City Centre Link Road

Local Pinch Point Fund Application Form

Scheme: City Centre Link Road Lead authority: Stoke-on-Trent City Council

SECTION A

Section / Guidance page Ref A3. Have you appended a map? pg4 N/A A6. Have you included supporting evidence of partnership bodies’ NA Para 10- willingness to participate in delivering the bid proposals? 14 A7. Have you appended a letter from the relevant LTB(s) / LEP(s) Annex B Para 10- confirming the priority of the proposed scheme? 14

SECTION B

Section / Guidance page Ref B4. Have you enclosed a letter from an independent valuer to verify NA Para 40- the market value land if land is being included as part of the non-DfT 42 contribution towards scheme costs? B4. Have you enclosed a letter confirming the commitment of external NA Para 40- sources to contribute to the cost of the scheme will be required? 42 B6. Have you provided a completed Appraisal Summary Table in a Annex E Para 35- format readable by Excel 2003? 39 B6. Have you provided a completed Scheme Impacts Pro Forma in a Annex E Para 35- format readable by Excel 2003? 39 B6. Have you provided relevant supporting material – and for large Yes N/A schemes – a WebTAG compliant bid? B7. Have you attached a joint letter from the local authority’s Section Letter Para 43- 151 Officer and Head of Procurement confirming that a procurement 45 strategy is in place that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome? B8. Has a letter been appended to demonstrate that arrangements N N/A are in place to secure the land to meet the construction milestones? B8. Has a Project Plan been appended to your bid? Y Para 43- 45 B11. Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Annex H Para 40- 42 B11. Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid? Annex H Para 40- 42

SECTION D

Section / Guidance page Ref D1. Has the SRO declaration been signed? Y N/A D2. Has the Section 151 Officer declaration been signed? Y N/A

Local Pinch Point Fund Application Form

Applicant Information

Local authority name: Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Bid Manager Name and position: Jo Tyzzer, Assistant Director, City Regeneration

Contact telephone number: 01782 236648 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: City Renewal, City of Stoke-on-Trent Civic Centre, Glebe Street Stoke-on-Trent ST4 1HH Website address for published bid: www.stoke.gov.uk/ltp

SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name

City Centre Link Road

A2. Headline description

The proposed scheme seeks to enhance an existing scheme which is part of a planning permission to provide a link road between the A50 (Waterloo Road) and the A5010 Etruria Road. The proposal will provide a dual rather than single carriageway reflecting the existing standard on the City Centre Ring Road and also fund the upgrade of the final section to Etruria Road not covered by the existing permission.

A3. Geographical area

The City Centre Link Road (CCLR) will connect to the A50 at the junction with Potteries Way (the existing dual ring road) to Etruria Road, forming a link with the recently completed ring road section which extends from Etruria Road to Cannon Street where it links to the historic ring road. This creates a complete outer ring road for the city and over the longer term will allow the city to expand traffic calming schemes and promote improved development and public realm within the City Centre.

OS Grid Reference: 388038,348070 Postcode: ST1 5DD

CCLR – consented link road which funding is sought to provide dual rather than single lane capacity

CCLR – Octagon Link and new junction

Tesco’s and new ring road section – opened in Oct 2010

Figure 1 Location Plan

A4. Type of bid

Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £1m and £5m) Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid

Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £20m) Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid

A5. Equality Analysis 4

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

The Equality Impact Assessment has been produced in Annex A.

A6. Partnership bodies

N/A

A7. Local Enterprise Partnership / Local Transport Body Involvement

It would be beneficial (though not essential) if the relevant LEP or LTB (or shadow(s)) have considered the bid and, if necessary, prioritised it against other bids from the same area. If possible, please include a letter from the LEP / LTB confirming their support and, if more than one bid is being submitted from the area, the priority ranking in order of growth significance.

Have you appended a letter from the LEP / LTB to support this case? Yes No

5 SECTION B – The Business Case

B1. The Scheme - Summary

Please select what the scheme is trying to achieve (this will need to be supported by evidence in the Business Case). Please select all categories that apply.

Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create housing Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create jobs Improve access to urban employment centres Improve access to Enterprise Zones Maintain accessibility by addressing the condition of structures Ease congestion / bottlenecks Other(s), Please specify -

Refer to Annex C for detailed scheme information

B2. The Strategic Case a) What is the problem that is being addressed, making specific reference to barriers to growth and why this has not been addressed previously? The scheme provides an enhancement to a link road already conditioned as part of an approved planning consent in addition to securing the completion of the ring road to Etruria Road.

The ring road scheme consented, though providing sufficient capacity for the proposed development and some additional growth; does not provide sufficient capacity to secure the long term future of this area of the city and hence funding to provide a route to dual standard is being sought.

The link element of the proposal extends from the existing consented scheme through the Octagon Retail Park to Etruria Road and includes for a new filter lane off Etruria Road into the link road in addition to a fully signalised junction. This element of the proposal is referred to as the Octogon Link throughout the remaining text. See Figure 1.

b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected? Two further options have been considered: • Wide single lane carriageway with Octagon Link • Single lane carriageway as consented with Octagon Link

The table below indicates the reason why these approaches have been dismissed. Option Reason for dismissal Wide single lane carriageway with Octagon Land purchase without a plan for realising Link the benefit – this option requires similar additional land take to the dual option but without providing any benefit to local businesses or the City Council – would be difficult to justify purchase Cost – similar costs would be incurred to those expected under a dualled option but 6 without the benefits. Single lane carriageway (as consented) Limited future capacity/flexibility – the area with Octagon Link to the west of the city currently contains a number of large scale factory sites; the consented scheme whilst allowing for some additional employment in the area has limited scope for changes in development massing in the area – such as intensification of the existing uses or changes in the employment types in the area, such as increases in office/retail provision. Limited forward PT potential – in keeping with the above concern a single lane section would not allow further increases in public transport provision in the vicinity of proposed developments; dualling would provide a potential opportunity to provide bus priority through the area as land uses change.

c) What are the expected benefits / outcomes? For example, job creation, housing numbers and GVA and the basis on which these have been estimated.

The expected benefits of the scheme include increased capacity of the network which would allow the future intensification of use in the west of the city. Increased network resilience of the route in the event of disruption on Potteries Way or on city centre roads. Provides the opportunity to create improved public realm within the city centre in particular, Marsh Street, York Street and Hope Street.

. d) What is the project’s scope and is there potential to reduce costs and still achieve the desired outcomes? For example, using value engineering.

The projects scope is limited to providing the Octagon Link and enhancing the current consented route to dualling. This will require land purchase along the proposed alignment. It may be possible to design the route to reduce the land take by positioning the Etruria junction with the Octagon Link more closely within existing highway land.

e) Are there are any related activities, that if not successfully concluded would mean the full economic benefits of the scheme may not be realised. For example, this could relate to land acquisition, other transport interventions being required or a need for additional consents?

The dualling element of the scheme would not be viable should the developer not complete or be willing to contribute an equivalent sum towards the delivery of the consented scheme. For the purpose of this bid the scheme costs of the consented link road section have been estimated; further details of this are included in the risk section.

f) What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed scheme)? 7 The consented scheme would be delivered (or a suitable variant subject to the developer seeking to vary the existing condition) this would remain as a single carriageway section and the City Council would seek funding to secure delivery of the Octagon Link. The developer may also let the existing consent lapse for the site in which case there would be a significant delay to the provision of the link road.

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

The City of Stoke-on-Trent has designated the whole of the urban area as an AQMA. There are known areas of poor air quality near to the site, particularly at Cobridge junction (where the A53 crosses the A50). The proposals are expected to have a positive overall effect on air quality within the city through reductions in traffic queues through the city centre and potentially at Cobridge.

B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs

Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum contribution.

8 B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding

a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme promoter. If the scheme improves transport links to a new development, we would expect to see a significant contribution from the developer. Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available.

The proposal is linked to the delivery of a planning condition associated with the development of a large site in the west which will deliver a single carriageway link road to access the site. We have provided an estimate of the costs of delivering the consented scheme. The extant permission of the link road and associated site will lapse in March this year.

b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the body’s commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk.

Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case? Yes No N/A The commitment is currently linked to the overall planning consent.

c) The Department may accept the provision of land in the local contribution towards scheme costs. Please provide evidence in the form of a letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land.

Have you appended a letter to support this case? Yes No N/A

d) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection. There have not been any previous bids in relation to this proposal.

B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks associated with the scheme (you should refer to the Risk Register / QRA – see Section B11).

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.

Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable):

a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost? The greatest project risk is the single carriageway scheme not getting underway within the timescales. While the proposals can be front loaded to reduce the risk of underspend; failure to get the main carriageway works underway by 2014 will result in the scheme costs associated with dualling being undeliverable. The Octagon Link works could be delivered independently resulting in an underspend. The alternative is for the City Council to commence works on the project as a whole and seek to recoup costs later.

9 b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?

Cost overruns on the dualling and Octagon Link will be managed and owned by the City Council. The delivery of the single carriageway elements of the scheme are under the control of the developer/agent.

c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost?

The main risk to project delivery is the developer led scheme elements as outlined above. Should the City Council have to deliver this scheme as it is not clear whether any expenditure could be recouped.

d) How will cost overruns be shared between non-DfT funding partners (DfT funding will be capped and will not be able to fund any overruns)?

The cost overruns in relation to the consented scheme remain under the ownership of the developer/agent. The City Council would be responsible for overruns related to the enhanced elements i.e. dualling and Octagon Link. Should the consented scheme funding fall through (as a result of the develop/agent requesting variation and or refusal to deliver the scheme/lapsed permission then the City Council would then take on the responsibility for delivery of the entire scheme or return the funds provided.

B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money

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

- Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible); - A description of the key risks and uncertainties; - A short description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose. The scheme has been modelled using the North Staffordshire..... * Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to include this here if they have estimated this.

Has a Scheme 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

Impacts

The proposed dualling with the Octagon Link do not result in any significant positive or negative impacts. Though journey times and vehicle kilometres do not fall as a result of the scheme, the model indicates that the overall increases (less than 1%) in total network vehicle travel time and distance are the result of an increase in traffic on the network due to the release of suppressed demand which offsets any actual journey time savings. As expected, those developments directly served by the scheme and adjacent land-uses in the City Centre benefit the most from these reduced journey times and improved accessibility. 10

Obviously, the potentially significant benefit comes as a result of the delivery of the Link Road itself rather than the enhancements which are the subject of this bid. However, the proposed enhancements to scheme will offer greater resilience to the highway network, in terms of providing an enhanced alternative route in the event of incidents on the surrounding network, facilitate additional development and traffic growth in the area and also locking in the benefits of released capacity on the adjacent highway network through the implementation of bus priority measures and shared space initiatives within the City Centre.

Appropriate option testing has been carried out to test some of the aforementioned additional stresses on the highway network. These have included increasing the quantum of development served by the link road and investigating the effect of bus priority measures and shared space initiatives along the A5006 Broad Street/Marsh Street corridor. The results of these tests confirm that the maximum theoretical capacity of the single carriageway Link Road is approached under these conditions.

Overall, the impact of the proposal is largely neutral, the scheme provides considerable forward potential for intensification in the area and/or significant public transport priority links.

Key Risks and Uncertainties The modelling approach has been conservative and is considered robust. Wider uncertainties regarding the ability to deliver the scheme have been discussed above.

Modelling Approach The traffic forecasts produced to inform and support these benefits have been carried out using the North Staffordshire Transport Study Phase III (NSTSIII) transport model. With a 1999 base- year, traffic forecasts created to assess the impact of the City Centre Link Road were produced for AM and PM peak-hour time periods for a 2010 present year and a 2026 forecast year which is in line with the timescales of the Core Spatial Strategy. The 2010 present year model was validated by comparing observed and modelled traffic and turning flows on appropriate sections of the strategic road network adjacent to the Link Road. The flows were validated based on the criteria documented in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 12. Overall, it has been demonstrated that the NSTSIII transport is a robust platform to assess the impact and benefits of the proposed improvement.

The traffic forecasts were produced for a central growth forecast with traffic growth factors derived from TEMPRO Version 6.2 and the National Transport Model (NTM) Annual Forecasts 2009 in accordance with Section 5.4 of the Department for Transport (DfT) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.15.2 – Use of TEMPRO Data. Committed and proposed development traffic (including that associated with the Link Road) was also explicitly modelled. Furthermore, as demand for the highway network increases with time then so does the potential for an increase in the level of congestion. This increase in journey times for trip movements can therefore result in various responses including; continue to travel with greater delays experienced, re-timing of the trip to different times of the day, mode shift and trip suppression. Since significant proportions of the North Staffordshire highway network are already approaching or at capacity then the application of a traffic growth constraint technique based on the power form of the elastic demand function has been applied to reflect the effects of both suppressed and induced traffic for all of the modelled scenarios.

To assess the impact of the dualling of the City Centre Link Road then the following scenarios were modelled:

1. A 2026 Do-Minimum Scenario – this took account of all committed highway schemes 11 including the City Centre Link Road modelled as single carriageway road.

1. A 2026 Do-Something Scenario – this is as (i) but assumes a dual carriageway road for the City Centre Link Road.

The results of this modelling are shown within the Annex E; Scheme Impacts Pro-Forma and AST.

B7. The Commercial Case

a) Please provide evidence to show the risk allocation and transfer between the promoter and contractor, contract timescales and implementation timescales (this can be cross- referenced to your Risk Management Strategy).

See Risk Management Strategy Annex H

b) `What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme and how and why was this identified as the preferred procurement route? For example, if it is proposed to use existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale and scope.

Preferred route at this stage would be to procure the octagon link road as separately to the dualling element which would be procured in tandem with the developer. Procurement options would need to be discussed jointly and have not yet been agreed.

c) A procurement strategy will not need to form part of the bid documentation submitted to DfT. Instead, the Department will require the bid to include a joint letter from the local authority’s Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement confirming that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome.

Has a joint letter been appended to your bid? Yes No

*It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with confirmation of this, if required.

12 B8. Management Case - Delivery

a) A detailed project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included, covering the period from submission of the bid to scheme completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The critical path should be identifiable and any key dependencies (internal or external) should be explained. Resource requirements, task durations, contingency and float should be detailed and easily identifiable. Dependencies and interfaces should be clearly outlined and plans for management detailed.

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

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 in order 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 summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more than 5 or 6) between start and completion of works.

Table C: Construction milestones

Milestone Estimated Date Construction Start 06/01/2014 Opening 31/07/2014

For further details refer to Annex F

d) Please list any major transport schemes 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)

A50 Trentham Lakes junction The 400 acre Trentham Lakes development on the former Hem Heath Colliery has with the delivery of key infrastructure attracted investment in employment. Funded and delivered by Stoke-on-Trent Regeneration, the £7million grade separated junction completed in 2006 has provided improved access from the A50 trunk road. This has removed a constraint on the remaining sites for development and enabled the internal development roads to operate as a through route and enabled improved bus routing. Trentham Lakes is now a high quality employment led, mixed use business park with over two million sq. ft. of business space, 435 13 houses and a local centre, together with the Britannia Stadium home of Stoke City FC.

City Centre Link Road (Phase 1) In 2010 construction of the A5008 Potteries Way was completed between new junctions with the A5006 at Broad Street and A5010 Etruria Road. This high quality new dual carriageway link forms part of the City Centre ring road and was entirely funded through a Section 278 associated with the development of a new superstore in the City Centre for which the link road provides vehicle access.

B9. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents

a) Please list separately each power / consents etc obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan.

None

b) Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the timetable for obtaining them. CPO required to deliver dual sections and Octagon Link junction. Consents would be required by December 2014 at the latest.

B10. Management Case – Governance The Project is covered by the City Council’s Surety Review Process. The organogram for this scheme is attached at Annex G . The Director of City Renewal is the Project Executive supported by a Project Board. The Project Board meets at least on a monthly basis, or more frequently if required. The project manager is responsible for the day to day management of the delivery through the key programme and project disciplines of planning, resourcing, risk and issue management. As part of the delivery process the project is reviewed by the appropriate project board to ensure the project is on track to deliver. These reviews are generally in the form of board meetings where the project progress, risks, issues and changes are reviewed via the project plan, risk log, issue log and progress reports. It is the project manager’s responsibility to ensure that the appropriate project management techniques are employed to ensure that the project remains on track and that where any project issues arise, that they are brought to the attention of the Project Executive and Board so that appropriate measures taken to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. The project manager can work within tolerances of 5% cost and 2 weeks in time. These tolerances are set and reviewed by the Project Board.

B11. Management Case - Risk Management

Risk Register A risk register has been completed to indicate the key risks associated with this project. The largest single risk in the register relates to the non delivery of the consented scheme. The risk register is contained within Annex H.

14 Quantified Risk Assessment

Each of the risks has been assessed against the probability of additional costs, as explained within the Risk Register. Based on the current stage at which the scheme has been developed, it is envisaged that a number of the risks associated with planning, management and funding will be reduced significantly as the scheme progresses towards construction. The initial QRA demonstrates the number and extent of the risks involved.

Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Yes No

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

B12. Management Case - Stakeholder Management

a) Please provide a summary of your strategy for managing stakeholders, with details of the key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests.

The table below summarises our proposed approach to dealing stakeholders throughout the scheme development and delivery process. Consultation Stage Timescale Main Consultation Methods Principal Benefit Stakeholder workshops – presentations by the Project team on ‘Buy-in’. the initial proposals, followed by Early workshops aimed at achieving identification consensus on key design principals of issues and any issues. These could be undertaken through the Ward Forums. 6 Detailed design Exhibitions, brochure distribution, Ensures months project website and questionnaire design surveys – formally presenting the reflects (as scheme proposals, in an easily far as understandable form, to all affected possible) key and interested parties including issues raised statutory consultees, businesses and by the wider public. stakeholders. Consultations with residents, businesses including Legal Advertising – letter and drawings sent to all potentially affected residents and businesses outlining the Formal 4 TROs changes to TRO’s. We would also look approval of months to work consult with other TROs stakeholders such as the Fire and Police services and formally advertise the TRO proposals through on-street and newspaper notices.

15 Consultation Stage Timescale Main Consultation Methods Principal Benefit Consultations with stakeholders, businesses, landowners and residents – Individual consultations Avoids conflict 2 through meetings, letters etc, and delays Pre-Construction months providing clear information on the during construction programme including construction proposals for maintaining access and servicing provision Information on progress to stakeholders, landowners, residents and potential users Helps to maintain – information on the progress of construction support during Construction 4 months disseminated primarily through newsletters periods of and the council website. Individual disruption consultations with key stakeholders maintained where necessary

Key Stakeholder Reason Proposed approach Meeting Cycle Developer/agent To establish Regular meetings to At least monthly relationship for the discuss delivery of increased number of delivery of consented scheme and potential meetings over initial scheme. They are the procurement two month period. most critical stakeholder throughout the project Surrounding To establish link to Search existing As per standard landowners on site consultees on CPO to contacts all consultation process provide dualling and consultation to be Octagon Link official and part of CPO consultation process Current occupiers To establish Key employers on site Once during early adjacent to the relationships in such as Fuchs to be design stage, once schemes - e.g. Fuchs advance of standard contacted in order to during consultation oil consultation assess support for the and on several scheme providing occasions during political will to deliver project delivery in order to monitor disruption and contractor performance.

b) Can the scheme be considered as controversial in any way? Yes No If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words)

c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the scheme?

Yes No

B13. Management Case - Assurance We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place.

SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C1. Benefits Realisation

The purpose of benefit evaluation is to determine whether the CCLR has been successful in achieving its intended objectives and to assist in understanding the scheme’s impacts in sufficient detail to enable feedback to take place. It is proposed to produce a monitoring plan for the CCLR scheme which will clearly define the scope, context and rationale for the monitoring, set out the objectives and present the input, output and outcome monitoring, including the indicators to be used. The main components of the monitoring plan are set out below, along with the likely benefits of the scheme.

Scheme Objectives

Scheme objectives help to define the scope of the monitoring and evaluation required. The application identifies the following objectives for the evaluation of the CCLR scheme:

Objectives 1 Unlock an area to allow for further development of commercial/industrial use 2 Improve access to surrounding urban employment centre’s 3 Ease congestion / bottlenecks in surrounding area 4 Vastly improve connectivity

C2. Monitoring and Evaluation

The derivation of simple key indicators for each scheme objective aims to capture the impacts fully enough, but without waste. Therefore, the use of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time scaled) indicators as far as possible enables Stoke-on-Trent City Council to draw accurate comparisons over time.

It is important that the measurement of change can be related back to the scheme objectives and beyond that, to the overall vision for the scheme.

Monitoring of Outcomes against Scheme Objectives

Monitoring and data collection is intended to be synchronised with wider Council data collection and that this takes place at regular intervals, associated with LTP and wider planning exercises.

17 As part of the evaluation of the CCLR, three phases are intended: 1. Data collection; 2. Evaluation of collected data for technical assessment; 3. Benefit realisation.

The following key indicators will assist in evaluating the scheme outputs against its overarching objectives:

Scheme Outcome Indicator Rerouting of bus routes through CCLR Number of routes changed as a result of the scheme Reduced congestion on local highway Average delay at key junctions pinchpoints Total delay on local highway network Reduced journey times between local Journey times between local centres centres Efficient access between regional and national centres, and Enterprise Area Improved network of sustainable routes Number of cycling facilities implemented Number of pedestrian facilities implemented Number of walking trips along CCLR Number of cycling trips along CCLR Intensification of development land for Monitor planning permission queries and pre-app businesses discussions Improved reliability of journey time Number of accidents at key junctions Average delay at key junctions Improved journey quality Journey times through local junctions Improved air quality within an AQMA NO 2 levels at existing monitoring sites Increased bus patronage for local trips Number of passengers using buses that route via CCLR

The main conclusions will inform the benefit realisation. There is a close relationship between evaluation and realisation tasks, but while the former is a series of activities which may be carried out by third party observers, the latter will be integrated into the project from the start and will be reflected in the design and management of the project.

SECTION D: Declarations

D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for City Centre Link Road I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of Stoke-on-Trent City Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

I confirm that Stoke-on-Trent City Council will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Signed:

Position:

D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for Stoke-on-Trent City Council I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that Stoke-on-Trent City Council

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties - accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no DfT funding will be provided after 2014/15 - confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and, for smaller scheme bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place Name: Signed: