Selby
Skipton
North Yorkshire Council
Executive
4 February 2025
Transforming Cities Fund Works Contract Entry Authority
Report of the Corporate Director - Environment
1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 To gain delegated approval for the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) programme to submit any necessary Station Change proposals, enter into the construction contracts, post grant funding body Approval to Proceed assurance stage, accept full grants and subject to affordable tender pricing received from contractor and acceptable terms and conditions being received.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 In November 2023 Executive approved the submission of Full Business Cases for the three projects and delegated 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 Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) outcome, the scheme to be implemented.
2.2 Officers are now seeking to reaffirm that Executive make the decision to delegate final approval to enable acceptance of the final TCF funding, enable any minor works scope adjustments to ensure the works tender price is within tolerance of the funding available and to enter the contracts to deliver the construction of the schemes in line with necessary timescales. It is necessary for the Council to formally accept this TCF funding to comply with the Council’s governance procedures. Due to the need to co-ordinate timing of the acceptance of grant funding and the signing of construction contracts the Executive is asked to delegate approval to the Corporate Director of Environment in consultation with the Corporate Director – Resources, the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services, the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation and the Executive Member for Finance.
2.3 This report is on the basis that it is not practicable to refer to Executive for final approval determination post West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) Approval to Proceed (AtP), due to the tight 31 March 2025 contract entry timescales required by the grant funding body.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) programme in Harrogate, Skipton and Selby centres is aiming to deliver improved transport infrastructure to support modal shift towards more sustainable travel choices such as walking, cycling and using public transport in the vicinity of the respective Rail Stations; the projects also create enhanced street scene environments to embellish the town centres’ economic prosperity. This report focuses upon Skipton and Selby only and Harrogate will therefore be brought to a future Executive committee.
4.0 DETAILED PRESENTATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE
4.1 The North Yorkshire Transforming Cities Fund projects form part of the DfT programme which aims to “improve productivity by investing in public and sustainable transport infrastructure in English cities”. WYCA oversees and manages funding for projects with the Leeds City Region, including the projects in Harrogate, Selby and Skipton. Following Executive approval last year Full Business Cases were submitted to WYCA and approved in March 2024. The final designs for each scheme are detailed in Appendix A.
4.2 Before construction can begin WYCA needs to confirm formal Approval to Proceed (AtP). These include confirmation of the construction costs, programme, monitoring processes, and discharge of a number of specific conditions for each scheme. Following WYCA approval a final Funding Agreement will be issued covering the full funding allowance for each project. The Council must sign these final Funding Agreements with WYCA before the end of the financial year, 31 March 2025. The AtP for Skipton was submitted in December 2024 and the Selby AtP is to be submitted in January 2025, which allows sufficient time to engage with WYCA and enter contract with selected construction companies prior to 31 March 2025. These contracts ideally need to be completed almost simultaneously to ensure the Council is not liable for delivery of projects without confirmation of the TCF funding and therefore the ability to complete this element promptly is essential.
5.0 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES
5.1 The Skipton and Selby schemes have been subject to considerable public consultation and engagement since conception in 2019, with three rounds of public consultation for Selby, and two rounds for Skipton. This includes public consultation to shape the schemes carried out both in person and online, advertised via website, social media, radio and local papers. In addition to this public consultation, project elements have been subject to statutory consultation through the planning system and TROs. These consultations have demonstrated firm local support.
6.0 CONTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
6.1 The schemes contribute to the following Council priorities:
· Place and Environment: A clean, environmentally sustainable and attractive place to live, work and visit and A well connected and planned place with good transport links and digital connectivity.
· Economy: Economically sustainable growth that enables people and places to prosper; and
· Health and wellbeing: People are supported to have a good quality of life and enjoy active and healthy lifestyles.
7.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
7.1 Do nothing – do not accept the funding and do not deliver the schemes. This would represent less financial risk to the Council. But it would not deliver the anticipated outcomes and would mean the Council’s regeneration and active/public travel ambitions would not be realised in both town centres. It would also have reputational impact in relation to project delivery.
7.2 Only deliver one scheme – this would represent less financial risk to the Council. But it would not deliver the anticipated outcomes and would mean the Council’s regeneration and active/public travel ambitions would not be realised in both town centres. It would also require the agreement of WYCA, and potentially DfT.
8.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 Further work has been done since Full Business Case to update financial costs and potential funding streams. The budget has been updated following costing exercises for the Skipton and Selby projects. Currently Skipton is within the funding envelope however there is a budget deficit in Selby which will not be fully understood until the final works tenders are submitted; in the meantime, further value engineering is being considered to mitigate if necessary.
8.2 Costs in table 1 below for the Skipton scheme are based on costs incurred for the development phase to date working with consultant WSP and Galliford Try (GT) Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) support; works delivery is based upon the actual submitted cost from North Yorkshire Highways (NYH), together with an allowance for risk contingency and forecast supervisory fees. The table shows that there is a break-even position for the Skipton scheme and therefore it is currently deliverable within the funding envelope once approval to proceed is granted.
8.3 Costs in table 1 below for the Selby scheme are based on costs incurred for the development phase to date working with consultant WSP and GT ECI support; works delivery is based upon the forecast cost determined during the ECI phase which was used in the AtP. Actual works cost is subject to live Target Pricing by ECI contractor GT. Risk contingency and supervisory fees are forecast allowances. The table shows that there is a forecast deficit of £2m for the Selby scheme based on the current estimate but this will need to be updated once final costs have been received. Value engineering and / or additional funding is likely to be required if costs received are higher than the estimates in order to progress the scheme. Approval is therefore sought as part of this report to utilise up to £2m of funding from council reserves to meet the potential shortfall in funding.
8.4 There is a risk to the funding for both schemes in relation to the timescales for entering into contract and also the timeframe to deliver the schemes. The desired deadline from the funders, DfT, to enter into contract on both schemes is 31 March 2025. Final costs are needed with a fully funded scheme along with the AtP from WYCA (expected February/March 2025) prior to entering into contract. In terms of Skipton, this risk is reduced as costs have already been received as set out above. Discussion is live about potential late contract entry with the grant funding bodies.
8.5 The Grant funding contract signatory timeframe of 31 March 2025 for the Selby scheme is a higher risk given the contractor price submission is not expected until mid-March and there is currently a deficit on the scheme, increasing the difficulty in meeting the timescales. Should the target contract entry deadline be exceeded, there is a risk of grant funding refusal and clawback of monies spent from the DfT.
|
Cost components |
Selby |
Skipton |
Total |
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
Project development |
8,856,638 |
2,739,000 |
11,595,638 |
|
District legacy costs |
424,646 |
11,358 |
436,004 |
|
Land assembly |
3,339,000 |
0 |
3,339,000 |
|
NYC costs |
123,500 |
123,500 |
247,000 |
|
WSP (inc forecasts) |
3,921,588 |
2,184,000 |
6,105,588 |
|
Planning & Legal Fees |
181,636 |
15,257 |
196,893 |
|
GT ECI (inc forecast) |
543,186 |
308,000 |
851,186 |
|
NR |
323,082 |
96,885 |
419,967 |
|
Works Delivery Forecast |
23,052,906 |
4,433,000 |
27,485,906 |
|
Prelims, overheads & profit |
4,105,906 |
Within 'Direct Construction' |
4,105,906 |
|
Direct Construction (inc contractor risk & contingency) |
15,130,000 |
3,334,000 |
18,464,000 |
|
Demolitions |
300,000 |
0 |
300,000 |
|
Utilities |
235,000 |
0 |
235,000 |
|
NYC Risk & Contingency |
1,950,000 |
683,000 |
2,633,000 |
|
Rail station refurbishment |
500,000 |
0 |
500,000 |
|
Site Supervision/NEC contract management |
500,000 |
250,000 |
750,000 |
|
Design Support |
275,000 |
100,000 |
375,000 |
|
Additional MOVA Upgrades |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Network Rail / TPE / Arriva / CRT |
37,000 |
16,000 |
53,000 |
|
Benefits realisation reporting |
10,000 |
50,000 |
60,000 |
|
TTRO |
10,000 |
0 |
10,000 |
|
Total project cost |
31,909,544 |
7,172,000 |
39,081,544 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FUNDING |
29,889,375 |
7,172,000 |
37,061,375 |
|
WYCA/DfT - approved (spend on PIMS) |
20,289,375 |
6,972,000 |
27,261,375 |
|
NYC match |
5,086,133 |
200,000 |
5,286,133 |
|
Y&NY CA for additional MOVA upgrades |
700,000 |
0 |
700,000 |
|
Plaza (inc business centre purchase and construction cost) |
3,813,867 |
0 |
3,813,867 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net funding surplus/shortfall(-) |
-2,020,169 |
0 |
-2,020,169 |
Table 1 – TCF funding profile Skipton / Selby
8.6 Total cost across the two schemes is currently projected at £39,081,544. This compares to funding currently secured of £37,061,375 i.e. a shortfall of £2,020,169. It is proposed that this shortfall will be met by value engineering or additional funding as set out below. With any value engineering approach, consideration will need to be given to the need to retain the key benefits and outputs of the scheme as well as the requirements of the Grant Agreements.
8.7 The majority of funding comes from the TCF programme, with match funding by the Council (and its district predecessors). Mayoral Investment Funding has also been awarded to the Selby project. It should be noted that Mayoral Funding acceptance has been previously approved separately by Executive. The TCF funding is finite, with the Council liable for any project overspend. There may be some flexibility to reallocate the funding between projects should any underspend occur. This would need to be agreed with WYCA and DfT, subject to formal Change Request.
8.8 Post tender submission, the full works costs will be established, and it may be necessary to adjust project scope or introduce further Value Engineering to ensure costs are contained within the available funding limits. Further council funding could be utilised - at this stage approval is sought to utilise up to £2m of Council reserves to fund the estimated shortfall. The risk of any cost overruns on both schemes once in contract lies with the Council. If this was the case, these additional costs which would fall on the Council are not included in existing budgets.
8.9 Additional funding support is currently being explored via a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) bid. Although this is still in an early stage of review, and therefore cannot be confirmed at this stage, it may provide additional funding in 2025/26 and would reduce the requirement to use council reserve balances. In parallel, Value Engineering options are being considered should tendered works costs exceed budget.
8.10 Forward Programme targets work mobilisation for Skipton in March 2025 and Selby June 2025 with a duration on site of 12 / 20 months respectively. Works completion is expected on a pro rata basis throughout 2026 to early 2027. The deadline for all TCF DfT monies to be spent is 31 March 2026 with match funding able to be expended after this timeline to complete the works. If the TCF funded elements of the projects are not completed by this deadline, which is likely given the start dates and contract duration, this will need to be reported to the funders and so this presents a significant risk to the Council. Although it is unlikely funding support will be withdrawn once in a live construction contract, there is a risk of funding clawback if the deadlines for delivery are not met or that any spend incurred beyond the 31 March 2026 deadline may not be funded by the TCF grant and could therefore instead fall to the Council. This would be an additional cost to the Council which is not included in existing budgets.
9.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 The Council is able to undertake the TCF schemes by virtue of its general power of competence pursuant to the Localism Act 2011 as well as the well-being provisions of the Local Government Act 2000.
9.2 As a public body the Council must also ensure it is taking appropriate subsidy control measures to ensure distortion to competition is minimised. As the schemes primarily relate to highways and public realm works, it has been concluded that there are no direct subsidy control implications. This position will be kept under review and action taken, as appropriate, to ensure the Council meets its statutory (and Grant funding) obligations.
Funding Agreements
9.3 The Council entered into Grant Agreements with WYCA in respect of both the Skipton and Selby projects in 2022, further amendments to the Grant Agreements have been agreed by way of Deeds of Variation.
9.4 The Grant Agreement allows for payment only up to the Grant amount and so the Council will be responsible should project costs exceed the Grant amount. The Grant Agreement contains claw back clauses requiring full or partial repayment of the grant at the discretion of the funder if Milestones are not met and so if these are missed, the Council will be carrying risk associated with failure to deliver within the Grant Agreement/ Deed of Variation timescales.
9.5 Executive approval was given in December 2024 to accept Mayoral Investment Funding for the Selby TCF scheme, that funding agreement is yet to be completed however, its terms and conditions will be reviewed by Legal Services prior to completion to ensure they are acceptable to the Council.
Construction Contracts
9.6 This report seeks delegated approval to agree the final terms of and enter into the final construction contracts with the selected construction companies to deliver both the Skipton and Selby schemes. In 2021 North Yorkshire County Council procured a contractor for all three of its TCF schemes based on an early contractor two stage contract under the Crown Commercial Services public sector framework. Suppliers were able to bid for the package of works in each town or for multiple towns. Under a two stage contract the Council has no obligation to proceed to the second stage with the appointed contractor and may use the design produced during stage one to either carry out the works itself or procure another contractor to do so.
9.7 It is proposed that the Council awards the construction contract for the Skipton scheme direct to the Council’s Teckal company, North Yorkshire Highways (NYH). The contract will be an NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract Option B (Bill of Quantities) and will be a call off from the Council’s existing framework agreement with NYH. A direct award to one of the Council’s Teckal companies is permitted under the Council’s Procurement and Contract Procedure Rules as well as relevant public sector procurement legislation.
9.8 For Selby, it is proposed that the Council proceeds to stage 2 of the Council ECI’s contract with Galliford Try (GT) using the standard NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract. Discussions are already well progressed on this contract, however in the event the Council and GT are unable to agree the satisfactory final contract terms, this will present a risk to the programme and the ability to complete within the TCF deadline for spend.
Station Change and Network Rail Consents
9.9 When carrying out works in the vicinity of the Station and railway, certain consents are required from Network Rail. Before the works in the vicinity of Selby Station may commence, the Council is required to submit a formal Material Change proposal to Network Rail to comply with its Station Change procedure. Station Change is a regulated procedure and is required when development works impact on the station facility and its operators.
9.10 As part of Station Change, there will be a formal consultation period with Station facility operators as well as a requirement for agreement in principle of any required land transactions. Agreement in principle has already been reached, and the Council has been in regular dialogue with Network Rail and station operators to ensure risk to programme is minimised. This report seeks delegated approval to submit the proposal for Station Change, once finalised. The completion of the required land transactions will be carried out in accordance with the Council’s Property Procedure Rules.
9.11 The Station Change proposal will include the obligation for the Council to enter into various agreements with Network Rail and other operators of the station as well as the provision of a financial undertaking. The undertaking will require the Council to provide an indemnity to and compensate both Network Rail and other operators for damages, losses, costs etc incurred as a result of a failure by the Council to implement the works in accordance with the agreed proposals. This indemnity is limited to a reasonable sum in view of the scope and potential impact of the agreed works not being implemented. It is proposed that authority is also delegated as part of this decision to submit the Material Change proposal, agree the terms of and enter into any required Network Rail agreements to the Corporate Director – Environment , in consultation with the Corporate Director – Resources, the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation and the Executive Member for Finance.
10.0 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
10.1 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 both schemes and can be found at Appendix B. The recommendations included in this report take into account any potential impacts on any of the protected characteristics identified in the Equalities Act 2010.
11.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
11.1 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 C. As with all capital projects, carbon emissions are directly generated from construction. However, this must be considered alongside the impacts of routine highway and public realm maintenance and the opportunity for carbon reduction arising from future modal shift.
12.0 RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
12.1 As with all projects, there are risks being managed, reduced, or mitigated. These have been considered throughout scheme development with a full quantified risk register for each scheme. In this case, acceptance of the grant offer conferred by WYCA AtP places the Council at risk of funding project additional costs, due to the grant being capped. In mitigation of such a situation, this report seeks Delegated Authority to enact project scope adjustment, should the tendered pricing exceed the available budget.
13.0 CONCLUSIONS
13.1 A significant milestone has been reached in completing the project development stages, before the construction works commence on site in the Springtime. To enable this next step in the project lifecycle, acceptance of the full grant funding offer from DfT via WYCA as regional budget holder is key. Due to the financial year end timing constraint, the grant must be accepted, and construction contracts signed, by end of March 2025; in turn this implicates the requisite Delegated Authority be conferred as detailed to meet the contract timescales and mobilise works commencement to achieve the delivery timeframes expected by WYCA / DfT. Exceedance of the contract entry deadline not only risks WYCA /DfT funding rejection in the current financial year 2024/25 to enable contract entry, but in turn risks works completion dates pushing further towards the end of 2026 and beyond which will also be a concern to the grant funding bodies, potentially influencing a live funding release decision in March 2025.
14.0 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
14.1 It is necessary for the
Council to formally accept this funding to comply with the
Council’s governance procedures.
14.2 As the funding is above £500,000 this decision would normally be made by Executive, however, due to the need to co-ordinate timing of the acceptance of grant funding and the signing of construction contracts the Executive is asked to delegate approval to Corporate Director - Environment, in consultation with the Corporate Director, Resources, Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services, Executive Member for Highways and Transportation and the Executive Member for Finance, (in line with paragraph 13 of the Executive Members Delegation Scheme under the Constitution). This is on the basis that it is not practicable to refer it to the Executive for determination due to the tight timescales involved.
|
15.0
15.1 |
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Members approve the delegation of authority to the Corporate Director – Environment, in consultation with the Corporate Director – Resources, the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services, the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation and the Executive Member for Finance to:
|
|
|
i. agree the final terms of and enter into the construction contract necessary to deliver the Selby TCF project; also delegated authority to enact project scope adjustments, if necessary, post tender submission to contain within budget or seek additional funding
ii. to submit the Material Change proposal for the Selby TCF project and agree the terms of and enter into any required agreements with Network Rail
iii. agree the final terms of and enter into the construction contract necessary to deliver the Skipton TCF project; also delegated authority to enact project scope adjustments, if necessary, post tender submission to contain within budget or seek additional funding.
|
|
15.2 |
To note that if final costs for the Selby scheme are over budget following value engineering, any remaining overspend would fall to the Council and therefore approval is requested of up to an additional £2m which would need to be met from reserves if required. |
APPENDICES:
Appendix A – Final scheme designs
Appendix B – Equality Impact Assessment
Appendix C – Climate Impact Assessment
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
28 November 2023 Executive meeting report pack
19 September 2023 Executive meeting report pack
20 January 2023 Executive meeting reports pack
25 January 2022 Executive meeting reports pack
25 May 2021 Executive meeting reports pack
26 March 2021https://edemocracy.northyorks.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=5879&Opt=0 Decision - Transforming Cities Fund Delivery Contract
Karl Battersby
Corporate Director – Environment
County Hall
Northallerton
03/01/2025
Report Author – Richard Binks, Head of Major Projects & Infrastructure
Presenter of Report – Barrie Mason, Assistant Director - Highways and Infrastructure
Note: Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.
Selby
Skipton
|
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 |
H&T |
||||||
|
Proposal being screened |
TCF – Delegated approval to accept grant and enter into works contract. |
||||||
|
Officer(s) carrying out screening |
Richard Binks |
||||||
|
What are you proposing to do? |
The report seeks delegated authority post WYCA Approval to Proceed assurance stage to accept the full grant funding and enter into construction contract prior to end of March 2025.
|
||||||
|
Why are you proposing this? What are the desired outcomes? |
This is required to complete the projects development phase within the grant funding release deadline and make the next step into works construction on site. |
||||||
|
Does the proposal involve a significant commitment or removal of resources? Please give details. |
The existing resource and financial commitments remain the same.
|
||||||
|
Impact on people with any of the following protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, or NYCC’s additional agreed characteristics As part of this assessment, please consider the following questions:
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 Equality rep 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 |
|
||||
|
NYCC additional characteristics |
|||||||
|
People in rural areas |
|
X |
|
||||
|
People on a low income |
|
X |
|
||||
|
Carer (unpaid family or friend) |
|
X |
|
||||
|
Does the proposal relate to an area where there are known inequalities/probable impacts (e.g. disabled people’s access to public transport)? Please give details. |
No. |
||||||
|
Will the proposal have a significant effect on how other organisations operate? (e.g. 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 |
This is a report providing information upon the TCF projects next steps.
There are no impacts on people with protected characteristics. It is worth noting that a full Equalities Impact Assessment will be carried out as part of the scheme development.
|
||||||
|
Signed (Assistant Director or equivalent) |
Barrie Mason |
||||||
|
Date |
17/01/2025 |
||||||
Climate change impact assessment
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
 |
|
Title of proposal |
Transforming Cities fund |
|
Brief description of proposal |
Strategy in Selby and Skipton to create a transport hub around the rail stations encouraging modal switch to active travel (walking/cycling) and public transport, while also delivering improved public realm in the vicinities. |
|
Directorate |
ES |
|
Service area |
Major Projects |
|
Lead officer |
Richard Binks |
|
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the impact assessment |
Tania Weston |
|
Date impact assessment started |
Oct 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 project and described in the Outline Business Case 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. Critical Success Factors and Multi-Criteria Analysis undertaken to develop the short list of options are established. A strategic review of the short-listed options has been undertaken to further refine the scheme options considering the latest LTN1/20 guidance. The short-listed options include a Preferred Option, a More Ambitious Option and a Less Ambitious Option. All three options have been appraised in line with Greenbook and WebTAG guidance compared against a Business-as-Usual scenario
In line with the scheme’s strategic scope, the majority of scheme benefits are related to health and journey ambience benefits for cyclists and pedestrians. The scheme will generate some disbenefits for car users in terms of increased journey times as a result of prioritising pedestrians’ and cyclists’ movements at a number of local junctions in Selby; while Skipton is unaffected.
Reflecting on the results, the core scenarios demonstrate positive BCR’s.
|
|
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.
The TCF Programme has been allocated £38.82m in baseline Grant Funding from the Transforming Cities fund (TCF), administered regionally by WYCA; a further £10.15m has been allocated by NYC and £1.2m by Y&NYCA bringing total project budget to £50.17m.
The grant funding is capped, so any over costs will be the responsibility of NYC to fund.
|
|
How will this proposal impact on the environment?
|
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 |
Yes |
|
|
Strategic context to encourage modal shift to active modes and public transport away from reliance upon private vehicle. |
New cycle infrastructure will be compliant with new government standard LTN/120. |
Adopt best practice and liaise with bodies such as Active Travel England. |
|
Emissions from construction |
Yes |
|
|
An early contractor partnership has been established with key social value and environmental considerations applied to tender quality bid in respect materials / construction methodology / plant and local supply chains. |
Contractor will have to demonstrate environmental consideration towards the works delivery |
The works construction phasing and methodology will be scrutinised to ensure best industry practice. |
|
|
Emissions from running of buildings |
|
|
|
na |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimise waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost e.g. reducing use of single use plastic |
|
|
|
na |
|
|
|
|
Reduce water consumption |
|
|
|
na |
|
|
|
|
Minimise pollution (including air, land, water, light and noise)
|
|
Yes |
|
Air quality carbon assessment modelling shows a neutral effect initially as the social uptake of cycling opportunity availed by the new cycle infrastructure is offset by slightly reduced vehicle travel times through the town centre due to reallocation of road space; in the medium to long term it is determined as model switch gathers momentum positive air quality benefits will be realised. |
Road space reallocation, for cycle lanes will be offset by introducing new smart traffic signal technology at junctions to maximise efficiencies |
Combine the infrastructure works with promotional campaigns to encourage increased cycling / walking and bus use. |
|
|
Ensure resilience to the effects of climate change e.g. reducing flood risk, mitigating effects of drier, hotter summers |
|
|
|
na |
|
|
|
|
Enhance conservation and wildlife
|
|
|
|
na |
|
|
|
|
Safeguard the distinctive characteristics, features and special qualities of North Yorkshire’s landscape
|
|
|
|
na |
|
|
|
|
Other (please state below)
|
Yes |
|
|
The project improves the Steet scene generally with high quality materials and soft landscaping. In Selby a new high-quality Plaza will be built opposite the rail station. |
Adopt benchmark urban design |
Emphasis upon high quality urban realm using natural stone / granite paving, high quality street furniture |
|
|
Are there any recognised good practice environmental standards in relation to this proposal? If so, please detail how this proposal meets those standards. |
|
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.
The TCF Package is aimed at encouraging investment in the towns, supporting aspirations for economic growth by making it a more attractive place to live, work and visit. In turn, this will stimulate growth and increase the resilience of the local economy by seeking to address the key issues associated with a rapidly growing and ageing population and the economic imbalance caused by low value local jobs/economy and a highly skilled/ educated resident population with current high levels of cross-boundary commuting and less sustainable travel patterns.
The schemes will deliver sustainable travel accessibility and infrastructure improvements to respond to existing demands on the local transport network which include congestion and journey time unreliability, which adversely impact upon economic performance. There is an opportunity to improve sustainable transport accessibility to reduce these demands and unlock development/growth, whilst also taking full advantage of forthcoming rail franchise improvements, and bus enhancements. By improving the aesthetics of the Rail station area in Selby, 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 centre, and unlock growth and development within the town. In Skipton a new active travel route will link the rail station with the bus station and also a new path will link into the College and auction centre, a large employment centre.
The proposed scheme will establish Selby Rail station at the heart of the town and the wider district, providing strong links and accessibility enhancements between the town centre, gateway and new developments, acting as a central sustainable travel ‘hub’. Skipton active mode routes will enhance modal choice, interacting with public transport hubs. The package of improvements will drive a shift towards more sustainable transport modes and support enhanced connectivity to employment and education opportunities both locally, and across the wider region.
|
|
Sign off section
This climate change impact assessment was completed by:
Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Barrie Mason
Date: 17/01/2025
|