7MB - Arun District Council

Appendix J Selected Services Records
Appendix C Risk Register
Feasibility Stage Risk Management Book
RISK REGISTER
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NON-TECHNICAL
…funding is not available to enable proposed works are not able to be
s106 monies (circa £4m) is currently
the design and construction to be progressed and delivered with the required available for the proposed bypass and the
timescales
costings t this stage indicate that this is
commenced and completed.
insufficient. Consideration of additional
sources of funding and the likely success
need to be considered.
…an additional funding bid to DfT an additional funding bid to be DfT will
additional external resource required to
required.
require a business case to be prepared
prepare and submit the bid (unless
and submitted. There are costs and time WSCC have the capability) which will
associated with preparing the business
increase the cost and the timescale for
case and submitting the bid
delivery
…there is little or no local political
support for the proposed works
opposition to the proposed bypass will
impact on the development of the
proposals and the timescales associated
with implementation
…the required land is not available proposed works are not able to be
for the proposed works.
delivered
...A27 Crossbush interchange is
unable to cope with the increased
flow / frequency of traffic.
northbound traffic queues on proposed
bypass
regular interaction with the local members
to ensure that their support is maintained
and enable the them to positively discuss
the proposed bypass with local residents /
businesses
Early discussions with land owners to
establish support and agreement prior to
considering requirements for Compulsory
Purchase Orders.
The A27 Crossbush interchange is
managed by the Highways Agency and
therefore discussions between WSCC
and HA need to be maintained.
…the northern section of A284
northbound traffic queues on proposed
(beyond proposed bypass) may be bypass
unable to cope with northbound
traffic (to Crossbush)
The A27 Crossbush interchange is
managed by the Highways Agency and
therefore discussions between WSCC
and HA need to be maintained.
…the proposed bypass may attract the traffic model used (North
additional traffic (diverting from the Littlehampton) assigned traffic diversions
westbound A259)
from the westbound A259 onto the
proposed Lyminster bypass. If the
quantum of diverting traffic increases the
proposed design could be inadequate.
as part of the preliminary design process
the assumptions made as part of the
traffic model should be confirmed as
accurate and the design criteria
confirmed.
…the proposed bypass negatively
impacts on the views towards and
from the South Downs National
Park
The feasibility design has minimised the
level of the proposed bypass above the
prevailing ground level to minimise the
impact on the surrounding area and
supplementary landscalping may be
requird
as part of the preliminary design process
the access requirements to adjacent land
parcels needs to be agreed with the land
owners.
the proposed bypass is at a level that
detracts from the views to and from the
South Downs National Park and lessens
the attraction of the natural habitat
…access requirements to adjacent the proposed bypass severs a number of
land parcels are increased.
land parcels and access at the moment
has been allowed for as a simple farm
access.
50%
Likely
High
High
20
50
150
73.3
36.7
ADC &
WSCC
Notes
At the meeting with ADC and WSCC on14th
February 2012, it was advised that circa £4m in
s106 contributions had already been obtained
Risk no.
person
Responsibility
organisation
Risk Owner
(statistical x likelihood)
Statistical
triangular distribution
Pessimistic
Most Likely
Optimistic
Importance
to reduce affects of risk
Impact of
occurrence
Mitigation measures
time/cost etc.
Likelihood of
occurrence
Consequences of uncontained risk
% Likelihood of
occurrence
Risk no.
1
Risk
the risk is that……...
Cost of risk if it occurs £k
Risk allowance £k
Employer WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
Project name LYMINSTER BYPASS
1
2
75%
20%
Very likely
Unlikely
Medium
Medium
High
Low
50
10
100
15
150
20
100.0
15.0
75.0
WSCC
3.0
ADC &
WSCC
100.0
ADC &
WSCC
At the meeting with ADC and WSCC on 14th
February 2012, it was confirmed that all the ADC
and WSCC members supported the scheme
3
4
50%
75%
75%
Likely
Very likely
Very likely
High
High
High
High
100
200
300
200.0
HA
High
HA
High
At the meeting with ADC and WSCC on 14th
February 2012, the Highways Agency indicated that
there were no proposals currently planned for the
A27 Crossbush interchange prior to 2015
5
Whilst the A284 is the responsibility of WSCC it is
linked with improvements to the A27 Crossbush
interchange.
6
7
20%
Unlikely
High
Low
20
100
500
206.7
41.3
WSCC
8
50%
Likely
40%
Likely
High
High
Medium Medium
100
250
400
250.0
125.0
ADC &
WSCC
20
50
100
56.7
22.7
WSCC
10
11
12
13
14
15
Feasibility Stage Risk Management Book
RISK REGISTER
2
3
4
5
6
7
TECHNICAL
…flood plain levels are increased the profile of the proposed bypass will
the proposals at feasibility stage are
meaning that the structure over the increase and have impacts on the views, based on the higher flood levels provided
Black Ditch needs to be increased construction costs and land requirements. by the EA and therefore there is the
potential that alignment levels may
reduce as the design is progressed.
Further discussions will be required with
the EA at the preliminary design phase.
…maintenance requirements of the
structure over the Black Ditch due
to its limited height above the
watercourse bed
the space above the watercourse bed and
the underside of the proposed structure is
relatively limited (circa 1.50m) and
therefore inspections and maintenance
requirements may require special
consideration
the structure level is dictated by the flood
plain level, the desire to limit the impact of
the proposed bypass on the views and he
desire to minimise the construction
requirements and therefore the result is
that the limited access height (1.50m) is
achieved.
…archaeological requirements
if the site investigation identifies matters of undertake the site investigation prior to
increase as a consequence of site archaeological significances then
the preliminary design being commenced
investigation works
additional costs and time delays will be
and consider undertaking any associated
incurred
excavation / protection works as part of
the design phase
… ecological constraints and / or
requirements increase as a
consequence of site investigation
works
if the site investigation identifies matters of undertake the site investigation prior to
ecological significances then additional
the preliminary design being commenced
costs and time delays will be incurred
and consider undertaking mitigation
measures as part of the design phase
… extent of treatment required on
existing A284 Lyminster Road is
increased.
although no design works have been
completed at this stage a estimate for
works on the existing A284 has been
included in the costings. The costs could
increase when the design is undertaken
…flood modelling outputs increase flood modelling will be required as part of
alignment and mitigation
the drainage strategy / FRA and the
requirements
outputs could impact on the design in
terms of vertical alignment and / or flood
compensation requirements.
…utility protection / diversion costs the detailed utility protection / diversion
are greater than the allowance in estimates could be greater than the
the costings.
allowance meaning that insufficient
funding is available
at the next stage of the design for the
bypass the options for the existing A284
should also be progressed to a stage that
public consultation and comments are
considered.
as part of the preliminary design phase
detailed consultation with the EA is
required to establish the accuracy of the
flood modelling and if additional
modelling is required.
as part of the preliminary design phase
detailed consultation and estimates are
required from the utility companies
30%
30%
40%
40%
Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
Medium Medium
Medium Medium
Medium Medium
Medium Medium
50
100
25
25
250
200
50
50
500
500
100
100
266.7
266.7
58.3
58.3
80.0
80.0
23.3
23.3
Notes
Risk no.
person
Responsibility
organisation
Risk Owner
(statistical x likelihood)
Statistical
triangular distribution
Pessimistic
Most Likely
Optimistic
Importance
to reduce affects of risk
Impact of
occurrence
Mitigation measures
time/cost etc.
Likelihood of
occurrence
Consequences of uncontained risk
% Likelihood of
occurrence
Risk no.
1
Risk
the risk is that……...
Cost of risk if it occurs £k
Risk allowance £k
Employer WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
Project name LYMINSTER BYPASS
The final level of the structure above the
watercourse bed will need to consider the
maintenance issues (Risk Item Technical 6)
1
If the final design results in a clearance between
watercourse bed and soffit of structure of 1.50m
then the maintenance requirements will need to be
considered in the Construction / As-Built Health and
Safety files
2
The desk reviews undertaken as part of the
feasibility study do not indicate significant
archaeological risks, however until the site
investigations have been undertaken this cannot be
certain
3
The desk reviews undertaken as part of the
feasibility study do not indicate significant
archaeological risks, however until the site
investigations have been undertaken this cannot be
certain
4
ADC &
WSCC
WSCC
WSCC
WSCC
5
50%
Likely
Medium Medium
100
250
400
250.0
125.0
WSCC
6
50%
Likely
Medium Medium
50
150
300
166.7
83.3
WSCC
7
25%
Likely
Low
Low
25
75
150
83.3
20.8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
WSCC
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total (K)
£840
Appendix D Cost Appraisal
11581309 - Lyminster Bypass - Cost Estimate_120227_Rev 1.xlsx
CONTENTS
1.0 - QUALITY ASSURANCE APPROVALS
2.0 - METHODOLOGY
3.0 - COST SUMMARY
4.0 - BILL OF QUANTITIES
1.0 - QUALITY ASSURANCE APPROVALS
1.1 - PREPARATION & AUTHORISATION
Issue/revision
Date
Prepared by
Signature
Checked by
Signature
Authorised by
Signature
Issue 1
27/02/2012
J. Jenkinson
J. Jenkinson
N. Brinkworth
N. Brinkworth
N. Brinkworth
N. Brinkworth
Revision 1
16/03/2012
J. Jenkinson
J. Jenkinson
N. Brinkworth
N. Brinkworth
N. Brinkworth
N. Brinkworth
1.2 - DRAWINGS
Project:
LYMINSTER BYPASS FEASIBILITY STUDY
Title:
XMASTER ALIGNMENT WITH JUNCTION 2
PROPOSED BRIDGE AT CHAINAGE 300
Day
Month
Year
Number
N/A
309/ST/001
Date of Receipt
13
02
12
Revisions ( ini = initial issue)
N/A
-
1.0
11581309 - Lyminster Bypass - Cost Estimate_120227_Rev 1.xlsx
2.0 - METHODOLOGY
2.1 - INTRODUCTION
The project comprises the proposed highway construction works at Lyminster, West Sussex.
Based on the level of design information provided and the time allowed to produce this estimate, costs
included in this estimate should be seen as order of costs only.
2.2 - BASIS OF COSTS
This cost plan is priced at 1st Quarter 2012.
Cost data has been based on a combination of historical cost data and Spon's Civil Engineering and Highways
Price Book 2010
Estimating methods include:
Takeoff quantites for drawings provided
Calculation of quanities from takeoff
Pricing by databases, price books and experience adjusted for specific project conditions
Provisional estimates or allowances developed for immeasurable items
Proposed level of contingency recommended for an estimate at this design stage 20%-35%
2.3 - EXCLUSIONS
The following are excluded, but should be included within the overall Project Budget, where appropriate:
Professional fees
Project/Design team fees
Risks including but not limited to:
Further survey works, site investigation or the like
Costs in connection with archaeological investigations and finds
Costs in connection with soil contamination or remediation
Costs in connection with abnormal ground conditions arising from any future site investigations
Lowering or diversion of any existing sewers, drainage or services
Further earthworks, landscaping works or the like
Allowance for future inflation
Value added tax
Project funding assessment mechanisms i.e. DfT Optimism Bias
2.0
2.4 - ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been made
General
Land Costs - A provisional allowance of £600,000 has been made for land costs.
This value is to be taken as a "nominal allowance".
For a more detailed estimate of this specific element, advice should be taken from a suitable qualified valuer.
Series 100: Preliminaries
An allowance of 20% of the construction costs has been made for prelims, which will include such items as
contractors establishment, insurance and traffic management.
Series 200: Site Clearance
Site clearance items have been measured from what can be seen on the drawings
It has been assumed that these are to be removed to tip, store or set aside as detailed in BQ
Series 300: Fencing
Items have been measured as shown on drawings. Specification of items has been assumed as detailed in BQ
Series 500: Drainage & Service Ducts
Drainage items have been measured as detailed on the drawing
It has been assumed that a filter drain is to be provided to all back of kerbs/embankments
Specification and depths of pipes have been assumed as detailed in BQ
Specification and depths of chambers and manholes have been assumed as detailed in BQ
Size, specification and depths of culvert extension have been assumed as detailed in BQ
Size, specification and depths of headwalls have been assumed as detailed in BQ
An allowance has been made for gullies and connections to existing systems
Series 600: Earthworks
It has been assumed that topsoil is to be excavated 150 mm deep in all areas of existing grass/verge
It has been assumed that all material excluding topsoil is acceptable
It has been assumed that acceptable excavated material is to be place in areas of fill where required
It has been assumed that all surplus excavated material is to be disposed off site
An allowance has been made for import of fill material to make up the difference between excavated
material and material placed in areas of fill
It has been assumed that all landscaped areas are to be topsoiled 150 mm deep
An allowance has been made for breaking up and excavation of existing carriageway
An allowance has been made for geotextile materials in ponds and flood compensation areas
Series 700: Pavements
All pavement areas have been measured as detailed on the drawings
Specification and depths of all pavement materials have been assumed as detailed in BQ
Series 1100: Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas
All kerb lengths have been measured from the drawings
All footway areas have been measured as detailed on the drawings
It has been assumed that PCC edgings are to be provided to all footway areas
Specification and depths of all footway materials have been assumed as detailed in BQ
Series 1200: Traffic Signs & Road Markings
An allowance has been made for traffic signs
Road markings have been measured as detailed on the drawings
Series 1300: Road Lighting Columns and Brackets
An allowance has been made for road lighting columns
Lighting columns have been assumed to be located at 30 m intervals
Specification of lighting columns and luminaires have been assumed as detailed in BQ
Series 1400: Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic Signs
An allowance has been made for electrical works to lighting columns and traffic signs
Series 2500: Special Structures
An allowance has been made for Proposed Bridge at Chainage 300
Cost based on £/m² of deck area - £2,608.70 * 460 = £1,200,000
Series 2700: Accommodation Works, Works for Statutory Undertakers, Provisional Sums and Prime Cost Items
Series 3000: Landscape and Ecology
It has been assumed that embankments and verges are to be grass seeded/turfed
2.0
11581309 - Lyminster Bypass - Cost Estimate_120227_Rev 1.xlsx
3.0 - COST SUMMARY
SERIES
GROUP ELEMENT/ELEMENT
TOTAL COST OF
ELEMENT
£
ROADWORKS
100
200
500
600
700
1100
1200
1300
1400
2500
2700
3000
Preliminaries
Site Clearance
Drainage and Service Ducts
Earthworks
Pavements
Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas
Traffic Signs and Road Markings
Road Lighting Columns and Brackets, CCTV Masts and Cantilever Masts
Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic Signs
Special Structures
Accommodation Works, Works for Statutory Undertakers, Provisional Sums and Prime Cost
Landscape and Ecology
TOTAL: ROADWORKS ESTIMATE (A)
PROJECT/DESIGN TEAM FEES AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT
Preliminary design fees - Highways
Preliminary design fees - Structures
Preliminary design fees - Environmental (FRA and Flood Modelling)
Detailed design fees - Highways
Detailed design fees - Structures
Surveys - Topographical
Surveys - Ecological
Surveys - Archaeological
Surveys - Geo-Environmental & Geotechnical
Surveys - Noise Surveys & Modelling
Other development/project costs - Land
Other development/project costs - Funding Bid Development
£708,966.03
£20,565.00
£502,255.00
£534,135.08
£729,029.91
£192,678.00
£17,999.40
£7,530.00
£50,000.00
£1,200,000.00
£278,334.00
£12,303.75
£4,253,796.16
£40,000.00
£8,000.00
£80,000.00
£120,000.00
£32,000.00
£50,000.00
£40,000.00
£20,000.00
£50,000.00
£15,000.00
£600,000.00
£150,000.00
TOTAL: PROJECT/DESIGN TEAM FEES AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT COSTS
ESTIMATE (B)
£1,205,000.00
BASE COST ESTIMATE (C) [C = A + B]
£5,458,796.16
TOTAL: RISK ALLOWANCE ESTIMATE (D)
COST LIMIT (excluding inflation) (E) [E = C + D]
£840,000.00
£6,298,796.16
TOTAL: INFLATION ALLOWANCE (F)
COST LIMIT (excluding VAT assessment) (G) [G = E + F]
VAT ASSESSMENT
£6,298,796.16
excluded
3.0
Bill of Quantities
Item No.
Description
Qty
Unit
Rate
£
1
sum
708,966.03
708,966.03
Series 100: Preliminaries
100
1
Preliminaries
100
Total to Collection
708,966.03
Series 200: Site Clearance
Site Clearance
200
1
General site clearance
12
ha
1,500.00
18,000.00
2,400.00
Take Up or Down and Set Aside for Reuse or Remove to Store Off
Site
200
2
Precast concrete kerb
200
m
12.00
200
3
Traffic sign; sign face not exceeding 2 m²
2
no
30.00
60.00
200
4
Sign posts up to 2.5 m high
2
no
15.00
30.00
200
5
Gully grating and frame
3
no
25.00
200
Total to Collection
75.00
20,565.00
Series 500: Drainage and Service Ducts
500
1
450 mm internal diameter concrete - standard drain in trench depth
to invert not exceeding 2 metres
215
m
75.00
500
2
600 mm internal diameter concrete - standard drain in trench depth
to invert not exceeding 2 metres
60
m
150.00
9,000.00
500
3
900 mm internal diameter concrete - standard drain in trench depth
to invert exceeding 2 metres but not exceeding 4 metres
340
m
250.00
85,000.00
500
4
900 mm internal diameter concrete - standard drain in trench depth
to invert exceeding 2 metres but not exceeding 4 metres
270
m
250.00
67,500.00
500
5
12
m
1,000.00
12,000.00
500
6
2339
m
70.00
163,730.00
500
7
2
no
450.00
900.00
500
8
1
no
4,000.00
4,000.00
500
9
5
no
4,000.00
20,000.00
500
10
3
no
4,000.00
12,000.00
500
11
2
no
8,250.00
16,500.00
500
12
2
no
11,500.00
23,000.00
500
13
2
no
11,500.00
23,000.00
1500 mm internal diameter concrete - standard drain in heading
depth to invert exceeding 2 metres but not exceeding 4 metres
150mm internal diameter UPVC filter drain in trench with gravel Type
A filter material depth to invert exceeding 2 metres but not exceeding
4 metres, average depth to invert 3 metres
Connection of 450 mm internal diameter pipe to existing 450 mm
internal diameter drain or existing piped culvert depth to invert not
exceeding 2 metres
Precast concrete chamber (2500 mm diameter flow control manhole
0.1l/s) with D400 cover and frame depth to invert not exceeding 2
metres
Precast concrete chamber (2500 mm diameter flow control manhole
0.3l/s) with D400 cover and frame depth to invert not exceeding 2
metres
Precast concrete chamber (2500 mm diameter flow control manhole
0.5l/s) with D400 cover and frame depth to invert not exceeding 2
metres
Precast concrete chamber (3125 mm diameter flow control manhole
0.1l/s) with D400 cover and frame depth to invert exceeding 2 metres
but not exceeding 4 metres
Precast concrete chamber (3500x3500 mm flow control manhole
0.2l/s) with D400 cover and frame depth to invert exceeding 2 metres
but not exceeding 4 metres
Precast concrete chamber (3500x3500 mm flow control manhole
0.5l/s) with D400 cover and frame depth to invert exceeding 2 metres
but not exceeding 4 metres
16,125.00
500
14
Precast concrete trapped gully with D400 cover and frame
3
no
500.00
1,500.00
500
15
Headwall in mass concrete to pipe exceeding 600 mm but not
exceeding 900 mm internal diameter
2
no
12,000.00
24,000.00
500
16
Headwall in mass concrete to pipe exceeding 600 mm but not
exceeding 900 mm internal diameter
2
no
12,000.00
24,000.00
500
Total to Collection
502,255.00
Series 600: Earthworks
600
1
Excavation of acceptable material Class 5A
6653
m³
4.00
26,612.88
600
2
Excavation of acceptable material excluding Class 5A in cutting and
other excavation
16427
m³
4.50
73,921.50
600
3
Excavation of acceptable material excluding Class 5A in attenuation
ponds
609
m³
4.50
2,740.04
4
Excavation of acceptable material excluding Class 5A in flood
compensation areas
4041
m³
4.50
18,186.53
600
600
5
Extra over excavation for excavation in Hard Material
210
m³
12.00
2,520.00
600
6
Deposition of acceptable material excluding Class 5A in embankments
and other areas of fill
5911
m³
1.50
8,867.24
600
7
Deposition of acceptable material excluding Class 5A in landscape
areas
9950
m³
1.50
14,925.00
600
8
Disposal of acceptable material
5216
m³
20.00
104,320.00
600
9
Import of acceptable material Class 6F2 in fill on sub-base material,
base and capping
5089
m³
35.00
178,115.00
5911
m³
0.75
4,433.62
9950
m³
0.75
7,462.50
600
10
Compaction of acceptable material in embankments and other areas
of fill
600
11
Compaction of acceptable material in landscape areas
600
12
Compaction of acceptable material in fill on sub-base material, base
and capping
5089
m³
0.75
3,816.75
600
13
Geotextile; Terram 1500
13252
m²
4.00
53,008.00
600
14
Backfilling of disused gullies
3
no
75.00
225.00
600
15
Topsoiling 100 mm thick to surfaces sloping more than 10° to the
horizontal
16405
m²
1.50
24,607.89
600
16
Completion of formation on material other than Class 1C, 6B or rock in
cuttings
14819
m²
0.70
600
Total to Collection
10,373.14
534,135.08
Series 700: Pavements
700
1
Type 1 unbound mixture sub-base
3070
m³
40.00
122,801.40
700
2
DBM base 250 mm thick in carriageway, hardshoulder and hardstrip
11988
m²
30.00
359,632.95
700
3
DBM binder course 70 mm thick in carriageway, hardshoulder and
hardstrip
11754
m²
12.00
141,046.38
4
HRA surface course 30 mm thick in carriageway, hardshoulder and
hardstrip
11702
m²
9.00
105,318.00
141.18
700
700
5
DBM regulating course
2
t
80.00
700
6
Tack coat
30
m²
0.50
15.00
700
7
Milling pavement 40 mm thick
30
m²
2.50
75.00
700
Total to Collection
729,029.91
Series 1100: Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas
1100
1
Precast concrete kerb type HB2 laid straight or curved exceeding 12
metres radius
2239
m
22.00
1100
2
Precast concrete kerb type HB2 laid to curves not exceeding 12
metres radius
100
m
30.00
3,000.00
1100
3
2265
m
12.00
27,180.00
1100
4
2831
m²
40.00
113,240.00
Precast concrete edging type EF laid straight or curved exceeding 12
metres radius
Footway comprising Type 1 unbound mixture sub-base 150 mm thick
DBM binder with 20 mm aggregate 70 mm thick & HRA wearing
course with 6 mm aggregate 30 mm thick
1100
Total to Collection
49,258.00
192,678.00
Series 1200: Traffics Signs and Road Markings
1200
1
1200
2
1200
3
1200
4
Allowance for replacement and additional directional and information
signs
Continuous line in white thermoplastic screed with applied glass
beads 150mm wide
Intermittent line in white thermoplastic screed with applied glass
beads 100mm wide with 600mm line and 300mm gap (TSRGD
1003&1009)
Intermittent line in white thermoplastic screed with applied glass
beads 100mm wide with 4000mm line and 2000mm gap (TSRGD
1004&1040)
Ancillary line white thermoplastic screed with applied solid glass
beads 150mm wide in hatched areas (TSRGD 1040)
1
sum
15,000.00
15,000.00
2302
m
0.60
1,381.20
101
m
0.60
60.60
1871
m
0.60
1,122.60
340.00
1200
5
340
m
1.00
1200
6
Triangle in white thermoplastic screed with applied solid glass beads
1875mm long (TSRGD 1023)
1
no
25.00
25.00
1200
7
Arrow in white thermoplastic screed with applied solid glass beads
4000mm long curved (TSRGD 1038)
1
no
20.00
20.00
1200
8
Arrow in white thermoplastic screed with applied solid glass beads
6000mm long double headed (TSRGD 1050)
1
no
50.00
1200
Total to Collection
50.00
17,999.40
Series 1300: Road Lighting Columns and Brackets
1300
1
Road lighting column of 10 m nominal height and with single bracket
arm having a projection of 1.0 m with a luminaire unit incorporating a
250 w SOX lamp and photo-electric control set to switch on at 100 lux
1300
6
no
1,255.00
Total to Collection
7,530.00
7,530.00
Series 1400: Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic Signs (All
Provisional)
1400
1
Allowance for electrical works to road lighting columns and traffic
signs
1400
1
sum
50,000.00
Total to Collection
50,000.00
50,000.00
Series 2500: Special Structures
2500
1
Proposed Bridge at Chainage 300 (Cost based on £/m² of deck area £2,608.70 * 460 = £1,200,000)
2500
2700
1
sum
1,200,000.00
Total to Collection
1
Series 2700: Accommodation works, works for statutory undertakers,
provisional sums and prime cost items
Allow the Provisional Sum of £35,000.00 for the provision of access to
adjacent land parcels (Allowance for simple "Farm" access: say 7 no @
£5k/no = £35k)
Allow the Provisional Sum of £50,000.00 for the provision of acoustic
fencing (Allowance for Single-sided timber reflective barrier 3m high
with concrete posts at 3m c/c: say 130 m @ £375/m = £50k)
1,200,000.00
1,200,000.00
1
sum
35,000.00
35,000.00
1
sum
50,000.00
50,000.00
2700
2
2700
3
Allow the Provisional Sum of £10,000.00 for the diversion of services Electricity (11kV at Northern end: say 50 m @ £200/m = £10k)
1
sum
10,000.00
10,000.00
2700
4
Allow the Provisional Sum of £20,000.00 for the diversion of services BT (Underground BT cable along Bridleway: say £20k)
1
sum
20,000.00
20,000.00
2700
5
Allow the Provisional Sum of £163,334.00 for the provision of traffic
calming works along the retained section of A284
1
sum
163,334.00
163,334.00
2700
Total to Collection
278,334.00
Series 3000: Landscape and Ecology
3000
3000
3000
1
Grass seeding or turfing to surfaces sloping at 10° or less to the
horizontal
8504
m²
0.75
6,378.00
2
Grass seeding or turfing to surfaces sloping at more than 10° to the
horizontal
7901
m²
0.75
5,925.75
Total to Collection
12,303.75
Appendix E Consultation Correspondence
Iles, Daniel
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wicks, Samuel
08 March 2012 10:14
Iles, Daniel
FW: FW: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study
This was the only email back I have received…
Samuel Wicks
Technical Assistant, Property & Development
Regus House, Southampton International Business Park
George Curl Way, Southampton. SO18 2RZ
Tel: +44 (0) 2380 302639
Fax: +44 (0) 2380 302001
Website: www.wspgroup.com
We are WSP. United by our difference.
From: James.Walsh@westsussex.gov.uk [mailto:James.Walsh@westsussex.gov.uk]
Sent: 05 March 2012 22:42
To: Wicks, Samuel
Subject: Re: FW: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study
Many thanks.
James Walsh
-This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the persons addressed. If it has come to you
in error please reply to advise us but you should not read it, copy it, show it to anyone else nor make any other use of
its content. West Sussex County Council takes steps to ensure e-mails and attachments are virus-free but you
should carry out your own checks before opening any attachment.
1
Iles, Daniel
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wang, Xiaochen
05 March 2012 17:24
Iles, Daniel
FW: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (WSCC Councillors)
FYI!
From: Nigel.Peters@westsussex.gov.uk [mailto:Nigel.Peters@westsussex.gov.uk]
Sent: 05 March 2012 17:23
To: Wang, Xiaochen
Subject: Re: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (WSCC Councillors)
Dear Xiaochen
Very many thanks for sending me a copy of this Study - it is most interesting.
I am delighted that this project is moving forward, albeit very slowly.
I welcome the opportunity to comment, particularly upon the link road to the existing village of
Lyminster. I am aware that we are unlikely to have major improvements to the Crossbush roundabout
and we are certainly no nearer to seeing a proper Arundel By-Pass come to fruitition. At the present
moment, at peak times in the morning, the traffic backs up around the bends in Lyminster, a distance
of about 1 mile from the Crossbush traffic lights. A lot of the reason for this is that west bound traffic
on the A27 avoids the queue on the outside lane, goes down the Lyminster Road and 'U-turns' in the
Service area and is let out into the north-bound queue on the Lyminster Road by virtue of the fact that
no-one will deliberately block the access to the service area to vehicles approaching from the north off
the A27.
If the proposal to put the link road to the north of the property known as Wolstanton is adopted, I can
see the queue extending south beyond this junction at peak times and anyone heading north will use
the village of Lyminster as a rat-run to avoid the southern most part of the queue. Although it is only
a matter of several metres, in my opinion we have to go for the option that follows the existing
bridleway to the immediate south of the Old Vicarage and Vicarage Cottage, as this will lessent the
inclination of the public to use the old road.
Additionally, (and perhaps most importantly) I feel that this northern part of the By-Pass must be built
in conjunction with the southern part, (which will be the developers responsibility). If it is not, or if
there is any substantial delay, then we will have let the public down completely in allowing 1200+
houses with the promise of infrastructure that will not be there.
With kind regards.
Nigel
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the persons addressed. If it has
come to you in error please reply to advise us but you should not read it, copy it, show it to anyone else nor
make any other use of its content. West Sussex County Council takes steps to ensure e-mails and
attachments are virus-free but you should carry out your own checks before opening any attachment.
1
Iles, Daniel
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wang, Xiaochen
07 March 2012 09:15
Iles, Daniel
FW: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (Building Control)
FYI!
From: Paul Scamans [mailto:Paul.Scamans@arun.gov.uk]
Sent: 07 March 2012 08:10
To: Wang, Xiaochen
Subject: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (Building Control)
Xiaochen,
Further to your email dated 5th March 2012 I can confirm that Building Control has no comment to make, as the work
falls outside of the scope of the Building Regulations (no new or altered buildings involved with the work).
Kind regards
Paul Scamans MRICS
Principal Building Control officer
01903 737642
http://www.arun.gov.uk
NLPG UPRN 100062237016
DX 57406 Littlehampton
Important Notice This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorised to receive it for the addressee), please notify the sender and delete the e-mail immediately; using, copying, or disclosing it to anyone else, is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views, opinions or options presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Arun District Council. The
information in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, therefore we cannot guarantee that we will not provide the whole
or part of this e-mail to a third party. The Council reserves the right to monitor e-mails in accordance with relevant legislation. Whilst outgoing e-mails are checked for
viruses, we cannot guarantee this e-mail is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed and we do not accept liability for any damage caused. Any reference to "e-mail"
in this disclaimer includes any attachments.
**********************************************************************
1
Iles, Daniel
From:
Sent:
To:
D HARRIOTT <carolineharriott@btinternet.com>
05 March 2012 13:39
Iles, Daniel
Dear Daniel ,
Further to receiving an email today showing proposed Lyminster bypass options,
please could you send me 6 hard copies as we have a parish meeting next week.
Kindest regards
Caroline Harriott , Lyminster and Crossbush Parish Chairman
Broomhurst Lodge
Lyminster Road
Lyminster
Littlehampton
BN177QQ
1
Iles, Daniel
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Wang, Xiaochen
07 March 2012 14:48
Iles, Daniel
FW: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (Virgin Media)
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
FYI!
From: >TW Diversionary [mailto:TWDiversionary@virginmedia.co.uk]
Sent: 07 March 2012 14:36
To: Wang, Xiaochen
Subject: RE: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (Virgin Media)
Xiaochen
Upon looking into your proposed development I can confirm that Virgin Media will not be affected by your works.
Kind regards
John
John Thompson | Network Alteration Centre
Virgin Media | 1 Dove Wynd, Ground Floor, Strathclyde Business Park, Bellshill, ML4 3AL
T 01698 565830 | F 01698 565551 E | john.thompson@virginmedia.co.uk
Visit www.virginmedia.com for more information, and more fun
Save Paper - Do you really need to print this email?
From: Wang, Xiaochen [mailto:Xiaochen.Wang@WSPGroup.com]
Sent: 05 March 2012 13:35
To: >TW Diversionary
Cc: Iles, Daniel
Subject: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (Virgin Media)
Dear Sirs
Lyminister Bypass Feasibility Study
Please find attached a letter and a series of PDF drawings relating to Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study.
Can any responses please be sent to Daniel Iles email: Daniel.Iles@wspgroup.com.
Should you require any hard copies regarding the proposals please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards
Xiaochen Wang
Graduate Engineer, Property and Development
1
Regus House
Southampton International Business Park
George Curl Way
Southampton. S018 2RZ
Tel +44 (023) 80302662
Fax +44 (023) 80302001
Website : www.wspgroup.com
We are WSP. United by our difference.
Winner of the NCE/ACE Consultants of the Year 2010 Outstanding Achievement Award
Number 1 Transport Consultancy 2010 (NCE Consultants File)
Manual for Streets 2 launched. Speak to us about CPD and training events.
WSP is one of the world's fastest-growing design, engineering and management consultancies. Specialising in property, transport and
environmental projects, we work with clients to create built and natural environments for the future.
CONFIDENTIAL
This e-mail is confidential to the named recipient. If you have received a copy in error, please destroy it. You may not use or disclose the
contents of this e-mail to anyone, nor take copies of it. The only copies permitted are (1) by the named recipient and (2) for the purposes
of completing successful electronic transmission to the named recipient and then only on the condition that these copies, with this
notice attached, are kept confidential until destruction.
WSP UK Limited Registered Office: WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF Registered Number 01383511 England
-------------------------------------------------------------------Save Paper - Do you really need to print this e-mail?
Visit www.virginmedia.com for more information, and more fun.
This email and any attachments are or may be confidential and legally privileged
and are sent solely for the attention of the addressee(s). If you have received this
email in error, please delete it from your system: its use, disclosure or copying is
unauthorised. Statements and opinions expressed in this email may not represent
those of Virgin Media. Any representations or commitments in this email are
subject to contract.
Registered office: Media House, Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 9UP
Registered in England and Wales with number 2591237
2
ROAD POLICING UNIT
OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT
POLICE HEADQUARTERS
th
Your Ref: DI/amh/11581309/C
Our Ref: TMW/48/12/IWJ
Date: 16 March 2012
Contact Name: Ian Jeffrey
Extension: 44041
Direct line: 01273 404041
Email: ian.jeffrey@sussex.pnn.police.uk
Mobile: 07979 245516
Dear Mr Iles,
Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study
I refer to your letter dated the 2nd March 2012, and drawings number 309-SK-002,
309-SK-003 and 309-SK-006 illustrating the two options being considered in respect
of the above matter.
Having studied the plans I can confirm Sussex Police prefer option 2. On checking
the 10 year collision history for the existing A284, personal injury collisions are
focused in the vicinity of the two tight radii curves within the settlement. The benefit
of option 2 is that the northern bend is no longer part of the principle highway
network, the link from the new bypass being to the south of it. We would expect as a
result a reduction in road casualties at this location.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Jeffrey
Traffic Management Officer (West)
Road Policing Unit
Operations Department
Mr D Iles,
WSP Property & Development,
Regus House,
Southampton International Business Park,
George Curl Way,
Southampton,
Hampshire,
SO18 2RZ
Police HQ Malling House Church Lane Lewes East Sussex (01273 404041)
Website: http://www.sussex police.uk
Iles, Daniel
David.Boarer@westsussex.gov.uk
08 March 2012 11:23
Wang, Xiaochen
Iles, Daniel
Re: Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (Fire)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Xiaochen
I have reviewed the attached proposals and from a Fire and Rescue perspective we have no preference, albeit that if
option 2 offers greater visibility for traffic emerging from Lyminster this may assist in the reduction of possible road
collisions.
As this is a main service route for fire appliances to service the A27 from Littlehampton, any works to be carried out
should not impede or restrict access during construction.
If I can be of any further assistance please contact me again
Yours sincerely
David Boarer
|
David Boarer Water and Access Manager, West Sussex County Council
Location: West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, Power Place, 23 Terminus Road, Chichester, PO19 8TX
Internal: 83667
| External: 01243 813667 | E-mail: david.boarer@westsussex.gov.uk
Think sustainably. Do you have to print? Can you double side? Do you need colour?
"Wang, Xiaochen" <Xiaochen.Wang@WSPGroup.com>
To <David.Boarer@westsussex.gov.uk>
cc "Iles, Daniel" <Daniel.Iles@WSPGroup.com>
05/03/2012 14:35
Subject Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study (Fire)
Dear Sirs
Lyminister Bypass Feasibility Study
Please find attached a letter and a series of PDF drawings relating to Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study.
Can any responses please be sent to Daniel Iles email: Daniel.Iles@wspgroup.com.
Should you require any hard copies regarding the proposals please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards
Xiaochen Wang
Graduate Engineer, Property and Development
Regus House
Southampton International Business Park
George Curl Way
Southampton. S018 2RZ
1
Tel +44 (023) 80302662
Fax +44 (023) 80302001
Website : www.wspgroup.com
We are WSP. United by our difference.
Winner of the NCE/ACE Consultants of the Year 2010 Outstanding Achievement Award
Number 1 Transport Consultancy 2010 (NCE Consultants File)
Manual for Streets 2 launched. Speak to us about CPD and training events.
WSP is one of the world's fastest-growing design, engineering and management consultancies. Specialising in property, transport and
environmental projects, we work with clients to create built and natural environments for the future.
CONFIDENTIAL
This e-mail is confidential to the named recipient. If you have received a copy in error, please destroy it. You may not use or disclose the contents
of this e-mail to anyone, nor take copies of it. The only copies permitted are (1) by the named recipient and (2) for the purposes of completing
successful electronic transmission to the named recipient and then only on the condition that these copies, with this notice attached, are kept
confidential until destruction.
WSP UK Limited Registered Office: WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF Registered Number 01383511 England
[attachment "309-SK-002 REV C.pdf" deleted by David Boarer/FB/WSCC] [attachment "309-SK-003-A.pdf" deleted by David
Boarer/FB/WSCC] [attachment "309-SK-006-A.pdf" deleted by David Boarer/FB/WSCC] [attachment "Lyminster Site Plan.pdf"
deleted by David Boarer/FB/WSCC] [attachment "120302 Boarer .docx" deleted by David Boarer/FB/WSCC]
-This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the persons addressed. If it has come to you in error
please reply to advise us but you should not read it, copy it, show it to anyone else nor make any other use of its content. West
Sussex County Council takes steps to ensure e-mails and attachments are virus-free but you should carry out your own checks
before opening any attachment.
-This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the persons addressed. If it has come to you
in error please reply to advise us but you should not read it, copy it, show it to anyone else nor make any other use of
its content. West Sussex County Council takes steps to ensure e-mails and attachments are virus-free but you
should carry out your own checks before opening any attachment.
2
Date:
Our ref:
Your ref:
29.03.12
47973
DI/amh/11581309/C
Natural England
Consultation Service
Hornbeam House
Electra Way
Crewe Business Park
CREWE
CW1 6GJ
T: 0300 060 3900
By email only, no hard copy to
follow
Dear Mr Lles
Lyminster Bypass Feasibility Study on a proposed northern section of highway by-pass in
Lyminster between Littlehampton and Arundel, West Sussex
Thank you for your letter of 08th March 2012 regarding the above feasibility study.
Based on the proposal information provided at this stage, Natural England does not have a
preference in proposal options. However, it is recommended that appropriate ecological surveys
are carried out, as detailed below, which may help inform future decisions if one option appears
less ecologically damaging than another. Further consideration should also be given to:
1. Landscape Character and Designated Areas
Consideration should be given to the following aspects:
 The potential impact of the scheme on the landscape character and visual amenity of the
surrounding area.
 The detailed design of the proposed improvements should seek to respect and enhance
local character and distinctiveness, and use appropriate materials and designs in all new
built features.
 The bypass is located 1km south of the South Downs National Park. It is recommended
that contact is made with the National Parks Authority to ensure that the proposed scheme
does not adversely affect this designated landscape.
2. Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
We strongly recommend that surveys for protected species (including, for example, great crested
newts, reptiles, water voles, badgers and bats) should be carried out within the area affected by
the development.
Any resultantant ecological report produced should include details of:
 The species concerned;
 The population level at the site affected by the proposal;
 The direct and indirect effects of the development upon that species;
 Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required;
 Whether the impact is acceptable and/or licensable.
In order to provide this information there may be a requirement for a survey at a particular time of
year. Surveys should always be carried out by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed,
consultants.
The great crested newt, dormouse and all species of bats are European protected species such
that it is illegal to intentionally kill, injure or otherwise disturb them. If any of these species are
found to be present you should also consult Natural England’s Wildlife Management and Licensing
Unit in Bristol (Tel. 0845 6014523) about licensing implications before any work can proceed.
3. Other features of nature conservation interest, e.g. habitats and species identified within
the UK and County Biodiversity Action Plans.
Natural England advises that a habitat survey (analogous to Phase 2) is carried out on the site, in
order to identify any important habitats present. In addition, ornithological, botanical and
invertebrate surveys may need tobe carried out at appropriate times in the year, to establish
whether any scarce or priority species are present. The ecological report should include details of:
 Any historical data for the site affected by the proposal (e.g. from previous surveys);
 Additional surveys carried out as part of this proposal;
 The habitats and species present;
 The status of these habitats and species (e.g. whether BAP priority habitat);
 The direct and indirect effects of the development upon those habitats and species;
 Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required.
The proposed bypass should avoid adversely impacting the most important wildlife areas within the
site, and should if possible provide opportunities for overall wildlife gain.
For any correspondence or queries relating to this consultation only, please contact Heather
Twizell at Guildbourne House, Worthing, by telephone on 03000601711 or by email to
Heather.Twizell@naturalengland.org.uk. For all other correspondence, please contact the above
address.
Yours Sincerely
Catherine Laverick
Land Use Adviser