National Productivity Investment Fund for the Local Road Network Application Form

The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the project proposed. As a guide, for a small project we would suggest around 10 -15 pages including annexes would be appropriate.

One application form should be completed per project and will constitute a bid. Applicant Information

Local authority name(s)*: Slough Borough Council *If the bid is for a joint project, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority.

Bid Manager Name and position: Savio DeCruz, Head of Transport and Highways

Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed project.

Contact telephone number: 01753 875640 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Slough Borough Council 51 Bath Road, St Martins Place, Slough SL1 3UF

Combined Authorities If the bid is from an authority within a Combined Authority, please specify the contact, ensure that the Combined Authority has provided a note ranking multiple applications, and append a copy to this bid.

Name and position of Combined Authority Bid Co-ordinator:

Contact telephone number: Email address:

Postal address:

When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to. Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: https://www.slough.gov.uk/parking-travel-and-roads/plans-for-the-future.aspx

SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name: A4 London Road Improvements, Slough

A2 : Please enter a brief description of the proposed project (no more than 50 words)

The A4 London Road improvements: • London Road widening on westbound approach to M4J5; • London Road link widening to 2 lanes westbound between M4J5 and Sutton Lane; • Signal provision at Sutton Lane gyratory, including pedestrian facilities; and • Public realm improvements at the Foxborough Estate to create a ‘Gateway Park’.

Scheme drawings are provided in Appendix A2.

A3 : Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (no more than 50 words)

The scheme covers the A4 London Road corridor between High Street Langley to the northwest and Sutton Lane Gyratory to the southeast - a key strategic route connecting Slough, the M4 and Heathrow Airport. The area largely comprises a mix of low density residential, small businesses and hotel uses.

OS Grid Reference: between (500950,178200) and (501900,177600) Postcode: SL3

A map is provided in Appendix A3.

Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the project, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular relevance to the bid, e.g. housing and other development sites, employment areas, air quality management areas, constraints etc.

A4. How much funding are you bidding for? (please tick the relevant box):

Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £2m and £5m)

Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £10m)

A5. Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes No

In line with the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty, SBC is aware of its commitment to ensuring that a project will not have a disproportionate positive or negative impact on any group with the following characteristics:

- Age; - Disability; - Gender reassignment; - Marriage/civil partnership (but only in respect of the requirement to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination);

2 - Pregnancy and maternity; - Race - this includes ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality; - Religion or belief - this includes lack of belief; - Sex; or - Sexual orientation (whether being lesbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual).

Whilst a full Equality Impact Analysis has not been undertaken at this stage, a preliminary qualitative equality screening is provided in Appendix A5. This screening suggests that this scheme which represents improvements on the current highway and public realm will not disadvantage any of the protected characteristic groups.

SBC will, in line with its equality duty, progress a thorough analysis during the detailed design stage. SBC’s commitment to Equality Analysis can be found at: http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and-policies/equality-impact- assessments.aspx

A6. If you are planning to work with partnership bodies on this project (such as Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) please include a short description below of how they will be involved.

N/A – All work is to be delivered by SBC

A7. Combined Authority (CA) Involvement

N/A

Have you appended a letter from the Combined Authority supporting this bid? Yes No

A8. Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Involvement and support for housing delivery

Have you appended a letter from the LEP supporting this bid? Yes No

A letter of support from the LEP is included in Appendix A8.

For proposed projects which encourage the delivery of housing, have you appended supporting evidence from the housebuilder/developer? Yes No

A letter of support from Slough Urban Renewal (SUR) is included in Appendix A8. The SUR is a partnership between SBC and Morgan Sindall Investments Limited.

3 SECTION B – The Business Case

B1: Project Summary

Please select what the project is trying to achieve (select all categories that apply)

Essential Ease urban congestion Unlock economic growth and job creation opportunities Enable the delivery of housing development

Desirable Improve Air Quality and /or Reduce CO2 emissions Incentivising skills and apprentices

Other(s), Please specify -

(1.) Minimise stop/start travel conditions along the A4 London Road and improve journey time reliability and extend the current SMaRT service to Heathrow providing improved connectivity. (2.) Remove the severe traffic bottleneck at Sutton Lane gyratory, which will mitigate congestion impacts of future development. (3.) Improve the quality of the highway verges, make better use of redundant highway space and enhance the landscape and public realm to address poor quality visual impact, to improve people’s perception and enjoyment of Slough, to attract businesses and enhance the Foxborough estate to support infill development and improve permeability.

B2 : Please provide evidence on the following questions (max 100 words for each question): a) What is the problem that is being addressed?

The A4 corridor forms a key link connecting Slough Trading Estate, Slough town centre and Heathrow Airport. Physical capacity constraints on the A4 London Road between High Street Langley and Sutton Lane gyratory cause particular congestion and delays at peak times. Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) in the area have increased around 1.5% per year since 2010 and if traffic growth continues, traffic congestion will worsen. The figure below shows AADF along two links of the A4.

4 Annual Average Daily Flow (DfT Traffic Counts) 25000

24000

23000

22000

Vehicles 21000

20000

19000

18000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

A4 London Road (between M4 and Sutton Lane) A4 Colnbrook Bypass (between Sutton Lane and M25)

b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives been rejected?

This scheme is a component of the larger aspirational Slough Mass Rapid Transit (SMaRT) package elements, which had been developed through public consultations, engagement with local resident and businesses, and incorporating feedback from LEP bids. A Statement of Reasons document setting out the design rationale for the highway elements and ‘Pre-Concept Landscape Design’ produced for the Gateway Park fronting the Foxborough Estate are included in Appendix B2. c) What are the expected benefits/outcomes? For example, could include easing urban congestion, job creation, enabling a number of new dwellings, facilitating increased GVA.

Widening the A4 London Road and Sutton Lane gyratory improvements will support anticipated job growth and employment development, and improve local air quality by • Easing congestion; • Smoothing traffic flow; • Reducing queuing and delays; and • Improving surface access to Heathrow.

The public realm improvements and ‘Gateway Park’ will improve local residents’ quality of life, encourage walking and cycling, and support infill housing development on the Foxborough estate by: • Creating new local amenity and green space for local residents; • Reducing crime and the fear of crime; and • Improving the visual appearance of a prominent area on a key corridor into central Slough. d) Are there are any related activities that the success of this project relies upon? For example, land acquisition, other transport interventions requiring separate funding or consents?

The project is not dependent on any other transport intervention requiring funding. The majority of the package is within the highway boundary and scheme consents will be obtained during

5 preliminary design (outstanding consent requirements are summarised in Question B8). Potential land take requirements have been identified and will be confirmed during preliminary design: • Land at north side of A4 London Road, at SSE Electricity substation between Tweed Road and M4 J5; • Land along north side of A4 London Road, Colnbrook Parish Council, between the electricity substation and 559 London Road; • 524-526 London Road land to be adopted as public highway. e) What will happen if funding for this project is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed project)?

This scheme is the lower cost alternative to SMaRT Phase 2. SMaRT Phase 2 remains on the LEP priority list (number 18), but the Growth Deal 3 award was not large enough to enable it to proceed at present. This A4 scheme will address the immediate problems of severe congestion along London Road, in advance of SMaRT Phase 2. Developers' contribution toward A4 improvements are c£1.567m and Slough’s contribution will be c£1.556m. The total local contribution is c£3.123m Without funding, the scheme cannot be delivered and existing capacity constraints on the A4 westbound and through the Sutton Lane gyratory would continue.

f) What is the impact of the project – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones.

This package is likely to have an impact on Air Quality Management Area 1 (AQMA 1: land adjacent to the M4 motorway along the north carriageway between junctions 5 and 7 and along the south carriageway between junction 5 and Sutton Lane) & Air Quality Management Area 2 (AQMA 2: A4 London Road east of junction 5 of the M4 motorway as far as Sutton Lane) as the congestion relief and junction improvement works should reduce stop/start traffic conditions and smooth throughflow of traffic. Copies of Air Quality Management Orders are provided in Appendix B2. Further information about air quality impacts is included in Question B6.

6 B3 : Please complete the following table. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).

In unadjusted nominal terms the total cost of the A4 London Road NPIF bid is £5.973 million (Table A).

Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms) £000s 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 TOTAL DfT funding sought 0 1,397 1,453 2,850 Local Authority contribution 552 510 494 1,556 Third Party contribution 0 768 799 1,567 TOTAL 552 2,675 2,746 5,973 Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2019-20 financial year. 2) Bidders are asked to consider making a local contribution to the total cost. It is indicated that this might be around 30%, although this is not mandatory.

The cost of the scheme (Table A) is £5.973 million of which £2.85 million of funding from the DfT is required. A local contribution of £3.123 million is to be provided, of which £1.567 million will be developer funded through S106 commitments and £1.556 million from Local Authority funds.

Table B: Cost Breakdown by Category Cost Item Cost (millions, Q4 2016 prices) Preparatory (including detailed design and survey work) £0.584 Preliminaries (including site setup and traffic management) £0.227 Construction (including utility diversions) £3.663 Site Supervision £0.389 Land £0.015 Quantified Risk Budget £0.988 Total – 2016 prices £5.866 Inflation £0.107 Total – Outturn prices £5.973

B4 : Local Contribution & Third Party Funding : Please provide information on the following questions (max 100 words on items a and b): a) Provide an outline of all non-DfT funding contributions to the project costs, the level of commitment, and when the contributions will become available.

Slough Borough Council will cover preparation and future maintenance costs. The local authority contribution would be £1.556 million (26%). Third party contribution would be £1.567 million (26%). DfT’s contribution requested is £2.850 million (48%).

S106 contributions totaling c£1.5 million comprise: 1. CEMEX Riding Court Farm: £750k compensation for HGVs travelling through residential areas north of the M4 and on the section of the A4 between High Street Langley and M4 J5. 2. CEMEX North Park: £750k compensation for HGVs travelling through the Brands Hill AQMA and a contribution to the planned highway works at Sutton Lane Gyratory.

7 3. 585 London Road: £23k to cover improvements at the London Road approach to Sutton Lane gyratory, to AQ monitoring and Traffic Regulation Order. b) List any other funding applications you have made for this project or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.

This project comprises elements of SMaRT Phase 2, which was submitted for the LEP’s Growth Deal 3, in December 2015. The scheme was put on the LEP's priority list (no.18), but wasn’t added to the programme, because: • SMaRT Phase 2 didn’t deliver as much housing as Phase 1; • Risks around Slough International Freight Exchange (SIFE) planning applications (now rejected at appeal). Based on this feedback, this lower cost alternative scheme focuses on immediate local congestion relief and improved access to Heathrow to support employment development and economic growth while still being compatible with potential future upgrades to incorporate SMaRT technology and/or SIFE.

B5 Economic Case This section should set out the range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the project. The scope of information requested (and in the supporting annexes) will vary, including according to whether the application is for a small or large project.

A) Requirements for small project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of less than £5m) a) Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the project to include:

- Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible) including in relation to air quality and CO₂ emissions. - A description of the key risks and uncertainties; - If any modelling has been used to forecast the impact of the project please set out the methods used to determine that it is fit for purpose

Summary of Scheme Impacts: The A4 London Road scheme will reduce congestion and improve journey time, improve journey time reliability and improve access to Heathrow. The public realm improvements and ‘Gateway Park’ along the A4 fronting Foxborough estate will create new local amenity and green space for residents, encourage walking and cycling and improve the visual appearance of a prominent area on a key corridor into central Slough.

Scheme Impacts: The scheme will have significant positive impacts on journey time. This estimate results in a 60 year discounted benefits for highway users of about £23.2m in journey time savings and a slight negative impact of about -£3.4m in vehicle operating costs (fuel and non-fuel related) savings. Any negative impacts largely relate to the construction so would only be for a short duration e.g. temporary lane closure/night time work where possible. In terms of environmental impacts such as air quality, noise and Greenhouse Gases emissions, it is envisaged that overall the scheme would have neutral to slight negative impacts. However, any negative impacts will be mitigated during detailed design stage to minimise those impacts. In terms of other environmental impacts such as landscape, historic environment, biodiversity townscape and water environment, a high-level screening assessment indicates neutral to slight adverse impacts.

8 A high-level screening assessment of the social and distributional impacts suggests that overall the scheme will have neutral to moderate beneficial impacts on physical activity, journey quality, accidents/safety, security, access to services, affordability and severance.

Risks and Uncertainty around modelling: The following limitations should be considered when analysing the modelled impact of the scheme and subsequent economic outcomes: • Age of the model – the underlying SMMTM has a 2009 base year. The model has undergone several rounds of analysis and scrutiny since its initial development. Slough Borough Council have commissioned the development of a new base model, with a 2017 base year. The model is still under development and was not available for use as part of this exercise. • Congestion at 2027 – increased congested in the 2027 assignments results in an element of model noise. The TUBA analysis can account for this to an extent by masking sectored results. This model noise means that there are changes in flow/delay in the model that we wouldn’t necessarily expect and are not considered to be a likely impact of the scheme.

Indicative BCR and VfM Estimate of journey time and VOC savings for highway users has been calculated at £20.5m. It should be noted that other transport and non-transport user benefits identified above such as relating to reliability, Gross Value Added (GVA), walking, cycling, and public realm (or ambiance benefits) have not been quantified at this stage so this is believed to be a conservative estimate. A full environmental assessment has not been carried out at this stage and therefore impacts on Air Quality, Greenhouse gas emissions and Noise are not quantified and included in BCR calculations. Overall based on a transport budget of £6.5m (discounted from 2016 to 2010, and converted to 2010 prices), this gives a BCR of 3.2 which represents high value for money in terms of DfT’s VfM category. A VfM Statement summarising the key impacts and benefits is modelling and economic technical note provided in Appendix B5.

* Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to include this here if available. b) Small project bidders should provide the following in annexes as supporting material:

Has a Project Impacts Pro Forma been appended? Yes No N/A Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended? Yes No N/A Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

See Appendix B5 for the Project Impacts Proforma, Modelling and Economics Technical Note, and Appraisal Summary Table.

Other material supporting your assessment of the project described in this section should be appended to the bid.

* This list is not necessarily exhaustive and it is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the analysis supporting the economic case is fit-for-purpose.

B) Additional requirements for large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m) c) Please provide a short description (max 500 words) of your assessment of the value for money of the project including your estimate of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) to include:

- Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits 9 - Description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including: appraisal period, forecast years, optimism bias applied; and - Description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the project and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose.

d) Additionally detailed evidence supporting your assessment, including the completed Appraisal Summary Table, should be attached as annexes to this bid. A checklist of material to be submitted in support of large project bids has been provided.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

- Please append any additional supporting information (as set out in the Checklist). *It is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information for DfT to undertake a full review of the analysis.

10 B6 Economic Case: For all bids the following questions relating to desirable criteria should be answered.

Please describe the air quality situation in the area where the project will be implemented by answering the three questions below. i) Has Defra’s national air quality assessment, as reported to the EU Commission, identified and/or projected an exceedance in the area where the project will be implemented?

Yes No ii) Is there one or more Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the area where the project will be implemented? AQMAs must have been declared on or before the 31 March 2017

Yes No iii) What is the project’s impact on local air quality?

Positive Neutral Negative

- Please supply further details: Full air quality modelling has not been undertaken, but traffic flows have been used as a proxy to determine potential air quality impacts of the scheme. Links with a change of greater than 10% in AADT were identified, and households within 200m were considered. 2386 households were located within 200m of links with a greater than 10% increase in traffic flow, and will potentially experience a deterioration in local air quality, however 4148 households were located within 200m of links with a greater than 10% decrease in traffic flow, and will potentially experience an improvement in local air quality. In all 1762 more households will experience air quality benefits of the scheme rather than disbenefits. There is reduced traffic flow on the A4 through the Town Centre AQMA, especially near to the centre itself. There is some increase in traffic flow on parts across London Road due to traffic rerouting and so some households here may experience a slight deterioration of air quality, although junction improvements along London Road should help to prevent stop-start traffic which is one of the worst culprits for air pollution, minimising negative impacts. Further assessments will be undertaken at design stage and mitigation may be looked at if necessary. See Appendix B5. iv) Does the project promoter incentivise skills development through its supply chain?

Yes No N/A

- Please supply further details:

Slough Borough Council looks to secure wider social, economic and environmental benefits through its procurement processes. The skills development of local people is central to these benefits.

The council will include in the ITTs for the design and construction of the scheme questions relating to skills to determine the supplier’s track record in: • Promoting apprenticeships for young people entering the workforce, mid-career changers and returners to work; • Recruiting locally and upskilling its existing workforce; • Promoting careers in transport; to assess the supplier’s intended approach to promoting skills development through the contract. 11

The council will apply an appropriate but proportionate weighting to the skills question in the tender evaluation.

B7. Management Case - Delivery (Essential)

Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out, with a limit of 100 words for each of a) to b), any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. a) A project plan (typically summarised in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included, covering the period from submission of the bid to project completion.

Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes No

A Project Plan is presented in Appendix B7. b) If delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include a letter from the respective land owner(s) to demonstrate that arrangements are in place to secure the land to enable the authority to meet its construction milestones.

Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended? Yes No N/A c) Please provide in Table C summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more than 6) between start and completion of works:

Table C: Construction milestones Estimated Date NPIF Bid Approval Aug 2017 End of Preliminary Design and Formal May 2018 Approval of Scheme by SBC Start of works July 2018 Foxborough Landscaping / ‘Gateway Park’ – Feb 2019 Completion of works M4 J5 and London Road – Completion of Aug 2019 works Sutton Lane gyratory – Completion of works Nov 2019 d) Please list any major transport projects costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances)

1. SBC delivered the major multi-disciplinary transport scheme at the Heart of Slough. With a final outturn cost of c£12.5m, the scheme was delivered to its original budget based on a Lump Sum NEC3 contract. The scheme was also delivered to time which was essential due to the need for works to be complete in time for effective access to Eton Dorney which was used as a venue for the 2012 Olympics.

12 2. SBC delivered a major highways improvement scheme at A355 Tuns Lane/Copthorne roundabout, including road widening, converting to a hamburger roundabout with intelligent traffic light system. Tendered costs were c£5,916,000 and final costs are £6,058,000 – where the cost increase was attributed to contaminated soil found at the site and higher material disposal costs. Works commenced Feb 2016 and substantially completed in Dec 2016, as originally programmed.

B8. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents (Essential) a) Please list if applicable, each power / consent etc. already obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable), date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan.

Planning Consent for the Highway Works - all works are expected to be within the powers granted by the General Permitted Development Order 2015 Part 9 Class A. b) Please list if applicable any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc. including the timetable for obtaining them.

• Adoption as highway widening on A4 London Road and A4 Colnbrook Bypass Highways Act 1980 s38) • Conversion to shared cycle track - A4 London Road and A4 Colnbrook Bypass - (Highways Act 1980 s65) • All Sites - Traffic Regulation Orders (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) • All Sites - Traffic Management Act

Timescales vary, but all of the above will be in place before formal approval of schemes – expected to be in place by May 2018.

B9. Management Case – Governance (Essential)

Please name those who will be responsible for delivering the project, their roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and responsibilities, and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here.

SBC will operate the scheme design and construction and monitoring utilising a governance structure as shown in the organogram below.

At the head of the structure is the Cabinet Member for Transport and Highways with ultimate authority over the implementation of transport schemes with the assistance of the Project Board. The leadership team will be responsible for ensuring the scheme follows the identified programme and will maintain the operation of the project delivery team.

This method of governance has recently been effective in delivering the £12.5m Heart of Slough Scheme.

14 B10. Management Case - Risk Management (Essential)

All projects will be expected to undertake a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a risk register should be included. Both should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the project. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed that outlines how risks will be managed.

Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.

Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Yes No

Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid? Yes No

See Appendix B10 for the Risk Register (including QRA) and Risk Management Strategy.

Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable) with a limit of 50 words for each: a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?

The risk budget is £988k in 2016 prices, reflecting c17% of the total base year cost. The scheme’s risk allowance has been quantified through producing a range of likely risk costs, with the most likely cost multiplied by the likelihood of each risk occurring. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?

The SBC Project Board will hold monthly meetings at which expenditure, progress and risk will be reported. Where there are identified areas potential for cost overrun, measures for identifying, evaluating and mitigating for cost overruns will be actioned.

The risk register has identified several potential causes of cost overrun and attributed likelihood factors and expected costs. SBC are aware that any cost overruns must either be matched by savings in other project elements or will be dealt with through allocating other Local Authority funds.

Construction cost overruns will be dealt with via the construction contract. c) What are the main risks to project timescales and what impact this will have on cost?

At this stage, the main risks to project timescales and potential impacts on costs are considered to be: Acquisition of third party land, in the event that road widening proposals could not be accommodated within the public highway boundary: likely to have relatively low impacts on costs since, given the existing highway boundaries within the scheme area, the potential land- take requirements would be minimal, if any; Diversion of statutory undertakers (utilities) apparatus: potential large impacts on costs, but reasonable risk allowances have been included in the current budget and full C3 searches during preliminary design should mitigate this risk as design progresses; Delays during procurement: potential large impacts on costs if delays lead to loss of funding. SBC intends to follow their normal procurement process.

15 B11. Management Case - Stakeholder Management (Essential)

The bid should demonstrate that the key stakeholders and their interests have been identified and considered as appropriate. These could include other local authorities, the Highways England, statutory consultees, landowners, transport operators, local residents, utilities companies etc. This is particularly important in respect of any bids related to structures that may require support of Network Rail and, possibly, train operating company(ies). a) Please provide a summary in no more than 100 words of your strategy for managing stakeholders, with details of the key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests.

Stakeholders will be managed via a bi-monthly working group established to steer the programme. This approach has worked well on other projects locally, for example the Burnham Station Traffic Scheme.

Key stakeholders for the scheme include the LEP, Chamber of Commerce, local businesses including Telefonica UK, Royal Mail (HWDC) & Travelport; First Beeline Buses, Wexham Park Hospital, East Berkshire College, Heathrow Airport Limited, and Slough Urban Renewal / Morgan Sindall. Interests of stakeholders centre around mitigating congestion locally while maintaining the attractiveness and appeal of the area as a place to do business, plus consideration of complementary projects and schemes.

Letters of support are included in Appendix B11. b) Can the project be considered as controversial in any way? Yes No If yes, please provide a brief summary in no more than 100 words N/A c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the project?

Yes No

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words) N/A d) For large projects only please also provide a Stakeholder Analysis and append this to your application.

Has a Stakeholder Analysis been appended? Yes No N/A e) For large projects only please provide a Communications Plan with details of the level of engagement required (depending on their interests and influence), and a description of how and by what means they will be engaged with.

Has a Communications Plan been appended? Yes No N/A

B12. Management Case – Local MP support (Desirable) e) Does this proposal have the support of the local MP(s);

Name of MP(s) and Constituency 1 Adam Afriyie MP (Windsor, covering Colnbrook with Poyle Ward) Yes No 16

2 Tan Dhesi MP (Slough) Yes No

B13. Management Case - Assurance (Essential)

We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place.

Additionally, for large projects please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details of planned health checks or gateway reviews.

N/A

SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C2. Please set out, in no more than 100 words, how you plan to measure and report on the benefits of this project, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the project.

The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (see Appendix C2) will be undertaken in three stages: Pre- Construction Study; One Year Post Opening Process Evaluation and Five Year Post Opening Impact Evaluation Study. The Process Evaluation Study aims to identify the extent that objectives were met and lessons learnt, and will include interviews with key project officers. The Impact Evaluation will use accident data, traffic flows, mode choice surveys and local socio- economic and economic metrics to determine any unique contribution of the scheme. Actual outturn costs and movement data will be used to generate a new BCR to determine the Value for Money.

A fuller evaluation for large projects may also be required depending on their size and type.