To: All Members of the Lancashire Local –
South Ribble
Telephone
(01772) 533464
Fax
(01772) 533465
Email
[email protected]
Your ref
Our ref
Date
CSS/LL
12th June, 2007
Dear Councillor
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
20th June, 2007
A meeting of the Lancashire Local – South Ribble will be held at St Mary’s Church
Hall, Cop Lane, Penwortham, Near Preston, at 7.00 pm on Wednesday the 20th
June, 2007. An Agenda for the meeting is enclosed.
Members are asked to consider whether they need to disclose any
personal/prejudicial interests in matters appearing on the Agenda. If a Member
requires advice on declarations of interest, he/she is advised to contact Jill
Anderson, Democratic Services (Telephone 01772 532284) or Roy Jones, County
Secretary and Solicitor’s Group (Telephone 01772 533394) in advance of the
meeting. Members of the Borough Council should take advice from officers in their
own Authority in accordance with any agreed arrangements.
Yours faithfully
I M Fisher
County Secretary and Solicitor
_______________________________________________________________________________
S P Southworth, Lancashire Local Executive Support Officer, County Secretary and
Solicitor’s Group, Office of the Chief Executive, Lancashire County Council
PO Box 78, County Hall, Preston, PR1 8XJ
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Wednesday the 20th June, 2007, at 7.00pm, in St Mary’s Church Hall, Cop Lane,
Penwortham, Near Preston
Agenda
Part 1 (Open to Press and Public)
No.
Item
1.
Appointment of Chair
Members are asked to appoint a Chair for the Municipal
Year 2007/08. In accordance with the Constitution, as set
out at Item 3, the Chair to be a Member of the County
Council.
2.
Appointment of Deputy Chair
Members are asked to appoint a Deputy Chair for the
Municipal Year 2007/08. In accordance with the
Constitution, as set out at Item 3, the Deputy Chair should
be of a different political group to the Chair and, wherever
possible, should be a Member of the Borough Council.
3.
Membership and Constitution
(Report attached)
4.
Programme of Meetings for 2007/08
(Report attached)
5.
Disclosure of Personal and Prejudicial Interests
Members are asked to consider any Personal/Prejudicial
Interests they may have to disclose to the meeting in
relation to matters under consideration on the Agenda.
6.
Minutes of the Meeting held on the 18th April, 2007
(Copy enclosed)
7.
Annual Battery Re-Cycling Awards
(Presentation)
8.
Progress on Highways Issues raised from South
Ribble Borough Council Area Committees
(Report attached)
Discharge of delegated powers
9.
Local Safety Schemes Programme 2007/08
(Report attached)
10.
Annual Allocation of Highways Funding 2007-2008
(Report attached)
11.
Lancashire Local Grant Applications
(Report attached)
-2-
12.
Local Grants Application
Longton Village Fete Committee
Action by the Secretary to Lancashire Local-South
Ribble
(Report attached)
Other issues for consideration
13.
Revision of Criteria for Provision of Residents
Parking Permit Schemes
(Report attached)
14.
Highways Special Maintenance Programme 2007/08
(Report attached)
15.
Responses to Questions from Penwortham By-Pass
Action Group
(Report attached)
16.
Small Grants to Registered Voluntary Youth Groups
and Project Grants to Young People and the
Engagement of Young People in Lancashire Local’s
(Report attached)
17.
Urgent Business
An item of urgent business may only be considered under
this heading where, by reason of special circumstances to
be recorded in the Minutes, the Chair of the meeting is of
the opinion that the item should be considered at the
meeting as a matter of urgency. Wherever possible, the
Secretary should be given advance warning of any
Member’s intention to raise a matter under this heading
18.
Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of Lancashire Local-South Ribble will
be held on Thursday the 16th August, 2007, at 7.00pm at
a venue to be arranged.
I M Fisher
County Secretary and Solicitor
County Hall
Preston
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting held at 7.00 pm on Wednesday the 18th April, 2007, at Wellfield
Business and Enterprise College, Yewlands Drive, Leyland
Minutes
Present:Lancashire County Council
County Councillor Mrs A Brown
County Councillor G Davies
County Councillor F Heyworth
County Councillor T E Sharratt
County Councillor M Tomlinson
County Councillor K A Young
South Ribble Borough Council
Councillor C Coulton
Councillor Mrs D A Gardner
Councillor Christine Harrison
Lancashire Association of Parish and Town Councils
Councillor R Mitchell
Apologies were presented on behalf of County Councillor A E Pimblett, and
Councillors Carol Chisholm, Judith England and B Yates.
Officers in Attendance
J Dickson – Head of County Welfare Rights Service, Lancashire County
Council
R Gower – County Residential Manager, Children and Young People,
Lancashire County Council
I Hornby – Highway and Environmental Management Area Manager,
Lancashire County Council
D Ledsham – Performance Development Manager, Children and Young
People, Lancashire County Council
J Mason – Assistant Head of Community and Youth Services, Children and
Young People, Lancashire County Council
R Matthews – Head of Area Committee Development, South Ribble Borough
Council
S P Southworth – Secretary to Lancashire Local-South Ribble, Lancashire
County Council
D Thompson – District Partnership Officer, Lancashire County Council
A Weir – Bus Network Manager, Lancashire County Council
A Whitlam – Public Transport Policy, Lancashire County Council
1
Members of the Public in Attendance – 3
Disclosure of Personal and Prejudicial Interests
County Councillor Mrs A Brown declared a personal interest in respect of Item
7 (Relocation of South Ribble and Chorley Welfare Rights Area Team) as a
Director of South Ribble Business Venture, the landlord of the property
occupied by the Leyland Welfare Rights Office; County Councillor G Davies
declared a personal interest in respect of Item 8 (Children Missing from Care)
as a Member of Lancashire Police Authority; and County Councillor F
Heyworth declared a personal interest in respect of Item 10 (Lancashire
Children and Young People’s Plan - Refresh) as a Member of the Board of the
Children’s Centre’s.
Minutes
98.
Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting held on the 22nd February,
2007, be confirmed and signed by the Chair.
Progress on Issues raised at Lancashire Local from South Ribble
Borough Council Area Committees
A list of current highway matters raised by the South Ribble Borough
Council’s Area Committees was presented to the Lancashire Local – South
Ribble.
Lancashire Local-South Ribble was informed that an up-date on the issues
raised would be provided to the District Partnership Officer in order that this
could be cascaded to the Area Committees and also the Members of the
Local, and a copy of that information, when available, would be appended to
the Minutes as Appendix ‘A’.
In connection with the review of A59 Improvement Works in the Western
Parishes, it was reported that a letter had been received from the Clerk to
Much Hoole Parish Council expressing concern at the lack of progress in the
completion of the design work; the carrying out of public consultation; and the
subsequent implementation of the project work.
The Highway and Environmental Management Area Manager informed the
Local that the detailed design work would be completed by the end of April,
2007, but that it could be 18 months before the works were completed.
Further queries were raised in connection with issues at Schleswig Way;
Wheelton Lane; and Stanifield Lane, which were all felt to be matters of
concern, up-dates on which were to be provided in Appendix ‘A’ to these
Minutes. The Highway and Environmental Management Area Manager
2
informed the Local, however, that staffing and resources were a major
problem for the Authority.
County Councillor Mrs A Brown presented a petition on behalf of residents of
an area of Moss Side, Leyland, who had expressed concern about the safety
of pedestrians and horseriders on Nixon Lane, and had asked for the through
route to be closed at the site of the old gates, and it was agreed that this
petition would be forwarded to the appropriate Officers for attention.
99.
Resolved: That the Report be noted.
Street Lighting Special Maintenance – 2006/2007 and 2007/2008
The Highway and Environmental Management Area Manager presented a
report detailing the street lighting special maintenance schemes being
undertaken during the current financial year, together with proposed schemes
and priorities for the 2007/2008 financial year.
It was reported that the anticipated street lighting special maintenance budget
allocation for the South Ribble area for the 2007/2008 financial year was
£119,000, with an additional capital allocation of £65,000, and the Local was
requested to consider a list of possible schemes totalling £299,000 and
confirm priorities in order that Officers could progress schemes.
In response to concerns raised at the lack of proposed schemes in the
Western Parishes and Farington areas, the Highway and Environmental
Management Area Manager reported that regular inspections of street lighting
equipment were undertaken, and recommendations were submitted by Street
Lighting Engineers subsequent to those inspections.
In response to a query, the Highway and Environmental Management Area
Manager explained that redundant lighting columns were removed as soon s
possible following the connection of the energy supply to the new columns by
United Utilities.
Concern was expressed that funding for street lighting schemes came from
several budgets, for example, Community Safety, Highways Maintenance,
Housing, etc, and it was felt that better value might be achieved from
partnership working in those areas with a view to maximising efficiency.
It was suggested that the schemes identified as High Priority in Appendix ‘B’
to the Report presented be approved in the priority order shown as part of the
2007/2008 Street Lighting Special Maintenance Programme.
100. Resolved: Lancashire Local-South Ribble agreed that the schemes
identified as High Priority in Appendix ‘B’ to the Report be approved in the
priority order shown as part of the 2007/2008 Street Lighting Special
Maintenance Programme.
3
Pedestrian Priority Programme 2007-08
The Highway and Environmental Management Area Manager informed
Lancashire Local-South Ribble that the Cabinet Member for Sustainable
Development had approved the Pedestrian Priority Programme for 2007-08
on the 8th February, 2007, and presented a report detailing the schemes in the
programme specific to the South Ribble area.
In response to a query, the Highway and Environmental Management Area
Manager informed the Local that the proposed scheme for West Paddock,
Leyland, consisted of the construction of a small length of footway outside the
Medical Centre. Concern was expressed that some form oof pedestrian
crossing was required in that area.
In response to a further query, the Highway and Environmental Management
Area Manager informed the Local that the proposed scheme for Golden Hill
Lane, Leyland, consisted of the installation of a pedestrian refuge at the top of
Chapel Brow.
In response to a further query, the Highway and Environmental Management
Area Manager informed the Local that the proposed scheme for Stanifield
Lane, Leyland, consisted of the installation of a zebra crossing, to the north
side of East Street, near to the line of shops, but that the consultation period
for the scheme was, at present, unknown.
In response to a final query, the Highway and Environmental Management
Area Manager informed the Local that the proposed contribution to the
CIVITAS project was being suggested in order to improve access facilities to
Leyland Railway Station.
It was recommended that the highest scoring schemes be implemented as
soon as possible, preferably within the 2007/08 financial year, and were ready
for detailed design work to begin. The schemes within the area pertinent to
this Lancashire Local that had attained a high enough score to be included in
the Programme and had been approved by the Cabinet Member for
Sustainable Development, were presented as Appendix ‘A’.
101.
Resolved:
Lancashire Local-South Ribble agreed that the proposed schemes for i)
contribution to CIVITAS SUCCESS Project providing improved pedestrian
facilities between Leyland Railway Station and Centurion Way Business Park;
ii) West Paddock, Leyland (footway); iii) Golden Hill Lane, Leyland,
(pedestrian refuge); and iv) Stanifield Lane, Leyland, (zebra crossing) be
designed as soon as possible within the 2007/08 financial year.
4
Walton Summit Bus Stop Upgrade
South Ribble Borough
The Public Transport Policy Officer presented a Report seeking approval for
the proposed locations of four new bus shelters at Walton Summit Road,
between Cocker Road and Brierley Road, and at Four Oaks Road, between
Cocker Road and Brierley Road. This was deemed to be a Key Decision and
had been included in the County Council’s Forward Plan.
The locations of the proposed stops were presented, and the proposed
improvements comprised raised kerb boarding areas, the provision, retention
or renewal of a bus shelter, and a 24 hour bus stop clearway. Dropped kerbs
would be installed where appropriate to assist pedestrians when crossing the
road to or from a stop.
One objection had been received, details of which were reported, together
with the response of the County Council’s Executive Director of Environment.
Lancashire Local-South Ribble was recommended to approve the proposed
location of four new bus shelters at stops 1 to 4 on the plan contained within
the Report.
102. Resolved: Lancashire Local-South Ribble approved the locations of
four new bus shelters at stops 1 to 4 at Walton Summit Road, between
Cocker Road and Brierley Road, and at Four Oaks Road, between Cocker
Road and Brierley Road, as shown on the plan contained within the Report.
Re-location of South Ribble and Chorley Welfare Rights Area Team
The Head of the County Welfare Rights Service presented a Report giving
details of the relocation of the Welfare Rights Office from Leyland to Chorley.
The reasons for the move were explained to Lancashire Local-South Ribble,
and assurances were given that there would be no loss of service as a result
of the move.
Concern was expressed that the residents of South Ribble needed to be
informed of the changes which were taking place, and what would still be
available to them. The Head of the County Welfare Rights Service
commented that the possibility of the Service having a facility within the Civic
Centre at Leyland was still under consideration; and there would also be a
Freepost facility for members of the public to take advantage of. In addition,
details of the Service would be published in a leaflet which would be widely
circulated, and would also be the subject of a press release.
It was suggested that details be circulated in the Free Press, and also in
Forward, the Borough Council’s free newspaper, which was circulated to all
homes in South Ribble three times a year.
5
Lancashire Local-South Ribble requested that a further Report be presented
once permanent arrangements for the relocation of the Service were known.
103.
Resolved:
(a) That the Report be noted; and
(b) That a further Report be presented to a future Meeting of Lancashire
Local-South Ribble once permanent arrangements for the relocation of
the South Ribble and Chorley Welfare Rights Area Team are known.
Children Missing from Care
The County Residential Manager, Children and Young People, presented a
Report detailing the progress and developments made in Lancashire with
regard to children missing from care.
It was reported that, in recent years, there had been a growing national
awareness of, and concern about, the issue of children who go missing –
missing from home in general, and from care in particular. The scale of the
problem was substantial; national figures indicated that approximately 77,000
young people go missing each year.
The picture in Lancashire reflected those statistics – in 2002, police data
indicated that they had received 9,000 Missing Persons reports each year, of
which 6,200 became formal investigations, and of those, 4,815 related to
children and young people (of whom a major proportion were looked after).
It was further reported that, over the past four years, significant progress had
been made in Lancashire towards addressing the challenges presented by
children missing from care; in particular, close partnership working between
key agencies had played a major part in enabling the issues to be tackled.
It was felt that significant progress had been made over the past four years
and much good work had been put in place. However, the problems,
challenges and risks posed by children missing from care continued to require
the sustained efforts of all concerned.
It was felt worthy of note that Agencies were now working together, gathering
much more information, and were much better placed to address any
problems. Work was now taking place between Officers of the County Council
and the Police on preventative measures.
A member of the public commented that the Joint Protocol, operational
between the County Council and the Police was excellent, as were the one’s
with Blackpool Borough Council and Blackburn-with-Darwen Borough Council,
although it was felt that the County Council’s Emergency Duty Team was
6
under-resourced, and some ‘contracted-out’ care homes did not live up to the
standard required by the Protocol.
104. Resolved: Lancashire Local-South Ribble welcomed the Report, and
endorsed the work which had been carried out.
Integrated Youth Support Service
The Assistant Head of Community and Youth Services, Directorate for
Children and Young People, presented a Report which provided an update on
progress towards the establishment of an integrated Youth Support Service in
Lancashire and the formation of a new company wholly owned by the three
Local Authorities.
A Copy of the Report is set out in the Minute Book.
Concern was expressed that, although a school would probably be the first to
identify a potential problem with a particular child, they were not statutorily
required to enrol to the Service. Although it was the intention to ensure that
schools received a proper Careers Guidance Service, it was felt that problems
may still continue.
Concern was also expressed that the Connexions Service was satisfactory if
a person wished to follow a ‘normal’ career path but, if a person wished to
follow a ‘different’ career path, there was little or no help available. The
Assistant Head of Community and Youth Services commented that it was
hoped that such issues would be addressed by the new broader service, and
that such guidance and assistance would now be available.
Lancashire Local-South Ribble noted that the new Service would judge its
performance through a series of Key Performance Indicators, which would be
monitored regularly, and requested that a further Report be presented once
those Key Performance Indicators for the South Ribble area were available.
105.
Resolved:
(a) That the Report be noted; and
(b) That a further Report be presented to a future Meeting of Lancashire
Local-South Ribble once Key Performance Indicators of the Integrated
Youth Support Service for the South Ribble area are available
Lancashire Children and Young People’s Plan – 2007 Refresh
The Performance Development Manager, Directorate for Children and Young
People, presented a report on the development of Lancashire's Children and
Young People's Plan (CYPP). It was reported that, whilst the CYPP was
intended to be a high level strategic plan, it nevertheless comprised a number
7
of local priorities, and the views of Lancashire Local-South Ribble were
sought with regard to priorities previously identified and those to be included
in the 2007 refreshed CYPP.
A Copy of the Report is set out in the Minute Book.
Lancashire Local-South Ribble noted the priorities for the Chorley, South
Ribble and West Lancashire areas presented in Appendix ‘A’ to the Report.
In response to a query as to whether there was any method of consultation
with Borough Council Officers on this matter, the Borough Council’s Head of
Area Committee Development commented that the Borough Council’s Head
of Cultural Services was aware of the Report, and had requested that the
matter be placed on the Agenda for the Borough Council’s Officers Working
Group which was due to meet within the next week.
The Chair indicated that he was content for the Borough Council’s Young
People’s Champion to consult with the Borough Council’s Head of Cultural
Services and express views on the development of the Children and Young
People’s Plan.
The Performance Development Manager indicated that any views would be
welcomed and accepted until the summer of 2007.
Lancashire Local-South Ribble accepted a letter that had been forwarded by
Angela Murphy, and agreed that this would be forwarded to the appropriate
Officers for attention.
106.
Resolved: Lancashire Local-South Ribble noted the Report.
Subsidised Bus Service Review
The Bus Network Manager presented a Report which reviewed the operation
of three services linking Preston with various parts of South Ribble, West
Lancashire and Chorley, and provided new travel opportunities and created
sustainable services which met the County Council’s financial guidelines.
It was reported that a review of these subsidised bus services was taking
place, and the County Council was putting forward proposals to revise the
network. Details of the current services, together with the new proposals,
were presented.
A copy of the Report would be sent to Parish Council’s for consultation, and
comments were sought from Lancashire Local’s in Chorley, South Ribble,
Preston and West Lancashire.
Any comments made would be made available to the County Council’s
Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development prior to his Decision Making
Session.
8
Members of Lancashire Local-South Ribble offered the following comments:Service 112: Preston – Walton Park – Sainsburys – Leyland – Wymott –
Croston
A comment was raised that, more often than not, the Service 112 was empty
– it was suggested that this was the case because the timetable was so
complicated, and the journey took so long. It was suggested that other
services needed to feed into the ‘core route’ of the service.
Service 113: Preston – Bamber Bridge – Lostock Hall – Leyland – Eccleston –
Wigan
The diversion of the service along Centurian Way was welcomed, and it was
felt that this would be used by many residents of the area.
Service 114: Preston – Bamber Bridge – Sainsburys – Clayton-le-Woods –
Chorley
No specific comments were raised regarding Service 114.
In addition to comments made regarding the specific bus services referred to
in the Report, it was felt that arrangements needed to be put in place to
publicise the service changes, but in general the Local welcomed those
changes and felt that these were examples of services which may have
previously been under threat of withdrawal being looked at in a constructive
manner.
107. Resolved: That the comments now made by Lancashire Local-South
Ribble on the three services linking Preston with various parts of South
Ribble, West Lancashire and Chorley, as detailed in the Report, be submitted
to the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development prior to
his Decision Making Session.
Physical Disability and Sensory Impairment Services in South Ribble
County Councillor Mrs A Brown presented a Report which outlined the
progress that had been made since Lancashire Local-South Ribble had
considered a Report on physical disabilities and sensory impairment services
in January, 2007. At that Meeting, it had been noted that the Vice-Chair of the
South Lancashire Physical Disability Partnership Board was from South
Ribble, and it was suggested that he meet with a small Working Group of
Lancashire Local - South Ribble, comprising of County Councillor Mrs Anne
Brown and Councillor Christine Harrison, together with the District Partnership
Officer, to discuss progress made by the Board.
The County Council’s Commissioning Manager for PDSI had felt that it was
important for the Board, which was an advisory body, with no executive
9
powers, to have access to the decision-making process and, in this
connection, it was felt that a meeting with the Working Group would help to
strengthen relationships with the Local.
That meeting had taken place on the 27th February, 2007, and included the
attendance of the Vice Chair of the Physical Disability Partnership Board
(PDPB), Mr John Coxhead, County Councillor Mrs Brown, Councillor Miss
Harrison, the County Council’s Commissioning Manager, the District
Partnership Officer and the Assistant District Partnership Officer (who was
also a member of the County Councils PDPB). The meeting had been very
productive and had examined a wide range of opportunities that were already
available for the PDPB to become more actively involved in the local decision
making process. As a result of the meeting, the following actions had taken
place:
•
Contact had been made with the South Ribble Partnership to make it
aware of the PDPB’s desire to become involved in its work. In
particular links were being established with the five project groups and
the Equality, Diversity and Community Cohesion group. The PDPB had
also been invited to the recent Annual general meeting of the South
Ribble Partnership.
•
The opportunities afforded by South Ribble Borough Council's Area
Committee structure had also been investigated and the PDPB would
now be included on the circulation list of interested parties who were
notified of the agendas and invited to attend the meetings.
•
The PDPB would also be notified of the times and dates and agendas
of Lancashire Local-South Ribble meetings and would be invited to
attend.
•
The PDPB was interested in how it could become involved in South
Ribble’s four pilot regeneration areas and particularly the work that was
going on in relation to Leyland Town Centre. Contact had been made
with appropriate officers to ensure that they could be included in the
consultation process and offer their valuable advice.
•
The issue about whether or not the PDPB could become a consultee
on planning applications to provide a physical disability perspective
was still under investigation.
A further meeting was planned in due to course to investigate further
opportunities.
108. Resolved: Lancashire Local-South Ribble noted the progress made to
date by the Physical Disability Partnership Board.
10
Responses to Questions from Penwortham By-Pass Action Group
Lancashire Local-South Ribble was informed that, further to the matters
previously raised by the Penwortham By-Pass Action Group, a Meeting of the
Task Group formed by the Local, comprising County Councillor A E Pimblett
and Councillor C Coulton, together with Officers of the Environment
Directorate and the Office of the Chief Executive, met on the 6th February,
2007, to address the matters originally raised by the Action Group, together
with further supplementary questions put forward by the Action Group.
The results of the findings of the Task Group had been sent to members of
the Action Group on the 8th March, 2007, and, subsequently, the Task Group
had met with members of the Action Group on the 14th March, 2007. At that
meeting, the Action Group felt that a number of issues still had not been
satisfactorily resolved and, in those circumstances, the Task Group agreed to
seek further clarification on behalf of the Local from the Environment Director
on those issues, which had meant that it was not possible to bring a full and
final Report on this matter to this Meeting of the Local.
It was suggested that, once the Task Group had received further clarification
regarding the outstanding issues, one further meeting should be held between
the Task Group and members of the Action Group and, in order to complete
the task set by the Local, a full and final Report providing answers to the
questions previously presented by the Action Group would be presented to
Lancashire Local-South Ribble at their Meeting on the 20th June, 2007.
A paper was presented by Members of Penwortham By-Pass Action Group
expressing disappointment at the length of time taken to deal with the queries
previously raised; and the lack of opportunity to discuss those matters with
County Council Highways Officers. The Action Group commented that their
concerns over the A59 should also be the concern and responsibility of
County Councillors, as well as District Councillors for South Ribble, Preston,
Chorley, West Lancashire, Fylde and Ribble Valley.
109. Resolved: Lancashire Local-South Ribble noted the present position in
connection with the County Council’s responses to the matters raised by the
Penwortham By-Pass Action Group; and agreed that a full and final Report
providing answers to the questions previously presented by the Action Group
be presented to Lancashire Local-South Ribble at their Meeting on the 20th
June, 2007.
Draft Future Business Plan
The Draft Future Business Plan for Lancashire Local-South Ribble, produced
by the District Partnership Officer, which set out, as far as possible, which
issues would be addressed at which Meeting of the Local through the year,
was presented.
11
110. Resolved: Lancashire Local-South Ribble noted the production of the
Future Business Plan, and agreed the Items and Dates shown on the Draft
Future Business Plan for 2007/08.
Urgent Business
There was no Urgent Business reported.
Any Other Business
The Chair reminded Lancashire Local-South Ribble that this was the final
Meeting of the Local for the Municipal Year 2006/7, and also was the final
Meeting of the Local prior to the Borough Council Elections which would be
held on the 3rd May, 2007.
He thanked all of the Borough Council Members for their efforts and interest
during the previous four years and, in particular, wished for the Local’s
appreciation to be placed on record for the work done by Councillor Mrs
Brenda Wilson who was not seeking re-election and was stepping down as a
Councillor.
111. Resolved: That a letter be sent to all Borough Council Members of
Lancashire Local-South Ribble, thanking them for their efforts and interest
during the previous four years and, in particular, expressing appreciation for
the work done by Councillor Mrs Brenda Wilson who was not seeking reelection and was stepping down as a Councillor.
Date of Next Meeting
112. Resolved: That the next Meeting of the Lancashire Local – South
Ribble be held at 7.00 pm on Wednesday the 20th June, 2007, at St Mary’s
Church Hall, Cop Lane, Penwortham, Near Preston.
Ian Fisher
County Secretary and Solicitor
Lancashire County Council
County Hall
PRESTON
12
Appendix ‘A’
Lancashire Local-South Ribble – 18th April, 2007
AREA COMMITTEES – OUTSTANDING HIGHWAYS ISSUES
The following table shows the current highway matters raised by the Area Committees
with the County Council.
Area
Committee
Date
Raised
Western
Parishes
Higher
Penwortham
30/07/06
15/01/07
15/01/07
15/01/07
Penwortham
South
Central
25/01/07
Issue Raised
Review of A59
improvement works.
Review of A59
improvement works.
Additional footpath
outside Booths on
Millbrook Way.
Footpath - Newlands
Avenue to Green
Drive -erection of
giggle gaggles.
Dropped kerbs –
Carlton Drive,
Greenways and
Thorngate.
Ginnel from Liverpool
Road to Howick Park
Avenue – Drainage
problems.
Highercroft – flooding
problems.
25/01/07
Cop Lane / Windsor
Avenue poor utilities
reinstatement.
23/01/06
Moss Lane 20 mph
Scheme.
17/07/06
Stanifield Lane –
provision of
pedestrian crossing.
17/07/06
Safety review of traffic
Current position
Underway with Members’ subgroup
Underway with members’ subgroup
No funding available through
Pedestrian Priority Programme
07/08. No further investigation
required.
Not public highway. Options have
been discussed with local County
Councillor but no solutions
identified.
To be addressed with new budget
for 07/08 once major schemes &
patching programmes issued, likely
to be summer 07.
Not adopted highway but Public
Footpath. Referred to Countryside
Services for investigation during the
next spell of wet weather.
Land drainage problem for
developer to resolve, not highway.
The reported problems have been
identified as due to the Gas
Alliance’s contractors. They have
been added to the ongoing
schedule of remedial works
required by the contractors and will
be pursued until corrected.
Area Committee has decided to
proceed with scheme so no more
work to be done on this issue.
Funding achieved through
Pedestrian Priority Programme
07/08. Detailed consultations to
commence when appropriate
resources are available.
Report from Road Safety
-
29/08/06
22/01/07
West
Leyland
13/10/05
19/05/06
05/10/06
Leyland East
Review of Schleswig Way side
roads to be completed when
appropriate resources are available
All Brownedge Road road markings
now completed following surface
dressing scheme.
Under investigation (traffic issues)
Accident remedial scheme in
preparation
Legal processes to be completed
when appropriate resources are
available.
Review of Schleswig Way side
roads to be completed when
appropriate resources are available
Windsor Avenue –
bollards.
To be advertised as soon as
appropriate resources are available
14/08/06
Speed and traffic
monitoring on Golden
Hill Lane and Turpin
Green Lane.
Ruskin Avenue,
Leyland – proposed
residents parking
scheme.
Severe flooding
Hough Lane/Thurston
Road
Resurfacing of St.
Mary’s Road.
To be completed when current
roadworks complete
20/11/06
29/01/07
29/01/07
Eastern
Line marking at
crossing on Avondale
Road.
Church Lane /
Croston Road –
junction safety.
Review of speeding
and traffic monitoring
on Schleswig Way.
Awaiting yellow lines
being put down on
Elmwood Avenue /
Broadfield Drive
junction.
Accesses and gates
along Schleswig Way
Partnership sent to Central
A/Comm March 2007.
14/08/06
25/09/06
Bamber
Bridge
calming schemes on
Brownedge Road and
Wheelton Lane.
Moss Lane, Farington
Moss - Access
06/10/06
29/07/06
Duddle Lane /
Brownedge Lane
junction – possible
roundabout.
Traffic issues
associated with the
Park and Ride at
Walton-le-Dale
Various traffic issues
To be advertised as soon as
appropriate resources are available
No further instances identified. No
further investigations to be
undertaken.
Design process underway with a
view to carrying out repairs later
this financial year.
Under investigation (traffic issues)
Response reported to Area
Committee for its meeting 27/2/07
Response reported to Area
10/10/06
04/01/07
17/4/07
associated with
Hennel Lane
Visibility access from
King George V
Playing Fields.
Various roads for
inclusion in future
maintenance
programme, Waltonle-Dale
Committee for its meeting 27/2/07
Response reported to Area
Committee for its meeting 27/2/07
Response reported to Area
Committee for its meeting 27/2/07
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 3
Electoral Division affected:
All in South Ribble
Membership and Constitution
(Appendix “A” refers)
Contact for further information:
S P Southworth, 01772 533464, Lancashire County Council, County Secretary and
Solicitor’s Group
Executive Summary
This Report sets out the Membership and Constitution of Lancashire Local-South
Ribble.
Decision Required
The Lancashire Local-South Ribble is asked to note the current Membership and
Constitution of Lancashire Local-South Ribble, as set out in the Report.
Background
The following Members have been appointed to serve on the Lancashire LocalSouth Ribble by the South Ribble Borough Council and Lancashire County Council:South Ribble Borough Council
Executive Member to be advised
Councillor A Best
Councillor I Edwards
Councillor A F Ogilvie
Councillor J W M Otter
Councillor J Rainsbury
Councillor Mrs M J Robinson
Councillor M J Titherington
Lancashire County Council
County Councillor Mrs A Brown
County Councillor G Davies
County Councillor H W Gore
County Councillor F Heyworth
County Councillor A E Pimblett
County Councillor T E Sharratt
County Councillor M Tomlinson
-2County Councillor K A Young
The Constitution, including the Terms of Reference, for Lancashire Local-South
Ribble is set out at Appendix “A” for information.
In particular, the Local is asked to note that, on the 24th May, 2007, the County
Council’s Full Council felt that it was appropriate to consider whether the provisions
in the Constitution for the Local’s, in relation to the appointment of Members, were
appropriate.
All Local’s have adopted the Joint Committee model of Constitution approved by the
County Council’s Full Council. The only requirements as to Membership are that a
Local should comprise all local County Councillors with electoral divisions in the
relevant district and an equivalent number of Councillors appointed by that District
Council. At least one District Council member of the Local is to be a member of that
Council’s Executive.
In order that Membership of a Local is properly representative of its locality, Full
Council was asked to consider an amendment in order to provide in the Constitution
that District Council representation should be in accordance with political balance on
that Authority.
Accordingly, Full Council agreed that the Standing Order section of the Constitution
of the Local should be amended as follows – the new wording is shown in italics:“Section 3 - Standing Orders
Membership
1.
(i)
Membership of Lancashire Local – South Ribble shall be all local
County Councillors with electoral divisions in South Ribble, and an
equivalent number of Councillors appointed by South Ribble Borough
Council. At least one South Ribble Borough Council member shall be
a member of that Council’s Executive. District Council representatives
shall be appointed in accordance with the political balance rules as
they are applied to their authority by the Local Government and
Housing Act 1989. “
Consultations
N/A
Advice
N/A
Alternative options to be considered
N/A
-3Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
N/A
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
N/A
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
Contact/Council/Tel No
Report from the Cabinet for
decision by the Full Council
23rd February, 2006
D Porter, Lancashire
County Council, 01772
533412
Urgent Business Report to
Urgency Committee
3rd April, 2006
D Porter, Lancashire
County Council, 01772
533412
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Constitution
JOINT COMMITTEE
Page
No.
Section 1 Background and Purpose
1
Section 2 Functions
(A)
General Remit
3
(B)
Delegated Powers
4
(C)
Shaping and influence
8
Section 3 Standing Orders
12
1
Section 1 – Background and Purpose
Lancashire Local – South Ribble is a Joint Committee of the County Council and
South Ribble Borough Council. The aim is to strengthen local democratic
accountability through empowering locally elected Councillors to take decisions,
shape and influence the delivery of local government services in South Ribble.
There will be a Lancashire Local in each of the 12 District areas in Lancashire.
At the outset the Lancashire Local’s remit will involve primarily County Council
services and will include a broad, general remit as well as specific services and
functions. Taken together, this should enable locally elected Councillors to exercise
a much broader influence over County Council activity in South Ribble.
Part of the overall vision for the Lancashire Locals is that they should enable local
councillors from the County Council and the South Ribble Borough Council to identify
opportunities for joint working and decision making particularly on complementary
service delivery. There has already been some consideration of joint public
information provision (e.g. One Stop Shops) as part of the pilot phase There are
more examples which could be explored, such as linking decisions about County and
District services affecting the street scene, exploring opportunities for joined up
approaches to trading standards and environmental health and joint working on
issues relating to young people. Again, local circumstances will dictate priorities, but
the enabling framework would allow such approaches to be explored.
The Local Government Act 2000 provides for a division of a local authority’s
functions into executive and non-executive. In broad terms the majority of an
Authority’s service delivery functions are ‘executive’ and are the direct responsibility
of an Authority’s Executive or Cabinet.
Non-executive functions are the
responsibility of an Authority’s Full Council including its policy framework and budget
(which it cannot delegate) and various quasi-judicial or regulatory functions such as
determining applications for licences or consents of various types.
On some services the Lancashire Local will have delegated powers to take formal
decisions on local service delivery; on others it will bring local views to bear to shape
and influence policy development and strategic decision making. Sometimes it will
do both. The range of specific functions within its remit can be added to over time. It
will also monitor service delivery and performance of all County Council services in
South Ribble.
Not all County Council service decisions/budgets can be devolved to the Lancashire
Local because some budgets:
•
are required to be passed directly by formula to self-managing services,
•
are allocated according to Lancashire-wide criteria often in response to national
requirements,
•
need to support service delivery patterns and different geographic footprints of
partner organisations outside local government;
1
•
need to be retained at the centre to support strategic service delivery to
maximise economies of scale and efficiency.
But the Lancashire Local will monitor the local impact of all County services.
Meetings of the Lancashire Local will generally be open to the press and public and
local people interested in specific agenda items will be able to have their say before
decisions are taken. But Lancashire Locals are not primarily about community
engagement. There are other more effective ways for the County and the South
Ribble Borough Council to engage with communities at local neighbourhood or
village level.
Neither is the Lancashire Local primarily about engaging locally with partners outside
local government. This is the role of the Local Strategic Partnership. But the
Lancashire Local can provide a forum for the County Council and South Ribble
Borough Council to jointly consider specific local government issues raised by the
LSP, including County and South Ribble Borough Council commitments to district
community strategies. The Chair of the LSP will have an open invitation to attend
meetings of the Lancashire Local in order to further reinforce the linkages between
the two bodies.
The remit for the Lancashire Local has been drawn up as a broad enabling
framework. All functions will be referred to all Lancashire Locals for decision or
influence as appropriate. This should provide overall consistency yet give each
Lancashire Local significant flexibility within approved County Council policies and
budgets to respond to local circumstances and priorities for activities within its remit.
It is intended that at an appropriate stage, after gaining sufficient operational
experience, a review of the Lancashire Locals throughout the County would be
undertaken.
2
Section 2 - Functions
(A)
General Remit
(1)
To express views on policy, strategy or other matters specifically referred to it
by the County Council or South Ribble Borough Council including where
appropriate the co-ordination of consultation with local stakeholders and
communities.
(2)
To explore opportunities for joint working between the County Council and the
South Ribble Borough Council on complementary service delivery where this
would bring benefits to local people.
(3)
To advise the County Council, the South Ribble Borough Council and other
public bodies as appropriate on issues of local interest or concern which are
brought to its attention by members, South Ribble Borough Councils’ area
committees, other bodies and members of the public.
(4)
The Lancashire Local will have a key role to play in helping the County
Council to respond to the Government’s increased emphasis on
neighbourhoods.
(5)
The County Council will assess the opportunities for extending the remit of the
Lancashire Local to support new policy initiatives, for example additional
youth and community services once the new “Youth Matters” agenda is
further developed, and how models of neighbourhood management and
engagement can feed into Lancashire Locals.
3
(B)
Delegated Powers
The services identified below are delegated by the County Council or South Ribble
Borough Council as indicated, for decision making by the Lancashire Local, in
accordance with the relevant legislation.
In discharging the delegated powers, the Lancashire Local must act at all times
within the approved policies, budgets and financial regulations of the Council
delegating the functions, and in accordance with Standing Orders at Section 3 of this
Constitution.
Delegated
by LCC or
SRBC
Highways
•
LCC
Budget Allocation
To exercise discretion for the provision of highway
authority functions (except winter maintenance) within an
annual countywide allocation (currently £150,000 pa) to be
apportioned to each Lancashire Local in accordance with
road lengths in their area.
•
Street lighting special maintenance schemes.
-
•
•
•
To determine the priority of street lighting special
maintenance schemes within the County Council’s
allocated budget.
LCC
Local Safety Schemes
-
To determine the priority of local safety schemes
including walking and cycling proposals where
there is more than one such scheme for the District
in an approved programme.
-
To determine specific schemes where objections or
representations have been received.
Crime reduction street lighting schemes
-
LCC
LCC
To determine the priority of crime reduction street
lighting schemes where there is more than one
such scheme in the District in the approved
programme.
Retaining Walls Strengthening Programmes
4
LCC
Delegated
by LCC or
SRBC
-
•
To approve applications for licences for pavement
cafes.
LCC
Residents parking schemes
-
•
LCC
Pavement Cafes
-
•
To determine the priority of retaining wall
strengthening schemes where there is more than
one such scheme in the District, in the approved
Strengthening Programme.
To determine specific schemes where objections or
representations have been received.
Traffic Regulation Orders/Speed Limit Orders
LCC
To approve the making of Traffic Regulation Orders and
Speed Limit Orders where objections or representations
have been received.
•
-
•
To review and determine the continuation of a
School Crossing Patrol when the current Patrol
Officer leaves the service.
LCC
Car parking
-
•
LCC
School Crossing Patrols
To determine the priority of highway measures to
be carried out from the surplus income generated
from on-street parking.
LCC
Pedestrian Crossings
-
To determine the priority for pedestrian crossings
where there is more than one in an approved
programme for the district.
-
To approve specific proposals where objections or
representations have been received.
5
•
Delegated
by LCC or
SRBC
LCC
Bus Shelters
-
•
To determine the locations of bus shelters within
the County Council’s responsibility (e.g. on Quality
Bus Routes).
LCC
20mph Zones
-
To determine the priority of 20mph zones where
there is more than one scheme in the approved
programme for the district.
-
To approve the making of schemes for such zones
where objections or representations have been
received.
LCC
Waste
•
To determine the location of household waste recycling
centres where there are viable alternative site options.
LCC
Libraries
•
To determine following consultation the pattern of library
opening hours together with other appropriate local
developments within existing resources.
LCC
Museums
•
To determine following consultation the pattern of opening
hours for the County Museums Service within existing
resources.
LCC
Youth and Community
•
To approve small grants to youth organisations previously
administered by the former District Youth and Community
Services Advisory Committee, in accordance with
guidelines issued by the County Council and Connexions
Service, following consultation with young people.
•
To determine in consultation with young people the nature
and extent of expenditure on Youth and Community
Services within existing resources and statutory
framework.
6
Delegated
by LCC or
SRBC
•
To establish mechanisms for engaging with young people,
including, for example special meetings to discuss the
allocation of local grants and to debate local youth issues
generally.
LCC
Local Grants Scheme
•
From funds made available by the County Council, to
consider for approval recommendations from County
Councillors for grants to support local groups in
accordance with criteria laid down by the County Council.
7
(C). Shaping and Influencing
The Lancashire Local will monitor service delivery and district based
performance information in relation to all County Council services. This will
enable the Lancashire Local to help influence County Council activity
generally in South Ribble.
More specifically, the following matters will be referred to the Lancashire Local
with a view to it expressing views to the County Council or South Ribble
Borough Council as appropriate.
Highways
•
Highway Authority Functions
-
•
To consider and express views on locations where it is
considered that resurfacing or reconstruction of carriageways
and/or footways should be included in future programmes of
work.
Safety Cameras
-
•
To consider and express views on all matters in relation to the
LTP, especially social inclusion matters.
Highway special maintenance schemes
-
•
To consider and express views for changes in highway
policies and standards.
Local Transport Plan
-
•
To consider and express views on matters relating to the
exercise of Highway Authority Functions within South Ribble
area, including performance monitoring, contributing to policy
development and assisting in the development of Best
Practice.
To comment on proposals for ‘community concern’ sites put
forward by the local Community Safety Partnership and the
locations for proposed fixed camera sites.
Street Scene
-
To consider and express views around rationalising the street
scene, including road signs, road markings, street furniture,
lighting, seats, bins, street cleaning, fly posting, graffiti etc, and
in
particular
to
influence
proposals
for
traffic
8
management/signing schemes.
Traffic Regulation Orders/Speed Limit Orders
•
To make suggestions for future Traffic Regulation Orders and Speed
Limit Orders.
20 mph Zones
•
To make suggestions for future 20 mph zones.
IT Public Enquiry Manager (PEM) System
•
To consider reports on the IT Public Enquiry Manager system (e.g.
highway defect faults) and express views on changes and/or
improvements.
Public Transport
•
To consider and express views on local bus networks and proposed
changes in provision (subject to statutory timescales)
•
To consider and express views on local priorities for public transport
in terms of Quality Bus Routes and subsidised bus routes.
•
To facilitate closer joint working between the County and the District
Council on sharing information and marketing in respect of public
transport.
•
To facilitate effective joint liaison arrangements linking the District
Council’s regeneration initiatives to improving access to public
transport.
•
To consider and express views on local community transport needs.
School Travel Plans
•
To review annual programmes of School Transport Plans, to monitor
progress on their implementation and encourage local schools to
pursue such plans.
Environmental Projects
To consider and express views on
-
The promotion of initiatives to improve the environment of the District,
under the Green Partnership Awards.
-
Opportunities for removing derelict, underused and neglected land
9
and to consider projects that might be supported under the Small
Sites Reclamation Programme within Reclamation and Management
of Derelict Land in Lancashire (REMADE).
-
Proposals for the after-use of major land reclamation schemes under
the Reclamation and Management of Derelict Land initiative,
managed by the North West Regional Development Agency.
Waste
•
To consider and express views on proposed sites for future waste
facilities, as part of the Lancashire Waste Management Strategy.
Countryside Service
•
To consider and express views on
-
Future Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan
-
The Public Rights of Way Network
-
The County Council’s Countryside and Recreation Policy
Adult Social Services
The Lancashire Local - South Ribble will have annual reports on the
following service areas to keep local councillors informed and provide an
opportunity to examine and influence services.
•
Partnership Boards
-
•
Learning/Disability Partnership Board.
Physical Disability/Sensory Impairment Partnership Board
Older People Partnership Board
Locality Commissioning Plans
The Commissioning Plans for each Adult Social Services client group,
i.e. mental health, learning disabilities, physical disabilities and older
people.
The annual report will contain the plans for expanding existing
services, developing new services and decommissioning services
over a three year period. Commissioning plans will be reviewed and
updated annually. The services typically commissioned are day care,
respite care, home care, rehabilitation, residential and nursing home
care, and home care support to very sheltered housing.
10
•
Supporting People
The work of the Supporting People Team on activities in South
Ribble, including performance information and information on service
development and delivery.
Adult Education
•
To consider and express views on the development of Community
learning provision, especially in areas of deprivation
Children and Young People
•
To consider and express views on
-
the development of District based links for the Every Child
Matters Agenda
-
School Organisation Reviews/School Place Planning
Museums Services
•
Local management arrangements.
Asset Management
•
To consider and express views on the development of joint County
and District Council asset management and shared facilities,
particularly one-stop shops.
Customer Access
•
To consider and express views on the development and integration of
Local Customer Access Strategies and service delivery.
Community Strategies
•
To monitor and express views on County Council actions identified in
local community strategies.
Lancashire Local Area Agreement
•
To monitor County Council performance at the District level towards
relevant targets in the Lancashire Local Area Agreement.
11
Section 3 - Standing Orders
Membership
1.
(i)
Membership of Lancashire Local – South Ribble shall be all local
County Councillors with electoral divisions in South Ribble, and an
equivalent number of Councillors appointed by South Ribble Borough
Council. At least one South Ribble Borough Council member shall be
a member of that Council’s Executive. District Council representatives
shall be appointed in accordance with the political balance rules as
they are applied to their Authority by the Local Government and
Housing Act 1989.
(ii)
A person shall cease to be a member if he/she ceases to be a member
of the County Council or a member representing an electoral division in
South Ribble, or in the case of a member of the Borough Council
ceases to be a member of that Council or resigns from the Lancashire
Local.
(iii)
Prior to the meeting, the Secretary must be notified of substitutions for
Borough Council Members made in accordance with that Council’s
normal procedures.
Parish and Town Councils
2.
(i)
Lancashire Local – South Ribble shall, in consultation with Parish and
Town Councils in its area, draw up a Protocol to ensure that Parish and
Town Councils can engage effectively with the Lancashire Local.
A copy of the protocol agreed by Lancashire Local-South Ribble
on the 13th September, 2006, is attached as Annex ‘A’.
(ii)
A representative of a Parish or Town Council may participate at
Lancashire Locals when items are discussed which are specifically
concerned with their area.
Appointment of Chair and Deputy Chair
3.
(i)
The Chair, who shall be a County Councillor, shall be elected at the
annual meeting of the Lancashire Local.
(ii)
The Deputy Chair, who shall be of a different political group to the
Chair, shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Lancashire Local
and, wherever possible, shall be a member of the South Ribble
Borough Council.
(iii)
Existing office holders are eligible for re-election.
(iv)
The Chair and Deputy Chair shall, unless he or she resigns the office
12
or ceases to be a Member of the Lancashire Local, continue in office
until a successor is appointed.
Secretary
4.
A nominated representative of the Chief Executive of the County Council shall
act as Secretary to Lancashire Local – South Ribble and shall be responsible
for preparing and circulating agendas for meetings, advising on constitutional
matters and for producing the minutes.
Meetings
5.
(i)
Meetings shall be held in public other than in the circumstances set out
in Standing Order 27.
(ii)
Meetings shall be held on a six or eight weekly cycle to be determined
along with venues, by the Lancashire Local.
(iii)
The meeting held in June each year, or if there is no scheduled
meeting that month the first meeting after June, shall be the Annual
Meeting of the Lancashire Local - South Ribble.
(iv)
The Chair or in his/her absence the Deputy Chair may call a special
meeting of the Lancashire Local - South Ribble to consider a matter
that falls within its remit but cannot await the next scheduled meeting,
provided at least 10 clear working days notice in writing is given to the
Secretary.
(v)
The Lancashire Local may prepare a protocol to facilitate the
opportunity for other members of the South Ribble Borough Council to
participate at Lancashire Locals, but not vote, when items are
discussed which are specifically concerned with their ward.
The following protocol was agreed by Lancashire Local-South Ribble
on the 10th May, 2006:That any Member of the Borough Council who is not a Member of
the Lancashire Local – South Ribble should be given the right to
speak on an item on the Agenda at the point where the item is
reached, and prior to discussion by the Lancashire Local – South
Ribble, and that the Chairman should exercise discretion as to the
time allowed for the Member to speak.
Delegated Powers
6.
The delegated powers mean those powers to be discharged by the
Lancashire Local as set out in Section 2(B) of this Constitution.
7.
The Lancashire Local – South Ribble shall discharge the delegated powers,
within the budgetary and policy framework set by the County Council in the
13
case of County functions or by the South Ribble Borough Council in the case
of its functions.
8.
When discharging the delegated powers the Lancashire Local shall take
decisions only after taking into account advice given in writing or orally from
relevant officers of the County Council or of the South Ribble Borough Council
as appropriate, including legal, financial and policy advice.
Executive and Key Executive Decisions
There are particular requirements to be met when the Lancashire Local is exercising
delegated powers in respect of executive and key executive decisions, and these are
set out below:
9.
An executive decision means a decision by the Lancashire Local that has
been delegated to it by the Executive (or Cabinet) of the County Council or of
the South Ribble Borough Council.
10.
For the purposes of provisions for key executive decisions in the Local
Government Act 2000 as reflected in paragraphs (i) to (viii) below, the
definition of a ‘key executive decision’ may vary between local authorities.
For the purposes of the Lancashire Local, a “key executive decision” shall be
as defined in the constitution of the County Council in the case of a County
Council function and the constitution of the South Ribble Borough Council in
the case of a District Council function
Consideration of Key Executive Decisions
(i)
A meeting of the Lancashire Local shall be held in public if a decision
to be made at that meeting will be a Key Executive Decision.
(ii)
A Key Executive Decision shall not be taken by the Lancashire Local
unless the report which it intends to take into consideration has been
made available for inspection by the public for five clear working days
prior to the meeting.
(iii)
Any Key Executive Decision to be taken by the Lancashire Local shall
be included in the monthly Forward Plan of the County Council or of
the South Ribble Borough Council as appropriate.
(iv)
Where the inclusion of a matter in the Forward Plan is impracticable
and the matter would be a Key Executive Decision, that decision shall
only be made where:
(a)
the Chair of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee of
the County Council or South Ribble Borough Council as
appropriate, has been informed in writing of the matter about
which the decision is to be made;
(b)
the provisions of paragraph (ii) above are complied with
14
(v)
Where the date by which an urgent Key Executive Decision must be
made makes compliance with paragraph (ii) above impracticable, the
decision shall only be made where the Chair of the relevant Overview
and Scrutiny Committee of the County Council or the South Ribble
Borough Council as appropriate, agrees that the making of the decision
is urgent and cannot reasonably be deferred.
(vi)
The Secretary shall ensure that a copy of a report referred to at
paragraph (ii) above shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, be
sent to the Chair of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee of
the County Council or of the South Ribble Borough Council as
appropriate.
(vii)
A report referred to in paragraph (ii) above shall include a list of
background papers, and the Secretary shall make available for public
inspection a copy of each of the documents on the list of background
papers.
(viii)
Where an Executive Decision by the Lancashire Local was not treated
as being a Key Executive Decision and the relevant Overview and
Scrutiny Committee of the County Council or the South Ribble Borough
Council as appropriate, is of the opinion that the decision should have
been so treated the relevant Committee may require the Lancashire
Local to submit a report to the County Council’s or the South Ribble
Borough Council’s Full Council setting out the reasons why the
Lancashire Local was of the opinion that the decision was not a Key
Executive Decision
Overview and Scrutiny
11.
Executive decisions made by the Lancashire Local are subject to scrutiny by
either the County Council’s or the South Ribble Borough Council’s relevant
Overview and Scrutiny Committee (depending on which authority delegated
the particular function), including an Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s right
under the Local Government Act 2000 to request that an Executive Decision
made but not implemented be reconsidered by the decision-taker (often
referred to as ‘call-in’).
12.
The processes and procedures for the exercise by the relevant Overview and
Scrutiny Committee of their ‘call-in’ function shall be in accordance with the
Constitutions of the County Council or the South Ribble Borough Council
depending on which Authority delegated the executive decision in question.
13.
An Overview and Scrutiny Committee shall not exercise the ‘call-in’ function in
respect of an executive decision by the Lancashire Local where that decision
has been designated by the Lancashire Local as being urgent in that any
delay in its implementation could adversely affect the efficient execution of
their responsibilities on behalf of the County Council or the South Ribble
15
Borough Council, and provided that the designation and the reasons for it are
recorded in the Minutes.
14.
Executive decisions made by the Lancashire Local shall be implemented by
the County Council or the South Ribble Borough Council as appropriate, in
accordance with their respective Constitutions.
The following general provisions apply to the consideration of all matters within the
Lancashire Local’s remit.
Chairing of Meetings
15.
In the absence of the Chair, the Deputy Chair shall preside at the meeting. In
the absence of both, the members present shall, as the first item of business,
appoint one of their number who is a member of the County Council to be
Chair of the meeting.
Access to Information
16.
Items of business may not be considered at a meeting of the Lancashire Local
unless a copy of the item has been open to inspection by members of the
public for at least five working days before the meeting (or where the meeting
is convened at shorter notice, from the time the meeting is convened).
However an item that has not been open to inspection may be considered
where, by reason of special circumstances which shall be specified in the
Minutes, the Chair of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be
considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.
Agendas and Minutes
17.
Agendas for meetings of the Lancashire Local shall be dispatched by the
Secretary five clear working days in advance of a meeting, and copies will be
made available for public inspection at the designated County and District
Council offices, libraries, other local public information points and on the
Democratic Information System on the County Council’s Website.
18.
Agendas will identify separately matters which are for decision by the
Lancashire Local under delegated powers, and which of those are executive
or non-executive decisions.
19.
The South Ribble Borough Council and any Member of the Lancashire Local
may suggest items for inclusion in the Agenda within its remit provided such
requests are received by the Secretary at least 10 clear working days in
advance of the meeting. It shall then be for the Lancashire Local to determine
whether it wishes to receive a report on the matter at a future meeting.
Where, in the opinion of the Secretary, the matter requires a more immediate
response, it shall be for the Chair and Deputy Chair to determine whether the
Lancashire Local should receive a full report at its next meeting.
16
20.
The minutes of a meeting shall be published on the Democratic Information
System as soon as is reasonably practicable, and wherever possible within
three clear working days after a meeting at which an executive decision has
been made.
Quorum
21.
The quorum for any meeting shall be a quarter of the membership (rounded
up) but not less than 4 members with at least one Member from each
authority. If there is not a quorum of Members, the meeting shall stand
adjourned for 15 minutes. If after that time there is still no quorum the
meeting shall stand adjourned until a date and time to be fixed by the Chair.
Members Code of Conduct
22.
Members are bound by the Code of Conduct of the authority which appointed
them to the Lancashire Local and should particularly observe the provisions of
their respective Codes concerning the declaration of personal and prejudicial
interests when attending meetings of Lancashire Locals.
Declaration of Neutrality
23.
A Member will be required to declare a position of neutrality when the
Lancashire Local considers formulating a recommendation which will fall to
that Member to decide upon in their capacity as a Cabinet Member of the
County Council or the South Ribble Borough Council.
24.
A declaration of neutrality will permit the Member to advise the meeting on
any policy background or other general issues that might assist discussion but
he/she shall refrain from indicating his or her intended position on the issue
and shall abstain from voting.
Voting
25.
All members are entitled to vote and voting shall be by show of hands, and in
the case of an equality of votes the Chair of the meeting shall have a second
or casting vote.
Members of the public
26.
The Lancashire Local will have the flexibility to determine what the
mechanisms should be for the public to participate at meetings including the
need to avoid undue influence by a vocal minority. Unless other mechanisms
are adopted by the Lancashire Local the following process shall be applied:A member of the public will be allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes on issues
relevant to an item on the agenda. This period for public participation will be
for 30 minutes at the beginning of the meeting, although the Chair will have
17
the discretion to extend it.
The following protocol was agreed by Lancashire Local-South Ribble on the
10th May, 2006:That if any member of the public wished to raise any matter relating to
an item on the Agenda, these should be dealt with as part of the
deliberations on each item on the Agenda.
The Lancashire Local will be requested to periodically review their
arrangements for public participation, to ensure they remain effective.
Exclusion of the Press and Public
27.
The Lancashire Local may, by resolution, exclude the press and public from a
meeting during an item of business wherever it is likely, in view of the nature
of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if
members of the public were present during that item there would be
disclosure of Exempt or Confidential information as defined by the Local
Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)
(Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000.
Urgent Business Procedure
28.
The Secretary may in consultation with the South Ribble Borough Council,
and with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Lancashire Local, deal with
matters of urgency which cannot await the next meeting and which do not in
the view of the Chair and Deputy Chair warrant a special meeting being
convened.
Sub-Committees and Working Groups
29.
The Lancashire Local may appoint
(i)
(ii)
Sub-Committees with power to act to discharge any of its functions,
provided:
-
they comprise an equal number of Members of the County
Council and of South Ribble Borough Council,
-
at least one quarter of the Sub-Committee is present at the
meeting.
Working Groups to consider specific matters and report back to a
future meeting of the Lancashire Local.
18
Conduct at Meetings
30.
The conduct of meetings and the interpretation of these Standing Orders are
at all times a matter for the Chair of the meeting whose ruling is final.
Jp/bh/ns.bh.south.ribble10.4
19
Annex ‘A’
LANCASHIRE LOCAL SOUTH RIBBLE
PARISH AND TOWN COUNCIL PROTOCOL
A
Lancashire Local South Ribble Remit and Purpose
•
The Lancashire Local South Ribble is a fully constituted Joint Committee that
can take decisions, shape, influence and monitor the policies and services of
Lancashire County Council.
•
The membership of the Lancashire Local South Ribble comprises the eight
County Councillors with Electoral Divisions in South Ribble and eight
Councillors from South Ribble Borough Council.
•
Lancashire Local – South Ribble has the discretion to determine whether or
not it wishes to invite one none voting representative to sit with the members
of the local to represent all the Town and Parish Councils in South Ribble.
The purpose of the Lancashire Local South Ribble is to help develop and maintain
vibrancy in local democracy by aiming to:
B
•
Enable South Ribble Borough Council and Lancashire County Council to work
together to improve local services.
•
Provide opportunities for local councillors from the County Council and South
Ribble Borough Council to identify areas where joint working, joint decision
making and joining up complementary service delivery can provide real
benefits to local people.
•
Further strengthen the community leadership role of local councillors.
South Ribble Parish and Town Councils
Within South Ribble there are 6 Parish Councils, and 1 Town Council. The
Lancashire Local South Ribble recognises the valuable representational and
community role played by these Councils and Meetings and is committed to ensuring
that Parish and Town Councils in the South Ribble are:
1. Kept fully informed of the Lancashire Local South Ribble’s activities and
decisions.
2. Provided with an opportunity to make comments on services and activities, within
the remit of the Lancashire Local, that affect their area.
3. Encouraged collectively to make comments to the Lancashire Local South Ribble
on matters of wider interest to Town and Parish Councils, particularly regarding
20
neighbourhood and community development.
4. Given the opportunity to contribute to the review of Lancashire Locals, especially
with regard to the future role of Town and Parish Councils on Lancashire Local
South Ribble.
C
Commitments
Lancashire Local South Ribble will:1. Ensure each Town and Parish Council within South Ribble is informed of its
meetings, this will include:i. Notification to each Town and Parish Council, via their Clerk, of the dates,
times, venues and agendas of the meetings, along with an invitation to the
Town or Parish Council Chair (or nominee) to attend.
ii. Facilitating access to agendas and minutes via the County Council’s web
site.
Who will lead on this
commitment
Secretary to the
Lancashire Local Stephen
Southworth Lancashire
County Council
Democratic Services
How will this be
delivered
Notification in writing or by
email.
When
At least five working days
before each Lancashire
Local
2. Enable South Ribble Town and Parish Councils to influence County Council
service planning and delivery by:i. Inviting members of Town or Parish Councils, specifically named in reports
being considered by the Lancashire Local South Ribble, to take part in the
discussion of that item.
ii. Providing an opportunity for Parish and Town Councils to discuss their draft
Parish Plans with the Lancashire Local.
Who will lead on this
commitment
Secretary to the
Lancashire Local Stephen
Southworth
Lancashire County Council
Democratic Services
How will this be
delivered
i)Notification in writing or
by email.
ii) Chair or other
representative of Parishes
to notify Secretary of the
Lancashire Local .
21
When
As necessary
3. Provide joint responses by South Ribble Borough Council and Lancashire
County Council to requests or issues raised by Parish and Town Councils on
services that are within the remit of the Lancashire Local.
Who will lead on this
commitment
District Partnership Officer
Harry Ballantyne
Lancashire County Council
How will this be
delivered
Liaison between members
and officers of Lancashire
County Council and South
Ribble Borough Council
When
As necessary
4. Provide the opportunity for Parish and Town Councils to better understand
County Council services planned for delivery in the locality.
Who will lead on this
commitment
Authors of reports from
service Directorates,
namely
Environment
Children and Young
People
Adult and Community
Services
How will this be
delivered
Presentations to
Lancashire Local South
Ribble
Regular reports re
District Partnership Officer Lancashire Local to South
Harry Ballantyne
Ribble LAPTAC Group
Lancashire County Council
When
At least annually.
At least every three
months or as requested.
5. Invite comment from the South Ribble Borough Council’s Parish and Town
Council Liaison Committee regarding issues and concerns that fall within the remit of
the Lancashire Local South Ribble and are of collective interest to members of that
Committee.
Who will lead on this
commitment
District Partnership Officer
Harry Ballantyne
Lancashire County Council
How will this be
delivered
Regular feedback to and
from South Ribble LATPC
meeting
22
When
At least every three
months or as requested.
6. Receive comments for the countywide review of Lancashire Locals which could be
used to examine the future role of Town and Parish Councils on the Lancashire
Local South Ribble.
Who will lead on this
commitment
District Partnership Officer
Harry Ballantyne
Lancashire County Council
How will this be
delivered
Regular feedback to and
from South Ribble LAPTC
meeting
September, 2006.
23
When
At least every three
months or as requested.
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 4
Electoral Division affected:
All in South Ribble
Programme of Meetings for 2007/08
Contact for further information:
S P Southworth, 01772 533464, Lancashire County Council, County Secretary and
Solicitor’s Group
Executive Summary
The Programme of Meetings for the Lancashire Local-South Ribble for the Municipal
Year 2007/08.
Decision Required
The Lancashire Local-South Ribble is asked to note the Programme of Meetings for
the Lancashire Local-South Ribble for the Municipal Year 2007/08.
Background
The Terms of Reference for the Lancashire Local-South Ribble (Paragraph 5(ii))
provide that the Lancashire Local-South Ribble shall meet on a six or eight weekly
cycle and at venues to be determined by the Lancashire Local.
At their Meeting on the 17th January, 2007, the Lancashire Local-South Ribble
agreed that Meetings be held at 7.00 pm on the following dates for 2007/08:Wednesday the 20th June, 2007
Thursday the 16th August, 2007
Thursday the 4th October, 2007
Thursday the 22nd November, 2007
Thursday the 17th January, 2008
Thursday the 13th March, 2008
Wednesday the 23rd April, 2008
It was also agreed that future Meetings take place at various venues throughout the
Borough, and that the District Partnership Officer be requested to identify suitable
venues in the Borough for future Meetings.
Consultations
Officers of the Borough Council and the County Council’s Policy Unit and South
Ribble’s District Partnership Officer were consulted when preparing the Programme
-2of Meetings to avoid potential conflict with existing meetings and other Lancashire
Local Meetings in other parts of Lancashire.
Advice
N/A
Alternative options to be considered
N/A
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
N/A
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
N/A
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
Contact/Council/Tel No
Full Council Proceedings
23rd February, 2006
D Porter, Lancashire
County Council, 01772
533412
Lancashire County Council
Timetable of Meetings
2007/08
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A
D Porter, Lancashire
County Council, 01772
533412
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 8
Electoral Division affected:
All in South Ribble
Progress on Highways Issues raised from South Ribble Borough Council Area
Committees
(Appendix ‘A’ refers)
Contact for further information:
S P Southworth, 01772 533464, Lancashire County Council, County Secretary and
Solicitor’s Group
Executive Summary
A list of current highway matters raised by South Ribble Borough Council Area
Committees, as set out at Appendix ‘A’.
Decision Required
Lancashire Local – South Ribble are asked to note the Report.
Background
A table of current highway issues raised by the Borough Council’s Area Committees
is attached as Appendix ‘A’.
Consultations
N/A
Advice
N/A
Alternative options to be considered
N/A
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
-2-
N/A
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
N/A
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
N/A
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A
Contact/Council/Tel No
Lancashire Local-South Ribble – 20th June, 2007
Appendix ‘A’
AREA COMMITTEES – OUTSTANDING HIGHWAYS ISSUES
The following table shows the current highway matters raised by the Area Committees
with the County Council.
Area Committee
Western Parishes
Date Raised
Issue Raised
-
Review of A59
improvement works.
Request for amendments to
the waiting restrictions on
the lay-bys on Liverpool
Road and Franklands,
Longton
Review of A59
improvement works.
Footpath - Newlands
Avenue to Green Drive erection of barriers.
Sunken kerbs – Carlton
Drive, Greenways and
Thorngate.
Ginnel from Liverpool
Road to Howick Park
Avenue – Drainage
problems.
Cop Lane / Windsor
Avenue poor utilities
reinstatement.
Stanifield Lane – provision
of pedestrian crossing.
Moss Lane, Farington Moss
Review of access to by pass
Line marking at crossing on
Avondale Road.
Church Lane / Croston
Road – junction safety.
Review of speeding and
traffic monitoring on
Schleswig Way.
Awaiting yellow lines being
put down on Elmwood
Avenue / Broadfield Drive
19/03/07
Higher Penwortham
15/01/07
15/01/07
15/01/07
Penwortham South
25/01/07
Central
17/07/06
29/08/06
22/01/07
West Leyland
13/10/05
19/05/06
05/10/06
Leyland East
14/08/06
14/08/06
25/09/06
Bamber Bridge
29/01/07
29/01/07
12/03/07
Eastern
27/02/07
junction.
Review of accesses and
gates along Schleswig Way.
Winsor Avenue – stopping
up at Church Road junction.
Speed and traffic
monitoring on Golden Hill
Lane and Turpin Green
Lane.
Ruskin Avenue, Leyland –
proposed residents parking
scheme.
Resurfacing of St. Mary’s
Road.
Duddle Lane / Brownedge
Lane junction – possible
roundabout.
Provision of Zebra / Pelican
crossings a-on Brownedge
Road and Station Road
opposite the Veterinary
Surgeon.
Repairs to footpaths on
Hennel Lane.
08/06/07
Lancashire Local - South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 9
Electoral Divisions affected:
South Ribble Rural East,
South Ribble Rural West,
Leyland South West,
Bamber Bridge and Waltonle-Dale
Local Safety Schemes Programme 2007/08
(Appendix ‘A’ refers)
Contact for further information:
Mark Hornby, 01772 534698, Lancashire County Council Environment Directorate
Executive Summary
A report on the Local Safety Schemes Programme for the financial year 2007/08,
outlining details of the criteria for inclusion and a recommended priority order for
implementation.
Decision Required
That approval be given for work to proceed on the schemes listed in Appendix ‘A’ in
Categories 1, 2 and 3 and in the priority order shown.
Background
In March, 2000, the Government set road casualty reduction targets for 2010 as
follows:
- 40% reduction in people killed or seriously injured
- 50% reduction in children killed or seriously injured
- 10% reduction in slightly injured casualties.
The County Council is committed to meeting these targets as one of the key
objectives of the Local Transport Plan. The County Council also has a statutory duty
under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to carry out studies into road traffic accidents and
take appropriate measures to prevent such accidents. The County Council's Safety
Engineering Group is part of the Environment Directorate and one of the group's key
objectives is the reduction, by means of specifically targeted engineering measures,
of traffic collisions that cause injuries or deaths.
-2The police provide detailed records of all traffic accidents resulting in injury or fatality
and this information is constantly monitored and analysed by accident investigation
staff. The analysis identifies locations on the road network with the highest
concentrations of accidents which then form the basis of an annual programme of indepth investigations. The studies look at trends, causes and contributory factors of
accidents and recommend engineering measures to specifically target the factors
identified. Measures such as improvements to signs and road markings, junction
modifications, new pedestrian crossing facilities, traffic calming schemes and 20mph
zones could be considered, depending on the type of accidents that have been
occurring.
The resulting schemes go into an annual Local Safety Schemes Programme which is
compiled by the Safety Engineering Group. The group then carry out the
management of the programme and implementation of the individual schemes.
The County Council currently has around £1 million to spend on Local Safety
Schemes each year across the whole of Lancashire.
This typically funds
construction of between 25 and 30 individual schemes, although the cost of schemes
can vary enormously depending on the type of engineering measures. With such
limited resources it is vitally important that the money is spent where it is needed
most, ie where there is a proven injury accident problem that can be tackled with
engineering measures. Some districts will therefore receive more funding for
schemes than others depending on where the identified accident problems are
located.
82 schemes were submitted and assessed for possible inclusion in the 2007/08
Local Safety Schemes Programme. In each case a design concept has been agreed
with the Traffic Police, County Council Area Staff and District Engineers (where
applicable) at the regularly held Traffic Liaison meetings. The list includes schemes
carried over from the previous year's programme that have not progressed
sufficiently to receive authorisation for construction, together with new schemes
developed in conjunction with the County Council's Area Engineers and Accident
Investigation team.
The proposed schemes are always assessed purely in terms of the potential
reduction in personal injury accidents at each location. For each scheme a
calculation is made based on the most recent five years accident data of how many
accidents are 'scheme related' and could potentially be avoided. Then the ratio of
accident cost savings versus construction cost is worked out on a first year rate of
return basis and the schemes ranked accordingly. Schemes with the highest rate of
return qualify for entry into the Local Safety Schemes Programme up to the limit of
the available financial resources, thus ensuring that the greatest casualty savings
are achieved with the money spent.
The Local Safety Schemes Programme typically contains schemes to the value of up
to three financial years' budget. This is because schemes can take up to three years
from inception to completion due to the design, audit, consultation and reporting
procedures that are required. When schemes are completed new scheme concepts
are added to the programme each year and begin the implementation process.
-3In order to give a total programme value of £3 million the cut-off threshold for
inclusion in the 2007/08 Local Safety Schemes Programme is a predicted first year
rate of return of 200% or above. This has resulted in a programme of 73 schemes,
the equivalent of two to three years' schemes for the whole of Lancashire. The
actual allocation for Local Safety Schemes from this year's Capital Programme is
£1.425 million including design costs, so almost half of the schemes in the
programme could be constructed during the 2007/08 financial year.
It should be noted that some schemes carried over from last year's programme have
a first year rate of return below the 200% cut off. This will be due to an increase in
the scheme cost from the original estimate or a reduction in the number of accidents
over the more recent five year assessment period. Although these schemes now
have a reduced value of accident saving potential, detailed design or public
consultation work is already sufficiently advanced to merit their inclusion within the
programme.
There are six schemes to a total value of £169,000 in the South Ribble district
included in the programme and these are listed in Appendix ‘A’. They are subdivided into three categories of scheme, as follows:
Category 1 – Schemes carried over from 2006/07 with design work and public
consultation already well advanced. These schemes are therefore ongoing and
likely to be constructed during 2007/08.
Category 2 – Schemes that do not require extensive design and consultation and
could potentially be constructed later in 2007/08 or in 2008/09.
Category 3 – New schemes that require substantial design and consultation work
that can be started but could not be constructed before 2008/09 at the earliest.
Schemes within each category are listed in order with priority given to those with the
greatest casualty saving potential (highest first year rate of return).
It is
recommended that this priority order of schemes be approved.
The Local will be kept up to date with progress on the schemes in the programme.
In the event of any objections to a scheme being received during the public
consultation process a separate report will be presented to the Local for
determination.
Consultations
N/A.
Advice
That approval be given for work to proceed on the schemes in the priority order
outlined in Appendix ‘A’.
-4Alternative options to be considered
N/A.
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
Financial
The schemes contained within the programme are to be funded up to a maximum of
£1.425 million from the allocation for Local Safety Schemes contained in the
Transport Capital Programme for 2007/08.
Crime and Disorder
The programme is intended to improve road safety.
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
N/A.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
File P34/2007/08
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A.
Contact/Council/Tel No
Mark Hornby/
Lancashire County Council/
01772 534698
-5-
Lancashire Local-South Ribble – 20th June, 2007
2007/08 Local Safety Schemes Programme
Ref No:
Appendix ‘A’
Accidents Accidents FYRR
1 Nov 01 - Scheme
%
31 Oct 06 Related
Location:
Description of works:
Cost:
7.166
7.167
7.160
A677 Preston New Road, Samlesbury
A59 Liverpool Road, Much Hoole
A6 London Way / B6230 Hennel Lane roundabout
Signs and road markings
Signs and road markings
Improvements to roundabout
28000
11000
20000
52
10
19
30
8
13
1505
1022
913
Category 2
7.147
7.168
7.169
B5253 Schleswig Way / Longmeanygate rbt
Cycle Facilities and warning signs/markings
B5253 Leyland Lane, Leyland sth of Schleswig Way Signs and road markings
Signs and road markings, new footway
B5253 Schleswig Way, Leyland
25000
60000
25000
15
17
12
6
13
4
337
304
225
Category 1
Category 3
No schemes
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 10
Electoral Divisions affected:
All in South Ribble
Annual Allocation of Highways Funding 2007-2008 – South Ribble
Contact for further information:
Ian Hornby, 01772 534485, Lancashire County Council, Environment Directorate
Executive Summary
Lancashire Local’s have been allocated two highways related budgets for the
financial year 2007/2008 which have been apportioned to each Local in accordance
with the road length in that District. Under delegated powers the Lancashire Local is
asked to exercise discretion in the expenditure of the allocations for their area of
responsibility.
Decision Required
Lancashire Local-South Ribble is asked to agree a programme of works for
2007/2008 to be funded by the allocations over which the Local has discretion.
Background
Under delegated powers, Lancashire Local’s are asked to exercise discretion in the
expenditure of an amount of funding under two budget heads. The Standard
Allocation Budget for the County for this financial year is £182,000 and the Additional
Highway Maintenance Budget for this financial year is £235,000. Both of these
budgets have been apportioned in accordance with the road length in the District
and, on this basis, the allocations for this financial year 2007/08 for South Ribble are
£13,200 and £17,000 respectively.
The Standard Allocation Budget is to be spent on areas of work within the highway
environment which would add value but would, under normal criteria, be of
insufficient priority to be included in a programme of works normally funded at this
time. The Additional Highway Maintenance Budget is intended for repairs or other
maintenance treatments to carriageways and footways.
The only exclusion is with respect to the Winter Service where the County Council’s
policy has been carefully formulated in accordance with national policy guidelines
and needs to retain consistency of delivery.
-2Some examples of expenditure under the Standard Allocation Budget heading are
shown below:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
Mobility crossings
Additional footway resurfacing/slurry sealing
Additional carriageway resurfacing/surface dressing
Upgrading of lighting stock, provision of lighting
Additional signing
“H” bar road markings at town centre crossing points
Sign cleaning
Painting and maintaining fencing
Improvements to verges
Kerbing verges
Highway tree maintenance
Some examples of expenditure under the Additional Highway Maintenance Budget
heading are shown below:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Additional footway repairs to blacktop / flags / block paving
Additional footway resurfacing/slurry seal
Additional carriageway repairs
Additional carriageway resurfacing/surface dressing
This allocation is revenue and as a consequence the works need to be completed in
this financial year.
Consultations
Nil.
Advice
N/A.
Alternative options to be considered
Nil.
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
This allocation is contained within the budget of the Environment Directorate and is
allocated at the discretion of the Lancashire Local under powers delegated to said
Local through the Constitution.
-3-
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
Nil
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
Constitution for Lancashire
Local’s
2006
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A.
Contact/Council/Tel No
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 11
Electoral Division affected:
South Ribble Rural West,
Penwortham South, South
Ribble Rural East, Leyland
Central, Penwortham North
Lancashire Local Grant Applications
(Appendices ‘A and B’ refer)
Contact for further information:
Sean McGrath/Misbah Bhatti, 01772 531053, Lancashire County Council, Office of
the Chief Executive
Executive Summary
This report presents 7 applications from local organisations totalling £1,700 to the
Local Grants Scheme for Lancashire Local – South Ribble. Applications have been
submitted by County Councillors Tom Sharratt, Tony Pimblett, Matthew Tomlinson,
Howard Gore and Keith Young. Appendix ‘B’ contains details of each application.
Decision Required
Lancashire Local – South Ribble is asked to consider the applications set out in
Appendix ‘B’ in light of the information presented.
Background
Local grants are made under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, which
states that “Every local authority are to have power to do anything which they
consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects:
•
•
•
the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area,
the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area, and
the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.
Lancashire County Council is committed to ensuring that the distinctive needs and
interests of small groups are taken into account as their needs may differ from those
of other larger voluntary organisations. Lancashire County Council’s Local Grants
Scheme enables each County Councillor to put forward proposals for expenditure in
their electoral division. Each County Councillor will have a specific budget which they
can spend to enhance the well-being of people who live in their area (division). For
the financial year 2007/08 each County Councillor has a budget of £1,000. With
2006/07 being the first year of operation for the Local Grants Scheme, approval has
been sought and granted by County Councillor Hazel Harding on behalf of the
-2Cabinet that any unspent and uncommitted resources from 2006/07 are carried over
to 2007/08 on the basis that they are to be committed to projects (via the normal
approval process) by the end of the 2007/08 financial year.
In recommending applications for grants, regard must be had to the County Council’s
Community Strategy, ‘Ambition Lancashire’, and County Councillors should ensure
that approved grants contribute towards the achievement/advancement/
promotion of one or more of Ambition Lancashire’s five core principles: participation,
accessibility, equality, social inclusion and sustainability.
Consultations
These applications will be presented to and considered by Lancashire Local – South
Ribble.
Advice
The applications presented meet the criteria of the Local Grants Scheme.
Alternative options to be considered
N/A
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following financial implications:
The requested amounts can be met from the respective County Councillor’s
individual local grants budget, (Appendix ‘A’ refers).
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
N/A
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
N/A
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A
Contact/Council/Tel No
Appendix ‘A’
Lancashire Local-South Ribble – County Councillor’s Current Budgets 2007/2008
County Councillor
Howard Gore
Matthew Tomlinson
Tony Pimblett
Tom Sharratt
Keith Young
Application
Penwortham Sports and
Social Club
Vernon Carcus Cricket
Club
Leyland St James Scout
Group
The Rene Sladen Centre
Gregson Lane Cricket
Club
Salmesbury Singers &
Dukes of Edinburgh
Award Scheme
Hoole United Football
Club
Requested
Amount
Carry Over from
2006/07 Budget
Budget for
2007/2008
£200
£1,000
£1,000
Remaining Budget
after application is
approved
£1,800
£400
£1,000
£1,400
£250
£800 (pending
above)
£435
£1,000
£1,185
£300
£150
zero
£350
£1,000
£1,000
£700
£1,200
£150
£200 (pending
above)
£1,000
£1,050
£250
£250
£1,000
£1,000
Appendix ‘B’
Lancashire Local–South Ribble – 20th June, 2007
Application for Hoole United Football Club
County Councillor: Keith Young
Electoral Division: South Ribble Rural West
Name of Organisation: Hoole United Football Club
Does the organisation have a constitution: No, however the club does have an
Annual General Meeting (AGM) for elections to office and have monthly committee
meetings which will be used for this purpose.
How many people are in the organisation: 5 Committee Members
What geographical area does the project cover:
South Ribble (Hoole)
Project start date: July 2007
Project finish date: August 2007
Is anyone else funding the activity: An application to The Football Foundation for
50% of the required amount (£400) has been submitted.
Will the activity involve working with children or vulnerable adults: No (All
people involved are over the age of 16)
If you answered yes to the above question are all workers cleared by the
Criminal Records Bureau: N/A
How much funding will the applicant require: £250
Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for:
The money will be used as a contribution towards new goalposts. The current
goalposts are outdated and do not meet the current British standard requirements
which were introduced in 2005. Estimated total cost is £810.
I consider this application worthwhile as a community enterprise and a
complementary contribution to, hopefully, financial support from a football funding
source.
1
Appendix ‘B’
Application for The Rene Sladen Centre For Guiding Chesmere Drive Guides &
Brownies
County Councillor: Tony Pimblett
Electoral Division: Penwortham North
Name of Organisation: The Rene Sladen Centre for Guiding Chesmere Drive
Guides & Brownies
Does the organisation have a constitution: Yes
How many people are in the organisation: Approximately 80
What geographical area does the project cover:
Penwortham
Project start date: Jun 07
Project finish date: Sep 07
Is anyone else funding the activity: Two applications have been submitted for
£200 each, decisions are currently pending. Total cost of project is estimated at
£5,750.
Will the activity involve working with children or vulnerable adults: No
If you answered yes to the above question are all workers cleared by the
Criminal Records Bureau: All our workers are cleared by CRB clearance.
How much funding will the applicant require: £300
Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for:
The roof of the Rene Sladen Centre for guiding is in need of serious repair. It was
given some attention 18 months ago however a new covering is now needed as the
recent bad weather has caused it to leak in several places.
Three estimates for the work were received. New City Roofing has been asked to
complete the work. Any assistance towards the roof for the Rene Sladen Centre will
be greatly appreciated.
2
Appendix ‘B’
Application for Leyland St James Scout Group
County Councillor: Matthew Tomlinson
Electoral Division: Leyland Central
Name of Organisation: Leyland St James Scout Group
Does the organisation have a constitution: Yes (registered charity)
How many people are in the organisation: 84
What geographical area does the project cover:
Leyland
Project start and finish date: As soon as money is granted
Is anyone else funding the activity: No
Will the activity involve working with children or vulnerable adults: Yes
If you answered yes to the above question are all workers cleared by the
Criminal Records Bureau: Yes
How much funding will the applicant require: £250
Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for:
Leyland St James Scout Group has a membership of over 84 ranging in ages from 6
to 15. The aims of the Scouting organisation are well known and I believe we are the
largest youth group in Moss Side. In addition to this we have a waiting list of over 20.
If our application is successful the monies will be used to purchase much needed
camping equipment such as safety lamps, tents, table and benches. In the past we
have relied on parents donations but the make-up of the group has changed and we
have more members from Single Parent families and families living on benefits and
they find it difficult to meet the subscription so asking them for more is out of the
question. If successful the grant would have a knock on effect of helping to keep the
next increase in subs to a minimum.
We are a registered charity, number 1058168. We respectfully apply for £250 to
purchase much needed equipment.
3
Appendix ‘B’
Application for Gregson Lane Cricket Club
County Councillor: Tom Sharratt
Electoral Division: South Ribble Rural East
Name of Organisation: Gregson Lane Cricket Club
Does the organisation have a constitution: Yes
How many people are in the organisation: 90
What geographical area does the project cover:
South Ribble Rural East
Project start date: March 2007
Project finish date: On Going
Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes
Fundraising for the project is ongoing with many activities planned over the next
couple of months. Approximately £1,000 has been raised, the total cost of the project
is estimated at £9,987.
Will the activity involve working with children or vulnerable adults: Yes
If you answered yes to the above question are all workers cleared by the
Criminal Records Bureau: Yes
How much funding will the applicant require: £150
Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for:
The main aim of the club is to encourage youngsters from Gregson Lane village and
surrounding areas to become involved with cricket so that they grow to take pride in
the cricket ground and its place in the local community. The club currently has junior
sides under 11, 13, 15, and 17 levels in the Moore and Smalley palace shield
competition. In addition two senior sides play on Saturday and another senior team
on Sunday which is selected mainly of youngsters from the under 15 & 17 age
groups and was specifically set up to give them experience of senior cricket.
Due to the increased number of games and practice sessions the amount of time
available to cut the grass on the outfield has reduced significantly. The club’s
existing mower is in a poor state of repair and is very unreliable. In attempting to
encourage youth cricket the club wants to ensure that the juniors and other club
members practice and play on a well-maintained surface which is safe and true.
There appears to be a general malaise amongst teenagers in the village with
widespread vandalism to personal and public property. Youngsters consider that
4
Appendix ‘B’
there is little to do locally and it is hoped that the clubs continued promotion of junior
cricket will give the youngsters an interest that could last a life time. Any grant
funding will be used towards the purchase of a new mower.
5
Appendix ‘B’
Application for Salmesbury Singers & Duke of Edinburgh Award Group
County Councillor: Tom Sharratt
Electoral Division: South Ribble Rural East
Name of Organisation: Salmesbury Singers & Duke of Edinburgh Award Group
Does the organisation have a constitution: No, but aims and objectives of the
group will be submitted to meet this criterion.
How many people are in the organisation: 16
What geographical area does the project cover:
Salmesbury
Project start and finish date: On Going
Is anyone else funding the activity: No
Will the activity involve working with children or vulnerable adults: Yes
If you answered yes to the above question are all workers cleared by the
Criminal Records Bureau: Yes
How much funding will the applicant require: £150
Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for:
The money will be used to purchase the following:
Cymbals £52-80
4-Man tent with large parch £50
Tenor Recorder £60
6
Appendix ‘B’
Application for Penwortham Sports & Social Club (Bowling section)
County Councillor: Howard Gore
Electoral Division: Penwortham South
Name of Organisation: Penwortham Sports & Social Club (Bowling section)
Does the organisation have a constitution: Yes
How many people are in the organisation: Approximately 100
What geographical area does the project cover:
Penwortham South
Project start date: March 07
Project finish date: October 07
Is anyone else funding the activity: No
Will the activity involve working with children or vulnerable adults: No
If you answered yes to the above question are all workers cleared by the
Criminal Records Bureau: N/A
How much funding will the applicant require: £200
Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for:
We are a club consisting mainly of old age pensioners; we do have a couple of
juniors that play who are supervised by their parents. The money will be used to
purchase 6 new blocks at £34.00 each. We would also like to have PSC engraved
on them costing £1.95 each.
Total cost= £215.70
7
Appendix ‘B’
Application for Vernon Carcus Cricket Club
County Councillor: Howard Gore
Electoral Division: Penwortham South
Name of Organisation: Vernon Carcus Cricket Club
Does the organisation have a constitution: Yes
How many people are in the organisation: 40 Senior Members and 90 Junior
Members
What geographical area does the project cover:
South Ribble (Penwortham, Hoole, Lostock Hall, Walton-le-dale)
Project start date: May 2007
Project finish date: July 2007
Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes
Cost paid by English Cricket Board is £6,000 – for professional coach. This cost will
cover the length of the project over the summer months.
Cost to be contributed by Vernon Carcus Cricket Club £1,500 (of which we are
requesting a contribution of £400 from this grant)
TOTAL £7,500
Will the activity involve working with children or vulnerable adults: Yes
If you answered yes to the above question are all workers cleared by the
Criminal Records Bureau: Yes
How much funding will the applicant require: £400
Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for:
In Partnership with the English Cricket Board, Vernon Carcus Cricket Club is
supporting a project called “Chance to Shine” This involves providing cricket
coaching in both primary and high schools. It will be an opportunity for children of all
ages to “have a go” at a sport that would not necessarily be accessible to them.
There is no cost to the child or their family. It also provides an opportunity for
coaches to recognise the potential of our future cricketers.
There are the schools currently committed to participating in the future:• Whitefield Primary School
• Hoole St.Michaels Primary School
8
Appendix ‘B’
•
•
•
•
St Pauls Primary School
Walton-Le-Dale Primary School
Lostock Hall High School
Priory Sports & Technology College
The project is supported and mainly funded by the English Cricket Board who is
supplying a professional coach. The cost of the coach will be £6,000. Vernon Carus
will need to further provide £1,500. This money will go towards the services of an
Assistant Coach to support the professional. This grant would assist us in meeting
this cost and also to purchase junior equipment where needed.
9
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 12
Electoral Division affected:
South Ribble Rural West
Local Grants Application: Longton Village Fete Committee
Action by the Secretary to Lancashire Local-South Ribble
(Appendix ‘A’ refers)
Contact for further information:
Sean McGrath/Misbah Bhatti, (01772) 531053, Lancashire County Council, Office of
the Chief Executive
Executive Summary
This is a Report on action taken by the Secretary to Lancashire Local-South Ribble,
under the Urgent Business Procedure, following consultation with the Chair and
Deputy, to approve an application for £250 to support Longton Village Fete
Committee towards the costs associated with the 2007 Fete from the Local Grants
Scheme.
Decision Required
That the action taken by the Secretary to Lancashire Local-South Ribble under the
Urgent Business Procedure to support the application from Longton Village Fete
Committee for £250 from the Local Grants Scheme be noted.
Background
This application covered South Ribble Rural West and was recommended by County
Councillor Keith Young. The funding required by the organisation was to be used to
assist with the costs of the 2007 fete. The event took place on the 19th May, 2007.
This was prior to the next meeting of Lancashire Local – South Ribble due to be held
on the 20th June, 2007, and this application has, therefore, been dealt with under the
Urgent Business Procedure. The views of the members of Lancashire Local – South
Ribble were requested and presented to the Chair prior to a decision being made.
The Chair of Lancashire Local-South Ribble agreed to support the application.
Details of the application are set out in Appendix ‘A’.
Following consultation with the Chair, this action was authorised on behalf of
Lancashire Local-South Ribble in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order
No. 28.
-2Consultations
Details of the grant application were sent out to all members of the Lancashire Local
– South Ribble.
Advice
N/A
Alternative options to be considered
N/A
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
The financial implications of this report are identified in Appendix ‘A’.
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
N/A
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
Contact/Council/Tel No
Report to consider Local
Grants Application under
the Urgent Business
Procedure (Appendix ‘A’)
15th May, 2007
Sean McGrath, Lancashire
County Council, 01772
531053
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A
Appendix ‘A’
Lancashire Local – South Ribble 15 May 2007
(Urgent Business Procedure)
Part insert I or II - Item
No. insert number
Electoral Division affected:
South Ribble Rural West
Local Grants Application: Longton Village Fete Committee
(Appendix ‘A’ refers)
Contact for further information:
Sean McGrath/Misbah Bhatti, (01772) 531053, Lancashire County Council, Office of
the Chief Executive
Executive Summary
This report presents an application for £250 from Longton Village Fete Committee to
help contribute to the costs associated with the 2007 Fete from the Local Grants
Scheme. The application covers South Ribble Rural West and has been submitted
by County Councillor Keith Young.
Reason for the use of the Urgent Business Procedure
The funding required by the organisation will be used to assist with the costs of the
2007 fete. The event will take place on the 19 May 2007, prior to the next meeting of
Lancashire Local – South Ribble on the 20 June 2007 and therefore this application
needs to be dealt with under the urgent business procedure for Lancashire Local –
South Ribble. The views of the members of Lancashire Local – South Ribble were
requested and are contained in this report. If the application is approved by the
Chair and Deputy Chair of Lancashire Local – South Ribble the decision will be
authorised by the Secretary of Lancashire Local – South Ribble in accordance with
Standing Order 28 of the Constitution.
Decision Required
The Chair of Lancashire Local – South Ribble is asked to consider the application
for funding as set out in Appendix A in the light of the information presented.
Background
Local grants are made under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, which
states that “Every local authority are to have power to do anything which they
consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects:
-2•
•
•
the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area,
the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area, and
the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.
Lancashire County Council is committed to ensuring that the distinctive needs and
interests of small groups are taken into account as their needs may differ from those
of other larger voluntary organisations. Lancashire County Council’s Local Grants
Scheme enables each County Councillor to put forward proposals for expenditure in
their electoral division. Each County Councillor will have a specific budget which they
can spend to enhance the well-being of people who live in their area (division). For
the financial year 2007/08 each County Councillor has a budget of £1,000. With
2006/07 being the first year of operation for the Local Grants Scheme, approval has
been sought and granted by County Councillor Hazel Harding on behalf of the
Cabinet that any unspent and uncommitted resources from 2006/07 are carried over
to 2007/08 on the basis that they are to be committed to projects (via the normal
approval process) by the end of the 2007/08 financial year.
In recommending applications for grants, regard must be had to the County Council’s
Community Strategy, ‘Ambition Lancashire’, and County Councillors should ensure
that approved grants contribute towards the achievement/advancement/
promotion of one or more of Ambition Lancashire’s five core principles: participation,
accessibility, equality, social inclusion and sustainability.
Consultations
Details of the grant application were sent to all members of Lancashire Local – South
Ribble requesting their views. Six members of the Lancashire Local responded, all
in favour of the application:
Cllr Matthew Tomlinson
Cllr Anne Brown
Cllr Graham Davies
Cllr Howard Gore
Cllr Fred Heyworth
Cllr Tony Pimblett
Advice
This application meets the criteria of the Local Grants Scheme.
Alternative options to be considered
N/A
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following financial implications:
-3The requested amount of £250 can be met from County Councillor Keith Young’s
balance which currently stands at £1,500. If approval to support the application is
granted the remaining balance for County Councillor Keith Young will be £1,250.
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
N/A
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
N/A
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A
Contact/Council/Tel No
-4Appendix ‘A’
Application to be considered for Local Grants, Lancashire Local – South
Ribble
Application for Longton Village Fete Committee
County Councillor: Keith Young
Electoral Division: South Ribble Rural West
Name of Organisation: Longton Village Fete Committee
Does the organisation have a constitution: Yes
How many people are in the organisation: 9
What geographical area does the project cover:
Longton and Surrounding villages
Project start date: January 2007
Project finish date: 19 May 2007
Is anyone else funding the activity: Yes
Longton Parish Council - £500 one year
Will the activity involve working with children or vulnerable adults: No
If you answered yes to the above question are all workers cleared by the
Criminal Records Bureau: N/A
How much funding will the applicant require: £250
Please provide information indicating what the money would be used for:
The money will be used to assist with the costs associated with the 2007 Fete which
is an annual event and will take place on the 19 May 2007. Among other things, the
money will go towards prizes and the cost of hiring equipment for the day such as
goalposts for the 5 a side football event. The Committee is a not for profit
organisation and any funds generated from the event will be carried forward and
used in next year’s annual fete.
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 13
Electoral Divisions affected:
All in South Ribble
Revision of Criteria for Provision of Residents Parking Permit Schemes
(Appendices 'A' & 'B' refer)
Contact for further information:
Martin Galloway, 01772 532096, Lancashire County Council Environment
Directorate
Executive Summary
This report outlines the findings of a countywide consultation on the application of
the current criteria for the consideration of residents parking schemes. The results
of that consultation are set out at Appendix ‘A’, and have been taken into account in
developing revised criteria. The proposed revised criteria are listed in full at
Appendix ‘B’, and the views of each Lancashire Local are being sought prior to
consideration by the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Sustainable
Development.
In addition to reviewing the criteria for residents parking, it is also recognised that
there is a need to consider the processes involved in identifying and administering
these schemes. It is proposed that, once the criteria upon which new schemes
would be assessed has been approved, further consultation with Districts would
take place in relation to the current residual responsibility for residents parking
schemes and the future administration and funding of them, in a bid to provide
clarity and consistency of approach. It is intended that a further report on this issue
will be submitted to the Local later in the year.
Decision Required
The views of Lancashire Local-South Ribble are sought with regard to the revised
criteria prior to consideration by the County Council’s Cabinet Member for
Sustainable Development.
Background
Following the publication in August, 1991, of the County Surveyors Society Traffic
Management Working Group report on Residents Parking Schemes, the County
Council began to use the stipulated criteria as their normal assessment requirements
for new residents parking schemes.
-2In recent years there has been a significant amount of debate over the relevance of
these criteria, with at least two district authorities highlighting the difficulties
encountered in meeting these requirements. As a consequence of these
representations a questionnaire was circulated to all 12 district authorities seeking
their views on the individual criteria and also their experiences in the implementation
of such schemes. Nine of the 12 districts have responded to the questionnaire with
additional information on schemes in Fylde being provided by the County Council's
Area office. A table summarising these responses is included at Appendix ‘A’.
Unfortunately, no information to date has been received from Chorley or Hyndburn
Borough Councils.
In summary, seven of the ten authorities providing information operate residents
parking schemes, with permit charges being made in all but one scheme. The
charge ranged between £5 and £40. The provision for visitors and businesses
varied considerably between schemes and sometimes within the same authority, as
did the size of scheme being introduced.
Additionally, the approach to the identification, assessment, funding, administration
and implementation of residents parking schemes has varied between districts. This
has ranged from Ribble Valley Borough Council viewing the whole process as being
a County Council function, with only the administration of the scheme being
delivered at district level (provided all costs were reimbursed), to other districts
seeing a partnership where initial identification and assessment was driven by the
district with County Council processing and implementing schemes once they had
been agreed. The cost of administering the scheme was borne by the permit
charge, but initial set up costs were met from various sources.
It is proposed that, once the criteria upon which new schemes would be assessed
has been approved, further consultation with districts would take place in relation to
the processes to be adopted in the identification, funding, administration and
implementation of future schemes in a bid to provide clarity and consistency of
approach. It is intended that a further report on this issue will be submitted to the
Local in due course.
Consultations
A questionnaire was circulated to all District Councils seeking officer views on the
current criteria used to identify residents parking schemes. The views of the
Lancashire Local’s are being sought on the findings of this review before a report is
submitted to the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development.
Lancashire Local - Pendle established a working group and provided comments in
advance of circulation of the questionnaire:
•
The general attitude to residents parking schemes should change following
the introduction of decriminalised parking. Under the previous regime,
inadequate enforcement influenced the success of schemes where they were
introduced and, indeed, whether they were introduced at all.
•
Introduction of schemes should be based on less prescriptive criteria.
-3-
•
Flexibility ought to be introduced to allow local decisions to reflect local
circumstances.
•
There ought to be no automatic rejection of a proposal because of proximity to
a particular class of building such as a school. Rather, consideration should
be given to the criteria and decisions made on the merit of the particular case.
•
Flexibility should be introduced to permit variable schemes, eg limited waiting
during the day with residents parking in the evening.
•
Specific criteria should be amended as follows: the volume threshold should
be reduced from 80% of non-resident owned vehicles to 60%; length of time
during the day should be reduced to four hours.
These comments have been considered together with the questionnaire replies
when considering revisions to the current criteria.
Advice
The aim of this report is to review the current criteria being applied in the
assessment of residents parking scheme proposals. The eight criteria are listed
below for ease of reference, together with comments expressed, although there was
a general consensus amongst district responders that the criteria are acceptable,
with a few minor amendments (it should be noted that these are a simplified version
of the criteria originally listed in 1991).
1.
Not less than 85% of the available kerb space should be occupied for more
than six hours between 8.00am and 6.00pm on five or more days in a week
from Monday to Saturday and a bona fide need of the residents should be
established.
Criterion 1 was generally accepted, but there appeared to be some confusion
over the definition of "available kerb space". For clarity, it is proposed to
define this as the length of unrestricted carriageway where parking could be
permitted. This would of course exclude junctions, accesses and areas
subject to existing waiting restrictions (but not limited waiting).
It was also suggested that the percentage should be reduced and whilst it is
considered that a clearer definition would resolve the difficulties it is accepted
that a reduction to 67% (two thirds) would seem reasonable.
2.
Not more than 50% of the car owning residents have or could make parking
available within the curtilage of their property or within 200 metres (walking
distance) of that property in the form of rented space or garages etc. Off
street parking spaces should not be available within 200 metres walking
distance.
There was some minor divergence of opinion on this matter but again there
was a general acceptance of it. Since most schemes are being promoted
-4within terraced areas it was seen as almost irrelevant. However, in one case
(Preston) it was suggested that consideration should be given to a higher
incidence of two car households and the increased demand on street for
available spaces. It is, however, considered that this would be contrary to
sustainable policies and should not, therefore, be accepted. In Lancaster, for
example, where planning conditions prevent provision for cars, then resident’s
permits have been cancelled.
The suggestion that 200 metres could be an issue seems unrealistic given the
accepted walking distance of 400 metres to local bus stops.
Off street car parks are considered as an available facility for local residents
but not where an hourly/daily charge is made (eg pay and display) unless
contract arrangements or similar have been provided.
3.
The peak normal working day demand for residents spaces should be able to
be met (it is imperative that before a scheme is considered it can be shown
that the demand for residents parking can be accommodated).
This has been accepted but it has been pointed out that problems arising can
be specifically at weekends or in the evenings and schemes should be able to
reflect this. It is recommended that a common sense approach be adopted in
this respect, since whilst the parking problem may be outside the normal
working day it may actually be occurring during peak demand time, for
example, in areas next to a factory operating shift working, or a hospital (the
1991 guidance actually stipulated 40% of non residents parking at night-time).
4.
When considering the introduction of concessions for residents within an
existing restricted area, the re-introduction of a limited number of parked
vehicles should not negate the original reasons for introducing the restrictions.
There was some uncertainty as to the meaning of this criterion but it was
widely accepted as being reasonable. In principle, the introduction of parking
for residents should not cause traffic management problems, which had
originally been addressed.
5.
The Police should be satisfied that a reasonable level of enforcement of the
proposals can be maintained, or alternatively that enforcement could be
adequately carried out by some alternative means.
It is accepted procedure and a requirement of any Traffic Regulation Order to
seek police approval before proceeding. It is, however, also accepted that
decriminalised parking enforcement is now carried out and the practicalities of
this should also be considered.
6.
The proposals should be acceptable to the greater proportion of the residents.
This was accepted by all responders but there appears to be an issue over
the definition of "greater proportion". It is, therefore, suggested that this
-5criterion be re-worded to require a 75% response rate from households, with
greater than 50% of these being in favour of the scheme.
7.
The introduction of the scheme should not be likely to cause unacceptable
problems in adjacent roads.
This was also accepted by the majority of responders but there may be an
issue in respect of adjacent streets being included in the original zone and,
therefore, undermining the potential support for a scheme.
8.
Permits for non-residential premises should be able to be limited in their issue
to essential operational use only.
There was full agreement on this matter with at least two districts offering no
exemptions.
The proposed amended criteria are listed in full at Appendix ‘B’.
It is proposed to submit a report on the proposed approval of the revised criteria to
the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development as soon as is
practicable. This report will include the views of all the Lancashire Local’s. If
approved, the assessment criteria will be applied to all new applications for residents
parking schemes, but it is not intended to review any which are currently in operation
or being processed.
In addition to reviewing the criteria for residents parking, it is also recognised that
there is a need to consider the processes involved in identifying and administering
these schemes. It is recommended that a further report be submitted once more
detailed discussions have taken place between the County Council’s Area Managers
and District Councils. This report will examine the current residual responsibility for
residents parking schemes and the future administration and funding of them. It is
envisaged these additional discussions would take place over the coming months
and a subsequent report would be available for consideration by Lancashire Local’s
later in the year.
Alternative options to be considered
N/A.
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
N/A.
-6-
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
N/A.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
N/A.
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A.
Contact/Council/Tel No
Martin Galloway/
Lancashire County Council/
01772 532096
Lancashire Local-South Ribble – 20th June, 2007
Appendix ‘B’
Criteria for Residential Parking Permit Schemes
1.
Not less than 67% of the available kerb space should be occupied for
more than six hours between 8.00am and 6.00pm on five or more days
in a week from Monday to Saturday and a bona fide need of the
residents should be established.
Note: "Available kerb space" is defined as the length of unrestricted
carriageway where parking could be permitted. This would of course
exclude junctions, accesses and areas subject to existing waiting
restrictions (but not limited waiting).
2.
Not more than 50% of the car owning residents have or could make
parking available within the curtilage of their property, or within
200 metres (walking distance) of that property in the form of rented
space or garages etc. Off street parking space should not be available
within 200 metres walking distance.
Note: Off street car parks are considered as an available facility for
local residents but not where an hourly/daily charge is made (eg pay
and display) unless contract arrangements or similar have been
provided.
3.
The peak or normal working day demand for residents spaces should
be able to be met.
Note: The parking problem or peak demand time may be outside the
normal working day, eg next to a shift working factory or hospital, and
this should be taken into consideration.
4.
When considering the introduction of concessions for residents within
an existing restricted area, the re-introduction of a limited number of
parked vehicles should not negate the original reasons for introducing
the restrictions.
5.
The Police should be satisfied that a reasonable level of enforcement
of the proposals can be maintained, or alternatively that enforcement
could be adequately carried out by some alternative means.
6.
The proposals should be acceptable to the greater proportion of the
residents. A 75% response rate from households, with greater than
50% of these being in favour of the scheme, is considered acceptable.
7.
The introduction of the scheme should not be likely to cause
unacceptable problems in adjacent roads.
8.
Permits for non-residential premises should be able to be limited in
their issue to essential operational use only.
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 14
Electoral Divisions affected:
All in South Ribble
Highway Special Maintenance Programme 2007/08
(Appendix ‘A’ refers)
Contact for further information:
Ian Hornby, 01772 534485, Lancashire County Council Environment Directorate
Rick Hayton, 01772 536032, Lancashire County Council Environment Directorate
Executive Summary
The report sets out the provisional highway special maintenance programme for
2007/08, subject to budget and other constraints.
Decision Required
Lancashire Local-South Ribble is invited to express views on issues related to the
provisional highways special maintenance programme for the South Ribble district
in 2007/08, such as the timing of works during the year, local events or plans that
may affect the scheme, or other information that would help minimise the disruption
to users of the highway.
Background
The highway special maintenance programme is drawn up each year to address the
most significant issues on the highway network, with particular emphasis on
schemes which improve safety and structural integrity. Road condition data, road
pavement management software (UKPMS) and the knowledge and experience of
highway maintenance engineers are combined to produce a programme of schemes,
in priority order, that will keep the highway network in a safe condition whilst
protecting the integrity of the highway asset.
The majority of funding for the annual programme of special maintenance schemes
is provided under the Local Transport Plan capital maintenance programme and
justified on the basis of the extent of deterioration measured by road condition
assessments. Performance against the programme is monitored via the national
highway condition Best Value Performance Indicators which, in turn, provide the
basis for future funding bids.
To ensure this money is used to address the most pressing maintenance needs in
each authority, the programme is prepared on an objective basis built around the
national pavement management system (UKPMS). This system was developed to
-2ensure consistent data capture and analysis, and accurate national comparison. The
role of UKPMS towards the identification and prioritisation of the programme
therefore ensures that it properly reflects the maintenance needs for the district, and
makes best use of the available funding.
The County Council’s Sustainable Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee
considered a report on the methods used to develop the programme on the 18th
October, 2006. The report provides details of the technical assessment of highways,
annual programme development, information about performance management and
considers the role of Lancashire Local’s in relation to highway special maintenance.
Links to this report and its appendices are provided below:
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayFile.asp?FTYPE=A&FILEID=1
7071
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayFile.asp?FTYPE=A&FILEID=1
7073
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayFile.asp?FTYPE=A&FILEID=1
7075
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayFile.asp?FTYPE=A&FILEID=1
7077
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayFile.asp?FTYPE=A&FILEID=1
7079
The provisional highway special maintenance programme for the South Ribble
district is set out, in priority order, in Appendix ‘A’. However, the highway
maintenance budget for 2007/8 has yet to be confirmed and, therefore, the
provisional schemes are listed in two blocks:
Block 1:
The total value of these schemes across the county equates to
approximately 50% of the 2006/7 structural maintenance allocation and
so funding for these schemes will be available. As such they will be
carried out during 2007/8. They have been identified as the highest
priority schemes through objective assessments, with particular
emphasis on safety and structural integrity.
Block 2:
It is hoped that the budget settlement will enable the majority of these
schemes to be carried out, but the programme cannot be finalised until
the budget is known. These schemes have also been identified as a
high priority through objective assessments, with particular emphasis
on safety and structural integrity. Schemes in Appendix ‘A’ that are not
funded will be held in reserve in case any schemes in the provisional
programme cannot proceed for any reason.
Lancashire Local-South Ribble is invited to express views on issues related to the
provisional highways special maintenance programme for South Ribble district in
-32007/08, such as the timing of works during the year, local events or plans that may
affect the scheme, or other information that would help minimise the disruption to
users of the highway.
Constitutionally, the Local currently have a shaping and influencing role in respect of
highway special maintenance schemes by:
•
supplementing highway maintenance activity in its local area through its
discretionary use of the annual allocation towards highway authority
functions, and
•
considering and expressing its views on locations where it is considered that
resurfacing or reconstruction of carriageways and/or footways should be
included in future programmes of work.
However, the Local may wish to develop its shaping and influencing role, for
example, by monitoring the impact of such schemes in its local area through
providing information and feedback, at any point, to the local highway maintenance
manager, and providing information regarding local activities to assist with the coordination of works and other maintenance issues.
Consultations
N/A.
Advice
N/A.
Alternative options to be considered
N/A.
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
The highways special maintenance programme will be funded from the budget (yet
to be confirmed) for 2007/08
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
N/A.
Organisation:
Comments:
-4Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
Nil.
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A.
Contact/Council/Tel No
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June, 2007
Part I - Item No. 15
Electoral Division affected:
Penwortham North and
South Ribble Rural West
Responses to Questions from Penwortham By-Pass Action Group
(Appendix ‘A’ refers)
Contact for further information:
S P Southworth, 01772 533464, Lancashire County Council, County Secretary and
Solicitor’s Group
Executive Summary
The County Council’s responses to matters previously raised by the Penwortham
By-Pass Action Group.
Decision Required
Lancashire Local-South Ribble is requested to note the full and final Report from the
Task Group formed by the Local, providing answers to the questions previously
presented by the Penwortham By-Pass Action Group, and endorse the
recommendations of the Task Group.
Background
At the Meeting of Lancashire Local-South Ribble on the 27th July, 2006, a paper was
presented and circulated by members of the Penwortham By-Pass Action Group.
The paper posed a number of questions and, in order that those questions could be
fully considered, the Local agreed that a report on this matter be presented to a
future Meeting.
The matters raised by the Action Group, and the County Council’s responses, were
subsequently presented to the Local on the 8th November, 2006.
The Local noted the County Council’s responses to the matters raised by the Action
Group, but expressed their disappointment at the tone of some of the answers given
in the Appendix to the Report. The Local agreed that a Task Group be formed to
meet with the Action Group in an attempt to take this matter forward, and that the
District Partnership Officer be requested to organise the first meeting of that Task
Group.
-2A Meeting of the Task Group, comprising County Councillor A E Pimblett and
Councillor C Coulton, together with Officers of the Environment Directorate and the
Office of the Chief Executive, met on the 6th February, 2007, to address the matters
originally raised by the Action Group, together with further supplementary questions
put forward by the Action Group.
The results of the findings of the Task Group were sent to members of the Action
Group on the 8th March, 2007, and, subsequently, the Task Group met with
members of the Action Group on the 14th March, 2007. At that meeting, the Action
Group felt that a number of issues still had not been satisfactorily resolved and, in
those circumstances, the Task Group agreed to seek further clarification on behalf of
the Local from the Environment Director on those issues.
In that connection, a further Meeting of the Task Group was held on the 15th May,
2007, in order to address those outstanding issues. Subsequent to that Meeting, the
Task Group now present this full and final Report on this matter (as detailed at
Appendix ‘A’) to this Meeting.
A copy of Appendix ‘A’ to this Report has previously been sent to Members of the
Action Group on the 7th June, 2007. The Action Group has also previously had sight
of the Annexes referred to in the Appendix ‘A’.
A summary of the Task Group findings, and the recommendations of the Task
Group, are as follows:The Task Group believe that the safety works implemented on the A59 would not
have been carried out without the amount of £500,000 being made available from
the Highways Agency, as the accident record on the A59 did not warrant those
works or that expenditure – without the amount made available by the Highways
Agency, the A59 would have had to compete for priority with other safety schemes in
the County.
The amount of £500,000 offered by the Highways Agency was not for a fully costedup specific scheme, but was an amount of money which was available to be spent
on the most appropriate schemes for the circumstances from the ‘shopping list’
contained within the 24 recommendations – the amount of money provided was not
linked to the actual forecast cost of any specific scheme(s).
The Task Group are satisfied that, whilst maximum safety was the ultimate aim of
the safety improvement works, the matter of the flow of traffic had to be taken into
consideration, as it was felt that any increase in congestion would result in motorists
transferring to less suitable routes, namely residential streets, thereby reducing
overall safety in the area.
The Task Group are satisfied that a risk assessment of the School Crossing Patrol at
Howick School was to be re-done in 2007, subject to budgets, and are happy to
recommend that this should be done in consultation with the school.
-3The Task Group are satisfied that a Full Safety Audit is currently being undertaken
along the route, in accordance with standard procedures, and recommend that the
outcome of the Audit be reported to Lancashire Local-South Ribble in due course.
The Task Group understand that PBPAG have some ideas which they wish to
pursue in order to ease traffic congestion and assist pedestrians – in that connection,
the Task Group indicated that they were content for Officers from the County
Council’s Environment Directorate to meet with a small number of members of
PBPAG to look at any new suggestions for further improvements, and it was felt that
it would be helpful for the Officers to have prior sight of those suggestions so that
some initial technical appraisal could be carried out before any such meeting took
place.
To conclude, the Task Group believe that it is the County Council’s stated intention
to complete the Penwortham By-Pass; it has been listed in the County Council’s
priority list and is still being promoted; and they expressed a wish to work in a
positive manner with the PBPAG towards that aim – it was felt important to look
forwards rather than backwards.
Consultations
N/A.
Advice
Lancashire Local-South Ribble is requested to note and endorse the findings of the
Task Group, as set out at Appendix ‘A’ to this Report, and endorse the summary and
recommendations of the Task Group, as set out above and in Appendix ‘A’ to this
Report.
Alternative options to be considered
N/A.
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
N/A.
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Organisation:
Name:
N/A.
Comments:
-4-
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
Contact/Council/Tel No
Minutes of Lancashire
Local-South Ribble
27th July, 2006
S P Southworth,
Lancashire County Council,
01772 533464
Report to Lancashire LocalSouth Ribble (and Minutes)
8th November, 2006
S P Southworth,
Lancashire County Council,
01772 533464
Minutes of Lancashire
Local-South Ribble
17th January, 2007
S P Southworth,
Lancashire County Council,
01772 533464
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A.
Appendix ‘A’
Lancashire Local-South Ribble – 20th June, 2007
Responses to Questions from Penwortham By-Pass Action Group
Original Question
A.
Steven McCreesh of the County Council’s (LCC) Highways Department
said at a recent South Ribble Borough Council (SRBC) Area Committee
meeting attended by Tony Martin, the portfolio holder, that safety had
been compromised on the route to prevent additional congestion. What
safety issues have been compromised exactly and does this meet with
the full approval of LCC?
Lancashire County Council (LCC) Reply
Steven McCreesh did not say that “safety had been compromised on the
route to prevent additional congestion.” He had, in fact, said (as recorded
in the minutes) that “the scheme had been a compromise.” He went on
to explain that additional congestion would encourage drivers to use less
suitable routes thereby reducing overall safety in the area.
Penwortham By-Pass Action Group (PBPAG) Response to LCC Reply
Of the 24 recommendations made in the independent Safety Scheme
Identification Study only 4 have been fully implemented. Others have
been significantly altered. A majority have not been implemented at all.
These recommendations were for the safety of vulnerable road users.
Judging by what has been done as opposed to what was recommended,
the compromises have been to improve traffic flow rather than providing
for safety. There was no consultation on these amendments. Does the
committee believe this was a reasonable thing to do?
Task Group Findings
The Task Group accepted that it would not have been possible for all of
the 24 recommendations from the independent Safety Scheme
Identification Study to have been carried out, as some of those
recommendations were alternatives to each other. It was accepted that
there was never any intention to carry out all 24 recommendations, as
they were a ‘shopping list’ of schemes from which to choose the most
appropriate for the circumstances.
In response to the PBPAG comment that there was no consultation on
the amendments, the Task Group accepted that there had been full
public consultation, and an exhibition, and it was recalled that all of the
recommendations had been presented to the Higher Penwortham Area
Committee. It was felt that many of the original recommendations had
been impractical, and had been ‘tweaked’ to improve road safety, for
1
example, provision for a right-turn into the shops near to the Spar Store
on Liverpool Road.
Some of the recommendations for pedestrian refuges had been slightly
amended to take account of matters relating to access to private
driveways, and busy school crossing points.
It was appreciated that the effects on parking at local shops had also
needed to be addressed.
The Task Group accepted that the scheme, as implemented, was a
compromise, with maximum safety being the ultimate aim. Some
measures had been rejected that would have caused a large increase
in congestion on the basis that drivers would transfer to less suitable
routes, namely residential streets.
In an attempt to assist, at the request of the Task Group, a list of the
recommendations – the reference numbers refer to the original study –
listing those which have been carried out in full; those which have been
amended; and those which have not been done, is attached as Annex
1 to this Report. The Task Group considered that there were 21
recommendations, although some have several parts.
In summary, the Task Group was satisfied that all recommendations of
the Safety Scheme Identification Study, and amendments, had been
subject to full and satisfactory public consultation.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
PBPAG queried precisely what ‘additional congestion’ on the A59 was
being referred to by Steve McCreesh – it was felt that the only
alternative to the use of the A59 (if travelling from the Burscough area)
may have been to use the route via Croston – and would like to see the
evidence of what ‘additional congestion’ could be expected.
PBPAG disputed that ‘it would not have been possible for all of the 24
recommendations ............... to have been carried out’ – they made the
point that there were at least 23 actual recommendations in the Road
Safety and Scheme Identification Study (S11/02) from an expert in that
field, and that the Highways Agency fully expected those
recommendations to have been implemented – the PBPAG are not
satisfied that the recommendations, as recommended by a qualified
engineer, have been carried out.
PBPAG wished that it be placed on record that County Councillor
Pimblett had not read the original recommendations from P Fenton of
the Highways Agency in the “Highways Agency – Highway
Consultancy – Area 17 Road Safety and Scheme Identification Study
(S11/02), prepared for the Director, Operations, Highways Agency,
2
Manchester, by the Highway Consultancy part of Lancashire County
Council, in October, 2002.
(At the meeting, County Councillor Pimblett explained that a balance
between road safety and the free flow of traffic had been sought.)
Moving on to the consultation exercise, the PBPAG disputed that full
consultation had taken place on the original document of
recommendations – PBPAG believed that Cop Lane junction had been
included in the original set of recommendations – the general public
had not been given the opportunity to look at, or comment upon, the
original recommendations.
PBPAG made the point that the amount of £500,000 had been made
available because road safety problems on the road had been
identified – however, concern was expressed that approximately
£100,000 had been spent on the widening of the road at Parklands
(there had been no consultation on that) and a further approximately
£60,000 had been spent on the re-surfacing of the road (with no
consultation on that).
PBPAG disputed that the ‘revised recommendations’ had been fully
consulted upon – it was felt that the consultation process was flawed –
it was felt that there had been detailed re-design after the public
consultation – it was felt that there had been major and significant
changes, not just ‘tweaking’, once the County Council had taken over
the ‘sole ownership’ of the road, although it was accepted by the Town
Council that some things had been ‘tweaked’ because of the
practicality of use of business and commercial premises, rather than
road safety grounds. The Town Council made the point, however, that
it was felt that many aspects of the road were unsafe.
In particular, PBPAG commented that:i)
the existing pelican crossings had been significantly altered, and
were now more hazardous; and
ii)
that the type of pelican crossing in the vicinity of Crookings Lane
meant that children had to wait for very long periods before they
were allowed to cross – puffin crossings being ‘traffic friendly’, and
operating ‘gap changes’ but, as there were no gaps in traffic flow on
the A59, crossing times were increased; and
iii)
it was never the intention for there to be two traffic lanes in the
vicinity of the Spar store – the ‘discipline island’ should have been
installed, rather than the ‘hatching’; and
iv)
central refuges have been installed, but without raised kerbing; and
3
v)
the South Ribble Borough Council had withdrawn their objections to
the de-trunking of the road on the condition that the situation at
Crookings Lane would be reviewed after 18 months – the PBPAG
had assurances from the Minister that this would be reviewed after
12 months – why did this become 3 years?
The PBPAG also queried what exactly was meant by the comment made
in the findings of the Task Group that the scheme, as implemented, was a
compromise, “with maximum safety being the ultimate aim”.
PBPAG made references to a number of documents in order to support
their views on the issue of the safety improvement works, as detailed
below:i)
a letter of the 9th June, 2004, from David Jamieson, Under
Secretary of State, which, at paragraph 2, under the heading
“Safety Improvement Works”, states that “……… will cost some
£500,000” and refers to “these improvements, which will be
completed by LCC” – PBPAG feel that, as the scheme was a safety
scheme, any compromise must have been in favour of traffic flow to
the dilution of safety; and
ii)
original recommendations from P Fenton of the Highways Agency
in the “Highways Agency – Highway Consultancy – Area 17 Road
Safety and Scheme Identification Study (S11/02), prepared for the
Director, Operations, Highways Agency, Manchester, by the
Highway Consultancy part of Lancashire County Council, in
October, 2002; and
iii)
the Autumn 2003 edition of the Liberal Democrat Newsletter –
‘Focus’ – in which it is commented that “…… there seems to be
greater emphasis on moving traffic than protecting pedestrians,
which defeats the whole object”; and
iv)
a letter of the 17th February, 2004, from Peter Hallsworth of the
Highways Agency which, at paragraph 3, states that “these
improvements focus on better facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and
other vulnerable road users”.
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group were satisfied that the (approximate) £60,000 spent
on the re-surfacing of the road was as a result of the safety measures
which had been introduced, as the old road markings were still visible
on the road surface, and could not be burnt off – there was, therefore,
a need to resurface the road.
The Task Group were also satisfied that, when there has been found to
be any particular aspects of the safety scheme which have needed to
4
be looked at, these have been brought to the Penwortham Area
Committee and have been satisfactorily dealt with.
In connection with the PBPAG query about the Task Group’s earlier
comments that “the scheme, as implemented, was a compromise, with
maximum safety being the ultimate aim”, the Task Group point out that
things were done to improve the situation as a result of experiences
learnt – there did need to be a compromise between safety and traffic
flow as it was felt that additional congestion would have resulted in
motorists using less suitable routes – traffic flow and the dilution of
traffic are connected.
In connection with the references made by PBPAG to a number of
documents in connection with the original recommendations contained
within the Road Safety and Scheme Identification Study, the Task
Group are satisfied that those were ‘recommendations’ which did not
all have to be implemented – one particular recommendation gave
three options – some recommendations gave preferred options, but
outlined particular problems with each option.
The Task Group are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘A’.
5
Original Question
B.
What case was put forward by LCC to the Highways Agency for
detrunking in relation to its holding objection on funding for the bypass
and what was the response of the Highways Agency?
LCC Reply
The case put forward by the County Council was as follows;
The County Council accepts that the strategic route between Switch
Island and Preston is via the M58 and M6 Motorways, and that traffic
patterns on the A59 between Liverpool and Preston indicate that the
prime function of this route is to serve the local communities through
which it passes. The principle of de-trunking is not, therefore, contested.
However, where the route passes through Penwortham, local residents
have expressed concern over traffic and environmental conditions, and
the Highways Agency has recently been involved in discussions with the
County Council and local residents on these issues. Proposals to
complete a bypass of Penwortham have been under consideration for
some time, and in the early 1990s, the (then) Department of Transport
was actively promoting a Preston Southern & Western Bypass which
would have included part of the current scheme to complete the bypass
of Penwortham. This scheme was withdrawn from the National Trunk
Road Programme following the 1994 Trunk Road Review.
The County Council continues to support the principle of completing the
Penwortham Bypass and has retained the scheme in its own Capital
Programme following a review of major highway schemes undertaken as
part of the process of developing the Local Transport Plan. However,
given the competing priorities for local transport funding, it is unlikely that
funding will be made available to the County Council to implement this
major scheme in the foreseeable future. In view of this, the County
Council considers that the possibility of additional funding being
channelled through the Highways Agency to secure completion of the
Penwortham Bypass should be explored further.
No record of any written response from the Highways Agency could be
found.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
The Secretary of State for Transport, Government Office North West and
the Highways Agency considered the A59 west of Preston to remain a
route of regional significance. How then does LCC claim that “…the
prime function of this route is to serve the local communities through
which it passes.” LCC themselves have said in a 2005 submission for
£1M of road maintenance on the A59 at Burscough that, “the A59
between Preston and Liverpool, is a busy principal road connecting the
main population centres of south-west Lancashire with West Yorkshire.
It serves as a major route of regional importance catering for the needs
6
of business, commerce, leisure and tourism as well as commuter, local
shopping and agricultural traffic.
It is stated that no record of any written response from the Highways
Agency could be found. A response to what original LCC document is
being spoken of. Has any formal request for funding to complete the
Penwortham Bypass ever been submitted? If so can we see it?
Whatever the assumed County Council strategic route from switch island
to Preston is. Road users clearly have a different perception.
Task Group Findings
The Task Group believe that the case put forward by the County
Council to the Highways Agency was detailed in the County Council’s
original response to the PBPAG – that case is a matter of fact, and
cannot be altered. The County Council did not, however, put forward a
case for de-trunking the road.
The Task Group have been informed that the County Council had
asked if the Government Office could provide the funding to build the
Penwortham By-Pass as part of the ‘deal’ for the de-trunking of the
route – the response to this question had been ‘no’ – but there is no
record of any written response, this had been done during the
negotiation process. That negotiation process had resulted in the offer
of £500,000 for safety improvements.
The Task Group are aware that the Penwortham By-Pass is fourth
priority on the County Council’s list of major highway schemes, behind
Heysham to M6 Link Road; Ormskirk By-Pass, and A56 Villages ByPass. In response to the supplementary question posed by PBPAG
about any the submission of any formal request for funding to complete
the By-Pass, the Task Group accept that a Full Business Case has not
yet been made for funding – a ‘bid’ may cost in the region of
£2,000,000 to submit, and money spent on the submission of that bid
may be wasted if the scheme was not to go ahead – the Penwortham
scheme is only fourth on the County Council’s list of priorities and, in
those circumstances, it was felt imprudent to submit that bid before
submitting the bids for the number one and two priority schemes.
The Task Group feel that very little traffic uses the A59 as a complete
route all the way from Liverpool through to Preston, although it is an
important route between Southport, Burscough and Preston. In those
circumstances, the route is categorized as being of sub-regional
significance.
In summary, the Task Group accepted that the County Council did not
put forward a case for de-trunking; the Government Office declined the
County Council’s request not to de-trunk; but the County Council was
7
offered £500,000 in order that safety improvements could be carried
out.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
PBPAG commented that the Highways Agency have a consultation
process about which routes are suitable for de-trunking – it was
believed that the County Council made representations to the
Highways Agency before the Highways Agency made their decision –
what representations were made?
PBPAG felt that there must be some written response on that matter,
and that there must be Minutes of Meetings between the County
Council and the Highways Agency.
The PBPAG queried who would pay the £2,000,000 cost of putting
together a Full Business Case for the funding of the By-Pass, and
queried why it was felt appropriate to ‘gamble’ £2,000,000 on the cost
of putting together a Case for the A570 route.
It was pointed out that the Case would be funded by the County
Council and, when the Scheme for the By-Pass rose up the priority list,
and there was a chance of success, the justification for the spending of
£2,000,000 would be greater.
Moving on to the classification of the road, PBPAG pointed out that
letters from the Government Office for the North West state that the
route is of ‘regional significance’ – the PBPAG totally disagreed with
the comment in the findings of the Task Group about the route being of
‘sub-regional significance’ as, without the A59, traffic from the
Southport and Tarleton areas would be unable to travel north.
PBPAG expressed surprise at the apparent disagreement between the
County Council and the North West Regional Assembly on the
classification of the road, and felt that the issue of classification was an
important factor in getting the construction of the By-Pass raised up the
Quartile Lists.
PBPAG agreed with the findings of the Task Group that the County
Council did not put forward a case for the de-trunking of the A59.
PBPAG made references to a number of documents in order to support
their views on the points made at Question B, as detailed below:i)
County Council document – Road Maintenance Works on A59 in
Burscough – taken from the Internet shortly after the 22nd April,
2005, which, at paragraph 1 refers to the A59 as a “major route of
regional and local importance”; and
8
ii)
Correspondence from the Government Office for the North West
dated 8th July, 2004, in which Dr David Higham, at paragraph 6,
refers to the A59 as an “important route and of regional
significance”; and
iii)
Correspondence from the Government Office for the North West
dated 20th July, 2004, in which Dr David Higham comments that the
“A59 is of regional significance” and that “the A59 is part of The
Primary Route Network”; and
iv)
Hansard, 28th June, 2005, (Question 5) quotes that “LCC can
submit as many schemes for major LTP projects as it wishes ……
priorities for those schemes” .
PBPAG comment that there is no record of LCC ever having
requested funding from the Department of Transport for the
completion of the By-Pass, and that, for the previous 8 years, LCC
was only promoting 1 scheme (Heysham) – therefore, there is no
basis for argument with the NWRA; and
v)
PBPAG comment that information contained in the County
Council’s Core Proof of Evidence of F N G Anderton to South
Ribble Borough Council’s Local Plan Public Inquiry, dated 1st
August, 1996, for the completion of the By-Pass, means that most
of the work has already been done in putting together a Full
Business Case for the By-Pass and, therefore, the figure of
£2,000,000 to put together a bid is disputed; and
vi)
PBPAG comment that the Report to the County Council’s Cabinet
Member for Highways, Item No. 3, dated the 2nd April, 2003, refers
to Special Grant included in FSS (as well as £500,000 for “safety
improvements”).
Final Task Group Findings
In connection with the query as to why it was felt appropriate to gamble
£2,000,000 on the cost of putting together a Full Business Case for the
funding of the A570 route, the Task Group noted that the A570 Route
was second priority on the County Council’s list of major highway
schemes, behind the Heysham to M6 Link Road – in that circumstance,
the Task Group was satisfied that the action taken was not a gamble.
With regard to the classification of the A59, the Task Group noted that,
following an exercise carried out by the North West Regional
Assembly, the North West Regional Assembly considered that the
route was of Sub-Regional significance.
The Task Group felt that the classification of the route was a matter of
historical record, and was now out of the County Council’s hands.
9
The Task Group are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘B’.
10
Original Question
C.
The regional road-building programme is now administered and set by
the Northwest Regional Assembly (NWRA) in consultation with Regional
County and Unitary Authorities. The Penwortham Bypass originally
missed the list altogether, though after pressure (we believe) from a
SRBC councillor, it was introduced to the programme at Q2 level. Tony
Martin says he is currently trying to get the road to Q1 status for
immediate programming. What case was originally put forward to NWRA
by LCC for the bypass to be completed?
LCC Reply
The responsibility for approval of major transport schemes remains with
the Department for Transport (DfT). The Regional Assembly is required
to provide a list or priorities to the DfT and the schemes status on this
priority list is one factor considered in the appraisal of schemes by the
DfT.
The Penwortham Bypass was submitted for consideration in the Regional
Funding Allocation at the same time as all the other schemes in
Lancashire using the forms provided for this purpose by Government
Office for the North West (GONW). All schemes were assessed on the
basis of these forms.
Following assessment of the schemes, the Regional Assembly approved
a list of schemes for submission to the Government. The prioritisation list
was split into four sections (quartiles) with potential resources being
identified for the top quartile.
Schemes in Lancashire were ranked as follows:
Quarter 1
Heysham to M6 Link
East Lancashire Rapid Transit (joint scheme with Blackburn Borough
Council)
Blackpool to Fleetwood Tramway (joint scheme with Blackpool Council)
Quarter 2
M55 to Norcross Link
Quartile 3
Ormskirk Bypass
A56 Villages Bypass
Penwortham Bypass
Preston City Centre Access Improvements
Quartile 4
No Schemes
11
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
There are Penwortham SRBC Councillors present who can evidence the
facts behind this original question. Whatever, County Councillor Tony
Martin said in St Mary’s Church Hall Penwortham, in February this year
that he would do everything he could to get the Penwortham Bypass up
to Q1 level. This has not happened. Has that now been given up?
The question has not been answered. The response is waffle. What
case was put forward to LCC to the North West Regional Assembly
for the bypass to be completed?
Task Group Findings
PBPAG have commented that, at a Meeting in February, 2006, County
Councillor Tony Martin said that he would do everything he could to get
the Penwortham By-Pass up to Quartile 1 level; and that this has not
happened.
They have asked what case was put forward by the County Council to the
North West Regional Assembly for the By-Pass to be completed.
The Task Group believe that the comments attributed to County
Councillor Martin were made at a Meeting of the Higher Penwortham
Area Committee held at St Mary’s Church Hall, Cop Lane, Penwortham,
on the 6th February, 2006.
The Task Group felt that County Councillor Martin’s comments would be
recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting and were a matter of public record
and could, therefore, easily be checked. A copy of the Minutes of that
Meeting has been obtained and is attached as Annex 2 to this Report.
As to the case put forward to the NWRA, the Task Group are informed
that pro-forma’s would have been completed, giving factual evidence.
They are standard forms devised by the NWRA, and the NWRA decide
upon priorities – there was no ‘Appeal process’. In an attempt to assist, at
the request of the Task Group, a copy of the submitted pro-forma’s is
attached as Annex 3 to this Report.
The Task Group accept that PBPAG feel that the completion of the ByPass would mean the completion of a scheme, not a new scheme, but,
even though it would mean a completion, it has no higher priority than
any other by-pass still required to be built – schemes are looked at on
merit.
In order to bid for funds for a scheme, a Local Authority has to prepare a
Major Scheme Business Case and submit it to the Department for
Transport. Guidance on this is contained in the ‘Draft Guidance to Local
Authorities seeking Department for Transport funding for Local Transport
12
Major Schemes’ and, in an attempt to be helpful, at the request of the
Task Group, this document, detailing the bid process, is attached as
Annex 4 to this Report.
In summary, and for the avoidance of any doubt, the Task Group believe
that it is the County Council’s stated intention to complete the
Penwortham By-Pass; it has been listed in the County Council’s priority
list and is still being promoted; and they express a wish to work in a
positive manner with the PBPAG towards that aim.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
PBPAG drew attention to a number of answers given in the pro-forma
submitted to the NWRA for the By-Pass to be completed, ie
Scheme Status – conceptual;
Wider Economic Benefits – No assessment been made;
Environment and Other – Scheme will require Green Belt land
PBPAG refer to LCC plans for the completion of the By-Pass with
drawings and arguments for positive environmental impact.
In response to the comments regarding the preparation of a Major
Scheme Business Case, PBPAG again refer to the information contained
in the County Council’s Core Proof of Evidence of F N G Anderton to
South Ribble Borough Council’s Local Plan Public Inquiry, dated 1st
August, 1996, for the completion of the By-Pass, meaning that most of
the work has already been done in putting together a Full Business Case
for the By-Pass.
Final Task Group Findings
In response to the points made by PBPAG that most of the work had
already been done in putting together a Full Business Case for the ByPass (ie the Proof of Evidence to the Local Plan Public Inquiry in
1996), the Task Group comment that any documentation prepared for
the 1996 Inquiry would now be out of date and would need to be
completely re-visited – requirements for submissions to Government
have significantly changed since 1996, and it was noted that there is
now a change in priority for transport spending away from road
construction to public transport.
The Task Group are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘C’.
13
Original Question
D.
Including £200,000 of funds allocated by the Highways Agency in 2000
for the A59 at the Hutton “Anchor” roundabout, a total of £700,000 has
apparently been spent on safety improvements on this road between
there and the River Ribble, in recent years. (This substantial sum
represents 70% of LCC’s total current annual budget for road safety
countywide). What are the results of monitoring to decide on whether this
expenditure represents value for money?
LCC Reply
To compare these sums of money to the County Council’s annual spend
is erroneous. These schemes were funded by the Highways Agency, not
the County Council. To obtain funds for the Hutton roundabout scheme,
a bid had to be submitted that showed value for money. The funds for
the safety improvements were ring fenced by the Highways Agency for
these works.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
If these are Highways Agency schemes, why were the Highways
Agency’s costed, safety recommendations not carried out when LCC took
over ownership of the road?
Task Group Findings
In response to the questions about the 24 safety recommendations, the
Task Group felt that most of these matters had been addressed in
response to Question A.
The Task Group accept that it was never intended to carry out all 24
recommendations, indeed that would not have been possible, but the list
provided a number of suggestions for consultation (which had been
carried out) – the recommendations had been subject to public
consultation, a full safety audit, and some of the recommendations had
needed to be amended following a detailed design stage.
The Task Group accepted that, if the £500,000 of funding had not been
offered by the Highways Agency, the improvements would not have been
carried out, as they would not have carried sufficient weight to have been
included in the programme of local safety schemes. However, once those
safety measures had been introduced, for additional safety, it was
decided to re-surface the entire length of the road.
In response to the question posed about monitoring the effects of the
safety improvements carried out, the Task Group understands that it
would normally be three years before any results were known, in order to
allow time for the effects of changes to ‘settle down’. The Task Group
understood, however, that, in relation to one specific scheme, relating to
14
improvements at Crookings Lane, an assurance had previously been
given that information would be available within 12/18 months.
The Task Group felt that it would be helpful to provide the date at which
the 3 year review would take place, and an explanation as to why it only
occurs after 3 years. In that connection, the Task Group now understands
that the works were substantially completed in the summer of 2005 and,
normally, they would be monitored after 3 years. The period of 3 years is
chosen because Scheme Identification Studies usually look at the past 3
years of accidents, and the review is then looking at a similar period of
time. However, in this case, a commitment has been made to review at
least part of the scheme after 18 months and, therefore, the Safety Audit
Team have been requested to review the works now.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
PBPAG made references to a number of documents in order to support
their views on the points made at Question D, as detailed below:i)
the March, 2004, edition of the Liberal Democrat Newslletter –
Focus – refers to “…… agreement to reassess the Crookings Lane
junction in 12-18 months time, when further funding may be
available”; and
ii)
correspondence with the Highways Agency dated the 9th February,
2006, (Alex Miller to P Atherton) which refers, at paragraph 4, to
“scheme due for project reappraisal in Summer 2005; and
iii)
the recommendations contained in the document of P Fenton of the
Highways Agency in the “Highways Agency – Highway Consultancy
– Area 17 Road Safety and Scheme Identification Study (S11/02),
prepared for the Director, Operations, Highways Agency,
Manchester, by the Highway Consultancy part of Lancashire
County Council, in October, 2002; and
iv)
it is queried that it was necessary to re-surface the entire length of
the road, as the rest is included in the 2007/8 programme; and
v)
a letter from David Jamieson of the Department of Transport, dated
18th May, 2004, to David Borrow MP which, at paragraph 3 states
that the “Agency is required to formally review schemes such as
this after 12 months”; and
vi)
references in Agendas for Lancashire Local-South Ribble in
November, 2006, and January, 2007, to outstanding highway
issues in the Western Parishes and Higher Penwortham and the
Review of A59 Improvement Works.
15
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group accepted that the point made by PBPAG in point i)
about the comments attributed to the Liberal Democrat Newsletter of
March, 2004, was correct – it was recalled that that assurance had
been given at a meeting of the Area Committee.
The Task Group felt that the point raised by PBPAG at point iv) about
the surfacing of the road had been adequately answered previously,
and that, in response to the points raised at i), ii), iii), v) and vi), it had
previously been noted that a Full Safety Audit along the route was now
being carried out.
The Task Group are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘D’.
16
Original Question
E.
What is the classification status of the A59 west of Preston? The
Secretary of State and GONW have documented their belief that the road
is of “Regional significance”. LCC and NWRA have indicated, however,
their belief that it is of “Sub-regional significance.”
LCC Reply
The only assessment of schemes as being of regional significance or
importance is undertaken by the NWRA. The NWRA methodology is set
out in Annexe 5.1 of the Technical Appendix to the Draft Regional Spatial
Strategy. The A59 is not classed as being of regional importance.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
How can LCC Highways Department and NWRA disagree with Secretary
of State, Highways Agency, GONW and LCC’s own road maintenance
department on the status of this road?
Task Group Findings
The Task Group feel that the matter of the classification of the route has
been addressed in the response to Question B – the route is of subregional significance – as far as the Task Group is aware, there is no
disagreement between the County Council, the NWRA, the Highways
Agency, or the Government Office for the North West on this point.
The Task Group request that the PBPAG provide the source (and a copy)
of their information in order that this may be checked.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
The PBPAG reiterated that they were not happy with the comments made
in response to Question E for the reasons outlined (in response to
Question B).
PBPAG made references to a number of documents in order to support
their views on the points made at Question E, as detailed below:i)
a report to South Ribble Borough Council on the 14th May, 2003,
which refers to the road as being “still part of the national network
of trunk roads …… nothing occurred to change this situation”;
and
ii)
a letter from the Government Office for the North West dated 20th
July, 2004, in which Dr David Higham comments that the “A59 is
of regional importance” and that “the A59 is part of The Primary
Route Network”; and
17
iii)
a letter from the Highways Agency dated the 9th May, 2003, to J
P Rogers which states, at paragraph 3 on page 2, that “……
importance of A59 recognised …… will retain Primary Route
Status” and “ Government …… special grant …… for routine
maintenance”; and
iv)
County Council document – Road Maintenance Works on A59 in
Burscough – taken from the Internet shortly after the 22nd April,
2005, which, at paragraph 1 refers to the A59 as a “major route of
regional and local importance”.
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group felt that the matter of the classification of the route had
been previously addressed in the response to Question B, and were
satisfied that a satisfactory explanation had previously been given to all
of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard to Question ‘E’.
18
Original Question
F.
If the latter is the accepted status for the road, where did NWRA get their
evidence from and what evidence was supplied?
LCC Reply
Traffic counts for the routes assessed were supplied to NWRA by the
County Council.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
The Committee need to see these traffic counts.
In it’s recent Central Lancashire City submission (pp 64,65 Audit and
Analysis report) LCC indicated that the A59 together with the B5254 were
the most overall congested routes into Preston. A concern is that the
area south west of Preston has been identified as a major location for
growth (pp24 sustainability appraisal). However, (pp72 para 6.46) “…the
absence of any existing traffic data and associated modelling tool means
that the assessment of such a scheme may prove problematic. – We
should not forget that during its period as a trunk road the responsible
highway contractor for the A59 west of Preston was LCC Highways
Consultancy!!
Task Group Findings
The Task Group noted that traffic counts for the route had previously
been provided to PBPAG – for the record, it was suggested that these
again be provided, and it was also suggested that details of any counts
provided to the NWRA also be provided – in an attempt to be helpful, at
the request of the Task Group, this information (Annex 5 to this Report)
has been sent to PBPAG – in an attempt to save on paper and
photocopying charges, copies of this particularly bulky document will be
available at the Meeting of the Lancashire Local .
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
PBPAG queried the information given in the ‘traffic counts’ as they had
documentation which suggested that no traffic counts were available
for the route – it was felt that the traffic counts provided as ‘Annex 5’
were not the traffic counts submitted to the North West Regional
Assembly. PBPAG comment that some of the traffic counts contained
at Annex 5 occurred after the relevant meeting.
PBPAG referred to the Minutes of a Regional Meeting of North West
Highway Departments, attended by Ray Worthington of the County
Council, to discuss the status of north west roads.
19
PBPAG also referred to a quote contained in the Preston/South
Ribble/Chorley City Bid that there was “no data available for A59”.
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group were unaware of any ‘Regional Meeting of North West
Highway Departments attended by Ray Worthington’.
In connection with the information given in the ‘traffic counts’, the Task
Group were satisfied that the North West Regional Assembly had been
given access to all available traffic counts, and that the PBPAG had
received copies of those counts.
The Task Group are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘F’.
20
Original Question
G. What is LCC’s current progress in Tony Martin’s stated aim to get the
Bypass raised from Q2 to Q1 on NWRA’s list for road improvements?
LCC Reply
Tony Martin explained at the meeting on 6 February 2006 (as recorded in
the minutes) that the County Council’s resources were limited to working
on two schemes at any one time and that currently Heysham and
Ormskirk were being progressed.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
Councillor Martin said that he would do all he could to get Penwortham
Bypass up to Q1 level. It is also referred to in Central Lancashire City
submission that the Penwortham Bypass is anticipated to be part of the
LTP from 2006-2016 (pp 68 para 6.28). Compare this however with “…it
is unlikely that any progress regarding this scheme will be made until
after 2015 (pp 72 para 6.45).
Task Group Findings
The Task Group accept that any moves to get Penwortham By-Pass
moved up to Quartile 1 on the NWRA’s list of schemes had not been
successful – it should, however, be pointed out that there are 4 times as
many schemes put forward on a regional basis as there are resources to
fund, and the County Council was also competing against other
Authorities such as Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire and Cumbria.
The Task Group reiterate the point made earlier in response to Question
B, ie that a Major Scheme Business Case, which would be a major piece
of work, still needed to be done, but needed to be done when it was felt
that there would be a reasonable chance of success – why would the
County Council submit a case, costing in the region of £2,000,000, at this
time for a scheme which was not at the top of its priority list?
The Task Group appreciated that County Councillor Martin was
responsible for schemes across the whole of the County, and at least two
other schemes remained to be done first. It was felt that the comments
attributed to County Councillor Martin were not a contradiction, but
followed logically. Again, County Councillor Martin’s remarks are detailed
in Annex 2 to this Report.
The Task Group believed that it would be helpful to provide a copy of the
Regional Quartile List, as it was the NWRA which set the list of priorities,
over which the County Council had no influence; together with details of
the scoring system used by the NWRA, and these are provided at Annex
6 to this Report.
21
The Task Group feel that, if the PBPAG have any issues regarding the
priorities on the Regional Quartile List, or regarding the scoring system,
these should be taken up directly with the NWRA by the PBPAG.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
In connection with the comments attributed to County Councillor Martin
that “the County Council’s resources were limited to working on two
schemes at any one time”, PBPAG commented that there did now appear
to be resources for more than two schemes.
PBPAG queried how many schemes are currently being worked on by
the County Council – A570; A585; Heysham; East Lancs Rapid Transit;
Blackpool to Fleetwood Tramway?
PBPAG also queried whether County Councillor Martin had done
“everything in his power” to get the scheme for the By-Pass raised up the
Quartile Lists – what actions had he actually taken?
In response to the suggestion that PBPAG take up any issues regarding
the priorities on the Regional Quartile Lists, or regarding the scoring
system, directly with the North West Regional Assembly, the Task Group
noted that PBPAG did not have the resources to make such an approach.
Final Task Group Findings
In response to the query about how many schemes were currently
being worked on by the County Council, the Task Group noted that
detailed design work was currently being undertaken in connection with
Heysham to M6 Link and Ormskirk By-Pass; a consultation exercise on
the preferred route for the M55/A585 Norcross Link was underway; and
work was being carried out on two public transport systems in
partnership with neighbouring Authorities, ie the East Lancashire Rapid
Transit System and the Blackpool to Fleetwood Tramway system.
In connection with the comments attributed to County Councillor Martin
that “the County Council’s resources were limited to working on two
schemes at any one time”, the Task Group felt that County Councillor
Martin was referring to work on a significant basis on highway
construction schemes.
The Task Group are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘G’.
22
Original Question
H.
Has the A570 through Ormskirk been detrunked?
Who is now
responsible for it? (This has relevance as to whether its proposed
bypass is an issue for LCC or the Highways Agency).
LCC Reply
The A570 through Ormskirk has not been detrunked, it is still the
responsibility of the Highways Agency. This has no relevance to the
issue of the bypass as the County Council are progressing the bypass
just as the County Council constructed the existing parts of the
Penwortham Bypass whilst the A59 was a trunk road.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
After all the fuss about ensuring the A59 west of Preston was detrunked.
How did the A570 slip through the net?
It has relevance to Penwortham Bypass in that LCC officers are
progressing this (though it is owned by the Highway Agency) ahead of
other schemes under full LCC ownership (eg Penwortham Bypass).
Task Group Findings
The Task Group noted that the A570 had not been de-trunked. The Task
Group accept that the issue in Ormskirk relates purely to congestion, but
that interest in de-trunking seemed to have waned. The County Council
would not seek de-trunking of the A570.
The Task Group accepted that the Highways Agency would determine if,
or when, it would prefer the A570 to be de-trunked and, at that point, the
County Council would react to that decision as a consultee – the County
Council would not be pro-active in that matter.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
In response to the findings of the Task Group about the A570, PBPAG
queried who was the Managing Agent for the A570, and who was the
Contracting Agent for the A570 – it was felt that the answers to those
questions would establish responsibility.
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group noted that the Managing Agent for the A570 was W S
Atkins; and the Contracting Agent for the A570 was Amey Mouchel.
The Task Group are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘H’.
23
Original Question
I.
SRBC withdrew their objections to detrunking after correspondence with
LCC Highways Department. This was announced at a local SRBC area
committee meeting and SRBC Councillors appeared concerned about the
decision. What correspondence went on between LCC and SRBC
immediately prior to that decision being made? (Suggestions were made
that the £500,000 allocated for A59 safety improvements might be lost
and that SRBC may have to fund a public enquiry if their objection was
not withdrawn).
LCC Reply
No letters are recorded on the file between LCC and SRBC, but a copy of
a letter is attached from the Highways Agency to SRBC which mentions
the public inquiry.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
The reason that SRBC withdrew their objections (we were told again 2
nights ago) was that the Highway Agency threatened to withdraw the
£500,000 funds available for costed road safety measures. Bearing in
mind that since then these funds have been spent on almost totally
revised (“compromise”) measures which were not subject to any
consultation with SRBC or anyone else outside LCC.
The text of the attached letter from HA refer to the “…broad level of
community support for the proposed safety scheme.” For LCC to then
extensively alter the scheme seems wrong to us.
Task Group Findings
Again, the Task Group believe that these matters, relating to the
implementation of the safety measures, have been addressed in
response to Question A.
The Task Group reiterate that South Ribble’s Area Committee was
quite satisfied with what was taking place, and that was why the
Borough Council’s original objection to de-trunking was withdrawn. The
£500,000 was only available on the de-trunking of the road, and it was
appreciated that that offer did not have to have been made.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
In connection with the withdrawal of the South Ribble Borough
Council’s objections to the de-trunking of the A59, Penwortham Town
Council believe that conditions were placed on the withdrawal of those
objections, and those conditions have not been met.
24
In response to there being no letters on file between the County and
Borough Council’s on this matter, PBPAG commented that it was their
belief that E.Mails had been sent by the Highways Agency (David
Shaw) to the Borough Council suggesting that the £500,000 might not
be forthcoming if the objections were not withdrawn – and regarding
the Borough Council funding the Public Inquiry if the objections were
not withdrawn – PBPAG requested sight of those E.Mails.
It was the recollection of PBPAG that Borough Council Members had
expressed disappointment, not satisfaction, with what was happening
on the A59.
PBPAG made references to a number of documents in order to support
their views on the points made at Question I, as detailed below:i)
reference was made to the Minutes of Higher Penwortham Area
Committee for the 6th November, 2006, where it is recorded, on
page 30, that the “Highways Agency had threatened to take the
money away”; and
ii)
a letter from the Highways Agency, dated the 9th May, 2003, to J P
Rogers, where, at page 2, it states that “the Local Authority should
not have to take over responsibility for the road from the
Government until all safety issues have been resolved”; and
iii)
the March, 2004, edition of the Liberal Democrat Newslletter –
Focus – refers to “…… Councillors had to accept that, if we had
held out indefinitely, the funding would have been withdrawn”; and
iv)
a letter from the Highways Agency to South Ribble Borough
Council, dated the 11th September, 2003, which states that “if South
Ribble Borough Council are unable to do so (ie withdraw objections)
then a Local Public Inquiry may be necessary”.
Final Task Group Findings
In connection with the comments made by PBPAG about the existence
of E.Mails sent by the Highways Agency to South Ribble Borough
Council, and their request for sight of those E.Mails, the Task Group
felt unable to make comment, and felt that access to those documents
was a matter to be addressed to, and by, the Highways Agency and
the Borough Council.
Again, the Task Group believe that the matters referred to by the
PBPAG at points i), ii), iii) and iv), relating to the implementation of the
safety measures, have already been addressed in response to
Question ‘A’, and are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘I’.
25
Original Question
J.
A very brief record of expenditure against the £500,000 safety budget
was submitted by LCC to SRBC. It showed expenditure in excess of
£500,000. Research suggests this is above what would be expected for
the types of work done. Can a complete detailed breakdown of budget
expenditure be provided?
LCC Reply
A more detailed breakdown in costs was provided to the Area Committee
in July. Copy attached. The cost of schemes depends on the quantity of
work as well as the type of work.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
It is noted from the attached costings that in at least 2 places the safety
scheme costings were exceeded by removing Central Reservations
against the recommendations of the Safety Scheme Identification Study.
Further several items seem to have little explanation – Parklands ND
000161? Cop Lane alterations ND000138? Redesign costs were at
LCC’s discretion and should not be included. Supervision costs should
not be included as the tasks were completed by LCC’s own paid staff.
These are opportunity costs only and would not impact on other budgets.
Resurfacing work should be held against standard resurfacing costs.
These matters account for £253,246.13.
Task Group Findings
The Task Group again noted that certain amendments were carried out to
some of the recommendations from the Safety Scheme Identification
Study – see Annex 1.
In relation to the comments made by the PBPAG about the breakdown of
expenditure, the Task Group accepted that it was standard practice for
supervision costs to be met from scheme budgets. The Task Group also
accepted that the re-surfacing of the route was not carried out because
the road surface had become worn, but was carried out as a
consequence of the implementation of the safety scheme and, in those
circumstances, it was quite legitimate to attach the costs of the resurfacing work to the costs of the safety measures.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
In connection with the £500,000 allocated to the A59 for safety
improvements, PBPAG had seen a copy of the expenditure on the
scheme, which was ‘at odds’ with the original recommendations from P
Fenton of the Highways Agency in the “Highways Agency – Highway
Consultancy – Area 17 Road Safety and Scheme Identification Study
26
(S11/02). It was felt that the expenditure did not reflect what was actually
meant to have occurred. In particular, PBPAG made the following points:i)
that it was never the intention for any of the £500,000 allocation to
have been used to re-surface the road, it was meant to have been
used for safety improvements; and;
ii)
the allocation of £500,000 had been fully costed-up for use on
safety improvements; and
iii)
the Borough Council had been informed that £500,000 would be
spent on safety improvements in order that they would withdraw
their objections to the de-trunking of the A59; and
iv)
a portion of the County Council’s annual budget for re-surfacing
should have been used; and
v)
that Special Grant monies remain available; and
vi)
that the expenditure of £110,000 on something which was never a
safety recommendation in the Safety Scheme Identification Study
(ie widening the road at Parklands) should be queried – is this a
reasonable expenditure of public money?
It was pointed out that some of the £500,000 had been saved as a result
of some of the recommendations not being taken forward – it was recalled
that some of the recommendations were not taken forward as a result of
United Utilities requiring in the region of £150,000 to move their
equipment.
PBPAG pointed out that 94 local residents had objected to the de-trunking
of the A59 on safety grounds.
PBPAG felt that a ‘time-line document’ of meetings which had taken place
would be useful.
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group are of the view that an amount of money (£500,000)
was offered by the Highways Agency which was available to be spent
on the most appropriate schemes for the circumstances from the
‘shopping list’ contained within the 24 recommendations – the amount
of money bore no reality to the true costs of the scheme(s).
In connection with the specific points raised by the PBPAG, the Task
Group comment that:i)
as stated previously, the resurfacing of the road was as a result of a
safety issue; and
27
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
the allocation of £500,000 had not been fully costed-up, it was an
available amount of money; and
the Task Group are not able to comment upon the particular point
about the Borough Council withdrawing their objections to the detrunking of the A59; and
other than as a result of the previous road markings still being
visible following the introduction of the safety measures, there
would have been no justification whatsoever for the resurfacing of
the road as the surface was not worn – in those circumstances, a
portion of the County Council’s annual budget for resurfacing
should not have been used; and
Special Grant monies are not available for safety measures, but are
to be used for day to day maintenance issues which arise following
the de-trunking of a route, (eg gritting, replacement of street light
bulbs, etc); and
The scheme for the widening of the road at Parklands was clearly
shown on the drawings at the consultation stage.
The Task Group did not feel that a ‘time-line document’ of meetings which had
taken place would be useful, and are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation
has previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard to
Question ‘J’.
28
Original Question
K.
In 2004, it was found that the Health and Safety risk assessment for the
School Crossing Patrol (SCP) at Howick School was mistakenly
undertaken without the SCP’s presence, covered only one side of the
dual carriageway and assumed a speed limit of 30mph instead of 40mph.
Since then we understand that the need for a SCP has been reassessed.
We seek a copy of the latest risk assessment.
LCC Reply
There is no requirement for the school crossing patrol to be present when
a risk assessment is carried out on the highway environment. It is
accepted that the risk assessment incorrectly identified that the road was
a 30mph limit instead of 40mph. Earlier this year a request was received
to reconsider the times during which the patrol operated and the periods
have been extended. This patrol is not currently being considered for
disestablishment. Risk assessments are not given out to the public.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
PenBAG received a copy of the last risk assessment under the Freedom
of Information Act. Why are we so defensive about the new one?
How many other primary schools in Lancashire are adjacent to 50 mph
roads? How many other SCPs operate on 40 mph roads?
Task Group Findings
The Task Group was advised that a number of engineering
improvements had been carried out in the vicinity of Howick School
over the past few years, such as the automated speed limit reduction
signs to 40mph whilst the School Patrol was operating along with
flashing lights; bollards have been placed to prevent parking in the
vicinity of the School Crossing Patrol; and there has been the addition
of a central reservation barrier system.
The Risk Assessment was carried out in 2004, when traffic volumes
and the numbers of children crossing were taken into account. Both
sides of the carriageway were checked. It was accepted that the
School Crossing Patrol was not on duty when the assessment was
carried out, but this was not a requirement of the assessment.
Similarly, it was accepted that the speed limit was mistakenly identified
as being 30mph instead of 40mph, but that made no difference to the
risk assessment.
The Task Group was informed that the risk assessment would be redone in 2007, subject to budgets, but that it was not a site currently
being looked at for further improvements.
29
With regard to the question from the PBPAG about other schools
adjacent to roads with 40mph speed limits or 50mph speed limits, the
Task Group felt that this was not relevant, as each request for a School
Crossing Patrol was evaluated on merit; no two sites are the same; and
each request is treated specifically to the requirements of that site.
In addition, in response to concerns about the operating times of the
School Crossing Patrol, and children crossing the road outside of those
times, the Task Group understands that the County Council had made
arrangements for these to be amended slightly from January, 2006.
The Task Group felt that it would be helpful for a copy of the Criteria for
the Establishment of a School Crossing Patrol to be provided, and in
an attempt to be helpful, this information is attached as Annex 7 to this
Report.
The Task Group noted that the School did have a School Travel Plan,
including a ‘walking bus’, which was an aid to safety; and that, to the
best of the Task Group’s knowledge, there had been no adverse
comments from the School Governors.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
PBPAG were not happy with the safety measures in place outside
Howick School – a member of PBPAG had spoken to the School
Crossing Patrol on the previous day and, whilst in conversation, a
parent of a child at the school had said that parents were incensed
regarding the provisions made for children to cross the road, and that
the School Crossing Patrol deserved a medal for the job being done.
The School Crossing Patrol commented to PBPAG that the crossing
was not visible enough; that road rage was a problem; and that the
Crossing Patrol was a target for drivers to aim at.
PBPAG pointed out that parents and governors had many issues
regarding safety at the crossing point, there had been many ‘nearmisses’, many examples of vehicles braking sharply, and concern was
expressed at the visibility of the School Crossing Patrol – it was felt that
there seemed to be a choice of having either a School Crossing Patrol
or a Pedestrian Crossing – it was pointed out, however, that the County
Council had not been contacted by the School on these issues.
It was felt that a Pelican Crossing would be far safer than a Puffin
Crossing, but that a School Crossing Patrol could not operate on a
Puffin Crossing, only on a Pelican Crossing.
PBPAG commented that the risk assessment previously undertaken
had been an absolute mess and, further, that there had been no risk
30
assessment undertaken at Crookings Lane, as there was no School
Crossing Patrol at that point.
PBPAG also commented that, during a recent ¾ hour period, 37
drivers had been caught for driving at over 57 mph within a 40 mph
speed limit area.
PBPAG totally disagreed with the findings of the Task Group that,
when the speed limit was mistakenly identified as being 30 mph
instead of 40 mph (during the risk assessment undertaken in 2004) that
“that made no difference to the risk assessment”.
PBPAG felt that the risk assessment which was to be re-done in 2007
should be done in consultation with the school, and the Task Group
agreed with that comment.
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group felt that any issues relating to the safety measures in
place outside Howick School, in particular, in relation to the School
Crossing Patrol, would be addressed by the Full Safety Audit which
was currently taking place, or by the risk assessment which was to be
re-done in 2007, subject to budgets. The Task Group agreed with the
suggestion from PBPAG that the risk assessment should be done in
consultation with the school – (it has, however, subsequently been
pointed out by the Principal Road Safety Advisor that the risk
assessment would be a physical assessment).
The Task Group are satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has
previously been given to all of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard
to Question ‘K’.
31
Original Question
L.
The Safety Study for the A59 through Penwortham was undertaken by a
fully qualified traffic accident minimisation officer contracted for Highways
Agency. His views were amended after consultation first with the public,
then by LCC Highways Department, where significant alterations to the
scheme were made without further public consultation. The report also
includes references to some suggestions made by a member of PenBAG,
though other suggestions were excluded. Are LCC satisfied that this
report was conducted properly and subject to the standard rules for
safety schemes?
LCC Reply
The County Council is satisfied that the entire process was conducted
properly. The original study was a feasibility report that contained a list of
options and alternatives. These were then consulted on, both at public
exhibitions and with officers and members of the various Local Authorities
and Town/Parish councils.
During this process, proposals were
developed which were then safety audited and subjected to detailed
design.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
The Secretary of State for Transport has said that there should have
been no communication between HA and LCC Highways on the safety
scheme identification study before its implementation. What grounds
does LCC have for suggesting that they are satisfied with the entire
process?
The Highways Agency’s Safety Scheme identification study was costed
and gave detailed designs. LCC extensively altered these designs
without further consultation with HA or the public. How can that be
appropriate?
Task Group Findings
The Task Group feel that the Highways Agency would not have carried
out works to the route in isolation, as any works carried out would have
impacted on adjoining County Council highways.
The Task Group request that PBPAG provide the source (and a copy) of
their information (ie ‘that there should have been no communication
between the Highways Agency and the County Council on the Safety
Scheme Identification Study before its implementation’).
The Task Group, again, totally refute the suggestion that the County
Council did not consult the Highways Agency or the public – it was
recalled that the Highways Agency attended public exhibitions and
Meetings of Area Committees – it was also recalled that there had been a
32
joint meeting of the Higher Penwortham and Western Parishes Area
Committees.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
PBPAG commented that all problems on the road had been identified at
consultation meetings, and P Fenton of the Highways Agency had dealt
with all the problems in the “Highways Agency – Highway Consultancy –
Area 17 Road Safety and Scheme Identification Study (S11/02).
PBPAG make reference to a letter dated the 8th February, 2006, from the
Secretary of State (Stephen Ladyman) where, at paragraph 2, reference
is made to “Paul Fenton …… Accident and Remedial Action Specialist”
and where, at paragraph 3, it is stated that “LCC agreed that they would
complete the remainder of the Penwortham Safety Scheme …… after detrunking”.
PBPAG also make reference to comment in a letter dated the 23rd
November, 2005, from the Highways Agency (Alex Miller) that “LCC were
content with the proposals as agreed” – so why were they then altered?
PBPAG accepted the findings of the Task Group that there had been a
joint meeting of the Higher Penwortham and Western Parishes Area
Committees.
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group believe that the matters referred to by the PBPAG
have already been addressed in response to Question ‘A’, and are
satisfied that a satisfactory explanation has previously been given to all
of the issues raised by PBPAG with regard to Question ‘L’.
33
Original Question
M. Is the committee satisfied that Penwortham’s, Preston’s and the
surrounding region’s economic future benefits from a sufficient road
infrastructure in the area south west of Preston?
LCC Reply
For the Lancashire Local to respond to.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
Answer awaited from LCC local.
Task Group Findings
The Task Group believe that, principally, during the daytime, the traffic
flowed along the A59 fairly well, although there were problems during the
morning and evening peaks. It was felt, however, that, even if the ByPass was to be completed, the main problem of the volume of traffic on
the bridge crossing into Preston would still remain.
The Task Group believed that there wasn’t a strong argument for the
completion of the By-Pass on economic regeneration grounds and, in
those circumstances, and bearing in mind that Government Policy
currently favours the use of public transport, it would be difficult, at the
moment, to make a case for the completion of the By-Pass.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
In response to the comments of the Task Group that Government
Policy currently favoured the use of public transport, and that it would
be difficult, at the moment, to make a case for the completion of the ByPass, PBPAG commented that Park and Ride facilities in the area
would not solve the problems in Penwortham – there was still only one
route for any buses to use.
PBPAG felt that this came back to the question of the strategic
importance of the route, and felt that the whole infrastructure of the
area, taking account of the highway and public transport network,
needed to be looked at by an independent expert.
PBPAG noted that the traffic counts presented as Annex 5 showed a
lack of use of the Old Ribble Bridge northbound and felt that this could
change if the By-Pass was completed and the Slip Road removed.
34
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group believe that the matters referred to by the PBPAG
have already been addressed, and are satisfied that a satisfactory
explanation has previously been given to all of the issues raised by
PBPAG with regard to Question ‘M’.
35
Original Question
N.
The A59 is the busiest traffic route in and out of Preston. As (at that time)
a trunk road is not included in Preston’s “ring of Steel” for continual trafficcorridor monitoring, can the committee confirm that the A59 is now
included within the “ring of steel”?
LCC Reply
It is presumed that the “ring of steel” refers to the police automatic
number plate recognition cameras of which there are four on the north
and east side of Preston. These cameras are for police purposes only
and the County Council have no control or use of them.
PBPAG Response to LCC Reply
To rephrase this. Is LCC now taking proper account of the A59 west of
Preston and its traffic? It is the most congested overall route into/out of
the city. It took the road over in 2004 and yet appears not to have much
information about traffic volumes or types despite its own officers being
responsible for the road since the early 1990s.
Task Group Findings
The Task Group query the statement from PBPAG that the route is the
most congested overall route into and out of Preston – under the
Department for Transport suggested measuring system, it is
understood that the A582 was the most congested route. The A6 north
of Preston also gave cause for concern on congestion grounds.
The massive growth of the University in Preston is thought to be a
reason for the increase in congestion.
In response to the question about the availability of information about
traffic volumes, the Task Group understands that there is a standard
process of collection of such information, and the County Council had
systems in place to ensure that everything reasonable and practical
was done to gather that information – data was collected at the bottom
of the Ribble Bridge, and there was also a permanent traffic counter at
Howick.
The Task Group comment that most of the problems on the road were
an improvement on previous positions; and that, from a pedestrian
aspect, things were safer than they had previously been.
Supplementary Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
PBPAG requested details of the measurements undertaken in relation
to congestion.
36
In support of their views on the points made at Question N, PBPAG refer
to:i)
the Department for Transport Website, on the 30th August, 2003,
giving details of the congestion levels of major roads in the north
west; and
ii)
the LTP Progress Report of 2002, pages 39, 13 and 14, giving
details of Freeflow, Pollution, Noise and Speeds of Roads around
Preston.
Final Task Group Findings
The Task Group believe that the matters referred to by the PBPAG
have already been addressed, and are satisfied that a satisfactory
explanation has previously been given to all of the issues raised by
PBPAG with regard to Question ‘N’.
37
General Comments from PBPAG on 14th March, 2007
A number of general points were made by Penwortham By-Pass Action Group
at the meeting on the 14th March, 2007:i)
that the Lancashire Local-South Ribble should be the final arbiter
on this matter, and not the Task Group; and
ii)
that the traffic situation on the A59 was only going to get worse; and
iii)
that the safety improvements made to the A59 were unavoidable,
bearing in mind the unacceptable level of accidents on the road;
and
iv)
all of the issues that the PBPAG have sought to raise are issues
originally raised by the County Council, but the County Council
appear to have forgotten all of their previous concerns; and
v)
that traffic speeds on the A59 were often in excess of 60 mph, on
sections of the road which carried a 30 mph limit; and
vi)
that, in the vicinity of the Cop Lane junction, over 30,000 vehicles
per day used the A59; and
vii)
the PBPAG expected Officers of the Environment Directorate to be
present at the meeting, and felt that it was strange that that was not
the case; and
viii)
that the PBPAG feel that it would be useful for both Members and
Officers to ‘walk the route’ with the Action Group, to have an ‘indepth’ look at the issues in detail, and hear at first hand the
concerns of the residents living adjacent to the road; and
ix)
that the County Council ‘duped’ South Ribble Borough Council into
withdrawing their objections to the de-trunking of the A59; and
x)
that the Task Group should say that they are not satisfied, or have
concerns, that all of the safety recommendations that could have
been carried out have actually been carried out and, therefore, that
the objectives of the independent Road Safety and Scheme
Identification Study (S11/02) had not been met.
PBPAG stated that they were more than happy to work together with Officers,
and always had been, but previous suggestions made by them had been
ignored – they expressed the view that South Ribble Borough Council should
also be pressed for action on this matter.
PBPAG expressed their concern that seriously un-democratic things had
happened over the years regarding this matter, and that some disciplinary
38
procedures needed to be put in place – (it was pointed out that the County
Council did operate a Complaints Procedure, and PBPAG had previously
been advised about the procedures for taking a matter forward in that way).
Penwortham Town Council indicated a desire for the Safety Audit to take
place as soon as possible. In that connection, PBPAG indicated that local
residents needed to be given the opportunity to contribute to the Safety Audit
but that, if an independent observer was to take a full part in the Safety Audit,
and concluded that everything was satisfactory, PBPAG would ‘back off’.
Task Group Comments on General Comments from PBPAG on 14th
March, 2007
The Task Group addressed each of the supplementary comments from
the PBPAG in turn, as detailed below:The Task Group noted that some of the points made by PBPAG were a
matter of opinion, although the Task Group believed it was possible to
disagree with some of the points made.
In connection with point iii) (that the safety improvements made to the
A59 were unavoidable, bearing in mind the unacceptable level of
accidents on the road), the Task Group felt that the accident record
was not excessive, and that there were other areas of greater risk in
the County.
In connection with point viii) (that PBPAG felt that it would be useful for
both Members and Officers to ‘walk the route’ with the Action Group),
the Task Group felt that there would not be any great benefit to this – it
was felt that, if at all, it would possibly be better for the route to be
looked at by the Area Manager.
The Task Group noted that the Safety Audit was now being carried out,
which would look at the accidents which had occurred, and the reasons
for those accidents, together with any letters of complaints, or other
issues which had been raised regarding the route.
The Task Group noted, however, that it would not be possible to make
any route 100% safe, whilst there was a need to maintain a satisfactory
traffic flow. In particular, the Task Group felt that traffic had been
generated by the new housing developments which had taken place in
the Western Parishes.
In connection with point ix) (that the County Council had ‘duped’ South
Ribble Borough Council into withdrawing their objections to the detrunking of the A59), the Task Group commented that this was a matter
of opinion.
In connection with point x) (that the Task Group should say that they
are not satisfied, or have concerns, that all of the safety
39
recommendations that could have been carried out have actually been
carried out and, therefore, that the objectives of the independent Road
Safety and Scheme Identification Study (S11/02) had not been met),
the Task Group were satisfied. The Task Group reiterated the points
made previously that it would not have been possible for all of the
recommendations from the independent Safety Scheme Identification
Study to have been carried out, as some of those recommendations
were alternatives to each other. There had never been any intention to
carry out all of the recommendations, they were a list of options, some
of which negated other options.
The Task Group were satisfied that there had been full public
consultation, and the views of all consultees, including PBPAG, had
been taken into account.
40
Task Group Summary
The Task Group believe that the safety works implemented on the A59 would
not have been carried out without the amount of £500,000 being made
available from the Highways Agency, as the accident record on the A59 did
not warrant those works or that expenditure – without the amount made
available by the Highways Agency, the A59 would have had to compete for
priority with other safety schemes in the County.
The amount of £500,000 offered by the Highways Agency was not for a fully
costed-up specific scheme, but was an amount of money which was available
to be spent on the most appropriate schemes for the circumstances from the
‘shopping list’ contained within the 24 recommendations – the amount of
money provided was not linked to the actual forecast cost of any specific
scheme(s).
The Task Group are satisfied that, whilst maximum safety was the ultimate
aim of the safety improvement works, the matter of the flow of traffic had to be
taken into consideration, as it was felt that any increase in congestion would
result in motorists transferring to less suitable routes, namely residential
streets, thereby reducing overall safety in the area.
The Task Group are satisfied that a risk assessment of the School Crossing
Patrol at Howick School was to be re-done in 2007, subject to budgets, and
are happy to recommend that this should be done in consultation with the
school.
The Task Group are satisfied that a Full Safety Audit is currently being
undertaken along the route, in accordance with standard procedures, and
recommend that the outcome of the Audit be reported to Lancashire LocalSouth Ribble in due course.
The Task Group understand that PBPAG have some ideas which they wish to
pursue in order to ease traffic congestion and assist pedestrians – in that
connection, the Task Group indicated that they were content for Officers from
the County Council’s Environment Directorate to meet with a small number of
members of PBPAG to look at any new suggestions for further improvements,
and it was felt that it would be helpful for the Officers to have prior sight of
those suggestions so that some initial technical appraisal could be carried out
before any such meeting took place.
To conclude, the Task Group believe that it is the County Council’s stated
intention to complete the Penwortham By-Pass; it has been listed in the
County Council’s priority list and is still being promoted; and they expressed a
wish to work in a positive manner with the PBPAG towards that aim – it was
felt important to look forwards rather than backwards.
41
Annex 1
A59 Penwortham Safety Improvements
Recommendations Implemented
Reference numbers refer to the original study. Of 21 recommendations,
7 were implemented, 3 part implemented, 6 were not done and 5 were not
required or not relevant to the current works.
3.8.1
Implemented. Option B was done which is stated as the preferred
option.
3.8.2
Not implemented due to concerns that it would restrict parking and
create additional obstructions for both vulnerable road users and
vehicles.
3.8.3
Partly implemented.
With respect to (a): Central refuge was removed as it was
considered safer to cross in one go, especially with the large
numbers crossing after school (many with bikes). Other proposals
implemented.
With respect to (b): It was not implemented for reasons as stated
in the study, plus to maintain capacity would prevent footway
widenings and provision of cycle lanes.
(c): Not implemented due to objections by residents/businesses.
3.8.4
Partly implemented – central island was removed as safer to cross
in one go. Pedestrian refuges were upgraded. Footway build-outs
and cycle bypasses not done due to lack of room.
3.8.5
Implemented.
3.8.6
Not implemented due to enforcement issues, the County Council
rarely provide mandatory cycle lanes.
3.8.7
Not implemented due to cost and policy of not encouraging
residents to park on the highway when they have driveways.
3.8.8
Not relevant – no longer School Crossing Patrol site.
3.8.9
Not relevant to current works.
3.8.10
Implemented.
3.8.11
Not relevant to current works.
3.8.12
Not relevant to current works – maintenance issue.
Bev/Feb/09BJN03 SMc
Page 1 of 2
4.8.1
Implemented – some gaps were not totally closed due to local
concerns and access/egress to properties.
4.8.2
Not implemented – school decided against this proposal.
4.8.3
Partially implemented – layby extended but bus stop not moved.
4.8.4
Implemented
4.8.5
Not relevant to current works – maintenance issue.
5.5.1
Implemented.
6.8.1
Not implemented. Authorisation would not be gained for the
roundels, measures to slow vehicles superseded by provision of
toucan crossing, lanes not altered due to reason stated.
6.8.2
Implemented.
6.8.3
Not implemented – not a safety issue.
Bev/Feb/09BJN03 SMc
Page 2 of 2
42
Annex 2
SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL
HIGHER PENWORTHAM AREA COMMITTEE
Meeting held at 7.00 pm on Monday 6 February 2006 at St. Mary’s Church Hall, Cop
Lane, Penwortham
Present:
Councillor Shaw (in the chair)
Councillors Hancock, Pimblett, Read and Young
In Attendance:
Darren Crossley (Head of Cultural & Community Services),
Alison Hatton (Community Safety Co-ordinator) and Andrew Houlker
(Senior Democratic Services Officer)
Public and Press
Attendance:
56 (including one member of press)
Other Members
and Officers:
0
105.
Welcome and Introductions
The chairman, Councillor Shaw, welcomed members of the public, explained the
proceedings and introduced the members of the committee.
106.
Apology for Absence
An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Howarth.
107.
Minutes of the Last Meeting
RESOLVED:
108.
that the minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2005
be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.
Chairman’s Remarks
There were no remarks submitted.
109.
Police and Crime and Disorder Issues in Higher Penwortham
The Community Beat Manager for Higher Penwortham, PC Gary Johnson, attended
and addressed the meeting and responded to various questions asked. He was
accompanied by Pete Lawson, the new Police Inspector for the Penwortham and
Bamber Bridge area.
PC Johnson informed the meeting that in January there had been 238 reported
incidents, of which 50 resulted in crime reports. He stated there had also been 51
reports of anti-social behaviour (compared to November (55) and December (36)).
A member of the public commented about youths drinking around the Kwik Save
store on Birch Avenue and youths congregating around Cherrywood. He felt that the
situation was not getting any better particularly with youths being able to access
alcohol. PC Johnson responded that last Friday night there had been problems all
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
43
over the Higher Penwortham area and felt that the group in question had been
dispersed from the Crookings Lane area. He also accepted that the issue with Birch
Avenue was back on the agenda. He added that when previously targeted the
number of instances had reduced. If the number of reports of nuisance and antisocial behaviour continued the location might have to go back to being a targeted
patrol. He also accepted that youth access to alcohol was a problem and the relevant
authorities were monitoring sales.
PC Johnson stated that Kwik Save was quite good in this respect and the police had
also spoken to the Somerfield store. Both stores operated a 21+ policy. However, it
was known there were certain individuals over 18 who were providing alcohol to those
under age. In respect of off-licences in the area, there had been test purchases and if
any had been found in breach they had been prosecuted. There were also juvenile
issues in the Birch Avenue, King George V playing fields and Howick Cross Lane
areas.
Another member of the public reported that whilst recently riding a horse by the river
(to the rear of the golf course) she had been confronted by juveniles on two
motorbikes. PC Johnson responded that a visual audit had been carried out on Priory
Park in respect of misuse by bikes, and gating was being investigated. The
Community Safety Co-ordinator accepted that there had been quite a lot of this
activity in the area since the New Year and it was hoped to reduce such access with
sensible measures. She encouraged people to report such incidences, no matter
how minor, and if possible to get details of any identifying features/marks, including at
which entrance/exit and at what times etc.
A member of the public reported that youths at the junction of Manor Lane and Broad
Oak Lane were congregating by the electricity box and stopping vehicles from
passing. PC Johnson responded that this area was part of the targeted patrol and
issues relating to juvenile nuisance were occurring across the whole of Penwortham.
Unfortunately the police could not target all the areas all the time. He added that
when a particular area was targeted this tended to displace that group of youths to
another area. One issue was that there were not many facilities in Higher
Penwortham for juveniles and discussions were taking place for the possible
provision of some facilities at Hurst Grange Park and/or Penwortham Holme. At
present these were ideas being discussed with partner organisations.
The meeting was informed that the Multi Agency Team for Higher Penwortham had
made recommendations relating to the planning application by Kwik Save to see if
camera surveillance could include the Birch Avenue play area. It was known that
Broad Oak Lane from the roundabout to Walton Avenue was used as a main
pedestrian thoroughfare and recommendations to improve the street lighting and
some CCTV coverage were felt would help address the problems being caused by
pedestrians in this area. It was also known there had been a number of events
around the Birch Avenue play area which were currently being monitored so that the
right response could carried out because it was important the actions were adequate.
Inspector Lawson introduced himself to the committee indicating that he had now
been in post for three weeks having previously served in Leyland. He was interested
to listen to the questions this evening. Whilst the statistics for high profile crimes
were at a long time low, it was apparent that people did not feel any safer. He added
that the police had started to recognise that these lower level issues such as antisocial behaviour and juvenile nuisance were important to the general public.
The police intended to direct resources for quick hit results ie Anti-Social Behaviour
Orders etc. He acknowledged that the work of the Community Beat Managers was
very important and that the police’s emphasis of anti-social behaviour including
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
44
criminal damage was also important. He was becoming aware of the issues in the
area and from what had been said so far, he was reassured that the police were
looking into the right issues.
A member of the public enquired if the proposals to merge the police forces for
Lancashire and Cumbria, was likely to reduce police presence in Penwortham.
Inspector Lawson responded that it was more appropriate for either the Lancashire
Police Authority or Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters to answer at this time. PC
Johnson informed the meeting that Rachel Lord (Police Community Support Officer)
would be replaced later this month by Andrea Orme. Inspector Lawson was pleased
to report he had been able to backfill this vacancy immediately.
Councillor Read enquired if there was anything members of the public could do to
help the police in their job in dealing with such matters as anti-social behaviour and
motorbikes etc. He wondered if the use of mobile phones with cameras might be of
assistance. PC Johnson responded that Neighbourhood Watch information was very
useful and most areas were covered in Higher Penwortham. These proved a good
source of contact and if anyone was interested in setting a Neighbourhood Watch
Scheme in their area they could contact him. Inspector Lawson felt the use of mobile
phone photographic evidence would be treated on its merit having regard for
individuals using commonsense and being aware of personal safety. The police
appreciated as much information the public could provide, although individuals had to
bear in mind their personal safety.
110.
Multi-Agency Problem Solving (MAPS) Team Bulletin
A bulletin update on multi-agency work by members of the MAPS Team had been
circulated with the meeting’s committee papers.
The Community Safety Co-ordinator reported that over the last few months attention
had been given to addressing graffiti incidents which included Liverpool Road and a
number of alleys/ginnels. She added that the local authority could clean such sites
and householders could ask to have this removed from their premises. Dependant
upon the amount of graffiti this removal service could be provided free of charge. It
had been noted that following these activities there had been a reduced number of
incidents and attention was now being turned to Priory Park which would require work
with United Utilities. Priory Park was also the venue for some work being carried out
by Year 6 pupils at two local schools on environmental issues. It was hoped that
these activities would increase the general awareness of responsible ownership/use
of property by young people in the area.
111.
Matters Arising from Last Meeting
(a)
Multi-Agency Problem Solving (MAPS) Team Bulletin (By-Laws Relating
to Various Parks in the Area)
Further to min. no. 84, 19 December 2005, copies of these by-laws were
available at the meeting.
(b)
Priory Park – Gates being left Unlocked
Further to min. no. 87(a), the council had re-emphasised the need to
immediately close and lock these gates after United Utilities’ and its own staff
had entered the park. If members of the public found further instances of
these gates being left unlocked/open, they should contact the council’s Head
Ranger on 01772 421491.
(c)
Waste Collection – Return of Plastic Bags
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
45
Further to min. no. 103(a), the council’s Transport and Waste Manager had
spoken to the Waste Collection Officer.
A member of the public commented that whilst the new waste collection
service requested plastic bottles be flattened, she refused to do this on health
grounds. The chairman responded that if any individual felt they had difficulty
in complying with the requirements of the new waste collection service they
should contact the council to discuss their recycling needs.
112.
(d)
Castle Walk – Trimming of Trees
Further to min. no. 103(c), the council had carried out works to 30 Poplar trees
on the banking, whose foliage was overhanging residents’ gardens. One of
these had little foliage other than that overhanging and had in effect been
pollarded, and whilst it currently looked stark it would re-grow.
(e)
Howick Park Drive – Condition of Footway
Further to min. no. 103(d), this footway had been inspected. Whilst areas
were uneven and parts could look better, no dangerous defects had been
detected. A member of the public had concerns they should contact the
council’s Highways Service on 01772 625400. Councillor Pimblett confirmed
that the council’s Highways Service had inspected the footway and the
individual who had raised the matter had been contacted.
Update on Outstanding Matters Raised
(a)
Blackthorn Drive – Speed Monitoring
PC Johnson informed the meeting that there were now two officers available
with a speed gun, who would target sites of concern. Cop Lane and Priory
Lane had already been identified for attention and it was hoped the results
would be available at the next meeting. He would request Blackthorn Drive be
included for monitoring.
(b)
Cop Lane - Vibration
County Councillor Martin offered to pursue obtaining information from the
county council’s highways laboratory.
(c)
Birch Avenue – Mobile Chip Shop
PC Johnson reported that he was not aware of any problems concerning the
mobile chip shop and understood it complied with the relevant environmental
health regulations.
(d)
Booth’s Car Park off Millbrook Way
PC Johnson commented that whilst this was in PC Greg Sloan’s area
(Kingsfold) he understood the store was being requested to close the gates to
the car park to reduce nuisance.
(e)
Fleece PH – Car Park
Further to previous discussions on this topic it was initially felt there was no
record of ownership or permitted useage other than that the current ownership
rights (Spirit Managed Inns Ltd). However, during the discussion it was
suggested that public use of part of the car park near to the public house had
been a condition attached to a planning permission. This application had
been to allow the conversion of the bowing green to form part of the car park.
RESOLVED:
that the matter of public useage of part of the car park be
further investigated.
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
46
(f)
113.
Meadow Reach – Screen Planting
It was reported that the small areas of land around the properties on Meadow
Reach were not being adopted as public open space by the council. It was
waiting for the developer to offer the larger area for adoption. As yet the
developer had not indicated what land it was offering for adoption. Therefore,
at present, the council did not own any land in the area in which to install
planting. It would be up to the residents to plant up their own land for
screening. In addition there was only one property next to the public open
space the council would eventually adopt. The council had not received any
further reports of problems.
A59 Liverpool Road
The chairman welcomed County Councillor Tony Martin, the county council’s Cabinet
member for Sustainable Development and Steve McCreesh from the county council’s
Highways Service. He thanked them for attending the meeting to discuss the A59
Road Safety Improvement Scheme. He added that it had been agreed the meeting
would only discuss this scheme and the debate would be limited to half an hour.
Mr McCreesh explained that the ring fenced sum of £500,000 that had been allocated
for this scheme had now been spent. The scheme had been modified in light of
comments received. It would now be monitored over a three year period.
A member of the public asked what this money had been spent on and was informed
it had been used on such things as, introducing cycle lanes, converting crossings
from Pelican to Toucan, erecting guard rails, installing pedestrian crossings, changing
lane markings, widen footways, and a one-way traffic order etc.
There was a request for a break down of where these monies had been spent
unfortunately Mr McCreesh did not have that detail to hand.
A member of the public wondered why two lanes forward had been kept and not one
provided to turn right at the junction with Cop Lane. The response was that whilst the
aim of the scheme had been to reduce the speed/flow of traffic, a right turn would
have reduced this to such an extent it would have caused significant congestion.
County Councillor Martin added that the volume of traffic had doubled between 1983
and 2003 and would double again by 2023. Hence the government was promoting
the use of public transport and schemes like the East Lancs Rapid Transport scheme
were becoming viable. It was pointed out that £500,000 alone could not solve the
problems caused by increased traffic flows.
It was suggested that no one thought the scheme was a great improvement with
queuing traffic annoying motorists who increasingly chose to ‘rat run’ to avoid waiting.
The carriage way had been reduced to make room for cycle lanes which were hardly
used. In response the meeting was told the scheme had been a compromise. The
aims had been to reduce traffic speed and to improve the conditions for pedestrians
crossing the road (the delay time for the Toucan crossings had been reduced from 40
to 30 seconds). Councillor Martin added that if there were difficulties he was more
than happy to look at these.
A member of the public reported that the signal controlled junction of Cop Lane and
Liverpool Road did not have an all ‘red’ phase. Mr McCreesh stated this would be
looked at, there was usually a short period. Another member of the public then
commented that it was quite common for motorists to go through on red (particularly
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
47
those travelling into Preston). It was suggested the police could again monitor the
junction or indeed have a traffic signal camera installed.
Mr McCreesh stressed that a booklet on the scheme had originally been produced by
the county council on behalf of the Highways Agency (its partner). Following two
exhibitions and feedback from the public, councillors, and a feasibility study, things
had changed as would be expected.
A member of the public was concerned that whilst cycle lanes had been introduced,
cyclists still rode on the pavement. She added that whilst coming out of her driveway
and after checking for pedestrians and other motorists, a cyclist had come zipping
along the footway out of nowhere. These cyclists were not young children but much
older. Mr McCreesh stated that the safety scheme had introduced these lanes it
could not make cyclists use them. It was the responsibility of the police to deal with
cyclists on footpaths.
A member of the public suggested that whilst the scheme was intended to improve
pedestrian safety in practise it did not meet the criteria and was in fact traffic friendly.
He then asked if it had been assessed against best practise. Mr McCreesh
responded that everything had been safety audited. In respect of the central
pedestrian refuges, it was not a good idea to have these without control buttons
installed on them. People could get stranded if not controlled. He referred to his
earlier comment that the maximum delay time of these crossings had been reduced
to 30 seconds (a compromise between traffic flow and pedestrian crossing).
It was again suggested that the scheme was not helping the safety of pedestrians on
a road that had twice the average number of road users for the type of road, Mr
McCreesh did not accept this.
A member of the public stated that whilst using the crossing at Crookings Lane, the
‘green’ man had stopped before she had been able to reach the other side of the
road. Mr McCreesh stated he would have the crossing checked.
A member of the public referred back to the three year monitoring period of the work
and monies spent. He asked if that meant there would be no further consideration of
the Penwortham Bypass until the end of this period. He was informed that the safety
scheme and issue of the bypass were two separate matters. Councillor Martin added
that future meetings of this committee could be presented with monitoring updates.
The normal period for a scheme such as this to settle down was three years.
Following which it would be possible to compare like for like.
McCreesh stated he was not 100% happy but this work had been a compromise with
the best solution for most needs, it did not mean the road could not be looked at and
things improved.
The chairman thanked Councillor Martin and Mr McCreesh for coming and giving their
time and responding to questions on the road safety scheme. At this point a member
of the public asked if there was any possibility of the Penwortham Bypass ever being
constructed.
Councillor Martin returned to the meeting. He explained that under the previous
structure plan system the county council had promoted four schemes (Heysham M6
Link, A56 Villages Bypass, Ormskirk Bypass and, Penwortham Bypass). The county
council had then chosen one of these (Heysham M6 Link scheme) as its major
highways project to progress, the rest had been second. At this stage, the
Penwortham Bypass proposal had not produced as much evidence of contributing to
regeneration and economic development issues as the others.
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
48
However, the structure plan approach had been replaced by the Regional Economic
Strategy (RES) through the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA). This consisted
of authorities in the Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire, Manchester, and Merseyside
area. This approach worked in quartiles. In the first quartile were projects that were
intended to be imminent or the next project. Lancashire had only managed to get the
Heysham M6 Link Scheme in to this quartile, Cumbria had none and, Manchester
about 10 schemes. He did not understand why Lancashire not got any more
schemes in.
He added that this was the NWRA’s first attempt at the RES and the NWRA had to
prove its worth and produce results. He felt that quite a few of the schemes for the
metropolitan areas in the first quartile would not be achieved in the timeframe.
Bearing this in mind, the Heysham scheme was well advanced and there was all
party support for the Ormskirk Bypass. He also reported that Bradford had made
overtures to resurrect extending the M65 motorway in to Yorkshire and he was quite
happy to let that authority lead on that.
This left the proposed Penwortham Bypass which he was prepared to promote as far
as possible, hopefully as far as the RES first quartile, when it was realised some of
the existing schemes would not come to fruition. He had informed David Borrow MP
what was needed to increase this schemes score/rating. He added that the county
council’s resources were limited to work up two schemes at a time. The Heysham
scheme was nearly complete, Ormskirk Bypass was being worked on, A56 Villages
could be deferred to pending Bradford progressed with the M65. This meant that the
Penwortham Bypass could be looked at and he had met with the MP. Although the
RES did not favour road schemes without other issues/topics being brought in, such
as rapid transport, park & rides, regeneration/economic development etc. He felt that
the NWRA would need to drop some of the schemes currently in the RES first quartile
and have to look at other schemes in the region, and Lancashire had some.
114.
Parking Problems on Priory Lane and Blundell Lane
This item had been placed on the agenda to allow discussion around the parking
problems experienced around Priory Lane and Blundell Lane. It was felt that the best
opportunity of improved parking in and around Penwortham centre was to deal with it
in a strategic manner. It was suggested this be included with the current ongoing
regeneration projects.
RESOLVED:
115.
that the parking problems in and around Priory Lane and
Blundell Lane be considered in conjunction with the
regeneration projects for Penwortham town centre.
Higher Penwortham Area Committee Annual Plan 2005/06
Further to min. no. 42, 22 August 2005, the committee considered its Annual Plan for
2005/06. Councillor Read referred to area committee objective 2.2 on page 3, and
reported it was intended to create a Trade Forum in the Higher Penwortham area.
This would provide this sector a consultation forum in addition to one for the general
public. He added that in connection with the Penwortham Town Council a Trade
Forum had already been established in the Kingsfold area.
RESOLVED:
116.
that the report be noted.
Financial Statement – January 2006
A financial statement was submitted for the committee’s information.
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
49
A member of the public referred to min. no. 79, 6 December 2004 relating to Rowan
Close – Control of Cyclists’ egress and requested to know the latest position.
RESOLVED:
117.
1.
that the financial statement be noted; and
2.
that the latest position regarding the control of egress
of cyclists on Rowan Close be reported to the next
meeting.
Planning Applications
The committee received a list of outstanding planning applications in the Higher
Penwortham area.
The committee was informed that in respect of planning application 07/2005/1111
relating to the Kwik Save store on Birch Avenue, the council’s Planning Officers were
to meet the applicant’s agents to discuss possible improvements to the site on
community safety issues. Councillor Young also informed the meeting that the store
would be closed later in the year for a few weeks, and when it re-opened it would be
as a Somerfield store.
A member of the public enquired if it would be possible to receive details of planning
application decisions, in addition to applications being processed. He commented
that he had raised this previously and that at present there was no subsequent
information on whether an application was approved or refused etc. The chairman
recalled the earlier request and agreed to pursue the matter.
RESOLVED
118.
1.
that the list of outstanding planning applications be
noted; and
2.
that the possibility of producing details of planning
application decisions in the future be investigated.
Local Development Framework (LDF) Working Group – Update
Councillor Young, the committee’s representative on the LDF Working Group,
informed the committee that the there had not been a meeting of the Working Group
since the last meeting of the area committee.
Although he did inform the meeting of a presentation by Preston City Council to
members of this council on that council’s proposed plans to develop its side of the
River Ribble for such as leisure/recreational use. A member of the public expressed
concern at any proposals to develop the river banking, as the area was a flood plain.
119.
Progress Report on Section 106 Monies Relating to Open Space
A report was submitted to update the committee on progress in respect of Section
106 schemes throughout South Ribble.
RESOLVED:
120.
that the committee note the report on Section 106 monies
relating to open space and that it was unlikely to receive
additional information until the new financial year.
Written Questions from the Public
No written questions had been received.
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
50
121.
Public Participation
The chairman invited members of the public present to participate and ask questions
on any matter within the committee’s terms of reference.
(a)
Meals on Wheels Service – Decision to Stop Home Deliveries
A member of the public objected to the county council’s decision to stop
delivering hot meals as part of Meals on Wheels to the elderly. She sought
the area committee’s support against this decision. Councillor Pimblett was
also against this proposal, and commented in his capacity as a county
councillor that the decision had been taken by the county council’s Cabinet as
part of the budgetary process for 2006/07.
RESOLVED:
that the area committee send a letter of objection to the
county council on that council’s decision to stop delivering
hot meals as part of the Meals on Wheels service.
(b)
Refuse Collection Vehicles – Size of
A member of the public was concerned that the council’s new refuse collection
vehicles were larger, and felt there would be increased instances of mounting
pavements (causing damage) and increased problems of passing parked
vehicles. He wondered if there would be a time when the council would
realise such vehicles could not get any bigger. Councillor Pimblett responded
that whilst these vehicles were longer they were no wider and were indeed
more manoeuvrable than the older vehicles they replaced.
(c)
Paper Recycling – Envelopes
A member of the public informed the meeting that in Vancouver, British
Columbia, envelopes were collected as part of the paper recycling. She asked
why these could not be included here. Councillor Pimblett responded that the
reason envelopes could not be recycled was the two forms of adhesive used
on envelopes which couldn’t be separated out from the pulp.
(d)
Street Cleansing – Liverpool Road
Members of the public were concerned at the activities of street sweeping
operatives who appeared in some instances not to actually remove litter but
blow it around and also this sweeping did not go beyond the library to Hill
Road.
RESOLVED:
that street sweeping on Liverpool Road this be investigated.
(e)
Cut Grass on Walton Avenue
A member of the public asked why cut grass was not collected and taken
away instead of being left to blow around. She added that on Bank Top the
grass was collected and removed. She was informed that the council did not
collect grass cuttings. In respect of Bank Top, the developer had as yet not
offered this area for adoption. Therefore this work was currently carried out by
the developer’s contractors.
(f)
Dog Fouling
A member of the public reported that over the last six months there appeared
to have been increased instances of dog fouling, particularly in the Central
Drive and Carlton Avenue area. Councillor Pimblett responded that if the
public informed the council where this was those areas would be targeted for
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
51
attention. He added that the council had served a number of fixed penalty
notices on those found responsible.
RESOLVED:
(g)
that officers investigate dog fouling in the Central Drive and
Carlton Avenue area.
Litter on Liverpool Road before Penwortham Bridge
A member of the public reported that an area just off Liverpool Road on the
way to the river bank was particularly disgraceful with litter and probably more
visible because of the fallen leaves and lack of foliage cover.
RESOLVED:
that the council tidy up the site.
(h)
Post Code for Penwortham
A member of the public requested an update. Councillor Read responded that
progress was being made with further post code forms being circulated
including to the business sector. This would then be presented to Post Watch
and ultimately Royal Mail. He added that the post codes had been introduced
about 35 years ago based on the American model. However post codes were
now a simple computer file and used for profiling/risk assessments. The
difficulty with Penwortham having a PR1, 0 or 9 post code was it had the same
first and second elements as Preston city centre and other areas. It was now
time to make the post codes more descriptive of the area they represented.
(i)
A59 Liverpool Road
Members of the Penwortham Bypass Action Group commented that whilst
they were pleased representatives from the county council had attended and
responded to the committee. They did not feel that a structure had been
established to continue dialogue with the county council about what had been
introduced and what was needed for this road.
They also commented that someone had recently been videoing the junction
of Cop Lane, Liverpool Road and Priory Lane. Councillor Pimblett wondered
whether that had been in response to his attempts to get a traffic signal
camera installed at this junction.
………………………………………………… Chairman
(The meeting finished at 9.23 pm)
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 2.doc
Annex 3
MAJOR SCHEME INFORMATION
Please complete the questions below as fully as possible. If information is not
yet available please state. If you are not able to complete this form
electronically, please use a black pen and block capitals.
If an Appraisal Summary Table (AST) is available for this scheme, please
attach the AST to this sheet.
Scheme Name
Promoting
Authority
Location of
Scheme
Scheme
Description
Completion of Penwortham Bypass
Lancashire County Council
South Ribble - A59 route into Preston.
Grid Ref 349600 425600
To
352400 428500
The construction of a 2.4km dual carriageway
completing the bypass of Penwortham. The scheme
will connect the A59 with the A582 which links directly
to the M6, M61 and M65 motorways.
(a) Economic objectives.
Supports the development and implementation of the
Preston City Vision. (Draft RSS Policy SDF10)
Local & Regional
Policy Objectives
addressed by
Scheme –
Please Reference
Provides enhanced bus services with priority measures
to improve journey time reliability. (Draft RSS Policy
RT1)
Serves Knowledge Industry nuclei site of Central
Preston. (Draft RSS Policy W1)
Promotes tourism and the visitor economy in Preston.
(Draft RSS Policy W5)
Supports retail development of Preston. (Draft RSS
Policy W4)
Reduces delay on journeys (Local transport Plan
Policy)
(b) Social objectives.
Improves access to Health and Education services.
(Draft RSS Policy L1)
Reduces road casualties (Local Transport Plan
Objective)
Improves access to jobs and services. (Local
Transport Plan Objective)
(c ) Environmental objectives.
Improves air quality, reduces noise and improves
quality of life in Penwortham. (Local Transport Plan
Objectives)
Scheme Status –
(Conceptual,
Business Case etc)
Development of growth centres in a manner that
enhances urban quality. (Draft RSS Policy SDF11)
Conceptual
(a) Please state capital cost and price base.
£20 million (Mid 2002)
(b) Does cost include any optimism bias and if so what
percentage?
Cost £
No
(c) Is private sector funding available for scheme, and
if so, what proportion of the total capital cost?
(Estimate)
No
Please state numerically.
Scheme
Benefits:Cost Ratio
2.8
Wider Economic
Benefits
Has an assessment been made of Wider Economic
Benefits? No
If so, please state result:
(a) Is Primary Legislation required for the scheme?
Primary Legislation
No
(b) If legislation is required, has it been applied for?
N
(c) Has Primary Legislation been enacted?
Transport & Works
Act
N
(a) Are Transport & Works Act Powers required to
deliver to the scheme?
No
(b) If TWA powers are required, have they been
applied for?
N
(c) Have TWA powers been awarded?
N
Environment &
Other
Supporting
Information
The scheme will require Green Belt land and removal
of hedgerows. Visually intrusive in a flat landscape
categorised as an Area of Special Landscape.
Reduction of congestion in Penwortham and
improvement in public transport services. A59 links
with the coastal resort of Southport which has been
designated as a Regeneration Priority Area.
Completed scheme information sheets should be sent either by email or fax to
Sophie Curtis at:
[email protected]
Fax: 0161 245 3500
DRAFT GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
SEEKING DfT FUNDING FOR LOCAL TRANSPORT
MAJOR SCHEMES
GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES SEEKING DfT FUNDING FOR LOCAL
TRANSPORT MAJOR SCHEMES ............................................................................. 1
1.
Policy and Rationale ......................................................................................... 3
1.1.
What are Major Schemes?.......................................................................... 3
1.2.
Major schemes within the LTP context........................................................ 3
1.3.
Schemes under £5m ................................................................................... 4
1.4.
Rail Schemes .............................................................................................. 5
1.5.
Development of options............................................................................... 5
2.
Major Scheme Bids ........................................................................................... 7
3.
Appraisals and value for money ...................................................................... 9
3.1.
Appraisal requirements ............................................................................... 9
3.2.
What does the DfT require from scheme promoters? ................................. 9
3.3.
Proportionality ............................................................................................. 9
3.4.
Proportionality in the cost benefit analysis and modelling requirements ... 10
3.5.
Appraisal of Pilot or demonstration schemes ............................................ 10
3.6.
Value for money ........................................................................................ 10
4.
Delivery and Implementation ......................................................................... 12
4.1.
Requirements in support of major scheme bids ........................................ 12
4.2.
Application of Project Management Principles .......................................... 12
4.3.
Gateway Review ....................................................................................... 15
4.4.
Scheme progress monitoring .................................................................... 17
4.5.
Cost Increases, design changes and scheme delays ............................... 18
5.
Approval Process............................................................................................ 21
5.1.
Proposed new approval system ................................................................ 21
5.2.
Programme Entry ...................................................................................... 22
5.3.
Conditional Approval ................................................................................. 24
5.4.
Full Approval ............................................................................................. 26
5.5.
The Department’s role in the approval process......................................... 27
6.
Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 30
7.
Funding and Finance ...................................................................................... 31
7.1.
Basic Principles ......................................................................................... 31
7.2.
How the finance works .............................................................................. 31
7.3.
Process for financial monitoring and payment. ......................................... 32
7.4.
Third Party Contributions........................................................................... 33
7.5.
PFI............................................................................................................. 33
7.6.
Preparatory costs ...................................................................................... 34
Annex A: Requirements for new Major Scheme Business Case bids ............... 36
Annex B: Appraisal requirements for LTP major schemes moving from
Programme Entry to Conditional or Full Approval .............................................. 38
2
1. Policy and Rationale
1.1. What are Major Schemes?
1.1.1. Major Schemes are significant local authority highway and public
transport capital projects. Most involve substantial investment in
infrastructure that would otherwise be beyond the means of a local
authority.
1.1.2. The minimum cost of a scheme that the Department would consider
funding as a Major Scheme has traditionally been £5m (gross). For the
vast majority of schemes this threshold will remain. However, the
Department does recognise that some small LTP areas may find it
difficult to fund schemes that are less than this amount through other
sources. We will therefore consider bids for schemes under £5million in
certain circumstances. See section 1.3 for further information.
1.1.3. A local authority scheme does not automatically need to be funded or
approved by the Department as a Major Scheme if the gross cost is
greater than £5m. Authorities are free to use their block allocations to
fund schemes, either on their own, or alongside other sources of
funding, without submitting schemes for approval by the Department. In
such cases it would be for the local authority to ensure that the scheme
was the best value for money means of achieving its objectives.
1.1.4. 'Maintenance Majors' and 'maintenance exceptional schemes' are not
addressed specifically by this guidance, although the same general
principles apply.
1.1.5. Bids under the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) or the Transport
Innovation Fund (TIF) are not considered to be Major Schemes and are
not addressed by this guidance. Guidance on the relationship of the
Transport Innovation Fund to major projects will be issued in due course.
1.2. Major schemes within the LTP context
1.2.1. Major Schemes will continue to form an important part of the second
round of Local Transport Plans, although the relationship between major
schemes and LTP targets will change with the second round of LTPs.
Authorities are encouraged to develop their second round LTP targets
on the assumption that there are no new majors.
1.2.2. Accordingly, bids for majors should be aimed at complementing and
enhancing LTPs, as well as delivering additional benefits. The LTP2
guidance states that any major scheme must form an integral part of an
authority's LTP, and reflect the principles of LTP development such as
ƒ
Setting transport in a wider context: ensuring that plans for
regeneration, housing development and local services are
informed by realistic expectations about transport improvements;
ƒ
Locally relevant targets: addressing the question of what
transport targets need to be set in order to support wider
objectives - in particular for economic growth and social inclusion;
3
ƒ
Identifying the best value for money solutions: demonstrating
how an authority will deliver its targets, and deliver the best
possible outcomes to society with the available funding; and,
ƒ
Indicators and trajectories: setting trajectories for the key
targets, in a way that reflects the planned implementation of
projects, policies and programmes.
1.2.3. There is also the expectation that major schemes submitted during the
second LTP period (2006-11) would already have been identified within
second LTPs; especially those schemes put forward in the earlier years
of LTP2.
1.3. Schemes under £5m
1.3.1. By definition major schemes will be large proposals, which is why we
have normally set a lower limit of £5m. However, the Department
recognises that some schemes that cost less than this can still represent
a significant undertaking for smaller authorities. Accordingly, the
Department will consider providing additional support for certain capital
integrated transport schemes costing less than £5m.
1.3.2. Special provisions for these 'exceptional schemes' were made in the
latest LTP guidance. We are keen to integrate these sub-£5m schemes
into the Major Schemes system and will treat them in the same way.
Bids for schemes under £5million should therefore be made in the same
way as for other majors. However the following conditions apply for
scheme bids under £5million:
ƒ
They must cost more than 75% of the authority's average projected
annual indicative integrated transport block or maintenance
allocation for LTP2, whichever is most relevant to the scheme;
ƒ
They must cost more than 50% of an authority's average projected
combined indicative integrated transport and maintenance
allocations;
ƒ
No more than one sub-£5m scheme bid may be submitted by the
same authority in any 12 month period.
1.3.3. For non-metropolitan joint plans, the relevant block allocations are
those related to the authority. The Department will not support bids for
sub-£5m schemes in metropolitan areas, as they will have sufficient
resources and flexibility to be able to fund them from block allocations.
For the same reasons, the Department may decline to support sub-£5m
scheme bids on the grounds that the authority could have made use of
the funding flexibilities available to joint LTP areas, but did not take up
an opportunity to join one.
1.3.4. These schemes are different from 'maintenance exceptional
schemes'.
4
Pilot or Demonstration Schemes
1.3.5. Any LTP authority may submit, for consideration as a Major Scheme,
a demonstration or pilot project costing less than £5m, provided that the
promoting authority can demonstrate that the scheme would respond to
a local transport need, and show that the proposal would be the best
value for money way to meet that need. The cost thresholds in section
1.3.2 do not apply to demonstration or pilot projects.
1.3.6. Authorities contemplating such a proposal must discuss their ideas at
an early stage with their regional Government Office, and will be
expected to take full account of any advice given. The Department and
the Government Office will expect more early discussion with the
authority for a pilot scheme than for other schemes and will provide case
specific guidance as appropriate.
1.3.7. An important test of pilot or demonstration schemes is that they should
include significant innovative elements which have not previously been
tested and which would be reasonably replicable in other authorities,
with the potential to unlock indirect benefits. Possible examples would
be schemes involving new modes, including those generally termed
'ultra light rail', or those which include the novel application of technology
for example in the area of ticketing. It will be for the promoting authority
to make the case that a scheme should qualify for treatment as a pilot or
demonstration scheme. If the Department does not accept this case then
it will treat any resulting bid as a major scheme in the normal way, or
expect it to be funded through an authority's IT block if it is under £5m
and does not meet the criteria for a sub-£5m scheme (see 1.3).
1.4. Rail Schemes
1.4.1. The Guidance for Second Local Transport Plans noted that the
Department would be prepared to consider supporting rail projects with
LTP funds. Such projects should be primarily aimed at delivering local
transport benefits in the context of the LTP, and should be demonstrably
supported by key rail industry partners. Other schemes, such as public
transport interchanges, may also have an impact on the railway.
1.4.2. Authorities proposing such schemes will need to show consistency
with the relevant rail strategies, such as Regional Planning Assessments
and Utilisation Strategies. Authorities will also need to take account of
relevant guidance, such as the SRA's Guide for Promoters of New
Stations. The case for the scheme will need to take account of financial
and operational impacts on the rail network and rail services.
1.5. Development of options
1.5.1. The starting point for preparing a major scheme bid is to identify the
problems to be addressed, and the objectives that the bid would support.
The bid should not start from an assertion about a preferred modal
solution. The LTP should analyse the transport needs of the area in
question and set out how those needs can be met using Integrated
Transport block funding. Authorities may then draw up options for
meeting any needs which cannot be met using block funding alone.
5
1.5.2. The assessment of alternatives should start from an initial wide base
of possible options. Those options should include measures that reduce
or influence the need to travel as well as those that involve capital
spend. Whilst the Department leaves this process to individual
authorities we require a clear understanding of why some particular
options are preferred to others. Each option must be assessed against
local, regional and central Government objectives, in terms of
consistency with regional strategies and contribution to LTP objectives
and should take account of best practice, wider local authority
experience and the sustainability of the proposal. Scheme bids should
demonstrate a clear path from identifying the problem to arriving at a
preferred solution.
1.5.3. Appraisals submitted to the Department must include a detailed
assessment of the scheme against the alternative options that would, as
far as possible, broadly meet the same objectives. It is important that
these should also be compared against a realistic do minimum scenario.
The testing of alternatives is not an add-on to the appraisal but an
integral part of the process of determining the preferred option. Any
major scheme for which the appraisal of alternative options is
considered inadequate or where the Department considers alternative
options to be preferable, will not be accepted for funding. Authorities
should state in their scheme bids which options have already been
discarded without being fully worked up, and the reasons and evidence
for discarding them.
1.5.4. For public transport schemes options should include: different
technologies, such as bus based schemes instead of light rail; or lower
cost alternatives, such as bus lanes or shorter lengths of busways
compared to fully segregated busways. For highway schemes there
should be a consideration of different link/junction standards and other
alternatives to address the problems in the area, such as public
transport provision, demand management policies, traffic management
measures and strategies. We would expect authorities promoting
highway schemes to consider at least one public transport alternative
and to undertake an appropriate level of analysis on it. Assessment of
detailed option designs should form part of the sensitivity analysis in
determining the optimum configuration of the scheme.
1.5.5. Promoting authorities should consider whether their scheme proposals
are compliant with EU State Aid rules. These are described on the DTI
website.
6
2. Major Scheme Bids
2.1
Elements of the Major Scheme Business Case
2.1.1. Traditionally the Department has asked local authorities to base their
bid case for major local transport schemes primarily on the scheme
appraisal based on NATA. However even the best designed schemes
can run into problems if the arrangements for their planning and delivery
are inadequate, or if the financial arrangements or commercial aspects
are unsatisfactory
2.1.2. The Department needs to consider five key aspects of scheme bids:
ƒ
Strategic - how the scheme fits with the LTP, regional
strategies and priorities, and wider objectives
ƒ
Appraisal and value for money – the scheme’s benefits,
including non-monetised benefits, and costs
ƒ
Delivery - how the scheme will be delivered to time and
budget, and how successful implementation will be ensured
ƒ
Financial - Funding sources, financial risk and financial
sustainability
ƒ
Commercial - the strategy for procurement and management
of commercial risks
2.1.3. Most major scheme bids should already be covering these areas, but
we would like bids in future to be clearly structured in these sections.
These documents will be known as the ‘Major Scheme Business Case’,
replacing the previous ‘Annex E submission’.
2.1.4. The bulk of any major scheme bid in terms of volume will usually be
the Appraisal and value for money aspect, covered in Chapter 3 and
Delivery, which is covered in Chapter 4.
2.1.5. The Strategic, Commercial and Financial aspects are described
below.
Strategic
2.1.6. The Strategic Case is essentially the 'fit' of the scheme in terms of
wider objectives. We expect major scheme bids to be for those schemes
that will enhance the objectives of the LTP or the wider objectives of the
authority, such as regeneration and social inclusion. Major scheme bids
should be explicit about how they would help to deliver LTP targets and
to what extent targets could be stretched were the scheme to be funded.
Where the benefits of a scheme would only be realised after the second
LTP period, bids should make reference to the potential of the scheme
to meet the longer term objectives of the authority.
7
2.1.7. The Strategic case will also need to show the fit with the strategies of
regional authorities, notably the Regional Transport Strategy/Regional
Spatial Strategy, within which the LTP sits. Where appropriate, the
Strategic Case should also describe the fit with other transport delivery
agencies’ plans and objectives.
Financial
2.1.8. It is essential that promoting authorities develop a sound financial plan
for proceeding with a major scheme bid. This should consider all
sources of funding, the conditions associated with each of them, and the
financial risks and contingent liabilities that may result should any
funding stream fail to materialise. It should also consider the longer term
financial sustainability of the scheme, and should have robust plans to
ensure the affordability of any ongoing costs for operation or
maintenance. The Department will not approve schemes where
significant financial contributions from other sources appear to be at risk,
unless there are robust contingency plans for meeting the gap.
2.1.9. This section will be particularly important in high value or complex
schemes with more than one funding contributor and/or ongoing revenue
implications. For simpler schemes and those which do not have an
ongoing revenue implication, this section may only need to include a
short statement.
Commercial
2.1.10. Most major schemes will involve procurement of some description.
The process for any procurement required should be identified at the
earliest stages. The procuring authority should also consider and
investigate the capacity and appetite of the supplier market to deliver the
specific requirement. For some schemes such as road construction
projects this may be relatively straightforward. However for more
individual schemes authorities may need to liaise closely with potential
suppliers in advance of formal procurement.
2.1.11. In the initial bid the Department would expect to see an outline
procurement strategy but would expect this to be expanded at
subsequent approval stages to show how the supplier market had been
assessed, sourcing options, risk transfer, tendering timetables, and
contract management arrangements.
2.1.12. It is important to identify the commercial risks of the scheme - for
example, where any revenue risks lie - and demonstrate how these
would be addressed and shared between the parties involved.
8
3. Appraisals and value for money
3.1. Appraisal requirements
3.1.1. An overview of the appraisal requirements for major public transport
and highway scheme bids is provided at WebTAG. The same appraisal
requirements apply to all schemes submitted to the Department for
funding, including schemes under £5m (see section 1.3), but the level of
detail required in the appraisal will be proportional to the scale and
complexity of the scheme. If in doubt, promoting authorities should
consult the Department for a steer on whether their proposed approach
is proportionate.
3.2. What does the DfT require from scheme promoters?
3.2.1. It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to construct a robust
appraisal of the proposed scheme. Webtag provides an overview of the
different elements of the required appraisal. The appraisal information
allows an assessment of the scheme's value for money to be made in
officials' advice to Ministers (see section 3.6). This information is
reported under the following headings.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scheme description
Problems and objectives identified
Assessment of alternative options
Capital costs
Operating costs
Risk assessment and optimism bias
Traffic/passenger modelling/assumptions
Worksheets for NATA objectives (all items in the NATA checklist
are required)
Transport Economic Efficiency data
Sensitivity and scenario analyses
Supporting analyses
Overall vfm conclusions
3.2.2. Promoting authorities should follow these headings for the appraisal
section of their Major Scheme Business Case as far as is possible.
WebTAG also sets out what supporting information, including audit trail,
is needed as an evidence base for the vfm assessment. If the evidence
made available to the Department is insufficient for this assessment then
scheme bids may be rejected.
3.3.
Proportionality
3.3.1. The principles set out and framework provided by Webtag apply to all
schemes submitted to the Department. However, the level of detail
should be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the scheme. In
particular:
ƒ
Options: Any submission should carry at least two options - the
9
preferred option and a lower cost alternative - fully through
appraisal. Each should be appraised against the do minimum
option. Large major schemes (>£20m) may also need to carry
a 'next best' option through the appraisal process.
ƒ
ASTs and accompanying worksheets: For smaller schemes
(<£20m) non-quantified ASTs are sufficient for all options
except the preferred and low-cost option. There may be some
flexibility in the level of detail required as schemes can differ
greatly in terms of their impact, gross cost and funding sought.
Early contact with the Department is advised for a discussion
on a case-by-case basis.
ƒ
Risk assessment: For smaller schemes it may be acceptable
to assess the probability of any one outcome occurring using a
simple four-point scale.
ƒ
Monitoring and evaluation: should be proportionate and costeffective.
3.3.2. The Department is aiming to produce additional guidance to clarify the
requirements for schemes below £5m (see section 1.3), along the lines
of the Highways Agency's Project Appraisal Report (PAR) guidance.
PAR provides a simplified approach to estimating some scheme impacts
and benefits for smaller highways schemes.
3.4.
Proportionality in the cost benefit analysis and modelling
requirements
3.4.1. Information on the expected costs and benefits (including those that
cannot be quantified) is essential for all schemes. However, the
requirement for detailed modelling and collection of bespoke evidence
will vary with the scale and complexity of the scheme. Promoters of
small schemes should seek out and use of the best available information
and methods referred to in the guidance. Promoters of larger schemes
should consider commissioning bespoke evidence and models in
accordance with the guidance and in consultation with the Department.
3.5.
Appraisal of Pilot or demonstration schemes
3.5.1. Pilot or demonstration schemes (see 1.3.5) are different in that they
may not always demonstrate good value for money as stand-alone
projects; or some of the benefits of the pilot may not be picked up under
the traditional appraisal methods. They are generally innovative and
depend on indirect benefits that are usually uncertain and difficult to
quantify. An appraisal should be carried out in line with the guidance
and promoters should seek early discussion with the Department on a
case-by-case basis regarding assessment of the indirect benefits.
3.6.
Value for money
3.6.1. The detailed appraisal information from the NATA process allows an
assessment to be made of the value for money (vfm) offered by a
proposed scheme. Advice to DfT Ministers from officials on the vfm
10
offered by each proposed scheme is formulated in line with the DfT
Guidance on Value for Money.
3.6.2. That guidance, published on our website in December 2004, is about
the clear and consistent assessment of value for money for officials
putting submissions to DfT ministers about investment decisions and
choices. It covers all spending proposals that are funded by the
Department or require the Department's approval.
3.6.3. Value for money measures the benefits for each £1 of costs. The
assessment of vfm must account for all impacts of a transport
investment proposal, not just those impacts that can be presented in
monetary terms within the benefit/cost ratio (BCR). Impacts on the
environment, regeneration, accessibility and integration must also be
accounted for.
3.6.4. The DfT Guidance on Value for Money explains how both the BCR
and other impacts can be assessed, especially in the technically difficult
area where benefits are not readily monetised. The result of this
analysis will place any scheme into one of four vfm categories: high,
medium, low or poor.
3.6.5. The presumption is that, purely on grounds of value for money, the
Department should generally fund:
•
no projects with poor VfM
•
very few projects with low VfM
•
some, but by no means all, projects with medium VfM
•
most, if not all, projects with high VfM
3.6.6. Ministers make the decisions, and value for money is only one of a
number of considerations that they take into account. Where Provisional
Approval or Programme Entry was given before this guidance was in
place, and there are no changes to design or costs, the approval status
will be a significant factor in the decision on whether to proceed.
3.6.7. Authorities and scheme promoters are encouraged to look at the DfT
Guidance on Value for Money and to consider the likely vfm of a scheme
early in the process and at various stages of development. This may
help provide the early opportunity to think how a scheme could be
improved or to consider alternative options, if it looks as though it offers
only low or poor vfm.
11
4. Delivery and Implementation
4.1. Requirements in support of major scheme bids
4.1.1. In future, as part of the approvals regime, we will be assessing the
quality of authorities' project management and delivery arrangements at
various stages of implementation. These are key factors in delivering
successful projects.
4.1.2. Improvements in major scheme delivery, particularly improvements in
project management and procurement, have the potential to make a
significant contribution to the Local Government target set, following the
Gershon Efficiency Review, to achieve 2.5% or £6.45 billion of efficiency
and productivity improvements over the three years to 2007/8.
4.1.3. The information and documentation we will be requesting is no more
than we would ordinarily expect promoting authorities to have in place,
and we recognise that many authorities already provide such information
with their scheme appraisals.
4.1.4. This is not about imposing additional hurdles for their own sake or
finding reasons to delay or stop schemes. We want to approve high
quality schemes that offer the best value for money and have the best
chance of effective delivery. We hope that our scrutiny, review and
challenge to authorities' project plans and delivery arrangements will
help to maximise overall scheme quality.
4.1.5. In assessing the potential deliverability of schemes the track record of
the promoting authority in implementing previous major schemes may be
taken into account.
4.2. Application of Project Management Principles
4.2.1. The Department will not prescribe the use of any particular project
management methodology, although we would expect authorities to be
adopting some sort of formal project management for the development
and delivery of major schemes.
4.2.2. Neither is it the aim of this document to provide detailed guidance on
project management. Authorities are already able to make use of the
various guidance and information available on project management and
procurement. These include:•
Office of the Government Commerce (OGC) have a web-based
resource, the Successful Delivery Toolkit and the following priced
publications
- Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2
- Managing Successful Programmes
- Management of Risk: Guidance for Practitioners
12
ƒ
4ps produce guidance on procuring local authority transport
schemes and services as well as general advice on project
management
ƒ
The Regional Centres of Procurement Excellence will provide
expertise and spread good practice
ƒ
The National Procurement Strategy for Local Government.
ƒ
The Successful Transport Decision-Making Handbook was produced
by the EU funded GUIDEMAPS project. This was sent to all
authorities in February 2005.
4.2.3. In addition many of the key principles of project management are
already embedded in the WebTAG guidance on major scheme
appraisal, such as the requirement to fit into wider business objectives,
in this case the Local Transport Plan, and the need to have a clearly
defined outcome and critical success factors that support this.
4.2.4. We have summarised below the areas in which the Department will be
taking a particular interest and in which we will be expecting promoting
authorities to provide evidence. We have also given examples of some
of the questions we may need to ask.
4.2.5. There is no prescribed format for the submission of this information in
new bid submissions but if authorities are using the PRINCE2
methodology then a copy of the Project Initiation Document will suffice.
Governance and staffing
4.2.6. We need to be assured that the scheme will be adequately managed
and resourced and that the key roles and responsibilities of all those
involved are defined from the outset. There should be clear
arrangements for reporting and decision making that are understood by
all those involved in the project.
4.2.7. This is critically important in particular in projects involving more than
one authority or where other partners or funding contributors are
involved.
4.2.8. Key questions include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Who is the Senior Responsible Owner (or Project Owner) and the
Project Manager?
Who is on the project board?
What decisions need to be taken by either the SRO or project board?
Is the size of the project team and skills mix adequate?
Risk Management
4.2.9. WebTAG provides guidance on the identification of risks and the
analysis of their impact and likelihood. Further guidance is provided
below on risk management.
13
4.2.10. It is essential that a risk register is maintained and reviewed regularly
throughout the project so that any new or previously unforeseen risks
may be identified and the assessed impact or likelihood of existing risks
revised if appropriate.
4.2.11. There should be a nominated owner for the maintenance of the risk
register as a whole and for each specific risk, where those cannot be
externally transferred.
4.2.12. The level of risk that remains after internal controls have been
exercised (the 'residual risk') should be identified, monitored and reassessed as necessary.
4.2.13. Key questions include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
How often is the risk register reviewed? Who has overall risk
management responsibility?
Do all risks have clear owners?
Have the risks been adequately assessed?
Are the mitigation plans to reduce the risks adequate?
Are the contingency measures adequate?
How will any financial risks be funded?
Project Plan and Milestones
4.2.14. The Project Plan is typically presented in the form of a GANTT chart
with key outputs and milestones and key dates clearly identified.
4.2.15. Key questions include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Have all the key dependencies been identified (those that are internal
and dependencies to other projects)?
Is the critical path clearly identified?
Have clear outputs/milestones been identified?
Are the time estimates realistic and commensurate with the resources
devoted to the project?
What are the impacts of delay?
Stakeholder Analysis
4.2.16. Effective stakeholder management can be of critical importance in
minimising difficulties or delays later on in progressing statutory
procedures or public consultation.
4.2.17. It is important at the outset to identify all the key stakeholders. They
could include other authorities, statutory consultees, landowners,
transport operators, local residents, utilities companies etc. They can be
grouped according to the potential impact of the project upon them, how
important they are in order to help deliver the project, how likely they are
to support the project etc.
4.2.18. A communication plan should be drawn up to describe how the
various stakeholders will be kept informed and consulted; how closely
they need to be involved and when. Very important stakeholders may
warrant representation on the project board (e.g. a bus company whose
14
participation is essential to the success of a public transport scheme).
Others may need to be consulted to varying degrees. For others merely
to be kept informed may be sufficient.
4.2.19. Key questions include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
What key stakeholders have been identified?
Which are critical to the success of the project?
How are they being consulted or involved?
What are their desired outcomes?
4.3. Gateway Review
4.3.1. A Gateway Review is an assessment of a project or programme
carried out at crucial junctures in its development, in order to provide
assurance that it can progress successfully to the next stage. Its focus is
on whether the appropriate framework, processes and resources are in
place; it does not duplicate the appraisal of the value for money case for
a scheme.
4.3.2. The Gateway process is owned and administered by the Office of the
Government Commerce (OGC) and is explained in detail on their
website.
4.3.3. Although the OGC itself conducts reviews primarily for Central
Government, local authorities are able to benefit from Gateway Reviews
conducted by 4ps. The process is recognised as adding significant value
- the National Procurement Strategy recommends it is adopted for all
new projects. It is also a key enabler assumed in the Gershon efficiency
review.
4.3.4. Gateway Reviews are for the benefit of the promoting authority's
Senior Responsible Owner (SRO). Reports of Reviews will not be made
available to the Department. But the application of the Gateway process
will itself provide reassurance to the Department. We are therefore keen
for local authorities to put their major schemes through Gateway
Reviews. Before submitting a major scheme bid authorities should use
the Project Assessment Spreadsheet (PAS) (available on the 4ps
website) to assess and score the risk level of the scheme and
determine whether a Gateway Review is required, and at what level.
4.3.5. For schemes with a gross cost of £40m or over, Gateway Reviews will
be mandatory unless the risk score from the PAS indicates that a review
is not required. The Department will not consider new schemes falling
into this category for approval at any stage unless an appropriate
Gateway Review has been carried out (see 5.1.11). For schemes which
have already been accepted for Provisional Approval (at March 2005) a
Gateway Review may be required before procurement starts.
4.3.6. It is the authority's responsibility to initiate and plan for a Gateway
Review; however authorities may find it helpful to discuss the scope of
the Review with the Department in advance.
4.3.7. Gateway Reviews are free of charge to the receiving authority,
although there is of course some resource cost, and authorities
15
participating in the Gateway Review programme provide reviewers to
support reviews performed in other authorities.
The Gateway process
4.3.8. The Gateway process provides assurance and support for Project
Owners in discharging their responsibilities to achieve their business
aims by ensuring that:
ƒ
the best available skills and experience are deployed on the
programme or project
ƒ
all the stakeholders covered by the programme/project fully
understand the programme/project status and the issues
involved
ƒ
there is assurance that the programme/project can progress
successfully to the next stage of development or implementation
ƒ
more realistic time and cost targets are achieved for programmes
and projects
ƒ
knowledge and skills among central and local government staff
are improved through participation in review teams
ƒ
advice and guidance to programme and project teams are
provided by fellow practitioners
4.3.9. A key element of the Gateway Review process is the use of
independent and experienced reviewers to perform a top down review of
programmes and projects.
4.3.10. The teams vary in size but typically are made up of either three or four
people. Each review takes about three to four days, with a draft report
being provided to the Senior Responsible Owner before the team leaves
the site. Dependant on the risk level of the programme/project, the
review team may be independent to the organisation under review, or
they may be from the organisation under review but independent to the
programme or project in question.
4.3.11. There are five OGC Gateway Reviews during the lifecycle of a project,
Three before contract award, one post contract award looking at service
implementation and a final review seeking confirmation of the
operational benefits. A full description of the Review stage workbooks is
can be found on the OGC website.
4.3.12. OGC Gateway Review 0 is a programme-only review that is repeated
throughout the programme’s life; it can be applied to policy
implementation, business change or other types of delivery programme.
It sets the programme review in the wider policy or corporate context. In
the case of Local Transport Major Schemes, authorities may wish to
arrange a Gateway 0 Review which could be applied to their LTP and
any existing or planned majors over the LTP period. The Department
will also be arranging a Gateway 0 Review of its own programme
management function.
16
4.3.13. Gateway reports will include recommendations with a RAG
(Red/Amber/Green) status allocated to each recommendation, and to
the project as a whole. The project must be given a 'Red' status if any
individual recommendation is Red.
•
‘Red’ status means that remedial action must be taken
immediately.
•
‘Amber’ status means that the project should go forward with
actions on recommendations to be taken before the next Gateway
Review.
•
‘Green’ status means the project is on target to succeed but may
benefit from the uptake of the recommendations.
4.3.14. For schemes where a Gateway Review is mandatory the Department
will require a written statement by the authority's Section 151 officer
-
that a Review has been carried out
-
whether or not it was given a 'Red' status
-
that the remedial action for any 'Red' recommendations has
been carried out.
4.4. Scheme progress monitoring
4.4.1. The Project Management documentation supplied to the Department
will include project milestones which will need to be updated as
necessary at each approval stage (see Chapter 5). The Department will
use these milestones to monitor scheme progress until completion. The
nature and number of milestones will vary according the size, complexity
and type of scheme in question. The Department will require authorities
to submit quarterly progress reports on progress towards milestones.
4.4.2. Following Full Approval, grant payments will be based on the
successful completion of project milestones and not, as previously,
simply at regular intervals of time. Where there is a long time span
between natural project milestones authorities should identify key interim
stages wherever possible and payments may be made subject to
satisfactory progress being demonstrated. This will be agreed on a case
by case basis.
4.4.3. In support of each payment claim, authorities will be expected to
provide evidence that the agreed milestone has been reached. For
schemes requiring a Gateway Review we will expect a Gateway 4
Review to be carried out prior to the final payment.
4.4.4. Management of major schemes will continue to be one of the criteria
taken into account when we assess Annual Progress Reports. Our
assessment of progress will be based on the information and knowledge
we have gathered as part of our scheme monitoring and not solely on
the authorities' statement of scheme progress within the APR.
4.4.5. It is imperative that the promoting authority immediately brings to the
attention of the Government Office and the Department any arising
17
issues which put the timetable or cost of the project at risk. Such issues
must be raised at the time they occur and should not be withheld from
the Department until the next milestone or review point.
4.4.6. The monitoring of a scheme's progress as described in this section is
distinct from the monitoring and evaluation of the scheme's impact as
described in Chapter 6
4.5. Cost Increases, design changes and scheme delays
4.5.1. When authorities present their Major Scheme Business Case, it is
important that they show how they have arrived at the cost estimates for
the scheme. As demands on LTP funding grow, the Department will
carefully scrutinise all cost increases, and will be unlikely to support
those arising from poor project planning and management by the local
authority. When the Department accepts a scheme at any stage of the
approval process, the approval will define a capped approved sum,
which will include an appropriate allowance for expected risk based on a
Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA). In addition, the Department will
continue to require an allowance for optimism bias to be included as a
cost in the appraisal process, and will keep the optimism bias levels set
out in the WebTAG Major Scheme Appraisal guidance under review.
4.5.2. Promoters of schemes currently in the Programme (i.e. those with a
designation of Provisionally Approved) are reminded that this status is
subject to these schemes not suffering significant cost increases or
design changes (see section 5.2.8). In all cases, the Department will
first look to the local authority to fund any cost increases from its own
funds, including integrated transport block funding, or other resources.
The Department will not fund cost increases where authorities have not
made an adequate attempt to secure such funding. Before bidding for a
cost increase we will also expect authorities to have considered what
could be delivered within the original cost envelope, for example by
adjusting the scheme's scope or specifications.
4.5.3. In cases where the above options have been exhausted or do not
meet the total funding requirement the authority should make a formal
bid for a cost increase to DfT. We will consider each cost increase bid on
its merits. We are likely to be more sympathetic to bids for increases due
to factors already identified in Quantified Risk Assessments or
contingencies associated with those risks, or if it can clearly be
demonstrated that the increase could not have been anticipated and was
entirely outside the control or influence of the Authority. Affordability will
also need to be taken into account by the Department in deciding
whether to accept an increase. The Department will not normally
consider supporting more than 75% of any cost increase.
18
4.5.4. If DfT does not accept a bid for a cost increase, and it is clear that
there is no realistic prospect of the balance being funded from other
sources, nor of the scope of the scheme being adjusted to fit the
approved cap, approval will be revoked and the scheme will be
withdrawn from the Programme. Where the scheme would require a
substantial redesign to be affordable within the available funds, the
Department may withdraw it from the Programme and require the
redesigned scheme to be submitted as a new bid requiring a full reappraisal.
4.5.5. The Department expects all authorities delivering major schemes to
learn from best practice, and thereby ensure that schemes are delivered
as efficiently as possible, in a way that maximises the value for money
offered by those schemes. The Department will in particular encourage
Local Authorities promoting road schemes to seek help and advice from
the Highways Agency.
19
20
5. Approval Process
5.1. Proposed new approval system
5.1.1. We are reviewing the formal approval stages which will apply to major
scheme decisions and clarifying the status of each. We are considering
what supporting information is required at each stage, under what
conditions the approvals are given and what each approval signifies.
5.1.2. The biggest proposed change to the current system is that Full
Approval will now not be given until procurement has taken place and
prices and risk allocation are known. The current system, in which the
costs of a scheme could still increase (in some cases almost double)
once funding approval has already been granted is unsatisfactory and
compromises the Department's and authorities’ ability to achieve value
for money and to exercise responsible management of public funds.
5.1.3. However we recognise that this change would add to the financial
outlay required by authorities before there is a commitment to funding.
We are therefore proposing a new intermediate approval stage at the
point at which Full Approval would previously have taken place. This
would be known as Conditional Approval and will effectively be a
commitment to funding, subject to the cost estimates and risks
remaining unchanged and the scheme being ready to commence within
a certain period. See section 5.3.12 for more detail.
5.1.4. We intend to change the name of Provisional Approval to Programme
Entry, though the definition remains essentially the same; that the
Department would expect to fund a scheme subject to certain conditions
(see 5.2.8).
5.1.5. We intend to decouple the submission of major scheme bids from the
submission of Annual Progress Reports. In future years we will accept
scheme bids at any time of year and would encourage authorities to
submit bids as soon as they are ready for DfT's consideration. The
intention will still be to make approval decisions on new bids in batches,
although this will not necessarily remain linked to the APR or settlement
timetable. The process for future years will be clarified in the final
guidance, in the light of the Government’s consideration of the
responses to the consultation on regional priority setting. Under the
proposals for involving regions in the decision-making process, we
would expect in future years, to take account of advice from regions on
the relative priority of the scheme alongside other transport proposals.
5.1.6. In order to be considered for approval in the Local Transport
settlement in November/December Major Scheme bids must be received
by the end of July 2005. Bids can however be submitted at any time,
prior to the end of July, independently of the APR. Earlier submission
will give the Department more time to consider the bid before decisions
are taken. We will not be asking regional bodies to identify priorities for
the 2005 settlement.
5.1.7. In the 2004 settlement, a number of schemes were 'remitted to the
regions' for advice on their priority. Local authorities would need a
21
strong case for the Department to consider any of these schemes before
the arrangements for consulting the regions are in place.
5.1.8. Before Programme Entry is granted we will require a full Major
Scheme Business Case as described in Chapter 2. In addition to the
scheme appraisal, more information on the project management and
delivery arrangements for the scheme will be required. Both delivery
and appraisal information will need to be updated and refreshed as
necessary prior to each approval stage
5.1.9. The level of information required at each stage, and the degree of
scrutiny the Department applies, will be proportionate to the overall cost
and risk of the scheme.
5.1.10. Bids for schemes with a gross cost of over £40m must include a
completed Project Assessment Spreadsheet (PAS) (see section 4.3.4.)
and evidence that a Gateway Review has been carried out, if the risk
score indicates that one is required. The Department reserves the right
to challenge the entries made in the PAS if it feels the level of risk may
have been scored too low, and to require a Gateway Review to be
carried out if appropriate. Additionally the Department may ask for a
PAS (and a Gateway Review if necessary) in respect of bids below
£40m if there is reason to believe that the scheme carries an unusually
high level of risk.
5.1.11. For schemes where the Gateway Process is mandatory (see 4.3.5)
the Gateway Review required before each approval stage is as follows:Gateway Review stage
Stage 1: Business Justification
Stage 2: Procurement Strategy
Stage 3: Investment Decision
Stage 4: Readiness for Service
Approval stage
Programme Entry
Conditional approval
Full Approval
Before final scheme
payment
5.2. Programme Entry
When can an authority apply for Programme Entry?
5.2.1. An authority can submit a scheme for Programme Entry at any time
once a Major Scheme Business Case has been prepared (see chapter
2) and a Gateway Review carried out, if appropriate (see section 4.3).
5.2.2. We would, in most circumstances, expect major scheme bids
submitted in the second LTP period to have been referenced in the LTP
(see section 1.2.3). We would not expect authorities to submit a fully
worked up scheme bid without having first had some preliminary
discussion with DfT/Government Office on the feasibility of the proposal,
including the submission of draft bids for discussion prior to formal
submission.
5.2.3. In the past some authorities have submitted major scheme bids
knowing that the proposal is not fully developed, in order to get their 'foot
in the door'. Submitting speculative bids of this kind does not gain any
22
advantage over other schemes in development, and does not mean they
attract any more attention from the Department. Scheme bids which do
not include all the required information as set out in the guidance may be
rejected. We will discontinue the previous designations of Work In
Progress and Super Work In Progress. These are not particularly
helpful, and do not confer any special status over schemes that may be
in a similar stage of development, but for which bids have not yet been
submitted.
What information does an Authority have to submit at this stage?
5.2.4. In order to obtain Programme Entry an authority will need to submit a
Major Scheme Business Case to the Department which covers all the
aspects described in Chapter 2. In particular, it will include:
ƒ A value for money appraisal in line with the latest WebTAG guidance
and structured as per section 3.2.1.
ƒ project management information covering project milestones, risks,
stakeholder management, governance arrangements. There is no
prescribed format for this information but the Project Initiation
Document (as defined in PRINCE2) or equivalent would meet these
requirements.
When will Programme Entry be granted?
5.2.5. Approval will be granted once the Department is reasonably satisfied
that the scheme meets all the following criteria:
ƒ value for money
ƒ affordable within the available budget, with a likely start within the
next three years. (In future years under the proposals for Regional
Funding Allocations, this is likely to mean that the scheme
is identified as a high priority within the regional funding allocation)
ƒ deliverable by the authority to time and budget
5.2.6. The Department expects to make an annual announcement on which
schemes it is accepting into the programme. For 2005 this will be as
part of the Local Transport settlement, in November or December. To be
considered for Programme Entry bids must be received before the end
of July . In some cases, however, where there are appraisal or other
issues still to be resolved at the time of the settlement, a decision will be
made as soon as possible afterwards. In the case of some higher value
schemes the Department may take decisions outside the usual annual
cycle.
5.2.7. For schemes subject to Gateway Review (see section 4.3),
Programme Entry will only be granted once a Gateway 1 Review has
been completed. Confirmation that a review has taken place must be
provided by means of a statement from the authority's Section 151
Officer, who must also confirm that the necessary remedial action has
been taken in respect of any 'Red' recommendations.
What does Programme Entry signify?
5.2.8. Programme Entry means that the Department would expect to fund
the scheme subject to:ƒ affordability (including by contributors other than DfT)
23
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
any necessary statutory powers being obtained
there being no significant changes to costs, scheme design or
expected benefits
any other conditions specific to the scheme
5.2.9. Programme Entry will, like Provisional Approval, confer no guarantee
of funding, or its timing, but it is designed to give authorities the
confidence to proceed with the development of the scheme and in
particular to apply for the necessary statutory powers.
5.2.10. A scheme will not remain in the Programme indefinitely. At the time of
Programme Entry the Department will agree with the promoting authority
on a case by case basis the steps that need to be taken for the next
stage of approval, and what conditions may apply. A deadline will be
agreed for the submission of the scheme for the next approval stage. A
scheme will exit the Programme should this deadline not be met or after
a maximum of four years, except in exceptional cases.
5.2.11. The Department reserves the right to remove a scheme from the
Programme before a scheme is submitted for Conditional or Full
Approval in the event of an increase in estimated costs which the
Department is unwilling to fund, for which there is no realistic prospect of
alternative funding, and which cannot be resolved by adjusting the scope
of the scheme; or where the scope or design of the scheme, or the
scheme benefits, change substantially.
5.2.12. Authorities are free to resubmit schemes which have lapsed from or
been removed from or the Programme, and these will be treated as new
bids. However the Department will need to be assured that the problems
or delays which led to the scheme's exit from the programme have been
addressed and resolved.
5.3. Conditional Approval
5.3.1. This is an intermediate stage which would normally occur following the
granting of statutory powers but before a procurement exercise has
taken place - i.e. the point at which Full Approval would often be sought
at present.
5.3.2. For some schemes this interim stage may not be required, if its natural
point would be very close to Provisional or Full approval. Examples may
include schemes which require few or no statutory powers. For schemes
requiring powers but no procurement, or where authorities are prepared
to initiate the procurement process at their own risk while powers are still
being sought, a scheme may proceed directly from Programme Entry to
Full Approval. An example may be where there is Early Contractor
Involvement. As at present there may even be some schemes that
proceed straight to Full Approval if neither powers nor procurement are
required.
When can an authority apply for Conditional Approval?
5.3.3. An application can be made when any necessary statutory powers
have been obtained, and when the scheme appraisal and project
24
information have been updated as necessary to reflect the latest
position.
What does an Authority have to submit at this stage?
5.3.4. In order to obtain Conditional Approval authorities will need to provide
an update on the five aspects of their original Major Scheme Business
Case.
5.3.5. This includes a revised appraisal. The extent of the revisions required
will depend on the time elapsed since Programme Entry, and the extent
to which the scheme's design or cost estimates have changed. The
requirement for an updated appraisal will apply only to the preferred
option except in cases where there has been a significant cost increase.
The detailed requirements for updated appraisal information can be
found in Annex B.
5.3.6. As part of the delivery aspect, an updated risk register and project
plan with milestones should be provided.
5.3.7. The Department will at this stage require details of the commercial
aspects and the procurement strategy, and may request specific related
documents (e.g. draft specifications, OJEU notices, draft contract
documents, tender evaluation criteria).
5.3.8. For some schemes, usually the largest ones, the Department will
require details of the authority's plans for monitoring and evaluation of
the scheme.
When will Conditional Approval be granted?
5.3.9. Conditional Approval will be given when the Department is satisfied
that
ƒ the necessary powers have been obtained
ƒ the scheme can be afforded on current cost estimates
ƒ the updated scheme appraisal remains sound, in line with the
requirements set out in annex B
ƒ the promoter has conducted adequate supplier assessment and
market intelligence and has a robust procurement strategy in place
ƒ the scheme remains deliverable by the authority to time and budget
ƒ the arrangements for evaluation and monitoring are satisfactory (in
cases where this is a requirement at this stage)
5.3.10. Conditional Approval may be granted at any time in the year and is not
linked to annual cycles.
5.3.11. For schemes subject to Gateway Review (see section 4.3),
Conditional Approval will only be given upon confirmation by the
authority's Section 151 officer that a Gateway 2 Review has been
completed and the necessary remedial action has been taken in respect
of any 'Red' recommendations.
25
What does Conditional Approval signify?
5.3.12. Conditional Approval is a firm undertaking by the Department that Full
Approval will be granted subject to a small and limited number of
conditions, typically that:ƒ the costs of the scheme (or the required DfT contribution) do not
increase following the tender process
ƒ the allocation and scale of financial risks does not change
ƒ the tender prices and other scheme costs are firm and fixed for
the life of the project or are as secured as is reasonably possible
ƒ the scheme will be submitted for Full Approval within a certain
period agreed between the Department and the authority.
5.3.13. In applying conditions to particular schemes the Department will
consider and take into account on a case by case basis the most
appropriate balance of financial risks between the parties involved.
5.3.14. If the conditions are not met the Department will reserve the right to
revoke Conditional Approval. Depending on the particular circumstances
the scheme may either revert to Programme Entry status or be removed
from the Programme altogether.
5.4. Full Approval
5.4.1. In a change from current practice we are proposing that Full Approval
is only given once firm prices are available, normally when procurement
has been completed.
When can an authority apply for Full Approval?
5.4.2. An authority may apply for Full Approval once:ƒ the necessary statutory powers have been obtained and;
ƒ tenders have been received with firm prices. Normally this will
mean a preferred bidder has been selected, and any post tender
negotiations completed
ƒ the scheme appraisal has been updated to reflect the latest
information on expected costs and benefits.
What does an Authority have to submit at this stage?
5.4.3. In order to obtain Full Approval authorities will need to provide a
further update on the five aspects of their original bid.
5.4.4. This includes a revised scheme appraisal. The extent of the revisions
required will depend on the time elapsed since Conditional Approval and
the extent to which the schemes' design or cost estimates have
changed. If there have been no such changes and Conditional Approval
was relatively recent, then the additional information required at this
stage will be minimal. The detailed requirements for updated appraisal
information can be found in Annex B.
5.4.5. On the commercial aspects, authorities should provide full details of
the selected bidder's offer together with any conditions that apply. This
should be the firm and final offer if post tender negotiations have taken
26
place. In certain cases the Department may additionally request a copy
of the selected supplier's bid document, details of other bids received, or
the authority's tender evaluation documentation.
5.4.6. As part of the delivery aspect, an updated risk register and project
plan with milestones should be provided.
5.4.7. The Department will require details of the evaluation and monitoring
proposed by the authority at this stage if not before.
When will Full Approval be given?
5.4.8. Full Approval will be given when the Department is satisfied
ƒ that the costs of the scheme are reasonably secured and that the
authority has taken adequate steps to protect itself from the risk of
increased costs
ƒ that the balance of risks and liabilities is satisfactory, is clearly
understood and offers adequate protection for the public sector
against potential increases in costs
ƒ that adequate contract management arrangements are in place to
ensure delivery to timetable and budget, including the necessary
resource for contract management within the authority.
5.4.9. The Department will make every effort to complete its consideration of
bids for full approval before the expiry of tender prices. However the
Department will not be responsible for any delays due to the promoting
authority's failure to provide the necessary assurances set out at 5.4.8
above.
5.4.10. Full Approval may be granted at any time in the year and is not linked
to annual Local Transport settlements.
5.4.11. For schemes subject to Gateway Review (see section 4.3), Full
Approval will only be given upon confirmation by the authority's Section
151 officer that a Gateway 3 Review has been completed and that the
necessary remedial action has been taken in respect of any 'Red'
recommendations.
What does Full Approval signify?
5.4.12. Full Approval is the Departments confirmation that funds are available
and that work can commence.
5.4.13. The availability of funds is conditional upon the scheme proceeding
without undue delay. If there is more than two years delay to the delivery
of a Fully Approved scheme the Department reserves the right to revoke
Full Approval.
5.4.14. If following Full Approval it becomes clear that the scheme cannot be
completed within the available funding the authority must notify the
Department and stop incurring any further liabilities immediately.
5.5. The Department’s role in the approval process
27
5.5.1. This guidance is aimed at helping local authorities promote schemes
that are appropriate for DfT funding. It is the responsibility of the
scheme promoter to ensure that sufficient resources and expertise are
available to produce the appraisal and other information required, and to
ensure that the bid documentation is complete.
5.5.2. Government offices and the Department will be happy to discuss the
development of schemes, especially at the early stages, to help guide
authorities towards schemes that have the best chance of acceptance.
5.5.3. In addition, the Department aims to provide up-to-date and clear
guidance on the requirements and criteria for selection of schemes. The
guidance is updated frequently, as new and better evidence come to
light, so authorities should check WebTAG to ensure they are applying
the most recent advice. During the development of a bid, the
Department aims to provide advice on any proposals for non-standard
approaches to producing the required evidence and appraisal. The
Department will also advise on areas where the guidance may be open
to interpretation.
5.5.4. Once a scheme bid has been formally submitted to the Department,
Ministers require advice on the robustness of the bid and the value for
money judgement. Priority is given to bids that are complete in terms of
the appraisal and other information required. Officials will seek to clarify
any outstanding issues with promoters in advance of deadlines for
ministerial decision-making. Nevertheless bids with significant
omissions may be rejected.
5.5.5. At each approval stage, the Department will review the documents
supplied and may ask for clarification or supporting information as
required. For higher value projects (e.g. £25-30m and above) the
Department may employ consultants to examine a particular aspect of
the business case such as traffic modelling, costs and risk, or financing.
The Department or its consultants may also visit the authority to
interview key project staff. In most cases this visit would normally be
confined to a single day and would be conducted by one or two people.
5.5.6. The level of scrutiny the Department applies at the Conditional and
Full Approval stages will generally be reduced if only a relatively short
time has elapsed since previous approval stages.
28
29
6. Evaluation
6.1. Evaluation is about objectively monitoring and assessing the outcomes of a
decision or investment. An evaluation, therefore, is an independent
quantitative and qualitative assessment of the processes of implementing a
scheme and its impacts. Evaluating major schemes will help the Department
meet its commitment to assess the impacts of its policies, and provide the
Department and authorities with valuable evidence to inform future scheme
development and decision-making.
6.2. The evaluation of any high value schemes should be agreed with the
Department and joint evaluations may be considered, particularly for light rail
schemes. It is critical that lessons are learned from such schemes which can
inform future applications. Lessons learnt enable future schemes to be better
designed, appraised and implemented on a sound bed of evidence from
existing schemes.
6.3. The Department therefore expects promoting authorities to set out their
proposed evaluation arrangements. They should propose evaluations that
will:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Be proportionate and cost-effective. Usually the extent of evaluation effort
should reflect the costs and scale of the scheme. However, innovative or
controversial schemes may require more significant evaluation;
Start before the implementation of the scheme, to ensure that baseline
data have been collected;
Include some assessment of the processes of implementing and
constructing the scheme, and how these have affected its impacts;
Go beyond checking the accuracy of appraisal predictions, by assessing
whether a scheme achieved its objectives and whether it had any wider
and unexpected results (positive and negative);
Include an assessment of what the scheme added, against what might
otherwise have happened;
Identify any problems with the scheme and recommend potential
improvements; and
Report regularly, with findings effectively disseminated so that other
authorities can identify transferable lessons for their schemes.
6.4. Promoting authorities should discuss these requirements on a case-by-case
basis with the Department.
30
7. Funding and Finance
Please note that the consultation on three year grants for Local Government may
result in changes to much of this chapter. The consultation specifically proposes
that "virtually all the funding for major transport capital schemes would need to be
provided through grant". We will be consulting separately on the implications of
this for major local transport schemes in the summer. The text below therefore
describes the system as it stands currently.
7.1. Basic Principles
7.1.1. Any costs incurred by an authority before Full Approval are done so at
the authority's own risk. Until a scheme is Fully Approved by the
Department any costs incurred other than those specifically approved
and related to the purchase of land or any other asset required for the
build of the scheme or actual physical works cannot be claimed as main
scheme costs and may only be eligible for preparatory costs (see
section 7.6). The Department is currently reviewing the implications of
the proposed changes to the approvals process.
7.1.2. The Department does not meet any revenue costs incurred in making
a bid. Scheme costs should not include VAT, as this is reclaimable on
local authority expenditure. Nor should the Authority's fees as agent to
the Department, or auditors' fees or administration and other general
overhead costs be capitalised.
7.1.3. The Department's desire to encourage a rigorous approach to the
project management of schemes is already reflected in the processes for
allocating grant. The need to manage budgets effectively continues to be
important for central government.
7.1.4. Government Departments are held accountable by Treasury for poor
performance in forecasting and managing expenditure. This is reflected
in the introduction of financial penalties for significant errors in cash
forecasting. Any penalties incurrent by the Department could have an
effect on the budgets available for authorities' schemes.
7.1.5. For major schemes our information on scheme progress and
expenditure comes solely from local authorities. We therefore require
accurate forecasting and timely reporting and claiming of expenditure, in
order to meet the requirements placed upon the Department.
7.1.6. For budgetary reasons the Department cannot guarantee to make
payments to local authorities if claims and returns are not provided by
deadlines, or if they show a significant variance to the amounts
previously agreed.
7.2. How the finance works
7.2.1. Once a scheme is Fully Approved, the central Government funding
provision usually comprises a split between borrowing approvals and
31
grant. Until the introduction of the Prudential Capital System (see section
7.2.5) borrowing approval support has been provided in the form of a
Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA). Grants have been provided by
way of Public Transport Facilities Grant for major public transport
schemes and Transport Supplementary Grant (TSG) for major road
schemes.
7.2.2. The aim has been to achieve roughly a 50% grant and 50%
borrowing approval balance over the life of the scheme, though this has
not always been possible.
7.2.3. Public Transport Facilities Grant is allocated under Section 56 of the
Transport Act 1968 (hence sometimes known as S56 Grant). It is
awarded under specific conditions and requirements detailed in a grant
letter issued prior to the start of each financial year, and is claimed in
arrears.
7.2.4. Transport Supplementary Grant is issued under Section 87 of the
Local Government Finance Act 1988. To date it has been allocated in
four quarterly payments in May, August, November and February.
Levels of TSG awarded are dictated by the LTP Capital Settlement
allocations in the previous December, and the grant has been paid out
partly in advance and partly in arrears.
7.2.5. The new Prudential capital finance system was introduced when the
Local Government Act 2003 came fully into in April 2004. The Act allows
councils to fund local improvements by borrowing money without
government consent, provided that they can afford to take on the debt.
However, central government support for borrowing for local authority
capital investment will continue.
7.2.6. From 2004/05 Government support for capital investment has been
described as either Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue) known as
SCE(R) or Supported Capital Expenditure (Capital Grant) known as
SCE(C).
7.3. Process for financial monitoring and payment.
7.3.1. As SCE(R)'s are issued in advance the Department's control over
scheme expenditure is limited to determining when to make payments of
Transport Supplementary Grant or Public Transport Facilities Grant.
7.3.2. Payments of grant are made against certification, by the Finance
Officer, that expenditure has been correctly incurred under the terms
and conditions for claiming an award. Claims and payments will now be
linked to the completion of project milestones rather than quarterly (see
section 4.4.2). All claims must be accompanied by:
•
a report on actual work progress against forecasts (this should
include the original forecast at the bidding stage, and any
subsequent revisions);
•
details of progress anticipated, with reference to future milestones;
32
•
a detailed report of year to date, scheme to date, and previous
claim period actual costs incurred; committed and anticipated
expenditure to be claimed at the completion of each future
milestone.
7.3.3. This information must be provided on a quarterly basis whether or not
a claim for grant is submitted. Within six months of the end of each
financial year which includes the award of s56 grants, the Authority must
submit its annual claim to an auditor appointed by the Audit Commission
for certification.
7.3.4. In the final year of the awarding of s56 grant for a Scheme, the final
payment of an award under s56 grant will only be met on receipt of the
final auditor certificate issued by the auditor appointed by the Audit
Commission.
7.3.5. More detailed requirements are set out in the grant award letter issued
annually.
7.4. Third Party Contributions
7.4.1. Bids should outline all sources of funding (e.g. private funding or
grants from other public sector bodies) and their contribution.
7.4.2. Authorities will be expected to seek to minimise the amount of scheme
costs that fall to the public sector. Promoting authorities should explore
fully the scope for contributions from other sources such as developers
and, where appropriate, transport operators.
7.4.3. In periods where there is excess demand for LTP funds, the
proportion of developer funding may influence the decision to provide
funding for schemes. The Department may also require an authority to
provide a further contribution towards costs met by the public sector.
7.4.4. For light rail and other large public transport schemes, the local
contribution will generally be expected to be at least a quarter of scheme
costs in present value terms, after netting off the value of any
concession being let for the construction and operation of the scheme.
7.4.5. The Department would not expect to underwrite third party
contributions. It is for local authorities to ensure that estimates are
robust and realistic.
7.5. PFI
7.5.1. Authorities are required to assess the potential suitability of each
scheme for funding in whole or in part through the Private Finance
Initiative (PFI). Where a scheme of any kind would require LTP funding
of more than £40m, the Department would automatically request an
assessment of whether it may be suitable for funding through a Private
Finance Initiative. This assessment need not be extensive for road
schemes between £40m and £80m.
33
7.6. Preparatory costs
7.6.1. The Department is currently reviewing its policy on preparatory costs
to ensure that it is consistent with proposed changes to the approval
process. We intend to consult separately on changes to the rules for
preparatory costs probably to the same 30 September deadline.
Authorities that intend to apply for preparatory costs in the interim should
contact the Department for advice on the current position.
34
Annex A: Requirements for new Major Scheme Business Case
bids
All Schemes
All Schemes
Appraisals to be comprehensive and to provide a clear
identification of the elements required for the assessment.
(see section 3.2)
Appraisal consistent with DfT Guidance summarised in
WebTAG - units 1.4 and 3.9 in particular (see chapter 2)
Exceptional Schemes (under
£5m)
As above - with simplified requirements in some aspects
All Schemes
Project Management documentation (see sections 4.2
and 5.2.4)
Schemes with a Gross Cost of
over £40m
A Project Assessment Spreadsheet and confirmation that
a Gateway Review has taken place (see sections 4.3 and
5.1.11)
Appraisal requirements to be confirmed with Government
Office/DfT on a case by case basis. See section 3.5
Pilot or demonstration projects
36
37
Annex B: Appraisal requirements for LTP major schemes
moving from Programme Entry to Conditional or Full
Approval
The information generated within the Department's major scheme appraisal
framework allows, among other things, an assessment to be made of the value for
money offered by proposed schemes. This information is required for all schemes
seeking to move from Programme Entry to Conditional or Full Approval - both those
which are not seeking any increase in Departmental funding contribution as well as
schemes seeking an increased Departmental contribution due to a cost increase or
reduction in anticipated contributions from other sources.
Many of the schemes submitted for Conditional or Full Approval will have been
appraised originally under appraisal guidance which had some significant differences
to the guidance now in place. We cannot therefore rely on the appraisal carried out
when the scheme was granted Provisional Approval or Programme Entry, even if the
scheme is unchanged and there has been no increase in costs. A re-appraisal in line
with current guidance ensures that all schemes are considered on a consistent basis.
Appraisal work needs to be commensurate with the stage schemes have reached
and the extent to which the design, route and costs have changed since Provisional
approval or Programme Entry. Major changes in costs or scheme design may
require a full re-appraisal. We are happy to discuss with promoting authorities the
level of re-appraisal that is appropriate on a case by case basis. However, as a
minimum, for any scheme coming in for Conditional or Full Approval we would expect
to be provided with the following information, both electronically and on paper:
ƒ
ƒ
A scheme diagram or map to scale.
An updated appraisal of the scheme economics using the latest guidance
on Webtag, in particular incorporating the move from a 30 to 60 year
appraisal period where applicable, and revised economic parameters. In
order to review the economic benefits we will require the following
supporting information:
-
-
ƒ
the input assumptions used in the COBA/TUBA analysis
including the assumptions about traffic growth used in
projecting the transport benefits between years 30 and 60 of
the appraisal period where applicable;
the assumptions used for projecting costs between years 30
and 60 where applicable;
for road schemes traffic flow diagrams in the do minimum and
do something scenarios;
the COBA/TUBA output;
a full set of TEE and AMCB tables;
a central case showing the scheme BCR assuming provision
for optimism bias on top of the estimated scheme cost
(Authorities should seek guidance from the Department on
what level of optimism bias to apply for a particular scheme).
An updated AST which should incorporate the revised economics and any
other changes in scheme impacts which have been identified since the
scheme was originally submitted. If there are significant beneficial or
38
adverse impacts, it would be helpful to have further details of these,
particularly environmental impacts. Relevant information from
Environmental Impact Assessments could be provided. It is also useful to
have an environmental constraints map if, in the case of a road scheme,
the route passes through sensitive sites or areas. And it would be helpful
to have details of any environmental mitigation measures agreed with the
Statutory Environmental Bodies.
ƒ
A full explanation of the reasons for any cost increase including the extent
to which this is due to factors within, and not within, the LA's control.
Promoting authorities should also explain what scope there is for saving
costs by changing the scheme design and/or securing additional
contributions from other sources. In the case of substantial cost
increases we may also ask promoting authorities to re-examine possible
lower cost alternatives.
ƒ
We expect LAs to make some contribution to major scheme cost
increases from their own resources. Ministers would want to consider the
size of the contribution in the light of the potential impacts on the LA's
other programmes. In order to offer ministers a clear choice, promoting
authorities should provide a note setting out not only their preferred
contribution but also their 'bottom line' - the greatest possible contribution
consistent with their continuing commitment to the delivery of the scheme.
In both cases, we will also need to know the likely impact on the
promoter's wider capital programme, including their transport programme.
Government Offices will be in the lead in discussing both sets of numbers
with promoting authorities.
ƒ
Where an important element of the original justification for a scheme was
provided by regeneration we may ask promoting authorities to produce an
Economic Impact Report in line with current guidance to substantiate the
claimed regeneration benefits. Promoters of schemes with significant
regeneration benefits should discuss the need for an EIR with the
Department well in advance of their request for Full Approval.
ƒ
Promoting authorities should be aware that if a scheme is presented for
Full Approval with a significant cost increase or a substantial design
change, Full Approval may be denied or delayed - especially where the
scheme no longer appears to represent sufficient value for money.
39
Regional Prioritisation of Major
Transport Schemes
Study Report
Final Draft
JOB NUMBER: 5039885
DOCUMENT REF: Draft Final Report
V3
Final Draft for GONW
SC
JP
V2
Draft with GONW comments
SC
JL
05/12/05
V1
Draft for 02/12/05 RTF
SC
NM
29/11/05
Originated
Checked
Revision
Purpose
Description
NM
Reviewed
NM
Authorised
23/12/05
Date
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Contents
Section
Page
1.
Introduction
1-1
2.
Methodology
2-1
3.
Prioritisation Results
3-1
4.
Proposed Investment Programme
4-1
5.
Conclusions & Recommendations
5-1
List of Tables
Table 2.1 – Regional Policy Assessment Criteria
Table 2.2 – Sub - Regional Policy Criteria
Table 2.3 – Value for Money & Deliverability Criteria
Table 4.1 – Committed Schemes 2005/06 to 2015/16
2-3
2-4
2-4
4-2
List of Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
3.1 – Weightings applied to Appendix (B) Prioritisation Results
4.1 – Initial Spend Profile for Q1 Schemes and Committed Schemes
4.2 – Example of Re-Profiled Spend
4.3 – Proposed Investment Profile
Appendix A: Policy Criteria and Scoring Notes
Appendix B: Prioritisation Results
Appendix C: Consistency between Regional Prioritisation Processes
Appendix D: Consitency between Identified Rail Priorities
Appendix E: Spend Profile & Investment Programme
29 Nov 2005
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
i
3-1
4-3
4-4
4-5
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
1.
Introduction
1.1
This document provides an overview of the regional prioritisation of approximately
100 North West Major Transport Schemes. It sets out the policy context and the
North West’s approach to developing a ten year investment programme for the
Regional Funding Allocation (RFA).
Background
1.2
In September 2005, Atkins was commissioned by Government Office for the North
West (GONW) on behalf of the Regional Transport Forum (RTF) to appraise and
prioritise approximately 60 1 Local Authority and Highways Agency Major Schemes 2 .
The schemes included those with Provisional Approval and remitted to the region for
consideration as part of regional prioritisation, but excluded all schemes with Full
Approval. Funds for fully approved schemes were seen as committed and have been
deducted from the total funding allocation available for additional Major Schemes.
1.3
The study brief stated that the RFA prioritisation work should build on a similar
exercise being undertaken by the North West Regional Assembly as part of the
development of a 20 year programme for the Regional Transport Strategy. The
NWRA work included the development of regional policy criteria for the assessment
of regionally significant interventions (or packages of schemes). Atkins was advised
to build on these regional policy criteria (covering economic, environmental and
social policy objectives) and develop an appraisal framework which could be used to
assess local as well as regionally significant schemes, taking into account
deliverability and value for money.
Policy Context
Regional Funding Allocation
1.4
During the last Spending Review the Government announced it would examine new
ways to integrate transport, economic and spatial development strategies in each
region. Following this announcement, the Government launched a consultation in
December 2004 on how it proposed to implement regional funding allocations.
1.5
Building on this consultation, RFA guidance on how the regions should prepare their
advice was produced in July 2005 3 . This explained how the Government was
seeking advice on regional priorities in transport, housing and economic development
to bring about an enhanced regional input into Government policy development.
Advice should show how transport, housing and economic priorities relate to each to
other to form a coherent and realistic vision for improving the economic performance
of the regions taking account the resources available.
1
Following consultation and dialogue with scheme promoters, over 100 potential Major Schemes
were eventually appraised and prioritised.
2
DfT defines a Major Scheme as a scheme requiring over £5m capital funding. It includes Local
Authority and Highways Agency schemes which are regionally significant.
3
HM Treasury, Department for Transport, Office of Deputy Prime Minister, Department of Trade and
Industry, Regional Funding Allocations, Guidance on Preparing Advice, July 2005.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
1-1
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
1.6
To inform the advice, the guidance document included regional funding allocations
for the three years up to and including 2007/8 and indicative longer term planning
assumptions for regional allocations, beyond the current three year spending review
period. For transport, the total indicative allocation for the period 2005/6 to 2015/6 is
approximately £1.35bn. Funding for transport schemes which are already fully
approved should be considered ‘committed’ and this will need to come out of the total
RFA.
1.7
The regions were asked to submit their advice to the Government by the end of
January 2006 in order to inform Government policy in advance of the next Budget.
Regional Economic Strategy
1.8
The North West Regional Economic Strategy (RES) 2006 – 2009 (draft) sets out the
region’s economic strategy and has been prepared by the North West Regional
Development Agency (NWDA). The strategy covers a 20 year period with detailed
actions for the first three years.
1.9
The output (Gross Value Added) per head for the North West region is 12% lower
than the England average and has resulted in an output gap of £13 billion. £3 billion
of this is due to higher unemployment per head of population and £10 billion is due to
lower productivity.
1.10
The role of the RES is to identify the regional drivers for economic growth and guide
national and regional investment towards these drivers. The three major drivers of
the North West economy are:
♦
Improving productivity and growing the market (to tackle the £10bn gap);
♦
Growing the size and capability of the workforce (to tackle the £3bn gap); and
♦
Creating conditions for sustainable growth (underpins the other two drivers by
tackling deprivation, valuing social inclusion and promoting investment in the
region’s environment, culture and infrastructure).
1.11
The RES is widely seen as the overarching strategy for the region and policies
relating to spatial development, housing and transport should all integrate and
support the RES.
1.12
As a result of this, criteria which support economic growth have been included in the
prioritisation framework for both the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) and the RFA.
In addition, these criteria have been given the highest weighting in relation to other
policy criteria, to reflect the need for investment to encourage economic growth and
support the RES. This is explained in more detail within the Methodology.
Regional Spatial Strategy
1.13
The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) 4 for North West England provides the regional
development strategy for the next fifteen to twenty years. The RSS identifies the
scale and distribution of housing development and the priorities for the environment,
4
The Regional Spatial Strategy was in draft form at the time of writing and all references are to the
‘Interim Draft Revisions to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of England October 2005’.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
1-2
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
transport, economic development, infrastructure, agriculture, minerals and waste
treatment and disposal.
1.14
The statutory document forms part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) for
each of the local authorities in the North West and incorporates the Regional
Transport Strategy (RTS). The RTS provides the regional context within which Local
Transport Plans and Local Development Plans should be prepared.
Regional Transport Strategy
1.15
The RTS supports the vision and objectives of the RSS by focusing on the
improvement of connectivity and accessibility both within the North West and
nationally and internationally. The RTS is being aligned with the strategic objectives
of the RES and the policy priorities of the Northern Way Growth Strategy.
1.16
The RTS sets out the following Regional Priorities for Transport Investment and
Management:
1.17
♦
Maintenance of existing transport networks and assets;
♦
Making best use of existing transport networks and assets, including the widest
possible exploitation of complementary ‘soft’ measures; and
♦
Targeted major investment in support of the RSS and wider regional economic,
environmental and social objectives.
The regional priorities are listed in order of importance and reflect the need to
maintain regional transport assets and halt their deterioration. The criteria used to
assess major schemes (see Methodology) included those relating to RSS and RTS
objectives and take account of the priority given to making best use of existing
infrastructure.
Northern Way Growth Strategy
1.18
In 2004, the three northern Regional Development Agencies (North West, Yorkshire
& Humber and One North East) started preparation of The Northern Way Growth
Strategy, a joint strategy aimed at harnessing the untapped potential for economic
growth in the North of England along key economic and transport corridors.
1.19
Pan-regional transport priorities have been identified by the Northern Way team and
a prioritisation study is also being undertaken. Atkins has liaised with the Northern
Way team and the outputs of the RFA have been cross referenced.
RFA Prioritisation Objectives
1.20
The primary objective of the prioritisation exercise was to assess and prioritise North
West Major Schemes in order to determine a ten year investment programme for the
regional funding allocation. The outputs of the exercise needed to be evidenced
based and realistic, taking into account the financial resources available.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
1-3
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Structure of this Document
1.21
The remainder of this document is structured as follows:
♦
Chapter 2 ‘Methodology’ sets out the North West region’s approach to
prioritisation of Major Schemes;
♦
Chapter 3 ‘Prioritisation Results’ outlines the results of this study and describes
the level of consultation and stakeholder buy-in;
♦
Chapter 4 ‘Proposed Investment Programme’ shows the initial and revised
spend profiles for the committed (fully approved) and best performing schemes;
♦
Chapter 5 ‘Recommendations’ sets out the technical recommendations of this
study.
The following Appendixes are attached:
♦
Appendix A Scoring Notes;
♦
Appendix B Prioritisation Results;
♦
Appendix C Consistency between Regional Prioritisation Processes
♦
Appendix D Spend Profile & Investment Programme
♦
Appendix E
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
1-4
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
2.
Methodology
2.1
This chapter explains the approach taken by the North West region to the
prioritisation of Major Schemes. It includes an overview of the consultation process,
the development of criteria and a summary of the sensitivity tests undertaken to
ensure the outputs were robust and transparent.
Introduction
2.2
Following project inception, a Project Advisory Group (PAG) was established to
oversee the work of Atkins and to provide a technical steer. The PAG was chaired by
GONW and comprised representatives from each of the nine transport authorities in
the North West region, the two Passenger Transport Executives and the North West
Development Agency (NWDA) and NWRA.
Consultation
2.3
During the week commencing Monday, 31st October to Friday, 4th November, 2005,
five stakeholder events were held across the North West region. Each of the events
was held in one of the five Government Office sub-regions: Cheshire, Cumbria,
Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside.
2.4
Invitations were sent to a diverse range of stakeholders including: LA Chief
Executives and leaders, LSP Co-ordinators, members of the Chambers of
Commerce, CBI, sub-regional partnerships, Regional Transport Forum, Regional
Housing Board, and the Regional Economic Strategy Advisory Board.
2.5
The format of each event comprised:
2.6
2.7
♦
Registration & Coffee
♦
Welcome
♦
GONW Introduction to Regional Funding Allocations (Presentation)
♦
Atkins Transport Prioritisation Project (Presentation)
♦
Question & Answer Session
♦
Syndicate Sessions & Feedback
The main aims were to:
♦
Explain the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) prioritisation process;
♦
Disseminate progress to date and ensure all stakeholders understood the need
for the prioritisation process and the timescales involved;
♦
Identify stakeholder concerns in order to address them on the day or during the
course of the project.
♦
Identify sub-regional criteria which could be incorporated into the developing
appraisal framework.
Representatives from GONW and Atkins attended each event and facilitated the
syndicate sessions, providing feedback where necessary. The findings of the events
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
2-1
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
were used to guide the development of sub-regional criteria and influenced the
choice of value for money and deliverability criteria.
Scheme Eligibility
2.8
2.9
The Government has asked the regions to prioritise the following type of transport
schemes for RFA:
♦
Local transport major schemes where direct grant is sought by the local
authority; and
♦
Highways Agency major schemes valued at over £5m on roads of regional
significance. Roads of national strategic significance were excluded.
The RFA does not include capital investment for rail services but where rail schemes
were submitted they were included in the prioritisation exercise. This was to enable
the region to determine the priority of such schemes. They will not be referred to in
the guidance provided by the region to Ministers.
Development of the Appraisal Framework
2.10
2.11
The appraisal framework used for this prioritisation exercise involved a two stage
assessment process:
♦
Stage 1 Policy Fit
♦
Stage 2 Value for Money & Deliverability
Stage 1 included the adoption and refinement of existing regional policy criteria
developed for the Regional Assembly’s prioritisation of regionally significant
interventions. The regional criteria are primarily based on the following strategies:
♦
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and emerging Spatial Development Framework
(SDF) and Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) objectives;
♦
Regional Economic Strategy (RES), NWDA, 2003 5 ;
♦
Regional Housing Strategy, NW Regional Housing Board, 2003.
2.12
The regional policy criteria have also been aligned with the principles of the
“Implementing Action for Sustainability” Toolkit (NWRA, 2003) and Programme
(NWRA, 2004) for the North West.
2.13
Stage 1 also included a number of sub-regional criteria developed following the
stakeholder events and consultation with the Regional Transport Forum and the
Project Advisory Group. Due to calls for more LTP2 specific criteria, Atkins reviewed
the Provisional LTP2 objectives for each of the nine transport authorities and
amalgamated these into a set of nine sub-regional policy criteria.
2.14
Stage 2 involved the development of value for money (VfM) and deliverability criteria.
It was initially expected that Atkins would build on criteria developed as part of the
RTS work. Indeed, the brief stated the RFA work would involve the “application of the
5
It was agreed by the Regional Transport Forum on 7th November 2005 that= RES 2003 should be
the basis of any regional economic criteria contained within Stage 1, rather than the emerging draft.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
2-2
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
second phase of the JMP methodology to assess the viability and deliverability of
local schemes and interventions”.
2.15
However, following discussions with NWRA and JMP Consultants, it became clear
that the RTS prioritisation was not going to involve the development of VfM or
deliverability appraisal criteria. The scope of the RFA work was therefore expanded
to include this as an additional task.
2.16
Due to the need for all Major Schemes to continue to be submitted as Business Case
proposals to DfT for audit and approval, Atkins primarily based the Stage 2 criteria on
existing guidance, including:
2.17
♦
DfT guidance on Major Schemes, Value for Money and Cost Benefit Analysis;
♦
CfIT guidance on Affordable Mass Transit; and
♦
CPRE & Transport 2000 paper ‘Valuing the Small: Counting the Benefits’.
For information, Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 show the final policy and value for money /
deliverability criteria included in the appraisal framework. In keeping with the
methodology for the RTS Prioritisation work, the policy criteria were defined under
the three policy strands of Economy, Environment and Social.
Table 2.1 – Regional Policy Assessment Criteria
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT
SOCIAL
ECON1.
Will the scheme
improve international, national
and regional trade connections?
ENV1. Will the scheme protect
or
enhance
places
and
buildings of historic, cultural
and architectural value?
SOC1. Will the scheme help
deliver sustainable growth in
urban
areas
/
urban
renaissance?
ECON2.
Will the scheme
improve
business
competitiveness?
ENV2. Will the scheme protect
or enhance designated areas of
natural environmental value?
SOC2. Will the scheme help
deliver sustainable growth in
rural areas / rural renaissance?
ECON3.
Will the scheme
support business clusters, as
specified in RES 2003?
ENV3. Will the scheme help
protect or enhance local air
quality?
SOC3. Will the scheme improve
accessibility to key services &
facilities for all, including
health, jobs, education, retail &
leisure?
ECON4.
Will the scheme
support regional employment
sites?
ENV4. Will the scheme help
enhance land quality?
SOC4. Will the scheme support
access to assisted areas and
European
Funding
Eligible
areas?
ECON5. Will scheme improve
perceived image of its locality,
both within region & externally?
ENV5. Will the scheme limit
CO2 emissions and support
efforts
to
combat
Global
Warming?
SOC5. Will the scheme support
housing renewal initiatives?
ECON6.
Will the scheme
support existing & promote new
tourism
and
recreation
locations?
ENV6. Does the scheme make
best use of existing resources?
SOC6. Will the scheme improve
road safety?
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
2-3
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Table 2.2 – Sub - Regional Policy Criteria
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT
SOCIAL
ECON7. Will the scheme reduce
delays on local journeys by
improving
reliability
and
reducing congestion?
ENV7.
Will the scheme
minimise
the
impact
of
transport
on
residential
communities in terms of noise
and severance?
ENV8.
Will the scheme
minimise the need to travel by
car?
SOC7. Will the scheme improve
feelings of personal safety and
security?
ENV9 Will the scheme enhance
the integration of all forms of
transport in a sustainable
manner?
SOC9.
Will the scheme
contribute to improving public
health through increased levels
of walking and cycling?
ECON8.
Does the scheme
support increased levels of
local employment activity in
town and district centres?
ECON9.
Will the scheme
support connectivity within the
sub-region?
SOC8.
Does
the
scheme
support the regeneration of
deprived
areas?
(Housing
renewal is covered under SOC5)
Table 2.3 – Value for Money & Deliverability Criteria
VALUE FOR MONEY
DELIVERABILITY
VfM1. Is the scheme likely to have a high BCR? A
key DfT requirement is that a project
demonstrates VfM.
DEL1. What is the scheme’s state of readiness? Is
it ready to be implemented?
VfM2. In the absence of the scheme going ahead,
would present transport facilities be undermined?
DEL2. Is the scheme type likely to be deliverable
within the 10 year investment programme?
VfM3. Is the private sector funding contribution
likely to be larger than the public sector
contribution?
DEL3. What is the affordability of the scheme to
the Region? (Does the annual cost of the scheme
comprise more than 30% of the indicative annual
RFA? Does the total cost of the scheme comprise
more than 30% of the 10 year RFA?)
VfM4. Does the scheme have synergy with
existing or proposed schemes? (will scheme
generate additional benefits or improve the
viability of other schemes?)
DEL4: Has consultation on the
demonstrated its public acceptability?
scheme
DEL5: Are there any other general risks to
delivery, for example, likelihood of a public
inquiry?
Scoring
Seven Point Scale
2.18
In line with the methodology developed by JMP Consulting for the RTS prioritisation
work, a seven point scale was used to score schemes. Each scheme received a
minimum of one point (low score) and a maximum of seven points (high score)
against each criterion. The neutral score was four. An element of professional
judgement and an assumption of probable outcome were required when scoring a
scheme against some of the criteria.
2.19
JMP investigated the pros and cons of using alternative scoring mechanisms and
found that using a positive method of scoring (with a scheme scoring a minimum of
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
2-4
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
one point, even if it conflicts with a criterion) enabled the differences between
schemes to be more easily compared. It also did not give undue weight to those
criteria where there is more scope to apply a negative score.
2.20
Each criterion (or question) was allocated a reference number, for example, VfM1
and Del1. This reference number did not relate in any way to a ranking of the criteria.
Scoring Notes
2.21
Guidance for scoring schemes was developed for each criterion (attached at
Appendix A) to ensure a consistent approach to the scoring process. In addition, the
first 15 schemes were scored by the small appraisal team as a joint exercise, in order
to establish a consistent approach to scoring between each appraiser.
2.22
The level of information provided by scheme promoters varied significantly from full
business case submissions to a couple of sheets of A4 for the most conceptual
schemes. However, the use of scoring notes enabled the team to either extract the
relevant information, or make a professional judgment where information was not yet
available. Where a judgment could not sensibly be reached, the appraiser contacted
the scheme promoter to request additional information.
Weightings
2.23
The final appraisal framework contained 28 Policy Fit Criteria (eighteen regional and
nine sub-regional) and nine Value for Money & Deliverability Criteria. In order to
guide the development of a realistic investment programme, the VfM and
deliverability criteria were weighted so that they accounted for 50% of the total marks
available.
2.24
In addition, the three strands of policy criteria (economic, environmental and social)
were given two different weightings to test the final outputs. The diagram below
shows the three policy criteria with an equal weighting of 1/3 or 33% each, with the
overall policy section accounting for 50% of the appraisal framework.
Weightings: Equal Policy
Economy
Environment
Social
Regional
Regional
Regional
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
Value for Money
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Deliverability
2-5
50%
50%
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
2.25
An alternative policy scenario with increased weight given to the economic criteria, in
recognition of the importance of economic growth to the North West, was also
produced and circulated for consultation. This reflects the importance given to
economic development in the RFA guidance and the request that regions should
demonstrate in their advice to Ministers how transport, economy and housing each
relate to each other to bring about improved economic performance.
Sensitivity Checks
2.26
In order to test the outputs of the appraisal exercise a number of sensitivity checks
were applied. These involved the application of different weightings to the final
outputs as well as cross referencing the scores between similar schemes (for
example, Highway Scheme ‘A’ against Highway Scheme ‘B’) to test for consistency
in the scoring. In summary, the tests applied included:
Different weightings:
♦
Equal weighting to Economy / Environmental / Social criteria;
♦
50% weighting to Economy;
♦
50:50 VfM & Deliverability vs Policy Fit; and
♦
60:40 VfM & Deliverability vs Policy Fit.
Cross referencing:
♦
Against known sub-regional priorities;
♦
Between scores for similar schemes; and
♦
Highest and lowest scoring schemes re-assessed.
Standardisation of Costs & Optimism Bias
2.27
The costs for schemes submitted to the region for prioritisation were not all quoted in
2005 prices so for the purposes of comparison and assessment, all scheme prices
were converted to 2005 prices using the Retail Price Index to represent price
inflation. In addition, some costs included optimism bias and some did not, so to
ensure a common approach, optimism bias was removed from scheme costs to
enable a consistent assessment.
Validity of Information
2.28
The timescales of the prioritisation process meant that it was not possible to validate
the information provided by scheme promoters and used to assess a scheme.
However, the inclusion of any scheme in the regional prioritisation process is no
guarantee of funding or implementation. Each scheme will still have to go through full
DfT major scheme appraisal and statutory processes.
2.29
Different levels of information were provided by scheme promoters. All scheme
promoters were asked to complete a scheme proforma and attach an Appraisal
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
2-6
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Summary Table (AST) where available. For the majority of developed schemes,
sufficient information was provided. For more conceptual schemes, there was often
little more than a description. This meant they tended to score less well on value for
money and deliverability.
2.30
In some cases, individual scheme promoters were repeatedly chased for additional
information which was known to be available but which had not been provided to the
appraisal team.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
2-7
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
3.
Prioritisation Results
Quartiles
3.1
Appendix B sets out the prioritisation results. The schemes are in alphabetical order
within each quartile, in line with the request of elected Members at the Regional
Transport Forum, 2nd December, 2005.
3.2
An equal weighting between policy fit and value for money / deliverability criteria has
been applied. Within the policy fit criteria, the economic criteria have been given a
50% weighting and the environmental and social criteria are worth 25% each.
However, the alternative weightings tested also resulted in the same schemes falling
within quartile 1.
Figure 3.1 – Weightings applied to Appendix (B) Prioritisation Results
Weightings: 50% Economy
Economy
Environment
Social
Regional
Regional
Regional
50%
25%
25%
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
Sub-Regional
50%
25%
25%
Value for Money
Deliverability
50%
50%
3.3
Just over 100 schemes were submitted for prioritisation. Thirteen of these were rail
schemes and although initially included within the prioritisation assessment these
were subsequently removed from the results because rail is currently outside the
scope of RFA. The remaining 88 non-rail schemes have been divided into four parts
or ‘quartiles’ based on their appraisal score.
3.4
The best performing schemes are in the top or first quartile (Q1). The fourth quartile
(Q4) represents the schemes which performed least well against the agreed
assessment criteria. The number of schemes in each quartile is approximately 22
but it varies between quartiles with 25 schemes in Q1 due to the threshold for funding
to 18 schemes in quartile 3. The ‘bunching’ of schemes of equal score results in the
unequal number of schemes in the quartiles.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
3-1
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
3.5
All scheme RFA costs are shown at 2005 prices and exclude optimism bias and
inflation. In order to deliver some of these schemes using the annual RFA it will be
necessary push back start dates to the latter end of the programme. This will have
financial implications in terms of inflation and non-inflation linked cost increases and
needs to be taken into account by the Leadership Group when the final list of
schemes are chosen for the investment programme. It may be advisable to set the
funding threshold at a lower level to allow for non inflation linked cost increases.
3.6
Once the final phasing is agreed, It is important that the region seeks the latest
available outturn costs (the cost at the time the works will actually be carried out)
given that many schemes have been pushed back in the delivery programme due to
the lack of available funds in the early years.
Merseytram Line 1
3.7
Merseytram Line 1 was included within the prioritisation process and was assessed
as being a quartile 1 scheme.
3.8
However, in late November, 2005, DfT announced that Merseytram 6 should not
proceed because the Government is unconvinced that there will not be further
requests for funding. The scheme is therefore not currently included within the list of
Q1 schemes. It is understood that the approval decision for Merseytram may be
subject to judicial review.
Stakeholder Buy-In
3.9
The results of the prioritisation process were presented to the PAG on 28th
November, a regional stakeholder event on 1st December 2005, attended by
approximately sixty regional representatives, and the Regional Transport Forum on
2nd December 2005.
3.10
At both events there was general consensus that the schemes within Quartile 1 were
the right schemes. Stakeholders and local authority representatives felt that the
results were largely politically acceptable. The M55 to Norcross (Fleetwood Port)
Link was the only scheme not in the top quartile which stakeholders at the regional
event suggested was regionally important and should perhaps be considered for
RFA.
Highways Agency
3.11
The Highways Agency (HA) has stated it is broadly happy with the prioritisation
process and the ranking of its schemes within the four quartiles.
3.12
The A556 (M6 to M56) Improvement scheme is ranked quite highly and this support’s
the HA’s identification of it as their number one regional scheme, given that it forms
the main highway access to the Airport and South Manchester from the M6 south.
6
Merseytram Line 1 was provisionally approved in December 2002 and received its Transport and
Works Orders December 2004.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
3-2
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
3.13
However, due to an error in the HA information provided on the M60 Denton
Interchange scheme, this scheme was initially incorrectly identified as a top priority
for the region within Q1.
3.14
Following the Regional Transport Forum on 2nd December, this scheme was reappraised using the new information and the scheme moved down to Q2.
3.15
The Highways Agency also submitted three individual A66 (T) road schemes for
prioritisation.
♦
A66 (T) Appleby Bypass to Brough Bypass
♦
A66 (T) Penrith to Temple Sowerby Bypass
♦
A66 (T) Temple Sowerby Bypass to Appleby
3.16
Within the RTS and Northern Way prioritisation the A66 schemes were considered as
one package and were ranked quite highly, reflecting their pan-regional importance
and improved East-West connections. For the North West region, however, these
schemes are of moderate importance given that they primarily benefit areas outside
of the North West. Within the RFA prioritisation they have been ranked within the
third quartile.
3.17
The Highways Agency is in agreement with this ranking given the ten year timescale
of the RFA process and the timescales of the required improvements to the A66
schemes. However, it was noted that these routes would increase in importance as
the Northern Ports grow and that in ten to twenty years the routes will need to be
improved.
Specific Scheme Concerns
3.18
Whilst there has been broad stakeholder agreement that the identified quartile 1
schemes are consistent with regional priorities, a number of specific issues have
been raised by promoters regarding schemes assessed as not within the top quartile.
A summary of these concerns is provided below.
♦
Lancashire County Council raised concerns regarding the position of the
Ormskirk Bypass relative to other schemes;
♦
Vale Royal Borough Council was concerned that the Northwich Vision scheme
whilst initially reported as being in quartile 2, had subsequently moved to quartile
3 (following removal of the rail schemes from the quartiles);
♦
Wigan MBC was concerned that the Wigan Inner Relief Road scheme was not
included within the top quartile.
♦
Cumbria was concerned that they had no schemes in the top quartile.
Consistency with Wider Regional Prioritisation
3.19
The consistency of the RFA prioritisation outputs with wider regional and panregional priorities is shown in Appendix C.
3.20
Identification of consistency between the RTS and the RFA outputs was based on
specific schemes. Identification of alignment with the Northern Way and RES was
based on an assessment of whether RFA schemes complied with Northern Way and
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
3-3
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
RES priorities, due to the generic nature of interventions referred to within these
strategies.
3.21
Appendix D shows the consistency between rail schemes submitted for prioritisation
and wider regional and pan-regional priorities and is included for information only.
Northern Way & Draft RES
3.22
The prioritisation results have been cross referenced against the Northern Way and
the draft Regional Economic Strategy (RES 2006) scheme priorities and have been
found to be broadly consistent. (See Appendix C).
Regional Transport Strategy (RTS)
3.23
The RFA results have also been found to be strongly consistent (over 80%) with the
outputs of the NWRA’s prioritisation on behalf of the 20 year RTS.
3.24
Differences between the NWRA and RFA prioritisation results with regards to
regionally significant schemes can be accounted for by the inclusion of value for
money and deliverability criteria within the RFA appraisal framework. Prior to the
assessment of value for money and deliverability, the RFA ranking of regionally
significant schemes is almost identical to the NWRA assessment. This is not
surprising given the consistent assessment framework.
Assumptions - Q1 Schemes
3.25
Some schemes were sent in with more than one option. In general, Atkins prioritised
the least costly option. Where promoters suggested a scheme could be either a
maintenance project or a brand new scheme, Atkins assessed the maintenance
option, in line with the draft Regional Spatial Strategy’s emphasis on maintenance of
existing infrastructure.
3.26
Any significant assumptions made regarding prioritised schemes are listed below:
♦
Glossop Spur: The data used to assess Glossop Spur is based on the
assumption that the A57/A628 Mottram – Tintwistle bypass will be built. Viability
of this scheme is therefore dependent on delivery of the Mottram – Tintwistle
bypass, a committed scheme which is still subject to public inquiry planned for
2006. Assuming that both schemes are approved, up to £5m could be saved
from the overall cost of the schemes if they were implemented concurrently and
this approach is recommended.
♦
Metrolink: The total additional public sector funding required to deliver Metrolink
Phase 3 is £753m. However, GMPTE is seeking only £260m from the RFA with
the remaining £493 being sought through the Transport Innovation Fund and
other sources.
♦
Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee Bridge Maintenance: Promoter has
recommended a combined scheme. This would not be prudent until both
schemes are at Programme Entry level with DfT. Once Mersey Gateway is
available, the function of SJB changes from key strategic route to local road with
priority for buses/ cycles and pedestrians. Heavy goods vehicles would be
directed to the Mersey Gateway. Subject to contractors being permitted 24 hour
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
3-4
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
/ 7 day lane closures, this could potentially reduce the cost of maintenance on
SJB by up to 50%. Bringing Mersey Gateway forward would enable the cost
savings to be realised.
♦
Bidston Moss Viaduct, Junction 1 of M53: Three options were put forward for
appraisal: Off-line replacement; on-line replacement with new viaduct and
permanent strengthening. The different options had different environmental
impacts and different impacts on the RFA. Atkins appraised the least costly
option (permanent strengthening) which was also no more environmentally
damaging than the existing structure. The cost used to appraise the scheme
was therefore approximately £35m in 2002 prices – this was standardised into
2005 prices.
♦
Leigh-Salford-Manchester QBC is eligible for PFI and the scheme promoter is
seeking PFI credits. In the meantime, this scheme needs to be considered for
RFA.
♦
Crewe Green Link Road (Southern Section): This scheme requires £6m from
RFA and is seeking the remainder of scheme costs from the NWDA and the
private sector.
♦
Crewe Rail Gateway: This scheme is seeking funding from NWDA, Network
Rail and the private sector which may reduce the cost to the RFA by up to 50%.
♦
Proposed PFI Schemes: The SEMMMS Road Schemes and the Mersey
Gateway are both being developed as PFI schemes with the RFA bid only to
provide a small proportion of the overall cost to facilitate the PFI process. The
prioritisation of these two schemes is on the basis of them securing procurement
through PFI. Should these fail to secure a PFI route, then there would clearly be
implications for the affordability of the identified priority schemes.
Contingency Planning
3.27
In line with the need to provide advice to Ministers on how the investment
programme could change given a high case of 10 per cent more funding per annum
and a low case of 10 per cent less, four contingency schemes have been identified
which could be considered for RFA. These schemes are in the upper echelons of Q2
and are:
♦
A55/ A483 Chester Business Park Junction Improvement (£25m)
♦
Wigan Inner Relief Road (£24.5 m)
♦
A685 Kirkby Stephen Bypass (£32m)
♦
Altrincham Interchange (£17.6m)
3.28
All costs are in 2005 prices and exclude optimism bias.
3.29
In terms of the overall allocation, no allowance has yet been set aside for
contingency or cost escalation and the cost of schemes does not include inflation,
based on the scheme implementation date. In terms of the advice to Ministers, DfT
has advised that the latest available estimated outturn costs (the cost of the scheme
at the time of proposed implementation) should be provided.
3.30
Following the finalisation of the phasing and spend profile, the RTF will need to
ensure scheme promoters provide revised costs based on the proposed start date of
their scheme.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
3-5
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
4.
Proposed Investment Programme
Introduction
4.1
This chapter sets out the proposed investment programme for the North West region.
It includes fully approved schemes which were exempt from the prioritisation process
and Q1 schemes. Some of the highest performing Q2 schemes have also been
included due to their proximity to the Q1 margin. Appendix E contains details of the
investment programme.
Committed Schemes
4.2
A number of schemes in the North West have been Fully Approved by the DfT. Their
funding requirements should therefore be regarded as committed. A breakdown of
committed Highways Agency and Local Authority Major Schemes for the RFA period
2005/06 to 2015/16 is provided in Table 4.1 overleaf.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
4-1
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Table 4.1 – Committed Schemes 2005/06 to 2015/16
Scheme
Sub-Region
Warrington Bus Interchange
A58 Black Brook Diversion
Metrolink Phase 1&2 Renewal
Merseyside
Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester
Metrolink Phase 3
Freckleton Street Bridge
Local Authority
Cheshire
Carlisle Northern Development
Route
Lancashire
Cumbria
Greater Manchester
SEMMMS QBC
Greater Manchester
Northern Orbital QBC
Liverpool South Parkway
Merseyside
Cheshire
UTC (Warrington)
UTC (Greater Manchester)
Manchester Salford I R R
Oldham Retaining Wallls
A57 Cadishead Way
Greater Manchester
Highways
Agency
4.3
8.45
52.20
24.1
8.53
59.40
13
6.6
2.7
1.05
0.81
5.11
Greater Manchester
3.5
Greater Manchester
3.7
A590 High and Low Newton Bypass
Cumbria
A66 Temple Sowerby Bypass
Cumbria
Total
1.00
Greater Manchester
Cumbria
A595 Parton - Lillyhall Improvement
A57/A628 Mottram - Hollingworth –
Tintwistle Bypass
Cost
(millions £)
Greater Manchester
22.34
39.08
27.28
103.1
381.9
Table 4.1 shows that of the £1.358bn available for the period 2005/06 to 2015/16,
£381.9 m is already committed.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
4-2
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Spend Profile
4.4
Based on the 2005 prices of schemes and excluding any optimism bias, the total cost
to deliver Quartile 1 (Q1) would be 1065m, or £1235 including Merseytram Line 1 7 .
4.5
Excluding any allowance for contingency, the proposed quartile 1 schemes amount
to approximately £90m in excess of the indicative RFA for the ten year period to
2015/16. The costs shown against each scheme are all in 2005 prices and exclude
optimism bias. For the final investment programme, scheme costs will need to be
converted into real prices, based on their proposed implementation date. This will
impact on the number of schemes which can be afforded.
4.6
The proposed spend profile for Q1 and existing committed schemes does not
currently match the indicative annual funding allocation of approximately £115m per
annum, as shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 – Initial Spend Profile for Q1 Schemes and Committed Schemes
Current Spend Profile for Q1 Schemes and Fully Approved Committed Schemes
400
350
300
Spend Profile
Millions £
250
200
Indicative RFA
150
100
50
0
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Financial Year
4.7
As an initial attempt to smooth out the investment profile to match the available
funding, Atkins adopted a simplistic view of which schemes could be implemented
later in the programme or phased over more years. For example, maintenance
schemes were generally been phased over the entire 10 year programme and some
schemes with start dates towards the latter end of the programme have been pushed
just beyond 2015/16. As the annual funding is limited to around £120m this meant
that it was necessary to move the more costly schemes towards the end of the 10
year period to enable other schemes to proceed. The view was taken that these
7
The recent Government decision not to fund Merseytram Line 1 is potentially subject to a judicial
review.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
4-3
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
larger schemes were more complex and thus had a greater degree of risk associated
with meeting the planned start dates indicated by scheme promoters. The effect of
the initial re-profiling of scheme expenditure is shown in Figure 4.2 below.
4.8
In order to ensure that issues such as linkages between different schemes,
consistency with other sources of funding, risks in achieving proposed start dates
and practicalities of construction periods were considered in developing an
investment programme, it was necessary to have further dialogue with scheme
promoters.
4.9
Atkins sent details of the proposed revised phasing programme for individual Q1
schemes to the promoting authorities during the week commencing 5th December
2005 and asked for their comments.
Figure 4.2 – Example of Re-Profiled Spend
Investment Programme
400
350
Adjusted Profile
300
RFA Funding
Initial Profile
Funding £m
250
200
150
100
50
0
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Years
4.10
Comments were received from most authorities in connection with the majority of
schemes. In general there was a common concern at the delayed implementation of
schemes implied by the re-profiled investment programme. Other concerns related
to the potential loss of private sector contributions if particular schemes were to be
delayed by a number of years.
4.11
Following receipt of promoters’ comments a further revision to the investment
programme has been undertaken. The details for individual schemes are shown in
Appendix D and a summary is presented in Figure 4.3 overleaf. Appendix D shows
the investment programme in the alphabetically ordered list of priority schemes. In
addition, in order to show how the funding of different schemes is related to other
schemes within the same local authority area, they have been grouped by authority.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
4-4
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Figure 4.3 – Proposed Investment Profile
Investment Programme
160
140
120
Funding £m
100
80
60
40
Proposed Profile
RFA Funding
20
0
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Years
4.12
The graph shows that a significant proportion of the first three years of funding is
required for committed schemes. As such it has been necessary to show investment
requirement beyond the ten year RFA period.
Risk Management
4.13
The scheme costs incorporated within the current investment programme are based
on promoters’ submissions. There is a need to apply adjustments for inflation where
appropriate and revise the profile. This will need to take into account the expiry of
planning powers and the synergy of schemes with other interventions and funding
packages.
4.14
In preparing scheme cost estimates and undertaking appraisal, DfT guidance is that
an element of Optimism Bias in incorporated to allow for potential cost increases as
schemes are developed.
4.15
“Optimism Bias” is the term used to describe the demonstrated systematic tendency
for practitioners to under-estimate the costs of projects and the time taken to
implement them. Optimism Bias highlights the need to avoid changes to the scope
and objectives of project briefs, a major reason for outturn costs differing from earlier
estimates.
4.16
An extract from the DfT guidance on optimism bias for transport projects is presented
overleaf:
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
4-5
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
4.17
4.18
An example of the range of increase recommended for Highways Agency Schemes
is shown below. Generally, if a risk assessment has been completed and the results
incorporated within scheme cost estimates, a lower level of optimism bias is
applicable than if no risk assessment has been undertaken. The level of optimism
bias applicable reduces as the scheme becomes more developed, reflected by the
preparation stage in the table below.
Scheme type
Stage of Preparation
Standard Highway Schemes
such as a major (usually
>£5m) non-controversial new
road, bypass or widening
projects. Also lesser (usually
<£5m) schemes requiring
land acquisition and orders.
Outline Business Case/
Scheme Conception
Optimism factor on scheme cost
estimate (%)
Risk
Risk Assessment
Assessment
Not Done
Done
15
45
Public
Consultation/
Preferred Route Decision
5
25
Order Publication
5
20
Works Commitment
3
15
Whilst it is a requirement for promoters to include optimism bias at appraisal stage,
the DfT does not include this within the approved scheme costs. As such, optimism
bias has not been incorporated within the scheme costs used to develop the
investment programme. There is a need therefore, to be mindful of the potential for
cost escalation on schemes that will need to be managed. Past experience suggests
that cost increases largely result from changes in scope and objectives of schemes
and it is therefore necessary to manage schemes through the further development
process to ensure that any changes do not have an adverse impact upon scheme
costs.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
4-6
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
5.
Conclusions & Recommendations
5.1
The results of the prioritisation process have broad consensus amongst regional
stakeholders, as evidenced at the PAG, RTF and stakeholder event held on 1st
December, 2005.
5.2
The schemes within Q1 are most likely to acquire RFA. They are strongly consistent
with Northern Way, RTS and draft RES scheme priorities.
5.3
The spend profile and phasing of Q1 schemes submitted by promoters had to be
revised for the purposes of the investment programme due to an unmanageable over
commitment in the early years of the period covered by the RFA. Indeed, existing
fully approved schemes take up £381m between 2005/6 and 2009/10.
5.4
Many scheme promoters were unhappy about the revised phasing of their schemes
and sought to bring schemes forward. Where possible the profiles have been
amended to take into account feedback regarding a preference for later start dates
rather than longer implementation periods.
The recommended investment
programme is based on a working agreement with GMPTE that the schemes would
continue to be programmed to start construction in 2008/09 but the £260m
provisionally allocated to Metrolink be phased towards the latter end of the
investment programme in order to repay monies sourced through the Transport
Innovation Fund (TIF) or prudential borrowing.
5.5
It is therefore recommended that the Leadership Group endorses the outputs of the
RFA prioritisation process taking into account the resources available and the
identified cost escalation risks. Any amendments to the proposed investment
programme must be credible and evidence based.
Monitoring and Review
5.6
The indicative allocation needs to be closely managed to ensure the schemes
identified can be delivered over the next ten years within the available RFA. Outturn
prices need to be sought from scheme promoters once the phasing and investment
programme is finalised.
5.7
Where schemes currently bidding for RFA subsequently acquire alternative funding
sources, such as Private Finance Initiative (PFI) this is should be monitored and the
funds released be considered for reallocation to contingency schemes.
5.8
It is therefore recommended that the Leadership Group considers the responsibility
and resources for reviewing and monitoring the investment programme over the
period 2006/7 to 2015/16.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
5-1
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Appendix A: Policy Criteria and Scoring Notes
Based on JMP Criteria.
Regional Economic Policy Criteria
Economic Policy
Criteria
ECON1. Will the
scheme improve
international,
national and
regional trade
connections?
Scoring Notes
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
Improving international trade connections / capacity
Improving national trade connections (taking into account London, SE and
E-W movements):
RT1 – RT5
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Access to the region’s strategic ports and airports
North-South movement to London and the South East and
through to Europe and the rest of the world via the M6 and the
West Coast Mainline.
East-West movements via Trans-Pennine rail links and the M62.
to assist movement to the north east and between Eire and
Scandinavia
Scoring for this criteria will take into account improvements to the TransEuropean Network as detailed in RSS13
ECON2. Will the
scheme improve
business
competitiveness?
The scoring system identifies the schemes that assist Regional business
competitiveness. It considers the relationship between the scheme and the
emerging Spatial Development Framework, with weight afforded to the city
& sub-regional areas identified as key economic drivers for the region:
•
•
CS1, CS2, SDF1 –
SDF22
Manchester, Liverpool and Central Lancashire City Regions;
Cumbria & North Lancashire, and West & South Cheshire SubRegions.
Within each area there is a sub-hierarchy of the following:
•
•
•
Regional Centre
Regional Towns & Cities
Key Service Centres
As per Table 4.1 (Settlement Hierarchy) of Interim RSS
Scoring should consider:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ECON3. Will the
scheme support
business clusters,
as specified in
RES 2003?
The relative weight afforded in RSS to each component
within each City Region / Sub-Regions
Strategic access to, and between, the regional and
sub-regional urban centres.
Movement within the urban areas and, in particular,
access to the regional and sub-regional centres
The NWDA have identified 16 “clusters” which they wish to encourage in
the region. These are:
Aerospace, Automotive, Aviation, Chemicals, Construction, Creative
Industries, Digital Industries, Energy, Environmental Technology, Financial
and Professional Services, Food and Drink, Healthcare (inc. Biotech),
Maritime, Sport, Textiles, Tourism.
The scoring takes into account the number of clusters that might be served
by the scheme, and whether the scheme is likely to provide direct or
indirect access to clusters.
To assist with the scoring, we have taken account of the spatial
characteristics of specific clusters using additional work carried out by
NWDA relating to SIC codes where possible .
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
W1, W2
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Economic Policy
Criteria
Scoring Notes
ECON4. Will the
scheme support
regional
Employment
Sites? (Local
sites are
addressed under
ECON8)
The criterion primarily relates to the sites defined by RSS as being of
regional economic significance, They encompass Regional Investment
Sites, Knowledge Nuclei Sites and Inter-Modal Terminals. In addition, the
criterion takes into account employment sites which are of sub-regional
importance.
The scoring considers the extent to which an scheme supports an area
containing defined site(s) and the nature of the support:
Regional Investment Sites
•
Manchester City Region
o
Greater Manchester Western Gateway
o
East Manchester
o
South East of Rochdale
•
Liverpool City Region
o
Huyton / Prescott Strategic Investment Area
o
Speke Halewood Strategic Investment Area
o
Wirral Waterfront Strategic Investment Area
•
Warrington
o
North West Warrington
•
Central Lancashire City Region
o
East of Blackburn
o
North West Chorley
o
North of Leyland / Bamber Bridge
•
Cumbria
o
North of Carlisle
•
South Cheshire
o
South of Crewe
Knowledge Nuclei Sites
•
Manchester City Region
o
Central Manchester Arc of Opportunity
o
South Manchester
•
Liverpool City Region
o
Liverpool City Centre Strategic Investment Area
o
Eastern Approaches Strategic Investment Area
o
Daresbury, South East Halton
•
Central Lancashire City Region
o
Central Preston
•
Cumbria
o
South East of Whitehaven
o
Central Carlisle
•
North Lancashire
o
South of Lancaster
•
West Cheshire
o
Chester
Inter-Modal Freight Terminals
•
Manchester City Region
o
SW Greater Manchester with rail access and potential
access to the Manchester Ship Canal
•
Liverpool City Region
o
Widnes with access to the WCML (Liverpool Branch)
o
Newton le Willows, with access to the WCML & TransPennine routes
o
Birkenhead Waterfront and Eastham Docks
All sites are afforded equal weight within this criterion.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
W1, W3, SDF1-5,
SDF6-8 , SDF9,
SDF10,
SDF13,
SDF17.
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Economic Policy
Criteria
ECON5. Will the
scheme improve
the perceived
image of its
locality, both
within the region &
externally?
Scoring Notes
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
The objective seeks to promote positive image in the region to increase
economic activity, attract further investment and boost business and leisure
tourism within the north west. This could include the encouragement of
major events in the north west (e.g. Capital of Culture), encouragement of
tourism (e.g. enhanced links to coastal resorts) or improvement of image
(e.g. new technology or large scale projects)
SDF1,
SDF2,
SDF4,
SDF6,
SDF7,SDF10
SDF13,
SDF15,
W5, W6
The criterion relates to the level of benefit that a scheme may have to the
perceived image of an area at local, regional and national level.
Greatest weight is afforded to schemes that have resonance beyond the
sub region,, either through significance to the regional or national economy
or profile, or association with a city region or other settlement given priority
within the spatial development framework. Schemes offering innovation or
prestige can be seen to have greater image value.
ECON6. Will the
scheme support
existing & promote
new tourism and
recreation
locations?
The criterion relates to tourist priority areas identified within regional policy
documents, identifying the principal tourist destinations in the north-west
including tourist settlements, coastal resorts, historic towns, areas of built
heritage and areas of natural beauty.
RSS states that tourism development will be focussed in the following
areas:
o
Blackpool and other coastal resorts where tourism is a
critical component of the economy (Southport, Morecambe,
Grange over Sands, Knott End on Sea, Fleetwood
Cleveleys, St Annes, Lytham, New Brighton, Hoylake, West
Kirby)
o
The Regional Centres of Manchester and Liverpool where
Tourism is a contributory component of the economy
o
Chester, Carlisle, Bolton, Birkenhead, Lancaster and
Preston where tourism supports their status as historic
towns and cities; and,
o
Regional Parks
Overriding emphasis on the Lake District National Park and AONB’s should
be environmental protection and management.
Tourism activity related to Hadrian’s Wall and Liverpool World Heritage
Sites should be promoted, within the framework of management plans.
Scores will be allocated according to potential benefits that may be accrued
from improvements that improve access to a tourist priority area.
Consideration will be given to the scale and directness of benefit.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
SDF1,
SDF2,
SDF4,
SDF6,
SDF7,SDF10
SDF13,
SDF15,
W5, W6, EM3
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Regional Environmental Policy Criteria
Environmental
Policy Criteria
ENV1. Will the
scheme protect or
enhance places &
buildings of
historic, cultural &
architectural value?
Scoring Notes
The scoring system will consider whether the intevention provides direct or
indirect protection or enhances areas of historic value and the scale of
historic importance of the area. Where schemes appear to directly or
indirectly damage areas of historic value, low scores will be allocated to
reflect incompatibility with the criterion.
The demolition of listed or architecturally / industrially important
infrastructure will be considered as incompatible.
Take note of features identified within Structure Plans or RSS and deemed
to be of cultural and historic significance with regard to the built
environment.
The following sites are prioritised within this criterion:
•
Culturally significant coastal resorts such as Blackpool;
•
The regional centres of Manchester & Liverpool
•
The historic towns and cities and towns of Chester, Carlisle,
Bolton, Birkenhead, Lancaster and Preston;
•
Hadrian’s Wall & Liverpool Waterfront World Heritage Sites;
Where schemes serve areas not specifically noted in regional policy
documents as being of historic importance, we will base scoring on the
information provided by scheme promoters and professional judgement in
relation to the scale of impact.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
EM1, W5, SDF1,
SDF7,
SDF14,
SDF16,
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Environmental
Policy Criteria
ENV2. Will the
scheme protect or
enhance
designated areas
of natural
environmental
value?
Scoring Notes
The scoring system identifies the potential impact that a scheme may have
upon areas identified as being of natural value. The highest scores will be
afforded to those schemes which help to protect such sites through the
removal of traffic, and low scores are afforded to those regarded as
potentially damaging.
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
EM1
–
EM5,
SDF15,
SDF19,
SDF20, SDF21
The following designations will be taken into account in identifying
appropriate scores for each scheme.:
National Parks - The statutory title recognises their national importance
and provides the highest degree of protection for these landscapes
AONB – A landscape whose distinctive character and natural beauty is
regarded as `outstanding’, and is therefore of national interest to safeguard
them.
Ramsar - Wetlands of international importance designated under the
Ramsar Convention. Many Ramsar sites are also Special Protection Areas
(SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive.
SSSI’s - Incorporating over 4000 of England’s very best wildlife and
geological sites. Over half of these sites are internationally important for
their wildlife, and designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs),
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or Ramsar sites. Many SSSIs are also
National Nature Reserves (NNRs) or Local Nature Reserves (LNRs).
Schemes that would potentially impinge upon Green Belt areas will be
viewed as inconsistent with this criterion.
ENV3. Will the
scheme help
protect or enhance
local air quality?
The criterion specifically relates to potential air quality impacts on local
population. Scores will be allocated according to the size of the local
population affected (in relation to the sub-region) and the type of scheme.
Schemes which seek to divert traffic away from centres of population or
reduce the impacts of traffic on population will score higher than those
likely to generate traffic growth in a populated area.
To avoid double counting with ENV5, the criterion does not look at the
wider CO² emission implications of schemes.
ENV4. Will the
scheme help
enhance land
quality?
The citerion specifically relates to schemes that may help promote the
reclamation / re-use of previously developed land. The scoring will be
based on evidence made avialable to us by scheme promoters in their
scheme descriptions and section on policy objectives supported.
ENV5. Will the
scheme limit CO2
emissions?
The criterion relates to the scheme’s impact on overall demand for travel,
and the mode of travel promoted. On this basis, a hierarchy approach will
be used based on CO2 emissions per passenger km for different modes of
transport. Scoring is also based on likely traffic impacts , such as whether a
scheme seeks to manage traffic growth or promote it?
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
EM1, EM10,
EM12
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Environmental
Policy Criteria
ENV6. Does the
scheme make best
use of existing
resources?
Scoring Notes
The criterion relates to the use of new resources associated with a
scheme, with highest scores given to schemes which optimise the use of
existing transport resources resources, without the need for significant new
infrastructure.
The general priorities for transport investment and management in order of
importance are:
•
Maintenance of existing transport networks and assets
•
Making best use of existing transport networks and assets,
including the widest possible exploitation of complimentary `soft’
measures; and
•
Targeted major investment in support of the RSS and wider
regional economic, environmental and social objectives.
The most positive scores relate to largely non-physical measures or
measures that improve the efficiency of an existing resource such as traffic
demand management or modal shift away from single-occupancy car use.
Conversely, schemes involving signficant new construction will score least
well.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
RT8, EM8, RT2
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Regional Social Policy Criteria
Social Policy
Criteria
Scoring Notes
SOC1. Will the
scheme help
deliver urban
renaissance?
The criterion relates primarily to the impacts on quality of life within an
urban area, and the extent to which a scheme would improve or detract
from it. The scoring will consider whether the scheme helps to promote or
revive local urban communities.
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
CS1, CS2 (Table
4.1), SDF1, SDF3,
SDF4,SDF5,
SDF6,
SDF7,
SDF8,
SDF9,
SDF10, SDF13,
The urban area is defined on the basis of the Spatial Development
Framework and the regional centres / towns / cities defined within RSS.
Priority will be afforded to the NWDA’s list of Urban Regeneration
Companies and the Regeneration Priority Areas as identified by the RSS.
Schemes not associated with the Urban area are deemed to be Neutral,
with negative scores awarded to schemes that conflict with the aspirations
(e.g supporting out of town development).
Also take account of draft RES in relation to sustainable growth:
Draft RES 2005
Creating the conditions for sustainable growth in urban areas with few
economic drivers
• Exploit the key assets of areas to generate sustainable economic growth
• Tackle worklessness in Barrow – marine and leisure developments within
& nearby offer an opportunity
• Support regeneration in Blackpool – casinos offer an opportunity
• Develop potential in West Cumbria – nuclear decommissioning offers an
opportunity
• Support change in East Lancashire – advanced manufacturing and
improved accessibility to areas of growth
offer opportunities
• Create a culture of entrepreneurship and maximise the impact of the
public sector as above
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Social Policy
Criteria
Scoring Notes
SOC2. Will the
scheme help
deliver rural
renaisssance?
The criterion relates to the quality of life within rural areas, and the extent to
which a scheme would improve or detract from it.
Scoring will take into account the extent to which a scheme may assist rural
renaissance, as defined by sub-regional and regional policy in the following
terms:
•
Maintains viable and sustainable local communities and
economies; and,
•
Respects particular environmental sensitivity and distinctiveness;
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
CS1, CS2 (Table
4.1),
SDF13,
SDF14,
SDF15
SDF16,
SDF17,
SDF18,
SDF19,
SDF20, SDF21
The Rural area is defined by the Key Service Centres identified within RSS
across each of the city / sub-regions. The scoring system gives particular
priority to Market Towns identified for a `Health Check’ by the NWDA, a
number of which are also defined within regeneration priority areas.
Schemes not associated with the rural area are deemed to be Neutral, with
lower scores awarded to schemes that detract from the viability or
distinctiveness of the area and key settlements within the rural area.
Also take account of draft RES in relation to sustainable growth:
Creating the conditions for sustainable growth in rural areas
• Develop the role of key service centres as central drivers for rural
economy
• Exploit niche markets e.g. high value food products using local produce
• Focus support on the rural districts with the consistently worst economic
performance
• Support strong sustainable growth, increase business and manage
business change within the rural economy
SOC3. Will the
scheme improve
accessibility to key
services and
facilities for all?
Includes access to
health, jobs, retail
and education.
The criterion reviews the extent to which the scheme would improve
accessibility to local services, with priority afforded to schemes that
promote social inclusion within the most deprived areas.
Scores will be based on schemes that improve access between residential
areas and essential services, such as employment, education, health and
retail.
Greatest weight is afforded to schemes that are both socially inclusive
(walking, cycling, public transport), and address need within areas defined
as the 20% most deprived within the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD).
Conversley, schemes that primarily support use of the private car and do
not promote social inclusion are scored least favourably.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Draft RES 2005
(Atkins added in)
SDF1,
SDF3,
SDF5,
SDF6,
SDF7,
SDF8,
SDF10,
SDF13,
SDF15, SDF18, L1,
L2, RT1
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Social Policy
Criteria
Scoring Notes
SOC4. Will the
scheme support
access to assisted
areas and
European Funding
Eligible areas?
The criteria relates to all areas currently eligible for European Funding. It is
based upon the following hierarchy:
•
Objective 1 - Areas where the economy is lagging behind most
of Europe;
•
Objective 2 - Renewal of industrial, urban, rural and fisheries
areas in decline; and,
•
Transitional - Areas due to lose funding post 2006
Supporting Policy
(RSS Interim
Working Draft –
October 2005)
The scoring system considers the level of support provided by a particular
scheme to different types of eligible area, taking into account the scale of
benefit and whether it directly or indirectly benefits the area.
SOC5. Will the
scheme support
housing renewal
initiatives?
The criterion applies to areas defined by the government to address
housing market failure, and regionally designated areas.
The following Housing Market Renewal Areas are prioritised within policy:
•
Manchester & Salford;
•
Merseyside;
•
East Lancashire; and,
•
Oldham & Rochdale
•
West Cumbria & Furness (Newly designated HMR2 area)
At the next level, weight is afforded as follows:
•
Lancashire Coast
•
Areas of significant high demand where there are affordability
issues
Greatest weight is afforded to schemes offering direct accessibility benefits
to designated HMR areas. Areas of no relevance to the above would be
afforded `Neutral’ scores.
SOC6. Will the
initiative improve
road safety?
The criterion relates specifically to travel safety, and the potential difference
that a scheme would make to the existing conditions. A judgement will be
made regarding the scheme objectives (e.g. whether they are safety-led),
and the extent to which the identified measures would reduce or minimise
potential casualties.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
SDF1,
SDF2,
SDF3,
SDF5,
SDF6,
SDF7,
SDF10, SDF14, L2,
L3, L4, L5
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Sub-Regional Policy Criteria
Sub Regional
Policy Criteria
ECON7.
Will
the
scheme
reduce delays
on
local
journeys
by
improving
reliability
and
reducing
congestion?
ECON8. Does
the
scheme
support
increased levels
of
local
employment
activity in town
and
district
centres?
ECON9.
Will
the
scheme
support
connectivity
within the subregion?
Scoring Notes
Supporting Policy
Scoring will be based on the information provided by scheme promoters on
their proformas or Appraisal Summary Tables. Schemes with no impact will
score neutrally, schemes with an adverse impact will score between 1 to 3.
Those with a beneficial impact will score between 5 and 7.
LTP2 objectives
Consider the level of employment supported as a proportion of the local
population. For example, 50 jobs in Manchester City Centre will have less
impact on local employment activity than 50 jobs in Cumbria.
Will the scheme secure a step change in local and sub-regional connectivity?
Highway and public transport schemes can both score highly, however, the
mark of 7 points should preferably be reserved for public transport, to reflect
the wider accessibility of this mode.
Schemes which will result in no additional connectivity should score neutrally.
Only if a scheme has an adverse impact on overall connectivity (via
severance etc) should it score less than 4.
Suggested Scoring:
Scheme
Adverse impact
on local or subregional
connectivity
Maintenance of
existing facility or
no
additional
connectivity
benefits
Improved
connectivity (all
scheme types)
Improved
connectivity
&
accessible for all
ENV7. Will the
scheme
minimise
the
impact
of
transport
on
residential
communities in
terms of noise
and severance?
(Air quality is
Score
1, 2 or 3
4
5 or 6
7
Consider community severance and noise impacts – refer to Appraisal
Summary Tables where supplied. Where new roads provide for the relief of
existing severance by the reduction in traffic, then this is to be evidenced in
the scheme supporting text or AST.
Suggested Scoring:
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Impact
Score
Understanding
Community
Severance1: Views
of Practitioners and
Communities.
3
Nov 2005
TRL
Ltd
(Commissioned by
DfT)
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
considered
under ENV3).
ENV8. Will the
scheme
minimise
the
need to travel
by car?
ENV9 Will the
scheme
enhance
the
integration of all
forms
of
transport in a
sustainable
manner?
Scheme
increases
severance and
noise
No impact on
severance
or
noise
Traffic
flows
reduced
substantially,
(poss including
diversion
of
HGVs). Where
existing
route
bisects a village
or small town,
higher
scores
should be given.
1, 2 or 3
4
5, 6 or 7
Will the scheme reduce dependence on the private car and minimise the
need for travel especially by car for local and sub regional journeys?
Public transport schemes and new pedestrian / cycling facilities which will
encourage modal shift from the car should score most highly. The degree of
consistency with the critierion should reflect the likely impact on modal shift.
For example, a new public transport link will score more highly than
improvements to an existing public transport link, due to the greater potential
to attract new passengers and modal shift.
Suggested Scoring:
Scheme
New Highway or
Bypass
Score
1, 2 or 3
Maintenance of
existing
PT/
pedestrian
/
cycling facility
New
Cycling/
Pedestrian
facilities or New
Public Transport
Link
Large scale new
Public Transport
Scheme
e.g.
Tram/
Train/
Guided Bus
4
5 or 6
7
The future development of the transport network in a fully integrated fashion
lies at the heart of what the region is trying to achieve. This criterion considers
Integrated transport in terms of local and countywide travel:
High scores will be given to proposals which aim to deal with local transport
problems in an integrated fashion. For example, measures aimed at :
Urban
•
enhancing the role of the main towns as centres for employment,
retailing and other services;
•
enhancing the attractiveness of the main towns as locations for new
development;
•
developing comprehensive walking and cycling networks;
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Transport
Paper
/
Objectives
White
LTP2
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
•
achieving measurable reductions in the predicted rates of traffic
growth within the scheme area.
Rural
SOC7. Will the
scheme improve
feelings
of
personal safety
and security?
•
enhancing the attractiveness of existing communities as places to
live;
•
sustaining the rural economy, including the development of
sustainable tourism;
•
enhancing the role of rural communities as providers of local
employment, retailing and other services;
•
reducing the impact of motorised traffic on local communities and
the rural environment.
Does the scheme support improvements to personal safety? Scoring will be
based on the information provided by scheme promoters on their proforma or
Appraisal Summary Table.
Schemes particularly focused on personal safety & security will score 6 and 7.
Schemes which primarily address other objectives but which will support
improvements to personal safety through improved lighting, facilities and
CCTV etc should score between 5 & 6. Schemes with no impact should
score neutrally.
SOC8. Does the
scheme support
the regeneration
of
deprived
areas?
Only in exceptional circumstances should scores below 4 be awarded
and reasons for lower points should be evidenced.
If the scheme will be implemented in an area of deprivation (worst 5% Index
of Deprivation) or with Objective 1 or 2 status it should score highly (assuming
it will benefit those areas).
Schemes serving areas with no deprivation will score neutrally. The lowest
mark awarded for this criterion is 4.
In exceptional circumstances scores below 4 can be awarded if there if
it is judged that the scheme will adversely affect a deprived area. For
example, a new transport scheme may divert spend away from the local
area.
SOC9. Will the
scheme
contribute
to
improving public
health through
increased levels
of walking and
cycling?
Dedicated cycling and walking schemes will score most highly. New public
transport schemes have the potential to score moderate beneficial due to
associated walking to and from stops. Highway schemes may score 6 or 7 if
there are associated pedestrian and cycling facilities implemented as part of
the scheme.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
2: Value for Money & Deliverability Scoring Notes
Value for
Money Criteria
VfM1. Is the
scheme likely to
have a high
BCR? A key
DfT
requirement is
that a project
demonstrates
VfM.
Scoring Notes
Supporting Policy
The DfT presumption is that, purely on grounds of value for money, the
Department should generally fund:
• no projects with poor VfM
• very few projects with low VfM
• some, but by no means all, projects with medium VfM
• most, if not all, projects with high VfM
TAG Unit 3.9.2
DfT Guidance on
Value for
Money.
Due to the regional competition for funding, schemes with a BCR of 2 or more
will score most highly, whilst those schemes with less than 2 should score no
more than neutral. The aim is to distinguish between schemes which may all
offer high VfM with a BCR above 2.
Where a BCR is not currently available for a scheme, BCRs for equivalent
scheme types will be used to make a subjective judgment.
Suggested Scoring:
BCR
<1
>1
>1.5
>2
>2.5
>3
>3.5
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
VfM2.
In the
absence of the
scheme going
ahead,
would
present
transport
facilities
be
undermined?
Is the do minimum option likely to undermine present transport facilities? The
do minimum scenario should represent a realistic view of what is likely to
happen in the absence of the scheme proposal.
VfM3. Is the
private sector
funding
contribution
likely
to
be
larger than the
public
sector
contribution?
Private sector funding demonstrates strong support for a scheme, normally
from a business and growth perspective.
Government guidance states that authorities will be expected to try and
minimise the amount of scheme costs that fall to the public sector. Promoters
should explore fully the scope for contributions from developers and, where
appropriate, transport operators, and outline all sources of funding and their
contribution (e.g. private funding or grants from other public sector bodies).
MSA: Cost Benefit
Analysis TAG Unit
3.9.2
If there would be no impact on existing facilities, schemes should score
neutrally. If the absence of the scheme would cause detriment to existing
transport infrastructure, the scheme should score highly, depending on the
degree of detriment. In general, maintenance schemes should score the most
highly.
Suggested Scoring:
Level
of
Contribution
Low <30%
Medium >30%
High >50%
Score
4
5
6-7
To reflect the competition for limited RFA funds, the proportion of private
sector funding may influence the decision to provide funding on schemes.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Major Schemes in
LTPs, TAG Unit 1.4
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Value for
Money Criteria
Scoring Notes
Supporting Policy
VfM4. Does the
scheme
have
synergy
with
existing
or
proposed
schemes?
A scheme will be affected by, and will affect, a wide range of other relevant
programmes both within and outside a scheme promoter’s jurisdiction. It is
important to determine whether the scheme gives rise to conflicts or
synergistic benefits with such plans/programmes.
Valuing the Small:
Counting
the
Benefits, CPRE &
Transport 2000
A synergistic effect is a type of cumulative effect where two or more impacts
combine to produce an interaction where the effect may be larger or smaller
than the component impacts.
Suggested Scoring:
Synergistic
Impact
Conflicts
No impact
Beneficial
Score
1, 2 and 3
4
5, 6 and 7
Deliverability
Criteria
Scoring Notes
Supporting Policy
Del1. What is
the scheme’s
state
of
readiness?
Is the scheme at a high state of readiness? Schemes which are ready to be
delivered as soon as the funding is agreed should be awarded the full 7 points.
Schemes with provisional acceptance but without planning powers in place
should score 6 points. Schemes still at conceptual stage (ie no feasibility work
has been undertaken and costs have not been calculated) should score the
least highly.
Suggested Scoring:
Readiness
Poor
Low
Medium
High
Del2. Is the
scheme type
likely to be
deliverable
within the 10
year
investment
programme?
Conceptual/
proposed
for
investigation
Under
investigation
Schemes within
the programme at
Business
Case
level
Committed
schemes
with
provisional
acceptance
Committed
Schemes
with
planning powers
in place
Score
1 and 2
3
4 and 5
6 and 7
The prioritisation work needs to distinguish between those schemes where
conception to implementation could be less than 5 years, and those which may
take over 10 years.
If a scheme is likely to be deliverable it will score either 5, 6 or 7, depending on
certainty.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Del3. What is
the affordability
of the scheme
to the Region /
DfT ?
(a) What is the overall affordability of the scheme to the Region? If one or two
large schemes are supported it may mean other schemes with greater
cumulative benefits are unaffordable. Ultimately, the investment programme
needs to take account of available budgets.
Suggested Scoring:
Total Cost
Score
>£100 million
1
>£80m
2
>£65m
3
>£50 m
4
>£35 m
5
<£35 million
6 and 7
DfT guidance states that Authorities should seek to minimise the amount of
scheme costs which fall to the public sector.
(b) Does the annual cost of the scheme comprise more than 30% of the
indicative annual RFA? For scoring purposes, we have assumed £30 m to be
30% of the annual RFA, to take into account contingencies and the +10% or 10% situation.
Suggested Scoring:
Annual Cost
>£40 million
>£35m
>£30m
>£25 m
>£20 m
<£15 million
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6 and 7
The total scores for (a) and (b) will be added together and then divided by
two to form final score out of 7 points.
Del4:
Has
public
consultation on
the
scheme
demonstrated
its
public
acceptability?
Del5: Are there
any
other
general risks
to delivery, for
example,
likelihood of a
public inquiry?
There should be general support publicly for a scheme. Lack of support will act
as a barrier to progress and therefore delivery.
Suggested Scoring:
Acceptability
Score
Local opposition
to scheme
1, 2 and 3
Neutral –
consultation not
yet undertaken
4
Strong Support
as evidenced by
consultation
5, 6 and 7
If the scheme is likely to invoke objections or involves damage to the local
environment, for example use of Greenbelt Land; Destruction of Heritage or
Cultural Landscape including listed buildings, or development in an area with
special landscape designation e.g. SSSI, AONB, then this is a risk to delivery.
Schemes where these barriers have already been surpassed or where no
additional risks are identified will score between 5 and 7. Those schemes
where the risks outlined are likely to occur should score between 1 and 3,
depending on the degree of risk.
Draft Final Report v3 23 Dec.doc
Guidance to Local
Authorities seeking
DfT funding for
transport
Major
Schemes
RFA Guidance on
preparing advice
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Appendix B: Prioritisation Results
Appendix Sheet 23 Dec.doc
North West Prioritisation Study
Policy 50% (Economy 50%, Environment 25% and Social 25%) and Deliverability / VfM 50%
Quartile 1
Quartile 2
Scheme
A34 Alderley Edge and Nether Alderley
Bypass.
Promoting
Authority
Scheme
Type
RTS
Quartile
RFA
Funding £m
39.5
Cheshire
Highway
A556 (M6 to M56) Improvement.
Highway Agency
Highway
Q2
107
Access to Port of Liverpool Improvement.
Highway Agency
Highway
Q3
45
Ashton Northern Bypass Stage 2.
Bidston Moss Viaduct (Junction 1 of the
M53 motorway).
Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway
Upgrade – Phase 1.
Bolton Town Centre Public Transport
Strategy
8.3
Greater Manchester
Highway
Merseyside
Maintenance /
Upgrade
Q1
Q1
Blackpool
Public Transport
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
Completion of Heysham to M6 Link.
Lancashire
Highway
Crewe Green Link Road (Southern
Section).
Cheshire
Highway
Crewe Rail Gateway.
East Lancashire Rapid Transit.
Edge Lane/Eastern Approaches.
Glossop Spur.
Greater Manchester Authorities Highway
Retaining Walls Strengthening Scheme.
Greater Manchester Urban Traffic Control
(GMUTC).
Hall Lane Strategic Gateway.
Carlisle Southern Relief Road.
Q2
92.6
Central Station
Q4
6
Q3
32.6
Q1
20
Q1
15.8
Highway
Greater Manchester
Highway
Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester
Maintenance /
Upgrade
Maintenance /
Upgrade
Q1
Merseyside
Highway
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
M60 JETTS QBC.
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
Q1
Q1
Highway
Cumbria
Highway
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
Cumbria
Highway
Q3
26.5
Merseyside
Public Transport
Q1
9.8
Cheshire
Environmental
Improvements
Q2
46
Q4
8
17.6
14
Manchester - Marple Tram - Train or
Busway.
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
48.2
35
Merseytram Line 2
Merseyside
Public Transport
Q1
359.1
Cheshire
Highway
Q4
11
13.6
Middlewich Eastern Bypass.
12.5
Northwich Vision – Town Centre
Regeneration Transport Strategy.
Cheshire
Highway
35
44.7
Oldham Eastern Busway.
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
7.3
25.4
Oldham Road/Queens Road/Alan Turing
Way - Junction Improvement.
Greater Manchester
Highway
10
Salford Central Upgrade
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
4.4
Stockport Interchange
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
16
Stockport to Bredbury Busway.
West Cumbria – Development of Strategic
and Urban Cycle Networks.
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
10.2
Cumbria
Cycle Route
5
Wigan Inner Relief Road.
Greater Manchester
Highway
64
33.8
31
9.3
25.7
24.5
Total Cost
1065.3
Blackburn with Darwen
Cumbria
Lancashire
Blackpool
Greater Manchester
Merseyside
Cheshire
Halton
Warrington
H:\Projects\NW Prioritisation - 5039885\Dec 22\Final Version 221205.xls
Quartiles - Economy 50%
26
Highway Agency
8.1
Greater Manchester
Total Cost
10
29
SEMMMS Relief Road Scheme.
Public Transport
25
Highway
Highway
10
Greater Manchester
Q4
Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
Note: Excludes Merseytram Line 1
83.4
M62 – A57 Barton Moss Link Road.
Greater Manchester
Yellow School Buses.
Q4
Highway
66.5
Rochdale Interchange.
Q1
Highway
Highway Agency
Q4
260
Halton
Greater Manchester
Q3
Highway
Merseyside
RFA
Funding £m
Highway
Public Transport
Q3
RTS
Quartile
Highway
Halton
Highway
Fylde Coast Sub-Regional Transport StudyM55 to Norcross Link.
M60 Junction 24 Denton Interchange.
Scheme
Type
Lancashire
Greater Manchester
Maintenance /
Upgrade
Highway
Chester and City Centre Improvements.
Promoting
Authority
Highway Agency
Metrolink Extensions.
Silver Jubilee Bridge Major Maintenance
Scheme.
Thornton to Switch Island Link.
A685 Kirkby Stephen Bypass.
Altrincham Interchange.
Public Transport
Merseyside
A55/A483 Chester Business Park Junction
Improvement.
A635 Park Parade Improvements, Ashtonunder-Lyne.
A66(T) Penrith to Temple Sowerby
Bypass.
66.6
Blackburn with Darwen Public Transport
Cheshire
A5225
23.8
Leigh-Salford-Manchester QBC.
Mersey Gateway.
35
Scheme
Highways Agency
892.5
North West Prioritisation Study
Policy 50% (Economy 50%, Environment 25% and Social 25%) and Deliverability / VfM 50%
Quartile 3
Quartile 4
Promoting
Authority
Scheme
Type
RTS Quartile
A49 North Corridor Improvements.
Warrington
Highway
Q2
A50 Long Lane Diversion.
A56 Village Bypasses, Colne, Lancashire
to Thornton, N Yorks.
Lancashire
Highway
Q4
A500 On Line Improvements.
Greater Manchester
Highway
A54 Improvements (Winsford – Middlewich
– M6).
Scheme
A57 – Trafford Park Link Road.
Scheme
Promoting
Authority
Scheme
Type
RTS Quartile
Warrington
Highway
Q2
Cheshire
Highway
Q4
Cheshire
Highway
Q4
Warrington
Highway
Q2
Greater Manchester
Highway
Q4
A595 Grizebeck to Askam in Furness.
Cumbria
Highway
Q4
A56 to A57 Link.
A597 Workington Southern Link
Cumbria
Highway
Q3
A57 / Carrington Link.
A66(T) Appleby Bypass to Brough Bypass.
Highway Agency
Highway
Q4
A590 (T) Ulverston Bypass
Cumbria
Highway
Q3
A66(T) Temple Sowerby Bypass to
Appleby Bypass.
Highway Agency
Highway
Q4
A595 Duddon Bridge Improvement
Cumbria
Highway
Q4
Chapelford Station.
Warrington
Public Transport
Q2
A6 Crescent - Liverpool Street Diversion.
Greater Manchester
Highway
Completion of Penwortham Bypass.
Lancashire
Highway
Q2
A69(T) Brampton Bypass to Greenhead
Diversion
Cumbria
Highway
Q4
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
Cumbria
Highway
Q4
Cumbria
Highway
Greater Manchester
Highway
Core Bus Rapid Transit Network Phase 1.
Kendal Northern Relief Road.
Knowledge Capital / Oxford Road
Transport Package.
Merseytram Line 3
A69(T) Warwick Bridge Bypass
Q3
Ashton-in-Makerfield Northern Bypass.
Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway
Upgrade – Phase 2.
Greater Manchester
Public Transport
Merseyside
Public Transport
Q1
Dallam to Westbrook Bus Link.
Ormskirk Bypass.
Lancashire
Highway
Q3
Ditton Strategic Rail Freight Park.
Preston City Centre Access
Improvements.
Lancashire
Environmental
Improvements
Q2
Droylsden Relief Road.
Sandhills Lane Link
Widening of M65 Motorway between
Junctions 5 and 6.
Wigan Transport Hub.
Merseyside
Highway
Blackburn with Darwen
Highway
Greater Manchester
Duddon Estuary Crossing, Duddon Bridge,
Broughton in Furness.
Q4
Public Transport
Q3
Manchester Ship Canal Crossing.
Public Transport
Q1
Public Transport
Q2
Halton
Public Transport
Greater Manchester
Highway
Cumbria
Highway
Q3
Warrington
Highway
Q2
Highway
Q4
Public Transport
Q2
Highway
Q3
Route Upgrade – linking Wilmslow,
Macclesfield and Congleton to M6 Junction
Cheshire
17.
Strategic Park & Ride Implementation.
Warrington
Whitehaven Eastern Relief Road,
Cumbria
Copeland.
Wigton Easton Relief Road, Allerdale.
Cumbria
Wythenshawe Town Centre Masterplan Greater Manchester
New / Improved Bus Station Facility.
Blackburn with Darwen
Cumbria
Lancashire
Blackpool
Greater Manchester
Merseyside
Cheshire
Halton
Warrington
H:\Projects\NW Prioritisation - 5039885\Dec 22\Final Version 221205.xls
Quartiles - Economy 50%
Blackpool
Warrington
Highway
Public Transport
Highways Agency
Committed Schemes
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
LOCAL AUTHORITY
Warrington Bus Interchange
1
A58 Black Brook Diversion
1.68
5.75
1.02
Metrolink Phase 1&2 Renewal
13.9
15
Metrolink Phase 3
20.5
3.6
Freckleton St Bridge
0.89
2.91
3.59
Carlisle Northern Dev Route
17.135 24.215
SEMMMS QBC
5
5
3
Northern Orbital QBC
3.2
3.346
Liverpool South Parkway
2.702
UTC (Warrington)
1.05
UTC (Greater Manchester)
0.812
Manchester Salford Inner Relier Route
5.114
Oldham Retaining Walls
3.5
A57 Cadishead Way
3.46
0.25
HIGHWAYS AGENCY
A590 High and Low Newton Bypass
4.98
11.06
6.29
A66 Temple Sowerby
7.20
18.40
13.48
A595 Parton - Lillyhall Improvement
0.70
7.19
12.80
A57/A628 Mottram - Hollingworth - Tintwistle 4.05
1.80
19.11
Total
65.84
90.34
98.50
13
10.3
1
18.05
0.14
6.59
42.71
81.35
35.42
45.86
Total
1
8.45
52.2
24.1
8.53
59.4
13
6.546
2.702
1.05
0.812
5.114
3.5
3.71
22.34
39.08
27.28
103.09
381.90
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Appendix C: Consistency
Prioritisation Processes
Appendix Sheet 23 Dec.doc
between
Regional
50 / 50 Policy & Deliverabily (Policy weighting split 50% Economic, 25% Environment & 25% Social)
Recommended Schemes
A34 Alderley Edge and Nether Alderley Bypass.
Promoting
RTS
Emerging
Authority Quartile
RES
Northern
Way
Cheshire
A556 (M6 to M56) Improvement.
Highways Agency
Q2
Y
999
Access to Port of Liverpool Improvement.
Highways Agency
Q3
Y
999
Q1
Q1
Y
Ashton Northern Bypass Stage 2.
Bidston Moss Viaduct (Junction 1 of the M53 motorway).
Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway Upgrade – Phase 1.
Bolton Town Centre Public Transport Strategy
Completion of Heysham to M6 Link.
Crewe Green Link Road (Southern Section).
Crewe Rail Gateway.
East Lancashire Rapid Transit.
Edge Lane/Eastern Approaches.
Glossop Spur.
Greater Manchester Authorities Highway Retaining Walls
Strengthening Scheme.
Greater Manchester Urban Traffic Control (GMUTC).
Hall Lane Strategic Gateway.
Leigh-Salford-Manchester QBC.
M60 JETTS QBC.
Mersey Gateway.
Metrolink Extensions.
Rochdale Interchange.
SEMMMS Relief Road Scheme.
Silver Jubilee Bridge Major Maintenance Scheme.
Thornton to Switch Island Link.
Yellow School Buses.
Contingency Schemes
A55/A483 Chester Business Park Junction Improvement.
A685 Kirkby Stephen Bypass.
Altrincham Interchange.
Wigan Inner Relief Road.
Greater
Manchester
Merseyside
Blackpool
Greater
Manchester
Lancashire
Cheshire
Cheshire
Blackburn with
Darwen
Merseyside
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Manchester
Q2
Q4
Q3
Y
Y
Q1
Y
Y
Y
Q1
Q1
Cumbria
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Manchester
Y
Y
99
Y
Y
Q3
Q1
Y
Y
RTS
Promoting
Authority Quartile
Highways Agency
Y
Q1
Q1
Greater
Manchester
Merseyside
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Manchester
Halton
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Manchester
Halton
Merseyside
Greater
Manchester
Y
Y
Q4
Q4
99
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Appendix D: Consistency between Identified Rail
Priorities
Appendix Sheet 23 Dec.doc
Local Authority Major Rail Schemes
Quartile 1
Scheme
Additional Railway Rolling Stock.
Authority
Greater Manchester
Identified Priority
Northern
RTS
RES
Way
Y
Y
Q1
Authority
Halton
Merseyside
Identified Priority
Northern
RTS
RES
Way
Y
Y
Q2
Y
Y
Q2
Quartile 2
Scheme
Halton Curve.
Olive Mount Chord
St Helens Central-Junction Rail Link.
Merseyside
Y
Y
Quartile 3
Scheme
Authority
Borderlands Electrification (WrexhamMerseyside
Bidston).
Improvement to Rail Infrastructure
Blackburn with Darwen
and Services.
Kirkby-Headbolt Lane Electrification
Merseyside
Reinstatement of Bootle - Aintree
Merseyside
Branch including Edge Hill Link
Western Rail Access to Manchester
Cheshire
Airport
Windermere Branch Line, Kendal to
Cumbria
Windermere.
Identified Priority
Northern
RTS
RES
Way
Q2
Q1
Q2
Q2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Quartile 4
Scheme
Bidston to Wrexham Line
Improvements
Crewe to Holyhead Line
Improvements
Sandbach – Middlewich – Northwich
Improvements
Authority
Cheshire
Identified Priority
Northern
RTS
RES
Way
Q2
Cheshire
Cheshire
Q3
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
REGIONAL PRIORITISATION OF MAJOR TRANSPORT SCHEMES
Study Report
Appendix E: Spend Profile & Investment Programme
Appendix Sheet 23 Dec.doc
Investment Programme
400
350
Adjusted Profile
RFA Funding
Initial Profile
Committed Schemes
300
Funding £m
250
200
150
100
50
0
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Years
Overall Investment Programme
2005/05 2006/06 2007/07 2008/08
2009/9
2010/10 2011/11 2012/12 2013/13 2014/14 2015/15 2016/16 2017/17
Total Committed and Planned
65.8
115.3
118.8
120.4
122.5
124.3
126.5
128.6
131.5
131.8
135.0
Available funds (Indicative)
113.0
115.0
117.0
119.0
121.0
123.0
125.0
128.0
130.0
132.0
135.0
Difference from RFA
-47.2
0.3
1.8
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
0.6
1.5
-0.2
0.0
103.0
24
Costs & Phasing for Quartile 1 Schemes
NOTE: All costs have had optimism bias removed (on the advice of DfT) and are standardised to 2005 prices for comparison purposes.
Total scheme costs are not shown - only the amount required from the Regional Funding Allocation is shown.
Scheme
Promoting Authority
A34 Alderley Edge and Nether Alderley
Bypass.
A556 (M6 to M56) Improvement.
Access to Port of Liverpool Improvement.
Ashton Northern Bypass Stage 2.
Bidston Moss Viaduct (Junction 1 of the M53
motorway).
Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway Upgrade
– Phase 1.
Bolton Town Centre Public Transport
Strategy
Completion of Heysham to M6 Link.
Cheshire
13.5
13
10
2
Merseyside
Blackpool
5.5
2
3
4
3.5
2
0.8
10
10
10
5
15
13
11
13.1
6
7
Greater Manchester
Lancashire
3
Cheshire
Cheshire
Blackburn with Darwen
Edge Lane/Eastern Approaches.
Greater Manchester Authorities Highway
Retaining Walls Strengthening Scheme.
Greater Manchester Urban Traffic Control
(GMUTC).
Hall Lane Strategic Gateway.
12
Highways Agency
Greater Manchester
Crewe Rail Gateway.
Glossop Spur.
1
Highways Agency
Crewe Green Link Road (Southern Section).
East Lancashire Rapid Transit.
2006/0 2007/0 2008/0 2009/1 2010/1 2011/1 2012/1 2013/1 2014/1 2015/1 2016/1 2017/1
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Merseyside
1
9
22.5
31
3
3
5
16.3
11.3
2
3
5
1.5
6.6
1
1.5
1.5
2
10
3
3
3
2.1
Greater Manchester
1
1.5
Merseyside
8
4.5
5
10
M60 JETTS QBC.
Mersey Gateway.
Greater Manchester
Halton
Metrolink Extensions.
Greater Manchester
Rochdale Interchange.
Greater Manchester
5
1
SEMMMS Relief Road Scheme.
Silver Jubilee Bridge Major Maintenance
Scheme.
Thornton to Switch Island Link.
Greater Manchester
4
11
11
7.8
Halton
3
5
6
6
6
1
5
2.3
1
Yellow School Buses.
Greater Manchester
1
22
2
2.5
Merseyside
39
1
8
12
23.7
2.5
3
6
8
5.5
28
76.6
107.0
20
45.0
8.3
Full maintenance option assumed.
35.0
66.6
10.8
23.8
4
Part funds only. Rest from other sources.
Timing is linked to other improvements.
Linked to improvements by others.
32.6
Original cost assumed to be in 2005 prices
20.0
Linked to Capital of Culture 2008.
Needs to be concurrent with MottramTintwistle.
15.8
9
6.0
8.1
35.0
Linked to Capital of Culture 2008.
TWA powers expire in 2010. Need to start on
site by late 2009.
5.4
28
80
85
PFI Scheme. Total cost approx. £370m.
Assumed start 2008/09. RFA used to re-pay
funds.
Developer contributions at risk if significantly
delayed.
PFI Scheme. Total cost approx. £432m.
55
5
12.5
44.7
25.4
64.0
260.0
10.0
33.8
Linked to Mersey Gateway.
31.0
Could bring forward if spare funding available
in any year
25.7
9.3
5
20.3
Assumed 2.5 year construction period - Late
2013 to early 2014.
92.6
40
25
3
39.5
13.6
Greater Manchester
Total
21
RFA
Funding
(millions)
Scheme has all necessary approvals.
21.6
Leigh-Salford-Manchester QBC.
1.5
40
6.8
Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester
14.5
36
Notes
5
124.3 126.5 128.6 131.5 131.8
7
5
3.7
135
103
23.7
1065.3
Costs & Phasing for Quartile 1 Schemes by Transport Authority
NOTE: All costs have had optimism bias removed (on the advice of DfT) and are standardised to 2005 prices for comparison purposes.
Total scheme costs are not shown - only the amount required from the Regional Funding Allocation is shown.
Promoting Authority
Scheme
East Lancashire Rapid Transit.
2006/0 2007/0 2008/0 2009/1 2010/1 2011/1 2012/1 2013/1 2014/1 2015/1 2016/1 2017/1
7
8
9
0
4
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
Blackburn with Darwen
Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway Upgrade
– Phase 1.
A34 Alderley Edge and Nether Alderley
Bypass.
Blackpool
Cheshire
Crewe Green Link Road (Southern Section).
Crewe Rail Gateway.
Sub-Total
Ashton Northern Bypass Stage 2.
Bolton Town Centre Public Transport
Strategy
Glossop Spur.
5.5
1
2
3
5
5
4
2
3
4
15
13
11
13.1
1
12
13.5
13
3
3
5
21.5
2
16.3
32.3
3.5
Cheshire
Cheshire
Cheshire
Greater Manchester
1
Leigh-Salford-Manchester QBC.
Greater Manchester
M60 JETTS QBC.
Greater Manchester
Metrolink Extensions.
Greater Manchester
Rochdale Interchange.
Greater Manchester
SEMMMS Relief Road Scheme.
Greater Manchester
0.8
1
6.6
1
1.5
1.5
2
10
1.5
3
3
3
2.1
1
8
12
23.7
2.5
3
6
5.5
1
2
10
2.5
Mersey Gateway.
Silver Jubilee Bridge Major Maintenance
Scheme.
Sub-Total
TWA powers expire in 2010. Need to start on
site by late 2009.
5.4
85
55
11
11
7.8
5
5
7
5
3.7
17
28.6
30.5
39.9
8
46
28
66.4
28
95.8
92
60
3.7
Halton
3
5
6
6
6
5
Halton
3
5
6
14
34
33
A556 (M6 to M56) Improvement.
Highways Agency
10
36
40
21
Access to Port of Liverpool Improvement.
Sub-Total
Completion of Heysham to M6 Link.
Bidston Moss Viaduct (Junction 1 of the M53
motorway).
Edge Lane/Eastern Approaches.
Hall Lane Strategic Gateway.
Thornton to Switch Island Link.
Sub-Total
Highways Agency
Highways Agency
Lancashire
10
36
3
43
22
43
3
14.5
Merseyside
Merseyside
Merseyside
Merseyside
Merseyside
Total
9
8
6.8
4.5
17
25
11.3
20.3
39
1
1
76.6
8.1
22.5
31
21.6
10
10
10
44.7
25.4
80
4
6
32.6
35.0
1
2.5
6.0
23.8
5
Greater Manchester
Halton
39.5
13.6
Greater Manchester
Sub-Total
10.8
9
40
1.5
20.0
8.3
7
Needs to be concurrent with MottramTintwistle.
1.5
Greater Manchester
Yellow School Buses.
11.3
11.3
2
RFA
Funding
(millions)
66.6
Part funds only. Rest from other sources.
Timing is linked to other improvements.
Linked to improvements by others.
6
Greater Manchester
Original cost assumed to be in 2005 prices
Scheme has all necessary approvals.
Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester Authorities Highway
Retaining Walls Strengthening Scheme.
Greater Manchester Urban Traffic Control
(GMUTC).
12
Notes
Assumed start 2008/09. RFA used to re-pay
funds.
Developer contributions at risk if significantly
delayed.
PFI Scheme. Total cost approx. £432m.
Could bring forward if spare funding available
in any year
260.0
10.0
33.8
25.7
PFI Scheme. Total cost approx. £370m.
64.0
Linked to Mersey Gateway.
31.0
Assumed 2.5 year construction period - Late
2013 to early 2014.
107.0
20
20
45.0
92.6
5
5
2.3
1
15
12.3
11
5
124.3 126.5 128.6 131.5 131.8
135
103
23.7
Full maintenance option assumed.
35.0
Linked to Capital of Culture 2008.
Linked to Capital of Culture 2008.
15.8
12.5
9.3
1065.3
Annex 7
CRITERIA FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS
BASIC OUTLINE
In developing the criteria, consideration has been given to many factors which affect the safety of
unaccompanied child pedestrians (11 years of age or under). The formula is tailored to address
the special conditions that exist when a school opens and closes. The criteria produces a
complicated formula but essentially rests on three basic themes:1.
2.
3.
A count of unaccompanied child pedestrians and vehicles.
The use of a number of adjustment factors.
The consideration of additional crossing facilities.
P.V. SQUARED
The following "P.V. Squared" formula is used to determine the site of a school crossing patrol
where P = the number of pedestrians and V squared = the number of vehicles * the number of
vehicles.
P = CHILD PEDESTRIANS
The criteria states that sites having less than 15 unaccompanied primary age children should not
be considered for the establishment of a school crossing patrol. However in Lancashire this figure
has been reduced to 10 thus enhancing safety aspects. The definition of primary age children for
the purposes of the criteria will be, year6, ie 11 years or under and not attending high school.
V = VEHICLES
The number of vehicles are counted during the prime time of the opening and closing of a school.
The vehicle number is also "weighted" in that heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles are
counted as being equivalent to two saloon vehicles.
CRITERIA TO BE ACHIEVED
When the formula has been applied the result should equal 4 million to qualify for a crossing patrol.
However, in Lancashire the figure used is 2 million, half the nationally accepted figure. If,
however, the formula does not result in 2 million being reached then providing the point is used by
more than 10 unaccompanied children, adjustment factors can be taken into consideration. These
adjustment factors reflect the environmental and geographical features of an individual site which
may give rise to potentially greater risks.
If a crossing patrol was to be established for a high school the criteria would have to reach 100
million as against 2 million for a primary school.
The P.V. squared where a Pedestrian Light Controlled Crossing (i.e. Pelican) is available must
equal a minimum of 100 million. However, Crossing Patrols at Zebra Crossings will be maintained if
a P.V. squared of 2 million is achieved.
The following adjustment features may apply to a site:1.
SPEED OF VEHICLES.
It is recognised that in addition to the volume of traffic, the speed at which traffic is travelling can
also give rise to added potential risk. The higher speed increases the weighting factor.
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 7.doc
1
2.
CARRIAGEWAY/FOOTPATH WIDTH/CARRIAGEWAY GRADIENT.
The wider the carriageway the higher the "weighting" factor.
The narrower the footpath, the higher the "weighting" factor.
The steeper the gradient of the carriageway approaching the school crossing patrol the higher the
"weighting" factor.
3.
VISIBILITY.
The layout of the road and parking of vehicles will be taken into consideration and the weighting
factor will be at its highest where there is least amount of visibility coupled with higher speed.
4.
ROAD JUNCTIONS
If a school crossing patrol site is positioned within 20 metres of a road junction then it is assigned a
"weighting" factor.
5.
ROAD MARKINGS
If road markings occur within 50 metres of a crossing patrol site a "weighting" factor is added.
6.
STREET LIGHTING
Due to the particular problems that may occur during the winter months if there is no street lighting
at the school crossing point then a "weighting" factor will be added.
7.
AGE OF CHILDREN
The age of children is taken into account and this is calculated by adding a "weighting" value to the
average age of unaccompanied school children (providing more than 10 children cross).
8.
ACCIDENTS
All accidents that occurred between 8.00.a.m. and 5.30.p.m. each day over the previous 3 years
and within 50 metres of the site will be taken into account and a "weighting" factor will be added.
9.
ADDITIONAL CROSSING FACILITIES
Under the National Road Safety Officers' recommendations if a school crossing site is within 200
metres of a crossing facility, e.g. pelican crossing, then a negative weighting value would be added.
However, to apply an extra safety margin it has been agreed by the Police and Lancashire County
Council that the distance of 200 metres was too long and accordingly this has been reduced by
half. See also “Criteria to be Achieved”.
The provision of a school crossing patrol should not be viewed as an alternative to the
responsibility of parents to ensure their children’s safety on the journey to and from school.
Further information with regard to the crossing patrol criteria can be obtained from the Road Safety
Group.
H:\General\PDF Conversion Kit\Louise\Agendas\south ribble\June 07\Item 15 Annex 7.doc
2
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
Meeting to be held on the 20th June 2007
Part I - Item No. 16
Electoral Division affected:
All in South Ribble
Small Grants to Registered Voluntary Youth Groups and Project Grants to
Young People and the Engagement of Young People in the Lancashire Local’s
(Appendices 'A', ‘B’ and ‘C’ refer)
Contact for further information:
John Goffee, (01772) 531162; or Carmel Fenning (01772) 621125, Lancashire
County Council, Directorate for Children and Young People
Executive Summary
The Education and Inspections Act 2007, places a new duty on the County Council
to secure sufficient positive activities for young people in their local areas in line with
a new ‘Youth Offer’ (Youth Matters: Next Steps 2006) which includes arrangements
for engaging young people in decisions about facilities for them and providing them
with more choice and influence over provision.
Lancashire Local’s have delegated powers to establish mechanisms for engaging
with young people. This has been demonstrated successfully during the past year
through arrangements to discuss the allocation of local grants and to debate local
youth issues generally.
This report outlines allocations for small grants to registered youth groups and for
project grants to young people through Lancashire Local’s during 2007/08 and
arrangements to ensure ongoing positive youth engagement and impact on the
Lancashire Local’s. Revised guidelines are also provided (Appendix 'A') to support
Lancashire Local’s in their allocation of funds to ensure that they impact on the
development of Places to Go, Things to Do and Positive Activities in local areas for
the benefit of young people and the development of the local Youth Offer.
Decision Required
Lancashire Local – South Ribble is requested to:
i)
note the increased funding available for small grants to registered youth
groups and for project grants to young people through Lancashire Local’s
during 2007/08;
ii)
note the proposed guidelines on the allocation of small grants to voluntary
youth groups and for developmental projects by young people which align
with the development of a local youth offer (Appendix 'A');
iii)
continue the practice of engaging young people locally in the decision
making process for the allocation of small grants to registered voluntary
-2groups/units and for young people's development projects and consider
other opportunities to involve young people at the heart of their local
decision making processes on issues that directly affect local young
people.
Background
Lancashire Local’s have delegated powers to allocate small grant funding to
registered voluntary groups/units and for young people's development projects.
During the financial year 2006/07, the sum allotted to Lancashire Local-South Ribble
was £3,087 (all of which was allocated to projects). The total funding available
across the County in 2006/07 was £35,018.
During 2007/08 Lancashire County Council Youth and Community Service is
consulting on a new framework for funding VCFS organisations. An executive
summary of the proposal is provided (Appendix 'B') and a full copy of the document
is available at www.lancsycs.org.
The proposed framework indicates a desire to increase the amount of funding
available at a local level to enable greater scope for capacity building, enabling
organisations to deliver better services for young people and to support innovative
services and emerging needs in local areas. It is felt that this will greatly assist the
local authority's ability to secure a greater range and quality of positive activities for
young people at a local level in line with its new statutory duty under the Education
and Inspections Act 2007.
For this purpose Youth and Community Service has allocated £111,000 countywide
in this financial year for local grant funding to support:
•
•
Individual groups or units not supported through County Headquarters grants
Development projects for individual young people.
The allocation of funding to each Lancashire Local reflects a formula of funding used
in the Youth and Community Service budget allocation (and wider in the Authority) to
take account of youth population, deprivation factors and ethnicity (73%/23%/4%
respectively). The resultant allocations also reflect a significant increase in the
allocation that has been available in previous years, which it is hoped adequately
reflects the commitment to drive forward local involvement in key decisions directly
affecting the quality and range of local facilities available to young people.
Lancashire Local-South Ribble allocation for 2007/08 financial year is £9,906.
Lancashire County Council have demonstrated their firm commitment to involving
young people in their democratic processes and have used the existing Lancashire
and District Youth Council structures as their primary mechanism for consulting and
engaging with young people across the County, including at a locality level. The
success of this model of engagement has been recognised as a national model of
good practice following the recent award of Beacon Council Status to the County
Council for Positive Youth Engagement (in the community and democratic process).
-3It is, therefore, considered appropriate to build on this success by continuing the
existing practice established by Lancashire Local’s throughout last year in involving
District Youth Councils in making recommendations about the allocation of this grant
money to the Lancashire Local’s.
Young people are expected, under the Education and Inspections Act legislation, to
have legitimate mechanisms through which they can effect change and be involved
in decisions relating to facilities in the community which are for their use. Continuing
the Lancashire Locals' already established good practice in engaging young people
and providing opportunities to raise issues over which they feel the Local’s have
influence and impact is extremely helpful in meeting our statutory duties.
During 2007/08 it is envisaged that grant funding opportunities available through
Lancashire Local’s will continue to be complemented by the deployment by young
people of the Youth Opportunities/Youth Capital Funds in support of local
projects/activities applied for by young people. A breakdown of the projects funded
during 2006/07 from the South Ribble district area through YOF/YCF is included as
Appendix 'C' for information. It should be noted that in accordance with GONW
guidance any under spend in 2006/07 was carried forward and added to the
allocation for 2007/08 after which the programme ends. Local thresholds and
allocations of funding were supplemented by access to centrally held allocations of
funding to support larger projects and those with multiple district significance.
Further to their involvement in decision making on grants issues, Lancashire Local’s
could also consider implementing a range of other potential methods of ensuring
young people's involvement in their local decision making processes including:
•
•
•
Special or sub group meetings for young people to raise issues and present
reports to Lancashire Local’s on issues they consider to be of importance in
their locality;
Mechanism to consult young people on the issues that the Lancashire Local’s
address that impact on young people, possibly through direct encounters with
District Youth Council members;
Receiving regular progress reports from local District Youth Councils on the
activities and issues that they are engaged on.
This has the potential to lead to innovative partnerships between Lancashire Local’s
and young people with the aim of addressing particularly acute neighbourhood
issues.
Consultations
N/A
Advice
N/A
Alternative options to be considered
N/A
-4-
Implications: e.g. Financial, Legal, Personnel, Human Rights, Crime and Disorder
or Other
This item has the following implications:
Financial
The financial allocations to each Lancashire Local indicated above are from within an
overall allocation of funding to VCFS organisations through grants, from within the
Service budget.
The formula allocation described is the same as that used to identify budget
allocations to each district area for the service. These factors (youth population/
deprivation/ethnicity) provide a new framework from this year of how the allocations
across district can be made on an equitable basis and reflect the requirements of the
Cabinet Members Working Group on VCFS grants who asked for the historical basis
of allocations across districts to be looked at with a view to change this year.
Any representations made to the Directorate prior to the issue being
considered in accordance with the Public Notice of Forward Plans
Name:
Organisation:
Comments:
Nil
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985
List of Background Papers
Paper
Date
Contact/Council/Tel No
Cabinet Agenda and
Minutes
26th January, 2006
M Neville, Lancashire
County Council,
Democratic Services,
(01772) 533431
Reason for inclusion in Part II, if appropriate
N/A
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
20th June, 2007
Appendix 'A'
GUIDELINES ON THE ALLOCATION OF GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY
YOUTH GROUPS AND FOR DEVELOPMENTAL PROJECTS BY YOUNG
PEOPLE
1.
Introduction
The allocation of funding to the voluntary youth sector, to support locally
identified needs is progressed as part of an annual process. Decisions as to
how this local grant funding is distributed are under the auspices of
Lancashire Locals committees in each district council area.
Lancashire Locals are committed to local decision-making and in this instance
in consultation with local young people. A previous paper promoted best
practice in the ’Engagement of Young People in the Lancashire Locals’ (May
2006) and may be read in conjunction with this guidance.
For the financial year 2007/08, there has been allocated a significant increase
in funds available to be distributed through Lancashire Locals (from £35,018
to £111,000 across the county).
2.
Registration of Voluntary Organisations
The Youth Support Service (formerly Youth and Community) operates a local
registration system for voluntary youth and community based agencies,
enabling them to gain access to support and to borrow resources for youth
work in each district. Registration also enables organisations to apply for
grant support through Lancashire Locals.
This registration requirement ensures that groups who apply for funds have
met essential criteria about their ability to safeguard the well being of young
people and make use of resources in an appropriate manner, according to
their constitution and the requirements of the County Council.
3.
Eligibility
(a)
Any unit or group of any voluntary youth organisation which has been
accepted for registration by the relevant Youth Support Service
(formerly District Youth and Community) Office may apply for a grant
from a Lancashire Local committee, provided that a majority of young
people who are in membership or users of the group are within the age
range 11-19 years; for young people in urgent social need or
experiencing oppression the age range is extended to include those
aged 20-25 years; for example, for disabled young people or young
parents and young carers.
This includes the individual units of voluntary organisations who are in
receipt of grant at a county level.
-2-
(b)
Any individual young person or group of young people, whether
registered with the District Youth and Community Service or not, may
apply for a grant to support a developmental project, the age range
restrictions being as in 3(a) above.
4.
Purpose of Grant funding though Lancashire Locals
Grant funding which is governed by Lancashire Locals, in consultation with
young people, aims to meet specific local needs, supporting local groups
where this is determined to be the best form of support to either:
•
•
•
develop better outcomes for young people in line with the Every Child
Matters/Change for Children Agenda;
extend the range and quality of places to go and things to do for young
people in the local area;
develop the local Youth Offer.
Grant funding will normally be small in scale, and one-off or short term in
nature. The key purpose of grant funding will be capacity building, enabling
organisations to deliver better services for young people and to support
innovative services and emerging needs in local areas.
5.
Youth Matters
In the last several years there has been a significant development of policy in
relation to youth services, stemming from the Every Child Matters agenda.
‘Youth Matters’ has seen the promotion of key priorities for local authorities to
develop through integrated youth support services. This will affect strategic
and developmental funding of voluntary organisations, which in the future will
be applied through procurement and commissioning arrangements to secure
better outcomes for young people in Lancashire, through the overarching
arrangements of the Strategic Children and Young People’s Partnership
Group.
6.
Key Priority Areas
The following key priority areas, stemming from Youth Matters, are most
appropriate for consideration for the purposes of local grant funding:
Services which increase the number of ‘Places to Go' and ‘Things to do’ for
young people, including:
(a) Sporting and other physical activity; positive activity encouraging
personal development, innovation and creativity; residential
opportunities; other recreational creative, cultural, sporting and
enriching activity;
(b) Safe enjoyable meeting places, which may be in areas with no other
provision within safe travelling distance.
-3-
Organisations that promote young people’s engagement in decision-making
about services that affect them and the development of those services:
(a) These criteria should be fundamental to any applicant youth
organisation, but may also refer to specific projects which have youth
engagement as their core purpose as well as a core value;
(b) This area may also include routes to volunteering and leadership
opportunities.
Services which enable young people to have ‘Someone to Talk to’:
Young people will have increased access to support and/or information at
the right time and place for them.
7.
Assessment of Applications
(a) Registered groups (3(a) above) may apply for grants which will be
assessed in line with local priorities and which meet specific needs in the
local area. These local needs should also align with the County Council's
strategic and government priorities for development of work with young
people (see paragraph 4).
(b) Applications may contain requests for funding which cover the whole or
partial cost of the following items, in the support of criteria outlined
above:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Purchase of equipment;
Provision of training;
Administration (maximum £50.00);
Rent of premises (other than school facilities);
Purchase of materials;
Transport cost;
Special projects;
Refurbishment;
Any other purpose acceptable to the Lancashire Locals
committee.
(c) Grants for Developmental Projects (1(b) above) may be used for a
variety of purposes examples of which include:
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental improvement;
Expeditions (excluding Duke of Edinburgh's Award assessed
expeditions but including practice expeditions);
Youth Forum initiatives;
Creative arts and media projects;
Surveys;
-4-
•
•
Creation of local facilities;
Young parents' groups.
(d) Grants for individual young people are available where they also meet
the above criteria.
(e) Grants for whatever purpose may not normally be made to cover the full
costs specified in the application and the Lancashire Local committee
may elect to place cash limitations on grants.
8.
Youth Opportunities and Youth Capital Funds
‘Youth Matters’ has led to an increase of funds available to young people
though the implementation of the Youth Capital and Youth Opportunities
Funds, for the years 2006/07 and 2007/08, to support the development of
‘places to go’ and ‘things to do’ for young people.
How this money is spent is entirely governed by young people who have
formed local and strategic ‘YouthBank’ panels in each locality. These act as
custodians of the funding, receiving ‘applications’ from local young people and
deciding on local priorities for spending.
It is anticipated that Lancashire Local funding will complement the local
dissemination of Youth Opportunities Fund and Youth Capital Funds.
Local committees, with young people, will determine the most appropriate
means of ensuring that best value considerations are in place to avoid
duplication of funding.
9.
Administrative and Financial Procedures
(a) Application forms may be obtained from the District Youth Support
Service Office; Form YCS 66 should be used for group applications and
Form YCS 67 for Developmental Projects applications.
(b) Applications to cover expenditure made retrospectively will not be
considered.
(c) Completed application forms should be submitted to the District Youth
and Community Office.
(d) All applications will be considered by the Lancashire Locals committee
(or a Sub-Committee thereof), at the meeting following the receipt of the
applications.
(e) The District Team Manager will inform applicants of the success (or
otherwise) of their applications as soon as possible after the decision of
the committee is known and will issue an appropriate cheque to each
successful applicant.
-5-
(f)
Successful applicants should submit proof of expenditure to the District
Team Manager as soon as possible after expenditure has been made.
Such proof must reflect the purpose for which the grant was made.
Financial records will be maintained by the District Team Manager which
will be open for inspection by the County Treasurer.
(g) Lancashire Locals committees may not spend in excess of their budget
allocation. Any funds remaining unspent by 31 January may be
re-allocated by the Head of Youth Support Service.
8. Review of Guidance
The guidance in this paper will be reviewed in March 2008, to take into
account predicted developments in relation to results of consultation around
commissioning of services from the voluntary sector.
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
20th June, 2007
Appendix 'B'
Proposed Development Framework
VCFS Funding & Procurement Programme 2008 – 2009
The Agenda for Change
Lancashire Children’s Services Authority was established in April 2005 in response
to the government's Every Child Matters Agenda. It is tasked to lead and support the
development of a single strategic plan for Children’s Services across all relevant
agencies and the formation of Children’s Trust Arrangements to govern the plans
implementation. Part of that plan will be to deliver a new integrated ‘Youth Offer’ to
teenagers in Lancashire. This will include:
•
Ensuring that a range of things to do and places to go are available and
accessible to all young people, with someone to talk to, through a local
offer based on national standards
•
Promoting and supporting voluntary action by young people in their
communities
•
Reducing the numbers of young people who are not in Education,
Employment or Training or who at risk of becoming so
•
Ensuring the delivery of high quality Information, Advice and Guidance
(IAG)
•
Managing the establishment, delivery and effectiveness of integrated
targeted support for young people at risk within the overall framework
The new IYSS will play a key role in delivering the Youth Offer and ensuring that
young people have access to a wide range of positive activities. This can only be
achieved through effective joint working between partners, including the district
councils, the voluntary sector and private providers and through building on strong
existing partnership working.
The funding that the new service can provide through this framework will be focused
on maximising the ability for young people to access opportunities which contribute
to the Youth Offer through VCFS organisations.
The Context
Lancashire Youth and Community Service has provided grant support to the VCFS
through a funding programme for many years. Lancashire Connexions Service has
similarly provided grant funding to support activities provided by the VCFS which
have contributed to reducing the numbers of young people not in Education,
Employment or Training.
-2-
It is planned that Lancashire Youth and Community Service and Lancashire
Connexions will merge to form and Integrated Youth Support Service (IYSS) for
young people soon after 1 April 2007. It is intended that the new service will
continue to provide funding to the VCFS through a combined budget which it intends
to focus on Key Priority areas.
Key
Priority
Area
Target
1
Programmes which ensure that young people have a range of
‘safe places to go’ and ‘things to do’ which lead to a recorded or
accredited outcome.
2
Programmes which provide accredited personal development
opportunities (PDOs) targeting one or more of the following –
•
Young people aged 16 – 19 who are NEET
•
Young people aged 13- 19 at risk of becoming NEET
3
Projects which support young people aged 13-19 in becoming
involved in volunteering activity which leads to their own
personal development, and which brings benefit and positive
change to their local community.
4
Programmes which are related to any target area (1-3) which
specifically target key under-represented groups/individuals to
enable equality of entitlement, access and inclusion.
These include;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Teenage parents
Disabled young people, including Learning Disability and
Difficulty
Black and Minority Ethnic young people, including young
Travellers
Looked after young people
Children out of school
Young offenders/ at risk of offending
Young carers
Young homeless people
Young people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or
transgender
NB: Organisations likely to have a previous track record in
working with vulnerable or hard to reach young people.
It is intended to introduce funding thresholds with a differentiated approach to
contracting, monitoring and evaluation expectations
-3-
Applications
Funding Threshold
Small
Medium
Large
Up to £5,000
Over £5,000 and up to £15,000
Over £15,000
Local Grant Funding
All direct grants funding under this programme will occur at a local level through the
Lancashire Locals processes. Grant funding will continue to meet specific needs,
supporting local groups and individual young people/groups where this is determined
to be the best form of support to develop better outcomes for young people. Grant
funding will normally be small in scale, and, one-off or short term in nature. The key
purpose of grant funding will be capacity building, enabling organisations to deliver
better services for young people and to support innovative services and emerging
needs in local areas.
Decisions on grant funding will be governed by Lancashire Locals in consultation
with young people. Grants will be assessed in line with local priorities and will
continue to meet specific needs in the local area and guidance is provided to support
priorities assessments and alignment with corporate and government priorities for
development of work with young people
Applications will continue to be made through the usual processes through the local
Youth and Community (Integrated Youth Support Service) local offices and will
continue to be restricted to registered groups.
The Role of Young People
The involvement of young people in decision making processes is important to the
IYSS. We anticipate that young people will be part of the processes which decide on
service funding, procurement and commissioning. Young people will be involved in
deciding priorities for funding and which projects to recommend. This is expected to
be particularly relevant at the Lancashire Locals level where young people already
work in partnership with locally elected members to identify priorities for funding.
The Proposal
It is proposed to allocate £620,000 for the Funding Programme for financial year
2008/09. This figure is, however, subject to full review during the normal County
Council revenue budget setting process. The overall sum will be broken down into
the following elements:
-4-
Programme
Element
Purpose
Source
Procurement
To secure outcomes for
young people in Key
Priority Areas 1 and 4
(see section 5.2)
Procurement
Youth &
Community
Service
mainstream
budget
Connexions Grant
Funding
To secure outcomes for
young people in Key
Priority Areas 2, 3 and 4
(see section 5.2)
Sub Total - Procurement
Small grants to enable
Youth &
development of services Community
for young people at a
Service
local level
mainstream
budget
Grant Funding
Commissioning To be developed in
consultation with the
sector during 2007/08
N/A
Proposed
Funding Level
2008/9
£231,000
£278,000
£509,000
£111,000
(To be implemented
in 2007/08 – 300%
increase on previous
financial year)
N/A
Total Funding £620,000
The Process
Funding will be allocated following a process of application and assessment which
will be overseen by a ‘Funding and Procurement Panel’ made up of representatives
of the IYSS senior management, and young people. The process includes the key
stages outlined below:
•
•
•
•
Support and advice for applicants – through information session
Application Form to be submitted – identifying the relevant Key Priority Area
Assessment – by a Panel of IYSS officers and young people
Recommendations – shortlist of applications referred to elected members
The Timescale
Activity
Anticipated Dates
Consultation
March – June 2007
Release of application pack
October 2007
Information Sessions (Round 1)
Three sessions (evening and
weekend) during late
October/November 2007
First applications deadline (Round 1)
December 2007
Round 1 applications assessment
Shortlisting of recommended projects
Late December 2007/January
2008
-5-
Activity
Anticipated Dates
Information Session for Round 2
Three sessions (evening and
weekend) during late January/
February 2008
Cabinet Members Working Group on VCFS
Grant – decision making session (Round 1
applications)
February 2008
Second applications deadline (Round 2)
Mid March 2008
Round 2 applications assessment
Shortlisting of recommended projects
Late March/Early April 2008
Cabinet Members Working Group on VCFS
Grant – decision making session (Round 2
applications)
April 2008
Further application rounds may be available subject to whether or not all the
funding has been allocated in Rounds 1 and 2.
The Decision Making Process
Final recommended applications for funding will be referred for decision to the
Cabinet Members Working Group on VCFS grants in accordance with the standard
Corporate Grants programme (central gateway) arrangements.
Lancashire Local – South Ribble
20th June, 2007
Appendix 'C'
SOUTH RIBBLE
YOUTH OPPORTUNITY FUND
The amount of Youth Opportunity money available
£40,000
Group Name
Application Details
Amount
Bamber Bridge Senior Group
Young Carers
Enterprise Explorer Scouts
Bay 6 Project
Walton-le-Dale Youth Group
South Ribble Youth Council
Equipment for D of E expedition
Residential and activities
International jamboree
Arts and craft materials
Skate Park development
Skate Park development
£2,000
£2,395
£2,500
£ 250
£2,500
£2,500
Total of Youth Opportunity bids approved
£12,145
YOUTH CAPITAL FUND
The amount of Youth Capital money available
£20,000
Group Name
Application Details
Amount
Bay 6 Project
Alive
Jackal Explorer Scouts
6th Penwortham Scouts
Bay 6 Project
Young Carers
Walton-le-Dale Youth Group
South Ribble Youth Council
Computer and printer
Musical instruments
New trailer
New tents
Bedding, towels and crockery
Equipment
Skate Park development
Skate Park development
£1,000
£2,500
£1,600
£1,100
£4,000
£ 915
£5,000
£5,000
Total of Youth Capital bids approved
£21,115