1

Local Growth Fund

Business Case

Part A

LEAD ORGANISATION & PARTNER DETAILS

A1 Project name and location

Scarborough Town Centre Junction Improvements (various locations), North Yorkshire

A2 Lead Organisation/Company

Name of lead

organisation/

Company (Trading

Name)

North Yorkshire County Council

Address

County Hall

Northallerton

North Yorkshire

DL7 8AH

Company Registration

Number (if applicable)

n/a

Legal status Local Authority

A3 Lead contact

Name of lead contact James Kennedy

Position Senior Engineer, NYCC

Telephone number 01609 532520 (JK)

Email James.Kennedy@northyorks.gov.uk

Address (if different

from above)

n/a

A4 Other partners

Please identify all partners/companies/land holding interests that are directly linked with the project.

(Append any additional information if appropriate)

Name Tel No Email Address Nature of

interest

Partners involved in direct delivery of the project

Steve Wilson,

Scarborough

Borough Council

- Steve.Wilson@scarborough.gov.uk Town Hall, St

Nicholas Street,

Scarborough,

North Yorkshire.

YO11 2HG

Local Authority

project delivery

Other Partners involved in the project

Jonathan

Wickham, WSP

- Jonathan.Wickham@wsp.com Dale House,

Mount View

Standard Way

Business Park,

Northallerton

DL6 2YD

NYCC’s Partner

Consultant

2

Part B

PROJECT DETAILS

B1 Project Description

Please provide a brief description of your project (no more than 500 words).

This should include a clear indication of what the project is, and its key aims and objectives.

(Please append a clear delivery/implementation plan and any additional information if appropriate)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The improvements of four junctions to address the impact of forecast traffic growth to the end of the proposed Local Plan period of 2032 and beyond. These proposed junction mitigation works have been refined by WSP and now include:

1. Junction N: Falsgrave Road / Scalby Road – New Traffic Signals; 2. Junction O: Manor Road / Scalby Road – Alterations to roundabout (widening of entrances and exits); 3. Junction P: Stepney Road / Stepney Drive – Alterations to roundabout (widening of entrances and

exits); and 4. Junction Q: Scalby Road / Stepney Drive – New Traffic Signals, road and junction widening.

The proposed scheme designs have emerged following option appraisal exercises undertaken by Peter Brett Associates (PBA) in 2011, Jacobs in 2012, and then subsequent optioneering by Mouchel in 2017. The most effective designs in terms of junction capacity, safety and value for money were taken forward and assessed within the Economic Assessment Report, undertaken by WSP in August 2018; this document can be found in Appendix A. Figure 1 – Scarborough Critical Junction Improvements

AIM The aim of the project is to deliver highway mitigation works on parts of the network that are already at capacity but have no plans for improvement which in turn will assist in the delivery of housing and economic growth. The improvement to these 4 junctions would significantly benefit the wider town and its future growth prospects and ensure that objections to the forthcoming Local Plan applications on highways grounds as a result of capacity issues do not arise. Local Growth Fund would support the delivery of the above junction improvements, and will also have a substantial impact on the delivery of a better-connected network, thus improving the local economy.

OBJECTIVES

3

The principal output will be highways works to the 4 junctions to improve capacity through a combination of traffic signalisation works, road widening and roundabout alterations. The outcome of this will be to assist in the delivery of 450 dwellings per annum, as set out in Policy HC1 of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan, of which a significant proportion is located within the Scarborough Urban Area. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/PROGRAMME

Submission of LEP funding application - Oct 2018;

LEP funding awarded and agreements - Dec 2018;

Procurement of contractors - Early 2019;

Rolling programme of junction mitigation works commencing Spring 2019; and

Planned for completion - Autumn 2021.

Please explain what the current baseline position of the project is.

The critical junction improvement locations were refined through a number of traffic studies, which outline a number of existing junction within Scarborough Town Centre where capacity had already been exceed or was approaching such levels. The details of each report are summarised below:

Local Development Framework Options Appraisal: Stage 1, Jacobs 2011 – this comprised the testing of 21 junctions using Junction assessment software to assess which locations would perform above operational capacity in a future year of 2026 – of the 21 junctions, nine were taken forward for mitigation testing;

Scarborough LDF Junction Review, PBA 2011 – preliminary designs were produced for the nine junctions which performed over capacity within the Jacobs (2011) report;

Local Development Framework: Junction Option Testing Report, Jacobs 2011 – further testing was carried out on the nine junctions based on the PBA designs. Of the nine junctions, four continued to perform over capacity with the PBA mitigation designs;

Scarborough Local Development Framework: Additional Junction Testing Summary, Jacobs 2012 – further sensitivity testing of the options were considered was carried out in order to refine the designs and costs at each of the critical junction locations;

Scarborough LEP: Junction Testing, Mouchel 2016 – Mouchel carried out an outline engineering assessment of the preferred option at each location to determine if the solutions were appropriate;

Scarborough Critical Junctions: Economic Assessment Report, WSP 2018 – this is the most recent work to date, consisting of an economic appraisal of each of the preferred designs which were reviewed by Mouchel. This also included further refining of junction designs and costs, with updated modelling results.

The identified junction improvements were therefore classed as critical, to enable the delivery of the local growth agenda as set out in the Scarborough Borough Local Plan. The growth set out in the Local Plan was supported by the Local Highway Authority (North Yorkshire County Council) on the basis of the improvement to the identified critical junctions. The supporting wording of Policy T1 in the Local Plan specifically identified the junctions in question; it is stated within the Local Plan that ‘The following junctions will require improvement over the Plan period…’. The non-delivery of the junction mitigation works would jeopardise future housing growth and wider economic development that would be enabled by the Local Plan (July 2017). From an operational perspective, the key objectives of the scheme is to:

Improve junction capacity;

Improve road safety;

Reduce congestion; and

Enable shorter and more reliable journey times. BASELINE JUNCTION CONDITIONS The delays to journey time have been captured within the data collection and junction capacity modelling as part of work undertaken for the EAR (Appendix A). Base models have been built which reflect the current situation at each of the junctions during the AM and PM peak periods. The models developed as part of Stage 2 of the study have been validated against queue data received from the traffic surveys commissioned at an earlier stage of the project, in order to provide results which reflect the current situation. With the current base layout, the junctions are forecast (2032) to experience queues of up to:

4

Table 1 – Baseline Condition Queueing Results (Worst Case Arm)

2018 AM 2018 PM 2032 AM 2032 PM

Falsgrave Road / Scalby Road 7.0 10.0 28.3 42.5

Manor Road / Scalby Road 2.7 4.5 5.5 16.4

Scalby Road / Stepney Drive 20.8 58.7 42.5 127.9

Stepney Road / Stepney Drive 11.0 9.5 56.4 49.8

All results for the base layout, as well as future design year are encompassed within Appendix B.

B2 Rationale for intervention

Please explain why the project is needed. This should include a clear analysis of the issues you are addressing

and/or the market need or failure. Reference or attach evidence to support. (max 500 words)

The Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) sets out the importance of the economic success of the Yorkshire Coast, and that Scarborough & Bridlington have the greatest potential for growth, fulfilling roles of principal towns in the planning hierarchy. They are home to a large number of small and medium enterprises, many new business start-ups, and some larger firms that support the economy along a significant length of the Yorkshire Coast. Persistent challenges for coastal areas are just as much in evidence along the Yorkshire Coast, as anywhere. Unemployment, deprivation & skills issues are present in varying degrees across all the coastal towns, and there is a need to strengthen the tourism offer and diversify the economy. There continues to be unprecedented economic growth in the Scarborough area with an estimated £2bn of investment through Potash Mining Development, Offshore Renewables, Engineering & Manufacturing, Sports Village, Education & Skills including the University & University Technical College. Construction to support the housing growth set out in the Scarborough Borough Local Plan (LP). One of the region’s largest housing schemes is under construction at Middle Deepdale, Eastfield (1450 homes), followed by Phase 2 (1200 homes) and an even larger scheme at South of Cayton (2500 homes). Economic growth of circa 10,000 jobs and a population of 20,000 persons is anticipated. The town is also a honeypot for tourism with in excess of 3m day visitors per year. The Scarborough Borough Local Plan proposes a total of approx. 10,000 homes across the Borough during the LP period (2011-2032), the majority of which will be within the Scarborough urban area. This equates to a rate of 450 units per annum (as Figure 2 below). This places particular pressure on the role of the critical junctions of this within Scarborough. To accommodate this housing and employment growth, the infrastructure needs to be improved to deal with increased demand.

5

Figure 2 - Scarborough Housing Trajectory

Source: Scarborough Borough Council Local Plan (2011-2032) – Annex C However, traffic studies and modelling show that 4 critical junctions in the existing town centre are already operating at or above their design capacity. Forecasts for future traffic, housing and economic growth will further exacerbate the situation. The Local Plan is now adopted and the highways authority, North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC), supported the growth agenda subject to realistic plans for capacity improvements at the 4 critical junctions, including their funding. There is currently no likelihood of this package of works being supported through the NYCC Highways Capital Programme, and the Borough Council is unable to invest in this significant capital investment. Nor is it possible to attribute the increase in traffic at the junctions to any specific developments or sites due to their central location – as well as this, due to the significance of the scheme, it is unrealistic for a single development proposal to support the scheme financially. However, investment is required in order to deliver the Local Plan developments without unacceptable long-term impacts on the local road. Additionally, if S106 contributions were used to fund the whole package, the period of time over time which unacceptable highway impacts would be experienced by road users would be unreasonable and would lead to a stifling of economic development.

Please explain why Local Growth Funding (i.e. public sector intervention) is required, what it will specifically

fund and what evidence of market failure is there. Reference or attach evidence to support this. (max 500

words)

The required junction improvements at four sites will cost approx. £3.8 million (2018 prices), which includes carriageway resurfacing, risk and optimism bias. The Highway Authority, North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC), has indicated that these improvements cannot be accommodated within the current or forward programme for Highways Capital Works. Due to the likely timescales for progression of housing allocations within the Local Plan, the indication from the NYCC is that a point will be reached where objections to housing sites will be raised without the means of the junction improvements being identified. Local Growth Funding is being sought as it is the only feasible option available to enable the junction improvements to be implemented, and delivered within the timescales available, to support the unencumbered passage of the housing allocations within the Local Plan to delivery. A contribution towards the scheme construction will be provided by NYCC and SBC equating to a total of £300k NYCC. The remaining fee will be made up of local contributions already secured through Section 106 funding of

6

the amount £75k – it is currently unknown whether or not future schemes can contribute to the junction’s improvements, as well as when these contributions would come forward. The funding arrangement is found within the Table below. Table 2 – Funding Arrangements

Contributing Agent Amount

YNYER LEP (subject to approved business case) £3,500,000

NYCC £150,000

SBC £150,000

Developer Contributions £75,000

Total £3,875,000

Please explain what other sources of funding you have tried to secure and what will happen if the project does

not secure LGF.

If the project does not secure LGF, the Local Highway Authority, in its consideration of development proposals,

may be obliged to object to future planning proposals for housing and economic growth which could prevent

the achievement of the growth agenda as set out in the recently adopted Local Plan. There appears to be no

viable and workable alternative means of securing the funding required, however, the following options have

been considered. Whilst neither of the Councils can fully fund the scheme it, should be noted that both

Councils have committed to contributing £150,000 each towards the project in addition to the non-

recoverable elements of the early design and commissioning phases. Prior to looking for LGF funding the other

options considered have included:

a) Community Infrastructure Levy - The preferred route for delivering junction improvements would be

through the inclusion of the identified junctions on the Regulation 123 Schedule that provides the

preferred investment opportunities for monies collected from CIL. This is the route that the Borough

Council would wish to pursue, however, a CIL charge has not been implemented in the Scarborough

Borough Local Plan area to date. CIL was thoroughly investigated over recent years and due to a

combination of low property prices and the depressed housing market, the majority of developments

were found not to be viable. Early work suggested that only Whitby had the ability to charge a

reasonable CIL charge, however, the majority of infrastructure requirements were in Scarborough

(the junctions). For these reasons CIL was not taken forward, and whilst this may be reviewed in the

future there are no plans to do so in the short term and would therefore not be progressed in time to

assist with the work required to the four critical junctions. There are remains uncertainties with

potential Government changes to CIL.

b) Apportioning Commuted Sums from Local Plan Housing Allocations - Whilst the primary for

apportionment of the cost of highway mitigation works in relation to housing allocations is well

established in general, this approach cannot be applied across the whole area in the case of

Scarborough. The junctions to the southern part of the urban area - both Dunslow Road Roundabout

and Musham Bank Roundabout - are closely related to development within the southern part of the

town at Eastfield, Cayton and Osgodby. However, the remainder of the junctions which have been

highlighted through the traffic study work cannot be easily attributed to specific development sites,

either in the recent past or the future. The junctions in question are on the established highway

network of the existing town centre, and have only reached capacity through incremental

development of the town as a whole, and over an extended period of time.

c) Other Relevant Developments - Housing is not the only form of development that can both impact on

junctions, and therefore contribute towards mitigation measures. Through planning consultations,

North Yorkshire County Council (Highways) will continue to ensure that the wider junction issues

identified through the modelling work to date are fully considered and take full account of the wider

implications of all development types, requiring mitigation measures or a financial contributions

when appropriate and viable. However, for the four critical junctions there is no opportunity for this

approach in the foreseeable future.

7

Increasing congestion resulting from constraints at the critical junction locations within Scarborough would

significantly hinder the development and success of the Scarborough Local Plan, thus would have a significant

impact on the economy, not only within Scarborough, but across the wider region of North Yorkshire.

Please explain what the critical success factors are for the project and list the criteria against which you will

assess the successful delivery of the project.

Measurable operational indicators will be: a) Improved capacity; b) Reduced queuing and delays; c) Improved journey times; and d) Improved overall road safety.

These indicators will be assessed through surveys at an appropriate date after completion of the works. The overall success in meeting the factors outlined above is summarised within the EAR appended. The main critical success factor of the project is the delivery of 4 improved junctions with increased capacity which will, in turn, lead to:

a) Removal of potential for objection by the Highway Authority to future housing and economic planning proposals;

b) The delivery of said housing (circa 7,500 homes across Scarborough and 10,000 across the wider Borough area); and

c) Economic growth of the town and Borough with greater inward investment due to the removal of potential barriers (poorly functioning infrastructure).

B3 Beneficiaries

Please explain who the principal beneficiaries of the project are and how they will benefit.

The beneficiaries are as follows: a) The public and road users through less congested roads and faster travel times; b) Businesses will benefit from faster travel times for staff and business trips (to and from); c) Visiting population will benefit from improved capacity on roads, which in turn benefits local

businesses in the tourism, hospitality and related industries as it will encourage repeat visits; d) The local population will benefit from potential new business investments in the area resulting in job

opportunities and economic opportunities; and e) Bus operators will benefit from increased capacity on the roads and junctions which in turn will

benefit the local population. There will significantly benefit to private investors and business by facilitating the growth set out in the Local Plan. This investment will benefit the local residential population which will lead to a more sustainable town as the population increases, thereby supporting local services and businesses.

Part C

OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

C1 Options Analysis

Please append a full Options Analysis. This should include:-

A description of each option you have considered for the delivery of the project objectives.

Considered in relation to scope, project activity, delivery/implementation and funding. Include a “do

nothing” option.

A SWOT analysis for each option (Appendix D)

Quantified costs and benefits with an explanation of how you calculated the benefits (attached).

A risk assessment for each project, completing TEMPLATE A in the business case pack to score each

risk for each option. Using that completed template, identify the constraints and dependencies of

8

each option.

Please set out below, using your appended options analysis, a ranking for each of the options considered in

priority order.

The main objective of the junction improvement schemes outlined is to improve capacity within Scarborough town centre which would subsequently resolve pre-existing traffic flow issues. This would have a profound impact on indirect factors such as the economy by significantly reducing journey times for vehicles utilising these junctions on their route. OPTIONS TESTED Option 1 – Do-Nothing The Do-Nothing scenario assumes that no highway interventions are implemented at each of the junctions within the study. Option 2 – Do-Something The Do-Something Scenario consists of improvements to 4 key junctions within Scarborough, as developed by WSP. The details of the improvements tested within the Economic Assessment Report (Appendix A) are as below:

Falsgrave Road / Scalby Road - The proposed design at this junction includes an additional lane entering the junction via Falsgrave Road to enable right-turn movements from Falsgrave and left turn movements from Scalby Road to be accommodated more efficiently. This proposed improvement allows for vehicles to travel more freely through the junction, reducing delay and queuing. Additionally, there is currently only one pedestrian crossing located at this junction to the south west along Stepney Road.

Scalby Road / Manor Road - The design includes the widening of Manor Road and Scalby Road South, which will serve to increase the capacity on each of the arms by allowing northbound turning movements to operate simultaneously. By widening the northbound lane on Scalby Road to accommodate 2 lanes of traffic, this significantly reduces the occurrence of ‘blocking back’, thus allowing for more efficient traffic flow through the junction during the peak periods.

Scalby Road / Stepney Drive - The proposed design, as with the Stepney Road / Falsgrave Road junction, is to signalise the junction, which includes an additional lane on Scalby Road East, increasing the capacity of the junction. A traffic signal controlled layout at this junction will allow movements from Stepney Drive to have a segregated stream, thus reducing delay and journey time. Additionally, by signalising this junction, this will allow for better interaction between Stepney Drive / Scalby Road junction and Scalby Road / Woodlands Drive, ensuring staging sequences allow the most efficient movements of traffic during peak hours.

Stepney Road / Sandybed Lane - The proposed design includes widening to provide two lane entries on all but Sandybed Lane. The proposals better accommodate the main streams of traffic entering the junction via Stepney Road West and Stepney Drive, thus reducing queues experienced and decreasing journey times through the junction; this is summarised later in this section.

The designs outlined within the Do-Something above are a result of several stages of preliminary designs. The table below summarises the development of these designs across the traffic studies produced to date. Table 3 – Junction Improvements Design Development

Junction Option Development Assessment

Falsgrave Road / Scalby Road

(N)

PBA (2011) Signalised junction with 2 lanes on all approaches with crossing facilities on Stepney Road and Scalby Road.

Will not improve the operation of the junction.

Jacobs (2012) Signalised Junction with 2 lanes on Stepney approaches with refuse islands on Stepney Road and Scalby Road.

Land acquisition required and risk of significant impact on Statutory Undertakers’ apparatus.

Mouchel (2016) Signalised junction with two lanes on all approaches with signalised pedestrian crossings on Scalby Road and

No pedestrian facilities on Stepney Road.

9

Falsgrave Road.

WSP (2018) Signalised junction with 2 lanes on each arm and a contraflow system within the veterinary surgery and Sam Mews. Puffin crossing added to accommodate pedestrian movements.

Provides improved capacity – requires LGF funding.

Scalby Road / Manor Road

(O)

PBA (2011) New signalised junction with two lane approaches on Scalby Road south, single lane approaches on Manor Road and Scalby Road north, and pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms.

Will not improve the operation of the junction.

Jacobs (2012) Realignment of the roundabout to accommodate two lanes on each of the arms.

Departure from standards identified within design.

Mouchel (2016) Realignment of the roundabout to accommodate two lanes on each of the arms.

Compliant design with extra carriageway, increasing junction footprint

WSP (2018) Reworking of Mouchel (2012) design to accommodate 2 lane approaches on Scalby Road south and Manor road, with single lane approach on Scalby Road north. Scalby Road south exit is widened slightly to improve traffic flow at the junction.

Provides improved capacity using DMRB standards with a smaller junction footprint

Scalby Road / Stepney Drive

(Q)

PBA (2011) Widening of Scalby Road to create two lane approaches as well as the signalisation of Scalby Road / Woodlands Ravine junction.

Will not improve the operation of the junction.

Jacobs (2012) Signalisation of Scalby Road/Stepney Drive with Scalby Road/Woodlands Ravine remaining as a priority T-junction.

Additional testing identified significant levels of lost time associated with private drives not directly signal controlled.

Mouchel (2016) Signalisation of Scalby Road/Stepney Drive with Scalby Road/Woodlands Ravine becomes one-way.

Potential risk of congestion between Woodlands Drive and Stepney Drive junctions to be rectified in detailed design.

WSP (2018) Signalisation of both Woodlands Drive and Stepney Drive Junctions, as well as Woodlands Ravine converted to a one-way system. This design also includes signalised provisions for pedestrians at all junctions.

Provides improved capacity with consideration for inter-junction traffic flow.

Stepney Road / Sandybed Lane

(P)

PBA (2011) Widening of Stepney Road east and Stepney Drive to accommodate two lanes.

Assessment did not consider unequal lane usage, nor did it improve operation of junction.

Jacobs (2012) Extension of the existing layout of the junction footprint requiring land take. This allowed for two lane entries on all arms of the junction.

Design not in accordance with DMRB standards.

Mouchel (2016) Two lanes to be provided on each of the arms at this junction in accordance with DMRB, generating large junction footprint.

Design addresses DMRB standards, but design is above operational capacity on 3 arms.

10

WSP (2018) Expansion of the junction footprint to accommodate two lane entries on Stepney Road east and west as well as Stepney Drive.

Provides improved capacity using DMRB standards with less land take required.

REFERENCES (reports can be provided if required) 1. Scarborough LDF Junction Review, PBA 2011; 2. Scarborough Local Development Framework: Additional Junction Testing Summary, Jacobs 2012; 3. Scarborough LEP: Junction Testing, Mouchel 2016 4. Scarborough Critical Junctions: Economic Assessment Report, WSP 2018

PRIORITY ORDER The priority order for the options developed is: 1. Option 2 2. Option 1 Each of the options aim to improve capacity and traffic management at the junctions, thereby ensuring the facilitation of future planned and committed developments within Scarborough. Detailed designs of each junction improvement scheme for the ‘option 2’ scenario can be found in Appendix B alongside this document. Additionally, a detailed risk assessment has been appended to this document using the LEP Template A format. Please set out your preferred option and why each of the others considered have been ruled out.

1) Option 2 The Do-Something Scenario, which comprises junction improvements at the 4 critical junctions within Scarborough is the preferred option emerging from the EAR (Appendix A). This scenario addresses the main objectives of the project, whilst maintaining high Benefit to Cost Ratios (BCRs). In order to ensure robustness within the assessment of the preferred option, 19% Optimum Bias and Risk has been applied to cost estimates as a sensitivity test – this is shown within the quantified costs and benefits documents attached.

2) Option 1 The Do-Nothing scenario, which would see no junction improvements is considered to be unviable given the strategic importance of each of the junctions. This option is unstainable in regarding to junction capacity, and with the forecast growth in traffic conditions congestion and journey times are likely to worsen exponentially without action. Furthermore, increased delays and congestion has potential to reduce safety at selected junctions due to increase driver impatience and frustration.

Part D

PROJECT ASSESSMENT

D1 Strategic Fit Assessment

Please explain how the project relates to Local, LEP and National strategies, policies and initiatives. (max. 500

words)

LOCAL Scarborough Borough Council Local Plan (2011-2032) Some of the key aims/policies within the Local Plan include:

To facilitate the delivery of a range of housing to meet local needs (Polices HC1, HC2 and HC3);

To support growth and diversify the economic base including the rural and marine economy (Policy EG2, EG3, EG4 and EG5);

To make best use of existing infrastructure and secure new or improved infrastructure where required (Policy INF1, INF2, INF5);

To enhance accessibility and connectivity to and from key services between settlements and outside of the Borough (Policy INF1, INF2, INF5).

In the case of the Local Plan for Scarborough Borough Council the indication is that the four critical junctions remaining as they are understood to give rise to objection from the Local Highway Authority as the growth of the town progresses over the coming years. This stands to create a definite potential barrier to the progress of

11

future planning applications specifically for residential development but also including other economic growth proposals. North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan (2016-2045) Within LTP4, objectives include:

Easing congestion in key growth towns;

Enhance the reliability of our transport network.

Contributing to economic growth by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks Forecast conditions suggest that within 2032, the 4 junctions within Scarborough will experience considerable levels of delays, queuing and congestion. Therefore, the schemes discussed within the EAR and option testing suggest that there is an alignment with the vision of NYCC in easing congestion and improving journey time reliability within Scarborough. REGIONAL LEP Strategic Economic Plan The SEP sets out the importance of the economic success of the Yorkshire Coast, and that Scarborough and Bridlington have the greatest potential for growth, fulfilling the role of principal towns in the planning hierarchy, and as major centres of employment, housing, tourism, education, skills, leisure and entertainment. Within the context of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) for York North Yorkshire and East Riding is a pipeline of strategic interventions that will drive economic growth along the Yorkshire Coast, primarily in Scarborough and Bridlington; the two largest towns which have the greatest potential to generate economic growth. The proposed measure of interventions will contribute to the implementation of the various strategies outlined within the SEP by facilitating a more efficient transport network within the town centre which will influence economic growth, as well as the development of housing and leisure. If funding can be secured to enable the junction improvements to go ahead, then this potential barrier to the growth agenda for the town can be removed and this would align strongly with Priority 4 and 5 of the SEP: Successful and distinctive places, and a well-connected economy. NATIONAL Transport Investment Strategy National policy outlines a need to ‘create more reliable, less congested, and better-connected transport networks’ and ‘support the creation of new housing’. The critical junctions within Scarborough, by reducing congestion and delays within forecast years, address the issues outline within national policy, giving suggesting they are of significant strategic importance, not only locally and regionally, but also on a national level.

D2 Economic Impact Assessment

Please describe how the project will contribute to economic growth and the wider economic, social and

environmental benefits it will deliver. (max 500 words.) Please append any economic impact analysis or other

evidence to support economic growth.

The Borough’s economy has long been dependent upon the tourism industries. It still forms a key part of the economy, with the Borough drawing on a yearly influx of visitors to the area; over 7 million visitors are attracted to the Borough annually, spending upwards of £442 million. In terms of employment, the tourism industry accounts for approximately 18% of all jobs in the Borough (around 7,500 jobs). However, taking into account related employment in other forms of hospitality, food and drink and tourism related retail the overall figure is thought to be upwards of 40% with over 13,000 FTE jobs and almost 18,000 actual positions (Source: The Economic Impact of Tourism on Scarborough District 2016 : Tourism South East Research Unit). A high proportion of these jobs are part-time and low-paid, reflecting the seasonal nature of the tourism industry. Outside of the tourism industry, figures extracted from the NOMIS website show that the ‘public administration, education & health’ sector accounts for 32% of all jobs in the Borough, which is above the national average of 27%. The manufacturing industry also plays an important role in the local economy, providing 10% of all jobs, which is higher than the national average of 8%. It is notable that a high proportion of people working in the Borough are self-employed (14%), which compares to the national average of 11%. The rate of unemployment (3.8%) is currently lower than the national average (4.5%).

12

In terms of incomes and earnings, a significant proportion of the resident population fall within low income brackets. The average weekly income for people working in the Borough is also significantly below the regional and national averages, with an average weekly gross income of £480. As a comparison the average weekly wage for the region is £502 and nationally £553. Moving forward, there is a need to diversify the economic base to reduce the reliance on tourism and make the economy more resilient to long-term change. By supporting local businesses and promoting the development of employment sectors with growth potential, new jobs can be delivered, helping to address many of the current employment issues in the Borough. Additionally, regarding the local environment, there is an aim within the Scarborough Local Plan to minimise the impacts of the built environment on climate change. Where junctions have reduced capacity, and significant levels of congestion, more greenhouse gases are emitted from vehicles. Thus, with the forecasted levels of growth, it is anticipated that both air quality and vehicular emissions such as Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would be impacted upon in a negative manner. This illustrates the need for the scheme in order to reduce waiting times at the 4 junctions, thus improving air quality and reducing harmful emissions omitted as a result of vehicle waiting times. The emergence of new economic sectors in the area has the potential to attract a new range of businesses. The successful adoption of the Local Plan for the Borough was fundamental to achieving the much needed economic growth, and ensuring that it can be delivered through sustainable approaches which will balance housing provision with education, employment, and community development. Now this is adopted it is necessary to ensure that the development of the Local Plan proposes can become a reality and existing constraints such as junction capacity can be overcome.

D3 Value for Money Assessment

Using a completed Template B, please provide details of the outputs to be generated by the project. These

need to directly relate to the LEP strategic economic plan and should be proportionate to the funding

requested. Also detail any additional outputs over and above those contracted with the LEP.

The implementation of the junction improvements proposed within this submission convey Very High Value

for Money (VfM), based upon WebTAG guidance 3.5.4. The main output of the junction improvements is that,

along with other schemes such as the opening of South Scarborough Strategic Growth Area, they will enable

the facilitation of the Local Plan.

Benefits have been calculated according to WebTAG guidance in order to appraise each of the junction

improvements, as well as the scheme as a whole, which comprises 4 junctions. The WebTAG compliant EAR

undertaken by WSP on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council shows that, within the Do-Something

scenario, which includes junction improvements at 4 critical points on the transport network, a BCR of 12.14

was generated within the EAR, illustrating very high VfM when assessed against appraisal costs (PVC) of £2.5m,

including 25% Risk and 44% Optimism.

Since the EAR was produced, the cost estimates have been updated, accounting for statutory undertakers. The

revised cost of the scheme equates to £3.5m, including 19% Risk. An Optimism Bias of 15% has been applied to

the overall cost of the scheme for the purpose of economic appraisal only in line with DfT guidance. WebTAG

Unit A1.2 Scheme Costs states that “The function of optimism bias adjustments is to confirm that the

economic case remains robust if historically observed cost overrun were to be repeated and are most

applicable when the cost estimate is immature, i.e. when there are significant elements of the project that are

not defined or understood, and/or when there is evidence that the QRA is systematically underestimating

costs.”. With the revised appraisal costs (PVC) of £2.6m, the scheme exhibits very high VfM with a BCR value of

11.87. Using COBALT, it is anticipated that the implementation of the scheme would generate £2.2m worth of

accident benefits across all 4 of the critical junctions.

13

A summary of the updated appraisal costs benefits is shown within Addendum 1 of this document, which

includes journey and accident benefits, as well as Present Value Benefits (PVB), and this demonstrates very

high and robust value for money. It should be noted that this analysis does not include wider economic

benefits associated with the scheme which are expected to be substantial. For further details on the updated

BCR, please see the Appendix E.

Template B (Appendix C) summarises the projected outputs resulting from the implementation of the scheme.

Please explain what leverage from public and private sources of funding the project will secure.

Initially NYCC and SBC will provide investments of £150k each (split equally between the Borough and County

Council), which will be put towards the junction mitigation works. In addition to the local authority

contributions, there will be a further £75k invested into the scheme as a result of developer contributions (this

is summarised within Table 2, Section B2).

The successful mitigation of capacity issues will ensure the delivery of the growth agenda of the Borough

Council as set out in the Local Plan. This equates to 450 dwellings per annum. The current average price of a

home in Scarborough Borough is circa £155,000. This equates to circa £70m of property being built within the

Borough each year and a subsequent population increase of up to 950 persons year on year. This level of

growth will have a substantial impact on the economy in terms of the service and leisure sector and will

further encourage inward investment into the area.

Please explain why your proposal constitutes value for money, detailing your assumptions. (Reference/append

any comparator projects or benchmarks that support your case).

The appraisal approach taken in assessing the value for money associated with the Scarborough junction

improvements has been implemented according to WebTAG Unit A1-1 ‘Cost Benefit Analysis’, with journey

time savings from the junction modelling results monetised using value of time figures, derived from WebTAG.

Monetised benefits have been calculated over a 60-year period from the scheme opening year (2032).

WebTAG guidance has been applied in terms of costs, and in compliance with the HM Treasury (2011)

‘Greenbook: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government’.

An EAR has been produced as part of the appraisal of the Scarborough Critical Junctions improvements, which

outlines designs, modelling results and benefits associated with the junction improvement schemes in

question. Additionally, this report summarises the overall value for money of the schemes. Full details of the

appraisal in the scheme are found within Appendix E.

Since the development of the EAR, cost updates have been carried out. A summary of benefits per design with updated QS costs are shown in Table 4 below. Table 4 - Stage 2 Benefit to Cost Ratios and VfM statement for each junction design

Junctions BCR PVB PVC VfM

N 3.99 £3,583,301 £711,371 High

O 19.18 £842,910 £127,607 Very High

P 11.39 £7,340,725 £786,444 Very High

Q 16.89 £15,950,859 £927,634 Very High

The above results show that all of the junctions exhibit ‘High’ or ‘Very High’ value for money. As a combined set of results, the scheme, when costs are considered, generated as BCR figure of 11.87 (as outlined in section D3 of this submission). Scheme costs have been generated by WSP on the behalf of NYCC. The junction cost estimates, which are in 2018 prices, have been discounted to 2010 values as required by guidance as the basis of the costs and benefits of the improvement scheme. The costs developed for the purpose of the study are inclusive of:

14

2.5% inflation; and

19% Risk. With the costs discounted to 2010 values, this formulates the Present Value of Costs (PVC), while benefits for the scheme have been formulated from time-savings as a result of the junction improvements, these are the Present Value of Benefits (PVB). Each of the improvements address current capacity and congestion issues experienced on the network – a failure to invest in such infrastructure would curtail economic and housing growth trajectories as the baseline condition worsens exponentially in future years. The inclusion of Optimism Bias illustrates that, when costs are elevated the scheme still delivered very high value for money. Additionally, although it is difficult to attribute the direct economic benefits associated with the junction improvements, in general Scarborough needs to achieve the following strategy growth objectives by 2033:

Creation of 10,000 new and replacement jobs;

Build 9,000+ new homes; and

Achieve overall economic growth of 20%. The Scarborough Critical junction improvements, alongside other infrastructure schemes such as the A64 upgrade, are therefore essential in unlocking these growth figures, as without them the borough would be constrained severely in meeting strategic growth objectives. Full summary of results within Appendix A.

Part E

PROJECT COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL & LEGAL ASSESSMENT

E1 Project Impact

Please explain what the project outcomes will ultimately be (Define the goods/services to be provided other

than the actual capital/infrastructure works). Please provide evidence of how these have been calculated.

Ultimately the aim of the project is to significantly improve the road junctions within Scarborough that have been outlined within the brief. This would improve route and journey time reliability for residents, businesses and goods/materials which utilise the junctions regularly. The project outcome will be the delivery of 4 junction schemes to increase capacity and improve traffic flow. This in turn will lead to the wider outcomes of:

a) Housing delivery; b) Economic growth and inward investment; and c) Retained and increased tourism.

As well as addressing key aims of the Local Plan and other regional policy, the scheme has a profound impact on the base condition of each of the four junctions as well as forecast conditions. The EAR illustrates that all of the proposed designs significantly improve capacity and traffic flow at each of the junctions. Furthermore, direct benefits have been calculated over a 60-year period for the Do-Something scheme using WebTAG guidance:

Journey Time savings – 137.7k hrs/year

Accident Benefits – £2,194.9k

Monetised Benefits – £28,120.5k

E2 Commercial and Financial Assessment

Using TEMPLATE C, please provide a financial breakdown over the next 5 years of delivery. Please also

append;

A forecast project capital cashflow highlighting when the different funding contributions are

expected to be received.

15

A detailed operational monthly cashflow of all income and expenditure for the first five years of

the project to prove its sustainability. (Please disregard any inflation estimate so any changes in

assumptions can be readily seen).

Table 5 – Scheme Costs

Construction Costs

Stats/ Fees / Land

Sub-Total Risk @19% Total

Junction N Stepney Rd/Falsgrave Rd

447,629 459,790 907,419 172,500

Junction O Scaly Rd/Manor Rd

132,714 30,060 162,774 30,900

Junction P Stepney Dr/Sandybed Ln

445,811 557,369 1,003,180 190,600

Junction Q Scalby Rd/Stepney Dr

920,447 262,834 1,183,281 225,000

3,256,654 619,000 3,875,654

Project Costs

(a) Who has prepared the project

capital costs?

WSP

(b) On what basis have the project

costs been prepared?

Project costs have been developed from detailed designs and

including cost estimates for statutory undertakers for diversion of

apparatus.

(c) Have the project costs been

tested robustly and how?

The costs are based on standard 2018 QS rates which are compiled

from the database of national construction costs. Preliminary designs

have been created at each stage of the study, examining the detail of

each item. Risk has been applied to the designs, and optimism bias

included within the appraisal process to account for any unknowns. A

risk register is appended to this document.

(d) Are cost overruns provided for

within your organisation?

The Service Level Agreement between NYCC and SBC provides a

budget for these circumstances

(e) Has your organisation identified

a contingency budget? If so, how

much?

A contingency budget of 19% for Risk has been built into the cost

estimates. In addition, Optimism Bias of 15% has been included in the

Economic Appraisal.

(f) Does your organisation

guarantee to absorb any cost

increases? If not, who is?

The Service Level Agreement between NYCC and SBC provides a

budget for these circumstances.

Please provide a copy of the last 3 years’ accounts from your organisation.

North Yorkshire County Council accounts:

https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/financial-information

Scarborough County Council accounts:

https://www.scarborough.gov.uk/home/open-data-and-foi/budget-and-finance

Please explain what the VAT status of your organisation is and confirm whether all costs are inclusive or net

of VAT.

All costs are net of VAT.

E3 Risk Assessment

Building on the economic assessment options analysis in Part C, please complete TEMPLATE D risk register

for your chosen option. Please highlight below the inherent risks associated with your project and your

mitigation for these.

A complete risk register is found in Appendix C.

16

Risk Category Risk Mitigation

Funding There are risks associated with the failure to secure funding to implement the schemes

Contributions by both NYCC and SBC, as well as developer

contributions through S106 will be provided to mitigate risks

Safety

Safety concerns may arise in the construction and implementation of the junctions in a live traffic

environment, as well as the design of the junctions.

Road Safety audits will alleviate the change of safety issues at the

junctions

Technical Risks associated with issues during the design

stage, such as unforeseen statutory undertakers apparatus.

Detailed investigations and costing carried out to account for

issues arising around statutory undertakers apparatus.

Stakeholders Impact on service users and providers within the

vicinity of each of the junction improvement schemes.

Engagement with stakeholders as well as local representative,

businesses and service providers.

Legal Regulatory process in place which delay the

implementation of the schemes.

Statutory consultations to be undertaken prior to the delivery

of the scheme.

Costs Costs may be inflated/overrun.

Cost estimates have been generated with an additional

19% risk to account for unknown costs.

Programme The programme for the delivery of the scheme

may overrun

Engagement with relevant stakeholders to ensure effective programme management and

emergency response protocols.

E4 State Aid and Legal Assessment

Please explain how the project fits with the current State Aid regulations. (The York, North Yorkshire and

East Riding Local Enterprise Partnership cannot support proposals which constitute unlawful state aid).

The project does not constitute State Aid. The improvements will form part of the publicly adopted road

network. The benefit of the junction improvements is accrued by both road users and all undertakings in

the locality, on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. This benefit does not affect trade between EU

Member states and is unlikely to distort competition.

Please outline any public funding your organisation or your partner organisations have received in the last 3

years including the amounts and the purpose of the funding.

NYCC and SBC are publicly funded bodies.

Please detail your procurement strategy outlining any procurement to be undertaken, respecting all

appropriate UK/EU regulations.

Standard NYCC procurement of Highway works via the NYCC Civil Engineering Contractors Framework.

Please explain whether there is any land or property linked to the project that a charge to secure the

investment can be made against. If required, would your organisation be willing and able to grant a legal

charge in favour of a third party?

Across the scheme, there is a small section of land required for the Stepney Road / Falsgrave Road

junctions. In order to do this, SBC will carry out the land negotiations and will also start a CPO at the same

time to ensure the land will be acquired.

Part F

17

PROJECT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT

F1 Project Management

Please explain why your organisation is best placed to deliver this project and how it fits with your

organisational strategy. (max 500 words)

NYCC and SBC will jointly deliver this project.

NYCC is the Local Highway Authority and directly manages the local highway network including the junctions

requiring upgrades. It has a long history of delivering major highway works to DfT’s stringent standards in

additional to delivering its own program of improvement works, which are similar in nature and scale to those

proposed. The Councils local highway Area Office, based at Whitby will manage the delivery of the

improvement schemes. This team has significant experience in managing and delivering both maintenance

and improvement works.

SBC is the Local Planning Authority and has successfully delivered a sound Local Plan which was adopted on 3

July 2017. The Local Plan sets out the vision and objectives for the borough, allocates sites for housing and

other forms of development for the Scarborough Borough area.

Please provide information about your project management and delivery arrangements. Detail below the

project team members and their role in delivering your proposal, together with details of experience and track

record in delivering similar investments.

Team Member Details of role and previous experience in delivering a project of this type

Project Board

Barrie Mason

Assistant Director of Highways and

Transportation, NYCC

Over 20 years experience delivering capital highway projects

including several years as assistant director responsible for a

£35-45m per year maintenance budget. Strategic lead of

highways team

Michael Leah

Assistant Director Strategic Resources, NYCC

Financial management and procurement

Richard Bradley

Commercial Director, SBC

Financial Management and experience delivering large public

projects

Project Managers

Helen Watson

Improvements Manager Area 3 Whitby,

NYCC

Local Area input, experience in management and delivery of

highway schemes and public consultations

James Kennedy

Senior Engineer, NYCC

Project delivery lead, coordinating the delivery of the junction

improvements

Steve Wilson

Forward Planning Manager, SBC

Lead officer on the SBC Local Plan, experience of the planning

system and working with the local community and other

interested parties

Project Assurance

Gary Fielding

Corporate Director Strategic Resources,

NYCC

Financial management and procurement

Richard Bradley

Commercial Director, SBC

Financial management and procurement

Internal Project Resources

NYCC Local Area Team, Whitby Office

Richard Marr

Area Traffic Manager

Manager of the Whitby Highways team. Significant experience

in programming works, design and overseeing projects.

18

Karen Hebron

Maintenance Manager

Local area input relating to future management, maintenance

of the network and traffic management

NYCC – Traffic Engineering

Peter Horne

Traffic Signals and Signing Engineer

Detailed implementation of signal designs, providing input into

designs and specifications

WSP (NYCC’s Consultants)

Jon Phillip

Transport Planner

Assessment of impact of the proposed designs from an

operation perspective and economic perspective

David Hirst

Engineer

Provision of detailed designs and costs to oversee

implementation of improvements

External Project Resources

As detailed in the team structure, WSP, NYCC traffic signals.

Please describe the structure of the project management team and responsibilities within and outline your

strategy in the event of the loss of key personnel. (Append an organogram including partners also highlighting

any SLAs between partners)

19

Loss of key personnel would be dealt with through project change management arrangements and would be

resolved through organisational structures. A major part of the project will be delivered through NYCC’s

engineering consultants WSP, which brings additional resilience to project delivery through its corporate

resources.

Please outline the track record of the organisation in delivering this type of project. (Have previous projects

been delivered to budget and time?)

NYCC, the Local Highway Authority, oversees the delivery of Major DfT funded schemes, such as the Scarborough Integrated Transport Strategy, the Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass (BALB) , and highway improvements across the county and are experienced in delivering works to a high standard.

Please provide details of any external consultants/specialist advisers involved in the project and their role.

Project Board

Barrie Mason – As Director of Business and

Environment, Strategic Transportation Lead

Richard Bradley – Commercial Director, SBC

Michael Leah – As Director Strategic

Resources

Project Management

Helen Watson – Improvement Manager

James Kennedy – Senior Engineer

Steve Wilson – Forward Planning Manager SBC

Project Assurance

Gary Fielding – Corporate Director

(NYCC)

Richard Bradley – Commercial Director

SBC

Internal Resources NYCC

Local Area Highways Team : Richard Marr Karen Hebron Bridge and Design Services Traffic Engineering Peter Horne - Traffic signals and signing engineer

External Resources

WSP

Statutory consultees

Assurance

Authority

Advice

20

As detailed in the team structure, WSP, NYCC traffic signals.

F2 Contract Management

Please describe your contract management arrangements.

This is set out in the Service Level Agreement between NYCC and SBC. NYCC will let the contracts for the

delivery of the improvements in accordance with NYCC’s standing orders, policies and procedures for

procurement and financial due diligence.

F3 Performance Management and Evaluation

Please describe your project monitoring and reporting arrangements you have in place to ensure the project

will be delivered to budget and time.

The delivery team and LEP will be issued with monthly progress updates, outlining any changes to the

proposed programme and key milestones met. Regular progress meeting for both the project board and

project managers will continue to take place. NYCC and SBC will provide updates to members and key

stakeholders throughout the scheme.

The project will be monitored alongside the c£40m per year programme of highway capital schemes.

Please describe your change management arrangements.

This is set out within the Service Level Agreement between NYCC and SBC. Most changes will be managed

within the contracts for scheme delivery. Where this is not possible, the proposed changes will be escalated to

the Project Board.

Please describe your risk management arrangements.

Risk has been accounted for within the Project Risk Register (Appendix C).

Risk in the costing of the schemes has been accounted for with the inclusion of significant contingency.

Please describe how your project will be evaluated.

Monitoring of development strategy progress through review of SBC Local Plan.

Please describe your contingency plans. If the project does not go ahead as planned, how will you achieve the

project objectives and outcomes?

Mitigation measures have been outlined within the Risk Register (Appendix C). These are designed to manage

risks expected in a project of this nature. This includes robust cost estimates based upon HMC rates with the

inclusion of 19% contingency. Change management arrangements will enable the project to be delivered

subject to the award of the Local Growth Funding.

It is of high priority for both NYCC and SBC to deliver all of the improvements outlined within this submission.

Preliminary designs produced across the various traffic studies prior to the business case submission

demonstrate a robust optioneering process to account for problems which may be associated with the delivery

of such schemes. Should the project not be delivered, it is anticipated that congestion will increase

exponentially as a result of forecast traffic conditions within Scarborough.

Without the delivery of the critical junction improvements within Scarborough, the Scarborough Local Plan

would be required to be modified to constrain the levels of traffic which will be generated through Local Plan

developments.

Please explain what the planned exit strategy for the project is.

Contract sign off by NYCC and SBC

Management of media by NYCC and SBC

F4 Project Timetable

Estimated project start date April 2019

Estimated project completion date Early 2021

List the key steps and milestones

within the project setting out dates

to be achieved by. (Attach any

project plans/schedule of works

KEY STEPS

Stakeholder consultation (all works) – Nov/Dec 2018

Procurement phase (Junction N) – Jun-Aug 2020

Construction phase (Junction N) – Sept 2020

21

separately). Procurement phase (junction O) – Jan-Mar 2019

Construction phase (Junction O) – April 2019

Procurement phase (Junction P) – Jun-Aug 2019

Construction phase (Junction P) – Sept 2019

Procurement phase (Junction Q) – Jan-Mar 2020

Construction phase (Junction Q) – April 2020

Please set out any approvals that

have already been given or are

required and the dates by which

these are anticipated (e.g. planning

permission)

Subject to completion of a land purchase or CPO all the improvement

works are either adjacent to or wholly within the highway and require

Highways Act approvals alone.

Part 13, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order provides that the following works can be undertaken

by the Local Highways Authorities without the need for planning

permission

A) The carrying out by a local highway authority;

a. On land within the boundaries of a road, or any works required

for the maintenance or improvement of the road, where such

works involve development by virtue of section 55(2) (b) of the

Act or;

b. On land outside but adjoining the boundary of an existing

highway of works required for or incidental to the maintenance or

improvement of the highway.

Part G

Project Confidentiality

The information provided on this form will be considered by the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Local

Enterprise Partnership (YNYERLEP) Board and may be shared with partner organisations in reaching funding

decisions. Summaries of bids may be provided on the YNYERLEP website.

Please tick here to confirm your agreement

Otherwise please ensure that commercially sensitive and confidential information is clearly marked as such in

your project application.

Part H

Declaration

I confirm that the information contained in this proposal form is to the best of my knowledge complete and

accurate

Signature

22

Name Gary Fielding

Position Corporate Director Strategic Resources, NYCC

Date XX October 2018

CHECKLIST

Information Enclosed ( )

Completed Business Case Form

Delivery/Implementation Plan inc.

Schedule of works

Appendix G

Market and/or Economic Impact

Analysis

Section D

Options Analysis Report including

Template A – Options risk

assessment

Appendix A & C

Template B – Outputs Table Appendix C

Value for money calculations and

evidence

Appendix E

Template C – Project Costs and

funding

Appendix C

3 Year accounts of organisation North Yorkshire County Council accounts:

https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/financial-information

Scarborough County Council accounts:

https://www.scarborough.gov.uk/home/open-data-and-foi/budget-

and-finance

Template D – Risk Register Appendix C

State Aid reports Not Required

Procurement Strategy NYCC Procedures

Project Management Team

Organogram, CVs and any Service

Level Agreements

Service Level Agreements to be provided by NYCC/SBC

Planning Permission status:

• Outline

• Detailed / Reserved Matters

• S106

Planning permission not required, however Compulsory Purchase

Order (CPO) of land at Stepney Road / Falsgrave Road is required for

the implementation of this scheme design.

Other permissions / agreements :

• Permissions from owners of

any required third-party

land

• Agreements with highway

authority and / or Highways

Agency to undertake works

to highway

-

Details of property/land involved in

scheme – full address

Full scheme extents outlined within Appendix B.

23

References

-