The Lincolnshire Council's Overview and Scrutiny Management Board upheld the decision made by Councillor Tom Catton, Executive Councillor for Resources and Councillor Michael Cheyne, Executive Councillor for Highways and Transport, to approve a £578,500 highway drainage upgrade scheme at Mount Lane, Kirkby la Thorpe. The board debated concerns about the project's cost, scale, and impact, but ultimately voted against referring the decision back to the executive councillors for reconsideration.

Mount Lane Highway Drainage Upgrade

The board convened to discuss a call-in of the decision regarding a highway drainage upgrade at Mount Lane, initiated by Councillors Richard Davies, Charlotte Vernon, and Martin Hill OBE. Councillor Richard Davies, acting as a spokesperson, explained that the call-in was prompted by concerns about the project's scale, cost, and specific details, rather than opposition to the principle of drainage or flood alleviation.

Councillor Davies highlighted that £578,000 of taxpayers' money was being allocated to a drainage project at a time when many parts of Lincolnshire were experiencing significant flooding challenges. He questioned whether the council was confident that this investment represented a good return for taxpayers, and raised concerns about land agreements, new access tracks, and long-term liabilities.

Councillor Tom Catton responded that he and Councillor Michael Cheyne had gathered additional information and performed due diligence before making their decision. He also noted that the project consisted of two schemes, and it was the combination of these schemes that pushed the total cost over £500,000, requiring executive approval.

It was noted that the decision should have gone to a higher scrutiny committee, but this was an officer oversight.

Questions and Concerns

The board and the spokespeople for the call-in raised several questions and concerns:

• Proportionality of Investment: Councillor Davies questioned whether the investment was proportionate for a no-through residential road. Councillor Catton responded that while Mount Lane is a no-through road, it is relatively busy due to a large farm (approximately 1,800 acres) and an Anglian Water facility, which is considered critical infrastructure. He added that there is no alternative access for the water facility.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis: Councillor Davies noted the absence of a formal cost-benefit analysis or independent value-for-money assessment. Sam Edwards, Head of Highways, explained that drainage intervention of this scale is in its infancy, and there is no formal cost-benefit analysis available. However, he stated that the council uses a prioritisation tool and benchmarks costs against previous schemes. He provided a comparison of average costs per metre for other projects, such as Long Bennington (£962.46) and Hillby on Bain (£1,032.88), noting that the Mount Lane scheme was within this range.
• Definition of Affected : Concerns were raised about the definition of affected households used in the cost comparison. Councillor Davies questioned whether the comparison was like-for-like, as some of the other projects involved houses where water had inundated the properties, while the Mount Lane scheme primarily addressed near misses. Sam Edwards clarified that the definition included properties that had experienced flooding or were designated as near misses. Councillor Davies noted that there had only been one claim in the last 10 years.
• Prioritisation: Councillor Davies asked how the Mount Lane scheme was prioritised compared to other drainage needs across Lincolnshire. Councillor Catton stated that the scheme ranked number six on the priority list for the financial year, but the five higher-priority schemes could not be delivered this year. Sam Edwards explained that the council uses a prioritisation tool with 20 different metrics, including whether the property has been flooded, the extent of the flooding, safety issues, and pollution.
• Temporary Farm Track: Several board members voiced concerns about the long-term financial liabilities associated with leaving the temporary farm track in place. Councillor Catton stated that once constructed, the track would be the responsibility of the Thurlby Estate. Sam Edwards added that the landowner's acceptance of the track reduced the scheme's costs by eliminating the need for removal and restoration.
• Disruption: Questions were raised about the level of disruption the scheme would cause, particularly regarding access to residential properties, the farm, and the Anglian Water facility. Sam Edwards stated that there had been extensive communication with residents and businesses, including site visits and letters. He outlined traffic management measures, such as a 20 mph speed limit, temporary traffic signals, and limiting work areas to 50-metre sections.
• Equality Impact Assessment: Councillor Davies questioned why no equality impact assessment had been carried out. Sam Edwards responded that such assessments are not always required for maintenance schemes without substantial permanent changes to the highway network. However, he stated that the traffic management plan would incorporate ramps and pedestrian elements to accommodate a wide range of users.
• Justification for the Track: Councillor Nick Hastings questioned the justification for building the track, as the report indicated that HGVs could pass using the traffic management system. Sam Edwards clarified that the track was primarily for farm machinery, which is wider than HGVs and operates with greater frequency. He added that the track would create safer working conditions for the contractors.
• Alternative Access Routes: Councillor Mrs Susan Woolley asked whether alternative access routes had been explored, particularly tracks leading from the opposite direction. Sam Edwards stated that these tracks were privately owned and not suitable for the size and frequency of the farm vehicles.

The Vote

Following the debate, the board voted on whether to refer the decision back to the executive councillors for reconsideration. The board voted against referring the decision back. As a result, the decision to proceed with the Mount Lane highway drainage upgrade was upheld.

Other Matters Discussed

• Scrutiny Process: Councillor Stephen Roe raised concerns about why the decision had not been brought before a scrutiny committee initially. Sam Edwards accepted responsibility for this oversight, stating that it was not acceptable and would be addressed. Councillor Roe also questioned whether the executive believed that officers, rather than councillors, should determine what is scrutinised. Councillor Tom Catton clarified that any councillor can bring an item forward for scrutiny, regardless of its value.
• Alternative Solutions: Councillor Woolley suggested that the council should explore alternative access routes to save money on the temporary farm track. Sam Edwards responded that these options had been considered but were not feasible due to the size and frequency of farm vehicles and the condition of the alternative routes.
• Emergency Services: Councillor A D Findley asked how many times emergency services had been called out to assist residents due to flooding on Mount Lane. Sam Edwards stated that he did not have that data readily available but would investigate.