DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Accounts Committee Submission to the Garden Bridge Project Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Accounts Committee Submission to the Garden Bridge Project Review Dame Margaret Hodge MP Further to the announcement of the review of the Garden Bridge project please find enclosed our submission to this review. This is the chain of evidence we’ve considered around the project and the Department for Transport grant. The Public Accounts Committee has taken no formal position but we are concerned about the risk to taxpayers’ money. Yours sincerely Meg Hillier MP Chair, Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts and the issue of the Garden Bridge The Committee of Public Accounts has engaged with the matter of the Garden Bridge on several occasions this Parliament. The Committee believes that the detail of this engagement will be useful to the review of the Garden Bridge. Letter from the Leader of Lambeth Council [6 October 2015] The Chair received a letter from Cllr Lib Peck concerned about the mounting costs of the Garden Bridge on the public purse. This was timely as the NAO were already looking into the project. Letter from Comptroller and Auditor General [16 November 2015] The Comptroller and Auditor General’s office reported back to the Committee on their findings from their inquiry into the Department for Transport grant awarded to the scheme. The concerns raised in this, were not about the scheme as a policy but the manner in which it was being conducted. The Department risked seeing no substantial benefits for their investment, should the project fail, and the high degree of uncertainty meant there would be a real risk to achieving value for money. While the Department was aware of the concerns it decided, under pressure, to award the grant.1 Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport [2 December 2015] Our first opportunity to ask questions about the project came soon after, when the Permanent Secretary for the Department for Transport, Philip Rutnam, came before the Committee. Mr Rutnam was at pains to assure us that the Department was keeping a close eye on expenditure and while £30m was awarded, he acknowledged that slightly less than £10m had already been spent.2 Letter from Comptroller and Auditor General [1 June 2016] The Comptroller and Auditor General wrote to Kate Hoey MP (1 June 21016) confirming that the NAO was investigating the grant by the Department for Transport to the project but had no authority to halt a project while it carried out an investigation. He also wrote to my Committee (22 June 2016) with full details of the ministerial direction sought by Mr Rutnam from the Secretary of State. Mr Rutnam was concerned about the amount of money that could be spent ahead of construction. He was especially concerned about agreements that the public purse should underwrite the project if it was cancelled. The risk of the £15m underwritten being paid out was “not negligible”. He pointed out that, if the project failed that £15m would be added to sunk costs of £13m from the Department and £22m from TfL which would mean that 90% of the losses would be public money. In his opinion, this represented “a disproportionate level of exposure for the Exchequer to the risk of failure on a charity-led project that was intended to be funded largely by private donations”.3 The Business case [26 July 2016] Newsnight reported on the project and said that the bridge would be closed up to 12 nights a year for private events (to collect revenue). I was also aware of a third party analysis of the business case. That analysis concluded that “the basic business model is flawed and the 1 Letter included 2 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts- committee/reform-of-the-rail-franchising-programme/oral/25414.html, included as Annex 1 3 Letter included Business Plan targets are optimistic at best, but more likely unachievable”. The analysis suggested that there was a fundamental flaw in the business plan as it relied on almost 70% of projected income coming from voluntary donations, significantly higher than the 10-30% voluntary donation income received by cultural attractions such as the Tate, V&A and Science Museum. The business case also depended on a guarantee from the GLA to cover operating costs in perpetuity to gain planning permission which potentially removes the incentive for donors and sponsors to give as the ultimate responsibility to pay the costs would lie with the taxpayer.4 Permanent Secretary of HM Treasury [17 October 2016] My Committee then took the opportunity to question the permanent secretary of the Treasury on the issue, with particular reference to the responsibility for expenditure and whether the Treasury was involved in the detail of the expenditure when the commitment was made and the Ministerial Direction made. The permanent secretary was unable to provide absolute confirmation but provided us with a commitment to undertake an analysis of the decision and the business case.5 We will forward you the detail of that assessment when it arrives with the Committee. 4 https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/07/19/garden-bridge-business-plan-report-dan-anderson/garden- bridge-business-plan-report-dan-anderson.pdf 5 http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts- committee/spending-performance-and-departmental-plans/oral/41247.html, attached as Annex 2. Annex 1 – Oral Evidence with Philip Rutnam Q119 Chair: Okay. Before we finish, I just want to ask Mr Rutnam about the garden bridge. The Department for Transport passported £30 million to Transport for London, but with some assurances attached. I’m not sure if that meant you could claw it back if there was a problem. Philip Rutnam: In certain circumstances, yes. Q120 Chair: So how do you feel the garden bridge is going? Are you worried about that £30 million of taxpayers’ money? Philip Rutnam: We continue to keep a very close eye on the garden bridge project. We were pleased to see the progress that was made between the London borough of Lambeth and the Garden Bridge Trust. Transport for London played an important role in helping to facilitate that outcome, and we were pleased to see that. Of course, a lot more needs to happen in relation to the garden bridge. They still need to get to the point of awarding their principal construction contract. If my memory serves me, there were—at least a couple of weeks ago—some outstanding land purchase issues, not with Lambeth, on the south bank. So we continue to keep a close eye on it. I know you have had some advice on this from the National Audit Office, which was in touch with us, so you will be familiar with the sorts of issues we considered before implementing the Chancellor’s decision that the bridge trust should be awarded £30 million by TfL. Q121 Chair: Is that taxpayers’ money safe if something goes wrong? Philip Rutnam: Thus far, only a proportion of that has actually been spent. We, of course, continue to keep a close eye on this. Q122 Chair: Can you tell us what proportion has been spent? Philip Rutnam: From memory, it is a little under £10 million. Q123 Chair: So about a third. Philip Rutnam: Part of the approach was to make sure the project could make progress, but our liability at this phase of the project is capped quite firmly. Q124 Chair: At the £30 million? Philip Rutnam: No. I believe at under £10 million. Perhaps I could write to you. Would that be helpful? Q125 Chair: Could you please write to us with an update? Philip Rutnam: Just to reassure you that we keep a very close eye on this important and valuable project. Q126 Chair: That £30 million may be small fry in the context of the hundreds of millions we are dealing with, but— Philip Rutnam: These are significant amounts of money. Chair: My colleague from Berwick, who has had to leave, told me that £5 million would do very nicely for a few major infrastructure projects in her constituency, so perhaps it is relative. Annex 2 – Oral evidence with Tom Scholar Q1 Chair: Welcome to today’s Public Accounts Committee on 17 October 2016. We are here to look at how the Government plan and monitor delivering value for money. Tom Scholar is the permanent secretary at the Treasury and Julian Kelly is the director general for public spending and finance at the Treasury. I gave you prior notice, Mr Scholar, that we wanted to ask some quick questions about the garden bridge project and the Department of Health accounts. As you are here, it seems an opportune time and saves you coming back a second time. So I hope you are happy with that. If not, you are here, anyway. First, on the garden bridge, can you outline to us the assurances that you received in the Treasury before committing £30 million of central Government money to the project? Tom Scholar: I think the decision was taken some years ago, in 2013. My understanding is that the decision was taken following a thorough analysis of the business case by the Department for Transport; obviously, that was also discussed with the Treasury. Again, my understanding is that the business case showed there was a range of benefits that could be delivered by this project, and there was a reasonable prospect of proceeding successfully with it and the project delivering value for money. On that basis, the project was approved. Q2 Chair: Four conditions were set. To aid everyone’s memory, one was the business case. The Mayor of London matched the funding from Transport for London, which it is not in our remit to look at, although the Mayor has now set up a commission under Margaret Hodge MP to look at that.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Democratic Audit: What Does Boris Johnson's Political Record Tell Us
    Democratic Audit: What does Boris Johnson’s political record tell us about his prospects as Prime Minister? Page 1 of 3 What does Boris Johnson’s political record tell us about his prospects as Prime Minister? As Conservative MPs whittle the contest to be next leader of the party – and so next Prime Minister – down to a final two who will face the party membership, Ben Worthy assesses the record of the clear frontrunner, Boris Johnson, and what his time as London Mayor and Foreign Secretary indicate about his aptitude for the top job. Boris Johnson speaking to Foreign Office staff, 14 July 2016. Picture: Foreign and Commonwealth Office/ (CC BY 2.0) licence ‘Prime Minister Boris Johnson’: I know, as I write those words, what you have all just thought, said or shouted aloud. His performance in the five-way BBC debate filled no one with confidence. But we need to take care with our snap judgements. Many Prime Ministers were viewed very differently before their arrival in power. Churchill was seen as a reckless war-monger, and Thatcher a temporary female stop-gap. Remember too that Theresa May, and before her Gordon Brown, were to be diligent, strong, decisive leaders. Clement Attlee’s limerick about his own life says it all. To measure leaders, we need to understand both the person and the context. To take the person of ‘Boris’ first, Johnson’s own time in high office leaves us with some pretty mixed messages as to how he would be in Number 10. As Rafael Behr points out, we have a selection of different Boris’s to choose from.
    [Show full text]
  • Leisure Opportunities 6Th September 2016 Issue
    Find great staffTM leisure opportunities 6 - 19 SEPTEMBER 2016 ISSUE 692 Daily news & jobs: www.leisureopportunities.co.uk DW Sports moves for Fitness First clubs The long-running saga of the south – particularly London – a sale of Fitness First’s UK clubs successful deal would see the UK’s looks to be in its final act, as up second largest health club chain to five operators are understood boast an enviable spread of sites. to have completed separate The former Wigan Athletic deals to buy out the nearly chair also said he “wasn’t 70-strong portfolio – with DW expecting any trouble from the Sports leading the way. competition people” in terms of The deals, expected to be the deal, with the geographical confirmed by Fitness First differences between DW Sports owner Oaktree Capital later and Fitness First reducing the this month, will see Fitness likelihood of intense scrutiny First carved up by DW Sports, from the Competition and The Gym Group and GLL Markets Authority (CMA), (Greenwich Leisure Ltd) – which previously proved the while other firms are circling. downfall of a proposed merger DW Sports, owned by between Pure Gym and The multimillionaire Dave Whelan, Gym Group. is expected to pick up a total of Whelan is optimistic the move would not be scuppered by competition authorities If the deal goes through, it 63 clubs, nearly doubling its will immediately make DW existing number of clubs operated under the have so much of a presence” in an interview Sports – which has around 80 sites – one DW Fitness banner. with the Wigan Evening Post.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Heatherwick, Architecture's Showman
    Thomas Heatherwick, Architecture’s Showman His giant new structure aims to be an Eiffel Tower for New York. Is it genius or folly? February 26, 2018 | By IAN PARKER Stephen Ross, the seventy-seven-year-old billionaire property developer and the owner of the Miami Dolphins, has a winningly informal, old-school conversational style. On a recent morning in Manhattan, he spoke of the moment, several years ago, when he decided that the plaza of one of his projects, Hudson Yards—a Doha-like cluster of towers on Manhattan’s West Side—needed a magnificent object at its center. He recalled telling him- self, “It has to be big. It has to be monumental.” He went on, “Then I said, ‘O.K. Who are the great sculptors?’ ” (Ross pronounced the word “sculptures.”) Before long, he met with Thomas Heatherwick, the acclaimed British designer of ingenious, if sometimes unworkable, things. Ross told me that there was a presentation, and that he was very impressed by Heatherwick’s “what do you call it—Television? Internet?” An adviser softly said, “PowerPoint?” Ross was in a meeting room at the Time Warner Center, which his company, Related, built and partly owns, and where he lives and works. We had a view of Columbus Circle and Central Park. The room was filled with models of Hudson Yards, which is a mile and a half southwest, between Thirtieth and Thirty-third Streets, and between Tenth Avenue and the West Side Highway. There, Related and its partner, Oxford Properties Group, are partway through erecting the complex, which includes residential space, office space, and a mall—with such stores as Neiman Marcus, Cartier, and Urban Decay, and a Thomas Keller restaurant designed to evoke “Mad Men”—most of it on a platform built over active rail lines.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Rebels As Local Leaders?
    Rebels as local leaders? The Mayoralties of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson Compared Ben Worthy Mark Bennister The Mayoralty of London offers a powerful electoral platform but weak powers to lead a city regarded as ‘ungovernable’ (Travers 2004). This paper adapts the criteria of Hambleton and Sweeting (2004) to look at the first two Mayors’ mandate and vision, style of leadership and policies. Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson were both party rebels, mavericks and skilled media operators. However, their differences are key. As mayor, Livingstone had a powerful vision that translated into a set of clear policy aims while Johnson had a weaker more cautious approach shaped by his desire for higher office. Livingstone built coalitions but proved divisive whereas Johnson was remarkably popular. While Livingstone bought experience and skill, Johnson delegated detail to others. Both their mayoralties courted controversy and faced charges of corruption and cronyism. Both mayors used publicity to make up for weak powers. They also found themselves pushed by their powers towards transport and planning while struggling with deeper issues such as housing. In policy terms Livingstone pushed ahead with the radical congestion charge and a series of symbolic policies. Johnson was far more modest, championing cycling and revelling in the 2012 Olympics while avoiding difficult decisions. The two mayors used their office to negotiate but also challenge central government. Livingstone’s Mayoralty was a platform for personalised change-Johnson’s one for personal ambition. Directly Elected Mayors were introduced to provide local leadership, accountability and vision to UK local government. Beginning under New Labour and continued under the Coalition and Conservatives, directly elected mayors were offered initially by referendum, and later imposed, up and down the country beginning with London 2000 and then in 16 cities and towns including Bristol and Liverpool.
    [Show full text]
  • 0 Well, That Didn't Go to Plan. General Election
    0 Well, that didn’t go to plan. General election reflections: Simon Hughes, Nick Harvey, Liz Barker, Tony Greaves and more 0 All the presidents’ answers - Mark Pack 0 How we did Unite to Remain - Peter Dunphy Issue 399 - February 2020 £ 4 Issue 399 February 2020 SUBSCRIBE! CONTENTS Liberator magazine is published six/seven times per year. Subscribe for only £25 (£30 overseas) per year. Commentary.............................................................................................3 You can subscribe or renew online using PayPal at Radical Bulletin .........................................................................................4..7 our website: www.liberator.org.uk THE HORROR SHOW SEEN FROM OUTSIDE ..................................8..9 Professional roles meant Simon Hughes had to spend the general election campaign on Or send a cheque (UK banks only), payable to the sidelines for the first time in decades. What he saw of the Lib Dems alarmed him “Liberator Publications”, together with your name and full postal address, to: EIGHT ERRORS AND COUNTING ....................................................10..11 The Liberal Democrats got a lot wrong in the 2019 general election, many of them repeated mistakes never learnt from, says Nick Harvey Liberator Publications Flat 1, 24 Alexandra Grove LED BY DONKEYS ................................................................................12..13 London N4 2LF The general election saw the Liberal Democrats fail to find messages that resonated England with voters, and the campaign
    [Show full text]
  • The Londons New Routemaster Free
    FREE THE LONDONS NEW ROUTEMASTER PDF Tony Lewin,Thomas Heatherwick | 160 pages | 12 May 2014 | Merrell Publishers Ltd | 9781858946245 | English | London, United Kingdom Heatherwick Studio | Design & Architecture | New Routemaster Looks like The Londons New Routemaster article is a bit old. Be aware that information may have changed since it was published. Earlier this year, as he was stepping off the back of a New Routemaster, a friend of mine had his knee twatted by a door mechanism that was channeling the till from Open All Hours. Reeling from the pain, he wondered whether it was the The Londons New Routemaster or the bus that was to blame. Actually, it was Boris Johnson's fault. According to a promise Johnson had made to Londoners, that door was never going to be there in the first place. In his former guise as Mayor of London back inJohnson had pledged — as a flagship part of his manifesto, mind — that every New Routemaster would have a 'hop on, hop off' option, each vehicle manned by a conductor. It was going to be just like in the good old days. If that sounded too good financially reckless to be true, it was. Bythe open platform, and accompanying The Londons New Routemaster, were consigned The Londons New Routemaster the scrapheap. The conductors' job, by the way, had never been to sell tickets, which they couldn't. It was, presumably, to ensure that the mayor's encouragement for Londoners to leap at moving vehicles with Flynn-esque derring-do, didn't end up in a flurry of law suits.
    [Show full text]
  • The Guardian.2021.08.01 [Sun, 01 Aug 2021]
    2021.08.01 - Opinion Headlines friday 30 july 2021 2021.07.30 - Coronavirus 2021.07.30 - Spotlight 2021.07.30 - Opinion 2021.07.30 - Around the world Headlines saturday 31 july 2021 2021.07.31 - Coronavirus 2021.07.31 - Spotlight 2021.07.31 - Opinion 2021.07.31 - Around the world Headlines thursday 29 july 2021 2021.07.29 - Coronavirus 2021.07.29 - Spotlight 2021.07.29 - Opinion 2021.07.29 - Around the world 2021.08.01 - Opinion Dismissed as the unwanted Games, just how did these Olympics steal our hearts? The Observer view on the Royal Navy’s operation in the South China Sea The Observer view on the plight facing children post-Covid There’s a case for vaccine passports, but ministers are failing to make it The RNLI deserves better than Nigel Farage’s contempt I’ve been watching Nigel Farage on GB News so you don’t have to. Consider yourself lucky The climate change horseman of the apocalypse rides out – cartoon We failed so badly in Afghanistan. But to throw in the towel now would be an act of betrayal Pop maestro Simon Cowell finally bows to the public’s resounding ‘no’ vote Letters: our seaside towns are worth saving For the record Adapt or die. That is the stark challenge to living in the new world we have made | Next | Section menu | Main menu | Skip to main content Skip to navigation Advertisement US edition US edition UK edition Australian edition International edition The Guardian - Back to home Search jobs Sign inSearch News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle ShowMoreShow More News US news World news Environment Soccer US politics
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Garden Bridge Project
    The Garden Bridge Executive Summary 1. On 19 October, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan formally appointed me to undertake a review of the Garden Bridge project. This review does not seek to assess whether building a Garden Bridge over the River Thames is a good idea; that is a matter for the Mayor, and I made clear at the start of this review process that I had no view. I have studied the papers to which I have been given access and have held meetings with relevant stakeholders and others who have asked to see me. 2. My conclusions on value for money, escalating costs and conduct and procedures are set out in this summary: Value for money 3. Decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven by electoral cycles rather than value for money. From its inception when there was confusion as to its purpose, through a weak business case that was constructed after contracts had been let and money had been spent, little regard has been had to value for money. 4. The original ambition to fund the Garden Bridge solely through private finance has been abandoned. Furthermore the goalposts have moved several times and each time the risks to the taxpayer have intensified. Looking to the future, the costs of construction have escalated and are likely to increase further. What started life as a project costing an estimated £60 million is likely to end up costing over £200 million. At the same time the Garden Bridge Trust has lost two major donors and has only secured £69 million in private funding pledges, leaving a gap of at least £70 million that needs to be raised for the capital investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Tale of Three Regulatory Regimes -- Dynamic, Distracted and Dysfunctional: Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2018 Tale of Three Regulatory Regimes -- Dynamic, Distracted and Dysfunctional: Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States Christopher R. Yukins George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Andrea Sundstrand Stockholm University Michael Bowsher QC King's College London Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Yukins, Christopher R., Tale of Three Regulatory Regimes -- Dynamic, Distracted and Dysfunctional: Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States (2018). 2017 Gov. Contr. Yr. Rev. Conf. Br. Int'l 2-1 (2018); GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2018-08; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2018-08. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3135805 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reprinted from WEST GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS YEAR IN REVIEW COVERING 2017 CONFERENCE BRIEFS, with per- mission of Thomson Reuters. Copyright © 2018. Further use without the permission of West is prohibited. For further information about this publication, please visit west.thomson.com/store, or call 800.328.9352. SESSION 2 - I INTERNATIONAL PROCUREMENT DEVELOPMENTS IN 2017—Part I: A TALE OF THREE REGULATORY REGIMES—DYNAMIC, DISTRACTED AND DYSFUNCTIONAL: SWEDEN, THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES Andrea Sundstrand Associate Professor Stockholm University Michael Bowsher QC Monckton Chambers Visiting Professor, King’s College, London Christopher Yukins Professor of Government Procurement Law George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mayoralties of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Birkbeck Institutional Research Online Rebels Leading London: The Mayoralties of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson Compared This article compares the mayoralties of the first two directly elected Mayors of London, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. The position offers a commanding electoral platform, but weak powers to lead a city regarded as ‘ungovernable’ (Travers 2004).The two mayors had some obvious points of comparison: both were party rebels, mavericks and skilled media operators. Both also used publicity to make up for weak powers, but courted controversy and faced charges of corruption and cronyism. Utilising Hambleton and Sweeting (2004), this article compares their mayoralties in terms of vision, leadership style and policies. Livingstone had a powerful vision that translated into clear policy aims while Johnson was more cautious, shaped by a desire for higher office. In terms of style, Livingstone built coalitions but proved divisive whereas Johnson retained remarkable levels of popularity. Where Livingstone bought experience and skill, Johnson delegated. In policy terms, the two mayors found themselves pushed by their institutional powers towards transport and planning while struggling with deeper issues such as housing. Livingstone introduced the radical congestion charge and a series of symbolic policies. Johnson was far more modest – championing cycling, the 2012 Olympics and avoiding difficult decisions. The two used their office to negotiate, but also challenge, central government. Livingstone’s rebel mayoralty was a platform for personalised change, Johnson’s one for personal ambition. Keywords: Mayors, political leadership, London, comparative, Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone 1 Directly-elected mayors were introduced to bring new leadership, accountability and vision to English local government.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Gardener Todd Longstaffe-Gowan
    THE London GARDENE R O R The Gardener’s Intelligencer For the Year Volume the twenty-third Journal of the London Hi oric Parks and Gardens Trust The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust Duck Island Cottage, S t James’s Park L (Price TEN Pounds, Free to Members) The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust is an independent charitable trust whose obje ive is to promote education about historic parks and gardens in London, and to seek to conserve and enhance these gardens for the education and enjoyment of the public. The Trust was established in 1994 . The Trust aims to draw together a wide range of knowledge, expertise and interested professionals, amateurs, individuals, organisations and societies within London; to promote proje s, influence decisions on the protection and management of historic garden land, and to provide a valuable centre for the education, information, research and creative projects for the improvement and conservation of London’s extensive fabric of historic gardens, for the benefit of everyone. Editor of The London Gardener Todd Longstaffe-Gowan Editorial Assistance from Sally Williams Layout by Mette Heinz and Sally Williams For further information on the Trust please conta The Secretary The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust Duck Island Cottage, c/o The Store Yard St James’s Park, London sw1a 2bj Telephone 020 7839 3969 www. londongardenstrust.org Correspondence concerning The London Gardener should be addressed to The Editor, Avenue House , 20 Church Street, Ampthill, Bedfordshire mk45 2eh The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust is registered in England no. 2935176 Registered Office: Duck Island Cottage, St James’s Park, London sw1a 2bj.
    [Show full text]
  • The Garden Bridge
    Representation from the public Dear Sir/Madam I have examined the documents that accompany the Garden Bridge Marine Consent application on the MMO website and I am concerned that the matter of navigational risks do not appear to have been adequately considered. The MMO's Screening and Scoping Opinion dated 7 March 2014 (Report No MLP/2013/00279) in section 11. Cumulative Impacts states that: 'The ES will need to have full regard to the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) and you need to consider the cumulative impact of the works. It would be advisable to discuss works and mitigation with Thames Water to ensure that any cumulative impacts of the 2 projects can be taken into account. This should include future effects of construction of the TTT may have on the bridge, including settlement, the effects of increased traffic during any cross over phases and any other considerations that may have an impact' In response to this requirement Arup, on behalf of the Garden Bridge Trust (GBT), commissioned Marico to carry out a Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA). The NRA that was done, and is included in the consent package, is dated 2 May 2014 and is titled a Preliminary Navigational Risk Assessment. Section 2.7.4 of the NRA deals with the timing of the Garden Bridge and TTT works, it says: 'It can be seen from Figure 25 that the surge in freight traffic associated with the Thames TidewayTunnel, on the current programme, is expected between 2016 and 2018.' And 'In order to safely accommodate the additional Thames Tideway Tunnel freight traffic, that part of the Garden Bridge construction work that affects navigation, should be completed prior to start of the freight traffic surge and/or the start of the Thames Tideway Tunnel CSO work at Blackfriars.
    [Show full text]