Press Release - 25 November
2006
BBEG receive more information under the Freedom of Information Act and respond again -
The Information Commissioner has assigned a Case Number
To: Amy Hall
Information Compliance Officer
Lincolnshire County Council
cc: Information Commissioner's Office, Audit Commission, Local Government Ombudsman, David Cameron
MP, John Prescott MP
Ref: Request Ref. No. 06510 - FOI
Request for Information - Boston Transport Study
Dear Madam
As you will be aware, the Director for Development for Lincolnshire County Council responded to our further request for information (dated/received 24 November 2006) under the Freedom of Information Act, the latest possible date to ensure the Council did not breach the Act for a second time.
We are becoming increasingly concerned as more and more of this saga unfolds, especially concerning the budget and the public consultation as referred to in items (a), (b), (h) (i) and (t) below.
The Information Commissioner's Office wrote to us on the 15 November 2006 and have assigned a Case Reference Number ENQ0139466. We have provided them with a copy of our original request under the FOI Act that LCC breached and we will be copying our further request for information below to them, raising our increasing concerns and requesting they look into this as a matter of urgency.
We would like to raise the following points that we feel have yet to be addressed and require a response to:
(a) We asked for a copy of a full and comprehensive budget statement, instead of which, we have been provided with a purposely produced Excel spreadsheet containing discrepancies from your original response under the Act (eg. rat-runs and journey times) and which does not include the specific details requested (eg. £10,000
for Derek May to investigate capacity improvements at non-signalised
junctions, and on 12 October 2005 additional journey time surveys
costing £3,000). The spreadsheet also includes sums such as £250 for a press release (Martin Hill's letter). What does this have to do with a budget for Transport? We will request the Information Commissioner's Office gain access to the Council's financial records to inspect them in detail. We are very concerned with what we have seen so far about the management of this budget and the use of funding. We ask again for a full and comprehensive budget statement please.
(b) You confirm that the Southern Economic Corridor budget has not been used for the modelling work. Please therefore clarify what Cllr Martin Hill meant when he stated on BBC Radio Lincolnshire's Breakfast Show that, "some of which has now been spent
on improvements to Marsh Lane and obviously doing the work to
look at how we can improve the situation." What did he mean 'improve the situation'. What has this funding been used for? Why is the Marsh Lane and this other work mentioned not shown in the Excel spreadsheet you produced for us?
(c) In your answer to our question (h) about why you only looked at one or two rat-runs, you stated that the results presented to the BBPG demonstrated that their worst "rat-run" did not show significant numbers. The BBPG or the BBEG have never stated a worst rat-run, nor been asked to. In a letter from Michael Borrill to David Woods, the following extract clearly shows our concerns: "Went to Woodhall yesterday and went out via Punchbowl Lane (half
way between Hubberts Bridge and Langrick Bridge). Traffic was heavy in both
directions, mainly HGVs/tankers and other commercial vehicles.
There is no doubt this is the new "rat run" and Richard Wills will soon be
having to spend money as the road appears to be sinking in lots of places
past Langrick Bridge." Of the few rat-runs you did actually include, you did not cover all junctions (eg. Punchbowl Lane, Hubberts Bridge, Conningsby) and only took data from one direction. You failed to include all the rat-runs we identified and the ones you did include were not done properly. Why do you state that the BBPG stated a worst "rat-run"?
(d) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 7 December 2005 state in item 2.4.1 that the blue route for a bypass has been rejected and you need to explain why it's been rejected ie. it is inconsistent with the Coastal Access Strategy. Why is this route inconsistent with the Coastal Access Strategy? We have been told that a Bypass/Distributor Road could not be built in sections. Item 2.4.2 says it could be considered in stages. Why have we been misinformed?
(e) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 7 December 2005 ask in item 2.4.5 is road widening a separate scheme or is it part of the Dock Link Road? Steve Willis and Elaine Turner are to talk to Richard Wills about this. What was Richard Wills response please?
(f) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 7 December 2005 state in item 2.5 that without the VISSIM modelling, the assessments made would not be so robust. JS asked if this could be packaged with other LCC assessments to bring costs down? What was the response to this please?
(g) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 7 December 2005 state in item 3.2 about the text for the 2nd Local Transport Plan (LTP2) that Elaine Turner states that other schemes are going to take priority over Boston Bypass. Text for LTP2 needs to state that the Transport Study will drive schemes for Boston. Why are other schemes going to take priority over a Boston Bypass?
(h) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 24 January 2006 state in item 1.3 that it must be understood that there is £4.5 million budgeted for Boston over the next 5 years and to justify this, the benefits the A16 widening brings must be proven. Does this not clearly show that you are actively pushing the road widening rather than seeking funding for a bypass or distributor road, as you have a case to prove to justify this funding? If this money is already in place, then Martin Hill's recent promise of £6 million to Boston is actually only £1.5 million isn't it, on top of the £4.5 million mentioned here?
(i) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 24 January 2006 state in item 3.2 that David Woods was invited to a meeting in Boston with Chestnut Homes concerning the Southern Link Road. Some expressed concern regarding this meeting. We would therefore ask if he actually attended this meeting? If so, does this not show a serious conflict of interest here, as David Woods is the Project Manager?
(j) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 24 January 2006 state in item 4.2 that David Woods asked if, for example, the bypass is the best option at removing traffic but is not fundable, do we then look at alternatives and run them through VISSIM. Have alternatives been looked at? If not, why not?
(k) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 24 January 2006 state in item 6.1 that Steve Willis was unaware of the study. The issue of how it would be taken into consideration needs to be reviewed. Was there a review please?
(l) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 22 March 2006 and also 9 October 2006 were not attended by any representative officer of Boston Borough Council. Considering the decisions made during these meetings, we are concerned at the lack of representation by the Borough Council. How can decisions be made in the absence of any representative of the Borough Council please?
(m) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 22 March 2006 state in item 2.1 that there had been a meeting of BBC and LCC Members regarding the Dock Link Road and that it was decided that any decision regarding the road be deferred, that it be included in the transport study as an option and be tested to compare it with the other options. Has this comparison been done please?
(n) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 22 March 2006 state in item 2.3 that a long discussion took place, in the absence of any Borough Council representative about the options for the Dock Link Road testing and a decision was made to go with the qualitative appraisal, then SATURN with further validation costing £13k. How can this decision be made without any representation by the Borough Council?
(o) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 22 March 2006 state in item 3.1 regarding the "edge of Boston" highway options that it was agreed to show all value options. Did the Borough Council have any input to the options that were shown at the public exhibition?
(p) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 22 March 2006 state in item 3.2 that Elaine Turner was concerned that you may be able to speak to Members more openly if members of the BBPG were not present. What did she specifically mean here please?
(q) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 22 March 2006 state in item 7.0 that the next meeting was to be held on 24 May 2006. No Minutes of this meeting have been provided. Why not? Please provide a copy of the meeting held on 24 May 2006.
(r) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 16 June 2006 state in item 3.1 that rumours are flying regarding the Transport Study. We note Sam Higginson's comments that the strategy should be to put out positive "spin" on the Transport Study and that it is important to release dates when LCC ready so not to run to pressure groups agenda. We would like to ask has LCC actually put out a reliable date when the Transport Study results will be available please? If so, will that date be realised?
(s) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 16 June 2006 state in item 3.2 that Anita Ruffle asked about "managing" Councillors. What exactly does this term mean please? Aren't Officers there to advise Councillors, not "manage" them?
(t) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 9 October 2006 state in item 2.1 that a lengthy review of the public consultation report and the suggested major changes were to include to add text regarding BBPG and BBEG were a possible cause of incomplete questionnaires and also that only "complete" questionnaires will be used to take the report forward and explain why. The BBEG and the BBPG met with David Woods and other Officers prior to the Public Consultation and asked the question beforehand if people wanted to just opt for a bypass and nothing else, would this data be accepted? His response was yes it would. Why did he tell us that beforehand and yet at this meeting, it clearly shows that you are only taking "complete" questionnaires forward? Does this not clearly demonstrate deliberate exclusion of the majority of the public's responses who want a bypass? Does this mean that all the people that chose a bypass as the only acceptable option (like the 81% of the public vote on BBC Radio Lincolnshire in support of a bypass for Boston) will effectively be discounted from your consultation report? It is worth noting here that during the consultation period, Martin Hill saw fit to go on the radio and claim that for justification reasons to the Government, the public should not just opt for a bypass.
(u) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 9 October 2006 state in item 4.1 that there was a discussion regarding funding issues. BBC, LCC and Economic Regeneration have aspirations for Boston and the differences there may be. Elaine Turner advised no information be given regarding the study as there is no endorsement of any policy until January 2007. What differences are being referred to here please? And by whom?
(v) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 9 October 2006 state in item 5.3 that it was felt that in the Vision document there is a need to explain why a bypass was not a viable option and what hurdles it would fail. It then mentions it doesn't achieve Aims and Objectives, Regional Funding Allocation, Value for Money with DfT and fail "lost cost option" test with DfT. Please explain why it doesn't achieve Aims & Objectives, why it is not Value for Money and how it fails the "lost cost option" test with DfT. What data has been used to warrant these claims? Why has an Economic Assessment not been carried out as for Lincoln and the Coastal Access route?
(w) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 9 October 2006 state in item 5.5 that prior to any information being made public, Phil Drury would need to be notified as he may have a political process to go through. Steve Willis to speak to Phil Drury to review. What resulted from these discussions please? What political process is being referred to here and why?
(x) Your Joint Officer Group (JOG) Minutes of 9 October 2006 state in item 6.2 that the West Street Development (WSD) must be acknowledged but not brought into study. There is a need to understand the impact of WSD. Why is the WSD not being brought into the study? In doing so, would this make Boston's congestion figures much worse?
We look forward to receiving your further explanations and information requested, together with also hearing further from the Information Commissioner's Office.
Boston is a wonderful town and
deserves better from Lincolnshire County Council.
Yours faithfully
ROBERT FISHER
Chair, Boston Bypass & Economic Growth Pressure Group (BBEG)
www.bbeg.org.uk
