Version 2.5 (16/02/17)

Full Business Case – for all projects requesting LCR Combined Authority Single Investment Fund (SIF) funding

Project name: Parkside Link Road and Land Acquisition

SIF reference Number: SIF0011/SIF0062

Headline project description:

Please provide a summary to explain your project (approx. 100 words)

The Project is in the borough of St. Helens adjacent to the M6 motorway. It comprises of a 3.3 km link road of new single/dual carriageway and realigned highway, with junctions. It will provide appropriate access from M6 Junction 22 and the local road network to the proposed Parkside Regeneration development. The acquisition of land is required to deliver the Parkside Link Road which shall facilitate the delivery of the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI). The link road will include provision for a cycleway/footway and accesses for future developments. The link road will also enable land to be brought forward for the SRFI development with 2,100 additional jobs, and increase potential developed floor space creating over 7,000 gross jobs. Overall the project will support the economic wellbeing of Liverpool City Region (LCR), its Superport and the Atlantic Gateway, as well as benefiting the local economy.

Applicant details

Applicant organisation:

St. Helens Council

Contact: Mark Osborne

Job title/Position:

Principal Transport Policy Officer

Phone number: Landline: 01744 671 616Mobile:

Email address: markosborne@sthelens.gov.uk

Postal address: St. Helens Council, Town Hall Annex, Corporation Street, St. Helens WA10 1HP

Company/Charity N/A

1

Registration Number (where applicable)

Registered Office (where applicable)

N/A

If a company, please confirm size

N/A

Location of project: (LA, postcode) (please provide a location plan)

St Helens WA12 8BF

The scheme: Parkside Link Road (PLR), to be delivered is the yellow dotted line shown below on the plan.

Other organisations involved in project: (please briefly explain roles)

Highways England (interface of the new link road with Junction 22 on the M6);

Warrington Council (local planning authority for section of the Parkside Link Road);

Warrington/Wigan Councils (consideration of impact on wider area with adjacent highway authorities);

Project theme:

(Please select the main theme relevant to your project)

Transport

2

Please confirm whether the project has support from the relevant local authority – include a named officer

Yes

Total project cost Parkside Link Road (PLR) £35,087,786.28 (Transport)Land Acquisition (LA) £4,723,000.00 (Transport)

Grant/loan requested – capital or revenue

PLR – Capital Grant of £23,790,786.28

LA – Capital Grant of

Capital Grant Total of £23,790,786.28

Has the project previously been considered by the LCR CA for

Delete as applicable:Yes/NoIf Yes, state the outcome and any subsequent changes made to the project.

The LCR CA has considered the Outline Business Case for the project and invited

3

Component SIF Ask Public Sector Input

Private Sector Input

Total

Link Road £23,790,786.28

£1,447,000.00

£9,850,000.00

£35,087,786.28

Land Acquisition

£4,723,000.00

£4,723,000.00

TOTAL £23,790,786.28

£6,170,000.00

£9,850,000.00

£39,810,786.28

SIF funding or other funding bodies

the Council to proceed to the next stage in a letter dated 12th September 2017.

Please indicate whether any information in this form is considered is considered exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If so, please outline why

The project contains commercially sensitive information that if published would not enable St. Helens Council’s appointed Supplier to achieve competitive prices from the market for the construction work. St. Helens Council would have great difficulty in achieving a realistic price for acquiring the necessary land.

This Business Case application has been structured to be consistent with the guidance issued by HM Treasury regarding the preparation of business cases.

For transport projects of over £5 million, please submit a separate short report setting out the adjusted Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) that the project will achieve. Please refer to the following DfT guidance note to local decision makers:

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

In addition, please refer to WebTAG guidance to demonstrate the present value of cost, assumed optimism bias and present value of benefits.

Where relevant, please summarise the results of the WebTAG appraisal (approx. 200 words)

Please see Section 2 Supporting Information which includes the Economics Report for Parkside Link Road.

An updated assessment of transport economic benefits for the proposed Parkside Link Road has been undertaken to provide an indicative benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for use at Full Business Case (FBC).

Value for Money Statement

The calculation of the BCR value is given in the table below. The monetised economic benefits (based on transport modelling outcomes and accident appraisal) show that the scheme produces a BCR of 3.860 from Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of £135.736m (2010 prices, discounted to 2010) and a cost to public accounts of £5.9m (2010 prices, discounted to 2010).

**Please note that the land value costs used in the economic assessment were those available in

4

May 2018 during production of the latest version of the Economics Report. Land costs have now reduced. The economic benefits are therefore more robust than presented below.**

Value for Money Statement

Costs (£000)

Land Costs in 2017 prices £9,050

Construction Costs in 2017 prices £33,652

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB)

Greenhouse Gases £2,766

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users, Commuting £13,012

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users, Other £49,195

Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers £47,175

Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -£5,907

Additional Benefits

Total Accident Benefits Saved by Scheme £7,619

Wider Economic Benefits £21,876

Value for Money Summary

Present Value of Costs (PVC) £35,165

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £135,736

Net Present Value (NPV) £100,571

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.860

Value for Money Statement (in £000s, 2010 prices if not stated)

All costs in 2010 prices, discounted to 2010.

This assessment has been based on a conservative development schedule and has incorporated project risk costs equivalent to 18% of total scheme costs.

For development and housing projects please include a separate note providing an assessment of the project based on the DCLG Appraisal Guide (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576427/161129_Appraisal_Guidance.pdf) or complete the separate template.

Where relevant, please summarise the results of the DCLG appraisal (approx. 200 words) or summary data from the template.

5

N/A

For skills capital projects please also complete the separate application form.

Purpose of the Full Business Case

The purpose of the Full Business Case (FBC) stage is to revisit and, where necessary, update the Outline Business Case (OBC) assumptions and analysis, recommending the most economically advantageous option. It also documents the contractual arrangements, confirms funding and affordability and sets out the detailed management arrangements and plans for successful delivery and post evaluation.

The FBC will determine whether a project should be taken forward to be considered for approval.

6

Part 1 – Strategic Case

Please revisit the Strategic Case set out within the OBC, answering the following questions:

Project description and update

1. Please restate the brief description of the project, including its objectives, key deliverables, for what aspect funding is being sought and the details of the wider programme or package of investments that the project sits within (if applicable). (approx. 750 words)

1.1 Project – Context

Located midway between Liverpool and Manchester, St. Helens enjoys a strategic position at the heart of the North West.

Following the decommissioning of Parkside Colliery during the 1990’s, there has been significant interest from both the private and public sector in bringing the site and adjoining land forward for employment and distribution use. The site benefits from a strategic location adjacent to the M6 and M62. Parkside Regeneration LLP is a joint venture between St. Helens Council and developers Langtree (JV). It is proposed to transform the derelict Parkside Colliery site located on the south-eastern edge of Newton-le-Willows (west site), into a new employment park.

In addition, there is a further aspiration to develop land to the east of the M6 J22 as a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) that has the potential to receive trains from all directions and will serve intermodal flows on the West Coast Mainline and Chat Moss lines. Development of the SRFI is anticipated to attract £190m a year of new economic activity (GVA) to the Borough, with over 3,700 gross jobs created. Improvements to highway infrastructure have been identified in the Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study1 as a key element in ensuring the functionality of the future SRFI.

Parkside Regeneration LLP, a joint venture between St. Helens Council and developer Langtree, are developing a masterplan for the Parkside Colliery site. Combined with the SRFI site there is a significant increase in potential development total floorspace, creating over 7,000 gross jobs based on HCA Employment Density Guide 2015 values.

1.2 Project Description

The Parkside Link Road comprises mainly of a new 3.3km single carriageway 7.3 metres wide, with a short section of dual two lane carriageway on the A579 Winwick Lane. The road scheme

1 AECOM (2016) Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study

7

will provide direct access to the Parkside Regeneration site from a new signalised junction on the A49 in the west, to the motorway network at Junction 22 of the M6 in the east, via new junctions with the A573 Parkside Road and the A579 Winwick Lane. In addition, it will provide access to the land to the east of the M6 J22 enabling future development of the proposed SRFI development. The new road will form a strategic link to the network utilising the existing A573 Parkside Road overbridge crossing over the M6, enabling access to sites on both the east and west of the M6 and improving connectivity through the region. There will be provision for Non-Motorised Users (NMU) in the form of a 3m wide footway/cycleway adjacent to the carriageway, plus several site access points into the SRFI and employment park.

A Site Location Plan is included in Section 1 – Supporting information. Drawing No. PD-RAM-03-ZZ-DR-TR-0001.

1.3 Project Objectives

The objective of the Parkside Link Road Project is to deliver enhanced public highways access between the Parkside site and to the strategic and local networks, improving connectivity for future commuters who will work at the site as well as improving the efficiency of freight movements to and from the site. This project will support the development of the site and help the LCR to deliver more efficient logistics and development in close proximity to existing and proposed national sea, road and rail infrastructure supporting the LCR Growth Plan objectives, Liverpool SuperPort and the Atlantic Gateway.

The specific project objectives have been identified as follows:

Enhanced highways access between the Parkside site and the strategic highway network;

Enhanced highways access between the Parkside site and the local highway network; Improving connectivity for future commuters who will work at the site as well as

improving the efficiency of freight movements to and from the site; Deliver more efficient logistics and development in close proximity to existing and

proposed national sea, road and rail infrastructure supporting the LCR Growth Plan objectives;

Serve and allow for optimum alignment of the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange.

“Parkside site” refers to the Parkside Regeneration Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 developments, as outlined in the site location plan.

Programme

8

The project can be delivered within the required delivery period, as outlined in the Proposed Delivery Programme. A detailed programme can be found in Section 4 - Supporting Information. Document Reference; PD-BB-00-00-PR-Z-800

Following planning approval in the 4th quarter of 2018, there is the opportunity for some advance works during the contract pricing period that will enable the main construction works starting mid-2019 to avoid delay and focus immediately on new build. These works are centred on the old colliery site west of the M6 and will deal with specific long lead in items including;

Diversion of HV feeder cable to Network Rails west coast main line. Protection works to High Voltage overhead cables Tree and vegetation clearance during the winter and therefore avoid ecology problems Confirmation of material management strategy Newt translocation programme Site access and facility mobilisation Pre-drainage works

Enabling works will be completed in spring 2019 to facilitate the efficient delivery of the main works package which is scheduled to be constructed in 2019-2020.

Key Deliverables

The key deliverables of the link road consist of the following elements:

2.2 kilometres of carriageway comprising 1.2km single 10.8m wide carriageway (7.3m +3.5m turning lane) and 1km single 7.3m wide carriageway

0.2 kilometres of realigned and upgraded single carriageway (A573 crossing over the M6)

0.4 kilometres of new dual carriageway from M6 Jct 22 to our new roundabout 0.25 kilometres of new single carriageway from roundabout tying back in to Winwick

Lane 0.5 kilometres (2 x 0.25km) of new single carriageway realignment of Parkside road to

tie in to a new offline roundabout 1.5 kilometres of 3m wide footway/cycleway adjacent to the Link road within the

development plus spatial provision on both sides for provision of future construction Several site access points provided to enable development of the Parkside Regeneration

site and SRFI 2 No Roundabouts 2 No Signalised Junctions

9

M6 Junction 22 – Highways England are committed to delivering minor improvements to Junction 22 but these should not impact on the delivery of the Parkside Link Road. In addition, Highways England is also committed to upgrading the length of the M6 that passes the development to a ‘Smart Motorway’. Again, this should not impact on the delivery of the Link Road or future developments within Parkside.

St. Helens Council has commissioned property consultants to provide professional advice in relation to the valuation of the land and the acquisition process.

10

2. Please provide an update on how the project has progressed since the SOC was prepared, including any key changes that have occurred. Where relevant, please indicate what RIBA Design Stage has been reached. What changes, if any, have there been since the SOC(approx. 200 words)

Since the SOC was approved, the Parkside Link Road has been the subject of engineering appraisal and a route options study.

Following completion of a public consultation exercise which ran from Tuesday 27 June to Friday 15 September 2017, the design of the project (Yellow Route) is now in the detailed design stage. The planning submission was made, including a Full Environmental Statement, to both St Helens Council and Warrington Borough Council on 23rd March 2018. For reference the planning portal references are as follows: SHC PP-06738793 and WBC PP-06738885.

Six alternative route options were identified and assessed in accordance with WebTAG and measured against the Project Objectives. Additional criteria to assess each of the options have also been identified in accordance with WebTAG; these include environmental, social, economy and deliverability/risk. This is to demonstrate that the potential impacts of the proposed routes across a breadth of topics have been considered. The outputs, together with other contributing factors, informed the decision in identifying the preferred route to go forward for OBC. Refer to PD-RAM-03-00-DR-TR-0001 Preliminary WebTAG Appraisal of Route Options in Section 5 – Supporting Information.

The preferred route, the Yellow route, was selected to progress for OBC based upon the WebTAG assessment and as it met the project objectives to provide access to land either side of the M6 north of J22, together with facilitating potential future developments such as the SRFI. It is believed that the Yellow route as identified, offers genuine potential for a robust business case, providing access to developing land and accommodating HGV movements in the local area.

A similar exercise has also been undertaken to establish a preferred alignment for the new link road junction with the A579. This considered a signalised junction, a roundabout and dualing the A579 from the junction to J22.

An Options Appraisal Report has been produced detailing the proposed options and assessment of all the routes considered (Section 6 – Supporting Information).

Core elements of the preferred Yellow option for OBC are identified below and on the drawing PD-RAM-03-00-DR-TR-0001 Preliminary WebTAG Appraisal of Route Options presented in the Section 5 – Supporting Information.

New signalised junction at A49 into the west site Freight route, designed to DMRB standards through colliery site, with provision for internal

access and NMU provision for pedestrian and cycle links Signalled junction connecting link road to A573 Parkside Road

11

Roundabout connecting A573 Parkside Road and new link road east of the M6 Offline roundabout connecting new link road with A579 Winwick Lane Dual carriageway connecting above roundabout with M6 Junction 22

Land required to develop the Link Road, Parkside Regeneration LLP and the Potential SFRI site has been identified. Land owners have been identified and, where land acquisition is required to secure the delivery of the project, Heads of Terms have been agreed with all but one land owner.

Following refinement of the project cost estimates, the SIF ask has reduced from £27,850,000 at Outline Business Case to £23,790,786.28 at this Full Business Case.

12

Strategic alignment

3. Which of the LCR Growth Strategy objectives and ambitions does this project address? (approx. 100 words)

The Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy highlights the vision for the Liverpool City Region (LCR) to build on core strengths and capacity for innovation to create a truly global and competitive City Region at the heart of the Northern Powerhouse.

This project will deliver not only industrial and commercial development opportunities attracting and retaining investors and skilled workers, but will also create a strategic link to the local highway network delivering improved accessibility to the surrounding region. In addition, the Link Road will facilitate the potential development of the Parkside SRFI, a unique opportunity to improve transport links across a number of modes.

The Growth strategy identifies three growth pillars: Productivity, People and Place.

Productivity: to sustain economic growth to maximise the potential of sector strengths and related assets and to focus on starting and growing more successful businesses by promoting innovations and entrepreneurial activity.

The proposed scheme will support the creation of new employment opportunities, supporting the creation of over 100,000 additional jobs in the Liverpool City region by 2040. In addition, the scheme will encourage new businesses through facilitating the Parkside Regeneration development; this supports the LCR aspiration of a net increase of 20,000 businesses over the next 25 years.

In addition, the scheme supports the creation of an additional £22 billion (2012 prices) in GVA by 2040.

People: to improve and increase skills, developing existing talent and attracting new talent for sustainable growth. The scheme will assist with generating employment opportunities, supporting falling unemployment.

Place: to improve transport, energy and digital infrastructures and protect and enhance cultural and environmental assets. Improving quality of life for residents and attract and retain investors, skilled workers and visitors contributing to growth. The scheme will improve local journey times for residents, workers and visitors and will seek to attract investors and skilled workers to the area through facilitating employment opportunities.

The project will assist in supporting the LCR Growth Strategy mission to attract and develop more businesses and to create more sustainable employment and high value jobs.

The project will assist with creating the opportunity for additional jobs, increasing the number of businesses in the region, increasing GVA and seeking to support reducing unemployment in accordance with the Strategy’s aspirations.

13

4. How will this project contribute to achieving the key investment priorities of the SIF Prospectus? (approx. 150 words)

According to the SIF Prospectus, transport infrastructure projects should “contribute to identified Growth Strategy transport priorities and to the realisation of the economic potential of key strategic locations”. The project will contribute towards achieving the key transport priorities of becoming a global logistics hub for Northern UK and Ireland and maximising new spaces and places of potential economic opportunity as demonstrated below.

The Parkside Link Road will enable the full development of the Parkside Regeneration Development, providing new economic opportunities at a site with excellent connectivity to the local and strategic highway network. The Link Road will also enable the full potential of the Parkside SRFI, which will become a major logistic development with significant regional importance, and a nationwide best-in-class example in multi-modal goods distribution with direct rail access from all directions.

Parkside is clearly a ‘key strategic location’ for the LCR’s freight and logistics sector because of its unique location on the doorstep of the West Coast Main Line, Chat Moss Line, M6 and M62, providing a benefit to the strategic highway network though improving access across the region.

14

5. Which other local and national strategies will the project contribute to and how? (approx. 300 words)

The National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPS) sets out Government policies for both nationally significant road and rail infrastructure projects for England. It will deliver national networks that meet the country’s long-term needs; supporting a prosperous and competitive economy and improving overall quality of life, as part of a wider transport system. This means:

Networks with the capacity and connectivity and resilience to support national and local economic activity and facilitate growth and create jobs

Networks which support and improve journey quality, reliability and safety Networks which support the delivery of environmental goals and the move to a low

carbon economy Networks which join up our communities and link effectively to each other

In relation to railways, the need for an expanded network of SRFIs in the UK and states the railway network must:

“provide for the transport of freight across the country, and to and from ports, in order to help meet environmental goals and improve quality of life”

The National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. For plan making, this means local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of the area.

It also specifically supports the development of rail freight terminals to help achieve sustainable development and states that local authorities should develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development, including large scale facilities such as rail freight interchanges.

The Transport for the North Freight and Logistics Report focuses on the increased use of rail freight through improved availability of train paths and development of rail freight interchanges. Parkside is specifically recognised by the Report as a potential site for a SRFI in the North West.

The Liverpool City Region’s ‘A Transport Plan for Growth’ identifies three transport priorities:

Growth Low Carbon Access to opportunity

15

These have been established to support and enable wider strategic priorities of which one is freight and logistics.

By taking long-distance HGV traffic off congested motorways and moving freight traffic to a more sustainable form of transport such as rail, Parkside supports both transport and strategic priorities.

The St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and its replacement emerging St. Helens Local Plan 2018-2033 Preferred Options contains policies which identify that the Parkside site and immediately adjacent land is a strategic location with potential to facilitate the development of an SRFI. It states that the Council believes a deliverable and viable SRFI can be developed on the site.

The emerging St. Helens Local Plan 2018-2013 Preferred Options – Spatial Vision, contains a vision which will set out how the Borough and the places within it should develop. It should be locally distinctive, realistic and in the best interests of local people, businesses and the environment.

The Parkside Development site and specific Strategic Policies that mention it by name are:

Policy LPA04: A Strong and Sustainable Economy

Policy LPA04.1: Strategic Employment Sites

Policy LPA 10: Development of Strategic Rail Freight Interchange

The proposed Parkside Link Road will contribute and support the above policies through improving local connectivity, delivering employment opportunities and facilitating the opportunity for developing the SRFI site.

16

Case for intervention

6. Please provide evidence of need or demand for the project. (approx. 300 words)

6.1 Need and demand for the Parkside Link Road and Land Purchase

The full potential of the Parkside Regeneration Development on the west side as an employment hub, and the prospective development of a future SRFI, is currently undermined by the lack of highway access to either site. The site is located in close proximity to the M6 and M62 motorway however, the local network is consistently congested during AM and PM peak periods around Winwick and J9 M62 resulting in delays to journey times. There is additional congestion on the highway network in Lowton at the series of signalised junction on the A580, and the A49 through Newton-le-Willows which is also congested during peak periods. In order to be the next ‘Strategic Site’ in the North West, Parkside requires its own direct access to the M6 or significantly improved access via the A49. The catalyst of any development is the Parkside Link Road as it provides direct access to the M6 via Junction 22. However, there are significant costs to developing such significant new infrastructure both in constructing the road link and land acquisition. Both cannot be borne by the private sector alone. The benefits both in employment opportunities and the consequential social improvements within the locality are linked to public sector investment. Providing the link road will deliver wider opportunities as it should reduce traffic in Winwick and Hermitage Green though providing a feasible alternative route to the strategic highway network.

Parkside Regeneration LLP (the Joint Venture between Langtree and St Helens Council) are developing plans for the regeneration of the redundant Parkside colliery site. An outline planning application for Phase 1 of Parkside was submitted to St Helens Council on 16th January 2018. Permission for the aforementioned Phase 1 Planning submission is expected autumn 2018. The planning application is for the first phase of the project, comprising 92,900 square metres of new employment space. It is anticipated that the Phase 1 development will bring more than 1,300 new jobs for local people, generating £80m a year in economic activity. Following receipt of planning permission, there will be further consultation on the detailed building plans for the site with a view to the development beginning in mid to late 2019.

In addition, the project supports the recent local investment in Newton-le-Willows railway station and the development of local green transport initiatives by St. Helens Council funded by the LCR Local Growth Fund.

6.2 Need and demand for the Parkside SRFI

As part of the 2016 Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study, a market demand and supply assessment was undertaken, combined with stakeholder engagement. The assessment showed that that there is sufficient demand for an SRFI in the North West. In comparison to other current and potential SRFI sites, the Parkside site scores well on investment criteria metrics. No other sites in the catchment area have the potential to receive

17

trains from all directions. Stakeholders were also very positive about the site’s feasibility as a SRFI.

The Liverpool SuperPort Land Availability Market Assessment calculated that the city region had sufficient land available for logistics in the short term but identified a requirement for an additional 400ha of land to be made available over the next 20 years to maximise the opportunities created by SuperPort. Parkside can provide around 8% of this requirement, making a significant contribution to the city region’s land requirement.

18

7. Please explain what barriers/problems the project will address and/or the opportunities it will unlock. (approx. 300 words)

As discussed in 6.1 above, the full potential development opportunity of the sites is currently restricted due to access. Access to the proposed SRFI site east of the M6 relies on a single access junction which connects to the single-carriageway Parkside Road. This route also serves a number of residential properties, connecting these properties with local services and facilities. The existing site access arrangement is unsuitable for supporting a major distribution and employment hub such as Parkside SRFI. Similarly, development on the Parkside Regeneration site is constrained by existing access via the A49 and capacity issues throughout this section of the highway network.

If improved connectivity by road is achieved, the overall deliverability of the sites will be enhanced through enabling the Parkside Regeneration development and development of the first phase of the SRFI, delivering a number of significant benefits. This includes over £190m of new economic activity and over 3,700 gross jobs from the provision of new logistics floorspace on the SRFI site. The SRFI site will continue to support the LCR Growth Plan, SuperPort and the Atlantic Gateway2. Long term growth prospects of the site are also enhanced by the fact that no other sites in the catchment area have the potential to receive trains from all directions.

Parkside Regeneration LLP, a joint venture between St. Helens Council and developer Langtree, are developing a masterplan for the Parkside Colliery site. Combined with the SRFI site there is a significant increase in potential development total floorspace, creating over 7,000 gross jobs based on HCA Employment Density Guide 2015 values.

Without the construction of the Parkside Link Road, the above jobs and GVA could not be fully realised with only a small phase 1 development (92,900 sq.m) on the west of Parkside served from the A49 (Winwick Road) being achievable. Also, development would be limited in the type and scale limiting its full potential. Without the Link Road, the further development of the Parkside Regeneration site could not be made due to limited existing road capacity and Parkside East would not be developed for a SRFI or logistics use at all.

Barriers/Problems

The scheme will address problem of enabling the Parkside development where the long-standing barrier of access in to the site and enable a phase 1 development to be constructed.

It will address outstanding congestion problems on the local road network especially in Winwick and Hermitage Green. It will also benefit the Strategic Road network providing alternative routes for existing trips reducing trips on congested interchanges such as M62 J9 and M6 J23. This provides a more flexible Strategic and Key Route network in the LCR/MCR region.

2 http://www.thisisparkside.co.uk/

19

The road helps address the market failures of congestion on highly traffic roads and the viability of sustainable transport by improving bus reliability and providing new active travel facilities. The increase in road space provides the additional capacity for the above and the road unlocks greater capacity on the wider network than just the additional new road space provided.

Opportunities it will unlock

It will unlock opportunities for new employment and new business development and relocation allowing existing business to grow. It will enable land for logistic use which is in high demand to be unlocked and it will remedy the inefficiency in the local road network around Winwick and in the local area by providing a more a better route.

It would allow for increased regulation on existing roads that was not possible before the road was constructed such as weight limits and road closures to limit rat-running and the opportunity to re-allocate road space to other road users.

The benefits associated with the link road are evidenced the Economics Report (See Supporting Information – Section 2) which meets DfT Webtag requirements for the appraisal of Transport Schemes.

20

8. State why the project public sector funding is required. What market failures will the project address? (approx. 300 words)

The development of Parkside Link Road will enable the full development of the Parkside Regeneration site, and the SRFI. In addition, the link road will assist with improving vehicle movements within the region and local area, as demonstrated in the SATURN model (see Supporting Information – Section 3).

There is a clear ‘public interest’ case for the development of Parkside as an SRFI: it will contribute to the LCR’s Growth Plan, create over 3,700 new jobs and take large numbers of long-distance HGV movements off congested motorways.

“Our assumption is that one freight train saves 40 HGV primary “trunk” haul movements (Eurotunnel). However none of the secondary movements, i.e. Regional Distribution Centre to other local warehouses or direct to stores would be achieved by rail, these would still need to be done by road. There is also a need for the “last leg” road movements. We have called these “primary local” movements. This is where some of the containers are unloaded from the train and then taken an average of 20kms to National/Regional Distribution Centres off the Parkside site...........

The example in Table 6.3 removes 120 primary movements per day. This indicates that rail trunk haul services result in a saving of significant numbers of HGVs on the M6 and other parts of the Strategic Road Network."

Extracts from: Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study (p64). August 2016

However, if the development of Parkside were left entirely to the market, the up-front infrastructure and land costs are considered to be prohibitive. The economic viability assessment and cash flow forecasting in the Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study (August 2016) showed that a break-even point would only be reached by 2044 or even later, depending on different development options; clearly not a timescale that will encourage the private sector to invest without public sector support.

In addition, the Parkside Regeneration development will be constrained by local highway capacity unless significant improvements are made to the local highway network. Again, the significant cost of this investment is considered too restrictive to make this an attractive venture to the private sector.

Market Failures

There are transport market failures on the local and national network in the vicinity of the proposed scheme. This impacts on the health and economic activity not only locally but nationally due the proximity to the Strategic Road Network.

21

The Investment of the new road helps to address these failures. The corresponding improvements being undertaken by Highways England in terms of SMART motorways on the M6 and M62 extrapolates these benefits helping to address these failures.

It helps address failures of congestion and highly traffic roads on the viability of sustainable transport by improving bus reliability and improved active travel facilities. By increasing the available road space and network options it addresses the failure in terms of capacity. It also releases the economic activity on the Parkside site and the local area by allowing the re-allocation of journeys on the road network allowing re-allocation of road space. Congestion would be difficult to reduce under existing policies through road user charging or increased costs as most motoring costs are determined and influence at national level through taxation than via local means. For supporting comment please refer to the “Not Technical Summary” within the Environmental Statement for the Parkside Planning application. Planning portal references are as follows: SHC PP-06738793 and WBC PP-06738885.

Delivering the Parkside Strategic Site relies on the Parkside Link Road as it provides direct access to the M6 via Junction 22. However, there are significant costs to developing such new infrastructure both in constructing the road link and land acquisition. Both cannot be borne by the private sector alone. This infrastructure burden has been demonstrated by the historic 'stalling' of the site and inability to be developed, even though there is an identified need for it. Two planning applications for the Rail Freight Distribution Facility / SRFI have been submitted but not progressed as follows:

A hybrid planning application was submitted in August 2001 to SHMBC for a Rail Freight Distribution Facility comprising the: construction of the M6 link road; infrastructure and service works; earthworks; flood attenuation; connecting track work into rail terminal; rail terminal; warehousing; office space and car parking.

In 2006 a major EIA development application was submitted to SHMBC for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange to provide rail served warehouse and distribution building; assembly areas and depots; waste recycling centre, power generating facilities; relocation of substation and rerouting of underground cables.

The Parkside Link Road is therefore being promoted in advance of any further planning application to ensure that the SRFI is a viable development opportunity.

22

Stakeholder involvement

9. Who are the main beneficiaries of the project? (approx. 150 words)

Project beneficiaries will be both short term/medium and long term.

In the short/medium term, the link road provides work for the team of engineers, environmental scientists, planners and contractors developing the project through the design stages and preparation of the planning application.

The local land owners whose land is acquired for the construction of the project will receive a financial benefit.

Construction of the link road will provide at least 406 jobs including training via Construction Skills and Apprenticeships. Whilst these jobs are temporary to the location, workers will gain transferrable skills and there will be further opportunities during the construction of the Parkside Regeneration and SRFI developments for these to be used.

The project will incorporate extensive landscape and ecological mitigation measures, including improved habitat for protected species.

In the longer term, there are significant concentrations of deprivation and lower levels of residents in employment in St. Helens and wider LCR when compared to wider averages. The main beneficiaries are the creation of employment opportunities in close proximity to such areas. This can overcome some of the barriers to labour market participation (e.g. awareness of employment opportunities, access and transport). There is an opportunity that residents of these areas can seize these opportunities and, with some further labour market support that may be required to enable the uptake of employment by economically inactive residents, can be optimised. The Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study3 has identified that the local authorities around the site, St. Helens, Warrington and Wigan, have a labour market that is attractive to the industrial and distribution industry; 7.7% of St. HeIens workforce are engaged in the transport/storage sector compared to 4.5% regionally. Efficient, safe and direct access to the national and regional transport network for this site is therefore of vital importance.

Located at the centre of the UK adjacent to the M6 and the M62, the link road will unlock the development site for the future delivery of a SRFI with Network Rail and logistics hub, supporting economic growth for the LCR and the adjacent area of Greater Manchester.

In addition, there is improved resilience for the strategic and local roads network, for the communities within Winwick and Hermitage Green they would benefit by a reduction in traffic. 3 AECOM (2016) Parkside Logistics and Rail Freight Interchange Study

23

Newton-le-Willows would have better access to the M6 and M62.

24

10. Who are the main stakeholders and what stakeholder consultation has taken place to date / will be undertaken? Please provide evidence (e.g. letters of support) that the key stakeholders are supportive of the project. (approx. 200 words)

St. Helens Council, Warrington Borough Council and Parkside Regeneration LLP are the main stakeholders currently involved as part of developing the SOC, OBC and FBC, either by progress meetings or informal consultation.

Three land owners have been identified and significant progress is being made on negotiations to secure the land required to deliver the link road and further development. As identified on the Extent of Land Ownership Plans (PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0102 and PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0103) and on the proposed Land Acquisitions Plans (PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0104 and PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0105 Section 7 – Supporting Information).

The acquisition of land required for the proposed Parkside Link Road are at an advanced stage and principally relate to the following areas as illustrated on the Extent of Land Ownership Plans.

Area Reference MS638843 - Land to West of the M6 Motorway (shown edged and shaded magenta on the plan PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0102) – Land owned by the Cooper Family; The agreed terms reflect the landowner’s awareness of the potential to unlock significant development opportunities through the construction of the link road. St Helens Council has obtained independent land valuation advice for the agreed acquisition costs. The land with Area Reference MS654560 to the west of MS638843 (shown edged green, shaded purple with green hatch) is currently subject to a Possessory Title Claim against MS497851 (shown edged and shaded purple) which it abuts to the west. This proposed purchase will again be subject to satisfactory planning permission and funding offer.

Area Reference MS592919 - Land to East of the M6 Motorway (shown edged and shaded red on the plan PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0105) – The land is held by a Family Trust, Leigh Estate Trusts and negotiations have been entered into with the Trusts land agent;

For both areas as noted above (MS638843 and MS592919) terms have been agreed and solicitors have been instructed to prepare contracts.

The proposed area to be acquired is currently used for agricultural purposes. Terms have been agreed for the purchase of approximately 25 acres of land to facilitate the construction of the road at a purchase price equivalent to the area to the West of the Motorway. This proposed purchase will again be subject to satisfactory planning permission and funding offer.

Area Reference CH654495 - Land to East of the M6 Motorway (shown edged and shaded green on the plan PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0102) – Land owned by the Cooper Family; There is no

25

requirement for land acquisition in order to deliver the proposed Link Road. Design modifications have removed permanent works. Agreement for access only may be required for construction purposes. Any provisions will be contained within Construction works budgets.

Rough Cottage, Reference MS116891 (Shown edged and shaded yellow/green on plans PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0103 and PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0105) and Reference MS150730 (Shown edged and shaded orange on plans PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0103 and PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0105); to date, terms for the acquisition of this residential property have yet to be agreed however, negotiations are continuing with the owners. St Helens Council has obtained a Market Value Report (Supporting information – section 15) to support these ongoing negotiations. Appropriate measures are being considered as to whether to proceed with a Compulsory Purchase Order should it not be possible to reach a negotiated settlement.

A Public Consultation process was undertaken to obtain public opinion on the project and the preferred option.

The Consultation process to support the planning application for the construction of Parkside Link Road was held for a 12-week period from 28 June 2017 to 15 September 2017. Two consultation events were held:

Hope Academy, Newton-le-Willows, 11 July 2017, 4pm to 8pm Winwick Leisure Centre, Winwick, 13 July 2017, 4pm to 8pm

The event was held in conjunction with the Parkside Regeneration LLP, who independently presented their own information at the same venue.

Consultation leaflets were distributed to properties within a 100m buffer of the scheme, local community facilities and at the Newton Show which took place on 5 August 2017.

Attendance at the events was good, with a total of 292 people attended the consultation event. However, there was a very limited written response to the consultation with only 30 questionnaires returned and 13 responses received via the Parkside email address.

The Public Consultation Report is provided as additional information (Table 6.1 of the Public Consultation Report provides a full analysis of the comments responses and actions.) This is included in Supporting Information Section 20.

Highways England and the Joint Venture have provided letters of support which can be found in Section 8 – Supporting information.

26

Constraints and dependencies

11. Describe any constraints that could affect the successful delivery of the project in line with its identified objectives (e.g. Government policy or regulation). (approx. 200 words)

The project seeks to enhance highways access between the Parkside site (Phases 1, 2 and 3) and both the strategic and local network. It seeks to improve connectivity for future commuters and freight movements, delivering efficient logistics and development opportunities. The project will serve and allow for optimum alignment of the SRFI.

If planning is not permitted by either St. Helens Council or Warrington Borough Council, as local planning authorities, the project would not be able to deliver this objective. Consultation has been undertaken to reduce this risk and ensure that the project is delivered collaboratively with both Local Planning Authorities and appropriate stakeholders.

The Planning decision will be made by the Secretary of State. Following Local Authority decisions, the Planning Application will be referred to the Secretary of State for final Planning Determination, as the scheme is proposed within land currently designated Green Belt.

As identified in Q5 previously, the project is in accordance with local and national strategies, aiming to improve both rail and infrastructure within the region. The project will be developed in accordance with relevant policies and procedures to ensure maximum compliance.

A detailed project risk register and a construction risk register has been produced; this identifies potential risks in delivering the project, the consequences and probability and applies a quantitative cost. This is contained within Section 19 of Supporting Information.

27

12. Set out any actions or developments required of others that the success of the project is dependent on (i.e. external influences on the project). What are the key success factors? (approx. 200 words)

Parkside Regeneration LLP owns the Parkside Regeneration site. St. Helens Council are also in the process of securing land for the SRFI development and to support the delivery of the Parkside Link Road.

This project will require planning permission from both St. Helens Council and Warrington Borough Council (WBC). It is recognised that WBC will benefit from the Parkside Link Road in that it will remove local traffic from the hamlet of Hermitage Green and the village of Winwick. Also, when the developments such as SRFI and Parkside Regeneration come ‘on stream’, Liverpool City Regions will benefit from employment opportunities as well as the wider economic benefits and employment opportunities to the adjacent local authorities.

Key factors to success include engagement with local landowners to secure the required land, consultation with local stakeholders including WBC and Wigan Council, Highways England and Environment Agency.

28

Part 2 – Economic Narrative and Case

Please revisit the Economic Case set out within the OBC, answering the following questions:

Options considered

13. Please describe the options that have been considered in identifying the preferred way forward. This should include a minimum of four options:

a. A baseline option representing the do nothing, do minimum or status quo, providing the counterfactual against which all intervention options can be compared;

b. An option that sets out a less ambition intervention to achieve the core project objectives;

c. The proposed option, as described in Part 1 (project description); and

d. An alternative option(s) that has a different combination of benefit, risk and cost due to variations in the project’s scale and/or scope.

Along with a description of the main options, identify the relative advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Route Selection

Six potential routes for the Parkside Link Road were identified and assessed against the scheme objectives and WebTAG assessment, as demonstrated in the drawing in Section 5 – Supporting Information. Details of this assessment can be found in the Options Appraisal Report (Section 6 – Supporting Information). From the route appraisal, the “Yellow Route” has been selected as the preferred route and it is this route which funding is sought through the business case. As noted below there are two routes, from the route appraisal process, which are used to comply with the Business Case appraisal process for the SIF application.

In line with sub-points a-d above, the SIF “four options” are as follows:

In addition, to comply with the requirements set out in the SIF Appraisal Report four options were identified and assessed:

Do-nothing (does not feature in the route appraisal. Selected option for economic appraisal and therefore business case)

Do-something A49 access only to permit development of phase 1 only (does not feature in the route appraisal. Selected option for economic appraisal and therefore business case)

29

Do-something preferred (yellow) route (One of the routes in the route appraisal. Selected as the “chosen preferred” route from the route appraisal, to be considered as the do-something option in the economic appraisal and therefore business case)

Do-something alternative option – this presented the brown route which was one of the routes in the “route appraisal” and was put forward as the preferred route at Strategic Outline Case. This was included to demonstrate progression of the scheme and to assess the brown route against the yellow route for purpose of the business case.

Options considered at the OBC stage were as follows.

Option 1 - Do Nothing – No Funding Required

In developing the proposed project, consideration was given to doing nothing with the possibility that the private sector would purchase the land and deliver improvements. The site has been promoted by various parties (Railtrack and Prologis) for 15 years and the upfront capital cost to deliver the site has been a major stumbling block. Past development at the site has been limited due to the infrastructure and land requirements indicating that public sector intervention is required.

Option 2 - Do Something Access from the A49 – Total Cost £18.5m

A do something option to develop the Parkside Regeneration site with access from the A49 has been proposed. This would enable the first phase of the Parkside Regeneration development to be constructed with improved access via the A49 (Ref ‘Phase 1’ PD-RAM-03-ZZ-DR-TR-0001 Indicative Phase Area, Section 1 - Supporting Information). However, this would place excessive demand on the current A49 requiring significant highway upgrades which, pro-rata to the first phase, would be an excessive capital investment in respect to the floorspace provided. This would risk delivery of the rest of the Parkside Regeneration site as there would not be enough capital generated from a first phase and it would require additional funding.

Option 3 - Do Something Preferred Option – Yellow Route – Total Cost £39,810,786.28

The preferred option Yellow Route was selected to progress for OBC as it meets the project objectives to provide access to land either side of the M6 north of J22. This will facilitate potential future developments. It is believed that this option offers genuine potential for a robust business case, providing access to developing land and accommodating HGV movements in the local area all at realistic chance of successful delivery. This option utilises the existing bridge over the M6, thereby reducing risk in delivery.

Option 4 - Do Something Alternative Option – Total Cost £42m

30

The alternative option was presented in the SOC as the Do Something 3 – Preferred Option. This option included a link road and box tunnel under the M6. The link road would only provide access to the development and would not be considered as a strategic link road. The proposal was preferred as it provided the lowest capital investment for the floorspace that can be provided. It also allowed for both sides of the Parkside site to be developed at the same time. A box tunnel under the motorway is more cost effective than a bridge while the link road is designed to enable the maximum land to be developed. However, following consultation with Highways England it has been established that there is no requirement for a new bridge.

31

Description Advantages Disadvantages

Option 1

Do Nothing No funding required

Would not facilitate future development at Parkside Regeneration site, or SRFI site.No improvement to local highway network.Does not meet the Project Objectives.

Option 2

Access from A49 (Winwick Road)

Would facilitate Phase 1 of Parkside Regeneration Development

Would not enable development of Phase 2, or SRFI. Increased traffic on existing network.Does not meet the Project Objectives.

Option 3

Preferred Option (Yellow Route)

Would facilitate all phases of development.Improvement to local highway networkMeets the Project Objectives.

Substantial Funding required.Land purchase required.

Option 4

Alternative Option (Brown Route)

Would facilitate all Phases of the Development.Meets the Project Objectives.

Substantial Funding required.Land purchase required.No direct western link to A49.Box tunnel under M6, Highways England likely to raise concerns, when Option 3 causes less impact on their network.Costs and SIF grant greater than Option 3.

32

14. Set out the overall public sector cost and amount of SIF support requested (in constant prices (i.e. excluding inflation) and discounted in line with HM Treasury guidance) under each option (this should include both the gross and net cost allowing for public sector loan repayments and/or other public sector revenues).

The table below summarises the total public sector costs under each of the short-listed options, along with the required SIF support. In terms of non-SIF public sector funding, this will be provided by St. Helens Council. The costs have been discounted at 3.5% in line with HM Treasury guidance and exclude general inflation (the adjustment for general inflation has been based on HM Treasury GDP deflators).

(Constant prices, discounted, £000s)

Public sector cost - gross

Public sector cost - net

SIF support - gross

SIF support - net

Option 1 - - - -

Option 2 12,908,549 12,908,549 11,101,346 11,101,346

Option 3 27,522,652 27,522,652 21,538,280 21,538,280

Option 4 35,498,718 35,498,718 27,887,682 27,887,682

33

Estimating benefits

15. For each option, please populate the following table with expected tangible outputs - periods are in Financial Year (FY). Please state whether the outputs are direct or indirect.

Rows should be added to the table to incorporate all principal outputs of the project and additional options, where relevant. Include outputs only in the year when they will be fist generated.

The principal outputs of the project will include the creation of new employment opportunities, the development of new and upgraded carriageway, new cycleway, the construction of new commercial floorspace and the facilitation of private sector investment. The transport related outputs of the project are considered to be direct. Similarly, the employment associated with the construction of the link road (or A49 access improvements under Option 2) is identified as direct.

In terms of the employment, floorspace and investment outputs created through the Phase 1 and Phase 2 development of the Parkside Regeneration site and the development of the SRFI site to the east of the motorway, these have been treated as indirect. However, it is important to note, as has been identified above, that the construction of the proposed link road is required to enable this development to come forward. The costs of building the link road are such that the development would not be viable without public sector support.

It is also important to recognise that the outputs reported in this form do not include the benefits associated with the operation of the SRFI itself. These are expected to be significant, as highlighted in the Parkside Logistics & RFI Study produced by AECOM on behalf of the Council, see Section 10 – Supporting Information.

Expected tangible outputs / outcomes

Direct or indirect Total 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Future

years

Construction employment (person years) – construction of link road / A49 improvements

Option 1 Direct - - - - - - -

Option 2 Direct 235 - 212 23 - - -

Option 3 Direct 445 - 12 20 314 99 -

Option 4 Direct 473 - 12 22 334 106 -

Construction employment (person years) – construction of floorspace on the Parkside Regeneration and SRFI sites

Option 1 Indirect - - - - - - -

Option 2 Indirect 696 - - 348 348 - -

Option 3 Indirect 3,543 - - 348 348 - 2,847

Option 4 Indirect 2,847 - - - - - 2,847

Operational phase employment (full-time equivalent) – jobs created on the Parkside Regeneration and SRFI sites

34

Expected tangible outputs / outcomes

Direct or indirect Total 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Future

years

Option 1 Indirect - - - - - - -

Option 2 Indirect 1,327 - - - 1,327 - -

Option 3 Indirect 6,952 - - - 1,327 - 5,624

Option 4 Indirect 5,624 - - - - - 5,624

Total length of newly built roads (km)

Option 1 Direct - - - - - - -

Option 2 Direct 0.75 - 0.7 0.05 - - -

Option 3 Direct 3.5 - 2.1 1.4 - - -

Option 4 Direct 2.6 - 1.56 1.04 - - -

Total length of newly built cycle ways (km)

Option 1 Direct - - - - - - -

Option 2 Direct 0.75 - 0.7 0.05 - - -

Option 3 Direct 1.5 - 0.9 0.6 - - -

Option 4 Direct - - - - - - -

Commercial floorspace facilitated (sq. m)

Option 1 Indirect - - - - - - -

Option 2 Indirect 92,900 - - - 92,900 - -

Option 3 Indirect 486,600 - - - 92,900 - 393,700

Option 4 Indirect 393,700 - - - - - 393,700

Business rates generated per year (£m)

Option 1 Indirect - - - - - - -

Option 2 Indirect 2.2 - - - 2.2 - -

Option 3 Indirect 11.4 - - - 2.2 - 9.2

Option 4 Indirect 9.2 - - - - - 9.2

Investment in site (£m)

Option 1 Indirect - - - - - - -

Option 2 Indirect 73.5 - - - 73.5 - -

Option 3 Indirect 426.3 - - - 73.5 - 352.8

Option 4 Indirect 352.8 - - - - - 352.8

35

16. Explain below how the project is delivering the outputs/outcomes identified and the methodology, assumptions and evidence used to calculate them (approx. 250 words).

The outputs/outcomes set out in the table above are principally related to the extent to which each option unlocks the development opportunities at the Parkside Regeneration site and SRFI site. The construction of the proposed link road, as described under Option 3, is required to enable both phases of the Parkside development and the SRFI development to come forward. The costs of building the link road are such that the development would not be viable without public sector support and therefore no outputs are reported under the do nothing option (Option 1). Under Option 2, the A49 works would only allow for the development of Phase 1 of the Parkside Regeneration site, whereas under Option 4 the link road and box tunnel would enable Phase 2 of the Parkside development and the SRFI development, but not Phase 1.

The outputs/outcomes of the project, under each of the alternative intervention options, have been estimated on the following basis:

Construction employment (person years) – the number of person years of construction employment generated as a result of the project has been calculated based on the expected construction spend under each option divided by an average spend per year of employment, derived from labour coefficients sourced from guidance produced by the HCA.

Operational phase employment (full-time equivalent) – in order to estimate the number of jobs that might be accommodated on-site as a result of the Parkside and SRFI site developments, assumptions have been made as to the quantity and type of commercial floorspace provided under each option and the expected employment densities (see Question 17). The jobs created through the operation of the SRFI itself have not been assessed as part of this analysis.

Length of newly built road/cycle ways – the transport related outputs of the project have been based off engineering appraisal and a route options study, as described previously within this form.

Commercial floorspace – development schedules have been produced for the Parkside Regeneration site and SRFI site. It should be noted that the current configuration of both sites is indicative and is likely to continue to evolve. It is anticipated that Phase 1 of the Parkside Regeneration site will be complete by around 2020 and Phase 2 will be complete by 2024. The SRFI site is expected to be operational by 2030.

36

Business rates – the calculation of business rates is based on a review of rateable values for comparable premises within St. Helens and assumes a Uniform Business Rate multiplier (UBR) of 0.49.

Investment in the site/facilitated – based off the development schedules, an estimate has been made of the private sector investment that will be involved in the construction of new employment floorspace on both the SRFI site and the Parkside Regeneration site.

The construction spend and labour coefficients used for each option are as follows:

Option 2: A49 improvements – spend £18.5 million, spend per person year of employment

£78,774 Floorspace delivery – spend £76.3 million, spend per person year of employment

£109,518

Option 3: Link road/transport improvements – spend £35.1 million, spend per person year of

employment £78,774 Floorspace delivery – spend £388.0 million, spend per person year of employment

£109,518

Option 4: Link road/transport improvements – spend £37.3 million, spend per person year of

employment £78,774 Floorspace delivery – spend £311.8 million, spend per person year of employment

£109,518

The average spend per person year of employment figures are labour coefficients sourced from guidance produced by the HCA and inflated using the HM Treasury GDP deflators.

For clarity, the data used to inform the assessment of indirect construction and operational impacts is summarised in the table below:

Breakdown of floorspace, operational phase employment and private sector investment

OPTION 3 Parkside Phase 1

Parkside Phase 2

SRFI site – logistics

spaceSRFI Total

Construction £76.3m £116.7m £195.0m * £388.0m

37

related expenditure (floorspace)

Person years of construction employment (gross)

696 1,065 1,782 * 3,543

Employment floorspace 92,900 133,600 260,100 * 486,600

Operational phase employment 1,327 1,908 3,717 * 6,952

Private sector investment (operational phase)

£73.5m £118.9m £195.0m £38.9m £426.3m

*Limited information available on overall construction cost associated with SRFI facility and operational jobs that will be supported. Therefore, in order to be prudent, these benefits have not been included as part of the business case, as previously stated.

It is important to distinguish between the SRFI itself and the logistics space that will be brought forward on the SRFI site. The private investment in the SRFI has been included, but the number of jobs associated with the operation of the SRFI and the wider benefits it will create have not been included; this is because robust assessment of the operational employment and wider impact of the SRFI is not available. However, the tenant jobs from the logistics space on the SRFI site have been included. As a result, it is likely that the total indirect jobs impact will be higher than set out within this business case.

38

17. What are the main outcomes that each option is expected to generate? Please explain how each option will generate or contribute to increased economic activity (as measured using Gross Value Added (GVA)) and employment. This could include indirect and longer term benefits – although if these are identified please indicate whether and how much additional public funding would be required to generate them (approx. 750 words)

As set out above, the proposed link road would enable the development of the SRFI site and allow development to take place at the Parkside Regeneration site, leading to productive economic use on the site for the first time since Parkside Colliery closed in 1993. Outline details of the proposed masterplan for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Parkside Regeneration Site are presented in Section 11 – Supporting Information. It should be noted that these are indicative and for illustration purposes only. Figure 8.4 page 109 (AECOM Parkside Logistics and RFI Study 2016 Section 10 – Supporting Information), identifies indicative layout of the SRFI on the land to the east of the M6. The Parkside Link Road would facilitate these developments in the future; however, only the link road forms part of this scheme.

Drawings PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0102, PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0103, PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0104, PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0105 (Section 7 – Supporting Information) identifies the boundary of local land owners. Negotiations between St. Helens and these local land owners are making significant progress to finalise agreements to secure the land required to deliver the link road. Additional agreements to be finalised to acquire the additional land required for the development of the SRFI etc., as required in the future.

Both the Parkside Regeneration phase 1 and 2 and the SFRI developments present key strategic opportunities for St. Helens and the Liverpool City Region, meeting a regional requirement for logistics floorspace and attracting additional investment and economic activity to the area. In doing so, the redevelopment proposals are expected to generate a range of economic benefits for the local and wider economy.

The key economic benefits are expected to include:

Employment created by the construction phase of the proposed development and through the operation of businesses that locate to Parkside and the SRFI site (primary effects)

Additional economic activity resulting from supply linkage and income multiplier effects (secondary effects)

Broader indirect and induced impacts of the project in relation to generating additional economic activity and supporting other developments, including unlocking the full economic potential of SuperPort

39

A range of wider impacts, particularly in terms of business competitiveness and helping tackle some of the socio-economic issues facing the area

In terms of the employment impact of the project, it is anticipated that the redevelopment of the Parkside Regeneration site and occupation of the logistics space created will, once the construction of the link road has commenced, be a relatively rapid process given the market pressure for additional B8 space on the M6/M62 corridors in the North West and the recent opening of Liverpool2. The site has long been seen as having the potential to create jobs and GVA for the local economy, having previously been a strategic site for the Northwest Regional Development Agency.

The subsequent development of the SRFI site will further enhance St. Helens’ role as a key strategic location for freight and logistics companies, supporting the growth of the City Region economy. In particular, there is an identified shortage in the M62 Corridor and City Region of B8 warehousing and logistics space, which could limit the potential opportunities emerging from the new Liverpool2 container terminal, Atlantic Gateway and Liverpool SuperPort. The development of the Parkside Regeneration site and SRFI site both help to address this issue, as well as providing multimodal transport links to aid in the growth of the freight and logistics sectors.

In relation to quantifying the employment impact of the proposals, the construction employment generated under each option has been based on HCA labour coefficients, as described in Question 16. This has provided an estimate of the person years of employment supported during the construction phase. The standard convention in economic impact assessments is that 10 person years of construction employment equate to one full-time equivalent (FTE) permanent job. The conversion to FTEs allows the employment impact under the construction phase to be presented on a comparable basis to the operational phase impacts.

Gross Employment Impact – Construction Phase

Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Person years of employment

Construction of link road / A49 improvements 235 445 473

Construction of employment floorspace 696 3,543 2,847

Total construction employment 931 3,989 3,320

10-year equivalents

Construction of link road / A49 improvements 24 41 42

Construction of employment floorspace 70 354 285

Total construction employment 94 395 327

40

In terms of the operational phase, the emerging proposals for the two sites have identified the potential to bring forward approximately 486,600 sq. m of employment floorspace, under Option 3. Option 2 would only enable 92,900 sq. m of floorspace to be developed, whereas Option 4 would facilitate the development of 393,700 sq. m. Although consideration is being given to the mix of uses on the Parkside Regeneration site, at this stage it has been assumed that all of the floorspace will be for B8 use. An average employment density of 70 sq. m per full-time equivalent job has been applied to the floorspace estimates to calculate the expected gross employment impact under each option (see the table below) – again, it should be noted that this does not take account of the jobs that would be generated through the SRFI itself.

It is noted that following development of this GVA analysis, the transport model has been further developed and refined in consultation with the local highway authority stakeholders. The transport model forecast flows were developed using a 20% B2 land use (general industrial) and 80% B8 land use (storage or distribution) split. If this approach was applied to the GVA analysis, and the assessment of jobs, the effect would be to increase the overall GVA and employment impact. However, in order to be prudent and reflecting that there is still a degree of uncertainty in terms of the final mix of uses, the assumption that all of the floorspace will be for B8 use has been retained.

Gross Employment Impact – Operational Phase

Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Employment floorspace created (sq. m)

92,900 486,600 393,700

Gross FTE jobs 1,327 6,952 5,624

The assumption of 70 sq. m per full-time equivalent job is at the bottom-end of the range identified in HCA’s employment densities guide. However, the guide recognises that “as logistics becomes more specialised both a greater number of employees and range of skills are required to operate a modern facility”. Research undertaken by Prologis supports this suggestion, with survey data indicating that the employment density across its portfolio of distribution centres has increased from an average of 77 sq. m per employee in 2010 to 69 sq. m per employee in 2014.

In order to assess the net additional employment impact, along with the GVA impact and value for money of the alternative options, adjustments have been made to take account of deadweight, leakage, displacement and multiplier effects. The additionality adjustments applied to each option are set out in Question 21 below. The assessment of GVA has been estimated on the basis of an overall cumulative impact, with the following assumptions applied:

41

An average GVA per employee figure of £51,000 has been applied to the estimates of net additional employment, in line with national research on the logistics sector and Oxford Economics data for the construction sector

The GVA impact associated with each operational phase job is expected to persist for ten-years, albeit with an allowance for decay of 10% each year, consistent with appraisal guidance (LCR CA SIF Appraisal Guide – Calculating the BCR)

Given GVA is a work-place based measure, it could be argued that in calculating the GVA impact, the net additional job estimates should have been adjusted to no longer account for leakage. However, to be prudent and to reflect the location of the project (with the potential for a relatively large proportion of supply chain impacts to be ‘leaked’ outside of the City Region), an allowance for leakage has been retained.

The table below sets out the net additional employment and GVA impact under each of the intervention options, along with the value for money of each option based on the public sector cost per job and ‘local’ benefit cost ratio (BCR) – the ‘local’ BCR is derived from the employment and GVA impact at the LCR level, as opposed to the assessment of transport benefits in the accompanying Economic Report and Q.18). The public sector cost per job and ‘local’ BCR have been presented both in terms of the direct impact and the combined direct and indirect impacts associated with each option. The value for money statement on page 5 indicates risks being approx. 18% of total scheme cost. For the purpose of the economic appraisal we believe it prudent to incorporate a 44% allowance for optimism bias to the public sector costs, as the upper bound benchmarks within HM Treasury guidance. We do expect the outturn assessments following Target cost exercise to reduce this optimism bias figure. From the table it can be seen that Option 3 provides the best value for money once the full benefits of the scheme have been taken into account. The cost per job and BCR under Option 3 also compares favourably with benchmarks for transport and physical regeneration projects on the basis of both the direct and indirect impacts.

Net Additional Impact and Value for Money

Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Net additional FTE jobs – direct 16 31 33

Net additional FTE jobs – direct and indirect 995 5,149 4,171

Net additional cumulative GVA impact – direct £8m £14m £15m

Net additional cumulative GVA impact – direct and indirect £243m £1,021m £786m

Public sector cost per net additional job – direct £1.1m £1.3m £1.5m

Public sector cost per net additional job – direct and indirect

£18,250 £7,694 £12,246

Local Benefit Cost Ratio – direct 0.4:1 0.4:1 0.3:1

42

Local Benefit Cost Ratio – direct and indirect 13.1:1 25.9:1 15.4:1

As has been highlighted above, the benefits of the SRFI itself have not been assessed as part of this analysis. However, these benefits have the potential to be significant, both in terms of the environmental benefits of shifting freight from road to rail (Section 10 - Supporting Information) and, importantly, the economic benefits of supporting the further growth of the logistics sector in the City Region. It is expected though that the value for money associated with Option 3, and Option 4, would be greater still once the wider economic benefits of the SRFI are taken into account.

43

18. Please explain the other wider quantifiable benefits (including social and environmental effects) that each option will generate. (approx. 250 words)

In addition to the employment and GVA impacts highlighted above, the proposed link road will have important wider transport benefits. An assessment of transport economic benefits has been undertaken, available in the Economics Report, Document Reference PD-RAM-03-ZZ-REP-TR-0008 (Section 2– Supporting Information) for Option 3. The monetised economic benefits based on transport modelling outcomes show that the project under Option 3 produces an indicative BCR of 3.860 from Present Value of Benefits of £135.7m (2010 prices, discounted to 2010) and a cost to public accounts of £5.9m (2010 prices, discounted to 2010). According to DfT guidance and criteria4, the BCR of 3.860 for the project under Option 3 represents High Value for Money. An appraisal has been undertaken without the development phases 2 and 3 producing a BCR of 1.991. This demonstrates Medium value for money with benefits less than half those for the full scheme. (Further details are available in The Economics Report in Section 2 – Supporting Information)

Along with the transport benefits of the project, the development of the Parkside Regeneration site and SRFI site will also help to address a number of the socio-economic issues prevalent within the surrounding area and wider City Region. There are significant concentrations of deprivation and lower levels of residents in employment in parts of St. Helens and the City Region when compared to wider averages. The creation of employment opportunities in close proximity to such areas can overcome some of the barriers to labour market participation (e.g. awareness of employment opportunities, access and transport). While there is no certainty that residents of these areas will seize these opportunities, it is anticipated that further labour market support will be provided, in conjunction with partners such as St. Helens Chamber of Commerce, such that the uptake of employment by economically inactive residents can be optimised.

The growing demand for a broader range of skills within the logistics sector presents opportunities for improving the pathways to work and career advancement, supporting people into decent, secure and well-paid jobs and helping to tackle the barriers to both gaining employment and progression to higher wage occupations. Data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings has shown that average salaries within the logistics sector are already above the national average (£28,000 compared to £20,000). A new Northern Logistics Academy for St. Helens College has recently been completed that will provide specialist transport and logistics training to help ensure that students gain the skills employers are looking for. The Academy will prepare both young people and adults for a career in the logistics sector, with the aim of creating pathways into employment through the development of traineeships, apprenticeships and higher qualifications to support the expected growth of the sector.

4 Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers, Department for Transport https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267296/vfm-advice-local-decision-makers.pdf

44

Beyond the direct impacts associated with the development of the Parkside Regeneration site and SRFI site, the project will also play an important role in supporting the wider economic growth of the City Region, through facilitating the provision of B8 space and providing stronger strategic linkages, as described in Question 16. By doing so, the project will complement development elsewhere, including the delivery of Liverpool SuperPort and the objectives for Atlantic Gateway.

Regarding environmental benefits, the creation of a SRFI at the site will, over the longer-term, facilitate a shift of freight from road to rail and this will deliver associated benefits in terms of air pollution and noise effects for communities living close to the strategic road network in the area, especially the M6. These benefits have not been calculated through this exercise as the plans for the SRFI are still being developed but this is an area of positive effects that could be presented at a later date and will be considered as part of the monitoring and evaluation of the project. The Economic Appraisal indicates that the vehicle operating efficiencies and travel distances derived through the TUBA assessment provide a greenhouse gasses monetary benefit of £2.766m.

45

19. Where one or more of the intervention options is expected to result in other, less tangible wider benefits that are difficult to quantify, undertake a weighting and scoring assessment of the qualitative benefits associated with each option. Please explain each weight and score.

A weight (0 to 100) should be applied to each wider benefit, reflecting its relative importance, with a score (1 to 10) given to each option in terms of how well it delivers the benefit in question. The respective weights and scores should then be multiplied together to provide a total weighted score.

Rows should be added to the table to incorporate all key wider benefits of the project

Reflecting the above wider benefits, the alternative options have been assessed on the basis of the following:

Transport benefits Socio-economic benefits Economic growth Environmental benefits

It can be seen from this analysis that Option 3 would be expected to generate a significantly higher level of wider benefits than Option 2.

Weighting and Scoring of the Qualitative Benefits

Wider benefit

Weight

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Score Weight x score Score Weight

x score Score Weight x score Score Weight

x score

Transport 30 0 0 5 150 9 270 8 240

Socio-economic 20 0 0 6 120 8 160 7 140

Economic growth 30 0 0 6 180 9 270 8 240

Environment 20 0 0 3 60 7 140 6 120

Total 100 - 0 - 510 - 840 - 740

46

20. How does the project respect the principle of sustainable development? In particular how does the project maximise positive environmental impacts or mitigate potential negative impacts (with regard to the “polluter pays” principle where appropriate)?

An Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed, with results reported in the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted in support of the planning application on the 23rd March 2018. The ES considers the impact of the project on Air Quality, Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Visual Effects, Ecology, Geology, Materials, Noise and Vibration, and Water. The ES records all significant beneficial and adverse, direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects of the preferred option for the proposed project including effective and sustainable mitigation measures and identification of residual effects. The design of mitigation and enhancement measures will be appropriate to the site and surrounding area. The Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report, Document Reference PD-RAM-XX-ZZ-RP-EN-0001 (Section 12 – Supporting Information) details the approach taken for assessing the Environmental Impact of the scheme.

The design of the project will be developed to minimise the impact on the local environment. It will seek to minimise the volume of material removed from the site and use existing materials to form landscaping to mitigate against visual and noise impacts if required.

The project will be designed and constructed in accordance with relevant guidance, legal requirements and best practice to protect the natural environment. Ecology surveys have been undertaken to ensure that any ecological constraints, including legally protected species or notable species, are known at an early stage and that the project is designed to minimise the impacts on water, land and biodiversity.

The construction works will be undertaken in a sustainable manner using ‘Best Practice’ methods, maximising recycling and minimising waste.

It is proposed to deliver the project via CEEQUAL, minimising waste, ensuring resource efficiency, improving project management and demonstrating a public commitment to sustainability.

CEEQUAL aims to deliver improved project specification, design and construction of civil engineering works. CEEQUAL rewards project and contract teams in which clients, designers and contractors go beyond the legal and environmental and social minima to achieve distinctive environmental and social performance in their work. In addition to its use as a rating system to assess performance, it also provides significant influence to the project or contract teams as they develop, design and construct their work, as it encourages them to consider the issues in the question set at the most appropriate time.

Section 7 of the Options Appraisal Report (PD-RAM-00-XX-REP-Z-0004 Section 6 – Supporting Information) details the environmental assessment of the route options. All routes had similar

47

environmental and social impacts due to the close proximity of the route options and the similarity in surrounding landscape.

48

21. How will you ensure that equality between men and women as well as gender perspective are taken into account and promoted throughout the preparation and implementation of the project?

What steps will you take to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities are taken into account throughout the preparation and implementation of the project?

In light of the Equality Act 2010 how does your proposed project further the following aims:-

The need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.

The need to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who don’t.

The need to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who don’t.

The project will be delivered in accordance with St. Helens Council Comprehensive Equality Policy 2014–18 as amended by succeeding legislation. For a full copy of their policy refer to Section 13 – Supporting information.

The project will deliver a new link road which will seek to improve accessibility to employment opportunities, helping support greater equality of opportunity for all regardless of gender, disability, or character. Appropriate facilities will be incorporated into the scheme design to ensure that provision is made for people with mobility impairment (such as the provision of tactile paving and equipment at traffic signal controls). Shared use footways/cycle ways will be provided along the full length of the road. The road will be an adopted public highway, available for use by all road users.

49

22. Please explain the level of ‘additionality’5 associated with the benefits under each intervention option at both the LCR level and the UK level. Reference should be made to the Homes and Communities Agency’s Additionality Guide6. (approx. 300 words)

In order to assess the additionality of the proposed project, under each of the alternative intervention options, consideration has been given to the following factors:

Leakage – for the purposes of this assessment, the leakage rate has been informed by travel to work data from the Census 2011, as well as skills-level, gravity-based modelling that has been developed as part of work to support the Phase 1 Parkside proposals. In relation to Phase 1, consideration has been given to putting in place an employment framework, working with local partners such as St. Helens Chamber, to maximise employment opportunities for local people. Such a framework could also be applied in the subsequent phases of development. The Census data suggests that broadly 50% of those working in the local area also live within the City Region. This is supported by the skills-level, gravity-based modelling. However, as part of Phase 1, discussions have been ongoing with St Helens Chamber in relation to raising the awareness of future opportunities, along with equipping local people with the necessary skills to access the new jobs that will be created through partnership working with organisations such as the Chamber and others, including Jobcentre Plus and local training providers. Overall, on balance, a leakage rate of 40% is considered to be appropriate.

Displacement – the Parkside proposals have the potential to displace some activity from other competing developments in St. Helens and the wider City Region. However, it is anticipated that the level of displacement will be low. The St. Helens Employment Land Needs Study (October 2015) identified a requirement for between 177 and 214 hectares of employment floorspace, while independent research undertaken on behalf of the Liverpool City Region LEP suggested there would be a requirement for over 800 hectares of land for logistics and associated manufacturing operations within the Liverpool City Region and adjacent areas over the next 20 years. Parkside was listed as a key site in potentially meeting this demand. In addition, the development would help to

5 Additionality is the extent to which activity takes place at all, on a larger scale, earlier or within a specific designated area or target group as a result of the public sector intervention. In order to assess the net additional impact of the project the following factors will need to be considered: Leakage - the proportion of outputs that benefit those outside of the project’s target or reference area or group; Displacement - the proportion of project outputs accounted for by reduced outputs elsewhere in the target area; Substitution - this effect arises where a firm substitutes one activity for a similar one (such as recruiting a jobless person while another employee loses a job) to take advantage of public sector assistance; Multiplier effects - further economic activity associated with additional local income and local supplier purchases; and Deadweight - output which would have occurred without the project – this is assessed through the reference case i.e. the do nothing option.

6 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/additionality-guide

50

stimulate economic growth in the local and sub-regional economy and support the growth of other sectors, attracting additional investment and businesses. Given the above, displacement is expected to minimal. On this basis and with reference to additionality benchmarks, a displacement rate of 20% has been assumed at the Liverpool City Region level.

Multiplier effects – as well as the creation of new jobs on-site, the project proposals will generate additional economic activity in the wider economy. For example, the attraction and retention of new businesses has associated consequences in terms of generating additional employment through the supply chain (indirect effects). The direct and indirect effects of new investment also generates additional employee spend on local goods and services, supporting further job creation (induced effects). In order to take into account the potential indirect and induced multiplier effects associated with the project, reference has been made to the HCA additionality benchmarks. Based on the HCA Additionality Guide a composite multiplier at the sub-regional (Liverpool City Region) level of 1.46 has been applied.

Deadweight – in the absence of public sector funding for the improvements to the A49 (Option 2) or the construction of the Parkside Link Road (Option 3 and Option 4), it is considered that no alternative development activity would come forward on the Parkside Regeneration site or SRFI site, at least within the foreseeable future. The up-front infrastructure costs are too prohibitive for the market to develop the sites without public sector support. This is evident in that the Parkside Colliery site has remained vacant since the Colliery closed in 1993. Therefore, deadweight is assumed to be zero.

51

23. Explain how the intervention will ensure that inputs are at a minimum cost given the required quality. For example, will the final costs be identified following a competitive procurement process? (approx. 150 words)

The Parkside Link Road has been procured through the National Scape Framework. Scape is a public sector owned built environment specialist. It offers a suite of OJEU compliant frameworks and innovative design solutions that are available to public bodies in the United Kingdom. St. Helens Councils Procurement Policy is provided in Section 14 - Supporting Information. It is a public sector organisation and can support the entire lifecycle of a project. It removes the need to go out to full tender. It encourages collaborative working and early contractor involvement (ECI) so that project design and delivery can be influenced, progressing rapidly to the construction stage.

Currently the scheme is in “Stage 3 – Pre-Construction”, “Stage 4 – Construction” will be agreed and contracted after agreement of the target cost. The target cost will be developed directly following the detailed design and is included in the Stage 3 contract. (Refer to Q29 for details of the Scape Stages).

The forms of tender for the “Stage 4 – Construction Contract” will be New Engineering Contract Option C Target Price (with Pain/Gain share).

Principles of the Scape Framework:

Ability to conduct pre-construction dialogue with the constructor; Client nominated or contractor nominated design team; The Framework has been through OJEU tender satisfying requirements of EU

Procurement Directives; Open book costing ensuring Value for Money can be demonstrated; All sub contract work subject to competitive tendering; Full risk management; Performance monitoring;

Target cost pricing with pain and gain mechanism.

Key Benefits:

Reduced procurement timescales; Local Authority owned Framework; Cost certainty and cost management; Pre-construction dialogue; Commitment to sustainable development;

52

Culture of Trust and Engagement;

The Scape Key Performance Indicators will be used for this project as per Schedule 6 of the Framework Agreement. The KPIs are designed to measure different things including:

Our product performance, e.g. environmental performance, design quality, defects; Our project performance, e.g. predictability of time, cost, health & safety, local spend; Our organisational performance, e.g. our respect for people, staff survey results;

Our relationship performance, e.g. customer satisfaction, supply chain satisfaction;

A full review of Key Performance Indicators for stage 4 will be undertaken with St. Helens Council by the Regional Champion during the Pre-Construction Stage of the contract. Stage 3 - Pre-construction KPI’s are currently being monitored. (Refer to Q29 for details of the Scape Stages).

Data will be collated and provided to the Scape Framework Core Team to upload onto the electronic ‘Firefly’ database operated by Scape on a monthly basis.

There are 21 standard Scape Key Performance Indicators per project that are monitored diligently by Scape. The Firefly system is an online cloud based system that requires extensive input from the main contractor each month to ensure that they achieve pass standard on all of 21 project KPIs listed as follows. It is through this process that St. Helens Council will have confidence in the costs provided and the high-quality level of service received in delivering the project.

Key Performance Indicator (KPI) No. of KPIs Minimum Pass Standard

Predictability of Time and Cost KPIs (applicable to both Pre-Construction and Construction Stages)

4 0% change against contractor predictions in Scape Gateway Forms (excluding client change)

Health and Safety 1 Zero RIDDOR

Fair Payment Terms 1

Client to Contractor 14 days (+7) Contractor to Tier 2 Supply Chain 19 days (+7), Tier 2 to Tier 3 Supply Chain 23 days (+7). Min pass standard: 100% compliance

Customer Satisfaction KPIs (applicable to Pre-Construction stage and Construction stage)

6Service, Product, Value for Money, Whole Life Performance, Provision of Cost Information, DefectsMin pass standard - a score of 8/10 against each one

Supply Chain Satisfaction 1 A score of 8/10 across 10 or more questions

SMEs 2 85% of supply chain to be SMEs

53

Key Performance Indicator (KPI) No. of KPIs Minimum Pass Standard

85% of total project spend to be with SMEs

Waste Diverted from Landfill 1 95% total non-hazardous waste to be diverted from landfill.

Energy Monitoring 1 Energy use recorded and monitored

Considerate Constructors Scheme 1 Maintain a score of 40/50

Local Labour 120% from within 10 miles 40% from within 20 miles75% from within 40 miles

Local Spend 120% from within 10 miles40% from within 20 miles75% from within 40 miles

Employment and Skills Plan 1

Targets are banded dependent on the value of the project and performance against these targets must be achieved as part of the stringent Scape KPI monitoring/auditing process.

For the land acquisition, St. Helens Council Estates Management Services will purchase the land. They have an extensive portfolio of property in excess of £200 million and are responsible for the delivery of major regeneration projects including the acquisition of strategic land and property interests. The Council has commissioned property consultants to provide professional advice in relation to the valuation of the land and the acquisition process. Any subsequent land acquisition shall be at Market Value in line with RICS guidance and should avoid the need for implementing a costly and lengthy Compulsory Purchase Order process.

Negotiations with current land and property owners are progressing, with a view to St. Helens Council purchasing the required land/properties. Current land owners have not expressed an interest in being development partners, expressing they are only in a position to sell assets.

54

Risk analysis

24. Please complete the Risk Register in the table below, identifying the main risks associated with each option and overall risk score. Please explain the basis for the risks scores under each option. (approx. 200 words)

Against each risk, a score should be given to the probability (P) of the risk arising – ranging from very high (a maximum score of 5) to very low (a score of 1). The impact (I) of each risk should also be assessed, using the same scoring range as has been used for probability (i.e. a range of 1-5). The overall risk score (S) is calculated by multiplying the probability score by the impact score (giving a maximum score for each risk of 25, representing an extreme risk).

Rows should be added to the table to incorporate all principal risks of the project.

Risk Register

Key risk

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

P IS

(PxI)P I

S(PxI)

P IS

(PxI)P I

S(PxI)

Land Purchase 2 4 8 1 1 1 2 4 8 2 4 8

Planning 3 3 9 4 4 16 2 3 6 4 3 12

Stakeholders 2 3 6 2 3 6 1 3 3 2 3 6

Cost 3 3 9 3 3 9 3 3 9 3 3 9

Total score - - 32 - - 32 - - 26 - - 35

Risk Register

Key risk

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

P IS

(PxI)P I

S(PxI)

P IS

(PxI)P I

S(PxI)

Land Purchase 2 4 8 1 1 1 2 4 8 2 4 8

Planning 3 3 9 4 4 16 2 3 6 4 3 12

Stakeholders 2 3 6 2 3 6 1 3 3 2 3 6

Cost 3 3 9 3 3 9 3 3 9 3 3 9

Total score - - 32 - - 32 - - 26 - - 35

Option 1 – Do Nothing. There are risks for a private developer associated with this option, assuming that a new private investor would be required to purchase the land and deliver

55

associated improvements. It is believed this option would require political support to assist in its delivery and therefore this is considered a potential risk due to the current political uncertainty. There are a number of stakeholders required to support this project, including Warrington Borough Council and St. Helens Council, the two Local Planning Authorities. It is considered that the risk and amount of funding required would deter a private investor from committing to deliver this project.

Option 2 – Do Something Access from the A49. The land required to deliver this project is currently in the JVs ownership, therefore this risk is considered small. The risk from political uncertainty is believed to be high due to the potential impact the project would have on the A49, if the Link Road was not delivered. It is likely that a number of stakeholders would also have concerns regarding the impact of the development on the local highway network.

Option 3 – Do Something Preferred Options. Additional land is required to deliver this option involving land purchase from private land owners; therefore, there is some risk with this option. However, negotiations are underway and this is progressing. The project will require political support to assist in its delivery and therefore this is considered a potential risk due to the current political uncertainty. There are a number of stakeholders required to support this project, including Warrington Borough Council as one of the two Local Planning Authorities. It is considered likely that local residents will be supportive of the project as traffic will be redirected along the strategic Link Road, and away from residential properties.

Option 4 – Do Something Alternative Options. Additional land is required to deliver this option involving land purchase from private land owners; therefore, there is some risk with this option. However, negotiations are underway and this is progressing. The project will require political support to assist in its delivery and therefore this is considered a potential risk due to the current political uncertainty. There are a number of stakeholders required to support this project, including Warrington Borough Council as one of the two Local Planning Authorities. The project will not deliver benefits in redistributing local traffic and may therefore not be supported locally.

Overall the risks in delivering Option 3 are considered lower than those identified for delivering Options 1, 2 and 4. It is believed that these risks can be mitigated and managed to minimise potential impacts.

56

The preferred option

25. Based on the preceding analysis, identify the preferred option with supporting justification for selection. (approx. 200 words)

The preferred option has been identified as Option 3 (Yellow Route) having a gross cost of £39,910,786.28 This route best meets the Project Objectives as identified in paragraph 1.3 above. In addition, this Option demonstrates a “high value for money” having a BCR 3.860.

It is the only Option that would maximise the employment opportunities, successful delivery of the SRFI and Parkside Development for the people within LCR and adjoining areas. Option 3 has the support of all the major stakeholders as it delivers their aspirations in creating local employment, wealth and wellbeing. It delivers better access to the M6, improves network resilience and fits with the current infrastructure development that has been recently been delivered, improved station facilities at Newton-le-Willows and local NMU provision as part of a local sustainable transport initiatives.

Option 3 is the best option with lowest risk. St. Helens Council is working collaboratively with Warrington Borough Council and the development of the scheme to offer benefits to Warrington residents especially in Winwick.

57

Part 3 – Commercial Case

Please revisit the Commercial Case set out within the OBC, answering the following questions:

Delivery structure

26. What are the organisation and management arrangements for delivery of the preferred option? What are the delivery options that have been considered? Please outline the advantages and disadvantages of each delivery option and state which is the preferred delivery option. (approx. 300 words)

Three potential delivery options have been identified in the table below:

Delivery Options Description Advantages Disadvantages

Competitive Tender NEC Option C (Target Cost)

ValueSufficient ResourcesSpecialist skills

Timescales to undertake tender process will impact on project delivery

Internal (St. Helens) St. Helens deliver project themselves Maintain control

Lack of resourcesTimescalesRisk

Scape FrameworkUse of Scape Framework to deliver project

Regulated processValueEfficientLow risk

Higher upfront costsRequires good auditing processes

Delivering the project via a competitive tender would enable various contractors to tender to deliver the project. However, this is a formal process and the timescales to achieve this would jeopardise delivery of the project.

St. Helens Council is the Local Highway Authority and it delivers several million pounds worth of traffic management, improvements and maintenance projects on its network every year. It also oversees a range of other major works on the highway from private developers to statutory utilities undertakers. However, it is not felt that St. Helens Council has all the required skills and available resources to deliver this project independently within the required timescales.

Therefore, it is has been procured through the National Scape Civil Engineering and Infrastructure Framework. Scape is a public sector owned built environment specialist. It offers a suite of OJEU compliant frameworks and innovative design solutions that are available to public bodies in the United Kingdom.

58

Currently the project is in “stage 3 – Pre-construction” under scape and will enter into “Stage 4- Construction” following approvals and agreement of the target cost. (Refer to Q29 for details of the Scape Stages).

59

27. If the preferred delivery option will require the involvement of partner organisations, please set out the details in the table below. (approx. 200 words)

Delivery Partner Contact details

Role in project delivery (work to be procured, value, outputs)

Agreed contract arrangements / status of negotiations

Balfour Beatty Construction

5000 Lakeside, Cheadle Royal Business Park, Cheadle, Cheshire SK8 3AXTel: 0161 741 6100

Deliver supporting documents for planning application including Environmental Statement and Transport Assessment. Detailed design of the link road. Construction for the delivery of the project.

Being delivered through the Scape framework.Currently in Stage 3 – Pre-construction. (Refer to Q29 for details of the Scape Stages).

60

28. Please demonstrate that appropriate capacity, capability, systems and expertise will be available to deliver the intervention successfully (include experience, if applicable, of delivering similar projects for LCR CA or other public bodies – set out details of the projects, scope, costs, date, public funding, role played). (approx. 300 words)

28.1 Capacity

The project is being delivered through the Scape framework; this provides additional resources and specialised skills if required to deliver projects within St. Helens.

Balfour Beatty has been an acknowledged leader in the transport sector for over a century. The company specialises in delivering large, complex transport projects in partnership with the public sector. Their teams use the latest concepts in sustainable development to improve social, economic and environmental conditions.

As a client focussed organisation Balfour Beatty are intent on providing the right people to make sure project delivery is of the highest standard of technical expertise, construction, customer satisfaction and provides local community outcomes. Balfour Beatty ensures that all employees have the required level of competence for the job role.

They guarantee access to a wide pool of resources as one of the largest contractors working in the region. The local office employs in excess of 150 staff split across a range of operational and technical roles.

Balfour Beatty provide access to a diverse range of in-house capabilities and expertise including: Building Information Modelling – helping customers make informed choices, Ground Engineering – innovative piling and ground improvement solutions, Temporary Works – leading and delivering temporary works engineering design, Temporary Traffic Management – bespoke designs to suit individual project needs.

28.2 Capability

Internally, St. Helens Council has a high level of expertise with staff holding a range of Chartered level qualifications such as Chartered Engineer, Transport Planning Professional and Chartered Royal Town Planners who will all be involved in this project. If required, additional specialised skills can be provided through the Scape framework to deliver the project.

Balfour Beatty has delivered a large number of major highway schemes for local authorities. In the North West region, this experience includes working on over £350m of highways projects in the last five years, including projects similar to Parkside Link Road with junction improvements such as the £22m A5758 Brooms Cross Link Road for Sefton Council within Liverpool City Region. This project was recently awarded CEEQUAL Excellent.

This scheme involved the Design and Build of approximately 4.5km of single carriageway highway. It was designed to cut congestion along the busy corridor between M57/ M58/ A59/

61

A5036 Switch Island Junction and Southport Road, Thornton, Merseyside. It also improved access from the north of the borough from the motorway network.

At its western end, the existing A565 Southport Road was re-aligned to a new roundabout junction, which is linked to the existing A565 Park View by a new spur link. A new traffic signal controlled junction was constructed where the link road crosses Brickwall Lane (B5422). A major junction tie-in at Southport Road / Long Lane was modified to improve safety and allow for right turning vehicles.

At its eastern end, the new link has been tied in to the major traffic signal controlled junction off Switch Island. A new traffic signal controlled junction was also constructed at Chapel Lane with provision for right turning vehicles.

Balfour Beatty’s other relevant project experience as Principal Contractor includes:

Carlisle Northern Development Route (£50m) A34 Alderley Edge Bypass (£26m) Wrexham Industrial Estate Access Road (£13.8m) – Wrexham County Borough Council I54 Strategic Employment Site, including M54 Junction 2 improvements (£25m) –

Staffordshire County Council M62 Junction 8 Improvements (£9.5m) – Warrington Borough Council A487 Caernarfon Bypass (£65m) – Welsh Government Hall Lane Strategic Gateway (£10m) – Liverpool City Council

All of this experience is with local authority public bodies and funded through Government funding. Balfour Beatty also maintains, manage and operate major highway networks across the UK.

Refer also to “The project Management Team” organogram in Question 47, which demonstrate the structure that Balfour Beatty will utilise to deliver the scheme.

28.3 Systems

The highway sector is a highly regulated industry and, as such, various systems are used. St. Helens Council's Estate Management Service employs appropriate project management systems and the land acquisition process shall be undertaken in line with formal Council procedures and in accordance with RICS regulations and guidance. Overall, the project will be delivered in accordance with all relevant guidelines and regulations.

Balfour Beatty is ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001, BS11000 (44001) and PAS 1192 accredited. Compliance to externally recognised standards is verified via structured and regular auditing by both an internal team and externally by Det Norske Veritas, in line with Business Management System requirements.

This Business Management System (BMS) is a managed on-line repository of policy, procedure, forms and reference material designed to ensure the business delivers a consistent and

62

continually improving service to its customers. Performance management and monitoring methodology is also measured as is customer satisfaction.

Balfour Beatty is reliant on a world-class supply chain to deliver projects and has partnered with Constructonline as a means to undertake evaluation of supplier selection. Balfour Beatty focus is on a local supply chain supporting local employment and skills, providing training to upskill the workforce and the fair payment commitments make sure suppliers remain in business.

28.4 Expertise

St. Helens Council's Estate Management Service has a strong track record and extensive experience in the management of major regeneration projects involving the strategic acquisition of land and property interests. All staff involved in the project shall be fully qualified Chartered Surveyors with full and varied experience of strategic land acquisition including agricultural land for major highways and regeneration projects.

The following table provides evidence of similar highway projects delivered successfully by St. Helens Council.

Project Cost Date Delivered to Time?

Delivered to Budget?

Public Funding Role

Blackbrook Bypass £7.8m

2005 to

2007Yes Yes 100%

Scheme Development/Project Management and Delivery

Pedestrian Bridge £2m2010

to 2011

Yes Yes 100%

Scheme Development/Project Management and Delivery

Local Sustainable Transport Fund Schemes (LSTF)

£5m2012

to 2015

Yes Yes 100%

Scheme Development/Project Management and Delivery

A570 New Roundabout to serve a Regeneration Site

£2m 2010 Yes Yes 100%

Scheme Development/Project Management and Delivery

Refer to text above in “28.2 Capability” for Balfour Beatty evidence of similar projects.

63

Procurement

29. If you intend to commission or procure any activities in the development or delivery of this project, please demonstrate that your procurement method will comply with public procurement requirements (e.g. will your procurement trigger the OJEU process). Set out details for each procurement. (approx. 100 words)

The project is being procured through the National Scape Framework. Scape is a public sector owned built environment specialist. It offers a suite of OJEU compliant frameworks and innovative design solutions that are available to public bodies in the United Kingdom.

It is a public sector organisation and can support the entire lifecycle of a project. It removes the need to go out to full tender, encourages collaborative working and Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) so that project design and delivery can be influenced, progressing rapidly to the construction stage. For the “stage 4 – construction” the form of tender will be NEC Option C Target Price (Pain/Gain). The project is currently in “Stage 3 – Pre-construction”.

The Scape National Civil Engineering and Infrastructure Framework was awarded to Balfour Beatty in January 2015 following a 6 month procurement process. The Framework was procured through an OJEU compliant open tender procedure. Scape held a market awareness session on 16 May 2014 following the advertisement of the session in a Prior Information Notice in OJEU. The prequalification process commenced on 12 June 2014 until 21 July 2014. Following this, three major contractors were invited to tender. The tender process involved a detailed tender submission, submitted on November 2014, and an interview. Balfour Beatty was selected based on a 60% quality, 40% price basis.

The Scape Procurement Process under which this project will be delivered is set out below:

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS (STAGE 1)

The purpose of the stage is for the client to review options for procurement and gather information for the project brief.

FEASIBILITY STAGE (STAGE 2)

The purpose of the stage is for the client, their advisors and the contractor together, to carry out a feasibility study to determine whether the project is ‘doable’ in terms of time, scope of the works and cost. This is the stage that checks the viability of the project and any options available. It culminates in the production of this Feasibility Report.

The main client actions for this stage are:

64

To engage in the feasibility process Define the scope of works and project brief Appoint the Principal Designer Identify any specific requirements

Issue a Project Order at the successful completion of this stage

The main contractor actions for this stage are:

Prepare an outline estimate of the works Prepare a programme for the project Organise any enabling works, site investigations etc., as instructed by the client If instructed by the client, prepare feasibility sketch layouts and outline specification

Prepare a draft agreed scope which shall detail the fee cost for completing the Pre- Construction Activities stage including further enabling works, site investigation and/or the design team fees.

PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (STAGE 3)

During this stage the design is developed and subcontractor prices obtained so that at the end of the stage the client can issue a Delivery Agreement to the contractor to execute the works.

Client actions include:

Confirm the detail of the brief Appoint a QS auditor to ensure compliance with the Framework Agreement Ensure the client end user is fully engaged Arrange payment for pre-construction activities

Enter into a Delivery Agreement

Contractor’s actions include:

Manage the surveys & trial holes from early orders Engage with Statutory Utility Management Consultants Procure the designer for the scheme (produce documents for agreement by the client

and run design competition) Manage the design process and associated programmes Review Risks with the client as an on-going process

Provide breakdown of Pre-Construction Activities

CONSTRUCTION (STAGE 4)

This stage takes the process through construction on site.

65

Client actions include:

Appoint a project manager and supervisor, under the terms of the NEC contract QS auditor continues to verify compliance with the framework agreement Client continues to ensure engagement of the end-user

Arrange payments under the contract

Contractor’s actions include:

Execute the works Prepare project data as required under the framework agreement If required, coordinate the design development including the subcontractor design input

and the design team Continue to prepare the design in accordance with the client brief and the feasibility

report Act as QS in the preparation of subcontractor tender documents liaising with the client

QS auditor as necessary Maintain a project programme

Prepare monthly progress reports

For land purchase, St. Helens Council's Estate Management Service employs appropriate project management systems and the land acquisition process shall be undertaken in line with formal Council procedures and in accordance with RICS regulations and guidance.

The Council has commissioned property consultants to provide professional advice in relation to the valuation of the land and the acquisition process. Any subsequent land acquisition shall be at Market Value in line with RICS guidance and avoid the need for implementing a costly and lengthy Compulsory Purchase Order.

66

Statutory and other consents

30. Please indicate how your project complies with and/or has secured (is securing) the necessary regulations and requirements with regard to: (approx. 200 words)

a. Legal issues, e.g. lease agreements, evidence of land ownership and/or contractual agreements

b. Planning or other consentsc. Other – such as Section 106 (please specify)

Planning consent from St. Helens Council and Warrington Borough Council will be required to approve the Link Road layout and its provisions together with releasing the necessary land to build the project.

The draft St. Helens Local Plan in its preferred options has identified Parkside SRFI as a defined site and under its land allocation as employment land.

The purchase of land is significantly progressed with Heads of Terms being considered by the various Vendors. CPO powers are also available.

In addition, Highways England (HE) has been consulted regarding their overbridge that takes the A573 across the M6. HE has advised that no further works on the overbridge is required as a result of the proposed link road.

Consultation has been undertaken with both Warrington Borough Council and St. Helens Council to determine scoping of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Further consultation will be undertaken with both councils to determine scoping for supporting documents for planning. Details of consultation undertaken to date is provided in Q10.

The planning submission was made, including a Full Environmental Statement, to both St Helens Council and Warrington Borough Council on 23rd March 2018. For reference the planning portal references are as follows: SHC PP-06738793 and WBC PP-06738885.

67

31. Please provide evidence of the State aid compliance of the funding request including details of any relevant exemptions relied upon and the conditions of compliance that you believe are satisfied. It is the responsibility of applicants to ensure they are satisfied that their project, and the receipt of SIF support and any public match taken together, is compliant with State aid rules. Further detail on State Aid is provided at Appendix A. (approx. 200 words)

St Helens Council has obtained Counsels opinion on the compliance with state aid in direct reference to this question. The opinion to address the question, from Eric Owens (Kings Chambers Manchester), is as below:-

“The project is state aid compliant for the reasons set out in the attached legal Opinion. The facts and answers set out in the Opinion are correct. The Opinion sets out in red the answers to the questions set out in Appendix A to the application and refers to GBER, articles 1-6, articles 13 and 14, and article 56 which the Council relies upon”.

68

32. In the event that the European Commission determines SIF support for the project is not compliant with State aid rules, the repayment of any SIF funds received by the applicant will be required in full. Please confirm your acceptance to this condition.

Condition Accepted.

69

33. Please outline the timescales for securing planning permission and any other relevant statutory permissions. (approx. 100 words)

The planning submission was made, including a Full Environmental Statement, to both St Helens Council and Warrington Borough Council on 23rd March 2018. For reference the planning portal references are as follows: SHC PP-06738793 and WBC PP-06738885.

In addition, St. Helens Council is progressing with acquiring the land required to deliver the project. Refer to Question 10.

70

Risk apportionment

34. For each of the key risks identified in the risk register, set out how these risks will be shared between the public and private sectors. The governing principle is that risk should be allocated to the party best able to manage it.

In the risk allocation table below, the percentage of risk being borne by the public and private sectors should be identified. However, if this is not feasible at this stage, use ticks to designate the principal risk owner.

Risk Category Public Private

Risk name - Land 100%

Risk name – Planning 100%

Risk name – Stakeholders 100%

Risk name - cost 100%

Risk Cause Likelihood Mitigation

Non Determination/Refusal of Planning Permission

Non determination/refusal by Warrington Council.

Secretary of States reviews decision and decides against.

Unable to make compelling case for green belt very special circumstances.

Objections by neighbouring local highway authorities (including Highways England).

Local objections.

No scheme for M6

Medium Ongoing consultation with adjoining local planning authorities/highway authorities.

Legal opinion on green belt.

71

J22.

Unable to secure land by negotiation forcing compulsory purchase order

Restrictive covenant on land.

Land owner refusing to engage in dialogue.

Medium SHC to seek expert support.

Cost increases. Design development increases cost.

Requirements from Warrington BC increase cost.

Extraordinary cost increases.

Land acquisition cost increases.

Unforeseen ground conditions.

Delay due to utility companies.

Change in scope.

Medium Ongoing design development leading to target cost.

Value engineering at appropriate time.

Risk management by project team.

Agreement of design basis.

Early engagement with utility companies.

Ground investigation.

Legislative risk Unable to deal with private means of access by negotiation forcing publication of Side Roads Order.

Medium Agreement of procedures with WBC.

Early engagement with land owners.

Site listed as historic battlefield.

Consultation underway by Historic England

Medium Representations raised by SHC and the JV.

This is a St. Helens Council project requiring SIF public funding; therefore, the majority of risks are currently borne by the public sector. The risk of delivering the link road and purchasing the land required is borne by St. Helens. Whilst there will be a financial contribution from the private sector to support the development, they will not incur any associated risk.

72

73

Part 4 – Financial Case

Please revisit the Financial Case set out within the OBC, answering the following questions:

Project funding summary

35. Provide a summary of the required project funding. The costs should be presented in current prices = i.e. including inflation (please outline any assumptions made about inflation).

Project funding summary Capital Revenue Total Status of funding (confirmed etc.)

Total SIF Grant £23,790,786.28

£23,790,786.28 Awaiting decision

Loan

Private and/or voluntary sectors £9,850,000 £9,850000 Confirmed

Public sector £6,170,000 £6,170,000 Confirmed

Total project cost £39,810,786.28

£39,810,786.28

Public Sector funding has been secured from St Helens Council, this reflects the maximum available from the council resources to support the scheme and makes over 16% of the overall scheme and almost 28% of the SIF “ask” showing the commitment. This reflects the benefit that delivering the Parkside Link Road brings in terms of benefits in highway network improvements to the borough but the potential to enable development within the borough.

The private sector contribution reflects the funding of the Parkside Regeneration Joint Venture (St Helens Council and Langtree). An application for a phase 1 development for a section of the Parkside site has submitted for planning approval. The private sector contribution reflects the highway related infrastructure costs required to deliver phase 1.

The application has two scenarios with and without Parkside Link Road. The same value is spent on highway related infrastructure is spent to help deliver phase 1 in each case. If Parkside Link Road is delivered then that scenario enables the private sector funding to be spent to deliver greater value and benefits to the public and private sector in terms of bringing growth opportunities forward and benefits in congestion, road safety, environmental and journey time benefits.

The cost breakdown below demonstrates the summary costs from the Activity Schedule. The costs have been developed from previous schemes recorded under the Scape Procure process. These have been market tested which is required under the Scape process by at least 3

74

suppliers. This provides confidence in the budget cost going forwards to the Target Cost developed following the detailed design phase.

Fees added are in line with the Scape framework agreement and Risk have been identified and costed within team workshops. Inflation over the construction period of the scheme has been calculated from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) calculator tool. The generated inflation values are applied to the amount of work (preliminaries and measured works) completed in that year, and subsequently added to give a total inflation figure. This total inflation figure is shown in the summary of costs shown below.

For clarity the rates used are as follows:

Year BCIS Value (%) Value Applied (%)

2017-2018 2.8 In the rates

2018-2019 3.0 5.8

2019-2020 5.0 10.8

75

The project cost breakdown is as follows.

76

Cost summary by section

77

78

Cost summary by series

79

Capital and revenue costs

36. Please summarise the expected project capital and revenue costs and attach a detailed cost plan. The costs should be presented in current (nominal) prices.

Costs (£000s) Total 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Future years

Capital expenditure (Capex)Road construction

£35,087,786.28

£911,353.99

£1,600,526.65

£24,747,100.80

£7,828,804.84

Land £4,723,000.00

£4,723,000.00

Total capital expenditure

£39,810,786.28

£911,353.99

£6,323,526.65

£24,747,100.80

£7,828,804.84

Operational (revenue) expenditure (Opex)(Opex item) £0 £0 £0 £0(Opex item) £0 £0 £0 £0Total revenue Expenditure

£0 £0 £0 £0

Total expenditure

£39,810,786.28

£911,353.99

£6,323,526.65

£24,747,100.80

£7,828,804.84

Inflation over the construction period of the scheme has been calculated from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) calculator tool. The generated inflation values are applied to the amount of work (preliminaries and measured works) completed in that year, and subsequently added to give a total inflation figure. (Refer to Q35 for table breakdown of percentages applied)

80

37. Please explain the source and evidence for the costs (attach cost plan and cash flow) set out above ((provide separate detailed information including, where appropriate, supporting business plan and/or financial analyses).

The above construction costs have been calculated by Balfour Beatty based upon extensive previous experience, best practice guidance and market tested rates. A detailed breakdown of construction costs is provided in the response to Question 35, together with a summary of additional scheme costs resulting in a total scheme construction cost of £35,087,786.28 (refer to the summary cost detailed in answer to Q35, p59 of this report)

The costs include developing a detailed design, delivering supporting documents required to submit for planning permission, including Environmental Statement and associated surveys. It includes for public consultation and liaison with stakeholders. The costs also include a breakdown of construction costs to deliver the highway and associated works including drainage, earthworks and a shared cycleway/footway. There is also an allowance for inflation, and project/construction risk.

A feasibility study to determine whether the project is ‘achievable’ in terms of time, scope of the works and cost has been produced by Balfour Beatty. This is the stage that checks the viability of the project and any options available and states the assumptions made in building up the cost.

In addition, the land acquisition process shall be undertaken in line with formal Council procedures and in accordance with RICS regulations and guidance.

81

38. Identify the areas where contingency has been applied and the reasoning behind the level of contingency. (approx. 100 words)

A collaborative workshop has been held between the principal parties involved in the project to identify the key risks to successful delivery, their cause, consequence and proposed mitigation. Where appropriate a contingency has been built into the budget price.

The risks were identified under the following heads:

Consent/Scope Design/Statutory Authorities Ground Conditions Ecological/Environmental Legal Budget/Commercial Programme Supply Chain

The team will work together throughout project lifecycle to manage and mitigate the identified risks, and address others as they arise.

82

Funding requirement

39. Please outline the expected funding profile by individual sources, including the amount of SIF support requested. The funding should be presented in current (nominal) prices.

Funding (£000s) Total 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Future years

Capital funding(SIF) £23,790,

786.28£23,790,7

86.28(Project income)

(Other public sector)

£6,170,000.00

£911,353.99

£5,258,646.01

(Other private sector)

£9,850,000.00

£1,064,880.64

£956,314.52

£7,828,804.84

(Other forms of funding)Total capital funding

£39,810,786.28

£911,353.99

£6,323,526.65

£24,747,100.80

£7,828,804.84

Revenue funding(SIF)(Project income)(Other public sector)(Other private sector)(Other forms of funding)Total capital funding 0 0 0 0 0

Total funding £39,810,786.28

£911,353.99

£6,323,526.65

£24,747,100.80

£7,828,804.84

The costs presented in this table provide the funding profile in the year incurred and match the total cost presented in the detailed cost breakdown tables provided in response to Question 35.

The assumptions made in relation to inflation are as follows:

Inflation over the construction period of the scheme has been calculated from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) calculator tool. The generated inflation values are applied to the amount of work (preliminaries and measured works) completed in that year, and subsequently added to give a total inflation figure. (Refer to Q35 for table breakdown of percentages applied).

83

40. Please explain why public funding and, in particular, SIF support is necessary, for example, due to a funding gap. Why is this the minimum level? What other funding sources have been explored (such as Chrysalis)? (approx. 250 words)

For development and housing projects, please provide a development appraisal, summary assumptions/evidence.

St. Helens Council does not have the financial resources alone to provide the Parkside Link Road or acquire the necessary land. The benefits of improved connectivity provided by the link road at Parkside will contribute to the deliverability of the site and will enhance the development of the first phase of the SRFI with delivering a number of significant benefits. This includes over £190m of new economic activity and over 3,700 gross jobs. It will support the LCR Growth Plan, Liverpool SuperPort and the Atlantic Gateway7. Long term growth prospects of the site are also enhanced by the fact that there are no other sites in the catchment area having the potential to receive trains from all directions.

Parkside Regeneration LLP, a joint venture between St. Helens Council and developer Langtree, are developing a masterplan for the Parkside Colliery site. Combined with the SRFI site there is a significant increase in potential development total floorspace, creating over 7,000 gross jobs based on HCA Employment Density Guide 2015 values.

Alternative/other funding streams were considered (Motorways of the Sea (Atlantis)) but this was oversubscribed and was not a secure funding stream. HE Housing Growth fund was considered but planning permission is required plus it is largely for housing redevelopment for which the Parkside Link Road does not fit into the categories for which grant is available.

Highways England are supportive of the Parkside Link Road Scheme and have investigated with St. Helens Council the potential of applying to the Highways England Growth and Housing Fund for funding of the Parkside Link Road. However, due to the value of the scheme, the availability of other local public funding, such as SIF and LGF, and without planning permission currently in place, the scheme does not fit the funding criteria.

As per Q1 and Q6, following the decommissioning of Parkside Colliery during the 1990’s, there has been significant interest from both the private and public sector in bringing the site and adjoining land forward for employment and distribution use. There are significant costs to developing such significant new infrastructure, both in constructing the road link and land acquisition. Both cannot be borne by the private sector alone.

For development and housing projects, please provide a development appraisal, summary assumptions/evidence.

7 http://www.thisisparkside.co.uk/

84

85

41. How will you ensure there is a return or repayment to the SIF and over what timeframe? Will the project result in public sector savings or additional income? Will any of the SIF funding be in the form of a loan? If so, how much, when and why are commercial loans not available/appropriate (please provide separate details of the principal and interest repayment profile). If the project is not expected to provide a return or repayment to the SIF, please explain why. (approx. 300 words).

The scheme as proposed, being a Transport scheme, will offer no return to the SIF. The scheme as explained throughout the Full business case, will be an adopted highway with all land purchased by the public sector (SHC) to enable the road construction. The scheme will be a public highway with free access to all users.

As also noted, this is highway infrastructure key to unlocking the development potential of the immediate area, and offers wider economic benefits as a Transport scheme alone, before enabling development.

86

42. Using the table below, set out the net public sector funding requirement, after taking account of loan repayments and/or other public sector revenues and receipts from the project, in current (nominal) prices.

Net Funding Position (£000s)

Total 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Future years

Gross public sector funding requirement

SIF £23,790,786.28

£23,790,786.28

Other public sector

£6,170,000.00

£911,353.99

£5,258,646.01

Public sector loan repayments and/or other public sector revenues / receipts

SIF

Other public sector

Net public sector funding requirement

SIF £23,790,786.28

£23,790,786.28

Other public sector

£6,170,000.00

£911,353.99

£5,258,646.01

The costs presented in this table provide the public sector funding profile in the year incurred and match the total cost presented in the detailed cost breakdown tables provided in response to Question 35.

The assumptions made in relation to inflation are as follows:

Inflation over the construction period of the scheme has been calculated from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) calculator tool. The generated inflation values are applied to the amount of work (preliminaries and measured works) completed in that year, and subsequently added to give a total inflation figure. (Refer to Q35 for table breakdown of percentages applied)

87

43. How will the project, and provision of SIF support, ensure that private sector investment is maximised? (approx. 200 words)

The proposed project is vital to enable full development of the Parkside site as a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI). The development of the SRFI (Phase 3) site could create over 3,700 gross jobs. This could generate over £190m of GVA per annum. The full Parkside site development (Phases 1, 2 and 3) could provide over 7000 gross jobs.

Without the construction of the Parkside Link Road, the above jobs and GVA could not be fully realised with only a small Phase 1 development (92,900 sq.m) on the west of Parkside served from the A49 being achievable. Without the Link Road, the further development of Parkside Regeneration (Phase 2) could not be made due to limited existing road capacity and the land to the east of the M6 could not be developed for a SRFI or logistics use at all, thus reducing the support to the LCR Growth Plan, SuperPort and the Atlantic Gateway.

St. Helens Council will seek a contribution towards the cost of delivering the Parkside Link Road from the private sector as the Link Road project will assist with facilitating the delivery of Phase 1 of Parkside Regeneration. St. Helens Council will seek to identify the opportunity for future contributions from private investors interested in developing the Parkside Regeneration (Phase 2) and the SRFI site.

88

44. Please explain what arrangements have been made to secure the required level of matched funding (if applicable). In addition, please provide the name of the organisations providing the funding, together with evidence such as a letter or resolution confirming availability of funding. (approx. 200 words)

A Section 151 letter attached in Section 16 – Supporting information shows St. Helens Council’s commitment to contribute to the project. St. Helens Council owns the Parkside Regeneration colliery site (as Parkside Regeneration LLP) and is in the process of securing land to the east of the M6 required for the SRFI development.

89

45. Please demonstrate that there is sufficient capability to meet the financial requirements and liabilities that flow from receipt of SIF support (e.g. to fund cash flow ahead of grant and to meet any cost overruns). (approx. 200 words)

St. Helens Council is responsible for ensuring that its business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards and that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for and used economically, efficiently and effectively.

The Council also has a duty under the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in discharging this overall responsibility. The Council is responsible for putting in place proper arrangements for the governance of its affairs, facilitating the effective exercise of its functions which includes arrangements for the management of risk

The Council approved and adopted a Code of Corporate Governance in September 2008 based on the principles in the CIPFA/SOLACE Framework and in line with the revised framework, “Delivering Good Governance in Local Government”. St. Helens Council complies with the Code and meets the requirements of regulation 4(3) of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015.

St. Helens Council therefore has a strong financial capability and has sufficient cash flow and reserves to cover costs ahead of grant and cost overruns. Its Statement of Accounts is published in the public domain, and St. Helens Councils Statement of Accounts 2016-17 provided in Section 17 - Supporting Information.

90

46. Please confirm that there is provision for dealing with the financing of any cost overruns? (approx. 100 words)

St. Helens Council has a strong financial capability and has sufficient cash flow and reserves to cover costs ahead of grant and cost overruns. Its Statement of Accounts is published in the public domain. In addition, if anticipated costs are significantly exceeded St. Helens Council could seek additional financial contributions towards the cost of the road from any future developer, if required.

91

Part 5 – Management Case

Please revisit the Management Case set out within the SOC, answering the following questions:

Management arrangements

47. Please summarise the project governance and management arrangements, including the organisation and management structure for the project and key roles and responsibilities. (approx. 300 words)

In order to deliver the project, it is proposed St. Helens Council will form a Project Board. The Project Board will be accountable to St. Helens Cabinet Members and the LCR Strategic Transport Governance. The LCR Strategic Transport Governance Structure is identified below, together with the roles and responsibilities.

92

LCR Transport Governance Structure

93

LCR Strategic Transport Governance

Title Role Responsibilities

Metro Mayor & Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCR CA)

Combined Authority for Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral.

Strategic decision making for economic development, transport, strategic housing and employment and skills functions for the LCR.

Merseytravel Committee CA Committee leading on transport for the LCR. Six meetings held per year. Membership formed of elected Councillors

Provides democratic leadership on strategic transport issues and advise the CA.

Transport Advisory Group (TAG) Transport Advisory Group meets monthly, supporting the transport agenda at a senior office level. Members include the LEP.

Provides technical advice and recommendations to the Merseytravel Committee.

Wider Stakeholder Group The wider stakeholder group is a virtual group of key LCR transport stakeholders that LCR Officers and Councillors engage as appropriate.

Provides feedback to Merseytravel Committee, TAG and LCR Delivery Groups on transport policy and projects as appropriate.

LCR Delivery Groups Various delivery groups are formed of representatives from Merseytravel and each LCR LA as well as partner organisations as appropriate.

Oversee the delivery of transport schemes and provide advice to delivery agents

Delivery agents LCR Las and other Delivery Partners delivering transport schemes across the LCR.

Responsible for the delivery of any agreed transport schemes.

The Project Board will also be accountable to St. Helens Cabinet Members, as identified in the St. Helens Council Governance Structure below. Cabinet Members are responsible for policies, plans and strategies and will be updated on progress in the delivery of the project by the Project Board.

94

St. Helens Council Governance Structure

95

Project Board Members Role and Responsibilities

Role Who Responsibilities Accountabilities

Senior Responsible Owner

Senior Assistant Director (Built Environment & Enforcement)Stephen Littler

Project direction Monitor and control Project

Plan Monitor financial

expenditure Monitor and

Review Project Controls

Report to Chief Executive Officer

Organise / Chair Project Board

Delivery of formal reports to seek appropriate Council approvals

Direct and control delivery of scheme within approved delegation

Senior Supplier As above Agree objectives for supplier activities

Ensure resources available Contribute supplier

opinions Brief non-technical

management on supplier aspects

Manage the procurement of the scheme

Manage resources to deliver project

Financial accountability

Senior User Principal Transport Officer (Policy)Mark Osborne /Engineering service ManagerSteve Walker

Report back CA Represent end users Represent those

interested in the project

Ensure end users views fully represented

Report to CA

Project Manager Head of Asset ManagementJohn Sheward

Manage delivery of the project

Prepare and monitor Project Plans

Give direction for work packages

Manage project delivery through project delivery team and co- ordination of meeting

Manage allocated funding Prepare and report

to project board

Report to Project Board Planning and development

of work programme Completion of work

packages to meet project timescales

Directing and co-ordination of Project Team resources

Financial accountability

An appointed consultant will form a specialist Project Management Team to deliver the project and support the Project Board. The composition of the Project Management Team is discussed in Q48 below.

96

Project Management Team structure

Monthly Project Reporting

The Balfour Beatty Project Manager will complete a Monthly “Project Review Meeting” with the sector or Divisional Hub Director where aspects of project are reviewed such as financial reports, risks, construction progress & challenges. The summary input to this review meeting is called a “Project on a Page (POAP)”. This PoaP will be shared and reviewed with the Client Project Manager as a Monthly progress report. Before the project starts, Balfour Beatty will agree with the client additions and deletions suitable to ensure the progress review is aligned to the Clients expectations.

97

48. If use has or will be made of external support in the development or delivery of the project, please provide details of the advisers and their role. (approx. 100 words)

The scheme is to be delivered through the Scape Framework; this is a public-private partnership that has allowed St Helens to develop the Parkside Link Road scheme using the best available professional support to achieve an efficient and successful delivery of projects. From this framework Balfour Beatty have been appointed to undertake pre-planning consultation, undertaken public consultation, liaising with statutory bodies as required and producing the supporting documentation for the Planning Application, Outline/Full Business Case submission documents, planning and design, through to construction. Balfour Beatty will be principal contractor to deliver the scheme through target cost and delivery.

Balfour Beatty are a 30,000 strong leading international infrastructure group with multi Billon turnover and is providing local support from Cheadle. More details on the company is available at www.balfourbeatty.com

Ramboll UK are appointed sub consultant to Balfour Beatty providing additional design and technical support to the project including input into the Business Case Documents. Ramboll are a leading engineering, design and consultancy company with 13,000 staff. A local office in Chester is providing support on this project, more on Ramboll is available at http://www.ramboll.co.uk.

JLL (Jones Lang LaSalle) are a leading professional services firm that specializes in real estate and investment management with 80,000 staff worldwide. For this project they are providing professional support on identifying the cost of land from their Manchester office.

Valuation Office Agency (VOA) provides valuation and property advice to support the government and local authorities in England Scotland and Wales. The VOA provides valuation and surveying services to more than 2200 customers across the UK public sector. The VOA is an executive agency of HM Revenue and Customs, and employees more than 3600 staff.

98

49. Please describe how you will engage with key stakeholders (e.g. do you have a communications plan and engagement strategy). (approx. 200 words)

A Stakeholder Management and Engagement Plan have been prepared and is included as Appendix 1 of the Public Consultation Report, (see Supporting Information – Section 20).

The Plan includes a communications strategy which establishes how communications are tailored to the needs of each stakeholder. It considers key audiences which comprise statutory consultees, the two councils who will receive planning applications and all other key stakeholders.

Stakeholder mapping has been carried out to determine the level of engagement required, i.e.:

Inform, Consult, Dialogue, Engage.

Key messages, communication channels and responsibilities have been documented for each stakeholder.

Based on the stakeholder categories the following approach is taken to involve the various stakeholders.

Category 1 - Some stakeholders will be informed of the proposed development and generally invited to take part in the consultation by attending the information events and visiting the website. These stakeholders will be informed via the local press, social media and posters.

Category 2 – Consult. The stakeholders in this category will also be informed of the consultation exercise and specifically asked to contribute their views via the questionnaire online or by attending the Public Information Exhibition. This will be done via a letter direct to the stakeholders inviting them to participate in the consultation.

Category 3 - We will enter into a dialogue with other stakeholders that have a higher level of interest in the project. They will be specifically invited to provide information and views on the proposals, based on the knowledge and information they have.

Category 4 - We will seek to fully engage the group with the highest level of interest in, and influence on, the proposed link road. They will be directly invited to attend the exhibition and participate in a workshop with the link road designers so that issues that are within scope for the consultation stage of the project can be discussed fully and comments taken on board.

Stakeholders in this category will be specifically asked for their views and opinions whilst shaping the final planning application to be submitted. They will be invited to attend the Public Information Exhibition and specifically invited to participate in a co-design workshop (Charrette style event) that will form part of the event.

99

Other stakeholders in this category will be invited to provide their views on a 1-1 basis as part of the process of developing the proposals.

100

Communication strategy

50. Please provide details of the communication and marketing strategy for the project. (approx. 200 words)

The marketing of sites will include the benefits that the Parkside Link Road will bring by linking the sites directly to the national strategic road network at M6 Junction 22.

The development sites unlocked by the Parkside Link Road will be undertaken as follows:

Development land to the west of the M6 will be marketed by the Joint Venture and by partner Langtree

Development land to the east of the M6 will be marketed by the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership as they are LCR Strategic sites

Communications plan

Use information in Stakeholder Management Plan and results to date

The scheme has been developed internally and with the appointed Contractual team. It is approved by the LCR Combined Authority. St. Helens Council Cabinet have approved the schemes development to Business Case and Planning Approval.

101

In accordance to St. Helens Council Consultation Guidance

Stakeholder Influence Interest Strategy Responsibility for Communication

Liverpool City Region Local highway authority

High Responsible for local highway network

Represented on Project Board

Senior Responsible Owner

Chamber of Commerce

Medium Potential of increased junction capacity to support economic growth

Letters and regular meetings with business representative

Project Manager

Local residents Medium Access to employment and amenities, potential impact of disruptions

Public meetings to consult on plans, press releases and website

Press & Communications Officer

Neighbourhood Action Groups

Medium General interest in what is going on at the junction and how it may impact them

Public meetings to consult on plans, press releases and website

Press and PR officer

Local Strategic Partnership

Medium General interest in what is going across the area and how it may impact them. To be appointed to Market LCR Strategic sites

Meetings to consult on plans, press releases and website

Press and PR

Ward Councillors High Improved access to key development site

Keep informed Project Manager

Winwick Parish Council

High Reduction in traffic through Hermitage Green A573 and A49

Meeting and keep informed

Project Manager

Warrington Council High Works on the A573 and 579 Warrington highway network via Section 278/Section 8 Agreements

Planning ApplicationKeep informed

Project Manager

Wigan Council High Traffic levels A579A573 and A572 Planning

ConsultationKeep informed

Project Manager

All Residents Medium To publicise works on highways and opportunities for employment

Council websitePress releases

Press Team

Media Medium

Medium

Promoting the impact during construction and Benefits of scheme

General interest in

Keep informed through Council communication team

Keep informed via LCR Combined

Press Team

Project Manager

102

Highways England what is going on at Junction 22 M6 and how it may impact them and proposed M6 Smart Motorway Project

Authority/LEP/Council Merseytravel

103

Milestones

51. Please outline the indicative timescales for the key project milestones:

Milestone activity Timescales

Funding Approvals January 2019

Conditional Funding Approvals October 2018

Start date – date from which eligible expenditure will be incurred January 2019

Appointment of contractor (Scape Stage 4 – Construction)

January 2019 (Contractor BB, currently in Scape Stage 3 – Pre-construction. Refer to Q29 for stage descriptions)

Target Cost Agreed 8th March 2019

Planning and other statutory approvals 17th December 2018

Work commences 28th January 2019 – Advanced Works7th May 2019 - Main Works

Work complete 8th January 2021

Final financial claim date March 2020 (SIF Claim)

Proposed project completion date – date by which outputs/outcomes will be achieved January 2021

Proposed activity end date – date by which all project activities described in the application will be completed

November 2020

104

52. Please provide a Gantt Chart setting out details of the project plan.

Refer to Section 4 – Supporting information for the Gantt Chart. Below is a list of significant dates, taken from the submitted programme (PD-BB-00-PR-Z-800).

- Detailed design completion – 2nd November 2018- Planning Decision 17th December 2018- Target Cost Completion – 8th March 2019- Governance approvals and SHC Instruction for Construction phase – 3rd May 2019- Conditional Offer Acceptance – 14th November 2018- SIF Grant Funding Offer – 21st January 2019- SHC Accept Grant Funding Agreement – 25th January 2019- Funding and Planning in Place – 25th January 2019- Land purchase completions – 22nd February 2019- Enabling works (following planning and funding) completion – 23rd April 2019- Mobilisation and procurement – 7th May 2019- Site Establishment – 3rd July 2019- Main construction works start – 3rd July 2019- End of construction (inc landscape & top soiling) – 27th November 2020- Terminal float (end of) – 19th February 2021

105

Risk management

53. For each of the key risks identified in the risk register, provide details of the risk mitigation and management measures. Attach a full risk register. (approx. 300 words)

Risk Category Risk Mitigation / Management Action Owner

Risk name - Land Identification of land owners, consultation and negotiation to secure land access for environmental surveys et, and land purchase required to deliver the project. Regular dialogue by St. Helens Council will ensure the required land is purchased.

St. Helens Council

Risk name – Planning Planning application submitted to Warrington BC. Pre-planning engagement held to understand and address areas of concern.

St. Helens Council

Risk name – Stakeholders

There are a number of stakeholders involved including two Local Planning Authorities (St. Helens Council and Warrington Borough Council), Highways England, Environmental Agency, Land owners, Joint Venture and Historic England. Consultation will be undertaken with all stakeholders as required to ensure deliver of the project.

St. Helens Council/Project Team

Risk name - cost Ongoing design review.Cost risk analysis.Proactive management of design change with potential to increase cost.Full ground investigation carried out.

St. Helens Council/Project Team

A Project Risk Register and Construction Risk Register have been prepared by Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd (Section 19 – Supporting Information). These risks will be managed and mitigated as identified below:

At the initial Risk Workshop, early in the Pre-Construction Stage, the Project team will jointly review the Feasibility Stage Project and Construction Risk Registers, update the content to reflect the current status of the project, allocate an owner against each identified risk, and develop a mitigation plan

106

Potential mitigation measures might include:

Programme re-sequencing of planned activities Use of a proportion of the available programme float Increasing or substituting resources Alternative methods and techniques Possible design, specification or material changes

Each potential measure will be evaluated to consider its effect on programme and cost and a summary of each submitted for consideration by the Project Team. Options will also be combined and tried in various permutations, where compatible, which will allow informed decisions to be made at the earliest opportunity.

A programme of regular Risk Management meetings will be established throughout both Pre-Construction and Construction Stages, attended by nominated senior members of the Project Team, from Client, Contractor and Designer, which will:

Review mitigation plans against each identified risk, and agree any additional actions as appropriate

Identify any additional risks identified in the reporting period, agree quantum, programme impact, ownership, and mitigation measures

Close out those risks which are no longer applicable Draw down monies as appropriate from the Risk Register in order to maintain accurate

cost to completion forecast

With regards to specific risks:

External Land Ownership & Acquisition

The current status regarding land purchase agreements, and strategy for delivery, will be reviewed as an ongoing process through the programmed risk workshops.

Contractor Procurement & Delivery

During the Pre-Construction Stage of the Scape Framework Process, Balfour Beatty will develop, and agree with St. Helens, a Target Cost for the Project including appropriate risk contingency.

A minimum of 3 comparable quotations will be obtained against each work package from Balfour Beatty’s approved supply chain.

The precise award criteria will be agreed with St. Helens but will include cost, programme, resources, Health & Safety and ability to meet quality standards.

107

Specialist contractors will be enrolled into the Risk Review process in order to ensure the Project Team continue to capture all risks as the work proceeds and appropriate mitigation plans are in place.

Occupier Demand

The current status regarding occupier demand and any resulting potential impact on the Project Teams implementation plans will be reviewed at the risk workshops.

Costs

The Scape Framework Pre-Construction Target Cost agreement process inherently demonstrates overall value for money in delivery of the project.

During delivery, Monthly Project reports will be submitted to St. Helens which contains the updated forecast out turn cost including assessment of any potential Early Warnings arising in the period, and the risk contingency allowance updated to reflect current project status.

Balfour Beatty, together with designer Ramboll, have been engaged in the Parkside scheme throughout the Scape project lifecycle and, with continuity of key personnel and vast experience in project lifecycle risk mitigation, will actively manage the risk process in a structured, open and transparent manner.

108

Benefit maximisation

54. Please explain how you will ensure that the benefits are maximised, including to local residents and businesses. (approx. 200 words)

Under the Scape Framework, Balfour Beatty are required to meet a set of 21 Key Performance Indicators. Performance against these KPIs is monitored on a monthly basis by Scape to ensure compliance. These KPIs include stringent requirements for local spend, local employment, SME engagement and social value, which exceed traditional procurement requirements. These include:

Local spend: 20% within 10 miles; 40% within 20 miles; 75% within 40 miles SME engagement and spend: 85% of subcontractors to be SMEs; 85% of subcontractor

spend to be with SMEs Local labour: 20% within 10 miles; 40% within 20 miles; 75% within 40 miles

The design approach will contribute to benefit maximisation by:

Ensuring that the highway will be constructed for use by all users – cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles with all road crossings constructed to the latest inclusive standards

Providing improved journey times to the motorway network for all users

Providing relief to local network hot spots

In addition, actions to be taken by St Helens Council as Local Highway Authority include:

An area wide signage strategy will be implemented in coordination with neighbouring Highway Authorities signing the PLR as part of the A road network

Liaison will be undertaken with the Highways England to make the PLR part of the tactical diversion route for the M6 during incidents thus improving journeys for the national network users

The improved access to the wider highway network will complement current investment at Newton Le Willows rail station

The PR campaign will highlight the PLR will be part of the Merseyside Combined Authority Key Route Network and will be designated the A573 it is not just to serve developments.

109

Monitoring and evaluation arrangements

55. Please explain the arrangements that will be put in place to monitor the progression of the project and delivery of benefits. (approx. 100 words)

In the pre-construction phase (Scape stage 3), the design and any other elements such as planning applications and funding application procurement will be managed by Balfour Beatty using an Earned Value Assessment (EVA). This EVA determines the application for the designer based on an agreed deliverables schedule completed at the start of the project. Progress is reported to the client (SHC), on a monthly basis at the “Progress Meeting”, against the deliverables schedule and agreed design programme. Interim “Design Progress Meetings” are held to review the design including value engineering which is embedded into the process with a collaborative working approach. In addition to this, working group sessions and Risk Workshops are attended as and when required. In the construction phase (Scape stage 4) progression will be monitored against a detailed project programme updated and submitted for review on a regular basis, in line with contractual requirements. The programme is a live and pro-active management tool where agreed key benefits can be added. Project progress meetings inclusive of the major stakeholders will afford a mechanism to check progress and delivery targets, but also provide an opportunity to agree actions to maintain successful progress. The establishment of a high-level project board assists in this review process against key deliverables by providing peer group review and accountability. All Balfour Beatty operations will subject to the procedures contained within the corporate management system.

110

56. Set out how and when the project will be evaluated. (approx. 100 words)

St Helens Council will continue to monitor traffic flows using the link road and surrounding road network. Cordon and screen line traffic flow data will be collected on an ongoing, periodic basis to evaluate both the accuracy of traffic forecasts and to monitor the impact of traffic flows on the network. The Council has developed a Borough wide traffic model which will be used to support both transport planning and traffic management functions of the Council as highway authority.

The Council will also continuously monitor floor space and employment activity on the adjacent sites.

111

57. Summarise the exit strategy for the public sector and your forward strategy for the project. (approx. 100 words)

On completion Parkside Link Road will become an adopted highway by St. Helens Council and Warrington Council in respect of their individual areas.

It will be maintained by both Councils as respective Highway Authority accordance to the national code of practice “Well Maintained Highways”.

An Operational Benefits review will take place post implementation to.

Confirm that the benefits set out have been achieved;

Assess the effectiveness of the contract and contract management procedures;

Ensure plans are in place to manage the project through to full conclusion with regard to marketing of the development sites; and

Identify any key lessons learnt.

Monitoring & Evaluation

Success of the Parkside Link Road Scheme will be determined by a number of factors:

Delivery to time, budget and specification;

Reduction in queuing on approach at junction in the Winwick area;

Removal of through traffic through Hermitage Green

Improved traffic flow and journey time reliability monitored against the traffic models

Utilising the developed SATURN Traffic model in respect of subsequent planning applications to ensure Section 106`s are applied in respect of junctions on the highway network across the greater Parkside area

Developed and pre-construction counts.

Attracting economic development at the this LCR Strategic site directly served by the scheme

Localised improvements in air quality.

112

Supporting information

In addition to completing the above, please also provide the following, where relevant:

Title

Planning consent certificate

State aid opinion

Evidence of matched funding

Land/building valuation

Cost plan

Design information (photo of existing building, plans of proposals, elevations images)

Development appraisals

Market demand report

Business Plan (if appropriate)

Gantt Chart

Organisation chart

Job descriptions

Procurement policies

Service level agreements

Risk register

Financial information about the applicant

113

Please also provide any additional information that you consider is relevant to your application.

1. Site Location Plan - PD-RAM-03-ZZ-DR-TR-00012. Economics Report - PD-RAM-03-ZZ-REP-TR-00083. Traffic Forecasting Report – PD-RAM-03-00-REP-TR-00064. Parkside Link Road Summary Programme5. Route Options Drawing – PD-RAM-03-00-DR-TR-00016. Options Appraisal Report - PD-RAM-00-XX-REP-Z-00047. Land Ownership Boundary and Proposed Land Acquisition Plan (PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-

0102, PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0103, PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0104, PD-RAM-00-00-DR-Z-0105)

8. Letters of Support9. Not used10. AECOM Parkside Logistics and RFI Study Report11. Phase 1 and 2 Outline Masterplan12. Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report, Document Reference PD-RAM-XX-

ZZ-RP-EN-000113. St Helens Equality Policy14. St Helens Procurement Policy15. VOA Valuation Report for Rough Cottage16. Section 151 Letter17. St Helens Council Statement of Accounts 2016-1718. Organogram19. Project Risk Register and Construction Risk Register20. Public Consultation Report – PD-RAM-00-00-REP-Z-0006

114

Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information Act 2000

The Combined Authority is a public body and may have to disclose contents of this application on request.

The Combined Authority is the data controller for the purpose of the Data Protection Act 1998. By proceeding to complete and submit this form, you consent that we may process the personal data (including sensitive personal data) that we collect from you, and use the information you provide to us, in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Declaration

To be completed by the Business Case Applicant:

I hereby confirm that the information provided in this form is complete and, to the best of my knowledge, accurate.

I acknowledge that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority may seek to verify the information set out herein and agree to provide further information where it is available.

I acknowledge that any funding agreement reached with the Combined Authority is provisional until approved by the LCR Combined Authority and confirmed in writing.

Signed……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Date: 28th August 2018

Name: Mark Osborne

Position: Principal Transport Policy Officer

Organisation/Company: St. Helens Council

115

Certificate of Approval

To be completed by LCR CA staff:

I have read and understood the information provided by the applicant in this Initial Proposal and confirm that the application has been appraised in accordance with the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Assurance Framework.

Appraisal Team

Decision: Approve/Reject

Signed:……………………………………………………………….

Date:…………………………………………………………………..

Name:…………………………………………………………………

Position:……………………………………………………………..

Investment Panel

Decision: Approve/Reject

Signed:……………………………………………………………….

Date:…………………………………………………………………..

Name:…………………………………………………………………

Position:……………………………………………………………..

Investment Committee

Decision: Approve/Reject

Signed:……………………………………………………………….

Date:…………………………………………………………………..

Name:…………………………………………………………………

Position:……………………………………………………………..

CA / Mayor

Decision: Approve/Reject

Signed:……………………………………………………………….

Date:…………………………………………………………………..

Name:…………………………………………………………………

Position:……………………………………………………………..

116

Appendix A: State Aid

1. For all applicants using General Block Exemption Regulation "GBER" 651//2014 OJ L 187/1 of 26 June 2014 exemptions (e.g. regional investment, training, research and development) they must confirm that the project against which funding is sought has not yet started as at the time of application.

2. For all applicants not qualifying as an SME within the meaning of Annex I GBER, they should confirm "incentive effect" within the meaning of Article 6.3 GBER in showing evidence of either:

a. in the case of regional investment aid, that but for the aid the project would not be carried out in the area concerned or would not have been sufficiently profitable for the beneficiary in the area concerned; or

b. in all other cases that the aid would result in a material increase in the scope of the project/activity, the total amount spent by the beneficiary on the project/activity, or the speed of completion of the project/;activity; or

c. confirm by nature of the exemption relied on that the incentive effect requirements of Article 6.3 GBER are not required.

3. For applicants seeking to rely on regional investment aid (Articles 13 and 14 GBER) in particular please confirm:

a. All applicants regardless of size:i. project is in an assisted area under the UK Regional aid Map 2014-20 see

http://www.ukassistedareasmap.com/ieindex.html;ii. applicant has not closed down the same or a similar activity in the

European Economic Area in the two years preceding this application or does not have concrete plans to close down such an activity within a period of up to two years after the initial investment for which aid is requested is completed in the area concerned (Article 13(d) GBER and Article 2(50) GBER for definition of "same or similar activity");

iii. project will not involve activities in the steel sector, the coal sector, the shipbuilding sector, the synthetic fibres sector, the transport sector as well as the related infrastructure, energy generation, distribution and infrastructure (Article 13(a) GBER and Articles 2(43), 2(44), 2(45) and 2(130) GBER for sector definitions);

iv. project will not involve activities in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors (Article 1.3(a) GBER);

v. Project will not involve activities in the primary agricultural production sector (Article 1.3(b) GBER and Article 2(9) and 2(11) GBER for definitions) and

vi. Where cost of lease of plant or machinery is claimed, the lease must take the form of financial leasing and must contain an obligation for the

117

beneficiary of the aid to purchase the asset upon expiry of the term of the lease (Article 14. 6(b) GBER).

b. if applicant is a large enterprise8 or member of a large group then please confirm further to a above:

i. That the project involves an initial investment in favour of new economic activity (Article 14.3 GBER and Articles 2(50) and 2(51) GBER for definitions);

ii. The assets acquired are new (Article 14.6 GBER);iii. for land and buildings, any eligible lease will continue for at least five

years after the expected date of completion of the investment project (Article 14.6(a) GBER); and

iv. the investment will be maintained in the recipient area for at least five years after completion of the investment (Article 14.5 GBER)9

c. If applicant is an SME or member of an SME group then (instead of b) please confirm further to a above:

i. for land and buildings, any eligible lease will continue for at least three years after the expected date of completion of the investment project (Article 14.6(a) GBER);

ii. the investment will be maintained in the recipient area for at least three years after completion of the investment (Article 14.5 GBER); and

iii. If the asset is acquired second hand there must be a suitable valuation for it from an independent professional valuer.

Note: Further guidance on State aid can be obtained from the text of GBER or the GBER PracticalGuidehttp://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/practical_guide_gber_en.pdf

For avoidance of doubt, in the event that the European Commission or a national Court would determine that SIF support for the project is not compliant with State aid rules, the repayment of any SIF funds received by the applicant will be required in full together with interest in accordance with the European Commission's recovery rates from time to time10.

8 GBER Annex I Article 1-2 for standalone companies and Article 3 for groups9 This is to ensure durability of operations by maintaining investment in the area.10 https://rubix.dwf.co.uk/Interact/Pages/Section/Default.aspx?homepage=1&section=-1#

118