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

From: Norfolk CC]
Sent: 2 August 2015 12:40
To: DfT]
Cc: DfT]; [NCC]
Subject: E: Media Briefing on special council meeting
Importance: igh
[DfT]
 
We are looking at the whole project (ie A1067) and who was funding which element and therefore 
increasing the funding provision for each party based on their previous funding contributions uplifted on 
a pro-rata basis.  On this basis we have calculated the DfT contribution to uplift proportionally by £15m 
based on the numbers provided below.  I do not agree with the figure you are suggesting as this does 
not reflect a proportional increase in DfT funding.
 
Happy to discuss if you want to give me a call (xxxxx).
 
Regards
[NCC]
 
From: [DfT]  
Sent: 12 August 2015 12:31 
To: [NCC] 
Cc: [DfT]; [NCC] 
Subject: RE: Media Briefing on special council meeting 
Importance: High
 
Sorry but we are more confused now.
 
Your press release says you want an extra £15m to part cover the £29.9m cost 
increase.  We cannot work out how this fits with the numbers you set out below. 
 
The way we read it is that if you strip out Postwick the scheme we are helping to fund - 
A47 to A140 - has increased in cost by £19.15m not £29.9m. You have asked for an 
extra £15m to help fund this £19.9m which doesn’t seem like a fair share.  Remember 
we are not funding the original or the increased cost of the A140-A1067 section of the 
scheme which has always been the responsibility of NCC. It seems to us that a fair 
share is therefore £9.57m
 
This is what I propose to tell the Minister unless you can tell me otherwise.
 
[DfT]  | xxxxxxxxxx, Department for Transport 
x/xx GMH |  020 7944 xxxx |  
  
From: [NCC] 
Sent: 12 August 2015 11:56 
To: [DfT] 
Cc: [DfT] 
Subject: RE: Media Briefing on special council meeting
 
Hi [DfT]
 

Sorry for the confusion.  I have tried to set out the figures again so it is hopefully clearer. 
 
The element missing from my note of 30 July in relation to Postwick was our contribution to the Park 
and Ride access - which is being constructed as part of the main junction improvement (needed to 
optimise the junction performance and avoid the need for further highway works whenever we expand 
the P&R site). The cost details are:
 
The final funding bid includes the following:

A140 scheme is £105.890m

A1067 scheme is £151.147m
Difference is £45.257m
 
The original BAFB was £111.14m which included Postwick (but not the park and ride extension). The 
final (Full Approval) funding bid for Postwick was £24.4m.  The original BAFB, excluding Postwick, would 
be £86.74m, an increase in cost of £19.15m. We are seeking £15m of this from DfT, which broadly works 
out as a funding increase based on a pro-rata uplift basis.
 
For info, the Postwick Hub final funding bid excluded the park and ride extension. Refer to Section 3.4 of 
Postwick Application for Full Approval which stated:
“The DfT’s contribution towards the Park & Ride extension was removed at BAFB reducing the 
original CIF2 allocation from £21m to £19m. The new access arrangements to the expanded the 
Park & Ride site will be implemented at the same time as the junction works. This element 
represents an additional Local Authority contribution of £3m to that detailed in 3.4a above.”
 
The £27.7m mentioned in the table of costs in the Member briefing note in relation to Postwick Hub 
includes the cost of the park and ride extension of circa £3m.
 
In relation to the comments from our Leader, I hope you will appreciate that this sets out a political 
dimension to this process that I hope we can keep separate from the technical and cost 
detail.  However, to add some clarity to the points raised:
 
-              The reference to delays beyond our control is being made to the 2 year period from December 
2009, the original conditional approval confirmation date, to December 2011, the new conditional 
approval date, following the spending review period.  There is an acknowledgement that the need for 
the spending review is understood, but nevertheless, it has delayed the NDR project by 2 
years.  Without this delay, we would reasonably have expected to be well on with construction and 
would have not been caught up in a worse construction sector inflation period (which we avoided at 
Postwick).
-              The reference to Norfolk being disadvantaged by Government decisions (and note these are 
more political points) is the removal of Waste PFI credits, the delay in reporting the outcome of the 
Willows public inquiry and, more recently, the decision to award Academy status to the Hewitt School, 
against the wishes of the Authority.
 
The inflation increase has occurred since 2013.  We have taken independent advice and it demonstrates 
that road construction tender inflation has escalated significantly since 2013.  At the time of setting our 
budget pricing for the project, approaches were made to the market in late 2012 with costs reported by 
Balfour Beatty to us in early 2013 to inform the project costs going into the DCO submission 
process.  Since completion of the public examination, further work from Balfour Beatty to confirm the 
target cost based on the finalised scheme details has resulted in the increase in project costs.
 
We are not able to change the scheme to be selective about which elements we deliver (and therefore 
divert funding).  The DCO is very prescriptive and it sets out the scope of the project that must be 
delivered in order to comply with it.  The consented scheme is to the A1067 and we are now obliged to 
deliver this in full or we will not comply with the Secretary of States Order.  To revisit this would require 

us to effectively start again with a new DCO for a scheme (say) to the A140.  This was raised and 
discussed with the Inspectors during the first days of the Examination and we were clear that the 
examination was for the scheme as submitted and the Order would need to reflect that.  This is perhaps 
a downside to the DCO process in that it does remove scope for flexibility in delivering the works. Maybe 
something worth feeding back into the system at your end.
 
I hope the above helps, but as always please do get back to me if you need more details.
 
Regards
[NCC]
 
From: [DfT]  
Sent: 12 August 2015 08:32 
To: [NCC] 
Cc: [DfT] 
Subject: RE: Media Briefing on special council meeting
 
Thanks for this. 
 
I am now unclear exactly how much the A47-A140 scheme has increased in cost and 
also exactly how much additional funding you require.  Grateful for urgent response on 
this as it may unblock the Ministers submission. I should make it clear that we are not 
proposing to fund any cost increase on Postwick which given it is under construction is 
for you to deal with. I note there seems to be a £1m cost increase included.
 
In addition I would be grateful for an explanation of the comment made by you leader 
particular the sections underlined:
 
Cllr George Nobbs, Leader of Norfolk County Council, said:
“This is a vital infrastructure project for Norwich and Norfolk. It brings real jobs and 
economic growth, with travel and transport improvement that will benefit thousands of 
people every day, and a £1bn-plus boost to the Norfolk and national economy. 
 
"It's hugely disappointing that delays beyond our control have caused increased costs 
and I think it’s right that we press Government to do what’s right by Norfolk and meet us 
half way.
 
"Norfolk has been particularly disadvantaged by recent Government decisions, so I very 
much hope that our proposal to meet the Government half way and to put up a further 
£15m ourselves will be met by an equally generous contribution from them. After all, this 
is one of the best value for money schemes in the country."
 
We are still puzzled by the statements that a delay in 2011 is the reason why there has 
been cost inflation since resetting the cost in 2013 You did not tell us that the cost had 
gone up then.  
 
We note that the options you have proposed do not include not building the A140-
A1067 section and using the funding earmarked for that to funding the cost increase . 
Please let meknow why this was not proposed.
 
[DfT]  | xxxxxxxxxxx, Department for Transport 
x/xx GMH |  020 7944 xxxx |  
  
From: [NCC]  

Sent: 11 August 2015 16:14 
To: [DfT] 
Subject: FW: Media Briefing on special council meeting
 
[DfT]
 
As discussed, please see attached for info.  Any comments or if you wish to discuss, please let me know.
 
Also for info, today the Leader of the Council has written to all the Norfolk MPs to seek their support for 
securing funding from DfT.  I will let you see the letter when I have a copy.  The LEP have also been 
made aware and will be copied in to details.
 
Regards 
[NCC]
 
From: [NCC]  
Sent: 11 August 2015 15:07 
To: [NC] 
Cc: [NCC] 
Subject: Media Briefing on special council meeting
 
Dear Group Leader
 
Attached here is a media release setting out the background to the special County Council meeting on 
September 2nd.
 
We are currently briefing the local media on this. Also included is a note that we are issuing to all 
Members which gives further background about the issue.
 
Best wishes
 
[NCC]
 
 
 
--
 
To see our email disclaimer click here 
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer
 
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by 
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of 
problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. 
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal 
purposes.
 
The information in this email may be confidential or otherwise protected by law. If you received it in error, 
please let us know by return e-mail and then delete it immediately, without printing or passing it on to 
anybody else.  
 
Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the 
use of electronic communications and for other lawful purposes.
 
 

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus 
scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate 
Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. 
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal 
purposes.
 
--
 
To see our email disclaimer click here 
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer
 
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by 
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of 
problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. 
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal 
purposes.
 
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus 
scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate 
Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. 
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal 
purposes.
--
To see our email disclaimer click here 
http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer
 
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by 
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of 
problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. 
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal 
purposes.