· Web viewword limit of 400. words . per. question. Author: add specialists Created Date:...

York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership

Full Business Case template

Full Business Case templateYork, North Yorkshire & East Riding Enterprise Partnership

Guidance:

This document contains the Full Business Case (FBC) that all applicants must complete when seeking a loan or grant from the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership (the LEP). Our FBC is based on the Green Book published by HM Treasury. The Green Book sets out how public sector organisations should analyse the following five dimensions when appraising applications for funding:

Strategic dimension: What is the case for change, including the rationale for intervention? What is the current situation? What is to be done? What outcomes are expected? How do these fit with wider government policies and objectives?

Economic dimension: What is the net value to society of the intervention compared to continuing with business as usual? What are the risks and their costs, and how are they best managed? Which option offers the optimal value in terms of economic, environmental and societal benefits?

Commercial dimension: Is the project commercially viable? Is there clear demand for it? How will suppliers be procured and how will risks be managed?

Financial dimension: What is the impact of the proposal on the public sector budget in terms of the total cost of both capital and revenue? Are costs clear and appropriate?

Management dimension: Are there realistic and robust delivery plans? How can the proposal be delivered?

The FBC is designed to allow you to address these areas, and our appraisal template tests the extent to which applications perform well on the five dimensions. Our FBC is laid out to reflect the way that we would like applicants to develop projects. The diagram below summarises the logic model approach that we have adopted.

1 | P a g e


We want you to present your project in the way it has been developed – starting with a description of the challenge and / or opportunity you want to address and ending with the benefits that your preferred approach could deliver.

We have added prompts to each question in italics to try and help convey exactly what we want you to cover in response. However, if you are unsure how best to respond to particular questions please contact the member of the team that shared this document with you. Please answer all of the questions in this form as thoroughly as you can but try not to exceed our recommended word limit of 400 words per question.

Please note that you need to submit Sections 1 and 2 to us for review before completing the remainder of the FBC. This is to enable us to understand the challenge and/or opportunity that you wish to address and test the proposed measures of success and option analysis. We may ask you to amend the measures of success and your preferred option based on our knowledge of other activities in the LEP area.

When you are ready to submit the application please check that you have all the documents listed in Appendix 1 and then email the FBC, and the required supporting documents, to the Development Manager assigned to you.

Once you have submitted your FBC we will work to the following process:

Step 1 – Completeness check: we will check that you have answered all questions thoroughly and provided all supporting documents within 10 working days of you submitting the FBC.

Step 2 – Appraisal commences: we will issue the FBC and supporting documents to an independent consultant within 5 working days of confirming that the FBC is complete.

Step 3 – Appraisal completed: we give our independent appraisers 20 working days to complete their report. Please note that 20 days can only be achieved if there are not major queries, or you reply quickly to such queries.

Step 4 – Appraisal review: once we receive the independent appraisal report we will review it and identify whether it is ready to schedule for a Board meeting within 10 working days. We will contact you and inform you of when your project will be reviewed by our Board. If the

2 | P a g e


appraisal report identifies significant issues that require further work we will contact you and ask you to address them before re-submitting the FBC.

Step 5 – Board decision: we will inform you of the Board decision within 5 working days of the meeting.

Step 6 - Funding Agreement: we will aim to submit the draft Funding Agreement within 15 working days of the Board meeting. Please note that we will need you to have submitted all documents listed in Appendix 1, and we may identify additional documents that you will need to provide before we can issue the Funding Agreement. In order to achieve the 15 day timescale we will therefore need your prompt response to any queries.

Please note this important guidance:

Please do not complete or submit this Full Business Case unless you have discussed the project with one of our team. We only have limited funding available and are not in a position to support speculative applications.

We will undertake a credit check on your organisation before the appraisal of your application commences. We are unable to provide loans or grants to organisations that appear to be in financial difficulty.

3 | P a g e


Background details:

Please provide details of the project location.Address: A19 – Chapel Haddlesley to EggboroughPostcode:Local Authority areas that your project will benefit: Selby

Please provide details of your organisation.Organisation name: North Yorkshire County CouncilOrganisation address: County Hall

NorthallertonDL7 8AH

Legal structure: Local Authority

Please provide details of your main contact regarding this application.Name of main contact: James GilroyJob title: Team Leader Highway Asset Management Email address: [email protected] number: 07973747056

If your organisation is a company please provide the following information.Company Registration Number:Period that your accounting year covers: Day/Month to Day/Month

Year that last published accounts cover: Day/Month/Year to Day/Month/Year

Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff:Turnover: £Balance Sheet total: £If you are part of a Group of companies please provide details here:

Yes / No

If you have a Parent Company please provide their name and company registration number here:

4 | P a g e

mailto:[email protected]


Stage 1 – What is the challenge and/or opportunity you plan to address?

1.1 – What is the challenge and/or opportunity that you want to address?The A19 provides a key route between the town of Selby and the M62 at Junction 34. Beyond the M62, the A19 continues south to Doncaster. The road carries circa 11,000 vehicles per day, with 18% HGV flows (2019 weekday flow – see appendix E) and is one of 5 crossings of the River Aire in the Selby District.

The road forms part of the Transport for the North (TfN) Major Road Network, due to its important role in providing connectivity from Selby to the Strategic Road Network, with the M62 linking to the Humber Ports to the East and West Yorkshire, and the main north south corridors of the A1(M) and M1 to the West.

The road links Selby to the Eggborough Power Station site. Whilst power generation has ceased at this station, the site itself represents and important potential development site, which could provide over 3500 local jobs.

The A19 between Chapel Haddlesley and Eggbrough, travels on a causeway across the River Aire flood plain. The causeway itself was constructed in the 1850’s and has up until 2020 largely not been impacted by historic flood events.

Following a significant rainfall event along with high winds associated with Storm Dennis in February 2020 flooding occurred around Selby. A substantial volume of water surrounded the A19 between Chapel Haddlesley and Eggborough. By the 18th February 2020 water was beginning to overtop the embankment carrying the road and by the 24th February, the road was completely submerged. Water dropped below road level by the 2nd March 2020, although water levels were still high enough to conceal the majority of the embankment slopes. By the 5th March the water had receded to a low enough level to allow the embankment slopes to be viewed.

Visual inspections revealed that the embankment on the western side suffered significant scour damage along almost its full length (approximately 1100m) including damage and destruction to a fin drain. Cracking in the northbound carriageway also extended and developed significantly and voids developed below the sub base – in some case extending up to 1m beneath the carriageway.

The southbound carriageway developed settlement in the running lane and along the verge, and the supporting embankment also suffered scour damage. Five flood arches also appeared to have suffered some damage. A medium pressure gas main was damaged at the southern end of the site to the south of flood arch and a leak was detected and subsequently repaired.

Due to the flood event and the subsequent damage to the road the A19 is currently closed to all traffic between Millfield Lane, Chapel Haddlesley and Wand Lane, Eggborough.

This was the third time in 20 years that the road had been closed with closures as a result of flooding in early 2000, and December 2015 to January 2016. Aside from these major flooding events the road has remained open throughput other local floods. The drainage of the A19 and the causeway have been sufficient to ensure that the road is able to function. Inspections of the carriageway and causeway itself following previous flooding events, have not raised any cause for concern or requirement for enhanced maintenance activity or upgrade.

5 | P a g e


The damage form the flooding event in 2020 compared to the previous events, was greater due to high winds experienced during the flooding event, which created a wave like motion of the floodwater pushing against the causeway. The increased force of water resulted in more damage than a “normal flooding event” when there is minimal if any wave motion against the causeway.

The road will remain closed until the embankment and carriageway can be fully repaired.

The road has been closed since mid-February 2020. Local diversion routes have been put in place – these can be viewed below;

6 | P a g e


The formal diversion routes for non HGV through traffic between Eggborough and Chapel Haddlesley is circa 9miles more than using the A19, and the HGV diversion is circa 17miles longer than using the A19.

Whilst these formal diversion routes are the advised routes, many trips are being made using parts of the more rural minor road network, placing additional pressure on them and the local communities that they serve.

The diversion routes have been in place since the road closure in mid February 2020 and will remain until the A19 is fully reopened.

The key objective is to ensure that the carriageway and embankment / causeway is rebuilt to allow the A19 to reopen and to enhance longer term resilience against future flooding events.

The key success factors are outlined below

Reopening the A19 to all traffic Delivering a resilient road and supporting causeway structure, minimising the duration of

any floodwater related closures. Reduction in traffic flows on nearby diversion routes.

1.2 – What are the economic, environmental and/or social benefits that could be achieved as a result of addressing this challenge and/or opportunityThe key economic benefits of the project are outlined below

Reopening the road would re-establish an important physical connection between Selby and the wider strategic road network (M62 J34). It would also allow local the local communities of Eggbrough, Chapel Haddlesley, Hensall, Birkin and Beal easier access along the A19 corridor between the M62 and Selby.

7 | P a g e


The proposed scheme would also help to make the A19 more resilient to future major weather events, helping to ensure that the road remains open longer during future flooding events. It is recognised that due to its location it will not be possible to fully prevent impact from future weather events, but the aim of the scheme is to ensure that any flooding along with high winds does not have an impact on the structure of the carriageway and supporting causeway. This would help to reduce any closure duration to the absolute minimum

One of the single biggest potential economic benefits, is the proximity of the Eggborough Power Station development site. With development potential of circa 95 acres which would enable the development of a strategic industrial and logistics based employment scheme of approximately 2,265,000 sq. ft. with excellent access to the M62 Motorway to the south and Selby and York to the north.

A scheme of this scale has the potential (based on Selby DC estimates) to create 3,896 FTE jobs, £182.7m GVA per annum from gross direct employment and £3.5m of business rates revenue per annum. This major brownfield site has been vacant since 2018, and returning the site back into use as a strategic regional employment site would have a wider ranging local and regional economic benefit.

The key environmental benefits are linked to the reduction in vehicle miles that the reopening of the A19 would bring about. At present for a one way trip, cars have to travel an additional 9 miles as part of the diversion route, with HGVs having to travel an additional 17 miles. This additional mileage has an impact on transport emissions and air quality.

The scheme seeks to enhance and improve on the existing alignment of the A19. This is more environmentally friendly than establishing a new alignment.

1.3 – Is addressing the challenge and/or opportunity identified in international, national, region and local policy? The proposal strongly aligns with the LEP’s well-connected economy priority. The main focus of this is linked to east west connectivity and ensuring the ongoing resilience of the network.

Whilst the A19 is a north – south route, it provides an important strategic link to the M62, which is the main strategic east west road corridor in the North of England. From the J34 of the M62, the A19/ M62 junction distances to key locations are outlined below

40miles to Hull, 8miles to the M18 and onward links to south Humber ports 5 miles to the A1(M) at Ferrybridge (a key North south corridor) 15miles to the M1 at Lofthouse (a key north- south corridor) 52 miles to the M60 Manchester outer ring road 90 miles to the Liverpool and the Mersey Ports

Ensuring Selby and the surrounding areas has an open link to access this wider network is essential in ensuring the economic competitiveness of the area. The

Whist it is recognised that travel patterns and the need for travel may have changed as a result of Covid 19, and the push towards a sustainable and greener society, there will remain the need to maintain physical access to the key transport corridors.

The proposed scheme seeks to deliver enhanced resilience to future flood risk, helping to minimise the risk of future disruption from weather and flooding events. This will help to ensure that this key transport link remains open, allowing individuals and businesses to functions as close to normal as possible, during flood events on the River Aire.

Given the scheme’s proximity to the proposed commercial development at Eggborough, the

8 | P a g e


scheme will help to contribute towards the Successful and distinctive places objective, namely that it will help to ensure the viability of the Eggborough site.

Without a resilient adjacent transport network, the development at Eggborough would become increasingly difficult to market to businesses, as they would understandably have doubts about access to the north of the site for both employees and deliveries / collections. Without a resilient scheme in place and the A19 fully reopened, growth at Eggborough would likely be severely restricted.

1.4 – Have you sought feedback with the people, businesses or organisations that may be affected by you addressing the challenge and/or opportunity? Given the sudden nature of the closure of the road, there has been a widespread impact on local communities, many of which were impacted directly as result of the same flooding events in February 2020.

Restoring this important road link would significantly help local residents and businesses, recover from the impact of the floods, but also help in the Covid-19 recovery.

The impact on local communities who are located on diversion routes is significant. The impact of the increase in traffic levels is more widespread than just those on official diversion routes, as many vehicles attempt to use local minor roads as “rat runs”. Whilst traffic levels as a result of Covid 19 restrictions have been lower than normal, the closure and subsequent redistribution of traffic has been identified as an issue.

There is significant strong local political support for reopening the road, with the local MP adding his support to measures to reopen the route.

There has understandably been significant local feedback to the County Council as a result of the closures, with arrange of stakeholders voicing their concern at the current situation and their desire to see the road reopened as soon as possible.

Whilst there has not been a formal consultation carried out on the proposed scheme, there has been a high volume of correspondence and contact with the County Council regarding this closure. There is 100% support to reopen the road from those who have contacted the County Council.

Representations have been received from the following stakeholder groups;

MP County Councillors Parish Councils Members of the public who are having to follow the diversion so journeys take longer with

added fuel costs Businesses who have been impacted by the closure Members of the public who live on the A63 diversion (HGV route) Members of the Public who live on the A1041 diversion (Non HGV route) Members of the public who live in villages on local unofficial diversion routes, which include

Kellington, Beal, Birkin, Gateforth, West Haddlesley, Chapel Haddlesley, Temple Hirst, Hirst Courtney, Carlton

The key themes that are being raised by stakeholders are summarised below;

Complaints that the A19 is closed Delay in starting the work to repair and re-open

9 | P a g e


Extra journey time Extra fuel costs HGV not following advertised diversion and using unsuitable roads Speeding traffic through villages on official and unofficial diversion routes Increase in traffic through villages Damage to verges Noise / vibration disturbance Safety concerns because of additional traffic on country lanes Safety concerns with more HGVs using the A63 through Monk Fryston and Hambleton

It is clear from the communication and representations received from stakeholders that there is a dissatisfaction with a current situation, that the A19 is closed, and also a strong push for the road to be fully reopened to restore this important route.

1.5 – What are the consequences of not addressing the challenge and/or opportunity? Leaving the A19 closed and not reopening would have a significant impact on the local economy of the Selby area.

The long term use of the diversion route would have a significant impact on access to employment and key services for many residents, with extended journey times, increased fuel costs, restricting access for many individuals

A permanent closure would significantly impact existing businesses, adding additional costs to their operation, but also limiting their access to new and existing markets and also restricting the supply of labour to their business.

The viability of the proposed commercial development at Eggbrough would be severely impacted, by removing access to the A19 North towards Selby and York. A full closure would mean that the Eggborough site would be at the end of a “cul-de-sac” leading from the M62.

The A19 forms a key part of a “hub and spoke road network” with the town of Selby as a hub. The road provides an important north south corridor, intersecting with the A63 east – west corridor, and providing important north the south connections through Selby District. As outlined previously, a sustained closure would have a significant impact on a far wider area, through the use of official and unofficial local diversion routes, putting additional pressure on other parts of the local transport network.

Stage 2 – How could the challenge and/or opportunity be addressed?

2.1 – Before outlining the various ways that you could address the challenge and/or opportunity, please provide a prioritised list of up to 5 measures that can be used to measure the effectiveness of each approach.

Measure 1: Wider Economic ImpactMeasure 2: ResilienceMeasure 3: Deliverability Measure 4: CostMeasure 5: Local Environmental impact

2.2 – How could you address the challenge and/or opportunity?

Option 1: Retain closure and formalise diversion routesSummary of approach

10 | P a g e


Leave the road closed and install wide ranging preeminent diversion routes, alongside associated traffic regulation orders to help minimise the impact of HGV traffic

Score against prioritised measuresMeasure Score Explanation of score

1: Wider Economic Impact Low

Would still result in significant local diversions and local severance issues for businesses.Likely adverse impact on the potential Eggborough site.Would significantly impact on the delivery of the Selby Local Plan

2: Resilience Medium

Utilises existing networks – but adds additional pressure on the local network.Removes the A19 for use as part of a tactical diversion route for the M62, impacting on wider network resilience

3: Deliverability Medium Relatively straightforward to deliver in terms of required infrastructure, however would likely face strong objections from impacted communities and businesses.

4: Cost High, Relatively low cost in comparison to reconstructing the A19 to enable it to be reopened.

5: Local Environmental Impact Low

Likely adverse impact on many adjacent routes and communities. Significant increases in journey times and associated vehicle emissions.

Estimated total capital cost: £700,000

Estimated funding required from LEP: £630,000

Estimated outputsNew jobs created: NoneNew homes created: NoneMatch funding from other sources: £70,000

Other outputs (please specify): None

Other outputs (please specify):

None

Option 2: name of option

Summary of approach

Reinstating the carriageway on the existing alignment, and enhancing flood prevention and use of improved materials & techniques to mitigate against further impact.

This would involve enhancing the causeway with Rock Armour to enhance the mitigation against any future wave action caused by flooding and high winds. This would act in a similar manner to a coastal breakwater.

Score against prioritised measuresMeasure Score Explanation of score1: Wider Economic Impact

High, Reopens the A19 and restores this key part of the networkHelps to support the redevelopment of the Eggborough Power

11 | P a g e


Station Site

2: Resilience High, Provides a more resilient solution by replacing and strengthening the embankment and the overall structure of the carriageway.

3: Deliverability High,

Scheme is able to be delivered within 12 months.Design work is being progressedDelivering the scheme within the existing highway extent, no requirement for and purchase.

4: Cost Medium Whilst significantly higher that Option 1, it provides a long term option to providing a longer team resilient network.

5: Local Environmental Impact High

Utilises the existing alignmentMaintains the extent of the existing flood plain areaHelps to reduce excess journey mileage and emissions associated with the diversion route.

Estimated total capital cost: £6,600,000

Estimated funding required from LEP: £6,000,000

Estimated outputs

New jobs created:

Circa 3500 linked to the wider Eggbrough redevelopment. The reopening won’t guarantee that the Eggborough development will go ahead, but if the A19 remained closed it would have a significant negative impact on the proposed development

New homes created: N/AMatch funding from other sources: £600,000 from North Yorkshire County Council

Other outputs (please specify):Other outputs (please specify):

Option 3: name of option

Summary of approach

Raising the existing causeway higher through the provision of a larger embankment. This would require additional culverts and drainage and a new raised road surface.

The larger embankment would involve the installation of Rock Armour to enhance the mitigation against any future wave action caused by flooding and high winds. This would act in a similar manner to a coastal breakwater.

Score against prioritised measuresMeasure Score Explanation of score

1: Wider Economic Impact High,

Reopens the A19 and restores this key part of the networkHelps to support the redevelopment of the Eggborough Power Station Site

2: Resilience Medium Provides a more resilient solution by replacing and strengthening the embankment and the overall structure of the

12 | P a g e


carriageway.Could impact on the existing flood plain and result in flooding impacts being felt elsewhere

3: Deliverability Low

Land purchase is requiredSignificant liaison with Environment Agency required to review and assess impact Challenging to deliver within the timeframe due to increased construction

4: Cost LowCost higher than both option 1 & option 2 for delivery of the physical infrastructure. Additional costs for land purchase would also be required.

5: Local Environmental Impact Medium

Helps to reduce excess journey mileage and emissions associated with the diversion route.Potential impact on the wider flood plain

Estimated total capital cost: £ 10,000,000

Estimated funding required from LEP: £9,000,000

Estimated outputs

New jobs created:

Circa 3500 linked to the wider Eggbrough redevelopment. The reopening won’t guarantee that the Eggborough development will go ahead, but if the A19 remained closed it would have a significant negative impact on the proposed development

New homes created: N/AMatch funding from other sources: £1,000,000 from North Yorkshire County Council

Other outputs (please specify):Other outputs (please specify):

2.3 – Which is your preferred approach and why? Option 2 is the preferred option as it reopens the road and provides a deliverable, affordable and resilient solution.

Whilst it does not provide the increased height of the causeway that option 2 provides, this is outweighed the fact option 2 can be delivered within the existing highway extent, providing a deliverable solution.

It is recognised that the height of the carriageway is not being increased, however the structure of the embankment will be significantly improved as opposed to what was in situ prior to the flooding event. This means that the impact of similar flooding events in the future will be significantly less and would not result in long term closures of the A19. Should a similar level of flooding occur in the future to that experienced in February 2020, this section of the network will be significantly more resilient and would be able to be reopened much quicker.

Reopening the A19 would enable proposals for the development site at Eggborough to be progressed further and help to reduce the wider impact of the diversion routes, both on those road users having to use the diversion routes, but also residents and businesses on the actual diversion routes themselves

13 | P a g e


2.4 – What evidence do you have that there is demand for your preferred approach?As outlined in the response to section 1.4 within this submission, there is clearly a significant level of demand to reinstate this section of the A19 so that the road can be full reopened.

The diversion routes have had a significant impact on the wider network and local communities. As such option 1 would not have been acceptable to the wider resident nd business community.

Recognising the deliverability issues associated with option 3 alongside the potential impact on the wider flood plain, it is likely that this approach would have significantly prolonged the delivery phase which would like be unacceptable for impacted residents and businesses.

2.5 – When do aim to start and finish the project?

Date you plan to start claiming costs from: August 2020

Start date of physical capital works: October 2020

Proposed physical completion date: May 2020

2.6 – Are you aware of any other similar activities underway in our LEP area, and if so, how will your project complement them? None at present

2.7 – Are you aware of which State Aid mechanism you will use for the project, and why do you think your preferred approach is compliant? Given that the scheme is being delivered within the extent of the carriageway and can be seen to be benefitting all road users it is the County Council’s view that this project is fully compliant with relevant state aid legislation

14 | P a g e


York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership

15 | P a g e


Declaration I have submitted Sections 1 and 2 of this Full Business Case to the LEP for review and have made any amendments requested, before completing the remainder of the document. Name: James Gilroy

Signature:

Date: 3rd July 2020

Stage 3 – How much will your preferred approach cost to deliver?

3.1 – How much will your project cost to deliver and how much funding do you need from us?Please complete Tabs 1a and 1b, in ‘YNYER FBC Annex’ and then enter summary figures into the table below.

2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 TOTALTotal capital cost £5,420,000 £1,180,000 £ £

Funding sought from the LEP

£4,820,000 £1,180,000 £ £6,000,000

Other capital funding £600,000 £0 £ £600,000

Total capital funding £5,420,000 £1,180,000 £ £6,600,000

3.2 – How secure is the other funding required for the project?

Funding source Amount Status

NYCC £600,000

This funding can be made available through the re profiling of the existing structural highway maintenance capital programme. Existing schemes will be reprogrammed in later years to free up the required local contribution.

Total other funding £600,000 Please ensure that the total figure here matches the amount shown in the blue shaded box in Q3.1

3.3 – Will the project have any on-going operational costs and/or income?

Please tick the statement that reflects your project:

The project has no on-going operational costs or income. Please skip Q3.4 and move to Q3.5.

☑ The project has on-going operational costs but will not generate income. Please answer Q3.4.The project has on-going operational costs and will generate income. Please answer Q3.4 and complete Tab 2, Cashflow in ‘YNYER FBC Annex.’

3.4 – How is your project commercially viable?

16 | P a g e


The project will to significantly improve the condition on this part of the highway network, helping to rest its asset condition to new. This enhancement of asset condition will help to reduce the impact of any future potential weather events, and will also help to reduce ongoing maintenance costs in the medium to long term. The surface materials that are proposed would not require significant maintenance activity for circa 15 years, which would help to reduce future planned and reactive maintenance works. The works planned to enhance the embankment will help to reduce the future maintenance liability of this location, again by resetting the asset condition to as new.

Ongoing maintenance costs of the project will be picked up by the County Council as part of its ongoing statutory duties as local highway authority.

Inspections of the carriageway and embankment will be carried out post scheme delivery at regular intervals in line with the County Council’s asset management and highway safety inspection policy. Additional inspections will be carried out post any future flooding events to ensure that the structure of the carriageway or causeway is not damaged.

3.5 – In what form do you seek financial support from the LEP?The County Council is seeking a grant from the LEP

3.6 – What difference will receiving financial support from the LEP make to when and how your project proceeds?The project would proceed without the LEP funding, however funding for the project would need to be found from the existing Highway Capital Structural Maintenance budget. This would mean that circa £6million of carriageway, footway and other maintenance schemes would have to be reprogrammed from 2020/21 NYCC Highways Capital Programme in to 2021/22, and as a result pushing planned schemes for 2021/22 in to future years to accommodate the costs associated with the A19 Chapel Haddlesley scheme.

Funding from the LEP would enable these schemes to go ahead as planned whilst at the same time ensuring that the A19 could be fully reopened.

Securing funding for the Chapel Haddlesley scheme will benefit not only the A19 but roads and footways across North Yorkshire which would see their maintenance schemes being completed on time rather than being delayed.

3.7 – Which State Aid mechanism will you use and how will you ensure that you comply with any of its requirements.State Aid mechanism: Works within our powers as Local Highway AuthorityAn assessment is underway, however at this point we do not estimate that there will be any state aid issues due to the fact that the planned works are within the highway extent and they involve repairing damage to an already established part of the highway network.

3.8 – What are the main financial risks to your project and how will you try to reduce the likelihood of them occurring, or their potential impact?

17 | P a g e


A copy of the latest risk register has been attached to this application see Appendix A. The following section provides an overview of the key financial risks at this point in time.

The risk value has been calculated by using the risk probability and risk cost and will continue to be refined during the detailed design process.

As final design work is still in progress a risk contingency of 20% of the overall scheme construction costs. Risks will be updated once the final design has been completed.

Financial risks Likelihood Impact Mitigation

Our forecast estimate of capital costs proves to be too low and we need to find additional funding or reduce costs.

Low High

Extensive design and development work is ongoing. This works involves works delivery contractor to ensure cost estimates are accurate.

SCAPE procurement framework allows for greater surety on proposed costs.

Environmental contamination is found to be present within the project area Medium Medium

Extensive testing of materials has been carried out. Further assessments will be carried out through the design and development process to ensure accurate costs estimates for material disposal

Utilities and Statutory undertakers equipment and relevant mitigation requires additional works

High High

Engagement with utilities companies is ongoing. Initial utilities searches have been carried out – but this process will continue.

Stage 4 – What tasks do you need to complete to deliver the project?

4.1 – What are the keys tasks that you have completed, and need to complete, before the project can commence?A full project plan is available in appendix F. The table below provides a key summary of the tasks needed to be completed before on site delivery commences.

Tasks Target date Status

Initial site surveys March 2020 Complete Initial scheme development April 2020 CompleteSurvey information

StructuralDrainageGeotechnicalFlood RiskCarriagewayEcology

August 2020 On-Going

18 | P a g e


TopographicalProcurement Process June 2020 CompleteContractor appointed June 2020 CompleteGranting of relevant permissionsDrainage BoardsEnvironment Agency


Final Design Completed

Final design work is progressing during August alongside further survey and data gathering work to inform the final design.


Contractor Mobilisation including site compound set up at Eggborough Power Station July 2020 On Going

4.2 – What are the keys milestones after the project has started that we could use to measure your progress?Tasks Target date StatusWorks Start on Site August 2020 Not commencedWorks finish on site April 2021 Not commencedRoad Reopening April 2021 Not commenced

4.3 – Which milestones have the greatest risk of slippage and how will you manage this? Design and development works has progressed on the basis that the scheme will be delivered within the existing highway extent, helping to reduce external pressure and influence on the scheme. As such no land acquisition is needed and there are no external approval processes (planning etc.) to be carried out as the work is being carried out within the highways extent.

The current scheme delivery programme has works starting on site in October 2020. Clearly this poses some risks in terms of potential weather impact. Scheme completion is planned for May 2021. Should there be any delay with scheme delivery, we are confident that there is sufficient time between May 2021 and December 2021 to ensure that scheme delivery is completed in line with any restrictions on available funding.

Whilst the delivery of the scheme is different to normal highway maintenance delivery, the Contractors engaged in the design and delivery process are all experienced in this kind of civil engineering project. Examples of similar projects that Balfour Beatty have been involved in linked to slope stabilisation and road reconstruction are listed below

- A174 Sandsend North Yorkshire (£8m). Delivery of new road alongside slope stabilisation and improved sea defences

- Scarborough Spa Cliff Stabilisation (£13.5m) – Works to stabilise the cliff behind Scarborough Spa

- A1 (M) Coal House to Metrocentre upgrade (£56m) – works to provide varying solutions for slope stabilisation along the length of the A1 upgrade in Gateshead.

- Leven Bank Ingleby Barwick (£0.5m) – replacement of eroded section of riverbank alongside, improved drainage, rock armour and reinstatement of public highway – (see case study attached)

- WSP info to follow

19 | P a g e


4.4 – What are the activities involved in delivering the project?A full project plan is available as appendix F. This shows the key activities involved in delivering the project. The following provides a summary of some of the key elements of scheme delivery.

Various site investigations are underway. These are being coordinated centrally by the project team to ensure that the relevant information is captured and fed in to the overall design and development process.

Scheme design

Utilising the in house design team at WSP final design information is being prepared. This is being competed in conjunction with the works contractor Balfour Beatty. This close cooperation will help with the transition from design to delivery, helping to reduce costs and maximise efficiency in the scheme delivery process.

On site construction

Balfour Beatty are the lead contractor delivering this project. This part of the project will involve the following key tasks

1. Site Clearance2. Removal and safe disposal of existing carriageway material3. Upgrade of existing embankment4. Reinstatement of carriageway structure5. Repairs to existing structures / culverts6. Installation of new carriageway surface7. Installation of VRS / Signage / Street lighting as needed8. Road lining

4.5 – How do you plan to purchase the items and procure the suppliers that you need to deliver the project?

Design and investigation work is being carried out by WSP who are NYCC’s Highways Engineering and Design Consultancy partner. As such the investigation, and design element of the process is fully set up and has already commenced.

Delivery of the scheme is being carried out by utilising “The SCAPE National Civil Engineering Framework (SNCEF) – Appendix C”. https://www.scapegroup.co.uk/services/procure The advantage of using SNCEF is that construction projects delivered through SNCEF have been market tested and core staff and site set up costs, overheads and profits are fixed for the framework term. The remainder of costs are open book and the supply chain managed, therefore SCAPE contracts deliver locked-in value with competitive tendering.

Through an early initial discussion between, NYCC Procurement & Contract Management and Scape Procure Ltd an agreement in principle was reached to appoint Balfour Beatty to deliver the scheme.

This was approved by the Corporate Director of NYCC Business and Environmental Services (BES) in consultation with the BES Exec Members - https://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk/committees.aspx?commid=92&meetid=4272 on the 26th June 2020.

Agreement was also reached to accelerate the first stage of the process that would allow for Balfour Beatty to proceed directly into preconstruction, without the full feasibility stage as a significant amount of work has already been completed by WSP and NYCC. This is being carried out at risk to North Yorkshire County Council, recognising that should external funding not be

20 | P a g e

https://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk/committees.aspx?commid=92&meetid=4272

https://www.scapegroup.co.uk/services/procure


available then NYCC would need to fully fund the delivery of the scheme.

4.6 – What contractual relationships will you need to manage to successfully deliver the project?The key contractual relationships that will need to be managed our outlined below. A summary of this is outlined in the structure in Appendix G

WSP As NYCC’s Highways Engineering and Design Consultancy partner, we have extensive experience of working closely with WSP on the delivery of a range of projects. WSP have an extensive skill base in the delivery of major highway schemes. This contractual relationship is being managed under our existing Highways Engineering and Design Consultancy agreement.

Balfour BeattyAs outlined in section 4.5, Balfour Beatty have been appointed as delivery partner for this project. They were appointed through the SCAPE framework, and should any unforeseen issues arise in the contractual relationship, SCAPE can act as an arbitrational partner as needed. Given the early involvement in the project, we do not envisage any contractual issues with Balfour Beatty.

4.7 – In addition to the financial risks identified in Q3.8, what are the other risks that could arise and disrupt the successful delivery of your project? The risk register is outlined in appendix A. Risks are being reviewed as part of the final design process, with a view to identifying

Non-financial risks Likelihood Impact Mitigation

Utilities and Statutory undertakers equipment and relevant mitigation requires additional works

High High

Engagement with utilities companies is ongoing. Initial utilities searches have been carried out – but this process will continue.

Additional impact of Covid 19 working restrictions High Medium

Scheme delivery is based around adhering to relevant guidance. As government guidance changes, working practices will be adapted / changed as needed.

Further flood event during pre-construction phase Low High

It is difficult to mitigate against this risk. Given the scheme location, there is a risk that a further flood event pre construction could result in further damage. If this does occur a review of the design may be needed.

Further flood event during construction phase Medium High

It is difficult to mitigate against this risk. Given the scheme location, there is a risk that a further flood event pre construction could result in further damage. Steps will be taken by the contractor to reduce risk to the site alongside continual communication with the Environment Agency ref flooding events.

Stakeholder objections to the ongoing diversions

High Low A communications and engagement plans is being developed to keep residents and businesses up to date

21 | P a g e


with scheme progress.

Stage 5 – How will you manage the project?

5.1 – Who are the key individuals that will manage your project and what relevant skills and experience do they possess?Scheme delivery is being coordinated by the NYCC Highways Area Office based at Selby.

The key personnel involved are outlined below

James Malcolm Area Manager

James has extensive highway civil engineering experience and has been a highway area manager for nearly 10 years. He has been involved in the development and delivery of several major projects including remedial repairs to the A59 at Kex Gill. James has significant experience in managing contractors on complex projects.

Gary Lumb – Improvement Manager

Gary has been improvement manager for the Selby area for over 10 years. He has experience of managing flood recovery projects, having been involved in the delivery of Tadcaster bridge improvements. He has a vast knowledge of the local area and is highly experienced in the delivery of highway projects.

Sharon Fox – Area Customer Care and Communications officer

Sharon has been in post for over 10 years, during this time she has worked on several major schemes, including being the lead officer for local engagement during Tadcaster bridge reconstruction and flood recovery.

5.2 – How will the work of the project team be managed and overseen? A client project team has been established. This is being managed and led by the Selby Area Highways management team, who have extensive engineering experience.

A project plan is available in Appendix F

Leads have been established with both WSP and Balfour Beatty. A project management team has been set up between NYCC and the contractors to ensure scheme delivery is managed appropriately. An overview of the relationships between the key partners is available in appendix G.

Regular review and progress meetings have been established, with information from these supplied to a wider ranging wider group, including senior management at NYCC and local elected

22 | P a g e


councillors and the local MP’s office.

Weekly progress updates are shared by the NYCC project team to relevant officers and elected members within the County Council. These can also be shared with the LEP if needed.

Updates on progress will be managed by the NYCC Business and Environmental Services (BES) Capital Update Group, which is chaired by the BES Corporate Director. Updates on the scheme delivery, programme and budget, will be presented at these monthly meetings.

5.3 – How will you manage the project to ensure that it delivers to time and budget and achieves the target outputs? A comprehensive project delivery plan and programme is being developed as part of the final design process. This is available in appendix F.

WSP will be responsible for site supervision and day to day programme management, with the Selby area highways team providing overview on this on a regular basis.

Continual monitoring of the programme will take place throughout the project, to ensure that any risks are identified and appropriate mitigation measures are implemented.

A full risk register will be developed and will link in to the Directorate risk register, so that the overall risks are recognised and managed at a strategic level within the Council.

5.4 – How will you publicise the project and acknowledge our support? There is a full communications plan being developed as part of the delivery of the programme.

Should funding be awarded, appropriate publicity material will be produced. Relevant press releases and social media coverage will be shared amongst relevant channels.

Signage will be installed on approaches to the scheme during construction. Post road reopening, fixed signage will be installed to identify illustrate funding partners.

In all media releases and signage – LEP funding will be full referenced and publicised.

Stage 6 – What benefits will the project deliver?

6.1 – What the main 3 outputs will your project deliver? Please complete Tab 4, Outputs in ‘YNYER FBC Annex’ and then list the main 3 outputs that your project will deliver in the table. These would ideally be outputs from Table 1 on Tab 4 of YNYER FBC Annex’. However, if your project doesn’t deliver any Government outputs, then please list the main 3 outputs from Table 2.Core outputs Total target up to March 2025Output 1 New Road Constructed (note that this assumes that the renewed embankments + carriageway is a “new road”

1.2km

Due to the nature of this scheme, it is not possible to identify additional outputs over reinstating the carriageway to reopen the road. As the final design progresses, there may be areas of carriageway resurfacing either side of the scheme extent which may be included.

23 | P a g e


6.2 – How have the outputs above been calculated? The output above assumes the proposed scheme will be circa 1.2km in length, in line with the extent of damage to the road and supporting structure.

6.3 – How does your project contribute to good growth? Please outline how your project could contribute to good growth in the LEP area referring to the 10 elements of the good growth index provided in the table below.No.

Good growth principle Contribution How does the project contribute to the

principle?

1 Secure jobs Medium

Helps to support existing jobs, by reinstating a key road within the Selby area.

Additionally without this scheme, it would be difficult for the proposed Eggborough power station development to progress.

2 Adequate income None3 Good health None4 Work-life balance None

5 Affordable housing Low Helps to support the development and delivery of the Selby local plan

6 Entrepreneurship and new business start-ups Low Potential impact dependent on any incubation /

start units set up at the proposed Eggborough site

7 Good quality transport systems High

Reinstates a key transport link between Selby and the M62 and removes the impact of the ongoing diversion routes.

8 Skills to assist people access jobs None

9 Protection of the environment Low Helps to reduce emissions through shorter and

more reliable journey times

10 Fair distribution of income and wealth None

6.4 – What wider outcomes will your project deliver?

Economic outcomesRe-establish an important physical connection between Selby and the wider strategic road network (M62 J34).

Allow local the local communities of Eggbrough, Chapel Haddlesley, Hensall, Birkin and Beal easier access along the A19 corridor between the M62 and Selby.

Support local, regional and national business by reinstating this important physical connection. Reducing distance travelled and encouraging more efficient business operations.

Make the A19 more resilient to future major weather events, helping to ensure that the road remains open during future flooding events.

Help to facilitate the delivery of the proposed development site at Eggborough Power Station.

Environmental outcomesRemoving the use of the extensive HGV and non HGV diversion routes, helping to reduce vehicle mileage and associated vehicle emissions.

24 | P a g e


Social outcomesReducing the impact on local communities which are impacted by official and unofficial diversion routes.

6.5 – How will you evaluate your project? A post reopening study will be carried out identifying the wider impact of the scheme on traffic levels on the A19 and the surrounding network.

Ongoing monitoring of the impact of future flooding events will be carried out to understand how the impact of these events on this section of the A19.

6.6 – How does your project represent value for money? A VfM assessment has been carried out. Utilising the Selby Traffic Model an assessment has been carried out over a 60 year timeframe from construction (assumed reopening of the road in Q1 2021/22). Including the closure from February 2020 to road reopening, this assessment has demonstrated a BCR of 39.94. This is based on a 2020 scheme cost of £6.6million.

Further sensitivity tests will be carried out to ascertain a revised BCR based on varying scheme cost proposals.

Further details of this assessment can be found in Appendix B

Submission

1 – Please confirm that you agree to our Data Processing terms.The information that you provide in this Full Business Case will be used by York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Enterprise Partnership (YNYERLEP) to decide whether to offer a loan or grant to your organisation for the project described herewith. The Enterprise Partnership may conduct a credit check on your organisation as part of our responsibility to ensure that any loans or grants are only made to organisations that are in good financial health and are meeting their legal responsibilities.

The Enterprise Partnership commissions external independent consultancy firms to complete the appraisal of Full Business Cases. We have a contract in place with each firm to ensure that they have appropriate technical and contractual measures to ensure the security of Personal Data. The YNYERLEP reserves the right to share your Full Business Case with partner agencies as part of the appraisal process.

Please confirm that you understand and agree to these Data Processing terms, credit check requirements and the sharing arrangements referred to within these terms by signing the box below.I agree to the terms above:Name:

Signature:

Date:

2 – Please confirm that the information you have supplied is accurate and that you have the authority to apply for funding and deliver the project if we approve the funding request. I confirm that the information supplied in this Full Business Case is accurate to the best of my

25 | P a g e


knowledge. I agree to contact York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Local Enterprise Partnership (YNYERLEP) if during the appraisal or contracting process I become aware that any information supplied is no longer accurate.

I also confirm that I have the authority from my organisation to apply for this funding. I can confirm that if this funding request is approved, I have the authority to sign the Funding Agreement and commence the project.Name:

Signature:

Date:

Appendix 1 - Supporting document checklist:

Please ensure that you supply all of the documents listed below that apply to you as the appraisal of your project will take longer than our published timescales if we have to request any of these documents.

Documents required before appraisal can be completedDocument required Notes Provided?

YNYER FBC Annex spreadsheet

All applications must include this spreadsheet. The following tabs are compulsory for all projects:

Tab 1a, Financial tables Tab 1b, Cost breakdown Tab 4, Output & outcome tables

If your project has on-going operational costs and income you must complete Tab 2, Cashflow. If you are a private company you must complete Tab 3, Accounts.

Yes

Organisation and governance chart

Please provide a diagram showing the staff that will deliver the project and how their work will be overseen. Please include any Governance structures, including, for example a project Steering Group.

To Follow

Evidence that any external permissions have been secured, including planning permission or approval to

All applications must provide any permissions required for the project that they have already secured.

N/A

26 | P a g e


cross or use land.

Evidence of ownership or long-term lease of any land required to deliver the project

If your project involves land then you must provide evidence that you own it, or have a long-term lease which allows you to undertake the proposed project.

See Appendix C

Annual accounts covering a 3 year period

If you are a company then this information must be provided for your firm and your parent company if you have one.

N/A

Independent State Aid advice All applications must provide independent State Aid advice from a qualified lawyer. To follow

If your project relates to property and infrastructure you will need to provide the following additional documents.

Market Demand AssessmentIf your project involves a speculative development you will need to submit an assessment showing the demand case.

N/A

Site Plans Details of land and property involved in the project. N/A

Evidence of site ownership Evidence of ownership or long-term lease of land involved in the project.

See Appendix C

Architects Plans Plans for the development with confirmation of RIBA stage.

Cost Plan Detailed cost plan developed by Quantity Surveyor.

See Appendix D

Planning Permission Evidence that planning has been secured, or timetable for securing it. N/A

Other permissions Evidence of permissions secured relating to the project. N/A

Land Value uplift reportDevelopment and housing projects must provide a report providing an estimate of the land value uplift as a result of the project.

N/A

If your project relates to transport and has a total cost of over £5,000,000 you will need to provide the following additional documents.

Detailed Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

A report setting out the adjusted Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) that the project will achieve in line with the following guidance from the Department of Transport (DfT).

See Appendix B

Site Plans Details of land and property involved in the project.

See Appendix C

Evidence of site ownership Evidence of ownership or long-term lease of land involved in the project.

See Appendix C

Planning Permission Evidence that planning has been secured, or timetable for securing it. N/A

Other permissions Evidence of permissions secured relating to the project. N/A

Documents required before Funding Agreement can be completedConfirmation of match-funding Evidence that all match-funding is in place.Service Level Agreements (SLA) with delivery partners

Agreements with delivery partners making roles and responsibilities clear.

Documents required within 3 months of the Funding Agreement being signedCommunications Plan A Plan setting out how you will comply with

our publicity requirements and publicise our

27 | P a g e

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267296/vfm-advice-local-decision-makers.pdf


support for your project.

Monitoring Plan A Plan setting out how you will demonstrate achievement of contractual outputs.

Evaluation Plan A Plan setting out how you plan to evaluate the project.

28 | P a g e

· Web viewword limit of 400. words . per. question. Author: add specialists Created Date:...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewword limit of 400. words . per. question. Author: add specialists Created Date:...