Date of issue: Wednesday, 10 July 2019
MEETING BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY
Member Authority Councillor Anderson Slough Borough Council Councillor Brunel-Walker Bracknell Forest Council Councillor Johnson Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Councillor Jorgensen Wokingham Borough Council Councillor Page Reading Borough Council Councillor Somner West Berkshire Council Stuart Atkinson Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Charles Eales Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Malcolm Kempton Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Bob Mountain Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Simon Ratcliffe Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Matthew Taylor Thames Valley Berkshire LEP DATE AND TIME: THURSDAY, 18TH JULY, 2019 AT 4.00 PM
VENUE: THE CURVE - WILLIAM STREET, SLOUGH, BERKSHIRE, SL1 1XY
DEMOCRATIC SERVICES NICHOLAS PONTONE OFFICER: (for all enquiries) 01753 875120
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are requested to attend the above Meeting at the time and date indicated to deal with the business set out in the following agenda.
JOSIE WRAGG Chief Executive
AGENDA
PART 1
Apologies for absence. AGENDA REPORT TITLE PAGE ITEM 1. Declarations of Interest -
It is a principle of the BLTB that the interests of the Thames Valley Berkshire area will take precedence over a member’s own interests or those of their nominating authority.
All members must declare, and take relevant action, if they believe they have a pecuniary or other interest on a matter to be considered at the meeting in accordance with the Code of Conduct of the nominating authority or LEP.
The Chair will invite any member representing a local authority seeking financial approval for a scheme to declare that interest.
2. Election of Chair 2019/20 -
To elect the Chair of BLTB for 2019/20 from amongst the Local Authority Members.
3. Election of Vice-Chair 2019/20 -
To elect the Vice-Chair of BLTB for 2019/20 from amongst the Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Members.
4. Minutes of the Meeting held on 14th March 2019 1 - 8
5. Briefing Note - TVB LEP/BLTB 'How We Work' 9 - 10
6. Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 11 - 102 2020/21
7. Allocation of the remaining Local Growth Funds 103 - 106
8. Financial Approval for scheme 2.04.4 Wokingham: Arborfield 107 - 112 Cross Relief Road
9. Financial Approval for scheme 2.31 Slough: Stoke Road 113 - 142 Area Regeneration
10. Review of Prioritisation Methodology 143 - 160
11. BSTF & BLTB Assurance Framework 161 - 172
12. Heathrow Airport Expansion - proposed consultation 2 173 - 178 response
13. TfSE - Proposal to Seek Statutory Status - Formal Response 179 - 208
14. BLTB Forward Plan 209 - 210
15. Date of Next Meeting - 14th November 2019 AGENDA REPORT TITLE PAGE ITEM
Press and Public
You are welcome to attend this meeting which is open to the press and public, as an observer. You will however be asked to leave before the Committee considers any items in the Part II agenda. Please contact the Democratic Services Officer shown above for further details.
The Council allows the filming, recording and photographing at its meetings that are open to the public. By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings. Anyone proposing to film, record or take photographs of a meeting is requested to advise the Democratic Services Officer before the start of the meeting. Filming or recording must be overt and persons filming should not move around the meeting room whilst filming nor should they obstruct proceedings or the public from viewing the meeting. The use of flash photography, additional lighting or any non hand held devices, including tripods, will not be allowed unless this has been discussed with the Democratic Services Officer. This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 4
Berkshire Local Transport Body – Meeting held on Thursday, 14th March, 2019.
Present:- Councillor Page (in the Chair) Reading Borough Council Stuart Atkinson Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Councillor Bicknell RBWM Councillor Carter Slough Borough Council Councillor Clifford West Berkshire Council Malcolm Kempton Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Bob Mountain Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Simon Ratcliffe Thames Valley Berkshire LEP Councillor Sleight Wokingham Borough Council Matthew Taylor Thames Valley Berkshire LEP
Also present under Rule 30:- Councillor Chopping (Wokingham Borough Council) and Councillor Turrell (Bracknell Forest Council)
Observer:- Rob Stubbs, RBWM (accountable body for TVB LEP)
Apologies for Absence:- Councillor Brunel Walker and Charles Eales
PART 1
41. Declarations of Interest
Matthew Taylor declared that he worked for Stewarts Coaches Ltd, which had potential commercial interests in providing services for Mass Rapid Transit schemes.
42. Minutes of the Meeting held on 15th November 2018 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 31st January 2019
Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting of the Berkshire Local Transport Body (BLTB) held on 15th November 2018 and the Extraordinary meeting held on 31st January 2019 be approved as a correct record.
43. Briefing Note - TVB LEP/BLTB 'How We Work' - To Note
Members noted a briefing note that summarised the process by which Thames Valley Berkshire LEP and the Berkshire Local Transport Body operated in investing in local transport schemes.
The Chief Executive of Thames Valley Berkshire LEP updated members on the progress of reviewing its Assurance Framework to ensure it complied with the requirements of the new National Assurance Framework (NAF). The LEP Forum would consider ratification of the revised Assurance Framework on 26th
Page 1 Berkshire Local Transport Body - 14.03.19
March and the LTB Assurance Framework would need to be revised to ensure alignment. In the meantime, draft minutes of LTB meetings would be published within 10 days of meetings in line with the requirements in the National Framework to promote openness and transparency.
Resolved – That the BLTB ‘How we work’ briefing note be noted.
44. Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21
A report was received on the progress of the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal which set out the status of approved schemes, updated financial profile and identified risks.
Updates were provided by scheme promoters on each of the approved schemes:
2.01 Newbury: Kings Road Link Road – good progress was being made on site.
2.02 Bracknell: Warfield Link Road – completed.
2.03 Newbury: London Road Industrial Estate – completed.
2.04: Wokingham: Distributor Roads – update noted. Good progress was being made and the planning process was underway.
2.05 Newbury: Sandleford Park – update noted.
2.06 Reading: Green Park Railway Station – update noted.
2.07 Bracknell: Coral Reef Roundabout – completed.
2.08 Slough: MRT Phase 1 – completed.
2.09.1 Sustainable Transport NCN 422 – update noted. The works were almost completed.
2.09.2 Sustainable Transport A4 Cycle Route with Bucks – completed.
2.10 Slough: A332 Improvements – update noted.
2.11 and 2.12 Reading: South Reading MRT phases 1 and 2 – update noted. The scheme was almost completed.
2.13 Wokingham: Thames Valley Park & Ride (previously called 2.13 Reading: Eastern Park & Ride) – update noted.
2.14 Reading: East Reading MRT Phase 1 and 2.25 Reading: East Reading MRT Phase 2 – withdrawn.
Page 2 Berkshire Local Transport Body - 14.03.19
2.15 Bracknell: Martins Heron Roundabout – update noted. The impact of current utility works was noted.
2.16 Maidenhead Station Access – update noted. The scheme was progressing well and was on target.
2.17 Slough: A355 Route – completed.
2.18 No scheme.
2.19 Bracknell: Town Centre Regeneration and Infrastructure Improvements – the scheme had been completed. The one-year-on report would be considered later on the agenda.
2.20 No scheme.
2.21 Slough: Langley Station Access Improvements – update noted.
2.22 Slough: Burnham Station Access Improvements – the scheme was due to be completed by the end of April 2019.
2.23 Reading: South Reading MRT Phases 3 and 4 – update noted.
2.24 Newbury: Railway Station improvements – update noted.
2.25 – see 2.14.
2.26 Wokingham: Winnersh Relief Road (Phase 2) – see 2.29.
2.27 Maidenhead Town Centre: Missing Links – update noted. Good progress was being made with completed due by 2021.
2.28 Bracknell: A3095 Corridor Improvements – update noted. Preliminary works were underway to carry out detailed design.
2.29 Wokingham: Winnersh Parkway – a report seeking financial approval would be considered later on the agenda.
2.30 N/A
2.31 Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration – a report would be considered later in the meeting informing the LTB that the scheme could not be delivered by 2021 due to deliverability issues and that the funding be re-allocated.
2.32 Maidenhead: Housing Sites Enabling Works Phase 1 – update noted. Progressing well and on track for delivery by 2021.
2.33 GWR: Maidenhead to Marlow-Branch Line Upgrade – update noted.
2.34 Slough MRT Phase 2 – update noted.
Page 3 Berkshire Local Transport Body - 14.03.19
2.35 Reading West Station Upgrade – update noted. Discussions were ongoing with GWR and Network Rail. The scheme promoter aimed to seek financial approval in July 2019 but the timescale was tight.
2.36 Wokingham: Coppid Beach Park and Ride – update noted.
2.37 Bracknell: A322 A329 Corridor Improvements – update noted.
2.38 Theale Station Park and Rail Upgrade – update noted. Work was ongoing.
2.39 Wokingham: Coppid Beech northbound – update noted.
2.40 Windsor: Town Centre Package – update noted. Discussions were taking place with the Independent Assessor about the mechanism to assess the scheme.
2.41 South Wokingham Distributor Road Eastern Gateway – update noted.
Resolved – That the progress made on schemes previously given programme entry status be noted.
45. Financial Approval for 2.29 Wokingham: Winnersh Triangle Park & Ride
A report was considered that sought financial approval for scheme 2.29 Wokingham: Winnersh Triangle Park and Ride (previously referred to as Wokingham: Winnersh Parkway). A total contribution from the LEP of £2,850,000 was sought over two years and conditional approval was requested.
The purpose of the scheme was to redevelop the transport links at Winnersh Triangle and included double-decking the new park and ride site to add at least 250 additional car parking spaces, improving the station building and reorganising the highways layout. There were significant plans to intensify the use of the Winnersh Triangle Business Park and the scheme would make a major contribution to the growth of economic activity. The scheme had a high benefit to cost ration of 4.4.
Members asked whether a modular design was being used to potentially provide additional car parking spaces in the future if capacity was reached. The scheme promoter confirmed that the design would provide the option of an extra deck in the future. There was a discussion about the long term impact on car parking of new transport technologies such as autonomous vehicles. This was an issue being considered in the development of long term strategic plans. The business case for investment in this particular scheme remained strong.
At the conclusion of the discussion, BLTB agreed to give conditional financial approval on the terms set out in the report.
Page 4 Berkshire Local Transport Body - 14.03.19
Resolved – That scheme 2.29 Wokingham: Winnersh Triangle Park & Ride be given conditional financial approval in the sum of £250,000 in 2019/20 and £2,600,000 in 2020/21 on the terms of the funding agreement set out a paragraph 11 step 5 of the report, subject to meeting the following conditions:
(i) Either: Provision of clear evidence to justify the different journey time and vehicle operating cost impacts across all user classes.
(ii) Or: Provision of updated VISUM model and TUBA model outputs that demonstrate both positive and consistent impacts across all user classes.
(iii) Provision of benefits sensitivity test outputs for a low growth and reduced P&R occupancy scenario that demonstrate the scheme will continue to represent high value for money from investment under these circumstances.
(iv) Provision of additional evidence to support the commercial case to demonstrate the optimum procurement approaches will be adopted by both Wokingham BC and South Western Railway (SWR).
(v) Provision of confirmation of SWR management arrangements for delivering the internal station works.
(vi) That the scheme retains high or better value for money once these conditions have been met.
46. 2.19 Bracknell: Town Centre Regeneration - One Year Impact Report
BLTB considered the One Year Impact Report for scheme 2.19 Bracknell: Town Centre Regeneration. Bracknell Forest Council had received £2m towards the £6.382m for highway network and public realm improvements.
The reports of the scheme promoter and the Independent Assessor, Hatch Regeneris, on the impacts were summarised. The benefits of the scheme were based on the modelled forecast year of 2026 and it was therefore too early to assess the impact of the delivered schemes but it was concluded that the overall movement and capacity at the junctions had been improved which was important in managing the local highway network and supporting the significant regeneration of the town centre. There had been 17 million people movements in the year to August 2018 with 54% travelling by car. Increased traffic congestion had been avoided and accidents had fallen.
On behalf of Bracknell Forest Council, Councillor Turrell stated that the objectives of the scheme had been met and made a big difference locally.
Page 5 Berkshire Local Transport Body - 14.03.19
There had also been an increase in pedestrian and public transport movements, although members commented that the use of sustainable modes did not come through strongly in the impact reports.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the LTB welcomed the initial positive impacts and noted the reports.
Resolved – That the One Year Impact Reports from the scheme promoter and the independent assessor for 2.19 Bracknell: Town Centre Regeneration be noted.
47. Business Rates Retention Pilot - Revenue Support
A report was considered that recommended approval of a payment to Slough Borough Council from the Business Rates Retention Pilot under the revenue support scheme for the development of a strong pipeline of future infrastructure schemes.
The LTB had already agreed the funding for the other five authorities in Berkshire and Slough’s proposal to utilise the £100,000 allocated was set out in Appendix 1. This included support to develop the Heart of Slough strategic routes scheme. After due consideration, the LTB agreed the revenue support proposals from Slough Borough Council.
Resolved – That the revenue support proposal and the drawdown of BRRP funds by Slough Borough Council as set out in appendix 1 to the report be approved.
48. Revised Local Growth Fund Programme 2015/16 to 2020/21 - Update
A report was considered that sough approval to give programme entry status to a new scheme from the July 2018 prioritised list, 2.42 Wokingham: Barkham Bridge for £4,265, 431.
Following the withdrawal of the East Reading MRT scheme, the LTB had agreed in January 2019 to reallocate this funding to six schemes and postpone a decision on a seventh scheme, 2.41 Slough: SMaRT Phase 3 A4 West Park and Ride. However, the scheme promoter had confirmed that due to complexities of land ownership the SMaRT Phase 3 scheme could not be delivered by March 2021 as required. It was therefore recommended that the next scheme on the prioritised list, Wokingham: Barkham Bridge be given programme entry status.
Assurance was sought from the scheme promoter that it could be delivered within the required timescales. Wokingham Borough Council gave a high level of assurance by confirming that the scheme was well advanced and was almost ready to go on site. It was also confirmed that all of the scheme was within highway land.
Page 6 Berkshire Local Transport Body - 14.03.19
BLTB agreed to give programme entry status to 2.42 Wokingham: Barkham Bridge.
Resolved – That programme entry status be granted for scheme 2.42 Wokingham: Barkham Bridge for £4,265,431.
49. TfSE - Proposal to Seek Statutory Status - Informal Engagement
A report was considered on the informal engagement process for Transport for the South East (TfSE) to secure statutory status as a sub-national transport body. Councillor Page reminded members that he was BTLBs representative on TFSE and that he was the Vice-Chair of that body.
The TfSE Shadow Board had approved a draft proposal to Government for informal engagement and responses had been sought from authorities in Berkshire to respond to this draft proposal. The informal engagement process closed on 1st March and retrospective endorsement of the response set out in paragraph 22 of the report was recommended. A formal consultation period would take place after the local elections on 2nd May which would run to 31st July 2019.
Several authorities had already hosted presentations from TfSE and these had been well received. Members welcomed the response which was endorsed subject to a minor amendment to paragraph 22(v) which should read “consensus within the Partnership Board”.
There was a wider discussion about the membership and voting arrangements and it was confirmed that the one seat for Berkshire would carry six votes operating collectively following consultation through the LTB and Berkshire Strategic Transport Forum. Authorities could decide to have individual membership at a later stage.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the recommendations were approved.
Resolved –
(a) That the response set out in paragraph 22 of the report be endorsed.
(b) That the comments and minor amendment as above be made to the response.
(c) That it be noted that TfSE proposed to conduct formal consultation on its final proposal to government and that would be the subject of a further report to BLTB on 18th July 2019.
50. Transport for the South East - call for Major Roads Network schemes
A report was considered that informed the LTB of the Transport for the South East (TfSE) call for schemes for the government’s £3.5bn Major Roads Network (MRN) programme.
Page 7 Berkshire Local Transport Body - 14.03.19
The MRN was for A roads administered by local authorities which sat below the network of motorway and trunk roads. The government had indicated that sub-national transport bodies would have a major role in identifying priorities and TfSE had therefore issued a call for schemes with a deadline of May 2019.
It was noted that cross-boundary schemes would be particularly important through this process and it was proposed and agreed that a further report with a list of schemes be received by the LTB in July 2019.
Resolved – That the Transport for the South East call for MRN schemes be noted and that a further report detailing any schemes submitted to TfSE would be produced for the July BLTB meeting.
51. BLTB Forward Plan
The BLTB Forward Plan set out the matters to be considered at future meetings. It was noted that the One-year on impact report for 2.02 Bracknell: Warfield Link Road would be moved from November 2019 to March 2020.
Resolved – That the BLTB Forward Plan be noted.
52. Date of Next Meeting - 18th July 2019
The date of the next meeting was confirmed as 18th July 2019.
Chair
(Note: The Meeting opened at 4.00 pm and closed at 4.44 pm)
Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 5
How we work
Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (TVB LEP) and the Berkshire Local Transport Body (BLTB) – investing in local transport schemes
This briefing note is intended to set out the way TVB LEP works with BLTB to invest Local Growth Funds in transport schemes.
1. TVB LEP is a business-led organisation responsible for determining the key funding priorities to which Local Growth Funds (LGF) and other public resources are directed in order to implement a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and meet its commitments in the TVB Growth Deals. As a company limited by guarantee (registered at Companies House No. 07885051) it operates according to its Articles of Association, which comply with the Companies Act 2006. As a publicly-funded body it behaves in accordance with an Assurance Framework, which determines the practices and standards necessary to provide assurance to government and local partners that decisions over (all government) funding are proper, transparent and deliver value for money. [LEP Assurance Framework (AF) January 2017]
2. BLTB consists of six elected members (usually the lead member for transport or related portfolio), and six private sector representatives recruited and appointed by the LEP. [LEP AF 1.11]. It is a Joint Committee of the six unitary authorities in Berkshire and its constitution is set out in its Founding Document.
3. TVB LEP recognises BLTB as “the competent body to a) prioritise and b) implement transport capital schemes on its behalf. In practice the LEP will accept any BLTB recommendations or refer them back but will not substitute its own recommendations.” [LEP AF 1.12]
4. The process established by government for making Growth Deals is to invite LEPs to submit competitive proposals, and after due consideration to make awards based on all or part of a LEP bid. To date TVB LEP has agreed three Growth Deals. Each of these has included, among other things, the award of capital funds for individual transport schemes that were prioritised in the TVB LEP bid and named in the Growth Deal settlement.
5. TVB LEP works with its partners to identify and prioritise suitable schemes. It is a lobbying organisation, and, via Growth Deals, a joint-funder of selected schemes promoted by (usually, but not always) a local transport authority. [BLTB Founding Document (FD) 11-13]
6. BLTB requires promoters to develop each scheme in accordance with current WebTAG guidance published by DfT. In order to receive financial approval from BLTB, the Full Business Case must be subject to independent assessment and a positive recommendation about value for money. [BLTB FD 14-16]
7. The scheme promoter is responsible for all aspects of the design, risk management, insurance, procurement, construction and implementation of the scheme, including their responsibilities as highway and planning authorities, any other statutory duties, and any financial or other liabilities arising from the scheme. [BLTB FD 18]
8. The time taken between an initial government call for bids and the final announcement of a new Growth Deal can be in excess of a year. TVB LEP (together with BLTB for transport schemes) must go through a number of steps to respond to a government call for bids. Similarly, a transport scheme promoter also must go through several steps:
Page 9 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM 6
BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY (BLTB)
REPORT TO: BLTB DATE: 18 July 2019
CONTACT OFFICER: Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration, Slough Borough Council, lead officer to the BLTB
PART I
Item 6: Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21
Purpose of Report
1. To report on the progress of the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deali, as amended by Growth Deal 2 (£10.2 million further support to Thames Valley Berkshireii) and Growth Deal 3 (Factsheet GD3iii) with particular reference to the schemes included in the Transport Packages of the Strategic Economic Planiv; and on the progress of schemes funded by the Business Rates Retention Pilot (BRRP) 2018/19.
2. The headline figure for transport scheme grants under the three Local Growth Deals is £135.926m. This includes £24m of “DfT retained” allocation relating to the Wokingham Distributor Roads. This report provides progress reports on all programme entry schemes and the TVB Smart City Cluster (Smart Berkshire) scheme. A further £25m has been released through BRRP1 2018/19 and £11m from BRRP2 2019/20.
3. £14.742m LGF was spent on transport schemes in 2015/16, £16.546m in 2016/17, £15.055m in 2017/18 and £8,810,000 in 2018/19. In addition, £10.808m was spent from BRRP.
Recommendations
4. That you note the progress made on the schemes previously given programme entry status, as set out in Appendix 1.
Other Implications
Financial
5. Thames Valley Berkshire LEP has been granted freedoms and flexibilities in managing the Local Growth Deal Capital Programme. This means that we will receive an annual allocation of capital within which it will be our responsibility to manage the award of LGF to individual schemes. This is a positive development for TVB LEP and recognises the confidence that government has in our governance arrangements.
6. The government has confirmed the allocation of funding for 2019/20 and there is a provisional profile for payments in the financial year 2020/21.
Item 6 BLTB 18 July 2019 - Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21 Page 11 Table 1: Available Finance for Transport Schemes in TVB Local Growth Deal and BRRP £m 2015/16 – 2020/21 LTB previously approved 14.5 Growth Deal 1 56.1 Less unallocated - 0.7 55.4 Growth Deal 1 “DfT Major Schemes” 24.0 Growth Deal 2 7.5 Growth Deal 3 33.8 Plus unallocated 0.7 34.5 Local Growth Deal Total 135.9 BRRP 2018/19 and 2019/20 36.0 Grand Total 171.9
7. The profile and status of the available money in each year is as follows:
Table 2: Local Growth Deal and BRRP Financial Allocations by Financial Year £m 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Combined Growth Deal 1, 2, 3 14.7 16.5 15.1 8.8 - - 55.2 and LTB Allocation approved Growth Deal 1 (DfT Major - - - 0.9 22.1 1.0 24.0 Schemes) indicative Combined Growth Deal 1, 2 and 3 - - - - 19.8 37.0 56.8 LTB Allocation indicative profile Local Growth Deal Total 14.7 16.5 15.1 9.7 41.9 38.0 135.9 BRRP - - - 11.5 24.5 - 36.0 Grand Total 14.7 16.5 15.1 21.2 66.4 38.0 171.9
8. Table 3 sets out the final allocation of scheme finance for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 and the provisional allocation for future financial years, which are subject to alteration following the government’s confirmation of the Local Growth Deal funding profile. It also outlines the final schemes finance for 2018/19 and the provisional allocation for 2019/20 for the BRRP.
Table 3 – Local Growth Deal and BRRP Scheme Funding Profiles Scheme Name Status 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 £m Newbury: King’s Rd 2.01 GD 1 On site - 1.335 1.000 - - - 2.335 Link Road Bracknell: Warfield 2.02 GD 1 Complete 3.500 - - - - - 3.500 Link Road Newbury: London Rd 2.03 GD 1 Complete 0.500 1.400 - - - - 1.900 Industrial Estate Wokingham: DfT FBC due 2.04 - - - 0.874 22.126 1.000 24.000 Distributor Roads major July 2019
Item 6 BLTB 18 July 2019 - Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21 Page 12 Scheme Name Status 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 £m Newbury: Sandleford 2.05 GD 2 On site - - - 2.000 0.900 - 2.900 Park Reading: Green Park 2.06 GD 1 On site - - 4.575 - 4.575 - 9.150 Railway Station Bracknell: Coral Reef 2.07 GD 1 Complete 2.100 - - - - 2.100 Roundabout 2.08 Slough: MRT Phase 1 GD 1 Complete 3.100 2.500 - - - - 5.600 2.09 Sustainable Transport: GD 1 On site - 2.100 1.500 0.200 0.400 - 4.200 .1 NCN 422 2.09 Sustainable Transport: GD 1 Complete - 0.483 - - - - 0.483 .2 A4 Cycle Slough: A332 2.10 GD 1 On site 1.267 1.433 - - - - 2.700 improvements Reading: South 2.11 Reading MRT Ph 1 GD 1 On site - 2.970 1.530 - - - 4.500 Reading: South 2.12 Reading MRT Ph 2 Wokingham: Thames 2.13 Valley Park and Ride GD 1 On site - - - 2.000 0.900 - 2.900 formerly Reading: Eastern Reading Park and Ride Reading: East Reading 2.14 GD 1 MRT Ph1 Withdrawn ------Reading: East Reading 2.25 GD 3 MRT Ph2 Bracknell: Martins 2.15 GD 1 Complete - 0.200 2.700 - - - 2.900 Heron Roundabout Maidenhead: Station 2.16 GD 1 On site - - - 0.690 3.060 - 3.750 Access 2.17 Slough: A355 route GD 1 Complete 2.275 2.125 - - - - 4.400 2.18 not used ------Bracknell: Town 2.19 GD 2 Complete 2.000 - - - - - 2.000 Centre Regeneration 2.20 not used ------Slough: Langley 2.21 Station Access GD 2 On site - - 1.500 - - - 1.500 Improvements Slough: Burnham 2.22 Station Access GD 2 Complete - 2.000 - - - - 2.000 Improvements Reading: South On site. 2.23 Reading MRT Phases GD 3* Part-funded by - - 2.250 0.090 - - 2.340 3-4 BRRP see below Newbury: Railway 2.24 GD 3 On site - - - 3.630 0.921 1.500 6.051 Station Improvements 2.25 Withdrawn 2.26 Wokingham: Winnersh Relief Rd Phase 2 – See BRRP below Conditional Maidenhead Town 2.27 GD 3 approval - - - - 0.842 1.400 2.242 Centre: Missing Links November 2018 Bracknell: A3095 2.28 GD 3 On site - - - 0.200 1.800 3.519 5.519 Corridor Improvements Conditional Wokingham Winnersh GD 3 approval March 2.29 Triangle Park & Ride reserve - - - - 0.250 2.600 2.850 2019 (lifted Formerly Wokingham: scheme Winnersh Parkway 22.5.19)
Item 6 BLTB 18 July 2019 - Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21 Page 13 Scheme Name Status 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 £m GD 3 Slough: Stoke Road FBC due 2.31 reserve - - - - 2.500 5.150 7.650 Area Regeneration July 2019 scheme GD 3 Conditional Maidenhead: Housing 4.213 reserve approval. 2.32 Sites Enabling Work - - - - 2.315 1.898 LEP total scheme Part-funded by Phase 1 BRRP see below 5.281 GWR: Maidenhead to GD 3 FBC due Nov 19 2.33 Marlow Branch Line reserve (Bucks TV LEP - - - - 1.525 - 1.525 Upgrade scheme lead) 2.34 Slough MRT Phase 2 – See BRRP below GD 3 Reading West Station 2.35 reserve FBC due Nov 19 - - - - - 3.100 3.100 Upgrade scheme GD 3 Wokingham: Coppid 2.36 reserve FBC due Mar 20 - - - - - 2.400 2.400 Beech Park and Ride scheme GD 3 Bracknell: A322 A329 2.37 reserve FBC due Nov 19 - - - - - 1.200 1.200 Corridor Improvements scheme GD 3 Theale Station Park 2.38 reserve FBC due Mar 20 - - - - - 4.000 4.000 and Rail Upgrade scheme GD 3 Wokingham: Coppid 2.39 reserve FBC due Mar 20 - - - - - 2.322 2.322 Beech northbound scheme GD 3 Windsor: Town Centre 2.40 reserve FBC due Nov 19 - - - - - 1.563 1.563 Package scheme GD 3 Wokingham: Barkham 2.43 reserve FBC due Nov 19 - - - - - 4.236 4.236 Bridge scheme N/a Unallocated - - - - - 1.919 1.919 Local Growth Deal Total 14.742 16.546 15.055 9.684 42.114 37.806 135.948 Reading: South On site. 7.808 2.23 Reading MRT Phases BRRP Part funded in - - - 7.808 - - LEP total 3-4 GD3 see above 10.148 FBC approved 2.34 Slough MRT Phase 2 BRRP - - - - 13.300 - 13.300 January 2019 Conditional Wokingham: Winnersh 2.26 BRRP approval Nov 18 - - - 3.000 3.260 - 6.260 Relief Road Phase 2 (lifted 25.2.19) Conditional Maidenhead: Housing 1.068 approval. 2.32 Sites Enabling Works BRRP - - - - 1.068 - LEP total Part-funded in Phase 1 GD3 see above 5.281 South Wokingham 2.41 Distributor Road – BRRP FBC due Nov 19 - - - - 5.000 - 5.000 Eastern Gateway Approved / N/a BLIS development BRRP - - 0.090 - - 0.090 underway - 5 proposals Business Case N/a BRRP approved, 1 to be - - - Preparation 0.600 - - 0.600 approved Mar 19 N/a Unallocated BRRP - - - - 1.874 - 1.874 BRRP Total - - - 11.498 24.502 - 36.000
Item 6 BLTB 18 July 2019 - Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21 Page 14 Risk Management
9. The delegation of programme management responsibilities to the LEP/BLTB brings risks. The well-established scrutiny given by both BST(O)F and BLTB meetings is designed to mitigate that risk.
10.There will be an element of risk for scheme promoters who invest in developing their schemes to full business case stage in accordance with the approved Assurance Frameworkv. However, there is also risk involved in not developing the schemes; that risk is that any reluctance to bring the schemes forward will result in any final approval being delayed or refused.
11.The risks associated with each scheme are monitored locally. Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the current risk rating of each of the schemes.
Table 4: Completed schemes (9)
Scheme Notes 2.02 Bracknell: Warfield Link Road One-year-on impact report due March 2020 2.03 Newbury: London Rd Industrial Estate One-year-on impact report submitted July 2018 2.07 Bracknell: Coral Reef One-year-on impact report submitted November 2017 2.08 Slough: Rapid Transit Phase 1 One-year-on impact report due March 2020 2.09.2 Sustainable Transport: A4 Cycle One-year-on impact report due November 2019 2.15 Bracknell: Martins Heron One-year-on impact report due March 2020 2.17 Slough: A355 route One-year-on impact report submitted July 2018 2.19 Bracknell: Town Centre Regeneration One-year-on impact report due March 2019 Burnham Station Access 2.22 One-year-on impact report due July 2020 Improvements
Table 5: Risk rating of schemes that are on site (13) Date RAG Scheme stated on Notes rating site Newbury: Kings Road 2.01 October 2016 Green Completion due January 2021 Link Road Newbury: Sandleford Amber / 2.05 August 2018 Completion revised to September 2021 Park Green Reading: Green Park Amber / 2.06 March 2018 Completion revised to August 2020 Station Red Sustainable Transport: 2.09.1 January 2017 Green Completion due December 2019 NCN 422 Slough: A332 December 2.10 Amber Completion revised to July 2019 improvements 2015 2.11 Reading: South Amber / and Reading MRT phases August 2016 Completion due July 2019 Green 2.12 1 and 2 Wokingham: Thames 2.13 Valley Park and Ride February 2018 Green Completion due September 2019 formerly Reading: Eastern Reading Park and Ride Maidenhead: Station 2.16 January 2019 Green Completion due March 2020 Access
Item 6 BLTB 18 July 2019 - Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21 Page 15 Slough: Langley 2.21 Station Access March 2018 Amber Completion revised to September 2019 Improvements Reading: South 2.23 Reading MRT Phases March 2018 Green Completion March 2020 3-4 Newbury: Railway 2.24 January 2019 Green Completion due March 2021 Station Improvements Wokingham: Winnersh 2.26 January 2019* Green Completion due September 2020 Relief Road Phase 2 Bracknell: A3095 2.28 October 2019* Green Completion due November 2021 Corridor Improvements *Enabling works
Table 6: Risk rating of schemes yet to start onsite (15) RAG Scheme Status Notes rating FBC being Funding now 100% to Arborfield Wokingham 2.04.4 developed for Amber Cross Relief Road. Advance fees Distributor Roads approval by DfT approved FBC approved Maidenhead Town 2.27 (conditional) Amber Start on site due July 2020 Centre: Missing Links November 2018 FBC approved Wokingham: March 2019 2.29 Winnersh Triangle Green Start on site due January 2020 (conditions lifted Park & Ride 5/19) FBC being Slough: Stoke Road 2.31 developed for Amber Start on site due autumn 2019 Area Regeneration July2019 Maidenhead: FBC approved Housing Sites 2.32 (conditional) Amber Start on site due August 2019 Enabling Works January 2019 Phase 1 GWR: Maidenhead Programme Entry 2.33 to Marlow Branch - approval process Amber Start on site due May 2020 Line Upgrade via Bucks TV LEP FBC approved 2.34 Slough MRT Phase 2 Green Start of site due August 2019 January 2019 FBC being Reading West 2.35 developed for Amber Start on site due March 2020 Station Upgrade November 2019 FBC being Wokingham: Coppid 2.36 developed for Amber Start on site TBC Beech Park and Ride March 2020 Bracknell: A322 FBC being 2.37 A329 Corridor developed for Amber Start on site due July 2020 Improvements November 2019 FBC being Theale Station Park 2.38 developed for Amber Start on site TBC and Rail Upgrade March 2020 FBC being Wokingham: Coppid 2.39 developed for Amber Start on site TBC Beech northbound March 2020 FBC being Windsor: Town 2.40 developed for Amber Start on site due October 2019 Centre Package November 2019 South Wokingham FBC being 2.42 Distributor Road – developed for Amber Start on site TBC Eastern Gateway November 2019 FBC being Wokingham: 2.43 developed for Amber Start on site due November 2019 Barkham Bridge November 2019
Item 6 BLTB 18 July 2019 - Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21 Page 16 Table 7: Withdrawn schemes (1) Scheme Notes 2.14 and Reading: East Reading Mass Rapid Transit Scheme withdrawn following failure to 2.25 1&2 secure planning consent
12.In addition to these capital schemes, there is a further Local Growth Deal funded project called 2.30 TVB Smart City Cluster (Smart Berkshire). The project delivers three key deliverables: a. Smart city platform: consisting of an Internet of Things (IoT) communication platform across Reading, Wokingham, West Berkshire and Bracknell and a cross-authority open data platform. This is enabling infrastructure for the delivery of a wide range of IoT technologies including traffic signal communications which will provide the revenue savings to maintain and operate the system. b. Challenge funded IoT solutions: grant funded IoT solutions to real Local Authority challenges which will utilise the platform. These grants will be awarded through competition and will be on the basis of co-funding. c. Cross authority / cross sector smart city group: This includes a Steering Group to oversee the project delivery and act as a catalyst for wider smart city debate, project development and funding. A pro-forma giving detailed progress is included in Appendix 1.
Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications
13.The Assurance Frameworkvi referred to above identifies the steps that scheme promoters should take in order to secure financial approval from the LTB. There are, in effect, two layers of scheme approval. The first, and primary layer rests with the scheme promoter (all the schemes referred to in this report are being promoted by Local Authorities). In order to implement the schemes in question, each promoter will need to satisfy themselves that all the legal implications have been considered and appropriately resolved. The secondary layer of approval, given by the LTB, is concerned with the release of funds against the detailed business case. The arrangements for publication of plans via the LEP and promoters’ websites, the arrangements for independent assessment and the consideration of detailed scheme reports are appropriate steps to ensure that any significant Human Rights Act or other legal implications are properly identified and considered.
Supporting Information
14.The Thames Valley Berkshire LEP website has published summary information about all its Growth Deal-funded projects, including all transport projects. Please go to Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Fund viiand Business Rates Retention Pilotviii e-Books.
15.There is a detailed progress report on each of the schemes at Appendix 1 to this report.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Item 6 BLTB 18 July 2019 - Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21 Page 17 16.The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Thames Valley Berkshire Growth Deal has now been agreed with government. In addition to the need for transport scheme promoters to collect and publish monitoring and evaluation reports that comply with DfT guidance for capital schemes, there will be requirements to cooperate with the overall monitoring and evaluation plan for the Growth Deal.
17.The difference between the two processes is that one concentrates on the transport impacts and the other on the economic impacts. The basic information required from each scheme promoter is set out in the scheme proformas. This requirement is less onerous for schemes under £5m Growth Deal contribution and runs to much more detail for the larger schemes.
18.For most schemes there will be little or no additional Growth Deal monitoring burden beyond that already signalled. Extra effort may be required to comply with the standard set out in the Monitoring and Evaluation plan which is “accurate, timely, verified and quality assured monitoring data”. For schemes mentioned by name in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (see list below) there will be a separate discussion about the duties on the scheme promoter:
2.01 Newbury: King’s Road Link Road 2.04 Wokingham: Distributor Roads Programme 2.06 Reading: Green Park Railway Station 2.08 Slough: Rapid Transit Phase 1
Background Papers Each of the schemes referred to above has a proforma summarising its details. Both the LEP and LTB prioritisation processes and scoring schemes are also available background papers. The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for TVB Growth Deal is also available. ihttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/327587/35_Thames_ Valley_Berkshire_Growth_Deal.pdf iihttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399438/Thames_Vall ey_Berkshire_Factsheet.pdf iiihttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589268/170202_Tha mes_Valley_Berkshire_LEP_GD_factsheet.pdf iv http://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/documents?page=1&folder=192&view=files vhttp://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/berkshire-strategic-transport-forum vihttp://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/berkshire-strategic-transport-forum vii https://spark.adobe.com/page/lUlLl858NStY0/ viii https://spark.adobe.com/page/6LOjEtuDgacVm/
Item 6 BLTB 18 July 2019 - Thames Valley Berkshire Local Growth Deal 2015/16 to 2020/21 Page 18 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.01 Newbury: King's Road Link Road Current Project Status : Green West Berkshire Council
Highlights since last report Contractor for the main works has been appointed by the Developer. A meeting between West Berkshire Council, Homes England and the Developer is due to take place in July to finalise the funding agreements.
1. Scheme The scheme is the delivery of the Kings Road Link Road in Newbury. It is a new direct link between the Hambridge Road industrial area and the A339 to support housing delivery and significantly improve access to a key employment area.
2. Progress with the scheme
With the decontamination process complete, the Developer has appointed a contractor for the main works. It is a two stage tender so the contractor will be working with the Developer through stage 2 leading to a start on site of the main works in mid-August.
Network Rail has completed the work to replace the rail bridge adjacent to the redevelopment site. The new bridge was open to traffic at the end of January 2017 following the 12 month replacement programme. Initially there is a traffic light controlled single lane system operating until the redevelopment of the industrial estate is complete and the northern approach to the bridge has been widened. Then the bridge will operate with two lanes and the traffic lights will be removed. This will have a great benefit to the transport network in this area. The Council and the Developer have established a funding agreement to ensure the correct governance of the public money contributing to this scheme. To assist with the shortfall in funding now that costs have significantly increased (as evidenced by an updated viability assessment), the Council submitted a bid for £1.5m to the Housing Infrastructure Fund. The site was considered to fit well with the criteria for their Marginal Viability Fund and the full £1.5m requested has been allocated to this scheme. There has been a delay in this funding becoming available, due to Homes England’s protracted process in agreeing a form of contract that they will take up with the individual authorities. The Council has therefore worked with the developer to plug this temporary shortfall in funding during the decontamination process. As a result of this working together, the decontamination work is now complete. A meeting between the Council, the Developer and Homes England is due to take place in July 2019 in order to finalise the details of the funding agreements. Work on site started on 24 October 2016. The demolition works are complete. Geo-environmental Consultants have produced the Remediation Strategy based on results of the geotechnical and contamination reports. The strategy has also been discussed with the Environment Agency who have a strong interest in the site. The outcome of this work and the remediation strategy is that the costs have increased. The Western Area Planning Committee recommended approval for the scheme on 18 March 2015 and referred it to the District Planning Committee (DPC) for final decision. The DPC considered the planning application on 25 March 2015 and granted approval.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 1,335,000 1,000,000 2,335,000 Council Capital 180,000 200,000 380,000 Section 106 40,000 80,000 200,000 180,000 500,000 Rail Industry 1,010,000 600,000 1,610,000 Housing 1,500,000 1,500,000 Infrastructure Fund Total Scheme Cost 1,010,000 1,975,000 1,000,000 1,580,000 380,000 380,000 6,325,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green Page 19 Risk Note : Management of Risk Delivery of scheme being delayed and not fitting with Ongoing discussions with the developer and liaison with the BLTB funding. LEP will help to manage issues and delays. Escalating costs Ongoing assessment of costs as further details of the scheme are developed. Opportunities will be explored for any additional funding sources (such as HIF). A funding agreement sets out a maximum sum available to the Developer for the delivery of the road from the Council, the HIF and the LEP.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 18/07/2013 18/07/2013 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2014 31/03/2015 Financial approval from BLTB 20/11/2014 19/03/2015 Detailed design 30/11/2014 31/03/2015 Procurement 31/12/2014 31/12/2014 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/01/2015 31/07/2018 Completion of construction 30/04/2015 31/01/2021 One year on evaluation 31/03/2017 31/01/2022 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2020 31/01/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 6,325,000 2,441,000 Local Growth Fund 2,335,000 831,000 Section 106 500,000 Council Capital 380,000 Rail Industry 1,610,000 1,610,000 Housing Infrastructure Fund 1,500,000 In kind resources 20,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 150 Housing Starts 177 Houses Completed 177 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 230 Type of infrastructure Highway Type of service improvement New road link in key town centre location Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 20 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.02 Bracknell: Warfield Link Road Current Project Status : Completed Bracknell Forest Council
Highlights since last report Further parcels of land have been unlocked accessed from the new road
1. Scheme The project involves building a road to unlock a Strategic Development Location in Bracknell Forest (for 2,200 new dwellings, schools, neighbourhood centre, open space, SANGs and other infrastructure and facilities). The link road crosses the middle of the site and will serve as access for many of the development parcels.
2. Progress with the scheme The scheme is now completeThe road is operating well and new parcels of development have started and are due to begin with the road fully opened to the public on 26 Ocotber 2018
The road is operating well and new parcels of development have started and are due to begin
Development conitnues to grow surrounding the new road which has unlocked parcels to the east.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 3,500,000 3,500,000 Total Scheme Cost 3,500,000 3,500,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk A delay on the development impacting on the need for Liaison with developers and review agreement re programme the road and delaying the programme
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2014 31/10/2014 Financial approval from BLTB 20/11/2014 20/11/2014 Detailed design 31/03/2015 31/01/2015 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/04/2015 28/02/2015 Completion of construction 31/03/2017 30/04/2017 One year on evaluation 31/03/2018 30/11/2019 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2022 30/11/2023
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 3,500,000 3,500,000 Local Growth Fund 3,500,000 3,500,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Housing Starts Page 21 750 501 Houses Completed 2,200 345 Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 100 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 750 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 750 Type of infrastructure New link road to allow for access to new development Type of service improvement Unlocking proposed development Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 22 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.03 Newbury: London Road Industrial Estate Current Project Status : Green West Berkshire Council
Highlights since last report The Council is continuing to progress plans to see a mixed use development delivered on the site that this infrastructure unlocks.
1. Scheme This scheme is a new junction on the A339 in Newbury and associated widening to provide access to the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) which will unlock its potential for redevelopment. The scheme will open up a 10-hectare edge of town centre site for redevelopment and employment intensification. The proposal will unlock the potential for additional housing delivery and encourage an extension to the vibrant town centre.
The scheme and the redevelopment of the industrial estate that it will unlock is a long-standing objective within the Council’s Newbury Vision 2025. This vision document is seen very much as a community project and annual conferences in relation to its delivery are very well attended by all sectors of the Newbury community.
The redevelopment of the industrial estate and the highways scheme are both included in Council plans and documents the latest of which is the Housing Site Allocations DPD. Both political parties wish to see the redevelopment of this area which this scheme will enable.
The Council has appointed a development partner (St. Modwen) for the redevelopment project. This is an indication of the commitment of the Council to the wider project and has the full support of the Executive.
2. Progress with the scheme In relation to the development that this scheme seeks to unlock, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the development agreement entered into by the Council was unlawful. The Council is now actively seeking the best way forward to deliver the redevelopment plans to which it remains firmly committed. The one-year evaluation report has been completed and is available on the Council’s website along with all other documents relating to the scheme www.westberks.gov.uk/sep Previous update reports set out that an outline planning permission could be in place by the end of 2018, but this was dependent on the outcome of a possible legal appeal in relation to the Council’s appointment of development partner St Modwen. After losing at the High Court, the opposing party sought leave to Appeal and after very extensive delays, this was granted. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the agreement WBC entered into with St Modwen was unlawful. The Council remains firmly committed to the redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate, including the delivery of housing, and is actively considering the way forward following the Court of Appeal's judgement. The scheme was successfully completed on 27 March 2017. Financial approval was given for the scheme by the BLTB following confirmation from White Young Green in relation to the supporting Business Case (letter 9 March 2015). Planning permission was granted for the scheme on 4 February 2015.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 500,000 1,400,000 1,900,000 Council Capital 255,000 945,000 1,200,000 Section 106 90,000 90,000 Other 1,310,000 1,310,000 Total Scheme Cost 845,000 3,655,000 4,500,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : PageManagement 23 of Risk 5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2014 31/10/2014 Financial approval from BLTB 20/11/2014 19/03/2015 Acquisition of statutory powers 28/02/2015 28/02/2015 Procurement 31/03/2015 30/09/2015 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/08/2015 29/02/2016 Completion of construction 31/05/2016 31/03/2017 One year on evaluation 31/05/2017 31/07/2018 Five year on evaluation 31/05/2021 31/03/2022
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 4,500,000 4,500,000 Local Growth Fund 1,900,000 1,900,000 Section 106 90,000 90,000 Council Capital 1,200,000 1,200,000 Other 1,310,000 1,310,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 1,000 Housing Starts 300 Houses Completed 300 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 14,000 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 400 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 470 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 390 Type of infrastructure New signalised junction Type of service improvement New access link and associated highway improvements in central town location Outcomes Follow on investment at site Exact amount not yet known but development partner, St Modwen will be investing significantly Commercial floorspace occupied 14,000 m2 Commercial rental values
Page 24 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.04.4 Wokingham – Arborfield Cross Relief Road Current Project Status : Amber Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report Further information has been sent to DfT as and when requested. We now await a decision.
1. Scheme The Arborfield Cross Relief Road will provide relief to the existing A327 through the Village of Arborfield and also Arborfield Cross Gyratory to accommodate and reduce the traffic impacts of strategic development at Arborfield Garrison. The Arborfield SDL calls for 3,500 new homes.
2. Progress with the scheme Full Business Case submitted to DfT on 31 May 2019. On site enabling works including compound set-up and archaeological investigations have begun The detailed design work will be completed by Febuary 2019. Early archaeological enabling surveys have commenced and the discharge of some planning conditions is being sought. Negotiations finalised with title owners for voluntary acquisition of land and property on the route of the scheme, WBC now owns one piece of land and agreements have been signed on the other two pieces. Title Owners Farley Farms has submitted a Planning Application for mineral extraction within their estate and has a small impact on the route. However, it is considered that the scheme delivery is not disadvantaged or delayed by the existence of the mineral extraction proposals. The preferred line of the scheme was approved by Executive in March 2015 and outline design and field surveys are progressing to support submission of a Planning Application. Full planning permission for the scheme was granted on 10 January 2018.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 874,176 22,125,824 1,000,000 24,000,000 Council Capital 544,360 318,879 3,481,085 -3,957,324 3,728,000 4,115,000 Total Scheme Cost 544,360 318,879 4,355,261 18,168,500 4,728,000 28,115,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Acquisition of necessary land need to develop the All land purchase agreements have been finalised. scheme
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Acquisition of statutory powers 31/01/2018 Procurement 31/05/2019 Programme entry status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Feasibility work 31/03/2015 31/03/2015 Independent assessment of FBC 30/11/2015 28/02/2019 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/12/2016 31/07/2019 Detailed design 28/02/2019 28/02/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 Completion of construction Page 25 31/12/2019 31/07/2020 One year on evaluation 31/12/2020 31/07/2021 Five year on evaluation 31/12/2024 31/07/2025
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 28,115,000 863,239 Local Growth Fund 24,000,000 Council Capital 4,115,000 863,239 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Housing Starts 198 Houses Completed 171 Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 2,500 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 2,500 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 2,500 Type of infrastructure New Carriageway Type of service improvement Enabling housing development Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 26 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.05 Newbury: Sandleford Park Current Project Status : Amber / Green West Berkshire Council
Highlights since last report The Council has met with the Developer in relation to the western access (A343) to the development to be delivered under this scheme. The need for progress and reassurance of delivery to fit with the LEP funding timescales has been highlighted. Further details have been received and are under consideration by the Council.
1. Scheme The purpose of this scheme is to deliver additional accesses to Sandleford Park, a strategic development site that will deliver up to 1,500 dwellings. This will ensure permeability through the site and better manage the impact on the highway network. There are two main elements: i) a new access from the A339, and ii) new junction arrangements on the A343 and the upgrading of a route to provide a suitable access. The scheme will also unlock land for a new primary school and for new enterprises seeking to build better links between business and education.
The parties involved in the scheme are: the Council, the developers and their agents, Newbury College.
2. Progress with the scheme The contractor delivering the Primary School and first section of the access road has gone into administration. Due to the tight timescale for the school and the time needed for the process of selecting another contractor, the opening of the school will be delayed. This delay will not affect the overall timetable for delivery of the A339 access road to the housing site. The total funding received from the Local Growth Deal for this project will be split proportionately between the two accesses to which it is contributing. The more expensive access to deliver will receive £2m (access from the A339) and the access from the A343 and Warren Road will receive a contribution of £0.9m. The A339 accesss is currently being delivered but the details of the other access are not yet confirmed and planning permission is yet to be achieved. Therefore there is a delay to the original programme and there remains a risk over the delivery of the A343 and Warren Road access. The funding profile has been amended to reflect this situation with £2m being drawn down in 2018/19 and the remainder in 2019/20 once the details of the second access have been secured. The predicted completion of the second access has therefore been amended to Autumn 2021 also to reflect this delay. The RAG rating is AG to reflect the risk over the second access not yet on site. At the request of Newbury College a further planning application was submitted for the new A339 access and link road which now includes bunds alongside the road. This is in order to protect the security of the wider Newbury College site which could otherwise become vulnerable. The Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission at their meeting on 14 March 2018. The Council and Newbury College have signed a Development Agreement in relation to the delivery of the new A339 access road and the Primary School. This has enabled the construction contract for the school and first section of the access road to be fully awarded. Work on site started on time in August 2018. Following planning application refusals (in December 2017) of the housing that the LEP scheme is helping to unlock, West Berkshire Council has received new planning applications. Two applications have been submitted and the Council are currently considering these with a decision expected in 2019. The two developers have presented joint plans (where appropriate in relation to master planning) and have produced a Memorandum of Understanding which has been submitted as part of the application documentation. This includes a commitment to a contribution to the A339 element of the LEP scheme which had never been previously confirmed. The scheme received full financial approval from the Berkshire Local Transport Body at its meeting in July 2016.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,000,000 900,000 2,900,000 Council Capital 400,000 400,000 Private Developer 6,200,000 860,000 7,060,000 Funding (not s.106) Page 27 Other 600,000 600,000 Total Scheme Cost 3,000,000 7,100,000 860,000 10,960,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber / Red Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Timing of planning applications for housing and There is close liaison with the Developers and their agents education development and road delivery not working and frequent meetings discussing the wide range of topics together. associated with the overall development. These channels of communication will be used to coordinate timing of accesses and how this links with planning applications and phases of development. To a certain extent the LEP scheme could be delivered independently or prior to the housing site as it is for enabling infrastructure. However, there is a more critical link with the school delivery so this will be delivered first and the mechanism to anable this be closely managed. Details of access from the A343 / Warren Road part of The access from the A343 and Warren Road does not yet the site remaining uncertain have planning permission and the details of the design and how that works in terms of the surrounding network is still not decided. Links with the developer and their transport consultants are good and there is regular contact. The situation will be monitored and it will be made clear to the developer that the funding is time limited. Utility Diversions There are a number of utility companies that have confirmed that equipment will need to be moved / diverted prior to work starting on the final phase of the A339 access road delivery. An allowance has been made in the budget for the scheme. Some companies have already come back with costs but others are yet to confirm, one of which is Thames Water which it is anticipated will be a high cost. The cost of diversion works and the timing of the work will be closely monitored to ensure that this does not pose a risk to the project budget or delivery timescales. Escalating costs The costs have been reviewed after more detailed work and additional funding secured from all parties as a result. The project team will continue to monitor costs closely as the project progresses. The legal costs escalated as a result of the drawn out legal negotiations. A cap on these costs was implemented in order that it can be better managed within the overall budget for the project.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 19/03/2015 19/03/2015 Feasibility work 30/06/2015 30/06/2015 Detailed design 31/07/2015 31/01/2018 Acquisition of statutory powers 31/12/2015 31/07/2017 Procurement 31/01/2016 30/04/2018 Independent assessment of FBC 31/01/2016 30/06/2016 Financial approval from BLTB 17/03/2016 21/07/2016 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/04/2017 31/08/2018 Page 28 Completion of construction 31/03/2020 31/10/2021 One year on evaluation 31/03/2021 31/10/2022 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2025 31/10/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 10,960,000 660,000 Local Growth Fund 2,900,000 600,000 Council Capital 400,000 60,000 Private Developer Funding (not s.106) 7,060,000 Other 600,000 In kind resources 100,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 450 Housing Starts 1,500 Houses Completed 1,500 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 35,500 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 400 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 450 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 750 Type of infrastructure Highway Type of service improvement New highway access routes Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 29 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.06 Reading Green Park Railway Station Current Project Status : Amber / Red Reading Borough Council
Highlights since last report A request for an additional £550k LGF funding for the scheme has been submitted to BLTB. In parallel, the Council is working with all key stakeholders to identify any further funding opportunities to ensure the station aligns to the latest railway standards and provides the best passenger facilities and a bid has been submitted to the New Stations Fund seeking this additional funding.
1. Scheme Reading Green Park Station is a proposed new railway station on the Reading to Basingstoke line in south Reading. This scheme, which includes the station, multi-modal interchange and access road, will significantly improve accessibility and connectivity of the existing Green Park business park and surrounding area, and will help to enable delivery of the Green Park Village mixed use development.
2. Progress with the scheme Electrification of the line from Southcote Junction to Basingstoke was delayed from December 2018 to an unspecified date between 2019 – 2024 as part of the Hendy Review, however the DfT has confirmed that a third diesel unit for the line between Reading and Basingstoke will be funded from December 2018 to enable the new station to be served. Scheme development is being undertaken in line with Network Rail’s GRIP process and to take account of the latest developments from related projects such as Reading Station Redevelopment, Great Western Mainline Electrification, Electric Spine, East-West Rail and Western Rail Access to Heathrow (WRATH). £2.3m had been awarded for the station from the DfT's New Stations Fund 2 and a revised programme has been agreed with the DfT given the enhanced scope for the station. Planning permission for the station, multi-modal interchange, car park and access road was granted by Reading Borough Council in April 2015 and West Berkshire Council in May 2015. Wokingham and West Berkshire Council's have subsequately granted planning permission for the revised station location and extended platforms; flood compensation measures have been agreed with the Environmental Agency. A separate planning application for the station building was submitted in June and a decision is expected to be made by Reading and West Berkshire's Planning Committees in September. The full business case has been completed and reviewed by DfT Rail and the BLTB independent assessors, confirming the scheme represents good value for money in both a low and high forecast patronage scenario. Financial approval for the scheme was granted by the BLTB in November 2014.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 4,575,000 4,575,000 9,150,000 Section 106 2,300,000 2,300,000 4,600,000 Other 1,000,000 2,300,000 3,300,000 Total Scheme Cost 1,000,000 4,575,000 2,300,000 9,175,000 17,050,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber / Red Finance Status : Red Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Planning permission is not granted. Planning permission has been granted for the revised station location and extended platforms by the three Councils. A further planning application was submiited for the station building in June. Planning conditions are not discharged ahead of Talks are underway with Reading, West Berks and development Wokingham to discharge planning conditions ahead of development. Page 30 It is not feasible to stop trains at the new station within Timetable capability assessment has been undertaken with the existing timetable. Network Rail which confirms service options for the station which have been included in the scheme business case. TOC does not agree to stop trains at the new station. Scheme development is being undertaken in partnership with GWR, including preparation of the business case and design of the station. Scheme costs significantly increase. Costs are being reviewed and cost savings sought, contingency has been built into the overall scheme cost.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 18/07/2013 18/07/2013 Feasibility work 31/03/2014 31/03/2014 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2014 31/10/2014 Financial approval from BLTB 20/11/2014 20/11/2014 Acquisition of statutory powers 31/01/2015 31/05/2015 Design (GRIP 1-3) 30/04/2015 31/12/2017 Procurement 30/09/2015 31/01/2018 Start of construction- Interchange 31/10/2015 31/03/2018 Design (GRIP 4-5) 31/10/2015 31/05/2019 Start of construction- Station 31/10/2015 30/09/2019 Completion of construction 30/09/2016 31/07/2020 Open to public 31/12/2016 31/08/2020 One year on evaluation 30/09/2017 31/08/2021 Five year on evaluation 30/09/2021 31/08/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 17,050,000 2,414,215 Local Growth Fund 9,150,000 2,414,215 Section 106 4,600,000 Other 3,300,000 In kind resources 635,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 3,580 Housing Starts 4,055 Houses Completed 4,055 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 68,000 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 230 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 250 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 310 Type of infrastructure Rail/public transport interchange Type of service improvement Decongestion benifits, journey time savings reliability journey ambience Outcomes Page 31 Follow on investment at site Development of GPV & GP Business Park Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 32 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.07 Bracknell: Coral Reef Roundabout Current Project Status : Completed Bracknell Forest Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme The Coral Reef roundabout is the first junction encountered as you enter Bracknell on the A322 heading from M3 J3 towards the A329, the A329(M) and the M4. Proposals are to convert the existing roundabout to a fully signalised crossroads that reduces delay on all arms and improves journey times along the route. These measures will improve access to existing employment areas and new developments, unlocking their economic potential and also assist in reducing carbon emissions. Benefits would also be felt by neighbouring LEP areas and assist in the overall control and co-ordination of the strategic corridor network within the Borough
2. Progress with the scheme 12 month evaluation report completed in Autumn 2017 Junction complete and working well
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,100,000 2,100,000 Council Capital 640,000 640,000 Section 106 270,000 270,000 Total Scheme Cost 2,100,000 910,000 3,010,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Completed Finance Status : Completed Reputation Status : Completed
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 18/07/2013 18/07/2013 Independent assessment of FBC 30/06/2014 30/06/2014 Financial approval from BLTB 16/07/2014 16/07/2014 Detailed design 31/10/2014 28/02/2015 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/06/2015 30/04/2015 Completion of construction 30/11/2016 30/04/2016 One year on evaluation 30/11/2017 30/11/2017 Five year on evaluation 30/11/2021 30/04/2021
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 3,010,000 3,010,000 Local Growth Fund 2,100,000 2,100,000 Section 106 270,000 270,000 Council Capital 640,000 640,000 Page 33 In kind resources 100,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 2,000 2,000 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 100 100 Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 34 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.08 Slough: Rapid Transit Phase 1 Current Project Status : Completed Slough Borough Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme The A4 forms the spine of a 12km strategic public transport corridor that links Maidenhead, Slough and Heathrow and plays an important role in providing surface access to the airport. The western section of the Slough Mass Rapid Transit (SMaRT) project will provide for buses to operate along the service roads fronting Slough Trading Estate. Bus lanes and other priority measures will be provided in the central section between the estate, Slough town centre and eastwards to Junction 5 of the M4.
2. Progress with the scheme One year evaluation report to be submitted to BLTB for March 2020 - as agreed with Bill Hicks Bus service for Trading Estate Commuters has been running since Sept 2018. Service for the public commenced in January 2019. Civil works co-ordinated with the A355/A332 schemes in order to meet the programme schedule. Widening works between Upton Court Road and High Street, Langley and works near trading estate started in mid- October 2016. Scheme completed in December 2017. Procurement has proceeded in parallel with schemes 2.10 Slough: A332 Improvements and 2.17 Slough: A355 Route. Tenders have been sought, a contractor has been selected and the construction programme in place to meet the LEP and Local Authority spend profile. Public consultation has been carried out and was presented to the Cabinet on 19th January 2015. The consultation highlighted some concerns about the design of the scheme and revisions have been made in discussion with stakeholders. Planning permission due imminently for elements of the scheme outside highway boundaries. A comprehensive report was put to the 15th September 2014 meeting of the Council’s Cabinet. The Cabinet agreed to progress the scheme and gave permission to use CPO powers if necessary to assemble land.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 3,100,000 2,500,000 5,600,000 Council Capital 700,000 1,000,000 900,000 2,600,000 Section 106 600,000 300,000 900,000 Total Scheme Cost 4,400,000 3,800,000 900,000 9,100,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 18/07/2013 18/07/2013 Independent assessment of FBC 30/06/2014 30/06/2014 Financial approval from BLTB 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Detailed design 30/09/2014 30/09/2014 Acquisition of statutory powers 31/05/2015 31/05/2015 Procurement Page 35 31/05/2015 31/05/2015 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/12/2015 31/12/2015 Completion of construction 30/06/2016 31/12/2017 One year on evaluation 30/06/2017 31/03/2020 Five year on evaluation 30/06/2021 31/12/2022
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 9,100,000 9,100,000 Local Growth Fund 5,600,000 5,600,000 Section 106 900,000 900,000 Council Capital 2,600,000 2,600,000 In kind resources 110,000 110,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 2,460 Housing Starts 3,120 Houses Completed 3,120 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 108,700 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 2,000 1,500 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 150 110 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 2,850 2,140 Type of infrastructure Junction improvements, traffic signal enhancement, road widening, bus lanes Type of service improvement Enhanced bus services: greater frequency and reliability, reduced journey times Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 36 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.09.01 Sustainable Transport NCN 422 Current Project Status : Green Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report No change since previous report.
1. Scheme The new national Cycle Network route 422 will join a number of economic centres across Berkshire. The route will start in Newbury and will follow the A4 to Thatcham and then in a line onto Theale, central Reading, Wokingham and to Bracknell, with the end of the NCN in Ascot. It is possible during the daytime to continue towards LEGOLAND Windsor via Ascot and Windsor Great Park.
2. Progress with the scheme In West Berks the various phases are due to be complete by March 2020 but this does depend on the progress of the redevelopment of a site that affects the route. The timing of this is outside the Council's control. • Phase 1: Work has been completed for the sections of the route between Newbury and Thatcham. • Phase 2: Work has started in Thatcham and will continue during Summer 2019. This consists of (i) on- carriageway cycle lanes and parking restrictions from Henwick Lane to Crown Mead, and (ii) alterations to Crown Mead crossing to make way for on-carriageway lanes. • Phase 3: Designs currently being progressed for sections within Newbury and other lower cost improvements across the rest of the route.
The works in Wokingham have included: • Removal of pedestrian islands in the centre of the A329 which cause pinch points for cyclists • Two new mandatory on-carriageway lanes • Significant kerb realignment • New traffic calming measures on Holt Lane (near Holt School) • Introduction of a new Toucan crossing point • Resurfacing some parts of the carriageway, subject to progress of overall resurfacing contract • The section between Wokingham Town Centre and Coppid Beech has been programmed to be completed by the end of 2018/19.
The works in Bracknell have included: • New 3m – 4m wide shared footway / cycleway alongside The Ring (also known as ‘The Canyon’) with a crossing to newly landscaped ‘Station Green’, using existing crossing outside Bracknell Rail Station, and linking to the existing network at Station roundabout • Delivery of 3 new signalised crossing points • New raised table crossing, adjacent to Station Green and Bracknell Bus Station • Introduction of new permanent cycle counters • Delivery of 350 new cycle parking spaces at the Lexicon shopping centre
Page 37 The works in Reading have included: • Two raised tables have been constructed on Honey End Lane and Southcote Road • Four key junctions have benefitted from crossing improvements and entry treatments, including imprinting across junctions to improve visibility • Approximately 1,500 metres of footway converted to shared-use following reconstruction and widening of footways • Street furniture has been relocated or upgraded to reduce obstructions along the shared-use route and maximise the footway width, including the removal of 100 metres of guard rail • Installation of regulatory signing complimented by official NCN branding and supplementary considerate use signing. Phase 2 Design work linking Bath Road to London Road via the town centre is now complete and delivery commenced in November 2017, due to finish Q3 2018/19.
Phase 3 route, between Watlington Street/London Road and Three Tuns, started in April 2019 and will continue over the summer/autumn.
There have been changes to the scheme as originally set out in the Major Scheme Business Case, as the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead declined to take any further part in the scheme. However despite this setback the NCN can still largely achieve its original ambitions in joining a number of economic centres across Berkshire as a new National Cycle Route.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,100,000 1,500,000 200,000 400,000 4,200,000 Council Capital 50,000 200,000 600,000 600,000 1,450,000 Section 106 600,000 600,000 400,000 1,600,000 Total Scheme Cost 600,000 2,750,000 2,100,000 800,000 1,000,000 7,250,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Booking Road Space The cycleway is being delivered in phases and to a yearly budget allocation, however getting the phases costed, designed, consulted and agreed is problematic as the scheme needs to be able to be delivered on the highway in the time and space available. There are significant other works taking place on the highway in Reading, Wokingham and Bracknell and programme time and space on the highway is congested. This can lead to delays in starting works in time. Integrating with development There are a number of new housing developments being delivered to the West of Wokingham and to the east of Bracknell, where the cycleway passes new planned junctions and altered highways layout. There are aldo new planned housing developments with new junctions on the A329 corridor. The risks are that their designs do not reflect the ambition to deliver the cycleway and add significant extra cost to the project. Funding As with any multi-faceted project there are risks of securing all the funding needed for completion of the whole NCN. This project has proven to be flexibly delivered and is bring the large section of the project forward. Political support As portfolio holders at partners change, so does the level of support for cycling. This project has experienced this issue Pagepreviously 38 with the RBWM political support. 5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme Entry Status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Financial approval from BLTB 16/07/2015 19/11/2015 Independent assessment of FBC 30/11/2015 30/11/2015 Feasibility work by Sustrans 31/10/2016 31/10/2016 Start of construction 30/11/2016 31/01/2017 Completion of construction 31/12/2019 31/12/2019 One year on evaluation 31/12/2020 31/12/2020 Five years on evaluation 31/12/2024 31/12/2024
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 7,250,000 5,450,000 Local Growth Fund 4,200,000 3,600,000 Section 106 1,600,000 1,600,000 Council Capital 1,450,000 250,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 1,100 1,100 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 4,900 Type of infrastructure New cycle route Type of service improvement Better cycling Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 39 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.09.02 Slough Sustainable Transport A4 Cycle route Current Project Status : Completed Slough Borough Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme This scheme will provide a safe and convenient cycle route between Slough and South Buckinghamshire. It will follow the A4 corridor and will link with a scheme being promoted by Thames Valley Buckinghamshire LEP, which is progressing along similar time-scales. The scheme will connect the two urban areas of Slough and Maidenhead and will give access to: the Bishops Centre Retail Park; Slough Trading Estate; Burnham and Taplow stations; and adjacent residential areas. It will cater for commuting and other utility cycling trips, as well as leisure trips, connecting to National Cycle Network Route 61 via the Jubilee River, and to Cliveden and Burnham Beeches.
2. Progress with the scheme Work completed September 2018. Further design changes required along the A4 in Slough due to pinch points not being addressed in initial design. There have been regular project meetings between SBC and Bucks County Council (BCC) to coordinate the scheme design and to explore opportunities for joint working. Progress with scheme is as follows: - RBWM has decided not to take up this scheme and has returned the funds allocated for the Maidenhead section of the scheme. - Bucks: Thames Bridge to Slough Borough boundary – feasibility study completed and design underway – designs are being revised in response to stakeholder feedback. - Slough: Borough boundary east to Burnham station and Slough Trading Estate – design work completed. The scheme will be coordinated with the delivery of the LSTF-funded cycle link between Slough Trading Estate and Slough town centre. SBC has designed traffic signals for the Huntercombe Lane / A4 junction - toucan crossings are proposed for both arms of the junction to tie in with the A4 Cycle scheme. The Local Access Forum has been consulted and no objections have been received. Consulted with all frontagers in February. Slough is ready to proceed with construction of their element of the scheme. - Traffic signal design work of Huntercombe Lane/A4 has been varied, however has been recently completed. Work is planned to begin in October.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 483,000 483,000 Council Capital 397,000 397,000 Section 106 50,000 50,000 Total Scheme Cost 533,000 397,000 930,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Utilities alterations greater than expected. Early consultations with Statutory Authorities
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Data Collection 30/04/2015 30/06/2015 Independent assessment of FBC Page 40 31/05/2015 31/10/2015 Financial approval from BLTB 16/07/2015 19/11/2015 Cabinet approve scheme 31/07/2015 31/01/2016 Procurement 31/12/2015 30/09/2016 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/04/2016 28/02/2017 Detailed design 30/06/2016 30/06/2016 Completion of construction 31/12/2016 30/09/2018 One year on evaluation 31/12/2017 30/09/2019 Five year on evaluation 31/12/2021 30/09/2023
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 930,000 950,000 Local Growth Fund 483,000 483,000 Section 106 50,000 90,000 Council Capital 397,000 377,000 In kind resources 50,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 2,400 1,800 Type of infrastructure Shared use footway / cycleway and on-carriageway cycle lanes Type of service improvement New cycle route Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 41 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.10 Slough: A332 Improvements Current Project Status : Amber Slough Borough Council
Highlights since last report Completion date extended to end of September 2019, to allow for final resurfacing, necessary due to the imminent completion of the additional work to resolve the long standing additional utility service problems.
1. Scheme This project includes a programme of junction improvements, road widening and other works along the A332 on the approach to Slough town centre with the aim of improving conditions for general traffic as well as buses along this strategic route, making journeys quicker and more reliable.
2. Progress with the scheme Completion date has been revised due to ongoing problems with utility services. Utility works commenced December 2015 and main civil works started January 2017. Detailed design and public consultation have been completed. Approval was granted by the Cabinet on the 15th December 2014 to proceed to tender and implementation. The Council has worked with other owners of land on the eastern frontage to agree a regeneration scheme involving the demolition of properties to allow road widening and provision of a comprehensive residential development . Agreement has now been reached without the need to use CPO powers. The business case for this scheme was assessed by WYG in October 2014. Financial Approval was given by the BLTB on 20th November 2014. This project has been supported by the 27th November 2014 Planning Committee’ s decision to designate the area as a ‘Selected Key Location’ for regeneration in line with Core Policy 1 of the Slough Local Plan.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 1,266,667 1,433,333 2,700,000 Council Capital 2,050,000 2,050,000 Section 106 250,000 250,000 Total Scheme Cost 1,516,667 1,433,333 2,050,000 5,000,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Red Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Utilities alterations greater than expected. Early consultations with Statutory Authorities. Changes to design after commencing construction. Fully complete design prior to commencing construction/ allow for contingency provision.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 31/07/2014 31/07/2014 Acquisition of statutory powers 30/09/2014 30/09/2014 Independent assessment of FBC 20/11/2014 20/11/2014 Cabinet approve scheme 31/12/2014 31/12/2014 Detailed design 31/03/2015 31/01/2015 Procurement 31/05/2015 30/09/2015 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility Pagediversions) 42 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 Completion of construction 30/06/2016 30/09/2019 One year on evaluation 30/06/2017 30/09/2020 Financial approval from BLTB 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 Five year on evaluation 30/06/2021 30/09/2024
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 5,000,000 5,000,000 Local Growth Fund 2,700,000 2,700,000 Section 106 250,000 250,000 Council Capital 2,050,000 2,050,000 In kind resources 90,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 2,150 Housing Starts 2,995 Houses Completed 2,995 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 79,150 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 500 375 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 500 375 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 350 265 Type of infrastructure Junction improvements, road widening, bus lanes Type of service improvement Relieve congestion, reduce journey time, increase journey reliability Outcomes Follow on investment at site Redevelopment for 125 housing units Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 43 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.11 & 2.12 Reading: South Reading MRT phase 1 & 2 Current Project Status : Amber / Green Reading Borough Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme South Reading Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Phases 1 and 2 will provide a series of bus priority measures on the A33 between M4 junction 11 and the A33 junction with Longwater Avenue (Green Park) (Phase 1) and Island Road (Phase 2). The scheme will reduce congestion and journey times, improving public transport reliability on the main corridor into Reading.
2. Progress with the scheme Construction works are complete for the majority of the scheme, with outbound sections of bus lane provided between Island Road and M4 junction 11, specifically: • Southbound bus lane between Imperial Way and Basingstoke Road (Dec 2016). • Southbound bus lane between Basingstoke Road and M4 junction 11 (Dec 2016). • Southbound bus lane between Island Road and Bennet Road (Aug 2017). • Southbound bus lane between Bennet Road and Imperial Way (Nov 2017). Construction of the final section of bus lane (northbound between Imperial Way and South Oak Way) will be delivered alongside the Phases 3 & 4 scheme. Completion due July 2019.
A phased construction programme for the overall MRT scheme has been developed, including measures to reduce disruption to the flow of traffic while the construction works take place, for instance by limiting any necessary lane closures to off peak hours only. Feedback on the scheme has been positive to date and quantitate data regarding bus journey times is being collated to understand the impact of the scheme so far. Statutory consultation for the scheme has been completed with no objections received to the Traffic Regulation Orders. In addition a public exhibition was held in June 2016 to provide information about this element of the MRT scheme and proposals for future phases. The economic appraisal for the scheme gives a BCR of 3.55, showing the scheme represents high value for money. Sensitivity tests undertaken with increased scheme costs and high and low patronage forecasts still show a positive BCR of between 2.4 to 4.2.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,970,000 1,530,000 4,500,000 Council Capital 1,120,000 1,120,000 Total Scheme Cost 2,970,000 2,650,000 5,620,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Objections through the TRO process. Scheme is within highway or safeguarded land. The principle of MRT on this corridor has been consulted upon through preparation of policy documents including the LTP3. Utility diversions and surface water drainage alterations. Detailed designs for the scheme are being prepared with all the relevant information from utility searches and in line with surface water drainage requirements. Securing the required third party land where this falls The MRT route has been safeguarded for this purpose and outside highway land. negotiations with land owners are being undertaken. Page 44 5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Feasibility work 31/03/2014 31/03/2014 Programme entry status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Detailed design 30/06/2015 30/11/2016 Independent assessment of FBC 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 Financial approval from BLTB 19/11/2015 19/11/2015 Acquisition of statutory powers 31/03/2016 30/06/2016 Procurement 30/06/2016 31/03/2017 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/08/2016 31/08/2016 Completion of construction 30/11/2017 31/07/2019 One year on evaluation 30/11/2018 31/07/2020 Five year on evaluation 30/11/2022 31/07/2024
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 5,620,000 5,076,426 Local Growth Fund 4,500,000 4,500,000 Council Capital 1,120,000 576,426 In kind resources 350,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 2,424 Housing Starts 527 Houses Completed 527 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 44,016 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 1,390 1,290 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 3,260 1,400 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 2,200 1,000 Type of infrastructure Bus priority lanes Type of service improvement Reduced and consistent journey times Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 45 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.13 Wokingham: Thames Valley Park, Park and Ride Current Project Status : Green Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report Continuing to progress well.
1. Scheme 1.1 Thames Valley Park and Ride (P&R) is a proposed P&R facility off the A3290 in the east of the Reading urban area. The scheme will improve access to Reading town centre and major employment sites by providing congestion relief on the road network in east Reading.
1.2 The scheme is being jointly promoted by Reading Borough Council (RBC) and Wokingham Borough Council (WBC).
1.3 The scheme was originally called 2.13 Reading: Eastern Park and Ride, but has since been re-named 2.13 Wokingham: Thames Valley Park, Park and Ride
2. Progress with the scheme
Planning variation approved at October 2018 Planning Committee. Detailed Design completed January 2019 with construction due to start before the end of 2018/19
Site management works are now complete. Topographical, ecological and archaeology survey completed.
Balfour Beatty have been appointed to deliver the contract and will be delivering the scheme as a design and build, which will improve the speed of which the scheme can be delivered. Project team appointed including the Project Manager and Commercial Officer.
Wokingham BC secured LSTF revenue funding for 2015/16 to progress the scheme to submission of a planning application. Progression of a public consultation, planning application (including an Environmental Statements), has been undertaken in line with the scheme programme.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,000,000 900,000 2,900,000 Section 106 250,000 450,000 700,000 Total Scheme Cost 250,000 2,450,000 900,000 3,600,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Environmental consents / mitigation Subject to planning conditions and consultation process. Initial key survey work has been undertaken and scheme subject to a rigorous site option assessment process. Ecology surveys now complete and discussions have commenced with WBC Development Management. Securing operationally viable bus service Liaison with possible providers including TVP underway, operational principles established. Heads of Terms agreed in principle. Requirement for utility diversion Ongoing discussions with SGN and SSE Page 46 5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Feasibility work 31/03/2014 31/03/2014 Programme entry status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Detailed design 30/09/2015 31/10/2018 Acquisition of statutory powers 30/09/2015 30/11/2016 Independent assessment of FBC 30/09/2015 31/10/2016 Financial approval from BLTB 19/11/2015 20/07/2017 Procurement 31/03/2016 30/11/2018 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/04/2016 28/02/2018 Completion of construction 30/09/2017 30/09/2019 One year on evaluation 30/09/2018 31/12/2020 Five year on evaluation 30/09/2022 31/12/2024
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 3,600,000 250,000 Local Growth Fund 2,900,000 Section 106 700,000 250,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Highways Type of service improvement Public transport Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 47 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.15 Bracknell: Martins Heron Current Project Status : Completed Bracknell Forest Council
Highlights since last report Scheme complete and officers are monitoring the operation and collecting data to help inform efficient phasing
1. Scheme This is part of a wider programme to improve access between the M3 and M4 via the A322, A329 and A329(M). This route runs through the middle of Bracknell and forms part of the original inner ring road. The main capacity constraint is the junctions where radial and orbital routes intersect. This scheme focuses on the Martins Heron roundabout on the east of Bracknell and includes associated junction improvements and minor alteration to the London Road corridor to improve congestion and journey times. The original intention had been to fund a major part of the improvements from developer contributions arising from Bracknell Town Centre redevelopment but this is no longer possible on viability grounds.
2. Progress with the scheme Traffic lights commisoned on 31st January and junction working well.
Final stage of scheme including landscaping to comence later this year
Junction works complete and working well. Landscaping to be carried later this year.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 200,000 2,700,000 2,900,000 Council Capital 100,000 300,000 50,000 450,000 Section 106 100,000 100,000 250,000 450,000 Total Scheme Cost 300,000 2,900,000 550,000 50,000 3,800,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk That the overall cost of the Martins Heron Junction Detailed Bill of Quantities with effective site and contract exceeds the funding available management Statutory undertakers C4 cost estimates significantly Early liaison with statutory undertakers and early commission exceed C3 cost estimates of C4 estimates (underway) Highway Works in neighbouring local authority area Liaison with neighbouring authorities and agreement re. during construction leading to traffic congestion and programme possible impact on programme and costs Unexpected need for additional Temporary Traffic Liaison with Traffic Management Section and early Management increasing costs quantification of TM requirements and costs (underway)
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2019 Programme entry status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Feasibility work 30/04/2016 30/04/2016 Detailed design 31/10/2016 31/10/2016 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility Pagediversions) 48 30/06/2017 30/04/2017 Financial approval from BLTB 17/11/2017 17/11/2016 Completion of construction 30/11/2018 19/04/2019 One year on evaluation 30/11/2019 31/03/2020 Five year on evaluation 30/11/2023 31/03/2024
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 3,800,000 3,650,000 Local Growth Fund 2,900,000 2,900,000 Section 106 450,000 450,000 Council Capital 450,000 300,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 750 330 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 100 Type of infrastructure Replacement of existing roundabout with signalised junction Type of service improvement Improvement to journey times following removal of an existing pinch point on the network Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 49 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.16 Maidenhead: Station Access Current Project Status : Green Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme The scheme has four elements: i) Construction of a multi-modal transport interchange on Maidenhead Station forecourt to prioritise journeys made on foot, bicycle and by bus; ii) Improved pedestrian and cycle linkages between the rail station and the town centre, with environmental enhancements that will create a proper gateway to the town centre; iii) Reprovision of long-stay parking in Stafferton Way; and iv) Traffic management improvements, banning the right turn on Queen Street and converting Broadway to two-way.
2. Progress with the scheme Following a meeting with Crossrail, minor modifications are being made to the design, layout and paving specification for the station forecourt and cycle parking.
Heads of terms for the car park agreement have been agreed between RBWM, Network Rail and GWR.
Works have been completed at the A308 / Broadway junction and the scheme went live on 1 July. This has been done in advance of the works at the A308 / Queen Street junction to allow roads users time to get used to the new road layout.
Following representations from '3', Keys Place has been made two-way at the northern end to allow vehicles from their car park to exit onto Broadway. This mitigates the impact of the banned right-turn movement proposed at the A308 / Queen Street junction for users of their staff car park.
In response to concerns expressed about the impacts of the proposed banned right turn out of Queen Street, the scheme was discussed at Maidenhead Town Forum on 17 June. It was agreed that there would be a two week trial of the banned right-turn starting on 8 July. Stakeholders have been invited to comment on the proposal via an online survey. A final decision will be made at the Maidenhead Town Forum meeting on 24 July.
In the interim, ancillary works around the A308 / Queen Street junction are progressing, starting with kerbs and paving on the central island. A public engagement event was held on 1-2 March 2019 covering all of the town centre regeneration developments and major transport schemes. Weekly newsletters are being produced to keep internal and external stakeholders informed as to the timing and likely impact of current and future phases of the scheme. Exploratory works commenced on site 28 January, with trial holes at the Broadway / Frascati Way junction preceding changes to the junction layout. Works at the A308 / Broadway works are on track to be completed in April, with activation of the two-way operation on Broadway scheduled for the week commencing 6th May to coincide with commencement of works at the A308 / King Street / Queen Street junction. The feasibility design proposal had been approved and detailed design was completed in December 2018. The Project Working Group including representatives from Network Rail and Great Western Railway met on 21 March 2018 to review the Business Case and to confirm the outline plans. It was confirmed that several agreements are needed in order for the scheme to be progressed. RBWM has signed a Basic Service Agreement allowing Network Rail to engage on the project. A Basic Asset Protection Agreement (BAPA) that defines the scope of the works and programme for delivery has also been signed. Long-stay parking that is currently on the forecourt is regulated by the Office for Road and Rail and any parking that is lost must be re-provided nearby. Alternative solutions have since been identified, including the construction of a new multi-storey car park on Vicus Way. The planning application for Vicus Way multi-storey car park was approved at Maidenhead Development Control Panel on 16 January. Heads of Terms agreed for car park agreement between RBWM, GWR and Network Rail. Page 50 The original design was revised due to the cost of acquiring land and impact on local traffic. Therefore the scheme that was approved does not include the bus interchange and a scheme featuring improved surface crossings with a no right turn out of Queen Street is now being progressed as the preferred option. Additional modelling work has shown that there are significant traffic benefits associated with making Broadway two-way between the Nicholson’s car park and A308 Frascati Way. This has been incorporated into the scheme and works will be coordinated with the replacement of the Nicholson’s Centre Car Park. Maidenhead Railway Station is a major gateway into the town centre. With upgrades on the Great Western Main Line and implementation of the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail), passenger footfall and the importance of Maidenhead station will increase. In 2013, a provisional scheme was developed with Crossrail to create interchange facilities and a high-quality public space. The scheme was ultimately found to be non-viable, but it provided a useful starting point.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 690,000 3,060,000 3,750,000 Section 106 125,000 625,000 750,000 Total Scheme Cost 125,000 690,000 3,685,000 4,500,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber / Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Insufficient scheme budget Apply high level of contingencies at outset and ensure BCR includes optimism bias Office of Rail and Road does not give regulatory approval Hold early meetings with ORR and secure support of Network for relocation of forecourt parking to Stafferton Way Rail / Great Western Railway Objections from stakeholders Hold early discussions with key stakeholders (e.g. Network Rail, GWR, bus / taxi operators, cycle forum, access advisory forum) Unable to agree to parking charge reimbursements and Hold early discussions with GWR and ensure support for provision of temporary spaces project at business case stage. Develop detailed plan in conjunction with GWR. Drainage / SUDS requirements for station forecourt Early discussion with NR to identify standards and scheme requirements The tender prices received from the contractors exceed Cost estimate is based on an outline bill of quantities with the available budget to construct appropriate allowances for optimism bias and risk CrossRail station improvements conflict with the scheme Meetings with delivery team to fully understand and and delivery programme integrate the two projects. Delays in construction programme resulting in increased Ensuring design, investigations, programme and procurement contract administration costs are robust, reducing likelihood of construction delays reduced Increases in statutory undertakers’ apparatus diversion Apply legally for C3 notices for cost update. costs to that assumed at bid stage. Long lead times for permanent service diversions Early liaison with utilities companies to ensure stats get diverted before the construction programme begins. Changes to design (after construction has commenced). Detailed design for the contract tender documents will provide as much detail as possible on the site conditions and methods of construction; so as to avoid questions about "buildability". Unknown services struck during construction works Digging of trial holes and CAT scans. Disclosure of buried incurring delays to programme services information by Network Rail as part of the BAPA process.
Page 51 5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme Entry Status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Feasibility / outline design 31/03/2015 31/08/2017 Independent Assessment of FBC 31/03/2016 31/10/2017 Procurement 31/03/2017 30/04/2019 Completion of construction 31/03/2017 31/03/2020 Start of construction - forecourt 30/04/2017 01/09/2019 Selection of preferred option 29/09/2017 29/09/2017 Car park design 31/08/2018 31/08/2018 Car park planning application submitted 31/08/2018 31/08/2018 One year on evaluation 31/10/2018 31/03/2021 Junction design 31/12/2018 31/12/2018 Start of construction - junctions / car park 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Forecourt design 31/03/2019 31/03/2019 Five years on evaluation 31/10/2022 31/03/2025
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 4,500,000 310,000 Local Growth Fund 3,750,000 228,000 Section 106 750,000 82,000 In kind resources 100,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 2,080 Housing Starts 212 Houses Completed 50 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 29,000 metres) Type of infrastructure Multi-modal transport interchange; 125 space extension to existing multi-storey car park Type of service improvement Improved interchange between journeys made on foot, bicycle, bus, train, taxi and car with associated public realm enhancements; improved crossing between the station and town centre; and Increased car park capacity serving the rail station and town centre. Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 52 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.17 Slough: A355 Route Current Project Status : Completed Slough Borough Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme This is a scheme to improve traffic flow on the strategic north-south A355 route that links the M4, Slough Trading Estate and the M40 and to enhance access to Slough town centre. The scheme involves the remodelling of the Copthorne roundabout, signal and junction upgrades and selected road widening.
The A355 Route Enhancement scheme will deliver a major contribution to reducing road congestion and increasing economic efficiency and business confidence. This project will support the delivery of the 150,000m2 of office and ancillary space proposed in the Slough Trading Estate master plan and over 60,000m2 of office space, 2,300 dwellings and other development to be delivered in the town centre as part of the ‘Heart of Slough’ project.
2. Progress with the scheme One year on report provided to the July 2018 BLTB meeting Outcomes under review This project has been supported by the 27th November 2014 Planning Committee’ s decision to designate the area as a ‘Selected Key Location’ for regeneration in line with Core Policy 1 of the Slough Local Plan.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,275,000 2,125,000 4,400,000 Council Capital 700,000 700,000 Section 106 700,000 700,000 Total Scheme Cost 3,675,000 2,125,000 5,800,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2014 31/10/2014 Financial approval from BLTB 20/11/2014 20/11/2014 Detailed design 31/03/2015 31/03/2015 Procurement 31/05/2015 31/05/2015 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/06/2015 31/12/2015 Completion of construction 30/06/2016 28/02/2017 One year on evaluation 30/06/2017 31/07/2018 Five year on evaluation 28/02/2022 30/06/2021
Page 53 6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 5,800,000 5,800,000 Local Growth Fund 4,400,000 4,400,000 Section 106 700,000 700,000 Council Capital 700,000 700,000 In kind resources 90,000 90,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 1,260 Housing Starts 600 Houses Completed 600 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 48,000 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 550 550 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 500 500 Type of infrastructure Signalised roundabout, road widening and bridge improvements Type of service improvement Relieve congestion, reduce journey times, increase journey reliability Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 54 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.19 Bracknell Town Centre Current Project Status : Completed Bracknell Forest Council
Highlights since last report More housing coming forward linked to the growth of the town centre
1. Scheme The scheme has funded transport infrastructure improvements linked to the town centre regeneration.
2. Progress with the scheme
The scheme is complete and the Lexicon Centre opened for business on 7 Sept 2017. It is one of the biggest town centre regenerations in the UK. In addition to 70 new shops and restaurants, the project also encompasses improvements to the existing High Street buildings and a new 1,300 space multi-storey car park.
12 months after opening and the early figures show a positive story with more shops coming on line and further phases of development to begin shortly. Officers are now gathering data collected over the past 12 months to prepare the first year evaluation report for the March 2019 LTB meeting.
Evaluation report acknowledged and approved through the Local Transport Body in March 2019. New Town Centre continues to operate well.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 Council Capital 1,000,000 3,382,000 4,382,000 Total Scheme Cost 3,000,000 3,382,000 6,382,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Feasibility work 30/11/2014 30/11/2014 Programme entry status 19/03/2015 19/03/2015 Detailed design 31/03/2015 31/03/2015 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/04/2015 30/04/2015 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2015 31/10/2015 Financial approval from BLTB 19/11/2015 19/11/2015 Completion of construction 30/04/2017 30/09/2017 One year on evaluation 30/04/2018 31/03/2019 Five year on evaluation 30/04/2022 30/09/2023
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 6,382,000 6,382,000 Local Growth Fund Page 55 2,000,000 2,000,000 Council Capital 4,382,000 4,382,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 3,540 3,500 Housing Starts 1,000 981 Houses Completed 1,000 300 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 270,000 270,000 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 3,000 3,000 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 50 50 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 700 700 Type of infrastructure Improved accessibiity to new development Type of service improvement Unlocking proposed development Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 56 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.21 Langley Station Access Improvements Current Project Status : Amber Slough Borough Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme This is a scheme to improve station facilities at Langley and enhance access to the station from the surrounding area. Activities will include new station buildings, lifts and enhancements to the station entrances and parking. Improvements will be made to pedestrian, cycling, and bus facilities. Better information and signage will be provided and measures to enhance the safety and security of the station. The scheme is aimed at preparing the station for the enhanced travel opportunities that will arise when Crossrail services begin in 2019. Some short-term works are being undertaken at Langley as part of Network Rail’s electrification programme and further investment has been committed by the DfT towards improving accessibility. Rail for London is planning station enhancements in connection with the Crossrail programme and First Great Western retains an interest in station infrastructure improvements as incumbent train operating company. This scheme will add value to these rail industry plans by upgrading access to the station from the surrounding area.
2. Progress with the scheme Expected completion date has been extended due to delays in design work for remaining part of the scheme Work commenced on site in March 2018 with trial holes. Ongoing work programme requires further coordination with Network Rail and MRT. Discussions are being held between the Council and its rail partners to coordinate project planning and design work with the aim of delivering the scheme to build on and take advantage of rail investment commitments. Detailed proposals are being drawn up by both parties taking account of other rail proposals in the Langley area: the Western Rail Link to Heathrow scheme and potential relocation of the Heathrow Express depot. Public consultation will follow.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 1,500,000 1,500,000 Council Capital 210,000 210,000 Section 106 50,000 50,000 Rail Industry 3,500,000 3,500,000 Total Scheme Cost 1,760,000 3,500,000 5,260,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Red Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Higher than expected costs Financial and project management Delays in procurement process Programme allows sufficient time for process.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 19/03/2015 19/03/2015 Feasibility work 30/09/2015 31/12/2015 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2015 31/05/2016 Financial approval from BLTB 19/11/2015 17/11/2016 Cabinet approve scheme 31/01/2016 31/01/2017 Page 57 Detailed design 31/07/2016 31/10/2017 Procurement 30/11/2016 30/11/2017 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/01/2017 31/03/2018 Completion of construction 31/03/2018 30/09/2019 One year on evaluation 31/03/2019 30/09/2020 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2023 30/09/2024
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 5,260,000 850,000 Local Growth Fund 1,500,000 850,000 Section 106 50,000 Council Capital 210,000 Rail Industry 3,500,000 In kind resources 130,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Housing Starts 500 Houses Completed 500 Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 400 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 400 Type of infrastructure Station enhancements and local highway and public realm improvements Type of service improvement Preparations for Crossrail and better access to station Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 58 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.22 Burnham Station Access Improvements Current Project Status : Completed Slough Borough Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme This is a scheme to improve station facilities at Burnham and enhance access to the station. Activities will include new station buildings, lifts, enhancements to the station entrances and parking. Highway improvements and traffic management measures will be carried out to achieve better access for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general traffic.
The scheme is aimed at preparing the station for Crossrail services, which begin in 2019. Some short-term works have been undertaken at Burnham as part of Network Rail’s electrification programme and further investment is committed towards improving accessibility through the DfT Access for All Fund. Rail for London is planning station enhancements in connection with the Crossrail programme and Great Western retains an interest in station infrastructure improvements as incumbent train operating company.
This scheme will add value to these rail industry plans by upgrading access to the station from the surrounding area.
2. Progress with the scheme Station forecourt handed over to Network Rail and MTR. Further work by NR to be confirmed Forecourt work was coordinated with Network Rail’s works. Work was completed by end of April 2019. The majority of the work has been completed, including car park, footways and road crossings. Discussions are being held between the Council and its rail partners to coordinate project planning and design work with the aim of delivering the scheme as early as possible to build on and take advantage of rail investment commitments. Detailed proposals are being drawn up by both parties. The Council is carrying out an experimental order on the highway aspects of the scheme this is due to start in October.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 Council Capital 100,000 100,000 Rail Industry 4,150,000 4,150,000 Total Scheme Cost 2,000,000 100,000 4,150,000 6,250,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Higher than expected costs Financial and project management
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 19/03/2015 19/03/2015 Feasibility work 31/05/2015 30/09/2015 Independent assessment of FBC 30/06/2015 31/10/2015 Financial approval from BLTB 16/07/2015 17/03/2016 Cabinet approve scheme 30/09/2015 31/01/2016 Detailed design 31/10/2015 31/07/2016 Page 59 Procurement 31/10/2015 30/09/2016 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/01/2016 31/01/2017 Completion of construction 31/03/2017 30/04/2019 One year on evaluation 31/03/2018 31/12/2020 Five year on evaluation 31/12/2024 31/03/2022
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 6,250,000 2,100,000 Local Growth Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 Council Capital 100,000 100,000 Rail Industry 4,150,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 1,050 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 40,000 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 600 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 600 Type of infrastructure Station enhancements and local highway and public realm improvements Type of service improvement Preparations for Crossrail and better access to station Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 60 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.23 Reading: South Reading MRT phase 3 & 4 Current Project Status : Green Reading Borough Council
Highlights since last report Works along the A33, including an outbound bridge extension, are ongoing.
1. Scheme South Reading Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Phases 3 and 4 will provide a series of bus priority measures on the A33 between Rose Kiln Lane and Bennett Road, and connecting routes in Reading town centre. The scheme will reduce congestion and journey times, improving public transport reliability on the main corridor into Reading.
2. Progress with the scheme Detailed design being progressed for phase 4 scheme with procurement due to take place in autumn 2019 and the construction due to commence early 2020. Construction of Phase 3 A33 works has commenced with completion due for September 2019, including on-site utility works are on-going near Island Road to relocate utility chamber. Construction of the town centre elements of the scheme are complete, including commissioning of the pedestrian crossing on London Street. A phased construction programme for the full scheme has been developed, including measures to reduce disruption to the flow of traffic while the construction works take place, for instance by limiting any necessary lane closures to off peak hours only. This work is being progressed in line with the latest land-use development proposals for the A33 corridor. Discussions are on-going with the developer of the Southside site to acquire the third party land needed for the scheme, although a revised scheme is also being developed to avoid third party land if it cannot be acquired. Detailed design of Phase 3 A33 works and traffic signal upgrades at Oracle Roundabout and A33 Bennet Road gyratory are on-going. Construction of Phase 3 A33 works commenced in August and are due to be complete in Spring 2019. Construction of the town centre elements of the scheme are complete, including commissioning of the pedestrian crossing on London Street.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,250,000 90,000 2,340,000 Section 106 1,268,000 1,268,000 2,536,000 Business Rates 7,808,000 7,808,000 Retention Pilot Total Scheme Cost 2,250,000 9,166,000 1,268,000 12,684,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Objections through the TRO process. Scheme is within highway or safeguarded land. The principle of MRT on this corridor has been consulted upon through preparation of policy documents including the LTP3. Utility diversions and surface water drainage alterations. Detailed designs for the scheme are being prepared with all the relevant information from utility searches and in line with surface water drainage requirements. Securing the required third party land where this falls The MRT route has been safeguarded for this purpose and outside of highway land. negotiations with land owners are being undertaken. Page 61 5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Feasibility work 31/05/2016 31/05/2016 Programme entry status 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 Independent assessment of FBC 31/05/2017 30/09/2017 Detailed design (phase 4) 30/09/2017 31/03/2019 Detailed design (phase3) 30/09/2017 31/03/2018 Acquisition of statutory powers 30/09/2017 31/03/2018 Financial approval from BLTB 16/11/2017 16/11/2017 Procurement (phase 3) 31/01/2018 30/06/2018 Procurement (phase 4) 31/01/2018 30/09/2019 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/03/2018 31/03/2018 Completion of construction 31/03/2020 31/03/2020 One year on evaluation 31/03/2021 31/03/2021 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2025 31/03/2025
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 12,684,000 4,866,313 Local Growth Fund 2,340,000 2,340,000 Business Rates Retention Pilot 7,808,000 2,526,313 Section 106 2,536,000 In kind resources 300,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 7,500 Housing Starts 1,500 Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 1,350 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 1,150 Type of infrastructure Bus priority lanes Type of service improvement Reduced and consistent journey times Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 62 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.24 Newbury: Railway Station Improvements Current Project Status : Green West Berkshire Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme This scheme plans to enhance and improve multi-modal transport interchange at Newbury Railway station including upgrade and improvement of station buildings. This will work alongside, and help to deliver, the Market Street housing- led development and also help to deliver the Sandleford Park strategic housing site, through enhanced connectivity for bus passengers, rail passengers, cyclists and pedestrians. The scheme will allow Newbury Railway Station to cope with anticipated increases in passengers with corresponding increases in demand for travel and car parking.
2. Progress with the scheme Confirmation has been received that the Network Rail compound will be relocated which provides additional certainty for the delivery of all aspects of the scheme and provides options for the location of the business start up units. Work has started on site for some early part of the interchange element and a start on site for the work within the station lease area is planned for May 2019. Further phasing will take into account the linked Market Street redevelopment work and nearby highways works affecting the A339. Detailed design and assessment work for the works to the station buildings has taken place to feed into the final business case. This work has established how the range of improvements required will be delivered and has enabled more detailed costs to be established. The new layout and better use of the buildings will bring about significantly improved facilities for passengers and a more welcoming station providing an improved gateway to Newbury. The business case prepared assesses the scheme to represent high value for money with a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 3.8:1 The new pedestrian bridge to enable the delivery of electrification of the line is complete and in use in terms of a like for like replacement of the existing. The lifts that are incorporated into the new bridge are anticipated to be operational soon thereby delivering a significant improvement for passengers. The Market Street mixed use (but predominantly housing) development with which this scheme closely links was approved by the Council’s Planning Committee in November 2016. Closer links have been forged with the wider Market Street development and road schemes programme for the A339 corridor in order that the masterplan can be coordinated. There are monthly meetings for the Market Street development which representatives from the Newbury Station Project Team attend. Flooding in and around Newbury Railway Station is a significant problem. The short-term work that has been identified has been delivered. Drainage features have been included in the design work for the interchange enhancements on the south side of the station to help contribute to improving the situation on the surrounding highway in relation to the flooding issues. A feasibility study was conducted by WSP / Parsons Brinckerhoff which was completed in October 2015. It examined the opportunities to provide an improved interchange at Newbury Railway Station and considered various options recommending the one that provides the most effective benefits.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 3,630,000 921,000 1,500,000 6,051,000 Rail Industry 1,890,000 1,890,000 Rail Industry 450,000 450,000 Rail Industry 2,000,000 1,900,000 3,900,000 Council Capital 20,000 20,000 40,000 Private Developer 4,710,000 1,400,000 6,110,000 Funding (not s.106) Total Scheme Cost 2,000,000 5,550,000 7,991,000 2,900,000 18,441,000 Page 63 4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Delay / inability to secure Network Rail maintenance Network Rail and GWR are close to finalising a Funding depot relocation. Agreement to secure vacant possession of the MDU site. The maintenance depot area is proposed for car parking, subject to relocation of the access to this area and acceptance of reduced parking, it would be possible to implement the remainder of the scheme without this area. Network Rail is already progressing a maintenance depot rationalisation investigation for this area. Obtaining statutory powers Planning permission is required for two small elements of the scheme - the business start up units and a retaining wall on the south side of the station as part of the highway works. All other works are permitted development or require a notification process. Initial discussions have taken place with the Principal Conservation & Design Officer at the Council and advice has been taken on board in terms of sympathetic design etc. A pre-application process is likely to be followed also in order to help make the passage through planning as smooth as possible. Changes to funding for bus services The current design drawn up by WSP closely aligns to the current demand for bus services with relatively little spare capacity. Any reduction in bus services would simply provide more tolerance for changes in bus timings, alternative services etc. Timing of Market Street development The bus interchange at The Wharf has been delivered (Nov 2018) leaving the site vacant for the Market Street development. Planning permission is in place for the mixed use development and significant work on site is due to start in Spring 2019. Grainger holds regular meetings with West Berkshire Council, Network Rail and Great Western Railway and representatives from the Newbury Station project are part of this group. Withdrawal of Vodafone buses to another location. Vodafone have Travel Plan commitments to operate their bus services and links to Newbury Station form a key part of ensuring that staff travel by sustainable modes, avoiding breaching planning conditions in relation to car parking on their site. Vodafone are currently re-committing to this bus service through Reading Buses for the next few years. In the very unlikely event that Vodafone buses were routed elsewhere, the stops anticipated for Vodafone buses could be re-used for College shuttle, taxis, parking, drop-off/pick- up on another relevant purpose for the interchange at low cost.
Page 64 Cost escalation Investigation works will continue in-house at West Berkshire Council and in conjunction with the Market Street developers (Grainger), Network Rail and Great Western Railway to ensure that as many factors as possible can be considered to reduce the likelihood and severity of cost escalation. This will include: consideration of utilities; consideration of GWR building fabric; obtaining as much detail as possible about Network Rail’s proposed new footbridge and Grainger’s proposed multi-storey car park; liaison will stakeholders including WBC asset management, WBC car parking, taxi- operators, bus operators etc. One initial element will be a detailed feasibility of the public access bridge over the railway as this is the part of the scheme which is likely to be vulnerable to escalating costs due to the complexity of design and delivery. Buried services / utilities A full search of utilities across the whole scheme area will be undertaken prior to detailed design work being undertaken to ensure that the design can mitigate against the need to divert or relocate services. Some initial utilities searches have already been undertaken by West Berkshire Council. These indicate that there are no significant utilities issues which are likely to prevent the project from proceeding as planned or which cannot be accommodated in the design. GWR/NR building fabric and asbestos The re-working, demolition and replacement of buildings and structures on the station owned and managed by GWR/NR may detect the presence of asbestos. Accordingly, all building fabric will be examined prior to undertaking works and suitable certified contractors will be used to undertake the works and remove asbestos appropriately should it be discovered. Surface water drainage Whilst it is accepted that Newbury station is low-lying and has flooded in the past, much of the existing area for the scheme is already hard-surfaced. Any new areas for surfacing will require SUDS principles to be applied. Any re-working of existing hard-surfaced areas may give the opportunity to introduce SUDS or other drainage improvement measures to provide an overall betterment over the existing situation. The Project Team are will also work closely with a group set up to address the flooding issues at the station. Timing of Sandleford development The timing of bus services for Sandleford will have negligible impact on the proposed interchange design. The timing of contributions could require West Berkshire Council to bridge the timing of contributions to ensure that the scheme can be delivered in the required time frame. The Project Team is well linked to the Council’s Officers working on the Sandleford Housing Site so will be aware of the challenges of timing.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 Feasibility work 31/05/2017 31/01/2018 Financial approval from BLTB 16/11/2017 19/07/2018 Independent assessment of FBC 30/06/2018 31/10/2017 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility Pagediversions) 65 30/09/2018 31/05/2019 Procurement 31/03/2019 31/03/2019 Detailed design 30/06/2019 30/06/2019 Acquisition of statutory powers 31/07/2019 31/07/2019 Completion of construction 31/03/2020 31/03/2021 One year on evaluation 31/03/2021 31/03/2022 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2025 31/03/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 18,441,000 11,878,281 Local Growth Fund 6,051,000 158,281 Council Capital 40,000 20,000 Rail Industry 1,890,000 3,900,000 Rail Industry 450,000 3,900,000 Rail Industry 3,900,000 3,900,000 Private Developer Funding (not s.106) 6,110,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 250 Type of infrastructure Railway station and interchange Type of service improvement Public transport Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 66 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.26 Wokingham: Winnersh Relief Road (Phase 2) Current Project Status : Green Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report No change since previous report
1. Scheme 1.1. The full project will deliver a new relief road to the west of Winnersh, avoiding the current Winnersh Crossroads junction. 1.2. The work will be delivered in two phases. The first phase, delivered by a Bovis / Persimmon, opened on Monday 11 June. 1.3. The second phase will be delivered by Wokingham Borough Council and will provide a new junction on the A329 Reading Road and will dual the section of Lower Earley Way (B3270). 1.4. The route requires funding to deliver new infrastructure that is essential to facilitate planned housing and economic growth locally. 1.5. The full scheme when joined with the Wokingham Northern Distributor Road will offer an alternative route around the centre of Wokingham and avoiding Winnersh Crossroads.
2. Progress with the scheme Lower Earley Way Dualling - Main Construction began Feb '19. Open for Traffic date is early 2020 Conditional approval awarded at November 2018 BLTB. Full approval subsequently given February 2019. Wokingham Borough Council do not require any further partnership working to complete the scheme and will tendering the scheme in due course to seek maximum value. Early enabling works commenced in Jan 2019, including detailed surveys and vegetation clearance. These will continue through the spring. Lawful Development approval has been granted for phase 2a (dualling of Lower Earley Way) and construction commenced on this section in Feb 19, with competion due in early 2020. Full planning permission for phase 2b (King Street Lane to Reading Road) was approved at Planning Committee in October 2018. All the land needed to deliver phase 2b is already in control of Wokingham Borough Council, which reduces the risks associated with planning applications. Planning permission has been granted for Phase 1 of the scheme and the scheme construction is now complete and the opened in June 2018. The planning permission includes the Lower Earley Way junction portion of the scheme as well as the section to be delivered by Bovis Persimmon (including the phase 1 junction on Kings Street Lane). The BCR for the FULL Winnersh Relief Road scheme is 2.2 (including the funding provide by the developer Bovis). Considering only the elements to be funded from the LEP the BCR rises to 3.3. The route alignment has been agreed and features in a number Wokingham Borough Councils plans such as the Core Strategy and LTP.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Council Capital 7,204,223 7,204,223 Other 438,000 6,500,000 6,938,000 Business Rates 3,000,000 3,260,000 6,260,000 Retention Pilot Total Scheme Cost 438,000 6,500,000 3,000,000 10,464,223 20,402,223
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Page 67 Risk Note : Management of Risk Design and Delivery Project will be managed and designed by Wokingham Borough Council and this will reduce the risk of delivering the junctions as issues can be internalised. Flooding The land on which the relief road is being constructed, floods, but that has been mitigated by using flood analysis data and the associated construction techniques. Political support There is strong political support for the scheme as it’s seen as part of wider package of measures to support the growth of Wokingham Borough. Utility Diversions Complex utility diversions that will be split across enabling and main construction to mitigate programme delays. Tie-ins to existing network will also be complex Land Ownership Land constraints identified, elements of land within local authority ownership.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Feasibility work 31/03/2016 31/03/2016 Programme entry status 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 Acquisition of statutory powers 30/11/2017 31/10/2018 Independent assessment of FBC 31/03/2018 31/03/2018 Detailed design 31/05/2018 31/07/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 19/07/2018 15/11/2018 Procurement 30/11/2018 01/10/2019 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Completion of construction 30/09/2020 31/08/2020 One year on evaluation 31/12/2021 30/09/2021 Five year on evaluation 31/12/2025 30/09/2025
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 20,402,223 Business Rates Retention Pilot 6,260,000 Council Capital 7,204,223 Other 6,938,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Housing Starts 74 Houses Completed 152 Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 1,500 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 1,500 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 1,500 Type of infrastructure New carriageway Type of service improvement Enabling housing development and congestion relief Outcomes Follow on investment at site Page 68 Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 69 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.27 Maidenhead Town Centre Missing Links Current Project Status : Green Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme The purpose of this scheme is to complete the ‘missing links’ between planned major development areas in and around Maidenhead and to improve their connectivity to the town centre, rail station and surrounding residential areas and local facilities. A new ‘inner-ring’ is proposed for pedestrians and cyclists, which will be tied into new / enhanced crossings of the A4 and Strand Water. The routes will tie into the infill public realm areas in the town, which will in turn trigger a review of the core town centre road network.
2. Progress with the scheme Design of the cycle route elements is substantially complete.
The design of the pedestrian / cycle bridge across Strand Water is underway.
Discussions are underway with the developer of The Landing regarding the extent of their planned paving / public realm works on King Street.
Countryside has yet to appoint a transport consultant, which potentially puts the subway interface at risk as it involves the West Street site - there may be a delay to ensure the scheme interfaces properly with this development.
A draft of the addendum to the business case has been completed and submitted to Hatch Regeneris. Fnal changes are being made in response to clarification questions received. A meeting took place at the end of March with the council’s joint venture partner, Countryside, to discuss the design and construction programme for the St Cloud Way development, and to agree the interim cycle route around the site during the construction period. A public engagement event was held on 1-2 March covering all of the Maidenhead Major Schemes and town centre regeneration proposals. The Royal Borough's cabinet has adopted an ambitious 10-year cycle strategy seeking to improve infrastructure; increase cycle numbers and reduce cycle casualties. This scheme is embedded in the strategy. Designs are being revised to the design of the bridge and cycle routes across Town Moor so that Strand Water can become a navigable channel as part of the Maidenhead Waterways scheme. These elements have therefore been slipped to 2019/20 while designs are reviewed. This does not impact on the overall programme. Preliminary design on traffic elements has been commissioned, with the footbridge and subway to be taken to detailed design in one package. Detailed design has commenced on the cycle route and replacement pedestrian / cycle bridge. The business case was submitted and conditionally approved on 15 November 2019, showing a BCR of 2.1. Work is underway to discharge the conditions.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 842,000 1,399,788 2,241,788 Section 106 5,379 57,815 104,940 168,134 Council Capital 12,550 134,904 244,859 392,313 Total Scheme Cost 17,929 1,034,719 1,749,587 2,802,235
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green Page 70 Risk Note : Management of Risk Construction Cost Increase Scheme design and material specs will need to be amended to reduce project costs or the Council will need to provide additional funding Planning consent If the A4 crossing were to not receive planning consent then a key section of the scheme would be missing. Subject to the reasons for refusal there may be scope to resubmit a revised scheme, which will add delay and cost. Seeking consent earlier than required would limit the risk or highlight issues at a much earlier stage to allow time for mitigation. Cost of Utilities Protection/Diversion Early engagement with the utility companies and knowledge of their requirements and locations is key to seeking to reduce this risk Land ownership Although the majority of the scheme is within public highway land or RBWM property, there is always a risk that small sections of private land may impact on the buildability of the scheme. The Council will seek records and legal deeds during design stage and clarify their impact on the scheme and redesign accordingly to limit any need for 3rd party land. Ecological Where the ‘Inner Ring’ crosses the waterways, park or moorland, the ecology of these areas may be impacted by the scheme and suitable measures may be needed to mitigate the impact. Early investigation is key to removing the need for mitigation or seeking cost effective measures to address any issues.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme Entry Status 31/01/2017 31/01/2017 Feasibility / outline design 30/04/2017 30/09/2018 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2017 31/10/2018 Financial approval from BLTB 16/11/2017 15/11/2018 Start of construction 31/01/2018 31/07/2020 Preparation of FBC 31/10/2018 31/10/2018 Procurement 31/12/2018 31/10/2019 Completion of construction 31/03/2021 31/03/2021 One year on evaluation 31/03/2022 31/03/2021 Five years on evaluation 31/03/2026 31/03/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 2,802,235 12,550 Local Growth Fund 2,241,788 Section 106 168,134 Council Capital 392,313 12,550 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 8,000 Housing Starts 1,986 Houses Completed 2,884 Page 71 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 65,404 metres) Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 330 Length of New Cycle Ways (meters) 800 Type of infrastructure New / upgraded pedestrian / cycle bridge links at Holmanleaze, A4 and Oldfield School Type of service improvement Active travel investments Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Planned: 3,637m Commercial rental values
Page 72 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.28 Bracknell: A3095 Corridor Current Project Status : Green Bracknell Forest Council
Highlights since last report Final stages of the detailed design underway
1. Scheme This project delivers significant improvements to one of the key highway corridors in the Thames Valley Berkshire. The project will significantly help in terms of accommodating movements and reducing congestion between the M4 (J8/9/10) and M3 (J4) and between Maidenhead, Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell, and Camberley/Blackwater Valley and beyond. This work would also assist in unlocking housing delivery at TRL and Broadmoor that will provide 1415 new houses and enhance urban connectivity.
2. Progress with the scheme Survey work is now being undertaken to gather all the information required to inform the design process. Information being gathered includes a 3d model of the underground services, ground condition surveys, core samples and widow testing around the subway structures. Once this information is collected the design team can use this information within the ongoing detailed design of the various elements of the scheme.
Officers continue to finalise the detailed design and build programme with a view to starting on site later this year following the completion of the dualling of Downshire Way Officers are now carrying out detailed design of the various elements of the scheme including trial holes and tree surveys.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 200,000 1,800,000 3,518,800 5,518,800 Section 106 500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 Total Scheme Cost 200,000 2,300,000 5,518,800 8,018,800
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk That the overall cost of the Coral Reef Junction exceeds Detailed Bill of Quantities with effective site and contract the funding available management Statutory undertakers C4 cost estimates significantly Early liaison with statutory undertakers and early commission exceed C3 cost estimates of C4 estimates (underway) Highway Works in neighbouring local authority area Liaison with neighbouring authorities and agreement re. during construction leading to traffic congestion and programme possible impact on programme and costs Unexpected need for additional Temporary Traffic Liaison with Traffic Management Section and early Management increasing costs quantification of TM requirements and costs (underway)
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Feasibility work 30/04/2016 30/04/2016 Programme entry status 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 Independent assessment of FBC 30/04/2017 28/02/2018 Financial approval from BLTB 20/07/2017 19/07/2018 Page 73 Detailed design 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/04/2019 31/10/2018 Completion of construction 30/11/2021 30/11/2021 One year on evaluation 30/11/2022 30/11/2022 Five year on evaluation 30/11/2026 30/11/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 8,018,800 200,000 Local Growth Fund 5,518,800 200,000 Section 106 2,500,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Housing Starts 1,415 218 Houses Completed 1,415 35 Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 2,500 Length of Newly Built Road (meters) 5,700 Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 74 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.29 Wokingham: Winnersh Triangle Park and Ride Current Project Status : Green Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report Meeting with the business park and Reading Buses to discuss potential change to bus access layout (following request from the business park) due on 10 July. following this planning application work will commence..
1. Scheme The purpose of this scheme is to redevelop the transport links at Winnersh Triangle and consider renaming the station to Winnersh Triangle Parkway.
The redevelopment will include double decking the new park and ride site to add at least 250 car parking spaces, improvement of the station building including the surrounding area, reorganising the highways layout and exploring the value of reinstating the redundant Reading bound ‘on ramp’ of the A3290. These arrangements would complement growth plans of Frazer Centrepoint who are intensifying the use of the Business Park.
2. Progress with the scheme WSP has been commissioned to develop Business Case for March 2019. Meeting has taken place between WSP and Regeneris regarding the Business Case. Discussions ongoing with potential parking deck suppliers and SWR to refine cost estimates. Updates have been provided to both SWR and Frazer Centrepoint, with both parties still engaged and supportive of the scheme. A business case will be developed around the usefulness of the redundant on ramp to the A3290. At present no contact has been made with National Amusements to understand what is needed to regain access across a narrow strip of car park to link both sections of highway [Initial assessment of this element of the project has ruled out this element]. Reading Transport were equally enthusiastic about expanding the service offer at Winnersh Triangle to take advantage of new infrastructure and links to central Reading. The Council has had an initial meeting with the new owners of Winnersh Triangle Business Park, Frazer Centrepoint. The initial meeting suggested that the business park would be willing to improve access and the visual appearance to the station approach as far as they could and on the land within their control. Initial discussions have been undertaken with South Western Railway (SWR) to understand the level of investment needed to change the layout of the platforms, which are on an embankment. We have asked SWR to explore what would be needed to deliver access for all funding to make sure that the station was inclusive for all users. Progress to date has been limited to commissioning WSP to develop a design capable of submission to planning for approval and to develop the necessary business case to ensure the scheme demonstrates value for money, following Thames Valley LEP Board approval to progress in November 2017.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 250,000 2,600,000 2,850,000 Section 106 50,000 500,000 550,000 Total Scheme Cost 300,000 3,100,000 3,400,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Design and Delivery Project will be managed and designed by Wokingham Borough Council and will deliver a parkway project that will improve the opportunity for sustainable travel.
Page 75 Flooding The site identified, has recently been developed with a car park that manages flooding. The flood risk assessments provided for the car park upgrade in 2015/16 are still relevant. Political Support There is strong political support for the scheme from both Wokingham Borough and Reading Borough members. Land Ownership The land on which the parkway project is to be developed is within the control of both Wokingham Borough and South Western Railway.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2018 28/02/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 15/11/2018 14/03/2019 Programme entry status 14/03/2019 14/03/2019 Acquisition of statutory powers 30/09/2019 30/09/2019 Detailed design 31/01/2020 31/01/2020 Start of Construction 31/01/2020 31/01/2020 Procurement 30/04/2020 30/04/2020 Completion of construction 30/09/2020 30/09/2020 One year on evaluation 30/09/2021 30/09/2021 Five year on evaluation 30/09/2025 30/09/2025
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 3,400,000 Local Growth Fund 2,850,000 Section 106 550,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 220 Housing Starts 433 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 5,500 metres) Type of infrastructure Car Park, Station and Bus turning area Type of service improvement Mode shift opportunity Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 76 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.30 Thames Valley Berkshire Smart City Cluster Current Project Status : Amber / Green Reading Borough Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme The project delivers three key deliverables: 1. Smart city platform: consisting of an Internet of Things (IoT) communication platform across Reading, Wokingham, West Berkshire and Bracknell and a cross-authority open data platform. This is enabling infrastructure for the delivery of a wide range of IoT technologies including traffic signal communications which will provide the revenue savings to maintain and operate the system. 2. Challenge funded IoT solutions: grant funded IoT solutions to real Local Authority challenges which will utilise the platform. These grants will be awarded through competition and will be on the basis of co-funding. 3. Cross authority / cross sector smart city group: This includes a Steering Group to oversee the project delivery and act as a catalyst for wider smart city debate, project development and funding.
2. Progress with the scheme Associated bid to Adept has been awarded £4.7m of highway and transport innovation funding with a detailed project plan to be developed by 1st May. This deadline was extended to the 10th May as DfT were not ready to release the funds. Budget - The project is on budget Programme - The project is focused on not extending beyond the agreed completion date of the end of June 2020. LoRa deployment - The 85 LoRa units have been purchased and delivered and are now being configured for deployment - detailed surveys have been undertaken for the first 20 installs and roll out will commence shortly - this will be complete within the overall programme. We were going to facilitate SIGFOX deployment in parallel, however WND's business model has changed and they are no longer funding installs with a financial incentive to install - instead they are looking for payment to install. As SIGFOX is not a critical part of our project delivery SIGFOX will now not be installed except for a very few sites where funded by WND. Challenge Fund Calls - The first Call for applicants for four £100k grants was published before Easter with a response date of the 31st May. Final calls were around:1) Reading - Monitoring household condition for energy and health; 2) West Berks - Prolonging independence through reducing falls; 3) Wokingham - Reduce Isolation for the Elderly; 4) Bracknell Forest - help vulnerable people to travel independently. The call was marketed widely on the run up to and at the launch including through the 1500 people IoT meetup contact list, through local authority and LEP contacts and through Connect TVT as well as associated publicity. An information event, attended by around 60 - 70 people was held at GreenPark, and it is also being raised at the IoT meet up on 8th May. An expert panel has been lined up to evaluate the applications. Expected date of award to the successful applicants is 21st June. we are now commencing agreement to the 2nd round of calls.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 83,400 254,737 1,395,517 1,733,654 WND SigFox 8,000 217,000 225,000 DfT funding 100,000 150,000 250,000 Total Scheme Cost 83,400 362,737 1,762,517 2,208,654
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Smart city communications platform does not meet Due diligence expert appointed to advise on proposal. functional requirements Page 77 Insufficient ‘good’ interest in challenge fund calls to Opportunities will be widely marketed. Already good interest industry in calls that will come out so seen as a low risk. More than one call so that second call can be re-targeted. Challenge fund calls do not result in commercially viable Good input to the definition of the challenge fund calls solutions that meet the real needs. through working across the authorities. Expert panel to be identified to evaluate calls and question commercial viability. Data security and personal information Calls to avoid generating solutions that collect personal data. Combination of datasets to reviewed so that there is not a risk due to aggregating data. If proposals come forward with data that needs to be kept secure, then these will be carefully evaluated as to their benefit against not providing open data for the smart city platform to ensure data security. Delays / spend over runs Effective project management, scalability of challenge fund calls to target spend to the budget.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Communications platform specification 30/03/2018 30/09/2019 Communication platform procurement and implementation 30/03/2018 31/12/2018 Data platform specification 30/03/2018 31/07/2018 Definition of challenge fund call requirements 30/04/2018 30/04/2019 Reading backhaul upgrade delivery 31/07/2018 31/07/2018 Stakeholder workshops 31/08/2018 28/02/2019 Award of challenge fund call 1 31/08/2018 30/06/2019 Substantial completion of communications platform 31/08/2018 30/04/2019 Award of challenge fund call 2 28/02/2019 30/09/2019 Reading backhaul upgrade specification 29/03/2019 30/03/2018 Data platform Implementation 31/05/2019 31/01/2019 Substantial delivery of challenge fund call 1 31/05/2019 28/02/2019 Substantial completion of challenge fund call 2 31/10/2019 31/05/2020 Project End 31/10/2019 30/06/2020 One year on evaluation 30/10/2020 30/06/2021 Five years on evaluation 31/10/2024 30/06/2025
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 2,208,654 406,716 Local Growth Fund 1,733,654 310,716 In kind resources 311,000 WND SigFox 225,000 8,000 DfT funding 250,000 88,000
Page 78 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 63 Type of infrastructure Internet of Things communication and inter LA open data platform Type of service improvement Efficiencies through better use of data Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 79 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.31 Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration Current Project Status : Amber Slough Borough Council
Highlights since last report Business Case submitted on 1st July 2019 to Hatch Regeneris for independent review
1. Scheme Sustainable transport infrastructure and highway works to support regeneration of six major brownfield sites at Stoke Road and improved interchange and parking at Slough station.
2. Progress with the scheme Businss Case submitted to Hatch Regeneris for independent review Public consultation on concept designs took place in Jan 2019 Work is on track for Business Case to be submitted to BLTB for July 2019 Funding profile was amended due to later start on site (construction work). Program entry status BLTB 14th July 2018.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,500,000 5,150,000 7,650,000 Section 106 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Scheme Cost 3,500,000 5,150,000 8,650,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Delays in approval granted following independent Limit changes to design scope assessment
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 19/07/2018 19/07/2018 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2018 31/10/2018 Financial approval from BLTB 15/11/2018 18/07/2019 Cabinet approve scheme 31/12/2018 31/12/2018 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 30/06/2019 30/11/2019 Completion of construction 31/03/2022 31/03/2022 One year on evaluation 31/03/2023 31/03/2023 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2027 31/03/2027
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 8,650,000 Local Growth Fund 7,650,000 Section 106 1,000,000 Page 80 In kind resources 2,250,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 293 Housing Starts 4,360 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 6,400 metres) Type of infrastructure Highway improvements including junction modifications, cycle ways, footbridge, interchange and assoc Type of service improvement Improved network for all road users, including walking and cycling infrastructure and parking facilities at Slough Station Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 81 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.32 Maidenhead: Housing Sites Enabling Works Phase 1 Current Project Status : Green Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme This scheme consists of a package of traffic management measures to deliver additional capacity at key junctions around Maidenhead where modelling has indicated that severe peak hour congestion is likely to occur as a result of planned development and regeneration activity.
The scheme will facilitate economic growth by unlocking major housing and commercial development. It will also improve journey times for passengers accessing the Great Western Main Line / Elizabeth Line. The works will be progressed in phases in order to minimise the impact on the local road network.
2. Progress with the scheme Traffic and topographical surveys have been completed to inform the preliminary design process.
Modelling bases have been established and are undergoing calibration.
Design of the A308 / Stafferton Way junction scheme is underway as the first element of the project.
The business case addendum is susbstantially complete. RBWM has appointed CALA Homes as joint venture partner for the Maidenhead Golf Club development and is submitting a Housing Infrastructure Fund bid for transport infrastructure improvements. RBWM is working with CALA and the RBWM Property Company to ensure this is complementary to the LGF bid. A public engagement event was held on 1-2 March covering all of the Maidenhead Major Schemes and town centre regeneration proposals. The Full Business Case received conditional approval on 31 January 2019. RBWM is currently working with Hatch Regenersis to discharge the conditions. The Council submitted the Borough Local Plan (BLP) to the Secretary of State in January 2018. It makes provision for at least 14,240 new dwellings and development in and adjacent to Maidenhead town centre will provide many of these. The impacts of the additional traffic associated with the proposed development sites have been evaluated and several key junctions have been identified where severe peak hour congestion is likely to occur. These include: • M4 Junction 8/9 • A308(M) / A308 / A330 / The Binghams roundabout • A404(M) / Stafferton Way / Norreys Drive roundabout • A404(M) / A404 / A4 roundabout • A308 / Stafferton Way / Rushington Avenue roundabout • A4 / A308 roundabout • A4 / B4447 roundabout • A4 / A4094 roundabout The M4 junctions will be addressed by Highways England through their Road Investment Strategy processes, but the other schemes affect the local road network and additional capacity is necessary. The scope of the project has been reduced from the original proposal.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,315,000 1,898,000 4,213,000 Section 106 174,000 142,000 316,000 Council Capital 405,000 332,500 737,500
Page 82 Business Rates 1,068,000 1,068,000 Retention Pilot Total Scheme Cost 3,962,000 2,372,500 6,334,500
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Construction costs increase Scheme design and material specs will need to be amended to reduce project costs or the Council will need to provide additional funding. Cost of Utilities Protection/Diversion Early engagement with the utility companies and knowledge of their requirements and locations is key to seeking to reduce this risk. Land ownership Although the majority of the scheme is within public highway land or RBWM property, small sections of private land may impact on the buildability of the scheme. The Council will seek records and legal deeds during design stage and clarify their impact on the scheme and redesign accordingly to limit any need for 3rd party land.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 19/07/2018 19/07/2018 Feasibility / outline design 31/10/2018 31/10/2018 Preparation of FBC 31/10/2018 31/10/2018 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2018 31/10/2018 Financial approval from BLTB 15/11/2018 17/01/2019 Detailed design - phase 1 31/01/2019 31/07/2019 Procurement - phase 1 31/01/2019 31/08/2019 Start of construction - phase 1 28/02/2019 31/10/2019 Completion of construction - phase 1 31/03/2019 31/03/2020 Detailed design - phase 2 30/06/2019 30/06/2019 Start of construction - phase 2 30/08/2019 31/10/2019 Procurement - phase 2 31/08/2019 31/08/2019 Completion of construction - phase 2 31/03/2020 31/03/2020 Detailed design - phase 3 30/06/2020 30/06/2020 Procurement - phase 3 31/07/2020 31/07/2020 Start of construction - phase 3 31/08/2020 31/08/2020 Completion of construction - phase 3 31/03/2021 31/03/2021 One year on evaluation 31/03/2022 31/03/2022 Five years on evaluation 31/03/2026 31/03/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 6,334,500 Local Growth Fund 4,213,000 Business Rates Retention Pilot 1,068,000 Page 83 Section 106 316,000 Council Capital 737,500 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Length of Road Resurfaced (meters) 2,000 Type of infrastructure Junction improvements Type of service improvement Additional traffic capacity to improve journey times, congestion and journey times. Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied 28,894m planned Commercial rental values
Page 84 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.33 GWR: Maidenhead to Marlow Branch Line Upgrade Current Project Status : Amber / Green Great Western Railway
Highlights since last report Review process for both track and signalling design continues. Initial Hazard and Operability Review took place on 10th May but further sessions were required to consider operations during periods of perturbation. Further meeting took place on 5th June and final planned for 27th June. The Approval in Principle is therefore intended to be submitted in July 2019
1. Scheme Infrastructure works to allow two direct trains per hour between Marlow and Maidenhead and improvements to intermediate stations.
2. Progress with the scheme The proposed signalling solution was deemed unacceptable by Network Rail, which has resulted in redesign to both this and the associated track design. A risk identification session to review the revised design is planned for 10th May. Subject to the outcome of this, the submission for Approval in Principle will be made at the end of May. Track design has been agreed between GWR and Network Rail and is ready for submission for formal Approval in Principle. Works on signalling design is ongoing as Network Rail do not support the current proposal. The project is still intending to submit signalling design for Approval in Principle during March 2019, subject to further development work over the next six weeks. This project Completion of draft GRIP 2 report by Atkins. This assesses the feasibility of different infrastructure options in terms of track, signalling and buffer stop alterations required to achieve project outcome. The GRIP 2 report has been shared with Network Rail and a formal feedback meeting has been held. Network Rail did not support the recommendations of the report but the meeting identified a further option that they are supportive of in principle. Atkins are now updating the GRIP 2 report, which will be resubmitted to Network Rail. Subject to Network Rail confirming their conditional support, the project will progress through GRIP 3 design to seek to secure formal Approval in Principle for the project.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 1,525,000 1,525,000 Other LEP Local 1,700,000 1,700,000 Growth Fund Council Capital 350,000 350,000 Rail Industry 200,000 325,000 525,000 Total Scheme Cost 200,000 3,900,000 4,100,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber / Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme Entry Status 31/07/2018 31/07/2018 Feasibility / outline design 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Financial Approval from LTB 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Procurement 31/05/2019 31/05/2019
Start of construction Page 85 30/08/2019 30/08/2019 Completion of construction 31/12/2019 31/12/2019 One year on evaluation 31/12/2020 31/12/2020 Five years on evaluation 31/12/2024 31/12/2024
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 4,100,000 200,000 Local Growth Fund 1,525,000 Council Capital 350,000 Rail Industry 525,000 200,000 Other LEP Local Growth Fund 1,700,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Railway Type of service improvement Railway improvements Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 86 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.34 Slough MRT Phase 2 Current Project Status : Green Slough Borough Council
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme The A4 forms the spine of a 12km strategic public transport corridor that links Maidenhead, Slough and Heathrow and plays an important role in providing surface access to the airport. Phase 2 will extend the Slough Mass Rapid Transit (SMaRT) project from its current end point at Langley and take it onto the Heathrow service road. Bus lanes and other priority measures will be provided in the new section between Langley and eastwards beyond Junction 5 of the M4 and onto Heathrow.
2. Progress with the scheme Project meetings have been set up and initial meetings with designers have been completed. Utility diversion works expected to start in August. Public consultation on concept designs took place in Jan 2019 The elements of the Full Business Case relating to the bus priority measures along the A4 are were completed first. Elements relating to the Brands Hill Park and Ride took longer to prepare. Work continued to produce a WebTAG- compliant Full Business Case that demonstrates good or better value for money for approval at the extraordinary January 2019 BLTB meeting. Slough Borough Council has recently updated its traffic model using 2017 survey data, and encountered a few technical issues that took longer than anticipated to resolve. The resulting delay has meant that the deadline for submitting a complete Full Business Case for the November meeting was missed.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 13,300,000 13,300,000 Total Scheme Cost 13,300,000 13,300,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Green Finance Status : Green Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Delays in approval granted following independent Limit changes to design scope assessment
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 19/07/2018 19/07/2018 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2018 31/01/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 15/11/2018 31/01/2019 Cabinet approve scheme 31/12/2018 31/12/2018 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 28/02/2019 31/08/2019 Completion of construction 29/02/2020 31/08/2020 One year on evaluation 28/02/2021 31/08/2021 Five year on evaluation 28/02/2025 31/08/2025
Page 87 6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 13,300,000 Local Growth Fund 13,300,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 400 Housing Starts 2,160 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 5,000 metres) Type of infrastructure Junction improvements, traffic signal enhancements, road widening, bus lanes Type of service improvement Enhanced bus services: greater frequency and reliabiltiy, reduced journey times Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 88 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.35 Reading West Station Upgrade Current Project Status : Amber Reading Borough Council
Highlights since last report Investigatory surveys, which will feed into the business case and design process, have been undertaken including trial holes, passenger surveys and counts.
1. Scheme The Reading West Station scheme will deliver an improved passenger experience and multi-modal interchange, including a new station building, highway changes and improvements to platform facilities and the Tilehurst Road entrance.
2. Progress with the scheme Appraisal Specification Report prepared and submitted to Hatch for comment. Comments subsequently received from Hatch and will be considered and actioned upon within the Full Business Case. Detailed design for the highways works is being progressed by RBC, and GWR are procuring a contractor to design the station elements of the scheme. Work on the business case is underway, including undertaking passenger surveys to inform development of the full business case which is expected to be submitted to BLTB in November 2019. Reading West Station was granted programme entry by BLTB in February 2019.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 3,100,000 3,100,000 Section 106 200,000 200,000 Rail Industry 940,000 940,000 Total Scheme Cost 940,000 200,000 3,100,000 4,240,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Delay to programme due to securing necessary consents Network Rail will be engaged early in the programme to from Network Rail and GWR minimise risk of securing consents Utility diversions greater than anticipated Initial enquiries have been made, including trial holes, and are expected to be managable. Scheme costs significantly increase. More detailed cost estimates will be investigated as part of business case development, reviewed throughout programme and contingency built into the overall scheme cost. Works affected by operation of railway and delayed due Proceed to book processions as soon as scheme granted to potential requirements for possessions. approval. Interchange works away from railway so not affected by the need to secure possessions. Full Business Case does not achieve adequate BCR figure Latest DfT guidance re Business Case Development to be referred. Scheme to be measured through the application of attribute values for these improvements (inc. TfL BCDM values). Legal agreements and Contractual arrangements Contractual arrangmeents to be discussed and agreed between LEP, RBC and GWR regarding the funding and between all parties and division of responsibility set following delivery of the elements of the scheme between to be approval of the FBC and division of funding. set. Page 89 5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Feasibility work 31/07/2018 31/07/2018 Programme entry status 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Outline Design 30/09/2019 30/09/2019 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2019 31/10/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 Detailed design 31/01/2020 30/01/2020 Acquisition of statutory powers 31/05/2020 31/05/2020 Procurement 31/05/2020 31/05/2020 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/07/2020 31/07/2020 Project End 30/09/2021 30/09/2021 Completion of construction 30/09/2021 30/09/2021 One year on evaluation 31/03/2026 31/03/2022 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2026 31/03/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 4,240,000 Local Growth Fund 3,100,000 Section 106 200,000 Rail Industry 940,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Jobs Created 11 Housing Starts 65 Commercial floorspace constructed (square 191 metres) Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 90 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.36 Wokingham: Coppid Beech park and ride Current Project Status : Amber Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report Initial discussions with consultants and Planning colleagues underway.
1. Scheme This is a new park and ride site to serve both Wokingham and Bracknell Town Centres as well as a potential bus route for Twyford Station.
2. Progress with the scheme Discussion with planning regarding pre-app and next steps underway. Following approval, work is set to commence on the Business Case
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,400,000 2,400,000 Council Capital 600,000 600,000 Total Scheme Cost 3,000,000 3,000,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Acquisition of statutory powers 20/02/2020 29/02/2020 Independent assessment of FBC 29/02/2020 29/02/2020 Financial approval from BLTB 12/03/2020 12/03/2020
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 3,000,000 Local Growth Fund 2,400,000 Council Capital 600,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 91 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.37 Bracknell: A322 A329 Corridor Improvements Current Project Status : Amber Bracknell Forest Council
Highlights since last report Further improvements identified and request for additional funding report going to July LTB
1. Scheme
2. Progress with the scheme Officers are working on devloping the strategic business case to secure full financial approval
Consultants will be commisioned shortly to assist in the devlopment of the Business Case to secure full financial approval in November.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 1,200,000 1,200,000 Council Capital 300,000 300,000 Total Scheme Cost 300,000 1,200,000 1,500,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Detailed design 20/01/2019 31/01/2020 Programme entry status 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2019 31/10/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 Procurement 31/12/2019 31/12/2019 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/07/2020 31/07/2020 Completion of construction 31/03/2021 31/03/2021 Project end 30/04/2021 30/04/2021 One year on evaluation 30/04/2022 30/04/2022 Five year on evaluation 30/04/2026 30/04/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 1,500,000 Local Growth Fund 1,200,000 Council Capital 300,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Page 92 Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 93 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.38 Theale: Theale Station Park and Ride Upgrade Current Project Status : Amber West Berkshire Council
Highlights since last report Project Team continuing to meet on a monthly basis and work progressing to develop the business case.
1. Scheme The scheme is a joint scheme between GWR and WBC and will deliver station enhancements at Theale to improve sustainable transport interchange, increase parking capacity and enhance customer facilities. Specifically, the scheme will seek to deliver: a new cycle hub for up to 100 bicycles, enhanced multi-modal interchange, increased parking capacity, installation of Electric Vehicle charging points, opening of the new ticket office with fully accessible ticket desk, passenger retail provision, new Ticket Vending Machines, new waiting shelters all alongside aiming to be a carbon neutral station.
The wider scheme will also deliver the AfA fully accessible bridge and lifts to access to all platforms in conjunction with Network Rail.
2. Progress with the scheme The project team, made up of representatives from GWR and WBC, are meeting on a regular (at least monthly) basis. The key objectives of the project have been agreed by the project team and the drafting of the Options Assessment Report has commenced. Work will progress between the two parties in order to develop the business case.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Total Local Growth Fund 4,000,000 4,000,000 Council Capital 250,000 200,000 450,000 Rail Industry 20,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,020,000 Total Scheme Cost 20,000 6,250,000 2,200,000 8,470,000
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk Timescales for work for LEP / Council funded parts of Discussions to take place with Network Rail to coordinate project conflict with Network Rail AfA works for project milestones and establish programme alignment. installation of lifts and bridge. Regular workstream meeting with NR to be set up. Planning permission / notifications rejected Much of the work will be delivered under permitted development rights. Early discussions to take place with the Local Planning Authority, Parish Council and other local consultees for any part of the project requiring specific permission. Local discussions are considered important to the project whether or not specific permission is required for the work so this will be programmed by the Project Team. Scheme deliverables not achievable within the project Detailed scoping and cost estimates to be established as budget early as possible and full details to be assessed through the business case. The work on the business case and option assessment in particular will enable the benefits to be maximised for the budget available. Any further opportunities to access additional funding in order to deliver extra benefits will be pursued by the organisations involved.
Page 94 5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Independent assessment of FBC 31/12/2019 31/12/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 12/03/2020 12/03/2020
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 8,470,000 Local Growth Fund 4,000,000 Council Capital 450,000 Rail Industry 4,020,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 95 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.39 Wokingham: Coppid Beech northbound Current Project Status : Amber Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report Consultants reviewing design and previous work completed to date before commencing BC
1. Scheme Widening of the northbound on-slip at the Coppid Beech (A329(M)/London Road) Junction.
2. Progress with the scheme Business case work to commence in April 2019.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,322,431 2,322,431 Section 106 29,030 551,578 580,608 Total Scheme Cost 29,030 2,874,009 2,903,039
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Independent assessment of FBC 29/02/2020 Programme entry status 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 12/03/2020 12/03/2020
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 2,903,039 Local Growth Fund 2,322,431 Section 106 580,608 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 96 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.40 Windsor: Town Centre Package Current Project Status : Amber Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Highlights since last report
1. Scheme This consists of a package of measures to support the visitor economy in Windsor by: - improving pedestrian priority and the streetscape around Windsor Castle to improve security and visitor facilities, and support expansion of outdoor seating for restaurants, cafes and pubs; - improvements to visitor reception / coach / bus / taxi interchange facilities and better linkage of the coach park to the town centre, with improvements for disabled access; - enabling the roll-out of a demand-responsive bus service to improve public transport access within the Royal Borough and to Heathrow Airport to encourage more staying visitors; and - expansion of parking to better cater for the growting demand from day visitors
The project complements work that is underway to improve security measures around the castle, including finalising the permanent hostile vehicle mitigation measures.
2. Progress with the scheme RBWM is currently reviewing its priorities for the town centre, taking account of the emerging hostile vehicle mitigation scheme and changes to the political landscape in Windsor following the May election. This means that RBWM now intends to bring the business case to the November meeting of the Local Transport Body. Given that this is not a conventional traffic scheme, a traditional webTAG assessment would not be appropraite. Discussions have been held with Hatch Regenersis around a potential alternative methodology for the business case using the urban realm toolkit developed by Transport for London. This has been provisionally accepted as a pragmatic and sensible approach. A project inception meeting was held on 31 January with representatives from Windsor Castle, the Police, RBWM Visitor Management, Highways, Planning and Conservation. This captured all of the requirements of each of the relevant parties, as well as planned changes for the area that could impact upon the scheme. Additional stakeholders have been identified who will need to be involved in the design of the scheme.
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 1,562,500 1,562,500 Section 106 200,000 150,000 350,000 Council Capital 500,000 500,000 Total Scheme Cost 700,000 1,712,500 2,412,500
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk insufficient scheme budget Prepare cost estimates to an appropraite level of detail and include a suitable level of optimism bias. Planning consent not secured Engagement of representatives from RBWM Planning and Conservation from the outset. Scheme is not compliant with security requirements Engagement of representatives from Windsor Castle, Thames Valley Police and the Metropolitan Police from the outset. Ensure consultants and contractors involved in the design and implementation of the scheme are fully aware of constraints and requirements, as well as plans for the HVM Pagemeasures. 97 Cost of utilities protection / diversion Early engagement with the utility companies and knowledge of their requirements and locations is key to seeking to reduce this risk. Objections from stakeholders Hold early discussions with key stakeholders (e.g. Windsor Castle, Police, RBWM Visitor Management, RBWM Planning, Neighbourhood Plan Group, Windsor Town Forum, etc). Hold public engagement event to engage local residents and businesses.
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Independent assessment of FBC 30/06/2019 30/10/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 18/07/2019 14/11/2019 Acquisition of statutory powers 30/09/2019 31/01/2020 Detailed design 30/09/2019 31/03/2020 Procurement (Design & build contract) 31/10/2019 30/04/2020 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/10/2019 31/05/2020 Completion of construction 31/03/2021 31/03/2021 One year on evaluation 31/03/2022 31/03/2022 Five years on evaluation 31/03/2026 31/03/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 2,412,500 Local Growth Fund 1,562,500 Section 106 350,000 Council Capital 500,000 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 98 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.42 South Wokingham Distributor Road - Eastern Gateway Current Project Status : Amber Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report Initial Economic analysis and outline strategice case information has been submitted to Hatch Regeneris to consider along with Management, Commercial and Financial case information. It is intended that this will help HR to determine whether the scheme can be approved subject to conditions.
1. Scheme Part of the South Wokingham Distributor Road, the Eastern Gateway scheme will comprise of a single carriageway distributor road connecting Montague Park with Waterloo Road, including a new road bridge over the Waterloo rail line.
2. Progress with the scheme
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Total Section 106 519,324 668,655 5,449,455 3,724,727 600,000 10,962,161 Business Rates 5,000,000 5,000,000 Retention Pilot Total Scheme Cost 519,324 668,655 10,449,455 3,724,727 600,000 15,962,161
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Programme entry status 31/01/2019 31/01/2019 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2019 31/10/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 14/11/2019 14/11/2019
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 15,962,161 Business Rates Retention Pilot 5,000,000 Section 106 10,962,161 Outputs and Outcomes Planning Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 99 Report Date : 10 July 2019 2.43 Wokingham: Barkham Bridge Current Project Status : Amber Wokingham Borough Council
Highlights since last report Initial Economic analysis and outline strategice case information has been submitted to Hatch Regeneris to consider along with Management, Commercial and Financial case information. It is intended that this will help HR to determine whether the scheme can be approved subject to conditions.
1. Scheme This scheme seeks to replace an existing narrow bridge with a two lane bridge on Barkham Road.
2. Progress with the scheme The scheme will be delivered by the Scape contract which is being used to deliver the councils Major Highways projects. To date the detailed design is nearing completion, land/Legal agreements are progressing well. Work on the business case is underway with WSP
3. Funding Source of Funding 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total Local Growth Fund 2,100,000 2,135,641 4,235,641 Council Capital 215,475 1,266,734 1,482,209 Total Scheme Cost 215,475 2,100,000 3,402,375 5,717,850
4. Risks Deliverable Status : Amber Finance Status : Amber Reputation Status : Green
Risk Note : Management of Risk
5. Programme Task : Original Timescale Timescale (where changed) Feasibility work 31/07/2015 31/07/2015 Programme entry status 14/03/2019 14/03/2019 Land Acquisitions/CPO 30/06/2019 30/06/2019 Detailed design 30/06/2019 31/05/2019 Legal Processes (River Crossing Order and Land Appropriation) 31/07/2019 31/07/2019 Start of construction (including enabling works and utility diversions) 31/10/2019 31/10/2019 Independent assessment of FBC 31/10/2019 31/10/2019 Financial approval from BLTB 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 Completion of construction 31/03/2021 31/03/2021 One year on evaluation 31/03/2026 31/03/2022 Five year on evaluation 31/03/2026 31/03/2026
6. Core Metrics Inputs Planning Numbers Actual to Date Total Expenditure 5,717,850 215,475 Local Growth Fund 4,235,641 Council Capital 1,482,209 215,475 Outputs and Outcomes PlanningPage 100 Numbers Actual to Date Type of infrastructure Type of service improvement Outcomes Follow on investment at site Commercial floorspace occupied Commercial rental values
Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 7
BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY (BLTB)
REPORT TO: BLTB DATE: 18 July 2019
CONTACT OFFICER: Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration, Slough Borough Council, lead officer to the BLTB
Item 7: Allocation of the remaining Local Growth Funds
Purpose of Report
1. To present the case for allocating the remaining £1.9m of Local Growth Funds (LGF) to an innovation project and two transport projects. The latter propose an increase to the LGF already allocated to scheme 2.37 Bracknell: A322/A329 Corridor Improvements and to scheme 2.06 Reading Green Park Railway Station.
Recommendation
2. You are asked to support the recommendation that the remaining LGF is allocated to three different projects that will contribute to the implementation of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), including one non-transport project.
3. You are asked to support the recommendation that, of these three projects, 2.37 Bracknell: A322/A329 Corridor Improvements receives a further allocation of £800k LGF, to take the total allocated for this scheme to £2.00m and that 2.06 Reading Green Park Railway Station receives a further allocation of £550k LGF, to take the total allocated for this scheme to £9.700m.
Other Implications
Financial
4. Thames Valley Berkshire LEP has secured £142m LGF through three Growth Deals with central government. £24m of this is allocated to a ‘DfT retained scheme’.
5. Of the remaining £118m, 74% is spent or invested in projects on site/that have Full Business Case (FBC) approval. This includes £4m earmarked in the Growth Deals for skills capital projects.
6. 24% - £28m LGF - has been allocated to projects with Programme Entry status.
7. <2% - £1.9m LGF - has yet to be allocated. 2019/20 is the fifth year in the six-year LGF programme, so funds need to be allocated now.
Risk Management
8. The risk management arrangements already put in place by the Local Transport Body are as follows:
The Assurance Frameworki has been drafted following DfT guidance and has been approved by the DfT for use in allocating capital funds for transport schemes Hatch Regeneris have been appointed to act as Independent Assessors for all LGF-funded schemes
Item 7: Allocation of the remaining Local Growth Funds Page 103 9. The principle of allocating LGF to non-transport schemes will be considered by the LEP Board on 9 July, revisited by the BLTB (a LEP Programme Group) on 18 July and a decision ratified by the LEP Forum on 23 July.
10. An independent assessment of the non-transport schemes will also be conducted in accordance with the LEP’s Assurance Framework, AF 4.0 (in this case by the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) Managing Authority, MHCLG).
Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications
11. Slough Borough Council will provide legal support for the BLTB should any questions arise.
Supporting Information
12. £1.926m LGF has yet to be allocated. 2019/20 is the fifth in the six-year LGF programme, so funds need to be allocated now. The LEP is proposing investment in transport and non-transport projects.
13. The first investment proposed is for an innovation project based on research commissioned by the LEP, i.e. to support the creation of “spaces which provide entrepreneurs and businesses with accommodation on flexible terms and access to supporting administrative, business and innovation support services and networks”. The LEP’s proposed contribution of £500k would act as part- match for an ERDF Call for Thames Valley Berkshire applicants, worth £1.65m.
14. The oversight of the non-transport schemes does not fall within the remit of the BLTB or indeed the BSTF. However, as the unallocated funds are earmarked in the Growth Deals for transport schemes, the support of the BLTB is sought, in its capacity as a LEP Programme Group.
15. The addition of £36m Business Rates Retention Pilot (BRRP) monies means that the LEP has more than met the transport commitments set out in the Growth Deals and the proposal is therefore to use the remaining LGF to support a project that delivers other aspects of the SEP and in future, the BLIS.
Transport Project
16. One of the transport projects is the Bracknell: A322/A329 Corridor Improvements. This will deliver significant improvements to one of the key highway corridors in Thames Valley Berkshire, between the M4 (J8/9/10) and M3 (J4), i.e. from Maidenhead, Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell to Camberley, the Blackwater Valley and beyond. These junction improvements along the A322/A329 corridor are required to facilitate the Council’s future growth plans for around 6,400 dwellings.
17. It received Programme Entry status in January 2019, having been allocated £1.2m LGF. Enabling works are ongoing now.
18. The strategic model used to develop the original concept design has since been updated to include major schemes to be implemented in Bracknell over the coming years. Further testing of the detailed design has demonstrated that the additional corridor capacity created cannot be fully utilised without further modification.
19. An enhanced scheme could provide additional capacity improvements of up to 40% in the peak hours over and above the original, proposed improvements. This will release more traffic and ease movement for vehicles travelling to and from the A329 and J10 M4, which is the predominant flow.
Item 7: Allocation of the remaining Local Growth Funds Page 104 20. The second transport project is 2.06 Green Park Railway Station. This scheme is located within the boroughs of Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham; on the Reading to Basingstoke railway line. The station and multi-modal interchange will significantly improve accessibility to - and connectivity of - the Green Park business park, Green Park Village and Royal Elm Park mixed use development, and the wider A33 growth corridor.
21. The scheme received Programme Entry status in November 2014, having been allocated £9.15m LGF (£6.4m in 2014 and £2.75m in 2016). In addition, £2.3m has been secured from the Department for Transport’s (DfT) New Stations Fund 2 and £5.6m is being provided by Reading Borough Council from S106 contributions.
22. Enabling works for the interchange are ongoing and the detailed designs for the station are nearing completion, in partnership with Network Rail (NR) and Great Western Railway (GWR). As the station designs have evolved, additional railway industry requirements have been imposed, which have resulted in increased costs due to changes in scope and associated delays. The final designs will need to be approved by NR.
23. Although the additional requirements are being challenged, there have nevertheless been other essential changes that have been incorporated within the designs, including both health and safety requirements and future proofing of the facilities at the station, as forecasts for passenger numbers have increased. These have contributed to the expected increased cost of the scheme.
24. Further funding is currently being sought from the DfT, NR and GWR. The proposal to contribute another £550k LGF is conditional on sufficient funds not being sourced from these partners. An initial assessment of the business case indicates that the scheme would remain in the ‘very high value for money’.
Conclusion
25. The combined investment of LGF and BRRP will deliver over 50 capital projects by the end of 2020/2021, across a portfolio of transport, digital, skills and flood schemes. The investment of the remaining £1.9m LGF can add to this by supporting transport and innovation projects that will contribute to the implementation of the SEP and BLIS.
Background Papers
26. Background papers on the A322/A329 Corridor are available from stuart.jefferies@bracknell- forest.gov.uk and on Reading Green Park Railway Station from [email protected].
i http://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/berkshire-strategic-transport-forum
Item 7: Allocation of the remaining Local Growth Funds Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 8
BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY (BLTB)
REPORT TO: BLTB DATE: 18 July 2019
CONTACT OFFICER: Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration, Slough Borough Council, lead officer to BLTB
PART I
Item 8: Financial Approval 2.04.4 Wokingham: Arborfield Cross Relief Road
Purpose of Report
1. To consider giving financial approval to scheme 2.04.4 Wokingham: Arborfield Cross Relief Road.
2. This road is one of four new roads supporting the development of up to 10,000 new dwellings, schools, neighbourhood centre, etc across four Strategic Development Locations (SDL) in Wokingham Borough.
3. The Arborfield Cross Relief Road (ACRR) scheme will provide relief to the existing A327 through the village of Arborfield and Arborfield Cross Gyratory, to accommodate and reduce the traffic impacts of strategic development at Arborfield Garrison and South of the M4 (Shinfield and Spencers Wood). The Arborfield SDL calls for 3,500 new homes.
4. Because of the value of the scheme, it has been categorised by the Department of Transport (DfT) as a ‘retained scheme’. Assurance Framework matters are being managed by the DfT.
Recommendation
5. You are recommended to give conditional financial approval to the scheme, for £22,125,824 in 2019/20 and £1,000,000 in 2020/21. The terms of the funding agreement are set out at paragraph 14, step 5 below, and are subject to the following condition:
That the scheme business case, submitted on 31 May 2019 to the Department for Transport, receives Ministerial approval.
Other Implications
Financial
6. Scheme 2.04.4 Wokingham: Arborfield Cross Relief Road is a named scheme (referred to as Wokingham Distributor Roads) in the Thames Valley Berkshire Growth Deal 1i announced on 7 July 2014ii
7. This report recommends that Wokingham Borough Council be authorised to draw down the capital sum of £23,125,824 Local Growth Funds (LGF).
Item 8: BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road Page 107 8. The sum of £874,176, in respect of preliminary costs associated with the scheme, was approved by the BLTB in November 2018 iii and was transferred to Wokingham Borough Council by the LEP Accountable Body in March 2019.
9. The funding agreement set out at paragraph 14, step 5 sets out the roles and responsibilities, reporting and auditing arrangements, timing and triggers for payments, contributions from other funders, consequences of delay, consequences of failure, claw back, and evaluation requirements at one and five years on.
Risk Management
10. The risk management arrangements already put in place by the BLTB are as follows: The Assurance Frameworkiv has been drafted following DfT guidance and has been approved by the DfT for use in allocating LGF to transport schemes The funding agreement set out at paragraph 14, step 5 makes clear that the financial risk associated with implementation of the scheme rests with the scheme promoter.
Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications
11.The scheme promoter is a local authority and they have to act within the law. Slough Borough Council will provide legal support for the BLTB, should any questions arise.
Supporting Information
12.The scheme will be delivered by Wokingham Borough Council.
13.The full details of the scheme are available from the Wokingham Borough websitev. A summary of the key points is given below:
Task Timescale Procurement Via the Council’s Term Contractor Contractor appointed As above Construction July 2019 (subject to Ministerial approval in July 2019) Completion of Construction July 2020
Activity Funder Cost (approx) Scheme development Wokingham Borough Council £4.115m Major scheme funding Berkshire Local Transport Body £24.000m Total £28.115m
BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road Page 108 14.The table below sets out the details of this scheme’s compliance with steps 1-5 of paragraph 14 of the BLTB Assurance Frameworkvi.
Assurance Framework 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road checklist Step 1: The scheme was originally developed by Wokingham Borough Council. Development of This road is one of four supporting the development of up to 10,000 Scheme proposal; new dwellings, schools, neighbourhood centre, etc across four SDLs in initial sifting, Wokingham Borough. The SEP assessment process was used and the scoring and scheme was given 21 points and ranked 14th of 28 schemes submitted prioritisation in Growth Deal 1. leading to award of Raw Weighted Factor Weighting Programme Entry score score Status. (See Strategic Impact 3 2.0 6.0 paragraphs 11-13) Economic Impact 3 2.0 6.0 Value for Money 1 1.5 1.5 Ease of Deliverability 1 1.5 1.5 Matched Funding 2 1.0 2.0 Environmental 2 1.0 2.0 Social 2 1.0 2.0 Total 21.0 Programme Entry status was given by the BLTB on 24 July 2014vii. Step 2: Preliminary costs for the scheme were approved by the BLTB on 15 Programme Entry: November 2018viii. evolution of the scheme from The Wokingham Borough Council websiteix holds the latest details of outline proposal to the full business case, including the VfM statement certified by the full business case, senior responsible officer. external view on the business case, Any comments or observations on the scheme received by either TVB and independent LEP or Wokingham Borough Council have been fully considered during assessment (See the development of the scheme. paragraphs 15 and 16) The full business case (FBC) was submitted to the Department for Transport on 31 May 2019. Step 3: Conditional Approval is conditional on the FBC receiving Ministerial approval, Approval which is expected by the end of July 2019. Step 4: DfT has set thresholds of 2.00 (High VfM) and 4.00 (Very High VfM) Recommendation and schemes with BCRs above these thresholds can described as of Financial having High or Very High Value for Money. Approval - High Value for Money - Support of the Independent assessor Step 5: Formal The capital grant of £24,000,000 is a maximum figure, which cannot be Agreement increased, but may be reduced if savings are achieved during - roles implementation. In the event that Wokingham Borough Council wishes - responsibilities to alter the profile of the grant payments, it must seek prior written - implementation permission from TVB LEP, having first raised the matter with the BLTB. - reporting The grant is made subject to the following:
BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road Page 109 Assurance Framework 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road checklist - auditing - timing and 1. Roles: TVB LEP is a part funder of the scheme. Wokingham triggers for Borough Council is the scheme promoter, and is the relevant payments, highway and planning authority. - contributions 2. Responsibilities: TVB LEP is responsible for allocating the capital from other finance in accordance with its Assurance Framework. funders, Wokingham Borough Council is responsible for all aspects of the - consequences of design, risk management, insurance, procurement, construction delay, and implementation of the scheme, including its responsibilities - consequences of as highway and planning authority, any other statutory duties, failure, and any financial or other liabilities arising from the scheme. - claw back, - evaluation one 3. Implementation: In addition to any reporting requirements within and five years on Wokingham Borough Council, the scheme promoter will use the proforma supplied by TVB LEP to make reports on progress of the implementation of the capital scheme to each meeting of the BLTB until the build is complete. In particular, Wokingham Borough Council will report on any change in the size, scope or specification of the scheme; and on any substantial savings against the scheme budget whether achieved by such changes to the size, scope or specification of the scheme, or through procurement, or through the efficient implementation of the scheme.
4. Reporting: The scheme promoter must provide accurate, timely, verified and quality assured quarterly monitoring and forecast data, which relate to defined output and outcome indicators agreed between TVB LEP and government as a condition of the Growth Deal. In addition, this scheme will also be required to participate in an evaluation as set out in the Growth Deal Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.
5. Auditing: Wokingham Borough Council will keep financial records such that the expenditure on the scheme is readily identifiable, and if and when BEIS, DfT or other government department or the Accountable Body for TVB LEP requests access to financial or other records for the purposes of an audit of the accounts, Wokingham Borough Council will co-operate fully.
6. Timing and Triggers for payments: See the Claim Proforma at Appendix 1 of the grant letter – available on request.
7. Contributions from Other Funders: Wokingham Borough Council capital programme will contribute £4,115,000 in total over the life of the project. There is no section 106 contribution. In the event that the scheme experiences or it is anticipated that the scheme will experience a shortfall in these contributions, Wokingham Borough Council will be required to notify TVB LEP of these developments. The provisions of clauses 8, Consequences of Delay; 9, Consequences of Change to the Design or
BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road Page 110 Assurance Framework 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road checklist Specification of the Scheme; or 10, Consequences of Failure will then be applied.
8. Consequences of Delay: In the event that the scheme experiences minor delays to its overall Business Case programme (no more than 10 weeks), Wokingham Borough Council will report these delays and the reasons for them, and the proposed remedial action to the next available meeting of the BLTB. In the event that the scheme experiences major delays to its overall Business Case programme (11 weeks or longer) Wokingham Borough Council will be required to seek permission from TVB LEP to reschedule any payments that are due, or may be delayed in falling due because of the delay to the overall Business Case programme.
9. Consequences of Change to the Design or Specification of the Scheme: In the event that Wokingham Borough Council wishes to change the design or specification of the scheme such the scheme delivered will vary in any material aspect from the description given in the overall business case, Wokingham Borough Council will be required to seek prior written consent from TVB LEP. Failing this permission, no further monies will be paid to Wokingham Borough Council after the change becomes apparent to TVB LEP. In addition, consideration will be given to recovering any monies paid to Wokingham Borough Council in respect of this scheme.
10. Consequences of Failure: As soon as it becomes apparent to Wokingham Borough Council that it will not be possible to deliver the scheme within the current LGF programme, i.e. by the end of 2020/21, written notice shall be given to the Accountable Body for TVB LEP. No further monies will be paid to Wokingham Borough Council after this point. In addition, consideration will be given to recovering any monies paid to Wokingham Borough Council in respect of this scheme.
11. Claw back: If the overall scheme achieves savings against budget, these savings will be shared by TVB LEP and the other funders noted above in proportion to the amounts set out in the Financial Profile. The Accountable Body for TVB LEP reserves the right to claw back any amounts of grant that have been spent on purposes other than the scheme as approved and any repayments due as a consequence of changes to the design or specification of the scheme or scheme failure.
12. Evaluation One and Five Years On: Wokingham Borough Council will produce scheme evaluations One and Five years after practical completion that comply with DfT guidance.
13. Other Conditions of Local Growth Funds: Wokingham Borough Council will acknowledge the financial contribution made to this scheme through Local Growth Funds and follow the ‘Growth
BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road Page 111 Assurance Framework 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road checklist Deal Identity Guidelines’x. It will also give due regard to the Equality Act 2010 ‐ Public Sector and with the Public Services (Social Value Act) 2012, particularly through the employment of apprentices across the scheme supply chain.
Conclusion
15.This is a well-planned scheme that will provide relief to the existing A327 through the village of Arborfield and Arborfield Cross Gyratory to accommodate and reduce the traffic impacts of strategic development at Arborfield Garrison and South of the M4 (Shinfield and Spencers Wood).
Background Papers
16.The BLTB and SEP scoring exercise papers are available on request ihttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil e/398880/35_Thames_Valley_Berkshire_Growth_Deal.pdf ii https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thames-valley-berkshire-growth-deal iii http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s53480/Item%208%20BLTB%2015%20Novembe r%202018%20Financial%20Approval%202.04.4%20Wokingham%20Arborfield%20Cross%20Relief%2 0Road%20-%20prel.pdf ivhttp://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/berkshire-strategic-transport-forum v https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/roadworks-and-outdoor-maintenance/major-new- roads/arborfield-relief-road/ vihttp://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/berkshire-strategic-transport-forum vii http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=601&MId=5148&Ver=4 viiihttp://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s53480/Item%208%20BLTB%2015%20Novemb er%202018%20Financial%20Approval%202.04.4%20Wokingham%20Arborfield%20Cross%20Relief% 20Road%20-%20prel.pdf ix https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/roadworks-and-outdoor-maintenance/major-new- roads/arborfield-relief-road/ x http://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/getfile/Public%20Documents/Strategic%20Economic%20P lan/Logos%20for%20branding/GROWTH%20DEAL%20IDENTITY%20GUIDELINES%20280219.pdf?inlin e-view=true
BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.04.4 Wokingham Arborfield Cross Relief Road Page 112 AGENDA ITEM 9
BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY (BLTB)
REPORT TO: BLTB DATE: 18 July 2019
CONTACT OFFICER: Tim Wheadon, Chief Executive, Bracknell Forest Council
Item 9: Financial Approval 2.31 Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration
Purpose of Report
1. To consider giving financial approval to scheme 2.31 Stoke Road Area Regeneration.
2. The Stoke Road corridor improvements scheme comprises of sustainable transport infrastructure and highway works. These will support the regeneration of six major brownfield sites at Stoke Road and improved interchange and parking at Slough station. The scheme will improve transport infrastructure in the Stoke Road area by providing strategic routes for walking and cycling, to improve links to the railway station and town centre, and local highway remodelling to provide access to the six major regeneration sites. By improving access to the northern section of Slough station forecourt and carrying out public realm enhancements, the scheme will complement the station. This will provide access to Crossrail, Great Western and Western Rail Link to Heathrow services.
Recommendation
3. You are recommended to give scheme 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Area Regeneration full financial approval in the sum of £2,500,000 in 2019/20 and £5,150,000 in 2020/21 on the terms of the funding agreement set out at paragraph 11 step 5 below.
Other Implications
Financial
4. A re-prioritisation exercise was undertaken in advance of already allocated Local Growth Funds (LGF) being substituted by Business Rates Retention Pilot (BRRP) monies (and returned to the Growth Deal “pot” for re-allocation). Scheme 2.31 Stoke Road Area Regeneration is funded from this reallocation.
5. This report recommends that Slough Borough Council be authorised to draw down the capital sum £7,650,000 from the Local Transport Body funding for this scheme, subject to meeting the conditions set out in the recommendation.
6. The funding agreement set out at paragraph 11 step 5 sets out the roles and responsibilities, reporting and auditing arrangements, timing and triggers for payments, contributions from other funders, consequences of delay, consequences of failure, claw back, and evaluation requirements at one and five years on.
Item 9: BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Area Regeneration Page 113 Risk Management
7. The risk management arrangements already put in place by the Local Transport Body are as follows: The Assurance Frameworki has been drafted following DfT guidance and has been approved by the DfT for use in allocating capital funds for transport schemes Hatch Regeneris has been appointed as Independent Assessors and have provided a full written report (see Appendix 1) on the full business case for the scheme The funding agreement set out at paragraph 11, step 5 makes clear that the financial risk associated with implementation of the scheme rests with the scheme promoter.
Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications
8. The scheme promoter is a local authority and they have to act within the law. Slough Borough Council will provide legal support for the BLTB, should any questions arise.
Supporting Information
9. The scheme will be carried out for Slough Borough Council.
10. The full details of the scheme are available from the Slough Borough Council websiteii. A summary of the key points is given below:
Task Timescale Procurement Via the Council’s Term Contractor Contractor appointed As above Construction November 2019 Completion date March 2022
Activity Funder Cost (approx) Scheme development Slough Borough Council Major scheme funding Berkshire Local Transport Body £7.65m Section 106 agreements Developers etc £1m Total £8.65m Land value (in-kind resources) Development Partners £2.25m
11. The table below sets out the details of this scheme’s compliance with steps1-5 of paragraph 14 of Assurance Frameworkiii.
Assurance Framework 2.31 Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration Check list Step 1: The scheme was originally developed by Slough Borough Development of Council to provide sustainable transport infrastructure and Scheme proposal; highway works to support regeneration of six major brownfield initial sifting, sites at Stoke Road and improved interchange and parking at scoring and Slough station. The SEP assessment process was used and the
Item 9: BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Area Regeneration Page 114 Assurance Framework 2.31 Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration Check list prioritisation scheme was given 28 points and ranked 1st of 18 schemes leading to award of submitted in July 2018 as part of the GD 3 reallocation process. Programme Entry Raw Weighted Factor Weighting Status. (See score score paragraphs 11-13) Strategy 3 1.5 4.5 Deliverability 3 2.0 6.0 Economic Impact 3 4.0 12.0 TVB area coverage 2 1.5 3.0 Environment 2 0.5 1.0 Social 3 0.5 1.5 Total 28.0 Step 2: Programme Entry status was given by the BLTB on 19 July 2018iv. Programme Entry: Progress reports were considered by the BLTB on 15 November evolution of the 2018v, and 14 March 2019vi. scheme from outline proposal to The Slough Borough websitevii holds the latest details of the full full business case, business case, including the VfM statement certified by the senior external view on responsible officer. the business case, and independent Any comments or observations on the scheme received by either TVB assessment (See LEP or Slough Borough Council have been fully considered during the paragraphs 15 and development of the scheme. 16) The report of the Independent Assessor is attached at Appendix 1. The Independent Assessor was asked to report as follows: • Completeness – has the promoter prepared a complete Full Business Case submission, when judged against the prevailing advice from the DfT • Accuracy – has the promoter performed the relevant calculations and assessments accurately and without error • Relevance – has the Full Business Case considered all relevant matters, including use of appropriate forecasting models and planning assumptions, and has it included any irrelevant considerations such unduly-optimistic assumptions or out of date modelling data • Value for Money – does the scheme promoter’s Value for Money assessment comply with the prevailing DfT guidance • Evaluation arrangements – has the scheme promoter made provision for appropriate post-implementation evaluation of the scheme. • Remedies – where the independent assessment reveals a gap between the FBC supplied and the standard anticipated by the DfT guidance, then the advice for the LTB should include recommendations for remedial actions required – e.g., collection of further data, sensitivity tests on particular assumptions etc. Step 3: Conditional The Independent Assessor has recommended that in this case Approval Unconditional Approval is appropriate. Step 4: The scheme has a Benefit- Cost Ratio (BCR) of over 4 to 1. Recommendation of Financial DfT has set thresholds of 2.00 (High VfM) and 4.00 (Very High VfM) Approval and schemes with BCRs above these thresholds can described as
Item 9: BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Area Regeneration Page 115 Assurance Framework 2.31 Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration Check list - High Value for having High or Very High Value for Money. Money - Support of the Independent assessor Step 5: Formal 1.Roles: TVB LEP is a part funder of the scheme. Slough Borough Agreement Council is the scheme promoter and is the relevant highway and - roles planning authority. - responsibilities - implementation 2.Responsibilities: TVB LEP is responsible for allocating the capital - reporting finance in accordance with its Assurance Framework. Slough - auditing Borough Council is responsible for all aspects of the design, risk - timing and management, insurance, procurement, construction and triggers for implementation of the scheme, including its responsibilities as payments, highway and planning authority, any other statutory duties, and any - contributions financial or other liabilities arising from the scheme. from other funders, 3.Implementation: In addition to any reporting requirements within - consequences of Slough Borough Council, the scheme promoter will use the proforma delay, supplied by TVB LEP to make reports on progress of the - consequences of implementation of the capital scheme to each meeting of the BLTB failure, until the build is complete. In particular, Slough Borough Council will - claw back, report on any change in the size, scope or specification of the - evaluation one scheme; and on any substantial savings against the scheme budget and five years on whether achieved by such changes to the size, scope or specification of the scheme, or through procurement, or through the efficient implementation of the scheme.
4.Reporting: The scheme promoter must provide accurate, timely, verified and quality assured quarterly monitoring and forecast data, which relate to defined output and outcome indicators agreed between TVB LEP and government as a condition of the Growth Deal. This scheme will not be required to participate in an evaluation as set out in the Growth Deal Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.
5.Auditing: Slough Borough Council will keep financial records such that the expenditure on the scheme is readily identifiable, and if and when BEIS, DfT or other government department or the Accountable Body for TVB LEP requests access to financial or other records for the purposes of an audit of the accounts, Slough Borough Council will co-operate fully.
6.Timing and Triggers for payments: See the Claim Proforma at Appendix 1 of the grant letter – available on request.
7.Contributions from Other Funders: There will be £1,000,000 of s.106 contributions secured by Slough Borough Council in 2019/20. There will be additional in-kind contribution of land by the SBC development partners to the value of £2,250,000 in 2020/21. In the event that the scheme experiences or it is anticipated that the scheme will experience a shortfall in these contributions, Slough
Item 9: BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Area Regeneration Page 116 Assurance Framework 2.31 Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration Check list Borough Council will be required to notify TVB LEP of these developments. The provisions of clauses 8, Consequences of Delay; 9, Consequences of Change to the Design or Specification of the Scheme; or 10, Consequences of Failure will then be applied.
8.Consequences of Delay: In the event that the scheme experiences minor delays to its overall Business Case programme (no more than 10 weeks), Slough Borough Council will report these delays and the reasons for them, and the proposed remedial action to the next available meeting of the BLTB. In the event that the scheme experiences major delays to its overall Business Case programme (11 weeks or longer) Slough Borough Council will be required to seek permission from TVB LEP to reschedule any payments that are due, or may be delayed in falling due because of the delay to the overall Business Case programme.
9.Consequences of Change to the Design or Specification of the Scheme: In the event that Slough Borough Council wishes to change the design or specification of the scheme such the scheme delivered will vary in any material aspect from the description given in the overall business case, Slough Borough Council will be required to seek prior written consent from TVB LEP. Failing this permission, no further monies will be paid to Slough Borough Council after the change becomes apparent to TVB LEP. In addition, consideration will be given to recovering any monies paid to Slough Borough Council in respect of this scheme.
10. Consequences of Failure: As soon as it becomes apparent to Slough Borough Council that it will not be possible to deliver the scheme within the current LGF programme, i.e. by the end of 2020/21, written notice shall be given to the Accountable Body for TVB LEP. No further monies will be paid to Slough Borough Council after this point. In addition, consideration will be given to recovering any monies paid to Slough Borough Council in respect of this scheme.
11. Claw back: If the overall scheme achieves savings against budget, these savings will be shared by TVB LEP and the other funders noted above in proportion to the amounts set out in the Financial Profile. The Accountable Body for TVB LEP reserves the right to claw back any amounts of grant that have been spent on purposes other than the scheme as approved and any repayments due as a consequence of changes to the design or specification of the scheme or scheme failure.
12. Evaluation One and Five Years On: Slough Borough Council will produce scheme evaluations One and Five years after practical completion that comply with DfT guidance.
13. Other Conditions of Local Growth Funds: Slough Borough Council will acknowledge the financial contribution made to this scheme through Local Growth Funds and follow the ‘Growth Deal Identity
Item 9: BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Area Regeneration Page 117 Assurance Framework 2.31 Slough: Stoke Road Area Regeneration Check list Guidelines’. also give due regard to the Equality Act 2010 ‐ Public Sector and with the Public Services (Social Value Act) 2012, particularly through the employment of apprentices across the scheme supply chain.
Conclusion
12. The overall scheme aligns well with strategic priorities and supports the broader regeneration of Slough Town Centre and, specifically, the area around the railway station.
Background Papers
13. The LTB and SEP scoring exercise papers are available on request ihttp://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/berkshire-strategic-transport-forum ii http://www.slough.gov.uk/parking-travel-and-roads/stoke-road-area-regeneration-highway- improvement-works.aspx iiihttp://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/berkshire-strategic-transport-forum iv http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=601&MId=5677&Ver=4 v http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=601&MId=5719&Ver=4 vi http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=601&MId=5951&Ver=4 vii http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=601&MId=5951&Ver=4
Item 9: BLTB 18 July 2019 Financial Approval 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Area Regeneration Page 118
Independent Assessment Summary Report: Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements Ref 2.31
A Final Report by Hatch Regeneris Consulting July 2019
Page 119 Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership
Independent Assessment Summary Report: Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements Ref 2.31
July 2019 www.hatchregeneris.co.uk
Page 120 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
Contents Page
Executive Summary i Scheme Summary i Review Findings ii
1. Introduction 1 Submitted Information 1 Report Structure 1
2. Option Assessment Report 2 Overview 2 Review 3
3. Appraisal Specification Report 4 Overview 4 Review 4
4. Full Business Case 5 Overview 5 Key Input Assumptions and Parameters 6 Strategic Case 6 Economic Case 9 Financial Case 13 Commercial Case 13 Management Case 14 Summary and Conclusions 16
Page 121 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
Executive Summary i. This technical note provides an independent assessment of the Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements Business Case submission to the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (TVB LEP). Scheme Summary ii. The full business case submission sets out the case for investment in a range of highway, station interchange, walking & cycling, and urban realm improvements in and around the Stoke Road corridor. In summary this includes:
• Highway junction Improvements:
◼ Enhanced signalisation at Stoke Road / Shaggy Calf Lane / Elliman Avenue junction, with additional walking and cycle crossing facilities
◼ Capacity enhancements at Stoke Road / Mill Street junction, including removal of unsignalised arm that enters the junction from the west
◼ Introduction of signals at Wexham Road / Wellington Street junction to enable new right turn movement from A4 into Wexham Road. Incorporates the closure of the underpass and provision of new at-grade pedestrian crossing facilities • Improved access to/from the Thames Valley University (TVU) Development site
◼ Removal of right turn from A4 and straight ahead movement from High Street into south side of TVU site
◼ Additional right turn exit from south side of TVU site onto A4
◼ Widening of A4 eastbound on approach to junction with Stoke Road with additional left turn lane
◼ Widening of northbound carriageway on Stoke Road from A4 to provide second land for general traffic
◼ Ban right turn movement from eastern side of TVU site onto Stoke Road
◼ Reconfiguration of Stoke Road / Brunel Way junction • Interchange improvement to Slough Station Northern Forecourt, including provision for:
◼ ‘Kiss and ride’
◼ Taxis and bus access
◼ Cycle parking and bike hire docking stations
◼ Electric vehicle charging • A new Quietway from Stoke Wharf (canal basin) to the Slough Station Northern Forecourt, including a new pedestrian/cycle bridge over the canal • A new cycleway from Slough Station Northern Forecourt along Railway Terrace and down Stoke Road across Wellington Street into William Street.
i Page 122 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
Review Findings
Conclusions iii. The overall scheme aligns well with strategic priorities and supports the broader regeneration of Slough Town Centre and, specifically, the area around the railway station. iv. It has been demonstrated that, in general, the scheme will meet the stated objective to reduce delays on the Stoke Road and on the A4 between Stoke Road and Wexham Road, although some increases in travel times will result from the introduction of traffic signals at Wexham Road / A4 junction during certain times of the day. v. The scheme will further meet the objectives to facilitate development; improve walking and cycling; and enhance the landscape and public realm along the Stoke Road Corridor. vi. Whilst the evidence around the air quality impact is less well stated, the traffic model assessment indicates that the scheme should have a small positive impact on improving air quality for properties located within Slough AQMA No.4. vii. The overall economic case for the package of measure is forecast to deliver very high value for money, although these benefits are primarily drawn from the transport user benefits associated with the highway elements of the package. The extent to which the station interchange, walking & cycling, and urban realm improvements will deliver a similarly high value for money is not as fully examined but there remains a case for investment in these elements. viii. The financial case appears robust, with a reasonable contingency in place, albeit the preparatory and site supervision costs appear low. ix. The commercial and management cases are generally considered to be robust, although limited in detail in some areas. The land necessary for the Station Northern Forecourt element of the package has yet to be secured but Network Rail and GWR are both supportive of the scheme. x. It is our conclusion that there appears to be a strong overarching case for the scheme, with good strategic alignment and offering high overall value for money from investment. Whilst it is not possible to verify the scale of positive contributions from each individual scheme element, there is considered to be a good overall balance to the scheme, encouraging public transport and walking & cycling usage, alongside highway network enhancements.
Recommendations xi. On the basis of the overall evidence presented, we recommend the scheme for approval.
ii Page 123 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
1. Introduction
1.1 This report provides an independent assessment of the Full Business Case (FBC) submitted by Slough Borough Council (SBC) for a range of enhancements to highway, station interchange, walking and cycling, and urban realm provision in and around the Stoke Road Corridor in Slough. 1.2 The report considers the evidence presented and whether it represents a robust case for the investment of Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (TVB LEP) growth deal funds. 1.3 The independent assessment has applied criteria from TVB LEP assurance framework and the requirements for transport scheme business cases set out within the Department for Transports (DfT) transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG). Submitted Information 1.4 The independent assessment process for the Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements (Stoke Road) submission has been conducted on the following set of documentation submitted by SBC and their consultant team (Atkins): • Option Assessment Report (22nd February 2019) • Appraisal Specification Report (18th March 2019) • Full Business Case Report and Appendices (1st July 2019) 1.5 In addition to these formal documents, Hatch Regeneris have engaged with Atkins between September 2018 and July 2019 to discuss the requirements of the final business case submission and comment upon the acceptability of the proposed appraisal approach and input assumptions and parameters. Report Structure 1.6 This Independent Assessors Report responds to the formal submission of documentation, as well as the informal engagement process with SBC and their consultants, to provide a review of information provided, assess it suitability and robustness against TVB LEPs assurance requirements, and provide recommendations in relation to the approval of LEP funding for the proposed scheme. 1.7 The report is structure as follows: • Section 2: Option Assessment Report – provides commentary upon the OAR and the process by which a preferred scheme option has been identified. • Section 3: Appraisal Specification Report – presents a high-level review of the ASR and the acceptability of the proposed appraisal approach to be adopted • Section 4: Full Business Case Submission – presents an initial summary of scheme elements included business case submission, alongside the details presented within each of the five ‘cases’ (Strategic, Economic, Financial, Commercial, Management). It also sets out the recommendations to the LEP Local Transport Body relating to the suitability of the scheme for funding.
Page 124 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
2. Option Assessment Report Overview 2.1 An OAR for the scheme, dated 22nd February 2019, has been reviewed. This sets out the background for the scheme and its strategic context, the evidence of the problems identified, the drivers for change, and the subsequent identified objectives of the scheme. 2.2 It then develops and appraises five options for transport provision across the identified Stoke Road corridor: • Do Nothing: As existing, with background growth, committed schemes, and schemes under construction • Do Something 1: full Stoke Road Corridor improvements scheme incorporating 1) junction improvements, 2) enhanced access to TVU site, 3) improved interchange at Slough Station Northern Forecourt, 4) new public space, 5) new decked car park, 6) pedestrian / cycle bridge over Windsor Rail Line, 7) quiteway from Stoke Wharf to station, 8) strategic pedestrian and cycle route connections • Do Something 2: As DS1, but without 3) improved interchange at Slough Station Northern Forecourt, 4) new public space, 5) new decked car park, 6) pedestrian / cycle bridge over Windsor Rail Line, 7) quiteway from Stoke Wharf to station, 8) strategic pedestrian and cycle route connections • Do Something 3: As DS1, but without 7) quiteway from Stoke Wharf to station, 8) strategic pedestrian and cycle route connections • Do Something 4: As DS1, but without 3) improved interchange at Slough Station Northern Forecourt, 4) new public space, 5) new decked car park 2.3 Each scheme option is appraised in terms of: • How it complements the six infrastructure investment packages within the Strategic Economic Plan; • How they will deliver against the five established scheme intervention objectives; and • How deliverable they are, with reference to:
◼ Infrastructure Feasibility ◼ Operational Feasibility ◼ Land Take Requirements ◼ Complexity of Delivery ◼ Environmental Impact ◼ Socio-Distributional Impacts ◼ Wellbeing ◼ Stakeholder Acceptance/Support ◼ Costs ◼ Affordability ◼ Timescales for Delivery 2.4 The OAR concludes that the Do Minimum option will result in continuing increased congestion, contributing to deterioration in local air quality. There will also be no incentives to encourage mode shift and no improvement to urban realm meaning quality of life will, at best, remain static. As such it fails to meet strategic objectives.
Page 125 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
2.5 Do Something 2 delivers highway improvements that will assist in unlocking some housing, but does not encourage mode shift or enhance the overall urban environment and so does not contribute strongly to regional objectives and provides lower economic, social and environmental benefits. 2.6 Do something 3, whilst delivering highway and station interchange improvements, unlocking some housing, again is limited in encouraging mode shift for local trips and so does not contribute strongly to regional objectives and provides lower economic, social and environmental benefits. 2.7 Do Something 4, delivers highway and walking & cycling improvements, providing better contribution to regional objectives, but it is still considered to offer less in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits. 2.8 The OAR concludes that Do Something 1 is the only option that scores sufficiently highly across all metrics to deliver the necessary benefits that align with the TVB LEP’s and SBC’s objectives for the scheme. Review 2.9 The OAR represents a well set out document, providing a detailed understanding of the underlying issues along the Stoke Road corridor and generating a specific set of objectives. 2.10 There is a relatively diverse list of potential scheme elements presented; however, the actual variation within the four Do-something options is relatively limited, with a common highway element across all of them. It is unclear how the list of individual schemes was developed and if there was a longer-list of initial scheme options that may have been considered. For example, were alternative highway schemes considered? None-the-less, the OAR provides evidence that some scheme optioneering has taken place. 2.11 The option appraisal framework appears comprehensive, considering both the likely performance of each option in supporting strategic and scheme specific objectives, as well as a wide-range of deliverability issues. 2.12 The scoring of the options in part reflects the relative number of elements that are included within each package. The do minimum scheme scores poorly as no additional measures are included, whereas DS1 scores well as it incorporates all eight elements, with the other DS option in between. As such, this somewhat undermines the value of the process and highlights that it would have been more productive to consider at least one other alternative package, of a similarly magnitude, to the DS1 package. 2.13 Based upon the process undertaken, the Applicants conclusion that the DS1 package is the preferred option is not without reasonable logic, notwithstanding the points raised in paragraph 2.12. 2.14 The final business case submission will need to clearly demonstrate that each element of package represents value for money for investment in themselves, as opposed to being included within a package to create a critical mass of impacts.
Page 126 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
3. Appraisal Specification Report Overview 3.1 The Appraisal Specification Report (ASR) was submitted for assessment and reviewed by Hatch Regeneris in March 2019. It provided: • A summary of the scheme and a context map; • An overview of the challenges and issues; • The objectives and desired outcomes of the scheme; • The implications of doing nothing, the options being considered; and issues around deliverability and risk; • An overview of the transport modelling that will be required, including the existing models available and their calibration/validation, and the proposed modelling approach; • The proposed appraisal methodology, including the approach to the economic, environmental, social and public accounts assessments, and the data sources to be utilised; and • An Appraisal Specification Summary Table. 3.2 Various meetings and telecoms were held with SBC and their consultants, (Atkins), to discuss the broad approach. A large focus of these discussions relating to the most appropriate and proportionate modelling tools to utilise. This concluded that the original SATURN model for the area should be used, despite some limitations, as opposed to the development of the available VISSIM model for the area. Review 3.3 The ASR sets out a clear overview of the context and the issues surrounding the development of the scheme and identifies the type of impacts that will need to be assessed. 3.4 The modelling work will be reliant upon the Slough Multi-Modal Transport Model (SMMTM). There are some recognised limitations with the model as it does not fully calibrate/validate to TAG guidance; however, it has been agreed that it still represents the most appropriate tool to utilise, so long as the results are treated with care and the limitations accounted for within the final outputs. 3.5 The transport model will be able to assess the impacts of the highway elements of the scheme but will not encompass the station interchange, public realm, walking and cycling elements. It will, therefore, be important for the impact of these elements to be adequately considered elsewhere within the FBC. Even within the highway model outputs, it will be important to consider the impacts of the individual scheme elements at different junctions, to ensure they are all contributing positively to the overall outcomes. 3.6 The wider approach to assessing the economic, environmental, social and public accounts impacts is consistent with TAG requirements. A range of assessments will be qualitative in nature. Whilst in principle this is acceptable, given the scale of the scheme and some of the potential environmental impacts, there will need to be clear evidence in the final business case that more detailed quantitative assessments of impacts are not required.
Page 127 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
4. Full Business Case Overview 4.1 The full business case submission sets out the case for investment in a range of highway, station interchange, walking & cycling, and urban realm improvements in and around the Stoke Road corridor. In summary this includes: • Highway junction Improvements:
◼ Enhanced signalisation at Stoke Road / Shaggy Calf Lane / Elliman Avenue junction, with additional walking an cycle crossing facilities
◼ Capacity enhancements at Stoke Road / Mill Street junction, including removal of unsignalised arm that enters the junction from the west
◼ Introduction of signals at Wexham Road / Wellington Street junction to enable new right turn movement from A4 into Wexham Road. Incorporates the closure of the underpass and provision of new at-grade pedestrian crossing facilities • Improved access to/from the Thames Valley University (TVU) Development site
◼ Removal of right turn from A4 and stratight ahead movement from High Street into south side of TVU site
◼ Additional right turn exit from south side of TVU site onto A4
◼ Widening of A4 eastbound on approach to junction with Stoke Road with additional left turn lane
◼ Widening of northbound carriageway on Stoke Road from A4 to provide second land for general traffic
◼ Ban right turn movement from eastern side of TVU site onto Stoke Road
◼ Reconfiguration of Stoke Road / Brunel Way junction • Interchange improvement to Slough Station Northern Forecourt, including provision for:
◼ ‘Kiss and ride’
◼ Taxis and bus access
◼ Cycle parking and bike hire docking stations
◼ Electric vehicle charging • A new quietway from Stoke Wharf (canal basin) to the Slough Station Northern Forecourt, including a new pedestrian/cycle bridge over the canal • A new cycleway from Slough Station Northern Forecourt along Railway Terrace and down Stoke Road across Wellington Street into William Street. 4.2 A number of development sites sit within, and surrounding, the Stoke Road corridor, including the TVU site (1,600 dwelling), the Horlick factory (750 dwellings), the Canal Basin (640 dwelling), Octagon (10 dwellings), Queensmere (330 dwellings) and Akzo Nobel (1,370 dwellings).
Page 128 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
Key Input Assumptions and Parameters 4.3 The overarching business case is considered particularly reliant upon the following key assumptions: • All scheme elements will be completed by Q2 2021, • The SMMTM transport model has been utilised, despite not being fully calibrated/validated for the corridor area • A fixed demand matrix has been applied within the transport modelling. • Annualisation factors:
◼ 253 days per year
◼ ‘Neutral day’ factoring: AM Peak = 7% reduction, Inter-peak = 0%, PM Peak = 6% reduction
◼ Model period factoring: AM Peak = 3hr, Inter-peak = 6hr, PM Peak = 3hr
◼ Overall: AM Peak = 703hrs, Inter-peak = 1,518hrs, PM Peak = 714hrs • 60-year benefits appraisal period for the quantified highway impacts • No COBALT accident assessment • Costs and benefits discounted to 2010 prices Independent Assessor Comment 4.4 Whilst it is acknowledged that there are limitations with the use of the SMMTM model for this appraisal process, the implications are understood and have been clearly set out. These can, therefore, be taken into account when considering the final model outputs and the overall assessment of the package of measures. 4.5 The annualisation factors applied, and appraisal period, are considered appropriate for the highway elements of the package. Whilst some of the other package elements may have shorter lifespan (i.e. urban realm improvements) these are not explicitly evaluated in monetary terms, and so the factors do not apply. 4.6 The requirement to undertake a COBALT accident assessment was discussed as part of the appraisal specification report. It is recognised that, at worst, the scheme should have neutral impacts upon accident levels and so it was agreed that a COBALT assessment was not necessary. Strategic Case 4.7 The Strategic Case provides an overview of the key policy context for the scheme, referencing national, regional and local transport policy. Four key problems are identified that the scheme will need to address, with discussed in detail. In short, they must address: • Congestion issues, reducing stop/start traffic at junctions and U-turns at the Queensmere / Wellington Street roundabout to smooth traffic flows across the areas • Pedestrian access issues to Slough Town Centre through improved streetscape, enhanced gateways, reduced dominance of vehicular traffic, with a focus around enhancing access to the northern side of Slough Railway Station. • Issues of poor social and environmental conditions across Slough affecting the image of the town centre • Constraints on housing and economic development potential
Page 129 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
4.8 The impact of no change is presented in terms of the constraints local transport provision will place upon access to rail and for economic growth, specifically affecting proposed development opportunities within the corridor. 4.9 The key drivers for change in the area are explored, highlighting the significant areas of Slough Town Centre that have been earmarked for development and regeneration, alongside supporting infrastructure provision in Mass Raid Transit, public transport, walking & Cycling. The role of Heathrow Airport as a key focus for growth, as well as the upcoming delivery of Crossrail, are also highlighted. 4.10 A clear set of five scheme objectives are presented for the Stoke Road Corridor, focused around: reducing delays on the Stoke Road and on the A4 between Stoke Road and Wexham Road; facilitating development on the corridor and the town centre; improving pedestrian and cycling connectivity on the corridor, specifically between Stoke Wharf and the Railway Station; improving air quality; and enhancing the landscape and public realm within the corridor. 4.11 The measures for success associated with the established objectives are also clearly set out, relating to traffic congestion and journey times, walking & cycling usage; road safety, and air quality. Logic mapping sets out how the inputs delivered by the investment will translate through into outputs and outcomes in the short, medium and long-term that address the objectives. 4.12 A range of potential constraints are discussed, relating to planning constraints, environmental constraints, and land requirements. No planning permissions are required, but permission from the Canal & River Trust is required for the bridge over the canal. Whilst there are some potential environmental impacts, these can be mitigated against. 4.13 Land on the northern forecourt of the station is owned by Network Rail and leased to GWR. It is highlighted within the dependencies that Network Rail are supportive of the scheme and Heads of Terms have been agreed but formal agreement is not anticipated for a further 6 months. Network Rail also has aspirations to deck the West Station Car Park, requiring collaboration with the development of the TVU site and so this also forms part of the discussions. 4.14 A wide range of stakeholders have been engaged as part of the scheme development process, as well as the wider Public. No concerns have been raised. 4.15 The options assessment process has considered a range of different scheme packages, as outlined within the OAR. It concludes that the whole package of measures needs to be taken forward for all of the objectives to be met and the full range of benefits realised. 4.16 The Strategic Case concludes with a clear summary of the issues addressed by the scheme and how this has fed into the identification of the scheme objectives. It concludes that the full Stoke Road Corridor package of measures is the only solution to comprehensively meet the objectives. Independent Assessor Comment 4.17 The Strategic Case is considered to presents a reasonably comprehensive overview of the issues, objectives and preferred solutions for the Stoke Road Corridor and surrounding areas. 4.18 The policy context is well established, with a clear understanding of the priorities of national, regional and local bodies. 4.19 There is a clear and logical presentation of the overarching problems that have been identified within the corridor, relating to delays on the highway network, issues of pedestrian and cycling connectivity to the station and into the town centre, more general concerns of
Page 130 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
the quality of the local urban environment and the impact upon the attractiveness of the area, as well as the general need to support local development. 4.20 The direct assessment of current highway provision presents an overview of the situation and draws upon outputs from the transport model, in the form of delay plots. This provides added context of the issues and informs the subsequent economic analysis. 4.21 There is no specific analysis of current pedestrian and cycle movements across the area. This includes movements to and from the Railway Station, specifically via the current northern forecourt, although it is anecdotally stated that it is mostly used by vehicular traffic. There is also no specific analysis of trip generation from proposed residential developments and the level of rail demand this may generate to the north of the station. It would strengthen the strategic case if some quantified analysis of the demand for rail, walking and cycling provision was included. 4.22 The discussion of the urban environment focuses upon both the physical nature and the air quality issues in the corridor. Some photographic evidence is included to demonstrate the issues with poor urban realm to the north of the station. Whilst it is helpful that the analysis identifies the scheme is within an AQMA, there is limited discussion on how severe the issues are and how the scheme measures will directly improve the situation. 4.23 The quantum of potential development in and around the Stoke Road Corridor is identified and the need for transport improvements to support delivery is stated. There is no presumption that any of these developments are directly dependent upon the transport improvements but similarly there is limited discussion around the need for the specific public intervention to support delivery, as opposed to being private sector led. As indicated above, the impact of future year development trips is included within the traffic modelling, but there is no local consideration of future demand for non-vehicular modes of travel. 4.24 Whilst the impact of no change is clearly set out, the analysis would again benefit from additional quantitative analysis about the scale of congestion, poor accessibility and air quality issues. 4.25 The section on drivers for change clearly demonstrates the role of local development and infrastructure investment upon the changing dynamic of Slough, as well as the influence of Heathrow expansion and Crossrail on the wider area. 4.26 The scheme objectives are focused, with associated desired outcomes identified, and the measures for success are considered appropriate, although could also incorporate rail usage. The logic mapping provides a useful understanding of the causal links between the investments and outputs and outcomes, although it appears to include some scheme elements that are not specific to this funding bid, e.g. the new pedestrian bridge from the TVU regeneration site over the Windsor branch line. 4.27 The section on constraints and dependencies demonstrates that due consideration has been given to external factors that could affect the delivery of the schemes. The partnership with Network Rail is clearly important in progressing the works to the station northern forecourt and it is noted that formal agreements over land are still required, albeit that it is recognised that the scheme will have a positive impact for the station and is supported by both Network Rail and GWR. 4.28 The list of stakeholders appears comprehensive and it is understood that there is general support for the scheme. 4.29 The options assessment process demonstrates that consideration has been given to different scales of investment but that, as noted within the review of the OAR (Section 2), there is limited evidence that alternative schemes were considered as solutions to specific issues.
Page 131 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
4.30 The summary section provides a useful overview of the key elements of the strategic case. It is considered that there is a strong underlying case for the package of interventions, albeit quantitative evidence is more comprehensive for the highway elements of the package than the non-highway elements, where the case is made without specific reference to underlying and future demand for improvements. Economic Case 4.31 The Economic Case provides an assessment of the transport modelling work undertaken, the benefits appraisal, the derivation of scheme costs and the scheme assessment and supporting analysis. 4.32 The options appraised references the broader combinations of scheme elements assessed within the OAR, but the focus of the economic case is upon the ‘Do-minimum’ (Reference Case) and the full package of measures (Do-something). 4.33 The main impacts of the package of measures is stated as: highway-based journey time and vehicle operating costs; journey quality; health; wider impacts; bus journey time reductions; air quality, accidents and noise. 4.34 The approach to the transport modelling is set out describing the use of the Slough Multi- Modal Transport model (SMMTM). Specific reference is made to the adoption of an approach considered to be proportionate to the scale of the overall investment in the scheme. There is recognition that the model is not fully compliant with all TAG requirements but that these are not anticipated to create any significant risk with the predictive properties of the model for the scheme elements being assessed. 4.35 The approach to assessing future year demand for the model is set out, along with the committed transport schemes included within the model. The model covers an average hour within a 3-hour AM peak period, an average hour within a 6-hour inter-peak period, and an average hour within a 3-hour PM peak period. 4.36 The underlying assumptions applied within the SMMTM modelling are described in relation to trip matrices, vehicles types, land use assumptions, committed transport schemes, as well as the underlying approach to coding the Do-something network is presented. 4.37 An overall summary of the approach to the economic appraisal is set out. This describes the use of a TUBA model to assess direct transport user impacts. Benefits are assessed for the AM, inter-peak, and PM peak periods. 4.38 The capital and operating costs associated with the package of scheme measures has been set out, with the underlying assumptions. Optimism bias of 9% has been applied within the economic assessment. 4.39 A section on transport modelling outputs sets out the levels of current and future year highway demand, by vehicle type. It then presents the difference in flows and average journey times/speeds between the Do minimum (DM) and Do Something (DS) [with scheme measures] scenarios. 4.40 The outputs show a significant change in traffic flows across the network in the AM Peak as a result of the scheme, with increases in movements predicted along the Wexham Road / St Paul’s Avenue / Stoke Road (north) route and significant reductions in movements along the A4 Wellington Street between Stoke Road and Wexham Road. There are also notable impacts from the change in access to the TVU site, with a reduction in southbound traffic on Stoke Road approaching the A4 Wellington Street and a large increase in flow in the other direction. The changes in the PM peak and inter-peak are less pronounced but of a similar trend.
Page 132 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
4.41 Journey time analysis of selected routes indicates that southbound trips along Stoke Road see the largest reduction is times. The impact for journey times along Wellington Street are broadly neutral in the AM peak, however, the introduction of the signals at Wexham Road does create additional journey times in the inter-peak and PM peak periods. The same signalisation scheme provides positive benefits for southbound trips along Wexham Road, as well as permitting the right turn movements, thus contributing to making this a significantly more attractive route. 4.42 The assessment of monetised impacts demonstrates the forecast highway users benefits from the package of measures, with two thirds being derived from the AM peak. The assessment also presents some outputs from a previous Feasibility Study for the Stoke Road Regeneration which considered the potential for journey quality and physical activity benefits from the Northern Station Forecourt and the Stoke Wharf to Railway Station Quietway, respectively. 4.43 The assessment of non-monetised impacts considers a range of social impacts (accidents, physical activity, journey quality, personal security, severance, accessibility and personal affordability); economic impacts (wider impacts, and bus journey times), as well as environmental impacts (townscape, landscaping, historic environment, biodiversity, water environment, air quality, and noise) 4.44 The accident analysis presents levels of accidents within a buffer zone and considers the proportions along key routes affected by the proposed package of measures. Consideration of how the proposed types of scheme measures could create positive safety benefits are discussed. The assessment is qualitative with no COBALT included within the scope. 4.45 In addition to the monetised assessment of journey quality and physical activity, a wider qualitative assessment of the potential positive impacts is presented. This describes how the urban realm, walking and cycling scheme elements will encourage levels of active travel, with associated health benefits. The quality of the environment will also be enhanced, making these types of trips of higher quality. Journey quality impacts for highway users are also described. 4.46 The higher quality of public realm and closure of the A4 subway is also anticipated to improve personal safety and security. The walking and cycling schemes are also stated to reduce severance, particularly the connection over the canal basin and direct link to the station. More generally the scheme is described as enhancing accessibility to the town centre and employment locations. Enhancing the efficiency of the transport network is stated to reduce vehicle operating costs and so impact positively on personal affordability. 4.47 The section on wider impacts highlights how the combined package of measures will ease access and movement across the area and make it a more attractive location for business and employment. Reference is made to research and case study examples to infer the types of positive wider economic impacts that could occur. Bus routes using the corridor are also anticipated to benefit from bus journey time reductions, with associated benefits. 4.48 A high-level assessment of environmental impacts is presented. It is recognised the scheme could impact upon townscape, landscaping and the natural and urban environment but these impacts are not anticipated to be significant. The impact upon historic environment is also considered to be unlikely and can be mitigated. No statutory conservation sites are identified in relation to biodiversity. 4.49 A range of potential water environment impacts are identified, given the package includes a bridge over the canal basin, but the assessment considers that measures can be put in place to mitigate any negative impacts.
Page 133 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
4.50 Parts of the package of scheme measures are considered to be within the designated Slough AQMA No. 4. Air quality is considered to potentially be affected positively or negatively by changes in vehicle activity. Where the scheme results in road widening, this could reduce the distance to key air quality receptors. An assessment of the number of properties that are likely to be within 200m of an increase of traffic levels is presented, which is lower than those that are predicted to have a decrease. The assessment concludes that further research is required to determine the detailed impacts but that the scheme is in line with SBC’s draft Low Emission Strategy, which forms part of Slough Air Quality Action Plan. 4.51 An assessment of the impact of changes in noise levels has been undertaken. It concludes that 150 properties located within a Noise Impact Area (NIA) will benefit from reduced noise levels. Whilst a higher absolute number of properties will have minor adverse impacts, these are not within a NIA, and so the analysis concludes that the overall impact will be neutral to slight beneficial. 4.52 A section on appraisal tables sets out the required Transport Economic Efficiency, Public Accounts, and Analysis of Monetised Cost and Benefits tables. The information presented indicates the overall scheme is forecast to deliver a monetised Benefit to Cost Ratio of 4.52 to 1. This would represent very high value for money from investment. 4.53 A clear Value for Money Statement is also provided, setting out an overview of the scheme, costs, monetised direct benefits, other wider non-monetised benefits. A full Appraisal Summary Table is presented within the appendices. 4.54 The Economic Case concludes by reflecting that the scheme is forecast to deliver very high value for money, based upon the changes in travel times, vehicle operating costs, indirect tax revenues and greenhouse gas impacts for road users (from the TUBA assessment), as well as some monetised journey quality and physical activity benefits from the station northern forecourt and Stoke Wharf to Station Quietway schemes. A wide range of other positive non-monetised impacts are also predicted.
Independent Assessor Comment 4.55 The Economic Case is well formulated and presents information on the approach adopted, the tools utilised, and the forecast economic costs and benefits. 4.56 The options assessment process is limited in scope but does demonstrate that alternative approaches have been considered. 4.57 The approach to transport modelling and forecasting of demand is broadly considered sound. The issue around the SATURN model calibration/validation to TAG requirements has been discussed with the Applicant and it has been accepted that the model represents an acceptable tool for the appraisal process on the basis that the outputs are reviewed in relation to the known limitations with the model. 4.58 The input assumption and parameters applied within the modelling appear sensible, as are those applied within the approach to the economic appraisal. 4.59 The incorporation of the scheme costs within the economic appraisal has generally applied standard TAG approaches. The selection of a 9% optimism bias level would appear relatively low, given the level of detailed design of the scheme measures; however, it is acknowledged that a quantified risk register has been produced. It is recommended that the impact of applying a higher level of optimism bias is considered as a sensitivity test. 4.60 The outputs from the SATURN model appear logical, with the changes to the road layout at the Wexham Road / A4 Wellington Street junction having a significant impact upon local traffic routing, whilst the access changes to the TVU site appear to result in logical changes around the junction of Stoke Road / A4 Wellington Street.
Page 134 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
4.61 Whilst the overall impact of the highway measures is clearly positive, it is noted that there are some negative impacts upon journey times along the A4 Wellington Street as a result of the signalisation at Wexham Road. 4.62 It is noted that the most significant economic user benefits are within the AM peak period, which account for the majority of transport user benefits. It is assumed this is the result of the AM peak hour having higher traffic flows, and the predominant direction of those flows. 4.63 The inclusion of the monetised assessment of journey quality impacts for the station northern forecourt and the physical activity benefits for the Stoke Wharf Quietway are useful, albeit the approach to deriving these benefits is not stated in detail. It is noted, however, that when the monetary benefits are compared against the scheme costs for these elements the ratio is relatively poor, in value for money terms. Demonstrating additional, non-monetised benefits, for these scheme elements is, therefore, important. 4.64 Whilst it was agreed with the Applicant that a full COBALT accident analysis was not specifically required, the accident analysis presented is relatively high-level and there is limited direct evidence to relate the proposed scheme elements to address specific areas of concern. For example, the accident data is not disaggregated by pedestrian or cyclist accidents, which is where the majority of benefits are anticipated to be derived. It is therefore difficult to conclude with any certainty whether the net impact of the scheme will be positive or negative. On balance, however, any impacts either way are unlikely to be substantial. 4.65 The assessment of wider journey quality and physical activity benefits (above those quantified and monetised) highlights the range of ways the combined package of measures could deliver positive impacts; however, the magnitude of these impacts is not stated, making it challenging to assess the overall impact. 4.66 The assessment of other social impacts (personal security, severance, accessibility and personal affordability) sets out a range of logical impacts but again the scale and influence of these impacts is not clearly stated. 4.67 The assessment of wider economic impacts provides useful reference to research and case studies but does not directly translate this into the context of the Stoke Road Corridor. It is therefore difficult to determine the reality of where these benefits will be derived. 4.68 Similarly, with the discussion of the positive impact upon bus journey times, there are no specific examples of routes where accessibility will be enhanced and how this might translate into local benefits. 4.69 The environmental assessment is, generally, very high level. There are some elements of inconsistency including the statement that townscape will not change significantly, despite the level of urban realm improvements included within the scheme. The assessment of biodiversity also does not appear to recognise the presence of the canal. More detail is provided for the assessment of water environment, recognising the potential for impacts and the need for mitigation. 4.70 A range of background information is presented about the AQMA areas and air quality monitoring. The assessment of the impact on properties within 200m of a road affecting provides evidence that a small positive impact is feasible but the specific impact within the Slough AQMA No.4 is not specifically stated. 4.71 The assessment of noise impacts is also reasonable detailed and is considered to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the potential for a slight overall positive impact. 4.72 The overall assessment of the economic case concludes that the scheme offers very high value for money and that there are additional, non-monetised benefits. The monetised benefits are significantly attributable to the highway elements of the package of measures.
Page 135 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
This makes it more challenging to directly determine the value for money of the non- highway aspects, although qualitative statements are provided. 4.73 There are no sensitivity tests presented to demonstrate whether the scheme would deliver high value for money under different input assumptions. These could include tests of high and low growth assumptions Financial Case 4.74 The Financial Case provides a detailed breakdown of the capital scheme costs and the estimated funding and cost profile. 4.75 The total cost of the scheme is £10.9m, of which the funding ask from TVB LEP is £7.65m. 4.76 Within the overall costs £2.396m relates to junction improvements, £2.810m on the access arrangements to TVU site, £1.830m for the Station Northern Forecourt, and £1.110m on the walking and cycling network enhancements, including the bridge over the canal basin. A full Bill of Quantities is presented for each scheme element. 4.77 A further £0.8m relates to preparatory and site supervision costs and £1.386m is included to cover risk. An additional allowance to inflate prices from 2016 Q4 to 2019 outturn prices is included. 4.78 A detailed outturn costs and spending profile is presented, with the total per annum summarised below: • 2019/20 = £3,279,875 • 2020/21 = £7,612,490 4.79 Funding is to be sourced from the LEP (£7.65m) and from S106 contributions (£3.250m). Any cost overruns, and operation and maintenance costs, will be covered by SBC. Independent Assessor Comment 4.80 The breakdown in cost estimates presented demonstrates how each of the main cost elements have been developed. Whilst further annotation could be provided, to outline component parts of the core elements, the level of detail presented demonstrates they have been developed from unit cost rates. Cost inflation has been adequately incorporated. 4.81 The level of preparatory costs and site supervision appears relatively low (both are 5% of overall construction costs), although it is noted that preliminaries are included with the construction costs. 4.82 A Quantified Risk Budget of £1.386m (or 17% of the construction cost) has been set aside to meet any unexpected costs. This is based upon a detailed assessment of risks presented within the Appendices and would appear to be a reasonable amount of contingency funding. Commercial Case 4.83 The Commercial Case outlines the procurement strategy, incorporating an output-based specification for the scheme, an overview of potential procurement options, and the preferred procurement routes, along with the contract management procedures. 4.84 In total four procurement routes were considered, each judged by their offer, risk transfer, and advantages and disadvantages. These are listed in turn: • Traditional procurement - construction, separate maintenance;
Page 136 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
• Design and Build (D&B) construction, separate maintenance; • Early Contractor Involvement (ECI), separate maintenance; and • Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Funding, Design Build Operate and Maintain (DBOM). 4.85 The preferred route, identified as balancing risk with efficiency, has resulted in the scheme being divided into three elements for the procurement process: • Infrastructure design – will be competitively tendered using the existing ESPO framework • Infrastructure build – delivered through the Councils contractor for Direct Service Organisation • Infrastructure maintenance and renewal – to be undertaken by SBC, as an extension of existing highway and parking maintenance 4.86 The project will be managed internally by SBC adopting PRINCE2 methods for programme management and NEC 4 principles. Risk will be allocated during the contract negotiations in the most cost-effective manner. 4.87 The procurement strategy will follow the SBC Council Procurement Strategy (2012). Independent Assessor Comment
4.88 The Output-Based Specification for the scheme is relatively broad but appears to cover the core elements of the scheme, albeit it is difficult to distinguish the individual scheme elements within the overall package. 4.89 The procurement strategy outlines the framework that governs procurement. Though a detailed account of advantages and disadvantages for several procurement options were presented, this does not particularly flow through to the preferred route, although some rational for the chosen path is presented. 4.90 There is some information on risk allocation and transfer, contract length, contract management that provides an overarching understanding, without presenting the detail of the proposed approach. Management Case 4.91 The Management Case presents information on how the proposal will be delivered and managed. 4.92 Five examples of Slough Borough Council’s experience in successfully delivering transport infrastructure schemes are provided, encompassing highways, public transport, walking & cycling and urban realm enhancements. 4.93 Programme and project dependencies are set out in relation to funding, construction delays, procurement, engagement, and land requirement for the Station Northern Forecourt scheme. 4.94 An organogram and governance structure are presented which lists the individual, job title and team. For each group/team, a list of responsibilities is listed. 4.95 Reference is made to SBC’s Gateway Process for assessing projects at critical stages, as part of the assurance and approval process. Project reporting processes are also set out.
Page 137 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
4.96 A Communication & Stakeholder Management Strategy is set out with objectives, key stakeholders, communications, engaging with the public, handling of the media, and public consultation. 4.97 An Implementation Plan sets out the key workstreams and issues and milestones. This confirms scheme opening by March 2021. 4.98 Reference is made to a risk workshop that resulted in the formation of the risk register. A Risk Management Plan is to be developed throughout the lifetime of the project. The process of risk management and allocation is described, and an outline of how different risks will be owned is presented. The key project risks are identified. 4.99 A Benefits Realisation Plan is set out along with a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan with key performance indicators and targets. 4.100 A Contingency Plan is also provided, setting out contingency arrangements.
Independent Assessor Comment
4.101 The previous project examples demonstrate SBC’s ability to deliver major transport schemes that incorporate all aspects of the proposed package of measures - highways, public transport interchange, walking & cycling, and urban realm. 4.102 The project dependencies section presents a broadly standard set of elements but highlights the specific requirement of land from Network Rail to deliver the proposals for the Station Northern Forecourt. There is no specific reference to planning approval requirements. 4.103 The governance structure is clear, with responsibilities outlined. The SBC Gateway Process for assurance and approvals appears robust, although limited detail is presented. The responsibilities for project reporting are also clear. 4.104 The communication and stakeholder management strategy is considered comprehensive and covers core expectations. The previous public consultation in January 2019 indicates majority support for the package of measures. Key concerns raised related to parking provision and ensuring cars do not park on pavements blocking pedestrian routes. It is unclear if any specific design elements have been included by SBC to address this issue. 4.105 The implementation plan sets out key workstreams covering the majority of key delivery issues, however, it is noted there is no reference to the land acquisition required for the Station Northern Forecourt. Similarly, this is not highlighted within the key milestones. 4.106 The underpinning governance and management of risk is well structured and considered. The Risk Register presented is comprehensive and mitigation actions sensible. There appear to be some elements that appear within the Risk Register that are not more generally referenced within the FBC, e.g. potential land requirements at Mill Street. The approach to estimating the quantified risk appears logical and the overall contingency budget would appear robust. 4.107 The Benefits Realisation Plan establishes the benefits that will be tracked, although it does not specifically contain details on proactive actions that the SBC will undertake to ensure benefits are realised. 4.108 The Monitoring and Evaluation plan includes specific 1-year and 5-year targets for each indicator. Some of these indicators are clearly defined as a quantified target, although others are less specific. 4.109 The Contingency Plan sets out a range of contingency arrangements that are considered to cover most potential outcomes, although some of the issues of land availability are not specifically referenced.
Page 138 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
Summary and Conclusions
Summary
4.110 The review of the five cases has identified a series of points for further consideration. These are summarised below: • The Strategic Case demonstrates strong policy alignment and a good case for intervention, albeit additional quantified analysis would enhance the arguments presented around the need for enhanced connectivity and the magnitude of impacts upon travel demand resulting from future development proposals in the corridor. • Of the established objectives, there appears to be the least certainty around the impact of the package of measures upon local air quality, particularly within the Slough AQMA No.4. Whilst the package includes a variety of public transport interchange and walking & cycling measures, there is also additional highway provision that could encourage some car use. Whilst the Strategic Case suggests overall impact will be some mode shift away from car, the magnitude of this change is not stated. The evidence from the traffic modelling analysis does at least indicate that the re-routing of traffic should have a positive impact upon air quality levels affecting nearby properties. • The Station Northern Forecourt element of the package is dependent upon a land agreement with Network Rail, and, more generally, the package requires some planning approvals, but the evidence suggests that both of these should be relatively easy to resolve and not impact upon the overall delivery programme for the scheme. • Overall the economic case for the package of measures appears strong. There are some areas where the scheme does not perform as well as might be anticipated, including in relation to reducing journey times along the A4, and the benefits also appear predominantly associated within the AM peak period. The level of optimism bias applied is also considered to be relatively low, at 9%, given the design certainty but even if this was doubled to 18%, the overall BCR would remain above 4 to 1. • The absence of a COBALT accident analysis means that the impact of traffic re- routing upon accidents has not been examined; however, the qualitative analysis of accidents has provided some evidence that the benefits should be marginally positive for active travel modes. • The monetised impact of journey quality and physical activity benefits for the Station Northern Forecourt and Stoke Wharf Quietway scheme contribute positively to the overall value for money case for the package. However, when compared against the scheme costs for these elements they do not provide as compelling a case, by themselves, for investment in these component parts. The non-quantified analysis identifies a series of additional areas where these schemes can contribute positive impacts, but the magnitude of these impacts remains unclear. • A robust financial case is presented with a clear breakdown of costs and risk contingencies that have been generated through a quantified risk register. The level of costs associate with preparatory work and site supervision appears relatively low as a proportion of construction costs; however, we assume that these have been verified within the terms of existing supplier framework provision. • The commercial and management cases provide reasonably detailed information to demonstrate surety in the preferred procurement processes and the overall deliverability of the project. The land availability at the station appears to be the only significant non-standard risks associated with delivery.
Page 139 Ref 2.31 Slough Stoke Road Corridor Improvements
Conclusions
4.111 The overall scheme aligns well with strategic priorities and supports the broader regeneration of Slough Town Centre and, specifically, the area around the railway station. 4.112 It has been demonstrated that, in general, the scheme will meet the stated objective to reduce delays on the Stoke Road and on the A4 between Stoke Road and Wexham Road, although some increases in travel times will result from the introduction of traffic signals at Wexham Road / A4 junction during certain times of the day. 4.113 The scheme will further meet the objectives to facilitate development; improve walking and cycling; and enhance the landscape and public realm along the Stoke Road Corridor. 4.114 Whilst the evidence around the air quality impact is less well stated, the traffic model assessment indicates that the scheme should have a small positive impact on improving air quality for properties located within Slough AQMA No.4. 4.115 The overall economic case for the package of measure is forecast to deliver very high value for money, although these benefits are primarily drawn from the transport user benefits associated with the highway elements of the package. The extent to which the station interchange, walking & cycling, and urban realm improvements will deliver a similarly high value for money is not as fully examined but there remains a case for investment in these elements. 4.116 The financial case appears robust, with a reasonable contingency in place, albeit the preparatory and site supervision costs appear low. 4.117 The commercial and management cases are generally considered to be robust, although limited in detail in some areas. The land necessary for the Station Northern Forecourt element of the package has yet to be secured but Network Rail and GWR are both supportive of the scheme. 4.118 It is our conclusion that there appears to be a strong overarching case for the scheme, with good strategic alignment and offering high overall value for money from investment. Whilst it is not possible to verify the scale of positive contributions from each individual scheme element, there is considered to be a good overall balance to the scheme, encouraging public transport and walking & cycling usage, alongside highway network enhancements. On this basis, we recommend the scheme for approval.
Page 140
www.hatchregeneris.co.uk London: 0207 336 6188 Manchester: 0161 234 9910 Page 141 This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 10
BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY (BLTB)
REPORT TO: BLTB DATE: 18 July 2019
CONTACT OFFICER: Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration, Lead Officer to the BLTB
PART I
Item 10: Review of Prioritisation Methodology
Purpose of Report
1. This report sets out the actions taken to review your prioritisation methodology in the light of the March 2019 LEP Assurance Framework 4.0 (AF 4.0) which sets out the LEPs’ governance, oversight and scrutiny arrangements. It recommends that the structure of the methodology be endorsed, but that some changes are made to the pro-forma used to submit schemes for the long list; to the scoring criteria; and to the arrangements for granting programme entry status to schemes and monitoring their progress.
2. Capital infrastructure schemes receiving financial support from the LEP move through the six stages: inclusion in a prioritised long list; programme entry status; financial approval; start on site; completion; impact reports.
3. This report is concerned with a review of the first three stages, i.e. how we prioritise schemes to form a “pipeline” for future funding, as required by paragraphs 8.4-8.7 of AF 4.0.
Recommendation
4. You are recommended to: a) Confirm the six factors with their proposed weightings set out in appendix 2 b) Adopt the detailed scoring methodology, including the revised arrangements for assessing Deliverability set out in appendix 3 c) Adopt the revised Bid Pro-forma set out in appendix 4 d) Invite all future scheme promoters applying for programme entry status to submit a Full Business Case Development Programme as set out in paragraphs 27-28 below
Other Implications
Financial
5. There are no direct financial implications of this report. AF4.0, the BLTB’s revised Assurance Framework and the detailed prioritisation methodology are designed to comply with good governance and value for money arrangements associated with awarding public funds to individual schemes.
Item 10 BLTB 18 July 2019 Review of Prioritisation Methodology Page 143 Risk Management
6. Compliance with AF4.0 and the prioritisation methodology is specifically designed to address the risks inherent with planning and managing a major capital programme of investment. The objectives are to identify, prioritise and support individual capital schemes which will: a) Support economic development in general and the LEP’s strategy in particular b) Represent good or better value for money c) Be delivered on time and to budget d) Follow appropriate procurement procedures
Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications
7. Slough Borough Council will provide legal support for the BLTB should any questions arise.
Supporting Information
8. During 2019, the Berkshire Strategic Transport Forum (both Officers’ and Members’ meetings) has considered the current operation of the prioritisation methodology. This review has included colleagues from across Berkshire, from the wider transport industry, from the DfT and has taken advice from Hatch Regeneris, our appointed independent assessor of schemes.
9. At appendix 1 is a summary chart of the “as is” process, together with some notes, queries and issues that were raised by participants during the review phase of this exercise.
10. At appendix 2 is the prioritisation methodology; no changes are proposed.
11. At appendix 3 is the detailed scoring scheme. This describes the criteria used for the award of high, medium or low scores on each factor and gives examples of relevant descriptors. The scoring criteria for the deliverability factor have been changed to recognise the need for more robust consideration of this factor.
12. At appendix 4 is the proposed pro-forma used to submit schemes for the long list. The questions are unchanged, but the notes giving advice and guidance for completing the pro-forma have been amended to reflect the changes elsewhere in the methodology.
Eligibility Criteria
13. Each call for bids will have its own eligibility criteria depending on the source of the capital funds. Colleagues will recall that the recent Business Rates Retention Pilot and Local Growth Deal funds each came with their own conditions.
14. These eligibility criteria usually cover the following factors:
Item 10 BLTB 18 July 2019 Review of Prioritisation Methodology Page 144 a) Revenue or capital expenditure b) Overall scheme financial value – either minimum or maximum or both c) Percentage of matching funds required to be supplied by the scheme promoter d) Opening and closing of a time period during which the funds must be spent Depending on the source of the funds, other eligibility criteria may be added.
15. Following the review, this report recommends retention of the same process for calling for bids as and when capital funds become available.
3-Point Scoring Scale for Six Weighted Factors
16. Schemes which meet the eligibility criteria will then be subjected to the scoring process (see appendix 2 for the detail) which establishes the relative priority of all the schemes submitted.
17. The six factors with weightings are:
Factor Weighting Contribute to the implementation of the 15% Thames Valley Berkshire SEP* Deliverability 20% Long-term, sustainable economic growth 40% Tangible benefit to the sub-region 15% Investing in natural capital 5% Maximising social value 5% Total 100% *The Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) will be augmented with the Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) in due course
18. Following the review, this report recommends retention of these six factors and their relative weightings.
Scoring Guide for the Six Factors
19. At appendix 3 is the detailed scoring guide for each of the six factors in the prioritisation methodology. It gives the criteria used to award 3, 2 or 1 marks on each factor, along with examples of evidence that would meet the scoring criteria.
20. During the review, there was much concern about the deliverability of schemes with programme entry status. In particular, colleagues highlighted the following factors which were common to schemes which had not proceeded to timetable: a) Land assembly, ownership or control b) Planning permission c) Partnership arrangements across boundaries or agencies d) Optimism bias in preliminary value for money calculations
Item 10 BLTB 18 July 2019 Review of Prioritisation Methodology Page 145 21. Therefore, this report recommends that the scoring criteria for the Deliverability factor be altered to give the highest scores to schemes which have satisfactorily addressed these risk factors. The detail of the proposed changes is set out in appendix 3.
Design of the Bid Pro-forma
22. No changes are recommended to the number, wording or order of the questions in the bid pro-forma. However, we are recommending some minor changes, mainly in advice and guidance to bid writers linking the information requested to the scoring guide. In particular these changes highlight the new guidelines for scoring factor 2. Deliverability.
23. The revised bid pro-forma is at appendix 4.
Award of Programme Entry Status
24. The prioritised long list becomes the pipeline of schemes awaiting programme entry status. BLTB will then operate the “cab-rank” principle awarding programme entry to the schemes in priority order until all the available funds are allocated. Should further funds become available (for instance because a higher priority scheme cannot progress) then the next available scheme in the prioritised list will be considered for programme entry.
25. Schemes with programme entry status are required to submit a WebTAG- compliant Full Business Case for independent assessment. AF4.0 requires that Full Business Cases must achieve “high” value for money in order to be recommended for financial approval. The LEP has appointed Hatch Regeneris as Independent Assessors to scrutinise the business case submissions of scheme promoters.
26. Following on from the concerns about deliverability, the independent assessor has suggested adding an extra stage of assurance and checking at the point where a scheme is converting from next in line in the priority list to programme entry status.
27. Schemes seeking programme entry status from BLTB will therefore need to meet three conditions: a) To have the highest priority in the long-list of pipeline schemes b) There being sufficient available uncommitted funds in the relevant funding programme c) To have submitted a Full Business Case development programme to the satisfaction of the LEP’s Independent Assessor
28. The Full Business Case development programme will include, amongst other things:
Item 10 BLTB 18 July 2019 Review of Prioritisation Methodology Page 146 a) a timetable for producing an Appraisal Specification and Option Assessment Reports as well as the five cases of the Full Business Case b) a statement of what modelling tools are available c) a commitment to delivering sufficient design work and operational planning prior to FBC submission
29. The LEP and its Independent Assessor will work with colleagues on the BST(O)F to produce advice on the style content of an FBC development plan.
Monitoring of progress of programme entry schemes towards financial approval
30. The current arrangements require each scheme with programme entry status to submit a progress report to meetings of the BLTB 3 times a year and at each of the BST(O)F meetings. In order to reflect the concerns about management of risks to scheme deliverability, this report recommends that any scheme reporting a delay to its timetable (or to its revised timetable) will be identified in the new Verto progress report to BLTB. The scheme promoter will be invited to address the meeting and take questions about the reasons for the changed timetable.
Conclusion
31. There has been a full and thorough review of the process of identifying and prioritising capital infrastructure schemes for future LEP funding. The process has endorsed previous practice and identified a number of practical suggestions for managing the risks around scheme deliverability.
Background Papers
32. BST(O)F and BST(M)F papers and correspondence with the independent assessor and others connected with this review of the prioritisation methodology.
Item 10 BLTB 18 July 2019 Review of Prioritisation Methodology Page 147 Appendix 1 To review the prioritisation methodology in anticipation of the need to regenerate the pipeline of schemes for a future spending allocation/bidding round
2. 3. 8. 4. 6. 9. 10. 12. Funding Priorit- Prog- 1. Call for 5. Scores 7. Full Indep- 11. Start on 13. Round isation ramme As Is SEP/ BLIS Bids with TVB team moder- Ranking Business endent Financial site, Benefits identified metho- Entry agreed rules and scoring ated with agreed Case (FBC) Assess- Approval construct, realisation or anti- dology Status conditions promoter submitted ment finish cipated agreed awarded
LEP Board TVB & Ind. TVB & Who HMG BLTB BLTB TVB team BLTB BLTB Promoter BLTB Promoter & Forum promoter Assessor Promoter
Promoter Advise & Scheme development Submit Await Discuss/ Inform Inform FBC at Engage w/ Attend Manage Supply eg LTA contribute at own risk proforma outcome negotiate BLTB BLTB own risk assessor BLTB contract output data Page 148 Page s
H/M/L Reports submitted to BLTB for all projects Prosp- 3/2/1 ectus for Transport GD1 40% Econ Start and each Bid Test Test Strategy GD2 impact Formal Formal finish on with scoring scoring GD3 20% Deliv process to We use process to site, 1-yr on Notes and Rules, fairness fairness BLIS name BRRP1 15% SEP establish “cab rank” As Currently authorise followed and 5- queries Specific with LEP with LEP schemes, BRRP2 15% sub- the next required Hatch the public in due years on conditions critical critical types, NPIF region pipeline scheme by AF 4.0 Regeneris spending course by impact Max/min friend friend categories ….UKSPF 5%NatCap up set by AF certifi- reports %match 5% Social 4.0 cation and values value payment
Possible “soft sift”: BSTMF members to see/consider long list of possible schemes: influence what schemes come forward What do others do - Good practice from around the country Who Issues Scheme size: have we been too small in the past influences Can/should we support stronger schemes with lower Introduce two-tier process for large and small schemes debated this, how uncertainty and less risk of delay How should we encourage non-LA promoters & when LGF year 5 of 6, so test/challenge on scheme deliverability with Balance governance/oversight vs influence/direction/decision making a focus on land ownership & planning Appendix 2
Prioritisation Methodology
1. The following methodology is substantially the same as that used in Growth Deal 1, 2, 3 (2016), 3 (2018), BRRP1 and BRRP2 bidding rounds.
2. First bids are checked for compliance with the overall eligibility criteria for the funding round. Schemes with missing, incomplete, inadequate or late pro-forma information may not be considered. All schemes declared eligible are then scored and allocated a priority ranking on the long list, or pipeline, of schemes. All qualifying schemes are scored and placed in order in the pipeline.
3. As and when funds become available, schemes are proposed for programme entry status following the “cab-rank” principle. Before being granted programme entry status, each scheme is assessed against its place in the prioritised list, available funds and its readiness to proceed to financial approval.
4. On each factor, a scheme will be awarded high (3 marks), medium (2 marks) or low (1 mark), see appendix 3 for the details of how marks are allocated. On each factor, each scheme is bound to score at least one mark, and will be given the highest mark that is supported by the information in the pro-forma. So, if a scheme submission matches both the examples for a medium and a high judgement, it will be judged high.
5. These raw scores are then weighted to reflect the relative importance of the six factors as follows:
Factor Weighting Infrastructure Projects will contribute to the 15% delivery of the Thames Valley Berkshire SEP* Deliverability 20% Long-term, sustainable economic growth 40% Tangible benefit to the sub-region 15% Investing in natural capital 5% Maximising social value 5% Total 100% *The Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) will be augmented with the Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) in due course
6. The calculation will be performed according to the following table:
Raw Scores Weigh Weighted scores Factor High Med Low ting High Med Low Contribute to the implementation of the Thames 3 2 1 x 1.5 4.5 3.0 1.5 Valley Berkshire SEP Deliverability 3 2 1 x 2.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 Long-term, sustainable 3 2 1 x 4.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 economic growth
Page 149 Tangible benefit to the sub- 3 2 1 x 1.5 4.5 3.0 1.5 region Investing in natural capital 3 2 1 x 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 Maximising social value 3 2 1 x 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 Total Max = 30.0 Min= 10.0
7. The range of possible scores will be 30 (all high scores) - 10 (all low scores). A ranking putting all the submitted schemes in order will be produced.
8. The schemes are first scored by staff from the LEP, and then moderated with the scheme promoter. Once all the scores are moderated and agreed, the draft prioritised list is published for further checking before being recommended to BLTB for approval.
9. Following the review, no changes are recommended to this process.
Page 150 Appendix 3
The Scoring Methodology for the Six Factors
1. Infrastructure Projects will contribute to the implementation of the Thames Valley Berkshire SEP
No changes have been suggested for this factor
1 Examples of Descriptors Scoring Guide The Housing SDL cannot A high score will be awarded to proposals for direct investment which: proceed without this Support one or more of the objectives1 in the SEP, in particular (see Distributor Road; page 30): investment in this 3 Labour Supply: Address congestion; Bring forward planned housing scheme will unlock £££’s 6 Functioning Towns: Infrastructure within towns; Infrastructure of private investment between towns; Town centre investment This scheme is identified AND/OR as part of Core Policy XX
marks Are directly linked to the following connectivity issues named in the Town Centre
3 2
SEP Implementation Plan section on Infrastructure (page 9): SEP
– Regeneration in the Packages 1, 2 and 3: further phases or extensions of projects funded Council’s adopted Core in Growth Deal 1, 2 and 3
High Strategies Document Package 5: MRT schemes The development of MRT Package 6: Access to London Heathrow; Access to London via Berkshire on this corridor is key to motorway and rail; Electrification beyond Newbury; Rail links to increasing the capacity of London Gatwick; Third Thames Crossing near Reading the network to deliver the Valley AND/OR journeys that will support Promote local sustainable transport networks (see Strategy p 17) the growing economy This infrastructure will Thames help unlock a housing A medium score will be awarded to proposals for other investments
the scheme of [less than 100] which support: of marks units Education Estate 2 This scheme will support – Employment Sites the regeneration of the Utilities industrial estate, and Local housing sites contribute to the retention
Medium of x,000 jobs in the
implementation borough the to mark A low score will be awarded to all other proposals 1 – Contribute Low
1 The objectives of the SEP are (see page 30 of http://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/getfile/Public%20Documents/Strategic%20Economic%20Plan/TVB%20 SEP%20-%20Strategy.pdf?inline-view=true) PEOPLE 1. Use better those who are already in the workforce 2. Inspire the next generation and build aspirations and ambition 3. Ensure that economic potential is not restricted by labour supply issues IDEAS 4. Ensure that knowledge is effectively commercialised and grown within Thames Valley Berkshire 5. Strengthen networks and invest in the ‘soft wiring’ to use ideas better 6. Make Thames Valley Berkshire’s towns genuine hubs in the ideas economy
2http://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/getfile/Public%20Documents/Strategic%20Economic%20Plan/TVB%20 SEP%20-%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf?inline-view=true
Page 151 2. Deliverability The scoring guide has been amended to add specific consideration of land assembly, ownership or control; planning permission; and, where relevant, partnership arrangements across boundaries or agencies. The original criterion of optimism bias in preliminary value for money calculations is retained. The effect of these proposed changes is to make it a tougher test on the deliverability factor, meaning that a higher priority will be given to better prepared schemes, and a lower priority to more schemes with more uncertainty.
2 Examples of Descriptors Scoring Guide A high score will be awarded to capital proposals which have a strong prospect of a start on site in the relevant period for this call for bids. This will Outline Planning permission and/or be awarded if there is a positive assessment of all positive planning history of: marks Partnership finance clearly a) Land assembly, ownership or control 3
– identified b) Planning permission
Preliminary Benefit cost ratio c) Optimism bias in preliminary value for money
High (BCR) calculated as positive calculations AND (where relevant) a positive assessment of d) Partnership arrangements across boundaries or agencies A medium score will be awarded to proposals which have a reasonable prospect of a start on site the relevant period for this call for bids. This Features in published Local Plan will be awarded if there is a positive assessment Deliverability
marks Finance subject to further of two of: 2 discussion a) Land assembly, ownership or control – No preliminary BCR calculation, b) Planning permission but comparable schemes have c) Optimism bias in preliminary value for money recently been positively assessed calculations
Medium AND (where relevant) a positive assessment of
mark d) Partnership arrangements across boundaries or agencies where relevant 1 – A low score will be awarded to all other proposals Low
Page 152 3. Long term sustainable economic growth
No changes have been suggested for this factor
3 Examples of Descriptors Scoring Guide This scheme will also support development which will add 39,322 sq m of retail space and bring 400 jobs to the area A high score will be awarded to a proposal which The scheme will facilitate can quantify (in terms of commercial or retail floor marks development of 25,000m2 of retail space, jobs or houses) a major regeneration, 3
– space 60,000m2 of office space large new development or other substantial and 800 new dwellings. impact on the economy which is directly linked to
High 85,800sqm of employment the transport scheme development.
growth SDL incorporates up to 15,000sqm of employment. A medium score will be awarded to a proposal Enabling commercial and which can quantify (in terms of commercial or residential development economic
retail floor space, jobs or houses) Enabling redevelopment for EITHER
marks housing of frontage properties a minor regeneration, small new development or 2 currently blighted. –
other minor impact on the economy which is Enhancing the attractiveness of directly linked to the scheme;
sustainable town centre and associated major OR redevelopment sites a major regeneration, large new development or Medium Supporting Town Centre other substantial impact on the economy which is Regeneration indirectly linked to the scheme
Long-term, GVA to be investigated Improving journey times and reliability
mark Customers and suppliers will also 1 benefit from better access, A low score will be awarded to all other proposals. – improved journey times, and lower vehicle operating costs Low Reducing congestion on a key highway corridor
4. Tangible benefit to the sub-region
No changes have been suggested for this factor
4 Examples of Descriptors Scoring Guide The scheme will support x,000 jobs, which will provide employment for people from across marks the TVB area A high score will be awarded to proposals which 3
– The planned catchment for the new have significant impact well beyond a local area sub-region
2 retail units is a 25-mile radius marks
High the The proposed route runs through
to three boroughs
– X,000 sq m of refurbished A medium score will be awarded to proposals employment space will allow the
benefit which have a major impact, but only in a local
mark borough to be more competitive in area
Medium retaining jobs
1 The primary school will support the – Tangible development of 100 houses in the A low score will be awarded to all other proposals
Low neighbourhood
Page 153 5. Investing in Natural Capital
No changes have been suggested for this factor 5 Examples of Descriptors Scoring Guide A high score will be awarded to proposals which EITHER No adverse noise, biodiversity, can quantify a positive impact heritage or water environment OR impacts and enhancement of can demonstrate that mitigating measures will landscape features significantly reduce any negative impacts on one marks The proposal includes the 3 or more of the following:
– decontamination of xx hectares of greenhouse gas emissions; former industrial land air quality;
High The proposal includes on site noise disturbance; generation of electricity from natural environment, heritage and renewable sources landscape; and streetscape and urban environment. Capital A medium score will be awarded to proposals minor benefits in terms of air which quality / carbon emissions
marks EITHER Natural compared to the ‘do nothing’ 2
in make un-quantified positive claims about impact
–
situation on the above environmental factors Reducing slow moving/ queuing OR traffic would contribute to reduction can demonstrate that mitigating measures will in NO2 emissions in AQMA Medium Investing reduce negative impacts Carbon emissions will be reduced through a more direct route for freight vehicles Decrease in the number of people mark affected by noise and 1 A low score will be awarded to all other proposals
– improvements in local air quality Positive impact on carbon
Low emissions. Promoting public transport over private car use
Page 154 6. Maximise Social Value
No changes have been suggested for this factor
6 Examples of Descriptors Scoring Guide A high score will be awarded to proposals which can EITHER This stretch of road, including the quantify a positive impact on, junction, is responsible for an OR annual 40 slight injury accidents can demonstrate that mitigating measures will (approx 5% of the Borough’s significantly reduce any negative impacts in overall figure) and a further 8 KSI relation to one or more of the following: personal affordability; marks accidents in the last three years.
3 The scheme is designed to reduce physical activity; – both these figures by half in three road accidents; years following completion. crime and security; High This scheme will create xx access to a range of goods and services; apprenticeships in association with and the local college community severance OR can open up apprenticeships or new jobs associated with the proposal to local unemployed and long-term unemployed people value Positive impact for the communities affected by rat-running A medium score will be awarded to proposals
social Facilitates residential development which including new primary school and EITHER marks extra care home facility make un-quantified positive claims about impact 2 –
Reduced risk of accidents as result in relation to the above social/distributional issues
Maximise of better management of traffic and OR better provision for road crossings. can demonstrate that mitigating measures that will reduce but do not eliminate negative
Medium It is likely that the scheme would lead to impacts that would require social/distributional impacts full SDI appraisal. Allowing opportunities to develop local walking and cycling improvements Improved journey times to and from London
mark There are no significant impacts. 1 It is unlikely that the scheme would A low score will be awarded to all other proposals – lead to any impacts that would
Low require full SDI appraisal. The expected impacts are likely to be both marginal in extent and dispersed among people groups or spatially.
Page 155 Appendix 4
Pro-forma bid {Town – Scheme Name}
Summary and overview
1. Scheme name:
{Town – Scheme Name}
2. Scheme promoter:
{…} Council / other
3. Contact details: (name, email, telephone numbers)
{…}
4. Brief description of the scheme and the main activities within it:
{please use 25 words or fewer: this summary will be used in schedules and other covering reports. Words over the limit will be deleted}
5. Location of the scheme:
Local Authority: {…} Council
Parliamentary Constituency: {this is important for briefing the MP – and embarrassing if not accurate}
Postcode: {as accurate as you can please, for plotting on a map}
Rationale for the scheme and strategic fit
6. {not used}
7. How will the scheme contribute to the delivery of Thames Valley Berkshire’s Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)?
{Please reference the SEP, which is available at http://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/documents?folder=192&view=files}
{Information supplied here will be scored against 1. Infrastructure Projects will contribute to the delivery of the Thames Valley Berkshire SEP}
8. What is the rationale for the scheme?
{Please describe the overall case for developing this scheme}
9. What barriers to growth will it address? What is the evidence?
{Please quantify where possible}
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 3. Long-term, sustainable economic growth}
Page 156 10. What other options have been considered?
{Please describe any other solutions considered but not pursued}
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability – a WebTAG compliant Full Business Case requires an Option Appraisal Report}
11. What would be the consequences of a “do nothing” option?
{Please describe}
12. Which partner organisations are involved in, and committed to, the scheme?
{Please list your partners and distinguish between essential partners (eg Network Rail); funders; supporters; etc}
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability – cross boundary or cross agency partnership arrangements should be underpinned with some evidence of their commitment}
Value for money
13. What outputs will the scheme deliver?
2018/ 2019/ 2020/ 2021/ 2022/ Later Outputs 19 20 21 22 23 LGF/Growth Deal Houses Other public sector (specify which) (units) Private sector Total LGF/Growth Deal Other public sector (specify which) Jobs Private sector Total LGF/Growth Deal Employment Other public sector (specify which) floorspace (sq m) Private sector Total LGF/Growth Deal Businesses Other public sector (specify which) created Private sector Total LGF/Growth Deal Business Other public sector (specify which) assists Private sector Total LGF/Growth Deal Other Other public sector (specify which) (specify) Private sector Total {Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability – a WebTAG compliant Full Business Case requires an Economic Case}
Page 157 14. How have these outputs been estimated?
{Please describe the evidence or source of your calculations}
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability – a WebTAG compliant Full Business Case requires an Economic Case}
15. What wider outcomes will be achieved in TVB? Please quantify these if possible.
{Please say what other benefits, if any the scheme will deliver, and how far afield those benefits will be felt}
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 4. Tangible benefit to the sub-region}
16. To what extent are these outputs (and downstream outcomes/impacts) likely to be additional? What is the basis for this assessment?
{additional to background economic growth that is likely to occur without this project}
17. What is the nature of the resourcing package that is proposed (e.g. balance between private sector investment, loans and grants, etc.)?
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to make sure that the bid meets the terms of the call for bids – eg minimum and maximum scheme value; matching funds contribution}
18. What is the funding package through which the scheme will be delivered?
Source Year 2018/19 2019/20 Later years Business rates retention pilot Growth Deal or Capital other Government Grant Revenue Other public Please specify sector CIL/s.106 Private sector Please specify
Deliverability and risks
19. How secure are the funding contributions from your own organisation and elsewhere?
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability – cross boundary or cross agency partnership arrangements should be underpinned with some evidence of their commitment}
20. What are the key scheme milestones?
{Please include planning permission; preparation of full business case; procurement; start on site; completion of construction; other key project milestones, including if these have already been achieved}
Page 158 {Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability – Land assembly, ownership or control and planning permission}
21. What are the proposed arrangements for project management?
{please say}
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability – cross boundary or cross agency partnership arrangements should be underpinned with some evidence of their commitment}
22. What are the principal risks linked to the scheme’s delivery, and what actions will be (or have been) taken to mitigate and manage these?
Risk Likelihood Severity Mitigating actions (H / M / L) (H / M / L)
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability}
23. What assessment has been made of the value for money of this scheme?
{if any}
{Information supplied here will be part of the information used to score against 2. Deliverability – optimism bias in preliminary value for money calculations}
24. How will this scheme contribute to the natural capital of Thames Valley Berkshire?
{please say}
{Information supplied here will be scored against 5. Investing in Natural Capital: one or more of greenhouse gas emissions; air quality; noise disturbance; natural environment, heritage and landscape; and streetscape and urban environment}
25. How will this scheme maximise social value for Thames Valley Berkshire? In responding to this question, please say how this scheme will support apprenticeships.
{Information supplied here will be scored against 6. Maximise social value: one or more of personal affordability; physical activity; road accidents; crime and security; access to a range of goods and services; and community severance OR can open up apprenticeships or new jobs associated with the proposal to local unemployed and long-term unemployed people}
Page 159 {TVB LEP supports the recommendations in the Transport Infrastructure Skills Strategy https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/495900/transport- infrastructure-strategy-building-sustainable-skills.pdf which was published in January 2016. We draw your attention to the recommendations made in “Transport infrastructure skills strategy: one year on” (July 2017) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-infrastructure-skills-strategy- one-year-on}
List of supporting information and evidence
Page 160 AGENDA ITEM 11
BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY (BLTB)
REPORT TO: BLTBF DATE: 18 July 2019
CONTACT OFFICER: Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration, Slough Borough Council, lead officer to the BLTB
Item 11: BSTF & BLTB Assurance Framework
Purpose of Report
1. At a meeting of the BLTB in November 2017, the BLTB’s Assurance Framework was ratified.
2. In January 2019, HMG published a significantly updated National Assurance Framework (NAF) for LEPs, necessitating a review of the LEP’s Assurance Framework. This was completed in March 2019 and the outcome – AF 4.0 – in turn necessitates a review of the BLTB’s Assurance Framework.
Recommendation
3. You are recommended to approve the BLTB Assurance Framework (Third Revise) as set out in Appendix 1, taking into account any consequential changes resulting from the outcome of the associated paper on LGF prioritisation methodology.
Other Implications
Financial
4. There are no direct financial implications of this report.
Risk Management
5. LEPs are responsible for a significant amount of public funding to drive inclusive growth, increase prosperity and improve productivity. As such, in addition to adhering to their Articles of Association, LEPs must have in place an Assurance Framework that complies with the NAF, published in January 2019. This is AF 4.0.
6. The proposed BLTB Assurance Framework responds to AF 4.0 and reinforces the principles and procedures that should be followed in conducting BLTB business. In this regard it serves a different purpose to the Founding Document and is an appropriate response to managing the risks inherent in the BLTB role of LEP Programme Group.
Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications
7. Slough Borough Council will provide legal support for the BLTB should any questions arise on the application of the proposed Assurance Framework.
Page 161 Supporting Information
8. The proposed updated Assurance Framework is attached.
Page 162 BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY - ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK (THIRD REVISE)
July 2019
Contact: Bill Hicks, [email protected], 07770 266231
STATUS
This Assurance Framework has been developed from the Berkshire Local Transport Body Founding Document, which was adopted by Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership and the Berkshire Leaders’ Group in November 2013.
PREAMBLE
The Local Enterprise Partnership(LEP), the six local transport authorities1, the Department for Transport (DfT), Network Rail, Highways England, Heathrow Airport Limited, and some train and bus operating companies have developed a forum for discussion and consultation on matters of mutual interest relating to strategic transport issues in Thames Valley Berkshire. We call this body the “Berkshire Strategic Transport Forum” (BSTF). It operates at two levels: one with elected members2 and business representatives3; the other with senior transport officers. The Berkshire Chief Executives’ Group has recognised the importance of these arrangements by nominating a representative4 to chair the officers’ meeting and liaise with the LEP and the members.
These arrangements were adapted in 2013 to conform to the guidance of establishing Local Transport Bodies. They were reviewed on the publication of the Local Enterprise Partnership National Assurance Framework by MHCLG in January 2019.
Our Local Transport Body is known as Berkshire Local Transport Body (BLTB). The BSTF will continue to meet and only those parts of its business that relate to the operation of the BLTB will be subject to this Assurance Framework.
On 26 March 2019, the LEP Forum agreed to continue with the BLTB, as the competent body to prioritise, invest in and oversee transport capital schemes on its behalf. In practice, the LEP will accept any BLTB recommendations or refer them back but will not substitute its own recommendations. AF 4.0 designates the BLTB as a LEP Programme Group. The BLTB is also responsible for authorising revenue spend, where appropriate, using the same approach as for capital schemes.
PART ONE: PURPOSE, STRUCTURE AND OPERATING PRINCIPLES
1. Name: the Local Transport Body for Thames Valley Berkshire will be known as “Berkshire Local Transport Body” (BLTB). 2. Status: BLTB is constituted as a Joint Committee of Bracknell Forest, Reading, Slough, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham Councils. 3. Geography: the BLTB will comprise the Local Enterprise Partnership area of Thames Valley Berkshire, which covers the six-council area. 4. Membership and Voting: there will be 12 members of the BLTB, nominated as follows: six business representatives nominated by Thames Valley Berkshire LEP (6); one Councillor nominated each by
1 Bracknell Forest, Reading, Slough, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham Councils 2 6 councillors, usually the relevant Lead/Cabinet/Executive Member for Strategic Transport 3 6 business leaders nominated by the LEP 4 Currently the Director of Regeneration at Slough Borough Council
Page 163 Bracknell Forest; Reading; Slough; West Berkshire; Windsor and Maidenhead; and Wokingham Councils (6, each with a named substitute who will be the only permitted deputy).
There shall be appointed a Chair from among the local authority members and a Deputy Chair from among the LEP members. The Deputy Chair will be a Non-Executive Director of the LEP Board.
Each member shall have one vote. In the event of an equality of votes on any matter, a second and casting vote shall be given to the Chair of the meeting. This vote shall not be cast for the view supported by a minority of local authority votes. Only those present at the meeting can vote.
If there is a majority (in the 12) for a scheme to proceed but not a majority amongst the six local authority members for the same, there will be a review of the circumstances leading to such an outcome. Once concluded, and if there is no change to the likely outcome of a further vote, the scheme will be referred to the LEP Forum and to Berkshire Leaders’ Group for further consideration before being brought back to the LTB.
The membership and functioning of the LTB will be kept under review by the LEP Forum and by the Berkshire Leaders’ Group, and amendments and alterations made on an ad hoc basis when the need arises. This Assurance Framework was signed off by the BLTB, with DfT present, on 18 July 2019.
5. Conflicts of Interest, Gifts and Hospitality: a role description at Appendix 1 makes clear that when conducting the business of the BLTB all members are expected to serve the interests of the Thames Valley Berkshire area and adhere to a Code of Conduct.
As BLTB is a Joint Committee of the local authorities, the expectations for the declaration and management of personal, financial and other interests, and on the treatment of any gifts or hospitality relating to BLTB business will be set by local authority requirements. These expectations will apply equally to local authority and LEP members and be administered by Slough Borough Council, acting as the Accountable Body for the BLTB.
BLTB recognises that on occasion there may be a conflict between the interests of a member’s nominating authority (or in the case of a business member nominated by the LEP, a member’s own interests) and the overall interests of the Thames Valley Berkshire area. It will be a principle of the BLTB that the interests of the Thames Valley Berkshire area will take precedence.
6. Status and Role of BLTB Accountable Body: Slough Borough Council will be the Accountable Body for the BLTB. It will:
ensure that the decisions and activities of the BLTB conform with legal requirements regarding equalities, environmental, EU issues and other matters ensure that an official record of BLTB proceedings is maintained ensure that the BLTB Assurance Framework is being adhered to ensure that the BLTB proceedings and documents are accurately recorded and kept, and that all BLTB documents are accessible to the press and public be legally responsible for the decisions of the BLTB, and will receive any legal proceedings involving the BLTB as respondent.
7. Status and Role of the LEP Accountable Body: the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead is the Accountable Body for the LEP. Its role is to oversee the ongoing proper administration of the LEP’s financial affairs, in accordance with AF 4.0. This includes:
Page 164 holding Local Growth Funds (LGF) or other devolved major scheme funding making payments to delivery bodies at the request of the LEP accounting for LGF or other devolved major scheme funding so that it is separately identifiable from the Accountable Body’s own funds providing financial statements to the LEP and the BLTB as required through the Section 151 Officer, ensuring that LGF or other devolved major scheme funds are used appropriately, as detailed above. This includes jointly signing-off quarterly LGF dashboards with the LEP Board, for submission to the Cities & Local Growth Unit.
8. Strategic Objectives and Purpose: The BLTB is a publicly accountable Joint Committee of the six Berkshire Authorities. It straddles the strategic, technical and operational, and thus makes a significant contribution to the formation and implementation of the Strategic Economic Plan and its associated Growth Deal/s and successor documents. It will have the following objectives:
Managing Local Growth Funds:
To manage an investment programme of LGF for developing and improving the transport infrastructure within the Thames Valley Berkshire area To establish and keep under review a prioritised list of local major transport schemes within the available budget To assess and evaluate the relative merit of competing schemes, and to subject all proposals to independent scrutiny To ensure value for money is achieved from individual schemes and the overall investment programme, and to review the impact of completed schemes To monitor the progress of scheme delivery, outputs and spend To oversee the management of the devolved budget and programme such that it responds to changing circumstances To make decisions on individual scheme approvals
Responding to Government and Other Consultations
To consider and co-ordinate joint responses to government and other consultations about transport matters affecting the Thames Valley Berkshire area
Sub National Transport Body – Transport for the South East
To arrange for representatives to attend and contribute to the work of Transport for the South East (TfSE)
9. Support and Administration Arrangements: The Accountable Body will supply appropriate support and administration to fulfil the responsibilities on meeting management, legal and procedural advice.
The six councils will support the work of the BLTB with professional advice on transport matters. This advice will include the identification and promotion of individual schemes for support from the BLTB, with appropriate officer liaison via the BSTF Officers’ group and advice and support to councillors and LEP nominees who are members of the BLTB. This contribution will be in the form of the officer time of relevant senior officers (or retained consultants), as is commensurate with the resources available to each of the councils.
The BSTF Officers’ group will continue to be the primary forum for discussing, sharing, evaluating and preparing formal business for the BLTB. The Berkshire Chief Executives’ Group has identified this as an
Page 165 important group, and has nominated a representative5 to chair the group, which is also actively supported by the LEP, DfT, Network Rail, Highways England, Heathrow Airport Limited and transport operators.
10. Working Arrangements and Meeting Frequency, Transparency and Local Engagement: The BLTB has a schedule of at least three meetings a year. The Accountable Body for the BLTB will set the meeting dates at least a year ahead according to the planning cycle of the municipal year, and the meetings will be included in the formal calendar of meetings for that council. The arrangements for advertisement of meetings, the publication and circulation of papers, response to FOI and EIR6 requests, dealing with complaints and whistleblowing arrangements, compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency, and other similar codes of practice will be a matter for the Accountable Body, and will conform to the operating practices of the Accountable Body.
BTLB, through its Accountable Body, and with the assistance of the LEP and the constituent councils as proposers of individual schemes, will publish meeting papers and minutes in accordance with AF 4.0, along with scheme business cases and evaluation reports, funding decision letters with funding levels and conditions indicated, and regular programme updates on delivery and spend against budget.
For meetings of the BLTB, the publication of papers will allow five clear working days between the day of the publication of the papers and the day of the meeting. In order to promote openness and transparency, the LEP encourages scheme promoters to conduct appropriate stakeholder consultation in their own area, and publicise the details of the schemes they are promoting as soon as they are available. These details include scheme summaries as well as detailed appraisals, impact statements and other reports which may or may not be part of the full business case submission.
The meetings of the BLTB will be followed immediately by meetings of the Berkshire Strategic Transport Members’ Forum. There will be regular meetings of officers, and the papers, proposals, and other relevant documents for the BLTB will be circulated to this group for comment and advice. This group includes colleagues from DfT, Network Rail, Highways England and other transport interests.
PART TWO: PRIORITISATION
11. Development and Maintenance of Programme of Schemes: The BLTB will establish and maintain a Programme of Capital Transport Schemes. The “Unapproved” or “Long List” of schemes will be generated by a periodic invitation (known as a call for schemes) to the members of the Berkshire Strategic Transport Forum to submit proposals.
12. Call for Schemes: The BLTB will issue a call for capital schemes, including eligibility criteria
a minimum threshold value in order to encourage major schemes a minimum level of detail in order to be able to establish the nature, purpose and content of the scheme a minimum matching funding percentage in order to ensure local commitment to the scheme
Schemes which do not meet the eligibility criteria may be refused entry to the programme, or referred back to the promoter for further development.
5 Currently the Director of Regeneration at Slough Borough Council 6 Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations
Page 166 13. The eligible schemes will then be subject to a simple (3-level High-Medium-Low) assessment against each of the six criteria described below. The scoring and preliminary evaluation will be moderated by the BSTF Officers’ Group, and this will form a recommended list for consideration by the BLTB and the LEP as a basis for agreeing a prioritised long-list of unapproved schemes.
14. BLTB has adopted a methodology for the prioritisation of schemes using the following criteria (or suitable proxies):
The six factors with weightings are:
Factor Weighting Contribute to the implementation of the Thames Valley Berkshire SEP* 15% Deliverability 20% Long-term, sustainable economic growth 40% Tangible benefit to the sub-region 15% Investing in natural capital 5% Maximising social value 5% Total 100%
*The Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) will be augmented with the Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) in due course
This methodology, including the relative weightings and detailed scoring criteria, will be reviewed and refreshed as appropriate prior to each new call for schemes. The result of each new call for schemes will be a prioritised long-list of unapproved schemes.
PART THREE: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS
15. Scheme Assessment and Approval: The BLTB will operate a stepped system of scheme assessment and approval:
Step 1: Unapproved or Long List of schemes. This will be the prioritised list of schemes which have met the eligibility criteria according to the evaluation process set out at paragraphs 11-14 above.
Step 2: Pre-Programme Entry Stage. Schemes seeking programme entry status will need to meet three conditions: a) to have the highest priority in the long-list of pipeline schemes b) there being sufficient available uncommitted funds in the relevant funding programme c) to have submitted a Full Business Case development programme to the satisfaction of the LEP’s Independent Assessor
The Full Business Case development programme will include, amongst other things:
a) a timetable for producing an Appraisal Specification and Option Assessment Reports as well as the five cases of the Full Business Case b) a statement of what modelling tools are available c) a commitment to delivering sufficient design work and operational planning prior to FBC submission
Page 167 Step 3: Programme Entry Stage. Schemes will be moved from the unapproved (or long-list) and given Programme Entry Status in the priority order established at Step 1 as funds become available. Programme Entry Status signifies that funds are available and that the scheme promoter should develop a Full Business Case in line with current DfT guidance.
Step 4: When completed, the Full Business Case together with a VfM Statement and an independent assessment report and any contributions from the public will be reported to the BLTB. Where a scheme can demonstrate high value for money and receive a positive assessment, and have this validated by the independent assessor, a report will be made to BLTB recommending approval.
Step 5: After considering the reports supplied at Step 3, BLTB may:
a) give Conditional Financial Approval (with the conditions and the delegated authority for releasing them being made explicit), or b) give Full Financial Approval, or c) refer a scheme back for further development and retain its place in the Programme
In addition, after considering routine progress reports BLTB may delete the scheme from the Programme.
Step 6: Approved schemes will be subject to formal agreement by way of a capital grant letter issued by the LEP. This will set out the roles, responsibilities, reporting and auditing arrangements between the LEP and the organisation promoting the scheme.
16. TVB LEP has appointed consultants to perform the role of independent assessor. The draft report of the independent assessor will first be made available to the applicant, and an opportunity will be provided for the promoter to make a response to the assessment. The independent assessor’s report and any response from the promoter will be reported in full to the LTB, along with the financial approval report, and through the publication of LTB meeting papers, to the wider public.
17. External View on Business Case: At Step 3, all promoters seeking full financial approval for a scheme will arrange for their full business cases to be published at least five clear working days in advance of the relevant meeting of the BLTB. This is the minimum publication requirement that must be met by the scheme promoter. The LEP encourages scheme promoters to conduct appropriate stakeholder consultation in their own area, and publicise the details of the schemes they are promoting as soon as they are available. These details include scheme summaries as well as detailed appraisals, impact statements and other reports which may or may not be part of the full business case submission. Any comments from interested parties or the public should, where possible, be made to the LEP in time to be included in the papers for the BLTB.
18. Release of Funding, Cost Control and Approval Conditions: As outlined above, all schemes that receive BLTB approval will be subject to formal agreement about roles, responsibilities, reporting and auditing between the LEP and the scheme promoter. This agreement, the capital grant letter, will cover timing and triggers for payments, any conditions about contributions from other funders, the consequences of scheme delay or failure to meet conditions, and formal audit and clawback provisions.
19. Evaluation: Evaluation post implementation. The scheme promoter will publish one- and five- year impact reports post scheme opening. These reports will be reviewed by the independent assessor and reported to the BLTB.
20. This process is summarised at Appendix 2, How we work.
Page 168 Appendix 1 Role Description for private sector members of the Berkshire Local Transport Body
Role description
Profile
We are looking for business representatives from the private sector who have an interest in the transport infrastructure and its impacts in the Thames Valley Berkshire LEP area. We want you to present your views as users of the transport infrastructure, both on behalf of the movement of goods and supplies, and the movement of staff and customers. There is no requirement to have specialist knowledge of the transport industry.
This role will be as a volunteer to represent the views and interests of businesses in Thames Valley Berkshire. You will have the opportunity to work with the Berkshire Strategic Transport Officers’ Forum to support and encourage appropriate levels of consultation with the business community and others. In order to maintain the balance of the BSTF it is an essential requirement that sector representatives must live or work in Berkshire. The successful candidate will have experience/understanding of the issues facing Thames Valley Berkshire businesses in relation to transport infrastructure.
Role Description
To actively contribute to the strategic direction and purpose of the LEP, and help create an environment in which the local economy can grow to benefit all Be prepared to take the lead and provide strategic direction in areas in which they have skills, expertise and experience Work collaboratively and build strong partnerships between the public sector and business community Engage the wider business sector to enable true representation at the LEP Able to deal with media attention and to represent the Thames Valley Berkshire LEP
Terms of appointment
The appointment will be for a minimum of three years with the option of serving a further three-year term. The maximum, estimated commitment equates to approximately two days each quarter, including BSTF meetings every four months. This time commitment may increase depending on the leadership role/s that a volunteer adopts, e.g. representing the BSTF at meetings of TfSE.
This is a voluntary role and attracts no remuneration; the LEP does not pay expenses or reimburse receipted travel expenditure: http://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/expenses-policy.htm
Accountability
As a custodian of public funds, the LEP’s accountability responsibilities are significant and can be viewed here: http://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/accountability. All involved in the LEP – as volunteers or staff – must therefore comply with the Seven (Nolan) Principles of Public Life, which are the basis of the ethical standards expected of public office holders. You will be expected to sign and comply with a Code of Conduct and complete a Register of Interests, which will be published on the LEP’s web site as well as that of the BSTF
Page 169 Accountable Body, Slough Borough Council.
Benefits of the role
We believe that there are benefits to your involvement with Thames Valley Berkshire LEP:
Influence local economic policy Contribute to developing a Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) for our area – ensuring that (your) sector priorities are recognised [According to HMG, LIS will be “long-term, based on clear evidence and aligned to the national Industrial Strategy. They should focus on clearly defined objectives for the future of local economies; and be clear on how cities, towns and rural areas will maximise their contribution to growth in UK productivity. They will help to inform local choices, prioritise local action and, where appropriate, inform investment decisions at the national level”] Personal & professional profile and CPD Expand business and other stakeholder(s) network Help to make Berkshire a better place to live and do business Help to secure public investment into Berkshire - influence the most appropriate use of that funding; into business priorities. Appendix 2
Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (TVB LEP) and the Berkshire Local Transport Body (BLTB) – investing in local transport schemes This briefing note is intended to set out the way TVB LEP works with BLTB to invest Local Growth Funds in transport schemes.
1. TVB LEP is a business-led organisation responsible for determining the key funding priorities to which Local Growth Funds (LGF) and other public resources are directed in order to implement a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and meet its commitments in the TVB Growth Deals. As a company limited by guarantee (registered at Companies House No. 07885051) it operates according to its Articles of Association, which comply with the Companies Act 2006. As a publicly-funded body it behaves in accordance with an Assurance Framework, which determines the practices and standards necessary to provide assurance to government and local partners that decisions over (all government) funding are proper, transparent and deliver value for money. [LEP AF 4.0 March 2019]
2. BLTB consists of six elected members (usually the lead member for transport or related portfolio), and six private sector representatives recruited and appointed by the LEP. [LEP AF 4.0, 4.23]. It is a Joint Committee of the six unitary authorities in Berkshire and its constitution is set out in its Founding Document.
3. TVB LEP recognises BLTB as “the competent body to prioritise, invest in and oversee transport capital schemes on its behalf. In practice the LEP will accept any BLTB recommendations or refer them back but will not substitute its own recommendations.” [LEP AF 4.0, 5..9]
4. The process established by government for making Growth Deals is to invite LEPs to submit competitive proposals, and after due consideration to make awards based on all or part of a LEP bid. To date TVB LEP has agreed three Growth Deals. Each of these has included, among other things, the award of capital funds for individual transport schemes that were prioritised in the TVB LEP bid and named in the Growth Deal settlement.
Page 170 5. TVB LEP works with its partners to identify and prioritise suitable schemes. It is a lobbying organisation, and, via Growth Deals, a joint-funder of selected schemes promoted by (usually, but not always) a local transport authority. [BLTB Founding Document (FD) 11-13]
6. BLTB requires promoters to develop each scheme in accordance with current WebTAG guidance published by DfT. In order to receive financial approval from BLTB, the Full Business Case must be subject to independent assessment and a positive recommendation about value for money. [BLTB FD 14-16]
7. The scheme promoter is responsible for all aspects of the design, risk management, insurance, procurement, construction and implementation of the scheme, including their responsibilities as highway and planning authorities, any other statutory duties, and any financial or other liabilities arising from the scheme. [BLTB FD 18]
8. The time taken between an initial government call for bids and the final announcement of a new Growth Deal can be in excess of a year. TVB LEP (together with BLTB for transport schemes) must go through a number of steps to respond to a government call for bids. Similarly, a transport scheme promoter also must go through several steps:
Page 171 Page 172 AGENDA ITEM 12
BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY (BLTB)
REPORT TO: BLTB DATE: 18 July 2019
CONTACT OFFICER: Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration, Slough Borough Council, lead officer to the BLTB
PART I
Item 12: Heathrow Airport Expansion - proposed consultation 2 response
Purpose of Report
1. To report on Heathrow’s expansion public consultation1 and to recommend a response. The consultation started on 18 June and runs until 13 September 2019.
Recommendation
2. You are asked to endorse the response set out in the appendix to this report.
Other Implications
Financial
3. There are no direct financial implications of this report for the Berkshire Local Transport Body (BLTB).
4. Through the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG), of which TVB LEP is a member, and Slough BC is the lead authority, some of the costs associated with responding to the expansion proposals incurred by LEPs and local planning authorities are being met by contributions from Heathrow Airport Limited. Government financial support for HSPG has also been secured.
Risk Management
5. There are limited risks for BLTB associated with Heathrow’s consultation process. It is a public process, and it is open to anyone and everyone to respond.
Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications
6. Slough Borough Council will provide legal support for the BLTB, should any questions arise.
Supporting Information
1https://aec.heathrowconsultation.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImMnupuud4wIVBbftCh3P6AlFEAAYASAAEgIN- vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Item 12: BLTB 18 July 2019 Heathrow Airport Expansion - proposed consultation response Page 173 7. On 18 June 2019, Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) launched “Consultation 2”, on their preferred proposals for developing and operating an expanded Heathrow, including the effects of expansion and how they intend to manage them. This consultation is a statutory process being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and associated legislation and guidance.
8. In this consultation Heathrow are seeking feedback on: their Preferred Masterplan for expansion; their plans to operate the future airport; their preliminary assessment of the effects of the airport’s growth; their plans to manage the effects of expansion.
This consultation will refine Heathrow’s proposals before submission of their Development Consent Order (DCO) in 2020.
9. The proposals are extensive and cover a very wide range of policies and proposals, many of which are beyond the scope of this body’s competence.
10. In addition to responding to the proposals in this consultation exercise, TVB LEP has joined the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) along with other LEPs and Local Planning Authorities, as a response to “duty to cooperate” obligations. HSPG is providing a full and detailed response to the airport’s proposals.
11. This consultation exercise is one of a series seeking our views about aspects of strategic economic planning. To avoid unintended inconsistencies between our responses, we have prepared a “Position Statement” on Heathrow expansion setting out our general position; detailed comments on the expansion plans will be fed in through the HSPG process.
12. TVB LEP has been a supporter of airport expansion in the south east and has expressed a preference for expansion at Heathrow over Gatwick. Our support for Heathrow expansion is conditional on there being a full range of mitigation measures addressing noise, pollution, congestion and other adverse impacts.
13. Whilst the LEP has made public its support for the expansion of Heathrow Airport since 2012, our support is not unconditional and we remain frustrated that Heathrow’s preferred masterplan indicates support for western and southern rail links to Heathrow but nevertheless favours a surface access strategy based on bus, coach and congestion levies.
14. TVB LEP acknowledges that not all local authorities share its support for expansion at Heathrow and it has published its support on the basis of it being a majority, not a unanimous, position.
Conclusion
15. Support for airport expansion is conditional on appropriate mitigation measures being in place, whether they relate to noise, air quality, congestion,
Item 12: BLTB 18 July 2019 Heathrow Airport Expansion - proposed consultation response Page 174 environmental impact or any other matter as well as Heathrow (absolute) commitment to rail surface access.
Background Papers
16. TVB LEP has a collection of reports and responses to previous consultations concerning Heathrow, Surface Access and related matters ihttp://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/getfile/Public%20Documents/Strategic%20Economic%20Plan/TVB% 20SEP%20-%20Strategy.pdf?inline-view=true
Item 12: BLTB 18 July 2019 Heathrow Airport Expansion - proposed consultation response Page 175 Appendix
Heathrow – Summary of TVB LEP and BLTB’s Position
1. The TVB Strategic Economic Plani (2014) identifies proximity to Heathrow Airport as a major economic advantage because it: is a source of employment; supports inward investment; and helps attract foreign owned companies (see page 13).
2. The London Heathrow Economic Impact Studyii (2013) concluded The “western wedge” area around Heathrow Airport has a strong, dynamic economy. It generates £1 in every £10 of UK economic output and is home to over 2.4 million jobs. It is an economic powerhouse for the UK. Within the western wedge area, the aviation and related activity at Heathrow Airport currently supports around 120,000 jobs and contributes £6.2 billion to the economy.
3. In March 2014, TVB LEP Forum resolved to accept the importance of retaining the world’s busiest hub airport at Heathrow and a. To endorse the Airports Commission’s conclusion, at paragraph 33, page 13, that, “there is a clear case for at least one net additional runway in London and the South East, to come into operation by 2030.” b. To reiterate the findings of the London Heathrow Economic Impact Study which identified that the “do-nothing” option of maintaining Heathrow’s two runways would result in a steady decline in local employment and prosperity. c. To recognise the significant economic and employment benefits to the Thames Valley economy, and beyond of, Heathrow and Gatwick airports, and to put our support behind the option of an expanded Heathrow. d. To support the call by the Airports Commission to implement immediate measures to improve the public transport surface access arrangements.
4. The LEP is co-designing (with government) a Berkshire Local Industrial Strategy (BLIS), which makes numerous and strong references to the economic benefits (and some of the costs) linked to Heathrow Airport – the second busiest airport in the world by international passenger traffic and a major national focus for recent, ongoing and planned investment. The BLIS states that the expansion of LHR will be a major project in its own right but once completed, will reinforce further the economic significance of international connectivity through Heathrow Airport. The BLIS aims to exploit fully the benefits of Heathrow proximity including, most immediately, through the work of the HSPG and the priorities identified in the Heathrow-focused Science and Innovation Audit.
5. For these reasons, TVB LEP continues to support the need for expansion of the airport, subject to an appropriate package of mitigating measures addressing rail surface access, air quality and noise impacts on the airport’s neighbours.
Registered address: 100 Longwater Avenue, Green Park, Reading Berkshire RG2 6GP www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk [email protected] A company limited by guarantee andPage registered 176 at Companies House No. 07885051 6. The LEP support for expansion is a majority position; it recognises that within our partnership there are opponents of expansion. Heathrow Expansion, National Policy and local Planning Authorities
7. The government has acknowledged that airport capacity in the south east is a question of national significance. It has set in train the processes by which the decision whether or not to approve expansion will be taken; and if it is to proceed, the process by which the details of the expansion plan will be determined. TVB LEP, along with neighbouring LEPs and Planning Authorities, has supported the formation of the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, of which Slough BC is now the lead authority. Heathrow Strategic Planning Group 8. This is a “Duty to Co-operate” grouping which supports the need for a reliable evidence base to inform a co-ordinated response. It includes organisations with a range of attitudes to expansion; what unites the Group is a need for a common view about the need to realise the benefits of an expanded Airport as well as a shared analysis of the expansion proposals.
9. HSPG has a memorandum of cooperation with Heathrow Airport Limited, and some of the costs involved with responding to HAL’s requests for information are met by HAL. Government grant has been secured. Detailed comments will be communicated through the work of the HSPG. Publications and Evidence Base 10. Heathrow Airport dominates the economy of the “Western Wedge” area from west London out along the M40, the Chiltern Mainline, the M4, the Great Western mainline, the M3, and South Western Mainline.
11. We have commissioned and published a number of studies, with our partners and in our own name, that provide the evidence base for our support for continued investment in the capacity of the airport. The conclusion we have reached is that on-, near- and off-airport infrastructure needs to be well planned and co-ordinated in order to reap the maximum benefits for the local economy, and to minimise the negative impact on local communities. We have concluded that rail surface access to airport is the most pressing problem, both now and following any expansion. Surface Access Proposals 12. TVB LEP’s number one infrastructure investment priority is the Western Rail Link to Heathrow scheme. The Strategic Outline Business Case supports this investment on the basis of a two-runway airport; this view was endorsed by the Airports Commission report.
13. This view is shared by the Berkshire Members Strategic Planning Group who in their response to the draft London Plan noted, “The Plan should emphasise the need for western and southern rail access to Heathrow now; they are already necessary to tackle existing transport and air quality problems, and should be implemented for the current two-runway configuration rather than as a by-product of expansion, should it happen”
14. The LEP provides the secretariat for the WRLtH Stakeholder Steering Group, co-chaired by Tan Dhesi MP (Lab, Slough) and Richard Benyon MP (Con, Newbury) and we are working closely with the Network Rail
Item 12: BLTB 18 July 2019 Heathrow PageAirport 177 Expansion - proposed consultation response team promoting the Development Consent Order application for this scheme, due to be submitted in late 2019.
15. We are aware of other proposals for step-change investment in public transport to and from the airport, and in the area around it, including Southern Rail Access to Heathrow; Slough Rapid Transit Phase 2; West London Orbital Rail; Piccadilly Line upgrade, Old Oak Common Interchange; and the M25 South West Quadrant study.
iihttp://www.thamesvalleyberkshire.co.uk/getfile/Public%20Documents/Programmes/Infrastructure/Heathrow/H eathrow%20Economic%20Impact%20Assessment%20-%20Final%20Report%20September%202013.pdf?inline- view=true
Item 12: BLTB 18 July 2019 Heathrow PageAirport 178 Expansion - proposed consultation response AGENDA ITEM 13
BERKSHIRE LOCAL TRANSPORT BODY (BLTB)
REPORT TO: BLTB DATE: 18 July 2019
CONTACT OFFICER: Joe Carter, Director of Regeneration, Lead Officer to the BLTB
PART I
Item 13: TfSE – Proposal to Seek Statutory Status – Formal Response
Purpose of Report
1. On 18 March 2019 the Transport for the South East Shadow Board (TfSE) approved a draft Proposal to Government for formal consultation (See appendix 1). Staff from TfSE have separately approached each of the Berkshire Unitary Authorities and Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership to gather formal responses.
2. The formal consultation period opened on 2 May and runs to 31 July 2019. The proposal is largely unchanged from the version previously reported to your meeting on 14 March, which resolved to endorse the plan to seek statutory status.
Recommendation
3. You are recommended to i) endorse the response set out in appendix 2 ii) suggest any further additional comments or amendments
Other Implications
Financial
4. TfSE collects an annual contribution from its constituent authorities. The current rate is £58,000 per county authority and £30,000 per unitary authority. The six Berkshire Unitary Authorities have previously chosen to act together and join TfSE via this joint committee (BLTB). Therefore, for the purposes of subscriptions, BLTB has been treated as a county authority. Slough BC, acting as the lead authority for the joint committee has paid the subscription and collected a one-sixth share from each unitary (£9,667 each).
5. TfSE received a contribution towards the development of its Transport Strategy of £1m from the DfT, and a further £500k for 2019-20 was recently announced.
Risk Management
6. There are no significant risks for BLTB.
Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications
Page 179 7. Slough Borough Council will provide legal support for the BLTB should any questions arise.
Supporting Information
8. The subject of the formal consultation is a Proposal to Government requesting statutory status for TfSE, which if approved by Parliament, will become a second sub-national transport body alongside Transport for the North, which was confirmed in April 2018. The draft proposal is set out in Appendix 1, and it contains only drafting changes and typographical corrections from the version circulated earlier this year as part of the informal engagement process.
9. The statutory basis for sub-national transport bodies is set out in Part 5A of the Local Transport Act 20081, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, which says that “the Secretary of State may by regulations establish a sub-national transport body for any area in England outside Greater London” (s102E(1)) and it goes on to set the conditions and limits for such arrangements.
10. The twin purposes of creating sub-national transport bodies are to facilitate the development of a transport strategy and so promote economic growth for the area.
11. The Act requires a new sub-national transport body to be promoted by its constituent authorities, to have the consent of its constituent authorities, and that the proposal has been the subject of consultation within the area and with neighbouring authorities.
12. The proposal must also set out the membership, voting powers, decision- making arrangements, functions and general powers.
13. The attached proposal to government confirms that the 16 constituent authorities are: Bracknell Forest; Brighton and Hove; East Sussex; Hampshire; Isle of Wight; Kent; Medway; Portsmouth; Reading; Slough; Southampton; Surrey; West Berkshire; West Sussex; Windsor and Maidenhead; and Wokingham. It also confirms that the six Berkshire Unitaries will act together via this joint committee, the Berkshire Local Transport Body.
14. The proposal sets out arrangements for involving the five Local Enterprise Partnerships; two National Park Authorities, 44 Boroughs and Districts and the transport industry voice in governance
15. The proposal identifies the powers TfSE wants to draw down from central government; it goes on to identify a number of powers it hopes to exercise concurrently with local authorities. The proposal emphasises that it will only ever exercise these local powers with the consent of the local authority concerned.
1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/26/part/5A
Page 180 16. In a separate exercise, TfSE is currently developing its Transport Strategy, which will also be subject to consultation with constituent authorities and other stakeholder partners.
17. For more information please visit www.transportforthesoutheast.org.uk
18. Members of BLTB will recall that TfSE was debated on 16 March 2017 when you resolved to “…participate in the shadow arrangements for a sub-national transport body for the south east; and that Councillor Page represent BLTB at the shadow board meetings” (minute 22 refers), and again at your meeting on 14 March 2019 when you gave your support to the TfSE draft proposals for statutory status.
19. Members will further recall that TfSE subscriptions and membership were debated and agreed on 16 November 2017 (minute 19 refers); and that on 19 July 2018 you authorised Joe Carter (Director of Regeneration at Slough BC) to sign the collaboration agreement on your behalf (minute 15 refers).
20. Since the launch of the formal consultation the Secretary of State has subsequently written to all shadow Sub National Transport Bodies informing them that he is not minded to grant statutory status to any STBs for the foreseeable future. The Government's preference, for the time being, is to continue with the partnership working TfSE already has in place. The letter clearly states that Department for Transport will continue to take account of TfSE's views in developing national transport policy and investment decisions regardless of any formal status. In June 2019, the TfSE Shadow Partnership Board agreed to continue with the formal consultation process so that its proposal can be ready for submission to government should these circumstances change.
Draft Response to the Consultation
21. This matter has been considered by the Berkshire Strategic Transport (Officers’) Group and by individual transport authorities.
22. Attached at appendix 2 is a draft of the proposed response to the consultation questionnaire supplied by TfSE. You are invited to suggest further amendments or additions before endorsing the response.
Conclusion
23. The emergence of Transport for the South East as a potential sub-national transport body including the Berkshire area is to be welcomed.
Background Papers
24. Correspondence with TfSE, agendas, reports and minutes of the shadow TfSE Board and its associated forums and working groups.
Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank
Proposal to Government Draft for consultation
May 2019
Page 183
1. Executive summary
1.1 Transport for the South East is a sub-national transport body (STB) established to speak with one voice on the strategic transport priorities for the South East region.
1.2 Our aim is to support and grow the economy through the delivery of our transport strategy – a programme of integrated transport projects and programmes to unlock growth, boost connectivity and speed up journeys while improving access to opportunities for all and protecting and enhancing our region’s unique environment.
1.3 By operating strategically across the South East on transport infrastructure – a role that no other organisation currently undertakes on this scale – we will directly influence how and where money is invested and drive improvements for the travelling public and for businesses in a region which is the UK’s major international gateway.
1.4 Already we are commanding the attention of government, facilitating greater collaboration between South East local authorities, local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and government to shape our region’s future.
1.5 Our next step is to become a statutory body. This draft proposal will be subject to a public consultation from May to July 2019 before being submitted to Government by the end of 2019 for consideration.
1.6 Our draft proposal has been developed in partnership with TfSE’s members and stakeholders and represents a broad consensus on the key issues facing the region and the powers required to implement our transport strategy.
1.7 The constituent authorities and LEPs have steered the development of the proposal, with input from members of our Transport Forum, which brings together representatives of transport operators, transport users and other interest groups.
1.8 Our members and stakeholders are clear that a statutory sub-national transport body for the South East is vital if we are to successfully:
● Increase our influence with Government and key stakeholders; ● Invest in pan-regional strategic transport corridors; ● Enable genuinely long-term planning; and ● Support the delivery of jobs, housing and growth.
1.9 We have only proposed those powers for TfSE which are proportionate and will be effective in helping us achieve our strategic aims and objectives, complementing and building on the existing powers of local authorities.
1.10 These powers would enable us to deliver significant additional value at regional level through efficient and effective operational delivery, better coordination of pan-regional schemes and the ability to directly influence and inform national investment programmes.
1
Page 184
2. The Ambition
“The South East is crucial to the UK economy and is the nation’s major international gateway for people and businesses.
“We will grow the South East’s economy by facilitating the development of a high quality, integrated transport system that makes the region more productive and competitive, improves access to opportunities for all and protects the environment.”
Transport for the South East vision statement
2.1 Transport for the South East (TfSE) was established in shadow form in June 2017. In the short period since, we have emerged as a powerful and effective partnership, bringing together 16 local transport authorities, five local enterprise partnerships and other key stakeholders including protected landscapes, transport operators, district and borough authorities and national agencies to speak with one voice on the region’s strategic transport needs.
2.2 Our shared vision is to ensure the delivery of a high quality, sustainable and integrated transport system that: ● Supports increased productivity to grow the South East and UK economy and compete in the global marketplace; ● Works to improve safety, quality of life and access to opportunities for all; and ● Protects and enhances the South East’s unique natural and historic environment.
2.3 Our transport strategy, which covers the period to 2050, will form the basis for achieving that vision. It will be supported by a targeted investment plan which will identify how we can grow the GVA of the South East to £500 billion by 2050 and create almost three million additional jobs.
2.4 TfSE has already, in shadow form, added considerable value in bringing together partners and stakeholders to work with Government on key strategic issues, securing positive outcomes for the region in the Roads Investment Strategy 2 and Major Road Network consultation, influencing rail franchising discussions and providing collective views on schemes such as southern and western rail access to Heathrow.
2.5 The requirements within our draft proposal seek to provide TfSE with the initial functions and powers to move to the next stage of our development – to begin delivering the transport strategy and realising the benefits that a high quality, sustainable and integrated transport system can unlock for people, businesses and the environment.
2.6 We are clear that we only seek those powers and functions which are necessary to deliver our strategy and achieve our vision. Our requirements differ from those of other STBs and reflect the different geographic, economic, political, social and environmental characteristics of our region and the strategic objectives of TfSE and its partners.
2
Page 185
3. The Strategic and Economic Case
The Transport for the South East area
3.1 The South East is already a powerful motor for the UK economy, adding more than £200 billion to the economy in 2015 – second only to the contribution made by London and more than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
3.2 It is home to 7.5m people and 329,000 businesses including some of the world’s biggest multinationals as well as a large number of thriving, innovative SMEs. It is a world leader in knowledge intensive, high value industries including advanced engineering, biosciences, financial services and transport and logistics.
3.3 The South East area includes both of the nation’s busiest airports in Heathrow and Gatwick, a string of major ports including Southampton, Dover and Portsmouth, many of the country’s most vital motorways and trunk roads and crucial railway links to London, the rest of Britain and mainland Europe.
3.4 The South East’s international gateways support the economic wellbeing of the whole of the UK. As we withdraw from the European Union, they will be integral to supporting a thriving, internationally facing economy.
3.5 Half of all freight passing through Dover going on to other parts of the country. Southampton sees £71 billion of international trade each year and Portsmouth handles two million passengers a year. More than 120 million air passenger a year use Gatwick, Southampton and Heathrow airports.
3.6 Our people and infrastructure are not our only assets. With two national parks, numerous areas of outstanding natural beauty and much of the region allocated as green belt, the South East draws heavily on its unique and varied natural environment for its success. It offers outstanding beaches, historic towns, dynamic cities and unparalleled links to London, the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. It is, in short, an amazing place to live, work and visit. 3
Page 186
The scale of the challenge and why change is needed
3.7 But we face a real challenge. Despite these enviable foundations – and in some cases because of them – our infrastructure is operating beyond capacity and unable to sustain ongoing growth.
3.8 Despite the economic importance of the region to the UK economy, contributing almost 15% of UK GVA (2015), the South East has seen continued underinvestment in transport infrastructure with a per capita spend that is significantly below the England average and a third of that in London.
Planned transport infrastructure spending per head
Source: IPPR North analysis of planned central and local public/private transport infrastructure spending per capita 2017/19 onwards (real terms 2016/17 prices)
3.9 So while transport links to and from the capital are broadly good, elsewhere connectivity can be poor – even between some of our region’s major towns and cities. Train journey times between Southampton and Brighton (a distance of around 70 miles) are only marginally less than the fastest train journeys between London and Manchester. The corresponding journey on the A27 includes some of the most congested parts of the South East’s road network.
3.10 Underinvestment in road and rail infrastructure is making life harder for our residents and businesses. New housing provision is being hampered by the lack of adequate transport infrastructure. In our coastal communities, lack of access to areas of employment and further education and higher education are major contributors to high unemployment and poor productivity.
3.11 These are challenges that extend beyond administrative and political boundaries. They require TfSE to have the powers to effectively join up transport policy, regulation and investment and provide clear, strategic investment priorities which will improve connectivity into and across the region, boost the economy and improve the lives of millions.
4
Page 187
The powers to achieve our vision
3.12 To enable us to achieve our vision through the efficient and effective delivery of the transport strategy, we propose that a range of functions exercisable by a local transport authority, passenger transport executive or mayoral combined authority are included in the regulations to establish TfSE on a statutory footing.
3.13 We have only sought those powers which we believe are proportionate and will be effective in helping us achieve our strategic aims and objectives, complementing and building on the existing powers of local authorities. The powers will be sought in a way which means they will operate concurrently with – and only with the consent of – the constituent authorities.
3.14 These powers would enable us to deliver significant additional value at regional level in three key areas:
● Strategic influence: S peaking with one voice and with the benefit of regional scale and insight to influence the development of national investment programmes; a trusted partner for government, Network Rail and Highways England. ● Coordination: Developing solutions which offer most benefit delivered on a regional scale; working with partners and the market to shape the development of future transport technology in line with regional aspirations. ● Operational: A ccelerating the delivery of schemes and initiatives which cross local authority boundaries, ensuring strategic investment happens efficiently and that the benefits for residents and businesses are realised as soon as possible.
The benefits of establishing TfSE as a statutory body
3.15 One voice for strategic transport in the South East TfSE will provide a clear, prioritised view of the region’s strategic transport investment needs. We already offer an effective mechanism for Government to engage with local authorities and LEPs in the region; statutory status would take that a step further, enabling us to directly inform and influence critical spending decisions by Government and key stakeholders including Highways England and Network Rail.
3.16 Facilitating economic growth The transport strategy will facilitate the delivery of jobs, housing and growth across the South East and further build on our contribution to UK GVA. Implementation of strategic, cross-boundary schemes, particularly investment in the orbital routes, will connect economic centres and international gateways for the benefit of people and businesses, regionally and nationally. TfSE also offers a route to engage with other sub-national transport bodies and Transport for London on wider cross-regional issues.
3.17 Delivering benefits for the travelling public TfSE can support the efficient delivery of pan-regional programmes that will offer considerable benefits to the end user – for example, integrated travel solutions
5
Page 188
combined with smart ticketing will operate more effectively at a regional scale and can best be facilitated by a regional body than by individual organisations.
3.18 Local democratic accountability Our transport strategy will be subject to public consultation and will, in its final form, provide a clear, prioritised view of investments agreed by all the South East’s local transport authorities and with input from passengers, businesses and the general public. Delivery of the strategy will be led by the Partnership Board, comprising elected members and business leaders with a direct line of accountability to the people and organisations they represent.
3.19 Achieving the longer term vision Securing statutory status offers TfSE the permanence and security to deliver the transport strategy to 2050, providing a governance structure that matches the lifecycle of major infrastructure projects. It will provide confidence to funders, enable us to work with the market to ensure the deliverability of priority schemes and support development of the skills needed to design, build, operate and maintain an improved transport network.
6
Page 189
4. Constitutional arrangements
Requirements from legislation
Name
4.1 The name of the sub-national transport body would be ‘Transport for the South East (“TfSE”)’ and the area would be the effective boundaries of our ‘constituent members’.
Members
4.2 The membership of the STB is listed below:
Bracknell Forest Borough Council Brighton and Hove City Council East Sussex County Council Hampshire County Council Isle of Wight Council Kent County Council Medway Council Portsmouth City Council Reading Borough Council Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council Slough Borough Council Southampton City Council Surrey County Council West Berkshire Council West Sussex County Council Wokingham Borough Council
Partnership Board
4.3 The current Shadow Partnership Board is the only place where all ‘constituent 1 members’ are represented at an elected member level . Therefore this Board will need to have a more formal role, including in ratifying key decisions. This would effectively become the new ‘Partnership Board’ and meet at least twice per annum. The Partnership Board could agree through Standing Orders if it prefers to meet more regularly.
4.4 Each constituent authority will appoint one of their councillors / members or their elected mayor as a member of TfSE on the Partnership Board. Each constituent authority will also appoint another one of their councillors / members or their elected mayor as a substitute member (this includes directly elected mayors as under the Local Government Act 2000). The person appointed would be that authority’s elected mayor or leader, provided that, if responsibility for transport has been formally delegated to another member of the authority, that member may be appointed as the member of the Partnership Board, if so desired.
1 The six constituent members of the Berkshire Local Transport Body (BLTB) will have one representative between them on the Partnership Board. 7
Page 190
4.5 The Partnership Board may delegate the discharge of agreed functions to its officers or a committee of its members in accordance with a scheme of delegation or on an ad hoc basis. Further detail of officer groups and a list of delegations will be developed through a full constitution.
Co-opted members
4.6 TfSE proposes that governance arrangements for a statutory STB should maintain the strong input from our business leadership, including LEPs and other business representatives. The regulations should provide for the appointment of persons who are not elected members of the constituent authorities but provide highly relevant expertise to be co-opted members of the Partnership Board.
4.7 A number of potential co-opted members are also set out in the draft legal proposal. Co-opted members would not automatically have voting rights but the Partnership Board can resolve to grant voting rights to them on such issues as the Board considers appropriate, for example on matters that directly relate to co-opted members’ areas of interest.
Chair and vice-chair
4.8 The Partnership Board will agree to a chair and vice-chair of the Partnership Board. The Partnership Board may also appoint a single or multiple vice-chairs from the constituent members. Where the chair or vice-chair is the representative member from a constituent authority they will have a vote.
Proceedings
4.9 It is expected that the Partnership Board will continue to work by consensus but to have an agreed approach to voting where consensus cannot be reached and for certain specific decisions.
4.10 A number of voting options were considered to find a preferred option that represents a straightforward mechanism, reflects the characteristics of the partnership and does not provide any single authority with an effective veto. We also considered how the voting metrics provide a balance between county and other authorities, urban and rural areas and is resilient to any future changes in local government structures.
4.11 The steering group considered these options and preferred the population weighted option based on the population of the constituent authority with the smallest population (the Isle of Wight with 140,000 residents).
4.12 This option requires that the starting point for decisions will be consensus; if that cannot be achieved then decisions will require a simple majority of those constituent authorities who are present and voting. The decisions below will however require both a super-majority, consisting of three quarters of the weighted vote in favour of the decision, and a simple majority of the constituent authorities appointed present and attending at the meeting: (i) The approval and revision of TfSE’s transport strategy; (ii) The approval of the TfSE annual budget; 8
Page 191
(iii) Changes to the TfSE constitution. The population weighted vote would provide a total of 54 weighted votes, with no single veto. A table showing the distribution of votes across the constituent authorities is set out in Appendix 1. This option reflects the particular circumstances of TfSE, being based on the population of the smallest individually represented constituent member who will have one vote, and only a marginally smaller proportionate vote. It is considered that this option is equitable to all constituent authority members, ensures that the aim of decision making consensus remains and that smaller authorities have a meaningful voice, whilst recognising the size of the larger authorities in relation to certain critical issues.
4.13 The population basis for the weighted vote will be based on ONS statistics from 2016 and reviewed every ten years.
4.14 The Partnership Board is expected to meet twice per year. Where full attendance cannot be achieved, the Partnership Board will be quorate where 50% of constituent members are present.
Scrutiny committee
4.15 TfSE will appoint a scrutiny committee to review decisions made or actions taken in connection with the implementation of the proposed powers and responsibilities. The committee could also make reports or recommendations to TfSE with respect to the discharge of its functions or on matters relating to transport to, from or within TfSE’s area.
4.16 Each constituent authority will be entitled to appoint a member to the committee and a substitute nominee. Such appointees cannot be otherwise members of TfSE including the Partnership Board.
Standing orders
4.17 TfSE will need to be able to make, vary and revoke standing orders for the regulation of proceedings and business, including that of the scrutiny committee. This will ensure that the governance structures can remain appropriate to the effective running of the organisation.
4.18 In regards to changing boundaries and therefore adding or removing members, TfSE would have to make a new proposal to Government under Section 102Q of the Local Transport Act 2008 and require formal consents from each constituent authority.
Miscellaneous
4.19 It may be necessary that certain additional local authority enactments are applied to TfSE as if TfSE were a local authority, including matters relating to staffing arrangements, pensions, ethical standards and provision of services etc. These are set out in the draft legal proposal.
4.20 TfSE also proposes to seek the functional power of competence as set out in section 102M of the Local Transport Act 2008.
9
Page 192
4.21 TfSE will consider options for appointing to the roles of a Head of Paid Service, a Monitoring Officer and a Chief Finance Officer whilst considering possible interim arrangements.
Funding
4.22 TfSE will work with partners and the Department for Transport to consider a sustainable approach to establishing the formal STB and effectively and expeditiously as possible, bearing in mind the considerable support among regional stakeholders for TfSE’s attainment of statutory status.
Governance: Transport Forum and Senior Officer Group
4.23 The Partnership Board will appoint a Transport Forum. This will be an advisory body to the Senior Officer Group and Partnership Board, comprising a wider group of representatives from user groups, operators, District and Borough Councils as well as Government and National Agency representatives.
4.24 The Transport Forum will meet quarterly and be chaired by an independent person appointed by the Partnership Board. The Transport Forum may also appoint a vice-chair for the Transport Forum, who will chair the Transport Forum when the chair is not present.
4.25 The Transport Forum’s terms of reference will be agreed by the Partnership Board. It is envisaged that the Transport Forum will provide technical expertise, intelligence and information to the Senior Officer Group and the Partnership Board.
4.26 The Partnership Board and Transport Forum will be complemented by a Senior Officer Group representing members at official level providing expertise and co-ordination to the TfSE programme. The Senior Officer Group will meet monthly.
10
Page 193
5. Functions
TfSE’s proposal is to become a statutory sub-national transport body as set out in section part 5A of the Local Transport Act 2008.
General functions
5.1 Transport for the South East proposes to have the ‘general functions’ as set out in Section 102H (1) including: a. to prepare a transport strategy for the area; b. to provide advice to the Secretary of State about the exercise of transport functions in relation to the area (whether exercisable by the Secretary of State or others); c. to co-ordinate the carrying out of transport functions in relation to the area that are exercisable by different constituent authorities, with a view to improving the effectiveness and efficiency in the carrying out of those functions; d. if the STB considers that a transport function in relation to the area would more effectively and efficiently be carried out by the STB, to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the transfer of that function to the STB; and e. to make other proposals to the Secretary of State about the role and functions of the STB. (2016, 102H (1))5.
5.2 The general functions are regarded as the core functions of a sub-national transport body and will build on the initial work of TfSE in its shadow form. To make further proposals to the Secretary of State regarding constitution or functions, Transport for the South East will need formal consents from each ‘constituent member’.
5.3 Transport for the South East recognises that under current proposals the Secretary of State will remain the final decision-maker on national transport strategies, but critically that the Secretary of State must have regard to a sub-national transport body’s statutory transport strategy. This sets an important expectation of the strong relationship Transport for the South East aims to demonstrate with Government on major programmes like the Major Road Network and Railway Upgrade Plan.
Local transport functions
5.4 Initial work has identified a number of additional powers that Transport for the South East may require that will support the delivery of the transport strategy. The table below provides an assessment of these functions.
5.5 The powers which are additional to the general functions relating to STBs will be requested in a way that means they will operate concurrently and with the consent of the constituent authorities.
11
Page 194
Table 1: Proposed powers and responsibilities
POWER RATIONALE General functions
Section 102 H of the Local This legislation provides the general powers required Transport Act 2008 for TfSE to operate as a statutory sub-national transport body, meeting the requirements of the enabling Prepare a transport strategy, legislation to facilitate the development and advise the Secretary of State, implementation of a transport strategy to deliver co-ordinate the carrying out of regional economic growth. transport functions, make proposals for the transfer of Government at both national and local level recognises functions, make other proposals that the solutions required to deliver regional economic about the role and functions of growth are best identified and planned for on a the STB. regional scale by those who best understand the people and businesses who live and work there.
Rail
Right to be consulted about We are seeking the extension of the right of a new rail franchises Passenger Transport Executive to be consulted before the Secretary of State issues an invitation to tender for Section 13 of the Railways Act a franchise agreement. 2005 – Railway Functions of Passenger Transport Executives The right of consultation is significant to TfSE as it confirms our role as a strategic partner, enabling us to influence future rail franchises to ensure the potential need for changes to the scope of current services and potential new markets identified by TfSE are considered.
TfSE is uniquely placed to provide a regional perspective and consensus on the priorities for rail in its area. This would benefit central government as a result of the vastly reduced need for consultation with individual authorities.
We recognise that changes to the current franchising model are likely following the Williams Review; regardless of these changes, TfSE is clear that it should have a role in shaping future rail service provision.
Set High Level Output TfSE requires a strong, formal role in rail investment Specification (HLOS) for Rail decision making over and above that which is available to individual constituent authorities. We act as the Schedule 4A, paragraph 1D, of collective voice of our constituent authorities, providing the Railways Act 1993 an evidence-based regional perspective and consensus on the priorities for investment in our rail network.
This power would enable TfSE to act jointly with the Secretary of State to set and vary the HLOS in our area, ensuring TfSE’s aspirations for transformational investment in rail infrastructure are reflected in the HLOS and enabling an integrated approach across road and rail investment for the first time.
12
Page 195
Highways
Set Road Investment Strategy TfSE requires a strong, formal role in roads investment (RIS) for the Strategic Road decision making over and above that which is available Network (SRN) to individual constituent authorities. We act as the collective voice of our constituent authorities, providing Section 3 and Schedule 2 of the an evidence-based regional perspective and consensus Infrastructure Act 2015 on the priorities for roads investment.
This power would enable TfSE to act jointly with the Secretary of State to set and vary the RIS in our area, ensuring TfSE’s aspirations for transformational investment in road infrastructure are reflected in the RIS and enabling an integrated approach across road and rail investment for the first time.
Enter into agreements to We are seeking the power that local highway undertake certain works on authorities currently have to enter into an agreement Strategic Road Network, Major with other highway authorities to construct, Road Network or local roads reconstruct, alter, improve or maintain roads.
Section 6(5) of the Highways Act These powers, operated concurrently with the local 1980, (trunk roads) & Section 8 of authorities, will enable TfSE to promote and expedite the Highways Act 1980 (local the delivery of regionally significant cross-boundary roads) schemes that otherwise might not be progressed. They would overcome the need for complex ‘back-to-back’ legal and funding agreements between neighbouring authorities and enable us to reduce scheme development time and overall costs.
Acquire land to enable This power, exercisable concurrently and only with the construction, improvement, or consent of the relevant highway authority, would allow mitigate adverse effects of preparations for the construction of a highways highway construction scheme to be expedited where highway authorities are not in a position to acquire land. Sections 239,240,246 and 250 of the Highways Act 1980 Land acquisition by TfSE could facilitate quicker, more efficient scheme delivery, bringing forward the economic and broader social and environmental benefits.
Construct highways, footpaths, The concurrent powers required to effectively promote, bridleways coordinate and fund road schemes are vital to TfSE. Without them, we would not be able to enter into any Sections 24,25 & 26 of the contractual arrangement in relation to procuring the Highways Act 1980 construction, improvement or maintenance of a highway or the construction or improvement of a trunk road.
Granting of these powers would enable TfSE directly to expedite the delivery of regionally significant road schemes that cross constituent authority boundaries that otherwise might not be progressed.
13
Page 196
Make capital grants for public transport facilities
Make capital grants for the This concurrent power would enable TfSE to support provision of public transport the funding and delivery of joint projects with facilities constituent local authorities, improving deliverability and efficiency. Section 56(2) of the Transport Act 1968 Constituent authorities would benefit from the granting of this concurrent power as they may, in future, be recipients of funding from TfSE to partly or wholly fund a transport enhancement within their local authority area.
Bus service provision
Duty to secure the provision of Local transport authorities and integrated transport bus services authorities have a duty to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as it considers Section 63(1) Transport Act 1985 appropriate and which would not otherwise be provided.
Travel-to-work areas do not respect local authority boundaries. TfSE is seeking to have this duty concurrently with the local transport authorities in our area, enabling us to fill in identified gaps in bus service provision within our geography or secure the provision of regionally important bus services covering one or more constituent authority areas which would not otherwise be provided.
Quality Bus Partnerships TfSE is seeking powers, currently available to local transport authorities and integrated transport The Bus services Act 2017 authorities, to enter into Advanced Quality Partnerships Sections 113C – 113O & Sections and Enhanced Partnership Plans and Schemes to 138A – 138S improve the quality of bus services and facilities within an identified area. These powers would be concurrent with the local transport authority in the area.
This would allow us to expedite the introduction of partnership schemes covering more than one local transport authority area which otherwise might not be introduced.
Bus service franchising This power, currently available to Mayoral Combined Authorities, would enable TfSE to implement bus The Bus Services Act 2017 service franchising in its area with the consent of the affected local transport authorities.
We believe extending this power to STBs is consistent with the intention of the legislation in terms of delivering passenger benefit across travel-to-work areas and could enable a level of bus provision which otherwise would not exist. It would only be implemented with the consent of the local transport authority.
14
Page 197
Smart ticketing
Introduce integrated ticketing We are seeking powers concurrently with local schemes transport authorities to enable TfSE to procure relevant services, goods, equipment and/or infrastructure; enter Sections 134C- 134G & Sections into contracts to deliver smart ticketing and receive or 135-138 Transport Act 2000 give payments.
This would enable us to expedite the introduction of a cost effective smart and integrated ticketing system on a regional scale which would dramatically enhance the journey experience and increase access to transport to support jobs and education.
Air quality
Establish Clean Air Zones Local transport authorities and integrated transport authorities have the power under the Transport Act Sections 163-177A of the 2000 to implement road charging schemes. Transport Act 2000 – Road User Charging TfSE is seeking this general charging power as a mechanism for the introduction of Clean Air Zones, enabling reduced implementation and operating costs across constituent authority boundaries. This will be subject to the consent of the local transport authority.
Transport is a major contributor to CO2 emissions and poor air quality; these are increasingly critical issues which our transport strategy will seek to address.
Other powers
Promote or oppose Bills in Local authorities have the power to promote or oppose Parliament Bills in Parliament; granting the power concurrently to TfSE reflects the devolution agenda of which STBs are a Section 239 Local Government key part. Act 1972 Under the Transport and Works Act 1992, a body that has power to promote or oppose bills also has the power to apply for an order to construct or operate certain types of infrastructure including railways and tramways.
Granting of this power would enable TfSE to promote, coordinate and fund regionally significant infrastructure schemes, accelerating delivery of cross-boundary schemes which might otherwise not be progressed.
Incidental amendments A statutory STB requires certain incidental amendments to enable it to operate as a type of local Local Government Act 1972, authority, with duties in respect of staffing, pensions, Localism Act 2011, Local monitoring and the provision of information about Government Pension Scheme TfSE. Regulations 2013 The incidental amendments sought are listed below in Appendix 2. 15
Page 198
Powers and responsibilities not being sought
5.6 Transport for the South East does not propose seeking the following functions/powers:
POWER RATIONALE
Set priorities for local authorities for roads that are TfSE will only be responsible for identifying not part of the Major Road priorities on the MRN Network (MRN)
Being responsible for any There is no intention of TfSE becoming highway maintenance involved in routine maintenance of MRN or responsibilities local roads
There are no aspirations for TfSE to become a Carry passengers by rail train operating company
Take on any consultation Local authorities are best placed to seek the function instead of an existing views of their residents and businesses local authority
Give directions to a constituent Constituent authorities understand how best authority about the exercise of to deliver their transport functions to meet the transport functions by the needs of their residents and businesses authority in their area
5.7 The Williams Review, to which TfSE have submitted a response, could recommend significant changes to the structure of the rail industry, including the role of STBs in both operations and infrastructure enhancement. As a result, we will keep the following functions under review pending the Williams recommendations and subsequent White Paper.
POWER RATIONALE
Act as co-signatories to rail franchises There are no current aspirations for TfSE to become involved in this area. Be responsible for rail franchising
16
Page 199
6. Summary of support and engagement
6.1 This draft Proposal was shaped and endorsed by the TfSE Shadow Partnership Board in March 2019 prior to the launch of the consultation.
6.2 During the consultation process, the draft Proposal will be made available on the TfSE website and feedback sought via social media and other promotional activity. Meetings will be held with key stakeholders such as Network Rail, Highways England, Transport for London, England’s Economic Heartlands and the Transport Forum.
6.3 Following the consultation period, TfSE will update the draft Proposal and publish a summary of the comments received.
6.4 TfSE will seek consent from its constituent authorities and the final draft Proposal will be endorsed by the Shadow Partnership Board in autumn 2019.
6.5 The final Proposal will include a summary of engagement activities, including a list of the organisations engaged in the process and an appendix with a number of letters of support from key organisations and businesses.
17
Page 200
Appendix 1: Distribution of votes
2 Number of TfSE constituent authorities Population 3 votes Brighton and Hove City Council 287,173 2
East Sussex County Council 549,557 4
Hampshire County Council 1,365,103 10
Isle of Wight Council 140,264 1
Kent County Council 1,540,438 11
Medway Council 276,957 2
Portsmouth City Council 213,335 2
Southampton City Council 250,377 2
Surrey County Council 1,180,956 8
West Sussex County Council 846,888 6
Bracknell Forest Council 119,730
Reading Borough Council 162,701
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead 149,689
Slough Borough Council 147,736
West Berkshire Council 158,576
Wokingham Borough Council 163,087
Berkshire Local Transport Body (total) 901,519 6
Total 7,552,567 54
2 Population as per ONS 2016 estimates 3 Number of votes = population/140,000 (the population of constituent authority with the smallest population, this being the Isle of Wight) 18
Page 201
Appendix 2: List of incidental powers sought
This appendix sets out the incidental amendments that will be needed to existing legislation. They include areas relating to the operation of TfSE as a type of local authority with duties in respect of staffing, pensions, transparency, monitoring and the provision of information about TfSE.
(1) Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 has effect as if TfSE were a local authority for the purposes of that section.
(2) The following provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 have effect as if TfSE were a local authority for the purposes of those provisions— (a) section 101 Arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities (b) section 111 (subsidary power of local authorities); (c) section 113 (secondment of staff) (d) section 116 (member of TfSE not to be appointed as officer); (e) section 117 (disclosure by officers of interests in contracts); (f) section 135 (standing orders for contracts); (g) section 142(2) (provision of information); (h) section 222 (power to investigate and defend legal proceedings); (i) section 239 (power to promote or oppose a local or personal Bill).
(4) Sections 120, 121 and 123 of that Act (acquisition and disposal of land) have effect as if— (a) TfSE were a principal council; (b) section 120(1)(b) were omitted; (c) section 121(2)(a) were omitted.
(5) Section 29 of the Localism Act 2011 (registers of interests) has effect as if— (a) TfSE were a relevant authority, and (b) references to “the monitoring officer” were references to an officer appointed by TfSE for the purposes of that section.
(6) In the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013— (a) in Schedule 2 (scheme employers), in Part 2 (employers able to designate employees to be in scheme), after paragraph 14 insert— “15. Transport for the South East.”; (b) in Schedule 3 (administering authorities), in the table in Part 2 (appropriate administering authorities for categories of scheme members), at the end insert—
“An employee of Transport for the South East Sussex County Council” East
(7) The Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2012 have effect as if TfSE is a local authority within the meaning of s 101 Local Government Act 1972.
19
Page 202
Draft proposal to government Consultation questionnaire
Contents:
Background Responding to the consultation Next steps Consultation questions Your information
Background
Transport for the South East was formed in 2017 as a partnership of 16 local transport authorities and five local enterprise partnerships to speak with one voice on the South East’s strategic transport needs.
Our aim is to become a statutory sub-national transport body (STB), giving the South East a formal and unified voice with which to influence government decision making on transport issues.
We are now consulting on our draft proposal to government, which sets out the statutory powers and responsibilities we are seeking to help us deliver economic growth, improve quality of life and protect and enhance the environment.
The draft proposal has been developed in conjunction with our member authorities and agreed by our organisation’s principal decision making forum, the Transport for the South East shadow partnership board.
1
Page 203 Responding to the consultation
Before answering the questions below, please read the draft proposal document which can be found at: https://transportforthesoutheast.gov.uk/about/becoming-a-statutory-body
Some questions require only a ‘yes/no’ answer which can be selected from a drop-down menu, while others provide the opportunity to give a more detailed response.
Once you have answered the questions and completed the ‘Your information’ section, please send this completed form by email to [email protected] or by post to:
Transport for the South East County Hall St Anne’s Crescent Lewes BN7 1UE
Please note that we are only able to process responses which include completed personal information. Your contact details will not be added to our database unless you actively opt in.
The deadline for responses is Wednesday, 31 July 2019.
Next steps
After the consultation period has ended, we will consider all the responses received and amend our proposal document accordingly.
The intention is that this amended version will be put before Transport for the South East’s Shadow Partnership Board in September 2019, with the proposal being formally submitted to government by the end of the year.
Government will consider the proposal and will make a decision on whether TfSE should be granted statutory status. If the proposal is agreed, a statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament for the final decision.
2
Page 204 Consultation questions
Transport for the South East is looking to establish a statutory sub-national transport body (STB) for the South East of England. This would give the South East a formal and unified voice with which to influence government decision making on transport issues. The prime functions for an STB would be to publish a regional transport strategy and provide advice to the Secretary of State for Transport on investment opportunities across the area.
1. Do you, in principle, support the establishment of a sub-national transport body for the South East, including the ability to publish a transport strategy and advise central government on transport matters in the region?
Yes
2. What do you regard as the benefits Transport for the South East will provide as a statutory sub-national transport body?
The Berkshire Local Transport Body has 6 years of experience coordinating strategies and investment across 6 local transport authorities: we hope TfSE will be able to replicate the benefits we have derived in Berkshire at the wider south-east scale. The main benefits we forsee are:
- boosting economic growth through more accurate and timely investment in key transport infrastructure and programmes - improving strategic transport planning through coordination with our neighbours - a stronger influence on national transport policies by having a regional voice - better planning and bidding for strategic, cross-boundary transport investments - better co-ordination and implementation of cross-boundary regulatory and enforcement on air-quality.
We also see the benefit of having a sub-national transport strategy which can accommodate and react to the largest scale infrastructure projects such as International Airport Expansion. The mitigating measures required to facilitate approval for such schemes cover a much larger area than any one authority, and there is a major advantage in belonging to a sub- national transport body which can co-ordinate and speak for the collective voice of the south east.
In particular, along with our colleagues affected by the Heathrow proposals, we look forward to TfSE supporting investment in surface access and air quality improvement schemes.
Transport for the South East’s draft proposal includes a list of constituent members and a number of co-opted members. Primary legislation sets out what bodies can be considered as ‘constituent authorities’.
3
Page 205 3. Do you, in principle, think your relevant local transport authority should be a member of the Transport for the South East sub-national transport body? If not, why?
Yes
The relevant local transport authorities are the six Berkshire Unitary Authorities, each of whom has a seat on the Berkshire Local Transport Body. Together, and individually, we have welcomed and supported the emergence of Transport for the South East since its inception
Beyond general functions of an STB, Transport for the South East is planning to make a proposal to the Department for Transport (DfT) for other transport functions which would be exercised concurrently and with the consent of the Secretary of State or local transport authorities, e.g. in relation to constructing new highways. Any proposal to DfT would need formal consent from each ‘constituent member’ and any regulations would also need formal consent from all ‘constituent members’.
4. Are you content with the proposed functions in the draft STB proposal?
Yes
5. What other functions do you think an STB should have/not have and why?
We have been fully involved in the planning and informal engagement that has led to the publication of the draft proposal and our views have been fully reflected in the current document.
6. Would you be content with an STB having such functions if any use of those functions required the consent of the relevant local transport authority?
Yes
Transport for the South East aims to maintain continuity from the governance structure that has served members effectively during shadow operation. Some key decisions may require a vote, such as the transport strategy, annual budget and amendments to the constitution. A number of voting options have been explored, with a preferred option based on the population of the smallest individual constituent member. The preference will be to reach a
4
Page 206 consensus on all decisions, but where this cannot be achieved a weighted vote will be used. All ‘constituent members’ will need to consent to the final proposal to DfT.
7. Are you content with the preferred voting mechanism, to be used when consensus cannot be reached?
Yes
8. Any other comments
We fully support Transport for the South East.
The Berkshire Local Transport Body is a LEP Programme Group, therefore its response serves as endorsement from Thames Valley Berkshire LEP too; it was ratified by the LEP Forum on 23rd July 2019.
5
Page 207 Your information
Name: Joe Carter
Organisation: Berkshire Local Transport Body Director of Regeneration, Slough Borough Council and Job title: lead officer for the Berkshire Local Transport Body Email: [email protected] Would you like to receive news and other Yes updates from Transport for the South East?
6
Page 208 BLTB Forward Plan 2019/20 14th November 2019
Deadline for final reports: 4th November Agenda published: 6th November Financial approval for 2.41 Wokingham: South Wokingham Distributor Road – Eastern Gateway Financial approval for 2.33 GWR: Maidenhead to Marlow Branch Line Upgrade Financial approval for 2.35 Reading: Reading West Station Upgrade Financial approval for 2.37 Bracknell: A322/ A329 Corridor Improvements Financial approval for 2.40 RBWM: Windsor Town Centre Package One-year-on impact report for 2.02 Bracknell: Warfield Link Road (tbc) Page 209 Page One-year-on Impact report for 2.09.2 Sustainable Transport: A4 Cycle Progress reports Forward Plan
12th March 2020
Deadline for final reports: 2nd March Agenda published: 4th March Financial approval for 2.36 Wokingham: Coppid Beech Park and Ride AGENDA ITEM 14 Financial approval for 2.39 Wokingham: Coppid Beech northbound on-slip widening Financial approval for 2.38 West Berkshire: Theale Station Upgrade One-year-on impact report for 2.08 Slough: Rapid Transit Phase 1 Progress reports Forward Plan 16th July 2020
Deadline for final reports: 6th July Agenda published: 8th July One-year-on Impact report for 2.22 Slough: Burnham Station Access Improvements (tbc) Progress reports Forward Plan
Other
Page 210 Page Scheme evaluation and monitoring (to be scheduled) Programme and risk management (to be scheduled)