pcf stage 0 - whatdotheyknow.com

PCF Stage 0

Strategic Outline Business Case

A27 East of Lewes Off-line Study

WSP

September 2018

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Highways England’s information and use in relation to Task 1-400 A27 East of Lewes Off-line Study.

PCF Stage 0: A27 East of Lewes Off-line Study

Document history

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Approved Date

0 Original Draft Theo Genis Sean Boyd Nasar Malik Theo Genis

27.04.18

1 Revised Draft Theo Genis Sean Boyd Nasar Malik Theo Genis

29.06.18

2 Revised Draft Rachel Goodwin

Mahmood Azam

September 18

Client signoff

Client Highways England

Project Task 1-400: A27 east of Lewes off-line study

Document title Strategic Outline Business Case


Table of contents

Chapter Pages

Introduction 5

Strategic Case 5

Economic Case 6

Strategic Case 7

1 Introduction 8

1.1 Background 8

1.2 Overview of Document 8

1.3 Document structure 8

2 The Strategic Case 9

2.1 Summary 9

2.2 Introduction 9

2.3 Business Strategy / Policy Context 11

2.4 Problem Identification 15

2.5 Economic and Social Context 20

2.6 Stakeholder Views 22

2.7 The Case for Change 24

2.8 The Scheme – Objectives and Scope 25

2.9 Measures for Success 29

2.10 Comparison of Dual vs Single Carriageway Interventions 33

2.11 Options Assessment Framework 34

2.12 Delivery Timescales 35

3 Economic Case 37

3.1 Summary of Economic Case 37

3.2 Purpose 37

3.3 Overview of traffic modelling methodology and assumptions 37

3.4 Sources of Costs 40

3.5 Cost Benefit Analysis 41

3.6 Impact on Forecast Journey Times 45

3.7 Assessment of capacity of existing A27 in context of off-line scheme 46

3.8 Discussion of Wider Economic Impacts – The Economic Narrative 46

3.9 Environmental Assessment 48

3.10 Appraisal Summary Table (AST) 48

3.11 Conclusions for Value for Money Statement 48

4 Commercial and Procurement 50

4.1 Introduction 50

4.2 Output Specification 50

4.3 Market Analysis 50

4.4 Supplier Relationship 51

4.5 External Factors 51

4.6 Commercial Strategy and Procurement Options 51


4.7 Risk and Issue Management – Risk Allocation and Transfer 52

4.8 Human Resources including TUPE 52

4.9 Procurement Timelines 52

5 Financial Case 53

5.1 Introduction 53

5.2 Impact of Accountancy and Tax Treatments 53

5.3 Financial Appraisal 53

6 Management Case 62

6.1 Introduction 62

6.2 Programme/ Project Dependencies 62

6.3 Programme/ Project Governance, Organisation Structure and Roles 62

6.4 Programme/ Project Plan 62

6.5 Communications and Stakeholder Management 63

6.6 Programme/ Project Reporting 63

6.7 Implementation of Workstreams 63

6.8 Risk Strategy 63

6.9 Benefits Realisation Plan 64

6.10 Programme/ Project Reviews 65

6.11 Post implementation review 65

6.12 Lessons Learnt 65

6.13 Contingency Plan 65

6.14 Summary and Recommendation 66

Abbreviations List 67


STRATEGIC OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE REPORT PAGE 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The A27 east of Lewes off-line study evaluates the need (or otherwise) of an off-line improvement between the junction of the A27 with the A26 at Southerham near Lewes to its junction with the A22 at Polegate (Cophall roundabout). This study will inform whether an off-line route should be included in any future Road Investment Strategy programmes.

Strategic Case

The Transport Problem

The transport problem for the A27 between Lewes and Polegate is as follows:

• The route is single carriageway, which is inconsistent with the dual carriageway A27 on either end of this route. The route is the only strategic east-west link in the area.

• The route runs into or adjacent to the South Downs National Park for most of its length, limiting opportunities for online widening.

• There are more than 40 junctions and accesses along the route.

• The route has a very poor safety record, with an accident record exceeding the national average for A-roads and accidents spread out along the route.

• The route accommodates a mix of traffic demand. There are limited overtaking opportunities, meaning that traffic regularly queues behind cyclists and slow-moving vehicles.

• The route has very poor journey time reliability due to congestion and low resilience.

• The volume of traffic and average speeds restrict access to small businesses along the route. Access to the South Downs National Park for walkers, cyclists and riders is restricted by the flow of traffic and limited safe crossing opportunities. Poor quality pedestrian and cycle facilities along the A27 inhibit potential use and cause severance.

• There is planned growth in the area as part of numerous local plans (including by Wealden District Council, Eastbourne Borough Council and Lewes District Council). Assessments show that if no capacity improvement is delivered, the existing A27 will not be sufficient to accommodate the expected growth.

As part of the first Road Investment Strategy, online improvements to the A27 east of Lewes have been committed. This scheme will not provide additional capacity between Lewes and Polegate and will address safety issues at certain locations only, and so will address the whole transport problem.

Business Strategy and Policy Context

There is clear alignment between an off-line improvement, Highways England’s business strategy, as well as regional and local policy:



• The scheme is one of many potential priority schemes from Highways England’s route strategies for investment consideration in the Government’s second Road Investment Strategy (RIS2).

• Transport for the South East (TfSE) identified improvements to this section of the A27 in their submission of priority schemes for RIS2 to the Department for Transport (DfT).

• Both South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) and Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (C2CLEP) set out growth plans that will place additional demands on this section of the A27 and identify the need for improved connectivity. The SELEP Strategic Economic Plan notes that businesses have identified the A27 as a barrier to growth.

• The East Sussex Local Transport Plan (LTP31) notes that in Eastbourne and South Wealden a priority is to improve connectivity and capacity both within the area, and between it and the rest of the South East.

• The draft Wealden District Council local plan proposes a significant increase in housing than the current adopted local plan and has identified that beyond 2028 an off-line solution for the A27 between Lewes and Polegate needs to be considered.

Stakeholder Views

Stakeholder inputs both during this study and in previous studies and consultations indicate some support for a longer term off-line intervention to address the current problems, but there are concerns about the impact of such a scheme on the environment, the South Downs National Park and the local community. Stakeholders expressed support for a dual carriageway off-line improvement, rather than a single carriageway improvement.

Economic Case

Nine off-line interventions were considered, based on three corridor alignments and dual and single carriageway interventions for each corridor alignment. The cost implications of walking and cycling infrastructure and of east-west grade-separation at Cophall roundabout were assessed.

Key points for the economic case are:

• Strategic cost estimates indicate a range of £440m - £530m for dual carriageway options (in Quarter 1 2016 prices), and a range of £270m - £310m for single carriageway options.

• An off-line route would improve journey times by as much as 9.3 minutes in the eastbound direction and 12.1 minutes in the westbound direction in 2045.

• Compared to single carriageway interventions, dual carriageway interventions result in a larger reduction in the traffic along the existing A27, and a larger amount of traffic on the new off-line route.

• Interventions including east-west grade-separation at Cophall roundabout attract the largest amount of traffic onto a new off-line route.



• The economic assessment indicates unadjusted Benefit Cost Ratio of between 2.2 and 2.5 for the dual carriageway interventions, and between 2.4 and 3.2 for the single carriageway options.

• Dual carriageway interventions improve road safety whilst single carriageway interventions worsen road safety.

• The qualitative wider economic assessment concluded that the scheme is likely to have a high impact on output change in imperfectly competitive markets. In line with WebTAG guidance, 10% of business user benefits is a proxy for this.

• The scheme would have a medium impact on dependent development, but further investigation is required in future stages to establish whether a clear case can be made for dependent development.

• A qualitative assessment of the anticipated environmental impacts of the A27 east of Lewes off-line scheme interventions was undertaken and concluded that there would likely be a large adverse impact on landscape for all interventions, and moderate adverse impacts on noise, historic environment and biodiversity.

Strategic Case

Business Strategy and Policy Context

The Case for Change

Considering current problems of constrained capacity, planned growth in housing and employment is likely to result in the worsening of congestion and delays. The likelihood of cost-effective alternative public transport solutions is very low, hence there is a need to invest in road-based solutions. The evidence indicates that the need for change is immediate.

This strategic outline business case demonstrates that there is a strong strategic case for an off-line improvement scheme to address current problems and facilitate planned housing growth in the area.



1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 There have been long-standing calls to improve the A27 corridor. The strategic aim of the A27 east of Lewes off-line study is to re-evaluate the need (or otherwise) for a long-term improvement, and to undertake a preliminary assessment of potential off-line improvements between the junction of the A27 at Southerham near Lewes to its junction at Polegate (Cophall roundabout).

1.1.2 The off-line corridor interventions considered for this study have no status in the RIS programme. The study investigates whether a potential off-line corridor(s) would make a significant contribution to achieving defined transport objectives and be deliverable, affordable and offer value for money. The output of this study will be considered to inform whether an off-line route should be included in any future RIS programmes.

1.2 Overview of Document

1.2.1 This document represents the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for an off-line improvement to A27 east of Lewes. This study is at stage 0 in Highways England’s Project Control Framework (PCF) process shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: PCF Process

1.2.2 The SOBC aligns with the Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) commitment to being open and transparent. All investment decisions are required to follow the same high-level process, allowing for objective comparison of proposals. The SOBC is phase one of the decision-making process, where subsequent business cases build upon the last.

1.3 Document structure

1.3.1 The remainder of the document is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 The Strategic Case

Chapter 3 The Economic Case

Chapter 4 The Commercial (and Procurement) Case

Chapter 5 The Financial Case

Chapter 6 The Management Case



2 The Strategic Case

2.1 Summary

2.1.1 Local and regional policy supports a longer-term improvement. The current and future transport problem, and consideration of committed schemes and alternative modes, indicate that an off-line improvement is required. We met with a Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) as part of the study who agreed with the identified transport problem, and – whilst there are concerns about the environmental impact (particularly the visual and landscape impact on the South Downs National Park) and impact on the local community – were generally supportive of an off-line improvement.

2.2 Introduction

2.2.1 The purpose of the strategic case is to demonstrate the need for change – that is, a clear rationale for making the investment and how that investment would align with the objectives set for it.

Historic Context / Previous Studies

2.2.2 There have been long-standing calls to improve the A27 corridor. Numerous studies have previously taken place in the area, including:

The South Coast Multi-Modal Study (SoCoMMS) - September 2002.

Various studies carried out by Bullens consultants on behalf of the Highways Agency between 2003-2004.

The South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study (SWETS) (2010).

The A27 Route Strategy and Action Plan – December 2012.

The A27 Corridor Feasibility Study – February 2015.

The South Coast Central Route Strategy – Lewes Option Assessment Report – November 2016.

2.2.3 Infrastructure enhancements along the A27 and beyond were considered in the South Coast Multi-Modal Study (SoCoMMS). SoCoMMS concluded there was little justification for a long distance strategic south coast route between Southampton and Margate but identified numerous investments along the A27. Whilst some investments have been developed by Local Highway Authorities and the Highways Agency (the predecessor organisation to Highways England), some have not been progressed due to the difficulties in delivering major road schemes in environmentally sensitive areas. Regarding the A27 east of Lewes section (between Lewes and Polegate), a preferred route announcement was made in the mid-1990s for an off-line dual carriageway to the north of the existing A27. However, the scheme was subsequently cancelled and replaced by three smaller schemes (at Wilmington, Selmeston and Southerham to Beddingham). Only the latter was implemented.



2.2.4 The A27 Corridor Feasibility Study (February 2015) found that for the A27 east of Lewes section, a new off-line road to the north of the existing A27 could provide a good strategic fit with the intervention specific objectives but was unlikely to offer value for money (VfM). Conversely options for on-line improvements and short bypasses - including those which indicated high VfM - fell short of meeting the intervention specific objectives.

2.2.5 Following the A27 Corridor Feasibility Study, an on-line improvements scheme was included in the RIS1 programme, and it was decided for “funding would be set aside pending further work on capacity increases following review of long term growth plans in light of any recommendation made by the Airports Commission.” The Airports Commission has now reported, and given other recent changes in growth plans, with significant additional housing in the south Wealden area through the emerging Wealden Plan, together with the availability of the South East Regional Transport Model (SERTM), an additional study was required to re-evaluate the need (or otherwise) for a longer-term improvement and to undertake a preliminary evaluation of potential corridors.

2.2.6 As part of the first Road Investment Strategy for 2015-2020, the A27 east of Lewes improvements scheme was announced, as described in paragraph 2.2.7. A recurring theme in consultation responses (and at consultation events) was the desire for a dual carriageway to the north of the current A27. Following this non-statutory public consultation exercise, the Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling announced £3m of funds would be dedicated into investigating such a scheme.

Future Context

2.2.7 The RIS1 on-line improvements to the A27 east of Lewes section is currently at PCF Stage 3 of development. The following junction improvements (due to open to traffic in 2022) were included in the preferred route announcement for the A27 east of Lewes online improvements scheme (RIS1) in Autumn 2017:

Dualling between the A27/A2270 traffic signalised junction and Cophall Roundabout.

Local junction capacity (traffic signals) and safety at Polegate Junction (A27/A2270).

Local junction capacity (roundabout) and safety at Drusillas Roundabout.

Local junction capacity (from ghost island right hand turn lane to signalised junction) and safety at Gainsborough Lane Junction.

Local safety improvements (from standard crossroads to staggered configuration) at the Wilmington crossroads Junction.

New walking and cycling route from Firle to Polegate.

2.2.8 This study assumed that the A27 east of Lewes online improvements scheme (RIS1) is committed and hence it has been included in the “Do Minimum” forecast scenarios and future context.



2.3 Business Strategy / Policy Context

Transport Investment Strategy

2.3.1 The Transport Investment Strategy sets out four main objectives which DfT investment decisions should focus on:

Create a transport network that works for users, wherever they live.

Improve productivity and rebalance growth across the UK.

Enhance our global competitiveness by making Britain a more attractive place to invest.

Support the creation of new housing.

2.3.2 An off-line improvement would contribute to these objectives by creating more reliable journey times, strengthening connectivity and connections to international gateways such as Newhaven, and by enabling housing growth.

Road Investment Strategy

2.3.3 The Government developed a Road Investment Strategy (RIS) that set out long term programme of improvements to the Strategic Road Network (SRN) with funding allocated accordingly. This scheme is one of many potential priority schemes, arising from the Route Strategies, to be considered for investment within the Government’s second RIS, covering Road Period 2 (2020/21 to 2025/26).

Other relevant Government Policies

2.3.4 Specific aims for investment in the strategic road network, which includes the A27, are set out in the National Policy Statement for National Networks. One objective is to support and improve journey quality, reliability and safety, which an off-line improvement would help to achieve.

2.3.5 The Government has also set out proposals to address the national need for more housing. In the White Paper on the housing market published in February 20172, the proposals include measures to speed up the delivery of new homes, including “ensuring infrastructure is provided in the right place at the right time by co-ordinating Government investment…”. An off-line improvement would form part of the infrastructure required to support the delivery of new homes.

2.3.6 The report on England’s Port Connectivity3 published by the DfT makes several references to Newhaven Port (which is accessed from the A27 east of Lewes via the A26), including noting that “roll-on / roll-off (Ro-Ro)” is the ports most important freight market, and that to support this, reliable and efficient road connections to the region are essential. An off-line improvement would support the provision of more reliable connections and would

2 Fixing our broken housing market, DCLG, February 2017 3 http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-0397/England_Port_Connectivity_The_current_picture.pdf

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-0397/England_Port_Connectivity_The_current_picture.pdf



complement the committed improvements to Newhaven Port including the Newhaven Port Access Road.

Highways England’s Strategic Business Plan

2.3.7 Highways England produced a Strategic Business Plan, which describes how they will deliver the investment plan and achieve the Performance Specification. The scheme’s fit with these priorities is discussed as part of the measures for success in paragraph 2.9.

South Coast Central Route Strategy

2.3.8 Highways England’s South Coast Central Route Strategy (March 2017) confirms the identified transport problem. It notes that whilst the RIS1 online improvements scheme is committed, it does not represent a long-term solution, and capacity issues will still exist on the section of the A27 from Lewes to Polegate.

Sub National Organisation Strategic Business / Economic Plan

2.3.9 The aim of Transport for the South East (TfSE) sub-national transport body is to support the growth of the South East economy by choosing the right strategic transport priorities for investment. TfSE was asked by the DfT to identify the top 12 strategic schemes for investment during the 2020-2025 RIS period. These strategic schemes included interventions on the A27/M27 South Coast Corridor, and specifically the A27 Lewes to Polegate.

2.3.10 TfSE published its draft Economic Connectivity Review (ECR) in May 2018 which will inform the development of the transport strategy. The ECR highlights that the impact of congestion is driven principally by economic demand and the annual value to the national economy of saving one minute of journey time on the M27-A27/West Coastway line corridor (of which the A27 East of Lewes is part) is £2m. An off-line scheme would support the aims of TfSE to enable reduced journey times with improved journey time reliability.

South East LEP Strategic Business / Economic Plan

2.3.11 The SELEP Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)4 covers the study area for the A27 east of Lewes off-line study and includes it as a focus for investment. The A22/A27 Eastbourne-South Wealden area is identified as a growth area.

2.3.12 The SEP highlights that:

The A27 corridor is integral to the connectivity with the A23/M23 corridor and London. However, the ongoing lack of investment in the A27 means it is not fit for purpose for carrying long distance strategic traffic, nor for providing journey time reliability. This is important for business in terms of the movement of people and goods and therefore it is inhibiting potential growth.

Business has identified the A27 as a barrier to growth.

4 http://www.southeastlep.com/images/uploads/resources/SECTION_2_South_East_LEP_-

Growth_Deal_and_Strategic_Economic_Plan_WEB-2%281%29.pdf

http://www.southeastlep.com/images/uploads/resources/SECTION_2_South_East_LEP_-Growth_Deal_and_Strategic_Economic_Plan_WEB-2%281%29.pdf

http://www.southeastlep.com/images/uploads/resources/SECTION_2_South_East_LEP_-Growth_Deal_and_Strategic_Economic_Plan_WEB-2%281%29.pdf



2.3.13 The C2CLEP SEP identified Newhaven and Brighton and Hove as key growth areas. An off-line scheme would improve connectivity between Eastbourne and Wealden and these growth areas.

2.3.14 This is reflected in the views from the business community who are strongly supportive of the scheme. In 2014, the Association of Chambers in East Sussex undertook a survey of residents and businesses on the impact of the current state of the A27 on local businesses and residents. Of the 200 businesses who responded, 83% believed that the A27 has a negative impact on the prosperity of Eastbourne whilst 57% of the businesses reported losing business because of the road.

County Council

2.3.15 A key priority for East Sussex County Council is driving sustainable economic growth, which the delivery of strategic road infrastructure plays a key role in.

2.3.16 The East Sussex Local Transport Plan (LTP35) (2011-2026) is the relevant local plan at a county level for the study area. The LTP3 notes, in relation to Eastbourne and South Wealden: ‘A priority issue is to improve connectivity and capacity both within the area, and between it and the rest of the South East. The current lack of good strategic connections is seen as inhibiting development and acts as a barrier to creating a more diverse economy that would be more resilient to economic downturns; improvements to the strategic road network would help create economic growth’.

2.3.17 In its response to Highways England’s Strategic Investment Plan, the East Sussex Growth Strategy6, approved in 2014, sets out the vision for a more innovative, productive and faster growing East Sussex economy. In relation to the A27, the Strategy identifies that ‘The A27 is a key strategic road that requires improvement… on the route between Lewes and Eastbourne…’ and that ‘the County Council and its partners… will continue to make the case for further investment on one of the key economic arteries in the county’.

District Council

2.3.18 The A27 between Lewes and Polegate links the local districts of Wealden and Lewes and Eastbourne. Numerous local plans and strategies are relevant, including Wealden, Lewes, Eastbourne and the Newhaven Enterprise Zone.

2.3.19 In the context of this study, the most important reference7 is the Wealden District Council Local Plan (2013-2018). Wealden District Council published its draft Local Plan in March 2017, allowing for representations and submission to the Secretary of State for examination.

5 https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/2336/ltp3_main_doc_2011-2026.pdf 6 https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/environment/planning/regeneration/growthstrategy/ 7 In the context of current higher planned growth in the study area, as compared to the planned growth considered

in the previous A27 Corridor Feasibility Study.

https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/2336/ltp3_main_doc_2011-2026.pdf



2.3.20 The draft Local Plan notes the following:

The key aim of the transport approach for this area is to ‘facilitate housing growth, create a more diverse and integrated economy, protect the local environment, enhance social provision and create sustainable communities’.

The priority issue is to ‘improve connectivity and capacity both within the area, and between it and the rest of the South East. The current lack of good strategic connections is seen as inhibiting development, improvements to the strategic road network would help create economic growth. Integration of housing, employment and social facilities is key in order to reduce the need to travel and to enable sustainable travel choices to be made.

This is particularly evident with the constraints of the A27 corridor between Lewes and Polegate. This key strategic route provides connectivity to Wealden from the A23/M23 corridor, Gatwick Airport and London, but it is currently not fit for purpose for carrying long distance strategic traffic or providing journey time reliability. This is due to a lack of Infrastructure investment, which is inhibiting growth in Wealden District in terms of the impact which it is having in the efficient movement of people and goods. The Highways England Roads Investment Strategy identified £75m towards small scale improvements to the A27 east of Lewes for delivery by 2021. However, there are still strong aspirations for a more comprehensive off-line solution to the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, which Wealden District Council and East Sussex County Council and other key local stakeholders support.

2.3.21 The Wealden Local Plan states that: “In order to deliver all growth within the South Wealden Growth Area, and subject to further studies that may provide new or alternative strategic transport infrastructure provision, it will be necessary to consider the delivery of the following strategic transport improvements: Road = Delivery of an off-line A27 improvement between Polegate and Lewes”.

2.3.22 The Wealden local plan further states that: “Improvements to the A27 are strongly supported as an integral and critical component of the development strategy for the Local Plan. In the event that the A27 improvements, including if necessary a comprehensive solution for the A27 between Polegate and Lewes, is delayed or not built, land for development will not be released unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the transport impact is acceptable taking into account proposed and funded infrastructure improvements in combination with other development with planning consent.”

2.3.23 In the Wealden Local Plan Transport Study 2017, it was identified that beyond 2028 an off-line solution for the A27 between Lewes and Polegate needs to be considered due to the cumulative effect of demand resulting from the planned development.



2.4 Problem Identification

The Transport Problem

2.4.1 The following summarises the existing context of the A27 between Lewes and Polegate:

Road Characteristics and Traffic Flows

The road is a single carriageway which is inconsistent with the adjacent dual carriageway sections of the A27 to the east (Polegate Bypass) and west (Lewes Bypass). The road has two lanes between Beddingham roundabout and Southerham roundabout in the westbound direction, but is a single lane in the eastbound direction.

There are more than 40 junctions or local accesses (including farm accesses) along this section of the A27.

Aside from the local inconsistencies, there is a wider inconsistency in the quality of the road compared to other parts of the A27 corridor.

The A27 runs in or adjacent to the South Downs National Park for the majority of its length.

Flows on the section between Lewes and the A27/A2270 junction are typically between 27,000 (between Beddingham and Polegate) and 40,000 (between Southerham and Beddingham) vehicles per day, of which approximately 5% are heavy goods vehicles. The traffic volumes during the peak periods exceed the capacity of a single carriageway link at reasonable level of service as shown in Figure 2.1.

The route carries a mix of traffic, including long-distance strategic movements, local journeys by residents (including farmers and tractors) and local businesses, freight and recreational/tourism traffic. There are a variety of short and long-distance trips made across the districts along the A27, with little change in travel patterns between 2001 and 2011.



Figure 2.1: Daily Profile of Traffic (Source: Highways England Traffic Monitoring Units (TMU) Site 5784/1 and TMU Site 5784/2 October 2017)8

Strategic Alternative Routes

The A27 between Lewes and Polegate is the only road based strategic connection between the Eastbourne / South Wealden and the wider region to the west including the key economic hubs of Brighton and Gatwick via the A23/M23 corridor. The A22 and A26 provide a lengthy alternative route to the north, and both are predominantly single carriageway roads which run through a series of settlements along their lengths to the M25.

The A22 also traverses the Ashdown Forest, which forms part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and which Wealden District Council has identified suffers from nitrogen deposition issues derived from vehicular traffic.

To the south, the A259 (which has poor vertical and horizontal alignments), runs through several towns such as Seaford, Newhaven and Peacehaven, as well as other villages, restricting its capacity. The only other alternative routes for east–west movements are small local roads through small villages to the north and south of the current A27, which are unsuitable for strategic movements. The A21 trunk road provides a north-south link to the M25 orbital but lies well to the east of the study area.

Mode Share of Existing Trips

The 2011 census data identifies car travel as an important means of transport in Lewes, Eastbourne, and Wealden with an average of 43% of residents driving or being driven to work. Train accounts for an average of 5% and buses an average of 3%.

8 TMU Site 5784/1 and 5784/2 are located along the A27 between the Alfriston Road and Milton Street junctions



Rail Provision: The coastal area is served by numerous rail routes, including the west and east Main Line routes and the west and east Coastway routes. Rail journey times compare favourably with journey times by car (including the A27) and liaison with Network Rail has found that the rail network is close to capacity with no significant infrastructure improvements planned.

Bus Provision: There are currently very limited bus services operating along the A27 east of Lewes. Consultation with the various local authorities along the corridor indicates that no major road-based public transport investment is anticipated along the A27 corridor.

2.4.2 The context described results in the current transport problem:

Safety: This road section is in the 10% worst sections in terms of total casualties per billion vehicle miles, and in the worst 25% performing links for being a safe and secure network nationally. The A27 between Lewes and Polegate has a higher than average rate of accidents (at 20.5 per billion vehicle kilometres) which is substantially higher than the national average of 15.2 per billion vehicle kilometres9 for rural A roads.

Journey time reliability: The A27 northbound between A2270 and A22 is ranked in the top 4% of worse performing links on a national level in terms of journey time reliability. Journey time reliability is impacted on by the number of accidents and incidents along a route.

There are limited overtaking opportunities, meaning traffic regularly queues behind cyclists and other slow-moving vehicles (including farm vehicles).

Incident data from the route operator (A-one+) indicates that – in terms of incidents which resulted in lane closures along the A27 – approximately 3 incidents per month result in closures with an average closure time of approximately 12 hours.

The nature of this single carriageway road section means that any lane closures have a significant impact on the operation of the road and cause significant disruption in both directions of travel. Alternative/diversion routes are restricted to local roads such as the B2124 west through Laughton, the B2192 south through Ringmer.

Delay: This road section is in the top 20% (of links in the South Coast Central Route) in terms of delay. The route experiences congestion at weekday AM and PM peak hours, particularly at (and between) the key junctions at Southerham Roundabout (A27/A26) and Polegate (A27/A22), with resultant poor journey times and reliability.

The single lane eastbound from Southerham Roundabout to Beddingham Roundabout results in queuing on the A27 (dual carriageway) and A26 approaches to Southerham Roundabout during the peak periods due to the restricted capacity.

9 As reported in the Reported road casualties Great Britain: Annual report 2014 for rural A roads



The route has average peak hour speeds of between 31 – 40mph, significantly below the 60mph speed limit. Comparatively, the A27 between Lewes and Brighton, which is dual carriageway, has average speeds of 51 – 60 mph against a 70mph speed limit.

Restrictions to growth: Between South Wealden and Eastbourne (and further east), the A22 is used to access the M25 instead of the A27 and A23/M23. This has negative impacts on the Ashdown Forest, which forms part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (as referenced in paragraph 2.4.1). Therefore, Wealden are restricting the level of growth in their emerging local plan as a means of reducing the impact of traffic generated nitrogen deposition on the Forest.

Non-Motorised User impacts: The volume of traffic and average speeds restrict access to local small businesses along the route. Access to the South Downs National Park for walkers, cyclists and riders is restricted by the flow of traffic and limited safe crossing opportunities. Poor quality pedestrian and cycle facilities across and along the A27 inhibit potential use by non-motorised users and create severance between local communities.

2.4.3 The transport problem identified results in the following outcomes:

The route has very poor journey time reliability due to congestion and low resilience.

The route has no spare capacity to accommodate planned growth in the area, which will constrain economic growth in the future.

Local business perception of the route is that it is not fit for purpose, is stifling growth and in investment in the area, and is negatively impacting on both local businesses along the A27 and tourism access to the South Downs National Park.

Future Transport Problem

2.4.4 Planned growth: There is planned growth in housing and employment in the area which will place additional demand on the route. The Wealden Local Plan is currently under review, and the emerging growth plans for the Hailsham and Hellingly, Polegate and Willingdon and Stone Cross are significantly higher than the currently adopted core strategy. The draft proposed submission plan (March 2017) proposes 11,456 new homes in Wealden between 2013 and 2028, with 38,600sqm of employment space and 4,350sqm of retail space. The focus of growth is within the South Wealden Growth Area which includes Hailsham, Hellingly, Polegate and Willingdon and Stone Cross. The net effect is that 6,000 new houses will be built in this area over the next 10 years to 2028.

It should be noted that the Wealden Local Plan is not yet adopted and that the housing targets could be challenged because of ecological damage from nitrogen deposition to Ashdown Forrest

In Eastbourne, whose strategic road connection to the west is provided by the A27, the local plan was adopted in February 2013. The plan identifies



that at least 5,022 new homes will be delivered between 2006 and 2027 (239 per annum) as well as 48,750sqm of employment space between 2012 and 2027. In addition, significant investment is currently being made in the retail and leisure offer in the town centre with the extension to the Arndale shopping centre and investment in conference facilities and theatres in the Devonshire Quarter area.

Newhaven was established as an Enterprise Zone in April 2017, with plans to deliver 70,000sqm of new or refurbished employment space as well as 2,000 jobs over a 15-year period. In addition, the Lewes District Local Plan (adopted June 2016) identifies that In Newhaven over 1,500 new homes are planned/committed, in Peacehaven a further 1,200 new homes are being proposed whilst over 500 new homes are planned/committed in Seaford.

2.4.5 The peak period traffic demand on the existing A27 exceeds its capacity. Hence, without improvement, the congestion and poor journey times will increase as more demand is added onto the network, and growth will be limited by the capacity of the existing route.

2.4.6 Committed infrastructure: The committed infrastructure improvement of significance is the A27 East of Lewes online improvements which are being developed as part of the Road Investment Strategy (RIS) Period 1 (the “RIS1 online improvements scheme”), as described in paragraph 2.2.7.

2.4.7 The plan in Figure 2.2 below shows the A27 between Lewes and Polegate in the wider context of the area, highlighting the planned growth in the area, the proximity to the Newhaven port and the Newhaven Enterprise Zone, Gatwick Airport and the M25 to the north.

2.4.8 Given the increase in demand due to planned growth and that link capacity remains largely unchanged despite the RIS1 scheme, link capacity is expected to continue to be a constraint on the route despite the improvements. Hence the current transport problem is likely to worsen.



Figure 2.2: Context of A27 East of Lewes route

2.4.9 Whilst the RIS1 online improvements scheme will allow cyclists to be removed from the A27 carriageway (and provide an opportunity for increased use of cycling for local journeys along the corridor), local agricultural traffic will continue to act as a journey time constraint on the route.

2.4.10 The RIS1 online improvements scheme will address safety issues at the junctions included for improvement, but not at other locations along the route. Hence, safety issues (and the resultant high accident rate and poor journey time reliability) are likely to remain along the route as the historic accident record indicates that accidents are spread along the length of the route.

2.4.11 Impact of alternative modes on future transport problem: The 2011 census data identifies that rail accounts for an average of 5% and buses an average of 3% of journeys to work. Hence, any improvement to these services will not make a material difference to the A27 traffic volumes. There does not appear to be a realistic rail ‘alternative’ to the A27 East of Lewes scheme interventions. Congestion and limitations on widening the existing A27 and/or providing bus priority means that there is little scope for providing a significantly improved bus service to address the problem.

2.5 Economic and Social Context

2.5.1 The local economy has strengths in advanced engineering, tourism and other sectors and has accommodated substantial population and household growth over the past decade, particularly in the urban areas.

2.5.2 Key notes on the local economic context are:



While unemployment and social deprivation is low across the study area as a whole, there are pockets of higher unemployment and deprivation in coastal towns.

Sectoral analysis of the local economy indicates that the study area has a high reliance on public sector and consumer services jobs, with productivity below the national average.

Car ownership and usage is high. Local labour markets are largely self-contained, although there are some long-distance commuting flows along the length of the A27 corridor.

The A27 east of Lewes (between Southerham Roundabout and Cophall roundabout) currently suffers from high congestion levels, which could worsen as major developments are taken forward.

2.5.3 A review of the 2011 Census and other relevant statistics has been undertaken to identify the drivers for change and the profile of customers in and around the study area.

2.5.4 Gross Value Added (GVA): All three of the local authorities which surround the A27 East of Lewes fall below the average GVA per head both with and without the inclusion of City of London. The East Sussex LTP3 states that productivity (GVA per employee) is low in Eastbourne (£31,390 pa) and south Wealden (£39,310 pa) compared with the South East generally (£40,460 pa). A relatively high proportion of employees, 32%, are in sectors with relatively low productivity such as distribution, hotels and restaurants.

2.5.5 Indices of Deprivation: The Indices of Deprivation 2015 provide a set of relative measures of deprivation for small areas (Lower-layer Super Output Areas) across England, based on seven domains of deprivation. Only Eastbourne is more deprived than the national average and has five LSOAs in the most deprived 10% in England.

2.5.6 Unemployment Rate: Lewes and Wealden have lower unemployment rates than the UK average while Eastbourne has a slightly higher rate. This aligns with the reported deprivation statistics.

2.5.7 Regional Gross Disposable Household Income (GDHI): Lewes and Eastbourne are both slightly above the UK average while Wealden is slightly (2%) lower.

Conclusions from Social and Economic Context

2.5.8 The social and economic context shows that the local area, in particularly Eastbourne, produces a lower GVA per head, experiences a worse level of deprivation and lower levels of employment than the comparable UK average. Hence, there is a need for economic growth and new job opportunities to address these challenges. The regional and local policy context clearly identifies the need for greater connectivity and capacity between these areas and the wider South East to facilitate growth and improve the local social and economic context.



2.6 Stakeholder Views

2.6.1 At this early stage of the project the following high-level Stakeholder consultation has been undertaken:

A Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) was set up and two workshops were held with the SRG during the study. The SRG included a mix of stakeholders, including local authorities, chambers of commerce, business representatives, campaign/interest groups and South Downs National Park.

The project team has engaged with the A27 Reference Group (representing MPs and local councillors).

Stakeholder inputs from previous studies (in particular the A27 Corridor Feasibility Study, which reported in 2015) were taken into consideration.

2.6.2 Highways England have also received correspondence from stakeholders from the local community who were not part of the SRG.

2.6.3 During the A27 Corridor Feasibility Study, stakeholders stated:

The A27 should be upgraded to dual two-lane standard along its length.

The A27 is not fulfilling its role as a trunk road and there are numerous pinch points along the route which cause severe congestion in peak hours.

The A27 is unreliable and has a poor reputation with residents and businesses and therefore instead of being an asset, the A27 is frequently seen as a problem.

The need for investment in the strategic highway network in this area is constraining the growth potential for the West Sussex economy.

Investment in the A27 strategic road would unlock long-term growth potential along the south coast, effectively address congestion to benefit local residents and businesses and benefit residents by improved road safety alongside plans for sustainable travel to encourage walking and cycling in their local areas.

The A27 East of Lewes is dangerous, is the cause of many unnecessary accidents, is congested and therefore frustrating to drive on.

2.6.4 The stakeholder comments received (and summarised below) align with the transport problem identified.

2.6.5 At the SRG, stakeholders identified the following potential opportunities from a new off-line route:

Alongside the new dual route, it is important to turn the existing A27 into a visitor Heritage trail, for example the Sussex Downs Tour. This would give a huge added bonus from the visitor economy to the businesses, pubs, villages as a result.

Use of shared cycle way/pedestrian route (part of A27 East of Lewes Online Improvements Scheme (RIS1)) would increase.



An off-line route could reduce interaction with South Downs National Park whilst also providing opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrian use on (and across) the existing road. Existing road would act as a gateway rather than a boundary to movement. Tourism could become more attractive.

Better links to coastal communities will attract investment to disadvantaged areas, for example the Devonshire ward in Eastbourne, St Leonards, Peacehaven.

Relief for wider network and rural routes with off-line section in place.

The dual carriageway enables and serves the needed growth in housing in south Wealden (part of a growing Greater Eastbourne, in essence).

Dualling the A27 from Polegate to Beddingham will be a real game changer for the South East economy – linking Newhaven and Dover ports strategically and providing better infrastructure links to the growing London Gatwick airport.

2.6.6 It was recognised that a new off-line route would need significant environmental mitigation, including sympathetic landscaping to mitigate sight lines/noise from the top of the Downs, verge landscaping, planting and wildlife habit creation.

2.6.7 Stakeholders at the SRG workshops, as well as stakeholders who contacted Highways England directly, identified the following concerns about an off-line intervention, and the study as a whole:

Concerns about intrusion to visual landscape during and post construction of any off-line interventions, and that landscape impacts could detract from the South Downs National Park.

Environmental impacts of an off-line route, including the impact on wildlife, the loss of agricultural land, the impact on air quality, the impact on water supply and drainage.

A lack of consideration of public transport interventions which could encourage modal shift.

Whether accesses to a new off-line route will become new bottlenecks, and the impact of an off-line route on a wider area.

Cumulative impacts of other A27 interventions (for example, Arundel and Worthing-Lancing).

Severance of existing public rights of way and rural lanes which provide access north to the South Downs National Park.

Concerns for local communities and housing.

A single carriageway intervention would be a missed opportunity to cater for future growth.



2.7 The Case for Change

External Drivers for Change

2.7.1 The external drivers for change are the following:

Economic growth aspirations by the South East LEP, and the identification that the current route is not fit for purpose and a barrier to growth.

Identification of an off-line improvement to the A27 Lewes to Polegate by the Transport for the South East.

Local political pressure from members of parliament.

Pressure from local authorities and their need to deliver local plan growth.

Highways England’s commitment to deliver on its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this part of the strategic road network.

What would happen if the problem did not get fixed?

2.7.2 Without an off-line intervention the existing transport problem will not be addressed - with the exception of an improvement to the eastern section between the A27/A2270 and Cophall roundabout. With the area’s planned growth, the demand on the route will increase, journey times will increase, and network reliability will reduce. There will be an increase in “rat-running” onto unsuitable local roads, and access to the South Downs National Park and to local small businesses will decrease.

2.7.3 The RIS1 scheme modelling indicates that without an off-line intervention, journey times will increase by 2 minutes (AM peak) and 6 minutes (PM peak) in the eastbound direction between 2018 and 2037, and 10 minutes (AM peak) and 8 minutes (PM peak) in the westbound direction.

2.7.4 The problems experienced on the A27 East of Lewes may deter substantial numbers of journeys both on the trunk network and alternative local roads, reducing business and social activity. Hence, economic growth will be negatively affected.

The Case for Change

2.7.5 The Government’s policy on the strategic road network is to ensure that it operates effectively and efficiently, and that it supports and facilitates economic growth. An improved network would enable firms reliant on the A27 for access to operate more efficiently and encourage investment. With greater certainty over journey times, businesses would be better positioned to compete internationally.

2.7.6 The current A27 is not fit for purpose, suffers from poor journey time reliability and a poor safety record. There is housing and employment growth planned in the future, and the committed infrastructure (in the form of the A27 East of Lewes online improvements (RIS1)) will not address these problems in the medium to long term. There is clear alignment between the current and future transport problem, the regional and local policy context and the views of stakeholders, supporting the case for change.



2.7.7 Considering current problems of constrained capacity, planned growth in housing and employment is likely to result in the worsening of congestion. The likelihood of cost effective alternative public transport solutions is low, and hence there is a need to invest in road-based solutions.

2.7.8 The evidence indicates that the need for change is immediate.

2.8 The Scheme – Objectives and Scope

Scheme Objectives

2.8.1 The main objective of the A27 east of Lewes off-line study is to investigate whether a potential off-line corridor intervention would make a significant contribution to achieving the below transport objectives, and be deliverable, affordable and offer value for money.

2.8.2 The study considered the ability for a potential off-line corridor intervention to facilitate local economic growth aspirations in terms of delivering housing and job creation in accordance with Government priorities set out in their Industrial Strategy and Housing White Paper, as well as their contribution towards Highways England’s Performance Specification.

2.8.3 The transport objectives are to:

Reduce travel times and improve journey time reliability.

Reduce severance and pollution impacts.

Enable Local Planning Authorities to manage the impact of planned growth and, in doing so, support the wider economy.

Provide safer roads which are resilient to delay, and which are able to adequately cater for the impacts of adverse weather.

Minimise impacts on the natural environment and optimising environmental opportunities and mitigation.

Provide opportunities for improved accessibility for all users.

Scope of Scheme

2.8.4 Within this PCF Stage 0 assessment the scope of the project has been further defined to be the investigation of off-line road-based interventions between Lewes and Polegate.

2.8.5 The scope instructs that a minimum of two corridors be investigated for dual and single carriageway interventions. The interventions were to be developed such that existing and future conditions were understood, key constraints could be identified, and a strategic magnitude estimate could be developed. In parallel a suitable strategic traffic modelling platform was to be identified and developed with which to undertake the economic appraisal of the interventions. A qualitative wider economic impact assessment was to be undertaken.



2.8.6 The outputs of the study are summarised in an Options Assessment Report and a Strategic Outline Business Case.

Constraints and Interdependencies

2.8.7 The key constraints affecting off-line interventions are the following:

The alignments would require widening of the A27 between Southerham roundabout and Beddingham roundabout which lies within the South Downs National Park. Further, a section of approximately 1.5km of any off-line intervention would lie within the South Downs National Park to the east of Beddingham roundabout.

The rail line between Lewes and Eastbourne needs to be crossed, which requires approval from Network Rail, and would impact on the construction programme.

The adjacent network is constrained, and further junction interventions may be required in order to maximise the benefit of a new off-line route.

Arlington Reservoir which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for wading birds. South East Water are considering extending the existing reservoir at Arlington north of the existing site and have consulted on this.

Milton Gate Marsh SSSI for rare species of grasses.

Wootton Manor Registered Park and Gardens.

Visual impacts the South Downs National Park.

Various flood zones throughout the route corridor.

Listed buildings.

Protected species along the route.

Air quality and noise impact on sensitive receptors.

2.8.8 An off-line intervention would require a Development Consent Order.

2.8.9 The key interdependency impacting the case for an off-line intervention (if not necessarily the delivery of a scheme) is the level of housing and employment growth that is actually achieved. To account for this, the core assessment assumes growth constrained to the National Trip End Model (NTEM), and not the draft Wealden Local Plan.

Interventions Considered

2.8.10 The interventions considered were developed from a long list which considered alternative modes and historic interventions put forward during previous studies. These interventions were sifted down through consideration of their performance against the transport objectives and their fit against the scope of the study (focused on road-based off-line interventions).

2.8.11 The filtered list of interventions considered three off-line alignments and single or dual carriageway standards for each alignment. Further variations to consider the tie-in with Cophall roundabout were considered. The



interventions considered for assessment in the study were as set out in Table 2.1. The off-line route corridors referred to are shown in Figure 2.3.

Table 2.1: Off-line Interventions Considered

NR TITLE INTERVENTION DESCRIPTION OTHER

DM Do Minimum N/A Assumes no off-line intervention, with the online improvements scheme as part of the RIS1

programme in place.

N/A

1 Off-line route: dual carriageway (D2AP), no

intermediate junctions

(Modelling Scenario #1)

Intervention 1– Red Route (Corridor 1)

dual carriageway

An off-line bypass of the existing A27 between Beddingham and

Cophall roundabouts. This would be a dual carriageway and there would be no additional access junctions along its length. This intervention would comprise

online widening between Southerham and Beddingham.

For most part the route runs south of the railway line.

Off-line; 14.1km

Online;2.7km

No of major overbridges;8

2 Off-line route: single carriageway

(S2), no intermediate

junctions


Intervention 2 – Red Route (Corridor 1)

single carriageway

The same as Intervention 1 but with a single carriageway

standard between Beddingham and Cophall roundabouts.

Off-line; 14.1km

Online;2.7km





Blue Route (Corridor 2)

dual carriageway

As per Intervention 1 but for the most part the route runs north of the railway line and runs about 300m to the south of Arlington

Reservoir.

Off-line; 14.45km

Online;2.2km




junctions


Blue Route (Corridor 2)

single carriageway



Off-line; 14.45km

Online;2.2km




NR TITLE INTERVENTION DESCRIPTION OTHER



(Modelling

Scenario #5)

Magenta Route (Corridor 3)

dual carriageway

As per Intervention 1 but for the most part the route runs north of

the railway and about 700m north of the Arlington Reservoir.

Off-line; 15.95km

Online;2.2km No of major

overbridges;12



junctions


Magenta Route (Corridor 3)

single carriageway



Off-line; 15.95km

Online;2.2km


7 Off-line route: dual carriageway (D2AP), plus

grade-separation at Cophall

roundabout (underbridge)

(Modelling

Scenario #7)

Red route (Corridor 1)

dual carriageway plus grade-

separation at Cophall

roundabout.

The same as Intervention 1, except that it is assumed that there is grade-separation at

Cophall roundabout by means of an east-west underpass.

Off-line; 14.1km

Online;2.7km No of major

overbridges;8

8 Off-line route: dual carriageway

(D2AP). Plus cycle bridges

(Not modelled)


dual carriageway plus cycle

bridges

The same as Intervention 1 but includes (for costing purposes) additional walking and cycling facilities between Southerham and Beddingham roundabouts.

Off-line; 14.1km

Online;2.7km


9 Off-line route: dual carriageway (D2AP), plus

grade-separation at Cophall

roundabout (overbridge)

(Not modelled)


dual carriageway plus grade-

separation at Cophall

roundabout

The same as Intervention 1, except that it is assumed that there is grade-separation at

Cophall roundabout by means of an east-west overpass.

Off-line; 14.1km

Online;2.7km




Figure 2.3: Off-line Corridor Interventions Considered

2.9 Measures for Success

Highways England Performance Specification

2.9.1 The contributions of the off-line improvement interventions against the Highways England Performance Specification are set in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2: Performance Specification Contributions

OBJECTIVES SCHEME CONTRIBUTION

Making the network safer

The scheme proposes to reduce accident rates through by diverting traffic onto the new off-line route (dual carriageway interventions with improved road standards) and away from the existing route, junctions and accesses.

Improving user satisfaction

The percentage of National Road Users’ Satisfaction Survey respondents who are ‘very’ or ‘fairly satisfied’ is likely to increase given the forecast increase in capacity and journey time reliability, and the reduction in journey times and delays.



OBJECTIVES SCHEME CONTRIBUTION

Supporting the smooth flow of traffic

The scheme would remove the key capacity constraint that the single carriageway along the existing section represents.

Encouraging economic growth

The scheme would more than double the available highway capacity between South Wealden / Eastbourne and west of Lewes. It would reduce congestion (lost time per vehicle mile) between Lewes and Polegate and improve journey time reliability. Such investment would facilitate the projected housing and employment growth in the area, including Wealden, and encourage business investment.

Helping cyclists, walkers, and other vulnerable users of the network

The scheme would remove traffic from existing A27 thereby reducing the level of severance that is currently experienced, and increasing the attractiveness of the route for non-motorised users. The existing A27 could be further downgraded to make it even more attractive as an access point to the South Downs National Park.

Keeping the network in good condition

The new off-line route will be delivered to the latest standards and reduce the burden of traffic (including HGVs) on the existing A27. The maintenance requirements on the existing A27 would be reduced.

Transport Investment Strategy (TIS)

2.9.2 The four main objectives set out within the TIS that the DfT investment decisions should focus on are considered below:

Create a Transport Network that Works for Users, Wherever they Live

2.9.3 At this early stage a distributional impact assessment has not been carried out, but it is estimated that the scheme would not impact on any particular groups of people specifically. However, as it is a road-based scheme it will benefit road users to a greater extent than public transport users and non-

motorised users, and due to the scale of the intervention interventions will impact on road users making longer journeys.

2.9.4 Local communities will be impacted in positive ways (through reduction in severance and traffic loading on the existing A27) but may be negatively impacted by the alignment of a new off-line route.

2.9.5 The scheme interventions would deliver a safer and more reliable network, making journeys easier and faster in less congested conditions. This would provide people in South Wealden and Eastbourne with greater access to jobs and services in the wider region, in particularly to the west of Lewes.



2.9.6 Access to the South Downs National Park (east of Lewes) would be improved which would benefit tourism and associated local businesses.

2.9.7 Local stakeholders have been consulted as set out in section 2.6.

Improve productivity and rebalance growth across the UK

2.9.8 Reference has been made to the DfT’s Rebalancing Toolkit throughout the assessment of this scheme and development of this Strategic Outline Business case. Table 2.3 provides a signpost to the chapter in which the checklist questions have been considered.

Table 2.3: DfT Rebalancing Toolkit - business cases for individual projects

CHECKLIST QUESTION SCOPE

Step 1

Setting the context

• The economic and social context of the area is provided in

section 2.5.

• Section 2.5 also describes if the scheme expected to have

impacts in an area of local or regional deprivation or below

average productivity.

Step 2

Identifying transport barriers

• The transport barriers limiting growth in the local area or

region are described in section 2.4.

• The performance of the scheme discussed in Table 2.2.

describes the extent that the scheme addresses these

barriers, raising economic performance in the local area or

region.

Step 3

Exploring interventions and strategic alternatives

• Strategic alternatives have not been specifically considered

in this study, although the current strategic alternative routes

are described in section 2.4.

• The scope of the study is specific in terms of mode and

geographic location.

Step 4

Exploring impacts of interventions

• Chapter 3 describes the analysis in the Economic Case and

Economic Narrative and describes the local and national

impacts.

• Chapter 3 describes the assumptions and uncertainties of

these impacts (consistent with the economic case).

Step 5

Aligning with wider local plans and objectives

• Section 2.3 describes how the scheme is aligned with other

local growth plans.

• At this stage there is not yet a plan in place with local

partners to maximise its overall impact on regional growth.

It is anticipated that this will be developed in further stages

of the PCF process.



CHECKLIST QUESTION SCOPE

Step 6

Considering wider evidence and stakeholder views

• The attitudes of key regional stakeholders (users, residents,

businesses, Local Authorities, Sub-National Transport

Bodies) are detailed in sections 2.3 and 2.6.

• The wider strategic objectives the project aligns with, for

example, those in the Transport Investment Strategy, are

shown in section 2.8.

2.9.9 The scheme would have a negligible impact on supporting the national economy and spreading growth across the country.

2.9.10 The qualitative wider economic assessment carried out concluded that the scheme is likely to have a high impact on Transport User Benefits (as reflected in section 3), and a high impact on output change in imperfectly competitive markets. In line with WebTAG guidance, 10% of Business User Benefits was applied as a proxy for this. The economic assessment concluded that the scheme would have a Medium impact on dependent development, but further investigation is required in future stages to establish whether a clear case can be made for dependent development.

Enhance our global competitiveness by making Britain a more attractive place to invest

2.9.11 The scheme would improve connectivity to the key port of Newhaven (a priority port as identified in section 2.2), and provide improved connectivity to the west of Lewes including to the A23/M23 and Gatwick Airport.

Support the creation of new housing

2.9.12 The Wealden Local Plan Transport Study 2017, undertaken by East Sussex County Council, which considered the planned growth in the draft Wealden Local Plan, identified that beyond 2028 an off-line solution for the A27 between Lewes and Polegate needs to be considered due to the cumulative effect of demand resulting from the planned development.

2.9.13 The off-line intervention interventions potentially open opportunities for new housing developments in the Hailsham/Polegate area. These development areas include land west of Polegate, which has been previously cited as a potential mixed housing and employment development in the early developmental stages of Wealden’s emerging Local Plan; the development would be expected to the existing road network, as capacity would be released with the off-line route in place.

2.9.14 In addition, land to the west of Hailsham/A22 could potentially be unlocked by the northern of the off-line intervention interventions via a new access road/junction. Similarly, the area west of Hailsham was being considered as an intervention in the early stages of development of the emerging Wealden Local Plan. However, this was not taken forward as



Wealden limited the proposed overall level of growth in their emerging Local Plan due to need to restrict the vehicular traffic generated nitrogen deposition issues in the Ashdown Forest that would be derived from a higher level of growth.

2.9.15 Therefore, the off-line intervention interventions could potentially open additional housing development opportunities in the south Wealden area which the current network and smaller scale interventions programmed for A27 east of Lewes would not be able to accommodate.

2.9.16 Whilst there are not at this stage clearly defined dependent developments, the next iteration of local plans is likely to identify development constrained by the lack of transport infrastructure.

2.10 Comparison of Dual vs Single Carriageway Interventions

2.10.1 Benefits and disbenefits of dual carriageway and single carriageway interventions are set out in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5.

Table 2.4: Benefits and Disbenefits of Dual Carriageway Interventions

BENEFITS/OPPORTUNITIES DISBENEFITS/RISKS

Allows for full downgrade of the existing A27, reducing flows and benefiting local communities, non-motorised users, businesses, South Downs National Park, and potentially reduces de-trunking costs to Highways England (refer to section 3.4)

Reduced affordability

Most resilient intervention, allowing and maintenance diversion using both carriageways – not reliant on the existing A27 as diversion route.

Lower BCR / value for money

Requires less / less complex traffic management for maintenance (the current route operator has indicated that their preference – from a maintenance perspective – would be for a dual carriageway)

Larger footprint requiring more land take

Safer route with separation of opposing traffic flows. Larger footprint with greater environmental impact

Likely improvement to safety on existing A27 due to lower flows (modelled to be less than 40% of current peak hour flows) without modelled downgrade. Traffic modelling indicates significant benefits (circa 8% of overall benefits) due to accident reductions.

Future-proofed for growth if higher than projected.



Table 2.5: Benefits and Disbenefits of Single Carriageway Interventions

BENEFITS/OPPORTUNITIES DISBENEFITS/RISKS

Improved affordability

Doesn’t allow for existing A27 to be downgraded, as modelled east-west demand exceeds single carriageway capacity and would require as much as 18,000 daily trips on the existing A27 (refer to section 3.4).

Higher BCR / value for money

Likely to result in an overall worsening of safety record (as demonstrated in forecast traffic modelling, which shows a disbenefit due to an overall increase in accidents)

Able to accommodate projected growth to 2045

Lower resilience – incidents and maintenance would require diversion onto existing A27.

Option to widen to dual carriageway in future

Existing A27 less attractive to local communities, non-motorised users, businesses, South Downs National Park as would be carrying high flows - modelled to carry up to 67% of current peak hour flows in 2045.

Inconsistent with A27 to east and west of Lewes to Polegate section, which are dualled.

Risks and Opportunities Associated with Interventions

2.10.2 Risks associated with all interventions are:

Environmental impact, including noise and air quality impacts, cultural heritage, visual and landscape impacts, and loss of biodiversity.

Required land-take, with loss of agricultural land.

All the forecast development may not be delivered.

Benefits may be reduced due to congestion on the adjacent local road network.

2.10.3 As the case for the scheme is closely linked to local plan growth, there may be an opportunity to secure developer contributions to the scheme.

2.11 Options Assessment Framework

2.11.1 The nature of the interventions considered mean that there is not a significant difference between the performance of the interventions against the scheme objectives.

2.11.2 The options assessment framework was developed to draw out the relative performance between the dual and single carriageway options, and between the three broad corridors considered.



2.11.3 In a process based on EAST (Early Assessment and Sifting Tool) the scheme objectives and further criteria were weighted and scored to develop a “score” for each intervention. The following main categories were included:

Scheme objectives – stakeholder expectations

Scheme objectives – route performance and resilience

Added Value - Design features

Factors affecting scheme costs

Deliverability

Environmental Sustainability

Value for money

Lifecycle costs and

Stakeholder acceptability

2.11.4 Most scores were based on a qualitative assessment of impacts, with the exception of the Value for Money criteria. Table 2.6 shows the final weighted and unweighted scores from the Assessment Framework.

Table 2.6: Assessment Framework Outputs

WEIGHTED SCORE

Do-min

INTERVENTION 1

INTERVENTION 2

INTERVENTION 3

INTERVENTION 4

INTERVENTION 5

INTERVENTION 6

INTERVENTION 7

INTERVENTION 8

INTERVENTION 9

25 234 210 240 229 226 223 256 249 255

Unweighted Score Do-min

INTERVENTION 1

INTERVENTION 2

INTERVENTION 3

INTERVENTION 4

INTERVENTION 5

INTERVENTION 6

INTERVENTION 7

INTERVENTION 8

INTERVENTION 9

4 53 48 54 53 51 53 59 56 59

2.11.5 The weighted scoring from the assessment framework indicates that broadly the dual carriageway interventions perform better than the single carriageway interventions (the reasons for which are partially highlighted in the section below on risks and opportunities). Further – largely due to the shorter length which results in lower costs and reduced journey times – the “Red Route” corridor interventions perform marginally better than the other corridors.

2.12 Delivery Timescales

2.12.1 Indicative delivery timeframes for the development and construction of the off-line intervention interventions are based on the PCF Project Schedule and indicate an Open to Traffic (OTT) date of 2030. The off-line interventions will require Development Consent Orders (DCO).

2.12.2 The outline of the PCF Stage dates are set out below.



Table 2.7: PCF Stage Dates

PCF STAGE STAGE COMPLETION

Pre PCF End 2018

Stage 1 July 2020

Stage 2 January 2022

Stage 3 January 2024

Stage 4 December 2025



OTT (Open to Traffic) December 2030



3 Economic Case

3.1 Summary of Economic Case

3.1.1 The economic case for the Study interventions was based on an assessment of the transport economic benefits and accident benefits using a bespoke traffic model derived from the Highways England South East Regional Traffic Model (SERTM). These benefits were compared to the scheme costs to generate a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) – all the scheme interventions have BCRs exceeding 2.0 which would fall into a high value for money category. The dual carriageway interventions show a positive impact on accidents whilst the single carriageway interventions show negative impact on accidents. Environmental impacts have not been monetised at this stage which would need to be done at a future stage as the landscape impacts would reduce the BCR.

3.2 Purpose

3.2.1 The economic case assesses interventions to identify all their impacts, and the resulting value for money, to fulfil Treasury’s requirements for appraisal and demonstrating value for money in the use of taxpayers’ money.

3.2.2 In line with Treasury’s appraisal requirements, the impacts considered are not limited to those directly impacting on the measured economy, nor to those which can be monetised. The economic, environmental, social and distributional impacts of a proposal are all examined, using qualitative, quantitative and monetised information. In assessing value for money, all of these are consolidated to determine the extent to which a proposal’s benefits outweigh its costs.

3.2.3 The Economic Case is structured as follows:

Overview of traffic modelling and assumptions;

Economic assessment approach and interventions for assessment;

Scheme Costs;

Economic assessment results for core growth and sensitivity tests;

Environmental assessments; and

Conclusions to inform the VfM Statement.

3.2.4 The interventions appraised are set out from paragraph 2.8.10.

3.3 Overview of traffic modelling methodology and assumptions

Modelling Tool Selection

3.3.1 A review was undertaken at the start of the study to consider all the available modelling tools (existing and new) which could be applied, and the associated effort and robustness that these tools would provide.



3.3.2 In liaison with the Highways England Transport Planning Group (TPG) business partner and the project manager for the A27 East of Lewes Online Improvements Scheme (RIS1), it was agreed that the South East Regional Transport Model (SERTM) would be cordoned and further refined to inform the assessment of the interventions. Following a review of SERTM it was identified that the level of validation (“fit”) of SERTM with existing conditions was not sufficient for the model to be used without further refinement.

Transport Modelling

3.3.3 The transport model (“the model”) utilised in the A27 East of Lewes Off-line Study (PCF Stage 0) assessment is derived from the South East Regional Transport Model (SERTM) (Version DF4). A cordon of the SERTM has been extracted to produce the model used to inform the assessment of the impact of the scheme interventions. The coverage of the model is shown in Figure 3.1. The model includes the peak hour from the morning (AM), interpeak and evening (PM) peaks.

Figure 3.1 – Traffic Model Coverage

3.3.4 Data was provided by local authorities based on the current local plans to determine the anticipated level of development surrounding the A27 and proposed scheme. The following forecast growth forecasts were developed:

Core Growth – based on TEMPro growth.



Optimistic Scenario – incorporates all development included in the Uncertainty Log at the Reasonably Foreseeable10 certainty or higher.

Transport Modelling – Economic Assessment

3.3.5 The appraisal of the economic benefits associated with the scheme interventions has been undertaken in accordance with WebTAG Unit A1.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis.

3.3.6 The appraisal of the travel time impacts, and accident impacts associated with the scheme interventions has been undertaken using DfT standard appraisal software. Impacts due to construction have not been assessed at this stage.

3.3.7 Environmental assessments (using modelled traffic data) for air quality and noise impacts have also not been undertaken at this stage.

Transport Modelling – Key Risks and Uncertainties

3.3.8 The model does display some weaknesses, but which are not considered to detract from the model’s usefulness for the purposes of assessing the A27 off-line scheme interventions at PCF Stage 0. The known weaknesses include:

Not meeting calibration and validation thresholds for the wider modelled area, i.e. Crawley/Gatwick.

Not being comprehensively validated against observed junction turning flows.

The model contains a proportionate and appropriate level of network and zone detail, in the areas of influence for the A27 off-line scheme interventions, but it does not include sufficient detail to replicate every intricate facet of how the scheme sections may operate and approximates the impacts of the A27 East of Lewes Online Improvements Scheme (RIS1).

It shows some coarseness in how travel demands are segmented into just five user classes.

The forecast modelling identified issues with convergence, but tests undertaken evidence that the impact of this on the results is negligible.

An aggregate growth is applied in the core growth scenario, and individual development sites are not explicitly modelled. Whilst this is not technically incorrect, the impact on the network may differ from a disaggregated approach. Tests have been undertaken that indicate that the impact that a disaggregated approach would have on the model outputs is minimal for the study area.

10 WebTAG definition of Levels of Uncertainty – indicates that the outcome may happen, but there is significant uncertainty, e.g.

a site is identified within a development plan, or represents a committed policy goal, subject to tests (e.g. of deliverability) whose outcomes are subject to significant uncertainty.



Default accident rates have been used in the accident analysis, which may result in an under- or over-estimation of the accident benefits. As these represent less than 10% of the overall scheme benefits this was considered acceptable at PCF Stage 0.

3.3.9 Further assumptions include:

Modelling assessment assumes a fixed demand.

No benefits have been calculated for weekends or bank holidays, and seasonal variation has not been considered.

Monetised environmental impacts (such as landscape) have not been calculated.

Construction (traffic) impacts have not been calculated.

3.4 Sources of Costs

3.4.1 The overall scheme costs for the A27 East of Lewes off-line improvement scheme interventions were provided by Benchmark Estimating Ltd (on behalf of the Highways England Commercial team) in Q1 2016 prices. These prices are then inflated to outturn costs using Highways England projected construction related inflation and then rebased to 2010 calendar year prices for economic calculations using the GDP price deflator as published in the TAG Databook.

3.4.2 The overall scheme present value costs are shown in Table 3.1 for each intervention. The interventions appraised are set out from paragraph 2.8.10.

Table 3.1: Scheme Costs

SCHEME

INTERVENTION PVC (DISCOUNTED 2010 £’S) IN MARKET

COST UNIT OF ACCOUNT

Intervention 1 187,565









3.4.3 More information on the cost estimates is included in the Financial Case in section 5.



3.5 Cost Benefit Analysis

Sources of Benefits

3.5.1 Most benefits associated with an off-line intervention is associated with Travel Time benefits calculated using TUBA, especially in the east–west directions which experiences the highest time saving benefits.

3.5.2 There are significant accident benefits for the dual carriageway interventions (interventions 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9) whilst the single carriageway interventions (interventions 2, 4 and 6) show disbenefits. Whilst the scheme provides an alternative route, the capacity provided by the single carriageway off-line route means that the existing A27 will still need to carry a large proportion of the existing traffic. The net result is an increase in the probability of accidents in the study area network, which can likely be attributed to higher speeds along the existing A27 without sufficiently reducing the demand along this section (which has an above-average historic accident rate).

Key Quantified Impacts

3.5.3 Table 3.3 outlines the key quantified benefits and costs associated with the scheme. Environmental impacts were not quantified at this stage.

Table 3.2: Key Quantified Impacts

CATEGORY QUANTIFIED IMPACTS

Inte

rve

ntion

1

Inte

rve

ntion

2

Inte

rve

ntion

3

Inte

rve

ntion

4

Inte

rve

ntion

5

Inte

rve

ntion

6

Inte

rve

ntion

7

Inte

rve

ntion

8

Inte

rve

ntion

9

Journey times

Journey Time Savings (Average peak saving per

vehicle, Lewes A26 / A27 – A27 / Golden Jubilee Way)

7.00 6.70 6.69 6.68 6.60 6.31 7.83 7.00 7.83

Safety

Accidents (total number saved)

461.5 -90.8 467.7 -264.3 357.1 -379.4 711.4 461.5 711.4

Fatalities (total number saved)

16.6 -5.9 16.8 -6.1 13.3 -9.2 21.1 16.6 21.1

Seriously injured (total number saved)

123.1 -24.7 124.2 -33.9 100.5 -57.2 162.3 123.1 162.3

Slightly injured (total number saved)

609.5 -135.4 617.3 -370.8 468.1 -516.9 960 609.5 960

Cost Benefit Results

3.5.4 Monetised values for the benefits calculated are shown in the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits summary in Table 3.3.

3.5.5 The present value of benefits is highest for interventions 7 and 9 with over £514m, followed by intervention 5 and interventions 1 and 8, while Intervention 6 is the lowest with £325m. Net present value of benefits is highest for interventions 9 and 1 and lowest for intervention 6.



3.5.6 Intervention 2 (single carriageway) has the highest BCR, followed by Intervention 4 (single carriageway) and then interventions 1, 3 and 8 (dual carriageway). Intervention 7 (dual carriageway) offers the lowest BCR, largely due to the increased costs associated with the inclusion of the grade-separation at Cophall Roundabout.

3.5.7 It is notable that the single carriageway interventions (interventions 2, 4, 6) provide higher BCRs compared to their dual carriageway equivalents but they lead to a significant deterioration in road safety on a section of the SRN that currently has a very poor safety record.

Table 3.3: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Summary

BENEFIT

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

1

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

2

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

3

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

4

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

5

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

6

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

7

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

8

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

9

Noise - - - - - - - - -

Local Air Quality - - - - - - - - -

Greenhouse Gases - - - - - - - - -

Journey Quality - - - - - - - - -

Physical Activity - - - - - - - - -

Accidents 32,485 -7,163 32,804 -11,503 25,708 -17,950 43,604 32,485 43,604

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users

(Commuting) 136,853 115,723 135,140 113,747 149,072 108,700 146,706 136,853 146,706

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other)

101,874 90,018 101,738 89,948 102,285 77,287 104,501 101,874 104,501

Economic Efficiency: Business Users and

Providers 201,016 177,820 201,412 176,567 202,575 155,383 214,731 201,016 214,731

Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation

Revenues) -2,361 -4,280 -3,130 -4,356 5,379 1,916 5,044 -2,361 5,044

Present Value of Benefits (PVB)

469,867 372,118 467,964 364,403 485,019 325,336 514,586 469,867 514,586

Broad Transport Budget 187,568 117,590 188,531 116,599 212,502 133,820 235,191 189,609 223,084

Present Value of Costs (PVC)

187,568 117,590 188,531 116,599 212,502 133,820 235,191 189,609 223,084

OVERALL IMPACTS

Net Present Value (NPV)

282,299 254,528 279,433 247,804 272,517 191,516 279,395 280,258 291,502

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)

2.505 3.165 2.482 3.125 2.282 2.431 2.188 2.478 2.307

3.5.8 There has not been assumed to be any downgrading (i.e. reduced speed or capacity) along the existing route.

3.5.9 Other economic impacts that are routinely monetised are expected to be delivered. These will be assessed further in future stages:

Reliability

Construction and maintenance

Greenhouse Gases



Affordability

Noise

Air Quality

3.5.10 It would be anticipated that monetised journey time reliability benefits would be positive, whilst noise and air quality benefits are likely to be slightly adverse or neutral due to the balance of benefits along the existing A27 and adverse impacts along the new alignment.

Modelled Traffic Growth in Forecast Years

3.5.11 Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 detail the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows on the A27 to the east and west of the A27 East of Lewes off-line improvements scheme, along with flows for a section midway along the existing A27 within the scheme area. Flows are shown for the 2030 Opening Year and 2045 Design Year without the scheme included (i.e. Do Minimum), and with the scheme included (i.e. Interventions 1 to 9). Interventions 7 and 8 vary only in terms of the grade-separation applied at Cophall Roundabout, hence the flows are the same.

Table 3.4: AADT Flows - 2030 (Converted from Model Outputs)

INTERVENTION YEAR

WEST - A27 BETWEEN

SOUTHERHAM RBT &

BEDDINGHAM RBT

(EB / WB)

MID - A27 EAST OF

BEDDINGHAM JCT

(EB / WB)

EAST - A27 BETWEEN

COPHALL RBT &

GOLDEN JUBILEE RBT

(EB / WB)

PROPOSED OFF-LINE

ROUTE

(EB / WB)

Do-Minimum 2030 19,913 22,344 13,972 14,817 18,059 18,208 - -

Intervention 1

2030 22,379 24,179 3,265 4,006 19,864 15,997 15,307 16,953

Intervention 2

2030 21,933 24,047 6,025 7,745 19,254 17,094 11,395 11,832

Intervention 3

2030 22,378 24,168 3,251 3,977 19,877 15,927 15,318 17,150

Intervention 4

2030 21,940 24,044 6,014 7,724 19,267 17,011 11,419 12,015

Intervention 5

2030 22,196 24,080 5,847 7,506 19,611 16,807 12,052 12,588

Intervention 6

2030 21,305 24,051 7,219 8,172 18,664 17,904 8,718 10,141

Interventions 7 & 9

2030 22,447 24,346 2,214 5,510 20,431 20,161 16,404 15,832

Intervention 8

2030 22,379 24,179 3,265 4,006 19,864 15,997 15,307 16,953

Table 3.5: AADT Flows - 2045 (Converted from Model Outputs)

INTERVENTION YEAR

WEST - A27 BETWEEN

SOUTHERHAM RBT &

BEDDINGHAM RBT

(EB / WB)

MID - A27 EAST OF

BEDDINGHAM JCT

(EB / WB)

EAST - A27 BETWEEN

COPHALL RBT &

GOLDEN JUBILEE RBT

(EB / WB)

PROPOSED OFF-LINE

ROUTE

(EB / WB)

Do-Minimum 2045 22,058 20,966 14,679 14,529 21,195 19,476 - -

Intervention 1

2045 26,101 23,399 6,336 5,718 22,365 17,418 14,088 13,857



INTERVENTION YEAR

WEST - A27 BETWEEN

SOUTHERHAM RBT &

BEDDINGHAM RBT

(EB / WB)

MID - A27 EAST OF

BEDDINGHAM JCT

(EB / WB)

EAST - A27 BETWEEN

COPHALL RBT &

GOLDEN JUBILEE RBT

(EB / WB)

PROPOSED OFF-LINE

ROUTE

(EB / WB)

Intervention 2

2045 26,008 23,417 7,401 7,181 22,357 18,311 12,075 11,331

Intervention 3

2045 26,117 23,394 6,323 5,648 22,364 17,370 14,093 13,974

Intervention 4

2045 26,005 23,409 7,393 7,175 22,369 18,269 12,109 11,404

Intervention 5

2045 26,062 23,649 6,786 7,079 22,276 17,933 12,324 11,970

Intervention 6

2045 25,896 23,465 8,309 7,812 22,290 18,621 10,456 9,922

Interventions 7 & 9

2045 26,163 23,481 2,807 5,013 23,545 20,370 18,787 15,163

Intervention 8

2045 26,101 23,399 6,336 5,718 22,365 17,418 14,088 13,857

3.5.12 The tables indicate that the dual carriageway interventions (1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9) result in a larger reduction in the traffic along the existing A27, and a larger amount of traffic on the new off-line route. Interventions 7 and 9 (which include east-west grade-separation at Cophall roundabout) attract the largest amount of traffic onto the new off-line routes and leave the lowest flows on the existing A27.

3.5.13 The network adjacent to the off-line scheme are at or near capacity in the forecast years, as is demonstrated in the volume/capacity screenshot in Figure 3.1 which represents the AM peak for Intervention 1 in 2045 (further information is in the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report).



Figure 3.1: Example of Modelled Forecast Volume/Capacity Ratios

3.5.14 Figure 3.1 indicates there may be latent demand that could use the off-line section if additional capacity could be provided on the adjacent (local) road network, and that the forecast volumes on the off-line section may be underestimated.

3.6 Impact on Forecast Journey Times

3.6.1 The forecast modelling indicates that with an off-line link in place, journey times (as compared to the Do Minimum which includes the A27 East of Lewes RIS1 Online Improvements Scheme) would improve as follows:

In 2030 the journey times would improve by as much as 6.4 minutes in the eastbound direction and 8.7 minutes in the westbound direction (Interventions 8 & 9).

In 2045 the journey times would improve by as much as 9.3 minutes in the eastbound direction and 12.1 minutes in the westbound direction (Interventions 8 & 9).

3.6.2 Other than for Interventions 7 and 9 (which include east-west grade-separation at Cophall roundabout) there are not significant differences in the journey time savings that would be achieved between single and dual carriageway interventions.



3.7 Assessment of capacity of existing A27 in context of off-line scheme

3.7.1 The forecast traffic modelling (based on Intervention 1 as a proxy) indicates that the east-west traffic demand along the A27 corridor between Lewes and Polegate (i.e. combined totals of online and off-line traffic) would be upward of 3,250 two-way trips/hour (peak) in 2030 and 2,900 two-way trips/hour in 2045. This translates to future AADT demand of more than 39,500 in 2030 and 40,000 in 2045.

3.7.2 Existing A27 link capacity: The Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) (TA 79/99) defines the traffic capacity for an urban road (UAP2) carriageway as 1,700 two-way vehicles/hour (6.1m carriageway width) and 2,100 two-way vehicles/hours (6.75m carriageway width). An urban road was referenced as this better represents the capacity of the existing A27 due to the number of junctions and accesses (more than 40) between Beddingham roundabout and Polegate. This would translate to an AADT capacity of approximately 22,000.

3.7.3 Off-line link capacity: For a rural single carriageway, DMRB (TA 46/97 – Annex D) defines the (uncongested) capacity for a single carriageway as 1,305 vehicles/hour11 (maximum hourly lane throughput), and 2,000 for dual carriageway. This would translate to 2,175 (single) and 3,333 (dual) two-way vehicles/hour. Table D/2 in TA 46/97 defines the AADT values at which a rural single carriageway trunk road (S212) would become congested as 22,000 and a dual carriageway (D2AP) as 68,000.

3.7.4 Comparison of the future demands on the A27 corridor with the theoretical capacity indicates the following:

In AADT terms, if a dual carriageway intervention was implemented the new link would be able to accommodate all of the east-west demand and the existing A27 could be fully downgraded (as the off-line route could accommodate the full forecast demand of 40,000 daily trips).

If a single carriageway intervention was implemented, the east-west demand would exceed the AADT capacity (22,000) of the new link and as much as 18,000 daily trips would need to use the existing A27 in 2045. This would be approaching the uncongested capacity of the existing A27, and would significantly restrict the opportunities to fully downgrade the existing A27 to a local trip/tourism-orientated route.

3.8 Discussion of Wider Economic Impacts – The Economic

Narrative

3.8.1 At PCF stage 0 it is not considered proportionate to undertake any modelling or quantification of wider economic impacts. However, some initial

11 Assuming 5% HGVs 12 For scheme costing purposes a S2 design was assumed for the single carriageway options as set out in Table 2.4.



consideration has been given to the Economic Narrative that will direct the scheme assessment and modelling approach in subsequent PCF stages.

3.8.2 The wider economic impacts that have been looked at in the Economic Narrative include:

Productivity

Employment

Investment

3.8.3 Productivity impacts have been assessed in terms of transport user benefits, static clustering and dynamic clustering. Static clustering is the density of economic activity can be affected by changes in generalised travel costs which brings firms and employees effectively closer together. Reductions in generalised travel costs will increase productivity arising from static clustering and vice versa. Whereas, dynamic clustering is the physical density of economic activity can change because of changes to either the level or location of economic activity. Note that if there is a relocation of economic activity, the increased productivity in the area gaining jobs will be at the expense of those losing jobs but the total change in productivity need not sum to zero. Only an increase in jobs at the national level will have an unambiguous positive effect on productivity arising from dynamic clustering.

3.8.4 The impacts on transport user benefits are expected to be high, described throughout this report, while due to the location of the scheme the impacts on static and dynamic clustering are estimated to be negligible.

3.8.5 Employment impacts have been assessed in terms of labour supply and movement to more/less productive jobs. It has been estimated that the benefits accrued from both impacts would be negligible due to a range of factors including the scheme being located in an area of low unemployment, the scheme being located out with a functional urban region and the area having a low proportion of consumer services employment.

3.8.6 Investment impacts have been assessed in terms of dependent development and output change in imperfectly competitive markets.

3.8.7 Assessment of transport modelling outputs of all A27 off-line scheme interventions identified that there were comparatively small differences between the journey time savings delivered by each intervention relative to the Do Minimum. Journey time savings are slightly greater for the dual carriageway interventions relative to single carriageway, and the grade-separated junction at Cophall results in significant additional journey time savings, especially for the ‘Optimistic Scenario’ modelling scenario.

3.8.8 The qualitative wider economic assessment carried out concluded that the scheme is likely to have a High impact on output change in imperfectly competitive markets. In line with WebTAG guidance, 10% of Business User Benefits has been assumed to be equivalent to the impact on output change in imperfectly competitive markets. The economic assessment concluded



that the scheme would have a medium impact on dependent development, but further investigation is required in future stages to establish whether a clear case can be made for dependent development.

3.8.9 The estimation of agglomeration benefits would enhance the overall scale of benefits forecast by the scheme, and hence improve the economic case. Ultimately, any scheme that increases connectivity will, consequently, increase the ‘effective density’ within an area and deliver benefits. While the scale of static agglomeration benefits is assessed as small (in comparison with other schemes), it may still be the case that the inclusion of such benefits would improve the benefit-cost and value-for-money performance of each of the A27 off-line scheme interventions.

3.8.10 Based on the above it is considered that the wider economic impacts of investment should be considered in more detail in later PCF stages.

3.9 Environmental Assessment

3.9.1 A qualitative assessment of the anticipated environmental impacts of the A27 East of Lewes off-line scheme interventions was undertaken and the anticipated environmental impacts of the A27 East of Lewes off-line scheme interventions have been summarised in the Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) presented in Appendix A of this report and are summarised below:

Landscape, Biodiversity – Large Adverse impact;

Noise, Air Quality, Historic Environment – Moderate Adverse impact;

Townscape, Water Environment – Slight Adverse impact; and

Greenhouse gases – neutral impact.

3.9.2 The environmental assessment was undertaken against each of the corridors routes, and no differentiation was made at PCF Stage 0 between the single and dual carriageway interventions.

3.9.3 In future stages the cumulative environmental impact of all the schemes along the A27 may need to be considered, in terms of impacts on the South Downs National Park. It will be important to consider environmental mitigation measures at an early stage. The guidance in the Highways England document “The road to good design” (2018) needs to be applied.

3.10 Appraisal Summary Table (AST)

3.10.1 The AST is a summary of key consequences relating to the environmental, economic and social impacts of the scheme. The AST is shown in Appendix A.

3.11 Conclusions for Value for Money Statement

3.11.1 All interventions assessed indicate a net positive benefit with BCRs of more than 2.0, suggesting that the interventions are value for money.



3.11.2 While all interventions indicate a positive BCR, the red and blue corridor alignments show more promise than the magenta alignment. Grade-separation at Cophall roundabout shows promise, particularly in the optimistic scenario which includes higher levels of growth.

3.11.3 The single carriageway interventions result in a worsening of road safety along the corridor.

3.11.4 The best performing intervention (in terms of BCR) is intervention 2 (single carriageway) whilst the best performing dual carriageway intervention is intervention 1. The best performing intervention (in terms of journey time savings) are interventions 7 and 9, which include east-west grade-separation at Cophall roundabout. For interventions 7 and 9 the network volume/capacity ratio is typically lower than the other intervention in the Eastbourne area, especially on the Cophall roundabout approaches, indicating that the grade-separation of the roundabout provides additional capacity that is to the advantage of traffic flows in the area.

3.11.5 It is recommended that a dual carriageway improvement, with and without grade-separation, is taken forward and explored further at PCF Stage 1. It is recommended that all three corridor alignments be further investigated at the next stage as the consideration of dependent development may strengthen the case for pursuing the magenta alignment, which performs worst in terms of the economic case in PCF Stage 0.



4 Commercial and Procurement

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The purpose of this section is to assess the commercial viability of the off-line proposals and to outline the procurement interventions available for engaging with the market.

4.2 Output Specification

4.2.1 If the scheme enters next stage of assessment, it will be managed by Project Control Framework (PCF). The scheme will be placed in PCF Stage 1 (Option Identification).

4.2.2 Key deliverables of this stage will be:

Identification of the options to be taken to public consultation;

Option assessment in terms of environmental impact, traffic forecasts and economic benefits;

Refinement of the cost estimate of interventions (including an allowance for risk);

Appraisal Specification Report;

Interventions Estimate;

Economic Assessment Report;

Traffic Forecasting Report;

Technical Appraisal Report;

Statement of Intent;

Public Consultation Strategy;

Statutory Undertaker Estimates; and

Departures from Standards Checklist.

4.2.3 An interim Stage Gate Assessment Review (SGAR) and SGAR 1 at the end of Stage 1 will measure the success of the project and will provide evidence for the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) and key stakeholders on the continued viability (or not) of the project.

4.3 Market Analysis

4.3.1 Market analysis is crucial in terms of informing intervention design, operational and maintenance requirements, and the procurement route. To progress the interventions, new framework contracts will need to be let by Highways England. During this process, there is the opportunity to obtain further market analysis to ensure that preferred suppliers can offer the range of capabilities required.

4.3.2 The construction timeframe is anticipated to coincide with a period of high innovation within the motor vehicle industry, changes in travel patterns, as



well as other wider changes (such as changing social mobility, agglomeration of populations back into cities and changes to goods distribution models). Technology will play a developing role, ensuring that the scheme is fit for purpose over its whole life. As a result, continued market analysis to monitor developments in technology will be essential.

4.4 Supplier Relationship

4.4.1 Highways England works closely with stakeholders and suppliers to ensure their road network is safe, efficient and meets the needs of road users.

4.4.2 The Highways England Strategic Business Plan (2015-2020) states that an integral part of the strategy for improving the capacity and performance of the network involves continuing to build relationships with partners, helping Highways England to meet the increasing investment challenge by:

changing the way Highways England design and package work;

working with suppliers to develop their capacity and capability;

working with Transport Focus to better understand and improve people’s experience on the network; and

working more closely with regional and local partners tasked with delivering economic growth.

4.4.3 Furthermore, Highways England’s Supply Chain Strategy (2015) notes that developing collaborative relationships is a key aim, allowing Highways England to draw more strongly on learning and innovation from both UK and overseas best practices.

4.4.4 Currently, Highways England utilises the Collaborative Delivery Framework (CDF) to procure design, construction and professional services in a cost-effective way. A key element of the CDF is collaboration and knowledge sharing amongst the suppliers to promote innovation and best value. Aligned with this, the CDF includes the Collaborative Performance Framework (CPF), a tool used to monitor performance but also obtain client feedback.

4.5 External Factors

4.5.1 Key external factors, such as strategic risks and dependencies, have the potential to impact on the commercial viability and procurement interventions available to Highways England. The strategic case (section 2) provides further details.

4.6 Commercial Strategy and Procurement Options

4.6.1 Subject to investment approval, the development of options would progress in line with the stages of outlined in the Highways England PCF handbook. Following each investment decision point, a clear commercial and procurement strategy will be agreed to enable the commissioning on the next stage of works.



4.6.2 As mentioned in Section 4.4, Highways England’s procurement framework for the delivery of major highway schemes is known as the CDF. It provides a procurement route for any project over £15m thus avoiding individual Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) procurement events. The principles of the CDF are to achieve continuous improvement in health and safety, sustainability, quality, time and cost.

4.6.3 Suppliers to progress any of these options through to PCF Stage 1 would be appointed through CDF.

4.7 Risk and Issue Management – Risk Allocation and Transfer

4.7.1 External risk allocation and transfer will be defined as per the CDF. Highways England’s Project Manager would be primarily responsible for risk management and the dissemination of information at regular intervals to the Highways England SRO and the scheme’s Project Board.

4.8 Human Resources including TUPE

4.8.1 There is no human resource or personal implication which requires consideration as a result of the programme of work. TUPE is an acronym for ’Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981’. There are no TUBE impacts from this scheme.

4.9 Procurement Timelines

4.9.1 The table below outlines the activities and indicative timescales to appoint a highways design/ traffic modelling supplier. This is based on estimated timescales for appointing a supplier from the CDF.

4.9.2 Table 3.1: Indicative Procurement Timelines

NUMBER ACTIVITY DURATION

1 Tender documents preparation (Project Team) 1 week

2 Undertake supplier capacity and capability check 1 week

3 Time given to suppliers to submit their tenders 4 weeks

4 Assessment of tenders 1 week

5 Standstill period 1-2 weeks

6 Target cost negotiation 1-2 weeks

Total duration 9-11 weeks



5 Financial Case

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The financial case outlines the approach taken to assess affordability and provides an analysis of the budget and funding cover for the project.

5.1.2 Details of costs would be provided in the subsequent outline and full business cases, in line with DfT guidance.

5.2 Impact of Accountancy and Tax Treatments

5.2.1 The accountancy and tax treatments associated with the scheme are not known at this stage as they depend, to a certain degree, on the final procurement approach adopted. Subject to investment approval, there factors will be investigated in detail during PCF Stage 1.

Tax Implications

5.2.2 Tax implications are not currently known. However, non-recoverable Value-Added Tax (VAT) will be payable on any option where the majority of works are outside of existing Highways England borders.

Balance Sheet

5.2.3 The balance sheet implications are not known at this stage.

5.3 Financial Appraisal

5.3.1 Strategic estimates have been produced by Highways England’s commercial estimating team for each of the off-line options. These estimates reflect that the study is at PCF Stage 0, and therefore there is a lower level of detail and definition than would be available at later PCF stages.

Strategic Estimating Model

5.3.2 The estimates were produced through a strategic estimating model which automatically calculates the following costs:

Options and development;

Lands;

Project overheads and method related costs;

Direct works including unscheduled items allowance;

Contractor fee;

Auxiliary costs;

Employers agent costs during PCF stages 6 and 7; and

Non-recoverable VAT.

Project Risk

5.3.3 In addition to calculating base costs, the strategic estimating model applies pre-determined risk allowances associated with uncertainty and portfolio risk.



Uncertainty

5.3.4 Elements that are beyond the scenarios prescribed by the strategic estimating model are considered as areas of uncertainty, and the costs of these elements are included in the model as ‘bespoke items’. Bespoke items in the strategic estimates for the off-line interventions tested include rail underbridges, box culverts, extra-over hard dig for widening involved and noise and visual mitigation measures. Interventions 8 and 9 also included grade-separation at Cophall roundabout.

5.3.5 There is uncertainty surrounding the noise and visual mitigation measures which would be required as part of the off-line interventions. The bespoke item included in the strategic estimates for the interventions include the below assumptions:

Tree planting: 4km of route requiring tree planting on both sides.

Noise barriers: 1km of route requires 6m high noise barriers on one side only.

Earthworks: 2km route in cut at average depth of 5m.

Extra-over landscaping: 2km of route requires extra-over landscaping (seeding and turfing) on both sides.

Outturn Strategic Estimates

5.3.6 Cost estimates have been produced for each road intervention in line with Highways England’s Cost Estimation Manual. The manual highlights how accurate cost estimates are required throughout the project lifecycle in order to:

determine the economic feasibility of the scheme.

undertake appraisal of alternative schemes.

establish scheme budgets.

5.3.7 Highways England operate a consistent approach to cost estimate production so that different schemes and interventions can be compared. Scheme cost estimation is governed by the requirements of PCF and Investment Decision Committee (IDC) process. Differing levels of detail are required depending on which phase and stage the project is at within the project lifecycle. At PCF Stage 0 ‘order of magnitude’ cost estimates or ‘strategic magnitude estimates’ are prepared.

5.3.8 Scheme cost estimates have been developed using Highways England’s Procurement and Commercial Directorate Cost Planning Group parametric estimating tools. The formal outputs of the estimates have been recorded in a standardised template.

5.3.9 The cost estimation process is informed by details of scheme concepts provided by the project team and considers the total cost of scheme development and construction. SGAR milestones have been forecast in order to establish a programme against which scheme costs have been profiled. Given the timescales involved in the delivery of major highway infrastructure



and substantial uncertainty at the early stages of development, estimates are produced as a range – ‘minimum (P10)’, ‘most likely (ML)’ and ‘maximum (P90)’ for each intervention.

5.3.10 Key assumptions which inform the generation of capital costs include:

Risk allowances have been calculated using percentages assumed by the project team which are in the order of 20% of the base estimate (for the most likely case). Package specific risks have been identified separately and included under ‘uncertainty’

The scheme has been estimated as a standalone output. Therefore, no specific consideration has been given to the economy or diseconomy of including this scheme within a programme effort

Any potential contributions to the scheme by third parties have not been considered in this estimate

The lands cost estimate has been informed by District Valuers reporting

The procurement route has been assumed to be Early Contractor Involvements (ECI) with the majority of the detailed design developed by a contractor under SGAR 5

No statutory undertakers estimates are available. An assessment of value based on scheme complexity, likely interactions, and direct and indirect values has been made to determine an allowance for work to be carried out by statutory undertakers

The estimate includes a most likely contractor fee percentage of 9%, with a minimum and maximum range of 6% and 12% respectively

Allowances have been included for Complex Infrastructure Programme (CIP) considerations

5.3.11 Table 4.1 summarises the total length of each intervention, including a breakdown of the length by online upgrade or off-line bypass. The table also presents the total junctions (existing and new) and the total number of bridges where work is required (existing, new, and non-motorised) associated with each intervention.



Table 4.1: Summary of scheme components for cost estimate

SCHEME

INTERVENTION TOTAL

LENGTH ONLINE

WIDENING NEW LINK ROAD

NEW

JUNCTIONS JCT

IMPROVEMENTS

Intervention 1 16.8km 2.7km 14.1km D2AP - 3

Intervention 2 16.8km 2.7km 14.1km S2 - 3






Intervention 8 16.8km 2.7km 14.1km D2AP * 3

Intervention 9 16.8km 2.7km 14.1km D2AP * 3

* No new junctions, but east-west grade-separation introduced at Cophall roundabout

5.3.12 Table 4.2 presents the most likely outturn scheme cost estimates in Q1 2016 prices inflated to outturn costs using Highways England projections of construction-related inflation. All historic costs (previous years and an approximate of this year’s spend that occurs in the past) are not excluded from these costs.

Table 4.2: Summary of scheme cost estimates (£000)

COST ITEM

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

1

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

2

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

3

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

4

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

5

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

6

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

7

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

8

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

9

Base estimate (Jan-16)*

216,154 135,391 217.450 134,412 245,519 154,469 266,586 218,457 257,585

Risk adjustment

43,230 27,078 43.490 26,882 49,104 30,894 53,317 43,691 51,517

Sub-total 259,385 162,469 260.940 161,294 294,623 185,363 319,903 262,148 309,102

Inflation adjustment

142,915 88,246 143.930 87,629 164,298 101,736 164,131 144,530 175,184

Portfolio risk

36,534 22,811 36.767 22,649 41,667 26,114 44,024 36,930 44,022

Ret. adjustment

total

179,448 111,057 180.697 110,278 205,964 127,850 208,155 181,460 219,205

Est. Outturn

438,833 273,526 441.637 271,571 500,588 313,213 528,058 443,608 528,307

Note 1: * includes unscheduled items

5.3.13 Table 4.3 presents the range around the most likely scheme costs for each option which illustrate the significant level of uncertainty associated with cost estimates at this stage in the scheme development process.



Table 4.3: Range estimate (£000) – Q1 2016 prices

COST

ITEM IN

TE

RV

EN

TIO

N 1

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

2

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

3

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

4

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

5

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

6

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

7

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

8

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

9

Minimum (P10)

62,109 37,969 62,476 38,507 69,193 42,709 77,845 62,803 77,477

Most likely (ML)

438,833 273,526 441,637 271,571 500,588 313,213 528,058 443,608 528,307

Maximum (P90)

1,824,027 1,390,332 1,834,899 1,388,059 2,057,710 1,588,907 2,015,259 1,775,916 2,148,166

5.3.14 Table 4.4 summarises the estimated percentage of spend for four different cost categories (preparation, supervision, works, and lands). The risk, uncertainty and portfolio risk estimates are apportioned within these cost categories. The results indicate that the largest cost elements are associated with works.

Table 4.4: Breakdown of cost by category

COST ITEM

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

1

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

2

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

3

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

4

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

5

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

6

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

7

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

8

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

9

Preparation 6 7 6 7 6 7 5 6 5

Supervision 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1

Works 87 86 87 86 87 86 89 87 89

Lands 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5.3.15 Currently no operating and maintenance costs have been prepared for any of the base package elements. It is anticipated that these will need to be developed during future stages with attention paid to the interventions which include significant technology enhancements.

Efficiency Plan

5.3.16 Highways England is committed to delivering value for money for the public and has a commitment to deliver total efficiency savings of over £2.6bn over a 10-year period beginning in 2015. Highways England intends to add value benefits through:

reducing costs to deliver the same product and / or outcomes.

producing higher quality / longer lasting products.



early or increased realisation of benefits.

reduction of negative economic consequences.

5.3.17 The scheme will continue to be developed in line with the guidelines set out in Highways England’s Efficiency and Inflation Monitoring Manual. The manual lays out the approach to measuring, recording and monitoring efficiencies as committed in the Highways England Delivery Plan 2015-2020.

Budget and Funding Arrangements

5.3.18 The funding arrangements for the next stage are not yet known.

5.3.19 It is likely that the funding for the highways elements of the options will be provided from DfT/ Highways England budgets. Considering the future development in the area, developer contributions may also be appropriate. If there are associated local improvements (such as those relating to the existing A27 route), this may come from a combination of DfT/ Highways England and relevant local authority budgets. However, this would be considered further in the PCF process.

Funding Profile and Affordability

5.3.20 Table 4.5 presents the funding profiles developed by the Highways England commercial team for each of the options.

5.3.21 The profiles represent the rebased 2010 calendar year profiles used to inform the economic assessments. The following assumptions apply:

All costs are in the factor cost unit of account.

The expenditure profiles are based upon cost estimates for each financial year prepared in Q1 2016 prices and then inflated to outturn costs using Highways England projected construction related inflation. These costs have then been rebased to 2010 calendar year profiles for economic calculations, using the GDP-deflator series as published in the WebTAG Databook.

The costs exclude all recoverable VAT. All historic costs have been removed - previous years and an approximate of this year’s spend that occurs in the past.

5.3.22 Table 4.6 presents discounted Present Value Costs (PVCs) in 2010 values for each of the options – the PVC was used in the economic assessment.



Table 4.5: Profile of Forecast Expenditure (Undiscounted 2010 £s)

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 TOTAL (EXCL

HIST)

Option 1 2,431,691 2,444,970 4,212,177 5,191,780 19,278,662 55,811,231 93,680,523 88,215,521 20,311,149 291,577,705

Option 2 2,199,617 2,109,770 2,833,768 3,492,802 12,311,265 34,043,829 59,486,589 53,822,058 12,106,286 182,405,984

Option 3 2,445,354 2,458,707 4,235,844 5,220,952 19,630,765 54,123,085 93,619,415 88,748,805 22,807,945 293,290,873

Option 4 2,170,815 2,082,144 2,796,663 3,447,067 12,484,855 32,501,018 58,707,857 53,406,077 13,398,790 180,995,286

Option 5 2,804,303 2,819,616 4,857,616 5,987,326 22,005,519 52,812,808 105,919,247 91,471,426 41,418,264 1,598,773 331,694,899

Option 6 2,583,878 2,478,335 3,328,812 4,102,976 14,182,834 31,889,564 67,652,922 56,186,304 25,041,442 941,194 208,388,259

Option 7 2,629,430 2,643,788 4,554,700 5,613,962 23,549,016 189,200,803 128,241,301 356,432,999 356,432,999

Option 8 2,465,149 2,478,610 4,270,132 5,263,214 19,353,016 56,456,650 94,693,941 89,225,789 20,553,911 294,760,411

Option 9 2,553,784 2,567,729 4,423,666 5,452,454 21,251,748 55,553,152 113,005,279 97,704,061 44,835,012 1,532,490 348,879,373


D-60 STRATEGIC OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE REPORT | VERSION 0.7 | 26 JANUARY 2018

Table 4.6: Summary of Present Value Costs for Options

SCHEME

OPTION PVC (DISCOUNTED 2010 £’S) IN MARKET

COST UNIT OF ACCOUNT

Option 1 187,565

Option 2 117,590

Option 3 188,531

Option 4 116,599

Option 5 212,502

Option 6 133,820

Option 7 235,191

Option 8 189,609

Option 9 223,084

Risk and Issue Management and Finance Risks

5.3.23 The Management Case provides details of the risk and issue management process that has been used for PCF Stage 0 and will continue to be used for subsequent PCF Stages. A summary of the risks surrounding the costs estimates and funding are provided below:

Scheme cost estimates – The forecast cost of the schemes is a strategic estimate, and as such there is a significant risk that the cost and construction programme is likely to change when the design of the schemes are developed in more detail.

Exclusions – As referred to in the strategic case, if an off-line route was constructed there could be the opportunity to downgrade and detrunk the existing A27 route. Due to the uncertainty at PCF Stage 0, the strategic estimates do not include costs that would be incurred if the existing A27 route was downgraded.

Inflation – Given the timescales for completion of the schemes, there is a risk of change in the rate of inflation (both up and down) which could mean that actual inflation is different to the forecast rate of inflation included within the estimates.

Operation/ maintenance cost estimates – No detailed assessment of operation and maintenance cost changes have been included at this stage.

Timescale estimates – broad assumptions have been made with regard to timescales, which means that there is a risk that processes such as acquiring land and following statutory planning processes will take longer and will be more costly than has been assumed.

Ground conditions – unforeseen ground conditions could impact on the delivery of a scheme, representing additional cost in delivering technical solutions and costs resulting from delays

Funding and affordability – specific funding has not been secured. The costs associated with the development and construction of the off-line options are significant.



Employee and Non-employee Resource Plan/Assumptions

5.3.24 Resource plans and associated assumptions are generated on a phase-by-phase basis. Subject to investment approval, study team consultants will be chosen from the CDF preferred suppliers via a competitive mini-tender process for the Options phase of the study. Following this process, Highways England will have a clear plan of resource requirements and associated assumptions.

Full-time Equivalent Employee Labour Requirements Planned

5.3.25 The employee labour requirements are not known at this PCF stage.

Full-time Equivalent Non-Employee Labour Requirements Planned

5.3.26 The non-employee labour requirements are not known at this PCF stage.



6 Management Case

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This section considers the ability of the programme or project to achieve its main deliverables and benefits and sets out the objectives for project management during the remaining phases. At this early stage in the PCF process, the details of the overall management structure adopted for the development and construction of any of the off-line options would be the same.

6.2 Programme/ Project Dependencies

6.2.1 The delivery of the study has a number of internal and external factors upon which it depends on. The known project dependencies and how they relate to the study delivery include:

Funding Availability - The costs associated with the development and construction of the options are significant. Funding is crucial to the development of the study.

Political Support - Considering the substantial timescales associated with the development and construction of the study options, consideration needs to be given to the potential for a change in the level of political support for the study and a change in government.

Stakeholder/ Public Support – Initial discussions have taken place with stakeholders as part of PCF Stage 0. Stakeholder and public support will be important for the study to progress. Subsequent PCF stages include further stakeholder and public consultation.

Planning/ Orders Approval – the off-line options would require Development Consent Orders.

6.3 Programme/ Project Governance, Organisation Structure and Roles

6.3.1 The project will be governed by a Project Board. The Project Board includes the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), Senior User and Senior Supplier. The board is supported by the Project Manager and various technical specialists from Highways England and supply chain at the request of the SRO. The Project Board will be appointed as part of starting up the project.

6.3.2 Assurance for the project will be carried out under the Highways England Investment Control Framework (ICF) processes, the Highways Investment Board, and internal Major Project procedures, such as the PCF. As part of the PCF, the scheme will be subject to peer reviews and audits such as Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway Reviews and Stage Gate Assessment Reviews.

6.4 Programme/ Project Plan

6.4.1 A high-level schedule showing each stage of the PCF delivery process is shown in Table 2.8. The dates are subject to change.



6.5 Communications and Stakeholder Management

6.5.1 A Stakeholder Management Plan has been developed as part of PCF Stage 0. The strategic case in section 2 details the stakeholder engagement which has been undertaken as part of PCF Stage 0.

6.5.2 There will be a requirement to conduct formal consultation with the public to discuss the preferred route. Further consultation with statutory bodies will also be required at key milestones in line with best practise and statutory procedures. Consultation with statutory undertakers has not been undertaken as part of PCF Stage 0 and will be done in PCF Stage 1.

6.6 Programme/ Project Reporting

6.6.1 Project reporting is essential for all key stakeholder to remain fully informed of project progression, as well as highlighting any key issues, tasks and decision points. The frequency and content of reporting will be defined by the project manager in liaison with the supplier at the start of the contract. Subject to investment approval, key reporting formats are likely to include:

Project Board (monthly) - Provides strategic oversight to the study and will confirm that the terms of reference for the study are being addressed.

Project Progress Meeting (weekly) - Ensuring effective management of the project.

Transport Planning Group (TPG) (as required) - Opportunity to discuss technical aspects of option development and appraisal.

6.6.2 Financial reporting will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Major Projects Portfolio Office and statutory processes.

6.7 Implementation of Workstreams

6.7.1 The key workstreams are shown in Table 2.8.

6.8 Risk Strategy

6.8.1 The risk management process is essential to identifying, assessing and managing the risk associated with the delivery of the Package. A Risk Management Plan and risk register were developed at PCF Stage 0 and will continue to be used for subsequent PCF Stages.

6.8.2 The Risk Management Plan sets out the process for identifying analysing and evaluating risks and issues, as well as determining the responses to risk and analysing and evaluating residual risk.

6.8.3 The risk register categorises risks as Project, Programme and Strategic. Project and Programme. Risks refer to those affecting the delivery, programme and cost of the Package, while Strategic Risks refer to those affecting the ability of Highways England to deliver the wider scheme programme. The risk register is a live document and will continue to be updated on an ad hoc basis as well as through the more formal risk workshops involving technical experts from the project team and Highways England officers. The risk register undertaken to date is at a proportionate level of detail relevant for the stage and will be refined as the work progresses through subsequent PCF stages, subject to approval.



6.9 Benefits Realisation Plan

6.9.1 Subject to approval, following successful delivery of a scheme, it will be important to determine whether the forecast impacts of the option and anticipated benefits have materialised. As such, a robust strategy will be put in place for both the benefits realisation and the associated monitoring and evaluation and a Benefits Realisation plan developed. The Plan ensures that a process is in place to assess whether the scheme objectives have been successfully realised. As part of this plan, a programme of monitoring will be established from pre-construction through option construction, and for a period of up to five years post-option opening.

6.9.2 A Benefits Realisation Plan enables benefits that are expected to be derived from the project to be planned for, managed, tracked and realised. The most important element of a successful project is that it delivers its intended outcomes. An outcome is a result of change which affects real world behaviour or circumstances, and may lead to one or more benefits. A benefit is a measurable improvement resulting from the changes and outcomes introduced by the project. A benefit must be perceived as an advantage by one or more stakeholders.

6.9.3 Benefits management evolves as the project progresses, and is one of the few elements of project delivery which spans the whole lifecycle of the project, from conception to evaluation to post delivery.

6.9.4 During PCF Stage 0, the benefits (linked to the Highways England performance specification) have been identified and are outlined in Table 6.1. Suggested outcomes and means of measuring these have been included.

Table 6.1: Summary of Scheme Benefits and Realisation of Outcomes

BENEFIT OUTCOMES (BETWEEN LEWES

AND POLEGATE) METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

Making the network safer Reduced accident rates and severity of accidents

Reduction in traffic ‘rat-running’ on the local narrow lanes

Annual accident records

Traffic flows on rural lanes

Improving user satisfaction Reduction in user complaints about the road network

Highways England and East Sussex County Council customer feedback systems

Supporting the smooth flow of traffic

Improved connectivity

Reduced journey times

Improved journey time reliability

Overall east-west road capacity

Journey times from Southerham Roundabout to Cophall Roundabout

Variation in journey times during peaks

Encouraging economic growth

Development enables/ unlocked by scheme

Existing A27 as more tourism-friendly

Increase in small businesses along the existing A27

Evidence from Local Plans setting out additional development enabled by off-line improvement

Feedback from tourism industry and South Downs National Park

Feedback from local small business forums and chambers of commerce



BENEFIT OUTCOMES (BETWEEN LEWES

AND POLEGATE) METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

Helping cyclists, walkers, and other vulnerable users of the network

Improved access to the South Downs National Park

Increase in cyclists, walkers and equestrian users along the existing A27

Feedback from South Downs National Park

Quantification of crossing points and numbers of non-motorised users using these points.

Keeping the network in good condition

Reduction in maintenance requirements

Improvement in efficiency of maintenance

Feedback from Area Operating company

Quantification of traffic management requirements for maintenance

6.10 Programme/ Project Reviews

6.10.1 Subject to approval, programme / project reviews will continue to be undertaken in line with the requirements of the PCF, ensuring that the project is keeping to the programme timeframes and also to identify any issues or problems that may impact delivery of the option. The key review formats include:

Stage Gate Assessment Review (SGAR) – evidence-based review intended to draw on documentation and activities already produced to ensure that the project has followed the PCF and is ready to proceed to the next stage, subject to investment authorisation.

Independent Assurance Review (IAR) – IARs take the form of a ‘peer review’, whereby independent project managers from outside the project examine the process and likelihood of successful delivery of the project. It is a mandated assurance process for all publically funded major projects.

Operations Technical Leadership Group (TLG) – In order to ensure that best practice is applied across relevant programmes of work, the project will be required to present operational solutions to the Operations TLG. The review by the TLG will enable the sharing of knowledge and will achieve consistency of approach across designs.

6.11 Post implementation review

6.11.1 Major Projects with a capital cost of over £10m are subject to the Post Opening Project Evaluation process. The evaluation will compare the anticipated costs, benefits and other impacts (dis-benefits) with the outturn situation at one and five years after opening. During the development of the scheme it will be necessary to develop a scheme evaluation plan to set out and agree the scope of the post opening evaluation.

6.12 Lessons Learnt

6.12.1 Recording lessons learnt will be a “live” process that happens throughout all the PCF stages in the delivery of the project.

6.13 Contingency Plan

6.13.1 If the scheme enters the next stage of development, and there is a risk of premature closure, it would be possible to establish break points in the contract before it is



awarded to a supplier. This would allow the project team to commission the work in stages, and help to facilitate early closure if the risk materialises. All Highways England contracts include standard termination clauses which explain the circumstances in which a contract may be terminated and the impact.

6.14 Summary and Recommendation

6.14.1 If the work enters the next stage of development, it will be managed in accordance with PCF best practice, and OGC assurance processes.

6.14.2 The standard list of PCF deliverables will be reviewed with the SRO to tailor the requirements of PCF to the project.



Abbreviations List

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AAWT Annual Average Weekday Traffic

AM Morning peak period

BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio

C2CLEP Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership

COBALT Cost and Benefit to Accidents – Light Touch

D2AP Dual two carriageway

DCO Development Consent Order

DfT Department for Transport

DM Do Minimum

DS Do Something

EAST Early Assessment and Sifting Tool

ECR Economic Connectivity Review (Transport for the South East)

ESCC East Sussex County Council

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

IP Inter-peak period

LGV Light Goods Vehicle

LTP Local Transport Plan

NIA Noise Important Area

NTEM National Trip End Model

OGV Ordinary Goods Vehicle

PCF Project Control Framework

PM Evening peak period

RIS Road Investment Strategy

S2 Single carriageway standard

SDNP South Downs National Park

SELEP South East Local Enterprise Partnership



SERTM South East Regional Transport Model

SGAR Stage Gate Assessment Review

SOBC Strategic Outline Business Case

SoCoMMS South Coast Multi-Modal Study

SRG Stakeholder Reference Group

SRN Strategic Road Network

TAG Traffic Appraisal Guidance

TEMPro Trip End Model Presentation Program

TfSE Transport for the South East

TIS Transport Investment Strategy

TPG Transport Planning Group (formerly TAME)

TUBA Transport User Benefit Analysis

VDM Variable Demand Modelling

VfM Value for Money

WebTAG Web-based Transport Appraisal Guidance

pcf stage 0 - whatdotheyknow.com

Documents