Local Pinch Point Fund Application Form

Guidance on the Application Process is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/series/local-pinch-point- fund

Please include the Checklist with your completed application form.

The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, for a small scheme we would suggest around 25-35 pages including annexes would be appropriate.

One application form should be completed per project.

Applicant Information

Local authority name(s)*: Stoke-on-Trent City Council

*If the bid is a joint proposal, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority

Bid Manager Name and position: Malcolm Newman, Programme Manager, University Quarter, City Renewal Directorate, Stoke- on-Trent City Council

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

Malcolm Newman, Programme Manager, University Quarter, City Renewal Directorate, Stoke- on-Trent City Council

Contact telephone number: 01782 236518 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: Civic Centre Glebe Street Stoke-on-Trent ST4 1RN

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: www. stoke.gov.uk/ltp

SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name: Station Gateway (Phase Two)

A2. Headline description:

Please enter a brief description of the proposed scheme (in no more than 100 words)

The Station Gateway (Phase Two) project will provide new traffic management measures and public realm improvements around Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station, to improve connectivity between the railway station and Stoke-on-Trent city centre. The area currently suffers from queuing and congestion due to conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, buses, taxis, delivery vehicles, short-stay parking, hotel access and through traffic. The scheme will rationalise the road layout and deliver an improved public realm in Winton Square and along Station Road, to provide an enhanced gateway to the City.

A3. Geographical area:

Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 100 words)

The area covered by the bid includes Winton Square and the section of Station Road between Winton Square, outside Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station and the station’s taxi rank to the west of the square. The location of the area is shown on the plans in Annex 1 and 2.

OS Grid Reference: SJ 87963 45661 Postcode: ST4 2AA

Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc.

A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box):

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

Note: Scheme and Structure Maintenance bids will be assessed using the same criteria.

A5. Equality Analysis

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

The station area is centrally located within the city and therefore has a wide appeal and access to diverse groups of people. The project has a set of guiding principles regarding the role and function of the road and square. This takes into account the need to ensure 2 equality and diversity principles are applied i.e., the project will be designed to be safe for vulnerable road users through the design of crossing places and the provision of off- carriageway facilities.

A6. Partnership bodies

Please provide details of the partnership bodies (if any) you plan to work within the design and delivery of the proposed scheme. This should include a short description of the role and responsibilities of the partnership bodies (which may include Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) with confirmatory evidence of their willingness to participate in delivering the bid proposals.

University Quarter (UniQ) Partnership This is a regeneration partnership involving Stafffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent College, the City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College and Stoke-on-Trent City Council. It is a £280m education led regeneration programme that utilises investment in educational facilities to act as a catalyst to deliver long term, sustainable regeneration in a key location between the City Centre and its railway station. £110m has been invested in new and improved education facilities around Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station and along College Road (University Way) over the last three years and acts as a gateway to education as well as a physical gateway to the City and North Staffordshire. The Station Gateway is a key project in the programme. The Partnership, through its Steering Group, is responsible for the development, implementation, and co-ordination of activities within the University Quarter. See www.uniq-stoke.org.uk A letter of support from Paul Richards, Chairman of the University Quarter Steering Group and Deputy Vice Chancellor of Staffordshire University is included as Annex 7 to this submission.

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

A letter of support from the LEP is attached in Annex 3.

SECTION B – The Business Case

You may find the following DfT tools useful in preparing your business case:

• Transport Business Cases • Behavioural Insights Toolkit • Logic Mapping Hints and Tips

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

3 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 -

B2. The Strategic Case

This section should set out the rationale for making the investment and evidence on the strategic fit of the proposal. It should also contain an analysis of the existing transport problems, identify the barriers that are preventing growth, explain how the preferred scheme was selected and explain what the predicted impacts will be. The impact of the scheme on releasing growth potential in Enterprise Zones, key development sites and urban employment centres will be an important factor in the assessment process.

In particular please provide evidence on the following questions (where applicable): a) What is the problem that is being addressed, making specific reference to barriers to growth and why this has not been addressed previously?

Stoke-on-Trent City Council would like to see the environment around Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station and connectivity between the railway station and Stoke-on-Trent City Centre significantly improved. To that end, the Council plan to implement a project known as the Station Gateway, which will involve new traffic management measures and public realm improvements around the railway station.

The focus of the environmental improvements will be an improved public realm in Winton Square and along Station Road to the front of the railway station to eliminate the traffic congestion and enhance the existing local distinctiveness, promote a strong sense of place and develop an enhanced gateway to the City. The Station Gateway project seeks to tackle the following issues:

- Queuing and congestion around Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station/Winton Square – provides operations for pedestrians, cyclists, buses, ‘kiss and ride’ taxis, deliveries, pick-ups hotel access and through traffic of up to 10,000 vehicles a day which often conflict - Poor way finding from the station to the local and wider area - Congested footways caused by high pedestrian demand - Discomfort to bus passengers caused by raised tables - Poor pedestrian provision with cracked paving/potholes and narrow footways

Delivery of the Station Gateway scheme will represent completion of the first phase of the University Way project (previously known as the University Boulevard). To be delivered incrementally, the University Way is a priority investment for the City Council, its University Quarter Partners and the Local Enterprise Partnership, with the defining aim being to establish a direct, high quality and convenient route between Stoke-on- Trent Railway Station and Stoke-on-Trent City Centre. The route extends from the Railway Station to the proposed new £15m City Centre Bus Station, which is currently under construction and due to open to the public in early April. A University Way location plan of the route is attached in Annex 2.

4 The University Way is seen as a critical component in tackling the regeneration and economic challenges faced across North Staffordshire. The aspiration is to ensure a high quality, fast, safe and reliable route for public transport which addresses the poor environmental quality that currently exists, thereby not only improving accessibility, but also enhancing the perception of visitors and users. The University Way project will deliver a range of primary and secondary impacts, relating to transport and public realm improvement outputs alongside key economic and regeneration outcomes.

As a premier gateway to Stoke-on-Trent city centre it is essential that the competitive position and environmental quality of the corridor is improved, the potential for new employment opportunities is realised, communities within the corridor are enhanced and the wider benefits to the city captured.

There are a significant range of secondary or wider benefits to the city centre and wider corridor area as a whole, including enhancement of city centre project viability including the Central Business District, a £180m office led mixed use scheme (the first phase of which is currently under construction) and City Sentral, a £350m retail led mixed use scheme (the first phase of which is the new City Centre Bus Station). In the absence of public sector support for this project it is unlikely that any form of similar improvements to this route will be undertaken. In addition, if the project is not taken forward a range of “sub-optimal” outcomes are likely.

The University Way meets the Government’s objectives for sustainable development and complements existing investment activity, and is strongly supported by national, regional and local policy and programmes. The adopted Newcastle-Under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2009 specifically lists the University Boulevard (renamed University Way) as being crucial to increasing transport connections and promoting regeneration ‘to provide a quality strategic link between the railway station, University Quarter and City Centre’.

Stoke-on-Trent’s three major education institutions, Stoke-on-Trent College of Further Education, City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College and Staffordshire University have a partnership with Stoke-on-Trent City Council which is taking forward and delivering a major new University Quarter (UniQ) for Stoke-on-Trent. Whilst the key aim of the Station Gateway project is to improve the link between the railway station and city centre, it is also a key project within the UniQ strategy for developing new and improved facilities around the railway station.

In 2009 and 2010, the design and business case for the University Boulevard project was being developed to address the problem of poor connectivity, congestion, and the ‘tired’ physical environment between the city centre and its railway station. The preferred ‘do- minimum’ option cost then was £12.2m. £4.15m of Department for Transport funding was being prioritised for the boulevard project for 2011/12 through the previous government’s Regional Funding Allocations (RFA) process. This was withdrawn following the government’s comprehensive spend review in 2010. Advantage West Midlands were also contributing to development costs of the University Boulevard project pending the submission in 2010 of an outline funding submission. A funding application did not proceed due to the review and subsequent closure of Regional Development Agencies nationally b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected?

Three options for the Station Gateway scheme were considered:

5 - Option 1 : Leave the station area and bus services as they are (Do Nothing) - Option 2 : Rely upon the private sector (developer contributions and bus operators) to fund and deliver the planned improvements (Do Something) - Option 3 : A direct development scheme carried out by the city council (Preferred Scheme)

Option 1 : Leave the station area as it is (Do Nothing) In the absence of public sector support, it is unlikely that any form of similar improvements to this area will be undertaken as there is no commercial opportunity for the private sector to fund a scheme of this nature. There are also considerable constraints such as the disparate land ownerships in the square. This option was rejected for the following reasons:

- Reduced potential to attract higher added value investment to Stoke-on-Trent and response to evolving economic/industrial context - Continued negative perceptions of Stoke-on-Trent and lack of inward investment - Loss of further investment from UniQ partners in their estate leading to sub-optimal outcomes in the UniQ - Reduced environmental and safety aspects around the station impacting upon residential lifestyles

Option 2 : Rely upon the private sector (developer contributions and bus operators) to fund and deliver the planned improvements (Do Something) It may be possible to secure private sector funding contributions through the planning system by Section 106 contributions (or potentially Community Infrastructure Levy) from the redevelopment of local sites such as Stoke Links, and University sites such as the Cadman building, etc. However, land values in the city are presently so low that it is unlikely any local scheme brought to the market would be able to carry any additional costs to fund infrastructure works such as in this project. This has been confirmed in various masterplanning studies of local sites such as Stoke Links (goods station land adjacent to railway station). This option was rejected for the following reasons:

- Implementation of the project would be deferred, almost certainly by more than five to ten years pending the receipt of planning contributions - On-going uncertainty as to the amount of funding that could be secured, if any, through this mechanism

Option 3 : A direct development scheme carried out by the City Council (Preferred Scheme) The advantages of this option include:

- Creation of an improved gateway to the city - Improvement to visitors first impressions and perceptions of the city - Enhancement of the demand for city centre projects i.e., Central Business District - Facilitate regeneration of adjoining buildings and sites - Create the conditions for increased inward investment - Increased bus usage and reduced carbon emissions - Reduced traffic congestion - Greater control over scheme deliverability

The main disadvantage of this option is the significant levels of City Council and other public sector funding required in order to deliver the project.

6 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 key benefits/outcomes of the Station Gateway scheme are related to design, connectivity, economic regeneration, social improvements and the environment and include:

- Reduced traffic congestion outside the railway station and retail premises in College Road; - Enhancing the setting of Winton Square; - Ensuring Winton Square can fulfil a variety of functions; - Improved legibility, promoting an enhanced understanding of the order of the local area and helping people to find their way around, particularly to the city centre; - Stimulate the economic re-use and improvement of adjoining buildings; - Improve the experience of the bus user, including reduced journey times between the railway station and city centre; and - Encourage increased cycling and walking.

The delivery of the complete University Way scheme will act as a significant stimulus to wider regeneration and development projects located in the City Centre on or near to the route, raising the quality of the wider environment, transport accessibility, local investment confidence, and increasing pedestrian traffic flows, all of which will precipitate investment in the City Centre and wider area.

Upgrading University Way as an enhanced key gateway development to the City Centre will raise the accessibility to and market perception of city centre projects including the Central Business District and City Sentral, raising values through increased accessibility, connectivity and substantially improved occupier/investor perception. These are critical projects for Stoke City Centre more generally and failure to include University Way will undermine the holistic regeneration approach which is being implemented.

Projects in the University Quarter are also likely to be affected with Staffordshire University recently announcing that they are now examining the detailed feasibility through an updated estates strategy, of the potential for investing in new and improved facilities in the University Quarter to significantly grow their presence in the city. Complimentary investment in the surrounding public realm by the City Council to reduce congestion and improve the environment is key to the city securing this investment. The redevelopment of Winton Square itself, for which funding is being sought in this application, will act as a catalyst to the upgrading/refurbishment of the North Stafford Hotel and station buildings.

Of central importance will be the impact that University Way has at its northern section (on the approach to Potteries Way/City Centre Ring Road), where the acquisition of remaining properties to facilitate the preferred route alignment will open up new regeneration opportunities in and around the Boulevard. The City Council has completed a number of commercial and residential acquisitions in the area over the last four years to add to its existing freehold assets.

The development of University Way at the northern section is a critical success factor in the delivery of wider regeneration in this area. Under current development scenarios, development outputs are forecast to range as follows:

- 284 residential dwellings developed; - 93,463 sq ft (NIA) of new B1 office developed; and 7 - 6,439 sq ft (NSA) of new A1/A3 retail developed.

It is possible to utilise these figures to establish the increased productivity to the local economy, in Gross Value Added (GVA) terms, produced directly through the northern section proposals. It is projected that the proposals will result in a substantial boost to the North Staffordshire regional economy equivalent to £2,004,317 per annum. The project will lead to increased opportunities for residents within the corridor to take up employment opportunities through the development of new commercial and retail facilities at key sites at the northern end as well as allowing them better access to existing jobs in the City Centre and University Quarter area through improved public transport links 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 scope of the phase two gateway project includes the removal of the station short stay parking, the cause of significant congestion opposite the station, remodelled taxi rank to accommodate the replacement short stay parking, environmental improvements to an extended Winton Square (taking in the land currently forming the station parking), and relocation of pelican crossings to the edge of Winton Square to disperse pedestrians away from the station entrance.

The creation of a grand public plaza will emphasise a sense of arrival on exiting the station concourse. This can be achieved in conjunction with provision for reduced vehicular use. The area will be cleared of street clutter and signage rationalised with essential street furniture. The space between the station and hotel will be emphasised with a consistent, clean design approach and crisp paving details giving focus to the Wedgwood Memorial statue and the hotel entrance. A covered waiting area, with seating will be provided near the station and new seating will be located on the fringes of the main plaza space, giving opportunities for a café area and information point.

Costs previously for Winton Square/Station Road element of the £12.2m former University Boulevard project was £2.5m. Costs for the Station Gateway and larger University Way project have subsequently been significantly reduced to the new scope of works and cost plan.

The City Council has already committed £790k of funding for phase one of the Station Gateway project. Contractors Galliford Try, appointed January this year by the Council, are currently carrying out some traffic management works around the station in Station Road and the lower end of College Road as part of a larger traffic management strategy for the station area. The phase one works, shown on the plan in Annex 1 will be complete by end of March 2013. The works proposed as part of phase two will complete this traffic management strategy.

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?

Negotiations are ongoing with Network Rail and Virgin Trains (Station Operator) regarding the City Council’s acquisition of their respective freehold and leasehold interests in the current short stay station parking bays opposite the station. Both landowners welcome, in principle, the intent to rationalise the station car parking to remove the main cause of traffic congestion outside the station, and facilitate the 8 improvement of the square (see attached letters of support). Final approval from each of the bodies will be subject to obtaining ‘Station Change’ and ‘Minor Modifications’ through industry consultation and Department for Transport approval and ‘Land Disposal’ approval from the Office of Rail, Regulation (ORR).

Discussions are also ongoing with Britannia Hotels and other land owners in the square regarding the grant of licence agreements to the City Council to enable it to carry out environmental works on their land. As with Netowork Rail and Virgin, all landowners are supportive of the works planned on their land (see attached letter of support from Britannia Hotels - Annex 7).

The strategy of the City Council has been to work closely with all the land owners through the remaining detailed design stage of the gateway project to ensure that they are aware of, and endorse all stages of the work programme, ensuring though there are no significant compromises on delivering the project objectives. In this way securing the various regulatory approvals regarding the short stay station parking and agreement to take entry of land under licence in the square should be seamless.

Whilst this approach will mitigate the risk of any one land owner refusing entry onto their land, the project will be developed in such a way to ensure the planning case is not compromised should the council need to revert to the use of its compulsory purchase powers if there is a landowner(s) unwilling to co-operate with the council.

The City Council has the power to enter into the various land transactions and to carry out the works under Section 111 and 120 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Highways Act 1980 and Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011. 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)?

Anything other than the preferred option would not address the project objectives. 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 area around Stoke Station is an important historic environment and is covered by the Winton Square Conservation area. It also features a number of listed buildings including the grade 2* listed North Staffordshire Hotel and the Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station building. The Station Gateway proposals will preserve and enhance this historic environment, in line with Policy CSP2 of the Core Spatial Strategy.

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.

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

9

Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)

£000s 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total

DfT funding sought

Local Authority contribution Third Party contribution TOTAL

Table B: Cost estimates (Nominal terms)

Cost heading Cost (£000s) Date estimated Status (e.g. target price)

Station Road civil works 02/2013

Taxi rank civil works 02/2013

Winton Square civil works 02/2013

Signals 02/2013

Signing 02/2013

Lighting 02/2013

Land acquisition 02/2013

Stats diversions 02/2013

Maintenance & energy uplift 02/2013

CDM Coordinator 02/2013

Road Safety Audits 02/2013

Optimism bias 02/2013

Contingencies 02/2013

Design/supervision fees 02/2013

TOTAL

Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2014-15 financial year. 2) A minimum local contribution of 30% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required.

10 3) Costs in Table B should be presented in outturn prices and must match the total amount of funding indicated in Table A.

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

Please provide information on the following points (where applicable): 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.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council will provide all of the non-DfT funding contribution. 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 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.

Previously, £4.15m of Department for Transport funding was being prioritised for the previous University Boulevard project for 2011/12 through the previous government’s Regional Funding Allocations (RFA) process. This was withdrawn following the government’s comprehensive spend review in 2010.

Advantage West Midlands were also contributing to development costs for the University Boulevard project pending the submission in 2010 of an outline funding submission. A funding application did not proceed due to the review and subsequent closure of Regional Development Agencies nationally.

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):

11 a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?

The cost estimate includes allowances for contingencies and optimism bias. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?

A comprehensive record of scheme costs will be maintained and benchmarked against previous performance, to maintain control of costs. No third party contributions are included and Stoke-on-Trent City Council will take responsibility for any cost overruns should they occur. c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost?

Risks to project delivery timescales are identified in the Risk Register (Annex 3). The key risks are considered to be the following:

- Statutory permissions - please refer to B9(b); - Third party land issues - please refer to B2(e). 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)?

Any cost overruns will be the responsibility of Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money

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

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.

Delivery of the Station Gateway scheme will have the following positive impacts:

- Enhancement of Winton Square, the ‘front door’ of Stoke and North Staffordshire, through reduced traffic congestion, improved pedestrian and cycle facilities and high quality public realm improvements, thereby improving perceptions of the station area, University Quarter, and the city as a whole; - A reduction in crime in the immediate vicinity of the station area; - Improvement in visitor recognition that College Road is the key route to the city centre for public transport, cycling and walking; - Potential to bring forward capital spend on private sector projects in the vicinity of the Station Gateway area, creating jobs; and

12 - Refurbishment and/or environmental improvements to Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station with potential funding from the Railway Heritage Trust and the North Stafford Hotel, both Grade II* listed buildings

Delivery of the Station Gateway scheme is expected to act as a catalyst towards realisation of the full University Way project which will have the following positive impacts:

- Act as a significant stimulus to wider regeneration and development projects located on or near to the route, including a range of major employment based, infrastructure and residential regeneration projects in and around the City Centre, including the proposed City Sentral , Central Business District, and City Centre Public Realm Improvements, etc., raising values through increased accessibility, connectivity and substantially improved occupier/investor perception; - Underpin and draw together the various strands of the University Quarter (UQ); - Regeneration of the UQ North area off City Centre Ring Road and opposite the proposed Central Business District; - Improve transport connectivity and accessibility and the development of Streetcar, a major public transport project which will transform bus travel in North Staffordshire; - Revitalisation of Hanley and Cauldon Parks, two Victorian heritage parks of strategic importance with potential funding from English Heritage/Heritage Lottery Funding (HLF funding of £420k approved by HLF Board December 2012 to develop a £4.9m stage 2 bid for the £6.5m full restoration of buildings and structures in the parks); - Enhance the image of Stoke-on-Trent; - Provide an uplift in the quality of life for existing and new residents to the corridor area.

Key risks are identified in the Risk Register (Annex 3)

The risks will be owned and managed in line with the City Council’s Corporate Risk Management Policies. Measures will be adopted to mitigate risk, for example, working closely with relevant partners and, if necessary, redirecting resources to schemes within this bid. Risks will be closely monitored and managed.

* 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. b) Small project bidders should provide the following as annexes as supporting material:

- A completed Scheme Impacts Pro Forma which summarises the impact of proposals against a number of metrics relevant to the scheme objectives. It is important that bidders complete as much of this table as possible as this will be used by DfT – along with other centrally sourced data – to form an estimate of the BCR of the scheme. Not all sections of the pro forma are relevant for all types of scheme (this is indicated in the pro forma).

- A description of the sources of data and forecasts used to complete the Scheme Impacts Pro Forma. This should include descriptions of the checks that have been undertaken to verify the accuracy of data or forecasts relied upon. Further details on the minimum supporting information required are presented against each entry within the pro forma.

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

13 - A completed Appraisal Summary Table . Bidders are required to provide their assessment of all the impacts included within the table and highlight any significant Social or Distributional Impacts (SDIs). Quantitative and monetary estimates should be provided where available but are not mandatory. The level of detail provided in the table should be proportionate to the scale of expected impact with particular emphasis placed on the assessment of carbon, air quality, bus usage, sustainable modes, accessibility and road safety. The source of evidence used to assess impacts should be clearly stated within the table and (where appropriate) further details on the methods or data used to inform the assessment should be attached as notes to the table.

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

The Appraisal Summary Table is attached in Annex 4.

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

Large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m) c) Please provide a short description of your assessment of the value for money of the scheme including your estimate of the BCR. This should include:

- Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits; - A description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including (but not limited to): appraisal period, forecast years, level of optimism bias applied; and - A 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. d) Detailed evidence supporting your assessment – including a 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.

B7. The Commercial Case

This section should set out the procurement strategy that will be used to select a contractor and, importantly for this fund, set out the timescales involved in the procurement process to show that delivery can proceed quickly. 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). 14

Using the NEC3 ECC Option C form of contract, risk to the Client / Promotor would be minimised through the use of the Client / Contractor share clause. Also, risk to cost overrun and delays to programme will be reduced through the use of Early Contractor Involvement. Overall project risks during the works stage will be carefully managed through the requirement to produce, review, maintain and share a Risk Register as part of the contract documentation.

Should the Midlands Highways Alliance MSF2 framework be available for use (see below) to undertake the works within this bid document, which currently it is fully expected to be, then time savings on the project programme could be achieved by not having to undertake the full OJEU tender procurement process, thereby further reducing risk to the timely delivery of the project.

The timescales for procurement are as shown on the Project Plan (Annex 6), and which themselves could be reduced if the MSF2 contract (see below) is utilised. Under the existing MSF1 contract, the risk allocation is managed through the NEC3 ECC Option C form of contract, whereby the Client/Promoter and Contractor cost risks are shared as outlined below:-

The risk share arrangement based on the % above or below the agreed Target Costs:- - Less than 80% of target cost, the contractor’s share is 30% - From 80% to 110%, the contractor’s share is 50% - Over 110%, the contractor’s share is 100%

Hence it can be seen that the client/promotor’s financial risk above the target cost plus 10% is zero. This arrangement also helps to drive the contractor’s adherence to shortest possible timescales for delivery. This arrangement is expected to be similar to that proposed for the upcoming MSF2 contract and would also be the arrangement should the Council proceed with a stand alone works contract using the same form of contract 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.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council is a full member of the Midlands Highways Alliance, a partnership of local highway authorities and the Highways Agency which, amongst other things, enables procurement and implementation of highway maintenance, professional services and capital works through framework agreements. It is proposed to procure a contractor for the works from this framework undertaking a mini competition to ensure efficiencies and best value using a NEC contract, which operates within a collaborative culture encouraging more project focused outcomes and provides for closer working across the supply chain. 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

A copy of the letter from the Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement is attached in Annex 5.

15 *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.

B8. Management Case - Delivery

Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. 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

The Project Plan for the Station Gateway (Phase 2) scheme is attached in Annex 6. 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

All landowners/tenants of properties in Winton Square and the Hackney Carriage Association have been involved throughout the design and development process and all confirm they are supportive of the proposals, subject to clarification on matters of detail. Evidence of land owner consultation is attached in the form of supporting letters in Annex 7. 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

Estimated Date Start of works 28 th April 2014 Earthworks completion 19 th May 2014 Structures completion 23 rd June 2014 Surfacing completion 13 th October 2014 Opening date 14 th October 2014

Completion of works (if different)

16 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-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 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.

b) Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the timetable for obtaining them.

(1)Stopping Up Order - required to remodel the taxi rank to provide the capacity to provide station short-stay car parking with the taxi rank. This will be achieved by applying to the Magistrates’ Court. It takes about four months to achieve. If development of the site is required before a closure is obtained an application for a temporary traffic regulation order to close the path could be made.

To obtain the formal approval of the station operator (Virgin) and Network Rail to remove the station short-stay parking and relocate them on the remodeled taxi rank to the west of the station there are the following regulatory procedures they would need to go through:

(2) Station Change- this would need to be submitted as there would be a change to an element of the station premises. There is a 45 day consultation process for this which would be extended should any of the beneficiaries raise a query. Beneficiaries would be the other train operators that use Stoke-on-Trent Station (Cross Country, London Midland, East Midlands Trains, Northern Rail).

(3) Minor Modifications - this would be submitted by the Station Facility Operator (the owner of the West Coast Mainline Franchise - currently Virgin Trains). If required, this

17 would involve a 12 week process through the Department for Transport and the Office of Rail Regulation.

(4) ORR Land Disposal - this process would take 12 weeks and is the method of ‘releasing’ the land where the short stay spaces are currently located.

B10. Management Case – Governance

Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and responsibilities of those involved, and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here. Details around the organisation of the project including Board accountabilities, contract management arrangements, tolerances, and decision making authorities should be clearly documented and fully agreed.

A Project Board and Project Technical Group exists to oversee and drive forward the development and delivery of the current works (Station Gateway Phase One). It is proposed to extend this governance arrangement to future phases, including phase two of the project.

A Project Board, chaired by Joanne Tyzzer (Project SRO) and comprising senior responsible City Council staff will meet once a quarter and be responsible for the development and co-ordination of activities on the project, review and comment on technical work generated from the Technical Group and advise on strategic issues. A Project Technical Group will comprise of technical staff, including external advisors, and be responsible for the development, procurement and delivery of the project.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Cabinet is the corporate body establish to approve projects such as the Station Gateway/University Way. The Cabinet will be responsible for approving the implementation of the Station Gateway (Phase 2) project.

B11. Management Case - Risk Management

All schemes will be expected to undertake a thorough Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a detailed risk register should be included in the bid. The QRA should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the scheme. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed and should outline on 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

A Risk Register has been prepared for the Station gateway scheme and is attached in Annex 3.

The risks will be owned and managed in line with the City Council’s Corporate Risk Management Policies. Measures will be adopted to mitigate risk, for example, working closely with relevant partners and, if necessary, redirecting resources to schemes within this bid. Risks will be closely monitored and managed. A comprehensive record of

18 scheme costs will be maintained and benchmarked against previous performance, to maintain control of costs. No high risks have been identified and no planning consents are required to deliver the package of sustainable transport measures.

B12. Management Case - Stakeholder Management

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

All landowners/tenants of properties in Winton Square and the Hackney Carriage Association have been involved throughout the Station Gateway design and development process and all confirm they are supportive of the proposals, subject to clarification on matters of detail. 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

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words)

d) For large schemes 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 schemes 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

B13. Management Case - Assurance

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

For large schemes please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details around planned health checks or gateway reviews.

19

SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C1. Benefits Realisation

Please provide details on the profile and baseline benefits and their ownership. This should be proportionate to the size of the proposed scheme.

The success of the project will be measured against the delivery of its objectives. Each element of the success criteria will be subject to a SMART analysis, as follows.

Connectivity:

- Pedestrian movement increases along University Way by 5% over a 3 year period; - 5% increase in the use of public transport between the railway station and city centre.

Environmental:

- 5% improvement in perceptions of the station area, University Quarter, and City as a whole; - 15% more visitors recognise College Road as the key route to the City Centre for public transport, cyclist and walking and/or are better able to find their way around the local area.

Economic: - £5m capital spend on private sector projects are brought forward in the vicinity of the Station Gateway area within five years.

The baseline position has been established following the completion of vehicular and pedestrian surveys, and perception surveys all carried out October 2012.

C2. Monitoring and Evaluation

Evaluation is an essential part of scheme development and should be considered and built into the planning of a scheme from the earliest stages. Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of schemes is important to show if a scheme has been successful.

Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the benefits identified in Section C1, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the scheme

A final evaluation of the phase two project will be undertaken two years post completion of works to record the impact it has towards achieving these objectives. The evaluation strategy is to measure the impact of the project, relative to the baseline position set in October 2012. It is anticipated the scope of the evaluation will cover:

- Initial issues - a review of the current issues around the station - Policy impact - how the project has fitted in with broader policy and strategy i.e. The Council’s Mandate For Change - Achievements - what has been the progress against the initial objectives using the baseline? Has the project really made a difference to the improvement of the area?

20 has it led to further investment being secured around the station area and city centre promoting growth and jobs - Unanticipated outcomes – Have there been any unanticipated impacts, positive or negative? - Constraints – What problems did the project encounter? - Beneficiary perception – Has the project change the perception of visitors of the station area and wider city? What do they recommend could be done differently next time? What are the perceptions of the train and bus operators of the project outcomes? - Partnership – have the partnership processes worked? Are they content with the outcomes on their busniness operations? What opportunities and partnership working difficulties were encountered? - Sustainability – Are the outcomes of the project sustainable? Will improvements continue? - Value for money – Has the investmnent provided value for money compared to investments made in other similar projects? - Lessons learnt/recommendations – What are the key lessons learnt? Can recommendations be made for future phase of the project? - Best practice – What aspects of the design and delivery contributed most/least to the project’s success?

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

SECTION D: Declarations

D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for Stoke-on-Trent City Council 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: Peter Price Signed:

Position: Assistant Director Technical Services

D2. Section 151 Officer Dec laration 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 21 place and, for smaller scheme bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place Name: Signed: Peter Bates

Submission of bids:

For both small bids and large bids the deadline is 5pm, 21 February 2013

One hard copy and a CD version of each bid and supporting material should be submitted to:

Steve Berry Local Transport Funding, Growth & Delivery Division Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR

An electronic copy should also be submitted to [email protected]

22