The £64 million questionThe prospect of a swift resolution to the money wrangles over the repair bill for Hammersmith Bridge seems to be receding with the news that the government has requested that Hammersmith and Fulham Council should fund 50% of the repair costs – leaving the council with a bill of £64 million pounds. Despite owning and therefore having legal responsibility for the bridge, the council has consistently maintained that it does not have the funds to cover the costs of its repair.When the bridge was initially closed to traffic in April 2019 the council looked to TfL to help fund repairs (the cost of which at the time was estimated by the council at £40 million). Now, 20 months later, the bridge is closed to pedestrians, TfL’s coffers are empty (it relies on fare income, of which there is currently precious little) and it is the government that is expected to pick up the bill. £64 million is a big ask from the government to a council that raises £90.5 million per year in council tax, and funds its total annual budget of £140 million through council tax, business rates and other grants. Without cutting costs the council has very little room for manoeuvre. Its council tax rates are low compared to other boroughs – the fourth lowest council tax rates in the country apparently. It is also currently by statute not able to raise council tax for non-social-care costs by more than 2%. This means that even if the entire 2% annual rise were allocated to Hammersmith Bridge (as opposed to covering inflationary costs) it would take many decades to raise £64 million via this route. However, it is worth noting that the council has found money within its current budget to go towards the bridge as its website says it is “currently paying £2.7 million per year to stop additional and dangerous deterioration.” Baroness Vere, the Chair of the government Task Force, has pointed to the council’s £257 million reserves as a possible source of funding for the bridge. However, in response, Hammersmith & Fulham Council states that its auditors say that its reserves are low in comparison with other councils and should not be depleted. It also appears that large amounts of its reserves are ring fenced for schools and housing. The targeting of its reserves has led to a firm response from the council leader Stephen Cowan who is reported as having said “We need to shoot this fox, that we could take the money out of our reserves. It’s an ignorant and stupid suggestion based on a lack of knowledge about our reserves… it’s part of a political shenanigans.” Nevertheless, it looks as though the government is expecting the council to cover the costs potentially through a combination of reserves and money borrowed against future toll income from the bridge. Of course, it could be that the £64 million demand is the opening gambit in a negotiation in which both sides appear to be playing hardball. Hammersmith Council has given examples of how much funding government has provided to councils for large bridge repairs elsewhere in the country pointing out that the government has funded between 77 and 94 per cent of bridge upgrades in areas such as Northumberland, Cleveland, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and Dudley this year. In a situation where the government is asking for a huge amount of money and the council has, as yet, made no public commitment to pay anything towards the major repair bill it is hard to see how a swift resolution might be forthcoming, potentially consigning those who rely on the bridge to years of travel misery. The only chink of light the Bugle can see in this situation is a quote from a government spokesperson in the Times article which revealed the £64 million demand. This, for the first time, revealed that the leader of Hammersmith Council Stephen Cowan “has committed to submitting a funding proposal on how a local contribution might be raised.” That’s the good news. The bad news is that the spokesperson went on to say “To date we are yet to receive this proposal and we cannot seek funding or move forward with further works on the bridge until we have that.” Let there be lightAndH opes were raised last month that pedestrians and cyclists might be able to walk over Hammersmith Bridge some time in 2021, with the release by the Department of Transport of reports in to the bridge’s condition made by cast iron expert Professor Norman Fleck and by engineering firm Aecom. According to a report in 'The Times', they concluded that the risk assessments from engineers Mott McDonald which led Hammersmith and Fulham Council to close the bridge to pedestrians were “conservative” and that previous assumptions about its complete closure should be revisited. Professor Fleck’s report said “The immediate provision of a small sum of money would allow for immediate remedial action to be taken” and “that work could be completed in a timeframe of weeks and at a modest cost.” At the heart of the matter is the presence of micro-fractures in the bridge’s supporting pedestals, believed to have been caused by stresses induced by seized roller bearings elsewhere on the bridge. Examinations of two of the pedestals, together with acoustic monitoring, led to the complete closure of the bridge in August after it was believed extreme heat had caused one of the fractures to worsen. Cast iron, although strong, can fracture alarmingly and this led to worries about a potentially catastrophic bridge collapse occurring while pedestrians were crossing.Professor Fleck’s report examines the dangers posed by the microfractures and looks at how they can be mitigated. It also reveals that some of the fractures discovered may even be casting defects that have been around since the bridge’s construction. The Aecom report also sheds doubt on whether the increase in the size of the crack was due to hot weather and further observed that the crack may actually be quite shallow. The release of the reports, without the Task Force being given prior opportunity to review them, led to accusations that the Task Force Chair Baroness Vere was spinning the story to the media. Hammersmith and Fulham Council Leader Stephen Cowan is reported as having said “'It's fair to say that a number of Taskforce members questioned the Government Taskforce's Chair, Baroness Vere, about the professionalism of sending papers so late while spinning the story to the media well beforehand.” Councillor Cowan also refused to consider reopening the bridge until being given the go-ahead by specialist engineers on the Continued Case for Safe Operation Board which constantly reviews such matters to protect public safety. The Times quotes him as saying “The bridge was closed because world-leading specialist engineers strongly advised the badly corroded suspension structure faced catastrophic failure,” he said. “If the bridge collapsed, as they advised it could, it would have been a national disaster.” He is also quoted in the Daily Mail saying that the government has refused to take on legal responsibility for a decision to reopen the bridge to pedestrians. Both the Fleck and Aecom reports say that no decisions regarding reopening the bridge to pedestrians should be made until after work has been carried out to blast clean and examine all of the bridge’s pedestals (only two have been revealed so far) and other mitigation measures are put in place (more monitoring and internal reinforcement of the pedestals). The blast cleaning and examination of the remaining pedestals is expected to be complete by April and no time frame has been published for adding strain gauges and reinforcement. You can read the Aecom and Fleck reports by clicking on the links below. Mott MacDonald’s reports on the bridge fractures are not publicly available. The Magazine New Civil Engineer requested a copy of Mott MacDonald’s 2019 report under a Freedom of Information request but this was turned down by Hammersmith & Fulham Council on the grounds of security risk.Aecom reportFleck reportNew Civil Engineer
Katrina Black ● 1930d