By Huw Oxburgh, BBC-funded Local Democracy Reporter
Plans to replace Exceat Bridge remain uncertain, after county council leaders deferred a decision on whether to scale back the scheme in the face of rising costs.
East Sussex County Council’s cabinet had been due to decide today (March 4) whether to discontinue plans to replace the single-lane bridge near the Cuckmere Haven beauty spot.
It forms part of the A259 between Seaford and Eastbourne and there were proposals to create a two-lane, two-way alternative route.
Councillors heard it might be possible to use funding for buses towards the costs as the road is used by the popular and frequent 12 Brighton and Hove bus route which runs between Brighton and Eastbourne.
If the scaled-back decision had been approved, the council would have gone ahead with plans to construct a cheaper like-for-like replacement of the existing structure.
These alternative plans, unlike the initial proposals, would require the road to be closed for around 22 weeks. These closures could result in delays of up to an hour for some rush hour motorists, officers had said.
Council officers previously said the project had initially been expected to cost somewhere in the region of £10.76 million when agreed in 2021: the same project is now expected to cost around £21.43 million.
How bus funding could help build new bridge
Director of communities, economy and transport Rupert Clubb today asked councillors to defer the proposals, saying officers wished to explore whether money tied to the council’s Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) could be used to deliver the original proposals.
Mr Clubb said: “There have been a number of very recent developments in relation to our principle bus operator along that route, identifying how … Exceat Bridge would be a priority for them over other Bus Service Improvement Plan proposals.
“This is something that we want to understand a bit more. The decision to use BSIP funding is not one for us, it is one for the Department for Transport, but we want to explore this opportunity.
“I think the fact that the bus operator is saying ‘this is a priority for us’ is quite helpful in this regard, so we are currently having conversations with the Department for Transport to find out whether it is possible for us to move some BSIP money around to facilitate the construction of the original scheme.”
Mr Clubb said concerns had been raised about the length of the closure associated with a like-for-like replacement, saying it was something the council would “clearly want to avoid.”
Call for wider consultation
The deferral was broadly welcomed by councillors. However, several members raised concerns about the wider project.
Seaford South councillor Carolyn Lambert (Lib Dem) said the council should take the opportunity presented by the deferral to gather more evidence around the impact of pursuing the like-for-like replacement.
Cllr Lambert said: “If you are looking at an alternative there are some important points that need to be considered, including consultation with emergency services, the impact on local businesses, [and] the impact on tourism.
“None of that is addressed in this paper and I would want reassurance that, if this paper is deferred and it comes back, there are serious concerns that need to be addressed.”
But council leader Keith Glazier (Con) argued this consultation had already been taken on board.
Cllr Glazier said: “The director has said that he got the message from all the councillors who had taken the time and lots of other consultation that has occurred since the paper was written.
“I would suggest that rather than going through it all twice, we give this as short an amount of time as possible. I don’t want to put a timescale on it, but we do have a cabinet meeting coming up and hopefully we can perhaps get it to there.
“If not we will bring it just as soon as we can, because I think there is an opportunity to look at a solution which would be A, more beneficial or B, more importantly deliverable.”
The council’s next cabinet meeting is due to take place on March 20, with a further cabinet meeting scheduled for April 22.
Background
The like-for-like replacement had been recommended to cabinet members in light of costs for the project “rising considerably” beyond what had first been expected.
In a report to cabinet members, county council officers said the project had initially been expected to cost around £10.76 million when it was first agreed in 2021. Officers said the same project is now expected to cost around £21.43 million.
The report sets out a number of reasons for the rising costs for the initial project, including “unexpected difficulties in securing all third party land and rights required for the project”, as well as broader economic and inflationary issues.
Officers also attributed blame to the planning process, saying conditions and pre-application design changes required by the South Downs National Park Authority meant planning permission took “several more years than anticipated to achieve”.
Notably, the council had said it intended to carry out the new scheme using permitted development rights, which is expected to result in a far shorter planning process.
The council says it has looked at ways to reduce costs of the original project. These included the removal of viewing platforms and full road closures to reduce the duration of the works.
Officers said these changes may have brought costs down to around £13.5 million, but the project would still be considerably over budget. This £13.5 million figure, described as a high-level estimate, also didn’t account for money already spent on the project.
The report to cabinet notes that around £4.6 million has been spent on the project to date (with this figure from the end of quarter three 2024/25), with a little under £6.2 million currently left in the project’s budget.
The report also notes how the majority of the project’s total funding – £7.957 million – comes from the government’s Levelling Up Fund.
The council has spent around £2.9 million of this funding to date and could be required to pay it back if the project does not go ahead.
:: Main image: ESCC
