This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Full Approval for Norwich NDR'.

From:   [ncc]
Sent:   30 July 2015 16:02
To:     [dft]
Subject:        RE: NNDR
Importance:     High
xxxx
Thanks for the email below and thanks for what was a helpful discussion with Tom on 
Monday.  I have set out below responses that I hope detail with the further points of 
clarification that you have requested.
Firstly on construction inflation, we have taken details from our already appointed 
contractor (Balfour Beatty) and reviewed these based on prices they have received from 
the supply chain compared with outline prices received in 2013.  In order to test this we 
have also requested an independent review of construction inflation.  This has 
considered details from 2010 to 2015 and indicates that road construction tender prices 
have increased significantly in that period (by up to 36%, with around 20% since early 
2013 when we developed our last budget price for the project).
The other cost increases relate to design development and design standards.  Some of 
this is in relation to developing details either ahead of, or as a result of the public 
examination.  This has included offline junction details, archaeological investigation, 
environmental supervision, additional fencing and access tracks, signing and lighting 
details.  We have been required to look at higher specification bat gantry proposals 
(although we are hoping to scope these back), increased landscaping provision, 
additional construction constraints (more night working provision), changes to the bridge 
structures (eg enhanced parapet details to consider bat foraging) and significant 
changes to the drainage design in order to satisfy EA requirements.
Some of the cost increases above we had allowed some contingency for, however 
given the scale of changes and the increased construction costs generally, we have not 
been able to contain these costs within budget – hence the additional cost that Tom has 
referred to.
In relation to the budget profiles you have set out below, I have amended these as 
follows:
2013  2015
67.5 DfT 82.5
40.0 CIL  40.0
17.1 NCC 
31.3
124.6 Total  153.8
The overall NDR budget (including Postwick Hub) was £148.6m.  This is likely to 
increase by £30m to £178.6m.  The figures in the table above show totals not including 
Postwick (ie for 2013 £148.6m – £24m = £124.6m).
There is however a further adjustment relating to Postwick Hub for the 2015 
figures.  We have seen some additional costs in relation to the works (mainly due to 
additional costs of archaeological investigations and complying with revised EA 
requirements in relation to groundwater source protection zones – something that has 

required a complete redesign of our drainage).  We expect the overall project out-turn 
cost to therefore increase by around £0.8m. This is included in our overall project 
increase of £30m, but the £0.8m and is taken from the 2015 total in the table above (ie 
£178.6m - £24.8m = £153.8m).
More details will be provided in the full approval submission and will set out costs more 
thoroughly, but as per my email of 17 July, I expect the total DfT project (Postwick to 
A140) approval level to be around £106m, which is an overall increase of £19m 
compared with the previous £87m.  The additional funding request is therefore based on 
a sharing of the overall project increased cost.  
The cost of the A140 to A1067 therefore is around £48m (ie £153.8m - £106m).  
I hope the above is what you need, but please do let me know if you need anything 
further, or if you would like to discuss, please call me on 07734 739325.
 
Regards 
xxxxd
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: xxxx xxxx  
Sent: 28 July 2015 08:31 
To: [ncc] 
Subject: NNDR
You may have been told about the telephone call with Tim McCabe yesterday where we 
said we would consider you request for additional funding further. To help that I would 
be grateful for some additional information / clarification.
Firstly Tom said the additional costs were largely (£22m) due to construction inflation 
but also (£8m) due to additional requirements placed on the scheme by Natural England 
and Env Agency. I would be grateful for more detail on these two points – both as to 
why construction inflation has made such a difference when many other schemes are 
not facing this and also details of the env requirements.
Second can I just clarify the various numbers.
As of 2013 it seems the total cost of the three elements of the scheme  (Postwick, A47 
to A140 and A140 to A1067) was £150m. It is now £180m.  Taking the £24m cost of 
Postwick out of the cost leaves totals of £126m and £156m. If I understood Tom 
yesterday the cost of the A47 to A1067 section was £127.5m and is now £157.5m. The 
previous and proposed (if we were to agree to the £15m additional cost) of the scheme 
separated out by contributor is as follows: 
2013  2015
67.5 DfT 82.5
40.0 CIL  40.0
20.0 NCC 
35.0
127.5 Total  157.5
We have so far offered £67.5m towards the £87m cost of the A47 to A140 section. I 
make it now that we would (if we agreed the additional funding) be paying £85.5m of 
£117m which if so means the A140-A1067 section is costing £39m. 

Please let me know whether the above numbers are correct or if not please amend.
          
xxxx xxxx  
, Local Transport Funding Growth & Delivery Division 
2/1x GMH, Great Minster House 
33 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 4DR 
020 7944 xxxx       
Follow us on twitter @transportgovuk