stonehenge tunnel project, expected to cost around £1.7 billion (excluding VAT), is a key part of the government’s plans for the A303 road corridor. The Department and Highways England expect it to deliver significant heritage benefits as well as easing road congestion. Yet the Department and Highways England do not yet have a clear idea of what improvements they are expecting to see at the World Heritage Site and the surrounding area. The Department and Highways England aspire to upgrading the whole A303 road corridor to dual carriageway standard to improve connectivity and support economic growth in the South West. However, it is not yet certain that all eight road improvement projects needed to do this will go ahead. So far, the Department has only committed to starting three out of the eight projects required along the route.
With improvements to only some parts of the road corridor, traffic congestion is likely to be eased at some points but pushed to other sections of the road. Similarly, the contribution of any one project to enabling growth in jobs and housing is undermined if neighbouring projects to provide a free-flowing and reliable road connection are not given the go-ahead.
It will be extremely challenging to deliver the South West road improvements to cost and time, and the Department does not have a good track record in delivering major projects. The region needs a properly integrated transport strategy, going beyond road to incorporate rail, sea and air, but the bodies tasked with delivering this strategy are still very immature.
What the government said
No government response is linked to this report.
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 5 June 2019 to 9 March 2020.
- Oral evidence 5 Jun 2019
- Report 3 Jul 2019
- Correspondence 2 letters
What it recommended 3 recommendations · 32 conclusions
1If uncertainty about funding is not resolved before 2020, the timetable and viability of Stonehenge...
Concluded (the committee's words)
If uncertainty about funding is not resolved before 2020, the timetable and viability of Stonehenge tunnel project will be put at risk. The Stonehenge tunnel project was to be financed under the PF2 private finance initiative but in October 2018, the Chancellor cancelled future private finance deals, including for this project. The Department says that it and HM Treasury remain committed to the project and the Treasury has released funding of £21.5 million during 2019–20 to allow the project to keep going. However, the Department does not expect to fund the project from its £25.3 billion draft funding envelope for the second Road Investment Strategy (2020 to 2025). It intends to make a case to HM Treasury for additional funding for the project as part of the next Spending Review, the timing of which is still uncertain. The Department says that only having a one-year settlement would raise questions about whether the scheme could continue to the same timeframe. Highways England says that it must have funding certainty by the end of the year if it is to begin the commercial process to find a construction contractor in the first quarter of next year and keep to its 2026 target opening date. It says that without funding clarity, potential suppliers will not be willing to incur the high bidding costs involved. The Department’s view is that “if we want this scheme to continue, and to continue in a sensible and efficient way to the current project timeframe, we cannot wait another year, or however long it takes to carry out a spending review.” Recommendation: The Department and Highways England must plan for what alternative funding arrangements or delivery plans it could put in place, in the event that HM Treasury does not confirm longer term funding by the end of the year.
2It will be extremely challenging to deliver the South West road improvements to cost and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It will be extremely challenging to deliver the South West road improvements to cost and time. The Department does not have a good track record in delivering major projects. Decisions on how to finance the Stonehenge tunnel project have already delayed it by two years and the timetable looks very challenging. We understand that between now and 2021, when construction is scheduled to start, as well as getting clarity over funding, Highways England must also obtain the necessary planning consents, negotiate with contractors to find a preferred supplier and complete the detailed design for the project. Highways England and the Department are nonetheless confident that they can deliver the Stonehenge Tunnel project by 2026 and the A358 Taunton to Southfields project, for which the preferred route announcement is at least six months late, by March 2025. They are similarly confident that they can deliver the projects within budget. Given the Department’s performance on other major projects in recent years, for example Crossrail, where costs have overrun to the tune of nearly £3 billion and the timetable extended by at least one year, we are more cautious. Recommendation: The Department and Highways England should write to us in six months with an update on the Stonehenge tunnel and A358 projects, including updated cost estimates, risk assessments, and an up to date schedule and confirmation of the latest planned open to traffic dates. 6 Transport infrastructure in the South West
3The Department and Highways England do not yet have a clear picture of what improvements...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department and Highways England do not yet have a clear picture of what improvements they are expecting for the World Heritage Site and the surrounding area. The Stonehenge tunnel project has both heritage and transport benefits. Despite heritage benefits making up 73% of total business case benefits, the Department for Transport is funding the project. By removing much of the road from view, the Department and Highways England plan to help conserve and enhance the World Heritage Site and make it easier to reach and explore. For such a large investment in one of the World’s greatest heritage sites, we expect there to be innovative schemes for encouraging more people to visit the site and the surrounding areas. Yet the Department could not point to any specific plans for what tangible benefits visitors and local people who live near the site are likely to see. Recommendation: Within 3 months the Department and Highways England should set out how they will be working with Historic England, English Heritage, the National Trust and wider stakeholders to develop plans for making the most of improvements to the World Heritage Site and local area, and set out when the public will be able to view these plans.
4The Department and Highways England’s piecemeal approach to upgrading the A303/A358 makes it more difficult...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Department and Highways England’s piecemeal approach to upgrading the A303/A358 makes it more difficult to demonstrate value for money across the whole road corridor. In 2014, in its first five-year Road Investment Strategy, the Department made a long-term commitment to upgrade the A303/A358 corridor to a dual carriageway over the following fourteen years. The Department now describes its plans for the entire A303/A358 corridor as an aspiration rather than a commitment. It committed £2 billion to starting three projects at Stonehenge, Sparkford and Taunton, out of a total of eight needed, by March 2021. The Department and Highways England expect the impact from completing the whole corridor to be greater than the sum of its parts but they have not produced a programme level business case to demonstrate this. Instead, each project’s business case must stand on its own merits and will be considered alongside other priorities across the country. However, considering business cases for the five uncommitted projects individually, rather than as part of a programme, may mean that some projects are not approved. If they are not all approved, the Department will struggle to deliver its strategic ambitions to deliver a free-flowing route to the South West and unlock growth in jobs and housing. Furthermore, congestion relieved on one section of upgraded road may simply be pushed along to the next section of single carriageway. the road. The Department agrees that it would be sensible to follow a more programmatic approach when considering value for money, for example, in setting clear objectives for the corridor, sequencing the individual projects and in capturing and managing corridor-level benefits. Recommendation: The Department and Highways England should set out how assessment of business cases for individual projects will take account of benefits which depend on the completion of other projects which may or may not be subsequently approved.
5The sub-national transport bodies in the South West are not yet mature enough to develop...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The sub-national transport bodies in the South West are not yet mature enough to develop or implement an integrated transport strategy for the region. The Department’s recent publication ‘Investing in the South West’ is more of a list of projects that are already planned or underway than a strategy. The Department says Transport infrastructure in the South West 7 that it will be for the newly established sub-national transport bodies in the South West, Peninsula Transport and Western Gateway, to determine a transport strategy for the region, with the Department’s support. It expects these bodies to bring together the economic expertise of the LEPs with transport planning expertise to help deliver an economic vision for the region. The South West bodies are less than a year old, they have not yet approached the Department for funding and it could be some time before they are able to deliver a strategy and carry out real value-added functions on behalf of the whole region. Recommendation: The Department should set out how it will support and monitor the development of sub-national transport bodies in their efforts to deliver an effective integrated transport strategy for the South West.
6While the government is committed to building a new sea wall at Dawlish and other...
Concluded (the committee's words)
While the government is committed to building a new sea wall at Dawlish and other elements of the South West Rail Resilience Programme, there remains much to be resolved in respect of the nearby work required to protect the railway line. In February 2014, when flooding in the South West of England washed the seawall supporting the railway line at Dawlish into the sea, the then Prime Minister promised that money was no object in the relief effort. Four years later, the Department announced up to £80 million of further funding for a long-term solution at Dawlish and we understand that work to build a higher seawall is now underway. However, there are local concerns about the height of the wall and it is not clear what impact this will have on the project. There are also other aspects of the wider South West Rail Resilience Programme to finalise, and which are subject to local consultation, obtaining the relevant consents, and producing a robust business case for the works. Recommendation: The Department should write to us by the end of December 2019 with an update on progress with the South West Rail Resilience Programme, how it is working to resolve any local disagreements and the latest schedule for completion. 8 Transport infrastructure in the South West 1 Improving the South West road corridor
7Highways England told us that it was funded this financial year with all the money...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Highways England told us that it was funded this financial year with all the money needed to progress the scheme in that period. However, it said it had made it clear to the Department that even with approximately £50 million that it will need next financial year to keep the project going, it needed clarity on the funding before the end of the year. It said it needed this for two reasons: first, in order to engage with the market, as the procurement would involve significant costs on the side of the supply chain and it needed to go to the market with an engagement notice towards the end of the year; and second, that it had been almost impossible to prepare a Development Consent Order (DCO) without funding clarity. Highways England confirmed that, until funding decisions are made, the (DCO) process and other work was continuing as if the project were going to be funded.7
8The Spending Review has already been delayed, and we drew attention to the Chief Secretary...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Spending Review has already been delayed, and we drew attention to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s recent comments that there may be further delay.8 The Department said that, recognising the political uncertainties, it (a three-year spending review) might not ultimately be possible at this time. The Department said that a one- year settlement is not out of the question, but that this was not the formal position of the Government at the moment. But if it were the position then it would need to have a conversation with the Treasury about whether to ask Highways England to continue to make progress on the scheme to the same timeframe on the understanding that it would be funded. The Department said that “if we want this scheme to continue, and to continue in a sensible and efficient way to the current project timeframe, we cannot wait another year, or however long it takes to carry out a spending review.”9 Highways England reiterated the need for a funding decision by the end of the year, so that it could engage with the market in the first quarter of next year and suppliers could in turn engage with a high degree of confidence that the project would go ahead.10 Delivering within budget and on time
9As stated earlier, the expected range of costs for the Stonehenge tunnel project is £1.5...
Concluded (the committee's words)
As stated earlier, the expected range of costs for the Stonehenge tunnel project is £1.5 billion to £2.4 billion, and the Department and Highways England expect the upgraded road section to be open to traffic by December 2026.11 Key risks that the Department and Highways England will need to manage include: • Failure of the development consent order application. Highways England applied to the Planning Inspectorate in October 2018 for consent, which is not guaranteed; • Archaeological risks. There remains a risk that as yet unidentified sites of interest may be discovered during construction; 6 Q 67 7 Q 70 8 Q 71; Select Committee on Economic Affairs, oral evidence on the spending review, Tuesday 4 June 2019 (Q 2) 9 Qq 71–73 10 Qq 83–84, 87 11 C&AG’s Report para 5 Transport infrastructure in the South West 11 • Construction risks, both geological and engineering. For example, the discovery of further phosphatic chalk deposits, of unstable cavities, or the ground level sinking excessively as a result of tunnelling below; and • Capability and capacity risks.12
10The Department told us it had learned from experience on other projects that it was...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department told us it had learned from experience on other projects that it was sensible at this stage of development to have a cost range for a project of this scale, rather than to fixate on a single number, given the level of uncertainty. That said, it and Highways England also said they had a most likely delivery cost for the Stonehenge tunnel of £1.9 billion, or £1.7 billion excluding VAT. The Department said it had every reason to believe that was “a sensible, prudent but robust estimate at this point, in particular, because a huge amount of work has gone in over five or six years.” The Department highlighted work over recent years to understand the nature of the scheme, establish the scope and gain independent assurance.13 It added that it had learned that a scheme is only deliverable if it meets three distinct success criteria: first, it has to be affordable; second, it has to have a sensible economic case; and third, it has to have the support of the environmental bodies that look after the site. “What is very different about this scheme, compared with the experience of the last 20 years, is that we have all those three things in place. We are in a unique position to deliver something successful.”14
11On skills and capacity, Highways England said that, in the four years since Highways England...
Concluded (the committee's words)
On skills and capacity, Highways England said that, in the four years since Highways England was formed, it had done a great deal of work in upskilling to be able to deliver complex projects. It had formed a complex infrastructure projects division and recruited people with relevant skills from the private sector. It said it had 1,000 more people now with commercial, programme management and engineering skills than it had four years ago, and also used external advice where needed.15 Highways England added that it had changed many of its contracting arrangements for the next Road Investment Strategy period and was in “a very good place in terms of having the contracting skills to do this”.16 It said it would draw on its experience of the A14, which it said has been held up as best practice on contracting for a major infrastructure project, in setting up and delivering the contract.17
12On cost, Highways England said that the upper end of the range, £2.4 billion was...
Concluded (the committee's words)
On cost, Highways England said that the upper end of the range, £2.4 billion was becoming less likely as time went on, because it knew that some of the risks included would not materialise or were now more unlikely to materialise. The Chief Executive commented “I intend to build it for £1.7 billion.”18 Highways England added that it considered £1.7 billion to be a robust cost estimate because it had people on site and had done a great deal of geotechnical work, understanding the water table, geology and much of the archaeology. “We are confident that we have a good programme and a good budget for this.” Highways England said it was satisfied that the surveys it had done were sufficiently complete that it was not going to find any unexpected surprises.19 12 C&AG’s Report para 3.11 13 Q 43 14 Q 50 15 Q 44 16 Q 81 17 Q 77 18 Q 45 19 Qq 75, 76 12 Transport infrastructure in the South West
13The Department added a slight note of caution, commenting that while “the scheme is well...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department added a slight note of caution, commenting that while “the scheme is well planned and the timetable set out for it is credible and deliverable”, with projects of this complexity one could never be 100% certain that all will go exactly to plan. It said it would ensure that fixation on dates does not cause perverse outcomes, but there is no reason to suppose that delivery dates could not be met.20 The Crossrail programme has highlighted how early fixation on a challenging timetable can result in further delays and cost escalation as work is done in parallel to attempt to meet the expected deadline.21 As we reported in April this year, costs on Crossrail have overrun to the tune of nearly £3 billion and services on the central section will be delayed by at least a year.22
14In October 2018, Highways England applied to the Planning Inspectorate for development consent for the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In October 2018, Highways England applied to the Planning Inspectorate for development consent for the Stonehenge tunnel. An application begins a review period for the public and other interested parties to comment on the proposals. The Planning Inspectorate will advise the Secretary of State for Transport on whether to proceed.23 Highways England confirmed that its Development Consent Order (DCO) work was complete. The Department said it expected the Planning Inspectorate to have done its work by the end of October 2019. The project has support in principle from stakeholders such as the National Trust and English Heritage, and the Department said that the huge amount of work already done with environmental bodies should stand the DCO process in good stead. Nevertheless, there remains a risk that certain aspects may still be challenged by those stakeholders or other interested parties during the Planning Inspectorate’s review.24 The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has voiced concerns about the current project and made proposals including the option of a longer tunnel. The Department acknowledged the importance of the UNESCO perspective, but said it was disappointed with UNESCO’s position, pointing to the need for Government to consider affordability and that the extra tunnelling would increase costs by around £1.2 billion.25 Highways England confirmed that, while it could do specification and scoping work now, detailed design work could only take place after the DCO process, when it would enter the next stage of ‘constructive dialogue’ with three or four major tunnel contractors.26
15The A358 project is one of the others committed to within the first Road Investment...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The A358 project is one of the others committed to within the first Road Investment Strategy. The project is to upgrade the A358 to a dual carriageway between the junction with the A303 at Southfields roundabout and junction 25 of the M5 near Taunton.27 Highways England confirmed that the project would be a year late because it had had to carry out a second public consultation. The first consultation had only considered one option, respondents had wanted to see more options, and as a result of the second consultation Highways England had moved to an option which gave a shorter route and better development opportunities in the area, but which was more expensive.28 An announcement was due in autumn 2018 on the preferred A358 route and had still not been made at the time we took evidence. Highways England said that it would still expect the road to be open by summer 2024, as indicated previously, and certainly by the end of the second Road Investment Strategy period, which would be spring 2025. It explained 20 Q 77 21 C&AG’s Report, para 3.6 22 Committee of Public Accounts, Crossrail: progress review, Session 2017–19, HC 2004, 3 April 2019 23 C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 24 Qq 79, 80; C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 25 Qq 51, 52; C&AG’s Report, paras 8, 1.17, 3.14 26 Q 78 27 C&AG’s Report, Appendix Three, para 4 28 Qq 100–103; C&AG’s Report, Appendix Three, paras 5, 6 Transport infrastructure in the South West 13 that the advantage of not doing the schemes all as one programme was that the A358 could be taken as an independent scheme and should still be built irrespective of the fate of other schemes around it.29
16The first A358 option put out to public consultation had an estimated cost of £251...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The first A358 option put out to public consultation had an estimated cost of £251 million. Highways England now estimates that it could cost up to £452 million.30 It said that the A358 project had quite a low benefits to cost ratio and that it was “a difficult road to build”, but it had found ways to keep it affordable through a combination of reduced costs of new contracting arrangements and moving money across from other projects that had come in under budget.31 Highways England said that while it expects the A358 project to be more expensive than it originally expected, it was bringing its wider portfolio of projects in on or around budget.
17We drew attention to concerns highlighted by Ian Liddell-Grainger MP about the vague figures quoted...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We drew attention to concerns highlighted by Ian Liddell-Grainger MP about the vague figures quoted on the Highways England website for the A358 upgrade, and about why investment was not being made alternatively in the M5. Highways England agreed to engage directly with Mr Liddell-Grainger and to review whether its website properly reflected the latest cost position.32 The benefits of the Stonehenge tunnel project
18The high cost of building a tunnel, compared with widening or moving the road, means...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The high cost of building a tunnel, compared with widening or moving the road, means that under the standard method for appraising transport projects, the project would only deliver 31p of benefit for every £1 spent. Highways England therefore expanded its appraisal to include a monetary value for cultural heritage, to reflect the project’s wider objectives. At £955 million (2010 prices and discounted) these make up 73% of total monetised benefits. With these included, Highways England expects the project to deliver £1.15 of benefit for every £1 spent, which the Department considers low value for money. While Highways England has been clear about the traffic and heritage issues the project will address, it has set few clear quantitative measures with which it can assess the future success of the project.33
19Highways England told us that in its view the transport and heritage benefits were indivisible,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Highways England told us that in its view the transport and heritage benefits were indivisible, and one had to accept that if you are to connect the south-west to the south-east, you have to handle Stonehenge in the most sympathetic, proactive, caring manner that you can. Its view was that the current project is the best answer for both what is an internationally recognised world heritage site and a strong economic need. The Department agreed, also stressing that the section of road was the most important part of the road corridor in terms of traffic congestion and bottlenecks.34 The Department also said it was important in its view to take account of all the impacts of the scheme, directly transport-related or not, and was appropriate to construct the business case using an innovative approach to assessing the value of having the heritage asset better protected.35 29 Qq 118–119 30 C&AG’s Report, Appendix Three, para 5 31 Qq 100, 104–107 32 Qq 114, 116, 117 33 C&AG’s Report, paras 9, 2.4 34 Qq 46, 48 35 Qq 56, 57 14 Transport infrastructure in the South West
20We asked about the Department supporting Highways England to work with other government departments, local...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked about the Department supporting Highways England to work with other government departments, local authorities and heritage bodies to achieve the project’s full benefit. The Department told us that the project had required very close working with a range of stakeholders, with relationships well established and that Highways England would want to continue with this throughout development and delivery of the project, and Highways England said it would continue to engage in that way.36
21We asked whether the Department and Highways England had come up with any innovative schemes...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked whether the Department and Highways England had come up with any innovative schemes to make it easy for people to visit and encourage as many visitors as possible to the World Heritage Site. The Department said that the way in which the scheme is designed—the green area over the top of the tunnels, the new access and landscaping—means the site will become much more accessible for both visitors and local people and make it a much more usable piece of public space. However, when we pressed for something more specific, we were not provided with examples. The Department said that some of the conversations (with stakeholders) were at a relatively early stage and told us that there was potential for really constructive conversations with all local partners. It said that it had a few more years to work through exactly what the plans for improvements would be.37 The approach to upgrading the entire A303/A358 corridor
22The Department and Highways England have chosen not to produce an overarching programme-level business case...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department and Highways England have chosen not to produce an overarching programme-level business case for the A303/A358 despite initial plans to create one. Instead, they will approve the eight projects individually. But each project on its own can only fully deliver strategic objectives as part of a completed A303/A358 corridor. If it does not complete all eight projects, the Department will struggle to deliver all its strategic objectives. Taking projects individually, Highways England currently considers the five uncommitted projects along the corridor as low to poor value for money, which may mean that other projects with better economic cases are prioritised.38
23The Department confirmed that it had no formal commitment to the remaining five projects and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department confirmed that it had no formal commitment to the remaining five projects and that they would be considered on a case-by-case basis during the course of the second Road Investment Strategy period (2020 to 2025). It said that it had been an “aspiration rather than a commitment” in the first Road Investment Strategy to have dealt with all eight by 2029.39 The Department said that all eight projects had their own merits and need to stand or fall as independent projects, but also confirmed that there are programme-wide benefits which crystallise at the point when the entire corridor is dealt with.40
24The Department explained that a programme-level assessment done earlier had added something like £273 million...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department explained that a programme-level assessment done earlier had added something like £273 million of benefits to the whole. But the Department had chosen to treat them as individual projects to ensure they were taken in a sequence and time scale that was affordable, deliverable and value for money. Looking at each project on its own merits would allow them to be both responsive and flexible in delivering them. The Department referred to the NAO having made a sensible recommendation on programme- 36 Q 89 37 Qq 90, 91 38 C&AG’s Report paras 10–12 39 Q 47 40 Q 55 Transport infrastructure in the South West 15 level evaluation and consideration, which it needed to keep under close review.41 That recommendation covered the need to demonstrate value for money of investments along the A303/358, reflecting: clear, measurable objectives for the whole road corridor; clarity on sequencing; analysis and capturing of benefits; the need for investment in subsequent projects along the corridor; and transparency about the basis for approving projects that contribute to wider strategy.42 Highways England added that it had had to prioritise which projects across the country it would deliver over the next five years because: the total money available over that period is capped; it had to consider the road-building skills bases in each region; and road users would have a miserable time if work was being done simultaneously to several different stretches of the same road.43
25We challenged the Department and Highways England further on the risk of ending up with...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We challenged the Department and Highways England further on the risk of ending up with improvements to the complete road corridor only partially completed, and why the improvements were not being treated as one project with several parts, rather than as eight individual projects. The Department reiterated that government had “a broad ambition” to deliver all eight projects, while stressing the need to still consider priorities across the country. Highways England said it could not over-promise given the constraints of a five-year funding settlement and what it could deliver for that. It also said that the road user would get immediate and measurable benefit as each section of road, such as the Stonehenge tunnel, was opened.44 Highways England also said that, if there were no barriers to delivering the eight projects, sensibly sequenced, the work might be delivered in five to ten years.45 Highways England acknowledged that not doing all eight projects as one programme had certain disadvantages. But it also said that the advantage was that, once a project was approved it is an independent scheme that stands on its own merits, and should therefore still be built regardless of the fate of other schemes around it.46 41 Q 61 42 C&AG’s Report, recommendation b 43 Q 61 44 Qq 62, 63 45 Qq 65, 66 46 Q 119 16 Transport infrastructure in the South West 2 Wider strategy for transport in the South West of England Developing an integrated transport strategy
26In February 2019 the Department published Investing in the South West.47 We noted that the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In February 2019 the Department published Investing in the South West.47 We noted that the document was more a list of projects in the region rather than a strategy. The Department said that its publication was a good summary, drawing together the different investments in the region and had sought to paint a picture of how various investments taken together were trying to create a more integrated and better-connected region.48 But the Department acknowledged that the question of whether it was a strategy document was a different matter. It described its approach as being to support the region in delivering its own strategy rather than having a central government strategy about the region.49
27The Department described how there were now two new sub-national transport bodies—Peninsula Transport and Western...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department described how there were now two new sub-national transport bodies—Peninsula Transport and Western Gateway.50 It told us that Peninsula Transport covers Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, and that Western Gateway covers the West of England Combined Authority, Bath and North East Somerset, Gloucestershire and Dorset.51 The Department wrote to us after the evidence session confirming which local authorities, LEPs and other bodies such as Highways England, Network Rail and Homes England were members of each of the two sub-national bodies.52 The Department told us that the sub-national bodies will look at the economic vision for the area and help it to understand how transport can help support that economic vision. It considered that to be a better way of answering the strategic question, rather than having that come from Whitehall—“not us doing a strategy for the south-west, but us helping the south-west do its own strategy.”53 The Department also commented that the bodies were very new and still forming, less than a year old, and that it was expecting them to come to the Department with a proposal for funding and for a strategic planning process later in the year.54
28The Department further explained that the two sub-national transport bodies were collections of elected members...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department further explained that the two sub-national transport bodies were collections of elected members from across the region who could offer a pan-regional perspective about connectivity across the region to help make sure that better decisions are made.55 It said that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) were generally constituent members of the bodies and that LEPs have unique expertise in understanding what the economic vision is for an area and what practical steps need to be taken to realise that vision. It considered that the sub-national bodies were the right way to bring that expertise together with transport expertise and come up with a plan that delivers both at the same time.56 47 Department for Transport, Investing in the South West, 15 February 2019 48 Qq 133, 134 49 Q 135 50 Q 136 51 Q 145 52 Letter from the Department for Transport, 11 June 2019 53 Q 135 54 Qq 144, 145 55 Q 136 56 Qq 141, 143 Transport infrastructure in the South West 17 Improving resilience at Dawlish
29Autumn and winter 2013 and 2014 saw the wettest period in the south of England...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Autumn and winter 2013 and 2014 saw the wettest period in the south of England for 250 years and led to flooding and widespread disruption. In February 2014, severe flooding caused 100 metres of Network Rail’s sea wall at Dawlish to collapse into the sea leading to the closure of the mainline railway.57 In April 2014, after eight weeks of repairs, the train line re-opened.58
30We asked about longer-term resilience, in particular the project to build a new sea wall...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked about longer-term resilience, in particular the project to build a new sea wall at Dawlish, and whether work would carry on despite ongoing discussions between Teignbridge District Council and the town council about the height of the sea wall. The Department told us that it had announced £80 million of further funding for the project, that it understood contracts had been awarded and that the first phase of work was underway. It said that Network Rail had been working hard to ensure that stakeholder and local concerns about the height of the sea wall were being managed but that there was a balance to be struck between a sea wall that keeps the sea off the track and one that is no more visually intrusive than it needs to be for people who live in the area.59
31The Department told us it understood that Network Rail was announcing a consultation about treatment...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department told us it understood that Network Rail was announcing a consultation about treatment of the cliffs around Teignmouth and would be addressing local concerns.60 Network Rail has now launched a public consultation on proposals to realign the railway line, which runs from 10 June to 15 July 2019.61
32We asked about the status of other parts of the project in addition to the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We asked about the status of other parts of the project in addition to the sea wall including the tunnels and the cliffs. The Department replied that the £80 million would not all be spent on the sea wall and that it understood that the cliffs would be addressed by £15 million of funding that was separate from and additional to the £80 million.62
33The Department wrote to us after the evidence session providing further information, which included that:...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department wrote to us after the evidence session providing further information, which included that: the first phase of work funded by the £80 million, to build a new sea wall at Dawlish, stretches from Boat Cove/Kennaway Tunnel to the Colonnades and will be completed in early 2020; the second phase will extend the sea wall from Colonnades to Coastguard’s Ramp, including Dawlish station, and will require local authority consent for any changes affecting the station, subject to which work is expected to start Spring 2020 and finish Spring 2021; and Network Rail is continuing to develop solutions for other elements of the South West Rail Resilience Programme, to be funded by the separate £15 million, including protection between the tunnels at Dawlish and from the cliffs at Teignmouth. The Department also stated that work between Teignmouth and Holcombe/ Parsons Tunnel would require the submission of a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO), and that Network Rail was currently consulting local communities as part of developing the TWAO application, with a view to submitting it next year. Funding for delivery of these further elements of the Resilience Programme will also be subject to production of a robust business case.63 57 C&AG’s report, Strategic flood risk management, Session 2014–15, HC 780, 14 November 2014 58 Department for Transport, PM attends reopening of the Dawlish railway line, 4 April 2014 59 Q 129 60 Q 130 61 Network Rail, Parson’s Tunnel to Teignmouth Resilience Project 62 Q 130 63 Letter from the Department for Transport, 11 June 2019 18 Transport infrastructure in the South West
34The report deals with the 8 projects along the A303/A358 corridor to improve the road...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The report deals with the 8 projects along the A303/A358 corridor to improve the road connectivity into the South West. It therefore seems highly appropriate to consider other roads in other parts of the South West. The A417 is another important gateway into the South West because it links the M5 to the M4. The project would cut an HGV journey by up to half an hour when travelling between the M5 and M4. The Department assured us they are continuing with the preferred route consultation this summer and at the same time work will continue with the Development Consent Order process.64
35Gross Domestic Product per capita is lower in the South West than the UK average.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Gross Domestic Product per capita is lower in the South West than the UK average. The most recent year that we have full data for is 2017 when the region accounted for 7.2% of total UK economic output but had 8.4% of the population. As a largely rural area, further investment in its connectivity is vital to ensure the region continues to attract business and jobs so that it can thrive. 64 Q99 Transport infrastructure in the South West 19
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 5 Jun 2019No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗
Correspondence 2 letters
- 9 Mar 2020Correspondence from Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Executive, Highways England regarding Transport Infrastructure in the South West, 17 June 2019
- 18 Jun 2019Letter from Bernadette Kelly to Chair following up to hearing on 5 June regarding Transport Infrastructure in the South West - dated 11 June 2019To committee