North Yorkshire Council

Executive

28 November 2023

North Yorkshire Transforming Cities Fund Projects

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide Executive with an update on the North Yorkshire Transforming Cities Fund projects, including revised scoping narrative and approve:

i) the descoping options outlined for Selby, the preparation and submission of a Full Business Case, with approval of the detail delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director of Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation. In the event that the Full Business Case is approved by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, to delegate the acceptance of the TCF funding to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, subject to the scheme being affordable, acceptable terms and conditions being received, and for a satisfactory TRO outcome, the scheme to be implemented; and

ii) the descoping options outlined for Skipton, the preparation and submission of a Full Business Case, with approval of the detail delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director of Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation. In the event that the Full Business Case is approved by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, to delegate the acceptance of the TCF funding to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, subject to the scheme being affordable, acceptable terms and conditions being received, and for a satisfactory TRO outcome, the scheme to be implemented; and

iii) the descoping options outlined for Harrogate, the preparation and submission of a Full Business Case, with approval of the detail delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director of Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation. In the event that the Full Business Case is approved by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, to delegate the acceptance of the TCF funding to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, subject to the scheme being affordable, and acceptable terms and conditions being received, and for a satisfactory TRO and public engagement outcome the scheme to be implemented.

2.0       SUMMARY

2.1       This report provides Executive with an update on the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) projects in Skipton, Selby and Harrogate and seeks approval of the revised final project scopes.

3.0       BACKGROUND       

3.1       The North Yorkshire TCF projects form part of the Department for Transport’s (DfT) TCF programme which aims to “improve productivity by investing in public and sustainable transport infrastructure in English cities”. Approval to develop a Full Business Case (FBC) and implement the three projects in North Yorkshire was originally considered by Executive on 25 January 2022.

3.2       On 30 May 2023, Executive was asked to approve proposed Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) in Harrogate and to endorse the overall Harrogate TCF scheme. This decision was subsequently quashed in August following receipt of a legal challenge. An update report was considered by Executive on 19 September 2023 which agreed further detail on the options be brought back in October/November for a decision on the way forward.

3.3       This report provides an update on the three North Yorkshire projects: Harrogate, Selby and Skipton.

4.0       CURRENT POSITION

General

4.1 A primary consideration is that while baseline funding has remained static, cost estimates have significantly increased during the detailed design development period. These have been tested by the market, but the inflationary increase experienced since Outline Business Cases (OBCs) were prepared in 2020 and ‘in principle’ TCF funding was awarded in 2021, has impacted all three projects.  Many other council-led capital projects including TCF projects across the wider WYCA portfolio are experiencing the same economic challenges.

4.2       Constraints associated with town centre and railway estate working, utilities and traffic management have also affected constructability and contributed to increased project costs.  Officers have reviewed live project costs, undertaken cost reduction opportunities, including major descoping options.  When considering cost reduction, public support/comment, council policies, value for money and ease of delivery have informed possible options.  Any descoping affects the business case and is likely to reduce the BCR (benefit cost ratio) and so provide less value for money; BCR implications and TCF policy fit have been considered when reviewing any reductions in scope.

Selby

4.3       The original Selby scheme consisted of:

· Ousegate Active Travel Corridor – one way at the west end to allow creation of segregated bidirectional cycle lanes, improved footway widths and new public realm along with the closure of Denison Road canal bridge to vehicles.

· Bus Hub and Western Link – improvement of the bus area and walking/cycling linkage to Portholme Road.

· Railway Station Gateway – a new station building, with extensive glazing and public art to compliment the creation of the Station Plaza and enhance facilities, public realm improvement around the railway station (plaza) and linkages to the wider town through Selby Park, including junction improvements at The Crescent/Park Street.

· Enhanced Selby Park, with new lighting, landscaping, and public art to create an attractive and safe route between the Station and Abbey / town centre.

· Creation of an eastern entrance into the railway station and car parking on Cowie Drive

· Pedestrian connection between the station the residential areas and retail around Portholme Road via a new underpass beneath Bawtry Road bridge.

4.4       The contractor budget estimate has increased considerably since OBC.  Constraints around working locations, especially traffic management sequencing relating to the underpass/Bawtry Road and rail estate constraints have added to the cost, together with construction industry inflation[1].

4.5 To deliver a Selby TCF project within the available funding opportunity the following components are proposed to be omitted:

· Selby Park improvements, except for the Abbey and plaza entrances and core spine path.

· Signal Junction alterations at the intersection of The Crescent and Bawtry Road.

· New underpass to Bawtry Road in vicinity of the bus station.

· New railway station building – with an allocation for frontage improvement instead.

Figure 1 – Selby works area

	OBC full scope estimate	FBC full scope estimate	FBC revised scope estimate
Project development	£        4,414,440	£       4,587,982	£       4,587,982
Land assembly	£          745,719	£        3,338,589	£       3,338,589
Enabling works	£                   -	£           195,469	£          195,469
Stage 1 total	£        5,160,159	£        8,122,040	£       8,122,040
Construction	£      10,427,170	£      20,684,508	£      16,899,652
Risk/contingency	£        4,857,333	£        2,745,645	£       2,890,392
Other	£        1,612,805	£        1,720,531	£       1,277,000
Stage 2 total	£      16,897,308	£      25,150,684	£      21,067,045
Total project cost	£      22,057,467	£      33,272,724	£      29,189,085
WYCA TCF funding	£      20,000,000	£      20,000,000	£      20,000,000
NYC funding	£        2,057,000	£        8,900,000	£       8,900,000
Total funding	£      22,057,000	£      28,900,000	£      28,900,000
Difference	£                 467	£        4,567,798	£         289,085

Table 1 – Selby cost comparison

4.6 This would retain the core of a project based around the railway station and focusses on those active travel elements that have the best value for money/business case outcomes.  The BCR will reduce because of this descoping but is still considered acceptable.

4.7 Not progressing with the underpass removes the need for major utility diversions, a long closure of Bawtry Road (estimated to be 7 months) and reduces overall project risk.  This does mean that some fundamental elements of the station gateway scheme will not be delivered through the TCF project, including replacement of the railway station building, the pedestrian/cycle connection to Portholme Road and any improvements to Selby Park other than the spine path.  Upgrades to the rail station building frontage on Station Road are currently in scope, subject to budget availability. In addition, a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) will be tailored to the new scope and require advertising accordingly.

4.8 The council is separately developing its Abbey Quarter proposals and officers will seek to incorporate the descoped Selby Park elements.  Likewise, the emerging Place and Movement Study is considering how movement around the entire town could be improved.  It is therefore considered that future funding opportunities may be identified that could implement improvements at The Crescent/ Bawtry Road and the Bawtry Road/ Park Street/ Station Road junctions. In the longer-term the Selby Station Quarter Masterplan could also deliver the alterations originally proposed through the TCF project.  However, there is currently no approved funding to deliver any of these other potential NYC-led schemes with consequent reductions in the transformational impact on Selby town centre that the station gateway was intended to have.  Alternative funding options will be pursued, including through the future York and North Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.

Skipton

4.9       The original Skipton scheme consisted of:

· Reconfiguration of the rail station car park to accommodate improved pedestrian access, upgrade to landscaping

· Broughton Road corridor – upgraded footways and crossings to improve pedestrian accessibility, narrower carriageway and a 20mph speed limit to improve on carriageway conditions for cyclists

· Railway station to bus station pedestrian improvements - improvements to Black Walk, reconfiguration of the junction at Cavendish Street, new one way on Carleton Street and Gallows Bridge upgrade

· Railway station to college campus pedestrian improvements – upgrade to canal path and new footpath to Aireville Leisure Centre.

4.10     The contractor budget estimate has increased very considerably since OBC.  Drainage/flood protection requirements in the station car park, restricted working hours and constrained working locations have added to the cost, in addition to inflationary increases.

4.11 The Broughton Road corridor and railway station car park are proposed to be omitted to fit the project budget, leaving a project that consists of improvements to Black Walk, the canal path and Gallows Bridge.  This retains the core of a project based around pedestrian access to transport hubs/ education facilities/ cattle mart and focusses on those elements that have the best value for money/business case outcomes as well as the ones with the most public support at consultation.  The BCR will increase because of this descoping due to a focus upon low cost/ high benefit outputs.

Figure 2 – Skipton works area.

	OBC full scope estimate	FBC full scope estimate	FBC revised scope estimate
Project development	£        1,809,808	£        2,461,346	£      2,461,346
Land assembly	£                   -	£                    -	£                  -
Enabling works	£                   -	£                    -	£                  -
Stage 1 total	£        1,809,808	£        2,461,346	£      2,461,346
Construction	£        3,205,873	£        9,486,531	£      4,000,000
Risk/contingency	£        1,573,400	£           450,000	£         450,000
Other	£          600,365	£           882,256	£         250,000
Stage 2 total	£        5,379,638	£      10,818,787	£      4,700,000
Total project cost	£        7,189,446	£      13,280,133	£      7,161,346
WYCA TCF funding	£        7,630,953	£        7,630,953	£      7,630,953
NYC funding	£          200,000	£           200,000	£         200,000
Total funding	£        7,830,953	£        7,830,953	£      7,830,953
Difference	-£          641,507	£       5,449,180	-£         669,607

Table 2 – Skipton cost comparison

4.12 It is recognised that omitting the rail station approach dilutes the original vision, but Officers are working to identify alternative sources of funding to deliver this in the short-to-medium term and in line with the wider strategic vision for this part of Skipton. In addition, a TRO will be tailored to the new scope and require advertising accordingly.

Harrogate

4.13     The original Harrogate scheme consisted of:

· Reallocation of road space on Station Parade with Lower Station Parade and Cheltenham Mount made one way to provide segregated cycle lanes and bus priority.

· Reconfiguration of East Parade roundabout to provide improved cycle infrastructure.

· Improvements to eastern section of James Street and part time pedestrianisation.

· Public realm transformation of Station Square.

· Improved public realm to the north of Victoria Multi-storey Car Park (One Arch).

4.14 In light of the legal challenge and subsequent quashing of the Executive decision, officers considered possible options as outlined at the 19 September 2023 Executive meeting.  These were to deliver a revised scheme, to continue with the original project and risk potential further legal challenges or to cancel the project unequivocally.

4.15     Elements that might be included in a revised scope scheme have been discussed with local members:

· Pedestrian improvements to Lower Station Parade and Station Parade, including paving, level crossing points and signal junction improvements.

· The possibility of a south-bound segregated cycle on Station Parade.

· Lower Station Parade bus lane.

· Public realm improvements to One Arch.

· Public realm improvements to Station Square southern side (retaining existing high quality paving adjacent Victoria shopping centre side).

· Cycle parking facilities at Harrogate Station – if agreed with Network Rail and Northern.

· Linked sequencing of the traffic signals between the Ripon Road/King’s Road and the Station Parade/Victoria Avenue junctions.

Figure 3 – Harrogate works area

4.16 It should be noted that there are risks around developing a revised scope scheme.  It would take around five months to complete a revised development phase of the project, including any public engagement, tailored Traffic Regulation Order(s), and submit an FBC.

4.17 DfT’s financial settlement for 2024/25 has not been confirmed and while project delivery timeframes have been adjusted to March 25, there remains a risk that an FBC milestone submitted post March 2024 in the following financial year might not have its TCF funding confirmed.  Officers are exploring opportunities to accelerate FBC submission in the remainder of 23/24 to mitigate this risk. Assuming in latest timeframe scenario FBC approval is granted in summer 2024, construction would be anticipated to start in autumn 2024.  The extent of any utility diversions is also not yet known, and these have long lead-in and delivery timescales.  It is very likely therefore that the project would continue beyond the TCF programme’s March 2025 spend deadline which may not be acceptable by funders.

4.18 Given the cost increases experienced on the other two TCF projects it is assumed that the original project would have come in similarly overbudget.  Therefore, a reduced scope scheme is not considered likely to achieve savings but rather will require the entire ‘in principle’ TCF budget.  Development of a detailed design and FBC will incur additional development costs and, the extent of any utilities diversions is also currently unquantified but are known to be at shallow depths in the TCF area.  The risk of further budget increase if a revised project is developed cannot be discounted.  Until additional development work is undertaken the cost estimate below, based upon contractor and designer estimates, must be considered indicative only.

	OBC full scope estimate	FBC full scope estimate	FBC revised scope estimate
Project development	£       1,844,533	£        2,900,719	£      3,100,719
Land assembly	£                   -	£                    -	£                   -
Enabling works	£                   -	£                    -	£                   -
Stage 1 total	£       1,844,533	£        2,900,719	£      3,100,719
Construction	£       6,281,798	£        9,165,692	£      6,000,000
Risk/contingency	£       2,541,379	£        1,388,966	£        900,000
Other	£          827,932	£        1,349,076	£     1,100,000
Stage 2 total	£       9,651,109	£      11,903,734	£     8,000,000
Total project cost	£      11,495,642	£      14,804,453	£    11,100,719
WYCA TCF funding	£      10,637,163	£      10,637,163	£   10,637,163
NYC funding	£          550,000	£           550,000	£        550,000
Total funding	£      11,187,163	£      11,187,163	£   11,187,163
Difference	£          308,479	£        3,617,290	-£           86,444

Table 3 – Harrogate cost comparison

4.19 A revised scope scheme would have a negative impact on the BCR, dependent upon the amount of retained cycle infrastructure possible.  It is not known if this would be acceptable to DfT in terms of value for money.

4.20 Should the proposal to develop and deliver a revised scheme in Harrogate be approved, officers will re-commence the development process.  A Change Request would be prepared and submitted to DfT and WYCA covering all three projects, including any changes within the North Yorkshire programme.

5.0       CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES

5.1       Officers continue to engage and consult with DfT and WYCA.  The options presented have been discussed with both organisations.  DfT and WYCA are ‘in principle’ supportive of funding reallocation at programme level, subject to a Change Request being approved.  However, both have repeated that projects need to represent value for money and be deliverable within the TCF programme’s timescales, which has now been aligned with West Yorkshire’s deadline of March 2025.

5.2 The content of the revised scope scheme has been the subject of informal discussions with the ACC and, should the decision be taken to take forward a revised scheme for Harrogate it is proposed that these continue to ensure that the design is supported locally.  A period of public engagement, as well as any TRO public consultation required is also proposed to understand the level of public support and the outcome of this would be reported to the ACC.

6.0       CONTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES

6.1       The scheme contributes to the following council priorities:

· Place and Environment

o A clean, environmentally sustainable and attractive place to live, work and visit

o A well connected and planned place with good transport links and digital connectivity

· Economy

o Economically sustainable growth that enables people and places to prosper

· Health and wellbeing

o People are supported to have a good quality of life and enjoy active and healthy lifestyles

7.0       ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

7.1       Seek increased funding

There is no opportunity to seek increased TCF funding from WYCA, or from another external funding organisation at this point in time.  When considering descoping options officers have taken into account elements that potentially could be included in future funding bids, such as Levelling Up Fund, Devolution opportunities or other transport funds.  Officers have continued to explore the possibility of internal funding to reduce the amount of descoping that is considered necessary. The revised scope projects presented for Skipton and Selby represent a first phase of work, with subsequent phases to be delivered as funding opportunities arise.

7.2       Deliver only two out of three Projects

If any of the projects were not delivered it would allow TCF funding to be reallocated to the other two.  In the case of Harrogate not going ahead it would enable the remaining two projects to be completed without descoping to near original vision; Skipton not going ahead would allow a larger proportion of the remaining projects to be delivered but would not deliver in full. Selby has committed significant land acquisition expenditure and has much greater match funding emanating from the former Selby DC, so is not a realistic non-delivery option.

7.3 Risks/issues/opportunities

· DfT has indicated that there is a risk with any FBC submission where funding approval would be granted in the 2024/25 financial year, post March 2024, due to their budget allocation. This is due to DfT having less funding available in 2024/25 than current year 2023/24 so projects nationally will be competing for less central funding, hence conferring less certainty of a success award. While exploring accelerated FBC avenues, if these do not transpire, there is risk therefore in seeking to develop a revised scope scheme in Harrogate that may not receive funding approval due to milestone timeframe escalation into next financial year.

· WYCA typically set a tolerance on scope outputs or outturn benefits at FBC approval, so a delivery risk is to the fore. For example, once in formal construction contract, if scope / benefits reduce by 10%, any deviation resulting from site working descoping to contain escalating claim related extra over costs would need to be reported back to WYCA; depending on the scale of budget containment measures this could be reportable to a PAT committee. Conversely it could also trigger a DfT Change Protocol. There is risk NYC could be liable for extra over cost beyond the set risk contingency if grant funding bodies do not accept the cost containment descoping actions during works execution.

· The DfT deadline for spend by end of March 2025 will be challenging.  Delays to FBC submission and further Executive reporting, will extend the construction programme.

· Reputational impact of delivering three reduced scope projects or progressing only two out of three projects.

· Opportunity to review and redevelop strategic active travel ambitions aligned with the emerging Local Transport Plan and local planning policies.

8.0       NEXT STEPS

8.1 If approved by Executive, the next step for the three projects is to complete the detailed designs as informed by the descoping outlined above, then prepare and submit the FBC’s to WYCA.  It is anticipated that the FBC will be submitted in December 2023 for Selby and Skipton and May 2024 for Harrogate with an anticipated decision by WYCA around two months later, although it should be noted that officers are exploring ways of accelerating the submission of the Harrogate FBC as outlined in section 4.17.  A further WYCA Assurance stage ‘Approval to Proceed’ (AtP) follows prior to construction start, during which the works contract ‘Target Price’ will be agreed before the council enters into the formal works delivery contract.

8.2 A delivery contractor was engaged on an NEC4 two-stage contract, with the stage 1 Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) phase to assist with developing the project, plan the detailed delivery schedules and provide live market pricing forecasts, followed by the stage 2 works ‘Target Price’ acceptance and entry into works delivery on site.  Between FBC and AtP this Stage 2 contractual price will be determined.  The council will consider whether to accept this price or not at this point.  Under the terms of the contract the council is not obligated to proceed and can sever the contract if the Target Price is unacceptable.  However, the council would then need to seek a different contractor on the open market, which would delay the programme and would not necessarily result in a lower price.

9.0       FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The capital plan for each of the schemes is being aligned to total budget available as follows in Table 4:

9.2 WYCA and DfT have confirmed in principle that the TCF funding for the three projects could be treated as a programme meaning potentially any savings on one project could be reallocated as needed.  Any proposed reallocation would have to be justified, via a WYCA Change Request and gain Department for Transport approval also.  

	OBC full scope estimate	FBC full scope estimate	FBC revised scope estimate
Project development	£        8,068,781	£        9,950,047	£    10,150,047
Land assembly	£          745,719	£        3,338,589	£     3,338,589
Enabling works	£                   -	£           195,469	£        195,469
Stage 1 total	£        8,814,500	£      13,484,105	£    13,684,105
Construction	£      19,914,841	£      39,336,731	£    26,899,652
Risk/contingency	£        8,972,112	£        4,584,611	£      4,240,392
Other	£        3,041,102	£        3,951,863	£      2,627,000
Stage 2 total	£      31,928,055	£      47,873,205	£   33,767,045
Total project cost	£      40,742,555	£      61,357,310	£   47,451,150
WYCA TCF funding	£      38,268,116	£      38,268,116	£      38,268,116
NYC funding	£        2,807,000	£        9,650,000	£       9,650,000
Total funding	£      41,075,116	£      47,918,116	£      47,918,116
Difference	-£          332,561	£      13,439,194	-£          466,967

Table 4 – TCF Programme cost comparison

9.3 As set out at paragraph 4.17 the Harrogate TCF project is funded with £10.6m from the DfT’s TCF and additional match-funding of £550k from the council.  The Selby TCF project is funded with £20m TCF funding with additional match-funding of £8.7m from the council (paragraph 4.5). The Skipton TCF project is funded with £7.6m TCF funding and £200k match-funding from the council (Paragraph 4.11).  Should the final cost forecast exceed the budget allocations, which includes risk and contingency allowances, budget savings would be identified in the first instance, both in terms of scope and extent of materials to ensure the project is contained within the final agreed budget allocation.

9.4 DfT has indicated that there is a risk with any FBC submission where funding approval would be granted in the 2024/25 financial year, that is after March 2024, due to their budget allocation. There is risk therefore in seeking to develop a revised scope scheme in Harrogate that it might not receive funding approval.

9.5 The form of contract includes a financial pain/gain share, penalty / bonus with the contractor under an NEC 4 Option 3 form of contract depending upon outturn performance and a risk plus contingency allocation has been included to manage potential cost increases during construction to cover the council’s risk.  However, any costs over this amount would be at the council’s risk and require additional funding to be found or require the project to be further descoped. There is a risk that once the scope of the project is agreed with approval of the Final Business Case, any cost overruns would be at the Council’s risk. Details are set out in section 7.3 above.

9.6 Liaison with DfT has agreed the extension of the TCF spend requirement beyond the original funding period deadline of March 2024 to March 2025.  This places the North Yorkshire projects on the same basis as the West Yorkshire TCF projects.  Although this risk has now reduced, it still remains, with any spend beyond this date at the council’s risk.  This is being actively managed in liaison with WYCA / DfT as the project continues to be developed towards FBC and works delivery milestones.

10.0     LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

10.1 Assuming funding is approved by WYCA and DfT, the council will be expected to enter into contract with the funder as well as agree a target price and enter into contract with the contractor. From this point on, the council will be contractually liable for any cost increases.

10.2 The legal implications of a revised scope scheme for Harrogate, including any implications in relation to Traffic Regulation Orders, would be considered as part of any development work.

11.0     EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

11.1 Consideration has been given to the potential for any adverse equality’s impacts arising from the recommendations in the report and individual Equality Impact Assessments completed for the three schemes and can be found at Appendix A.  The recommendations included in this report take into account any potential impacts on any of the protected characteristics identified in the Equalities Act 2010.

12.0     CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS

12.1     Consideration has been given to the potential for any adverse impacts on climate change arising from the recommendations of this report.  Completed Climate Change Impact Assessments for each project can be found at Appendix B.  As with all capital projects, carbon emissions will be created as a result of construction, therefore reduced scope schemes are likely to have reduced carbon impacts.  However, the opportunity for carbon reduction through modal shift is also likely to reduce as a result of any reduced scope.

13.0     CONCLUSIONS

13.1     This report provides Executive with options to consider the future direction of the TCF programme, in recognition of cost escalations and the impacts on affordability across the three projects.  A decision is required whether to progress with three reduced-scope projects or whether to commit to fewer projects and reallocate funding within the programme to realise the original visions of those projects.

13.2 At both Selby and Skipton masterplans have been developed for the areas adjacent to the rail station, with redevelopment and major improvement of these areas planned to take advantage of the uplift from the TCF schemes. The descoping or deletion of either of the TCF scheme will have implications for the deliverability of these major regeneration projects, both of which include several NYC-owned sites.

13.3 To progress the three North Yorkshire TCF projects within the available funding envelope it is clear rising market costs have eroded the ability to deliver against the original full scoped visions, thus descoped affordable variants are necessary.  While progressing with a reduced number of projects is a consideration, choosing which towns project to defer or cancel is an unpalatable decision.  The recommendation is to continue with all three projects and take a pragmatic approach to delivery of affordable elements through the TCF, while retaining a longer-term ambition to complete the full visions for Skipton and Selby via future phasing as funding opportunities arise.

14.0     REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

14.1     To enable submission of FBCs to WYCA for the North Yorkshire TCF projects and their delivery.  

15.0      RECOMMENDATIONS

15.1 It is recommended that the Executive approve:

i) the descoping options outlined for Selby, the preparation and submission of a Full Business Case, with approval of the detail delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director of Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation. In the event that the Full Business Case is approved by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, to delegate the acceptance of the TCF funding to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, subject to the scheme being affordable, acceptable terms and conditions being received, and for a satisfactory TRO outcome, the scheme to be implemented; and

ii) the descoping options outlined for Skipton, the preparation and submission of a Full Business Case, with approval of the detail delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director of Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation. In the event that the Full Business Case is approved by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, to delegate the acceptance of the TCF funding to the Corporate Director of Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, subject to the scheme being affordable, and acceptable terms and conditions being received, and for a satisfactory TRO outcome the scheme to be implemented; and

iii) the descoping options outlined for Harrogate, the preparation and submission of a Full Business Case, with approval of the detail delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director of Resources and Executive Member for Highways and Transportation. In the event that the Full Business Case is approved by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, to delegate the acceptance of the TCF funding to the Corporate Director Resources in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, subject to the scheme being affordable, and acceptable terms and conditions being received, and for a satisfactory TRO and public engagement outcome the scheme to be implemented.

APPENDICES:

Appendix A – Equality Impact Assessments

Appendix B – Climate Impact Assessments

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:

30 May 2023 Executive Meeting reports pack

19 September 2003 Executive Meeting reports pack

Karl Battersby

Corporate Director – Environment

County Hall

Northallerton

November 2023

Report Author – Barrie Mason – Assistant Director, Highways and Transportation, Parking Services, Street Scene, Parks and Grounds

Presenter of Report – Richard Binks – Head of Major Projects and Infrastructure.

Note: Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.

Equality impact assessment (EIA) form: evidencing paying due regard to protected characteristics

(Form updated October 2023)

Selby Transforming Cities Fund project

If you would like this information in another language or format such as Braille, large print or audio, please contact the Communications Unit on 01609 53 2013 or email communications@northyorks.gov.uk.

Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) are public documents.  EIAs accompanying reports going to County Councillors for decisions are published with the committee papers on our website and are available in hard copy at the relevant meeting.  To help people to find completed EIAs we also publish them in the Equality and Diversity section of our website.  This will help people to see for themselves how we have paid due regard in order to meet statutory requirements. 

Name of Directorate and Service Area	Major Projects & Infrastructure, Environment
Lead Officer and contact details	Tania Weston, tania.weston@northyorks.gov.uk
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the EIA	Matt Roberts, Richard Binks
How will you pay due regard? e.g. working group, individual officer	Project team
When did the due regard process start?	March 2020

Section 1. Please describe briefly what this EIA is about. (e.g. are you starting a new service, changing how you do something, stopping doing something?)

This EIA has been completed as the project reaches Full Business Case completion.

The Transforming Cities fund is aimed at driving economic growth through sustainable and inclusive access to employment and education opportunities. The project seeks to make improve the area around the bus and railway stations and surrounding streets with the introduction of cycle lanes, widening of footways, new one-way traffic flows and an improved bus area. See FBC documents for more information.

The Selby TCF's intention is to:

· deliver an improved station gateway

· improve levels of walking and cycling and public transport use by enhancing facilities, creating better routes to the station gateway area

· improve sustainable access between current and future development sites, the station area and the town centre

· contribute to improved local air quality

· contribute to reduced carbon emissions through a shift to sustainable travel modes

· enhance the streetscape between the station gateway and the town centre

Section 2. Why is this being proposed? What are the aims? What does the authority hope to achieve by it? (e.g. to save money, meet increased demand, do things in a better way.)

The desired outcomes are:

· Improved connectivity across Selby, including direct links between the town centre, bus and rail stations

· Increased access to services, employment and education opportunities within the local area and across the wider Leeds City Region

· Modal shift from private vehicles to sustainable modes, reducing vehicle dominance

· Improved safety and reduced road traffic accidents

· Improved links between town centre and key employment sites, amenities/ services, educational facilities etc.

· Reduced pollutants (GHG and particulates) associated with vehicle traffic.

· Improved pedestrian and cyclist experience

Section 3. What will change? What will be different for customers and/or staff?

Walking and cycling routes between the railway and bus stations and town centre will be improved with more level access and high-quality materials. A new station access and car parking to the east of the railway station, along with a new entrance and route through Selby Park makes use by sustainable travel means a good option, including EV charging points (capable of full rollout as demand increased), and increased numbers of disabled parking.

Section 4. Involvement and consultation (What involvement and consultation has been done regarding the proposal and what are the results? What consultation will be needed and how will it be done?)

The project has been shaped by three rounds of public consultation (Oct 2019, March 2021, Nov 2021), plus there will be statutory TRO consultation for the highway changes. In addition, stakeholder engagement has taken place with organisations including: Selby District Disability Forum, Network Rail (including the Built Environment Accessibility Panel) and TransPennine Express (including the Accessibility Manager), Selby District Rail User Group, Selby Town Council, Civic Society, bus operators, taxi operators and cycle groups, businesses and residents. Engagement during Covid restrictions included mailings to a range of seldom heard groups and online sessions.

Section 5. What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

Please explain briefly why this will be the result.

The project has funding allocated by NYC (originally allocated by the predecessor authorities of Selby District Council and North Yorkshire County Council). The majority of the project funding will come DfT’s Transforming Cities Fund, administered by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

Once the works are complete maintenance costs should reduce in the medium-to-long-term.

Section 6. How will this proposal affect people with protected characteristics	No impact	Make things better	Make things worse	Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
Age		X		The potential impact is considered to be positive. The project design includes additional benches to provide people with more opportunity to rest if needed which is likely to benefit oldest and youngest people/those with young children. Replacement of the steps up to Bawtry Road will provide a safety improvement. Given Selby district's older age profile this is likely to have a positive impact. Dedicated cycle provision that provides safe, often segregated routes, benefit more vulnerable users, including youngest and oldest. The increasing popularity of e-bikes offers positive opportunities for older people who may be less mobile. The provision of dedicated cycle infrastructure may therefore benefit older people as well as younger people. Providing better walking and cycling infrastructure benefit those who do not or cannot drive. Younger people are less likely to drive/know how to drive, so, again, this is likely to benefit them. The station area currently has very narrow or no pavement in places. Increasing pavement provision and widths will have a positive impact on those with young children in prams or pushchairs.
Disability		X		The potential impact is considered to be positive. The project design includes new level crossing points, widened pavements and additional benches, all of which will positively impact on disabled people. Materials have been selected to provide visual contrast to aid wayfinding for those with visual disabilities. The new access to the east side of the railway station will guarantee level access, even if the station's new lifts were to be out of operation. Replacement of the steps up to Bawtry Road will provide a safety improvement. Dedicated cycle provision that provides safe, often segregated routes, benefit more vulnerable users, including those disabled people who may use cycles or e-bikes. Segregated cycle routes have been designed to reduce the potential for conflict between users. Disabled and wide bay parking provision will increase and will include EV charging. Taxi and drop-off spaces will also increase in size.
Sex				Consultation feedback highlighted a need to ensure people feel safe in the area, especially around the park/plaza areas. This feedback was raised especially in relation to those people with protected characteristics, especially lone women, who might feel more vulnerable in public spaces. A Designing Out Crime approach has been taken. The design has considered sight lines and lighting to ensure that people feel safe.
Race	X			Consultation feedback highlighted a need to ensure people feel safe in the area, especially in the dark (evening/night-time) when travelling alone in less busy areas. This feedback was raised especially in relation to those people with protected characteristics who might feel more vulnerable in public spaces. A Designing Out Crime approach has been taken. The design has considered sight lines and lighting to ensure that people feel safe.
Gender reassignment	X			Consultation feedback highlighted a need to ensure people feel safe in the area, especially in the dark (evening/night-time) when travelling alone in less busy areas. This feedback was raised especially in relation to those people with protected characteristics who might feel more vulnerable in public spaces. A Designing Out Crime approach has been taken. The design has considered sight lines and lighting to ensure that people feel safe.
Sexual orientation	X			Consultation feedback highlighted a need to ensure people feel safe in the area, especially in the dark (evening/night-time) when travelling alone in less busy areas. This feedback was raised especially in relation to those people with protected characteristics who might feel more vulnerable in public spaces. A Designing Out Crime approach has been taken. The design has considered sight lines and lighting to ensure that people feel safe.
Religion or belief	X			Selby Abbey is adjacent to the TCF project area. It is considered that there won't be any impact once construction is complete. However, during construction works there may be some disruption which could impact people visiting the Abbey. There will need to be early notice of construction works so that people are aware of the project and any temporary interruptions. The contractors will need to build good relations to ensure good communication.
Pregnancy or maternity		X		The potential impact is considered to be positive. The project design includes additional benches that will provide more opportunity to rest if needed which is likely to benefit pregnant women. Level access and wider footways will provide a safety improvement.
Marriage or civil partnership	X			n/a

Section 7. How will this proposal affect people who…	No impact	Make things better	Make things worse	Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
..live in a rural area?		X		The proposal is likely to have a positive impact for those living in Selby’s rural hinterland through improved connectivity between town centre and transport hubs, providing better connections to employment and education within town as well as the wider Leeds city region area.
…have a low income?		X		People on low incomes are more likely to walk or use public transport. A scheme that prioritises pedestrians, cyclists and public transport connectivity is therefore likely to have a positive impact.
…are carers (unpaid family or friend)?	X
….. are from the Armed Forces Community	X

Section 8. Geographic impact – Please detail where the impact will be (please tick all that apply)
North Yorkshire wide
Craven
Hambleton
Harrogate
Richmondshire
Ryedale
Scarborough
Selby	X
If you have ticked one or more areas, will specific town(s)/village(s) be particularly impacted? If so, please specify below.

Section 9. Will the proposal affect anyone more because of a combination of protected characteristics? (e.g. older women or young gay men) State what you think the effect may be and why, providing evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.

No.

Section 10. Next steps to address the anticipated impact. Select one of the following options and explain why this has been chosen. (Remember: we have an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people can access services and work for us)	Tick option chosen
1. No adverse impact - no major change needed to the proposal. There is no potential for discrimination or adverse impact identified.	X
2. Adverse impact - adjust the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We will change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, or we will achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people.
3. Adverse impact - continue the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We cannot change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, nor can we achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people. (There must be compelling reasons for continuing with proposals which will have the most adverse impacts. Get advice from Legal Services)
4. Actual or potential unlawful discrimination - stop and remove the proposal – The EIA identifies actual or potential unlawful discrimination. It must be stopped.
Explanation of why option has been chosen. (Include any advice given by Legal Services.) This is an infrastructure project to predominantly improve walking, cycling and public transport connections within Selby. The aim is to result in positive benefits for those living or working in, and visiting the town.

Section 11. If the proposal is to be implemented how will you find out how it is really affecting people? (How will you monitor and review the changes?)

The TCF scheme will have a programme of monitoring and evaluation. This will include qualitative and quantative evaluation.

Section 12. Action plan. List any actions you need to take which have been identified in this EIA, including post implementation review to find out how the outcomes have been achieved in practice and what impacts there have actually been on people with protected characteristics.
Action	Lead	By when	Progress	Monitoring arrangements
Develop monitoring and evaluation plan	TCF project manager	Project start	Commenced
Monitor project outputs and outcomes	TCF project manager	Project start to completion	Not yet started

Section 13. Summary Summarise the findings of your EIA, including impacts, recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

The project should have either positive impacts or no negative impacts on those with protected characteristics. Outputs and outcomes will be capture and measured through a monitoring and evaluation plan and evaluated at the end of the project.

Section 14. Sign off section

This full EIA was completed by:

Name: Tania Weston

Job title: TCF Programme Manager

Directorate: Environment

Signature: T Weston

Completion date: 14 November 2023

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Barrie Mason

Date: November 2023

Equality impact assessment (EIA) form: evidencing paying due regard to protected characteristics

(Form updated October 2023)

Skipton Transforming Cities Fund project

If you would like this information in another language or format such as Braille, large print or audio, please contact the Communications Unit on 01609 53 2013 or email communications@northyorks.gov.uk.

Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) are public documents.  EIAs accompanying reports going to County Councillors for decisions are published with the committee papers on our website and are available in hard copy at the relevant meeting.  To help people to find completed EIAs we also publish them in the Equality and Diversity section of our website.  This will help people to see for themselves how we have paid due regard in order to meet statutory requirements. 

Name of Directorate and Service Area	Major Projects & Infrastructure, Environment
Lead Officer and contact details	Tania Weston, tania.weston@northyorks.gov.uk
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the EIA	Matt Roberts, Richard Binks
How will you pay due regard? e.g. working group, individual officer	Project team
When did the due regard process start?	March 2020

Section 1. Please describe briefly what this EIA is about. (e.g. are you starting a new service, changing how you do something, stopping doing something?)

This EIA has been completed as the project reaches Full Business Case completion.

The Transforming Cities fund is aimed at driving economic growth through sustainable and inclusive access to employment and education opportunities. The project seeks to make improve access between the railway station, town centre, employment and education centres and the bus station, with a new station gateway approach, new EV provision, new and/or widened footways etc.

The Skipton TCF's intention is to:

- deliver an improved station gateway with improved access

- improve access between the station and town centre along Swadford Street

- improve access between the station and the bus station via Black Walk

- Improve footway access to the Auction Mart via the canal

Section 2. Why is this being proposed? What are the aims? What does the authority hope to achieve by it? (e.g. to save money, meet increased demand, do things in a better way.)

The desired outcomes are:

- Improved walking links and sustainable access between the station and town centre

- Improved environment/sense of place and connection between town and public transport hubs

- Reduced number of road safety incidents

- Increased access to services, employment and education opportunities within the local area and across the wider Leeds City Region

- Increased rates of walking, cycling and public transport use. More sustainable commuting patterns.

- Development and further investment in the town is supported and unlocked.

- Reduced pollutants (GHG and particulates) associated with vehicle traffic.

Section 3. What will change? What will be different for customers and/or staff?

Walking routes between the railway station and town centre, bus station, college and Cattle Mart will be improved with more level access and high-quality paving materials. There will be a better station forecourt and car park layout that makes use by sustainable travel means a good option, including EV charging points (capable of full rollout as demand increased), and increased numbers of disabled parking and better entry and exit points.

Section 4. Involvement and consultation (What involvement and consultation has been done regarding the proposal and what are the results? What consultation will be needed and how will it be done?)

The project has been shaped by two rounds of public consultation (in March 2021 and November 2021) as well as engagement with key stakeholders, such as councillors, property owners, rail authorities, Skipton Town Council, Civic Society, bus operators, taxi operators and cycle groups, businesses and residents. Statutory consultation for the Traffic Regulation Orders has also taken place. Engagement during Covid restrictions included mailings to a range of seldom heard groups and online sessions.

Section 5. What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

Please explain briefly why this will be the result.

The project has funding allocated by NYC (originally allocated by the predecessor authorities of Craven District Council and North Yorkshire County Council). The majority of the project funding will come DfT’s Transforming Cities Fund, administered by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

Once the works are complete maintenance costs should reduce in the medium-to-long-term.

Section 6. How will this proposal affect people with protected characteristics?	No impact	Make things better	Make things worse	Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
Age		X		The project design includes additional benches to provide people with more opportunity to rest if needed which is likely to benefit oldest and youngest people/those with young children. Given the former Craven district's older age profile this is likely to have a positive impact. Providing better walking infrastructure benefits those who do not or cannot drive. Younger people are less likely to drive/know how to drive, so this is likely to benefit them as well as older or disabled people who may not drive. The TCF area currently has very narrow or no pavement in places. Increasing pavement provision and widths will have a positive impact on those with young children in prams or pushchairs.
Disability		X		The project design includes level crossing points, widened pavements and additional benches, all of which will positively impact on disabled people. Materials have been selected to provide visual contrast to aid wayfinding for those with visual disabilities. Disabled and wide bay parking provision will increase and will include EV charging. Taxi and drop-off spaces will also increase in size.
Sex				Consultation feedback highlighted a need to ensure people feel safe in the area, especially in the evening/night-time when travelling along Black Walk and across the canal, which are less busy. This feedback was raised especially in relation to those people with protected characteristics, especially lone women, who might feel more vulnerable in public spaces. A Designing Out Crime approach has been taken. The design has considered sight lines and lighting to ensure that people feel safe.
Race	X			Consultation feedback highlighted a need to ensure people feel safe in the area, especially in the evening/night-time when travelling alone along Black Walk and across the canal, which are less busy. This feedback was raised especially in relation to those people with protected characteristics who might feel more vulnerable in public spaces. A Designing Out Crime approach has been taken. The design has considered sight lines and lighting to ensure that people feel safe.
Gender reassignment	X			Consultation feedback highlighted a need to ensure people feel safe in the area, especially in the evening/night-time when travelling alone along Black Walk and across the canal, which are less busy. This feedback was raised especially in relation to those people with protected characteristics who might feel more vulnerable in public spaces. A Designing Out Crime approach has been taken. The design has considered sight lines and lighting to ensure that people feel safe.
Sexual orientation	X			Consultation feedback highlighted a need to ensure people feel safe in the area, especially in the evening/night-time when travelling alone along Black Walk and across the canal, which are less busy. This feedback was raised especially in relation to those people with protected characteristics who might feel more vulnerable in public spaces. A Designing Out Crime approach has been taken. The design has considered sight lines and lighting to ensure that people feel safe.
Religion or belief	X			There are two places of worship within the TCF project area: Carleton Street/Cross Street (Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christ Church). It is considered that there won't be any impact once construction is complete. However, during construction works there will be some disruption which could impact users of these buildings. There will need to be early notice of construction works so that people are aware of the project and any temporary interruptions. The contractors will need to build good relations to ensure good communication.
Pregnancy or maternity		X		The potential impact is considered to be positive. The project design includes additional benches that will provide more opportunity to rest if needed which is likely to benefit pregnant women. Level access and wider footways will provide a safety improvement.
Marriage or civil partnership	X			n/a

Section 7. How will this proposal affect people who…	No impact	Make things better	Make things worse	Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
..live in a rural area?		X		The proposal is likely to have a positive impact for those living in Skipton’s rural hinterland through improved connectivity between town centre and transport hubs, providing better connections to employment and education within town as well as the wider Leeds city region area.
…have a low income?		X		People on low incomes are more likely to walk or use public transport. A scheme that prioritises pedestrians is therefore likely to have a positive impact.
…are carers (unpaid family or friend)?	X
….. are from the Armed Forces Community	X

Section 8. Geographic impact – Please detail where the impact will be (please tick all that apply)
North Yorkshire wide
Craven	X
Hambleton
Harrogate
Richmondshire
Ryedale
Scarborough
Selby
If you have ticked one or more areas, will specific town(s)/village(s) be particularly impacted? If so, please specify below.

Section 9. Will the proposal affect anyone more because of a combination of protected characteristics? (e.g. older women or young gay men) State what you think the effect may be and why, providing evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.

No.

Section 10. Next steps to address the anticipated impact. Select one of the following options and explain why this has been chosen. (Remember: we have an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people can access services and work for us)	Tick option chosen
1. No adverse impact - no major change needed to the proposal. There is no potential for discrimination or adverse impact identified.	X
2. Adverse impact - adjust the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We will change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, or we will achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people.
3. Adverse impact - continue the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We cannot change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, nor can we achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people. (There must be compelling reasons for continuing with proposals which will have the most adverse impacts. Get advice from Legal Services)
4. Actual or potential unlawful discrimination - stop and remove the proposal – The EIA identifies actual or potential unlawful discrimination. It must be stopped.
Explanation of why option has been chosen. (Include any advice given by Legal Services.) This is an infrastructure project to predominantly improve walking connections within Skipton. The aim is to result in positive benefits for those living or working in, and visiting the town.

Section 11. If the proposal is to be implemented how will you find out how it is really affecting people? (How will you monitor and review the changes?)

The TCF scheme will have a programme of monitoring and evaluation. This will include qualitative and quantative evaluation.

Section 12. Action plan. List any actions you need to take which have been identified in this EIA, including post implementation review to find out how the outcomes have been achieved in practice and what impacts there have actually been on people with protected characteristics.
Action	Lead	By when	Progress	Monitoring arrangements
Develop monitoring and evaluation plan	TCF project manager	Project start	Commenced
Monitor project outputs and outcomes	TCF project manager	Project start to completion	Not yet started

Section 13. Summary Summarise the findings of your EIA, including impacts, recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

The project should have either positive impacts or no negative impacts on those with protected characteristics. Outputs and outcomes will be capture and measured through a monitoring and evaluation plan and evaluated at the end of the project.

Section 14. Sign off section

This full EIA was completed by:

Name: Tania Weston

Job title: TCF Programme Manager

Directorate: Environment

Signature: T Weston

Completion date: 14 November 2023

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Barrie Mason

Date: November 2023

Initial equality impact assessment screening form This form records an equality screening process to determine the relevance of equality to a proposal, and a decision whether or not a full EIA would be appropriate or proportionate.
Directorate	Environment
Service area	Major Projects & Infrastructure
Proposal being screened	Harrogate Transforming Cities Fund
Officer(s) carrying out screening	Tania Weston
What are you proposing to do?	Develop a reduced-scope TCF scheme to deliver an improved Station Gateway in Harrogate.
Why are you proposing this? What are the desired outcomes?	The aim is to deliver an improved area, including public realm, around the bus and railway stations, with enhanced access for pedestrians, balanced with the needs of other users, to encourage more people to use public transport and to access public transport by sustainable travel modes. Safety and security for all are also considerations.
Does the proposal involve a significant commitment or removal of resources? Please give details.	The scheme as originally envisaged attracted development funding from WYCA (DfT fund) with in principle funding for delivery, as well as a commitment of funding from the Council.
Impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, or NYC’s additional agreed characteristics As part of this assessment, please consider the following questions: · To what extent is this service used by particular groups of people with protected characteristics? · Does the proposal relate to functions that previous consultation has identified as important? · Do different groups have different needs or experiences in the area the proposal relates to? If for any characteristic it is considered that there is likely to be an adverse impact or you have ticked ‘Don’t know/no info available’, then a full EIA should be carried out where this is proportionate. You are advised to speak to your directorate representative for advice if you are in any doubt.
Protected characteristic		Potential for adverse impact				Don’t know/No info available
		Yes		No
Age				X
Disability				X
Sex				X
Race				X
Sexual orientation				X
Gender reassignment				X
Religion or belief				X
Pregnancy or maternity				X
Marriage or civil partnership				X
People in rural areas				X
People on a low income				X
Carer (unpaid family or friend)				X
Are from the Armed Forces Community				X
Does the proposal relate to an area where there are known inequalities/probable impacts (for example, disabled people’s access to public transport)? Please give details.		The area is located within one of the more deprived areas of Harrogate (IMD). If the project was developed it should enhance, rather than inhibit people’s ability to access travel options and opportunities.
Will the proposal have a significant effect on how other organisations operate? (for example, partners, funding criteria, etc.). Do any of these organisations support people with protected characteristics? Please explain why you have reached this conclusion.		No
Decision (Please tick one option)		EIA not relevant or proportionate:	ü		Continue to full EIA:
Reason for decision		No adverse impact on any groups with protected characteristics. An EIA is not considered proportionate at this stage. Should the scheme progress a full EIA will be completed and regularly updated.
Signed (Assistant Director or equivalent)		Barrie Mason
Date		20/11/2023

Climate Impact Assessments

The purpose of this assessment is to help us understand the likely impacts of our decisions on the environment of North Yorkshire and on our aspiration to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030, or as close to that date as possible. The intention is to mitigate negative effects and identify projects which will have positive effects.

This document should be completed in consultation with the supporting guidance. The final document will be published as part of the decision making process and should be written in Plain English.

If you have any additional queries which are not covered by the guidance please email climatechange@northyorks.gov.uk

Version 2: amended 11 August 2021

Please note: You may not need to undertake this assessment if your proposal will be subject to any of the following:
Planning Permission

Environmental Impact Assessment

Strategic Environmental Assessment

However, you will still need to summarise your findings in the summary section of the form below.

Please contact climatechange@northyorks.gov.uk for advice.

Title of proposal	Transforming Cities Fund Programme – Harrogate, Selby and Skipton
Brief description of proposal	Improvements to infrastructure in town centres to allow for more sustainable access to education and employment opportunities
Directorate	Environment
Service area	Highways
Lead officer	Richard Binks (Head of Major Projects)
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the impact assessment	Tania Weston (TCF Programme Delivery Manager) Matt Roberts (Economic and Regeneration Project Manager)
Date impact assessment started	2021

Options appraisal

Were any other options considered in trying to achieve the aim of this project? If so, please give brief details and explain why alternative options were not progressed.

A full options appraisal was carried out for the projects and described in the Outline Business Cases which gained approval from host promoting body West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) in June 2021. This is a large document, available on request.

The optioneering process pursued is described in detail in the Option Assessment Report (OAR) within the OBC. However, since the Outline Business Case Submission construction costs and inflation have increased. Officers are working to bring forward schemes with reduced scopes that are affordable yet transformative.

Previously, carbon assessments have been produced for the projects over their lifespans. These assessments will be reproduced to reflect the revised scopes.

What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

Please explain briefly why this will be the result, detailing estimated savings or costs where this is possible.

Harrogate

The project has been allocated £10.637m in baseline Grant Funding from the Transforming Cities fund (TCF), administered regionally by WYCA; a further £550k has been funded by NYC (and previously Harrogate Borough Council).

Skipton

The project has been allocated £7.7m in baseline Grant Funding from the Transforming Cities fund (TCF), administered regionally by WYCA; a further £200k has been funded by NYC (and previously Craven District Council)

Selby

The project has been allocated £20m in baseline Grant Funding from the Transforming Cities fund (TCF), administered regionally by WYCA; a further £8.7m has been funded by NYC (and previously Selby District Council).

It should be noted that the project areas will have been part of medium/long term upgrade plans. Government funding will alleviate these future spends. Maintenance costs will also decrease in the medium/long term as new infrastructure will have longer lifespans.

How will this proposal impact on the environment? N.B. There may be short term negative impact and longer term positive impact. Please include all potential impacts over the lifetime of a project and provide an explanation.		Positive impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	No impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Negative impact (Place a X in the box below where relevant)	Explain why will it have this effect and over what timescale? Where possible/relevant please include: · Changes over and above business as usual · Evidence or measurement of effect · Figures for CO2e · Links to relevant documents	Explain how you plan to mitigate any negative impacts.	Explain how you plan to improve any positive outcomes as far as possible.
Minimise greenhouse gas emissions e.g. reducing emissions from travel, increasing energy efficiencies etc.	Emissions from travel	X			Programme Level Provision of new pedestrian, cycling and rail/bus access infrastructure is expected to encourage a modal-shift to active and shared modes, thereby avoiding trips that would otherwise have occurred by private vehicle. As such, modal-shift and changes in traffic flows influenced by the scheme are expected to have an overall beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. A full assessment will be produced for the three schemes prior to full business case submission. Harrogate Changes to the Station Parade Junction will see a beneficial change in traffic flows; the junction improvements are anticipated to slightly reduce delays and thereby improve efficiency of flows and reduce stop-start traffic. Moreover, keeping Station Parade as two lanes will not result in any rerouting, which could otherwise impact traffic flows and result in congestion beyond the scheme extent. Selby EV charging will be introduced at the rail station car parks.		All opportunities will be taken to alleviate the impact of congestion in town centres whilst maximising modal shift to sustainable travel.
	Emissions from construction			X	The manufacture and transport of materials required for construction of the schemes (i.e. embodied carbon) is expected to cause an increase in carbon emissions. This is expected to largely relate to embodied carbon associated with resurfacing (asphalt, bitumen and aggregates), new surfacing and concrete associated with new kerbs. Additional construction materials and processes that will lead to an increase in carbon emissions include production of steel, concrete (e.g. drainage) and transport of workers to site. In addition the import/export of material for earthworks may contribute to transport emissions. Traffic management and diversions required may cause an increase in journey lengths and congestion during the construction stage. This may cause some increase in emissions associated with increased stop-start traffic and reduced fuel efficiency resulting from congestion.	Appropriate traffic management through the development and use of robust construction management plans will reduce this impact. The scheme comprises improvements to existing highway infrastructure that is expected to reduce future maintenance requirements such as resurfacing.
	Emissions from running of buildings		X
	Emissions from data storage		X
	Other	X			The Programme aims to have a net gain in trees and planting that will increase CO2 storage capacity.
Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost e.g. reducing use of single use plastic				X	The nature of town centre reconstruction does not support the reuse or recycling of most of the waste material.	Engagement with contractors on sustainable construction practices such as use of sustainable materials (e.g. recycled aggregates) and on-site re-use of materials.
Reduce water consumption			X
Minimise pollution (including air, land, water, light and noise)			X		Whilst noise/air pollution from construction may increase in the short term, this will be offset by modal shift to sustainable transport in the longer term.	The contractors will have strict noise, light, vibration limitations at specific times.	A construction Management Plan will be produced for each scheme that will outline operational hours, controls and mitigations for noise, vibration, artificial light, dust & dirt.
Ensure resilience to the effects of climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, mitigating effects of drier, hotter summers		X			Each project will have a net gain in terms of biodiversity (trees and planting). Trees will provide shade. The schemes’ designs incorporate landscaped rain gardens, thereby reducing overall impermeable area that will help reduce flood risk under anticipated future climate conditions. Specific plant species will be selected that withstand summer drought and winter deluges.
Enhance conservation and wildlife		X			The programme aims to have a net gain in biodiversity through the planting of new trees and landscaping.		Further development of landscaping and public realm design, including selection of number and species of tree planting.
Safeguard the distinctive characteristics, features and special qualities of North Yorkshire’s landscape			X
Other (please state below)		X			The programme improves the Steet scene in the towns with high quality materials and soft landscaping.	Adopt benchmark urban design	Emphasis upon high quality urban realm

Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards.

Biodiversity Net Gain and Carbon Assessments will be undertaken for each project.

The primary highway infrastructure standard being applied is LTN/120 which introduces new benchmark design to cycle travel infrastructure. 

Summary Summarise the findings of your impact assessment, including impacts, the recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

Over the programme's lifetime it is expected that the operational benefits from modal-shift, tree planting and future year changes in general traffic flows will outweigh the adverse impacts related to embodied carbon and tree loss. However, based on the current assumptions it is predicted that it will take a number of years until this 'carbon debt' from the construction stage is balanced by beneficial impacts.

Modal-shift emission reductions however have the potential to be greater than modelled if wider factors outside the proposed schemes encourage

greater behaviour change for uptake of walking, cycling and bus/rail, which these infrastructure improvements will directly support and enable.

The Programme will deliver sustainable travel accessibility and infrastructure improvements to respond to existing demands on the local transport networks which include congestion and journey time unreliability. By improving the aesthetics of the Gateway areas, through public realm and townscape enhancements, combined with delivering multi-modal accessibility and connectivity improvements, the proposals will help to deliver ‘healthy streets’ in the town centres

Sign off section

This climate change impact assessment was completed by:

Name	Matt Roberts
Job title	Economic and Regeneration Project Manager
Service area	Major Projects and Infrastructure
Directorate	Environment
Signature
Completion date	20/11/2023

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Barrie Mason

Date: 20/11/2023

---

[1] Office for National Statistics records increases of c27% between Q1 2020 to Q3 2023