Bath & North East Somerset Council
Cllr Charles Gerrish, Cabinet Member for Customer Services
On or after 4th August 2007
Transport Capital Programme Re-assignment
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM
List of attachments to this report:
App 1 (pdf -19kb) - Transportation Capital Programme Overview
App 2 (pdf -19kb) - Capitalised Maintenance Programme 2007/08 2009/10
App 3 (pdf - 34kb)- Integrated Transport Block
App 4 (pdf - 15kb)- Strategic Projects
1 THE ISSUE
1.1 Transport board on 4th June directed that the indicative Transport capital programme approved by Council for 2007/08 be reduced by £722K in order to match the funding available. The mismatch arose because:-
> The value of uncompleted schemes from the 2006/07 capital programme exceeded by £200K the underspend of the budget in that year.
> We need to pursue a programme of works on two major transport schemes; the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) and the Bath Transport Package. These schemes require priority funding as they support other key Council development agendas, including Western Riverside, and attract additional external funding.
> When full consent and programme entry is received for the GBBN and Bath Package respectively, the Council will be reimbursed by the DfT for eligible costs incurred on these projects during the design process.
The Cabinet member is asked to agree:
2.1 To adopt the revised programme as outlined in Appendix 1, table C.
Further appendices identify the specific schemes within these classifications.
These proposals are fully funded within existing budgets, and a formal decision is now required to proceed with their implementation.
4 COMMUNITY STRATEGY OUTCOMES
> Improving our local transport
> Improving our local environment
5 CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES
> Improving the Quality of Public Transport/Roads/Pavements and easing congestion
> Developing a sustainable economy
> Improving the public realm
> Improving customer satisfaction
6 CPA KEY LINES OF ENQUIRY
> Creating and developing a better quality of life for the area through
o Sustainable Communities and Transport
7 THE REPORT
7.1 Appendix 1 outlines 3 three data tables
> Table A - 2006/07 outturn
> Table B - 2007/08 position outlined to transport board 4th June
> Table C - 2007/08 new proposals for adoption
7.2 The revisions to earlier indicative schemes have been made as follows:
> The GBBN project requires the recruitment of an Independent Programme Director, plus central co-ordination and contingency - an additional £50K.
> Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) has been included within the Integrated Transport Block (ITB) as an emerging project, with £20K allocated for staff time to prepare the business case for demand management options.
> Several pedestrian schemes within ITB slippage totalling £59K were previously misreported as maintenance schemes.
> An increase in the forecast cost of Lower Bristol Road of £150K due to additional unforeseen drainage items found on site.
> A reduction in the number of maintenance schemes to balance the budget.
7.3 Funding has been reviewed to include:-
> Grant from GGBN costs incurred post programme entry £39K
> Developers Contributions - further £80K
Within the ITB block, developers' contributions have been used to substitute for LTP funding where proposals meet both ITB criteria and planning obligations, whereas previously these had been treated as additional schemes.
Further investigation is also being carried out to establish if other developer's contributions exist which could released more funding.
7.4 The following principals underpin how the programme was prioritised as follows
> GBBN and Bath Package schemes prioritised as these will attract £70m and £52m external investment in future years.
> The programmes for ITB and Maintenance to be matched to Local Transport Plan allocations over the two years.
7.5 ITB completed schemes in 2006/07 were £1,671K and the safety aspects of maintenance scheme valued as £82K - identifying a shortfall of £429K from settlement of £2,182K. The proposed schemes for 2007/08 total £2,708K, £426K in excess of the LTP settlements for ITB block of £2,224K and specific road safety grant of £58K. Taking both years together, there is no scope for reduction to these schemes.
7.6 Therefore, to balance the programme for 2007-08 we have reduced the maintenance scheme programme by £633K. This has been achieved by
> Reduction of scheme requirements of £67 Structures from £100K to £25K, and Hinton Hill from £60K to £30K
> The remaining reduction of will be achieved by a surfacing contracts, including in the city centre. The classifications have also been refined in line with more specific contract packages.
7.7 Once the following funding is secured the programme will be restored.
> The GGBN grant of £110K, anticipated on achievement of full consent, scheduled for the autumn.
> Bath Package grant of £296K to become reclaimable in 2008/09 on achievement of programme entry.
> The council has reserved an allocation of £250K for Bath package in 2008/09. The re-phasing of the programme proposed in this report releases £72K from this in 2008/09.
7.8 These monies will be applied back to surfacing contract, with the practical impact of these reductions simply moving scheme implementation from 2007/08 (typically 4th quarter) to early 2008/09 as funding is restored. However it is recognised that the cost of these contracts may increase slightly as a result of price inflation, resulting in less maintenance work being completed on the ground.
7.9 The costing methodology for future maintenance capital programmes, in terms of
the assessment of asset conditions is still in development. This exercise will
better demonstrate the impacts of long term funding decisions, but we do not anticipate that these will be significant in terms of the conclusions reached by this exercise.
Other Options considered
7.10 Under "single capital pot" rules councils do not need to allocate funds according to the LTP settlement. ITB schemes were prioritised by the Manager in consultation with the Cabinet Member. However an overall reduction is not proposed here because if ITB performance were to decline in the light of not fully spending LTP allocations, future settlements will be adversely effected. By implication, if issues arise on individual ITB schemes (such as delay), replacement ITB schemes should be proposed in the first instance.
8 RISK MANAGEMENT
8.1 The alignment of schemes into broad programmes enable risk assessments to be carried out, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.
8.2 The maintenance programme funding is dependent on attracting DfT major scheme funding and a risk of slippage exists. If GBBN full consent is delayed then further programme works will need to be carried out , including costs which will not attract grant funding. Adjustments may need to be made to fund these resources
8.3 Further scheme variations within each block programme, will need to be contained within contingencies of those programme, re-designing and re-scheduling schemes as necessary.
9.1 The earlier indicative capital programme was created by considering feedback requests from and consultation with Parish and Town Councils, Ward Councillors and residents
9.2 Adjustments to the earlier programme have been made in consultation with the Cabinet Member, the Council's Transport Board members.
10 ADVICE SOUGHT
10.1 The Section 151 Officer (Strategic Director - Support Services) and the Monitoring Officer have had opportunity to input to this report and have cleared it for publication.
Contact person s
Steve Froggatt x5239
Giles Oliver x4367
Please contact the report author if you need to access this report in an alternative format