Minutes of a meeting of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee held at County Hall, Glenfield on Thursday, 9 June 2016.

PRESENT

Mr. I. E. G. Bentley CC Mr. D. Jennings CC Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr. A. E. Pearson CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mr. S. D. Sheahan CC Mr. J. G. Coxon CC Mr. D. A. Sprason CC Mr. S. J. Hampson CC

In attendance.

Mr. P. Osborne CC, Lead Member for Highways and Transport, Flooding (minutes 11 – 15 refer).

1. Appointment of Chairman.

RESOLVED:

That Mr. D. Jennings CC be appointed Chairman of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the period ending with the date of the Annual Meeting of the County Council in 2017.

(Mr. D. Jennings CC in the Chair)

2. Election of Deputy Chairman.

RESOLVED:

That Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC be elected Deputy Chairman of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the period ending with the date of the Annual Meeting of the County Council in 2017.

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2016 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

4. Question Time.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35.

5. Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

2

6. Urgent items.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

7. Declarations of interest.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

Mr. S. Sheahan CC and Mr. J. Coxon CC each declared a personal interest in regard to item 12 on the agenda, ‘Draft Rail Strategy for and Leicestershire’ as they owned property within close proximity of the proposed HS2 route. Both members stated that, should the debate on this item go into matters of detail regarding the location of the HS2 line, they would consider the matter a “personal interest that may lead to bias” and leave the room.

8. Declarations of the Party Whip.

There were no declarations of the party whip.

9. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36.

The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36.

10. Recycling and Household Waste Site Commissioning Options.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport setting out the future commissioning approach to delivering 13 of the 14 Recycling and Household Waste Sites in the County. The report was to be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 17 June. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.

The Director introduced the report by stating that the current contract with Environmental Waste Controls (EWC) had been in place since July 2006 and was scheduled to expire in 2017. The Department had considered a number of options beyond this point including re-tendering the contract and insourcing the service. The Director was recommending to the Cabinet that insourcing be pursued as it enabled the Department to realise savings of £290,000 of the £400,000 MTFS savings target without significantly impacting the service received by the public.

The Committee had received a letter from Mark Allen of EWC regarding the proposals and the Department had issued a response which the Chairman read out for the benefit of members. A copy of the letter and the Department’s response is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:

(i). The extent to which commercial approaches to waste management were taken varied significantly across the country. Members were advised that by bringing the service in-house there would be little to no change for the public whilst at the same time building in the increased flexibility that outsourcing would not provide;

3

(ii). In response to concerns raised around the risks associated with bringing the service in-house the Director reported that the Department had sufficient knowledge and the expertise to mitigate these risks having merged in house services for highways;

(iii). In response to a suggestion for further consideration of operating the service on a more commercial basis the Director reported that, whilst the Council was increasingly looking to adopt a more commercial approach to some of its services, it was his view that this was not the right service to run on this basis at this time;

(iv). The Whetstone and Loughborough Waste Transfer Stations were out of scope of the report as these fell under separate budget lines, and involved much more significant bulk haulage of waste;

(v). If approved, the recommendations would delegate authority to officers to bring the service in-house. However this would only proceed if the independent peer review process viewed the proposals as favourable for the Council. Whilst there had been no requirement to consult EWC on the proposals, it was suggested that they should submit any relevant information which they felt would inform the peer review process;

(vi). If the Service was to be brought in-house, job losses would be minimised as EWC’s operational staff would be able to TUPE transfer to the County Council.

RESOLVED:

a) That the intention to insource the Recycling and Household Waste Service as detailed in paragraphs 48 to 53 of the report be supported;

b) That the comments of the Committee be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on the 17th June.

11. Quarter 4 Performance Report.

The Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment and Transport outlining the quarter four performance results for the Environment and Transport Department. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 11’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:-

(i). As the performance for internal recycling rates at the County Council had continued to be poor, the Department had continued to work at the areas where performance was at its lowest. As the Committee had been advised at a previous meeting, performance at County Hall remained to be good and the under- performance was found at other Council buildings;

(ii). The rollout of LED lighting across the County had been delayed due to an issue involving the IT systems required for managing the new lighting systems. However this issue had now been resolved and the Department was now slightly ahead of its target for implementation of LED lighting;

4

(iii). Members expressed concern over the red rating for those killed or seriously injured on Leicestershire’s highways, stating that this had now been an issue for a sustained period of time. In response officers advised that there had been improvements to road casualty rates over the last 15 years largely as a result of improvements to car safety technology and that, as these improvements had now plateaued somewhat, it was becoming increasingly difficult to further reduce road casualties. Furthermore, increased economic growth meant that there was more traffic on the roads and, as this was likely to continue to be the case, the Department’s target to reduce road casualties by 40% was being reviewed. A report would be brought to the Committee later in the year on the Road Safety Partnership which may address this issue;

(iv). Arising from queries from members, the Committee was advised that the police were not consulted on highway improvement schemes as specialist safety auditors were experts in this area.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the Quarter 4 Performance Report be noted.

12. Draft Rail Strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport Department outlining the draft Rail Strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 12’, is filed with these minutes.

The Director reported that there were four key priorities outlined in the Strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire to focus on. These were: to maximise the benefits from the midland Mainline Services; to achieve the best results for Leicestershire from Phase 2 of HS2; to improve connectivity in the region and to national destinations; and to ensure that rail access and economic development were planned together. The Committee was being asked to comment on these priorities as part of the consultation process.

In January 2014 the Cabinet outlined its position with regard to HS2. In the Autumn Statement it was announced that the Hub would be located at Toton as suggested by the County Council in its consultation response.

Arising from discussion the following points were made:-

(i). Members welcomed the outcome from changes to the HS2 route announced in the Autumn Statement which would allow Leicester to be directly linked to the high- speed line via the Midland Mainline. The line would link up at the East Midlands Hub to be based at Toton;

(ii). Concern was expressed that the report made little reference to Hinckley station which officers agreed to rectify. A bid had been submitted to the Leicester and Leicestershire Economic Partnership for the ‘Nuckle’ project which aimed to enhance services along the Leicester to Birmingham line. It was hoped that this project would enable a service from Leicester to Coventry to be opened which would subsequently contribute to a half-hourly service through Hinckley;

(iii). Concern was expressed that there was no direct reference to South Wigston Station in the Strategy. Accordingly, officers agreed to include reference to the

5

ways in which South Wigston Station would benefit from the planned enhancements as part of the ‘Nuckle’ project in the final version of the Strategy.

RESOLVED:

a) That the contents of the draft Rail Strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire be noted;

b) That the comments made by the Committee be submitted to the Cabinet.

13. Leicester to Burton Railway Line.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport outlining the outcomes of the latest study work, jointly commissioned by the County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council, to investigate the case for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Leicester to Burton Railway Line. The report was to be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 17 June. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 13’, is filed with these minutes.

In introducing the report, the Director expressed disappointment that the outcome of the study had shown that any reintroduction of passenger services on the line was considered to be unfeasible at this time. He added that, should there be any significant change that meant that the matter would merit reassessment, he would inform the Cabinet and the Committee accordingly.

Arising from discussion the following points were raised:-

(i). The capital cost of reopening the line was estimated at being £100-175 million and this was considered to be a conservative. Whilst a significant ongoing subsidy would also be required for several years after reopening of the line, it was the high capital cost and lack of a robust business case which meant that it was not possible to make a case for pursing the project at this time;

(ii). It was a Department for Transport requirement for funding bids to make a strong economic case and the study had therefore taken account of this. Any social benefits to the local community of reopening the line for passengers had not been taken into account;

(iii). Owing to the findings of the study, members were advised that it would not be beneficial to undertake any further detailed investigations into the current condition of the line as the economic prospects for reopening the line were unlikely to become more viable in the foreseeable future. Further investigations and modelling including a detailed assessment of the track condition were likely to cost in excess of £200,000;

(iv). Members expressed support for the work of the Director in pursuing the potential for freight improvements on the basis that if the line were to be rehabilitated for freight then this may make the reintroduction of passenger services more feasible in the future;

Members expressed disappointment at the findings of the study, highlighting the several unsuccessful attempts made to generate support for reopening the line since the early 1980s. A further point was noted that the existing rail network was operating beyond

6

capacity. In response, the Director advised that the feasibility of reopening the line was likely only to be bolstered by any rehabilitation of the line for freight use or a significant change in Government policy. There remained a willingness to review the situation in light of either of these developments in the future.

It was moved by the Chairman, and seconded by Mr. Pearson CC:-

“That should there be any significant in change in Government policy regarding funding for community rail projects such as the Leicester to Burton Line, the Committee would welcome a further debate on the matter.”

An amendment was moved by Mr. Sheahan CC, and seconded by Mr. Sprason CC:-

That the motion be amended as follows:

“That the Cabinet be advised that the Committee is of the view that:

(i) The County Council should continue to lobby nationally and regionally for the upgrade of the Leicester to Burton Line as a potential freight line which may allow for the further consideration of passenger services on the line in the future;

(ii) Officers should further explore other community rail schemes such as the with a view to gaining a greater understanding of how such schemes had been funded and successfully implemented;

(iii) Officers should write to Government requesting that further consideration be given to developing an improved methodology for assessing proposed transport schemes which takes greater account of social benefit.”

The amendment was put and carried, seven members voting in favour and two against.

The substantive motion was then put and carried, eight members voting in favour and one against.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet be advised that the Committee is of the view that:

(i) The County Council should continue to lobby nationally and regionally for the upgrade of the Leicester to Burton Line as a potential freight line which may allow for the further consideration of passenger services on the line in the future;

(ii) Officers should further explore other community rail schemes such as the Robin Hood Line with a view to gaining a greater understanding of how such schemes had been funded and successfully implemented;

(iii) Officers should write to Government requesting that further consideration be given to developing an improved methodology for assessing proposed transport schemes which takes greater account of social benefit.

7

14. Final Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on the Market Harborough Line Speed Improvements.

The Committee received the final report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on the Market Harborough Line Speed Improvements. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 14’, is filed with these minutes.

Mr. Jennings CC introduced the report in his capacity as the Chairman of the Panel, and advised members of the positive way in which the Review had been conducted and the Panel’s overall support for the proposals by .

RESOLVED:

That the Final Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on the Market Harborough Line Speed Improvements be approved for submission to the Cabinet at its meeting on 17 June.

15. Park and Ride Performance.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Environment and Transport outlining the current performance of the Park and Ride Services which were managed jointly by the County Council and the City Council. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 15’, is filed with these minutes.

The Director reported that the performance of Park and Ride had shown a good level of improvement and that a number of initiatives were being pursued with the City Council aimed at delivering the service at a surplus.

RESOLVED:

That the report on Park and Ride Performance be noted.

16. Date of next meeting.

RESOLVED:

It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Wednesday 7 September at 10.00am.

2.00 - 4.30 pm CHAIRMAN 09 June 2016

This page is intentionally left blank 9

6th June 2016 Recycling and Household Waste sites - Commissioning Options

Dear Councillor

As you probably know the above report is due to be considered by Cabinet this month.

Since 2006 Environmental Waste Controls has operated 13 Recycling and Household Waste sites for Leicestershire County Council, employing around 90 staff. Working with officers over the last 3 years we have saved the Council about £0.5m whilst achieving recycling rates of around 75%.

Environmental Waste Controls acknowledges the Council’s right to choose it’s preferred service delivery model. However we wish to ensure that you make your decision having considered all the relevant information. Whatever the Council’s decision we will work with officers to maintain an excellent public service.

Officers have rightly identified the risks of in-housing the service. Dorset Waste Partnership overspent by £2.8m in 2014/15 on it’s in-house collection service (reported here) and continued to overspend by £356,000 last year. Dorset County Council later tendered it’s Household Waste Recycling Centre contract which remained outsourced.

Whilst Lincolnshire have in-housed some waste services, Environmental Waste Controls was chosen to run it’s newest Household Waste Recycling Centre (reported here).

I ask that you consider these points at your committee meeting:

• Environmental Waste Controls has not been approached as part of the external review of assumptions and costings. We have identified several significant financial issues and are willing to share information with the external reviewers to explore them.

• We respectively suggest that Councillors should not make a decision until they have sight of the independent financial assessment.

• If the Council ultimately decides to bring the service in-house, please can you consider obtaining best value by re-procuring through ESPO, together with a separate officer in-house bid to ensure an open and fair cost comparison.

If you have any questions please do contact me.

Yours sincerely

Mark Allen Business Development Manager 07818 275862 [email protected]

Environmental Waste Controls plc Laurel House, Kitling Road, Knowsley Business Park, Prescot, L34 9JA Tel: 0333 305 2207 Fax: 0845 456 3998 Web: www.ewc.eu.com Email: [email protected] Company Reg. No. 04944994 V.A.T. Reg. No. 823 8260 32 This page is intentionally left blank 11

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 9 JUNE 2016

RECYCLING AND HOUSEHOLD WASTE SITES COMMISSIONING OPTIONS – RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE CONTROLS PLC

The following response has been received from the Environment and Transport Department to the points they have asked to be considered as set out in the attached letter:-

“Environmental Waste Controls are the current contractor and they have not needed to be directly approached as we are aware of their contract costs. We have always been open to discuss any ideas for financial savings and would welcome any cost information they could provide.

Secondly the recommendation in the report will still be dependent upon the outcome of an independent review of the assumed costs.

And lastly we believe that the proposal to bring the Service in-house represents best value and should give greatest flexibility to meet service need going forward.”

This page is intentionally left blank 13

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 9 JUNE 2016

LEICESTER TO BURTON RAILWAY LINE

Comments received from Dr. T. Eynon CC

As Local Member for Coalville, I welcome the report by AECOM into the potential costs and benefits of reinstating passenger transport along the Leicester to Burton rail corridor.

I especially welcome AECOM's statement that (7.4.3) "further work may be beneficial to robustly support decisions relating to the progress of the scheme. In particular, use of the updated LLITM model may generate additional demand and a detailed bottom-up costing exercise may reduce the capital costs".

I am concerned at the conclusions being drawn by the County Council.

Further work is needed

It goes without saying that "costs would need to be met by central government through the submission of a robust business case demonstrating sound value for money in terms of transport economics and wider economic benefits." (Briefing notes #10).

The Council is going beyond the evidence in the report when it attempts to persuade Members that "The study has identified that such a business case could not be produced." (Briefing notes #10).

The evidence provided by AECOM does not support the County Council's advice lto members that "the County Council should undertake no further investigatory work on the proposal at this time." (Briefing notes #2b).

Far from concluding that no further progress is possible, this Council should work regionally and strategically, using innovative technologies, to assess whether or not a satisfactory cost benefit ratio can be achieved.

I urge members of the Environment and Transport Scrutiny Committee to examine the evidence provided by AECOM, noting the final conclusions, and draw their own conclusions.

Aspirations

In his briefing paper (#5), the Director of Environment & Transport reminds Members that in 2009, just before the 2010 General Election, it was considered that, in the case of the Leicester to Burton line, "reintroduction of passenger services was a valid long-term aspiration". 14

When I moved to Coalville in 1994, with a high-flying career that involved regular trips to London, I was told that the Leicester to Burton line would be open within 5 years.

22 years later, Coalville is struggling to expand and regenerate. The SE Coalville development is hampered by the prospect of congestion on the A511. Sitting between the A42 and M1, a town that should be ideally situated for the aspirational commuter is the subject of a remedial "Coalville Project".

Pre-election promises in 2015 to revisit the Leicester to Burton line raised hopes in my town. Neighbouring cities are coming up with innovative transport solutions. Trams that can run on rail and road are now a proven technology.

The advice to mothball the project once again suggests that, with the next General Election 4 years away, there is no political will to overcome the technical barriers.

Investment

The Leicestershire and Leicester Rail Strategy (#14) expects that "rail passenger numbers will continue to grow as they have done since 1994, putting ever increasing pressures on rail capacity (line and train). In its East Midlands Route Study, Network Rail is forecasting increases in overall passenger numbers of between 30% and 40% by 2023 and between 50% to over 100% by 2043."

The developing industrial corridor along the Leicester to Burton line is providing thousands of jobs. A recent RAC report condemned North West Leicestershire for having some of the worst public transport provision in the country and the highest used of the private car to get to work. Not only are aspirational commuters being let down in North West Leicestershire. The lack of investment in public transport expects low-paid workers in insecure employment to subsidise the economy's need for a mobile workforce.

Technofix Transport Strategy solutions, such as online home-working and driverless cars, as discussed at the recent Members briefing, will do nothing to assist warehouse workers to travel from Leicester and Burton to workplaces in Bardon and SE Coalville.

The Rail Strategy briefing advises members that "it is important for Leicester and Leicestershire to be as best placed as is possible to seek to secure future investments in the area’s rail network and services."

The failure to integrate the Leicester to Burton line into the Council's rail strategy condemns North West Leicestershire to finding itself "at significant economic disadvantage in comparison to other parts of the country." (#24)

Predetermination 15

AECOM made it clear at several points in their report that the Transport Model favoured by Leicestershire cannot be relied upon. It is also clear that the original intention of the paper was hampered by a predetermination not to explore the options fully.

I lost count of the number of times AECOM said "During the course of this study it became apparent that there was a need for additional work in order to inform the ongoing debate around whether the scheme as a whole is likely to be able to generate a sufficiently robust business case and is therefore worth pursuing." (6.9.1)

They made this point six times and it is clear from their overall conclusion as stated above that the report does not support the County Council's determination not to pursue options further.

Limitations

AECOM comments that the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) "in common with all multi-modal transport models, forecasts generally very low rail growth over time, much lower than has been observed in recent years in reality." (5.6.1)

It adds that "use of the current version of the model contains a number of caveats, many of which will be resolved or improved in the next version of the LLITM model which is being developed and expected in 2016 - this year. As a result, the demand and revenue that has been forecast in this case might be considered to be understated." (7.2.3)

AECOM also advise that the high level cost estimates are "now out of date and will not reflect current engineering and costing practices." (4.4.2)

The original intention of the study was a ‘reverse engineered’ appraisal designed to identify the level of capital cost required in order to generate milestone Benefit Cost Ratios (such as 1.0 (i.e. ‘breakeven’) and 1.5).

AECOM do not advise closing down the debate. The County Council's determination to prove the project unaffordable is an attempt to do so.

Duty to co-operate

Further limitations in the study include a failure in the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities.

AECOM note that "Flows to/from Burton account for a significant majority of the demand being forecast." (5.3.16)

Despite this obvious need for cross-county and cross-regional partnership working, this study has been conducted in grand isolation using a Leicestershire-centric Transport Model that "currently contains no bus demand outside Leicestershire at all, 16

meaning there would be no bus demand outside the county that could potentially switch to rail." (5.2.1)

AECOM note that "bus services between Burton and Ashby currently take 45 minutes and are every 20 minutes, while the rail service would take only 14 minutes with a 60 minute headway, which looks very good by comparison." (5.3.11)

Despite the housing growth planned for Bagworth, LCC are closing down the options without discussion with Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council.

Housing growth along the Leicester to Burton corridor is significantly greater than that planned for South Leicestershire yet money has been brought in to improve the Midland Mainline at Market Harborough.

The Leicester to Burton route travels through Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Leicester City as well as Leicestershire. Without any discussion with neighbouring authorities, LCC goes beyond the evidence in advising Members that passenger transport along the Leicester-Burton line "could not be afforded by the County Council or a combination of local authorities".

The inability of Leicestershire to work in partnership with neighbouring authorities on strategic projects does not bode well for the Government's Devolution agenda.

Knighton Curve

On page 54 of the Leicester & Leicestershire Rail Strategy the County Council is advised that

"The removal of the east-to-north connection at Knighton Junction many years ago severed the direct link to and from Leicester station. The former alignment has been sold and extensively redeveloped, meaning reinstatement would be very expensive."

AECOM also note that "The Knighton Curve would be required to join the line to the . " (7.2.1)

AECOM also observe that there is generally substantially higher usage of the scheme being predicted in the northwest (e.g. Burton-Ashby) than in the southeast (e.g. Leicester-Leicester Forest East). (5.3.10)

The predetermined focus on the Knighton Curve and failure to work with strategic partners has prematurely closed down the options for the Leicester to Burton transport corridor.

LCC have chosen not to examine the possibility that people from Burton (Staffordshire), Gresley (Derbyshire), Coalville and Moira (NWLeics), Bagworth (Hinckley and Bosworth) might want to go direct to London or via Burton to Nottingham, and Birmingham. 17

Rather than Reinstating Knighton North Curve why not direct trains direct from Burton via Coalville to London? Build a station at Knighton and passengers to Leicester from Burton and Coalville could change trains.

Are people living in Coalville not allowed to aspire to a job in London? Are people currently working in the South East not allowed to aspire to a home in the National Forest?

Conclusion

The County Council are going beyond the evidence in the AECOM report in closing down further investigatory work on the proposal to use the Leicester to Burton Line for passenger transport.

The potential for economic growth in Coalville and across North West Leicestershire should not be underestimated.

Subsidy tends to reduce over time as demand (and thus revenue) increases due to initial ramp-up and then growth (AECOM 6.10.7). This has been demonstrated in Scotland and Wales.

Members should consider AECOM's advice that "further work may be beneficial" and their opinion that "a detailed bottom-up costing exercise may reduce the capital costs".

Far from concluding that no further progress is possible, this Council should work regionally and strategically and using innovative technologies to assess whether or not "an increase in demand of around 40% to 50% coupled with a reduction in the capital costs of 40% to 50% could get close to achieving a BCR of around 1.5." (7.4.3)

18

Comments received from Mr David Barker, local resident

The Ivanhoe Line

On reading the report in the Leicester Mercury & listening to Radio Leicester regarding the re-opening of the Ivanhoe Line I would like to make the following comments.

On May7th 2016 I joined an East Midlands HST train ( 8 coaches) at Market Harborough for a trip on , mostly non passenger lines, to Cleethorpes, via the Ivanhoe Line through Coalville to Burton on Trent. We had a fairly fast run on the line, three quarters of the run on up to date continuous welded tracks.( no joints). So where do they get the figure £175 million to upgrade the track.

The track at the moment has to be in excellent condition as it takes 2,000 ton freight trains. The passenger trains would probably only be 2 coach trains at a fraction of the weight of a freight train.

I know there would be a cost to link the line at Knighton Junction in order that the trains could get into Leicester but in this day & age it is not impossible!!!!

Nottinghamshire County Council got stuck in and provided excellent transport facilities for the residents of Nottinghamshire, ie the trams & the Robin Hood Line.

As we are not going to benefit at all in Leicestershire from HS2, the County Council should get stuck into Network Rail & the Government to provide this very important link for the future ( the A 50 is regularly grid locked) Look to the future we need this line.

Net Work Rail & EM Trains wouldn’t have run the above train ( 7th May) if the track had not been perfectly safe.

£55,000 for a survey to say it needed £178 million spending on the track is nonsense.

David Barker