(Established pursuant to section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 as the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton

and Wirral Combined Authority)

MEETING OF THE LIVERPOOL CITY REGION

COMBINED AUTHORITY

To: The Members of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Dear Member, You are requested to attend a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority to be held on Friday, 20th October, 2017 at 1.00pm in the Authority

Chamber - No. 1 Mann Island, Liverpool, L3 1BP. If you have any queries regarding this meeting, please contact Trudy Bedford on telephone number (0151) 443 3365.

Yours faithfully

Interim Head of Paid Service

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3. MINUTES OF THE LCR COMBINED AUTHORITY MEETING HELD ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2017

(Pages 1 - 14)

4. LIVERPOOL CITY REGION METRO MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPDATES

To receive updates from the Liverpool City Region Metro Mayor.

TRANSPORT

5. LOCAL GROWTH FUND: APPROVAL OF FULL MAJOR BUSINESS CASE FOR LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE CONNECTIVITY

To consider the report of the Lead Officer: Transport.

(Pages 15 - 28)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURE

6. LIVERPOOL CITY REGION SINGLE INVESTMENT FUND (*KEY DECISION)

To consider the report of the Interim Head of Paid Service.

(Pages 29 - 40)

SKILLS AND APPRENTICESHIPS

7. PORTFOLIO UPDATE - SKILLS AND APPRENTICESHIPS

To receive an update on the work of this portfolio.

GOVERNANCE

8. LOCAL GROWTH FUND 3 AWARD - APPROVAL TO COMMISSION PROJECTS TO SUPPORT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE KEY ROUTE NETWORK (*KEY DECISION)

To consider the report of the Interim Head of Paid Service.

(Pages 41 - 50)

9. DISCHARGING THE COMBINED AUTHORITY'S NEW POWERS OVER EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTEMENT FUNDS

To consider the report of the Lead Officer: European Issues.

(Pages 51 - 78)

10. PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION (*KEY DECISION)

To consider the report of the Interim Monitoring Officer.

(Pages 79 - 84)

11. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Members of the public will be given the opportunity to ask questions which have been submitted in accordance with Meetings Standing Orders No. 11. A period of 30 minutes will be allocated for this item. Copies of valid questions will be circulated at the meeting. Public questions should be submitted to Knowsley Council Democratic Services by 5.00pm on Monday 16 October 2017. By email to: trudy.bedford@knowsley.gov.uk In writing to: Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Democratic Services, PO Box 26, Municipal Buildings, Archway Road, Huyton, Knowsley, L36 9YU

12. PETITIONS AND STATEMENTS

Members of the public will be given the opportunity to submit a single petition or statement in accordance with Meetings Standing Orders No. 11. Petitions and Statements should be submitted to Knowsley Council Democratic Services by 12noon on Thursday 19 October 2017. By email to: trudy.bedford@knowsley.gov.uk In writing to: Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Democratic Services, PO Box 26, Municipal Buildings, Archway Road, Huyton, Knowsley, L36 9YU

13. MINUTES OF THE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE HELD ON 7 SEPTEMBER 2017

(Pages 85 - 96)

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY

PUBLICATION: 15 SEPTEMBER 2017 DEADLINE FOR CALL-IN: 25 SEPTEMBER 2017 FOLLOWING THE CALL-IN PERIOD, DECISIONS INCLUDED IN THESE MINUTES MAY THEN BE IMPLEMENTED WHERE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO A CALL-IN. * DENOTES KEY DECISION

At a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority held in the Authority Chamber - No. 1 Mann Island, Liverpool, L3 1BP on Friday, 15th September, 2017 the following Members were

P r e s e n t:

Metro Mayor S Rotheram

Chairperson of the Combined Authority (in the Chair)

Councillor P Davies, Councillor B Grunewald, Councillor R Polhill, Deputy Mayor A O'Byrne (Substitute for Mayor J Anderson OBE), Councillor M Murphy (Substitute for Councillor A Moorhead), Councillor T O'Neill (Associate Member), Councillor F McKenna (Substitute for Councillor I Moran), Jane Kennedy (Co-opted Member - Criminal Justice) and Councillor L Robinson (Co-opted Member - Transport). Mayoral Advisors in attendance Janet Beer (Higher Education) Reverend Canon Dr E Loudon (Voluntary and Community Sector) 66. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Mayor J Anderson (OBE), Councillor A Moorhead, Councillor I Maher, Mr A Hamid MBE, Councillor I Moran (Associate Member), Luciana Berger MP (Mayoral Advisor – Mental Health), Kate Farrell (Mayoral Advisor – Homelessness), Sara Wilde-McKeown (Visitor Economy), Gideon Ben-Tovim OBE (Mayoral Advisor – Natural Environment) and Barbara Spicer (Mayoral Advisor – Social Housing Growth). 67. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST It was reported that no declarations of interest had been received. 68. MINUTES OF THE COMBINED AUTHORITY MEETING HELD ON 18

AUGUST 2017 RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority held on 18 August 2017 be approved as a correct record.

Page 1

Agenda Item 3

69. LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY FINAL ACCOUNTS 2016-17

The LCR Combined Authority considered the report of the Treasurer which set out the results of KPMG’s audit of the LCR Combined Authority accounts for 2016-17. Members attention was drawn to paragraph 3.3 of the report now submitted which referenced that the LCR Audit Committee would have considered the Statement of Accounts at their meeting on 8 September 2017. Unfortunately, due to technical reasons this meeting did not take place and the LCR Combined Authority were required to consider and approve the accounts directly. It was reported that the draft accounts for the LCR Combined Authority for 2016/17 and the draft ISA 260 had been considered by KPMG who had issued an unqualified audit opinion and confirmed that they provided a true Value For Money. A small number of presentational changes where required to be undertaken which included the following:-

There had been significant change to the governance arrangements within the LCR Combined Authority and as a result there was scope to improve the codification of arrangements, however, this did not impact on the Value For Money rating.

Minor improvements were required to the reconciliation and impairment process, however, the Auditor was satisfied that processes were being implemented to address this.

In conclusion, the Auditor reported that progress was being made on the

previous year’s recommendations with all being either implemented or superseded. A Member sought confirmation regarding the submission of the final

document for Value For Money. The Auditor confirmed that the final submission from the LCR Combined Authority had been received and they had issued a clean Value For Money conclusion.

A Member referred to Appendix One of the report now submitted and sought

an explanation of the steps being undertaken to address the low and medium priorities identified. The LCR Combined Authority was informed that an internal review of bank reconciliations was to be undertaken to establish the different levels of reviewing reconciliations. The impairment review would commence at the beginning of the new calendar year and all Heads of Service would be engaged in the process.

Metro Mayor S Rotheram welcomed the unqualified opinion and

acknowledged that as the LCR Combined Authority sought to improve their financial monitoring processes the issues identified within the Auditors report would be addressed.

RESOLVED – That:- (i) the final accounts of the Authority attached at Appendix one to the

report now submitted be noted; and (ii) the final accounts of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority as

attached at Appendix Two of the report now submitted be approved.

Page 2

70. LIVERPOOL CITY REGION METRO MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPDATES

Metro Mayor S Rotheram reported that he had participated in the Northern Transport Summit in Leeds which had been convened to bring together business and political Leaders to agree a unified case to secure national rail and infrastructure investment. The summit had emphasised the case to secure unequivocal commitment to Crossrail for the North and a more equitable approach to future investment. The Metro Mayor announced that he had appointed Lynn Collins from the North West Trade Union Congress (TUC) as Chair of the Fairness and Social Justice Advisory Board. He reflected on Lynn’s talent and commitment to ensuring that fairness and social justice remained core priorities and guiding principles for the City Region. He further reported that he had held a number of regular meetings with the City Region’s MPs to discuss a number of issues of mutual concern, which primarily related to infrastructure investment and the Government’s commitment to the Northern Powerhouse. He also highlighted that he had met with the Chancellor of the Exchequer along with the Greater Manchester Metro Mayor, Andy Burnham. They discussed the case for Crossrail for the North and sought reassurances regarding the future of the Northern Powerhouse agenda. The Metro Mayor also highlighted that he had taken the opportunity to lobby for greater control of the under-allocated Apprenticeship Levy and for government assistance for those affected by the New Ferry explosion. The Metro Mayor referenced his recent visit to Sensor City and the Materials Innovation Factory which were high technology and digital facilities based within the City Region. He highlighted how the centres were cutting-edge collaborations between industry and the University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University. Metro Mayor Rotherman informed the LCR Combined Authority of his recent visit to Wirral, where he had visited Cammell Lairds and also looked at the planned development across the Wirral. With regards to the Single Investment Fund (SIF) the Metro Mayor reported that the Outline Business Case appraisal process had been concluded for 8 projects and they included:-

Shakespeare Rail Interchange;

Shakespeare North Playhouse;

Access to Halsnead Garden Village;

Parkside Link Road;

Maritime Knowledge Hub;

Sci-Tech Darebury Skills Factory;

Liverpool Aviation Academy; and

Wirral Waters Skills Factory.

The Metro Mayor reflected on the announcement at the last meeting of the LCR Combined Authority at which he had praised Everton Football Club for their commitment to the Living Wage. He highlighted that he had since met with

Page 3

representatives from Liverpool FC who had agreed to look at their policy and see what the opportunities for future accreditation where.

In conclusion, the Metro Mayor referenced that along with Councillor Andy

Moorhead he had the opportunity to address the national conference of Public Health England. At the conference they had been able to showcase some of the innovative health agendas taking place across the City Region. He also highlighted that some of the benefits and opportunities presented by devolution to promote further innovation and cross-boundary collaboration were shared at the conference. 71. MERSEY GATEWAY

David Parr, Chief Executive of Halton Borough Council, provided a presentation to the LCR Combined Authority which examined the development of the Mersey Gateway and in particular set out the following:-

Provided an overview of the project, which outlined how the Mersey Gateway would be a six lane toll bridge which aimed to relieve the congestion on the Silver Jubilee Bridge and would be open in Autumn 2017.

Explained how the Mersey Gateway would deliver high value for money and was of strategic importance for Halton and the City Region.

Examined the benefits the Mersey Gateway would bring to Halton through improvements to public transport, walking and cycling facilities.

Summarised the employment and skills opportunities the construction of the Mersey Gateway had provided, which included over 500 construction jobs and new apprenticeship opportunities along with the potential to support the growth of over 4,500 jobs and building relationships with local schools and colleges.

Highlighted how the construction of the Mersey Gateway would support regeneration and investment through improved access to sub regional sites such as 3MG, Sci Tech Daresbury and significant investment to the north west regional economy of £129 million.

Explained how the Time Bank initiative had been established by Merseylink to provide professional advice and support to schools, colleges, charities and community groups.

Summarised how the bridge tolls would be collected through the introduction of Merseyflow, which would be used on both the Mersey Gateway and the Silver Jubilee Bridge, which used an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and RFID sticker technology to identify all vehicles. The Merseyflow also provided opportunities to register in advance for payment and access different discount packages for all circumstances.

In conclusion, explained that the Mersey Gateway was due to open in Autumn

2017 at which time the Silver Jubilee Bridge would close for refurbishment and would reopen in Spring/Summer 2018.

Page 4

On behalf of the LCR Combined Authority, the Metro Mayor congratulated David Parr, Councillor R Polhill (Leader of Halton Borough Council) and the significant number of officers and construction workers who had ensured the successful completion of the Mersey Gateway.

RESOLVED – That the presentation be noted. 72. LIVERPOOL CITY REGION LOCAL JOURNEYS STRATEGY (*KEY

DECISION) The LCR Combined Authority considered a report of the Lead Officer: Transport which sought the endorsement of the LCR Local Journeys Strategy. The Strategy contained a number of actions which sought to promote walking, cycling and improved access to public transport across the City Region. It was reported that the Transport Advisory Group had been consulted extensively on the Strategy and had identified a preferred approach of ensuring the Strategy linked into the LCR Growth Strategy “Building our Future” to demonstrate how the contribution of sustainable local journeys can support growth and the local economy. Furthermore, the Strategy would provide a joined up approach to shorter trips, by integrating sustainable travel and behaviour change activity with other modes of transport and approach this from the traveller’s perspective. Councillor L Robinson, Portfolio Holder for Transport, welcomed the Strategy and reported that the Transport Committee had considered and endorsed the Strategy. Jane Kennedy, Portfolio Holder for Criminal Justice, welcomed the Strategy and in doing so highlighted a number of significant challenges in encouraging people to cycle, particularly when cycling routes were sporadic across the City Region. She sought clarity on whether the Transport Advisory Group had considered these challenges and suggested that all schools and colleges across the City Region be asked what prevents pupils from cycling and walking and suggest how this could be improved. RESOLVED – That:-

(i) the LCR Local Journeys Strategy as set out at Appendix A to the report now submitted be endorsed; and

(ii) determine why pupils from schools and colleges from across the City

Region don’t participate in cycling and walking activities and seek their views on how this could be improved.

73. MERSEYRAIL UPDATE The LCR Combined Authority received a presentation from Frank Rogers, Interim Head of Paid Service, which provided an update on rail activity across the City Region. Accordingly, the presentation set out the following:-

Summarised the long term rail strategy and reported that it was currently being reviewed and would be presented to a future meeting;

Explained the £340million rail investment across the City Region, which included a major upgrade to Lime Street Station, creation of a new station

Page 5

at Maghull North and significant improvements to facilities at Newton-le-Willows train station.

Summarised how the Halton Curve would provide cross border connectivity between the City Region and North Wales, along with access to Liverpool John Lennon Airport.

Explained the role of the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ and how it aimed to secure increased investment to the north of the country and was fully supported by the Metro Mayor.

Highlighted how the freight sector in the City Region would receive total investment within the region of £700million, through increased port capacity.

Outlined the case for High Speed Rail, of which the City Region was a strong advocate. In particular highlighting the support for the Transport for the North proposals for a west-east rail line which connected to other City Regions and the planned HS2 network.

Explained the network development from 2020 through to 2033 which would see upgrades to key routes across the north network and how this would improve connectivity and create increased freight capacity on the network.

Highlighted the progress of the Walrus Smart Ticketing Platform, in particular how rail ticket would also be moving towards the Walrus platform.

Summarised the background to Merseyrail’s Rolling Stock Programme which would see the introduction of Drive Controlled Operation (DCO) trains bringing a 50% increase in passenger capacity and a design which was safe and secure for passengers being introduced in 2020.

Explained some of the key components of the rolling stock programme which included the modernisation of the Birkenhead North depot and the construction of a new depot at Kirkdale. The maintenance of the fleet would be transferred to Stadler until 2020/1 and approximately 150 Merseyrail employees had been successfully transferred to Stadler under TUPE arrangements.

Set out the commercial and budget issues relating to the rolling stock programme, particularly highlighting that the £460million budget covered all of the physical works and the organisational changes required to successfully deliver the fleet into operation.

Provided an update on the industrial action to which the RMT are in dispute with Merseyrail over the conversation to DCO trains. To date there had been eight days of strike action on the Merseyrail network.

At the conclusion of the presentation, Members raised the following questions and comments:-

Page 6

Councillor B Grunewald highlighted that the justification for adopting Driver Controlled Operation was explained in December 2016. Clarity was sought on whether anything had changed since and was this still the correct decision? Furthermore, the RMT had stated that the introduction of Driver Controlled Operation (DCO) on Merseyrail, whilst complying with the recommendations of the report into the fatal accident at James Street was “completely at odds with the requirements of basic railway safety”. Clarity was sought on this statement. Frank Rogers, Interim Head of Paid Service, confirmed that the decision taken in December 2016 remained the correct decision and the rationale behind the decision remained valid. The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) had confirmed that DCO was a safe method and had published guidelines which had been aligned with the new fleet. With regards to the Rail Safety Standards Board (RSSB) it was reported that since the decision had been made in December 2016 the RSSB had also concluded that DCO was safer and also highlighted the need for a platform interface to reduce the gap between the train and the platform edge. Accordingly as part of the introduction of the DCO fleet the platforms would be modified and would be the most accessible across the network. Furthermore, in identifying the preferred bidder for the new fleet, the tender documents had included the RIAB report to which all bidders had identified DCO trains as those which would support the recommendations from this report. Deputy Mayor A O’Byrne, wished to place on record her thanks to Councillor Pam Thomas, Liverpool City Council, who had been instrumental in championing the need for an accessible rail service. Furthermore, she sought clarity on the differences between Merseytravel and Merseyrail as they were often perceived to be one body and this caused confusion amongst residents. Frank Rogers, Interim Head of Paid Service, reported that in 2002 Meresytravel secured the responsibility for being the franchise body and Merseyrail operated the service on behalf of Merseytravel. Deputy Mayor A O’Byrne enquired about the recent meetings between the Metro Mayor and representatives of the RMT and in particular wanting to understand the concerns of the RMT. Frank Rogers, Interim Head of Paid Service, informed the LCR Combined Authority that RMT’s concerns related to the driver control and dispatch and were linked into the RAIB report. He reported that this was the right solution for Merseyrail given the nature of the network which was very different to the Manchester Metro and Glasgow network. Furthermore, the RMT had implemented a national approach to the use of DCO trains and had suggested that a second safety critical person be deployed on every train with the guard situated at the rear of the train. However, the business case did not allow for this and with the introduction of the new fleet there would be a greater presence of staff within the train saloons rather than being permanently situated in the rear cabin with little opportunity to move throughout the saloon. Deputy Mayor A O’Byrne referred to one of RMT’s claims that Merseyrail was putting profit before safety. Frank Rogers, Interim Head of Paid Service, reported that he had spoken with Merseyrail regarding this claim and he informed Members that the cost of employing a second person on the train would only be secure up until 2028 and there would be no funding available beyond this date.

Page 7

With regards to suggestions that there would be job losses on the trains and at train stations with the introduction of the new fleet, Deputy Mayor A O’Byrne sought clarity on this. Frank Rogers, Interim Head of Paid Service, advised Members that the train stations across the network where not the same as those on other networks, as every Merseyrail station was staffed from the first through to the last train. Furthermore, the LCR Combined Authority had previously guaranteed the employment of all guards and no-one would be forced to leave and would retain their current terms and conditions for the life time they were employed at Merseyrail. Metro Mayor S Rotheram also reported that he had met with the RMT on a number of occasions and no real progress had been achieved. Councillor P Davies referenced the suggestion from the RMT regarding the second safety critical person and sought clarity on whether they had made suggestions on how this position could be funded. Frank Rogers, Interim Head of Paid Service, reported that the current business case did not allow for the employment of a second safety critical person. He summarised a number of proposals suggested by RMT which included increasing fares, however it was felt that this would damage patronage and was not a realistic option. The RMT had also suggested that staffing at rail stations was reduced, however it was deemed that this would not deliver the necessary funding to support the second safety critical person.. RESOLVED – That the presentation and comments raised be noted. 74. HOUSEHOLD INTO WORK PROGRAMME (*KEY DECISION) The LCR Combined Authority considered a report of the Lead Officer: Skills and Apprenticeships which sought approval to accept funding from Central Government for an innovative employment programme to support people into work. It was reported that the Household into Work Programme would focus on households where more than one adult was unemployed and in receipt of benefit, rather than more traditional employment programmes that target individuals for support. The programme will test a new way of working that will see eligible households provided with tailored support and assigned an Employment Advocate for up to 12 months. It was envisaged that the programme would support a minimum of 800 households and 1,600 individuals across the City Region. The primary measure of success for the programme would relate to employment, with 630 participants expected to secure and sustain employment. Deputy Mayor A O’Byrne reflected upon the closure of a number of Job Centres across the region and how Liverpool City Council had sought to support the Government in identifying alternative accommodation in Liverpool, however this offer had been declined. There was real concern that the promotion of encouraging claimants to utilise online systems would exclude the elderly and those who were not comfortable in using information technology. RESOLVED – That:-

(i) the approval of the Household into Work Programme Business Case by Government be welcomed;

Page 8

(ii) the grant offer of £3.45m from Government towards the Households

into Work Programme in principle be accepted and delegated authority be granted to the Treasurer to agree the detailed grant offer:

(iii) allocate £1m of LCR Combined Authority funding to support the

Households into Work Programme as set out in section 5.1 of the report be agreed; and

(iv) authority be delegated to the Lead Officer: Skills and Apprenticeships

in consultation with the Portfolio Lead: Skills and Apprenticeships and the Combined Authority Treasurer to agree the operational model for the Programme.

75. LIVERPOOL CITY REGION EMPLOYER SKILLS SURVEY The LCR Combined Authority received a presentation from Sue Jarvis, Lead Officer – Scrutiny, which set out the following initial findings from the LCR Employer Skills Survey:-

Set out the Labour market context for the City Region which highlighted that highly skilled jobs had become increasingly available over the past 10 years.

Summarised the context for the survey, which was the largest and most comprehensive sub-regional skills survey undertaken to date which included key questions on local economic growth.

Highlighted that the interim findings required further analysis but would form part of the underpinning evidence base to inform the devolution of the Adult Education Budget.

Summarised the key emerging messages from the Employer Skills Survey which highlighted that two thirds of employers surveyed had recruited in the past 12 months, the City Region had 41% hard to fill vacancies and that the general view of employers was of a low wage economy where employers were choosing not to increase wage rates to improve retention.

Highlighted how Health and Social Work was the largest single employment sector in the City Region and that the Information Technology sector had the highest levels of technical skills gap.

Outlined the next steps, which included the establishment of focus groups and business panel and undertake a detailed analysis of the data and qualitative feedback, including sectoral and geographic analysis and the findings would inform the Skills Investment Statement and long term Skills Strategy.

Councillor F McKenna, West Lancashire Borough Council Associate

representative, referred to the Employer Skills Survey and highlighted a number of key weaknesses facing the City Region, in particular the need to challenge local businesses to broaden their customer base by exporting their goods and services further afield. Furthermore, there was evidence that some companies within the

Page 9

digital sector where considering relocating from the City Region. In conclusion, it was suggested that the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) should be engaged in the Employer Skills Survey to support the assistance provided to businesses and also share the outcome of the Employer Skills Survey at the IFB 2018.

The Metro Mayor reported that the comments raised by Councillor McKenna

were pertinent to all the portfolio holders across the Combined Authority. With regards to IFB 2018 it was suggested that a presentation on how the IFB was funded be brought to a future meeting.

Mark Basnett, LCR Local Enterprise Partnership, in responding to the issues

raised highlighted acknowledged that greater ambition was required across the City Region particularly around exporting. Furthermore, businesses need the right product and service to export and it was important that larger companies who were successful at exporting shared their knowledge with smaller companies who had the desire to export. Furthermore, the development of the Internationalisation Strategy would identify areas to export too.

RESOLVED – That the presentation and comments raised be noted.

76. LIVERPOOL CITY REGION SINGLE INVESTMENT FUND - FEASIBILITY

FUNDING DECISIONS The LCR Combined Authority considered the report of the Interim Head of Paid Service which sought approval for the following two feasibility funding requests in respect of:-

Future proofing J23 of the M6 motorway – a request from St Helens Council for £247,500 of funding; and

Development of the Liverpool City Region Internationalisation Strategy – a request from the LEP for £100,000 of funding

It was reported that both projects had been independently appraised and

assessed against the SIF’s core eligibility criteria and scored against the agreed prioritisation criteria.

RESOLVED – That:- (i) the feasibility funding request from St Helens Council as set out in

section 3.2.1 of this report be approved; (ii) the feasibility funding request from the Liverpool City Region Local

Enterprise Partnership (LEP) as set out in section 3.2.2 of this report be approved; and

(iii) the Combined Authority Monitoring Officer be authorised to finalise

and conclude the respective grant funding agreements in relation to these two projects.

Page 10

77. PORTFOLIO UPDATE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURE Councillor P Davies, Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Culture, provided the Combined Authority with a presentation which set out the work achieved to date in his portfolio. The presentation highlighted the following:-

Summarised the key portfolio responsibilities and the 7 key growth sectors across the City Region.

Outlined how through investment, strategic sites and infrastructure, Single Investment Fund, the LCR Industrial Strategy and Cultural activity key activities had been identified which would bring about growth across the City Region.

Summarised future actions for the economic development and culture portfolio over the coming 6-12 months.

Metro Mayor Rotheram reported that the Chair of the Tidal Barrage Board would be announced in the coming weeks which would support the work of this portfolio. Furthermore, one of the key highlights for the City Region in 2018 would be the arrival of China’s Terracotta Warriors. RESOLVED – That the presentation be noted. 78. PORTFOLIO UPDATE FOR SPATIAL PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND

AIR QUALITY On behalf of Councillor B Grunewald, Portfolio Holder for Spatial Planning, Environment and Air Quality, Mike Palin, Lead Officer – Planning provided a presentation which explained the progress in delivering the Spatial Framework. The presentation provided an overview of the Spatial Framework and the three key statutory process steps which included the completion of the non-statutory strategic spatial priorities overview, the completion of the Statement of Cooperating on Strategic Planning and the ongoing work to develop a Standard Evidence Base. The presentation also summarised some of the key Brownfield considerations, which highlighted that as part of the Devolution Deal there was a requirement for a Liverpool City Region Brownfield register to be published and available by January 2018. The purpose of the register would be to list all brownfield sites that could be used for housing or employment development. RESOLVED – That the presentation be noted. 79. DEVELOPING THE LIVERPOOL CITY REGION ENERGY STRATEGY The LCR Combined Authority considered a report which set out how the Local Enterprise Partnership had been allocated funding by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to develop a Liverpool City Region Energy Strategy. The report highlighted that a requirement of the funding was for the Combined Authority to act as the accountable body for the Government funding. Members were informed that the BEIS would provide all English LEPs with £400,000 to develop an energy strategy for their respective areas. The LEP had

Page 11

already published a report ‘LEPs and Local Energy’ which would form the starting point for developing a Liverpool City Region Energy Strategy. RESOLVED – That:-

(i) the BEIS had awarded £400,000 to the LEP to lead and coordinate the delivery of an Energy Strategy for the Liverpool City Region, working with the relevant Portfolio Lead and Lead Officer;

(ii) the LCR Combined Authority acts as the accountable body and pass

the funding through to the Local Enterprise Partnership to project manage the delivery of the Strategy; and

(iii) the Energy Strategy had to be completed before 31 March 2018 and

would be presented to the Combined Authority for approval. 80. THE ARMED FORCES COMMUNITY COVENANT FOR THE LIVERPOOL

CITY REGION The LCR Combined Authority considered the report of the Interim Head of Paid Service which sought endorsement on how the Armed Forces Community Covenant (AFCC) would be implemented at a Liverpool City Region level, in particular to complement the work already being undertaken as a local authority level. Metro Mayor Rotheram reflected on the sacrifice and commitment Armed Forces personal gave to their country and through the endorsement of the Armed Forces Community Covenant this commitment was reinforced. Furthermore, he reported that a Mayoral Champion for Armed Forces would be appointed who would produce an annual report setting out the progress which had been achieved in respect of the Covenant. RESOLVED – That:-

(i) the Liverpool City Region (LCR) version of the Armed Forces Community Covenant that appears at Appendix 1 to the report now submitted, including the measures listed at section 4 be noted; and

(ii) the LCR Combined Authority be represented on the Liverpool City

Region Armed Forces Community Contract Leads Group. 81. MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE DEVOLUTION DEAL

The LCR Combined Authority considered the report of the Interim Head of Paid Service which provided an update on the development of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan which had been developed to assess the impact of the delivery of the Devolution Deal across the City Region.

It was reported that as part of the Devolution Deal the LCR Combined

Authority the Monitoring and Evaluation plan also had to be submitted to Central Government by 22 September 2017. Furthermore, as part of this submission there was a requirement to identify projects which could be evaluated independently through Government appointed consultants. These projects where identified at Appendix Three to the report now submitted.

Page 12

Deputy Mayor A O’Byrne referenced the projects identified at Appendix Three

to the report now submitted. She highlighted that the number of projects were weighted towards the City Centre and suggested that projects such as Chancery Gate and the Wirral Waters scheme be included instead to provide a broader picture of the projects planned for across the City Region.

Sue Jarvis, Scrutiny Officer, reported that the list of proposed projects

identified at Appendix Three could be amended to reflect the suggestions highlighted by Deputy Mayor A O’Byrne.

RESOLVED – That:-

(i) the final draft of the Combined Authority’s Devolution Deal Monitoring and Evaluation Framework as set out within Appendix Two to this report be noted;

(ii) delegated authority be granted to the Interim Head of Paid Service in

conjunction with the Metro Mayor to finalise the Framework following feedback from Government;

(iii) the requirement for specific Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for those

projects that would be funded from the Gainshare component of the Single Investment Fund be noted;

(iv) the proposed list of candidate projects for Gainshare evaluation by the independent consultants as set out in Appendix Three of the report now submitted, be agreed without prejudice to upcoming future investment decisions;

(v) the importance of effective, routine monitoring and evaluation as a core

component of an effective performance management regime be noted; and

(vi) welcome the opportunity for updates to be provided to meetings of the

LCR Combined Authority. 82. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME The Metro Mayor reported that no public questions had been received. 83. PETITIONS AND STATEMENTS

Members of the public were given the opportunity to submit petitions or ask statements in accordance with the Meetings Standing Order No. 11. The Metro Mayor reported that one statement had been received from the Women’s Leadership Group. In this respect, Fiona Gibbs-Armstrong, directed the following statement to the LCR Combined Authority:- ‘The Women’s Leadership Group (WLG) are a collective of over 70 women from the Liverpool City Region (LCR) who have come together to tackle the lack of diversity in the LCR power and decision making structures.

Page 13

We are making this statement to the LCR cabinet to request a formal response to a letter sent on 10th September to each Council leader and published as an open letter. The letter requests that Council Leaders ‘Give up your seat’ and nominate a female deputy to attend 50% LCR Cabinet meetings. Cllr Barrie Grunewald is the only leader who has provided us with a swift response - NO.

The precedent to nominate a deputy in your place has been established by Mayor Joe Anderson OBE and in Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has insisted his Cabinet is 50% women and reflects the region’s diversity.

We wrote to Mayor Steve Rotheram on 3rd August to request that he modernise the constitution when he has the opportunity to do so in January 2018 and take an inclusive approach to committee membership, one that truly reflects the city region and its diversity. Another request was to develop open-recruitment process for LCR committees that would role model leadership behaviour than can be used as an example to other organisations and sectors.

We have received both local and increasingly national press coverage for our request to council leaders.’

The Metro Mayor reported that a full written response would be provided

within 10 working days. 84. MINUTES OF THE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 27

JULY 2017 RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Transport Committee held on 27 July 2017 were received and confirmed by the LCR Combined Authority. Minutes 66 to 84 be received as a correct record on the 20 day of October 2017.

Chairperson of the Combined Authority

(The meeting closed at 3.11 pm)

Page 14

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY To: The Chair and Members of the Combined Authority Meeting: 20 October 2017 Authority/Authorities Affected: Liverpool EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM: No

REPORT OF THE LEAD OFFICER: TRANSPORT

LOCAL GROWTH FUND: APPROVAL OF FULL MAJOR SCHEME BUSINESS CASE FOR LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE CONNECTIVITY

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the Transport Advisory Group recommendation to the Combined Authority for the approval of the Full Business Case for the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity major scheme to commence delivery in the financial year 2018/19. The Liverpool City Centre Connectivity scheme was endorsed by the LEP Board on 5 October 2017 in line with the Local Growth Fund assurance framework.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:-

(a) note the contents of the report; and

(b) endorse the Transport Advisory Group recommendation to the Combined Authority to approve the Full Business Case for the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity scheme.

3. BACKGROUND 3.1 Merseytravel, on behalf of the Liverpool City Region, is managing a programme of

developing major schemes to take advantage of investment through the Local Growth Fund. The Combined Authority will be aware that these original 14 schemes were developed in response to the Local Growth Fund Round 1 and formed a prioritised list of the City Region’s investment priorities for transport using an agreed shortlisted process set out in the City Region Transport Assurance Framework.

3.2 Authorities across the City Region have continued the development of 14 Full

Business Cases which address transport and highway issues in the Liverpool City Region.

Page 15

Agenda Item 5

4. LIVERPOOL CITY CENTRE CONNECTIVITY 4.1 As part of the Growth Deal announcement in July 2013, the Government has made

a total of £38.4m available to the Liverpool City Region for the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity Programme subject to the submission and approval of a robust business case.

4.2 The Liverpool City Centre Connectivity Programme has proposals to improve

connectivity in Liverpool City Centre, making the city more attractive and easier to navigate. The aim is to reduce vehicular traffic dominance on key streets, linked to improved pedestrian and cycle facilities and public realm. The package of schemes also takes into account the new bus routing strategy for the city centre and contains proposals which are key to achieving this.

4.3 The Full Business Case for Liverpool City Centre Connectivity has been submitted

and has been assessed by the Transport Advisory Group’s independent advisory consultant, Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Limited (Waterman’s).

4.4 The appraisal indicates that, according to Department for Transport guidance, the

Benefit to Cost Ratio of the entire combined Liverpool City Centre Connectivity programme assessed is 1.265, which represents low to medium value for money. However, significant weight can be afforded to the wider economic, social and environmental benefits which are anticipated for this scheme as well as the ability of the scheme to address multiple City Regional policy objectives, e.g. improved air quality, reducing issues of severance making it easier and more attractive for pedestrians and visitors to move around the city and, as mentioned above providing key elements of the city centre bus routing strategy. It should be noted that schemes such as Liverpool City Centre Connectivity will usually perform poorly in relation to the standard Benefit Cost Ratio calculation methodology as this was developed for the assessment of transport (primarily highway) capacity improvement schemes. Therefore, schemes which include the removal of some highway capacity and are focussed on ‘place making’ will often achieve comparatively low Benefit Cost Ratio levels.

4.5 In addition, as part of the detailed scheme approval process, the Combined

Authority requires scheme promoters to submit evaluation and monitoring statements and the requirement to monitor and evaluate schemes will be a funding condition. The monitoring and evaluation strategy submitted as part of the business case must follow current Department for Transport guidance. As part of its evaluation exercise, Transport Advisory Group will ensure, aided by Waterman’s that monitoring and evaluation proposals are fit for purpose and accord with Department for Transport guidance and this will form part of the approval process considered by the Combined Authority.

4.6 The detailed feedback from the assessment from Waterman’s of the Liverpool City

Centre Connectivity business case is set out in Appendix One. It is considered that, generally, the Business Case for the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity is in line with the requirements of WebTAG. However, the following aspects should be noted.

Page 16

Transport Modelling

4.7 The reports on the transport modelling for this project have been reviewed. The conclusion within the latest modelling report is that whilst the model does not meet all WebTAG criteria, it is fit for purpose. The weakness in the validation results, particularly in the vicinity of The Strand scheme, is a cause for concern given the significance of The Strand proposals within the overall Liverpool City Centre Connectivity Project. In response, it should be noted that significant transport modelling has been required for this project. There has been meaningful dialogue between the independent assessors and the scheme promoter to ensure the modelling is WebTAG compliant, following early issues.

4.8 The Liverpool City Centre SATURN highway model has been reviewed by

Waterman as being, ultimately, fit for purpose. Although the model does not satisfy all DfT WebTAG thresholds of acceptable model accuracy, it does align very closely with these thresholds, for almost all criteria and most certainly in the areas of greatest importance for the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity scheme e.g. The Strand. Analysis of the flow calibration accuracy achieved in each of the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity SATURN models (AM / IP / PM, at x13 junctions and x84 turning movements) along The Strand, confirms that the proportion of turning movements fulfilling the WebTAG acceptability thresholds, for either ‘modelled vs observed’ flow accuracy, or ‘GEH’, were as follows: -

§ AM peak – 93%

§ PM Peak – 96%

§ Inter Peak – 96% 4.9 These proportions of acceptable movements far exceed the WebTAG required

minimum of 85%, confirming a reliable base year representation of The Strand, in each model. Most of the appropriate traffic count and journey time data available for checking the highway model have been used sensibly and comprehensively, for ‘calibration’, so as to ensure that the trip matrix, network and assignment are accurate and reliable. Consequently, the availability of suitable, independent data for ‘validation’ of the highway model has been restricted. The limitations of the validation data explain why the model shows some shortfall against a few WebTAG criteria.

4.10 It should be noted that other stakeholders (e.g. transport consultants for Liverpool

One and St Johns Shopping Centre) have not questioned the dependability of the highway model. Furthermore, other modelling tools, more precise than SATURN, have been used to verify the performance of the proposed Liverpool City Centre Connectivity schemes – (e.g. LINSIG signalised junction models and VISSIM micro-simulation model).

Quantitative Risk Assessment 4.11 Some information regarding the costings within the Quantitative Risk Assessment is

lacking. In response, it should be noted that the content of the Quantitative Risk Assessment has been determined by Amey’s design engineers, in accordance with best practice and is appropriate for the scope and development stage of the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity scheme package. For broad comparison,

Page 17

WebTAG advice on scheme cost calculation (Unit A1.2 ‘Scheme costs’, July 2017) provides a worked example, in Appendix One, of Quantitative Risk Assessment for a stage-2 highway scheme (i.e. at outline business case / conditional approval stage). This suggests a typical scheme cost uplift for risk of +4.1%. The Liverpool City Centre Connectivity scheme Quantitative Risk Assessment for a later stage of highway scheme (i.e. Liverpool City Centre Connectivity stage-3 full business case / final approval) comprises of a similar cost uplift for risk of +3.6%, which seems more than sufficient for the level of certainty associated with the scheme’s development stage.

Benefit Cost Ratio

4.12 The Benefit Cost Ratio calculations for the project do rely heavily upon extensive

‘wider benefits’ in order for the Benefit Cost Ratio of 1.265 to be achieved. Without the assumption of these wider benefits the Benefit Cost Ratio would only be 0.951, which is a ‘Low’ Benefit Cost Ratio. These benefits reflect the wider economic, social and environmental benefits which are anticipated for this scheme as well as the ability of the scheme to address multiple City Regional policy objectives, as described above.

4.12 Taking into consideration these conclusions, it is recommended that the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity Business Case can be approved as:-

(a) WebTAG compliance of the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity Business

Case is satisfactory; (b) The comparatively low calculated Benefit Cost Ratio for the proposals are

supplemented by the wider economic, social and environmental benefits which are anticipated such as, ‘place making’, air quality, reduction of severance, etc.

4.13 The Liverpool City Centre Connectivity scheme is intrinsically linked to the City

Centre Bus re-routing strategy. A series of measures jointly agreed between Merseytravel, Liverpool City Council and the Bus Operators which will be delivered in alignment with the implementation plan for Liverpool City Centre Connectivity providing a more coherent sub-regional bus services offer. It also contributes, by reducing movements of buses with no passengers, to the emerging mayoral clean air plan, as previously mentioned.

4.14 The phasing of the individual scheme elements of the programme will need to be

closely coordinated with Lime Street Station rail closure in 2018, other major highways works and the future major events programmes within the city centre.

Page 18

5. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial 5.1.1 The funding for the scheme consists of:-

(i) Local Growth Fund 1 through the Liverpool City Region Growth Deal - £38.4m across the scheme as a whole; and

(ii) Local match funding contribution from Liverpool City Council - £6.3m across the scheme as a whole.

This brings the total available funding to £44.7m. It is also worth noting that there are other significant investments being made in the city centre which will complement this City Centre Connectivity package.

5.1.2 The Economic Case used calendar years to present the allocation of expenditure

(as recommended by HM Treasury for inflation calculation purposes). However, funding is allocated to the scheme in Financial Years (April 1st to March 31st). Table 1 below indicates the anticipated Spend Profile. This is based on the Project Programme set out in the business case.

Table 1 – Projected Spend Profile

2015/16 £m

2016/17 £m

2017/18 £m

2018/19 £m

2019/20 £m

Total £m

Local Growth Fund 1.500 12.400 24.500 38.400

Liverpool City Council Contribution

0.900 1.800 0.600 1.500 1.500 6.300

Total 0.900 1.800 2.100 13.900 26.000 44.700

5.1.3 It is also confirmed that the funding contributions are in place and a signed Value for

Money Statement from Liverpool City Council’s Section 151 Officer has been included in the Full Business Case for the scheme. This is a core criterion in any funding decisions being considered by the Combined Authority.

5.2 Human Resources No issues. 5.3 Physical Assets No issues. 5.4 Information Technology No issues.

Page 19

6. RISKS AND MITIGATION 6.1 The scheme promoter has identified the risks associated with the management and

delivery of the Liverpool City Centre Connectivity programme. The results of this process are captured in a risk register. A series of risk meetings with stakeholders were held, to identify the risks and mitigation measures associated with each of the proposed Liverpool City Centre Connectivity schemes. This was then followed by a risk workshop to discuss the impact of governance, commercial and financial risks. The resulting risk register formed the basis of the Quantified Risk Assessment.

6.2 The full Risk Assessment and Management Strategy is included in the Full

Business Case.

7. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS 7.1 As part of developing a Full Business Case, scheme promoters must give due

consideration to the equality and diversity implications of their scheme and what mitigation measures, if any, will be required to ensure that the implementation of the scheme does not have any negative implications on those who have protected characteristics.

7.2 No concerns were raised in the assessment of this Full Business Case. 8. COMMUNICATION ISSUES 8.1 A detailed technical report into the Independent Assessment of the business case

undertaken by Waterman’s on behalf of the Combined Authority has been discussed in Transport Advisory Group; therefore, all directly involved Liverpool City Region Combined Authority partners have been involved in agreeing the recommendations put forward.

8.2 Once a decision is reached by the Combined Authority all business cases are

published on the Merseytravel website in accordance with the Transport Assurance Framework.

8.3 A communications Plan and protocol for the Local Growth Fund Transport Schemes

has been developed by the LEP with support from Merseytravel, Constituent Councils and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that the City Region maximises profile for the schemes.

Page 20

9. CONCLUSION Based on the advice of the Independent Assessor (Waterman’s), Transport

Advisory Group recommends to the Combined Authority the approval of the Major Scheme Business Case for Liverpool City Centre Connectivity to enable the scheme promoter to draw down Local Growth Fund to commence delivery of schemes to support the ambitions of the Liverpool City Region.

FRANK ROGERS Lead Officer: Transport

Contact Officers: John Smith, Merseytravel, 0151 330 1307 Liz Carridge, Merseytravel, 0151 330 1151 Appendices: Appendix One – Liverpool City Centre Connectivity Full Business Case Review

Page 21

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 1 of 5

LCCC FBC Review Summary Sept 2017 v3

WIE14530-104 -R-2-3-3-

Liverpool City Centre Connectivity

Full Business Case Review

This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with Waterman Group’s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001: 2008, BS EN ISO 14001: 2004 and BS OHSAS 18001:2007)

Issue Prepared by Checked & Approved by

V1 Ed Ducker David Prior

Associate Director Associate Director

V2 Ed Ducker David Prior

Associate Director Associate Director

V3

Ed Ducker David Prior

Associate Director Associate Director

1. Introduction

1.1. The Liverpool City Centre Connectivity (LCCC) has proposals to improve connectivity in Liverpool

City Centre, making the city more attractive and easier to navigate. The aim is to reduce traffic

dominance on key streets, linked to improved pedestrian and cycle facilities and public realm. The

purpose of this Technical Note is to review the Full Major Scheme Business Case (FBC) for LCCC.

1.2. A copy of the three LCCC FBC reports were provided to Waterman. These three documents were:

Strategic Case – FBC Stage (Ref CO00205283 /003 Revision 03)

Economic Case – FBC Stage (Ref CO00205283 /004 Revision 02)

Financial, Commercial & Management Cases – FBC Stage (Ref CO00205283 /005 Revision

03).

1.3. The review of these documents is based upon guidance provided by WebTAG. It has been

undertaken using a spreadsheet based process developed and agreed with Merseytravel.

1.4. The reviews have been based upon the best practice five case model and have specifically

considered:

Whether the proposal is WebTAG compliant/ in line with the DfT Transport Business Case

requirements

Whether all impacts of the proposal have been considered

Accuracy and correctness of key aspects (eg Value for Money).

1.5. The contents of this Technical Note have been based upon the five Business Case headings:

Strategic

Economic

Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Limited

Halifax House, Halifax Place, Nottingham, NG1 1QN www.watermangroup.com

Date: 11th September 2017

Client Name: Merseytravel

Document Reference: WIE14530-104 -R-2-3-3-

Page 23

Page 2 of 5

LCCC FBC Review Summary Sept 2017 v3

WIE14530-104 -R-2-3-3-

Financial

Commercial and

Management.

1.6. To reflect the importance of the transport modelling for this scheme a specific section is included

identifying the work which has been undertaken and reported in relation to transport modelling for

this project.

2. Transport Modelling

2.1. Significant transport modelling has been required for this project. As part of the review of the

development of the business case for this project comments have been made regarding the

modelling, particularly in relation to calibration and validation. This was because the initial report for

the project in relation to the transport modelling had identified material issues in relation to

WebTAG compliance. As a result of these discussions regarding the transport modelling

compliance with WebTAG the project team have reviewed their previous analysis and issued a

revised report on 15th August 2017.

2.2. From the review of the revised modelling report it has been concluded that:

The model has been produced in accordance with the appraisal specification.

An 'old' criteria has been introduced to the trip validation criteria (using previous DMRB

acceptability for screenlines).

Generalised cost factors are consistent with the current LCRTM.

The rationale for requiring trip matrix estimation (ME) is acceptable and follows WebTAG

advice.

The use of data for calibration and validation is suitable.

The model network has been developed in a suitable manner.

ME has been constrained to suit the rationale, which is also suitable. The results of the process

show good correlation between the 'before' and 'after' matrices and zone to zone, trip end, trip

length and sector to sector results are within WebTAG criteria.

Assignment checks show that the calibration of the model is within WebTAG criteria.

Validation for flows shows that only the AM peak meets the criteria, but inter and PM peak

periods are only marginally outside the criteria.

2.3. Validation for screenlines is complicated as the data from the earlier modelling report has been

rearranged and the selection of data appears to have been managed in order to achieve improved

apparent results. There are five screenlines (the minimum) but these have been split into

directional counts to achieve ten statistics. Based upon this approach:

The AM peak is acceptable but shows a weakness for inbound flows along the East City

screenline.

Inter-peak values are poor with only 60% meeting the criteria.

The PM peak is marginally acceptable with weakness along the East of Strand (westbound) and

inbound on the East City screenlines.

Validation when considering journey times is acceptable for the AM and Inter peaks but weak

for the PM peak. The PM model journey times are reported as being slightly longer than

collected data.

Page 24

Page 3 of 5

LCCC FBC Review Summary Sept 2017 v3

WIE14530-104 -R-2-3-3-

2.4. It is concluded that calibration of the model is robust but the validation results are weak. The

conclusion within the modelling report is that whilst the model does not meet all WebTAG criteria

that it is fit for purpose.

2.5. With all transport modelling, a level of interpretation is required to justify the scheme impact. For

these proposals, this judgment will also take into account the potential weaknesses in the model

along the above flows / screenlines and time periods.

2.6. To summarise, significant work has been undertaken in order to accurately model and assess the

LCCC proposals. The revised model has been built with the previous matrix as a near-fixed point

and therefore WebTAG compliant for calibration.

3. Strategic Case

3.1. The Strategic Case has been provided within a separate report. The background to the scheme

and existing / future problems have been outlined. A number of scheme objectives have been set

out and the list of options identified, with consideration given to local, regional and national policy.

The option sifting process is identified as being consistent with EAST. Support for the scheme has

been evidenced from major stakeholders with some detail provided on existing and proposed

consultation processes. Overall the Strategic Case is well constructed and justified.

4. Economic Case

4.1. The Economic Case has been provided within a separate report. The business case methodology

has been applied in line with WebTAG guidance. The economic impacts; environmental impacts;

social impacts; and public accounts impacts have been assessed. At the OBC stage a ‘Low’ BCR

of 1.0 was expected. The initial FBC Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)is calculated as 0.951 which is a

‘Low’ BCR. This is then adjusted to 1.265 ‘Low to Medium’.

4.2. This adjustment of the BCR is take account of wider economic impacts and a range of social and

distributional benefits. Some elements, relating to urban realm impacts (i.e. property rateable

values) and to wider economic impacts (i.e. Induced investment, employment and productivity

benefits) have been quantified as a percentage uplift to the initial estimate of monetised benefits,

enabling an adjusted BCR to be calculated. This approach has been used by the project team as

they considered that the standard BCR calculations did not fully reflect the wider benefits to be

derived from the project. References are made within the Economic Case to selected comparable

cases to justify the level of adjustments made to the User Economic Benefits.

4.3. This scheme, as a LGF1 scheme, is governed by the original Assurance Framework. This contains

a paragraph that takes account of schemes with a low BCR:-

“the TAG will be able to make positive recommendations on schemes having lower VfM, having

regard to specific circumstances including very convincing wider economic, social and

environmental benefits, the ability of the scheme to address multiple city regional policy objectives,

and circumstances where significant levels of match funding are being provided by the scheme

promoter. Other criteria will include urgent health and safety considerations, particularly in the

event of a major maintenance scheme and very strong levels of public support.”

4.4. Significant weight can be afforded to the wider economic, social and environmental benefits which

are anticipated for this scheme as well as the ability of the scheme to address multiple city regional

policy objectives. It should be noted that schemes such as LCCC will usually perform poorly in

relation to the standard BCR calculation methodology as this was developed for the assessment of

Page 25

Page 4 of 5

LCCC FBC Review Summary Sept 2017 v3

WIE14530-104 -R-2-3-3-

transport (primarily highway) capacity improvement schemes. Therefore, schemes which include

the removal of some highway capacity will often achieve comparatively low BCR levels.

4.5. It should be noted however that the scheme does have mixed levels of public support, particularly

for the proposals at The Strand. Given that the proposals at The Strand are such a significant

proportion of the overall scheme costs (approximately £19M of the total £42M) the heavily

polarised response to the proposals within the consultation undertaken to date should be taken into

consideration.

5. Financial Case

5.1. The Financial Case has been provided in a comprehensive manner. The scheme base costs have

been included, and there has been some breakdown of the elements within these costs. An

optimism bias of 8.07% has been applied and this is appropriate as 3% is considered acceptable at

FBC stage. It was noted that cost elements within the Quantified Risk Assessment appeared to be

low, given the scale of the project, but the level of detail within the QRA did not fully confirm

whether these cost elements were appropriate.

5.2. Overspend assurance, in the form of a signed letter from a S151 Officer, has been provided and

included in the Business Case.

6. Commercial Case

6.1. The Commercial Case has been provided, but could provide additional detail in some areas. The

project outputs have been verified and the procurement strategy, including preferred and

alternative methods, has been described. The rationale for he preferred procurement option has

been explained.

6.2. Overall, while there are elements lacking certain desirable details, the Commercial Case contains

all essential elements at this FBC stage.

7. Management Case

7.1. The Management Case has been provided and has been found to contain all essential information.

Information in relation to a range of successful similar projects has been identified. The

management structure of local and regional authorities has been provided in detail, including their

various roles and responsibilities.

7.2. Support for the scheme has been briefly described through previous consultation events and the

methods for future engagement have been set out. The Assurance and Approvals Plan; Risk

Management Strategy; and Benefits Realisation Plan have been discussed.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1. It is considered that generally the Business Case for the LCCC is in line with the requirements of

WebTAG. However, the following aspects should be noted:

The reports on the transport modelling for this project have been reviewed. The conclusion

within the latest modelling report is that whilst the model does not meet all WebTAG criteria, it is

fit for purpose. However, the weakness in the validation results, particularly in the vicinity of The

Page 26

Page 5 of 5

LCCC FBC Review Summary Sept 2017 v3

WIE14530-104 -R-2-3-3-

Strand scheme, is a cause for concern. This weakness is of particular concern given the

significance of The Strand proposals within the overall LCCC.

Some information regarding the costings within the QRA are lacking.

The BCR calculations for the project do rely heavily upon extensive ‘wider benefits’ in order for

the BCR of 1.265 to be achieved. Without the assumption of these wider benefits the BCR

would only be 0.951, which is a ‘Low’ BCR. These wider benefits reflect the wider economic,

social and environmental benefits which are anticipated for this scheme as well as the ability of

the scheme to address multiple city regional policy objectives.

8.2. Taking into consideration these conclusions it is recommended that the LCCC Business Case can

be approved as:

WebTAG compliance of the LCCC Business Case is satisfactory.

The comparatively low calculated BCR for the proposals are supplemented by the wider

economic, social and environmental benefits which are anticipated.

Page 27

This page is intentionally left blank

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY To: The Chair and Members of the Combined Authority Meeting: 20 October 2017 Authority/Authorities Affected: All EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM: No Key Decision

REPORT OF THE INTERIM HEAD OF PAID SERVICE

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION SINGLE INVESTMENT FUND

1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Combined Authority decisions on two Full

Business Cases submitted for Single Investment Fund Funding.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is recommended to:-

a) Agree to the approval of the Full Business Case in relation to the Pall Mall project

and the award of Single Investment Fund grant support in the maximum sum of £3,500,000;

b) Agree to the approval of the Full Business Case in relation to the City Centre Connectivity Phase 2 project and the award of Single Investment Fund grant support in the maximum sum of £18,612,905; and

c) Authority be given to the Interim Head of Paid Service to negotiate detailed terms and conditions of the respective grant agreements in consultation with the Combined Authority Monitoring Officer and Combined Authority Treasurer. Any material variations to the projects as detailed in this report to be referred back to the Combined Authority for consideration.

3. BACKGROUND 3.1 Following the Combined Authority’s initial call for projects, 46 projects received

approval to their Strategic Outline Case submissions and were invited to progress to the next stages of appraisal.

3.2 Some 43 projects have subsequently submitted Business Case applications and are

now at various stages within the Single Investment Fund appraisal process. A Full Business Case appraisal (in line with the Single Investment Fund Assurance Framework), has been undertaken and concluded on two projects, these projects are now eligible for consideration by the Combined Authority. The appraisal utilises the agreed Single Investment Fund appraisal criteria which is compliant with the HM

Page 29

Agenda Item 6

Treasury Green Book Guidance. Each appraisal considered all aspects of the business case as follows:-

Strategic Case

Economic Case

Finance Case

Commercial Case

Management Case

3.3 The outcome of each appraisal is summarised and appended to this report as set out below:-

Appendix One – Pall Mall

Appendix Two – City Centre Connectivity Phase Two 4. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

4.1 Financial Implications 4.1.1 The Combined Authority Treasurer has confirmed that the proposed funding support

can be accommodated as part of the overall Single Investment Fund funding allocation.

4.2 Human Resources 4.2.1 There are no human resource implications for the Combined Authority. 4.3 Physical Assets 4.3.1 These are set out as appropriate in the individual appraisal reports.

4.4 Information Technology 4.4.1 These are set out as appropriate in the individual appraisal reports.

5. RISK AND MITIGATION 5.1 There are risks associated with any funding stream, in the event that funds are

misused or not fully committed, which can lead to a risk of funding being clawed back, legal proceedings and/or reputational damage.

5.2 The offer letter between the Combined Authority and Liverpool City Council will reduce

the risk to the Combined Authority that these funds are not used in an appropriate and effective manner.

5.3 Individual projects risks are identified and considered as part of the independent

appraisal process that is applied to each project.

Page 30

6. COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES 6.1 All projects approved by the Combined Authority will be subject to the publicity

requirements placed upon them by the Combined Authority as part of the Grant Funding Agreement. In addition, the Combined Authority will, through its adopted communication protocols, publicise the award of this funding and its associated envisaged outcomes.

7. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Equality and Diversity Implications are considered as part of the appraisal process and

relevant considerations set out in the individual reports. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 This report presents two projects for Combined Authority approval at Full Business

Case stage.

FRANK ROGERS Interim Head of Paid Service

Contact Officers: - Dale Milburn, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (0151 330 1517) Appendices:- Appendix One – Summary Appraisal of Pall Mall Full Business Case Appendix Two – Summary Appraisal of City Centre Connectivity Phase Two Full Business Case

Page 31

This page is intentionally left blank

APPENDIX ONE

APPRAISAL OF PALL MALL FULL BUSINESS CASE 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 The undertaking of site infrastructure works to the 1.2 hectare Pall Mall Exchange site

in Liverpool City Centre, to unlock an initial phase (130,000 sqft) of Grade A office development on this site - a brownfield site and is located within the North Liverpool Enterprise Zone.

1.2 Single Investment Fund funding in the sum of £3.500m is requested by the applicant –

Liverpool City Council. 2. APPRAISAL OF PALL MALL BUSINESS CASE 2.1 The appraisal is presented below with a summary against the core appraisal and

hurdle criteria.

2.2 Core Criteria: Fit with Single Investment Fund Prospectus and other relevant strategies

i. The appraisal concludes that the project has a strong alignment with Liverpool City

Region’s Growth Strategy and the Regeneration, Development & Culture theme of the Single Investment Fund Prospectus.

ii. The project provides the opportunity for the development of up to circa 400,000 sqft of new office space (over a number of phases) with the potential to support new net additional jobs in high value key priority growth sectors.

iii. The Strategic and Economic cases are considered strong and the Management case satisfactory, however the Commercial and Financial cases at present, result in a number of delivery risks in terms of the development of an initial phase of floorspace. Whilst the funding requested is for infrastructure works only, the rationale for undertaking such works is to facilitate floorspace development; appropriate safeguards should be put in place to safeguard the Combined Authority’s investment should such development not be forthcoming.

2.3 Core Criteria GVA and Jobs: a clear case that the project will deliver relevant activities and outputs that will lead to GVA and Jobs

i. The appraiser forecasts that the project has the potential to create 766 gross jobs

which converts to 509 net jobs. The appraiser does note that these will be indirect jobs as the project itself (infrastructure works) will not create employment directly. It is however further noted that the outputs claimed purely relate to an initial phase of development and that further employment opportunities will be created by future phases.

ii. In terms of GVA, the appraiser has determined that the project will produce an annual GVA of £71,500 per employee and deliver a Net Present Public Value of £134,047,993.

Page 33

2.4 Core Criteria Additionality: a clear case that the intervention would not otherwise take

place or would take place at a reduced level, happen later or be of lower quality. The applicant has undertaken an overall assessment of additionality based upon four options and the preferred option is considered to provide the best level of additionality; furthermore, without support from Single Investment Fund then the project would not proceed in the form or to the scale planned and it is highly likely that the site would remain as surface car park. The appraiser has considered the applicant’s assessment of deadweight, displacement, leakage and multiplier and has revised these where it felt appropriate before applying them to determine job outcomes, GVA and value for money.

2.5 Core Criteria Value for money:

i. The results above have been compared with appropriate Liverpool City Region Single Investment Fund benchmarks and are considered to offer exceptional value for money. Despite the high Benefit Cost Ratio, it does not negate the need for Single Investment Fund on the basis of the upfront viability issues that exist.

ii. The following sensitivity analysis has also been undertaken by the appraiser:

- 25% reduction in GVA output (reduced Benefit Cost Ratio of 26) - Increase in displacement to 70% from current 43% (reduced Benefit Cost

Ratio of 18 and present value net public sector cost per net additional job of £13,811)

- Increase in present value public sector costs of 25% (reduced Benefit Cost Ratio of 29 and present value net public sector cost per net additional job of £9,440)

Even under each of the above scenarios, the project has the potential to deliver a good value for money outcome.

Hurdle Criteria 2.6 The Liverpool City Region appraisal criteria include a number of hurdle criteria which

all projects need to pass prior to approval. These criteria are detailed in the assurance framework and relate principally to establishing that the project has the necessary management and financial capability to deliver the project, has met all relevant statutory requirements and that the project is capable of being delivered on the timescale set out.

2.7 This project satisfied the majority of the hurdle criteria and should be able to satisfy the

remaining criteria (summarised at 2.8 below) prior to the project commencing. Should

Liverpool City Region Level

Gross Impact Net Additional Impact

FTE Jobs 766 509

Public sector cost per job £5,136 £7,737

Benefit Cost Ratio (adjusted through appraisal)

35:1

Page 34

the project be approved by the Combined Authority, the grant funding agreement should be conditioned accordingly.

2.8 Overall the appraiser’s view is that the project performs well against Value for Money

benchmarks, and has a strong strategic and economic case. Its commercial and financial cases highlight some delivery risks which the CA should seek to protect its investment against, these are set out below:

Non delivery of commercial floorspace – The project is seeking funding to support site preparation works which in itself will not deliver direct floorspace. The applicant has appointed a development partner to deliver phase 1 (which provides the economic case for the investment), however delivery of the floorspace is reliant on market interest and developers profit levels being achieved;

A phase 1 land cost is included within the project cost, as this is a ‘public sector’ project, confirmation should be obtained from the applicant that this land cost represents market value.;

Cost and site investigation works: further work is required in order to fully firm up costs, which could increase as a consequence; and

Planning permission is yet to be secured for the project albeit this is mitigated given the site sits within an Enterprise Zone. The current project programme envisages that this will be secured in January 2018. Network Rail consents have also yet to be secured.

2.9 Consequently the appraiser outlined three next step options for the Combined

Authority’s Investment Panel to consider:-

1. Do not approve the application at this stage 2. Defer approval until more certainty is secured around delivery 3. Approve subject to the full repayment of grant if Phase 1 is not delivered within a

defined period.

Investment Panel recommendations 2.10 The Liverpool City Region Investment Panel considered the project and the appraisal

of the Full Business Case. The panel fully endorse the appraiser’s findings and considered the three next step options put forward by the appraiser.

2.11 As part of their consideration of this project, the Investment Panel were cognisant of

the City Region’s lack of both readily available Grade A office accommodation as well as sites capable of delivering such at scale. The Investment Panel were of the opinion that unless the City Region had an appropriately located and deliverable site option, then even if end user requirements were forthcoming, the City Region would not be considered for such investment. For this reason, together with the fact the project is being led by one of the Combined Authority’s constituent authorities (thereby minimising risk of default), the Investment Panel recommended that option 3 be pursued and that approval be granted subject to:

strict delivery milestones in terms of obtaining cost certainty, planning permission and the delivery of the infrastructure works;

Liverpool City Council accepting responsibility for any cost increase; and

Page 35

the inclusion of 100% clawback provision should delivery of the Phase 1 floorspace not be commenced within 5 years and completed within a further 3 years.

3. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

3.1 Financial Implications 3.1.1 Approval of the Pall Mall project will commit a maximum of £3.500m of Single

Investment Fund funding which will be expended during 2017/18 & 2018/19. 3.1.2 The grant funding agreement will be between the Combined Authority and Liverpool

City Council who will complete all appropriate financial claims and monitoring.

3.1.3 The Combined Authority will monitor the programme within the funding envelope agreed.

4 RISK AND MITIGATION

4.1 A risk register has been provided, in addition to which a number of further risks were highlighted through the appraisal process. As well as mitigation measures it is recommended that the funding agreement include a number of timed pre drawn conditions which must be satisfied prior to the applicant being able to access grant funding. These are obtaining;

All statutory consents necessary; and

Cost certainty together with a commitment from the applicant to meet any cost increases.

Along with provision for 100% clawback in the event that the phase 1 floorspace is not delivered in accordance within the timeframe recommended by the Investment Panel.

DALE MILBURN Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

Page 36

APPENDIX TWO

APPRAISAL OF CITY CENTRE CONNECTIVITY PHASE 2 FULL BUSINESS CASE 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 The project comprises of the construction of two new roads, located off Waterloo

Road/Regent Road to the North West of Liverpool City Centre. The primary purpose of the scheme is to address current and anticipated future congestion in the area and to improve accessibility to the waterfront area in general and specifically to the proposed re-positioned and improved Isle of Man Ferry Terminal.

1.2 The Northern Road runs from the waterfront at the point of the proposed re-positioned

Isle of Man ferry terminal to Waterloo Road, a key route running North/South between the City Centre and northern suburbs. The Southern Road provides a connection between Princes Parade and the Leeds Street/Great Howard Street/King Edward Street junction.

1.3 Single Investment Fund funding in the sum of £18.600m is requested by the applicant

(Liverpool City Council) against a total estimated project cost of £19.600m. 2 APPRAISAL OF CITY CENTRE CONNECTIVITY PHASE 2 BUSINESS CASE 2.1 The appraisal is presented below with a summary against the core appraisal and

hurdle criteria. It should be noted however that this is a transport project and is also assessed in terms of WebTag compliance.

2.2 Core Criteria: Fit with Single Investment Fund Prospectus and other relevant strategies

i. The appraisal concludes that the project is considered important in supporting a

number of development plan aims and objectives in Liverpool. The scheme is consistent with the Draft Local Plan and Core Strategy.

ii. In terms of synergies with wider local and national strategies the scheme aligns with the Liverpool City Region Transport Plan for Growth as well as supports the objectives of the National Infrastructure Plan.

2.3 Core Criteria GVA and Jobs: a clear case that the project will deliver relevant activities

and outputs that will lead to GVA and jobs

i. The business case originally estimated that some 340 indirect jobs would be created along with 50 construction jobs. The figure has subsequently been reduced during appraisal to 240. This estimate of indirect jobs has been based upon an assumption that 10% of the employment floorspace within the area will be brought forward within the Single Investment Fund period.

ii. In terms of GVA this has not been quantified given the nature of the project.

Page 37

2.4 Core Criteria Additionality: a clear case that the intervention would not otherwise take place or would take place at a reduced level, happen later or be of lower quality. Without support from Single Investment Fund then the project would not proceed which would undermine the delivery of the regeneration of Liverpool Waters and the realisation of the economic benefits and growth potential therein.

2.5 Core Criteria Value for money:

The project has an initial Benefit Cost Ratio of 3.31 plus an adjusted Benefit Cost Ratio of 3.92. The adjustment relates to the reliability impacts which have been captured following methodology defined in WebTag A1.3. It should be noted that these Benefit Cost Ratio figures exclude any quantification of GVA benefits. At 3.92 the scheme offers very high value for money. Without the inclusion of adjustments, the scheme offers high value for money.

Hurdle Criteria 2.6 The Liverpool City Region appraisal criteria include a number of hurdle criteria which

all projects need to pass before approval. These criteria are detailed in the assurance framework and relate principally to establishing that the project has the necessary management and financial capability to deliver the project, has met all relevant statutory requirements and that the project is capable of being delivered on the timescale set out.

2.7 This project satisfied the majority of the hurdle criteria and should be able to satisfy the remaining criteria (set out below) prior to the project commencing. Should the project be approved by the Combined Authority the grant funding agreement would be conditioned accordingly:-

Deliverability; and

Project Costs.

Appraisal Summary

2.8 Overall the appraiser’s view is that the project performs well against Value for Money benchmarks. However, ordinarily at Full Business Case stage, projects are expected to have tendered costs, identified delivery arrangements and the necessary statutory consents in place. Given the nature and scale of this project these requirements have yet to be confirmed / secured.

2.9 Without certainty of funding (and therefore project delivery) it is accepted that it is not

appropriate for the applicant to run a procurement exercise to appoint a preferred contractor and obtain cost certainty, given the level of cost incurred by the private sector in responding to such a process. Whilst delivery arrangements are therefore yet to be confirmed the applicant has outlined their proposed procurement approach and provided cost estimates which the appraiser considers to be appropriate. Furthermore, the nature of the project is such that private sector land will be required in order to enable its implementation – this is common for transport projects of this nature. In such instances land assembly may require the use of Compulsory Purchase Powers. In order for a Compulsory Purchase Order to be confirmed the applicant must be able to demonstrate that funding is in place to deliver the scheme.

Page 38

2.10 A planning application for the Northern Road was submitted on 21 September 2017

and the application relating to the Southern Road is due for submission on 20 October 2017 following further pre application consultation.

2.11 Ordinarily at Full Business Case stage, Optimism Bias would be at circa 3%: given the

current stage of this project in terms of the potential need for Compulsory Purchase Order and that the delivery arrangements have yet to be formally procured, Optimism Bias is currently at 18.9%.

2.12 Given the current stage of the project, but recognising that that the applicant requires

certainty as to funding prior to them being able to further progress the scheme, it is recommended that the Combined Authority should seek to protect any offer of investment through the inclusion within any Grant Funding Agreement of strict delivery milestones so as to ensure that the project progresses at an appropriate rate and moves into the delivery phase. Access to grant funding should only be made available upon satisfaction of these milestones. Consequently milestone dates should be agreed in connection with the following as a minimum, with the failure to achieve any of these resulting in the withdrawal of a funding offer:-

Completion of detailed design;

Submission of Planning Permission for both the Northern and Southern Roads;

Procurement of a preferred delivery partner (in accordance with the approach agreed with the appraiser);

Tendered Costs;

Commencement of Compulsory Purchase Order process (if required); and

Start on Site. Investment Panel recommendations

2.13 The Liverpool City Region Investment Panel considered the project and the appraisal

of the Full Business Case. The panel fully endorsed the appraiser’s findings and acknowledged that until there is further certainty of funding the applicant is unable to progress matters with regard to delivery arrangements, cost certainty and site assembly linked to Compulsory Purchase Order. As set out at 2.12 above, the panel agrees with the recommendation to impose project milestones.

2.14 The Panel acknowledged the applicant’s proposed phasing arrangements which would

see the Northern Road delivered first whilst site assembly continued in relation to the Southern Road. However, given that the Combined Authority is supporting the project as a whole the Investment Panel recommend that should for any reason the Southern Road not be delivered then any grant claimed by the applicant should be subject to 100% clawback arrangements.

2.15 Total project costs are currently estimated at £19.600m with the applicant contributing

£1.000m and requesting £18.600m of Single Investment Fund funding. Given that cost certainty has yet to be established, and that Optimism Bias remains at 18.9%, it is recommended that the Single Investment Fund ask of £18.600m should be considered as a maximum grant and as Optimism Bias further reduces so does the Single Investment Fund grant on a £ for £ basis. Furthermore, should through the tender and Compulsory Purchase Order process costs reduce, any saving should also be deducted from the grant amount and not be utilised to offset the applicant’s

Page 39

contribution. In this regard the Combined Authority should seek to confirm the level of grant at the point that tender prices are obtained and ring fence any element relating to the Compulsory Purchase Order if this remains outstanding at that point. In relation to the Compulsory Purchase Order the Combined Authority should, as part of its grant contribution, only fund the actual compensation costs and NOT any costs associated with the Compulsory Purchase Order process itself.

2.16 Transport Projects of this nature are required as part of the consultation / approval to

publish their Full Business Case: in this regard the Full Business Case has been published on the Combined Authority’s website and a link provided for interested parties to submit comments. In addition, it is acknowledged that Liverpool City Council themselves undertook 4 Public Consultation sessions on the 27 March 2017 with feedback from these sessions subsequently informing the development of the final Full Business Case that was submitted to the Combined Authority in May 2017. Given that the project is still in the development stage, it is recommended that the Full Business Case remains on the Combined Authority’s website until at least the end of 2017 and that the applicant be required to consider / address any comments or feedback received during this period.

3 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

3.1 Financial Implications 3.1.1 Approval of the City Centre Connectivity Phase 2 project will commit a maximum of

£18.600m of Single Investment Fund funding which will be expended during the period 2018/21.

3.1.2 The grant funding agreement will be between the Combined Authority and Liverpool

City Council who will complete all appropriate financial claims and monitoring.

3.1.3 The Combined Authority will monitor the programme within the funding envelope agreed.

4 RISK AND MITIGATION

4.1 A risk register has been provided, in addition to which a number of further risks were highlighted through the appraisal process. As well as mitigation measures it is recommended as set out at 2.12 that the funding agreement include a number of key milestones which must be satisfied prior to the applicant being able to access grant funding, with failure to do so resulting in the withdrawal of the funding offer.

4.2 Along with the above provision should both the Northern and Southern roads not be delivered then 100% clawback be invoked.

DALE MILBURN Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

Page 40

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY To: The Chair and Members of the Combined Authority Meeting: 20 October 2017 Authority/Authorities Affected: All EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM: No Key Decision

REPORT OF THE INTERIM HEAD OF PAID SERVICE

LOCAL GROWTH FUND 3 AWARD – APPROVAL TO COMMISSION PROJECTS TO SUPPORT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE KEY ROUTE NETWORK

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The aim of this paper is to recommend that the Liverpool City Region Combined

Authority agrees to commission a limited round of projects to enhance the City Region’s most important roads.

1.2 The report seeks authority to commission up to £25.000m of the £72.000m Local

Growth Fund 3 award that is available between 2017/18 and 2020/21 before the end of the current financial year. The scope of the commission is set out in Appendix One to the report.

1.2 The report also seeks approval to derogate from the Combined Authority’s adopted

Assurance Framework that governs the use of these funds. This is with the aim of shortening the application process from three stages to two, in order to support the underlying aims of this report, and to seek to commit a significant element of funding before the end of the 2017/18 financial year.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:-

(a) Agrees to commission a second round of Single Investment Fund projects to improve the effectiveness and performance of the Key Route Network, taking the form of a single Programme Business Case, committing up to £25.000m allocated for these purposes from the Local Growth Fund 3 award;

(b) Agrees the draft commissioning text in Appendix One of this report, which sets the priorities for the commissioning of the Key Route Network Business Case to support improved access to main employment and growth sites, together with corresponding measures that improve the safety, capacity, effectiveness of key junctions and highway links, and which also addresses the significant maintenance backlog;

Page 41

Agenda Item 8

(c) Agrees to further work being done to assess how centralised management and

delivery arrangements could potentially be utilised in this and subsequent business cases for the Key Route Network with a view to ensuring more effective delivery and in line with the principles underpinning the creation of the Network;

(d) Agrees that procedural provisions within the Single Investment Fund Assurance Framework are relaxed on an exceptional basis to support the recommendation above and to enable funds to be committed ahead of the end of the current financial year, as set out in paragraphs 4.4 – 4.6 of this report; and

(e) Notes that further work is being undertaken to develop a City Region pipeline of projects, aligned with Local Growth Fund 3 bid themes and including strategic priorities such as business growth, innovation and digital connectivity.

3. INFORMATION 3.1 A significant element of the Single Investment Fund that the Authority manages

stems from funds that were previously awarded through the Local Growth Fund and associated Growth Deal process.1 Funds from the first two rounds of Local Growth Fund are managed as part of the original Single Investment Fund award, though technically, these funds are awarded to the Local Enterprise Partnership. As part of the Single Pot requirements from Government, the LEP has agreed that Local Growth Fund funding would form part of the Single Pot and be allocated on the basis of the Single Investment Fund Assurance Framework developed and agreed by the Authority in July 2016.

3.2 The Combined Authority submitted a bid for further funding from the third round of

Local Growth Fund monies in July 2016. It was subsequently awarded £71.950m to support growth through investment in transport, skills and business and innovation. This amount was the second highest allocation in the country.

3.3 As part of the award, the funding was notionally apportioned as follows:-

Local Growth Fund3 Theme

Notional Apportionments

Transport £40m which would be further assigned to:

Key Route Network - £25m

Rail Enhancements, principally targeted at alleviating capacity issues at Liverpool Central Station - £5m

Multi-modal package to support housing and employment sites - £10m

Business and Innovation

£23.95m

Skills £8m

TOTAL £71.95 million

1 https://www.liverpoollep.org/funding/local-growth-fund/

Page 42

3.4 The Local Growth Fund 3 funding award profile is shown in the table below. It can be seen that the profile is not even across the four financial years, and there is a greater element of frontloading than was anticipated when the bid was being negotiated.

Local Growth Fund 3 Profile

2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021

£16.761m £13.579m £6.953m £34.661m

3.5 Notably, there is £16.761m of uncommitted and unallocated funding available for

this current financial year. It is expected that the ability for any spend to be achieved during 2017/18 will be extremely limited. That said, there is an urgent need to begin the commissioning process, in order to commit funds as quickly as possible, and ahead of the end of the 2017/18 financial year.

4. LOCAL GROWTH FUND 3 COMMISSIONING - PROPOSED APPROACH 4.1 Procedurally, the Assurance Framework that governs the Single Investment Fund

states that funding will be allocated through commissioning and open calls for projects. Portfolio Lead Officers and their teams are responsible for identifying key strategic projects and programmes required to meet the objectives set out in the Growth Strategy and other relevant statutory plans (for example the Local Transport Plan) and commissioning these projects accordingly.

4.2 It is also important to ensure that the delivery of Single Investment Fund schemes is

done in an effective and timely manner. This is important for three main reasons:-

a) firstly, to ensure that the funding is used for its intended purposes, in supporting jobs and growth and prosperity across the Liverpool City Region;

b) secondly, as the funding from Government takes the form of annual allocations, it is essential to phase projects carefully to fit with these allocations, as monies cannot easily be rolled into successive years; and

c) thirdly, it is essential to demonstrate to Government the Liverpool City Region’s capacity and capability to deliver, as this forms a core part of the evaluation of the funding and provides evidence to support future requests for further devolution.

4.3 Following a review of the City Region’s pipeline of projects, it has been identified

that interventions to enhance the Key Route Network, which was specifically included in the Local Growth Fund 3 bid, is the most deliverable in the short term. The Key Route Network is a Mayoral priority linked to the 2014 Devolution Deal and is a focus of interest from Central Government.

4.4 There has been substantial work undertaken with respect to the Key Route Network

and there is an emerging pipeline of Key Route Network projects which have been generated using the same methodology that generated the list of commissioned projects in the first Single Investment Fund prospectus in November 2016 (paragraph 4.4. refers)2.

2 http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s45456/Item%204%20-

%20Report%20and%20Appendix.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none

Page 43

4.5 It is proposed that the Single Investment Fund Commissioning Round focuses on

improving the effectiveness and performance of the Key Route Network, having regard to its underlying strategic rationale agreed by the Combined Authority in April 20163. This will focus on:-

i. supporting improved access to the City Region’s main employment and growth

sites including:-

a. supporting the SuperPort and multimodal freight access, b. accelerating growth in the enterprise zones, c. supporting the growth and expansion of the City Centre, d. connecting new housing and employment sites, e. supporting the visitor economy and f. rejuvenating town centres.

ii. Corresponding measures that improve the safety, capacity, effectiveness, quality

and resilience of key junctions and highway links for all road users (freight, private cars public transport users and pedestrians and cyclists).

iii. In recognition of the significant maintenance backlog that exists on the City Region’s roads, the commission must also work to improve the quality and resilience of the City Region’s highway assets. Again, this must be focused on routes that link, open up, or enhance the City Region’s main economic growth zones, housing sites and urban centres.

4.6 It is proposed that the Combined Authority agrees to allocate £25.000m from the

Local Growth Fund 3 funding allocation for this commission. This corresponds with the initial Local Growth Fund 3 bid, and would help to commit the £16.761m of funding that is available during the current financial year. It is proposed that this would take the form of a single Key Route Network Programme Business Case, and that the principle of adopting more centralised management and delivery arrangements on behalf of the six local highway authorities be explored to assess both their suitability and how they could be deployed and resourced. This will be the most appropriate route in terms of supporting the underlying aims of the Key Route Network. The draft commissioning text is subject to Members’ agreement and is set out in detail within Appendix One to this report.

4.7 As noted above, approval is sought to vary provisions set out within the Combined

Authority’s adopted Single Investment Fund Assurance Framework. This framework governs the use of these funds and specifies how applications will be made and assessed. For schemes costing in excess of £5 million, proposals must follow a three stage process of applications and assessments:-

Strategic outline case;

Outline business case; and

Full business case.

3

http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s42374/Final%20Key%20Route%20Network.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none

Page 44

4.8 Exceptionally, for this commission, a simplified application process is proposed and commended to members, utilising the established Single Investment Fund application forms, namely:-

A conflated Strategic Outline Case and Outline Business Case; and

Full Business Case. 4.9 This is warranted in recognition that the Key Route Network has been subject to

extensive developmental work since the Devolution Deal was agreed, and has an intrinsically strong strategic case as a result. It is also warranted in order to commit funding by the end of the financial year and to demonstrate to Government the City Region’s capacity and capability to deliver.

4.10 This proposed derogation has been discussed with the Department for Transport,

and officials have confirmed that a decision to combine the Strategic Outline Case with the Outline Business Case would not be in breach of the guidance set out in the Government’s national guidance on Assurance Frameworks. Neither does it set any precedent for future Single Investment Fund calls.

4.11 In parallel, work would continue to develop the City Region’s pipeline of strategic

projects which could make use of the remaining Local Growth Fund 3 funding and be available in future Single Investment Fund calls. Taking a ‘rolling’ approach to commissioning has the following additional benefits:-

a) Future commissions can have additional time to make use of the evidence base

regarding the impact of the first round of Single Investment Fund projects. This will ensure that any new investments build upon previous Single Investment Fund projects or are targeted at filling any gaps so that the Liverpool City Region achieves its growth targets;

b) The Combined Authority would retain flexibility in its investment decisions. Given the uncertainty over Brexit and the impact of this on the City Region, making investment decisions now on the entire £72.000m award would limit the Combined Authority’s room for manoeuvre in managing Brexit related risks or exploiting any opportunities that may arise. Given the City Region’s unique international trading and cultural position, it is critical that it is able to take advantage of any opportunities beyond March 2019; and

c) There can be further refinement to the approach to commissioning strategic

investments within the City Region, particularly with respect to creating a sustainable income stream for the Combined Authority.

5. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial

By adopting the proposed approach, £25.000m would be available to support enhancements to the Key Route Network, and seek to commit a minimum of £16,700.00 of Local Growth Fund 3 funding that is available this financial year. This is predicated on the funds being switched into the 2018/19 financial year, with funds being drawn down as soon as possible thereafter. Seeking to commit the funding

Page 45

as quickly as possible reduces the risks associated with underspend this financial year, not least to demonstrate the Liverpool City Region’s capacity and capability to deliver, as this forms a core part of the evaluation of the funding and provides evidence to support future requests for further devolution.

5.2 Human Resources

The Interim Head of Paid Service will ensure appropriate capacity to provide centralised programme management for the commission. The development of the Combined Authority organisational structure will also identify other key roles in the Single Investment Fund Investment Team considered necessary to manage the Single Investment Fund Programme. In the short term, there are likely to be revenue costs associated with this centralised programme management support, but this would be justified by the significant benefits that it would bring to the delivery of the Key Route Network programme as a whole.

5.3 Physical Assets

The underlying aim of this report is to allocate funding to improve the condition, lifespan and performance of the City Region’s Key Route Network of roads, bridges and other physical structures.

5.4 Information Technology

There are no direct Information Technology implications associated with the implementation of the recommendations in this report.

6. RISKS AND MITIGATION 6.1 There are a number of key risks:-

a) There is a risk to Liverpool City Region’s reputation and ability to secure future funding and further devolved powers if it is unable to demonstrate delivery and growth. This risk can be mitigated through ensuring that projects seeking Combined Authority support are of sufficient maturity and are effective and deliverable. Specifically for the Key Route Network it is proposed that the principle of adopting more centralised management and delivery arrangements on behalf of the six local highway authorities be explored to assess both their suitability and how they could be deployed and resourced.

b) There is a risk that the Liverpool City Region does not take advantage of other strategic opportunities (e.g. digital connectivity, revenue generation schemes or inward investment) that may materialise within the next 6 months and which may require funding from the Single Investment Fund. To mitigate this risk, work will continue to develop the City Region’s pipeline of strategic projects which could make use of the remaining Local Growth Fund 3 funding and be available in future Single Investment Fund calls.

Page 46

7. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS 7.1 There are no specific equality and diversity implications arising from this report.

However, all individual project funding decisions made by the Combined Authority under this Assurance Framework will need to be assessed in relation to their equality and diversity implications.

8. COMMUNICATION ISSUES 8.1 The proposed commissioning text is set out in Appendix One and will be available

on the Combined Authority’s website for transparency. 8.2 All projects which are approved will be publicised appropriately and in line with the

Combined Authority’s consultation and communications plans. 9. CONCLUSION 9.1 The Combined Authority received Local Growth Fund 3 funds of £72.000m, of which

£16.700m is available this financial year. It is proposed that the Combined Authority commission a call focused on enhancing the Key Route Network, capped at £25.000m.

9.2 This would be to support improved access to the City Region’s main employment

and growth sites. The commission would support works that improve the quality and resilience of the City Region’s highway assets, focused on routes that link, open up or enhance the City Region’s main economic growth zones, housing sites and urban centres. It would also seek to address the significant maintenance backlog that exists.

9.3 The report also seeks approval to vary provisions set out within the Combined

Authority’s adopted Assurance Framework that govern the use of these funds in order to support the above aims and to commit funding by the end of the financial year.

FRANK ROGERS Interim Head of Paid Service

Contact Officers: Huw Jenkins, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (0151 330 1393) Seiju Desai, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (0151 330 1392) Dale Milburn, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (0151 330 1517) Appendices: Appendix One – Proposed Commissioning Text

Page 47

Appendix One

PROPOSED COMMISSIONING TEXT

Invitation to apply for Single Investment Funding to support enhancement of Key Route Network (Key Route Network)

1. The Liverpool City Region is making £25.000m available in between 2017/18 and 2020/21 to commission schemes to enhance the Liverpool City Region’s Key Route Network of strategically important roads. This funding stems from a larger funding award that has been secured through the City Region’s recent Local Growth Fund 3 funding award, and which will be commissioned on a rolling basis up to 2020/21.

2. The schemes should take the form of a single, coherent package, and have the overriding aim of supporting the strategic aims of the Key Route Network4 and in addressing the significant maintenance backlog that exists on the City Region’s roads. This will include:

measures that improve conditions for all road users (freight, private cars public transport users and pedestrians and cyclists),

measures that improve the safety, capacity and effectiveness of key junctions and links, and works to improve the quality and resilience of the City Region’s highway assets.

3. The focus will be on supporting improved access to the City Region’s main

employment and growth sites. This includes: supporting the SuperPort and multimodal freight access, accelerating growth in the enterprise zones, supporting the growth and expansion of the City Centre, connecting new housing and employment sites, supporting the visitor economy and rejuvenating town centres.

4. Examples of eligible works include:-

The upgrading of Urban Traffic Control systems on the Key Route Network to improve journey times on key freight and commuter routes, and minimise delay and inconvenience for public transport users

Improvements to main thoroughfares that serve the City Centre, Enterprise Zones, key employment areas and ports (e.g. the A41, A59 and A57) and

major maintenance works on the strategic A533 Silver Jubilee Bridge when it closes temporarily to vehicular traffic.

5. The process for applying for funds will follow established principles set out in the

Single Investment Fund Assurance Framework5, in terms of the development of a business case that follows WebTAG principles. However, the Combined Authority has agreed a derogation, on an exceptional basis for this commission, to curtail the

4 http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/documents/s42374/Final%20Key%20Route%20Network.pdf?StyleType=standard&StyleSize=none 5 http://liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/documents

Page 48

application process to a more streamlined, two stage scheme development and approval process in the interests of committing funds ahead of the end of the financial year:-

a. A conflated Strategic Outline Case and Outline Business Case b. Full Business Case

All other provisions within the Assurance Framework will continue to apply.

6. The Combined Authority requires that there is a single Key Route Network Programme Business Case led by a single delivery agent or manager on behalf of the six local highway authorities, where possible. Whilst it is expected that the bid will contain discrete elements, these must clearly work together as a cohesive package and again, be delivered through collaborative programme management, procurement and delivery arrangements where appropriate. This is in the interests of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of delivery.

7. Successful projects must clearly support economic growth and demonstrate a good benefit-to-cost ratio, whilst at the same time seeking to reduce carbon and associated atmospheric emissions from vehicular traffic. Bids must be guided by evidence of need from existing or emerging Asset Management Plans.

8. The bid must demonstrate why the scheme cannot be funded through any alternative or mainstream funding routes. A minimum 10% local match funding contribution will be required.

9. It is expected that the ability for any spend to be achieved during the 2017/18

financial year will be extremely limited. However, there will be an expectation that all funds are committed before the end of March 2018, to enable delivery to commence in early 2018/19.

10. The deadline for the Submission of the joint Strategic Outline Case and Outline Business Case is 12.00 noon on Friday 15 December 2017.

11. Bids should be submitted to sif@liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk

Page 49

This page is intentionally left blank

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY To: The Chair and Members of the Combined Authority Meeting: 20 October 2017 Authority/Authorities Affected: All EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM: No

REPORT OF THE LEAD OFFICER: EUROPEAN ISSUES

DISCHARGING THE COMBINED AUTHORITY’S NEW POWERS OVER EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The aim of this paper is to propose clear and consistent arrangements for

discharging the Combined Authority’s duties as an Intermediate Body in respect of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) programme. A short Assurance Framework is proposed to support this, set out in Appendix Two.

1.2 The paper also seeks to update the Combined Authority’s representation on the

related European Structural and Investment Funds Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:

(a) Agrees the proposed Assurance Framework for European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) set out in Appendix Two, to support the Authority’s new responsibilities as an Intermediate Body for these funds;

(b) Agrees that responsibilities for the discharge of Intermediate Body functions in respect of European Regional Development fund (ERDF) strands are delegated to the Lead Officer: European Issues in consultation with the Portfolio Lead for Economic Development and Culture and the Lead Officer: Economic Development;

(c) Agrees that responsibilities for the discharge of Intermediate Body functions in respect of European Social Funding (ESF) strands are delegated to the Lead Officer: European Issues in consultation with the Portfolio Lead for Skills and Apprenticeships and the Lead Officer: Skills and Apprenticeships; and

(d) Agrees to nominate a representative from the Combined Authority’s Employment and Skills Board onto the European Structural and Investment Fund Committee.

Page 51

Agenda Item 9

3. INFORMATION 3.1 Members will be aware that as part of the Devolution Deal agreed with Government

in November 20151, the Combined Authority was granted further powers over the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) programme through the European Structural Investment Funding process. This governs both mainstream European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Structural Fund (ESF) monies.

3.2 In formal terms, the Combined Authority became an “Intermediate Body” (IB) as a

result of these powers. These were confirmed on 22 March 2017, which led to the development of Memoranda of Understanding between the Combined Authority and Government covering activity related to the delivery of the remaining ERDF and ESF funding programmes. These responsibilities include the development of call text, and part appraisal and assessment of funding bids.

3.3 It is important to note that the Intermediate Body function gives the Combined

Authority greater strategic influence over the European Structural and Investment Funding programmes. Ultimately, however, it does not change the way that European funds are accounted for by Government, as the Department for Communities and Local Government and Department for Work and Pensions will continue to be the Managing Authorities for European Structural and Investment Funds at a national level. The Government thus remains responsible for grant offer letters to successful applicants, for managing claims and managing overall performance management and compliance. The Local Enterprise Partnership will continue to be responsible for delivering promotion and publicity, including assisting applicants with their applications in conjunction with the relevant Government Department. Separation of functions is integral to Government expectations of the Intermediate Body function and is captured within the Memoranda of Understanding.

3.4 As noted, the powers granted through the Devolution Deal give the Combined

Authority greater influence over the shape of future ERDF and ESF funding “calls” so that these are more closely aligned to the objectives of the City Region in the context of the agreed ESIF Strategy and the national Operational Programmes. Intermediate Body status also gives the Combined Authority an enhanced joint appraisal role on individual project applications together with Government. This presents a new opportunity of ensuring that these European funds and the Single Investment Fund (SIF) are considered as ‘complementary’ funds targeting differing audiences, but ultimately generating economic growth in the City Region.

4. GOVERNANCE ISSUES 4.1 The Intermediate Body powers rest with the Combined Authority. These will be

exercised as part of wider, established processes regarding the management of European Structural and Investment Funds. These include a local European

1

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477385/Liverpool_devolution_deal_unsigned.pdf (page 15)

Page 52

Structural and Investment Fund Committee, which is a formal subcommittee of the England Growth Programme Board, managed by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Members of the Combined Authority are currently represented on this subcommittee and this issue is discussed in more depth in paragraph 4.8 below.

4.2 In respect of the main functions and responsibilities associated with the

Intermediate Body status, namely the development of “open calls” for projects and the joint appraisal of bids with Government, there is a need to determine roles and responsibilities. This is to ensure that the Combined Authority acts consistently, and maintains a democratically accountable process, in line with the signed Memoranda of Understanding. The process also needs to be efficient and adaptable to the tight timescales often associated with funding calls and the assessment of projects.

4.3 Allied to this is the need to ensure a proper separation of functions, so that there is

no conflict of interest between officers or members of the Combined Authority involved in the development of calls and subsequent assessment of funding bids, and officers or members acting as promoters, applicants or beneficiaries of ESIF projects. The diagram in Appendix One sets out the degrees of separation that are required, and how these ethical walls will be maintained. This is based on earlier negotiations with Government this year that led to the granting of the Intermediate Body powers.

4.4 Looking at the means by which the Combined Authority could discharge the above

functions, it is considered that the delegation of duties to Combined Authority Portfolio Holders, with expertise of the issues at stake and supported by their relevant lead officers would provide the most effective approach, given the limited timescales that often govern these processes. It would be appropriate to divide these responsibilities across the two main components of the Intermediate Body’s responsibilities, namely the European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) element and European Social Fund (ESF) element.

Function Delegated to

Approval of Call Text for ERDF projects

The Lead Officer: European Issues in consultation with Cllr Phil Davies, Portfolio Lead for Economic Development and Culture; and

the Lead Officer: Economic Development Assessment of ERDF bids in terms of Local Strategic Fit, Value for Money and Deliverability

Approval of Call Text for ESF projects

The Lead Officer: European Issues in consultation with Cllr Ian Maher, the Portfolio Lead for Skills and Apprenticeships and

the Lead Officer: Skills and Apprenticeships

Assessment of ESF bids in terms of Local Strategic Fit, Value for Money and Deliverability

4.5 These portfolio members would be supported by the Intermediate Body

Management Team, which would allow input from relevant policy specialists and experts across the City Region.

Page 53

4.6 It is also proposed that the process includes engagement and liaison with the Single

Investment Fund (SIF) Investment Panel. This will help to align planned investments to their most appropriate funding sources and reduce risks of duplication or overlapping. To this end, members of the panel will be consulted on draft ESIF call text and draft Combined Authority assessments. This will be done by correspondence in the interests of efficiency. Conflict of Interest declarations will form a standard part of all meetings associated with the discharge of the Intermediate Body function.

4.7 This arrangement seeks to ensure that the Combined Authority acts consistently

and maintains a democratically accountable process in line with the signed Memoranda of Understanding for ERDF and ESF. It is also efficient and adaptable to the tight timescales often associated with funding calls and the assessment of projects.

4.8 Finally, there are wider governance issues that it would be helpful to update as a

result of the move to a Mayoral Combined Authority and associated changes to members’ roles as a result.

4.9 The ESIF Sub Committee is convened by Department for Communities and Local

Government as the Managing Authority, and is responsible for oversight of the ESIF Programme, providing advice to the Combined Authority on calls and applications to ensure alignment with the ESIF Strategy 2014-2020. It is a formal subcommittee of the Growth Programme Board.

4.10 The Combined Authority has previously nominated four members of the Liverpool

City Region’s ESIF Committee, one of which acts as the Co-Chair, as set out below:-

Cllr Phil Davies (Co-Chair, representing the Combined Authority);

Cllr Dave Cargill (representing Combined Authority);

A member representing the Combined Authority’s Employment and Skills Board [subject to nomination]; and

Cllr Liam Robinson (representing Transport and Sustainable Urban Development [SUD]).

4.11 These elected members together allow the Combined Authority to contribute across

the breath of the ESIF Strategy and align investments to wider Combined Authority priorities, including the Single Investment Fund.

4.12 A further three members of the ESIF Committee have links to the Combined

Authority, either as full or co-opted members, or as Mayoral appointees. These are:-

Asif Hamid (Co-Chair, representing the LEP)

Gideon Ben-Tovim (representing Sustainability/Environment)

Lynn Collins (representing Trade Unions)

4.13 The latter two members of the ESIF Committee also act as Mayoral Advisors (Gideon Ben-Tovim, Mayoral Advisor for Natural Environment and Lynn Collins, Chair of the Fairness and Social Justice Advisory Board). Their shared ESIF and

Page 54

Combined Authority advisory roles are considered to be entirely consistent and mutually supportive and do not pose any fundamental conflicts of interest.

4.14 Asif Hamid’s role as a member of the ESIF Committee, Chair of the Local

Enterprise Partnership and a co-opted member of the Combined Authority is also considered complementary and appropriate in terms of seeking to align policies and programmes.

4.15 All members of the ESIF Committee are subject to established policies and

procedures relating to declarations of interest, whether personal or prejudicial, in respect of projects and funding bids that may stem from their constituent authorities or organisations.

4.16 More specifically, there is a need to propose a new representative from the

Employment and Skills Board onto the ESIF Committee, as the current representative is no longer a member of the Employment and Skills Board. Members are thus requested to nominate a representative from the Combined Authority’s Employment and Skills Board onto the European Structural and Investment Fund Committee.

4.17 Drawing the above issues together, a short Assurance Framework has been

developed to clarify, and document how the Combined Authority’s Intermediate Body functions will be discharged. In line with the Memoranda of Understanding that underpin the process, this sets out how clear divisions of responsibility, to avoid conflicts of interest, will be ensured. This Assurance Framework is set out within Appendix Two to this report and is commended to Members. It would be made available on the Combined Authority’s and Local Enterprise Partnership’s website in the interest of transparency.

5. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial

The Intermediate Body powers give the Combined Authority greater strategic influence over the deployment of ESIF monies. The new powers do not entail the transfer of any finances to the Combined Authority or responsibilities for ESIF monies.

5.2 Human Resources

There are human resource issues associated with the discharge of Intermediate Body functions, via demands on officer time, and thus revenue implications. These additional responsibilities arising from Intermediate Body status include:

Jointly developing future funding “calls” with Government; and

Giving the Combined Authority an enhanced joint appraisal role on individual projects with the Managing Authorities.

These human resource implications have been addressed in the immediate term through secondments and external support, and will be addressed in the longer

Page 55

term as part of the executive support structures that the Combined Authority has previously agreed.

5.3 Physical Assets

There are no Physical Assets implications associated with the implementation of the recommendations in this report.

5.4 Information Technology

There are no Information Technology implications associated with the implementation of the recommendations in this report.

6. RISKS AND MITIGATION 6.1 There are a number of key risks:

a) There is a risk to City Region’s reputation with respect to discharging its Intermediate Body responsibility. Clarity of Intermediate Body governance and operations mitigates against this risk; and

b) Insufficient evidence to help inform future investment decisions. Funding calls need to be predicated on having evidence to identify any gaps, to analyse what is working, where improvements are needed. Enshrining the principle of monitoring and evaluation will contribute to our ongoing data analytics.

7. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS 7.1 There are no specific equality and diversity implications arising from this report. 8. COMMUNICATION ISSUES 8.1 The proposed Assurance Framework within Appendix Two will be available on the

Combined Authority’s and on the Local Enterprise Partnership’s websites for transparency.

8.2 All projects which are approved will be publicised appropriately and in line with the

Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership communications plans. 9. CONCLUSION 9.1 As part of the Devolution Deal agreed with Government in November 2015, the

Combined Authority was granted Intermediate Body powers over the European Structural and Investment Funds programme.

9.2 Intermediate Body function gives the Combined Authority greater strategic influence

over the programme. The proposed Assurance Framework in Appendix Two clarifies the decision-making arrangements in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

Page 56

9.3 Finally, the report addresses wider European Structural and Investment Fund

Committee governance issues stemming from the move to a Mayoral Combined Authority earlier this year, and changes to Members’ roles as a result.

MIKE PALIN Lead Officer: European Issues

Contact Officers: Pernille Kousgaard, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, 0151 330 1393 Huw Jenkins, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, 0151 330 1393 Rob Tabb, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, 0151 330 1250 Tony Wade, Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership, 0151 237 3946 Appendices: Appendix One – Schematic showing separation of responsibilities for Intermediate Body functions Appendix Two – Assurance Framework governing Combined Authority’s Intermediate Body functions

Page 57

APPENDIX ONE

Schematic showing separation of responsibilities for Intermediate Body functions

Page 58

APPENDIX TWO

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

European Structural and Investment Funds Intermediate Body

Governance and Responsibilities Assurance Framework

Page 59

1. CONTEXT 1.1 The Liverpool City Region has benefited from European Funding over many years

to help to grow its economy and challenges around key areas such as skills, qualifications, employment rates, business growth rates and physical infrastructure.

1.2 The current EU structural funds round between 2014 and 2020 is delivered

through the European Structural and Investment Funds Strategy (ESIF), which is part of an England wide Operational Programme. The funds cover the Liverpool City Region as a whole, with an indicative allocation of around £193m, split between European Regional Development Funding (ERDF), European Social Funding (ESF) and Rural Growth.

1.3 Within the Liverpool City Region, the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) worked

closely with local authorities, the Combined Authority, higher and further education, the private, environmental and voluntary sector as well as with relevant Government departments to develop and agree the ESIF Strategy. This strategy guides calls and applications for funding and is available at:-

https://www.liverpoollep.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Final-ESIF-Strategy-4-February-2016-to-DCLG.pdf

1.4 Subsequently, as part of the Devolution Deal agreed with Government in

November 2015, the Combined Authority was granted further powers over the ESIF programme. The Combined Authority has now become an “Intermediate Body” (IB) as a result of these powers, discussed more fully in (3) below.

2. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 2.1 This document explains how the Combined Authority will meet its obligations as

an Intermediate Body, working collaboratively with DCLG and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Rural Development programme, managed by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) is not subject to Intermediate Body powers.

2.2 It provides members and officers of the Combined Authority and other

stakeholders with an understanding of the governance arrangements and operational processes with respect to influencing the timing and content of EU funding calls and providing strategic advice on individual projects. It also applies to those applying for ERDF and/or ESF monies, not least in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

2.3 The document only considers ESIF funding; other funding awarded to the LCR

(either to the Combined Authority or the LEP), such as the Single Investment Fund is outside of the scope of this document and managed in accordance with its respective assurance framework.

2.4 This document will be subject to an annual review and may change due to

requirements placed on the Combined Authority by the Managing Authorities.

Page 60

3. INTERMEDIATE BODY (IB) 3.1 As noted above, the Combined Authority was awarded Intermediate Body (IB)

status in March 2017 as part of the Devolution Deal1. This status gives the LCRCA greater strategic influence over the shape of future ESIF investments. Intermediate Body status also gives the Combined Authority an enhanced joint appraisal role on individual projects with Government. This presents a new opportunity of ensuring that the European funds and the Single Investment Fund are considered as ‘complementary’ funds targeting differing audiences, but ultimately geared around generating inclusive, sustainable economic growth across the City Region.

3.2 Intermediate Body status does not change the way that European funds are

accounted for by Government; the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will continue to be the Managing Authorities for ESIF at a national level. Central Government thus remains responsible for grant offer letters to successful applicants, for managing claims and managing overall performance and compliance.

3.3 In addition, the Local Enterprise Partnership will continue to be responsible for

delivering promotion and publicity activities, including assisting applicants with their applications, in conjunction with the relevant Government Department.

3.4 The City Region’s Intermediate Body status is limited to the remainder of the

2014-20 Programme, covering ERDF, ESF and the Sustainable Urban Development allocation within the ERDF tranche. The Government has delegated a number of tasks to the Combined Authority and these are listed at Appendix A.

4. GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 Due to the nature of the administration of EU funding, final decisions remain with

the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) for ERDF and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for ESF monies. However, IB status does enable the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority to influence and inform these decisions. This in turn requires formal Combined Authority governance arrangements to be agreed, to discharge the obligations associated with IB status in a timely and consistent manner.

4.2 A key principle that informs both the design and operation of IB governance

arrangements is the separation of functions. The Combined Authority’s management systems will ensure a clear separation of functions in order to avoid the possibility of any conflict of interest arising between officers and/or members performing its delegated tasks as an IB and any officers or members based in one of the constituent authorities that would be beneficiaries as the recipient of funds.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liverpool-devolution-deal

Page 61

In other words, those responsible for discharging IB functions cannot be applicants or recipients of funding or be involved in the application process.

4.3 The sections that follow specify how these functions, responsibilities and

associated degrees of separation will be achieved in practice. 4.4 ESIF Sub Committee

4.4.1 The ESIF Sub Committee is convened by the Managing Authority, and is responsible for oversight of the ESIF Programme, providing advice to the Combined Authority on calls and applications to ensure alignment with the ESIF Strategy 2014-2020. Further information is available at https://www.liverpoollep.org/funding/eu-funding/esif-programme/

4.4.2 The Combined Authority has previously nominated four members of the

Liverpool City Region’s ESIF Committee, one of which acts as the Co-Chair, as set out below:-

Cllr Phil Davies (Co-Chair, representing the Combined Authority)

Cllr Dave Cargill (representing Combined Authority)

A member representing the Combined Authority’s Employment and Skills Board [currently subject to nomination]

Cllr Liam Robinson (representing transport and Sustainable Urban Development [SUD])

4.4.3 These elected members together allow the Combined Authority to

contribute across the breadth of the ESIF Strategy and align investments to wider Combined Authority priorities, including the Single Investment Fund.

4.4.4 A further three members of the ESIF Committee have links to the Combined

Authority, either as full or co-opted members, or as Mayoral appointees. These are:-

Asif Hamid (Co-Chair, representing the LEP)

Gideon Ben-Tovim (representing Sustainability/Environment)

Lynn Collins (representing Trade Unions) 4.4.5 The latter two members of the ESIF Committee also act as Mayoral

advisors (Gideon Ben-Tovim, Mayoral Advisor for Natural Environment and Lynn Collins, Chair of the Fairness and Social Justice Advisory Board). Their shared ESIF and Combined Authority advisory roles are considered to be entirely consistent and mutually supportive and do not pose any fundamental conflicts of interest.

4.4.6 Asif Hamid’s role as a member of the ESIF Committee, Chair of the Local

Enterprise Partnership and a co-opted member of the Combined Authority is also considered complementary and appropriate in terms of seeking to align policies and programmes.

Page 62

4.4.7 All members of the ESIF Committee are subject to established policies and

procedures relating to declarations of interest, whether personal, financial or prejudicial, in respect of projects and funding bids that may stem from their constituent authorities or organisations.

4.4.8 Overall, the role of the ESIF Committee is unchanged as a result of the

Intermediate Body status, though it now gives its advice to the Combined Authority instead of directly to the Managing Authority. This relationship is set out in the diagram in Appendix C to this framework.

4.5 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

4.5.1 The Combined Authority has overall responsibility for discharging the Intermediate Body functions that have been delegated to it by Government. It will, however, delegate specific functions to officers and lead members, to ensure that the role is discharged in an effective and timely way.

4.5.2 The Authority’s portfolio roles were reviewed and agreed by the Combined

Authority at its annual meeting in May 20172. European funding and policy issues were reassigned, and now form part of the Metro Mayor’s wider Policy, Finance and Resources, Digital and Innovation portfolio, supported by the Head of Paid Service. However, for continuity and consistency, the Head of Paid Service has delegated responsibility for the European Funding portfolio to Mike Palin, Chief Executive St Helens Council, who remains the lead officer for European issues. The structure and associated responsibilities are set out in the organogram and text in Appendix B.

4.5.3 In respect of the main functions and responsibilities associated with the

Intermediate Body status, namely the development of “open calls” for projects and the joint appraisal of bids with Government, there is a need to determine roles and responsibilities. At its meeting on 20 October 2017, the Combined Authority agreed to streamline the process whilst ensuring opportunities for input and oversight by lead elected members with expertise of the issues at stake across the two main components of the Intermediate Body’s responsibilities, namely the European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) element and European Social Fund (ESF) element. This is set out overleaf:-

2 http://councillors.knowsley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=890&MId=7013&Ver=4

Page 63

IB Function

Delegated to

Approval of Call Text for ERDF projects

The Lead Officer: European Issues in consultation with the Portfolio Lead for Economic Development and Culture; and

the Lead Officer: Economic Development Assessment of ERDF bids in terms of Local Strategic Fit, Value for Money and Deliverability

Approval of Call Text for ESF projects

The Lead Officer: European Issues in consultation with the Portfolio Lead for Skills and Apprenticeships and

the Lead Officer: Skills and Apprenticeships Assessment of ESF bids in terms of Local Strategic Fit, Value for Money and Deliverability

4.5.4 The delegations above will also include engagement and liaison with the Single Investment Fund’s Investment Panel as appropriate. This is with the aim of strengthening the Combined Authority’s advice, aligning planned investments to their most appropriate funding sources and reducing the risks of duplication or overlapping. Conflict of Interest declarations will form a standard part of all meetings associated with the discharge of the Intermediate Body function.

4.5.5 This arrangement ensures that the Combined Authority acts consistently,

maintains a democratically accountable process in line with the signed Memoranda of Understanding for ERDF and ESF. It is also efficient and adaptable to the tight timescales often associated with funding calls and the assessment of projects.

4.6 Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership

4.6.1 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), in a strategic role, was tasked by Government to develop the EU Structural and Investment Funds Strategy (ESIF) 2014-2020 for their local economic area.

4.6.2 The Liverpool City Region’s LEP is a company limited by guarantee, and is

responsible for delivering several strands of ESIF-funded activity. To avoid conflict of interest, a ‘partition’ exists between the LEP Board as a strategic commissioned body, and as a company that is a commissioner for specific activities, as shown in the diagram in Appendix D. Although this was developed for the purposes of managing devolved Local Growth Fund monies, similar principles apply to the Intermediate Body function.

Page 64

4.7 Officer responsibilities

4.7.1 Senior level responsibility for ensuring that the Combined Authority complies with its Intermediate Body obligations and is meeting the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding with DCLG and DWP vested with the Lead Officer for European Issues, who in turn is responsible to the Authority’s Head of Paid Service.

4.7.2 Within the Combined Authority, the ESIF Intermediate Management Team,

shown in Appendix C will report to the Lead Officer: European Issues, on behalf of the Interim Head of Paid Service and will be part of the wider structures of the Combined Authority. This team will develop the local strategic fit content of calls, with expert policy input from relevant policy specialists and advisors across the City Region, as required. This will ensure that call texts are aligned with the ESIF strategy and City Region strategic frameworks and policies.

4.7.3 The LEP hosts a team funded by ESIF Technical Assistance to support the

programme, on behalf of the Combined Authority. This team will continue to report to the LEP Executive Director, and will focus on pipeline development and promotion of the ESIF Strategy as well as partner liaison across the City Region. There will be a clear separation of functions between any IB that utilise Technical Assistance and the non-IB Technical Assistance function, delivered by the LEP. This relationship is shown in Appendix E.

4.7.4 A conflict of interest protocol will be applied, in line with the constitution of

the Combined Authority. 4.7.5 Furthermore, the table in Appendix F sets out lists of sensitive posts,

including those of officers based within the constituent authorities and organisations, and how conflicts of interest will be avoided.

4.8 Compliance and Monitoring

4.8.1 It is expected that there will be an annual meeting between the Managing Authorities and the Combined Authority to ensure compliance of the terms of the ERDF and ESF Memoranda of Understanding. To support this, the Lead Officer: European Issues is also planning regular (monthly) meetings with relevant DCLG and DWP officers to ensure delivery is on track and any issues dealt with in the appropriate time.

4.8.2 An initial audit by the Government’s Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) took place in August 2017 for the Sustainable Urban Development element of the ERDF allocation, and the Combined Authority was awarded an unqualified audit result.

Page 65

Contact information

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority 1 Mann Island

Liverpool L69 3HN

www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk info@liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk

Page 66

Appendix A Tasks delegated to the LCR Combined Authority

Tasks delegated to Liverpool City Region Combined Authority in respect of the European

Regional Development Fund under mainstream programme activity and Sustainable Urban

Development

1. Overview: LCRCA will contribute to local ESI Funds and/or agreed Sustainable Urban Development sub-committee papers as follows: local strategic fit content for call design; assessment and appraisal of local strategic fit content for, respectively, outline and full applications for ERDF. This content will be based on the local ESI Funds and/or Sustainable Urban Development Strategy. LCR Combined Authority will work with DCLG to support the local ESI Funds and/or agreed Sustainable Urban Development sub-committee in this regard.

2. Call design: LCRCA will decide on the local strategic fit content for project calls based on the relevant ESI Funds and /or Sustainable Urban Development Strategies and will seek the advice of the local ESI Funds and/or agreed Sustainable Urban Development sub-committee to inform its decision. Its decision will be in accordance with the 2014-20 ERDF England Operational Programme3 and Operational Programme specific objectives, outputs and results of the relevant priority axis/axes.

3. Call timings: The Head of the local Growth Delivery Team will consult with LCRCA about the timing of DCLG issue of calls. LCRCA’s input will assist calls to be timed in order to respond effectively to local ESI Fund and Sustainable Urban Development Strategy priorities in relation to the ERDF Operational Programme as well as local opportunities for complementary funding and programmes, in particular those opportunities arising through the local Devolution Deal.

4. Outline Application stage: LCRCA will assess each Outline Application for local strategic fit based on the relevant ESI Funds and/or Sustainable Urban Development Strategy and will decide which to approve in relation to the relevant Project Selection Criteria. It will seek the advice of the local ESI Funds and/or agreed Sustainable Urban Development sub-committee to inform its decision.

5. Full Application Stage: LCRCA will appraise each Full Application for local strategic fit based on the relevant ESI Funds and/or Sustainable Urban Development Strategy and will decide which to approve in relation to the relevant Project Selection Criteria. It will seek the advice of the local ESI Funds and/or agreed Sustainable Urban Development sub-committee to inform its decision.

6. Local Strategic Fit in paragraphs [8, 9, 10, 11 and 12] above is as defined in the Selection Criteria4 for the ERDF 2014-2020 programme, which provides:

3 The European Regional Development Fund England Operational Programme; ISBN: 978-1-4098-4630-7.

It can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/453888/England_ERDF_operational_programme_FINAL_140815.pdf 4https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/430594/ERDF_and_ESF_S

election_Criteria_200315_Published.pdf

Page 67

a. The proposed operation contributes to the needs/opportunities identified in the Call for Proposals to which it is responding.

b. The proposed operation is aligned to the local growth needs set out in the local ESI Funds Strategy and contributes to the specific objectives, outputs and results of the relevant priority axes set out in the Operational Programme.

7. In addition, LCRCA will provide advice to the Managing Authorities on the following Value for Money and Deliverability selection criteria: Value for money

a. The operation must represent value for money. In assessing value for money, the Managing Authority will take account of:

i) Efficiency: the rate/unit costs at which the operation converts inputs to the Fund outputs.

ii) Economy: the extent to which the operation will ensure that inputs to the operation are at the minimum costs commensurate with the required quality.

iii) Effectiveness: the extent to which the operation contributes to programme output targets, results and/or significant strategic impact at the local level.

Deliverability

a. The operation is deliverable within the requirements of the fund specific Operational Programme taking account risks, constraints and dependencies

b. Evidence has shown that this type of operation is effective or where the operation is new or innovative, the risks have been considered and appropriate mitigations put in place

Page 68

Tasks delegated to Liverpool City Region Combined Authority concerning the delegation of tasks in respect of the European Social Fund

8. Overview: LCRCA will contribute to local ESI Funds and/or agreed Sustainable Urban Development sub-committee papers as follows: local strategic fit content for call design; assessment and appraisal of local strategic fit content for, respectively, outline and full applications for ESF. This content will be based on the local ESI Funds and/or Sustainable Urban Development Strategy. LCR Combined Authority will work with DWP to support the local ESI Funds in this regard. 9. Call design: LCRCA will decide on the local strategic fit content for project calls based on the relevant ESI Funds and will seek the advice of the local ESI Funds sub-committee to inform its decision. Its decision will be in accordance with the 2014-20 ESF England Operational Programme

51 and Operational Programme specific objectives, outputs and

results of the relevant priority axis/axes. 10. Call timings: The Head of the local ESF Delivery Team or the DWP ESF Liverpool LEP Lead will consult with LCRCA about the timing of DWP issue of calls. LCRCA’s input will assist calls to be timed in order to respond effectively to local ESI Fund Strategy priorities in relation to the ESF Operational Programme as well as local opportunities for complementary funding and programmes, in particular those opportunities arising through the local Devolution Deal. 11. Outline Application stage: LCRCA will assess each Outline Application for local strategic fit based on the relevant ESI Funds and will decide which to approve in relation to the relevant Project Selection Criteria. It will seek the advice of the local ESI Funds sub-committee to inform its decision. 12. Full Application Stage: LCR CA will appraise each Full Application for local strategic fit based on the relevant ESI Funds and will decide which to approve in relation to the relevant Project Selection Criteria. It will seek the advice of the local ESI Funds sub-committee to inform its decision. 13. Local Strategic Fit in paragraphs [8, 9, 10, 11 and 12] above is as defined in the Selection Criteria4 for the ESF 2014-2020 programme, which provides:

a. The proposed operation contributes to the needs/opportunities identified in the Call for Proposals to which it is responding.

b. The proposed operation is aligned to the local growth needs set out in the local ESI Funds Strategy and contributes to the specific objectives, outputs and results of the relevant priority axes set out in the Operational Programme.

5 The European Social Fund England Operational Programme; ISBN: 978-1-78425--569-5. It can be found

at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/european-social-fund-operational-programme-2014-to-2020 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584120/esf-scoring-framework.pdf

Page 69

14. In addition, LCRCA will provide advice to the Managing Authorities on the following Value for Money and Deliverability selection criteria: Value for money

a. The operation must represent value for money. In assessing value for money, the Managing Authority will take account of:

i) Efficiency: the rate/unit costs at which the operation converts inputs to the Fund

outputs. Also, for example; the level of results to be achieved; comparison to OP standards; as well as the context in which the project is delivered (e.g. the identified need for the provision, the additionality the project will provide).

ii) Economy: the extent to which the operation will ensure that inputs to the operation are at the minimum costs commensurate with the required quality.

iii) Effectiveness: the extent to which the operation contributes to programme output targets, results and/or significant strategic impact at the local level. This includes consideration of how the project meets/delivers domestic strategic priorities; fit with OP; and local impact. It will also consider the impact on the LEP area with regard to LEP notional allocation, targets at LEP area level and national level

Deliverability

a. The operation is deliverable within the requirements of the fund specific Operational Programme taking account risks, constraints and dependencies b. Evidence has shown that this type of operation is effective or where the operation is new or innovative, the risks have been considered and appropriate mitigations put in place

Page 70

Appendix B The Combined Authority’s Portfolios and Lead Officers and Members and

Scope of Policy, Finance and Resources, Digital & Innovation Portfolio

Page 71

Portfolio: Policy, Finance and Resources, Digital and Innovation

Portfolio Lead:

Steve Rotheram (Metro Mayor)

Lead Officer:

Head of Paid Service (Frank Rogers currently

interim)

Mayoral Advisor:

Media and Digital Economy

Higher Education

Community and Voluntary Sector

Key Areas of Responsibility:

The Portfolio Lead Policy, Finance and Resources, Digital and Innovation has the following

responsibilities:

Effective implementation of the City Region’s devolution agreement and wider strategic priorities;

Providing strategic direction of the portfolio area of responsibility and the development of a portfolio work programme to drive forward delivery;

Sharing and communicating a clear understanding of portfolio priorities across LCR;

Oversight of performance and delivery of portfolio priorities including the LCR Devolution agreement;

To develop effective collaboration at the City Region level where there is a case to do so;

Promoting the work of the CA and LCR locally and nationally.

The Portfolio Lead Policy, Finance and Resources, Digital and Innovation has specific responsibility

for:

Policy, Finance and Resources

To coordinate the delivery of Devolution and lead on future phases of devolution.

To lead on all fiscal and budgetary matters (including current and future funding sources within the Single Pot) aligning with public sector accounting practice and Central Government/European expectations.

To provide strategic oversight for City Region’s European Structural and Investment Funds.

To oversee the creation of the Mayoral Development Corporation and the designation of Mayoral Development Zones – in conjunction with the Economic Development and Culture and Housing and Spatial Planning portfolios.

To establish the Land Commission when devolved to the City Region (in conjunction with the Portfolio Lead for Spatial Planning).

To establish and oversee the governance of the Combined Authority, including the scrutiny and performance management process, ensuring transparency.

To lead on press and communications for the Mayor and CA.

To take a lead role on the engagement in the Northern Powerhouse.

To set the overall policy framework in respect of all of the portfolios, including investment strategy for the Single Investment Fund.

To set the economic strategy targets (in conjunction with the Economic Development and Culture portfolio and the LEP).

Digital and Innovation

To improve digital connectivity in the City Region.

To link with the science-based institutions in the City Region with a view to promoting economic activity therefrom.

The promotion of innovation and economic activity therefrom.

[Education/aspiration]

[Smart City Region strategy]

Page 72

Representative Responsibilities

Existing Structures/Groups

Political

Combined Authority

LCR LEP Strategic Board

Officer

LCR Chief Executives

Page 73

Appendix C Separation of functions in discharge of IB functions

Page 74

Appendix D Separation of functions between the LEP as a Strategic Body and as a Commissioner of Activity

Page 75

Appendix E Separation of functions between potential IB Technical Assistance and LEP-led Technical Assistance functions

Combined Authority

LEP led delivery of

Non IB Technical

Assistance function

CA led: IB function

(including SUD)

ESIF Committee

Develops call texts

Local Strategic Fit

Coordination

Collaboration with LEP led ESIF TA function

Pipeline development for ERDF and ESF

Publicity and Promotion of ESIF Strategy

Collaboration with the CA led IB function

Collaboration

Provides advice to CA/IB

Formal sub Committee of the National Growth Board

LCR Partnership Committee, co chaired by CA and LEP

Receives assessment reports from MA’s and IB

Provides oral advice to the IB on Local Strategic Fit, vfm and deliverability

Page 76

Appendix F Sensitive Posts in Relation to LCR IB status

Post holder Job title Potential Conflict Mitigation

Frank Rogers Interim Head of Paid Service, CA and Chief Executive, Merseytravel

As a consequence of a joint role as Lead Officer for the Combined Authority and Chief Executive of Merseytravel, where the latter is an applicant

Declaration of interest required if Merseytravel is an applicant. Will not take part on discussions on local strategic fit if this is the case.

Mike Palin Combined Authority Lead Officer: European Issues and Chief Executive of St Helens Council

As a consequence of a joint role as Lead Officer for European Issues and as Chief Executive of St Helens Council, where the latter is an applicant

As above in respect of any bids made by St Helens Council

John Fogarty Treasurer to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and Director of Resources at Merseytravel

As a consequence of a joint role as Treasurer (section 73 officer) to the Combined Authority and as an Executive Director of Merseytravel, where the latter is an applicant

No role in relation to call text and/or local strategic fit process

Tony Wade Director of Finance, LCR LEP As a consequence of signing-off LEP applications for ESI funds and as manager of the LEP-led Technical Assistance function

Declaration of interest required if the LEP is an applicant. No role in relation to call text and/or local strategic fit process

Mark Basnett Managing Director LCR LEP As a consequence of a dual role in supporting the Authority’s strategic economic development function and as an applicant for ESI funds

Declaration of interest required if the LEP is an applicant. Will not take part on discussions on local strategic fit.

Sue Jarvis Assistant Executive Director (Policy and Partnerships) and Combined Authority Employment and Skills Lead Officer

As a consequence of having a dual role with the Combined Authority’s employment and skills function, where the latter is an applicant

No direct role in developing ESF bids

Catherine Garnell

Assistant Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council and Combined Authority Lead Officer: Economic Development

As a consequence of having a joint role as Lead Officer for the Combined Authority and as Assistant Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council, where the latter is an applicant

Declaration of interest required if Liverpool is an applicant. Will not take part on discussions on local strategic fit if this is the case.

Rob Tabb Economic Policy and Partnership Manager, Liverpool City Region Employment and Skills Team

Acts as lead policy officer for ESF for the Combined Authority

No direct role in developing ESF bids

Huw Jenkins Policy Development Manager, Merseytravel and seconded to the CA

Lead Policy Officer for the CA on SUD, associated call text and local strategic fit, with potential conflict as a result of employment with Merseytravel.

No role in development of Merseytravel ESIF applications

Page 77

This page is intentionally left blank

LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY

To: The Chair and Members of the Combined Authority

Meeting: 20 October 2017

Authorities Affected: All EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM: No Key Decision

REPORT OF THE INTERIM MONITORING OFFICER

PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION 1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1.1 The purpose of the report is to recommend a change to the Liverpool City Region

Combined Authority Constitution. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority are recommended to agree to the changes

to the Combined Authority Constitution as set out in Appendix One to this report. 3. QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS 3.1 The Combined Authority Constitution at Part 4 Paragraph A Section 11 provides for the

submission of Questions, Petitions and Statements as set out below:-

Public Question Time Members of the public will be given the opportunity to ask questions which have been submitted in accordance with Meetings Standing Orders No.11. A period of 30 minutes will be allocated for this item. Copies of valid questions will be circulated at the meeting. Public questions should be submitted to the Combined Authority by 5.00pm

on the Monday before the meeting. Petitions and Statements Members of the public will be given the opportunity to submit a single petition or statement in accordance with Meetings Standing Orders No. 11. Petitions and Statements should be submitted to the Combined Authority by 12 noon on day before the meeting.

Page 79

Agenda Item 10

3.2 These provisions often make it difficult to provide a comprehensive reply to the matters raised.

3.3 It is proposed that the date for submission of Questions, Petitions and Statements

should be extended and aligned. 3.4 It is proposed that all Questions, Petitions and Statements should be submitted to the

Combined Authority no later than by 5.00pm on the Monday before the Combined Authority Meeting. This will effectively give the Combined Authority 3 working days to consider the items submitted and aligns the deadlines for questions, petitions and statements. The revised text is set out at Appendix One and should this be approved; it would be implemented from the Combined Authority meeting on 17 November 2017.

Questions, Petitions and Statements Deadline (Monday at 5.00pm)

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Meeting

13 November 17 November 2017

4 December 8 December 2017

3.5 Questions, Petitions and Statements on matters not directly related to a specific

Combined Authority agenda can be submitted earlier than 7 working days before the meeting and will be considered.

4. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

4.1 Financial Implications 4.1.1 There are no financial implications associated with the implementation of the

recommendations in this report. 4.2 Human Resources 4.2.1 There are no human resource implications for the Combined Authority. 4.3 Physical Assets 4.3.1 There are no physical asset implications for the Combined Authority.

4.4 Information Technology 4.4.1 There are no information technology implications for the Combined Authority.

5. RISK AND MITIGATION 5.1 There is a risk that the Combined Authority will not be able to respond to questions,

petitions and statement in a timely manner. This has been mitigated by providing additional time for responses to be developed.

Page 80

5.2 There is a risk that members of the public are not aware of the changes to the timescales. This will be mitigated by stating these clearly on relevant agendas.

6. COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES 6.1 Should the changes to the Constitution be approved, the revised timescales will be

clearly stated on the relevant Combined Authority agendas. 7. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS 7.1 There are no specific equality and diversity implications associated with the

implementation of the recommendations in this report. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed amendment to the Constitution will assist with the effective and efficient

running of the meeting and ensure a full and comprehensive reply is provided. If this cannot be done at the meeting a written reply will be provided as soon as reasonably practicable.

JILL COULE Interim Monitoring Officer

Contact Officer:- Sue Jarvis, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (0151 330 1225) Appendices:- Appendix One – Proposed Amendment to the Constitution are shown in blue.

Page 81

APPENDIX ONE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION, PART 4, SECTION A, PARAGRAPH 11

11. Committees 11.1 There will be an opportunity for a period of 30 minutes in total for public questions at

meetings of the Combined Authority. 11.2 Subject to these standing orders, members of the public addressing a meeting will be

permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes per person (less if more than 6 people wish to speak).

11.3 A single petition or statement may be submitted by a member of the public, provided

that notice is given in writing or by electronic mail to the proper officer (and includes their name and address and details of the wording of the petition, and in the case of a statement, a copy of the submission), by no later than 5.00pm of the working day before a meeting, on the Monday in the week of a meeting of the Combined Authority at which it is to be asked, may present a petition or statement at ordinary meetings.

11.4 Statements, provided they are of reasonable length and submitted to the proper officer

within time, will be copied and circulated to all members of the Combined Authority and will be made available to the public attending the meeting by not later than one hour before the meeting. If requested, a written reply will be provided within 10 working days following the Combined Authority meeting.

11.5 Petitions will be received without debate but, after receiving a petition with no less than

2,000 signatures, the petition will be referred for further consideration to a future meeting, the Mayor or member with portfolio, Committee or officer of any other person as the Chair considers appropriate.

11.6 Up to 2 questions may be asked by a member of the pubic of the Mayor (which may be

referred to the Deputy Mayor or member with portfolio) and submitted to the meeting only if notice has been given by delivering it in writing or by electronic mail to the proper officer no later than three clear working days before the day of the meeting by no later than 5.00pm on the Monday in the week of the meeting of the Combined Authority at which it is to be asked. Each question must give the name and address of the questioner and must identify the person to whom it is wished to be put.

11.7 Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received, except that the Chair

may group together similar questions and determine whether to take a supplementary question. A supplementary question must arise directly out of the original question or the reply.

11.8 Replies to questions will be given verbally. If a reply cannot be given that the meeting

(including due to lack of time) or written confirmation of the verbal reply is requested by the questioner, a written reply will be provided within 10 working days of the meeting.

Page 82

11.9 This facility will not apply to The Monitoring Officer may reject a question if it does not apply to:

a) matters which are not directly related to the Combined Authority’s functions; b) matters which do not directly relate to the Combined Authority or the City

Region; c) matters which are better addressed to a Constituent Council (or other relevant

authority); d) matters outside the remit of the Committees of the Combined Authority; e) matters which concern an individual’s circumstances where it would be

inappropriate for details to be aired in public; f) any business or contractual matter considered to be under negotiation or

otherwise commercially sensitive; g) any matter that may require the disclosure of confidential or exempt information; h) allegations against individual members or officers of the Combined Authority, its

Committees or a Constituent Council (in these cases the Combined Authority or relevant body’s complaints or code of conduct procedures should be used); or

i) any defamatory, frivolous or offensive submissions.

Page 83

This page is intentionally left blank

Transport Committee

Transport Committee

7 September 2017

Present: Councillor L Robinson, Chair

Councillor G Friel, Deputy Chair

Councillors R Abbey, T Crone, G Cross, K Deakin, J Dodd, S Foulkes, H Howard, A Jones, K McGlashan, V McNeill, N Nicholas, G Philbin, M Rasmussen, K Roberts, J Stockton, P Thomas, J Williams and M Wynn

Apologies for absence were submitted by

Councillors J Bradshaw, A Carr, G Flatley, P McKinley, L Rowlands and J Wolfson

29. Declarations of Interest A Declaration of Interest was received in respect of item 7 on the agenda; Local Journeys Strategy. Councillor Cross declared a personal interest in this item as he was currently undertaking work with a company that provided cycling solutions.

30. Minutes of the Last Meeting Resolved that the minutes of the last meeting held on 27 July 2017 be approved as a correct record.

31. Quarter 1 Corporate Plan Performance and Financial Monitoring Report 2017/18 The Committee considered a report of the Lead Officer for Transport and an accompanying presentation regarding an overview of corporate and operational performance of Merseytravel for Quarter 1 of 2017/18 (April to June). Councillor Robinson commended the improved presentation of the information contained within the

Page 85

Agenda Item 13

Transport Committee

report. It was a user friendly way of showing how Merseytravel as an organisation was performing and he thanked the Officers for the work done to develop this. These comments were echoed by Councillor McGlashan, who also referred to the mention of the punctuality of commercial bus services being affected by challenging road conditions. Local Councils had recently been given more powers to keep contractors to time when undertaking highway works and he expressed the importance of the need for Councils to publically publish schedules of works and increase pressure on contractors to complete on time in order to limit the delays suffered by the public. Officers agreed that this legislation was long overdue and gave assurance that increased pressure would be applied to contractors through the Liverpool City Region’s Key Route Network Group. Councillor Crone raised concerns about the re-routing of the 82 service and enquired as to how this decision was reached and what consultation took place prior to the change being implemented. He also referred to the mention in the report of the reduction in supported bus services which was leading to a reduction in supported bus service patronage, which was transferring onto commercial services and asked how it was known that this shift was occurring and not resulting in patronage being lost from the bus network. Officers agreed to look into these comments outside of the meeting and provide a response to the Committee. In response to a question from Councillor Philbin as to why the development of a collaborative approach with Halton Council to river crossing by road was currently suspended, it was advised that historically the ITA had a Memorandum of Understanding with Halton Council for interoperability between the Mersey Gateway Crossing and the Mersey Tunnels; however this had now been replaced by a set of principles. At the request of the Mersey Gateway Crossing Board further discussions had been suspended until the opening of the new bridge but Merseytravel were happy to re-commence this dialogue as soon as possible. Councillor Stockton enquired and received clarification that the disproportionate increase in Mersey Ferries

Page 86

Transport Committee

Commuter fares compared to other modes of transport was reflective of the fare level five years ago rather than where it currently stood. The fares were significantly subsidised and the combination of the Ferries Strategy and Financial Strategy had helped to reduce the Mersey Ferries deficit. It was stressed, however, that the Ferries Commuter fares were still relatively cheap when compared with other modes. Councillor Stockton further asked about the reasoning behind why there had been limited progress against the delivery of the Bus Capital Programme by Asset Management during the quarter. Officers explained that this was a key part of the Bus Alliance but the required interventions took significant time to introduce due to the delays in gaining necessary approvals. The introduction of some infrastructure had also been delayed pending the outcome of the Bus Network Reviews. Councillor Nicholas again echoed the thanks to officers involved in producing the report. She also referred to the marginal underperformance of bus services in relation to reliability and asked whether the individual figures for Arriva and Stagecoach were available. Officers advised that these would be obtained and shared with the Committee. In relation to the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) relating to safety, Councillor Nicholas further enquired whether the resources available to Merseytravel, such as the British Transport Police, were being used effectively to catch those causing vandalism on buses and trains. Officers explained that through the TravelSafe structure a review had been undertaken to ensure the data received from British Transport Police, Merseyside Police and the bus operators was being used appropriately to inform the tasking regime and help to focus activity. Assurance was given that all intelligence and available resources were being used to tackle crime on the transport network. Councillor Nicholas lastly commended the 95% response rate to customer comments within 21 days, but acknowledged that this was slightly below the desirable target and asked what could be done in order to achieve this. Officers advised that a considerable amount of work had been done to identify those areas not meeting the target and looking at the resources required to improve their response times. It was acknowledged that 21 days

Page 87

Transport Committee

was a long time and reducing this would need to be considered; however the need to deal with third party operators in some cases could result in delays to responses. Councillor Jones raised the historical issue of the 38 service in Rainford, St Helens, which had been reported to Arriva as the operator of the service and resolved to some extent. Major roadworks were due to start on this route and it was vital that delays caused by these works did not result in buses being cancelled. Officers advised that it was the operator’s responsibility to monitor the highway during the period of works and agreed to raise these concerns with Arriva. Councillor Foulkes reminded the Committee that as this report only covered Quarter 1 of 2017/18 the information contained within it was merely an early indicator of performance. This year would be challenging due to substantial budget reductions but it was encouraging to see the progress of so many KPIs rated as green at this early stage. The Director of Resources highlighted the significant budget gap that Merseytravel faced during 2017/18 and in light of this commended the divisional Managers and budget holders for the achievement of the green ratings detailed in the report. Work would continue to reduce this gap for 2018/19 with the hope of not compromising performance. With regard to affordability, Councillor Robinson commended the improvements to the affordability of bus services. Thanks to pressure from Merseytravel, the commercial operators had reduced a number of fares; 30p in St Helens, 20p in Wirral and a freeze on fares in Liverpool. This was a significant achievement and unprecedented in other parts of the country. Resolved that:- (a) the contents of the report and accompanying

presentation be noted; and

(b) the further information requested be provided as appropriate.

Page 88

Transport Committee

32. Walrus Development Programme - Update Report The Committee considered a report of the Lead Officer for Transport regarding the current developments of the Walrus Smart Ticketing Platform. Following a question from Councillor Crone as to why Solo weekly tickets were available on the Walrus platform but not monthly tickets, Officers advised that there were a number of reasons for this. In order to create uniformity all weekly tickets were now available to be purchased on bus, including Arriva’s and Stagecoach’s individual tickets. The availability of products was also dependent on the cost; for example monthly tickets would only be available to purchase on the website as customer details were required should a refund need to be issued. It was also highlighted that the majority of bus commuters purchased weekly tickets. Councillor Nicholas sought and received clarification that the graph contained within the report displaying ‘hotlisted trips’ showed a decline in July and August due to a change in the way that the cards were read on buses; they now had the ability to identify a card that should be no longer be in use and allowed for the deactivation of such cards. Councillor Stockton commended the Officers involved in the project. There was still a lot of work to be done but a significant amount had been achieved to date. Resolved that the contents of the report be noted.

33. Mersey Tunnels Update September 2017 The Committee considered a report of the Lead Officer for Transport regarding a summary of key activities within the Mersey Tunnels. It was highlighted to Members that the Kingsway Tunnel Rewire, mentioned in 3.2 of the report, was now likely to run longer than December 2017 but would be completed as early as possible in the New Year. Councillor Stockton enquired as to how Merseytravel were future proofing the toll system in anticipation of a cashless society.

Page 89

Transport Committee

He was advised that the current toll refresh was being undertaken with the short term in mind; however with the introduction of contactless payment it was expected that cash transactions would migrate to card. The extent of this shift was to be determined but other tunnels around the country received 65% of transactions by card. There were 25 million transactions made annually at the Mersey Tunnels, with over 50% made by Fast Tag and the organisation would be promoting this to encourage more users to adopt this method. Based on the outcome of customer behaviour an informed decision on the long term plans for the toll system would be made in two years and as a result any arising vacancies would be recruited to on a fixed term basis only. Resolved that the contents of the report be noted.

34. Local Journeys Strategy The Committee considered a report of Merseytravel and an accompanying presentation seeking approval for the Local Journeys Strategy to be presented to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority for endorsement.

Councillor Abbey left the meeting Councillor Friel was pleased that air quality was a priority for the Metro Mayor. There was a need to ‘green up’ the Liverpool City Region and he welcomed the comments made by the Mayor in the document. It was also important to consider the health costs associated with air quality and this Strategy was the starting point to tackle it. Councillor Crone commented that it was an important Strategy which raised a crucial issue of too many short journeys being made by car; however he felt that it did not go far enough to address the problem and made the following comments/asked the following questions:-

- there were no strong targets identified; - if there proved to be a contradiction between

economic growth and creating sustainable transport which would prevail;

- there appeared to be a contradiction between the stated aim of prioritising sustainable transport and

Page 90

Transport Committee

the Metro Mayor’s aim of reducing tunnel tolls to make the cost of commuting by car cheaper;

- the Last Mile concept was commended but could it be applied to logistics in order to reduce the number HGVs in the City;

- there was no mention of speed reduction, which was a big barrier to cycling and walking;

- there was no mention of demand management and finding ways to reduce traffic;

- it was important to embrace car free developments and build housing without parking; and

- in order to have the desired effect the Strategy needed to be much bolder.

Officers responded by saying that the targets for the Strategy were currently in development. There was a Pipeline Scheme in place with an Assurance Framework, which allowed for prioritisation of schemes. In relation to air quality it was hoped that a Clean Air Strategy would soon be introduced, which would work hand in hand with the Local Journeys Strategy. The aim was to achieve both economic growth and clean air without having to sacrifice one. Speed reduction was not addressed within the Strategy but was part of the Combined Authority approved Road Safety Strategy. With regard to demand management, this was a contentious issue and difficult to do, but it was something that needed to be looked at and the Liverpool City Region Transport Advisory Group had been tasked with this. Lastly, through the Strategy, work would be undertaken to ensure that future housing developments encouraged cycling and walking. It had been acknowledged that dialogue with developers did not take place early enough and moving forward contact would be made at the pre-application stage. Councillor Crone further suggested the re-introduction of bus lanes and was advised that this was being explored as part of the Bus Alliance. In response to a question from Councillor Philbin regarding the availability of charging points for electric vehicles, Officers explained that the District Councils were currently working with developers to introduce this provision. It was important that the Councils took the lead on this and were at the forefront of encouraging the use of these vehicles. Councillor Foulkes commented that this Strategy was about behavioural change; journeys to schools was an

Page 91

Transport Committee

area that should be paid particular attention to as using cars for such journeys set the wrong precedent for children. Officers agreed that behavioural change was needed but this was challenging and it was hoped that this Strategy along with the Road Safety Strategy would assist with it. School Travel Plans had proved successful when in place and would be useful to resurrect if the funding once again became available. Councillor McGlashan referred to Stockbridge Village in Knowsley, which was originally built with the idea of being pedestrianised but had to be altered. This cost the Council a significant amount of money and prior to the building of new sustainable towns, such as the ones currently being introduced in Halton, it was important to undertake consultation in order to ensure that the developments met the requirements of the residents. With further reference to the new towns in Halton, Councillor Howard commented that the one introduced in Runcorn was designed to discourage car ownership but had not been successful. He also added that integration of bus and train could be key to the success of this Strategy. Officers highlighted that this was a Liverpool City Region Combined Authority owned Strategy and was about creating opportunities for people to choose the most sustainable method for undertaking short trips across the City Region. Councillor Nicholas commended the Equality and Diversity Implications section of the report and hoped that all future reports would contain the same level of detail. The Committee commended the report author, Suzanne Cain, who regularly provided extensive information for this section in all reports she produced and it was imperative that all future reports paid the same consideration to this section. Councillor Robinson acknowledged that this Strategy was the first ‘step in the journey’ and was important that it was used as a tool to make a difference to the quality of life across the Liverpool City Region. He suggested a Members’ Briefing Session be arranged in order for the Committee to consider the Strategy and the implementation of it in more detail.

Page 92

Transport Committee

Resolved that:- (a) the Local Journeys Strategy appended to the

report and its submission to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority for endorsement be approved;

(b) the implications associated with potential new, centralised delivery arrangements to support this Strategy for Merseytravel and District partners be noted and endorsed; and

(c) a Members’ Briefing Session be held to consider the Strategy in more detail.

35. Public Question Time The Chair advised the Committee that no public questions had been received.

At this point in the meeting Councillor Crone wished to place on record his dissent in relation the

recommendations for the previous item; the Chair, however advised that this was not possible as the item

was now resolved.

36. Petitions and Statements The Chair advised that Committee that one statement had been received from Mr William Shortall. Mr Shortall was invited to address his statement to the Committee:-

“Dear Committee,

I know everyone here is committed to give the best possible Transport system for the LCR, however I would like to point out that the number four bus route which is a supported route and unfortunately does not meet the full needs of the LCR CA users of that particular route.

Page 93

Transport Committee

In particular students and school children who may use that bus to get to schools and colleges, serviced by that bus route have to wait one hour between buses everyday Monday to Saturday with no buses on the Sunday at all.

Given that schools pupils and those at the Greenbank College in particular may depend on this bus route, which also services Sefton park, I would suggest that this is not as good of service as can be offered and can be improved upon.

I would suggest that in school terms, the service could two buses every hour not one, and a Sunday service should be introduced, especially as lot of Liverpool city events take place in Sefton Park, that is lots of local, national and international including sporting events take place at the Greenbank Sports Academy also, (a part of the Greenbank College and run by the Greenbank project Charity) through out the year and with events held on Sunday’s thus having no service then, is not helpful.

You say in your document Local Journeys Strategy on page 86 of the agenda and page 22 of the actual report that you want to improve access to leisure and health and improve access to education and training.

http://liverpoolcityregionca.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/meetings/TRCM070917.pdf

I would ask that you give some consideration to making the Number Four bus route every half hour six days a week until 11pm which is important as people work and students take night classes and attend events after 7 pm (currently your present service ends then) and a hourly service on a Sunday.

I hope that the committee will give this a consideration rather than make it a bone of contention through campaigning.

Kind regards

William Shortall”

Page 94

Transport Committee

The Chair acknowledged the statement and thanked Mr Shortall for the submission and advised that a formal response would be provided within 10 working days of the meeting.

CHAIR

Page 95

This page is intentionally left blank